Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda - Council - 20050111
TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL AGENDA NO, 05-01 TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AURORA TOWN NALL PUBLIC RELEASE 7/1 /05 TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NO. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. OPEN FORUM — COUNCIL MEETING TO FOLLOW I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. 111 ADOPTION OF MINUTES Council Minutes of December 14, 2004, Meeting Number 04-37, Special Council Public Planning Minutes of December 15, 2004, Meeting Number 04-38 and Special Council Minutes of December 20, 2004, Meeting Number 04-39 RECOMMENDED: THAT the Council Minutes from Meeting Number 04-37, Special Council Public Planning Minutes from Meeting Number 04-38 and Special Council Minutes from Meeting Number 04-39 be adopted as printed and circulated. IV PRESENTATIONS None Council Meeting No. 05-01 Page 2 of 11 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 V DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION VI ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION VII DELEGATIONS None Vlll CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IX REGIONAL REPORT X OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS XI READING OF BY-LAWS RECOMMENDED: THAT the following listed by-law be given 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings, and enacted: 4631.05.0 BEING A BY-LAW to (pg. 131) confirm actions by Council resulting from the meeting of January 11, 2005. XII IN CAMERA Legal and Personnel Matters THAT Council proceed In Camera to address legal and personnel matters. Xlll ADJOURNMENT Council Meeting No. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Page 3 of 11 AGENDA ITEMS 1. EAC04-07 — December 13, 2004 Environmental Advisory (pg. 1) Committee Meeting RECOMMENDED: 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07 held on December 13, 2004 be received as information. 2. Correspondence from MI Development Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application THAT the correspondence from MI Development Re: Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application be received. 3. Correspondence from Susan Walmer 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting THAT the correspondence from Susan Walmer Re: 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting be referred to the Public Awareness/Education Sub - Committee. 4. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One EMF Readings —Town of Aurora; and Copy of Response from Hydro One EMF Readings — Town of Aurora THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be received; and THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council that they obtain expert advice to interpret the EMF readings to determine the impact of current readings and the impact of anticipated future EMF values; and THAT further expert advice be obtained on how the variations of the readings based on time and load will impact the area; and THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be forwarded to Mr. David Richmond of the Markham/Aurora Task Force for his comments and any analysis he can provide. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Page 4 of 11 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5. Discussion of "Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner THAT staff report PL04-107 Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received. 6. Correspondence from Darryl Moore - Car Free Day THAT the correspondence from Darryl Moore Re: Car Free Day be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. 7. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Substance in Stream — Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works Re: Substance in Stream — Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street be received. 8. Correspondence from Councillor Morris Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study THAT the correspondence from Councillor Morris Re: Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. 9. Memorandum from the Director of Public Works York Region Waste Management — Residents Study - Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management THAT the memorandum from the Director of Public Works Re: York Region Waste Management — Residents Study — Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management be referred to the Waste Management Sub -Committee. 10. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Petro Canada — 50 Industrial Parkway South Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Ministry of the Environment — 50 Industrial Parkway South Response from Petro Canada - 50 Industrial Parkway South THAT the Committee recommends to Council that representatives from Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be invited to appear at a Council meeting to advise the Town how this issue related to the spill at 50 Industrial Parkway South will be resolved; and THAT staff be directed to continue following up with Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment to have this issue resolved. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Page 5 of 11 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11. Correspondence from the Region of York Tree By-law — A New Regional Forest Conservation By-law THAT Town staff be directed to prepare a report commenting on and providing recommendations on the Region of York's Tree By-law. 2. AHC04-07 - December 13, 2004 Aurora Heritage Committee (pg. 11) RECOMMENDED: 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Aurora Heritage Committee Meeting 04-07 held on December 13, 2004 be received as information. Renovations to 15120 Yonge St. —Atkinson House (D13-72-04) 2. THAT the Aurora Heritage Committee supports the renovation proposal submitted by the owner of 15120 Yonge St., and suggests that horizontal clapboard siding, return eves, and six over six double hung windows be incorporated as part of the renovation project. 15277, 15283 & 15291 Yonge St. — OPA & Zoning Amendments (D09-03-97 & D14-16-97� 3. THAT the Heritage Committee advise Council that it has concerns with respect to the overall height and massing of the subject building; and the height/design of the roof on the octagonal feature; And further that subject to approval by Council, that the applicant be requested to submit details on the brick finish, colour, and other detail treatments to the Heritage Committee at a future date; and Heritage Plaque Request — 113 Temperence St. 4. THAT the request from the owners of 113 Temperance St. be approved and that a Heritage Plaque identifying the property as the "Lundy -Clark House c.1911" be presented. Committee Name 5. THAT the committee name be modified to the Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora. 2005 Operating Budget 6. THAT the 2005 operating budget of $7,000 be established for the Heritage Committee and that a further $45,000 be added to the Planning Dept. budget in order to fund the heritage conservation study in 2005. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Page 6 of 11 3. LSAC04-07 - December 9, 2004 Leisure Services Advisory (pg. 17) Committee Meeting RECOMMENDED: 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07 held on December 9, 2004 be received as information. 2. Pricing Policy - Discussion on Subsidization Levels THAT staff be directed to raise program fees by an average of 5% in 2005; and THAT field fees, with the exception of ice users, be subject to an average increase of 5% in 2005. 3. Report LS04-060, Youth Action Committee Recruitment 2004/2005 THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee appoint the following additional youth members to sit on the Youth Action Committee for the 2004/2005 school year: Sara Bonham, Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School Amy Durant, Aurora High School Geoffrey Smitten, Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School 4. Report LS04-061, Green Roof Technology THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommends that Green Roof Technology not be pursued for present construction projects but be considered for future construction projects; and THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommend to Council that report LS04-061 be submitted to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for comment on the advantages of Green Roof Technology with regards to reducing the impact of storm water management pond requirements. 5. Report LS04-063, Library Square — Next Steps THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee endorses the list of capital repairs outlined in report LS04-063 in the amount of $377,420.00; and THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommends to Council that these repairs be added to the projected lease cost of the former Library and Seniors' Centre. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Page 7 of 11 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6. Special Events Committee THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee extends congratulations and appreciation to the Special Events Committee, Ms Julie Geering, the Public Works Department and the Parks Department for an outstanding job on the Santa Claus Parade. 4. EDAC04-07 — December 15, 2004 Economic Development Advisory (pg. 25) Committee Meeting RECOMMENDED: 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07 held on December 15, 2004 be received as information. 2. ADM04-005 — Town of Aurora Logo Development THAT the Economic Development Advisory Committee endorse Logo Design Option #3, as prepared for the Town of Aurora by Communications That Work, as its preferred design for the Town's logo; and THAT the Economic Development Advisory Committee work with Staff to finalize a tagline/taglines as part of the logo design in Design Option #3 and that a list of appropriate taglines be presented to the Committee at the next Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting on January 19, 2005 for the Committee's consideration and approval. 3. Yonge Street Commercial Area Sub-Cornmittee THAT the revised Minutes of November 11, 2004 and revised Minutes of December 2, 2004 be endorsed. 5. Memorandum from Town Clerk/Director of Corporate Services (pg. 31) Re: Attendance of Members at Meetings RECOMMENDED: THAT Council provide direction on this matter. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Page 8 of 11 6. Correspondence from The Region of York (pg. 32) Re: Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) CAO RECOMMENDS: THAT the attached communication of December 21, 2004 outlining the position and recommendations of the Region of York Council respecting Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) be received for information; and THAT Council direction is respectfully requested respecting the Region of York's request for an endorsement of the Region's position and that such endorsement be forwarded directly to the Minister of Health and Long Term Care. 7. Resolution No. C-2004-0571 from the Town of Georgina (pg. 64) Re: Health of Lake Simcoe Watershed RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive and endorse the following resolution from the Town of Georgina: THAT the Town of Georgina request that the Province of Ontario immediately establish a liaison group whose mandate is to work on the long term sustained health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. THAT this group include representation from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of the Environment and any other such agency who can provide the technical information necessary to assist the project. THAT additional membership include but not be restricted to other individuals or groups who have expressed an interest in being involved in this project (i.e. Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, the WAVE, etc.). THAT this working group be given the ability to establish priorities for the rehabilitation of the Lake Simcoe watershed. THAT this working group consult with all interested parties as a public body to receive information and communicate its findings. THAT this working group identify specific costs relative to expected rehabilitation projects. THAT this working group determine ways and means of funding the rehabilitation projects identified within the Lake Simcoe watershed. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Page 9 of 11 AND THAT the Town of Georgina request all other municipal Councils within the Lake Simcoe watershed to endorse this position and ask the Province of Ontario to act upon its organization immediately. 8. Resolution R18-2004 from the Town of Newmarket (pg. 68) Re: Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition's Wave, Healthy Yards, Healthy Waters Program RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive and endorse the following resolution from the Town of Newmarket: WHEREAS Lake Simcoe's annual phosphorus input is about 100 metric tonnes which is the equivalent of 10 full dump trucks — which is 70 tonnes more than its natural state, and that to regain the health of the lake this level must be reduced by 30 tonnes a year; AND WHEREAS while rural and agricultural phosphorus sources are on the decrease and the phosphorus contribution from urban/suburban areas is on the rise, and that the phosphorus runoff from urban/suburban homes comes from many sources but none greater than from over watering and the use of yard fertilizers that contain phosphorus; AND WHEREAS phosphorus is directly responsible for the eutrophication of Lake Simcoe by stimulating high concentrations of algae and weed growth which die and submerge affecting the underwater ecosystem by reducing the oxygen supply in the water and harming fish and wildlife; AND WHEREAS the Lake Simcoe Watershed: 1. Has a total land and water surface area of 3,303 square kilometres. 2. Lake Simcoe itself occupies about 20 percent or 722 square kilometres. 3. The watershed is bordered by five major physiographical areas - Oak Ridges Moraine, Peterborough Drumlin Fields, uplands till plains, the Simcoe Lowlands and the Oro Moraine. 4. Five major tributaries account for more than 60 percent of the total drainage area. 5. The land portion of the watershed is drained by 35 tributary rivers. Council Meeting No. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Page 10 of 11 6. The Maskinonge River in Keswick includes a drainage area of 66 square kilometres. The lake and watershed generate annual revenue of $200 million annually. AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket at a meeting held on November 22, 2004 received a notice of a motion regarding The Wave Healthy Yards/ Healthy Waters Program of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition to assist people to reduce phosphorus run off from their yards. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket as follows: THAT the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket invites other municipalities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed to support and participate in The Wave, Healthy Yards, Healthy Waters Program; AND THAT this resolution be circulated to the municipalities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. 9. Resolution R22-2004 from the Town of Newmarket (pg. 72) Re: Expansion of Local Telephone Dialing RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive and endorse the following resolution from the Town of Newmarket: WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newmarket has received and considered correspondence dated October 25, 2004 from the Regional Municipality of York detailing the expansion of local telephone dialling within the Regional Municipality of York and throughout the Greater Toronto Area; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newmarket has assessed and endorsed the Regional submission to Bell Canada for such expansion; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket as follows: THAT the Council of the Town of Newmarket supports the Regional Municipality of York in the joint request for expansion of local telephone dialing in York Region and throughout the Greater Toronto Area; Council Meeting No. 05-01 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Page 11 of 11 AND THAT this resolution be forwarded to the leaders of both Federal and Provincial parties, the local MP and MPP, the Regional Municipality of York and area municipalities. 10. Correspondence from The Region of York (pg. 74) Re: Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission Capacity In Markham -Newmarket Corridor CAO RECOMMENDS: THAT Council receive the correspondence from The Region of York, dated December 20, 2004, regarding Hydro One's proposal to expand transmission capacity in the Markham -Newmarket corridor. 11. Correspondence from Gowlings (pg. 97) Re: Comments from the Town of Markham on the Supply to York Region Draft Environmental Study Report, dated October 21, 2004 CAO RECOMMENDS: THAT the correspondence be received. 12. Correspondence from Aurora Hydro Connections Limited (pg. 205) Re: Reinforcement of Transmission Supply Facilities to York Region — Hydro One Networks Inc. CAO RECOMMENDS: THAT the correspondence be received. 13. ADM05-01 — Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission (pg. 273) Capacity in Markham -Newmarket Corridor THE CAO RECOMMENDS: THAT the report of the CAO directed by Council on December 14, 2004, respecting the provision of a response(s) to the issues raised by Mr. Richard Johnson by email of December 3, 2004 and pertaining to Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission Capacity in Markham -Newmarket Corridor be received for information. COUNCIL'- JANUARY 11, 2005 i�AGENDA ITEM # :J:l -TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. EAC04-07 SUBJECT: December 13, 2004 Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting FROM: Chair Council Members Committee Members - DATE: January 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS Councillor Morris Councillor Gaertner Robert Cook, Ellen Mole, Darryl Moore, Susan Walmer and Klaus Wenrenberg THAT the Committee Record of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07, held on December 13, 2004 be received for information; and 2. Correspondence from Mi Development Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application THAT the correspondence from Ml Development Re: Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application be received. 3. Correspondence from Susan Walmer 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting THAT the correspondence from Susan Walmer Re: 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting be referred to the Public Awareness/Education Sub -Committee. 4. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One EMF Readings - Town of Aurora; and Copt/ of Response from Hydro One EMF Readings - Town of Aurora THAT the correspondence from the Director ofPublic Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings - Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings - Town of Aurora be received; and THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council that they obtain expert advice to interpret the EMF readings to determine the impact of current readings and the impact of anticipated future EMF values; THAT further expert advice be obtained on how the variations of the readings based on time and load will impact the area. THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings - Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: -1- COUNCIL- JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 -2- Report No. EAC04-07 EMF Readings - Town of Aurora be forwarded to Mr. David Richmond of the Markham/Aurora Task Force for his comments and any analysis he can provide. 5. Discussion of "Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner THAT staff report No. PL04-107 Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received. 6. Correspondence from Darryl Moore - Car Free Day THAT the correspondence from Darryl Moore Re: Car Free Day be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. 7. