Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019, 1:30 pm Regional District Board Room, 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, BC
AGENDA PAGE # 1. CALL TO ORDER
Recognition of Territories.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (motion to approve, including late items required ALL VOTE 2/3 majority vote)
3. DECLARATIONS (conflict of interest or gifts exceeding $250 in value as per section 106 of the Local Government Act)
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
a. Board of Directors Meeting – February 27, 2019 6-16
THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held on February 27, 2019 be adopted.
b. Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting; Grant-in-Aid – February 27, 2019 17-24
THAT the minutes of the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting held on February 27, 2019 be adopted.
c. Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting – March 6, 2019 25-28
THAT the minutes of the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting held on March 6, 2019 be adopted.
d. Parcel Tax Review Panel Meeting – February 26, 2019 29-32
THAT the minutes of the Parcel Tax Review Panel meeting held on February 26, 2019 be adopted.
5. PETITIONS, DELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONS (10 minute maximum)
Mr. Christopher Donison, Executive Artistic Director, Music by the Sea regarding update on activities for 2018/2019. 1 ACRD Board Agenda March 13/19 Page 2
6. CORRESPONDENCE FOR ACTION (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
a. REQUEST FOR LETTER OF SUPPORT 33 The Nature Conservancy, Nature United, March 7, 2019, requesting a letter of support to accompany their request to The Nature Fund of Canada for federal funding to establish new protected areas in Clayoquot Sound.
Possible Motion:
THAT the Board of Directors provide a letter of support to Nature United to accompany their request to The Nature Fund of Canada for federal funding to establish new protected areas in Clayoquot Sound.
7. CORRESPONDENCE FOR INFORMATION (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
a. TRANSPORT CANADA 34 2017 Program Validation Inspection b. ISLAND COASTAL ECONOMIC TRUST 35-38 ICET Invests 175K in Hornby Island Arts Centre Project c. ALBERNI DISTRICT HISTORICAL SOCIETY 39-43 Spring Newsletter
THAT the Board of Directors receive items a-c for information.
8. REQUEST FOR DECISIONS & BYLAWS
a. REQUEST FOR DECISION 44-144 Regional Organics Diversion (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors refer this item to the respective Alberni Valley & Bamfield and West Coast Committees for further discussion and possible recommendations on moving forward with specific service options.
b. REQUEST FOR DECISION 145-150 ACRD Parks & Trails
(ALL VOTE/WEIGHTED) THAT the ACRD Board of Directors add the Log Train Trail to the Regional Parks Function.
2 ACRD Board Agenda March 13/19 Page 3 (ALL VOTE/WEIGHTED) THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to investigate and present options to apportion costs for the Regional Parks Function that may be determined by the Board of Directors during the adoption of the financial plan each year in a manner that reflects the Board’s determination of which service participants benefit in that year.
(ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED) THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to pursue grant opportunities for the West Coast Multi-Use Path connection including the possibility of other funding options.
(ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED) THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to schedule a Committee of the Whole meeting to further discuss funding mechanism options and other park related matters.
9. PLANNING MATTERS
9.1 ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS ONLY (ALL PARTICIPANTS/UNWEIGHTED)
a. RC18015, MCMASTER, DL1332 CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT (LONG BEACH) 151-173 Rezoning Application – Public Hearing Report, Public Hearing Minutes and Bylaw P1383
THAT the Board of Directors receive the public hearing report.
THAT the Board of Directors receive the public hearing minutes.
THAT Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw P1383 be read a second time.
THAT Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw P1383 be read a third time.
b. TUP18019, MACDONALD, 70 SUTTON ROAD (LONG BEACH) 174-178 Temporary Use Permit Application – Memorandum and Permit
THAT the Board of Directors issue Temporary Use Permit TUP18019.
c. TUP18007, CONLEY & BROLEY PROPERTIES INC, 9618 STIRLING ARM 179-200 CRESCENT (SPROAT LAKE) Temporary Use Permit Application – Report
That the Regional Board consider issuing Temporary Use Permit TUP18007, 3 ACRD Board Agenda March 13/19 Page 4 subject to:
Inspection and approval of the extra bedrooms not listed on the building plans by an ACRD Building Inspector; and
Neighbouring properties being notified as per Local Government Act s.494.
10. REPORTS
10.1 STAFF REPORTS (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED) 201 a. Public Presentation on Sproat Lake Water Zoning Options
b. Declaration of Election by Voting – 2019 By-Election Cherry Creek and Beaufort – Late Report
THAT the Board of Directors receive reports a-b.
10.2 COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.3 OTHER REPORTS
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. LATE BUSINESS
13. QUESTION PERIOD
14. RECESS (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
Motion to recess the Regular Board of Directors Meeting in order to conduct the Regional Hospital District Meeting.
15. RECONVENE
16. IN CAMERA (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
Motion to close the meeting to the public as per the Community Charter, sections: i. 90 (1) (c) labour relations or other employee relations; ii. 90 (1) (f) law enforcement, if the board considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
4 ACRD Board Agenda March 13/19 Page 5 iii. 90 (1) (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
17. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD FROM IN-CAMERA
18. ADJOURN (ALL VOTE/UNWEIGHTED)
Next Board of Directors Meeting: Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 1:30 pm Regional District Board Room
5
Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019, 1:30 PM Regional District Board Room, 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, BC
DIRECTORS John Jack, Chairperson, Councillor, Huu-ay-aht First Nation PRESENT: Josie Osborne, Vice-Chairperson, Mayor, District of Tofino Bob Beckett, Director, Electoral Area “A” (Bamfield) Kel Roberts, Director, Electoral Area “C” (Long Beach) Penny Cote, Director, Electoral Area “D” (Sproat Lake) John McNabb, Director, Electoral Area “E” (Beaver Creek) Ron Paulson, Councillor, City of Port Alberni (Alternate) Cindy Solda, Councillor, City of Port Alberni Mayco Noël, Mayor, District of Ucluelet Alan McCarthy, Member of Legislature, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government Kirsten Johnsen, Member of Council, Toquaht Nation
REGRETS: Wilfred Cootes, Councillor, Uchucklesaht Tribe Government Sharie Minions, Mayor, City of Port Alberni
STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Holmes, Chief Administrative Officer Teri Fong, Manager of Finance Mike Irg, Manager of Planning and Development Rob Williams, General Manager of Environmental Services Wendy Thomson, Manager of Administrative Services Alex Dyer, Planner Kelly Gilday, Protective Services Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
The Chairperson recognized the meeting this afternoon is being held in the Tseshaht First Nation and the Hupacasath First Nation Territories.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director McCarthy
THAT the agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED
6 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 2
3. DECLARATIONS
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. Board of Directors Meeting – February 13, 2019
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting held on February 13, 2019 be adopted. CARRIED
5. PETITIONS, DELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
a. Alberni Community & Woman’s Services Society, Ellen Frood, Co-Chair, Mark Lacroix, Coordinator, Community Action Team regarding Opioid Crisis.
The delegation conducted a presentation on the opioid crisis in the Alberni Valley and the work of the Port Alberni Community Action Team. The Team is a community-led initiative, and includes community members, people with lived experience and representatives from community organizations, indigenous organizations, health authorities, local government and business.
b. Sandy McRuer, regarding Attracting Film Productions to the Alberni Valley.
Mr. McRuer presented an overview of the film industry in the Alberni Valley and the need for an improved photo database of the region. He requested the Board to consider investing additional funding in the Alberni Valley film industry.
c. Carolyn Thibodeau, Property Owner, regarding Non-Farm Use Application - AE18001, SADEGHI, 7827 Beaver Creek Road (Beaver Creek).
Ms. Thibodeau spoke against the non-farm use application AE18001 for the proposed construction of a cannabis production facility at 7827 Beaver Creek Road. She submitted copies of her presentation and an opposition petition signed by 485 individuals.
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors allow the delegation to continue with the presentation past the 10 minute time limit. CARRIED 7 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 3
6. CORRESPONDENCE FOR ACTION
a. Correspondence February 1, 2019 from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Union of British Columbia Municipalities regarding voluntary contribution to fund smaller communities to attend FCM.
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT this correspondence be received. CARRIED
7. CORRESPONDENCE FOR INFORMATION
a. DISTRICT OF UCLUELET Certified Resolution to 2018 UBCM Convention regarding Modernization of Utility Taxation b. FOREST ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY OF BC 2019 Accomplishments Report c. AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Annual Service Plan 2019/20-2021/22 d. CERMAQ Cermaq Proud to Recognize two External Contractors for their Excellent Service – Photo Submission
MOVED: Director Noël SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT the Board of Directors receive items a-d for information. CARRIED
8. REQUEST FOR DECISIONS & BYLAWS
a. Request for Decision regarding West Coast Transit Service.
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors provide staff direction to budget funds in 2019 for an alternative approval process as part of the new bylaw establishment process for a West Coast transit service. CARRIED
b. Request for Decision regarding Appointment to the Coastal Communities Network for 2019. 8 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 4
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Noël
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors appoint Director Noël to represent the Regional District on the Coastal Communities Network for 2019. CARRIED c. Request for Decision regarding Faber Park Security Patrols.
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director McCarthy
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to enter into a contract for security patrols at Faber Park with Footprints Security not exceeding $5000, for a one year term with the possibility of two additional one year terms. CARRIED d. Request for Decision regarding Cougar Smith Bike Park Maintenance.
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Johnsen
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to enter into a maintenance agreement for the Cougar Smith Bike Skills Park with Earthwave Landscapes not exceeding $5600, inclusive of material and labour, for a one year term with the possibility of two additional one year terms. CARRIED e. Request for Decision regarding Development Application Notifications.
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Board of Directors direct staff to review notification procedures for development applications and report back to the Board. CARRIED f. Request for Decision regarding Regional Planning 2019-2023 Financial Plan.
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Cote
9 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 5
THAT the Board of Directors recommend that the Regional Planning proposed budget be included in the first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan. CARRIED
g. Request for Decision regarding 911 Emergency Telephone System.
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Board of Directors recommend the E911 Emergency Telephone System proposed budget be included in the first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni- Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan. CARRIED
h. Request for Decision regarding Emergency Planning Budgets 2019-2023 Financial Plan.
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Noël
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors instruct staff to include the following proposed budgets in first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan:
a. Alberni Valley Emergency Planning b. Bamfield Emergency Planning c. Long Beach Emergency Planning d. West Coast Emergency Coordination (proposed service) CARRIED
i. Request for Decision regarding Coastal Communities Social Procurement Initiative.
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors support the Coastal Communities Social Procurement Initiative and join as a member for two years for a total cost of $2,123.02 and appoint Chairperson Jack to sit on the Coastal Communities Social Procurement Initiative Steering Committee. CARRIED
10 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 6
j. Request for Decision regarding Bylaw E1059, Long Beach Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019 and Bylaw E1060, Bamfield Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019.
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Johnsen
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors give first reading to Bylaw E1059, Long Beach Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Johnsen SECONDED: Director Roberts
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors give second reading to Bylaw E1059, Long Beach Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Johnsen
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors give third reading to Bylaw E1059, Long Beach Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Beckett SECONDED: Director Noël
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors give first reading to Bylaw E1060, Bamfield Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Beckett SECONDED: Director Roberts
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors give second reading to Bylaw E1060, Bamfield Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Beckett SECONDED: Director Cote
11 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 7
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors give third reading to Bylaw E1060, Bamfield Emergency Planning Service Establishment, 2019. CARRIED
9. PLANNING MATTERS
9.1 ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS ONLY
a. TUP18019, MACDONALD, 70 SUTTON ROAD (LONG BEACH) Temporary Use Permit Application – Report
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director McNabb
THAT the Board of Directors consider issuing Temporary Use Permit TUP18019 subject to neighbouring properties being notified as per Local Government Act s.494. CARRIED
9.2 ELECTORA AREA DIRECTORS AND TOFINO
a. RC18014, NESSMAN, VARGAS ISLAND (LONG BEACH) Rezoning Application – Public Hearing Report, Public Hearing Minutes and Bylaw P1386
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT the Board of Directors receive the public hearing report. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Beckett
THAT the Board of Directors receive the public hearing minutes. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw P1386 be read a second time. CARRIED
12 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 8
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw P1386 be read a third time. CARRIED
9.3 ALL DIRECTORS
a. AE18001, SADEGHI, 7827 BEAVER CREEK ROAD (BEAVER CREEK) ALR Non-Farm Use Application – Memorandum and Report
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Board of Directors pass a resolution to forward the non-farm use application to the Agricultural Land Commission noting to the ALC that the building permit was applied for in February 2018 and was a permitted use under the ALC regulation until OIC 380 passed on July 13, 2018 and met the standard of the bylaw. CARRIED
The meeting recessed at 3:20 pm The meeting re-convened at 3:30 pm
b. AF19001, CAUDURO, 6441 RENTON ROAD N (CHERRY CREEK) ALR Subdivision Application – Memorandum and Report
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director McNabb
THAT the Board of Directors pass a resolution to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission noting that the application does not comply relevant to ACRD Bylaws but subdivision is possible under Section 514 of the Local Government Act. CARRIED
10. REPORTS
10.1 STAFF REPORTS a. North Island 9-1-1 Report – February 2019 b. Alberni Valley Mattress Recycling – February 27, 2019 c. Meeting Schedule – March 2019 d. Building Inspector’s Report – January 2019
13 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 9
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT the Board of Directors receives the staff reports a-d. CARRIED
10.2 COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.3 MEMBER REPORTS a. 9-1-1 Corporation – J. McNabb Director McNabb reported the Corporation will be discussing the funding allocation model at their next meeting. b. Vancouver Island Regional Library – P. Cote – No Report c. Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce – S. Minions – No Report d. Island Coastal Economic Trust – J. Jack – No Report e. Air Quality Council, Port Alberni – J. McNabb – No Report f. West Coast Aquatic Board – J. Osborne – No Report g. Association of Vancouver Island & Coastal Communities – P. Cote Director Cote reported on the upcoming annual convention in April. Resolutions have been submitted and the program has been sent out to members. h. Beaver Creek Water Advisory Committee – J. McNabb – No Report i. West Island Woodlands Advisory Group – J. McNabb Director McNabb reported on the February 21st meeting. The highlight was the announcement of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and Western Forest Products limited partnership agreement. j. Other Reports - None
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Beckett
THAT the Board of Directors receive the Member Reports. CARRIED
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. LATE BUSINESS
a. INVITATION TO NORTH ISLAND FILM COMMISSION TO UPDATE BOARD ON COMMISSION’S WORK – (Director Solda)
14 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 10
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Paulson
THAT the Board of Directors invite the North Island Film Commission to an upcoming Board of Directors meeting to provide an update on the Commission’s work on Vancouver Island. CARRIED 13. QUESTION PERIOD
14. IN-CAMERA
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the meeting be closed to the public as per section: i. 90 (1) (a) of the Community Charter: Personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the regional district or another position appointed by the regional district; ii. 90 (1) (j) of the Community Charter: Information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the ‘Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act’; iii 90 (1) (f) of the Community Charter: Law enforcement, if the board considers that the disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interest of the regional district. CARRIED The meeting was closed to the public at 3:41 pm.
The meeting was re-opened to the public at 4:14 pm.
15. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD FROM IN-CAMERA
The following resolution was reported out in open meeting:
THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors appoint the following individuals to the Alberni Valley Regional Airport Advisory Committee for a two year term:
• Director Cindy Solda, Councillor, City of Port Alberni • Director Penny Cote, Electoral Area “D” (Sproat Lake) • Bob Kanngiesser, Member at Large, Alberni Valley Business Community • Mike Ruttan, Member at Large, Alberni Valley Business Community • Michael Hoff, Member at Large, Sproat Lake Electoral Area • Councillor Richard Watts representing the Tseshaht First Nation 15 ACRD Board Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 11
• Chief Councillor Steven Tatoosh representing the Hupacasath First Nation • Ms. Shelley Crest representing the Port Alberni Port Authority • Mr. Dan Savard representing the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce CARRIED
16. ADJOURN
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Paulson
THAT this meeting be adjourned at 4:14 pm. CARRIED
Certified Correct:
______John Jack, Wendy Thomson, Chairperson Manager of Administrative Services
16 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019, 9:00 AM Regional District Board Room, 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, BC
DIRECTORS John Jack, Chairperson, Huu-ay-aht First Nation PRESENT: Josie Osborne, Vice-Chairperson, District of Tofino Bob Beckett, Director, Electoral Area “A” (Bamfield) Kel Roberts, Director, Electoral Area “C” (Long Beach) Penny Cote, Director, Electoral Area “D” (Sproat Lake) John McNabb, Director, Electoral Area “E” (Beaver Creek) Ron Paulson, Alternate, Councillor, City of Port Alberni Cindy Solda, Councillor, City of Port Alberni Mayco Noël, Mayor, District of Ucluelet Kirsten Johnsen, Member of Council, Toquaht Nation
REGRETS: Sharie Minions, Mayor, City of Port Alberni Alan McCarthy, Member of Legislature, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government Wilfred Cootes, Councillor, Uchucklesaht Tribe Government
STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Holmes, Chief Administrative Officer Teri Fong, Manager of Finance Wendy Thomson, Manager of Administrative Services
1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 9:03 am.
The Chairperson recognized the meeting today is being held in the Tseshaht First Nation and the Hupacasath First Nation Territories.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT the agenda be approved as circulated with the addition of the following late item: Grant in Aid to the Port Alberni Salmon Festival Society – GIA Item 24. CARRIED
17 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 2
3. REQUEST FOR DECISIONS & BYLAWS
a. Request for Decision regarding 2019 Grant-in-Aid Applications.
GIA 1 Alberni Air Quality Society
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant-in-aid to the Air Quality Society in the amount of $10,000.00 with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Bamfield, Beaufort, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek.
CARRIED
GIA 2 Alberni District Fall Fair Association
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve an in-kind grant-in-aid in the amount of $1,000.00 to the Alberni District Fall Fair Association with the municipalities and electoral areas participating. CARRIED
GIA 3 Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director McNabb
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant-in-aid to the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $4,000.00 as follows: electoral Bamfield, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek contributing $1,000.00 each. CARRIED
GIA 4 Alberni Valley Hospice Society
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Paulson
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid to the Alberni Valley Hospice Society in the amount of $4,000
18 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 3
with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Bamfield, Beaufort, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek. CARRIED
GIA 5 Alberni Valley Rescue Squad
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $6,000.00 to the Alberni Valley Rescue Squad with the following areas participating: municipalities, electoral areas and Toquaht Nation
AND FURTHER a grant in aid in the amount of $7,552.00 be awarded to the Alberni Valley Resque Squad with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Bamfield, Beaufort, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek. CARRIED
GIA 6 Alberni Valley Wrestling Club
MOVED: Director Paulson SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid to the Alberni Valley Wrestling Club in the amount of $1,500.00 with the municipalities and electoral areas participating. CARRIED
GIA 7 Arrowsmith Amateur Radio Club
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $4,00.00 to the Arrowsmith Amateur Radio Club with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Beaufort, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek. CARRIED
GIA 8 Central West Coast Forest Society
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Noël
19 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 4
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant in aid in the amount of $3,500.00 with the following areas participating: District of Tofino, District of Ucluelet, Toquaht Nation and Long Beach. CARRIED GIA 9 Music By The Sea
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Beckett
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve the grant in aid to Music By the Sea in the amount of $2,000.00 with the municipalities and electoral areas participating. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors instruct staff to draft a framework for grant in aid funding and special events funding grants. CARRIED
GIA 10 Port Alberni Marine Rescue Society
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director McNabb
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid to the Port Alberni Marine Rescue Society in the amount of $6,000.00 with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Beaufort, Beaver Creek, Sproat Lake and Cherry Creek. CARRIED
GIA 11 Port Alberni Victims Services Society
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $26,000.00 to the Port Alberni Victims Services Society with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Bamfield, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek. CARRIED 20 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 5
GIA 12 Vancouver Island North Film Commission
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Paulson
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $10,000.00 to the Vancouver Island Film Commission with the municipalities and electoral areas participating. CARRIED
GIA 13 West Coast Aquatic Management Association
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Noël
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $17,000.00 to the West Coast Aquatic Management Association with the municipalities and electoral areas participating. CARRIED
GIA 14 Westcoast Inland Search and Rescue Society
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Johnsen
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $6,000.00 to the Westcoast Inland Search and Rescue Society with the municipalities, electoral areas and Toquaht Nation participating. CARRIED
GIA 15 Alberni Golf Club
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole deny the grant in aid application from the Alberni Golf Club. CARRIED
GIA 16 BC Conservation Foundation
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Noël 21 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 6
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $6,000.00 to the BC Conservation Foundation with the following areas participating: Long Beach, District of Tofino and District of Ucluelet. CARRIED
GIA 17 Beaver Creek Community Club
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Johnsen
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid to the Beaver Creek Community Club in the amount of $16,966.00 as follows: $2,000.00 from Beaver Creek and $14,966 from Beaufort. CARRIED
GIA 18 Cherry Creek Community Recreation Commission
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Johnsen
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $20,000 to the Cherry Creek Community Recreation Commission as follows: $2,000 from Beaver Creek and $18,000.00 from Cherry Creek. CARRIED
GIA 19 Leadership VI West Coast Chapter Clayoquot Biosphere Trust
MOVED: Director Noël SECONDED: Director Robert
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors award a grant in aid in the amount of $1,000.00 with the District of Ucluelet and Long Beach participating. CARRIED
GIA 20 Port Alberni Association for Community Living
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Paulson
22 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 7
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant in aid in the amount of $3,600.00 with the City of Port Alberni, Beaufort, Beaver Creek, Cherry Creek and Sproat Lake participating. CARRIED GIA 21 Port Alberni Maritime Heritage Society
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant in aid in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Port Alberni Maritime Heritage Society with the following areas participating: City of Port Alberni, Beaufort, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek and Cherry Creek. CARRIED GIA 22 Port Alberni Shelter Society
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant in aid in the amount of $5,000.00 with the electoral areas and municipalities participating. CARRIED
GIA 23 Surfrider Pacific Rim
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Noël
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the ACRD Board of Directors approve a grant in aid in the amount of $5,000.00 to Surfrider Pacific Rim with the District of Tofino, District of Ucluelet and Long Beach participating. CARRIED
Late Item - GIA 24 – Port Alberni Salmon Festival Society no action taken b. Request for Decision regarding Grant-in-Aid – Economic Development
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the Economic Development grant-in-aid to the City of Port Alberni be included in the first
23 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes February 27/19 Page 8
reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan. CARRIED
c. Request for Decision regarding Grant-in-Aid – McLean’s Mill
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that the McLean’s Mill grant-in-aid be included in the first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni- Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan. CARRIED
4. IN-CAMERA
MOVED: Director Osborne SECONDED: Director Noël
THAT the meeting be closed to the public as per section 90 (1) (c) of the Community Charter: labour relations or other employee relations. CARRIED
The meeting was closed to the public at 10:25 am.
The meeting was re-opened to the public at 1:12 pm.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM IN-CAMERA
6. ADJOURN
MOVED: Director SECONDED: Director
THAT this meeting be adjourned at 1:14 pm. CARRIED
Certified Correct:
______John Jack, Wendy Thomson, Chairperson Manager of Administrative Services 24 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019, 1:30 PM Regional District Board Room, 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, BC
DIRECTORS John Jack, Chairperson, Huu-ay-aht First Nation PRESENT: Josie Osborne, Vice-Chairperson, District of Tofino Bob Beckett, Director, Electoral Area “A” (Bamfield) Kel Roberts, Director, Electoral Area “C” (Long Beach) Penny Cote, Director, Electoral Area “D” (Sproat Lake) John McNabb, Director, Electoral Area “E” (Beaver Creek) Ron Paulson, Councillor, City of Port Alberni (Alternate) Cindy Solda, Councillor, City of Port Alberni Mayco Noël, Mayor, District of Ucluelet Wilfred Cootes, Councillor, Uchucklesaht Tribe Government Kirsten Johnsen, Member of Council, Toquaht Nation
REGRETS: Sharie Minions, Mayor, City of Port Alberni Alan McCarthy, Member of Legislature, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government
STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Holmes, Chief Administrative Officer Teri Fong, Manager of Finance Rob Williams, General Manager of Environmental Services Wendy Thomson, Manager of Administrative Services Heather Zenner, Lands & Resources Coordinator Mike Irg, Manager of Planning & Development Wilbert Yang, Tetra Tech
1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
The Chairperson recognized the meeting this afternoon is being held in the Tseshaht First Nation and the Hupacasath First Nation Territories.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED
3. REQUEST FOR DECISIONS & BYLAWS 25 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes March 6/19 Page 2
a. Request for Decision regarding General Government Services 2019-2023 Financial Plan.
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director McNabb
THAT the Board of Directors instruct staff to include the General Government Service proposed budget in the first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan. CARRIED
b. Presentation & Request for Decision regarding Regional Organics Diversion.
The General Manager of Environmental Services provided a power point presentation on Regional Organics Diversion options.
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Solda
THAT the ACRD Committee of the Whole recommends that the ACRD Board of Directors refer this item to the respective Alberni Valley & Bamfield and West Coast Committees for further discussion and possible recommendations on moving forward with specific service options. CARRIED
c. Request for Decision regarding Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Parks & Trails.
The Lands & Resources Coordinator conducted a power point presentation on parks and trails in the region.
MOVED: Director Johnsen SECONDED: Director Solda THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to add the Log Train Trail to the Regional Parks Function. CARRIED
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Cootes
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to investigate and present options to apportion costs for the Regional Parks Function that may be determined by the Board of Directors during the 26 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes March 6/19 Page 3
adoption of the financial plan each year in a manner that reflects the Board’s determination of which service participants benefit in that year. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to pursue grant opportunities for the West Coast Multi-Use Path connection including the possibility of other funding options. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend to the ACRD Board of Directors that the Regional Parks proposed budget be included in the first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan. CARRIED
MOVED: Director Solda SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT staff be directed to schedule a Committee of the Whole meeting to further discuss funding mechanism options and other park related matters. CARRIED 4. LATE BUSINESS
5. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
6. ADJOURN
MOVED: Director McNabb SECONDED: Director Osborne
THAT this meeting be adjourned at 3:10 pm. CARRIED
Certified Correct:
27 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Minutes March 6/19 Page 4
______John Jack, Wendy Thomson, Chairperson Manager of Administrative Services
28 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
MINUTES OF THE PARCEL TAX REVIEW PANEL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019, 1:30 PM Regional District Board Room, 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, BC
DIRECTORS Kel Roberts, Director, Electoral Area “C” (Long Beach) PRESENT: Penny Cote, Director, Electoral Area “D” (Sproat Lake) John McNabb, Director, Electoral Area “E” (Beaver Creek)
STAFF PRESENT: Teri Fong, Collector Janice Hill, Executive Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER & APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON
The Collector called the meeting to order at 1:33 pm.
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Roberts
THAT Director McNabb be appointed Chairperson of the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Parcel Tax Review Panel for 2019. CARRIED Director McNabb assumed the Chair.
The Chairperson recognized the meeting this morning being held in the Tseshaht First Nation and the Hupacasath First Nation Territories.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Roberts
THAT the agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED
3. OVERVIEW OF PARCEL TAX ROLL REVIEW PROCESS
a. Overview of the Parcel Tax Review Process for 2019 – Collector for 2019.
The Collector provided an overview of the parcel tax review panel process and the 2019 Parcel Tax Roll.
29 Parcel Tax Review Panel Meeting Minutes – February 26/19 Page 2
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Cote
That the report be received for information. CARRIED
4. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS
a. REQUEST FOR DECISION Request for Amendment – Raymond Dol
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT the Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel approve an exemption to the Beaver Creek Water Service Area and Beaver Creek Arena parcel taxes for the following properties as there is no opportunity to develop the parcels:
FOLIO: 770 00662.007 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plan EPP47092, District Lot 25, Alberni Land District, that part shown as Area A
FOLIO: 770 00662.008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plan EPP47092, District Lot 25, Alberni Land District, that part shown as Area B CARRIED
b. REQUEST FOR DECISION Request for Amendment – Peter and Carol Ryding
MOVED: Director Roberts SECONDED: Director Cote
THAT the Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel approve an exemption to the Beaver Creek Water Service Area and Beaver Creek Arena parcel taxes for the following properties for 2019:
Folio Legal Description 01197.002 Lot 7, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.003 Lot 8, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.004 Lot 9, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.005 Lot 10, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.006 Lot 11, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.007 Lot 12, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.008 Lot 13, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 30 Parcel Tax Review Panel Meeting Minutes – February 26/19 Page 3
01197.009 Lot 14, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.010 Lot 15, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.011 Lot 16, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.012 Lot 17, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.013 Lot 18, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.014 Lot 19, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.015 Lot 20, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.016 Lot 21, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.017 Lot 22, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.018 Lot 23, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.019 Lot 24, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.020 Lot 25, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.021 Lot 26, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.022 Lot 27, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District
AND THAT the Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel direct staff to write a letter to the owners of the above properties recommending they consider some form of lot amalgamation in 2019 and further advise that parcel tax charges will be applicable starting in 2020. CARRIED
c. REQUEST FOR DECISION Request for Amendment – Erin Ryding
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Roberts
THAT the Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel approve an exemption to the Beaver Creek Water Service Area and Beaver Creek Arena parcel taxes for the following properties for 2019:
Folio Legal Description 01197.024 Lot 29, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.025 Lot 30, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.026 Lot 31, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.027 Lot 32, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District 01197.028 Lot 33, Block 3, Plan VIP 1488, District Lot 100, Alberni Land District
AND THAT the Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel direct staff to write a letter to the owner of the above properties recommending they consider some form of lot amalgamation in 2019 and further advise that parcel tax charges will be applicable starting in 2020. CARRIED 5. AUTHENTICATION
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Roberts
31 Parcel Tax Review Panel Meeting Minutes – February 26/19 Page 4
THAT the following 2019 Parcel Tax Rolls be declared authenticated pursuant to section 206 of the Community Charter:
a. Bamfield Water System Local Service Area b. Bamfield Water System Treatment Plant Debt Local Service Area c. Beaver Creek Arena d. Beaver Creek Water System Local Service Area e. Cherry Creek Arena f. Salmon Beach Power Local Service Area g. Salmon Beach Sewage/Security/Garbage/Recreation/Transportation/Water Local Service Area h. South Long Beach Multi-Purpose Path Local Service Area i. Sproat Lake Arena j. Sproat Lake Community Association Local Service Area CARRIED
6. ADJOURN
MOVED: Director Cote SECONDED: Director Roberts
THAT this meeting be adjourned at 1:57 pm. CARRIED
Certified Correct:
______John McNabb Janice Hill, Chairperson Executive Assistant
32
March 7, 2019
Board of Directors, Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, 3008 5th Ave Port Alberni, BC V9Y 2E3
Re: Nature Fund/Challenge Grant proposal and Land Use Interests of local First Nations
Dear Sirs/Mesdames
On behalf of Nature United, the Canadian Affiliate of The Nature Conservancy, I am writing to request your support for a proposal being submitted to The Nature Fund of Canada, in collaboration with the Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations. The proposal is seeking approximately $6.9M in federal funding which will be matched by more than $18.5M in funding from Nature United and the First Nations to establish new protected areas in Clayoquot Sound. The project offers an opportunity to support First Nations in realizing their visions for land use and economic development as well as contribute to National and international conservation and biodiversity protection.
In 2017 the regional district formally endorsed the Ahousaht Land Use Vision not withstanding and without prejudice to overlap issues or to private lands in Clayoquot Sound which are within the jurisdiction of the Alberni Clayoquot Regional District. Additionally, the Tla-o-qui-aht are moving to finalize their land use vision in the coming months. Together these two land use visions will increase permanent protection of this landscape by more than 117,000 hectares, which will more than double the protected areas in Clayoquot Sound – taking it from approximately 30% protection to almost 75% protection status. In addition to supporting the visions of the First Nations, this will also ensure the region remains an iconic landscape that can support the robust tourism economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eric Delvin, PhD The Nature Conservancy [email protected] 360-280-2460
33
400 – 3600 Lysander Lane Richmond, BC V7B 1C3
Your file / Votre référence
Our file / Notre référence 5151-P167-17 RDIMS# 15010982
February 25, 2019
Mr. Doug Holmes Accountable Executive Long Beach (Tofino) Airport 3008 Fifth Avenue Port Alberni, BC V9Y 2E3
Dear Sir:
The findings as a result of the Transport Canada Program Validation Inspection (PVI) of 14-15 August 2017 have been addressed through an approved corrective action plan (CAP). This office has monitored CAP implementation through site visits, email and telephone meetings throughout the year.
Significant changes have been made to address the areas of non-compliance. These changes included new staff, revised document control procedures, amendments to company SMS documentation, audit checklists and procedures, and the implementation of the Vortex computerized tracking system.
As the CAP is substantially complete, and reasonable efforts have been made to bring the airport into full compliance, the 2017 PVI is considered closed. A surveillance activity will be scheduled in 2019 to confirm that the longer term actions have been fully implemented.
Regards,
Danielle Rehm Technical Team Lead – Coastal Flight Operations Pacific Region
34
March 6, 2019
ICET INVESTS $175K IN HORNBY ISLAND ARTS CENTRE PROJECT
COURTENAY – An investment of $175,000 from the Island Coastal Economic Trust will support the Hornby Island Arts Council project to establish a permanent arts facility, enhancing the Island’s arts sector and creating year- round economic and cultural opportunities for the Island’s residents, businesses and visitors.
The community has evolved into a hub for artists, and arts-related economic activity is closely tied to the Island’s sense of identity. Working in arts and culture is a primary source of income for 40% of the Island’s residents, and visitors consider Hornby’s artist and artisan works to be a significant draw.
“As people tell us, we are an arts centered community with no arts centre,” said the Executive Director of the Hornby Island Arts Council, Andrew Mark. “This facility will be a heart and home for arts, where everyone is welcome. In particular, it will help Island artists gain greater visibility and improve their financial security, grow new and existing arts-related businesses, and contribute to Hornby’s identity as a destination for the arts.”
35 The proposed Hornby Island Arts Centre will be located in the heart of the community’s cultural hub, adjacent to the Community Hall, Farmers’ Market and other health, social and recreation facilities.
The 2,900 square foot facility will marry unique design features with multi-use functionality, serving diverse user groups. The Centre will be a customizable exhibition space, capable of hosting a range of activities from traditional gallery shows to workshops, educational events, concerts, and more.
“This is a project with a long history and wide community support,” added Mark. “With this investment from ICET matching the private funds raised by the community, we’re now in the final stages of fundraising to build the Centre,” added Mark.
Josie Osborne, ICET Chair, said that funding for the project was approved through ICET’s Economic Infrastructure and Innovation Program, designed to support sustainable economic diversification.
“We look for projects like this one that build on community strengths,” said Osborne. “Hornby has a well-earned reputation for the arts, and this new facility will enable the community to host new events, festivals, workshops and attract visiting artists and exhibitors to create a more sustainable year-round economy.”
Economic projections prepared by ICET’s economist estimate that 3-5 years post-completion, the $1.2 million centre will generate an annual spending impact of $2.1 million, and support the creation of more than 20 permanent local jobs.
36 Construction of the facility is anticipated to begin in the Fall of 2019, with completion and opening in 2020.
About the Island Coastal Economic Trust
Created and capitalized by the Province of BC, the Island Coastal Economic Trust (ICET) has been at the forefront of economic diversification, planning and regional revitalization for the past twelve years.
ICET is independently governed by a Board of Directors and two Regional Advisory Committees which include more than 50 locally elected officials, MLAs and appointees from the Island and Coast. This exceptional team of leaders collaborate to set regional priorities and build vital multi-regional networks.
Through a community centered decision-making process, ICET has approved more than $50 million in funding for over 200 economic infrastructure and economic development readiness projects. These investments have leveraged over $270 million in new investment into the region creating more than 2500 construction phase jobs and 2600 long term permanent jobs.
A full overview of ICET can be found at www.islandcoastaltrust.ca.
For further information: Line Robert, CEO Island Coastal Economic Trust Tel. 250-871-7797 (Ext. 227) [email protected]
37 Mayor Josie Osborne, ICET Chair District of Tofino Tel. 250-725-3229 [email protected]
Andrew Mark, Executive Director Hornby Island Arts Council Tel. 250-335-2070 [email protected]
Copyright © Island Coastal Economic Trust, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is: #108 - 501 4th Street Courtenay, BC V9N 1H3
Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
38 39 40 41 42 43
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, B.C. CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 FAX: (250) 723-1327
REQUEST FOR DECISION
To: ACRD Board of Directors
From: Rob Williams, General Manager of Environmental Services
Meeting Date: March 13, 2019
Subject: Regional Organics Diversion
Recommendation:
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors refer this item to the respective Alberni Valley & Bamfield and West Coast Committees for further discussion and possible recommendations on moving forward with specific service options.
Desired Outcome:
That the ACRD move ahead with engaging the public on a specified recommended service options for a regional organic diversion program.
Background:
At the March 6, 2019 Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting, the attached Request for Decision was presented along with a presentation outlining the service options and corresponding high level costs, also attached. After review, the COW recommended that the ACRD Board of Directors refer this item to the respective Service Area Committees for further discussion and possible recommendations on moving forward with specific service options.
Submitted by: ______Rob Williams, MSc, General Manager of Environmental Services
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA, Chief Administrative Officer
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 44 Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek)
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, B.C. CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 FAX: (250) 723-1327
REQUEST FOR DECISION
To: ACRD Committee of the Whole
From: Rob Williams, General Manager of Environmental Services
Meeting Date: March 6, 2019
Subject: Regional Organics Diversion
Recommendation:
THAT the ACRD Committee of the Whole recommends that the ACRD Board of Directors refer this item to the respective Alberni Valley & Bamfield and West Coast Committees for further discussion and possible recommendations on moving forward with specific service options.
Desired Outcome:
That the ACRD move ahead with engaging the public on a specified recommended service options for a regional organic diversion program.
Background:
At their regular meeting of September 26, 2018, the ACRD Board of Directors awarded a contract to Tetra Tech Consulting in order to research and recommend feasible service options for the collection and processing of regional organics (organic food waste and yard and garden material, as well as other potential feedstocks such as biosolids and fish waste). This work is a key component of advancing the regional organics diversion program for the communities within the Alberni Valley, Bamfield, and the West Coast, as outlined in the approved project plan noted below. Costs associated with this work have been covered 100% by the Strategic Gas Tax Fund that has been secured for this project, with the total grant amount received totaling $6,000,000.
Project Actions Estimated Completion 1. UBCM Funding Agreement Executed July/Aug
2. Contract a Project Management Consultant Sept-Oct 2018
3. Conduct Service Delivery Analysis (collection & processing) Oct-Dec
4. Confirm Board Direction on Feasible Service Options Jan/Feb 5. Community Engagement on Approved Options Mar-Sept 2019
6. Select Preferred Service Option (community supported, area specific) Sept 7. Project Roll Out (permits, contracts, construction, bin delivery, Spring/Summer 2020 education/outreach)
Tetra Tech undertook a comprehensive process in order to determine feasible organics collection and processing Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 45 options for the ACRD. Their project methodology included: 1. data collection and analysis in order to determine available regional feedstocks, 2. review of appropriate collection options that include disposal ban considerations in order to maximize diversion objectives 3. review processing technologies that would be feasible for applications for Bamfield, Alberni Valley and the West Coast based on available feedstocks 4. evaluate combined collection and processing options through a triple bottom line lens (i.e. economic, environmental and social) and provide recommendations.
The report outlines the service options and corresponding high level costs. The full detailed report is attached. There are a number of items that the Board should consider while reviewing this information. Specifically, the ACRD is currently working through the process to secure tenure at the Alberni Landfill and therefore there is uncertainty as to what the future holds with this site and therefore it may be advisable to wait and see how the application progresses prior to committing to any potential organics processing at this site. It should be noted that ACRD staff have been fully transparent with potential composting operations at the Alberni Landfill with both the Tseshaht and Hupacasath First Nations as well as the Province. Also, that it has been highlighted in the Coastal Addendum to the Alberni Agricultural Plan that there is a need for compost material on the West Coast in order to help with local food production and therefore there are merits to having a designated processing facility on the West Coast for the region in order to provide a supply of nutrient rich compost material to the area for local agricultural purposes. Lastly, as a reminder, a main objective of this initiative is to prevent or prolong the need to construct costly landfill gas capture infrastructure and that diverting regional organics from the waste stream can help achieve this.
Considering there is a lot of information to digest and understand with the Tetra Tech report, staff are recommending that this item be referred to the Alberni Valley & Bamfield as well as the West Coast Committees for a more detailed discussion and possible recommendations to the Board moving forward. As previously mentioned, it is understood that the varying needs of the communities across the District may result in different service levels across the region. Once there is direction with respect to preferred service option(s), staff will analyze and present the financial impacts regarding that direction.
Time Requirements – Staff & Elected Officials:
A sufficient amount of time will be required in order to complete the tender process in order to retain the services of a community engagement consultant.
Financial:
Costs associated with this phase of the project are 100% covered by the Strategic Priorities Gas Tax Grant. Additional operating funds may be required in order to implement part or a whole organics diversion program.
Policy or Legislation:
It is understood at this point that that the implementation of any new organics collection and or processing services align with the ACRD Solid Waste Management Plan and would be covered under existing ACRD waste management bylaws, however amendments will be required with respect to any policy changes such as recommended disposal bans.
Options Considered:
The other option would be to discuss this matter fully and confirm a service direction at this meeting and for staff to bring back the financial implications at an upcoming Board of Directors meeting prior to public consultation.
Submitted by: ______Rob Williams, MSc, General Manager of Environmental Services
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA, Chief Administrative Officer
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 46 Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek)
Organic Waste Diversion Service Options
PRESENTED TO Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
FEBRUARY 2019 ISSUED FOR USE FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01
Tetra Tech Canada Inc. Suite 1000 – 10th Floor, 885 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1N5 CANADA
Tel 604.685.0275 Fax 604.684.6241 47
This page intentionally left blank.
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 48 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District (ACRD) has political and financial support to divert organic waste (food waste, yard waste and food soiled paper) from landfill disposal. The ACRD was successful in its 2017 application to the Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund and was awarded $6 million in capital funding towards implementing a regional organics diversion program.
Although the approved Gas Tax grant addresses the issue of capital funding for organic processing facilities, there are still outstanding service delivery issues related to organics feedstock characterization, organics collection in service areas, supporting collection policies, regulatory and technical requirements for organics processing facilities, and capital and operating costs of service delivery options. The ACRD has engaged Tetra Tech Canada Inc. (Tetra Tech) to review these service delivery issues and then outline the costs and benefits of feasible service options for collecting and processing organic waste material across the region.
Section 3 discusses the current waste management systems in the West Coast and Alberni Valley service areas. A significant amount of organics is currently being landfilled in the ACRD. The predominant sectors with organic waste are the residential and ICI sectors where food and yard waste are mostly generated. Approximately 4,200 – 4,900 tonnes per year of organics comes from residential and ICI sources in the Alberni Valley and Bamfield service area. An estimated 1,100 – 1,350 tonnes per year of organics comes from residential and ICI sources in the West Coast service area.
Section 4 compares relevant organics collection programs in similar jurisdictions across BC, to provide a benchmark for future ACRD collection programs and outline expected costs, organics capture rates, and consequent GHG reduction. Table I-1 summarizes the environmental implications of identified collection options.
Table I-1: Summary of Collection Options
Option Description Cost Diversion Tonnes GHG Tonnes CO2e Bamfield #1 ICI Disposal Ban + Transfer to Alberni Valley Moderate 7 13 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban + Transfer to Bamfield #2 Moderate 11 21 Alberni Valley ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Bamfield #3 High 11 23 On-Site Processing
Alberni Valley ICI Disposal Ban + Voluntary Residential Moderate 1,516 3,150 #1 Collection for City of Port Alberni
Alberni Valley ICI & Residential Disposal Ban High 1,690 3,505 #2 Electoral Areas Out
Alberni Valley ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Moderate 1,891 3,879 #3 Electoral Areas In
West Coast #1 ICI Disposal Ban Low 302 640 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban West Coast #2 Moderate 342 725 Residential Self-Haul ICI & Residential Disposal Ban West Coast #3 High 450 954 Residential Curbside Collection
i
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 49 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Section 5 assesses organics availability to determine potential feedstocks for organics management facilities. Determining the peak flow of organics feedstocks is integral to ensuring that developed organics management solutions will effectively serve the community into the future. This includes accounting for the growth and seasonal fluctuations of different waste streams, as well as the other required feedstocks to produce a viable finished product. In addition to biosolids and food and yard waste, there are opportunities to explore sources of organics from industrial operations such as the potential fishery feedstocks described in Section 5.3. The peak flows of organics material in the two service areas are shown in Table I-2. An assumption of 75% maximum capture of compostable organics from the residential and ICI sectors was made when determining peak flow.
Table I-2: Maximum Organics Flow by Service Area
Service Area Maximum Flow of Organics (tonnes) Monthly Weekly Feedstock %
Food Waste 246 57 39.9%
Yard, Wood Waste 77 18 12.5%
Compostable Paper 59 14 9.6% Alberni Valley and Bamfield Biosolids 62 14 10.1%
Required Bulking Agent 172 40 27.8%
Total 617 144 100.0%
Food Waste 153 36 46.1%
Yard & Wood Waste 113 26 34.0%
Compostable Paper 37 9 11.1% West Coast Biosolids 13 3 3.9%
Required Bulking Agent 16 4 4.9%
Total 332 77 100.0%
Further to calculating available feedstocks, Tetra Tech assessed organics processing technologies ranging from low-technology passive windrows to high-technology modular in-vessel composting systems. Two processing technologies were determined to be the most suitable for further exploration based on available feedstocks, geographical/climate considerations, and concerns about odour control expressed by ACRD staff. Aerated static pile and membrane covered aerated static pile technologies were chosen and cost estimated and used to evaluate the processing scenarios discussed in Section 7.0.
Section 7 outlines five different processing scenarios for managing organics generated within the ACRD, describing capital and operating costs, design and projected capture capacity, and associated transportation GHGs. The scenarios provide comparison between centralizing organics processing at one site to building processing facilities in each service area, to transferring all organics to out-of-region processing. Scenarios were then compared using a multi-criteria analysis, considering GHG emission reductions, local organics management, odour issues, traffic concerns, job creation, capital cost, operating cost, and unit processing costs (cost per tonne).
The top scenarios were Scenario 1 and 2. Scenario 1 built two processing facilities at the West Coast and Alberni Valley landfills, and Scenario 2 built one regional processing facility at the Alberni Valley landfill and a transfer station at West Coast to transport organics to the Alberni Valley landfill.
Section 8 discusses recommendations for organics collection and organics processing service delivery.
ii
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 50 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Objectives and Methodology ...... 1 1.2 Overview and Structure of the Report ...... 2
2.0 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ...... 3
3.0 EXISTING COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM...... 5 3.1 Demographics, Geography and Economy ...... 5 3.2 Collection System ...... 8 3.2.1 Alberni Valley & Bamfield Service Area ...... 8 3.2.2 West Coast Service Area ...... 10 3.3 Residual Management System ...... 11 3.3.1 Alberni Valley & Bamfield Service Area ...... 11 3.3.2 West Coast Service Area ...... 14 3.4 Waste Characterization ...... 15 3.4.1 Waste Disposal ...... 15 3.4.2 Waste Composition ...... 17 3.4.3 Available Organic Waste ...... 18
4.0 COLLECTION OPTIONS ...... 19 4.1 Organic Waste Disposal Bans ...... 19 4.2 Organic Waste Collection Programs in Comparable Jurisdictions ...... 23 4.2.1 Program Design Considerations ...... 23 4.2.2 Food Waste Only Programs ...... 23 4.2.3 Food and Yard Waste Programs ...... 25 4.2.4 ICI Food Waste Collection Programs ...... 28 4.3 Collection Options for ACRD Service Areas ...... 29 4.3.1 Bamfield Service Area ...... 29 4.3.2 Alberni Valley Service Area ...... 30 4.3.3 West Coast Service Area ...... 32 4.3.4 Residential Collection Options Summary ...... 34 4.4 Collection Options Comparison ...... 35
5.0 DESIGN CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING FACILITIES ...... 38 5.1 Food and Yard Waste ...... 38 5.2 Biosolids from Wastewater Treatment Facilities ...... 41 5.3 Industrial Feedstocks (e.g. Fishery Waste) ...... 42 5.4 Summary of Feedstocks ...... 42
6.0 PROCESSING OPTIONS ...... 43 6.1 Composting Process Overview ...... 43 6.2 Passive Systems...... 44
i
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 51 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
6.2.1 Turned Windrows or Piles ...... 45 6.2.2 Passive Aeration ...... 46 6.3 Active Aeration Systems ...... 47 6.3.1 Aerated Static Pile ...... 47 6.3.2 Membrane Cover Aerated Systems ...... 48 6.3.3 Mass Bed ...... 49 6.4 In-Vessel ...... 50 6.4.1 Enclosed Aerated Static Pile ...... 50 6.4.2 Static or Agitated Container ...... 50 6.4.3 Rotating Drum ...... 52 6.5 Compost Aging Technology ...... 52 6.6 Processing Options Comparison ...... 55 6.7 Finished Compost End Markets...... 57
7.0 PROCESSING SCENARIOS...... 58 7.1 Scenario 1 – One Processing Facility in Each Service Area ...... 59 7.2 Scenario 2 – West Coast Transfer Station to Alberni Valley Facility ...... 60 7.3 Scenario 3 – Alberni Valley Transfer Station to West Coast Facility ...... 62 7.4 Scenario 4 – West Coast Facility, Alberni Valley Transfer Station to Out of Region ...... 64 7.5 Scenario 5 – Two Transfer Stations to Out of Region ...... 66 7.6 Scenario A – Bamfield Processing Facility ...... 68 7.7 Scenario Comparison ...... 70
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72 8.1 Organics Collection ...... 72 8.2 Organics Processing ...... 73 8.2.1 Cost Saving Considerations ...... 73
9.0 CLOSURE ...... 74
LIST OF TABLES IN TEXT
Table I-1: Summary of Collection Options ...... i Table I-2: Maximum Organics Flow by Service Area ...... ii Table 2-1: Benefits of Organic Waste Diversion ...... 3 Table 3-1: ACRD Population and Households by Solid Waste Management Service Area ...... 5 Table 3-2: Residential Collection Services in the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Service Area ...... 9 Table 3-3: Residential Collection Services in the West Coast Waste Service Area ...... 11 Table 3-4: Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Management 2018 Financial Plan ...... 13 Table 3-5: West Coast Waste Management 2018 Financial Plan ...... 15 Table 3-6: Alberni Valley Landfill – Tonnage by Hauler Type ...... 16 Table 3-7: West Coast Landfill – Tonnage by Hauler Type ...... 17 Table 3-8: Municipal Solid Waste Stream Composition in Relevant Jurisdictions ...... 18 Table 4-1: Manual Collection Programs – Food Waste Only ...... 24 Table 4-2: Automated Collection – Food Waste Only ...... 25
ii
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 52 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-3: Self-Haul Collection Food Waste Only ...... 25 Table 4-4: Manual Collection Food & Yard Waste ...... 26 Table 4-5: Automated Collection Food & Yard Waste ...... 27 Table 4-6: Summary of Programs and Utility Fees ...... 28 Table 4-7: Food Waste Capture Estimate from the Commercial Sector ...... 29 Table 4-8: Bamfield Service Area Collection Options Summary ...... 30 Table 4-9: Alberni Valley Service Area Summary of Collection Options ...... 32 Table 4-10: West Coast Service Area Summary of Collection Options ...... 33 Table 4-11: Summary of Annual Collection Options ...... 34 Table 4-12: Evaluation Criteria to Select Options ...... 35 Table 4-13: Bamfield Service Area Options Comparison ...... 36 Table 4-14: Alberni Valley Service Area Options Comparison ...... 36 Table 4-15: West Coast Service Area Options Comparison ...... 37 Table 5-1: Projected Biosolids Production Per Capita Across Regional Districts ...... 41 Table 5-2: Projected Biosolids Production for West Coast and Alberni Valley Landfills ...... 42 Table 5-3: Maximum Organics Flow by Service Area ...... 43 Table 6-1: Passive Composting ...... 45 Table 6-2: Windrow Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1 ...... 46 Table 6-3: Passive Aeration Systems Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 47 Table 6-4: Aerated Static Pile Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1 ...... 48 Table 6-5: Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1 ...... 49 Table 6-6: Mass Bed Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 49 Table 6-7: Enclosed Aerated Static Pile (Tunnel) Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1 ...... 50 Table 6-8: Static and Agitated Container Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 51 Table 6-9: Rotating Drum Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 52 Table 6-10: Processing Technology Attributes1 ...... 55 Table 6-11: Suitability of Organic Processing Options for the ACRD ...... 56 Table 7-1: Alberni Valley Processing Facility Capital and Operating Costs ...... 60 Table 7-2: West Coast Processing Facility Capital and Operating Costs ...... 60 Table 7-3: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – WC to AV ...... 61 Table 7-4: Alberni Valley Processing Facility and West Coast Transfer Station Costs ...... 62 Table 7-5: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – AV to WC ...... 63 Table 7-6: West Coast Processing Facility and Alberni Valley Transfer Station Costs ...... 64 Table 7-7: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – Alberni Valley to RDN ..... 65 Table 7-8: West Coast Processing Facility Capital and Operating Costs ...... 66 Table 7-9: Alberni Valley Transfer Station (Out of Region) Capital and Operating Costs ...... 66 Table 7-10: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – ACRD to RDN ...... 67 Table 7-11: Alberni Valley Transfer Station (Out of Region) Capital and Operating Costs ...... 67 Table 7-12: West Coast Transfer Station (Out of Region) Capital and Operating Costs ...... 68 Table 7-13: Bamfield Processing Facility Costs ...... 69 Table 7-14: Processing Scenario Criteria Descriptions ...... 70 Table 7-15: Processing Scenario Comparison ...... 71
iii
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 53 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
LIST OF FIGURES IN TEXT
Figure 1-1: Project Methodology ...... 2 Figure 3-1: Administrative Boundaries of the ACRD ...... 6 Figure 3-2: ACRD Municipal, Treaty First Nation and Electoral Area Boundaries...... 7 Figure 3-3: City of Port Alberni Automated Side Load Garbage Collection Truck ...... 8 Figure 3-4: Alberni Valley Landfill Drop-off Depot ...... 12 Figure 3-5: Bamfield Transfer Station ...... 12 Figure 3-6: West Coast Landfill ...... 14 Figure 3-7: Tonnages Disposed at Alberni Valley Landfill 2013-2018 ...... 16 Figure 3-8: Tonnages Disposed at West Coast Landfill 2013-2018 ...... 17 Figure 3-9: Available Organics in Alberni Valley and Bamfield Service Area Waste Stream...... 18 Figure 3-10: Available Organics in West Coast Service Area Waste Stream ...... 19 Figure 4-1: Provincial Targets for Waste Diversion and Disposal ...... 20 Figure 4-2: Regional District MSW Disposal Rates 2016 ...... 21 Figure 4-3: Metro Vancouver Organics Disposal Ban Phased Implementation ...... 22 Figure 4-4: Curbside Recycling and Organics ...... 23 Figure 4-5: Split Truck for Collecting Multiple Material Streams ...... 24 Figure 4-6: Operators Collecting Curbside Organics ...... 24 Figure 4-7: Curbside Organics Collection...... 25 Figure 4-8: Example Organics Bin ...... 26 Figure 4-9: Example Organics Bin for Automated Collection ...... 26 Figure 4-10: City of Nanaimo and Saanich Organics Collection ...... 27 Figure 5-1: Alberni Valley and Bamfield – Projected Waste Generation Over 20 Years ...... 38 Figure 5-2: Alberni Valley and Bamfield – Monthly Waste Generation in 2017 ...... 39 Figure 5-3: Alberni Valley and Bamfield – Peak Monthly Organics Generation in 2038 ...... 39 Figure 5-4: West Coast – Projected Waste Generation Over 20 Years ...... 40 Figure 5-5: West Coast – Monthly Waste Generation in 2017 ...... 40 Figure 5-6: West Coast – Peak Monthly Organics Generation in 2038 ...... 41 Figure 6-1: Finished Compost ...... 44 Figure 6-2: Static Pile...... 45 Figure 6-3: Windrow ...... 45 Figure 6-4: Self-Powered Windrow Turner ...... 46 Figure 6-5: Second Windrow Turner Example ...... 46 Figure 6-6: Pulled Windrow Turner ...... 46 Figure 6-7: Example of Passive Aeration ...... 46 Figure 6-8: Aerated Static Pile Inside Bunker Walls ...... 47 Figure 6-9: Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile ...... 48 Figure 6-10: Agitated Mass Bed ...... 49 Figure 6-11: Turned Mass Bed ...... 49 Figure 6-12: In-Vessel Composting Bunker ...... 50 Figure 6-13: Static Container System ...... 51 Figure 6-14: Agitated Container System (Wright Digestor) ...... 51 Figure 6-15: Hot Rot Compost System ...... 51 Figure 6-16: Rotating Drum System ...... 52
iv
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 54 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 7-1: Example of an organics container that could be transported to a composting facility...... 68
APPENDIX SECTIONS
Appendix A Tetra Tech’s Limitations on the Use of this Document Appendix B Full Scenario Costing Appendix C Conceptual designs for Scenarios 1 and 2
v
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 55 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition ACRD Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District BC British Columbia CMA Carey McIver & Associates Ltd.
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CR&D Construction Renovation and Demolition EA Electoral Area EOW Every Other Week FW Food Waste G Garbage GHG Greenhouse Gas ICI Industry Commercial and Institution IR Indian Reserve LFG Landfill Gas MOE BC Ministry of the Environment & Climate Change MSW Municipal Solid Waste MV Metro Vancouver O Organics PMAC Plan Monitoring Advisory Committees R Recycling RDN Regional District of Nanaimo RFP Request for Proposal RMI Resort Municipality Initiative SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan UBCM Union of British Columbia Municipalities Many acronyms for regional districts on figure 4.2
vi
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 56 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and their agents. Tetra Tech Canada Inc. (Tetra Tech) does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Alberni- Clayoquot Regional District, or for any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this document is subject to the Limitations on the Use of this Document attached in the Appendix or Contractual Terms and Conditions executed by both parties.
vii
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 57 58 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District (ACRD) has long recognized the need to divert organic waste (food waste, yard waste and food soiled paper) from landfill disposal. The current ACRD Solid Waste Management Plan recommends that the feasibility of food waste composting be investigated once priority recycling and residual management initiatives were implemented. Accordingly, in 2014 the ACRD engaged consultants to complete an assessment of organic waste diversion opportunities in the Alberni Valley and West Coast. The resulting high-level organic diversion strategies informed the ACRD’s successful 2017 application to the Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund, which will provide $6 million in capital funding towards implementing a regional organics diversion program.
Although the approved Gas Tax grant addresses the issue of capital funding for organic processing facilities, there are still outstanding service delivery issues related to:
. Which feedstocks will be processed (food waste, yard waste, wood waste, biosolids) and how much feedstock is available;
. How will these feedstocks be collected (self-haul, commercial collection or curbside collection);
. Which sectors (residential and industrial, commercial and institutional) will feedstocks be collected from;
. What policies (i.e. disposal bans) will be required to support collection programs;
. Do the proposed processing facilities identified in the grant application meet the requirements of the upcoming revisions to the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation, particularly with respect to odour management; and
. What capital and operating costs are associated with the service delivery options.
The ACRD has engaged Tetra Tech Canada Inc. (Tetra Tech) to review these service delivery issues and then outline the costs and benefits of feasible service options for collecting and processing organic waste material across the region.
1.1 Project Objectives and Methodology
The ACRD provides solid waste management services to a population of roughly 31,000 people in two functionally and geographically distinct service areas: Alberni Valley & Bamfield (25,447 residents) and the West Coast (5,534 residents). Given the distance between communities located in the Alberni Valley and Bamfield, this project recognizes three communities for the development of collection options and processing scenarios: the Alberni Valley, Bamfield and the West Coast.
Specific project objectives are as follows:
. Research and present the most feasible organic waste collection and processing scenarios for the Alberni Valley, Bamfield and the West Coast. This includes options that target, as feasible, all waste sectors such as residential (single-family and multi-family) and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI);
. Outline all capital and annual operating resources including labour, supervision, equipment, and costs associated with feasible collection options and processing scenarios;
. Outline the effect of presented options on landfill closure/post closure plans;
. Highlight required annual feedstock quantities to ensure ongoing operational efficiency on processing;
1
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 59 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
. Conduct an analysis and clearly outline potential processing locations, both new possible local public facilities and/or land as well as existing private facilities and/or land on Vancouver Island;
. As necessary with each processing scenario, clearly state the estimated quantities (metric tonnes) of finished material and highlight market or disposal options for such finished product; and
. Provide figures for estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions associated with collection and processing service scenarios.
Tetra Tech’s approach to fulfilling these objectives is illustrated on Figure 1-1. The methodology consisted of four major steps: (1) a review of the current system for collection and disposal of solid waste in the ACRD; (2) the development of collection options based on a review of policy and collection systems in comparable jurisdictions on Vancouver Island; (3) the development of processing options founded on an updated estimate of available organic feedstocks based on actual capture rates associated with selected collection options as well a review of available processing technologies; and, (4) a triple bottom line cost benefit analysis of combined collection and processing service options including recommendations.
Figure 1-1: Project Methodology
Evaluation & Collection Options Reporting • Collection • Feedstock Estimate • Disposal Data • Technology Review • Available • Policy & Collection • Service Options • Combined Service Feedstocks Review Options • Service Options • Cost Benefit Analysis • Recommendations Processing System Review Scenarios
1.2 Overview and Structure of the Report
This report is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the chronology associated with the organic waste diversion strategies developed for the two service areas in 2015. Section 3 outlines the existing collection and disposal system in the service areas and estimates the amount of organic waste that is currently going to landfill. Section 4 reviews successful policy and collection options implemented in comparable Vancouver Island jurisdictions, identifies policy and collection service options applicable to the ACRD and estimates the organics capture rates for each option in ACRD. Section 5 reviews these estimated organics collection capture rates combined with the availability of other feedstocks such as biosolids to develop design capacity estimates for processing facilities. Section 6 reviews organic waste processing options and identifies appropriated technologies for Alberni Valley & Bamfield and Waste Coast service areas. Section 7 combines collection and processing scenarios for these service areas and undertakes a triple bottom line cost benefit analysis to allow for comparison between scenarios. Section 8 provides conclusions and recommendations.
2
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 60 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
2.0 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Diverting organic wastes from landfill and producing compost contributes to sustainability in many communities in British Columbia and North America due to the potential environmental, economic and social benefits outlined in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Benefits of Organic Waste Diversion
Environmental Benefits Social Benefits Economic Benefits . Reduces GHG emissions . Protects human health . Extends landfill life . Preserves landfill capacity . Reduces landfill safety risks . Produces a marketable product . Reduces landfill leachate . Contributes to land preservation . Provides employment . Improves soil . Contributes to healthy local soils and . Reduces costs to manage leachate and agriculture landfill gas
The ACRD has long recognized the benefits above and organic waste diversion is a component of the regional district’s approved Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). In 2014, the ACRD initiated a process to review its SWMP (2007) and implement outstanding plan components. Since adopting the 2007 plan, the ACRD has made considerable progress on SWMP elements related to reduction and reuse, residential recycling, and residual waste management. However, program initiatives connected to Industry Commercial and Institution (ICI) sector recycling and organic waste diversion are still being developed.
The 2014 ACRD SWMP Review and Implementation Process resulted in the establishment of two Plan Monitoring Advisory Committees (PMAC), one for the Alberni Valley and one for the West Coast. The role of each PMAC was to review the implementation and effectiveness of the 2007 SWMP in their respective service areas and make recommendations to the Regional District Board regarding implementation of outstanding plan components related to ICI sector recycling and organic waste diversion.
In 2015 the ACRD engaged Carey McIver & Associates Ltd. (CMA) to assist in the SWMP (2007) Review and Implementation Process. CMA supported the two PMACs by: delivering presentations on the effectiveness of the existing solid waste management system in the ACRD; designing and assisting in delivery of disposal bans on recyclable materials generated by the ICI sector; and, undertaking an assessment of organic waste diversion opportunities in the Alberni Valley and West Coast.
CMA’s organics diversion opportunities assessment consisted of the following tasks: assess and confirm organic waste quantities by source and type; review and assess local opportunities for reduction, collection, processing and markets; review and assess supporting policies; based on an assessment of local opportunities refine reduction and diversion estimates; prepare high level cost estimates and cost-benefit analysis including the impact on current system costs; and prepare two final reports outlining the organics diversion strategies recommended by Alberni Valley and West Coast PMAC respectively.
In 2015, after seven meetings each, the West Coast PMAC and the Alberni Valley PMAC met to review the final reports prepared by CMA on their respective organic waste diversion strategies. For the West Coast, the CMA assessment concluded that, due to economies of scale, the construction of an organics processing facility on the West Coast was not practical at that time. Instead the draft strategy identified issues related to available feedstocks (wood waste, yard waste, fish waste) that required further study as well as low cost actions that could be taken immediately to reduce organic wastes and thereby reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
3
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 61 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
The West Coast PMAC received the report and recommended that staff proceed with low cost food waste reduction initiatives. However, with respect to collection and processing, the PMAC recommended that the ACRD review the viability of establishing a food waste composting facility at the West Coast landfill when there is a need for local biosolids management upon implementation of the District of Tofino’s Liquid Waste Management Plan.
For the Alberni Valley, the organics diversion strategy arising from the opportunity assessment came to the same conclusion. The proposed strategy identified a workplan to resolve issues related to feedstocks, collection and processing as well as a cost benefit analysis of organics composting versus landfill gas (LFG) collection. The proposed strategy also contained actions that could be taken immediately to reduce organic wastes and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Alberni Valley PMAC reviewed the proposed workplan, budget ($133,000) and schedule to resolve outstanding issues and recommended that the report containing the proposed organics diversion strategy be forwarded to the ACRD Board for review and approval and, that if approved, the options be considered in the 2016-2020 budget deliberations.
The ACRD Board received the recommendation from the Alberni Valley PMAC in November 2015 and referred the report to the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Services Committee for further discussion. In January 2016 this committee recommended that staff meet with the City of Port Alberni Council to discuss the strategy and then submit a workplan and budget for consideration during upcoming financial plan deliberations. In March 2016, the Board approved a revised workplan and budget to implement the organics diversion strategy ($95,000) for inclusion in the ACRD 2016-2020 Financial Plan.
One of the significant outstanding issues related to the organics diversion strategy was determining the cost-benefit of organics composting versus LFG collection to reduce GHG emissions. In February 2017 the Board received the Landfill Gas Generation Report for the Alberni Valley Landfill and, based on the cost of installing an LFG collection system, approved the staff recommendation to proceed with implementing waste diversion initiatives to defer or even eliminate the need for LFG collection in the future.
In May 2017 the ACRD applied to the Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund to undertake a consolidated strategic landfill diversion program that would implement a regional organics diversion program as well as upgrade recycling infrastructure at both landfills. In January 2018 the ACRD was notified by Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) that their application was successful in the amount of $6 million. In July 2018, the District’s Board directed staff to execute the UBCM Strategic Priorities Funding Agreement and reviewed staff’s draft project plan to proceed with implementing a regional organics diversion program.
Although the approved Gas Tax grant addresses the issue of capital funding, there are still outstanding service delivery issues related to:
. Which feedstocks will be processed (food waste, yard waste, wood waste, biosolids) and how much feedstock is available;
. How these feedstocks will be collected (self-haul, commercial collection or curbside collection);
. Which sectors will they be collected from (residential and ICI);
. What policies (i.e. disposal bans) will be required to support collection programs;
. Do the proposed processing facilities identified in the grant application meet the requirements of the upcoming revisions to the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation, particularly with respect to odour management; and
. What are the capital and operating costs associated with service delivery options.
4
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 62 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Consequently, in August 2018 the ACRD issued an RFP seeking proposals from qualified consultants to research and present the cost-benefits of feasible service options for the collection and processing of organic food waste and yard and garden materials for the sub-regional areas of the Alberni Valley, West Coast and Bamfield. Tetra Tech submitted the successful proposal and was awarded the project.
3.0 EXISTING COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
3.1 Demographics, Geography and Economy
The ACRD is a large and diverse area of over 7,440 square kilometres centrally located on the west side of Vancouver Island. The ACRD is a federation consisting of: three municipalities, four Treaty First Nations and six electoral areas. The ACRD provides solid waste management services to a population of roughly 31,000 people in two distinct service areas: (1) Alberni Valley & Bamfield and (2) West Coast.
Table 3-1 lists the population and households for each of the member municipalities, Treaty First Nations and electoral areas based on the 2016 Census.
Table 3-1: ACRD Population and Households by Solid Waste Management Service Area
Waste Management Service Area Census Population Census Households Alberni Valley and Bamfield City of Port Alberni 17,678 8,119 Electoral Area A – Bamfield 243 132 Electoral Area B - Beaufort 443 199 Electoral Area D – Sproat Lake 2,173 774 Klehkoot & Tse’shaht First Nations - 182 Electoral Area E – Beaver Creek 2,873 1,189 Ahahswinis First Nation - 54 Electoral Area F – Cherry Creek 1,945 841 Alberni First Nation - 3 Treaty First Nations in Alberni Valley Area Huu-ay-aht First Nation 87 38 Uchucklesaht Tribe 5 1 Sub-Total (Alberni Valley & Bamfield) 25,447 11,532
West Coast District of Tofino 1,932 755 District of Ucluelet 1,717 737 Electoral Area C – Long Beach 1,592 359 First Nation Reserves (5 Nations) - 53
5
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 63 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Waste Management Service Area Census Population Census Households Treaty First Nations in West Coast Area Toquaht Nation 19 9 Yuulu?il?ath Government 274 86 Sub-Total (West Coast) 5,534 2,213 ACRD Total 30,981 13,745
Figure 3-1 provides a map of the administrative boundaries of the Alberni Clayoquot Regional District while Figure 3-2 provides these boundaries on a topographical map format.
Figure 3-1: Administrative Boundaries of the ACRD
6
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 64 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 3-2: ACRD Municipal, Treaty First Nation and Electoral Area Boundaries
A sizeable portion of the ACRD is rugged coastal mountains with limited access. It is bound on the north by the Forbidden Plateau, on the east by the Beaufort Range and Mount Arrowsmith, on the south by the Nitnat River and Lake, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The ACRD experiences a predominantly maritime climate with heavy rainfall on the West Coast due to the prevailing weather systems that are forced to rise over the mountain ranges.
As indicated on Figure 3-2, the two waste management service areas of Alberni Valley & Bamfield and the West Coast are geographically distinct. The distance between Port Alberni and Tofino is 126 km on the Pacific Rim Highway equivalent to two hours of travel time (see Figure 3-1). Within the Alberni Valley & Bamfield service area, the distance between Port Alberni and Bamfield is roughly 90 km with a travel time of two hours along gravel roads (see Figure 3-1).
The economies of the two waste service areas are also very different. In the Alberni Valley & Bamfield service area, the City of Port Alberni has the largest population base and is the commercial hub of the region. The population of the City of Port Alberni and the surrounding areas has been stable for more than a decade with minimal growth predicted for the future. Although the economy of the area had been based on the management and processing of natural resources, in response to significant changes in international commodity markets and resource availability, the local economy is currently more diverse and flexible with a focus on the manufacture of wood products.
Tourism is the primary economic driver of the West Coast area, while traditional forms of forestry and fishing are no longer significant economic contributors. Located between the municipalities of Tofino and Ucluelet is the Long Beach Unit of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Parks Canada reports that over 700,000 visitors each year visit Long Beach, the Broken Group Islands, and the West Coast Trail each year. (https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn- np/bc/pacificrim/plan). As a result, Tofino and Ucluelet have established themselves as international tourist destinations showcasing natural beauty and outdoor recreation.
7
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 65 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Unlike the City of Port Alberni, whose population declined by 0.3 percent between 2011 and 2016, the District of Tofino experienced a population growth of 3% with the District of Ucluelet at 5% over the same period. However, this census data on permanent residents does not reflect the full picture with respect to population in this area. Both Tofino and Ucluelet experience an influx of visitors and transient workers which results in an estimated equivalent annual population increase from 1,932 to 4,674 for Tofino and from 1,717 to 3,500 for Ucluelet.
Due to this influx of visitors and transient workers, both the District of Tofino and the District of Ucluelet are designated as resort municipalities and participate in the provincial funding Resort Municipality Initiative (RMI) program. The RMI program objective is to increase the number of visitors and their length of stay, to broaden resort activities to help expand the length of the tourist season and increase employment, and to diversify the local tax base.
Consequently, with respect to organic collection and processing serving options, infrastructure in the Alberni Valley and Bamfield waste management service area must be designed to accommodate little or no population growth while similar infrastructure in the West Coast must accommodate an adjusted resort municipality population with moderate growth.
3.2 Collection System
3.2.1 Alberni Valley & Bamfield Service Area Residential Collection Services – Alberni Valley
Table 3-2 outlines the current residential collection services for garbage and recycling in the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Service Area. The City of Port Alberni currently provides weekly garbage collection using an automated system. The collection is provided by City staff. The collection of household recycling is managed by the Regional District using a contracted collector. Bi-weekly recycling collection is a manual collection system.
Figure 3-3: City of Port Alberni Automated Side Load Garbage Collection Truck
8
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 66 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Under the City’s program, residents of Port Alberni must register for a wheeled garbage cart. The cart is the property of the City. To promote greater waste reduction, the automated collection program offers residents the flexibility to choose the size of garbage cart that will meet their needs. The fees charged to residents are as follows: $83 per year for an 80 litre container; $98 per year for a 120 litre container; and $200 per year for a 240 litre container.
Table 3-2: Residential Collection Services in the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Service Area
Community Census Curbside Collection Service
Population Households Households Garbage Recycling
City of Port Alberni 17,678 8,119 6,605 Yes Yes
Electoral Area A - Bamfield 243 132 - No No
Electoral Area B - Beaufort 443 199 - No No
Electoral Area D - Sproat Lake 2,173 774 - No No
Klehkoot FN - 6 - No No
Tse'shaht FN - 176 176 Yes Yes
Electoral Area E - Beaver Creek 2,873 1,189 996 No Yes
Ahahswinis - 54 54 Yes Yes
Electoral Area F - Cherry Creek 1,945 841 - No No
Alberni FN (IR 2) - 3 - No No
Treaty First Nations
Huu-ay-aht First Nation 87 38 38 Yes No
Uchucklesaht Tribe 5 1 - No No
Total 25,447 11,532 7,869
The collection program is regulated under Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Bylaw No. 4885 which prohibits the disposal of yard and garden waste. Yard and garden waste can be dropped off free of charge at the Alberni Valley Landfill. Although there has been no demand expressed for including this material in curbside collection, and disposal of it at the landfill is free, illegal dumping of yard waste still occurs in City of Port Alberni natural areas (particularly ravines) and on rural road-ends. City staff of Port Alberni indicate that including yard waste in an organics collection program would be a proactive measure to curb this practice/behaviour.