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Substance in Stream - Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street THAT the Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Re: Substance in Stream - Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street be received. 8. Correspondence from Councillor Morris Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study THAT the Correspondence from Councillor Morris Re: Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. 9. Memorandum from the Director of Public Works York Region Waste Management- Residents Study -Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management THAT the Memorandum from the Director of Public Works Re: York Region Waste Management - Residents Study - Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management be referred to the Waste Management Sub - Committee. 10. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Petro Canada - 50 Industrial Parkway South Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Ministry of the Environment - 50 Industrial Parkway South Response from Petro Canada - 50 Industrial Parkway South THAT the Committee recommends to Council that representatives from Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be invited to appear at a Council meeting to advise the Town how this issue related to the spill at 50 Industrial Parkway South will be resolved; and -2- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 3 - Report No. EAC04-07 THAT staff be directed to continue following up with Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment to have this issue resolved. 11. Correspondence from the Region of York Tree By-law - A New Regional Forest Conservation By-law THAT Town staff be directed to prepare a report commenting on and providing recommendations on the Region of York's Tree By-law, BACKGROUND Attached for the information of Council are the Minutes of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting EAC04-07, held on December 13, 2004. COMMENTS Nil. OPTIONS Nil. CONCLUSIONS Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of Committee Record No. EAC04-07 Prepared by: Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk, ext. 4222 it Councillor Phyllis Morris, Chair 1 Environmental Advisory Committee —3— COUNCIL'— JANUARY 11, 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECORD MEETING NO. 04-07 Date: Time and Location Monday, December 13, 2004 7:00 p.m., Leksand Meeting Room, Aurora Town Hall, 100 John West Way Committee Members: Councillor Morris, Chair, Councillor Gaertner, Robert Cook, Ellen Mole, Darryl Moore, Susan Walmer, Klaus Wehrenberg Regrets: Mary Hill, David Tomlinson, Staff Attendees: Wayne Jackson, Director of Public Works Karyn Bagley, Council/Committee Secretary Councillor Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Ellen Mole Seconder! by Sue Walmer THAT the content of the agenda be approved as circulated by the Corporate Services Department with the following adjustment: ➢ The In Camera session be moved to the top of the agenda to allow for adequate consideration of the matter. CARRIED —4— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 2 of 7 Monday, December 13, 2004 IN CAMERA— PERSONNEL MATTERS Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Robert Cook THAT the Committee proceed In Camera to discuss personnel matters. X_T7z l MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS Moved by Robert Cook Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT meeting Record No. 04-06 be adopted as printed and circulated by Corporate Services. CARRIED DELEGATIONS None MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES 2. Correspondence from MI Development Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the correspondence from MI Development Re: Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application be received. CARRIED 3. Correspondence from Susan Walmer 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Robert Cook THAT the correspondence from Susan Walmer Re: 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting be referred to the Public Awareness/Education Sub - Committee. W1 TZ71WO.. —5— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 3 of 7 Monday, December 13, 2004 4. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One EMF Readings — Town of Aurora; and Copy of Response from Hydro One EMF Readings — Town of Aurora Councillor Morris informed the Committee that Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Readings were requested by the Town from Hydro One for Civic Square Park, Hamilton Park, and Chapman Park. Mr. Wayne Jackson, Director of Public Works, presented the correspondence from himself to Hydro One and the response from Hydro One regarding the EMF Readings — Town of Aurora to the Environmental Advisory Committee. The Director of Public Works has already presented these two pieces of correspondence to Council. Committee members agreed that more information and further analysis is needed on whether the EMF readings from Civic Square Park, Hamilton Park, and Chapman Park represent normal and safe levels. Moved by Ellen Mole Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be received; and THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council that. they obtain expert advice to interpret the EMF readings to determine their implications with current and future use; and THAT further expert advice be obtained on how the variations of the readings based on time and load will impact the area. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The Committee stressed the importance of being kept involved and informed on this issue. The Committee agreed that Mr. David Richmond, member of the Markham/Aurora Task Force, should be made aware of these readings and given the opportunity to comment. Councillor Morris will be advising Council at tomorrow night's Council meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee's position and recommendations on this issue. Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Darryl Moore THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be forwarded to Mr. David Richmond of the Markham/Aurora Task Force for comments and analysis to be provided. CARRIED Moved by Robert Cook Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 4 of 7 Monday, December 13, 2004 THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee meeting continue past 9:00 pm. CARRIED Moved by Darryl Moore Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT Agenda Item 11 - Discussion of 'Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner be brought forward at this time. CARRIED 11. Discussion of "Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner The Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe report went to Council on September 21. Councillor Gaertner had advocated that the 2C lands be classified as environmentally sensitive lands to ensure that they are protected, but this was not successfully accomplished. Because Council has already endorsed the Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as is, the Environmental Advisory Committee can only make recommendations to Council on this subject and reiterate its desire to be involved in the public consultation process that will take place over the next year. The Director of Public Works informed the Committee that the direction from the Acting CAO is that staff are to bring information such as this to the appropriate Committee to be reviewed there. Moved by Ellen Mole Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT staff report No. PL04-107 Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received. CARRIED 7. Correspondence from Darryl Moore Car Free Day Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Robert Cook THAT the correspondence from Darryl Moore Re: Car Free Day be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. CARRIED —7— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04.07 Page 5 of 7 Monday, December 13, 2004 8. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Substance in Stream — Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street The Director of Public Works advised the Committee that nothing else has appeared in the stream, and that this was most likely an isolated case of irresponsible dumping. The Director of Public Works confirmed that the substance appeared to be grease floating on the water, and that the total cost for the cleanup was under one thousand dollars. Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Re: Substance in Stream — Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street be received. WIT.WFER 9. Correspondence from Councillor Morris Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT the Correspondence from Councillor Morris Re: Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. CARRIED 10. Memorandum from the Director of Public Works York Region Waste Management — Residents Study - Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Darryl Moore THAT the Memorandum from the Director of Public Works Re: York Region Waste Management — Residents Study — Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management be referred to the Waste Management Sub - Committee. CARRIED 5. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Petro Canada — 50 Industrial Parkway South Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Ministry of the Environment — 50 Industrial Parkway South Response from Petro Canada - 50 Industrial Parkway South COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 6 of 7 Monday, December 13, 2004 The Director of Public Works presented the Committee with the correspondence from himself to Petro Canada, the correspondence from himself to the Ministry of the Environment, and the correspondence from Petro Canada regarding 50 Industrial Parkway South. The Director of Public Works expressed his disappointment that no additional boreholes were being monitored which indicates that tracking the migration of the contamination is not being done adequately. The Director of Public Works advised the Committee that the response from Petro Canada was that there is no ongoing leak, and that the Town is not privy to the information that they obtained through their review of this incident. The Director of Public Works confirmed that there has not been any progress on this issue since November 30, and that the Town is still awaiting for Petro Canada's next round of work. Moved by Robert Cook Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the Committee recommends to Council that representatives from Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be invited to appear at a Council meeting to advise how this issue with the spill at 50 Industrial Parkway South will be resolved; and THAT staff be directed to continue following up with Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment to have this issue resolved. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. Correspondence from the Region of York Tree By-law — A New Regional Forest Conservation By-law Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Robert Cook THAT Town staff be directed to prepare a report commenting on and providing recommendations on the Region of York's Tree By-law. IN CAMERA— PERSONNEL MATTERS Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Darryl Moore THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council the following names, as submitted, be appointed to the various Sub - Committees: Naturalization/Wildlife Bylaws/Policv Barbara Best Rizwan Tracey Etwell Orianna Brodbeck Suzanne Reiner Ken Turriff Linda Housse.r Maristela Schiavo —9— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Monday, December 13, 2004 Waste Management Carol Cooper Wendi Cutts Al Wilson Richard Wizemann Planning Robert Elliot Nicole Arsenault Peter Piersol Mahipal Jadeja OTHER BUSINESS BY MEMBERS Page 7 of 7 Public Awareness/Education Catherine Marshall Angie Thurston Mathew Bertin lldi Connor Mark Fernandes Stephen Granger Janny Hogen Vid Prezel CARRIED Councillor Morris informed the Committee that the Environmental Advisory Committee's Terms of Reference are going to be reviewed at the December 14th Council meeting as requested by Councillor Buck. Susan Walmer advised that she will be appearing as a delegation at the Council meeting to provide an update on other area Environmental Advisory Committees and their terms of reference, and to also provide an update on the positive work being carried out by Aurora's Environmental Advisory Committee. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT the meeting be adjourned at 9:50pm. W17RW NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee will take place on Monday, January 10, 2005, at 7:00 pm in the Leksand Room. —10— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 'TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. AHC 04-07 SUBJECT: December 13, 2004 Aurora Heritage Committee Meeting FROM: Diane Fergueson (Chair), Margaret Brevik, Councillor Nigel Kean, Bob McRoberts, Walter Mestrinaro, John McIntyre, Stan Rycombel, Jane Staunton, Councillor Ron Wallace DATE: January 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Committee Record of the Aurora Heritage Committee Meeting held on December 13, 2004 be received for information; and Renovations to 15120 Yonge St. — Atkinson House (1313-72-04) 2. THAT Heritage Committee supports the renovation proposal submitted by the owner of 15120 Yonge St., and suggests that horizontal clapboard siding, return eves, and six over six double hung windows be incorporated as part of the renovation project; and 15277, 15283 & 15291 Yonge St. — OPA & Zoning Amend (1309-03-97 & D14-16-97) 3. THAT the Heritage Committee advise Council that it has concerns with respect to the overall height and massing of the subject building, and the height/design of the roof on the octagonal feature; And further that subject to approval by Council, that the applicant be requested to submit details on the brick finish, colour, and other detail treatments to the Heritage Committee at a future date; and Heritage Plaque Request —113 Temperence St. 4. THAT the request from the owners of 113 Temperance St. be approved and that a Heritage Plaque identifying the property as the "Lundy -Clark House c.1911"be presented; and —11— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 2 - Committee Name Report No. 04-07 5. THAT the committee name be modified to the Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora; and 2005 Operating Budget 6. THAT the 2005 operating budget of $7,000 be established for the Heritage Committee and that a further $45,000 be added to the Planning Dept. budget in order to fund the heritage conservation study in 2005. ATTACHMENTS Committee Record 04-07 Prep a : Bob Panizza D. F rg eson, Chair j Aurora Heritage Committee —12— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2.005 AURORA HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECORD NO. 04-07 Committee: Aurora Heritage Committee Date: December 13, 2004 Time and Location: 7:00 p.m. Holland Room, Town Hall Committee Members: Diane Fergueson (Chair), Margaret Brevik, John McIntyre, Bob McRoberts, Stan Rycombel, Absent: Councillor Nigel Kean, Walter Mestrinaro, Jane Staunton Councillor Ron Wallace Staff: Bob Panizza DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by S. Rycombel That the agenda be approved. Seconded by M. Brevik CARRIED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Moved by M. Brevik Seconded by S. Rycombel That the minutes of the Aurora Heritage Committee No. 04-06 dated November 8, 2004 be approved. DELEGATIONS None CARRIED -13- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION Renovations to 15120 Yonge St. —Atkinson House (1313-72-04) Mr. Ian Smith, the current owner of the house, appeared before the Committee to outline the proposed plans to renovate the house by modifying the roof height in order to provide additional living space for his family and to refinish the exterior of the building in order to preserve the historic appearance. Mr. Smith also requested Committee's input before the project began. Moved by J. McIntyre Seconded by M. Brevik That Heritage Committee supports the renovation proposal submitted by the owner of 15120 Yonge St., and suggests that horizontal clapboard siding, return eves, and six over six double hung windows be incorporated as part of the renovation project CARRIED 2. 15277, 15283, 15291 Yonge St Proposed OPA & Zoning By-law Amendment (D09-03-97 & D14-16-97) Moved by B. McRoberts Seconded by M. Brevik That the Heritage Committee advise Council that it has concerns with respect to the overall height and massing of the subject building; the use of the octagonal feature on the south west corner of the building; and the height/design of the roof on the octagonal feature; And further that subject to approval by Council, that the applicant be requested to submit details on the brick finish, colour, and other detail treatments to the Heritage Committee at a future date. DEFEATED Moved by B McRoberts Seconded by M. Brevik That the Heritage Committee advise Council that it has concerns with respect to the overall height and massing of the subject building; and the height/design of the roof on the octagonal feature; And further that subject to approval by Council, that the applicant be requested to submit details on the brick finish, colour, and other detail treatments to the Heritage Committee at a future date. CARRIED —14— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 3. Heritage Plaque Request— 113 Temperance St. Moved by J. McIntyre Seconded by S. Rycombel That the request from the owners of 113 Temperance St. be approved and that a Heritage Plaque identifying the property as the "Lundy -Clark House c. 1911" be presented. CARRIED 4. Committee Name M. Brevik briefed members regarding the name Aurora Heritage Centre which was adopted and registered by the Aurora Historical Society approximately 5 years ago for the Church St. School/Museum. She indicated that the Historical Society is concerned that their name may be confused with the new name that was adopted for the Aurora Heritage Committee, in particular the use of the acronym AHC by both groups. Since the name of the Heritage Committee was only adopted this year, it was suggested that the Committee consider modifying its name further in order to prevent any future confusion between the groups. Moved by S. Rycombel Seconded by M. Brevik That the committee name be modified to the Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora. CARRIED 5. 2005 Operating Budget Moved by J. McIntyre Seconded by S. Rycombel That the 2005 operating budget of $7,000 be established for the Heritage Committee and that a further $45,000 be added in the Planning Dept. budget in order to fund the heritage conservation study in 2005. CARRIED —15— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 6. Correspondence Moved by S. Rycombel Seconded by B. McRoberts That the correspondence be received. OTHER BUSINESS B. McRoberts requested a status on the meeting with the residents of the Olde Aurora Ratepayers Assoc. B. Panizza advised that the Association has not contacted him but that he would follow up early in the new year to convene a meeting. S. Rycombel inquired whether anyone has indicated an interest in moving the Hartman House. He was advised that no one made any inquiries with the Town. ADJOURNMENT Moved by M. Brevik That the meeting be adjourned at 9:20 p.m. —16— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 �AGENDA ITEm# 5-1 'TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. LSAC04-07 SUBJECT: December 9, 2004, Leisure Services Advisory Committee Meeting FROM: Chair - Councillor Kean Council Members - Councillor Gaertner and Vrancic Committee Members - Dawn Irwin, Al Wilson Absent - Diane Buchanan, Alan Dean, Stephen Dupuis and John Gallo wereabsent. DATE: January 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee Meeting, held on December 9, 2004, be received for information. 2. Pricing Policy - Discussion on Subsidization Levels THAT staff be directed to raise program fees by an average of 5% in 2005; and THAT field fees, with the exception of ice users, be subject to an average increase of 5% in 2005. 