Residents of the four Electoral Areas located within the Alberni Valley are responsible for managing their household waste. Private haulers offer subscription collection services on a weekly and bi-weekly (every-other-week) basis to residents of Electoral Areas D, E, and F. Of the approximate 2,800 Electoral Area households, roughly a third take advantage of these services. Costs for this service are $215 per year for bi-weekly (every-other-week) collection, and $300 per year for weekly collection. Self haul of household waste to the Alberni Valley Landfill is likely more prevalent for Sproat Lake (EA ‘D’) and Beaver Creek (EA ‘E’) residents given their proximity to the Landfill.
9
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 67 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
The 1,100 households located in Beaver Creek (EA ‘E’) receive bi-weekly curbside recycling collection. The service is managed by the Regional District using a contracted collector. Bi-weekly recycling collection is provided using a manual collection system.
Approximately 700 people reside on First Nation reserves within the Alberni Valley. The two largest Nations (Tseshaht and Hupačasath First Nations), with around 235 homes combined, each provide household waste collection to their on-reserve households. Each collects garbage on a weekly schedule. Both Nations are included in the Regional District’s contracted bi-weekly curbside recycling collection.
ICI Collection Services – Alberni Valley
Private sector waste hauling companies service the industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI) sector in the Alberni Valley. Sun Coast Waste Services, Nicklin Waste Disposal, Midland Waste, Waste Connections and Waste Management Canada represent five of the roughly eight companies providing garbage and recycling collection service to this sector. The City of Port Alberni also offers collection services for local businesses and organizations that produce amounts of garbage that can be collected weekly in the same 360L, 240L and 120L carts that the City provides to its residential customers.
Residential and ICI Collection Services – Bamfield
There is no curbside collection for residential waste and recyclables for Bamfield. Instead residents must self-haul their waste materials to the ACRD operated Bamfield Transfer Station. The Huu-ay-aht First Nation provides curbside collection services to Anacla Reserve and the Huu-ay-aht group of businesses located in Bamfield. The Bamfield Marine Science Centre provides solid waste management services for their facilities.
3.2.2 West Coast Service Area Residential Collection Services – West Coast
Table 3-3 outlines the current residential collection services for garbage and recycling in the West Coast Waste Service Area.
The ACRD provides curbside collection of residential garbage and recycling to 1,300 homes in Tofino, Ucluelet and Electoral Area ‘C’. The service is contracted out to a private hauler. Customers are provided a 120 litre garbage container which is collected weekly, and recycling bins are collected every-other-week. The fee charged to residents for this service is $115 per year.
The service in the West Coast is also regulated under ACRD Garbage and Recyclable Materials Collection Bylaw 1021 which prohibits the disposal of yard and garden waste. Yard and garden waste are accepted for free at the West Coast Landfill.
Toquaht First Nation provides both garbage and recycling collection to their residents.
10
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 68 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 3-3: Residential Collection Services in the West Coast Waste Service Area
Community Census Curbside Collection Service
Population Households Households Garbage Recycling
District of Tofino 1,932 755 Yes Yes
District of Ucluelet 1,717 737 1,287 Yes Yes
Electoral Area C - Long Beach 1,592 359 Yes Yes
Esowista - 29 - - -
Hesquiat - 3 - - -
Marktosis - 162 - - -
Opitsat - 46 - - -
Refuge Cove - 27 - - -
Treaty First Nations
Toquaht Nation 9 9 Yes Yes
Yuulu?il?ath Government - 86 - - -
Total 5,534 2,213 1,296
ICI Collection Services – West Coast
Private sector waste hauling companies provide waste collection service to the ICI sector in the West Coast. SonBird Refuse and Disposal and Ucluelet Rent It Centre represent two of the roughly five companies providing garbage collection and recycling service to this sector.
3.3 Residual Management System
3.3.1 Alberni Valley & Bamfield Service Area Alberni Valley Landfill
The ACRD operates the Alberni Valley Landfill to dispose of municipal solid waste from the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Management Service Area. The landfill is located on land leased by the ACRD from the Crown, approximately five (5) km west of the City of Port Alberni and operates under Operational Certificate Number MR- 524 issued by the Ministry of Environment in 2004. While the landfill is under the jurisdiction of the ACRD, daily landfill operations are conducted by Berry & Vale Contracting Ltd, under contract to the ACRD.
The site is regulated under Alberni Valley Landfill Tipping Fee and Regulation Bylaw No. 1027. This bylaw prohibits the disposal of corrugated cardboard, stewardship materials, metal, tires and yard and garden waste. The tipping fee for garbage is $120 per tonne. There is no charge for yard and garden waste.
11
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 69 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 3-4: Alberni Valley Landfill Drop-off Depot
Bamfield Transfer Station
The ACRD provided solid waste and recycling services to Electoral Area A – Bamfield through the operation of the Bamfield Transfer Station. Huu-ay-aht First Nation provided solid waste management services to Anacla Reserve and the Huu-ay-aht group of businesses located in Bamfield. The Bamfield Marine Science Centre contracted out solid waste management services for their facilities. In 2018, the three service providers created the Bamfield Waste Partnership to combine services for efficiency and reduced costs.
In July 2018, the ACRD awarded a two-year contract to provide hauling services for the East Side (Bamfield) Transfer Station, the Bamfield Marine Science Centre, the Huu-ay-aht Government Businesses and Anacla Reserve. All waste collected from these sites is transferred to the Alberni Valley Landfill.
Figure 3-5: Bamfield Transfer Station
12
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 70 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
2018 Financial Plan
As indicated in Table 3-4, the current financial plan for the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Management Service combines curbside collection services with residual management services. Except for the tax requisition to fund the Bamfield Transfer Station, the service is funded almost entirely from fees and charges. If curbside garbage and recycling collection is excluded from the financial plan, roughly 80% of revenue to fund residual management is obtained from tipping fees. However, recognizing that prior year surplus typically represents tipping fee revenue, this percentage increased to 97%. This means that organics diversion will have an impact on system costs and tipping fees will need to be adjusted accordingly.
Table 3-4: Alberni Valley & Bamfield Waste Management 2018 Financial Plan
Alberni Valley & Bamfield 2018 Revenue
Prior Year Surplus $383,992
Tax Requisition $79,868
Fees & Charges
Curbside Garbage and/or Recycling $8,640
Tipping Fees $1,900,000
Grants $1,000
Recycle BC $320,000
Other $25,000
Total Revenue $2,718,500
Expenditures
Administration $64,000
Bamfield Transfer Station $80,000
Capital Fund Contribution $650,000
Closure & Post Closure Fund Contribution $120,000
Labour Related Costs $138,000
Promotion & Education $62,500
Recycle, Reduce, Reuse (includes collection) $476,000
Residual Waste Management $1,128,000
Total Expenditures $2,718,500
13
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 71 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
3.3.2 West Coast Service Area West Coast Landfill
The West Coast Landfill is located adjacent to Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, between the Districts of Tofino and Ucluelet. The site is owned by the ACRD and the daily operations are conducted by Berry & Vale Contracting Ltd., under contract to the ACRD. The site is regulated under West Coast Landfill Tipping Fee and Regulation Bylaw No. 1028. This bylaw prohibits the disposal of corrugated cardboard, stewardship materials, metal, tires and yard and garden waste. The tipping fee for garbage is $120 per tonne. There is no charge for yard and garden waste.
Figure 3-6: West Coast Landfill
2018 Financial Plan
As indicated in Table 3-5, the current financial plan for the West Coast Waste Management Service combines curbside collection services with residual management services. If curbside garbage and recycling collection is excluded from the financial plan, roughly 49% of revenue to fund residual management is obtained from tipping fees. However, recognizing that prior year surplus typically represents tipping fee revenue, this percentage increases to 88%. This means that organics diversion will have an impact on system costs and tipping fees will need to be adjusted accordingly.
14
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 72 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 3-5: West Coast Waste Management 2018 Financial Plan
West Coast 2018
Revenue
Prior Year Surplus $394,045
Tax Requisition $114,955
Fees & Charges
Curbside Garbage and/or Recycling $120,000
Tipping Fees $490,000
Grants $2,000
Recycle BC $50,000
Other $ -
Total Revenue $1,171,000
Expenditures
Administration $29,000
Bamfield Transfer Station
Capital Fund Contribution $110,000
Closure & Post Closure Fund Contribution $92,000
Labour Related Costs $38,000
Promotion & Education $20,000
Recycle, Reduce, Reuse (includes collection) $184,000
Residual Waste Management $698,000
Total Expenditures 1,171,000
3.4 Waste Characterization
Municipal solid waste (MSW) encompasses materials disposed of in regular garbage streams by the residential or ICI sector. This section seeks to quantify the tonnages and composition of MSW in the ACRD to identify the portion of the waste stream that is suitable for organics collection and composting.
3.4.1 Waste Disposal Alberni Valley & Bamfield Service Area
The Alberni Valley and Bamfield service area encompasses the majority of the regional district’s population and corresponding waste generation. In 2018, a total of 16,962 tonnes of waste was disposed at the Alberni Valley Landfill. Most of the waste is generated by the residential sector (45.6%) followed by the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector (36.8%), and the construction, renovation, and demolition (CR&D) sector (17.5%).
15
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 73 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 3-7 shows that the distribution of disposal between the different sectors is relatively stable in the Alberni Valley Landfill.
Figure 3-7: Tonnages Disposed at Alberni Valley Landfill 2013-2018
Table 3-6 shows the breakdown of waste hauling in the Alberni Valley. Commercial haulers comprise the majority of waste hauling, with approximately a third represented by self-haul or municipal curbside collection.
Table 3-6: Alberni Valley Landfill – Tonnage by Hauler Type
Hauler Type Material Received at Alberni Valley Landfill (tonnes) Average (%) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Self-Haul (Cash) 1,015 1,080 1,247 1,311 1,138 8.3%
Municipal Curbside 2,699 2,730 2,808 2,897 2,960 20.2%
Commercial Haulers 9,783 9,901 10,212 10,208 9,887 71.5%
Sub-Total 13,497 13,712 14,268 14,415 13,985 100%
West Coast Service Area
While the West Coast contains fewer permanent residents than the Alberni Valley & Bamfield area, it hosts large numbers of tourists and temporary residents, as it is a prominent tourist destination. This reflects in the waste disposal data, as the 5,925 tonnes disposed in 2018 were primarily composed of ICI sector waste (60.2%) followed by CR&D (23.4%), and residential (15.4%). Figure 3-8 highlights the disposal variability in the CR&D sector over the past five years, as well as the steady increase in disposal from the ICI sector.
16
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 74 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 3-8: Tonnages Disposed at West Coast Landfill 2013-2018
Table 3-7 shows disposal trends from another angle, highlighting the vast proportion of waste on the West Coast being hauled by commercial haulers, with small proportions either self-hauled or picked up by municipal haulers.
Table 3-7: West Coast Landfill – Tonnage by Hauler Type
Hauler Type Material Received at West Coast Landfill (tonnes) Average (%) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Self-Haul (Cash) 260 276 338 329 295 7.2%
Municipal Curbside 597 689 670 708 593 15.5%
Commercial Haulers 2,821 3,026 3,308 3,447 3,598 77.3%
Sub-Total 3,678 3,991 4,316 4,484 4,485 100%
3.4.2 Waste Composition This section outlines the estimated waste composition with respect to organics for the ACRD. Since the ACRD has not previously completed a waste composition study, this report will use waste composition data from a variety of other jurisdictions selected for geographical and collection program similarities. The composition data shown in Table 3-8 highlights that compostable organics typically comprise 31% – 36% of the waste stream in relevant jurisdictions, with the food waste representing the largest constituent at 20% – 24%.
17
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 75 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 3-8: Municipal Solid Waste Stream Composition in Relevant Jurisdictions
Category Average Southern Comox Valley RD BC Mainland Average Vancouver Island Composition Composition1 Composition
Food Waste 22.2% 20.2% 24.1% 22.2%
Yard Waste 2.6% 4.7% 3.1% 3.5%
Clean Wood Waste 2.3% 0.8% 2.5% 1.9%
Compostable Paper 4.1% 4.1% 5.8% 4.7%
Total Organics 31.2% 29.8% 35.5% 32.2% 1 Average of jurisdictions without organics collection
3.4.3 Available Organic Waste As described in Section 3.4.2, there are significant amounts of organics present in waste disposed in landfills. The predominant sectors with organic waste are the residential and ICI sectors where food and yard waste are mostly generated. However, clean wood waste from the CR&D sector can be chipped and mixed into compost. Figure 3-9 shows that approximately 4,200 – 4,900 tonnes of organics annually are present in the residential and ICI waste streams in the Alberni Valley and Bamfield service area. Figure 3-10 highlights an estimated 1,100 – 1,350 tonnes of organics annually are present in the residential and ICI waste streams in the West Coast Service Area.
Figure 3-9: Available Organics in Alberni Valley and Bamfield Service Area Waste Stream
18
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 76 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 3-10: Available Organics in West Coast Service Area Waste Stream
Estimated available organics by service area.
. Alberni Valley & Bamfield: 4,200 to 4,900 tonnes per year
. West Coast: 1,100 to 1,350 tonne per year
4.0 COLLECTION OPTIONS
4.1 Organic Waste Disposal Bans
The environmental benefits associated with composting organic wastes, has prompted numerous municipalities and regional districts in BC to implemented policies and programs to divert these materials from their landfills to organics processing facilities.
In 2005 two regional districts on Vancouver Island (Regional District of Nanaimo and Cowichan Valley Regional District), introduced bans on the disposal of commercial organic wastes to reduce GHG emissions, preserve landfill capacity and reduce waste disposal costs. Residential collection programs followed roughly 5-7 years later in both of these regional districts. In 2015 the Capital Regional District and Metro Vancouver implemented organics disposal bans from both the commercial and residential sectors.
Based on the success of these disposal bans, in 2016 the Ministry of Environment updated their provincial goals for waste reduction and diversion to include support for organic waste disposal restrictions as shown on Figure 4-1.
19
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 77 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 4-1: Provincial Targets for Waste Diversion and Disposal
•75% recovery of materials covered by extended producer responsibility programs EPR
•75% of BC's population covered by organic waste disposal restrictions Organics
•Lower the provincial MSW disposal rate to 350 kg per capita Disposal
In 2018 the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Squamish Lillooet Regional District and the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine also introduced organic disposal restrictions. As a result, in 2018 roughly 75% of the population of BC is covered by an organic waste disposal ban.
Organics diversion is integral to meeting the provincial waste disposal target. As indicated on Figure 4-2, in 2016, the average disposal rate in 2016 was 472 kg per capita, however regional districts that divert organic wastes from disposal have the lowest disposal rates.
20
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 78 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 4-2: Regional District MSW Disposal Rates 2016 900
800 Disposal Rate BC Average Disposal Rate 700
600
500
400
waste in kg/capita 300
200
100
0 MV RDN SLRD RDKS SCRD CSRD CSRD RDEK FVRD RDCK RDKB CCRD CVRD ACRD RDOS TNRD NRRD RDBN CORD RDNO Peace RDFFG Capital MWRD Powell Cariboo
Disposal bans (for materials such as recyclables and organics) represent a low-cost policy tool that requires waste generators and waste collection companies to separate and divert recycle/compost specific materials from disposal. It is important to note that disposal bans would only be implemented when alternative processing options are readily available (e.g. cardboard, metal, yard waste).
ACRD landfill and tipping fee regulation bylaws currently prohibit the disposal of corrugated cardboard, gypsum, metals, product stewardship materials, tires, and yard and garden waste. Expanding the list of prohibited materials to include kitchen scraps such as food waste and soiled paper is a natural progression that will result in significantly more diversion than voluntary measures.
Disposal bans are typically enforced at the point of disposal (i.e. at transfer stations and landfills) through the application of significant surcharges on loads found to contain banned materials. To ensure sustained success, disposal bans may require the local government to work closely with waste generators (such as commercial waste haulers and their customers) in the design, start up and on-going maintenance of this policy. The following approach to implementing a disposal ban was followed by the ACRD when cardboard was banned from disposal in 2016:
1. Regulate (decision to ban a waste stream (with a readily available alternative) from landfilling)
2. Collaborate (work with affected stakeholders to determine the timing for implementation and ramp up of enforcement measures)
3. Educate (make sure all haulers and waste generators are aware of the upcoming new disposal ban, and plan to communicate regularly)
4. Enforce (enforce the disposal ban at the point of disposal).
21
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 79 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Many regional districts have discovered that resources to enforce a disposal ban is short-term and minimal if adequate up-front collaboration with waste haulers, supported by effective education of waste generators, results in diversion becoming “business-as-usual”. In effect, waste haulers could take on the role as the enforcement officer since the implementation of a disposal ban provides them with the justification to increase service levels if they can provide more cost-effective collection options to their customers.
Metro Vancouver (MV) refined this approach with the introduction of their food scraps disposal ban in January 2015. From 2012-2013, MV planned their organics diversion strategy in collaboration with stakeholders and then released their implementation strategy in 2014. The strategy was based on a phased implementation approach as illustrated on Figure 4-3. Although the ban was effective January 2015, the first six months was established as an education period with no surcharge on tipping fees. However, from July to December 2015, if a hauler arrived with a load at a transfer station or disposal facility containing more than 25% food scraps, a 50% surcharge would be applied to their tipping fee. This 25% threshold was reduced to 10% in 2016 and then down to 5% in 2017.
Figure 4-3: Metro Vancouver Organics Disposal Ban Phased Implementation
MV retained contracted enforcement staff at their facilities to inspect incoming loads for food waste. Most regional districts use their own staff to enforce disposal bans on a wide range of materials. This is because, as discussed above, enforcement activity is usually short-term while waste generators and haulers adjust to new waste management practices and behaviours.
Consequently, a disposal ban on residential and commercial organics should be considered as an important back- stop to all organic waste diversion service options identified in this report.
22
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 80 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
4.2 Organic Waste Collection Programs in Comparable Jurisdictions
4.2.1 Program Design Considerations Issues to consider when planning to introduce organics collection include “program design” (collection type and frequency), strategies to encourage uptake and participation in organics diversion, and the financial implications of introducing a new collection stream to the system.
Program design considerations include whether the collection is manual or semi/fully automated, weekly or biweekly, and if limits are placed on amounts set out at the curb. Experience in most jurisdictions that have introduced organics collection would suggest that collecting organics weekly and garbage bi-weekly greatly assists in building participation for organics diversion. Some program managers have used the introduction of organics collection as the impetus for wholesale program change; switching collection frequencies, phasing out manual collection by moving to cart-based semi/automated collection, or expanding collection to include recycling or yard waste.
Limiting the amount of garbage collected at the curb is an effective strategy to encourage participation in recycling and organics diversion; in effect compelling use of the blue box and organics containers. When done in tandem with reduced garbage collection frequency, program managers have seen an impressive uptake in diversion (+30% reduction is disposal rate).
Collecting organics at the curb will have financial implications for the local government and the resident. These can include added collection costs if additional collection vehicles are required, costs to provide curbside containers (carts), and organics tipping/transfer/processing fees. The cost to tip garbage may go down, which can offset some of the collection costs, however this does result in reduced revenue for the landfill operations side of the equation. Offering different sized containers, particularly for garbage, is a feature of some programs which requires variable collection fees to be charged. This usually requires a higher level of administration to track container sizes for each residence, and for the billing process.
In preparing this report, Tetra Tech conducted a review of ten existing residential organics collection programs focusing on Vancouver Island jurisdictions. The programs represent collection of food waste only, food and yard waste combined, manual collection, and semi or fully automated collection systems.
4.2.2 Food Waste Only Programs Manual Collection
Residential food waste only collection typically is a manual Figure 4-4: Curbside Recycling and collection system because the weekly collection weights average Organics around 2.5 kg per household. This level of service is most often provided by municipalities that do not already have a yard waste collection in place, or for municipalities where yard waste collection is not a priority.
This report examines the manual collection services offered to residents in the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN), Town of Ladysmith, and District of North Cowichan (Table 4-1). Each of these programs schedules weekly collection of food waste, with garbage and recycling collected on alternate bi-weeks. Residents are required to use a 48 litre “green bin” for their curbside set-out.
23
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 81 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-1: Manual Collection Programs – Food Waste Only
Program Households Container Sizes: Collection Average Amount Collected By: Location Serviced Garbage/Organics Frequency: Collected (litres) G / R / O FW/HH/Yr (kg) RDN 29,880 100 / 48 EOW / EOW / W 112 G+R+O = Contractor Ladysmith 3,450 100 / 48 EOW / EOW / W 125 G+R+O = Contractor G+O = Municipal North Cowichan 10,640 77 / 48 EOW / EOW / W 100 R = Contractor
Ladysmith and the RDN contract out their collection services to the private sector who in each instance utilise split- body side-load trucks with a 60-40 or 70-30 split. The District of North Cowichan collects garbage and food waste with municipal staff while recycling is collected by contractor.
Figure 4-5: Split Truck for Collecting Multiple Figure 4-6: Operators Collecting Curbside Material Streams Organics
The residential utility costs for collection varies depending on the organics processor and the individual community’s landfill tipping fees for garbage. For these three programs, the 2017 annual all-inclusive utility fees ranged from $88 (North Cowichan) to $144 (Regional District of Nanaimo) to $168 (Town of Ladysmith).
24
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 82 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Automated Collection
The City of Victoria provides residents with backyard collection service of garbage Figure 4-7: Curbside and food waste every two weeks. Residents are provided with a standard 120 litre Organics Collection wheeled cart for food waste, and have a choice of 80, 120 or 180 litres wheeled cart for garbage.
City staff enter private property each collection day and wheel the carts to the street where they are connected to the lifting mechanism and tipped into the truck (which is a split body). The carts are left at the curb for residents to reclaim and return to their backyards. This type of system, with a worker required to position the carts on the lift mechanism (aka the tipper), is called semi-automated collection.
The annual residential utility fee ranges from $192 to $257 depending on the size of garbage cart.
Table 4-2: Automated Collection – Food Waste Only
Program Location Households Container Sizes: Collection Average Amount Collected By: Serviced Garbage/Organics Frequency: Collected (litres) G / R / O FW/HH/Yr (kg) City of Victoria 14,000 80-120-180 / 120 EOW / EOW / 155 G+O = Municipal EOW R = Contractor
Self-Haul
The qathet Regional District (formerly Powell River Regional District) does not provide any curbside collection service and ships all the waste received at its transfer station to Washington State at considerable expense. To reduce the costs of waste transfer and to divert compostable material from landfill, the Regional District has established a food waste drop-off depot which is accessible by Electoral Area residents, City or regional district residents, and businesses. The collected material is transferred to a composting facility in the Sunshine Coast Regional District. The operating and transfer costs were not available.
Table 4-3: Self-Haul Collection Food Waste Only
Program Location Households Container Sizes: Collection Average Amount Collected By: Serviced Garbage/Organics Frequency: Collected (litres) G / R / O FW/HH/Yr (kg) qathet Regional 9,400 n/a n/a 14 kg/capita/yr n/a District
4.2.3 Food and Yard Waste Programs Manual Collection
Two curbside collection programs on Vancouver Island collect combined food and yard waste from residents as part of their manual collection systems: The Village of Cumberland, and the Town of Comox.
25
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 83 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-4: Manual Collection Food & Yard Waste
Program Location Households Container Sizes: Collection Average Amount Collected By: Serviced Garbage/Organics Frequency: Collected (litres) G / R / O F&YW/HH/Yr (kg)
Village of 1,610 77 / 77 EOW / EOW / W 250 (calculated) G+R+O = Cumberland Contractor Town of Comox 5,545 121 / 77 W / EOW / W 325 G+R+O = Contractor
Prior to implementing food waste collection in 2013, each program included bagged yard waste collection in their curbside collection services. Food waste was added to the yard waste as part of a pilot program with Comox Strathcona Waste Management in 2013. At the same time residents were no longer able to set out yard waste in Kraft bags but had to use a dedicated organics container. In each program residents provide their own organics container up to a 77 litre capacity. Decals to identify the containers are available from the respective municipal offices. Figure 4-8: Example To encourage organics diversion, Cumberland redesigned their collection program to Organics Bin collect organics weekly, and garbage and recycling on alternating bi-weeks. As with the organics, residents are required to provide their own 77 litre garbage container, and a suitable container for recyclables. The annual utility fee for the curbside collection program is $94. The collection is performed by a contractor (Sun Coast Waste Services).
Comox has retained the weekly garbage and organics collection schedule, with recycling collected bi-weekly. In addition to the organics container, residents are required to provide their own garbage container (to a maximum 121 litre size), and to purchase a blue box for recycling. The annual utility fee for the Comox program is $210. The collection is performed by a contractor (Emterra Environmental).
Automated Collection
Two of Vancouver Island’s larger municipalities operate automated collection of residential food and yard waste: City of Nanaimo, and District of Saanich.
Figure 4-9: Example Organics Bin for Until October 2017, residential collection was handled manually in the Automated Collection City of Nanaimo. The program was similar to that provided by the District of North Cowichan with a 77 litre garbage container, 48 litre green bin for food waste only, and large re-usable poly bags for recycling. Starting in October 2017 the City phased in their new collection system which switched to automated collection using wheeled carts and expanded organics to include yard waste.
Residents are provided with a standard 120 litre cart for organics and have the choice of a 120 or 240 litre for garbage, and a 240 or 360 litre cart for recycling. Organics is collected weekly, with garbage and recycling collected on the alternate bi-weeks. Depending on the size
26
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 84 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
of garbage cart chosen, the annual utility fee ranges from $165 to $ $265.
The District of Saanich collection program provides residents with an array of cart sizes to choose from for their mixed food and yard waste, and garbage collection. Organics containers are 80, 120 or 240 litres, while garbage cart choices are 120 or 180 litres. Collection of recycling is provided by the Capital Regional District.
Organics and garbage are collected every two weeks, in separate trucks. The annual utility fee ranges between $175 and $232 depending on the size of garbage cart.
Figure 4-10: City of Nanaimo and Saanich Organics Collection
Table 4-5: Automated Collection Food & Yard Waste
Program Location Households Container Sizes: Collection Average Amount Collected By: Serviced Garbage/Organics Frequency: Collected (litres) G / R / O F&YW/HH/Yr (kg) City of Nanaimo 28,000 120-240 / 120 EOW / EOW / W 200+ (estimate - G+R+O = program is new) Municipal District of Saanich 32,000 120-180 / 80-120- EOW / EOW / 285 G+O = Municipal 240 EOW R = Contractor
Program Utility Fees
As outlined for each of the programs reviewed and illustrated in Table 4-6, garbage and organics collection program utility fees vary. Factors influencing the utility fee include the tipping fees charged for both garbage and organics, the size of containers utilised, the capital costs to purchase and provide the containers to residents, the capital costs for collection vehicles, the geographic spread of the collection area, and whether the program is manual or automated.
27
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 85 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-6: Summary of Programs and Utility Fees
Program Location Households Collection Type Organics = Collected By: Annual Utility Serviced FW or F&YW Fee RDN 29,880 Manual Food G+R+O = $144 Contractor Ladysmith 3,450 Manual Food G+R+O = $168 Contractor District of North 10,640 Manual Food G+O = Municipal $88 Cowichan R = Contractor Village of 1,610 Manual Food & Yard G+R+O = $94 Cumberland Contractor Town of Comox 5,545 Manual Food & Yard G+R+O = $210 Contractor qathet RD (Powell 9,400 Self-haul to Drop Off Food Self-Haul - River) City of Victoria 14,000 Semi-Automated Food G+O = Municipal $192 - $257 R = Contractor City of Nanaimo 28,000 Automated Food & Yard G+R+O = $165 - $265 Municipal District of Saanich 32,000 Automated Food & Yard G+O = Municipal $175 - $232 R = Contractor
4.2.4 ICI Food Waste Collection Programs As discussed in Section 4.1, a disposal ban on residential and commercial organics should be considered as an important back-stop to all organic waste diversion service options identified in this report. While the residential collection options identified in the above sections do not necessarily require the ACRD to implement a landfill disposal ban, a disposal ban is one of the only tools available to stimulate organic waste diversion from the ICI sector.
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 provide actual data on the quantity of organic waste diverted from a range of residential collection programs. However, data on tonnes of food waste diverted as a result of a commercial organics ban is limited. This is because most regional districts have implemented bans on organic wastes from both sectors and the data is difficult to separate.
However, the Regional District of Nanaimo has over ten years of data on food waste diverted from the commercial sector. Based on this data, it is reasonable to expect that a commercial food waste ban would divert roughly 30 kg per capita annually.
Table 4-7 provides an estimate of food waste that could be diverted from the commercial sector under a disposal ban in the ACRD. This estimate is based on the population equivalent for the West Coast and not direct census data.
28
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 86 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-7: Food Waste Capture Estimate from the Commercial Sector
Service Area Population Food Waste (Tonnes) Bamfield 243 7
Alberni Valley 25,204 756
West Coast 10,059 302
Total 35,506 1,065
4.3 Collection Options for ACRD Service Areas
The following Section 4.3 provides collection options for the ACRD service areas. All options assume that the ACRD will implement a disposal ban on commercial sector food waste. Options for residential waste are more varied and nuanced. As per the ACRD request, three collection options are presented for each of the three service areas.
In terms of calculating the amount of organics collected from the ICI and residential sectors, the following assumptions were made. For the ICI sector, as discussed in Section 4.2.4 above, 30 kg per capita was assumed. With regards the residential sector, assumptions were based on the organic waste capture rates reported by other jurisdictions with existing programs. For self-haul of residential organics, 30 kg per household per year was used, while 115 kg per household per year was used for estimating curbside collection quantities. Yard waste collection does not impact the GHG reduction estimates, and collection of this material may only make sense for the City of Port Alberni service area. If it is collected at the curb, the amount of yard waste is assumed to be 275 kg per household per year.
The review of other jurisdictions collection programs (Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) shows that residential user fees for collection vary. Manual collection tends to result in a lower utility fee than automated collection programs. For estimating additional costs or new service levels for the ACRD options outlined below, an average of the other jurisdictions’ user fees has been used. Manual collection of residential garbage and food waste has been calculated at $154 per household per year. Automated collection has been calculated at $215 per household per year
Given that yard waste is currently not subject to landfill disposal, the diversion and GHG reduction estimates for each option are limited to food waste only. Estimates were derived from the Ministry of Environment Climate Change Strategy B.C. Biogas & Composting Plant Greenhouse Gas Calculation Tool. This tool was developed for use in the Organics Infrastructure Program. For the Alberni Valley and Bamfield service area a growth rate of 1% was assumed. For the West Coast an annual growth of 3% was assumed. The calculation tool provides an estimate of average yearly GHG reductions in CO2 equivalent (CO2e).
4.3.1 Bamfield Service Area Three options are provided for consideration.
Option 1: Commercial Disposal Ban + Transfer
Under Option 1, a disposal ban on organics is implemented for the commercial sector only. It is anticipated that the waste generators would contract collection or self-haul it to the Bamfield transfer station from where it would be transferred to the Alberni Valley for processing. This would divert an estimated seven tonnes of food waste organics from the commercial sector which would reduce GHG emissions from the Alberni Valley Landfill by 15 tonnes CO2e.
29
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 87 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Given that collection is provided by private haulers, collection cost estimates are not available at this time. Residential organics would not be included in this option.
Option 2: Commercial & Residential Disposal Ban + Transfer
Under Option 2, organics disposal from all sources (residential and commercial sectors) would be subject to a disposal ban. As with Option 1, the commercial sector would contract collection or self-haul to the transfer station. Residents would be required to manage their food waste by composting or by taking it to the transfer station. An additional four tonnes of residential organics would be added to the seven tonnes of organics available from the commercial sector for a total of 11 tonnes. This would reduce GHG emissions from the Alberni Valley Landfill by 23 tonnes Co2e. Collection cost estimates for residents would depend on how they choose to handle their organics and could range from no cost if self hauling, to $100 if installing an in-home Bokashi composting system.
The organics would be transferred to the Alberni Valley for processing.
Option 3: Commercial & Residential Disposal Ban + On-site Processing
Option 3 proposes an organics disposal ban for the residential and commercial sectors, with organics coming to the transfer station by way of contracted collection or self-hauling (as per Option 2). A small composting facility located at the transfer station would be able to process the material.
As with Option 2 above, 11 tonnes of organics would be diverted from landfill, for a reduction in GHG emissions of 23 tonnes CO2e. Residents would be responsible for transporting their organics to the transfer station (in all likelihood at the same time as taking their garbage and recycling), and the commercial sector would be serviced by the private sector (or self-hauled) at their cost. Table 4-8 summarizes the environmental and financial implications of these options.
Table 4-8: Bamfield Service Area Collection Options Summary
Option Description Diversion GHG Current Additional Tonnes Tonnes Annual Costs Annual Costs CO2e ICI: 15 ICI: 7 ICI Disposal Ban + Transfer to Alberni RES: 0 Option 1 RES: 0 NA NA Valley Transfer: -2 Total: 7 Total: 13 ICI: 15 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban + Transfer ICI: 7 RES: 8 NA Option 2 to Alberni Valley RES: 4 NA Transfer: -2 $0-$100 Total: 11 Total: 21 ICI: 7 ICI: 15 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Option 3 RES: 4 RES: 8 NA NA On-Site Processing Total: 11 Total: 23
4.3.2 Alberni Valley Service Area For the existing residential collection programs in the ACRD, the City of Port Alberni curbside garbage collection program is an automated system. The City owns a fleet of three split body trucks with mechanical lifting arms. Residents are provided with wheeled carts that are compatible with the lifting mechanism. With this type of system
30
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 88 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
already in place, and the smallest compatible container being 120 litres, collecting both food and yard waste should be considered. The City budgets an average of $104 per household per year to provide the service.
Manual collection of garbage is available to residents of Electoral Areas D, E, and F from private haulers (subscription collection) and First Nations communities by way of a Band provided service.
Option 1: Commercial Disposal Ban + Voluntary Residential Collection for City of Port Alberni
Option 1 for the Alberni Valley proposes implementing an organics disposal ban for the commercial sector only. Under this option, the commercial sector would contract collection or generators would haul it themselves to a local processing facility. An estimated 756 tonnes of food waste would be diverted, which would reduce GHG emissions from the Alberni Valley Landfill by 1,571 tonnes CO2e. Given that collection is provided by private haulers, collection cost estimates are not available at this time.
This option proposes the City of Port Alberni, which has already purchased suitable collection vehicles, would expand its current curbside garbage collection service to include food and yard waste. Under this scenario, the 6,605 households would divert an estimated 760 tonnes of food waste from landfill, further reducing GHG emissions by an estimated 1,579 tonnes CO2e (for a total of 3,150 tonnes CO2e). The residential user fee charged for this service would increase depending on the service level implemented by the City. Weekly collection of organics would add an estimated $55 to the current user fee, whereas bi-weekly organics collection would add $27.
Residents of the Electoral Areas and First Nations communities would not be required to change how they manage their organics.
Option 2: Commercial & Residential Disposal Ban – Electoral Areas “Out”
Under Option 2, an organics disposal ban is put in place for both commercial and residential organics. As with Option 1, the commercial sector would contract collection or generators would haul it themselves to a local processing facility. An estimated 756 tonnes of food waste would be diverted, which would reduce GHG emissions from the Alberni Valley Landfill by 1,571 tonnes CO2e.
The City of Port Alberni expands curbside garbage collection service to include food and yard waste for its 6,605 residents. The estimated 760 tonnes of food waste diverted would result in an estimated GHG emissions reduction of 1,579 tonnes CO2e at the landfill. The residential user fee for collection would increase between $27 and $55, depending on the service level in place.
Residents of the Electoral Areas and First Nations communities would be required to divert their organics from disposal. This can be achieved by the private haulers (who offer subscription collection service) expanding their service levels, or by residents taking organics to a local processing facility themselves. An estimated 105 tonnes of food waste wold be diverted via subscription, and an estimated 69 tonnes diverted by residents self-hauling it to the landfill. This would result in GHG emission reductions of an estimated 218 tonnes CO2e (from subscription collection food waste) and an estimated 137 tonnes CO2e (self-hauled food waste).
For those residents serviced by subscription haulers, the current costs for their garbage collection range from $205 (for bi-weekly collection) to $300 (for weekly collection). By adding food waste collection to that service, those costs are estimated to increase by $107 to $150 depending on the service level (weekly or bi-weekly collection).
Option 3: Commercial & Residential Ban – Electoral Areas “In”
Option 3 builds on Option 2 by extending residential curbside organics collection to the Electoral Area and First Nations residents. An organics disposal ban is put in place for both commercial and residential organics. An
31
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 89 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
estimated 756 tonnes of commercially-sourced food waste would be diverted, which would reduce GHG emissions from the Alberni Valley Landfill by 1,571 tonnes CO2e. The City of Port Alberni curbside collection service includes food and yard waste for its 6,605 residents. The estimated 760 tonnes of food waste diverted reduces an estimated 1,579 tonnes CO2e of GHG emissions at the landfill. The residential user fee for collection increase between $27 and $55, depending on the service level in place.
Under this option the Regional District would bring all electoral area households into a collection service by setting up and managing a contracted service to include garbage, recycling, and food waste collection for all single-family residences outside the City boundaries. An estimated 375 tonnes of food waste would be collected and diverted from landfill disposal, which would further reduce landfill GHG emissions by an estimated 779 tonnes CO2e.
The cost to provide this service is based on user fees charged for similar programs in other jurisdictions and does depend on whether collection is a manual lift system, or automated. A manual system is estimated to cost $154 per household per year, whereas an automated system could cost in the range of $215. For those customers currently subscribing to a local private service, this ACRD managed contracted service would replace their subscription costs, not add to them. Table 4-9 summarizes the environmental and financial implications of these options.
Table 4-9: Alberni Valley Service Area Summary of Collection Options
Option Description Diversion GHG Current Additional Tonnes Tonnes Annual Annual Costs CO2e Costs ICI: 756 ICI: 1,571 ICI Disposal Ban + Voluntary ICI: NA ICI: NA Option 1 Residential Collection for City of Port CPA: 760 CPA: 1,579 CPA: $104 CPA: $27-$55 Alberni Total: 1,516 Total: 3,150 ICI: 756 ICI: 1,571 ICI: NA CPA: 760 CPA: 1,579 ICI: NA ICI & Residential Disposal Ban CPA: $104 Option 2 EA: 105 EA: 218 CPA: $27-$55 Electoral Areas Out EA: $205- SH: 69 SH: 137 EA: $107-$150 $300 Total: 1,690 Total: 3,505 ICI: NA ICI: 756 ICI: 1,521 ICI: NA CPA: $27-$55 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban CPA: 760 CPA: 1,579 Option 3 CPA: $104 EA: Manual Electoral Areas In EA: 375 EA: 779 EA: $0-$300 $154 Total: 1,891 Total: 3,879 Auto: $215
4.3.3 West Coast Service Area The ACRD contracted program for West Coast residents is a manual system. While collection staff can handle properly sized containers containing both food and yard waste, the low volume of yard waste received at the West Coast landfill would indicate there is no need to collect this material at the curb. Introducing food waste only as part of curbside collection should be considered.
Option 1: Commercial Disposal Ban
Under Option 1, a disposal ban on organics is implemented for the commercial sector only. It is anticipated that the waste generators would contract collection or self-haul it to the West Coast landfill where the material will be composted on site. This would divert an estimated 302 tonnes of food waste from the commercial sector which would reduce GHG emissions from the West Coast Landfill by 640 tonnes CO2e. Given that collection is provided by private haulers collection cost estimates are not available at this time.
32
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 90 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Residential organics would not be included in this Option.
Option 2: Commercial & Residential Ban + Residential Self-Haul
Under Option 2, organics disposal from all sources (residential and commercial sectors) would be subject to a disposal ban, and organics collected would be composted at the West Coast landfill. As with Option 1, the commercial sector would contract collection or self-haul organics to the landfill which would see an estimated 302 tonnes diverted for an estimated GHG emission reduction of 640 tonnes CO2e.
Residents would be required to manage their organics by taking them to secure collection points or directly to the landfill. This would divert an estimated 40 tonnes of food waste, which in turn reduces landfill GHG emissions by an estimated 85 tonnes CO2e (for a total of 725 tonnes CO2e when added to the commercial diversion). Although setting up and managing secure collection points, along with transferring materials from those satellite sites to the landfill comes with costs, these have not been estimated at this time. Likewise, the cost to a resident to self haul their food waste to the landfill has not been calculated.
Option 3: Commercial & Residential Ban+ Residential Curbside Collection
Option 3 builds on Option 2 by extending the residential curbside collection to include residential food waste. As per Option 2, the commercial sector would contract collection or self-haul organics to the landfill, diverting an estimated 302 tonnes of food waste for an estimated GHG emission reduction of 640 tonnes CO2e.
Under this option, the Regional District would expand the current contracted collection service to include garbage, recycling, and food waste for all single-family residences. An estimated 148 tonnes of food waste would be diverted from landfill, with a commensurate GHG emission saving of an estimated 314 tonnes CO2e (for a total of 954 tonnes CO2e in GHG emission reduction).
The current user fee is $115 per household per year. Adding food waste collection to the current service contract would increase the annual residential user fee anywhere from $39 to $100. The estimated increase is based on user fees charged for similar programs in other jurisdictions and depends on the system in place. Table 4-10 summarizes the environmental and financial implications of these options.
Table 4-10: West Coast Service Area Summary of Collection Options
Option Description Diversion GHG Current Additional Tonnes Tonnes Annual Annual Costs Costs CO2e ICI: 302 ICI: 640 ICI: NA ICI: NA Option 1 ICI Disposal Ban RES: 0 RES: 0 RES: $115 RES: 0 Total: 302 Total: 640 ICI: 302 ICI: 640 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban ICI: NA ICI: NA Option 2 RES: 40 RES: 85 Residential Self-Haul RES: $115 RES: 0 Total: 342 Total: 725 ICI: NA ICI: 302 ICI: 640 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban ICI: NA RES: Option 3 RES: 148 RES: 314 Residential Curbside Collection RES: $115 Man $39 Total: 450 Total: 954 Auto: $100
33
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 91 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
4.3.4 Residential Collection Options Summary Table 4-11 summarizes the environmental implications of each of the nine options. The environmental impacts relate to tonnes of food waste diverted from landfill which saves landfill space as well as reduces greenhouse gas emission (expressed as tonnes of CO2e). The GHG emissions were calculated using the BC Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy (MOE) GHG Calculator developed for organics diversion. This differs slightly from ACRD’s existing landfill gas management reports, as the ACRD reports discuss methane emissions whereas the MOE calculator converts methane into standardized CO2e emissions.
Table 4-11: Summary of Annual Collection Options
Option Description Annual GHG Diversion Reduction (Tonnes) (Tonnes CO2e) Bamfield #1 ICI Disposal Ban + Transfer to Alberni Valley 7 13 Bamfield #2 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban + Transfer to Alberni Valley 11 21 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Bamfield #3 11 23 On-Site Processing
Alberni Valley #1 ICI Disposal Ban + Voluntary Residential Collection for City of Port Alberni 1,516 3,150 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Alberni Valley #2 1,690 3,505 Electoral Areas Out ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Alberni Valley #3 1,891 3,879 Electoral Areas In
West Coast #1 ICI Disposal Ban 302 640 ICI & Residential Disposal Ban West Coast #2 342 725 Residential Self-Haul ICI & Residential Disposal Ban West Coast #3 450 954 Residential Curbside Collection
Financial implications are somewhat more difficult to quantify. As discussed for each service area, the cost to generators will increase by different amounts depending on the option selected. With regard to the financial impact of these various options to the ACRD, the major implication will be reduced revenues from tipping fees at the Alberni Valley and West Coast Landfills.
Under all scenarios shown above, the amount of garbage requiring disposal will decrease by anywhere from seven to 3,879 tonnes per year, with a commensurate decrease in landfill tipping revenues. For the Alberni Valley and Bamfield, this equates to reduced annual revenues of $183,000 to $228,000 based on the current (2018) tip fee rate of $120/tonne. The lost revenue for the West Coast service area is estimated to range between $36,000 and $54,000 per year.
The cost of handling and processing the organic waste would be accounted for in an organics tipping fee that would be calculated by ACRD. This fee will be set once the preferred processing system has been chosen, designed and constructed.
34
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 92 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
To fully comprehend the financial implications of the reduction in garbage tipping fee revenue, along with expenditure changes to the solid waste budget associated with organics processing and transfer, the Regional District would need to include these new costs in the adopted 2019-2023 Financial Plan to determine whether tipping fees or taxes need to be increased to offset potential revenue loss. However, it is also recognized that organic waste diversion from landfill also saves space which has larger long-term cost benefit.
Social implications are also difficult to estimate given that the ACRD has not yet undertaken any public consultation.
4.4 Collection Options Comparison
The ranking proposed for each of the collection options presented is based on a qualitative ranking of low, medium and high of the evaluation criteria. Table 4-12 describes the criteria used to select the preferred options.
Table 4-12: Evaluation Criteria to Select Options
Criteria Description Environmental Diverting food waste from landfill preserves landfill capacity. Due to limited landfill Preserve landfill capacity capacity, this was one of the main justifications for implemented food waste diversion programs in the RDN, CVRD, CRD and Metro Vancouver. When food waste decomposes in a landfill it generates methane, a potent greenhouse Reduce GHG emissions gas. Diverting food waste from landfill reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Social Diverting food waste from landfill will be successful if programs are convenient and Public Support supported by both residents and businesses in the region. Diverting ICI food waste from landfill will be successful if private haulers are engaged in Hauler Support a collaborative manner to ensure that the implementation of landfill restrictions on food waste addresses hauler concerns and receives hauler support. Economic Cost Diverting food waste from landfill should be cost-effective. Ease of Implementation Diverting food waste from landfill should not be difficult to implement.
Using these criteria, the following tables provide a comparison of options for each of the three service areas. Given that the ACRD has not yet presented these options to the public, rankings for public support are to be determined (TBD) following a public consultation process.
35
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 93 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-13: Bamfield Service Area Options Comparison
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 ICI Disposal Ban + ICI & Residential Disposal Ban ICI & Residential Disposal Ban + On- Transfer + Transfer Site Processing Environmental Tonnes Per Year 7 11 11 Diversion Potential Moderate High High
Tonnes CO2e 15 23 23 GHG Reduction Moderate High High Social Public Support TBD TBD TBD Hauler Support High High Moderate Economic Cost Moderate Moderate High Ease of High High Moderate Implementation
Table 4-14: Alberni Valley Service Area Options Comparison
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 ICI Disposal Ban + CPA ICI & Residential Disposal Ban ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Residential Collection Electoral Areas “Out” Electoral Areas “In” Environmental Tonnes Per Year 1,516 1,690 1,891 Diversion Potential Low Moderate High
Tonnes CO2e 3,150 3,505 3,879 GHG Reduction Low Moderate High Social Public Support TBD TBD TBD Hauler Support High High Moderate Economic Cost Moderate High Moderate Ease of Moderate Moderate Moderate Implementation
36
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 94 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4-15: West Coast Service Area Options Comparison
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 ICI Disposal ICI & Residential Disposal Ban ICI & Residential Disposal Ban Ban Only Residential Self-Haul Residential Curbside Collection Environmental Tonnes Per Year 302 342 450 Diversion Potential Low Moderate High
Tonnes CO2e 640 725 954 GHG Reduction Low Moderate High Social Public Support TBD TBD TBD Hauler Support High Moderate High Economic Cost Low Moderate High Ease of High Low High Implementation
Without the benefit of a public consultation program in each of the service areas it is difficult a to make recommendation for preferred options. The selection of preferred collection options will also be impacted by the recommendation flowing from the organics processing scenarios discussed in the following sections.
Prior to further effort by the ACRD in advancing the collection options, the focus now shifts to the processing infrastructure assessment.
37
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 95 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
5.0 DESIGN CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING FACILITIES
Determining process design capacity is a key step in developing organics management options, as material flows fluctuate depending on seasonality and population growth, among other factors. This section outlines the required design capacity for the Alberni Valley and Bamfield, and West Coast Service Areas based on peak flows.
5.1 Food and Yard Waste
Food and yard waste generated by the residential and ICI sectors is the primary source of organic material in ACRD. Furthermore, these sources typically contain notable quantities of compostable paper (e.g. paper towel, napkins) that are disposed of along with food waste. These sources are significantly impacted by population growth with more people entailing higher generation, as well as seasonality throughout the year. Available organics presented in Section 3.4.3 were modified in this section to determine the peak organics flow.
Alberni Valley & Bamfield Service Area
The population growth in the Alberni Valley from 2011-2016 was very low and is expected to maintain a similar trajectory. Figure 5-1 shows the projected waste generation over the next 20 years (projections until year 2038) according to population growth.
Figure 5-1: Alberni Valley and Bamfield – Projected Waste Generation Over 20 Years
In addition to population growth, waste generation varies across seasons. Figure 5-2 highlights the variability of waste generation throughout the year with peaks in the summer months. It should be noted that there was an influx of contaminated soil in September 2017, leading to the second peak in waste generation.
38
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 96 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 5-2: Alberni Valley and Bamfield – Monthly Waste Generation in 2017
Figure 5-3 projection combines population growth, seasonality, and waste composition to determine peak organics flow from residential and ICI sources. It shows that a maximum of approximately 500 tonnes of food and yard waste per month could be expected to be generated in May 2038. This will inform facility designs, to ensure that any facility would be able to store, and process received organics during peak generation months.
Figure 5-3: Alberni Valley and Bamfield – Peak Monthly Organics Generation in 2038
West Coast Service Area
In contrast to the Alberni Valley population growth on the West Coast from 2011-2016 has been steady at approximately 3% annually. Figure 5-4 shows the projected waste generation over the next 20 years assuming similar population growth in that time. As Figure 5-4 shows, this has a significant influence on waste generation, almost doubling over the next 20 year period.
39
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 97 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 5-4: West Coast – Projected Waste Generation Over 20 Years
In addition to population growth, waste generation varies across seasons. Figure 5-5 highlights the variability of waste generation throughout the year with peaks in the summer months similar to the Alberni Valley.
Figure 5-5: West Coast – Monthly Waste Generation in 2017
Figure 5-6 projections combine population growth, seasonality, and waste composition to determine peak organics flow from residential and ICI sources in 2038. It shows that a maximum of approximately 300 tonnes of food and yard waste per month could be expected to be generated in July 2038. This will inform facility designs, to ensure that any facility would be able to store, and process received organics during peak generation months.
40
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 98 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 5-6: West Coast – Peak Monthly Organics Generation in 2038
5.2 Biosolids from Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Biosolids are another potential feedstock source for alternative technologies. Biosolids are produced as byproducts from wastewater treatment facilities that are anaerobically digested and thickened into a sludge. The District of Tofino recently completed its Stage 3 Liquid Waste Management Plan, which includes projections for residual biosolids production from a future treatment plant. In addition, there has been some preliminary interest in finding a beneficial use application for the residual biosolids, such as composting. Table 5-1 shows the estimated annual residual biosolids production from wastewater treatment plants across three jurisdictions.
Table 5-1: Projected Biosolids Production Per Capita Across Regional Districts
Residual Biosolids Production District of Tofino Capital Regional Squamish Lillooet Regional (kg/capita/year) District District
Dry Weight 29.8 20.3 25.4
Wet Weight1 149.1 101.7 126.8 1 Dewatered biosolids are assumed to be 80% moisture, 20% solids by weight
While both wet and dry weight data are presented, it is likely that any biosolids utilized for composting would be mostly dry due to logistical considerations. Furthermore, Table 5-2 shows the extrapolation of biosolids production across the populations serviced by the Alberni Valley and West Coast Landfills.
41
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 99 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5-2: Projected Biosolids Production for West Coast and Alberni Valley Landfills
Biosolids Production (tonnes/year)1 West Coast Alberni Valley Population Serviced 5,200 25,000 High 155.0 745.4 Medium 131.9 634.0 Low 105.8 508.7 1 https://tofino.civicweb.net/filepro/document/66272/2017-06-09%20Stage%203%20Report.pdf
5.3 Industrial Feedstocks (e.g. Fishery Waste)
Different industries operate within the ACRD who produce organic waste potentially suitable for composting operations. For example, ACRD and Tetra Tech have been in communication with a commercial fishery operating in Tofino that is currently piloting a waste water management project aiming to produce an organic sludge suitable for composting. Detailed information about the feedstock is currently unavailable, as the pilot project is still in development, but the operator estimates that approximately 2,000 – 3,000 lbs. (0.9 – 1.4 tonnes) per day of material will be generated. This leads to an estimated monthly generation of ~27 – 41 tonnes of organic sludge. A midpoint of 33 tonnes per month is included in Table 5-3 below.
It is worthwhile for the ACRD to consider feedstocks from industrial sources, as they typically have higher consistency in composition, leading to consistency in finished compost product. Additionally, higher tonnages received at composting facilities would reduce unit operating costs ($/tonne). However, it should be noted that feedstocks with high nitrogen content (e.g. fishery waste) would require corresponding quantities of bulking agent to manage the carbon-nitrogen ratio of the compost mixture.
5.4 Summary of Feedstocks
Appropriately determining the peak flow of organics feedstocks is integral to ensuring that developed organics management solutions will effectively serve the community into the future. This includes accounting for the growth and seasonal fluctuations of different waste streams, as well as the other required feedstocks to produce a viable finished product. In addition to biosolids and food and yard waste, there are opportunities to explore sources of organics from industrial operations such as the potential fishery feedstocks described in Section 5.3. Only preliminary information on these potential feedstocks was available at the time of writing.
Additionally, Section 6.1 discusses the appropriate balance of feedstocks to ensure an effective composting process and produce a quality finished compost. This equilibrium is approximately 1:1 biosolids and food waste to yard, wood, and compostable paper. Most composting operations require bulking agent (typically woodchips) to balance the quantities of food waste and biosolids collected. The amount of bulking agent required to augment collected organics was determined by utilizing the New Mexico Recycling Coalition/Organics Recycling Organization (NMORO) Composting Mixture Calculator. The NMORO calculator models key properties of a compost mixture based on input feedstocks.
The peak flows of organics material in the two service areas are shown in Table 5-3. An assumption of 75% maximum capture of compostable organics from municipal solid waste in the residential and ICI sectors was made when determining peak flow. It should also be noted that compostable paper is separated out from food and yard waste in Table 5-3, as it has different composting characteristics. Compostable paper (e.g. paper towels, napkins, soiled paper) typically accompanies food waste, and would be included as an acceptable material within programs designed to capture food waste.
42
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 100 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5-3: Maximum Organics Flow by Service Area
Service Area Maximum Flow of Organics (tonnes) Monthly Weekly Feedstock % Food Waste 246 57 39.9%
Yard, Wood Waste 77 18 12.5%
Compostable Paper 59 14 9.6% Alberni Valley and Bamfield Biosolids 62 14 10.1%
Required Bulking Agent 172 40 27.8%
Total 617 144 100.0%
Food Waste 153 36 46.1%
Yard & Wood Waste 113 26 34.0%
Compostable Paper 37 9 11.1% West Coast Biosolids 13 3 3.9%
Required Bulking Agent 16 4 4.9%
Total 332 77 100.0%
ACRD Total 949 221
Potential ICI Fisheries Waste 33 8
Additional Bulking Agent Required 33 8 West Coast Total with ICI 398 93
ACRD Total with ICI 1015 236
6.0 PROCESSING OPTIONS
6.1 Composting Process Overview
There are two general types of organic processing technologies –composting and anaerobic digestion. Both types utilize microbial degradation where microorganisms break down the organic fraction of MSW into valuable products (e.g. energy and soil amendment/compost). The following is a general description of a few common types of organic processing technologies.
Composting is a biological decomposition process that reduces organic material (in the presence of oxygen) to produce a peat-like humus. Composting processes can range from very simple pile systems, generally only suitable for composting yard and garden waste, to more complex self-contained systems that are capable of processing mixed organics.
Composting is utilized in many jurisdictions for processing food scraps, food soiled paper, yard and garden waste, animal by-products, manure, and biosolids. Composting generates heat which is used to destroy pathogens within the compost pile (i.e. heat is generated and used to reduce pathogen levels in the compost) provided a certain
43
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 101 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
duration and temperature is maintained. Composting is also often used after anaerobic digestion to produce a more stable and marketable organic rich compost.
Although different technologies may utilize different configurations, there are three basic phases to a composting process.
1. Pre-processing of the organic waste is usually implemented prior to the composting stage. Pre-processing may include particle size reduction, screening, and the addition of amendments. The goal of pre-processing is to create a more homogeneous input into the system, to extract contaminants (such as metals, plastics and glass) and to create a feedstock that has the necessary ratio of carbon to nitrogen. The addition of amendments is especially important, because there is little opportunity to alter the mix once the material has been incorporated into piles, laid in beds, or sealed in the compost vessel. Feedstock ‘recipes’ must therefore, be fairly consistent to allow for proper operation. Required equipment includes a grinder and/or shredder, screens (such as trommels), and mixing equipment (this may be combined with the grinder if the feedstock is soft enough).
2. The primary composting phase involves the actual breakdown of the material. Once the pre-processing is complete, the organic waste is loaded into the compost system (piles, vessels or beds). In the case of in-vessel systems, the sealed composting unit is then connected to the aeration and monitoring equipment. In covered aerated static pile systems, the piles are built over the aeration system, which may be a series of in-ground vents, or a network of air distribution piping. During this phase, the temperature, oxygen and moisture levels in the vessel are monitored and adjusted as needed to maintain the optimum operating conditions. Air and water may be introduced into the vessel via piping systems if the system requires additional air or moisture. Excess moisture may be drained off the compost and stored for later use in adding moisture to dry feedstock. Exhaust air is typically run through a biofilter and/or wet scrubber to minimize odours.
3. Once the material has finished in the primary Figure 6-1: Finished Compost composting phase, the material is stabilized and cured in windrows or static piles. During the stabilization phase, continued aeration is necessary to complete the composting process. Aeration may be achieved either by using a forced aeration system such as the system used in covered aerated static pile systems, or by turning the piles on a regular basis. During the curing phase, aeration is not required. Stabilization typically lasts 4-6 weeks and is a minimum requirement; curing can last an additional 4-6 weeks, or as long as is available. Many facilities store curing compost for 12 – 18 months after completion of the primary composting phase.
6.2 Passive Systems
Passive systems typically encompass the simplest forms of composting. At a fundamental level, they involve stacking organic materials into piles and then waiting for decomposition to take its course. Generally, materials would either be formed into a circular or oblong shape (static pile), or long thin piles (windrows). Once formed, passive systems rely on natural convection of air through the pile to provide oxygen to the decomposition process. These systems typically have the highest residency times of up to two years, depending on the material composting and climate.
44
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 102 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 6-1: Passive Composting
Advantages Disadvantages . Simplicity – minimal skills required by operator . Pathogen reduction temperatures not achieved . Low capital cost and operating cost . Extended time to produce compost product . Applicable to small volumes of leaf and yard waste . Not suited to food waste or biosolids composting . Exposure to rain, wind, and cold can be problematic unless in a covered environment
Figure 6-2: Static Pile Figure 6-3: Windrow
6.2.1 Turned Windrows or Piles Turned composting consists of placing the mixture of organic materials into piles, or windrows, which are turned on a regular basis. Turned windrows is the most common method of composting in North America. Typically, windrows are formed for this application, that are up to 2 m high for dense or tightly packed materials such as manures, and 3 to 4 m feet high for porous or less dense materials such as yard waste (leaves and branches). In colder climates, windrows can be taller and wider to reduce heat loss. The equipment used for turning these windrows determines the size, shape, and spacing of the windrows. Front-end bucket loaders or telescopic handlers with a long reach can build higher and wider windrows. Windrows formed with turning machines are sized based on the equipment design. Small pull-type turners form smaller windrows, while large self-propelled machines form 3 or 4 m piles with a base width of 6 m or more.
Windrows aerate primarily by natural or passive air movement (convection and gaseous diffusion). The rate of air exchange depends on the porosity of the windrow. Turning the rows mixes the materials, rebuilds the porosity of the windrow, and releases trapped heat, water vapor and gases. This type of compost technology is best suited to composting yard and garden waste. Windrow systems have been used for composting food waste if it is incorporated and covered with non-food substrates as it is received. Composting times can be expected to be six months or longer depending on feedstocks and climate
45
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 103 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure 6-4: Self-Powered Figure 6-5: Second Windrow Figure 6-6: Pulled Windrow Windrow Turner Turner Example Turner
Table 6-2: Windrow Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1
Advantages Disadvantages . Can handle feedstocks with lower Carbon to Nitrogen . Large land area required (C:N) ratios . More labor intensive that aerated static pile, particularly . Relatively-low capital costs and low technology for feedstock with low C:N ratio or porosity requirements (windrow turners, front-end loaders, or farm . Can be odourous, which may require larger buffer area equipment will suffice) between operation and neighbors . Can achieve pathogen reduction temperatures with . More challenges to overcome if food waste or biosolids careful management and monitoring of the pile are included due to increased odours and attraction of . Relatively low operating costs food waste to pests and wildlife . No electric power needed . Exposure to rain, wind, and cold can be problematic . Large amount of industry practical experience unless in a covered environment 1 Sourced from http://aep.alberta.ca/waste/reports-data/documents/LeafYardWasteDiversionStrategy-Aug2010.pdf
6.2.2 Passive Aeration A method of augmenting a passive composting system is by introducing aeration systems at the base of the compost pile. Perforated pipes are laid on the ground, as shown on Figure 6-7, where air flows into the pipe and then percolates upwards through the compost by convection. This aids in achieving aerobic conditions in the pile, as it reduces the likelihood of anaerobic pockets of material occurring throughout the pile. Passive aerated piles can still benefit from turning the piles to re-build porosity. However, these systems can still require significant composting periods (up to two years) and are not well-suited to process feedstocks with food waste or low C:N ratios.
Figure 6-7: Example of Passive Aeration
46
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 104 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 6-3: Passive Aeration Systems Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages . Low capital and operating costs . Not suitable for food waste, . Well-suited to small quantities of material . Odours can be problematic . No electric power needed . Pathogen reduction temperatures may not be well . Large amount of industry practical experience controlled . Not suitable for large quantities of material . Constructing piles overtop aeration systems can be complex . Exposure to rain, wind, and cold can be problematic unless under cover
6.3 Active Aeration Systems
Active aeration differs from the above described technologies in that air is forced through the composting pile using fans or blowers.
6.3.1 Aerated Static Pile This composting approach should have the composting area built on an impermeable surface such as a concrete or asphalt pad with a 2% grade to allow for leachate collection. Each pile can be equipped with a concrete floor with imbedded aeration channels or piping, or perforated pipe is placed on the compost pad and compost piles are built over top. The aeration pipes are connected to a blower equipped with a control system to moderate temperature and oxygen content in the pile. The control system tracks operating conditions to determine aeration rates, usually based on temperature feedback. Condensate and leachate are collected in the trench with drainage to a sump. Odour is managed by maintaining aerobic conditions in the pile and placing a cover of finished compost over the pile surface with positive air systems. With negative aeration systems, exhaust air is treated through a biofilter consisting of a wood chip and compost based medium (for negative air systems). The composting time for this type of system is typically three months with a curing stage of 3 to 6 months, depending on feedstocks and climate.
Figure 6-8: Aerated Static Pile Inside Bunker Walls
47
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 105 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 6-4: Aerated Static Pile Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1
Advantages Disadvantages . Can be suitable for composting food waste and biosolids . Slightly higher capital cost for forced-aeration equipment . Forced aeration reduces land requirements and mixing . Moisture addition may be required if piles dry from over . Can result in more rapid stabilization in the high rate aeration compost stage . Feedstock pre-processing requires a higher degree of . Use of negative aeration with a biofilter can help control care; feedstocks must be well mixed and properly sized odours and moistened . Smaller surface area relative to windrows . More operator skill required to manage aeration systems . Can have lower operating equipment requirements with . Aeration systems generally require three phase electrical less mixing/turning supply . Can achieve pathogen reduction temperatures . Exposure to rain can be problematic if pile becomes over saturated, unless it is under cover 1 Sourced from http://aep.alberta.ca/waste/reports-data/documents/LeafYardWasteDiversionStrategy-Aug2010.pdf
6.3.2 Membrane Cover Aerated Systems The covered aerated static pile composting area is typically constructed on an impermeable surface such as concrete or asphalt with a 2% grade to allow for leachate collection. The aeration system design uses an aeration channel built into the impermeable compost pad. Leachate collection in the aeration channel and drains to a sump. Surface leachate is drained over the pad to a leachate pond or sump. The system shown on Figure 6-9 is the GORE Cover System that operates using positive aeration. The cover is made of a microporous membrane (PTFE) sandwiched between a bottom and top fabric. The cover is placed over the pile and secured to the ground or to support walls on the side of the pile. As air is injected into the pile, the breathable membrane expands like a balloon to create an in-vessel like environment. The sealed edges create a fully-enclosed system. This membrane allows for the management and retention of moisture, temperature, and odour. Odours are reduced with efficient aeration, and with odour molecules being absorbed into the moisture film forming inside the cover. The control system monitors oxygen content and pile temperature. The control system uses oxygen feedback to activate the blowers to maintain oxygen levels. The composting process consists of the main active phase (4 weeks under GORE cover), second active phase (2 weeks under GORE cover) and curing phase (2 weeks without GORE cover). The residence time for this type of system is approximately 56 days. Further curing of the compost can be expected with a market ready compost produced in 6 to 9 months, depending on feedstocks and climate.
Recent systems are being constructed inside a sheltered structure for the first stage. This enhances odour controls in sensitive areas.
Figure 6-9: Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile
48
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 106 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 6-5: Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1
Advantages Disadvantages . System uses low volume blowers and has reduced . Potential steam or dust issues inside if inside a building energy consumption over other static pile systems enclosure . Lower space requirements than windrow systems . Indoor air must be managed in odour control system prior . Contained system reduces potential for odour emissions to release (possibly biofilter) and contaminated storm water . Requires advanced operating skills . Pathogen reduction temperatures are exceeded . Moderate to high capital and operating costs . Moisture loss due to aeration is minimal compared to uncovered aerated piles 1 Sourced from http://aep.alberta.ca/waste/reports-data/documents/LeafYardWasteDiversionStrategy-Aug2010.pdf
6.3.3 Mass Bed There are several iterations of mass bed systems that vary from passive to in-vessel in design. The commonality is that they are all designed to process large quantities of material (15,000 to 150,000 tonnes). These systems are typically appropriate for a wide range of feedstocks and involve an active composting period of 2 weeks to 12 months depending on variables, such as active aeration, turning, or enclosed systems. Feedstocks are generally placed in large piles and turned or agitated on a regular basis to ensure appropriate mixing. Active aeration may be built into the ground or a surrounding building to augment the composting process, as well as manage odours. For more complex systems, automated equipment may be used to manage processing parameters, turn/agitate material, and move material through the building. Due to increased complexity, these systems need to process significant quantities of material in order to justify the high capital and operating costs.
Figure 6-10: Agitated Mass Bed Figure 6-11: Turned Mass Bed
Table 6-6: Mass Bed Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages . Able to process large quantities of material in short . Can be high capital costs due to complexity of system timeframes depending on process setup and equipment involved . Reduced footprint compared to turned windrows . Specialized equipment is required . Suitable for high levels of automation to reduce labour . Frequent maintenance that may require significant costs and increase consistency expertise depending on the system design . Can increase moisture retention due to low surface area . Proper preparation and mixing of feedstocks is critical to to volume ratio smooth operation . Difficult to add moisture in outdoor operations . Convection of oxygen through pile is limited and can result in anaerobic (odourous) conditions.
49
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 107 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
6.4 In-Vessel
In the in-vessel composting process, the compost is aerated continuously (with a combination of positive and negative air flow) in a contained vessel. Systems typically include automatic control systems for aeration and moisture adjustments. Composting is typically contained within a rigid structure. In-vessel systems are commonly proprietary with numerous variations.
6.4.1 Enclosed Aerated Static Pile Permanent facilities may be made of concrete, with gasketed and insulated stainless steel doors. These offer significant advantages for corrosion resistance and odour containment. The residence time for these types of systems is in the order of 28 days to stabilize and with 6 to 9 months for curing. The vessel is equipped with an aeration floor and condensate/leachate collection system. The control system tracks operating conditions to optimize aeration rates. Exhaust gases are treated with wet scrubbers and biofilters to control odours.
Figure 6-12: In-Vessel Composting Bunker
Table 6-7: Enclosed Aerated Static Pile (Tunnel) Composting Advantages and Disadvantages1
Advantages Disadvantages . High degree of odour control except for receiving area . A high degree of operating and maintenance expertise and when doors are opened required to manage more complex aeration and control . Controlled aeration and moisture systems . Lower space requirements . High capital and operating costs. . Enclosed facility is not impacted by weather . Shorter residence time claims by some vendors can . Reduced structural corrosion, as composting is contained result in unstable compost and requires an additional within concrete tunnel composting stage. . . Suitable for food waste and biosolids Requires additional operations to cure compost (e.g. turned windrows, static pile) 1 Sourced from http://aep.alberta.ca/waste/reports-data/documents/LeafYardWasteDiversionStrategy-Aug2010.pdf
6.4.2 Static or Agitated Container More temporary or modular in-vessel facilities may involve sealed metal containers similar to 40 yd3 roll-off bins (static container) or a smaller version of the agitated mass bed (agitated container). These containers offer modularity and flexibility compared to a fixed concrete structure, as more containers can be added if feedstocks increase and site layout can be readily modified to changing conditions.
Static containers often involve modular metal bins that can be filled with material, sealed from the or side, moved around site, and connected to an active aeration system. These systems are typically batch systems with low quantities of material per container (up to 900 tonnes per year) but can easily be scaled with acquisition of more
50
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 108 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
containers. The active composting period of materials is typically quite short (2 to 3 weeks), which results in higher odour content of material entering the curing and maturing phase, than in systems with longer composting periods.
Agitated containers differ in processing flow, as material continuously flows through the system. Input organics undergo active composting while slowly travelling through the system. Compost exiting the system after the 2 to 4 week processing time still requires curing and maturing. Agitated containers are generally used for smaller quantities of material (300 kg to 10 tonnes per day), but are highly modular, as they can be run in parallel. These systems also typically involve more sophisticated control systems that automatically adjust temperature, water input, and other control parameters.
Figure 6-13: Static Container System Figure 6-14: Agitated Container System (Wright Digestor)
Figure 6-15: Hot Rot Compost System
Table 6-8: Static and Agitated Container Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages . High degree of odour control except for when material is . Operating and maintenance expertise required to removed manage more complex aeration and control systems . Lower space requirements, static and agitated containers . Higher capital and operating costs (varies with are relatively mobile, so site layouts can be modified technologies) . May allow for modular expansion if feedstocks grow or . May require skilled maintenance staff are larger than expected. . Some vendors claim shorter residence time (one to four . Agitated containers are highly automated weeks) and are used in combination with another composting method/technology.
51
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 109 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
6.4.3 Rotating Drum Rotating drum composters are similar to rotating dryers or cement kiln drums. Organics are process in a continuous flow through the drum. Rotating drum compost equipment vary in size and capacity from 10s of tonnes per day to 100s of tonnes per day. The drums are slightly sloped from the feed end to the discharge end. Materials slowly travel through the drum as the drums rotate. Drums may be aerated using a complex piping fixture with exhaust air capture for treatment in a biofilter. Active composting can range between one and seven days. Rotating Drums are normally paired with other composting technologies to fully stabilize and cure the compost.
Figure 6-16: Rotating Drum System
Table 6-9: Rotating Drum Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages . Effectively mixes feedstocks and amendments . Results in an unstable compost that requires further . Effective for initial decomposition of organic feedstocks processing to produce a finished marketable product . Can be used for a variety of feedstocks and feedstock . highly mechanical and can require specialized blends including yard waste, food waste, biosolids and maintenance staff (e.g. millwright) other sources. . Drum wear and corrosion may occur depending on drum . Drums can be located outside or inside buildings, design and maintenance of the drum interior depending on drum size . Complex loading and unloading . Aeration of drums reduces anaerobic conditions . Non-aerated drums result in anaerobic conditions
6.5 Compost Aging Technology
The third stage of composting (curing or aging) is typically defined as a period of 20 to 60 days after the active first stage of composting. Curing is a less active process. It represents the transition from high heat production and active bacterial conversion of the recognizable feedstock into a brown, gray, or black organic material. Aging converts this organic material into a less-odourous, darker, more uniform texture, with favourable characteristics for plant cultivation and growth. Aging represents both bacterial and fungal conversion. Aeration and agitation are still beneficial but can be designed at lower rates and frequencies. Regardless of the selected active composting technology, three of the most common aging technologies are presented:
. Large windrows;
. Conveyor stockpiling, and
52
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 110 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
. Membrane systems.
Windrows
Large windrows are typically formed using a bucket loader or excavator with trapezoidal cross sections and windrow lengths according the site conditions. Large trapezoidal cross sections (i.e., 3–5 m high and 7–12 m wide at the base) are desirable to minimize moisture loss, wind borne organic transport, space used, and odour control. The feedstock is usually managed in a first-in, first-out basis to maintain a consistent residence time. Impervious surface and pavement vary according to local regulation and design preferences. Drainage systems are integrated into the surface, usually with 1.5–2.5% slope on the surface to prevent any ponding or accumulation of storm water or snowmelt. There is an option to turning or agitate the piles at a mid-point in the residence time to improve product quality and increase the yield of fine particles upon screening. Aeration is typically passive or with above ground, reusable piping.
Conveyor Stockpiling
Conveyor stockpiling is similar to large windrows except that the windrows have an isosceles triangular cross section with a center peak rather than a flat top trapezoid. The peak can be much higher (i.e., 8–12 m high and 8.5– 12.5 m wide at the base). The conveyor is typically self-propelled, mobile, and includes a hopper and metering device to insure proper and efficient conveyance. Some conveyors can swing in a radius from the feeding end to create a crescent-shaped windrow rather than linear windrows. Conveyors can be designed for any length, but portable and radial swing conveyors are typically 23 to 40 m long. The shorter lengths are ideal for movement, cost, and windrow forming. The primary advantage of conveyors is that it requires less time for bucket loader or excavator handling, labour, repair, and fuel use. Operating costs for conveyors are very low in comparison to a bucket loader or excavator. There can be a significant space saving as the largest conveyor windrow has nearly twice the volumetric capacity of the largest bucket loader/excavator windrow as described above. Space savings can bring benefits in reduced pavement cost, drainage system cost, and travel distances and operating costs for bucket loaders and excavators. Aeration is typically passive or with above-ground, reusable piping.
Membrane System
The membrane system for compost aging is similar to what was described for active first stage composting. The advantage of membranes would be moisture conservation within the feedstock and protection from wind effects causing airborne organic transport if smaller windrows are formed. The largest cross section for membrane windrows might be 2 to 3 m high and 6 to 9 m wide at the base. Aeration is usually with below grading piping or above-grade, reusable piping.