3. Report LSO4-060, Youth Action Committee Recruitment 200412005 THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee appoint the following additional youth members to sit on the Youth Action Committee for the 200412005 school year. ➢ Sara Bonham, Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School ➢ Amy Durant, Aurora High School ➢ Geoffrey Smitten, Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School 4. Report LSO4-061, Green Roof Technology THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommends that Green Roof Technology not be pursued for present construction projects but be considered for future construction projects; and THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommend to Council that report LSO4-061 be submitted to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for comment on the advantages of Green Roof Technology with regards to reducing the impact of storm water management pond requirements. -17- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 -2 - Report No. LSAC04-07 5. Report LSO4-063, Library Square -Next Steps THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee endorses the list of capital repairs outlined in report LSO4-063 in the amount of $377,420.00; and THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommends to Council that these repairs be added to the projected lease cost of the former Library and Seniors' Centre. SUB-COMMITTEES/UPDATES Special Events Committee THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee extends congratulations and appreciation to the Special Events Committee, Ms Julie Geering, the Public Works Department and the Parks Department for an outstanding job on the Santa Claus Parade. BACKGROUND Attached for the information of Council are the Minutes of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee Meeting LSAC04-07, held on December 9, 2004. COMMENTS Nil. OPTIONS Nil. CONCLUSIONS Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. 'm COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 ATTACHMENTS -3- 1. Copy of Committee Record No. LSAC04-07. Report No. LSAC04-07 Prepared by: Carol Clark, Council/Committee Secretary, ext. 4227 Reviewed by: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure Services, ext. 4752 r Councillor Damir Vrancic V Leisure Services Advisory Committee —19— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 nie LEISURE SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECORD MEETING NO. 04-07 Date: Thursday, December 9, 2004 Time and Location: 7:00 p.m., Leksand Meeting Room, Aurora Town Hall, 100 John West Way Committee Members: Councillor Kean, Chair, Councillors Gaertner and Vrancic, Dawn Irwin, Al Wilson Staff Attendees: Allan Downey, Director of Leisure Services Carol Clark, Council/Committee Secretary Absent: Diane Buchanan, Alan Dean, Stephen Dupuis, John Gallo Other Attendees: None Councillor Kean called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA None DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Councillor Vrancic Seconded by Dawn Irwin THAT the content of the agenda as circulated by the Leisure Services Department be approved as outlined herein. CARRIED —20— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Leisure Services Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Thursday, December 9, 2004 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS MEETING REPORT Leisure Services Advisory Committee Meeting Report No. 04-06, dated Thursday, November 11, 2004 Moved by Councillor Vrancic Page 2 of 5 Seconded by Dawn Irwin THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee Meeting Report No. 04-06 of Thursday, November 11, 2004, be received for information. CARRIED DELEGATION(S) None MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Pricing Policy - Discussion on Subsidization Levels The Committee discussed the fact that costs such as union wages, hydro, gas, etc. have increased, and that those increases must be reflected in program and field fees. AI Downey indicated that ice users have recently had a significant increase in fees and therefore, the Committee agreed that they should be exempt from increases at this time. Moved by Al Wilson Seconded by Councillor Gaertner THAT staff be directed to raise program fees by an average of 5% in 2005. CARRIED Moved by Dawn Irwin Seconded by Al Wilson THAT field fees, with the exception of ice users, be subject to an average increase of 5% in 2005. CARRIED The Committee requested that Al Downey provide another copy of the pricing policy for the next meeting on January 13, 2005. Councillor Kean requested a summary of meeting attendance by citizen members and advised that he will contact all citizen members to review their desire to serve on the Committee. —21— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Leisure Services Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 3 of 5 Thursday, December 9, 2004 2. Report LSO4-060, Youth Action Committee Recruitment 2004/2065 Moved by Councillor Vrancic Seconded by Councillor Gaertner THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee appoint the following additional youth members to sit on the Youth Action Committee for the 2004/2005 school year. ➢ Sara Bonham, Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School ➢ Amy Durant, Aurora High School ➢ Geoffrey Smitten, Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School 3. Report LSO4-061, Green Roof Technology The Committee agreed that Green Roof Technology could be beneficial in certain circumstances, particularly since it reduces the need for storm water management. Due to time constraints, it was agreed that Green Roof Technology would not be appropriate for the current construction projects. Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Councillor Vrancic THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommends that Green Roof Technology not be pursued for present construction projects but be considered for future construction projects; and THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommend to Council that report LSO4-061 be submitted to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for comment on the advantages of Green Roof Technology with regards to reducing the impact of storm water management pond requirements. CARRIED 4. Report LSO4-063, Library Square — Next Steps Moved by Al Wilson Seconded by Dawn Irwin THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee endorses the list of capital repairs outlined in report LSO4-063 in the amount of $377,420.00; and THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommends to Council that these repairs be added to the projected lease cost of the former Library and Seniors' Centre. CARRIED —22— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Leisure Services Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 4 of 5 Thursday, December 9, 2004 SUB-COMMITTEES/UPDATES Youth Action Committee None. Special Events Committee Dawn Irwin advised that $2,700 was raised for charity from the sale of the bells donated by Warner Brothers and Via Rail for promotion of the movie Polar Express. Moved by Al Wilson Seconded by Dawn Irwin THAT the Leisure Services Advisory Committee extends congratulations and appreciation to the Special Events Committee, Ms Julie Geering, the Public Works Department and the Parks Department for an outstanding job on the Santa Claus Parade. Leash Free Dog Park Al Downey advised that signs have been posted at Canine Commons advising that park users must stoop and scoop and remove their debris from the leash free park, as it will not be picked up. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Youth Action Committee Meeting Minutes, November 17, 2004 The minutes were received. 2. Revised LSAC Members Listing The listing was received. OTHER BUSINESS BY MEMBERS Councillor Vrancic advised that a Cineplex Odeon theatre is being built at the Aurora Centre on Bayview Avenue north of Wellington Street. Councillor Gaertner raised the option of dedicating one floor of the old Library, or utilizing available pre-school space for a Youth Centre. Councillor Kean requested that this issue be added to the next agenda. —23— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Leisure Services Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 5 of 5 Thursday, December 9, 2004 Councillor Kean indicated that the coffee shop, which is operating at the library, is not paying rent and that the revised agreement is to be brought forward early in the new year for consideration. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Al Wilson Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. NEXT MEETING It was noted that the next meeting of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee will take place on Thursday, January 13, 2005 at 7:00 pm in the Leksand Room. —24— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 7_0ENDAITEM-1 i 10 6 -TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. EDAC04-07 SUBJECT: December 15, 2004, Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting FROM: Chair - Councillor Damir Vrancic Council Members - Councillor Morris Committee Members - David Amborski, Jim Beechey, Lisa Cruickshank, Sharon Culver, Gabriela Dragomir, Richard Wizemann DATE: January 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07 held on December 15, 2004 be received as information; and 2. ADM04-005— Town of Aurora Logo Development THAT the Economic Development Advisory Committee endorse Logo Design Option #3, as prepared for the Town of Aurora by Communications That Work, as its preferred design for the Town's logo; and THAT the Economic Development Advisory Committee work with Staff to finalize a tagline/taglines as part of the logo design in Design Option #3 and that a list of appropriate taglines be presented to the Committee at the next Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting on January 19, 2005 for the Committee's consideration and approval. 3. Yonge Street Commercial Area Sub -Committee THAT the revised Minutes of November 11, 2004 and revised Minutes of December 2, 2004 be endorsed. BACKGROUND Attached for the information of Council are the Minutes of the Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07, held on December 15, 2004. COMMENTS Nil. -25- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 2 - Report No. EDAC04-07 OPTIONS Nil. CONCLUSIONS Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of Committee Record No. 04-07 Prepared by. Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk ext. 4222 1 C u cil or Vrancic, Chair Economic Development Advisory Committee -26- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 COMMITTEE RECORD MEETING NO. 04-07 Committee: Economic Development Advisory Committee Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Time and Location: 7:30 a.m., Council Chambers - Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Councillor Vrancic, Chair; Councillor Morris, David Amborski, Jim Beechey, Lisa Cruickshank, Sharon Culver, Gabriela Dragomir, Richard Wizemann Regrets: Councillor Kean due to other business Other Attendees: Dino Lombardi, Economic Development Officer, Kristen Yemm, Marketing/Communications Co-ordinator and Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk Councillor Vrancic, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:40 a.m. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Councillor Morris Seconded by Lisa Cruickshank THAT the content of the Agenda be approved as circulated by Corporate Services with the following additional items: ➢ REVISED Yonge Street Commercial Area Sub -Committee Minutes of November 11 and December 2, 2004 CARRIED REVIEW OF PREVIOUS MEETING REPORT —27— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes No. 04-07 Page 2 of 4 Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1. Minutes of Meeting Number 04-06 held on Wednesday, November 17, 2004. Moved by Jim Beechey Seconded by Richard Wizemann THAT the Minutes of Meeting Number 04-06 held on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 be adopted. CARRIED MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 2. ADM04-005 — Town of Aurora Logo Development Mr. Rick Sikorski of Communications That Work presented the Committee with a PowerPoint presentation outlining the development and design of the three proposed marketing logos for the Town of Aurora put forward in the Economic Development Officers' report. Mr. Sikorski advised that there was broad input received from various groups/individuals such as the EDAC, senior Town officials & staff, business owners, and the general public as part of the pre -design consultation process. The three designs presented by the consultant were considered contemporary but also maintained some traditional traits of the Town's official 'Coat of Arms.' The Marketing/Communications Co-ordinator advised the Committee that the recommended logo design could have a wide application within the municipal corporation and would be incorporated into all promotional materials. Mr. Sikorski added that a good logo design would allow a variety of applications and presentations. After some debate, the consensus amongst Committee members supported the choice of Design Option #3, as presented by the consultant, as the preferred logo. The Economic Development Officer requested that the Committee also consider and endorse logo colours for preferred Design Option #3. However, the Committee directed staff to provide colour 'mock ups' of possible combinations for their consideration at the next Committee meeting. Moved by David Amborski Seconded by Richard Wizemann THAT the Economic Development Advisory Committee endorse Logo Design Option #3, as prepared for the Town of Aurora by Communications That Work, as its preferred design for the Town's logo. CARRIED UNAMIMOUSLY IST=C COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes No. 04-07 Page 3 of 4 Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Councillor Vrancic vacated the Chair. Councillor Morris assumed the Chair. Discussions concerning the logo continued and the Economic Development Officer advised that a tagline or taglines should be developed as part of a complete logo design process and requested the Committee's assistance. The Committee discussed various tag lines that could be utilized with the logo and suggested various possibilities. However, because of meeting time constraints, the Committee directed staff to develop a list of appropriate tagline combinations for consideration at the next Committee meeting. Moved by Gabriela Dragomir Seconded by Lisa Cruickshank THAT the Economic Development Advisory Committee work with staff to finalize a tagline/taglines as part of the logo design in Design Option #3 and that a list of appropriate taglines be presented to the Committee at the next Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting on January 19, 2005 for the Committee's consideration and approval. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS SUB-COMMITTEE/UPDATES Yonge Street Commercial Area 3. Yonge Street Commercial Area Sub -Committee Moved by Lisa Cruickshank Seconded by Sharon Culver THAT the revised Minutes of November 11, 2004 and revised Minutes of December 2, 2004 be endorsed. CARRIED The Economic Development Officer reminded the members, on behalf of the Chair, to bring forward one or two suggestions of possible initiatives, they would like the Committee to pursue, to the January meeting. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS None —29— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes No. 04-07 Page 4 of 4 Wednesday, December 15, 2004 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Lisa Cruickshank THAT the meeting adjourned at 8:55 a.m. CARRIED NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 7:30 a.m. in the Leksand Room, Town Hall. -30- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 AGENDA=EM 5 O F F I C E To: Members of Council From: Bob Panizza wwwwww � �w�..r w�w� i�w�rw Subject: Attendance of Members at Meetings Date: January 7, 2005 MEMO At the Council meeting of December 14, 2004, Councillor Buck expressed the opinion that Councillors arrival and departure times at meetings should also be noted in the minutes of meetings. The Town's Procedural By-law states that the Clerk shall record the attendance of the Members, which is done and is shown in the minutes of all Council and Committee meetings, however it has not been the practice to show the arrival and departure times of each individual member. Staff is requesting Council's direction as to whether this practice should be introduced in all future meetings. 4Paa Director of Corporate Services —31— LAGEND.AITEM JAN 4 2005 Off7ce of the Regional Clerk Corporate S"im Department December 21, 2004 Mr. Bob Panizza Director of Corporate Services and Town Clerk Town of Aurora P.O. Box 1000, 100John West Way Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza Re: Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) Regional Council at its meeting of December 16, 2004 unanimously adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of the Commissioner of Health Services Committee regarding Local Health Integration Networks. Please find a copy of the Extract of this Clause attached. Please note amended Recommendation No. 9 which requests your municipality's endorsement of this resolution and that your decision be forwarded to the Minister of Health and Long Tenn Care. I have also enclosed a copy of Minute No. 228 for your information. If you require any further information, please contact Dr. Helena Jaczek, Commissioner of Health Services and Medical Officer of Health at Ext. 4931. Sincerely Denis Kelly Regional Clerk DK/sn Attach. C. Dr. H. Jaczek, Commissioner of Health Services and Medical Officer of Health The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel: 905-830-4444 Ext. 1320, 1-877-464-9675, Fax: 905-895-3031 Internet., www,re ' york.on.ea COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -33- COUNCIL — J BARY 11, 2005 wn Report No. 1 of the Regional Commissioner of Health Services was adopted, as amended, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on December 16, 2004. LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS (Regional Council at its meeting on December 1 S, 2004, adopted this report with the following amendment., Recommendation 9 be amended to add that it be forwarded to the local municipalities for their endorsement (and that a copy of their decision be forwarded directly to the Minister), and that local MPP's and the Ontario Hospital Association also be provided with a copy of this report.) RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: The Commissioner of Health Services and Medical Officer of Health continue to monitor the Province of Ontario's health transformation agenda and provide updates to Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee and Regional Council as more information becomes available. 2. The Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care (MOHLTC) be requested to revisit the LHIN boundaries as they currently exist to ensure that York Region is within one LHIN area, thereby still accommodating the MOHLTC requirements that at least one major hospital and up to 1.5 million residents reside within each LHIN. 3. The MOHLTC be requested to restructure the LHIN model of governance in order to ensure that LHIN Boards are accountable to the residents of York Region. 4. The MOHLTC be requested to undertake an intensive consultation process with representatives from the Regional Municipality of York, other Regions and municipalities across Ontario, as well as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario with respect to the development of LHINs. 5. The MOHLTC be requested to place a strong emphasis on illness prevention as a key component to any transformation of health care in Ontario. 