53
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 111 112 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
6.6 Processing Options Comparison
Table 6-10 provides a comparison of operational and cost considerations for the various composting approaches discussed in previous sections. Two processing technologies were determined to be the most suitable for further exploration based on available feedstocks, geographical/climate considerations, and concerns about odour control expressed by ACRD staff. Aerated static pile, and membrane covered aerated static pile technologies were costed and used to develop the processing scenarios discussed in Section 7.0.
Table 6-10: Processing Technology Attributes1
Composting Odour & Typical Additional Approach Nuisance Maintenance Staffing Operating Space Capital Cost Processing Curing/ Time Control Requirements Needs Cost Requirements Time Required Measures Turned Windrow Low – Low – Low – Low – 4 to 12 Moderate High No or Static Pile Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate months Passive Aeration Low – Low – Low – Low – 4 to 12 Low High No System Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate months Aerated Static Low – Low – Low – Low – Low – High Low 3 to 6 months Yes Pile Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Membrane Low – Moderate – Low – Low – Covered Aerated High Low 2 to 4 months Yes Moderate High Moderate Moderate Static Pile Moderate – Mass Bed High Low High High Low – High 1 to 4 months Yes High Enclosed Low – Low – Aerated Static High Moderate High High 1 to 4 months Yes Moderate Moderate Pile Static or Moderate – Low – Moderate – Agitated High Moderate Low 1 to 4 weeks Yes High Moderate High Container Moderate – Medium – Moderate – Rotating Drum High High Low 1 to 4 weeks Yes High High High 1 Sourced from http://aep.alberta.ca/waste/reports-data/documents/LeafYardWasteDiversionStrategy-Aug2010.pdf
55
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 113 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 6-11 summarizes the scalability, suitability for ACRD, feedstock preference, and output considerations for the various organic processing technologies discussed.
Table 6-11: Suitability of Organic Processing Options for the ACRD Technology Type Scalability Suitability for ACRD . Minimal odour control Turned Static . Inexpensive, only need larger paved surface . Unsuitable for climates with intense moisture variability Piles or Windrows . Requires significant land footprint for multiple windrows . Suitable for Yard Waste Only . Limited odour control Passive Aeration . Inexpensive, only need larger paved surface . Unsuitable for climates with significant moisture variability Systems . Requires significant land footprint for multiple windrows . Suitable for yard waste with small amounts of food waste, no biosolids . Moderate odour control possible . Low to moderate costs, sealed aerated surface is . Aerated Static required Unsuitable for climates with significant moisture variability Piles . . Requires significant land footprint for multiple windrows Suitable for yard waste with moderate amounts of food waste and biosolids
. Moderate cost, need sealed surface and more . Good odour control possible Membrane membrane covers . Suitable for many environments, as membrane enables moisture and Covered Aerated . Smaller footprint than non-covered windrows, need temperature control Static Piles additional space for maturing compost . Suitable for yard waste, food waste, and biosolids . Good odour control possible . Expensive equipment required to scale appropriately . Suitable for many environments, closed structure allows for moisture Mass Beds . Small footprint for primary processing, but additional and temperature control surface required for curing and maturing stages . Suitable for yard waste, food waste, and biosolids . Good odour control possible . Scaled up by adding more vessels Enclosed Aerated . Suitable for many environments, closed structure allows for moisture . Small footprint for primary processing, but additional Static Pile and temperature control surface required for curing and maturing stages . Suitable for yard waste, food waste, and biosolids
. Moderate to expensive to scale up by adding more . Good odour control possible Static or Agitated vessels . Suitable for many environments, closed structure allows for moisture Container . Small footprint for primary processing, but additional and temperature control surface required for curing and maturing stages . Suitable for yard waste, food waste, and biosolids . Good odour control possible . Significant facility upgrade to scale up . Suitable for many environments, closed structure allows for moisture Rotating Drum . Small footprint for initial processing, but need significant and temperature control space to finish composting process . Suitable for yard waste, food waste, and biosolids
56
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 114 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
6.7 Finished Compost End Markets
An important part of developing organics processing capacity is developing reliable end markets for the finished compost. End markets will ensure that finished compost does not continuously stockpile onsite and may enable revenue generation from compost sales. There are several typical end markets for finished compost products.
Domestic Use – ACRD can directly sell to residents/other small-scale applications for garden application and lawn top-dressing. This is typically public pick up and would require development of an area that can be supervised as well as equipment to load small vehicles. Additional options include having bags that customers pay for and fill themselves, akin to a garden centre.
Garden Centre Sales – Selling to garden centres will likely be more effective if the ACRD doesn’t compete with ACRD direct compost sales. Some may also purchase compost for soil blending operations to augment with their own amendments.
Municipal/Regional District Operations – These include landscaping, public park gardens, park and sport field topdressing, land reclamation, erosion control applications. There’s also potential applications for run-off siltation control – using compost filled filter socks or constructed filter berms.
Commercial – Commercial applications are similar to municipal/regional district operations, as contractors may choose to utilize compost over other soil products for environmental considerations.
Agriculture – Agriculture applications can be a high volume, but financial return can vary depending on type and value of agricultural products. Potential for application in tree farms, berry farms, orchards,
There are several important considerations when developing compost end markets.
. Compost uses require different processing and screening qualities (e.g. Top dressing – typically screened to ¼ inch, erosion control applications – screened to ½ inch);
. Market applications will influence screening equipment selection (e.g. Some trommel screens feature “quick change drums” to modify screen size, whereas potentially cheaper options might not have sizing flexibility);
. The BC Organics Regulation dictates standards for compost application, and the Canada Fertilizers Act is important when considering the sale and labelling of compost; and
. It is important to develop and implement a marketing campaign before processing facilities become operational. This allows time for end markets to emerge and grow for when finished compost is being produced.
Last but perhaps most importantly, there is the potential to provide compost material for incorporation into final cover for the landfills. Most landfills have a shortfall in the quantity of topsoil available for inclusion in the final cover. The availability of compost to supplement and improve this growing medium can be an immediate benefit to parts of a mature landfill that is undergoing final closure. It can also have a financial benefit through reducing or removing the cost of topsoil importation.
57
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 115 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
7.0 PROCESSING SCENARIOS
This section outlines five different processing scenarios for managing organics generated within the ACRD. The following assumptions were used in the development and costing of these options:
. Design capacity of the processing facilities was based on:
− a maximum 75% capture rate for organics from the residential and ICI sectors along with existing yard waste received at facilities;
− capture of available biosolids from WWTPs and procurement of required bulking agents. Feedstocks are modeled to grow correlated to population over a 20-year period, as shown in Section 5.3;
− Alberni Valley Service Area – Design Capacity: 7,500 tonnes/year (144 tonnes/week);
− West Coast Service Area – Design Capacity: 4,000 tonnes/year (77 tonnes/week);
. Projected capacity was based on the expected organics collection during Year 1 of implementation:
− This comprises projected residential and ICI collection of food and yard waste as shown in Section 4.3.4 as well as available biosolids (Section 5.2), currently collected yard waste, and required bulking agent;
− Alberni Valley Service Area – Projected Capture: 5,000 tonnes/year;
− West Coast Service Area – Projected Capture: 1,100 tonnes/year;
. Sizing and consequent costing of each facility accounts for the volume reduction of material over each stage of the composting process;
. Capital costs includes a 10% cost factor for engineering design and 25% contingency factor on non-mobile equipment costs;
. Capital costs are annualized at a borrowing interest rate of 4.5% over a 20-year period;
. Capital costs (minus the grant) have distributed the $6,000,000 funds between the West Coast and Alberni Valley with a proportionality of $2,000,000 and $4,000,000 respectively where applicable;
− Some processing scenarios did not require the entire grant to be spent;
− Capital costs include site preparation and pre-construction, construction of facility(ies), procurement of required equipment, and engineering design and contingency factors;
− For scenarios with transfer stations, capital costs are inclusive of constructing an enclosed receiving building with air filtration, where organics are dumped, and then loaded into transfer trailer trucks. Costs include the ACRD procurement of a loader to facilitate transfer activities;
. It was assumed that the ACRD would purchase certain mobile equipment for use on-site to facilitate organics processing. If mobile equipment were contracted out each year, then this would reduce the capital costs and potentially increase operating costs; and
. Operating costs for organics processing include utility costs (e.g. diesel, electricity, water), labour, equipment maintenance, procurement of bulking agents, and a contingency factor of 20%.
− For transfer station scenarios, operating costs also include the labour, diesel, and vehicle maintenance costs (as well as tipping fees if material is transported to a facility outside the ACRD).
58
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 116 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
7.1 Scenario 1 – One Processing Facility in Each Service Area
Two organic processing facilities (one in each service area), Alberni Valley and West Coast. Collected organics from each service area are taken to their respective processing facilities.
Environmental Considerations
. Minimal transportation required to move organics to local facilities resulting in minimal GHG emissions;
. Builds local organics processing capacity, setting an example for other jurisdictions across the province; and
. Construction needs are different depending on where the facilities are sited, and construction materials required.
Social Impact
. Positive impact on supply of local compost material for landscaping and other activities;
. Positive impact on local resiliency, as organics processing is independent of out of region processing;
. Less traffic on highway compared to other processing scenarios;
. Reduced concerns around potential odour production/release from transporting organics; but
. Potential for odour issues, that could negatively affect tourism and/or ACRD’s relationship with communities located proximally to the processing facilities.
Financial Implications
. Capital costs for two facilities are highest of all scenarios, full costing is shown in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2;
. Provides the most job opportunities within the ACRD compared to other scenarios;
. Potential to sell finished compost product locally to offset costs; and
. Operating costs are not subject to the tipping fees of out of region processing facilities.
59
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 117 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-1: Alberni Valley Processing Facility Capital and Operating Costs
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Alberni Valley Facility Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture
Total Capital $3,817,700 $3,817,700 $5,195,600 $5,195,600
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0 $1,195,600 $1,195,600
Annualized Capital (20 years) $293,500 $293,500 $399,400 $399,400
Annualized Capital Minus Grant (20 years) $0 $0 $91,900 $91,900
Total Operating $475,600 $345,700 $572,500 $424,300
Annualized Total $769,100 $639,200 $971,900 $823,700
Annualized Total Minus Grant $475,600 $345,700 $664,400 $516,200
Cost per Tonne $103 $127 $130 $164
Cost per Tonne Minus Grant $64 $69 $89 $102
Table 7-2: West Coast Processing Facility Capital and Operating Costs
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile West Coast Facility Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture
Total Capital $2,478,400 $2,478,400 $3,330,600 $3,330,600
Total Capital Minus Grant $296,000 $296,000 $1,330,600 $1,330,600
Annualized Capital (20 years) $190,500 $190,500 $256,000 $256,000
Annualized Capital Minus Grant (20 years) $22,800 $36,800 $102,300 $102,300
Total Operating $250,600 $182,500 $309,600 $238,600
Annualized Total $441,100 $373,000 $565,700 $494,700
Annualized Total Minus Grant $273,400 $219,300 $411,900 $340,900
Cost per Tonne $110 $352 $141 $467
Cost per Tonne Minus Grant $68 $207 $103 $322
7.2 Scenario 2 – West Coast Transfer Station to Alberni Valley Facility
One centralized organic processing facility in Alberni Valley that can accommodate organics from the entire regional district. Organics collected from Alberni Valley are taken to the processing facility directly and organics collected from the West Coast are taken to a transfer station and reloaded for transport to the Alberni Valley organic processing facility.
60
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 118 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Environmental Considerations
. Greenhouse gas impacts from transporting organics from the West Coast (WC) to Alberni Valley (AV) facility shown in Table 7-3;
. Builds local organics processing capacity, setting an example for other jurisdictions across the province; and
. Less organics processing resiliency than building two local facilities.
Table 7-3: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – WC to AV
West Coast to Alberni Valley Design Capacity Projected Capture # Trucks per Week 7.0 1.3 Kilometres per Two-Way Trip 190 Annual Kilometres 68,776 12,424
Annual GHG Emissions (tonnes) 102.8 18.6
Social Impact
. Positive impact on supply of local compost material for landscaping and other activities;
. Positive impact on local resiliency, as organics processing is independent of out of region processing;
. More traffic on highways, increases risk of accidents especially during poor conditions or high tourism months; and
. Higher potential for odour issues if material is transported to and centralized at one facility that could negatively affect tourism and/or ACRD’s relationship with communities located in close proximally to the processing facility.
Financial Implications
. Provides job opportunities within the ACRD compared to other scenarios;
. Potential to sell finished compost product locally to offset costs;
. Centralized larger facility offers reduced capital costs compared to building two facilities, reducing the overall cost per tonne for processing as shown in Table 7-4; but
. Transporting organics is an added expense and subject to fluctuations in fuel prices and travel time between facilities.
61
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 119 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-4: Alberni Valley Processing Facility and West Coast Transfer Station Costs
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Alberni Valley Facility Static Pile West Coast Transfer Station Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture
West Coast Transfer Station Capital $442,000 $442,000 $442,000 $442,000
West Coast Transfer Station Operating $52,500 $39,400 $52,500 $39,400
Transportation (to Alberni Valley) $144,100 $26,000 $144,100 $26,000
Alberni Valley Facility Capital $4,424,400 $4,424,400 $5,972,300 $5,972,300
Alberni Valley Facility Operating $530,600 $373,700 $666,400 $441,400
Total Capital $4,866,400 $4,866,400 $6,414,300 $6,414,300
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0 $414,300 $414,300
Annualized Capital (20 years) $374,100 $374,100 $493,100 $493,100
Annualized Capital Minus Grant (20 years) $0 $0 $31,900 $31,900
Total Operating $727,200 $439,138 $863,000 $506,800
Annualized Total $1,101,300 $813,200 $1,356,100 $999,900
Annualized Total Minus Grant $727,200 $439,100 $894,900 $538,700
Cost per Tonne $96 $133 $118 $164
Cost per Tonne Minus Grant $63 $72 $78 $88
7.3 Scenario 3 – Alberni Valley Transfer Station to West Coast Facility
One organic processing facility in the West Coast service area that can accommodate organics from the entire regional district. Organics collected from West Coast are taken to the processing facility directly and organics collected from the Alberni Valley are taken to a transfer station and reloaded for transport to the regional organic processing facility.
Environmental Considerations
. Greenhouse gas impacts from transporting organics from the Alberni Valley to West Coast facility shown in Table 7-5 are higher than Scenario 2, due to higher volumes generated in the Alberni Valley and more required trips;
. Builds local organics processing capacity, setting an example for other jurisdictions across the province;
. Less organics processing resiliency than building two local facilities.
62
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 120 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-5: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – AV to WC
Alberni Valley to West Coast Design Capacity Projected Capture # Trucks per Week 8.9 6.7 Kilometres per Two-Way Trip 190 Annual Kilometres 87,112 65,806 Annual GHG Emissions (tonnes) 130.2 98.3
Social Impact
. Positive impact on supply of local compost material for landscaping and other activities;
. Positive impact on local resiliency, as organics processing is independent of out of region processing;
. More traffic on highways, increases risk of accidents especially during poor conditions or high tourism months; and
. Higher potential for odour issues if material is transported to and centralized at one facility that could negatively affect tourism and/or ACRD’s relationship with communities located proximally to the processing facility.
− However, the location of the West Coast facility is buffered from residents and tourists compared to the Alberni Valley. Ownership of property also less contentious.
Financial Implications
. Some job opportunities within the West Coast compared to other scenarios;
. Potential to sell finished compost product locally to offset costs and can backhaul products to Alberni Valley;
. Similar capital costs to Scenario 2, but higher transport costs due to larger organics quantities requiring additional handling/transfer, as shown in Table 7-6; and
. Transporting organics is an added expense and subject to fluctuations in fuel prices and travel time between facilities.
63
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 121 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-6: West Coast Processing Facility and Alberni Valley Transfer Station Costs
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated West Coast Facility Static Pile Alberni Valley Transfer Station Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture
Alberni Valley Transfer Station Capital $499,800 $499,800 $499,800 $499,800
Alberni Valley Transfer Station Operating $56,800 $42,600 $56,800 $42,600
Transportation (to West Coast) $182,600 $105,400 $182,600 $105,400
West Coast Facility Capital $4,424,400 $4,424,400 $5,972,300 $5,972,300
West Coast Facility Operating $530,600 $373,700 $666,400 $441,400
Total Capital $4,924,200 $4,924,200 $6,472,100 $6,472,100
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0 $472,100 $472,100
Annualized Capital (20 years) $378,554 $378,554 $497,550 $497,550
Annualized Capital Minus Grant (20 years) $0 $0 $36,293 $36,293
Total Operating $770,000 $521,700 $905,800 $589,400
Annualized Total $1,148,600 $900,300 $1,403,400 $1,087,000
Annualized Total Minus Grant $770,000 $521,700 $942,100 $625,700
Cost per Tonne $100 $148 $122 $178
Cost per Tonne Minus Grant $67 $86 $82 $103
7.4 Scenario 4 – West Coast Facility, Alberni Valley Transfer Station to Out of Region
One organic processing facility to manage the West Coast service area, a transfer station in Alberni Valley to transport organics to a processing facility in the Regional District of Nanaimo and tipping fees for processing of organics from the Alberni Valley.
Environmental Considerations
. Greenhouse gas impacts from transporting organics from the Alberni Valley to Regional District of Nanaimo shown in Table 7-7; and
. Some local organics processing for the West Coast, but less resiliency overall for the ACRD.
64
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 122 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-7: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – Alberni Valley to RDN
Alberni Valley to Design Capacity Projected Capture Regional District Nanaimo # Trucks per Week 8.9 6.7 Kilometres per Two-Way Trip 100 Annual Kilometres 45,409 34,303
Annual GHG Emissions (tonnes) 67.9 51.3
Social Impact
. Positive impact on supply of local compost material for landscaping and other activities within the West Coast;
. Positive impact on local resiliency of the West Coast, as organics management is independent of out of region processing capacity;
. More traffic on highways, increases risk of accidents especially during poor conditions or high tourism months;
. Potential for odour issues that could negatively affect tourism and/or the West Coast’s relationship with communities located proximally to the processing facility, although the West Coast facility would be buffered from residents and tourists; and
. No control of processing facilities in the event tipping fees are increased or odours are impacting nearby receptors.
Financial Implications
. Some additional job opportunities within the West Coast compared to other scenarios;
. Potential to sell finished compost product locally to offset costs;
. Lower capital costs for one facility on West Coast, but still requires one transfer station as discussed in Table 7-8 and Table 7-9;
. Transporting organics can be expensive and subject to fluctuations in fuel prices and travel time between facilities; and
. Operating costs increased due to tipping fees for processing of organics.
65
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 123 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-8: West Coast Processing Facility Capital and Operating Costs
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile West Coast Facility Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture
Total Capital $2,478,400 $2,478,400 $3,330,600 $3,330,600
Total Capital Minus Grant $296,000 $296,000 $1,330,600 $1,330,600
Annualized Capital (20 years) $190,500 $190,500 $256,000 $256,000
Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $22,800 $36,800 $102,300 $102,300
Total Operating $250,600 $182,500 $309,600 $238,600
Annualized Total $441,100 $373,000 $565,700 $494,700
Annualized Total Minus Grant $273,400 $219,300 $411,900 $340,900
Cost per Tonne $110 $352 $141 $467
Cost per Tonne Including Grant $68 $207 $103 $322
Table 7-9: Alberni Valley Transfer Station (Out of Region) Capital and Operating Costs
Alberni Valley Transfer Station Design Capacity Projected Capture
Total Capital $499,800 $499,800
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0
Annualized Capital (20 years) $38,400 $38,400
Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $0 $0
Total Operating $56,800 $42,600
Transportation (to RDN) $601,900 $347,500
Annualized Total $697,100 $428,500
Annualized Total Including Grant $658,700 $390,100
Cost per Tonne $130 $126
Cost per Tonne Including Grant $123 $115
7.5 Scenario 5 – Two Transfer Stations to Out of Region
Transfer stations at each of the service areas and transport of all organics to processing facilities in the RDN. Tipping fees for processing of organics charged to ACRD.
Environmental Considerations
. Greenhouse gas impacts from transporting organics from the ACRD to Regional District of Nanaimo are the highest of all scenarios, as shown in Table 7-10; and
66
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 124 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
. Low local resiliency, as organics processing is dependent on external processors.
Table 7-10: Annual Transportation GHG Emissions For Organics Transfer – ACRD to RDN
ACRD to From Alberni Valley From West Coast Regional District Nanaimo Design Capacity Projected Capture Design Capacity Projected Capture # Trucks per Week 8.9 6.7 7.0 1.3 Kilometres per Two-Way Trip 100 290 Annual Kilometres 45,409 34,303 104,628 18,900
Annual GHG Emissions (tonnes) 67.9 51.3 156.3 28.2
Social Impact
. Low organics management resiliency due to reliance on out of region processing leaves programs vulnerable;
. More traffic on highways, increases risk of accidents especially during poor conditions or high tourism months; and
. Some potential for odour issues from material transportation could negatively affect tourism and/or ACRD’s relationship with communities located on transportation routes.
Financial Implications
. Minimal additional job opportunities within the ACRD compared to other scenarios;
. Lower capital costs compared to organics processing, but still require two transfer stations as discussed in Table 7-11 and Table 7-12; and
. Transporting organics are an added cost and subject to fluctuations in fuel prices and travel time between facilities.
Table 7-11: Alberni Valley Transfer Station (Out of Region) Capital and Operating Costs
Alberni Valley Transfer Station Design Capacity Projected Capture
Total Capital $499,800 $499,800
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0
Annualized Capital (20 years) $43,600 $43,600
Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $0 $0
Total Operating $56,800 $42,600
Transportation (to RDN) $601,900 $454,700
Annualized Total $702,300 $540,900
Annualized Total Including Grant $658,700 $497,300
Cost per Tonne $131 $153
Cost per Tonne Including Grant $123 $141
67
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 125 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-12: West Coast Transfer Station (Out of Region) Capital and Operating Costs
West Coast Transfer Station Design Capacity Projected Capture
Total Capital $442,000 $442,000
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0
Annualized Capital (20 years) $38,500 $38,500
Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $0 $0
Total Operating $52,500 $39,400
Transportation (to RDN) $619,400 $111,900
Annualized Total $710,400 $189,800
Annualized Total Including Grant $671,900 $151,300
Cost per Tonne $188 $284
Cost per Tonne Including Grant $178 $226
7.6 Scenario A – Bamfield Processing Facility
This scenario discusses two options for managing organics from the Figure 7-1: Example of an organics Bamfield area. Option 1 involves constructing a small composting pad at container that could be transported the Bamfield Transfer Station where organics would be composted. to a composting facility. Option 2 involves having an enclosed container (Figure 7-1) where organics would be dropped-off at the transfer station and transported to the Alberni Valley for composting. The following considerations were used in developing the two options.
. Available residential and ICI organics (mostly food waste) that could be collected approximately 11 tonnes annually;
. Processing capacity for composting approximately 22 tonnes per year (includes bulking agent that is mixed with the collected organics);
. Processing would occur on the small asphalt pad separated into two sections by concrete lock-blocks. Collected organics would be mixed with bulking agent and placed in the first “active area”, growing the pile as more organics are collected. The pile would be turned regularly to avoid anaerobic decomposition to mitigate odours. The piles should be placed under a covered by a permanent structure to manage moisture and reduce potential leachate concerns during high rainfall events;
. Mobile equipment procured should have the flexibility to mix composting materials and conduct other tasks around the site, such as moving materials and loading bins on the transfer vehicle; and
. Transfer costs for Option 2 are estimated to be approximately $6,500 per year (dedicated collection once per month). Costs can be reduced if hauled in conjunction with other material streams.
Table 7-13 lists estimated capital and operating costs for a small organics processing facility at the Bamfield Transfer Station.
68
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 126 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-13: Bamfield Processing Facility Costs Bamfield Processing Facility Turned Static Pile
Mobilization, Demobilization, Surveying, Testing $10,000
Facility Construction $20,800
Mobile Equipment (small loader/Bobcat) $40,000
Engineering and Contingency (10%, 25%) $7,300
Total Capital $78,100
Annualized Capital (20 years) $6,000
Utilities (water, electricity, diesel) $700
Labour (composting operations only) $12,300
Bulking Agent Procurement $400
Equipment Maintenance $2,000
Total Operating $15,500
Annualized Total $21,500
Cost per Tonne $977
69
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 127 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
7.7 Scenario Comparison
The ranking proposed for each of the collection options presented is based on a qualitative ranking of low, medium and high of the evaluation criteria. Table 7-14 describes the criteria used to select the preferred options and the preliminary relative weighting. The evaluation of the organics processing options is based on preliminary weighting determined from previous meetings with ACRD staff, shifting the weighting of criteria, or including new criteria that may change the results
Table 7-14: Processing Scenario Criteria Descriptions
Criteria Weighting Description
Environmental While all processing options involve diverting food waste from the landfill, some require more transportation related Reduce GHG 1 GHG emissions from moving material between locations. Processing options rated highly will involve the least emissions amount of GHG emissions from transportation Local organics management is important so that implemented programs are not dependent on external processing Local Organics 2 capacity, as well as raising the profile of local environmental resiliency. Options rated highly will maximize local Management processing resiliency
Social Odour management is critically important to successful operation of organics processing facilities. Odour issues can Odour Issues 3 pose significant challenges once they begin, as public pressure may escalate quickly depending on the number of people affected. Options rated highly will involve the smallest risk of odour release. Traffic safety is an important consideration for both staff and residents in the regional district. This fluctuates Traffic Concerns 2 throughout the year due to significant population fluctuations from tourism. Options rated highly will involve the fewest vehicles transporting organic material within the ACRD. Job creation can be a vital component of building public support for new organics management infrastructure and Job Creation 2 initiatives. Options rated highly will involve the most job creation in the ACRD.
Economic Capital Cost Capital cost refers to the upfront expenditures for infrastructure and equipment for organics management. These 2 costs may be eligible to be subsidized by the Organics Infrastructure Program grant that ACRD has received. Options rated highly will involve the lowest capital costs. Operating Cost Operating cost describes the ongoing annual costs to managing organics that the ACRD will need to finance. 2 Options rated highly will involve the lowest operating costs. Cost per Tonne Cost per tonne defines the unit cost for organics management, relating the quantity of organics diverted from the 3 landfill to the capital and operating costs. Options rated highly will involve the lowest cost per tonne.
70
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 128 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7-14 provides an initial multi-criteria analysis ranking the priority of the organics processing scenarios using nominal value comparison.
Table 7-15: Processing Scenario Comparison
Scenario Environmental Social Impact Financial Implications Score Considerations (/48)
GHG Local Odour Traffic Job Capital Cost Operating Unit Cost Emissions Organics Issues Concerns Creation (3 – Low Cost per (3 – Low Management (3 – Low (3 – No (3 – Creates Capital Cost, (3 – Low Tonne GHGs, (3 – Local Odour Increased Jobs, Operating (3 – Low Criteria 1 – High 1 – High Capacity, Potential, Traffic, 1 – No Job Capital Cost) Cost, Unit Cost, GHGs) 1 – No Local 1 – High 1 – High Creation) 1 – High 1 – High Capacity) Odour Increased Operating Unit Cost) Potential) Traffic) Cost)
Weighting 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 3
1 – One Facility in Each 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 39 Service Area 2 – West Coast Transfer Station to Alberni Valley 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 40 Facility 3 – Alberni Valley Transfer Station to West 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 35 Coast Facility 4 – West Coast Facility, Alberni Valley Transfer 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 34 Station to Regional District of Nanaimo 5 – Two Transfer Stations to 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 30 Regional District of Nanaimo
71
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 129 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for this report are divided into two parts: options for collection and options for processing. While both are integral components to an effective organics management program, the decision points for each are different to warrant separate analysis.
8.1 Organics Collection
Organics collection options compared in Section 4.4 describe the possible approaches in each service area of the ACRD. Recommended options are described by area below.
Bamfield Service Area
. Options 2 (ICI, Residential Disposal Ban and Transfer) and 3 (ICI, Residential Disposal Ban and On-Site Processing) are the highest rated options for the Bamfield area. Each has tradeoffs as it relates to local processing and cost savings;
− Option 2 is the most cost effective, as it does not involve capital and operating costs for a composting facility and allows generators of organic waste an option for diverting this material; and
− Option 3 is costlier but provides an opportunity for more community involvement and local use for the end product. Operating costs could be shared by having staff to manage organics processing and oversee transfer station operations.
Alberni Valley Service Area
. Options 1, 2 and 3 have a spectrum of considerations that can be summarized as higher level of service results in higher diversion rates but also higher costs for collection. Key points for all three options include:
− Residential tonnages are equivalent to ICI tonnages in the Alberni Valley, but capture rates are typically higher in residential collection; and
− Effective education and enforcement of organics bans is required to ensure sufficient and high quality feedstocks are collected.
West Coast Service Area
. Options 1 and 3 are the recommended options for the West Coast service area because reliance on self-haul of organics (Option 2) may not result in desired diversion rates;
− Residential curbside collection is important when implementing a residential organics ban, as it would be difficult to sufficiently motivate residents (especially temporary residents or tourists) to source separate waste and bring organics to the landfill;
. All options for the West Coast include an ICI disposal ban, which is crucial, as the majority of disposal comes from the ICI Sector;
− With effective engagement, organics collection from the ICI sector could be higher than projected, as most of the ICI sector is comprised of hotels, resorts, and similar establishments that can have higher control over their waste stream than others such as grocery stores.
72
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 130 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
8.2 Organics Processing
The organics processing scenario comparison in Section 7.7 shows that Scenario 1 or 2 would be the highest ranked scenarios. Scenarios 3-5 all involved significant transportation logistics, which involve significant operational costs that would likely only increase over time and results in additional GHG emissions being produced. Furthermore, Scenarios 1 and 2 have additional benefits as follows:
. Scenario 1 features higher capital costs than Scenario 2 but provides more flexibility and resiliency with processing organics in two locations;
− This distributes the quantity of organics between two locations, which provides an option in the event one of the processing facilities is not operational, particularly at the Alberni Valley site;
− As the population in the West Coast service area grow, the unit processing cost at the West Coast facility will go down in Scenario 1, compared to transportation costs rising in Scenario 2; and
− This option provides the highest social and environmental benefits, as job creation and finished compost production are distributed throughout the ACRD.
. Scenario 2 presents certain economic advantages to Scenario 1, as centralizing organics processing in one facility significantly reduces capital cost and unit operating costs;
− Capital cost for one larger organic processing facility at Alberni Valley and a transfer facility at West Coast is 20-25% less than two organic processing facilities at each of the service areas; and
− The operating costs in the first several years of implementing organics collection would be lower than Scenario 1, as transporting the relatively small quantities of organics from the West Coast to the Alberni Valley is more cost-effective than operating another facility.
8.2.1 Cost Saving Considerations General cost saving considerations for both processing scenarios include:
. Designing organics processing facility(ies) to be scalable over time, as this will allow the ACRD to save initial capital costs by initially building for current collection capacity and expanding the facility as population and organic feedstocks grow;
. Current costing scenarios include ACRD purchasing certain mobile equipment such as grinders, screeners, and separators. These pieces of equipment could likely be contracted out, shifting capital expenditures to operating expenses. This is a better economical option as organics collection numbers are expected to be low during initial implementation years;
. If Scenario 1 is selected, there are advantages to choosing the same technology for both facilities (even though costs may be higher);
− The same technology allows greater flexibility and resiliency for staffing, as operators could be switched between sites if required; and
− It also allows for additional sharing of technology (e.g. membrane covers) during periods where maintenance or repair is required at one site.
73
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 131 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
9.0 CLOSURE
We trust this document meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted, Tetra Tech Canada Inc.
Prepared by: Prepared by: Jeremy Reid, E.I.T. Jeff Ainge Project Engineer-in-Training Principal Solid Waste Management Practice Jeff Ainge & Associates Inc. Direct Line: 778.945.5766 Direct Line: 250.821.3830 [email protected] [email protected]
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Carey McIver Claudia Castro Miravalles, M.Sc., EP Principal Environmental Scientist Carey McIver & Associates Solid Waste Management Practice Direct Line: 250.821.9889 Direct Line: 604.608.8902 [email protected] [email protected]
74
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 132 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Reviewed by: Reviewed by: Paul Evans, P.Eng., MBA James Lapp Project Engineer / Senior Consultant Senior Project Technologist Solid Waste Management Practice Solid Waste Management Practice Direct Line: 403.723.6878 Direct Line: 587.460.3630 [email protected] [email protected]
Reviewed by: Wilbert Yang, P.Eng. Senior Planning Engineer Solid Waste Management Practice Direct Line: 604.608.8648 [email protected]
/tv
75
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 133 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX A
TETRA TECH’S LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 134 LIMITATIONS ON USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
1.1 USE OF DOCUMENT AND OWNERSHIP 1.3 STANDARD OF CARE
This document pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and Services performed by TETRA TECH for the Professional Document a specific scope of work. The document may include plans, drawings, have been conducted in accordance with the Contract, in a manner profiles and other supporting documents that collectively constitute the consistent with the level of skill ordinarily exercised by members of the document (the “Professional Document”). profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided. Professional judgment The Professional Document is intended for the sole use of TETRA has been applied in developing the conclusions and/or TECH’s Client (the “Client”) as specifically identified in the TETRA recommendations provided in this Professional Document. No warranty TECH Services Agreement or other Contractual Agreement entered or guarantee, express or implied, is made concerning the test results, into with the Client (either of which is termed the “Contract” herein). comments, recommendations, or any other portion of the Professional TETRA TECH does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of Document. any of the data, analyses, recommendations or other contents of the Professional Document when it is used or relied upon by any party If any error or omission is detected by the Client or an Authorized Party, other than the Client, unless authorized in writing by TETRA TECH. the error or omission must be immediately brought to the attention of TETRA TECH. Any unauthorized use of the Professional Document is at the sole risk of the user. TETRA TECH accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any 1.4 DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY CLIENT loss or damage where such loss or damage is alleged to be or, is in The Client acknowledges that it has fully cooperated with TETRA TECH fact, caused by the unauthorized use of the Professional Document. with respect to the provision of all available information on the past, Where TETRA TECH has expressly authorized the use of the present, and proposed conditions on the site, including historical Professional Document by a third party (an “Authorized Party”), information respecting the use of the site. The Client further consideration for such authorization is the Authorized Party’s acknowledges that in order for TETRA TECH to properly provide the acceptance of these Limitations on Use of this Document as well as services contracted for in the Contract, TETRA TECH has relied upon any limitations on liability contained in the Contract with the Client (all the Client with respect to both the full disclosure and accuracy of any of which is collectively termed the “Limitations on Liability”). The such information. Authorized Party should carefully review both these Limitations on Use 1.5 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH BY OTHERS of this Document and the Contract prior to making any use of the Professional Document. Any use made of the Professional Document During the performance of the work and the preparation of this by an Authorized Party constitutes the Authorized Party’s express Professional Document, TETRA TECH may have relied on information acceptance of, and agreement to, the Limitations on Liability. provided by third parties other than the Client. The Professional Document and any other form or type of data or While TETRA TECH endeavours to verify the accuracy of such documents generated by TETRA TECH during the performance of the information, TETRA TECH accepts no responsibility for the accuracy work are TETRA TECH’s professional work product and shall remain or the reliability of such information even where inaccurate or unreliable the copyright property of TETRA TECH. information impacts any recommendations, design or other The Professional Document is subject to copyright and shall not be deliverables and causes the Client or an Authorized Party loss or reproduced either wholly or in part without the prior, written permission damage. of TETRA TECH. Additional copies of the Document, if required, may 1.6 GENERAL LIMITATIONS OF DOCUMENT be obtained upon request. 1.2 ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT FORMAT This Professional Document is based solely on the conditions presented and the data available to TETRA TECH at the time the data Where TETRA TECH submits electronic file and/or hard copy versions were collected in the field or gathered from available databases. of the Professional Document or any drawings or other project-related The Client, and any Authorized Party, acknowledges that the documents and deliverables (collectively termed TETRA TECH’s Professional Document is based on limited data and that the “Instruments of Professional Service”), only the signed and/or sealed conclusions, opinions, and recommendations contained in the versions shall be considered final. The original signed and/or sealed Professional Document are the result of the application of professional electronic file and/or hard copy version archived by TETRA TECH shall judgment to such limited data. be deemed to be the original. TETRA TECH will archive a protected The Professional Document is not applicable to any other sites, nor digital copy of the original signed and/or sealed version for a period of should it be relied upon for types of development other than those to 10 years. which it refers. Any variation from the site conditions present, or Both electronic file and/or hard copy versions of TETRA TECH’s variation in assumed conditions which might form the basis of design Instruments of Professional Service shall not, under any or recommendations as outlined in this report, at or on the development circumstances, be altered by any party except TETRA TECH. TETRA proposed as of the date of the Professional Document requires a TECH’s Instruments of Professional Service will be used only and supplementary exploration, investigation, and assessment. exactly as submitted by TETRA TECH. TETRA TECH is neither qualified to, nor is it making, any Electronic files submitted by TETRA TECH have been prepared and recommendations with respect to the purchase, sale, investment or submitted using specific software and hardware systems. TETRA development of the property, the decisions on which are the sole TECH makes no representation about the compatibility of these files responsibility of the Client. with the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.