6. The MOHLTC be requested to take local service delivery initiatives into consideration as a key component to any transformation of health care in Ontario. —34— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Report No.I Regional Commissioner of Health Services The MOHLTC provide clarification to The Regional Municipality of York regarding the role of the York Region Emergency Medical Services (EMS) with the LHINs. This report be forwarded by the Regional Clerk's Office to the Minister of Health and Long -Term Care for response, copied to Mr. Hugh MacLeod, Assistant Deputy Minister of Acute Services Division and Executive Lead of the Health Results Team. This report be forwarded by the Regional Clerk's Office to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Markham Stouffville Hospital, the Southlake Regional Health Centre and York Central Hospital for their information. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide Regional Council information on the recently announced provincial health initiative involving the establishment of LHINs, and their impact on the York Region Health Services Department. 3. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2004 the Minister of Health and Long -Term Care announced Ontario's Health Transformation Plan. This plan focuses on achieving a number of health care goals including: reducing wait times for specific procedures such as cardiac care, cancer care, hip and knee replacements, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs); providing better access to health care within communities; and expanding access to home care and long-term care. In order to achieve these goals, the province established a Health Results Team led by the MOHLTC's Assistant Deputy Minister and consisting of six team members (see Attachment 1). It is this team that is assisting the provincial government in the transformation of health care in Ontario. 4. ANALYSIS 4.1 LHIN Bulletin No. 1 On October 6, 2004 the MOHLTC released its first bulletin on LHINs (see Attachment 2) which are described as "a "Made -in -Ontario" solution that engages communities in health system transformation by enhancing and supporting local capacity to plan, coordinate, integrate, and fund the delivery of health services at the community level." Fourteen LHINs will be established throughout Ontario. These community -based organizations will coordinate service delivery within their geographic areas. However, —35— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Report No.1 Regional Commissioner of Health Services 3 LHINs will not provide direct clinical services, they will only coordinate service delivery through existing service providers. 4.1.1 LHIN Boundaries The LHIN geographic areas were determined based on travel patterns for acute hospital care utilizing an evidence -based methodology in collaboration with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). The Province states that the LHIN boundaries reflect where Ontarians naturally go for health care, so they allow for the optimal alignment of patient utilization rates and health care resources. Each LHIN contains at least one high volume hospital, and Ontarians will not be restricted as to which hospitals they chose to travel to for care. 4.1.2 Governance LHIlVs will be governed by a Board of Directors appointed by Order -in -Council based on skills and merit and a transparent appointment process. 4.1.3 MOHLTC Questions The MOHTLC posed three questions in their LHIN Bulletin No. 1 release. These questions were as follows: i. What examples of healthcare integration already exist in your LHIN area? 2. What are the critical factors for the successful implementation of the LHIN in your area? 3. What role can you and your organization play in collaboration with the Ministry as the LHIN planning work continues in your area? The York Region Health Services Department prepared and submitted responses to these three questions which are outlined in Attachment 3, 4.2 LHIN Bulletin No. 2 On October 20, 2004 the MOHLTC released LHIN Bulletin No. 2 (see Attachment 4). This bulletin details the guiding principles of LHINs, restates the LHIN functions and explains that these functions will be achieved through accountability agreements. The first LHIN function will be to develop a plan and design for an integrated health system. LHINs are expected to be established and have their first board meetings by April 2005, and by October 2005 be integrated into the provincial budget and planning cycle. 4.3 LHIN Bulletin No. 3 On November 1, 2004 the MOHLTC released their third LHIN bulletin (see Attachment 5). This bulletin lists dates of upcoming planning workshops to be held in each of the 14 LHINs beginning November 19 and ending December 8, 2004. These workshops will provide an overview and outline tasks, deliverables and timelines for each LHIN. At the workshops, each LHIN will be given a report to complete within 60 days. These reports will be made available to the LHIN board members prior to their first meeting in April 2005. -36—_ COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 In Report No.I Regional Commissioner of Health Services An Action Group was also introduced in this bulletin. The role of the Action Group is to provide expert advice to the Health Results Team on the design and implementation of LHINs. There was no information provided as to the membership of the Action Group. 4.4 Impact on the York Region Health Services Department The LHINs are structured in a manner that divides York Region between three LHINs: Central, Central East and Central West (see Attachments 6, 7 and 8 respectively). The majority of York Region is within the Central LHIN which also extends south into Toronto, while two area municipalities, Whitchurch-Stouffville and Markham, are included in the Central East LHIN. A portion of Vaughan is located in the Central West LHIN. Although the MOHLTC is performing some minor adjustments to these boundaries, they are expected to remain relatively unchanged. It is unclear at this time how York Region Health Services will integrate into all three LHINs since public health units integrate their activities with both the health care sector and the broader health, municipal and community sectors. 4.4.1 LHIN Boundaries Affecting York Region Although the ICES methodology used to establish the LHIN boundaries are well -established, it is unclear during what time frame the data on patient referral patterns was collected. With so much population growth in recent years, particularly in York Region, the referral patterns of patients have changed over time. Without knowing whether the data collected was recent enough to reflect current patient referral patterns, the accuracy of the data may be questionable. 4.4.2 Relationship with LHINs The York Region Health Services Department is a model of integrated health programs and services (public health, long term care, and emergency medical services) that has established over 600 active partnerships within York Region and across the Greater Toronto Area. Each of the fourteen LHINs will negotiate working relationships with their corresponding health units in order to integrate those areas of public health that interface with the health care system such as infection control, immunizations and the control of communicable diseases. York Region Health Services Department staff will develop relationships with all three of the LHINs that cover parts of York Region by building on the already established relationships with our neighbouring public health units, hospitals and other health care organizations. 4.4.3 Public Health Objectives As described earlier, the LHINs were established based on acute care referral patterns. From a public health perspective, priority should be placed on health protection, health promotion and disease and injury prevention in order to minimize or prevent illness before it occurs. Establishing LHINs based on acute care activity is contrary to public health priorities as it focuses on the delivery of care when one is already ill. 4.4.4 Impact to Regional Health -Related Partnerships —37— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Report No.I Regional Commissioner of Health Services The Regional Municipality of York has dedicated significant resources over the past several years to the development and nurturing of many health -related partnerships within York Region. As well, the three hospitals located in York Region (Markham Stouffville Hospital, the Southlake Regional Health Centre, and York Central Hospital) have formed the York Region Joint Executive Committee (YRJEC) and have been working together for some time building partnerships within York Region. With the Markham Stouffville Hospital located in a different LHIN, the benefits gained from the collaborative achievements of the YRJEC are compromised. The LHINs will effectively dismantle the successes reaped as a result of these types of health -related regional partnerships, which is contrary to the very objectives for which LHINs were established. 4.4.5 Role of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) The bulletin lists a number of health care agencies and institutions which include Boards of Health and Long Term Care facilities. However, emergency medical services (EMS) and the role of land ambulance with respect to the proposed LHINs have not been addressed. Since the model for establishing the LHINs was based on referral patterns to acute care hospitals, it seems remiss not to consult or involve EMS —the service that provides transport back and forth to these facilities, and clearly define the relationship of EMS to LHINs. It is unclear how the location of the York Region EMS Base Hospital Program at the Markham Stouffville Hospital in the Central East LHIN will impact York Region EMS operations since the majority of York Region is located in the Central LHIN. 4.4.6 Integration of Public Health Units in LHINs The primary difference between LHINs and regional health authorities is that LHINs will "respect and support local governance of health delivery organizations." At this point in time, there has been no specific reference to structural change in the healthcare system. It is our understanding that public health units will not be part of the LHINs in the short to medium term. 4.4.7 Participation in Workshops Since York Region is affected by three LHINs, Health Services Department staff were eligible to participate in workshops in all three LHIN locations. Health Services Department staff were in attendance at both the Aurora workshop held on December 1 for the Central LHIN, and the Markham workshop on December 2 for the Central East LHIN. There was no new information shared at these workshops except the statement that public health units will not be considered for integration into the LHINs for at least another year, and that EMS is not part of the LHIN structure. 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report. It is unclear at this time whether the funding of cost -shared health programs managed by The Regional Municipality of York will be administered by LHIN boards in the future. COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Report No.1 Regional Commissioner of Health Services 6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT One of the purposes of LHINs is to improve health care service delivery within communities. The York Region Health Services Department will continue to work in the best interest of the residents of York Region to ensure the health of the public is enhanced through this transformation process. 7. CONCLUSION The York Region Health Services Department will continue to work with the provincial government to ensure that the health of the residents of York Region is strengthened under the Provincial "transformation agenda." The Health Services Department staff will actively participate in consultations on LHINs to ensure that the perspectives of the York Region Health Services Department are considered. It is recommended that this report be forwarded to the Minister of Health and Long -Term Care requesting his response to the issues outlined in this report. The Commissioner of Health Services and Medical Officer of Health will continue to monitor the Province's health transformation agenda and provide updates to the Health and Emergency Medical Services CommitteeandRegional Council as further - information becomes available. The MOHLTC has established a website to disseminate information regarding the status of the Province's health transformation agenda. It can be accessed at www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation. Further bulletins will be provided by the MOHLTC on the 151h of every month and on the I" if necessary. (The attachments referred to in this clause are attached to this report.) —39— Ontario Ngi9Tstiy oiZiQa Aa Ong Vert$ Cazre.Transforming Health Care - Health Results Team Pagel of 3 Public Information Health Care Providers News Media Text Only Version Public Information �O Health Results Team To assist the McGuinty government in transforming the province's health care system, Health and Long -Term Care Minister George Smithennan announced the creation of the Health Results Team. The minister Indicated that Hugh MacLeod, an Associate Deputy Minister at the ministry, will be the team's Executive Lead. Listed below are the biographies for MacLeod and six team members. Hugh MacLeod (Executive Land) Hugh MacLeod was the Assistant Deputy Minister of the ministys Acute Services Division since February 2003. He has considerable experience in the health sector having previously served in several senior level positions in British Columbia. Hugh MacLeod has served as Associate Faculty in the Masters of Arts Leadership Program at Royal Roads University, Part -Time Faculty in the Health Studies Program at the British Columbia Institute Of Technology and the University of British Columbia, and Associate Faculty in the Master of Public Safety Program at the Justice Institute of British Columbia. Gloria Bishop (Lead of Extemal Communications) Gloria Bishop is a public affairs professional with an extensive background In broadcasting and communications at senior production and management levels. From 1998.2002, Bishop was Vice -President of Public Affairs and Communications at the University Health Network where she was responsible for internal and external communications of one of the largest health care organizations In Canada. Prior to that she was Executive Producer of the widely acclaimed 'Momingside' show an CBC Radio from 1984 -1989 and 1998 -1997. Bishop was also Program Director/Chlef Journalist at CBC Radio Networks and Director of Radio at CBC Toronto Radio. Adalstelnn Brown (Lead of Information Management) Adalstelnn Brown is an Assistant Professor In the Department of Health Policy at the University of Toronto and the principal Investigator for the Hospital Report Research Collaborative - an independently researched series released each year by the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care and the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA). Brown Is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation, an Adjunct at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Ontario, an Instructor In the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, and an Associate of the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University. Prior to joining the University of Toronto, he worked for a private health care management consulting firm with clients In Canada, the United States, Europe and the Far East. http://www.health.gov.on.caltransformation/teani_bios.hbnll _ Nov 08, 2004 NC13t — JANUARY 11, 2005 Ontario shy o Health and Long -Term Care - Transforming Health Care - Health Results Team Page 2 of 3 Barbara Hall (Load of community Relations) Barbara Hall has dedicated thlrty-five years working within various communities as a lawyer, community worker and politician. In 1997, Hall was appointed by the federal government to chair the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. Her municipal experience began in 1985, when she was elected, for the first of three terms, as city councillor for a diverse downtown ward. From 1994-1997, Hall salved as Mayor of the City of Toronto. Prior to entering public life, Hall ran a general law practice In Toronto, and was a probation officer in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Alan Hudson (Lead of Access to ServicasMalt Times) Dr. Alan Hudson, President and CEO of Cancer Cara Ontario since April 2002, has led the integration of 11 cancer centres with their host hospitals. From 1991- 2000, Dr. Hudson was President and CEO of Toronto's University Health Network During that time, he led the integration of Princess Margaret Hospital with the Toronto Hospital and the Incorporation of Doctors Hospital, creating the University Health Network. Poor to being appointed President and CEO, Dr. Hudson served as McCutcheon Chair and Surgeon In Chief at Toronto Hospital from 1989.1991 And from 1970 to 1989, Dr. Hudson was a leading neurosurgeon at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto where he co-founded a laboratory which garnered an International reputation for Innovation in neurosurgery research. Dr. Jim MacLean (Lead of Primary Care) Dr. Jim MacLean has been President and CEO of Markham Stouffville Hospital since April 1999, having previously served as Chief of Staff at the hospital from May 1986 unlit November1998. Dr. MacLean chaired the York Region District Health Council's Task Force responsible for redeveloping health care services for York Region. He Is currently the Chair of the Toronto East Network (TEN) CEO group, Dr. MacLean Is also a member of the OHA's alleakh Council and Management Board's Advisory Committee on a Government. In addition, he serves on the Board of Smart Systems for Health Agency, the Child Health Network, and the Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada Ontario ANlii H01th! 1M�I TMA CtiA Dfansforming Health Care - Health Results Team Page 3 of 3 management and conautting. I return to mein menu 0mao Ths sda maintained by the Goverment of Ontano, Canada ® Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2002 1 Privacy Policy I Disclaimers t Lest Modified: 10Y29/2994 15.17:19 http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/tear_bios.htnl-49_ Nov 08, 2004 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -43- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Health Results Team Local .alth Integration Netw Building a True System Bulletin. No. 1- October 6, 2004 The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care's Health Results Team is proud to provide you with the first of a series of reports about our health transformation initiatives. We will use various methods to communicate with and seek feedback from healthcare providers and groups about our plans and activities. This first bulletin is intended to inform healthcare providers and Ontario citizens about the government's plans to better integrate and coordinate health services at the local level. It will inform you about how we are bringing together the planning and delivery of healthcare services within set geographic boundaries. We call the new system Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs). The LHIN Vision The Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care is committed.to working with our province's dedicated healthcare professionals to improve the healthcare system because Ontarians deserve the best healthcare. This is part of our goal of transforming the healthcare system to make it more patient -centred and responsive to local needs. LHINs are a "Made -in -Ontario" solution that engages communities in health system transformation by enhancing and supporting local capacity to plan, coordinate, integrate, and fund the delivery of health services at the community level. LHINs are an important part of the evolution of healthcare from a collection of services to a true healthcare system. Unlike the integrated models in place in other provinces of Canada, LHINs will not be providers of clinical services, but will coordinate service delivery. Existing provider organizations will continue to be relied upon to deliver services. Principles The principles guiding the LHINs' mandate and responsibilities reflect a vision for medicare reform that ensures: • Equitable access based on patient need • Preserves patients' choice • Measurable, results -driven outcomes based on strategic policy formulation, business planning and information management • People -centred, community -focused care that responds to local population health needs • Shared accountability between providers, government, community and citizens Why LHINs? We need to make better use of - at the local level - the strengths and advantages of Ontario's vast healthcare community. Despite many successful individual efforts at integration, healthcare providers still operate in an extremely complex environment, dominated by sector -specific silos. Consider that Ontario's healthcare system is comprised of: ® Ontario -44- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 • 156 hospitals • 581 long-term care facilities • 42 Community Care Access Centres • 37local Boards of Public Health • 55 Community Health Centres • 70 community and public health labs • 353 mental health agencies • 600 Community Support Service Agencies • 150 addictions agencies • 5 Health Intelligence Units • 16 District Health Councils • 7 Regional Ministry offices Today, the individual Ontarian must navigate a system that has numerous unaligned programs and services, as well as conflicting and overlapping boundaries. A common set of boundaries across the system will facilitate the proper integration of healthcare services and will ease the movement of people across the continuum of care so that they get the best care, in the most appropriate setting, when they need it. Local Health Integration Networks provide both the vision and the enabling structure to achieve these goals. Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) will be 14 community -based organizations with a unique mandate to plan, coordinate, integrate, manage, and fund care at the local level within their defined geographic areas. Mapping the 14 LHINs The 14 LHIN geographic boundaries were created to reflect local areas where people naturally seek healthcare. (Please refer to the maps posted on www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation) These were determined by using evidence -based methodology in collaboration with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). The boundaries are permeable for patient care. People will continue to be able to choose their healthcare provider as they do today. All 14 LHINs contain at least one high volume hospital. Methodology Working with ICES, the Ministry used the following methodology to determine the Local Health Integration Network boundaries: Step 1: Establishing Hospital Service Areas (HSAs): - ICES used the postal codes from patient hospital discharge abstracts to locate a patient's home location, comparing this to the location of the hospital where the services were received. 2of3 - Patient locations were mapped to Statistics Canada's Census Dissenunation Areas (DAs) as the basis for the patient origin. - Each DA was then assigned to the one hospital where most of the hospital admissions were made and groupings were built up to form Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Step 2: Once HSAs were determined, they were grouped further into larger Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs) following a similar methodology: - Admissions to the top 50 high volume (HV) hospitals in Ontario were used to determine regional travel patterns. - The HRR boundaries form the basis of the Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs). - The Ministry considered various options for the number of LHINs from a system management perspective. . The decision to have 14 LHINs was made based on the experiences of other jurisdictions in Canada for the effective management of the healthcare system. Step 3: The appropriateness of the "fit" for each area was tested by calculating a "Localization Index". - The Localization Index is a measure that shows what percentage of the population receive health services locally. - For the LHIN areas, the Localization Index ranges between 57.896 and 97.2% indicating a good match between these new areas and where people receive their healthcare. (Please refer to the hospital and localization index data chart posted on www.healthgov.on.ca/ transformation) Governance and Accountability LHINs will be organizations governed by an appointed Board of Directors and bound by performance agreements with the Ministry. The Boards will be appointed by an Order -in -Council. Board members will be selected using a merit -based process, with all candidates assessed for fit between skills and abilities of the prospective appointee and the needs of each individual LIHN. The appointment process will be transparent and consistent — with clear and understandable guidelines applied consistently to all Board appointments. Board members will be expected to possess relevant expertise, experience, leadership skills, and have an understanding of local health issues, needs and priorities. COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 It's Your Turn Changing healthcare in Ontario to place people front and centre requires leadership and teamwork from all of us. That's why we want your involvement and input. For our part, we commit to keeping you informed of further developments, acknowledging your concerns and issues, and providing you with feedback. We have created a transformation website to keep you informed and to receive your views and input and will be using online methods to communicate with you. At this stage, we encourage you to assist us in the planning work for LIHNs that is currently underway. Look for LHIN Bulletin No. 2 in two weeks, which will contain the outline of an engagement process for LHIN healthcare providers to develop a plan for delivery of service in their'geographic area. 3of3 In the meantime, we'd like to stimulate discussion by seeking feedback on the following questions: 1. What examples of healthcare integration already exist in your LHIN area? 2. What are the critical factors for the successful implementation of the IMN in your area? 3. What role can you and your organization play in collaboration with the Ministry as the LEIN planning work continues in your area? Please send your comments on these questions to: transforminghealth@moh.gov.on.ca by October 15. The responses will be a starting point for the ongoing engagement process that will be outlined in the next bulletin. We will also report back on your feedback in a future bulletin. Thank you for working with us on this important initiative. We look forward to hearing your suggestions for how we can create a better -integrated and patient - centred healthcare system together. -46- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -47- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 s on October 15, 2004 To: Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care Re: Transforming Healthcare Attachment 3 Office of the CommissionerofHealth SeiWces and Medical 0/6cer of Health This letter is in response to the announcement regarding Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) made by the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care on October 6, 2004 and represents the views of the Health Services Department, The Regional Municipality of York. The Department clearly supports the principles of people -centred, community -focused care that responds to local population health needs, patient choice, and equal access to health care services. It also believes in the provision of services across the continuum of care and the evolution to a seamless health care delivery system, tenets on which the proposed LHINs' structure has been built. As presented, the announcement regarding the LHINs raised many questions and a number of dilemmas for the Department. These are outlined below. The Health Services Department operates as one of six Departments within The Regional Municipality of York. The Department is an excellent example of integration of health care services, having some 914 FTEs who work in three operational areas: Emergency Medical Services, Long Term Care and Seniors Services and Public Health Services and in supportive functions including finance, communication, community development, population health surveillance and long-range planning. The Health Services Department provides services to all age groups of York Region residents. This is a somewhat daunting task given the sustained rate of growth that York Region has experienced over the past ten years. The Region, one of Canada's fastest growing municipalities, is expected to grow by 35,000 additional residents each year for the next five years and additionally after that. This accelerated rate of growth coupled with rapidly changing demographics and increasing diversity of the population is having, and will continue to have, a dramatic impact on the demands for health care services as well as the manner in which these services are promoted and provided. The Health Services Department enjoys excellent partnerships with the three Regional hospitals, and other health care and community service agencies such as the Community Care Access Centre of York Region, York -Durham Aphasia, York Central Behavioural Management Services, York Region Alzheimer's Society, Simcoe-York District Health Council, Central East The Rcg and Mtai*a1ity cf Yak,17250 Yage Sha,4 Nwnwkeg Ontario L3Y6Z1 TaL- (905) 895.1231, 1-877.464-YORK(1-877-464-9675), Fax: (905) 895-3166 Irversrt_•r�e�rwrk. as COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transforming Healthcare Health Intelligence Unit and York Region's Human Services Planning Coalition. The Department has recently catalogued over 600 partnerships in which it is an active participant. These include partnerships across the GTA. The following represents the Health Services Department's response to the three questions posed in the LHIN Bulletin #1 document: What examples of healthcare integration already exist in your LHIN area? As mentioned above, the Health Services Department itself is an excellent example of integration of three diverse health care operational businesses and a number of support systems —all related to the coordination, planning and delivery of health -related programs and services. The Health Services Department is also an active member of the York Region Human Services Planning Coalition, a 16 sector body established in 2001 to pursue long -tern, sustainable, integrated planning and funding solutions for human services in York Region. Health -related services are represented primarily in the Community Health Care sector, the Hospital -based Health Care sector, the Seniors and Special Needs sector and the Police/Safety sector, although all sector members of this coalition have an impact on the determinants of health. . The Health Services Department is an active participant in over 600 partnerships. These partnerships are related to health promotion, public education, disease prevention, health protection, and the direct provision of health care service. Sharing of resources, increased service efficiencies, reduced duplication of efforts and ensuring consistency of messaging are a few of the many benefits of these partnerships. The Department partners with York Region health and community care agencies as well as with other GTA health units and organizations. 2. What are the critical factors for the successful implementation of the LHIN in your area? a) Review and clarification of the LHIN boundaries as articulated in the October 6, 2004 announcement, specifically the boundaries for the Central, Central East and Central West LHIN areas. The LHINs announcement stated that "a common set of boundaries across the system will facilitate the proper integration of health care services and will ease the movement of people across the continuum of care." Currently the provision of Department programs and services as well as planning for health care services for York Region residents, in conjunction with the Human Services Planning Coalition, the Simcoe-York District Health Council and others, is based on the geographical boundaries of York Region. Programs and services are planned, coordinated and delivered to all nine area municipalities that comprise York Region. The LHINs announcement has created a situation in which York Region —the geographic entity —is potentially divided between as many as four LHIN areas: Central, Central East, Central West and North Simcoe Muskoka. Clarification of the exact boundaries for these LHIN areas is —49— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transforming Healthcare required by the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care in order to perform further impact analysis. It is suggested that at the very least written text accompany the maps for further clarification. A significant feature of this division is that two area municipalities, Whitchurch-Stouffville and Markham, are included in the Central East LHIN while the majority of York Region is within the Central LHIN. In addition, the Central LHIN boundary extends far south into Toronto. Many strategies to coordinate program delivery have been developed in order to keep care for residents accessible within York Region boundaries. York Region health care partners have worked strategically amongst themselves and with the Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care to site programming, including certain specialty programs (e.g. cardiac care, dialysis), as close to home as possible. Because of its vast geographic area, distances between the north and south of York Region are often still difficult to manage for residents and their families. The current Central LHIN boundaries will be seen to further disadvantage residents of northern York Region if programs in Markham Stouffville Hospital cannot be accessed by these residents and travel to Toronto (within the Central LHIN boundary) is required. b) Clear identification of the healthcare agencies that are included or excluded from the LHIN structure and an outline of how those agencies excluded from the structure will be affected/influenced by the LHIN in their area. The Health Services Department successfully integrates three very different health care businesses. It is of concern that two of those businesses and a significant portion of the third have not been addressed as being part of the LHINs system in the section "Why LHINs?" in Bulletin #1 nor have they been specifically excluded. Further clarification by the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care is required as soon as possible. The impact on our own successfully integrated health care entity may be extremely significant depending on what health care programs are included and/or excluded from the LHINs and the relationships of excluded services to the LHIN's structure. Since the October 6, 2004 announcement, it hasbeen identified that Public Health Units will not be part of the LHINs' structure. Although this requires further confirmation, if this is the case, then the relationship of the Public Health Unit (PHU) to one or more LHINs, particularly where there is no matching of boundaries, will be fascinating to unravel. In addition, the relationship of the PHU to the other health care services particularly those that are currently in the Department structure will need to be determined. It is significant to the Department that there is no mention of the role of land ambulance with respect to the proposed LHINs and that Emergency Medical Services have not been included in the list provided in LHINs announcement. It seems unusual that the model chosen for the LHINs is based on acute care hospitals and their referral patterns and yet the service that provides transport back and forth to these facilities has not been consulted about its relationship/role. The Health Services Department would welcome dialogue with the Ministry of Health and —50— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transforming Healthcare C! Long -Term Care on the future of York Region EMS, and land ambulance in general, as soon as possible. A confounding factor for our particular EMS service is that the York Region Base Hospital Program is physically located at Markham Stouffville Hospital. It has been proposed that this hospital form part of the Central East LHIN while the majority of York Region is located in the Central LHIN. Further, the recent announcement included long term care facilities as part of the LHINs but did not mention a significant portion of services that are responsible for increasing the independence of Ontarians and maintaining them in their homes so that admission to LTC facilities can be avoided or delayed. These services include Supportive Housing, LTC Day Centre programs, Client Intervention & Assistance Services and Regional Psycho -geriatric and Mental Health Consulting Services. The role of these community —based long term care programs requires further clarification and the Health Services Department would welcome dialogue with the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care on this issue. c) A philosophy that takes into account all healthcare service providers and broadens its focus beyond the treatment of disease. It is very disappointing that the proposed LHINs' structure is focused on acute care hospitals and their referral patterns and that patient referral patterns to other health care providers were not taken into consideration. At a time where a transformational health care agenda could take on a philosophy that focuses on health promotion, the prevention of illness and the protection of health, it appears that the MOHLTC has again decided that its new health care structure will focus on the delivery of care when one is already ill, e.g, on treatment or intervention. Further, it is a concern that the agendas of the acute care hospital sector will again dominate any decision -making regarding health priorities, planning and funding within any given LHIN. LHINs should not be hospital -centric or dominated by the acute care sector. d) An alternate governance model than that proposed in the announcement. Given that the acute care sector appears to be dominating its membership, it is our opinion that an objective, impartial governance model should be established for the LHINs. It is our opinion that LHINs should either be directly operated by the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care or by publicly elected boards and not by boards appointed by an Order -in -Council. Failing that, the governance model chosen should ensure that other health care agencies that are either part of the LHINs or who may be excluded from the LHINs but have a major impact on responding to local population health needs also form part of the LHIN governance structure. Consideration should also be given to integrating the governance structure of the LHINs with the existing Boards of Health. —51— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Health Results Team Health e Integration Networks: Building Minister's Message Dear Healthcare Partner: I'm pleased to introduce the second bulletin from the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care's Health Results Team about how we want to work with you on our Local Health Integration Networks initiative. As I've often repeated, we're serious about changing how healthcare is delivered in Ontario. But the time for talking about healthcare reform is over. Now is the time to deliver. And we need your leadership to make it happen. Here is an opportunity for your community to mobilize for something positive. What do the partners in your community want to create together, starting immediately? And, what kind of support do you need from your LHIN, and from Queen's Park; in order to be successful? What we want to know from you is: as partners in the system, how will you collaborate to produce better, higher quality, more cost- effective, more patient -focused and better coordinated care in your community? How will you reduce the variances we have in length of stay, utilization, quality and cost? I'm convinced that the answers to our many complex problems are, in fact, within the system itself. You are closest to the delivery of healthcare in your area. You have the power and the ability to produce the solutions that are important to your community. There are lots of success stories of health providers integrating services and collaborating in communities across the province. What LHINs do is provide the opportunity to implement the best of these practices across an entire health system. In summary, I am challenging every one to start thinking differently: to be prepared to question many of the traditional assumptions; to be prepared to be an advocate of not just your organization but the health system as a whole and the patients it serves; and, finally, to be prepared to learn from one another as you integrate your local delivery system. In this time of change, Ontarians need leadership. Ontarians need champions! Let's get it done. Sincerely, mom George Smitherman Minister .52— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 2of4 Bulletin No. 2 - October 20, 2004 We thank you for your response to our introductory Bulletin on Local Health Integration Networks. Your feedback is integral to the process of transforming healthcare into a true system working for each and every Ontarian. For example, you asked about the boundaries. The Ministry is currently working on finalizing the boundaries based on postal code assignments to each LHIN. This will result in some refinement of the boundaries, but it will not change the geography or groupings of healthcare providers in any significant way. As well, there were multi -site organizations that were split over two LHINs, and, of course, boundaries will be altered to address this. You also asked why only certain hospitals were placed on LHIN maps. These were highlighted because they are the high -volume hospitals used by ICES (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) in determining the boundaries for LHINs. In a future bulletin, you will find a complete analysis of your responses to the questions we posed in Bulletin No. 1. The MOHLTC recognizes that, by their very nature, networks are complex, diverse, organic and self - organizing. This is why the engagement of our healthcare partners from the outset is fundamental to the long-term strength and sustainability of LH1Ns. We need communities to build on their current structures and relationships and focus their collective strengths on the creation of an integrated, patient - focused system that improves population health and the experience of Ontario citizens. Guiding LHIN Principles The Ministry hears from you, our healthcare partners, through various forums and mechanisms about the need to better integrate service delivery in the province. Following the government's announcement of LH1Ns, a multi-sectoral group representing a cross section of healthcare and social service providers met to consider principles the participants believed should guide the successful evolution of LIRNs. (See www.oha.com/integrationtaskforce) On the group's advice, the Ministry has endorsed the following principles: Patient Focus — LHIN's overriding mandate is to improve population health and the citizen's experience; represent and engage patients' interests; and achieve better health outcomes while measurably improving quality of life and value in health. Clarity of Roles — Success depends on clear understanding of the intersecting roles and responsibilities of citizens, the Ministry, LHINs, and health and community service providers in delivery of care. The mapping of roles should also include the cross jurisdictional responsibilities of specialty and academic programs. Strategic Partnership Role — LMNs will assume a strategic leadership role with a particular focus on a long-term view of the community, as opposed to a delivery one. The LHIN will focus on community -based system planning and integration, implementation of provincial priorities, performance standards and accountability, and funding and allocation. Stakeholder Engagement — Improvement to health outcomes requires coordinated community engagement. Engagement of stakeholders from the outset of the LHIN building process is fundamental to the long-term strength and sustainability of LHINs. The same broad -based approach must also inform LHIN activities. Evidence -Based Balanced Approach — LHINs will progressively evolve through a balanced use of evidence -based practice, continuous re-evaluation, together with flexibility for innovation and responsiveness to community, regional and provincial concerns. COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transparency - open communication, transparent and non -partisan decision -making by LHINs and health and community service providers will maximize stakeholder acceptance and commitment to common goals, respective responsibilities, and mutual accountability. Fostering Changes Through an Incentive - Based Approach - An incentive -based approach will encourage integrative and creative solutions to achieve LHIN objectives. Voluntary Boards - In the best interests of the populations their organizations serve, community -based volunteer boards will continue to govern. Partnership of Equals - The contribution of all health and community service providers must be valued equally within LHIN initiatives and collaborations. What will LHINs do? • The LHINs will facilitate the transformation of healthcare in Ontario. To enable this, LHINs will integrate healthcare at a local level and consolidate the following functions: planning, system integration and service coordination, funding allocation, and evaluation of performance through accountability 3of4 agreements. The first of these functions that the LHINs will be expected to take on will be integrated health system planning, to help inform and shape the design and execution of the other functions. The Role of the Ministry • The LHINs bring the management of healthcare delivery to the local level and enable the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care to focus on providing stewardship to the system. • The Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care will continue to be responsible for the provision of high quality, accessible healthcare services that meet the needs of Ontarians. Within this framework, the Ministry will: • Establish overall strategic directions and provincial priorities for the health system; • Develop legislation, regulations, standards, policies and directives to support strategic directions within the context of its overall stewardship role; and • Monitor and report at a provincial level on the performance of the health system and the health of Ontarians. Timelines and Key Dates The following outlines the key milestones in the work leading to the start up and implementation of LHINs in Ontario: TODAY Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Government LHIN Board announces meetings boundaries LHIN Integrated Health Services Action Plan informs provincial budget and planning cycle May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Community Planning & Engagement .54— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Our Plan For Working Together In partnership with the Ministry's LHIN team, we're asking the full spectrum of healthcare providers in your community to come together. Community support service providers, mental health service providers, community health centres, community care access centres, long-term care providers and hospitals should collectively prepare the "ground" for the transition to LHINs in your community. Many of you are currently involved in integration initiatives within their community. The MOHLTC recognizes the strong foundation these initiatives provide for the LHIN building process. Therefore, one of our first steps will be to work with you on an environmental scan of your community. This scan Will identify current integration activities and enhance our understanding of how LHINs can help create new opportunities. To help kick-start this process, the Ministry will hold one -day workshops in 14 locations in each LIEN geographic area across the province, starting in November. Specific details about dates, locations, and how to participate in these workshops will be posted in our next Web update on November 1. 4of4 In preparation for these workshops, here are some questions to initiate your thought process: • What are the inherent strengths of your community that the LHIN-building process will be able to leverage in order to improve integration/coordination of services? • What does your community identify as the barriers to achieving improved high -impact, system -level integration/coordination? • What can we learn from partnership/integration initiatives that are currently underway or have been successfully implemented within your community? • What unrealized integration opportunities exist within your community? How can LHINs help realize these opportunities? • What are the must -have readiness conditions to successfully build an integrated system across healthcare providers within your community? Thank you for participating in the building of a true healthcare system in Ontario. We look forward to working with you on this important initiative. Please look for the LAIN Bulletin on the 15th day of every month. Also, as more information becomes available, LHIN-related updates and reports will be posted on this site on the 1st day of every month on an as -needed basis. GOUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Attachment 5 Health Results Team Local Health Integration Networks: Building a True System Bulletin No. 3 — November 1, 2004 As promised, the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care is pleased to provide you with details on the 14 workshops designed to initiate the planning work in the 14 LHIN areas. As well, this update contains additional information related to our work on LHINs: the formation of an Action Group. In anticipation of the workshops in each LHIN area, the November 15 Bulletin will contain a consolidated summary of the feedback we've received in response to the questions posed in Bulletin No. 1. LHIN Planning Workshops Beginning November 19, the ministry will hold 14 one -day facilitated workshops in each of the 14 LHIN areas. The workshops are designed to kick-start the process of communities self -organizing to prepare the ground for the transition to LHINs in each area. This process reflects the ministry's belief that many of the solutions that will guide LHIN implementation lie within the community itself. This is an important first step in an ongoing process for engaging providers, associations, and community groups in the development of LHINs in each area. Workshop Objectives: • Provide the context for LHINs and their key role within the broader Health Transformation agenda. • Share information on LHIN development • Kick-off the planning work for integrating services within each LHIN; and • Determine the process and identify opportunities for health care partners in each LHIN to work together Each session will cover: • An overview of the LHIN initiative by senior ministry officials • A Questions and Answers period • An outline of the tasks, deliverables, and timelines for your LHIN • A facilitated discussion The Day's Work: • At the workshops, participants will receive the support and the tools they need to help them answer a number of important questions that will assist and influence the creation of their individual LHIN. The Ministry's Health Results Team will provide materials to help communities identify and capture system integration opportunities specific to their LHIN. The workshops are intended to provide a head start for planning in each LHIN. The information and reports generated from this task will be available to the inaugural LHIN Board meetings scheduled for —56— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 April 2005 and will form the foundation for LHIN integrated health system planning. • At the workshop, communities will be asked to submit their completed reports to the ministry within 60 days of the date of their particular LHIN workshop. The reports will be posted on the Transformation web site (www.health.eov.on.ca/transformation) so that the information and ideas can be shared more broadly. Participation and Registration The workshops are open to representatives of health care providers, associations, and health -related organizations, including: home care and community support services providers, community mental health services providers, community health centers, long-term care facilities, Community Care Access Centres, hospitals, District Health Councils, Aboriginal Health Centres, local public health agencies, patient advocacy and consumer health groups, French language health service providers, physicians, nurses, regulatory colleges, and ministry Regional Offices. In an effort to allow as many agencies and groups as possible to attend and in light of the of space restrictions, we will limit attendance to TWO REPRESENTATIVES PER ORGANIZATION, PER WORKSHOP. We appreciate your cooperation in respecting this limit. To register, please complete the online Registration Form posted at www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation no later than November 12, 2004. Only one registration form per person, please. Please note that detailed venue information and driving directions for each workshop will be emailed to you upon registration, along with your registration confirmation. Action Group The ministry is pleased to announce the establishment of a provincial Action Group to provide expert advice on the design and implementation of LHINs. In an effort to ensure input from a broad range of providers and partners, the Action Group is composed of provincial associations representing: community support services providers, community mental health services providers, community health centers, long-term care facilities, Community Care Access Centres, hospitals, District Health Councils, local public health agencies, French language health service providers, physicians, nurses, and ministry Regional Offices. The Action Group will advise the ministry's Health Results — Systems Integration team in the areas of governance and accountability, human resources, health system planning and evaluation, service delivery coordination and integration, financial models and systems, change management and community engagement, and business operations and infrastructures. The ministry anticipates that, in conjunction with the work of the Action Group, additional working groups drawn from across the entire health care sector will be formed to advise on specific matters related to LHIN implementation. We thank the members of the Action Group for their commitment and for their input into the LHIN planning workshops. Thank you for participating in the building of a true health care system in Ontario. We look forward to working with all on this important initiative. Please look for the LHIN Bulletin on the 15`' day of every month. Also, as more information becomes available, LHIN-related updates and reports will be posted on this site on the 1" day of every month as necessary. —57— 2 of 3 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Workshop Schedules and Locations The workshops will be held in the following locations as per the schedule below. Bilingual services will be provided where required. Date LHIN City Friday, November 19 Waterloo Wellington Waterloo Monday, November 22 Erie St. Clair Chatham Tuesday, November23 South West London Wednesday, November 24 Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Hamilton Thursday, November 25 North West Thunder Bay Friday, November 26 North East Sudbury Monday, November 29 North Simcoe Muskoka Orillia Tuesday, November 30 Central West Orangeville Wednesday, December I Central Aurora Thursday, December Central East Markham Friday, December 3 Mississauga Oakville Mississauga Monday, December 6 Cbampiain Ottawa Tuesday, December 7 South East Kingston Wednesday, December 8 - Toronto Central Toronto 3 of 3 CSC COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Local Health Integration- Networks (LHIN) Reseaux locaux d'int®gration des services de cant® (RLISS) Central Health Integration Network Reseau d'integration des services de sante du Centre Humber River Attachment 6 Ontario York Central (Richmond Hill)® ®Sh ' Idice (Toronto) North York e . York General 7hls map is for Illustrative purposes only and may not be to scale. -5 9 Some hospitals may not be represented." Lake Ontario / lac Ontario Local 99A 6e§ra". AgYwAs (W) . Reseaux locaux d'integration des services de sant6 (RUSS) Central East Health Integration Network Reseau d'integration des services de sante du Centre-est Haliburton Highlands®* Haliburton- Northumberland- Victoda aim Ross M'--orial (Lindsay)® \ • Lindsay Peterborough Regional® Peterborough 0 Peterborough Attachment 7 Ontario Edward ec Cambellford Memorial(al ✓ Haliburton- Northumbedand- Motorla im xbridge 0 pLakeridge (Scugog)arkham Stouffville (Uxbridge) Northumberlan (Cobourg DurhamCobourMa®Laker farington) Sto Oshawa*®Lake ' Oshawa) Ajax*®Ro alley (Ajax) Scarborough *Pi ' g Lake Ontario / lac Ontario Iford 3'carboroug ��jRou alley (Toronto) Grace carborough General 'This map is for illustrative purposes only and may not be to scale. — 6 0— Some hospitals may not be represented." COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) Reseaux locaux d'integration des services de sante (BLISS) Central West Health Integration Network Reseau d'integration des services de sante du Centre -Quest Grey -Bruce I "a e Shelburne Wellington-Dufferin Orangeville a ® Headwaters (Orangeville) � MA Peel William Osler (Etobicoke)® / Brampton® \�illiam Osler (Brampton) ® Etobicoke ® Georgetown ® William Osler Hills (Halton) / Halton Lake Ontario / lac Ontario -61- "This map is for illustrative purposes only and may not be to scale. COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Minute No. 228 adopted, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on December 16, 2004. 228 Local Health Integration Networks (Report No. 1 of the Regional Commissioner of Health Services) A recorded vote on the adoption of Report No. 1 of the Commissioner of Health Services was as follows: FOR: Barrow, Black, Cousens, Di Biase, Ferri, Frustaglio, Grossi, Heath, Hogg, Jackson, J. Jones, T. Jones, O'Donnell, Scarpitti, Sherban, Taylor, Van Bynen, Wheeler, Young (19) AGAINST: Nil Carried Unanimously It was moved by Mayor Jones, seconded by Regional Councillor Hogg, that Council adopt the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole. WITINM- 4 —62— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -63- COUNFONNlO dINUARY 11, Georgina 26557 Civic Centre Rd. Keswick, Ontario L4P 3GI Tel:905-476-.4301 Fax:905-476-8100 2005 rCt�' Mayor Tim Jones Town of Aurora P.O. Box #1000, 100 John West Way Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mayor Jones: OF T-� ROBERT A. GROSSI MAYOR AGENDA E December 13, 2004 MAYOR'S OFFICE. COPIES CIRCULATED TO: C.A.O. Dir. Of Building Admin. -- Dir. Of Corp. Serv. Dir. Of Leisure Services ¢ Dir. Of Planning Dir. Of Public Works Treasurer Menbers of Cov,-il On behalf of the Council of the Town of Georgina, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your municipality's participation at the Health of Lake Simcoe Mayor's Forum that was held on December 3, 2004. First of all, let me say that we were very pleased with the response we received from the municipalities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Lake Simeoe is the most important asset to all of our municipalities and as I stated earlier, it is imperative that collectively, we find creative ways to ensure its sustainability. We are thankful for all of the information that was provided to us by the presenters. The facts and figures they provided on what is detrimental to and currently affecting the health of our lake, as well as what steps need to be taken for its improvement, were significant and inspirational. There is much work that needs to be done and timing is of the essence! We need the assistance of our governments and the participation of all the municipalities in the Lake Simcoe watershed to make a concerted effort towards improving the health of our lake. The Conservation Authority has done a great job on behalf of all of us, despite their limited resources. The recent provincial announcement regarding assimilative capacities is also great news: However, I believe it is evident that any effort that goes beyond the work of the Conservation Authority and includes those volunteers who have committed their time and expertise, will help us all achieve our ultimate goal of a long term sustainable resource. ...12 SECE'VED DEC 2 G 2024 Sutton 905-722-6516 —64 Pefferlaw 705-437-2210 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 -2- To that end, I have attached a resolution that emanated from our discussions at the forum with the request that it receive endorsement by your Council. I believe that working together will allow us to achieve our goal, that being to significantly improve the health of Lake Simcoe, so that it can continue to be enjoyed by the future generations, of all of our communities. Yours truly, +✓i �A Robert Grossi . Mayor M attach. —65— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Moved by Councillor Szollosy Seconded by Councillor Jamieson RESOLUTION NO. C-2004-0571 Be it resolved by the Municipal Council of the Town of Georgina THAT the Town of Georgina request that the Province of Ontario immediately establish a liaison group whose mandate is to work on the long term sustained health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. THAT this group include representation from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of the Environment and any other such agency who can provide the technical information necessary to assist the project. THAT additional membership include but not be restricted to other individuals or groups who have expressed an interest in being involved in this project (i.e. Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, The WAVE, etc.). THAT this working group be given the ability to establish priorities for the rehabilitation of the Lake Simcoe watershed. THAT this working group consult with all interested parties as a public body to receive information and communicate its findings. THAT this working group identify specific costs relative to expected rehabilitation projects. THAT this working group determine ways and means of funding the rehabilitation projects identified within the Lake Simcoe watershed. AND THAT the Town of Georgina request all other municipal Councils within the Lake Simcoe watershed to endorse this position and ask the Province of Ontario to act upon its organization immediately. Carried Unanimously....... -67- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 ,oWNOF "- �'C?����'NE�UMARKET Corporate Services Department Town Clerk's Office 905-$95 5193 } NFK'MPPK� r t December 14, 2004 Mr. Bob Panizza Director of Corporate Services Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza: RE: Resolution R18-2004 I am writing to advise that the Town of Newmarket Council at the regular meeting held on Monday, December 13, 2004 adopted the above referenced resolution with respect to The Wave, Healthy Yards, Healthy Waters Program. I attach a copy for your review. The Council of the Town of Newmarket respectfully requests support for this resolution from the municipalities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Yours sincerely, Anita Moore Town Clerk F 11 are copy: Regional Municipality of York Town of East Gwillimbury Town of Georgina Township of King Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Regional Municipality of Durham Township of Brock Township of Scugog Township of Uxbridge County of Simcoe Town of Bradford West-Gwillimbury Town of Innisfil Township of Oro-Medonte Town of New Tecumseth Township of Ramara City of Kawartha Lakes City of Barrie City of Orillia "Newmarket, celebtating our heritage while capturing the promise of tomorrow" 395 Mulock Drive, P.O. Box 328, STN MAIN NEWMARKET, ON L3Y 4X7 Direct Dial:(905)953-5322 Tel:(905)895-5193 Fax:(905)953-5100 —68— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 December 13, 2004 Moved by: Councillor Sponga Seconded by: Councillor Ramsarran RESOLUTION R18-2004 WHEREAS Lake Simcoe's annual phosphorus input is about 100 metric tonnes which is the equivalent of 10 full dump trucks —which is 70 tonnes more than its natural state, and that to regain the health of the lake this level must be reduced by 30 tonnes a year; AND WHEREAS while rural and agricultural phosphorus sources are on the decrease and the phosphorus contribution from urban/suburban areas is on the rise, and that the phosphorus runoff from urban/suburban homes comes from many sources but none greater than.from over watering and the use of yard fertilizers that contain phosphorus; AND WHEREAS phosphorus is directly responsible for the eutrophication of Lake Simcoe by stimulating high concentrations of algae and weed growth which die and submerge affecting the underwater ecosystem by reducing the oxygen supply in the water and harming fish and wildlife; AND WHEREAS the Lake Simcoe Watershed: Has a total land and water surface area of 3,303 square kilometres. 2. Lake Simcoe itself occupies about 20 percent or 722 square kilometres. 3, The watershed is bordered by five major physiographical areas - Oak Ridges Moraine, Peterborough Drumlin Fields, uplands till plains, the Simcoe Lowlands and the Oro Moraine. 4. Five major tributaries account for more than 60 percent of the total drainage area. 5. The land portion of the watershed is drained by 35 tributary rivers. 6. The Maskinonge River in Keswick includes a drainage area of 66 square kilometres. 7. The lake and watershed generate annual revenue of $200 million annually. COUNCIL — JANUARY 11; 2005 R18-2004 Page 2 AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket at a meeting held on November 22, 2004 received a notice of a motion regarding The Wave Healthy Yards/ Healthy Waters Program of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition to assist people to reduce phosphorus run off from their yards. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket as follows: THAT the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket invites other municipalities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed to support and participate in The Wave, Healthy Yards, Healthy Waters Program; AND THAT this resolution be circulated to the municipalities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Mayor Tom Taylor —70— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 ,OWN 0, •'^vryxq'.vwS Carps NFH'MAPK�` December 14, 2004 Mr. Bob Panizza Director of Corporate Services Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza: RE: Resolution R22-2004 NEWMARKET W*jE:N=DAjTEM# rvices Department :lerk's Office -895-5193 I am writing to advise that the Town of Newmarket Council at the regular meeting held on Monday, December 13, 2004 adopted the above referenced resolution with respect to the expansion of local telephone dialling. I attach a copy for your review and action. The Council of the Town of Newmarket respectfully requests support for this resolution from your municipality. Yours sincerely, a-1-0p-(2sz-- Anita Moore Town Clerk am:lm copy: Honourable Prime Minister Paul Martin Premier Dalton McGuinty Ms. Belinda Stronach, MP Ms. Julia Munro, MPP Regional Municipality of York Town of Georgina Township of King Town of East Gwillimbury Town of Richmond Hill Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Town of Markham City of Vaughan "Newmarket, celebrating ourherltage while capturing the promise of tomorrow" 395 Mulock Drive, P.O. Box 328, STN MAIN NEWMARKET, ON UY 4X7 Direct Dial: (905)953-5322 Tel`(905)895-5193 Fax: (905)953-5100 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 December 13, 2004 Moved by: Councillor Emanuel Seconded by: Councillor Blight RESOLUTION R22-2004 WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newmarket has received and considered correspondence dated October 25, 2004 from the Regional Municipality of York detailing the expansion of .local telephone dialling within the Regional Municipality of York and throughout the Greater Toronto Area; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newmarket has assessed and endorsed the Regional submission to Bell Canada for such expansion; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket as follows: THAT the Council of the Town of Newmarket supports the Regional Municipality of York in the joint request for expansion of local telephone dialing in York Region and throughout the Greater Toronto Area; AND THAT this resolution be forwarded to the leaders of both Federal and Provincial parties, the local MP and MPP, the Regional Municipality of York and area municipalities. Mayor Tom Taylor —73— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2(05 - JAtN 4 2005 Mr. Bob Panizza Director, Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk Town of Aurora Box 1000, 100 John West Way Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza: Re: Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission Capacity in Markham -Newmarket Corridor AGE ITEM # Office of the Regional Clerk Corporate Services Department At its meeting of December 16, 2004, Regional Council considered Hydro One's proposal to expand transmission capacity in the Markham -Newmarket corridor. It was Council's decision to: 1. Request Hydro One and the Minister of the Environment to ensure that a proper, full, individual environmental assessment is carried out and that the draft ESR process be terminated. 2. Support Newmarket Hydro and the Town of Newmarket's initiative to provide local hydro distribution through a proposed 300 — megawatt gas -fired peaking facility as a solution to additional electricity demands. 3. Support the Town of Markham's request to the Provincial Ministers of Energy and Environment for mediation to resolve the issues. 4. Request the Federal Minister of Health to further review the issue and impact of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF's). I have enclosed a copy of the motion approved by Council on December 16, 2004, and of Clause No. 4 of Planning and Economic Development Committee Report No. 6 approved by Council on June 24, 2004. Yours truly, /Dem,97elly Regional Clerk Encl. DK/lmb The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel; 905-830-4444 Ext. 1320, 1-877-464-9675, Fax: 905-895-3031 Internet: cvww.region.york.on.ca -74- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 (16 -ii1 Minute No. 229 adopted by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on December 16, 2004. 229 MOTION (Clause 10, Item 2 of Planning and Economic Development Committee Report No.11) In considering this matter, Council had before it a presentation paper from Gowling Lafleur Henderson, LLP entitled "Hydro One's Draft Supply to York Region: Environmental Study Report". It was moved by Regional Councillor Scarpitti, seconded by Mayor Jones, that: WHEREAS Regional Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 4 of Report No. 6 of the Planning and Economic Development Committee at its meeting on June 24, 2004, regarding the proposed Hydro One transmission project in York Region and reflecting fundamental concerns with Hydro One's approach and requested Hydro One to ensure there was a full consideration of alternative routes based on a full assessment of environmental, social, economic and health effects of such facilities; AND WHEREAS the legislated and regulatory authority for provision of electricity to York Region consumers rests with Hydro One and the local distribution companies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Regional Council request Hydro One and the Minister of Environment to ensure that a proper, full, individual environmental assessment is carried out and that the draft ESR process be terminated; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Region of York supports Newmarket Hydro and the Town of Newmarket's initiative to provide local hydro distribution through a proposed 300-megawatt gas -iced peaking facility as a solution to additional electricity demands; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Region of York supports the Town of Markham's request to the Ministers of Energy and Environment for mediation to resolve the issues. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Region of York requests the Federal Minister of Health to further review the issue and impact of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs). -75— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Minute No. 229. 2 A recorded vote on the motion was as follows: FOR: Barrow, Black, Cousens, Di Biase, Ferri, Frustaglio, Grossi, Heath, Hogg, Jackson, J. Jones, T. Jones, O'Donnell, Scarpitti, Sherban, Van Bynen, Young (17) AGAINST: Wheeler (1) Carried. —76— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Ya;lr �Rert Clause No. 4 in Report No. 6 of the Planning and Economic Development Committee was adopted, as amended, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on June 24, 2004. 4 HYDRO ONE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY TO YORK REGION Regional Council at its meeting on June 24, 2004 amended this Clause to include receipt of the following communication: 2.(c) ✓. D. Leach, City Clerk, City of Vaughan, June 18, 2004, forwarding a resolution regarding the Hydro One Transmission Project, adopted by the Council of the City of Vaughan at its meeting on June 14, 2004. (See Minute No. 147 of Regional Council Minutes for deputations by Sue Fusco on behalf of STOP (Stop Transmission Lines Over People) and Michael E. Kussner, Professor Emeritus, Ryerson University, Gormley resident and supporter of STOP.) (See Minute No. 149 of Regional Council Minutes for recorded vote regarding recommendation 4.1.) The Planning and Economic Development Committee recommends the following: The following presentations and deputations be received: (a) Gary Schneider, Manager, Transmissions Approvals & GTA Development, and Carmine Marcello, Director, System Development Division, Hydro One Networks Inc.; (b) Jim Baird, Commissioner of Development Services, Town of Markham; and (c) Sue Fusco, and Paul Kahnert, on behalf of STOP (Stop Transmission Lines Over People); 2. The following communications be received: (a) Shelia Birrell, Town Clerk, Town of Markham, dated June 9, 2004, regarding Hydro One Transmission Line (Parkway TS to Armitage TS) - Class Environmental Assessment Process, requesting to make a presentation to the June 16, 2004 Planning and Economic Development Committee and that York Region endorse the -77- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 Planning and Economic Development Committee recommendation adopted by the Town of Markham Council on June 8, 2004. (b) Copy of letter from Chris Somerville, Township Clerk, Township of King, to Yuri Huminilowyca, Director, Real Estate, Hydro One Networks Inc., dated May 7, 2004, regarding Hydro One Networks, Northern York Region Supply Study, Adequacy of Transmission Facilities and Transmission Supply Plan. 3. The following report, June 2, 2004, from the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services, be received; and 4. The following actions be undertaken by Hydro One prior to its determination of a preferred alternative: 1. Hydro One undertake, as part of the Class Environmental Assessment Process, a fully documented identification and assessment of all possible routes and options for expanded power transmission capacity to northern York Region, including the use of other transmission corridors supplying northern York Region, the use of existing and proposed Ministry of Transportation corridors such as Highway's 404, 400 and future 427, pursuing new corridors on rural lands, undergrounding of system, and other alternatives; 2. Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, give greater consideration to environmental, social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines, and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost; 3. Hydro One, in considering any alternatives within existing urban areas, undertake further detailed analysis relating to: (a) The criteria set out in Section 41 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan for the approval of an infrastructure project, such as a new or upgraded transmission line; (b) A full inventory and assessment of natural features and wildlife corridors and functions that would be potentially affected by construction activities and transmission corridor operations and relationship to adjacent urban development; (c) An assessment of the impact of the proposal on the intended use of the Hydro One transmission corridor for future trail system activity linkages within urban areas; C" COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 Planning and Economic Development Committee (d) An assessment of the visual impact of the power transmission towers in an established urban environment, including an assessment of the potential economic impact on homeowners and the loss of enjoyment of residential yards that are in proximity to the hydro corridors; (e) Review, with Transport Canada, the compliance of tower transmission heights with respect to Transport Canada Airport zoning regulations; (f) Provide information on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on human health; disclose the relative EMI= strength emanating from the proposed 230 kV line; undertake a health risk assessment of the proposal in relation to adjacent urban land uses, in particular residential uses, schools and parks; and identify mitigating measures that would ensure that any proposed changes in transmission capacity will not increase the public's exposure to EMFs; 5. The Regional Chair be requested to arrange meetings with the appropriate Ministers to discuss the issues arising out of the Hydro One proposal; 6. The Regional Medical Officer of Health be requested to comment on the health issues related to EMFs; 7. A meeting be arranged with the impacted municipalities and the Region to discuss a common response to the Hydro One proposal; and 8. The Regional Clerk forward a copy of Council's resolution and all public submissions received by the Region to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Health and Long -Term Care, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, York Region MPPs, the York Region District School Board, the. -York Region Catholic District School Board, the Independent Electricity Market Operator and to the local municipalities. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. This report be received for information purposes. 2. The Regional Clerk forward a copy of this report to the area municipalities and Hydro One. —79— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 Planning and Economic Development Committee 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to: • Describe the project by Hydro One to build a new transmission line to serve the growing need for electric power in York Region. • Address the recommendation of Committee and Council to identify the impact of the project on Regional policies and communities. • Identify the next steps by Hydro One to complete the project. BACKGROUND On April 7, 2004 Planning and Economic Development Committee received a communication from Hydro One outlining their intention to build a new transmission line to service the growing need for electric power in York Region. At its meeting of April 22, 2004 Regional Council adopted Planning and Economic Development Committee's recommendation to "receive and refer to staff for review and comment on the implications and impact of the project on the Region's policies and on communities the transmission line will pass through." 