1
135 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX B
FULL SCENARIO COSTING
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 136 APPENDIX B – FULL SCENARIO COSTING FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX B – FULL SCENARIO COSTING
Figure B-1: Alberni Valley Composting Facility
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Item Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture Capital General Site Grading and Preparation $322,300 $322,300 $265,400 $265,400 Leachate and Surface Water Management $120,400 $120,400 $111,600 $111,600 Receiving Building $222,100 $222,100 $222,700 $222,700 Organics Processing $1,440,200 $1,440,200 $2,559,900 $2,559,900 Curing, Screening, and Storage $130,400 $130,400 $96,300 $96,300 Equipment (mobile) $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Subtotal Capital (without mobile equipment) $2,235,300 $2,235,300 $3,256,000 $3,256,000 Subtotal Capital (with mobile equipment) $3,035,300 $3,035,300 $4,056,000 $4,056,000 Engineering (10% of non-mobile equipment capital) $223,500 $223,500 $325,600 $325,600 Contingency (25% of non-mobile equipment capital) $558,800 $558,800 $814,000 $814,000
Total Capital $3,817,700 $3,817,700 $5,195,600 $5,195,600
Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0 $1,195,600 $1,195,600
Annualized Capital (20 years) $332,800 $332,800 $453,000 $453,000
Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $0 $0 $104,200 $104,200 Operations Electricity $23,600 $23,600 $24,300 $24,300 Water $400 $200 $200 $100 Diesel $11,300 $4,500 $11,300 $4,500 Labour $123,700 $78,100 $125,100 $78,500 Equipment Maintenance and Use $161,000 $120,800 $239,900 $185,200 Subtotal $375,700 $263,000 $456,400 $328,400 Contingency (20%) $75,100 $52,600 $91,300 $65,700
Total Operating $450,800 $315,600 $547,600 $394,100
Total Costs
Annualized Total $783,600 $648,400 $1,000,600 $847,100
Annualized Total Including Grant $450,800 $315,600 $651,900 $498,400
Cost per Tonne $105 $132 $134 $173
Cost per Tonne Including Grant $60 $64 $87 $102
1
Appendix B - Scenario Costing 137 APPENDIX B – FULL SCENARIO COSTING FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure B-2: West Coast Composting Facility Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Item Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture Capital General Site Grading and Preparation $261,500 $261,500 $257,500 $257,500 Leachate and Surface Water Management $107,000 $107,000 $104,000 $104,000 Receiving Area $123,400 $123,400 $123,600 $123,600 Organics Processing $959,600 $959,600 $1,598,500 $1,598,500 Screening, Curing, and Storage $88,000 $88,000 $87,100 $87,100 Equipment (mobile) $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Subtotal Capital (without mobile equipment) $1,539,500 $1,539,500 $2,170,800 $2,170,800 Subtotal Capital (with mobile equipment) $1,939,500 $1,939,500 $2,570,800 $2,570,800 Engineering (10% of non-mobile equipment capital) $154,000 $154,000 $217,100 $217,100 Contingency (25% of non-mobile equipment capital) $384,900 $384,900 $542,700 $542,700
Total Capital $2,478,400 $2,478,400 $3,330,600 $3,330,600
Total Capital Minus Grant $296,000 $296,000 $1,330,600 $1,330,600
Annualized Capital (20 years) $216,100 $216,100 $290,400 $290,400 Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $25,800 $41,700 $116,000 $116,000 Operations Electricity $7,600 $7,500 $8,200 $8,200 Water $200 $0 $100 $100 Diesel $4,500 $1,100 $4,500 $4,500 Labour $91,300 $54,300 $92,100 $78,500 Equipment Maintenance and Use $97,900 $72,000 $153,000 $99,600 Subtotal $197,300 $135,200 $246,500 $187,200 Contingency (20%) $39,500 $27,000 $49,300 $37,400
Total Operating $236,700 $162,200 $295,800 $224,600 Total Costs Annualized Total $452,800 $378,300 $586,100 $515,000
Annualized Total Including Grant $262,600 $203,900 $411,800 $340,700
Cost per Tonne $113 $488 $146 $665
Cost per Tonne Including Grant $65 $263 $103 $440
2
Appendix138 B - Scenario Costing APPENDIX B – FULL SCENARIO COSTING FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Figure B-3: ACRD Composting Facility with West Coast Transfer Station
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Item Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture Transfer Station General Site Grading and Preparation $14,300 $14,300 $14,300 $14,300 Receiving Building $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 Equipment (mobile) $ 200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Engineering (10% of non-mobile equipment capital) $17,900 $17,900 $17,900 $17,900 Contingency (25% of non-mobile equipment capital) $44,800 $44,800 $44,800 $44,800 Transfer Station Capital $442,000 $442,000 $442,000 $442,000 Transfer Station Operating $52,500 $39,400 $52,500 $39,400 Transportation from West Coast to Alberni Valley $144,100 $26,000 $144,100 $26,000 ACRD Compost Facility General Site Grading and Preparation $337,500 $337,500 $277,900 $277,900 Leachate and Surface Water Management $129,000 $129,000 $118,700 $118,700 Receiving Building $241,100 $241,100 $242,000 $242,000 Organics Processing $1,782,000 $1,782,000 $3,052,100 $3,052,100 Curing, Screening, and Storage $195,100 $195,100 $140,700 $140,700 Equipment (mobile) $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Subtotal Capital (without mobile equipment) $2,684,800 $2,684,800 $3,831,400 $3,831,400 Subtotal Capital (with mobile equipment) $3,484,800 $3,484,800 $4,631,400 $4,631,400 Engineering (10% of non-mobile equipment capital) $268,500 $268,500 $383,100 $383,100 Contingency (25% of non-mobile equipment capital) $671,200 $671,200 $957,800 $957,800
ACRD Compost Facility Capital $4,424,400 $4,424,400 $5,972,300 $5,972,300 ACRD Compost Facility Operating Electricity $23,700 $23,600 $24,300 $24,300 Water $500 $300 $300 $300 Diesel $18,100 $9,100 $15,900 $9,800 Labour $142,300 $107,000 $145,400 $105,700 Equipment Maintenance and Use $173,900 $86,900 $285,900 $142,900 Bi-Product Revenue -$31,500 -$17,100 -$31,500 -$17,100 Subtotal $410,700 $209,800 $523,800 $265,900 Contingency (20%) $82,100 $42,000 $104,800 $53,200 ACRD Facility Operating Costs $492,900 $251,800 $628,600 $319,100
Total Capital $4,866,400 $4,866,400 $6,414,300 $6,414,300
3
Appendix B - Scenario Costing 139 APPENDIX B – FULL SCENARIO COSTING FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
Aerated Static Pile Membrane Covered Aerated Static Pile Item Design Projected Design Projected Capacity Capture Capacity Capture Total Capital Minus Grant $0 $0 $414,300 $414,300 Annualized Capital (20 years) $424,300 $424,300 $559,200 $559,200 Annualized Capital Including Grant (20 years) $0 $0 $36,100 $36,100 Total Operating $689,500 $317,200 $825,200 $384,500
Annualized Total $1,113,800 $741,500 $1,384,500 $943,800 Annualized Total Including Grant $689,500 $317,200 $861,400 $420,700 Cost per Tonne $97 $131 $121 $166 Cost per Tonne (Including Grant) $60 $56 $75 $74
4
Appendix140 B - Scenario Costing ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION SERVICE OPTIONS FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 | FEBRUARY 2019 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX C
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2
Report_ACRD-Organics_Diversion_Service Options Final 141 LEACHATE TANK
BIOFILTER BIOFILTER
GORE COVER WINDER PILE 1 PILE 4
PILE 2 PILE 5 TIPPING FLOOR/ BLENDING/ HYDRATION AREA PILE 3 PILE 6
SCREEN
SCREENING/ STORAGE/ PILE 1 PILE 2 PILE 3 PILE 4 MISCELLANEOUS PILE 1 PILE 2 PILE 3 PILE 4 STORAGE PILE 3 STORAGE PILE 2 STORAGE PILE 1 [FIGURE C-1] February 07, 2019 - 9:09:25 am (BY: CASTROMIRAVALLES, CLAUDIA) C-1] (BY: February 07, 2019 - 9:09:25 am [FIGURE
CLIENT NOTES: ACRD BC ORGANIC DIVERSION 1. DESIGN CAPACITY OF SCENARIO 1A, ALBERNI VALLEY LANDFILL, IS 7,500 TONNES. PORT ALBERNI, BC 2. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED PAVED AREA IS 7,500 SQUARE METERS. ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL 3. THE LAYOUT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAWING. EXACT SIZE, SCALE AND ORIENTATION ARE ESTIMATES. DISTRICT APPENDIX C - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1A
0 50 m PROJECT No. OFFICE DES CKD REV DRAWING 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 EDM JR WY 1 Scale: 1: 1000 DATE: SHEET No. DWN APP STATUS Figure C-1 PERMIT PROFESSIONAL SEAL January 30, 2019 1of 1 KO WY A C:\Users\C.CASTROMIRAVALLES\SharePoint\704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 ACRD BC - Doc\001\Data\Conceptual Drawings\Layout_Alberni-vr.05 CC.dwg 142 PILE 3
PILE 2
PILE 1 SCREENING/ MISCELLANEOUSSTORAGE/ PILE 1
BIOFILTER PILE 2
PILE 3 PILE 1 TIPPING FLOOR/ PILE 4 HYDRATION AREA PILE 2 BLENDING/ SCREEN
PILE 3 GORE COVER WINDER PILE 4 PILE 8
PILE 7
PILE 6
PILE 5
BIOFILTER
LEACHATE TANK [FIGURE C-2] CASTROMIRAVALLES, CLAUDIA) February 07, 2019 - 11:52:45 am [FIGURE (BY:
CLIENT NOTES: PROJECT NAME 1. DESIGN CAPACITY OF SCENARIO 1B, WEST COAST LANDFILL, IS 4,000 TONNES. PROJECT LOCATION 2. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED PAVED AREA IS 5,500 SQUARE METERS. ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL 3. THE LAYOUT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAWING. EXACT SIZE, SCALE AND ORIENTATION ARE ESTIMATES. DISTRICT APPENDIX C - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1B
PROJECT No. OFFICE DES CKD REV DRAWING 0 50 m 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 EDM JR WY 1 DATE: SHEET No. DWN APP STATUS Figure C-2 Scale: 1: 1000 PERMIT PROFESSIONAL SEAL January 30, 2019 1of 1 KO WY A C:\Users\c.castromiravalles\Documents\Layout_WestCoast-vr.05 CC.dwg 143 LEACHATE TANK
BIOFILTER BIOFILTER
PILE 1 PILE 6
GORE COVER WINDER PILE 2 PILE 7
PILE 3 PILE 8 TIPPING FLOOR/ BLENDING/ HYDRATION AREA PILE 4 PILE 9
PILE 5 PILE 10
PILE 1 PILE 4 STORAGE PILE 1 SCREEN SCREENING/ PILE 2 PILE 5 STORAGE/ STORAGE PILE 2 MISCELLANEOUS
PILE 3 PILE 6 STORAGE PILE 3 [FIGURECASTROMIRAVALLES, CLAUDIA) C-3] (BY: February 07, 2019 - 4:56:38 pm
NOTES BASED ON DRAWING PROVIDED BY.....
BASE DATA: NTS 1:50,000
STATUS FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
CLIENT 1. DESIGN CAPACITY OF SCENARIO 2, REGIONAL LANDFILL 11,500 TONNES. PROJECT NAME 2. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED PAVED AREA IS 11,000 SQUARE METERS. PROJECT LOCATION 3. THE LAYOUT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAWING. EXACT SIZE, SCALE AND ORIENTATION ARE ESTIMATES. ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT APPENDIX C - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2
PROJECT No. OFFICE DES CKD REV DRAWING 0 50 m 704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 EDM JR WY 1 DATE: SHEET No. DWN APP STATUS Figure C-3 Scale: 1: 1000 PERMIT PROFESSIONAL SEAL January 30, 2019 1of 1 KO WY A C:\Users\C.CASTROMIRAVALLES\SharePoint\704-SWM.PLAN03073-01 ACRD BC - Doc\001\Data\Conceptual Drawings\Layout_Alberni_ALL-vr.02 CC.dwg 144
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, B.C. CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 FAX: (250) 723-1327
REQUEST FOR DECISION
To: ACRD Board of Directors
From: Heather Zenner, Lands and Resources Coordinator
Meeting Date: March 13, 2019
Subject: ACRD Parks & Trails
Recommendation:
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors add the Log Train Trail to the Regional Parks Function.
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to investigate and present options to apportion costs for the Regional Parks Function that may be determined by the Board of Directors during the adoption of the financial plan each year in a manner that reflects the Board’s determination of which service participants benefit in that year.
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to pursue grant opportunities for the West Coast Multi-Use Path connection including the possibility of other funding options.
THAT the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to schedule a Committee of the Whole meeting to further discuss funding mechanism options and other park related matters.
Desired Outcome:
That the above resolutions be adopted as presented.
Background:
At the March 6, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting a presentation on parks and trails assets was given, the attached ‘Request for Decision’ was discussed, and the above resolutions were recommended by the Committee of the Whole.
Submitted by: ______Heather Zenner, RPF, Lands and Resources Coordinator
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA, Chief Administrative Officer
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 145
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, B.C. CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 FAX: (250) 723-1327
REQUEST FOR DECISION
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Heather Zenner, RPF, Lands and Resources Coordinator
Meeting Date: March 6, 2019
Subject: ACRD Parks & Trails
Recommendation:
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to add the Log Train Trail to the Regional Parks Function;
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to investigate and present options to apportion costs for the Regional Parks Function that may be determined by the Board of Directors during the adoption of the financial plan each year in a manner that reflects the Board’s determination of which service participants benefit in that year.
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors direct staff to pursue grant opportunities for the West Coast Multi-Use Path connection including the possibility of using Gas Tax funds.
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend to the ACRD Board of Directors that the Regional Parks proposed budget be included in the first reading of the 2019-2023 Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Financial Plan.
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend the ACRD Board of Directors to direct staff to schedule a Parks Service Review Committee meeting to further discuss funding mechanism options and other park related matters.
Background
The Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District has several park and trail assets that are part of an individual Electoral Area’s Community Parks Function or the Regional Parks Function as outlined further in this report. The Log Train Trail is not currently included in any service and has been historically funded through the Grant-In-Aid process.
The ACRD Parks & Trails Strategic Plan provides a comprehensive and strategic parks plan for the ACRD, guiding park and trail developments from 2015 – 2025. Seven goals were approved in the plan including governance, acquisition, economic development, planning and management, volunteers, partnerships, and environmental protection. This strategic plan included community (Bamfield, Tofino, Ucluelet, Port Alberni) input.
The ACRD has a Parks Service Review Committee made up of Board members that review and advise on the following: future components of park systems, member participation in Regional Parks function, role and options for community parks associations, financial matters, and developing terms of reference for a parks and trail committee. This committee has not met in the past couple of years and staff recommend that the Board reactivate meetings in 2019. A park and trail advisory committee has not yet been established but staff do see value in this type of advisory committee.
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 146Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek)
In this report, staff have presented a fulsome view of ACRD parks and trails to assist the Board of Directors in making informed park and trails decisions. The intent of providing all of the information is to inform the board of all park and trail assets, to identify existing services and service gaps, and to provide options for the board to consider. Asset management plans will be developed for these services over the next two years including defining level of service and determining long-term funding requirements. Currently service level varies widely over electoral areas and by asset.
Discussion
The table below outlines existing community parks & trails, parkland dedication properties, regional parks/trail, and other assets broken down by electoral area. Parks and Trails Assets within Services Bamfield Cherry Creek Beaufort Long Beach Sproat Lake Beaver Creek Other area Eileen Scott Cherry Creek None Willowbrae Faber Park, Nordstrom Park, N/A (Centennial) Trail, Rd* Cougar Smith Evergreen Park, Community Parks & Park, West Park, Maplehurst Park, Lakeshore Highland Dr*, Trails Waterfront Park Trail, Faber Trail, Karen Place*, Parcel A & B, Klitsa Rd Park, Chase Dr*. *Property acquired South Bamfield Bishop Rd Park, through parkland Rd* Sander Dr* Great dedication at Central Lake*, property subdivision Boat Launch at stage. GCL.
Regional Park/Trail Alberni Inlet Alberni Inlet None None None None Mt. Trail (portion of Trail (Stage 1 & Arrowsmith Stage 2) portion of Reg. Park Stage 2), China (owned by Creek Regional ACRD, Park located in RDN) Service Area None None None Muti-Use None None N/A Path
Trail Asset not within a Service Bamfield Cherry Creek Beaufort Long Beach Sproat Lake Beaver Creek No Service (historically funded through None Log Train Trail Log Train Trail None None None Grant-In-Aid)
Proposed Trail Connection Long Beach ʔaps iik ta̓ ii connection (From Long Beach MUP to PacRim ʔaps iik ta̓ ii). Propose to add to Regional Parks function or Multi-Use Path Service Area.
Community Parks Within the ACRD, local electoral area community parks focus on local neighbourhoods, providing children’s playgrounds, tennis/pickelball courts, trails, bike skills park, campground, greenspaces, and ball fields. Community parks are funded by the individual electoral areas in which they are located. Community parks in Sproat Lake and Bamfield operate through Parks Commissions, supported by volunteers. Staff involvement in the commissions has been minimal to date,
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 147 however the Municipal Insurance Association has identified maintenance plans and inspections as outstanding, therefore additional staff time will allocated to this in 2019. Community parks in Beaver Creek (originated from Beaver Creek Improvement District) are maintained by a combination of staff and contractors. Cherry Creek Trail maintenance will be conducted by contractors.
Parkland Dedication Properties Parkland properties have been acquired as part of property subdivision processes and form part of the community parks function. Parkland Dedication properties have not been historically managed by ACRD staff and are mainly forested or cleared areas with no infrastructure on them. Several of these properties are located in rural neighborhoods with residences in close proximity requiring danger tree assessments and tree removal as per the ACRD Danger Tree Policy. A strategic plan for these properties and for future properties would be useful to guide development. Funds to manage these properties have not been previously budgeted for, however going forward, tree removal costs and potential development costs will be budgeted in the appropriate community parks service.
Log Train Trail (LTT) The LTT property is owned by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and is leased to the ACRD for non- motorized recreational use, on a four-year term that automatically renews. The ACRD has historically funded the LTT through a grant-in-aid from the City of Port Alberni, Beaufort, Cherry Creek, Beaver Creek, and Sproat Lake, however formal inclusion of this trail into an existing service or new service is required. ACRD’s lease starts at approximately the 3km point on the LTT at the powerlines in Cherry Creek, travels northwest for 17km, ending at Woolsley Road in the Beaufort Electoral Area. Island Timberlands owns the portion of the Log Train Trail from 0km to 3km. Another section of the Log Train Trail is located in the City of Port Alberni, connecting the Roger Creek trails to Burde Street.
To help determine required maintenance costs for the LTT, staff have enquired with another Regional District who manage and operate a similar trail. Their costs were estimated to be approximately $1,770/km for maintenance including mowing and brushing, resurfacing, infrastructure replacements, signage, and inspections. The Log Train Trail doesn’t required mowing or brushing, but will have infrastructure replacements required over time so it is difficult to reasonably compare maintenance costs. Should this estimate be used, an annual operating budget of $30,000 would be required.
In 2018, staff repaired several sections of the trail, including in-stream works requiring environmental assessments and permitting from the Province. Staff are also working on signage for the trail with the Backcountry Horsemen of BC, Tseshaht First Nation, Hupacasath First Nation, and the Alberni District Historical Society. These works have been completed with the 2018 Grant-in-Aid for $16,000. Staff foresee replacing culverts on an as needed basis to maintain drainage on the trail each year, however there are two bridges that will require replacement in the short term, requiring additional funding for those replacements. Staff foresee replacing other bridges over time to maintain drainage and safe crossing for users of the trail. Staff, volunteers, and other agencies have been successful attaining grants for Alberni Valley trails and the intent is to continue to pursue these opportunities. Private forest companies with adjacent lands have also indicated interest in assisting with operations on the trail. In the past, these forest companies have provided engineering services and donations of materials.
On February 7, 2018, the Alberni Valley & Bamfield Services Committee requested staff investigate options regarding the Log Train Trail (LTT) to determine how ACRD can eliminate active management of the trail. ACRD staff presented a report to the ACRD Board of Directors, on March 28, 2018, identifying three options for the LTT including; 1) Cancel the lease, 2) Fix known hazards & develop a maintenance policy, or 3) Develop an active management plan.
At that meeting, the ACRD Board of Directors requested that staff investigate options for creating a Parks & Trails Service for the Log Train Trail including associated costs and participants of the service area. Staff reported to the Board of Directors on October 24, 2018 and requested that the new Board of Directors discuss this topic further at a Committee of the Whole meeting in early 2019.
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 148Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) Option 1 - Include the LTT in the existing Regional Parks Service.
The participants in the Regional Parks Service include City of Port Alberni, District of Tofino, District of Ucluelet, Long Beach, Bamfield, Beaufort, Beaver Creek, Sproat Lake, and Cherry Creek electoral areas. This option would not require a elector assent process and could be completed by Board resolution. There is a likely option to create cost apportionment mechanisms to balance costs with those who benefit. Changing the cost apportionment mechanism will require staff time to investigate.
Option 2 – Create a new separate service for LTT, Alberni Valley Parks and Trail Service
The creation of a new service would require a referendum or Alternative Approval Process, and could include the City of Port Alberni, Sproat Lake, Beaver Creek, Beaufort, and Cherry Creek. In 2002, the establishment of a service for the Log Train Trail went to referendum for the Beaufort, Beaver Creek, and Cherry Creek Electoral areas. The Annual Requisition limit proposed was not to exceed $20,000 per year, or $0.05 per $1000 of net taxable value of land and improvements in the service area, whichever is greater. There were 328 yes votes, and 580 no votes, therefor the service was defeated. Staff is of the opinion that, if a subsequent assent process to pay for this service fails, it may be considered disingenuous to use the miscellaneous grant provisions of the Local Government Act to pay for this ongoing service.
If this option were selected, staff would prepare information materials that clearly identify that the question of service establishment is simultaneously one of continued operation of the trail. A referendum can be expected to take four to five months, and the Alternate Approval Process approximately two months.
Multi-Use Path (MUP) The MUP is located in the Regional District just outside the District of Ucluelet. The MUP is a paved surface that connects with the District of Ucluelet’s MUP, with both path’s maintained by the District of Ucluelet. This service was established through a service establishing bylaw. Currently the MUP dead ends approximately 1.2 km from the most southerly portion of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, and from the MUP named ʔaps iik ta̓ ii, currently under construction. Connecting the existing MUP to the ʔaps iik ta̓ ii in the National Park would provide an important link between the two west coast communities for residents and visitors alike. ACRD has a Class C estimate for this trail connection at $1.13 million dollars. ACRD pursued a grant application in 2017 through the Strategic Priorities Fund, however were unsuccessful. This trail connection is included in the Board of Directors strategic priorities and staff will continue to seek grant opportunities for this trail.
Option 1 – Pursue grant opportunities for a Multi-Use Path trail connection including the possibility of using Gas Tax funds.
An extended MUP could be added to the existing MUP service however the bylaw would need to be amended to expand the service area. Alternatively, the MUP could be added to the Regional Parks Service by way of resolution.
Option 2 – Inclusion of Long Beach and Tofino Multi-Use Paths
Another option for the multi-use path project could potentially be to add both the Long Beach MUP as well as the Tofino end of the MUP (portion that is located in the Regional District), into the Regional Parks service. If an alternate funding mechanism was used, the concept is that the West Coast communities could share equally in the costs of the two ends of the trail. This would not require Tofino to give up ownership of their portion of the trail but would enable the cost sharing of the maintenance costs.
Regional Parks The participants for the Regional Parks Function include the municipalities and all electoral areas. Mt. Arrowsmith Regional Park is owned by the ACRD but is located in the Nanaimo Regional District. Mt. Arrowsmith is a popular hiking area with multiple trail routes. Staff have not been involved in active management of the park. Access to the park is from a trail at Cameron Lake, or via Cameron Main and Pass Main, two logging roads owned by Island Timberlands.
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 149 ACRD has an access agreement with Island Timberlands (originated in 1972 w/M&B) allowing for access to Mt. Arrowsmith via Island Timberlands roads, until such time as a new access road is constructed. Use of the roads is subject to permitted closures for fire hazard and operational requirements however, access is currently only granted on weekends. Access to the park during the week has been raised as an issue by several members of the public and staff are meeting with Island Timberlands to address.
China Creek Regional Park is leased to the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) and a small amount of revenue is received each year by ACRD representing a percentage of campground fees. ACRD staff are not actively involved in the management of the park but are kept aware of PAPA’s activities and plans.
The Alberni Inlet Trail (Stage 1 & Stage 2) is held within the Regional Parks function. The trail was developed by volunteers, ACRD staff, with grant funding, and is maintained by volunteers. Stage 3 has been built by volunteers on Crown land, but does not have any official status by way of inclusion into the Regional Parks Service, nor provincial trail status. ACRD staff and directors have been approached by the public, volunteers, and the Vancouver Island Spine Trail to consider funding a pedestrian bridge across the Franklin River connecting the existing trail to Stage 3 of the trail, and include Stage 3 as a part of the regional parks function. The crossing will be a substantial bridge, approximately 200 feet long. In 2016, ACRD staff requested quotes for the engineering work to be completed, however the cost far exceeded the Regional Parks budget therefor this work did not proceed. Engineering costs for the bridge are estimated to be approximately $40,000, and is required for the majority of grant applications that fund this type of project.
Staff will be looking for direction from the Board of Directors in future years with respect to additions to the Alberni Inlet Trail, specifically, for incorporating stage 3 and building the required bridge.
Financial
The draft Regional Parks budget attached to this plan includes a $15,000 operating budget for the Log Train Trail for 2019. This trail has historically been funded by the Alberni Valley using the Grant in Aid model but is proposed to be funded in the Regional Parks service in 2019 which means that all Municipalities and Electoral Areas will fund the operations in 2019. The ongoing operating costs are estimated at $30,000 annually but staff recommend minimal maintenance this year while the funding mechanism for Regional Parks is determined.
Conclusion
There are a number of unresolved funding and governance issues for parks and trails including the question of equity of community benefit and cost apportionment. Correcting the issues as presented in this report will take both the 2019 and 2020 budget years to resolve if the recommendations in this report are adopted.
Submitted by: ______Heather Zenner, RPF, Lands and Resources Coordinator
Reviewed by: ______Rob Williams, MSc, General Manager of Environmental Services
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA, Chief Administrative Officer
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 150Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek)
ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni BC, CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 Fax (250) 723-1327
MEMORANDUM
TO: ACRD Board of Directors
FROM: Alex Dyer, MCIP, RPP, Planner
MEETING DATE: March 13, 2019
RE: Public Hearing Report for Bylaw P1383 (McMaster)
Recommendation:
THAT the Board of Directors receive the public hearing report.
THAT the Board of Directors receive the public hearing minutes.
THAT Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw P1383 be read a second time.
THAT Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw P1383 be read a third time.
Background
A Public Hearing for Bylaw P1383 was held on Tuesday, March 5, 2018 in the Ucluelet Community Centre, 500 Matterson Drive, Ucluelet, BC. The hearing was chaired by Electoral Area ‘C’ Director Kel Roberts and attended by District of Ucluelet Mayor Mayco Noël, ACRD Planning staff Mike Irg and Alex Dyer, applicant Toby Seward representing the property owner and 23 members of the public.
One letter of correspondence was received prior to the public hearing and another letter was submitted at the hearing. The two letters are attached to the minutes as Appendix ‘A’. The agency referral responses received were noted at the public hearing and are attached to the minutes as Appendix ‘B’.
A number of concerns were raised by members of the public including securing suitable public access to the water, public access to the surf spot in the northeast corner of the property, parkland dedication, environmental protection, wildlife protection, road access, lack of a master development plan, developer accountability, real estate market demand, generator noise and fire hazard risk.
RC18015 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe, Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 151 Page | 2
Conditions of Rezoning
The zoning amendment bylaw was given first reading on January 23, 2018, at which time the ACRD Board confirmed that adoption of the bylaw is conditional on: a. Confirmation of support from Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government and Toquaht Nation; b. Restrictive covenant registered on the property title requiring suitable public access to water, acceptable to the ACRD, at the time of subdivision; c. Restrictive covenant registered on the property title prohibiting any land clearing, vegetation removal or development within 30 metres of the natural boundary of Barkley Sound with the exception of low-impact access trails; and d. Meeting technical referral agency requirements.
Following the discussion at the public hearing, the property owner has committed to working with the ACRD and the surfing community to identify a satisfactory beach access and parking area and establishing a noise restriction for generators through a restrictive covenant.
Planning staff are recommending that the Board of Directors proceed with second and third reading of Bylaw P1383 subject to the conditions previously outlined with the added condition that a noise restriction for generators be established by restrictive covenant prior to final adoption.
Prepared by: ______Alex Dyer, MCIP, RPP Planner
Reviewed by: ______Mike Irg, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning and Development
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA Chief Administrative Officer
RC18015 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe, Toquaht Nation 152Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARCH 05, 2019 – ELECTORAL AREA ‘C’
Minutes of a Public Hearing held on Tuesday, March 05, 2019 at 7:00 pm in the Ucluelet Community Centre, 500 Matterson Drive, Ucluelet, BC.
Present: Kel Roberts, Director for Electoral Area ‘C’ (Long Beach) Directors Present: Mayco Noël, District of Ucluelet Mayor Staff: Alex Dyer, Planner and Mike Irg, Manager of Planning and Development Applicant: Toby Seward (RC18015) Members of the Public: 23
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm.
2. Director Roberts introduces himself and planning staff. He explains that the hearing is for a bylaw associated with a proposal to facilitate a subdivision with a 5 acre minimum lot size. The applicant has provided a subdivision layout of up to 31 parcels. He asks that anyone with questions or comments on an unrelated topic to speak with planning staff after the hearing has been terminated.
3. Director Roberts asks staff to read out Notice of Public Hearing.
4. The notice is read by A. Dyer as follows:
A Public Hearing for residents and property owners within Electoral Area ‘C’ will be held in the Ucluelet Community Centre, 500 Matterson Drive, Ucluelet BC, at 7:00 pm on Tuesday, March 5th, 2019. The purpose of this hearing is to consider Bylaw P1383. This bylaw is necessary to facilitate a subdivision with a 5 acre minimum lot size. The applicant has provided a conceptual subdivision layout of up to 31 parcels.
Bylaw P1383 to rezone DISTRICT LOT 1332, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT from Forest Reserve (A4) District to Rural (A2) District.
John Cameron McMaster, Property Owner – District Lot 1332, Barkley Sound Area
Anyone who feels their interest in property will be affected by the proposed bylaw will be given an opportunity to speak on matters contained in the bylaw.
The Public Hearing will be held by the Director for Electoral Area ‘C’, the Alternate Director or the Chairperson of the Regional Board, as a delegate of the Regional Board. A copy of the Board resolution making this delegation is available for public review.
If you would like more information on this proposal, the bylaw and relevant background documents are available for public review at the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot office during normal office hours, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, from February 20, 2019 to March 4, 2019 inclusive.
Any correspondence submitted prior to the Public Hearing should be addressed to the following:
Mike Irg, MCIP, RPP, Manager of Planning and Development
1 | Page 153 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARCH 05, 2019 – ELECTORAL AREA ‘C’
5. Director Roberts acknowledges the public hearing is being held within the traditional territory of the Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government and the Toquaht Nation. He then asks the applicant to explain his proposal.
6. Toby Seward explains the proposal. He represents the property owner Cameron McMaster who is unable to attend. Cameron purchased the property two years ago and intends to subdivide into up to 31 parcels, keeping eight parcels as a legacy for his family. Will develop in three phases, 10 lots at a time. The subdivision will be a long process to get through technical requirements. This hearing is dealing with the land use. The intention is 5 acre lots which is supported by the Official Community Plan. First reading of the bylaw was given and conditions were set on the approval of rezoning including the holding of a public hearing, securing public access to water, protecting the riparian area and support from First Nations. Held a neighbourhood information meeting on November 9, 2018. Good attendance including many people here tonight. Issues raised at that meeting included public access, parking, access to the surf break and generator noise. The Long Beach Advisory Planning Commission meeting was held on December 17, 2018. Good discussion about the proposal complying with the OCP, road access, hydro or off-grid power. Addressed the demand for 5 acre lots, phasing of the lots is proposed and the market will determine the demand. Introduced and reviewed two poster maps set up for the public. One map was of the OCP designations within the South Long Beach OCP and another map showed the conceptual subdivision layout over the orthophoto of the property. There are only four large property designated for development under Country Residential in the OCP and this is one of them.
7. Director Roberts asks staff to read out any written submissions.
8. A. Dyer notes that one letter of correspondence was received prior to the public hearing (Appendix ‘A’). He mentions agency referral responses (Appendix ‘B’). District of Ucluelet staff have provided a response recommending that the bylaw not be approved at this time to allow the District the opportunity to consider the referral. The other agency referrals recommended either approval subject to conditions outlined or noted interests unaffected. Copies of both the agency referrals and the letter were made available for the public at the meeting.
9. A. Dyer discusses the proposal and expands upon the technical conditions to be met prior to adoption of the rezoning. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal complies with the South Long Beach OCP. The OCP designation of Country Residential Comprehensive Development Area supports low-impact, low-density rural residential development. An objective of the designation is to retain the “wild Pacific” character in new development minimizing visual impact from the water and minimizing impact on the natural environment. The OCP designation supports a 2 hectare (4.94 acre) minimum lot size. Final approval is conditional on a number of technical matters:
a. Public access. The property is actively used for access to water by the local surfing community. While there is an old logging road and trail system on this private property, there is currently no public access through this property. The Provincial Approving Officer can require public access to water at the subdivision stage but can also waive that requirement. To ensure that public access to water is provided through this development, the ACRD is requiring that a restrictive covenant be registered to the property requiring suitable public access to water, acceptable to the ACRD. The
2 | Page 154 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARCH 05, 2019 – ELECTORAL AREA ‘C’
OCP supports public access to water and retain public access to the foreshore. This development will see public access to the water dedicated through subdivision. As noted, this will be an improvement to the current situation as there is currently no public access through this private property.
b. Environmental protection. The protection of the unique coastal environment within the Barkley Sound Marine Area is a key component of the South Long Beach OCP. Recognizing the ecological importance of the area and the desire to maintain a “wild Pacific” character, the ACRD is requiring that a restrictive covenant be registered to the property prohibiting any land clearing, vegetation removal or development within 30 metres of the natural boundary of Barkley Sound with the exception of low-impact access trails. The covenant must be registered prior to staff recommending approval of the rezoning. The OCP designates a 30 metre development permit area along the coast requiring a review from a professional biologist prior to any development. The 30 metre no vegetation removal and no building covenant will ensure the permanent protection of the riparian area. The current building setback is 15 metres from the natural boundary; this covenant would double that to 30 metres and also address vegetation removal.
c. Support from First Nations. The property is directly adjacent to Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government land to the west and in the vicinity of Toquaht Nation land. Confirmation of support from both First Nations are included as a condition of rezoning approval. The ACRD has sent referrals to both First Nations and the applicant has had conversations as well. If any correspondence is received indicating a lack of support, staff will report to the ACRD Board who will make a decision on how to proceed.
10. Director Roberts asks if anyone from the public would like to comment. He emphasizes that we will hear everyone wishing to speak for the first time before allowing second comments.
11. A. Dyer asks that speakers list their name and address and speak one at a time.
12. Laura Griffith-Cochrane, 1357 Pine Road, Ucluelet. This is a special place to the culture of Ucluelet. Very well protected by locals. Needs to be protected for the ecological integrity and tourist industry. Water runoff affecting fish habitat is a concern. Securing public access to water is important as this was lost in Itatsoo Bay with that development. Public access needs to be enforced and guaranteed. Illegal dumping and building has become an issue. Beach clean ups are required. Further development risks more dumping. Request that park land be provided close to the surf break on the east side of the property. Parking for 20 vehicles, picnic tables, bathrooms, family accessible. Similar to the park at Sombrio Beach.
13. Julian Ling, 1007 Uplands Close, Ucluelet. He provided the written submission ahead of the meeting and will summarize his concerns verbally. The Board should not proceed with this proposal as proposed. Rezoning all of this land is not in the public interest, servicing is not sufficient and currently no demand for these lots. The rezoning process has discretion, the technical referral requirements are just box ticking. The public needs to be protected by this land use decision. Provision of park land is not sufficient. Establishment of the Telegraph Trail noted in the OCP. Compared with recent master development agreements done in Ucluelet where a better job was done of protecting land. Comprehensive Development zone would better address the needs of the community. Referenced Barkley Sound Planning Strategy developed in 1994. It is good that
3 | Page 155 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARCH 05, 2019 – ELECTORAL AREA ‘C’
the developer is considering hydro, the generator noise issue is real. Road access is a forest service road that is not maintained. There is no road maintenance agreement. 30 more lots is unsustainable. Presented growth research, there are not many new homes being built in the area. There is no currently no demand. If the development is phased, this needs a master development plan. Needs to be secured at this point.
14. John Harkin, 651 Rainforest Drive, Ucluelet. Submitted letter of correspondence. Proposed beach access is inadequate. The parking is not good enough, parking area needs to be at the Vets break (on proposed Lot 16) on the east side of the property. Parking for at least 20 vehicles needed, guaranteed access to the surf break from the park. This is a special place and need to provide more access.
15. Jason Corlazzoli, 1722 Bay Street, Ucluelet. Access should be provided at proposed Lot 16 in the north east corner. Have been surfing there for many years and not take family there. Would be terrible to lost this space for families.
16. Glynis Newman, 1001 Uplands Close, Ucluelet. Concerns with this development as proposed, not against development in general. If solar power were used to power these five acre lots, the tree canopy would be removed. If not solar, then generator noise will be excessive. Both for residents and wildlife. No master development plan is concerning. Campfires and woodstoves in each home increases the fire risk and there is no fire protection in this area. Road access has been really bad this winter, the Ministry does not maintain Hawkes Road within the Itatsoo development. More use of the road will require more maintenance. Taxes will go up The plan looks good for this development but we have seen developers not keep promises before. Who will enforce the bylaws in this area?
17. William Fend, 2490 Tofino-Ucluelet Highway, Ucluelet. With due respect to the applicant, the community has been told lies by developers before. Roads will see increased traffic and cannot support this level of density. Need larger lots and park land dedication. There is no accountability from a blanket rezoning, need a master plan. Septic requirements, water access only subdivision. The developer could be profitable at 10 acres as well. Objected to the development of the OCP at the time due to lack of public response. It was not relevant to the community. Will this area be used for nightly rental? We have had fatalities on that road from people unfamiliar with driving on gravel roads. Biggest concerns is accountability and the need for a master plan. Need to see a slow process to allow for good development.
18. Gary Allen, 1001 Uplands Close, Ucluelet. Reiterate how things can change in developments. In the uplands development at Itatsoo they were made promises that have since changed. Access to beach changed, the trail is dangerous and the beach can only be used at low tide. Density of land along the water changed to five acres. Need to be careful with development and have checks and balances.
19. Jim Whitworth, PO Box 564, Ucluelet. Lots of talk about public interest. Need to consider the wilderness community as well. The terrestrial and aquatic wildlife have suffered. Need place for wildlife. Humans don’t have the right.
20. M. Irg addresses bylaw enforcement and the need for building permits for any building within the ACRD. Complaint basis.
4 | Page 156 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARCH 05, 2019 – ELECTORAL AREA ‘C’
21. Glynis Newman, 1001 Uplands Close. Need ACRD staff to come in and review issues in these rural areas.
22. Matt Harvish, Ucluelet. Bylaw staff need to come out. The issues at the Medicine Farm are not being enforced after complaints were made. The ACRD needs to show better enforcement.
23. Jim Whitworth, PO Box 564, Ucluelet. The required setback is too small. 30 metre is not enough. Runoff from septic fields will be an issue.
24. Director Roberts asks if anyone from the public would like to comment a first time. He asks if anyone would like to speak a second time.
25. Toby Seward follows up with additional comments. The developer is willing to look at better public access for surfers within the community. Itatsoo Bay is a strata development, this development will be a fee simple subdivision. Different level of commitment from the developer. Recognize that there have been issues in the community, the developer needs to prove a commitment to the community. Building scheme will be in place to limit generator noise. Road access is Crown Land under the Ministry of Forests control. Have talked with them about it and will follow through if the rezoning is successful.
26. Nicky Ling, 1007 Uplands Close, Ucluelet. Understand the difference between strata and fee simple development. There is a building scheme registered at Itatsoo and it is ineffective once ownership changes. Building scheme is inadequate.
27. Julian Ling, 1007 Uplands Close, Ucluelet. The development is not appropriate as proposed. Needs a Comprehensive Development zone with a master plan included.
28. William Fend, 2490 Tofino-Ucluelet Highway, Ucluelet. An email list should be developed to allow for an active conversation and better information sharing with the ACRD. Found out about this hearing by accident. Need to modernize notification procedure to allow for a cleaner flow of information.
29. A. Dyer answers a question about the rezoning process. The minutes from the public hearing will be presented to the Board with a staff report on March 13th. The Board will either decide to proceed, consider adding conditions of approval or propose changes to the development at that meeting. If the Board proceeds, the developer would need to address the conditions of approval required before final adoption.
30. Director Roberts asks if there are any more comments. He thanks everyone for their input. He explains that any member of the Board of Directors cannot receive new information related to this proposal between now and the next Board meeting on March 13th. If that happens, the public hearing would be invalidated and would have to be held again.
31. Director Roberts calls three times for further representations on the bylaw. Hearing none, he terminates the hearing at 8:08 pm.
5 | Page 157 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARCH 05, 2019 – ELECTORAL AREA ‘C’
Certified Correct: ______Kel Roberts, Director for Electoral Area ‘C’ – Long Beach
Minutes Prepared by: ______Alex Dyer, Planner
6 | Page 158 Appendix 'A'
Mr. Julian Ling 1007, Uplands Close Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Area C “South Long Beach” PO Box 923 Ucluelet, BC V0R 3A0 March 4, 2019 Mr. Mike Irg, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning and Development Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot 3008 Fifth Avenue Port Alberni, BC V9Y 2E3 By email to [email protected]
Dear Mr. Irg,
I have been considering carefully the rezoning request for DL 1332 and proposed Bylaw P1383 and I oppose the proposed re-zoning from A2 to A4 for the following three reasons:
1. The rezoning of all this land to A2 is not in the public interest and to do so is not consistent with the objectives and policies laid out in the Official Community Plan 2. The services (namely road access and BC Hydro electrical power service) are not sufficient for this number or density of residential lots. 3. There is not an established demand for further residential lots in the area.
I am a property owner and full-time resident of this area for six years and I am considering the interests of the present community as well as the future residents should a development of these lands be successful.
In this opposition, I reference the ACRD Area C Zoning Bylaw, the ACRD Area C Official Community Plan (“OCP”) and the Barclay Sound Planning Strategy (“BSPS”), which is a multi-agency strategy developed by the Barclay Sound Planning Committee of which the ACRD is a member.
The BSPS is acknowledged within the Section 4.13 of the OCP and states that “The [Official Community] Plan agrees with the [BSPS’] stated principles of resource sustainability, environmental significance, development suitability, community involvement, land and sea claims, and inter-agency cooperation” 1. The rezoning of all this land to A2 is not in the public interest and to do so is not consistent with the objectives and policies laid out in the Official Community Plan The particulars of subdivision, especially with regard to adequate public access to the lots, are appropriate to defer to subdivision and specifically to the Preliminary Layout Approval (“PLA”) process, on which The Ministry of Transport and Approving Officer are key arbiters. I believe that land use decisions should be made in the re-zoning process, which is a process arbitrated by publicly elected officials to act in the interest of the community, and not deferred to the mostly technical matter of subdivision.
This is a decision about re-zoning and land use designation and must be decided according to what is in the interest of the community.
159
By contrast, subdivision is in the interest of the developer, and it is the responsibility of the ACRD to establish the appropriate land use through the OCP and re-zoning process, and for the developer to apply for a subdivision working within those constraints.
In this case, I strongly object with the blanket rezoning of this entire District Lot from A4 to A2 in order to enable a subdivision from the current 160-acre parcel to multiple lots with a minimum 5-acre parcel size. I object to it because not all that land is appropriate for a residential use, and depending on the layout, some of those 5-acre parcels might be wholly or almost entirely situated within areas at risk from tsunami inundation.
The subject property is located at the gateway to the Barclay Sound unit of the Pacific Rin National Park Reserve (“PRNPR”) and is in an internationally important ecological environment and it overlooks and is visible from the PRNPR. In protection of the marine environment, to avoid potentially hazardous conditions, and to minimize the visual impact of development, the BSPS and the OCP call for setbacks and minimum elevations for development adjacent to the coast.
Guideline 3.2 (2) of the BSPS calls for a leave-strip of 30m along the shoreline and Section 8.2.5 of the OCP “DPA IV – Natural Hazard Areas Protection” calls for avoiding development within a 30m setback and 4m elevation of the high tide line.
In the OCP, the Parks and Recreation objective 4.15.1(e) and policies 4.15.2(n and p), the OCP supports development of a trail network termed the West Coast Telegraph Trail from Ucluelet to Toquaht Bay, and the easements proposed by ACRD staff would require public access to the foreshore to be provided. The subdivision known as “The Uplands at Ittatsoo Bay” includes provisions by way of easements for such a trail.
Furthermore, the BSPS in Section 3.4 discourages development sprawl outside the three community areas of Ucluelet, Port Alberni and Bamfield, and encourages maintenance of low-density residential development and large minimum parcel sizes. “Where major subdivisions are permitted in areas deemed suitable for subdivision, they should occur on a basis which ensures comprehensive site planning, clustered development and protection of visually environmentally sensitive areas.”
Given the significant size of this lot: 160 acres, I believe the ACRD could instead consider a proposal for a Country Residential Comprehensive Development (“CRDC”) zoning including a Master Development Plan that lays out the areas of land suitable for residential occupation, and that which is not suitable for residential occupation and is more appropriately reserved for trails, parkland or other uses.
The policies for development in a CRDC zone are laid out in Section 4.6.3 of the OCP and rightly include density considerations, protection of natural systems, infrastructure, development standards including green infrastructure and FireSmart principles and “a network of open space, parkland, pedestrian and bicycle trails as well as roads throughout the project that link with regional road and trail systems.”. The policies for CRDC development also include a limitation of 15% on the number of units permitted to be used for Vacation Rental Residential Units.
In terms of protection of the community from tsunami hazard, I suggest to go further than the 4m elevation restriction imposed by the Hazard Area DPA IV, and consistent with official evacuation advice, I propose that coastal land below an elevation of 20 metres is not suitable for residential occupancy,
160
particularly since there are no emergency warning sirens or emergency evacuation protocols for residents in this area, nor any plans to implement them.
In the District of Ucluelet, where such warning systems are in place and in the process of expansion, even they are in the process of negotiating and legislating to protect the community from tsunami inundation risk whenever the opportunity for re-zoning or re-negotiation of Comprehensive Development Master Plans arises. Good examples of this are the expansion of the Oceanwest development extending Marine Drive to the north west and in the OCP update draft which has been circulated for feedback. However, at minimum, the zoning here should respect the 30m setback and 4m elevation contained in the OCP.
I propose that it would be appropriate to assign a land-use of parkland to these lower-lying and coastal portions of the land to meet the stated objectives of the OCP. If the opportunity to designate community parkland for waterfront access and for a trail network is missed at re-zoning, it will be substantially harder, if even possible, to achieve the objectives laid out in the OCP.
The remainder of the land which is suitable for residential occupancy could then be zoned accordingly. 2. The services are not sufficient for this number and density of residential lots
The present zoning is Forest Reserve District A4 and per the Zoning Bylaw, the intent of this district is to “provide for the retention of forest and wildland. The primary uses allowed by this district are natural resource development and extraction, protecting the land from premature building development or subdivision fragmentation.”
In order to accommodate an increase in the density of occupation, adequate public access must be provided, but there are significant environmental objections in the BSPS relating to herring spawn habitat which makes developing a boat launch and dock for water access to this lot impractical, and there are no public road access routes from the public highway.
This proposed rezoning to A2 could permit up to 31 parcels to be created, each of which could have a principal dwelling, and due to being greater than 2.0 hectares (4.94 acres) in size, may also have a secondary dwelling unit. This could result in up to 62 additional dwellings for which there is no public road access.
By comparison, the other developments in the area have a lower density and restrictive covenants in place restricting them to have no more than one family dwelling per lot.
The Uplands at Ittatsoo Bay subdivision is zoned A3 and has fourteen 10-acre lots with a restrictive covenant for one family dwelling only, and a prohibition on further subdivision. The Ittatsoo Midlands and Oceanfront have restrictive covenants limiting to a maximum of 16 and 10 lots respectively, 26 lots in total on a combined area of 180 acres, although, leaving approximately 50 acres (28%) for dedication to infrastructure and parks. Unlike the (larger) Uplands lots, these lots are not currently prohibited from having secondary dwelling units in addition to the principal dwelling unit, although such a restriction may be required in a Preliminary Layout Approval, if granted.
Adding the current, pending and proposed subdivisions would place a substantial traffic burden on the unsatisfactory, and non-public road access.
161
Prior to 2007, in areas designated by the OCP as Country Residential (on DL 804, DL 805, DL 1511, DL 1091, DL 1332, and S 54 as shown in Figure 1) there were 7 dwellings on 9 rural residential lots of varying size with each making informal use of the non-public road access instead of their officially designated water access.
Mussel Beach
Uplands
Midlands Oceanfront
Subject Property Other pre- existing lots in DL1511
Figure 1 - Areas designated by the OCP for Country Residential use. (Source: The Area C OCP Map 3 with approximate overlays for the named areas)
The subdivision of “Uplands at Ittatsoo Bay” in 2007 created 14 additional lots bringing the total for the area to 23.
As of January 2019, only 4 of the “Uplands” lots are formally occupied, with the remaining 10 largely unoccupied and undeveloped. This brings the current total number of occupied dwellings, which is a measure for traffic on the road to 11 dwellings on 23 lots, with a possibility of up to 30 dwellings total.
The subdivisions of Midlands and Oceanfront is pending approval, and if approved would create 26 additional lots and up to 52 further dwellings.
The addition of the proposed re-zoning and consequent subdivision of DL 1332 to 31 lots would be an additional 30 lots and 60 dwellings, bringing the total for the area to 79 lots and 142 potential dwellings.
162
Forecast Growth in No. of Lots, Maxmum No. of Dwellings and Actual Number of Dwellings Occupied since 2007 160
140 142
120
100
80 82 79 60 49 40 28 30 20 23 23 14 79 7 11 0 Before 2007 Uplands Subdivision Now (January 2019) Midlands and If this re-zoning is in 2007 Oceanfront approved (pending)
#Lots #Dwellings (maximum approved) #Dwellings (actual)
Figure 2 - Growth in Number of Lots and Dwellings (Source: Analysis by the author)
The quantity of 142 potential dwellings is more than 12 times the current number of 11 dwellings, and to approve such a re-zoning seems like a reckless rate of expansion when the current access provision via road is barely enough on a practical basis and is not even public.
I understand that subdivision for Midlands and Oceanfront has still not been approved, despite being many years after its submission. So, to approve a re-zoning for higher density of DL 1332 at this point would seem to create false hope for a subsequent subdivision, which, according to the current situation seems unlikely to be approved by the Ministry of Transport in the foreseeable future.
If the network of roads from Port Albion Road, through Barclay Main and unnamed roads to the north end of Hunt Bay Road were to be upgraded accordingly and adopted as Provincial Highway, then this would no-longer be a concern.
In addition to necessary improvements in road access to the area, a grid-fed electrical supply is essential to the sustainability and peaceful nature of the area, especially in the context of residential occupation of lots with relatively small size.
Our home is in a subdivision zoned A3 with minimum parcel sizes of 10 acres, and even then, we can hear the generators of our two neighbours when they are running. In the winter, when the sun is low, the clouds are thick and it may be raining and/or foggy, generator usage is a daily need. With current technology, these are noisy and require fuels from non-renewable sources to operate, such as gasoline, diesel or propane. To approve a large strategic re-zoning for off-grid residential occupation like this without consideration of the energy source required to operate up to 62 new homes would be remiss.
All other areas within ACRD Area C that are similarly populous (Port Albion, Millstream and Salmon Beach) are on-grid and have good access to the public roads. The subject property does not have either.
163
3. There is not an established demand for further residential lots in the area.
Re-zoning to create additional lots should only be permitted where there is a demand in the community for such expansion.
It is difficult to argue the need for additional capacity being required at this time when there are presently 12 unoccupied lots (approx. half of the total lots), and if the already re-zoned Midlands and Oceanfront are subdivided to 5-acre lots, then an additional 26 vacant lots would be added.
It has taken more than 10 years for the number of dwellings to grow by from 7 to 11. We don’t need a potential for another 30 lots in addition to the 26 already under consideration. Summary
In summary, I would urge the Director for ACRD Area C and the ACRD Board to consider this re-zoning application in the interests of the community, not that of the developer, and to protect the internationally renowned Barclay Sound and National Park Reserve area from gratuitous development against the wishes of the existing community and the interests of the prospective community.
To recap, I object to this rezoning on the basis that:
1. The rezoning of all this land to A2 is not in the public interest and to do so is not consistent with the objectives and policies laid out in the Official Community Plan 2. The services (namely road access and BC Hydro electrical power service) are not sufficient for this number or density of residential lots. 3. There is not an established demand for further residential lots in the area.
A proposal for development which addressed public road access, on-grid electrical power, parkland designation including trails and pedestrian waterfront access, and the minimisation of visual impact from Barclay Sound, perhaps through a Comprehensive Development type of zoning may be a more appropriate way to proceed and could be in the interest of the present and future community. This would be a sustainable development of the lands marked for Country Residential use in the OCP, and the improved services and amenities would likely drive a growth in demand for those lots.
Thank-you for taking these views into consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Ling
164 165 Appendix 'B'
From: Bruvall, Stephanie To: Alex Dyer Cc: Charity Hallberg Dodds; Yehia, Jade Subject: RE: Bylaw Referral Response Request - File No. RC18015/P1383, DL1332 Barkley Sound (McMaster) Date: February-22-19 2:01:15 PM
Alex,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above rezoning application; Island Health (VIHA) appreciates the opportunity to provide evidence based recommendations and comments for this referral. Due to the rural nature of the proposed development, a full Healthy Built Environment approach to the review of the application was not conducted, however, there are a few highlights that are worth mentioning. These highlights as well as regulatory comments are outlined below.
Health Built Environment Highlights
Island Health is supportive of the ACRD’s recommendation to require public access trail to the water and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas. There is evidence supporting a strong relationship between exposure to nature and the reduction of stress, chronic disease, depression and anxiety as well as an increase in physical activity1. Health research also supports a strong relationship between biodiversity and measures of ecosystem functioning, such as improved water quality and soil health1.
Regulatory Considerations
Wastewater - Island Health would only be supportive of the development if it can be shown that soil conditions on the proposed properties meet the intent of our Subdivision Standards . The intent is to prolong the expected life of sewerage systems and safeguard the environment and public health. Island Health will have an opportunity to evaluate compliance with the Subdivision Standards upon referral from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
Drinking Water - as the development is proposing individual wells to service the lots, compliance with the Drinking Water Protection Act has not being considered as part of this review.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for further clarification.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Bruvall Environmental Health Officer, CPHI(C) Island Health +4201 6th Ave, Port Alberni, BC V9Y 4N1 ) 250-731-1315 x41768 7 250-731-1316 :[email protected]
166
1 BCCDC (2018). Healthy Built Environment Linkages Toolkit: making the links between design, planning and health, Version 2.0. Retrieved from: http://www.bccdc.ca/health- professionals/professional-resources/healthy-built-environment-linkages-toolkit
From: Charity Hallberg Dodds
Hi Everyone, Attached please find the referral package for Bylaw P1383. Please complete the response summary and return to us by February 22nd. If you have any questions about this application, please contact Alex Dyer by phone at 250-720-2708 or by email at [email protected] .
Thanks!
Charity Hallberg Dodds Planning Assistant Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Phone: (250) 720-2701 Fax: (250) 723-1327
This email is confidential and may be privileged. Any use of this email by an unintended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this email in error please notify me immediately and delete it.
167 From: Hallworth, Jeff FLNR:EX To: Alex Dyer Subject: FW: Bylaw Referral Response Request - File No. RC18015/P1383, DL1332 Barkley Sound (McMaster) Date: January-29-19 3:49:57 PM Attachments: RC18015 referral form_20190129 (3).pdf
Hi Alex – No concerns with this one as DL 132 is private land.
Cheers,
Jeff Hallworth, P.Ag. Licensed Authorizations Officer Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development South Island Natural Resource District 4885 Cherry Creek Road, Port Alberni, BC, V9Y-8E9 Ph: 250-731-3022, Em: [email protected]
From: Charity Hallberg Dodds [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:25 PM To: Stephanie Bruvall; Pirozzini, Bryce TRAN:EX; Hallworth, Jeff FLNR:EX; John Towgood ([email protected]); David Johnsen; '[email protected]'; Brett Mortlock; Luc Stefani; Spencer Touchie; '[email protected]' Cc: Alex Dyer; XT:Irg, Mike Alberni-Clyoquot Regional District EAO:IN Subject: Bylaw Referral Response Request - File No. RC18015/P1383, DL1332 Barkley Sound (McMaster)
Hi Everyone, Attached please find the referral package for Bylaw P1383. Please complete the response summary and return to us by February 22nd. If you have any questions about this application, please contact Alex Dyer by phone at 250-720-2708 or by email at [email protected] .
Thanks!
Charity Hallberg Dodds Planning Assistant Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Phone: (250) 720-2701 Fax: (250) 723-1327
This email is confidential and may be privileged. Any use of this email by an unintended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this email in error please notify me immediately and delete it.
168
ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni BC, CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 Fax (250) 723-1327
BYLAW RESPONSE SUMMARY BYLAW NO.: P1383 ACRD FILE NO.: RC18015
APPLICANT NAME: Cameron McMaster ACRD CONTACT: Alex Dyer, Planner Date of Referral: January 29, 2019
Approval Recommended for Reasons ✔ Interests Unaffected by Bylaw Outlined Below
Approval Recommended Subject to Approval NOT Recommended Due to Conditions Below Reasons Outlined Below
Private land - no concerns.
Agency (please print): MFLNRORD Name (please print): Jeff Hallworth Title: Land Officer Signature: Date: Jan. 29, 2019
169 Our file: 2019-00770 Your file: RC18015 Date: February 12, 2019
Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District 3008 Fifth Avenue Port Alberni, BC V9Y 2E3
Attention: Charity Hallberg Dodds, Planning Assistant
The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) has received and reviewed your referral dated January 29, 2019, for the proposed rezone application from Forest Reserve (A4) District to Rural (A2) District, on the subject property legally described as DISTRICT LOT 1332, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT.
The Ministry does not object to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions:
• Not to be construed as subdivision approval • No additional drainage is to be directed to the Ministry’s drainage system (ie. post development drainage flow is not to exceed pre-development flows)
Additionally, please note that the following items may be considerations of subdivision review (including, but are not limited to):
• Geotechnical Assessment • Stormwater Management Plan • Road Access/Construction
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you or the proponent has any questions, please contact me at (250) 751-7089 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
District Development Technician
Ministry of Vancouver Island District Mailing Address: Transportation and Suite 301 – 2100 Labieux Road Infrastructure Nanaimo, BC V9T 6E9 Telephone: (250) 751-3246 Facsimile: (250) 751-3289
170 171 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT
BYLAW NO. P1383
OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT NO. 711
A bylaw of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot to amend Bylaw No. 15, being the “Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning By-law No. 15, 1971”.
WHEREAS the Local Government Act authorizes the Regional Board to amend a zoning bylaw after a public hearing and upon the affirmative vote of the directors in accordance with Sections 464, 465, 470 and 479 of the Local Government Act;
AND WHEREAS an application has been made to rezone a property;
AND WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot, in open meeting assembled, enacts the following amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning By-law No. 15, 1971:
1. TITLE This bylaw may be cited as the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Zoning Atlas Amendment Bylaw No. P1383.
2. Bylaw No. 15 of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot is hereby amended by rezoning: DISTRICT LOT 1332, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT from Forest Reserve (A4) District to Rural (A2) District as shown on Schedule ‘A’ which is attached to and forms part of this bylaw.
3. This bylaw shall come into force and take effect upon the adoption thereof.
Read a first time this 23rd day of January, 2019 Public hearing held this 5th day of March, 2019 Read a second time this day of Read a third time this day of
Adopted this day of
______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA Chair of the Regional Board Chief Administrative Officer
172 Schedule 'A' This schedule is attached to and forms part of Bylaw P1383 1200
HAWKES RD
Blk A WILLOWBRAE 21 Port7027 AlbionA Rd
467 26 2450 2455 14 2454 24531692 7 3497 R/W 477 476
VIP87462EPC493 25 15 1898
4682440 16 2440 2443AVENUE 6 25 Port Albion Rd 2430 DVC160012433 2429B PLAN 3497 R/W TL 10287 P
WYA 24 1692 2435 17 A 2425 ROAD LotPlan 1 EPP5205 23 2430 2080 (T 0553)
2420 PLAN 2425DPC12002DVC12005 18 GRANT1692 4 2420 B PORT
2410 Willowbrae A VIP74725 1979 ALBION
22 2414 PLAN2415 1 30872227 2 3
2410 2251 HILLTOP2PLAN229 233314 ROAD S 46 S 45
21 Ditch 226 325562305 2344 25180233 1 2401 2
1 2390 255298 23823659 25529237 11410 22722312 21913 21514 200 2008
VIP 69229 LEE7HIGHWAY 262 2466 242 239MAVIS AVE.3 231 PLAN228 220224 216 212EG164386208 A
LotPlan 1 EPP5206 VIP76229 2884 2655 STREET24111 2352 CRESCENT2361 232 287817 56 4 3 2108 106
2843 2572617 10233186 245 240244 AM 9 8
470 280233182 253 2498PLAN9 ALBION248 13244 B 2331812 2110
2 2370 UCLUELET 27227611 25215 14
2360 2682 260 256 P.P.16 3512 SL 1 PLAN 3497R/W
19265 264KARN AVE.3 262 PH17
198102355 A SL 14 SL 2 474 475
2345 1
469 TOFINO VIP703622 SL 3 PLAN2335 SL 13 111
33592BEPP74279 SL 12 EPS 304 SL 4 2010 L.2009 C PLAN 38694 2325 42 (Alb) Blk D 1 SL 11 SL 10 SL 5 BlkB DL2223 2315PLAN DD20162F SL 9 1515
266013 2305266012
2300 Pcl. B
UCLUTH Pcl. C DD75743I SL 6
SL 8 SL 7 EPP11996
PLAN 2440 Blk C
2 118511891 119012 11892019 A1190 FB22183019 EW79469VC970021192 A Gate11941 Fourth Ave118920 ELIZABETH1190 120 STREET1189 1911901 1191 1 1198
1900 34 11771181 11781182118634 1177118111851817 234117811821186 118511811718 EW79446EW79447EW7944811821186 BC 11824AEW79452 118111851918 11821186 231918 11811185 17181182118623 11811185 5811862 119011861189 1194321
Blk D 4065 11691173 411170117456 116911731615 486511701172 1168117411761516 49EW79449EW79450117011741178 DEF 5411741178BEW79453 11771175EW7945517D 1176CEW79465 55EW794641617 1176CA633960811771175 5715166B 11771175FIRST AVENUE EW7945811781174A 4118265
BARKLEY MAIN 798 11611165 FB245963116611607A 11611165141312 7116411628 116011661314 EW7945111661162 1161813G FB3130541162 1161EW79454FC 116111691165EW79462EW79463FAB 116611701162 EW79457871314 FRONT116211691165 STREET1166117098 AEPP79466
10 11571153SEVENTH AVENUE 115410 VICTORIA1157115311 10115411529SIXTH AVENUE STREET115811561112 1011581154FIFTH AVENUE 1157115391112 11581154FOURTH AVENUE 1153EW79456910E THIRD AVENUE 1155DVC09001EPP45671 11581154SECOND AVENUE 1159910A EW7945911581154A 1110
21 EH08761811451149 1146115021 EH087618114511491920 1146115021DVC16014 EH087618114511491920 2111461150 EH08761811491920 1150 1149211920 1150EH087618 EW79466A 591147 11481150 14
S 50 39345 11371141 Plan171138114234 1137114118 1138114234 510113711411718 3411381142 1137114111451718 113811421146 113711411145341718 5611444DVC15012 VIP8571011391 1146 FA12617417C VIP59320 17 67 112511291133 42141516112611301134675 11291133 4711301134675 11291133141516 5011301134675 112911331516 5311301134 11291133651516 56113011341138 FB14160120D EW1195411144B 2219 12131122111898 112111251117 S11261122111898 1121112511171213 4911261122111898 112111251117121314 9811261122 11211125EH08760471314A FRONT11267THIRD AVENUE STREET1132232221 11361140DVC18005 S 51 Blk F 1111Public 7th Square SARATOGA11111410 1113 AVENUE111410 111311 111410 111311 1011141118 1115EW79445 DVC00002DVC0400224 RP11281124 VIP59321 DPC18007
6367 71 75 Peninsula 11061110VIP58138 202119 11051109 191106111021 VIP581381105110920 1106111021 VIP58138110511091516DVC12002 521106111012 11202DVC1200411121116 1
55 59 79 2076 1093109721 10981102SEVENTH AVENUE 345161718 SIXTH10971101 AVENUE16171810981102345 10971101 1096EF1147111098110234FIFTH AVENUE VIP815381101A14 11041100FOURTH AVENUE 1108345DVC00002DVC05001
8387 EPP11996 381085108934BRIGHTON AVENUE 108610901094 43671415 108510891093 46141510861090109467DVC11009 10891093 51FB224052108610901094675 VIP830951091A 62109410987A 6
4751 Signature 91 Road 1081107765 10821078 981213 10811077VC97009 12131082107898 108110851077 10781084BDVC00002BVC9903 FRONTVIP8421010821086109010ADVC00002BVC99002 STREET9
43 9599 1069107371 1074VIP58137 RODERICK1011120 1073 STREET1072111074101 107320 13FB3032361074 12
3539 Circle 103 1061106523 106210661070 10611065231918 106210661070VIP606451069 106523 1918 VIP80751DVC05011DVC08006DVC08007DVC00002BVC990410661070A11
31 27 107111 PORT 1053105745 10541058 10531057451617 10541058 105310571061E.P. VIP5554045 1617 VIP8068910541058106245DVC00002DVC01006
23 19 115 2211 Florencia ALBION 37104110451049DVC14002678 10461050 1045104944678131415 10461050 451045104967VIEW RD 631046VIP581371415 105067
15 711 3 119 Signature Circle 10371033910 104210381034SEVENTH AVENUE 1041103710339101112 10421036EX4892SIXTH AVENUE 1039EPP8910DVC00002DVC94004DVC030098BA AFIFTH AVENUE 98
Drive ROAD L 1514 1031 Seventh10291 1030VIP58136 SHORT1029113 1030VIP58136 STREET1029VIP58136112 1032101033 Boat Ramp
1021102566432 10221026 10211025432111210 10221026DVC00002DVC13004DVC06012DVC11008 10211025DVC12003231110BEACH RD
10091013101765 6510141018 10111017FA7004265A 101010141018EPP11463 64101310171009EH655274189
1001100578 10101006 7 VIP87972 B 83 BARKLEY MAIN 18 1329 DL 2224
2168-U CANADIAN1855A37133 DD FISH66984 RDI DPC15002 Pcl A RW 2440 PLAN DL 2240
2155
210 1855OS DL 2198
1510 221 Road Minato 101 1970 BARKLEY MAIN L 728 Harbour 1513 230 Seaplane Cres 1955-1967 1939-1953 A A EPC647 VIP88677 1328
160 1923-19371915-1921 PLAN 2579 R.W. A 97B EX02544095G E9347784709185A AEH145953757116 L450846555 B 228470 3055 3000
2093-U 2091 Street Forbes 19121914 7823 99 SUTTON96 70 6660 5650 ROAD40 21 PLAN 300015 B 10125 BARKLEY MAIN CHENATHA EPC1454 2108 2102 2100 20942096 Peninsula 2081 215 Base 1971 1868-1878 PLAN 18550S PLAN 1687 R.W.21T261 PLAN 2835 R.W. 98 2 3 L7797084708 C 8470F 142020SMITHDALE 1090
2098 2088 2082 DD59212N1530 DPT ALBION DVC07003VC91001VC96001106VIP VIP DD 25728 I L97759 DD 20591 I
VIS6454 2078 155-U Waterfront153 Dr. 130 Pcl C Pcl1520DD 10304N B SUTTON 1451 58657 E 57050
307 Forbes Road20742072 20702070-U 260Road 160 1976 A RD 1360DVC17001DPC17001 EPC647 VIP88677 1327
313317321 310314 2066 Street 2010-U20002010 2015 1500 B 1433 1DPC15001DVC140081434 TUP18012 DD 2628 N1340C DD 76852D I
325 324 2060 Pacific 2040 2020 1998 1992 1971 19581964 Lyche Road 19481944 19581954 1984197819721970 1785 58657 VIP 1425 DD1571481430 I 1320 Smith Dale 1300 Smith Dale
337329333 Road334 1984 1972 Peninsula 191119171920 1905 Hemlock279 250 1922192619181934 Street Cypress1784 Road176117771769 1753 14111415 A DD 20590 I 1506
341 348342 339 332338 Street 321333Norah 1950338 1944 19381932 1926 1920Road 19081914 1902 1891 1881 19101914Bay 1783 17661767 1752 C DD1571491407B I
355 354 344350356Crescent 1999 19911995-U 345 352 1892 18601874 18651871 1906 17861774 Cedar17621759-U 17431751 PLAN 2724 OS PLAN 27240S
363359 368 362368374 199819961994 198119901983 19771979 353361 1830 18611816 17911781 17461738 17261712 1661Road 1 EPP44180Hitac̓u Road 13 S 54
371 380389 386 1992 1988 Athlone 1971 367369 869 1944 19471969 19251903 1802 Peninsula1771 1688 16721656 1638162416141645 180 2 14 15
377 1975 19651971 3971961 392 1974 Road3751972 853861 1924 18841904 Jacques 18651887St. 18001796 1801Street 17761786 17381768 abc1754 227239205 200Main 172-U 3 4 1617 PLAN EPP10040
383389 384 2013 20051997 19811989 399 396 400 1951 1937 383391 844 845 18441864 18431831 1821 1783 1794 1749 a-e 172817141708Road PLAN1682 1663Road 1651 243 212234Street 176 168166Fraser Lane 5
2029 2021 2010 1970 19641966 19601958 Cynamocka19521954 1950 499497 404408405407Road 403407 402406 828 829Rainforest 18041824 Boulevard 1782 1776 17711787Bay Larch1750 1666 34861648 1639 161116271601 240250 1579Helen 15671569 1561 76 1918
20372045 2028 Lorne White863 Place 1961 195919571958195619541955 1952195019531951 493487495 412416420413415421 415419411 410414420 812 813 1754 1753 175417661760-U 17651753 172017041736 1710 1695Road 65 16364 16041620 1580 272278286 15651576Road Imperial1553155915551549 Lane 151515331543 98 HITACU 2053 20362044 850860 859855851847 476478 483477485 424428425423431427432 423425429431 422426430434 796790 779795 1731 17401732 1741 1731 1702 16841673Holly 164816661654 3 2 1570 1589 1573 Lane 2621570212Fraser Street 15411547204Birch 1517153515291523 1961511Drive 147214661478 10 20 797
2061 2060 865 846842 835843839 831 100' Road472 R/W 469475470468 467463 436440442435439 780770 747 17141722 171917111689 166416861690 16491661 1609163816131621 16041610 2271563 226248 15361522 1491184 1448Imperial14601454 Lane 1442 11 12
2069 854 Marine853859 847 832838824 827823 464466 453459460458456462 444446449447454 764 748 732Drive 716719731 711 17061686 16731683 1652 Crescent1644 1627163316391641BA 16201624 1616 321 15571569 1566 1552 15351549Peninsula 237269266 1510 Road 146514671483Helen 1418143614301424 46
940-U 848 835841 829 18931885 186118691877 18451853 700 695703 1674 16571655 1626 345337 329 1553 1-41545 5-8 1520 150915251527 Matterson 14681484 14451456 141214251409 185-U19514061400 44 45 48 55 47 PLAN EPP10041
VIP 84690 SRWVIP 826832 823 Cedar8171901 Grove Place18801900 18401860 18291837 1741 17151727 1701 685684 669 1664 16481650-U1656 Bay 161116311621 361369 353 338346Street 155015401530 315 1510 1483 239231 Street1409A&B 13851395 43 53505149 5654 PLAN 2014 1091
Odyssey Lane 820Odyssey 811799 1820 1813182118001805 176917831797 Rainforest1755 Lane 17021708 652668 651 16321624 Street1594 157115831595 383 354362370Yew 1450 Road 141914391467 277255 236270 A&BOtter 1398 13751390 1373 131 4142 AlbertAlec Rd Rd 52 57 58 1509
820PARKSRW 807 796808 Drive 775787 1796 17821768 1754 17401730 17141722PARK 636 1582 15701560 386 378 Drive 2861399 13811389 13821374 13671361 125 1351 PLAN 2835 R.W. 40 39 60 Wallace59 Rd
828 Odyssey 772784 760 740 731 PARK 604 Matterson1548 393395-U 13891395 138013721388 13731365Pine 1366 13571350 1352Garden13421353 Street1341 13311321 37 38 61 71
812 796 720 620 596590Marine 398 1381 13731365 13641356 134913411357Road 13341342 132313431333Helen 132213121332 13011311Eber 35 36W̓aayi Road 63 62 706966 73 72 1089
764780 Lane Drive585-U 500 1498 Short1484 Road 1450 13491357 134013321348 13331325 13261318 1310215 Street13021931313 Road1298 1295 24 2221 23 6564 68 74
748 736 724 580 148914771497 14401462Victoria 1341 13331325 13161324 130113091317 Alder 190Road 12881287 12591271 2526 Hitac̓u Road32 33 34 86 Č̓umaata85 RoadDominic67 Rd76 75
14351449 14021426 1350 13091317 13001308 246 2242361280 1276 12631276 122112411231 27 K̓ʷayimtaRd 3029 31 Hiłsuḥta Road8687 818982 7778
560 139114191401 1394 1388 13331327 Place 1339Edwards 135713451351 1363 13001294 12931301 12821280 12641277 1246 123512251245 1206 12011211 28 110 112111 113114 88 80 79
Marine 1373 13641376Road 13191323 13281334 13461340 13751369 12821288 Peninsula 12751269Rupert 120812361226 1203 11911192 109 Hitac̓u Road92 91 9095 C̓ạhtas89 Rd
554 13631355 13401328 13111315 13161322 1352 1358 13821388138713701376 1270 1265 125812522831270 1257 1251219 2071202 11831195 2081 Hitac̓u108 Road 93 94 9796 98
Drive 13171343 13021316 1307 1310 1364 335 1260301311 1255 Marine 282251260 Drive222Road 206210 1168 11591167Helen 107 106 Hiłsuḥta Rd 99 1200
548 1309 12901280 389 377 371 367 351359 343 332 306 12351219Road 1196 118711901182 11811173 11561162 1148 1147 104 105 Uplands
542 545 1293405 398400Drive 394388392 384 Marine378 364372 358Drive 350 346 1236 11931203 11661174 11571165 1151 11361142 1141Road 1123 103102 Hitac̓u100101 Rd 1007 Close
536 530 423 a 411 1214 11501158 1101-U 340 VIP88978
524 515 437445 430Marine 1187 1102-U 10911079 EPC648 VIP84288 HAWKES RD 512518 489495 483477 457465471 460 1073 VIP84290 1001
Sunset 1295Sunset 5061296 482490 476 470 1069 1067 VIS6454 1510 1275 Point 10621068 1061 1330
1263 Road 11791178 10541058 1055 1049 DD 69911 I VIP84291
1251 1260 11661160 WAY 1172CORAL 115911651171 1050 A A 1508
1239 1230 1154114811421136 114111471153 PENINSULA PLAN 3606
12051217 1210 113011241118 11311117 309303 22 SL A Helen
11121106 REEF1111 POINT316302310 ROAD 295 277285289281A B279A BREM 2019SL BVIS 5200VIS 55831-2283 1817 VIP88702 EPC653 1100
384388392396 378 346338324330 312314 282298 276 2712672652691VIS 6131273 Road EPC583 1511 372366360 354 1090 1088 1089294 CP266258254 263261257253259255VIS6125VIS6124VISSL ACP AB BA 795 804 VIP84287
1080Road 108410861078 1073 230BOARDWALK BOULEVARD VIS58432392492472519CP6122 10PL66186SL 2SL 1 HAWKES RD
108210761074 201199197 229203225221215 950 VIP88702
1050-U 193195 1512 1092STUART BAYVIP88702 331
1-25 1002 983 990
985 78391 W 78391 W VIP84285
979 971 VIP88561EPC513 2 ALPHA
318 974982978 970 963967 804 VIP8428522 PASSAGE
Coast Guard Road 322316320 313312 966 Peninsula962 959
326330 321339325337PassMelfort of Place 329331335327 952958 944 925 1332
336342348 333 943 932938 Road926 855 HUNT BAY RD 345351354 947944 Amphitrite939 Place 935 920 914 890 RD
932936 929920 923Drive 917 906 888-U884 805 50814
Kimoto Barkley912 905897 875876Elina 78391W 4 2
330-U Kimoto 878900 883875869Place 868 6 5 VIP84285
866858 867855 852860Road 863 RD
844851 839828 DOOKQUA
836 HAWKES
950 Coast Guard Drive 2 Rem AEC129825
78391W
EC129825 1330
46035Rem A VIP84291 Subject Property 1508 0 2km 8km
VIP84287 1512
ALPHA 2 VIP84285 PASSAGE 1332
RD
2 VIP84285
RD
HAWKES
Rem A EC129825
EC129825 46035 Rem A
0 200m 800m
Legal Description: DISTRICT LOT 1332, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT
To be rezoned from Forest Reserve (A4) District to Rural (A2) District. ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT 173
ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, BC, CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 Fax (250) 723-1327
MEMORANDUM
To: ACRD Board of Directors
From: Charity Hallberg Dodds, Planning Assistant
Meeting Date: March 13, 2019
Subject: TUP18019 – MacDonald – 70 Sutton Road, Port Albion
Recommendation THAT the Board of Directors issue Temporary Use Permit TUP18019.
Background On February 27, 2019, the Board considered an application for a Temporary Use Permit for the property described as LOT 3, SECTION 18, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT, PLAN VIP57050 and located at 70 Sutton Road, Port Albion.
The Board recommended the application proceed to the next stage of the Temporary Use Permit process. This involved publishing a notification in the newspaper, which was published in the March 6, 2019 issue of the Westerly News, and notification to all residents and property owners within 100 metres of the subject property. Notices were mailed on February 28, 2019 and hand delivered on March 1, 2019. One (1) letter of opposition has been received to date (attached). If any further correspondence is received prior to the March 13, 2019 Board meeting, staff will inform the Board.
If approved, the permit will allow the applicants to use a portion of the single family dwelling for the operation of a short-term vacation rental unit.
Prepared by: ______Charity Hallberg Dodds, Planning Assistant
Reviewed by: ______Mike Irg, MCIP, RPP, Manager of Planning & Development
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA, Chief Administrative Officer TUP18019 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe, Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 174 A A
22 30 G A 16 A B 84708 B EH145953 E93477 55 L45084 75 71 65 91 85 A 212 95 8470 97 EX025440 7823789 SUTTON ROAD 99 PLAN
20
56 50 66 40 60
96 70 8 C 8470 SMITHDALE L77970 F
8470 1420 98 3
2 L97759
DD 25728 I 106 AA1 A1A1 VIPP D RCC A3 PT ALBIONVIP E 575705070005005 SUTTONSUUTU ALBION5865758886657 BION 1451 ION A RDR 1360 3 D 8 4334 1433114 1 C 00 4 B 34 DD 262 5 1434 SUBJECT PROPERTY 25 43043 VIPV 14251 143014 5865755886578 1320 S RC DD157148 I 1415 A 1411 C B 1407 DDDDD157149D I PLAN 2724 OS 1 EPP44180 A3 Hitac̓u Road13 14 2 15
3 16
4 17
5
18 6
19 7 8 T 9 HI 20
10
11
12 175 Charity Hallberg Dodds
From: Mike Irg Sent: March-06-19 1:11 PM To: Charity Hallberg Dodds Cc: Alex Dyer Subject: FW: Proposed Temporary Use Permit - TUP18019 - 70 Sutton Road, Port Albion
For the agenda
From: [email protected]
Hello Mr. Irg,
Regarding the:
Notice of Intent to Issue Temporary Use Permit ‐ TUP18019 ‐ 70 Sutton Road, Port Albion
I would like to express our opposition to the upcoming consideration.
As the property owners of 55 Sutton Road we have formidable concerns in relation to the ever increasing attempts, transparent or otherwise, of property owners in this specific area benefiting from the entirely unsustainable venture of vacation rentals. Be it short‐term or long‐term the reality of this form of income generation and property use has proven to be problematic in Tofino, Ucluelet and Millstream, and will not be any different here. Lack of regulation and control have quickly become major issues locally with no success in implementing solutions that work
Our main concerns are focused on security, density and privacy.
Vacation rentals and tourism accommodations on the whole are notorious for a heavy impact on, and unrealistic use of resources, and we want to protect our simple family lifestyle.
As the specific property is question is not the only property on Sutton Road interested in this style of venture for profit we see this as the tip of the iceberg in a fragile zone.
Regarding security: we want to protect the aquifer below us which provides us with our water supply. High usage of the aquifer, as these high turn over rentals inevitably do (use of guests, routine cleaning etc.) will, we believe, negatively affect our access to the most vital of resources for our small family. There is no formal mitigation for over use of the local aquifer, only the conscientiousness of residents. When people come to the area to stay they are not here to exercise restraint. The guests will pay a lot of money to stay and the majority will use what they want , how they want to get the best bang for buck.
Regarding density: if each property on the road followed suit the aquifer would dry up just as it did with properties along Pacific Rim Hwy and Willowbrae Road. In that instance property owners had to pay large sums of money to tie into the existing Ucluelet water supply. We personally do not have the financial ability to do so nor is there an infrastructure of any certainty to be tied into. We already see the majority of properties either utilizing Airbnb or renting out, which may be their right in specific situations based on lot size, but enough is enough. People tend to do it under the table anyway but we have this opportunity to express our concerns and will do so.
1 176 Regarding privacy: we purchased this property to live in a quiet and safe rural setting as generations of previous property owners have had the pleasure to do. We want to raise our child in as safe as environment as possible and the transient nature of all forms of accommodation rentals test the very nature of our choices. With short term rental accommodations, you never know who is next door or on the street and even though many visitors tend to be respectful all it takes is one poor guest and problems can ensue for everyone,. We do not want additional traffic and higher vehicular speeds that often come with “check‐ins and check‐outs” and it creates more wear and tear on an already under maintained gravel road surface. If the guest are allowed pets, specifically dogs, it will exasperate an already stressful situation where currently, dog owners chose to let their dogs run freely off leash which inevitably and regularly disrespects people like us, who choose not to have a pet and do not want domestic animals anywhere on our property, period.
There are further questions on the additional accumulation of refuse, how it will be attended to; and has there been any consideration regarding the education of guests on the issue of wildlife attractants and the dangerous risks which are created by not adhering to our human responsibilities when we live with wildlife ?
We could expand further on my concerns and bring forth more if need be.
We believe not only that this Temporary Use Permit should not be issued; we believe that the area of Sutton Road and Smith‐Dale roads are at risk of being overrun by these apparently shortsighted, profit oriented schemes and the issue as a whole should be disallowed in every possible case.
We hope that Port Albion will survive as the one place you can avoid the well documented pitfalls of “Whistler West”.
Thank you very much for the notice and for allowing us to express our serious concern and opinion regarding the burgeoning and problematic micro‐economic bubble of vacation rentals.
Sincerely, Michael and Brigitte Rudan 55 Sutton Road 250‐726‐3605
Virus-free. www.avg.com
2 177
ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni BC, CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 Fax (250) 723-1327
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. TUP18019
Whereas, pursuant to Section 493 of the Local Government Act, a local government may by resolution, on application of a property owner, issue a temporary use permit;
A Temporary Use Permit is hereby issued to: Name: Scott and Michelle MacDonald Address: 70 Sutton Road, Port Albion
With respect to: Legal Description: LOT 3, SECTION 18, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT, PLAN VIP57050 PID: 018-359-141
The Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot hereby issues a Temporary Use Permit to Scott and Michelle MacDonald with respect to properties legally described as LOT 3, SECTION 18, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT, PLAN VIP57050 subject to the conditions as follows:
1. This permit is issued for the operation of a 2 bedroom short term vacation rental unit at the subject property. 2. The rental unit is limited to the existing suite within the single family dwelling on the subject property. 3. The rental unit shall not change the residential appearance of the single family dwelling. 4. The owner or a caretaker must reside on site during operation of the rental unit. 5. Contact information for the owner or caretaker and a copy of the TUP must be visible in a public location. 6. This permit is valid for two (2) years from the date of execution. 7. If the conditions of this permit are not met or if there is a change of ownership of the property, the ACRD may rescind or terminate the TUP.
At the time this permit expires, the property owner may apply to the Regional District to have it re-issued for another period of up to two (2) years or the property owner must return the property to the original use permitted under the current Zoning by way of ceasing any short term vacation rental use or rezone the property.
In accordance with the provision of Section 493 of the Local Government Act, approval of this permit was given by resolution of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot Board of Directors on XXXX, 2019.
This permit was issued under the seal of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot on XXXX, 2019.
Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA Chair of the Regional Board Chief Administrative Officer
TUP18019 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe, Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 178 ALBERNI-CLAYOQUOT REGIONAL DISTRICT 3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni BC, CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 Fax (250) 723-1327
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT APPLICATION
TO: Regional Board of Directors
MEETING DATE: March 13, 2019
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT APPLICATION #: TUP18007
APPLICANT: Braden Conley (Broley Properties Inc)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, SECTION 88, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT, PLAN 28943
LOCATION: 9618 Stirling Arm Crescent
ELECTORAL AREA: “D” Sproat Lake
Applicant’s Intention: To continue operation of a short term vacation rental unit located at the subject property.
Recommendation:
That the Regional Board consider issuing Temporary Use Permit TUP18007, subject to:
• Inspection and approval of the extra bedrooms not listed on the building plans by an ACRD Building Inspector; and • Neighbouring properties being notified as per Local Government Act s.494.
Procedure:
Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP), the Board must first pass a resolution to consider issuing the permit. Staff then notify neighbouring property owners and tenants, and publish a notice in the newspaper to afford the public an opportunity to make written or verbal submissions to the Board. At the subsequent meeting, the Board issues or denies the TUP.
TUP18007 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 179 | 2
Observations:
1. Property Description: The subject property is approximately 1.17 acres in size and fronts onto Sproat Lake. The top, western portion of the property is relatively flat, while the lower portion slopes down towards the lake from northwest to southeast. Trees buffer the edge of the property from neighbours and the road, but the lot is otherwise cleared.
2. Services:
a. Sewage Disposal: On-site septic system. b. Water Supply: On-site water system (Sproat Lake). c. Fire Protection: Sproat Lake Volunteer Fire Department. d. Access: Access to the property is from Stirling Arm Crescent.
3. Existing Planning Documents Affecting the Site:
A. Agricultural Land Reserve: Not within the ALR.
B. Official Community Plan: The Sproat Lake Official Community Plan (OCP) designates this property as “Residential Use”. This designation supports the residential use as the primary use of the property.
Section 3.2 of the OCP contains general planning policies that apply to all properties within the OCP area. Policy 3.2.11 in this section allows the issuing of temporary use permits at the discretion of the Regional Board of Directors in accordance with s. 493 of the Local Government Act.
The OCP designates a Development Permit Area (DPA) that impacts development on this property: “Development Permit Area I – Riparian Areas Protection”. This DPA extends to areas within 15 metres of Sproat Lake measured from the high water mark, along the western boundary of the subject property. This DPA is intended to minimize negative environmental impacts from development activities. The issuance of this TUP will not trigger DPA requirements.
The proposal complies with the policies and objectives of the Sproat Lake OCP. A TUP may be issued to allow the use requested for the subject property.
C. Zoning: The property is zoned Acreage Residential (RA2) District. This zoning designation does not allow short term vacation rentals, though accessory dwelling units are permitted on properties greater than 1 acre in size.
Under Section 493 of the Local Government Act, the Regional District may issue a Temporary Use Permit, by resolution, in areas designated in an Official Community Plan. A Temporary Use Permit may do one or more of the following:
TUP18007 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 180Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) | 3
i. Allow a use not permitted under the Zoning Bylaw; ii. Specify conditions under which the temporary use may be carried; iii. Allow and regulate the construction of buildings or structures in respect of the use for which the permit is issued.
Where a TUP is designated in an OCP, the Regional District must give notice to the public in accordance with the requirements of the Act, which includes notifying the neighbouring property owners and tenants, and publishing a notice in the newspaper.
The TUP is valid for up to three years and may be renewed by the Regional District once. After this time has expired, the property owner must apply to rezone the property to allow for the continued use or discontinue the specified use.
A Short Term Vacation Rental Temporary Use Permit Policy was adopted by the Board on January 24, 2018, and is attached to this report. This policy specifies regulatory areas, notification requirements, terms and renewals, criteria for evaluation, and conditions that the permit is subject to. For the subject property in the Sproat Lake area of the ACRD, a TUP can be issued for up to three years and renewed once as long as the use is seasonal in nature and compatible with the surrounding uses, area, and environment. The submitted application complies with the conditions and requirements set out in the policy.
When issuing a TUP, the ACRD may specify conditions that restrict the permit including: a. The buildings to be used; b. The area of use; c. The hours of use; d. Form and character; e. Environmental protection; f. Site-related restrictions; and g. Any other relevant conditions determined by the ACRD.
Temporary Use Permit:
Should the Board of Directors wish to support this application, the Temporary Use Permit for LOT 4, SECTION 88, CLAYOQUOT DISTRICT, PLAN 28943 may be subject to the following conditions and any others that the ACRD Board of Directors considers appropriate at the time of issuance:
1. This permit is issued for the operation of a short term vacation rental (STR) unit (single family dwelling) at the subject property. 2. A maximum of two (2) persons shall be permitted per bedroom when the dwelling unit
TUP18007 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 181 | 4
is being occupied as an STR. 3. The rental unit is limited to the single family dwelling on the subject property. 4. The rental use of the property shall not change the residential appearance of the single family dwelling. 5. The owner or a caretaker must live on-site. 6. Contact information for the owner or caretaker and a copy of the TUP must be visible in a public location. 7. This permit is valid for three (3) years from the date of execution. 8. At the time this permit expires, the property owner may apply to the Regional District to have it re-issued for a period of up to three (3) years or return the property to the original use permitted under the current zoning. 9. If the conditions of this permit are not met or if there is a change of ownership of the property, the ACRD may rescind or terminate the TUP.
Comments:
The applicants have provided Staff with the required documentation to support their application, including an approved Sewerage System Letter of Certification, site and parking plan, and copies of the original construction drawings. The house was constructed in 2013 after the previously existing dwelling was torn down. There are currently two habitable units on the property that the ACRD are aware of: the main house and a small converted shed made into a one-bedroom unit.
The existence of this STR came to the attention of the ACRD in March of 2018 when the applicant applied for a Development Variance Permit. During the processing of that application, the use of the property as a STR became clear, and Staff requested that the applicant apply for the TUP. This application was initiated on April 4, 2018, but has been delayed as the applicant has worked to provide Staff with all necessary documentation to support the application.
The issuance of this TUP would allow a residence capable of accommodating large groups of people to act as a STR. This is a significant difference from many of the other STR units in the region that often can only host two to four guests and are closely associated with a permanent residential use on the same property. The applicant lives at 5062 Ian Avenue in Port Alberni, approximately 20 minutes away, and serves as the caretaker of the property.
The applicant has indicated that the property is used as a “part-time vacation rental” and that family live on the property when it is not in use for this purpose. One of the primary criteria used in evaluating a TUP application, according to section 3.4(a) of the STR Policy adopted by the ACRD Board, is that the STR use must be clearly temporary or seasonal in nature. It is not clear that this is the case, as the owners appear to rent it out whenever possible and have no intention of ceasing the use of the property as an STR.
Section 3.5.2 (h) states that a maximum occupancy of two (2) persons are permitted per bedroom within a dwelling unit when such a dwelling unit is being occupied as a STR. The plans
TUP18007 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation 182Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) | 5
submitted by the owners indicate three bedrooms in the house, along with a den that could easily be converted into a fourth. The online listing for the property at Airbnb.com indicates that there are five bedrooms and that the house can host 12 guests. It is unclear which rooms the host is using as bedrooms, as the plans received by the ACRD for the building permit only indicate three. The Sewerage Letter of Certification submitted by the applicant indicates that the system installed is capable of servicing a four bedroom house. If five bedrooms are available and acceptable to VIHA and an ACRD Building Inspector, then the property would be limited to 10 guests in total under s. 3.5.2(h).
Although there is uncertainty as to whether the use of the property as a STR is temporary or seasonal in nature and it is unclear how many rooms are available and guests the applicant intends to accommodate, ACRD Staff do not oppose approval of the TUP. It is important to note that the scale of the rental unit is larger than most other STR units in the area and may change the character of the area.
ACRD Staff recommend that the Regional Board consider issuing Temporary Use Permit TUP18007, subject to:
• Inspection and approval of the extra bedrooms not listed on the building plans by an ACRD Building Inspector; and • Neighbouring properties being notified as per Local Government Act s.494.
Submitted by: ______For Peter Thicke Junior Planner
Reviewed by: ______Mike Irg, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning & Development
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA Chief Administrative Officer
TUP18007 Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 183 184 185
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
System Design Summary for Construction of Onsite Sewage System.
9618 Stirling Arm Cres. Port Alberni V9Y 9C8
Date: June 2018
Designed by: Josh Fayerman.
Reviewed by: Travis Young
Table of Contents
1. Project, Site Information 2. Site Assessment Overview/Summary 3. Design Rationale 4. System design Overview/Summary 5. Record of Design Information and Calculations: 6. Installation Specifications 7. Declaration.
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
186 1. Project Site Information:
Project #: 9618 Sterling Arm Cres.
Property address: 9618 Sterling Arm Cres.
Lot 4 Section 88 Clayoquot Dist. Plan 28943
Legal Owner: Broley Properties
Owner contact: Matt and Braden Conley
250 714 8488, 250 918 9618
Total Lot Size: 1.19 Acres
Potable Water Source. Lake
House Area: 2 Storey 4 Bdrm 3702 ft2 (344 m2 )
2. Site Assessment Overview/Summary
Preliminary site Investigation:
Date of Site Assessment June 2018
The preliminary site visit yielded a suitable location for the onsite sewage system. The property is a rural Lake front lot and is rectangular in shape; it runs from N.E – SW with access to the property being on the North corner. The property is sloping in nature; the natural slope is 10% sloping down towards the South West property line. The house is serviced by the lake water.
The area chosen for this septic system is a level bench in the front of the house. at approx. 5 % with plenty of natural occurring vegetation (Grass). It is located approximately 3m from the South West Property line and will run diagonally across the slope ( E-W ) to the Edge of driveway. downslope edge of the proposed distribution field is 5.5 m from the proposed house location. The Northwest edge of the distribution field is 58 m from the east property line giving us a total available length of 22 m
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
187 Both TP#’s 1 & 2 were identical in nature and depth. The depth of native material was averaged at approximately 120 -150 cm 150 cm was the extent of the test pit dug as it was the max dig limit that the small 3 tonne excavator could achieve no limiting Layer was found or signs of SHWT. Consistence was loose and structure less Soils consisted of medium fine sand, yellowy brown single grain and 5 % coarse fragments. Root structure was fine stopping 80 cm down throughout the excavation.
Design Rational
Setbacks: No breakout points within 7.5m. All other setbacks are also greater than required minimum SPM guidelines.
Constraints and design rationale: Shallow Below grade pressurized bed Table 2-38 max width 3m based on the available length of 22 m means we can achieve an AIS of 66 m2 Overall constraints are Low Depth of infiltrative surface will be below grade 45 cm on the south edge and. 11 cm above grade on the North edge. and is selected to maintain VS of 75 cm If required To level north edge of bed Clean Coarse sand will be used Table 2-25 SPM V3 extend a tow of Clean Coarse sand beyond bed on a slope of 3-1 to extend the downslope basal area.
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
188 to allow for O2 flux at grade bed will be Raised on the Northern edge
demand dosing is selected
For the design of this system Type1 pressure distribution “shallow below grade” dispersal bed is proposed. The type 1 treatment was determined by the Vertical separation found on site, and the type grade and structure of the native soils as well as the homeowner’s budget requests. It was agreed that a traditional pressure distribution system would be the best choice for this design as the area allotted provides ample room for pressure distribution and lots of length to create a long narrow bed this system was also chosen based on its ability to conform to the natural shape and slope of the dispersal area chosen.
3. Site Design Overview and Summary.
System Design was based on the information gathered at time of site assessment and property owner’s declaration. Design parameters are based on the sewerage system Standard Practice Manual version 3.
Type 1 Pressure dispersal system “Shallow below Grade Bed”
Soil Type at Infiltrative Layer:
Single Grain medium coarse sand with loose structureless consistence
Vertical Separation: Minimum Vertical Separation 75 cm as constructed VS = 75 cm
Total Area of House:
2 Storey 4 Bdrm 3702 ft2 (344 m2 )
Percolation Rate: 2 Minutes per 1” presoak time was 15 Minutes and the tests were conducted 4 times with varying results of 1-2 Minutes per 1” at the proposed infiltrative surface 45 cm below existing grade. (See attached)
Daily Design Flow: DDF (Daily design flow): DDF is selected as per SPM table II- 8 for a 4 bedroom residence with a 330 m2 living area )therefore as per table 2-8 the DDF of a residence with 4 bdrms and a maximum floor area of 330 m2 is 1600 L
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
189
Hydraulic Loading Rate (HLR): Hydraulic Loading Rate for Design was determined by choosing the most conservative HLR Value by using Table 2-23 and 2-22 we have chosen the HLR based on table 2 -22 soil texture group ( Gravelly Sands and coarse Sands) thus : 40 L/day/sq. M2 applied to coarse sand with a loose consistence (SPM 3 table 2 – 21, 2-22, 2-23 )
Liner Load Rate (LLR): LLR: 330 L/Day/M as per table 2-28 coarse sand with loose consistence with a slope of 5 – 10 % and a V.S 60-90 Mcm (SP 3 table 2 – 28)
Basal Area of Infiltrative Surface: Minimum AIS = DDF ÷ HLR thus 1600 ÷ 40 = 40 m²
Minimum System Length: Minimum Length = DDF ÷ LLR thus 1600 ÷ 330 = 4.85 m
4. Record of Design Information and Calculations:
Configuration of Dispersal System: Width = AIS ÷ min system length 40 m2 ÷ 4.85 m = 9.25 M (max bed width to be 3M as per table 2-38 SPM V 3) Min required bed dimensions is 3 M x 13 M Long = 40 m2 Customer Requests field to be as big as possible. Therefore total area available is 3m x 22 increasing overall AIS to 66 m2 Selected bed dimensions is 3M x 22 M Long = 66 m2
Bed will have: 3 laterals, .9 m separation and a 50 cm apron on the upslope side of the bed and 50 cm apron on the downslope side on the sides and a 45 cm apron at the Distal and proximal ends 3 x 21.1 m 1 ¼’ Sch 40 PVC laterals with Center Fed Manifold.
Total length of laterals: 21.1 m length x 3 laterals = 63.3 m
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
190 5. Specifications: see attached drawings
Number of orifices: Based on SPM standard (Table II- 43) of .56 m2 effective AIS/ orifice. 66 m2 AIS ÷ .56 m2/orifice = 118 orifices, 117 orifices in total to be divisible by 3 lateral sections with 39 orifices per each of 3 lateral sections.
Orifice spacing: Total length of laterals ÷ total number of orifices 63.3 m ÷ 117 orifices = .54 m, 54 cm orifice spacing, and 30 cm spacing from proximal and distal ends of each lateral section.
Dosing volume: To achieve 60% of pump cycle at full pressurization for even distribution, while keeping the dose as small as possible to minimize soil saturation, a guideline of 3 x the volume of the laterals is used. (63.3 m of laterals x 0.98 L/m volume for 1 ¼” sched 40) = 62 L system volume 3 times the draining volume is, 62 L x 3 = 186 L/dose (minimum guideline) Soil dose frequency check, to meet SPM Table II- 10 demand dose category 1600 L/day DDF ÷ 8 doses per day = 200 / dose Minimum
Therefore, the selected dose volume is 200 L/dose, which maximizes soil dose frequency while ensuring even distribution over at least 60% of the pump cycle.
Reserve volume :( Pump on float to alarm on float): 15% of daily design flow, 1600 L x 15% = 256 L
Alarm reserve volume (alarm on float to max working capacity of the pump chamber): 50% of DDF, 1600 L x 50% = 800 L
Float Settings: Based on a Dan’s Precast 350 g concrete tank with approximately 15.64 L/cm drawdown volume, and approximately 137 cm internal height to underside of lid. The tank will be placed at an elevation to ensure the underside of lid is at or below the septic tank outlet invert … to utilize the entire tank volume and maximize reserve Total volume 2300 L .
Alarm float setting: To provide 50% DDF alarm reserve above alarm on: 800 L alarm reserve volume ÷ 15.64 L/cm drawdown volume = 51 cm, 137 cm internal height – 51 cm = 86 cm alarm switch height from inside bottom of tank to float switch partially up position. On float setting: To provide 15% DDF reserve from pump on to alarm on: 256 L reserve volume ÷ 15.64 L/cm = 16 cm 86 cm alarm float partially up (switching height) – 16 cm reserve volume = 70 cm pump on switch height from inside bottom of tank to pump on float switch partially up position. Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
191 Off float setting: To provide dose volume of 200 L/dose from pump on to pump off: 200 L dose volume ÷ 15.64 L/cm = 13 cm 70 cm pump on float up height – 13 cm dose volume = 67 cm pump off switch height from inside bottom of tank to pump off float switch partially down position.
Total dynamic head and pump sizing Required pump flow based on 3/16 inch orifices is 0.61 usgpm (from SPM V2 orifice discharge tables) for desired 2 ft. squirt height: (117 lateral orifices + 1 pump chamber orifice) x 0.61 usgpm/orifice ≈ 71.37 usgpm
Total dynamic head: The friction loss factor used for TDH calculations is 6’/100’, from SPM V2 worksheets based on 71.37 usgpm flows in 2” sched 40 pipes.
Lift head is approximately = 20.0’ Friction loss: 2” forcemain allowance, 62’ x 6’/100’ = 3.73’ 2” fitting allowance, 60’ x 6’/100’ = 3.6’ Residual loss (squirt loss through orifices), 1.3 x 2’ = 3.0’ Allowance (fudge factor) for losses in the laterals (valves etc.) = 5.0’ Total dynamic head = 35.3’
1. Specifications: see attached drawings Bed “Bellow grade” with rock filled dispersal bed Minimum bed dimensions are 3 m x 22 m Distribution piping configuration: 3 laterals, center fed manifold creating 6 lateral sections, each 10.55 m long, 3 laterals, 1 m separation and a 50 cm apron on the upslope side of the bed and 50 cm apron on the downslope side on the sides and a 45 cm apron at the Distal and proximal ends
“Below grade bed” Bed footprint will be approximately 3 m x 22 m. Force Main piping to be 50mm Sch 40 PVC To prepare the site, remove small trees and vegetation over the dispersal area. Scarify the basal infiltrative surface and the receiving soil. Install two 4 inch PVC infiltrative surface observation ports within each bed. One port at either end, approximately 2 m from the ends, one between the west lateral and Centre lateral, the other between the east lateral and the center lateral. Place the bottom of the ports at a depth approximately 5 cm below the infiltrative surface. Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
192 Include drilled holes or saw cuts to perforate the bottom 15 to 20 cm of the port. Place minimum of 15 cm (6 inches) depth of washed pea gravel, minimum 3 m wide x 14 m long. Install the dispersal piping network:
With three – 31 mm dia. (1 ¼ inch) laterals, and a center feed manifold splitting the flow between 3= 6 x 10.55 M lateral
Manifold requires a vertical 2 inch cleanout at the distal end of the manifold ... using a long radius bend or 2 - 45o fittings with a short stub to bring the cleanout cap to slightly below surface grade, with threaded cap, and access provided by a 15 cm (6”) round lawn box. Install 6 - 31 mm dia. (1 ¼”) ball valves at the manifold for isolation of each lateral section (6). For each valve, provide a lawn box and a 15 cm dia. (6”) pipe (PVC drain line) extension to increase the effective height of the lawn boxes – allowing hand access to the valves. At the distal end of each lateral, install vertical cleanouts (3), using 2 – 45o s or long radius sweeps, extended to about 5 cm below finished grade, and with lawn boxes for access. Ensure 100 cm horizontal separation between laterals, 50 cm apron on the upslope side of the bed and 50 cm apron on the downslope side on the sides and a 45 cm apron at the Distal and proximal ends. Laterals drilled with 4.8 mm (3/16”) holes at 12 o’clock orientation, 54 cm (21.5”) spacing between orifices, with first and last orifice at approximately 30 cm (12”) spacing from either end of each lateral section ... ensure exactly 30 orifices per lateral section, total of 90 orifices in the dispersal bed. Install dispersal piping as level as possible (level within ± 1 cm) to minimize draining volume and to ensure quick pressurization. Include an orifice shield for each orifice. Refer to additional detail in pipe specifications listed herein. Place minimum 5 cm pea gravel cover over the laterals and orifice shields. Cover pea gravel with untreated building paper (#2 dry sheathing) or low grade landscape fabric (unwoven, light weight). Place cover soil. Cover the paper or fabric with a coarse sand layer. Then cap the Bed with at least 5 cm (2 inches) of top soil or lawn sand. Achieve a combined total cover soil depth of bed and topsoil/lawn sand that is 15 cm (6 inches) at the lower edge, to a maximum 30 cm (12 inches) at the higher edge. Achieve a well graded, sloped surface with positive drainage and no potential ponding on the surface. Required minimum slope of toes is 3:1. A gentler slope is preferred for the downslope toe. Aggregates:
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
193 Pea gravel must be thoroughly washed with minimal silt and clay, not exceeding 1% passing the #200 sieve. Cover soil should be “top soil” or lawn sand suited for grass growth. Bedding material under the tanks must be free of coarse fragments larger than 6 mm (1/4”). Backfill material for sides and top of tanks must be free of coarse fragments larger than 25mm (1”). Care must be taken to avoid large rock in the native soil from contacting the tanks. Installer may decide to use screened bedding sand, C33 or pea gravel. Pipe: 100 mm (4”) sewer connections must be CSA PVC drain line or better. Ensure minimum 1% fall from sewer service to septic tank and to pump chamber. Forcemain ( 50 mm) 2” and manifold must be 50 mm (2”) sched 40. Laterals must be 31 mm (1 ¼”) sched 40 PVC. Septic tank 1000 Gallon Dans precast single chamber concrete septic tank Dimensions ( see attached Drawings ) The tank will be placed at an elevation to ensure the underside of lid is at or below the septic tank outlet invert … to utilize the entire tank volume and maximize reserve Total volume 5520 L . Select the excavation elevation to ensure at least 1% fall from the outlet of the existing tank AND with consideration of riser heights (multiples of 15 cm) to ensure the green lids are flush with desired finished grade. In the new tank, install an outflow effluent filter with handle extended to within 15 cm (6”) of access lid. Pump chamber: Dan’s Precast 350 g single compartment concrete pump tank dimensions (see attached Drawings). Select the excavation elevation to ensure at least 1% fall from the outlet of the new septic tank AND with consideration of riser heights (multiples of 15 cm) to ensure the green lids are flush with desired finished grade. Pump, alarm, floats: Myers Mw 100 (1 HP, 230V) effluent pump. Rhombus IFS simplex control panel, set for demand dosing. Install the panel at least 90 cm above ground, (probably on a post or building) within line-of-sight to pump chamber. Extend the vertical pump discharge pipes upwards into the access riser to bring the valves and unions within 15 cm (6”) of lid, elbowed back down to a lower discharge point. Include 2” valve and union at the top of the forcemain within the pump chamber (on the horizontal leg no more than 15 cm below the lid height) to allow easy removal of pump ... also include a pump lifting rope. Include a check valve on the vertical leg of the force main above the pump at least 90 cm above the pump tank floor and drill a 3/16” hole immediately below the valve to act as an air removal orifice. Install a float hanger with weighted floats, stainless bolts.
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
194 o Set floats for specified volumes as listed previously (page 5) ... note the off float specified height refers to the float partially down position, the other two floats are set to specified heights for the float partially up position.
Electrical: All electrical work is to be performed by a qualified electrician, as per applicable codes. Provide two separate electrical circuits, one for the control panel/alarm (115V), and a second circuit for the pump (230V). This will prevent power failure to the control panel/alarm if there is a pump failure or other condition that ‘trips’ the pump power breaker. The Rhombus control panel can serve as junction box for pump power and control floats. The wiring from the pump chamber to the control panel must be enclosed in conduit with adequate size to allow easy re and re of any single float wire, or re and re of the pump electrical supply wire. Any conduit used for wiring from the pump chamber to the control panel or junction box must be sealed to prevent corrosive gases and moisture passing from the pump chamber. There must be no electrical connections or junctions inside the pump chamber.
6. Declaration
These plans and specifications are consistent with standard practice with regard to the Sewerage System Regulation and the Sewerage System Standard Practices Manual of the B.C. Ministry of Health. I have conducted a site evaluation and exercised due diligence. I am a registered on-site practitioner authorized to plan and install the system designed herein.
Designed by Reviewed By
Name: Josh Fayerman/ Travis Young NAME: Travis Young
Signature Signature
Suite 100 101- 5170 Dunster rd. Nanaimo B.C V9T 6M4 Ph.: 1-888-484-7303 Fax: 250- 933-2299 Web: www.milestoncontracting.com Email: [email protected]
195 196 197 198 199 92 E 86 PL 3 27 90 3366 96 1 8 818 88 1 681 STIRLING10189 68868 313 9681 SL1 9688968996 VD96005 SUBJECT35 PROPERTY 3 9689 32 9686 9699 VIS3680IS3680IS36S3680S3680336668880 34 73 9684 SL2S 33
CPC 9591 SL3 CRES 9572
9592 G 9614 RMM 9618 ARARMA 9606 GAG 2 NGN9624996 1 626 24 9636 5 STIRLING4 ARM 6 9648 6 4 3 9658 CLAYOQCCLCLA LA ALBAAL RA2RAA2A22 LB A 1 N AAY PLANPLAPPLLA 28943 PLAN 28201 UO
200
3008 Fifth Avenue, Port Alberni, B.C. CANADA V9Y 2E3 Telephone (250) 720-2700 FAX: (250) 723-1327
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Directors
From: Electoral Area Directors Committee
Meeting Date: March 13, 2019
Subject: Public Presentation on Sproat Lake Water Zoning Options
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive the staff memorandum.
Background: At the November 28, 2018 Board meeting, the attached resolution was passed by the Board:
“THAT the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District Board of Directors direct staff to develop a draft lake surface zoning presentation for public meetings at Sproat Lake for consultation with and consideration by the entire community, similar to the presentation of options for Short Term Vacation Rentals and report back at the March 27th Board meeting.”
The most efficient way to complete this Board priority is include lake surface zoning in the ACRD Zoning Bylaw rewrite currently under way. Draft lake zones and corresponding OCP amendments for regulating the surface of Sproat Lake will be prepared in conjunction with the overall Zoning Bylaw rewrite.
Public consultation is an integral part of the Zoning Bylaw rewrite and public information meetings will be held in each Electoral Area this spring. As the Board has made the lake surface zoning options for Sproat Lake a priority, staff will schedule the Sproat Lake public meeting first.
At this stage it would be premature to schedule a Sproat Lake public meeting before the March 27th Board meeting, as the draft zoning bylaw and corresponding OCP amendments are not yet complete.
Submitted by: ______Mike Irg, MCIP, RPP, Manager of Planning & Development
Approved by: ______Douglas Holmes, BBA, CPA, CA, Chief Administrative Officer
Members: City of Port Alberni, District of Ucluelet, District of Tofino, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Uchucklesaht Tribe and Toquaht Nation, Electoral Areas "A" (Bamfield), "B" (Beaufort), "C" (Long Beach), "D" (Sproat Lake), "E" (Beaver Creek) and "F" (Cherry Creek) 201