3.1 Project Description Hydro One is proposing to build a new 230-kilovolt double circuit transmission line to increase transmission capacity and reliable electrical supply in York Region. The proposed transmission line is planned to be in service by late 2006 provided all required approvals and easements are obtained. The project is subject to approval under the Class Environmental Act and as such Hydro One will be considering at least two alternatives (see Attachment No. 1 for location of transmission line alternatives). Alternative one involves upgrading and replacing the existing transmission line in eastern York Region which runs from Markham to Newmarket, and the second alternative involves upgrading and replacing the existing transmission line running from Vaughan to Newmarket. Alternative one consists of a 24 km transmission line in the existing transmission corridor running from the recently approved Parkway Transformer station in Markham to the Armitage transformer station in Newmarket. The replacement transmission line will extend through the municipalities of Markham, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Richmond Hill, Aurora, and Newmarket. Alternative two consists of approximately 48 km of transmission line located within Vaughan, King Township and Newmarket. 3.1.1 Need Current electrical load forecasts by the local electric utilities in York Region indicate that capacity of the existing transmission line supplying electricity to central and northern York Region will be exceeded by the winter of 2005/06. Hydro One has indicated that if COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 Planning and Economic Development Committee a transmission outage occurs during the winter peak period, other transmission facilities may be unable to reliably supply customers in northern York Region. The need for the facility was identified by Hydro One and the York Region electric utilities and was confirmed in the 10 year Outlook Report (2005 to 2014) by the Independent Electricity Market Operator. Upgrades to the transmission lines will strengthen the transmission system throughout York Region and allow York Region electric utilities to expand their distribution systems to keep pace with anticipated growth. Local utilities in Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Aurora, and Newmarket have signed off on a joint planning study that recommends a new transmission line. 3.2 Approvals and Consultation The proposed transmission line is subject to Environmental Assessment approval and Ontario Energy Board approval. As part of the Environmental Assessment process, Hydro One has hosted a series of Public Information Centres (PIC) to obtain stakeholder input. PICs were held on the following dates: April 28, 2004 Markham Civic Centre April 29, 2004 Newmarket Community Centre May 4, 2004 Vaughan, Woodbridge Community Centre May 5, 2004 King, Pottageville Community Centre Issues raised at the PICs included the impact of electric magnetic fields in association with electric power, impact on schools and other community facilities that abut the corridor, aesthetic appearance, property values and whether the proposed transmission line should be located in the Highway 404 corridor. Hydro One staff have also met with Regional and municipal staff and local Councils to provide details of the project. Attachment No. 2 to this report lists these meeting dates. Hydro One staff have also met with the officials from the York Region Catholic School Board to begin to address issues regarding electric magnetic fields (EW and the proximity of schools along the route alternatives. Hydro One will continue to work with representatives of the catholic and public school boards, the schools themselves, and concerned parents on this and other project effects that are identified through the consultation process. 3.2.1 Meeting with Regional Transportation and Works Staff Hydro One is required to obtain road occupancy permits from York Region should they require the use of a Regional road to access their hydro corridor(s). COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 Planning and Economic Development Conunittee Hydro One staff met with Regional Transportation Operations and Design and Construction staff on April 27, 2004 and provided an overview of their project. Regional staff will work co-operatively with Hydro One staff to ensure access by Hydro One to their hydro corridor(s) from Regional roads is carried out in a safe manner and if closures of Regional roads are required they will be done in a manner that has the least disruptive impact on traffic flow. 4. ANALYSIS This project is subject to the Environmental Assessment process and Hydro One is responsible for adhering to the process requirements and ensuring all aspects of the process are addressed to the satisfaction of the Minister of the Environment. The Regional Official Plan contains policies regarding transmission facilities. These policies are reviewed in section 4.2 and are likely to be addressed through the Environmental Assessment process. 4.1 Environmental Assessment Process The project is subject to Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities, which includes all transmission line projects involving more than 2 km of line and which: i. Are capable of operating at a nominal voltage level of 115 kV. ii. Are capable of operating at a nominal voltage level higher than 115kV and less than 500kV and which involve less than 50 km of line. Figure 1 shown on page 5 sets out the general Class Environmental Assessment Process. Some of the key steps in the Environmental Assessment process include: a. Delineating the boundaries of the study area so that the area includes known potential environmental impacts and technical constraints. Environmental constraints include ecologically sensitive areas, and technical constraints may involve problems associated with construction and maintenance. b. Collecting and mapping environmental data including: • Agricultural resources • Appearance of the landscape • Biological resources • Forest resources • Heritage resources • Human settlement • Mineral resources recreational resources c. Identifying and evaluating alternative methods and assessing each method based on environmental, technical and cost impacts. Ma COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 7 Planning and Economic Development Committee d. Completion and filing of the Environmental Study Report with the Ministry of the Environment. Subsequent to the filing, Hydro One may have further communications with individuals whose property is affected by the undertaking. Figure 1 Class Environmental Assessment Process Establish Need Select System Options Exempt or Individual EA 4 Status under EA Class EA Study Area Definition I Initial Notification I Apply Screening Criteria Inventory Environment I4-140— — — <1-6ut? Identify & Evaluate Options/ Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative & Prepare Draft Environmental Study Report I Final Notification I 30 day review (minimum) Individual EA —Bump Up by Individual EA --Bump Up by Minister-- <� Ministers Review& Issue Environmental Study Report Proceed with Undertaking (including monitoring) Im COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 Planning and Economic Development Committee 4.2 Regional Official Plan Hydro electric power service will be required to serve the growth forecast set out in Section 5.1 of the Regional Official Plan. 4.2.1 Section 5.1 - Growth Forecasts Hydro One's project is intended to serve primarily Aurora, Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, and rural parts of King Township and Whitchurch-Stouffville. The project will also allow the local electric utilities in Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill to expand their electricity distribution systems to keep pace with continued economic growth. Improvements to Hydro One's transmission lines are required to service the 2006 population and employment and the subsequent growth. Table 1 of the Regional Official Plan provides anticipated population and employment growth for these area municipalities. Total population and employment forecasts for the six above noted area municipalities is approximately 249,000 residents and 90,000 jobs for 2006. An increase of 33,000 persons and 15,000 jobs is forecast by 2011. An extract of Table 1 is provided below. TABLE 1 1996 2006 2011 2016 Aurora Population 36,000 49,000 56,000 63,000 Employment 14,600 19,000 22,000 26,000 East Gwillimbury Population 20,400 27,000 32,000 41,000 Employment 4,600 7,000 9,000 12,000 Georgina Population 35,900 45,000 51,000 59,000 Employment 7,500 10,000 13,000 16,000 King Population 18,800 22,000 25,000 29,000 Employment 6,100 7,000 8,000 10,000 Newmarket Population 59,000 79,000 87,000 91,000 Employment 27,200 37,000 41,000 43,000 Whitchurch- Stouffville Population 20,500 27,000 31,000 35,000 Employment 7,500 10,000 12,000 14,000 Totals Population 190,600 249,000 282,000 318,000 Employment 67,500 90,000 105,000 121,000 man COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 y Planning and Economic Development Committee 4.2.2 Communication Corridors and Transmission Facilities Section 6.5 of the Regional Official Plan contains policies that encourage the development and maintenance of modern transmission facilities in such a way as to minimize visual impact, the impact on the environment and disruption to existing communities. Key polices related to hydro -electric power lines are noted below followed by an explanation as to how Hydro One intends to address the policies. 6.5.2 That major hydro electric power lines crossing the Region of York above or below ground be constructed, maintained and operated so as to minimize their impact on people, the adjacent uses of land and the environment, and to support the urban structure of this Plan. This may include shared rights of way in order to reduce impact on adjacent lands and resources. Both alternatives currently being considered by Hydro One are proposing a replacement transmission line within an existing hydro right-of-way that currently serves York Region. Although the EA process must confirm the environmental impact, it is anticipated that utilizing the existing rights -of -way will have the least amount of impact on the environment and existing communities. 6.5.4 That utilities be constructed according to the following criteria: a. That facilities be located so as to avoid the principal elements of the Regional and local Greenlands System and to minimize the use of agricultural lands; b. That in the future, buried cables or improved appearance steel pole; structures be used where possible in urban areas or where the visual impact would be high, provided the facilities have satisfied the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act; c. that any odour, noise or emission from a facility be abated to the extent possible and to a level acceptable to the Region of York and /or affected area municipality; d, that soil removal in trench construction be carried out so that topsoils strata are replaced in their former order; e, that surplus soils derived from trench excavation and construction debris be disposed of so as not to negatively impact the natural environment and in a manner acceptable to the landowner and the area municipality; f. that construction be timed to minimize crop losses; g. that the crossing of roads or usage of road right-of-way be subject to the approval of the Region and/or respective area municipalities; h, that the crossing of any lake or stream be subject to the approval of appropriate conservation authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources; i. that plans to achieve multiple use of a right of way containing a utility be prepared and implemented subject to the approval of the Region of York and/or affected area municipality; and, j, that the damage to the natural soil or surface drainage, farm field tile beds and fencing be restored to the satisfaction of the property owner. Ifl COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 10 Planning and Economic Development Committee Policies 6.5.4 a, b, c, f, and h will be addressed during the Environmental Assessment process. Hydro One is currently evaluating if and where they may be constructing steel poles as replacements to lattice towers. Polices 6.5.4 d, e, and j can be met by Hydro One following the guidelines for Construction and Maintenance referenced in the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities. 4.2.2.1 Construction and Maintenance Construction and maintenance and right -of way management activities will be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Guidelines for the Construction and Maintenance of Transmission Facilities. As part of the guidelines, specific instructions may be issued where environmentally sensitive situations are identified through the planning or construction phases. The typical mitigation measures are shown on Attachment No. 3 to this report, which identifies what the environmental concern is, what the mitigation measure is, and when it is to be applied. For example, an environmental concern would be wind and water erosion to soil, the mitigating measure would be a combination of avoiding certain areas, timing activities to the most stable ground conditions, slope stabilization, mechanical erosion control, vegetation erosion control and recompaction of trenches. The mitigating measures may be applied if access roads are needed and soil erosion presents a problem situation. 4.3 Impact on Communities Detailed assessment of the impact on urban and rural communities is also a criterion of the Environmental Assessment process. This section provides a general overview of the types of communities the proposed transmission line will pass through if the existing rights -of -way are utilized. Alternative one traversing the eastern portion of York Region will pass through: • the urban built-up portion of Markham from approximately Highway 407 to Major Mackenzie Drive, consisting of both employment areas and residential areas • new residential development under construction north of Major Mackenzie Drive, • the eastern edge of the hamlet of Victoria Square • the community of Gormley • parts of the Oak Ridges Moraine • built up urban parts of Newmarket and Aurora located between Mulock Drive and Vandorf sideroad, consisting of residential and employment areas Alternative two located in the western portion of York Region will pass through: • the urban built up area in Vaughan from Highway 407 to Major Mackenzie Drive comprised of primarily residential neighbourhoods ENO COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 11 Planning and Economic Development Committee • the eastern edge of the community of Kleinburg • rural area from Kleinburg to Newmarket • hamlets of Pottageville and Kettleby • parts of the Oak Ridges Moraine • residential neighbourhoods in west Newmarket 4.3.1 Oak Ridges Moraine The existing electric transmission line corridor in eastern York Region traverses portions of the Oak Ridges Moraine that are designated "Natural Core Area", "Natural Linkage Area", "Countryside" and "Settlement Area". Prior to the approval of an infrastructure project, such as a new or upgraded transmission line, criteria set out in Section 41 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan must be addressed. In accordance with Section 41, an applicant must demonstrate that the following criteria have been met: • The need for the project has been demonstrated and there is no reasonable alternative. • Area of construction will be kept to a minimum. • Right of way widths will be kept to a minimum. • The project will allow for wildlife movement. • The planning, design, and construction practises adopted will keep any adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the Plan Area to a minimum. • The project is located as close to the edge of the Natural Core Area as possible. Hydro One is responsible for providing the necessary documentation to address the above noted criteria and any other applicable criteria in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan during the Environmental Assessment process. 4.3.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields The affect of EMF's (Electric and Magnetic Fields) is often raised by the general public during hydro projects. In 1995 and 1998 the Regional Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services prepared various reports on the topic of EMFs. The reports identified potential risks associated with EMF's and concluded that the risk of health effects from exposure to EMF is relatively low when compared to other risks in every day life. Conclusions indicated that York Region should consider "prudent avoidance" regarding EMF's, which means exercising sound judgement in practical matters, being cautious, and taking steps to control risks but at a modest cost. Reasonable actions should be taken given the absence of clearly defined scientific risk. 4.3.2.1 Information from Hydro One At its public information centres Hydro One provides a brochure on electric and magnetic fields prepared by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The brochure provides a variety of questions and answers regarding potential health effects, results of EMF related research, standards and guidelines established by national and international safety organizations and other references for EMF topics. N-W COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 12 Planning and Economic Development Committee 4.4 Next Steps Hydro One is currently in the preliminary stages of working with local communities and residents regarding the project. As part of the next steps, Hydro One will be carrying out the following: i. Second Public Information Centre - June 2004 Progress Report Continue to work with Stakeholders to resolve issues associated with route options ii. Anticipated Class EA and Ontario Energy Board Approvals Spring 2005 iii. Planned start of construction Spring 2005 iv. Planned project in-service to meet identified need Fall 2006 4.5 Relationship to Vision 2026 Goal three of Vision 2026 states that "In 2026, York Region will be renowned for its advanced technology, innovative businesses, supportive business infrastructure and highly skilled workforce. " The provision of hydro -electric power to York Region is a vital component of the infrastructure required to support businesses and residents and is needed to ensure a vibrant economy throughout York Region. 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS All costs associated with the project, including construction and mitigation measures, consultation meetings, and approvals will be borne by Hydro One. Hydro One has forecast that the capacity of the existing transmission line supplying electricity to northern York Region will be exceeded by the winter of 2005/2006 and if a transmission outage occurs during the winter peak period the other area transmission facilities may be unable to reliably supply customers in northern York Region, which could result in power interruptions. Power interruptions, such as the one experienced in August of 2003, significantly impact economic growth. Hydro electric power is part of the infrastructure for a healthy economy. COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Clause 4, Report 6 13 Planning and Economic Development Committee 6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT Hydro One staff have met with staff and Council from Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Aurora, Newmarket, Whitchurch-Stouffville and King Township. Details of the project have been provided to the extent possible at this stage. Hydro One staff have verbally indicated that further consultation meetings are anticipated with Markham residents. On May 11, 2004 Markham Council passed a resolution requesting, among other things, their staff report on the potential health impact of the Hydro One Project. On May 3, 2004 King Township recommended, among other things, that Alternative 1 (eastern alignment) be the preferred transmission line. 7. CONCLUSION Hydro One has identified a need to upgrade the hydro transmission lines that provide service to central and northern York Region by 2006. Current alternatives proposed by Hydro One involve utilizing the existing hydro rights -of -way that traverse southern and central York Region. The project is subject to the Class Environmental Assessment process for Minor Transmission Facilities and as such Hydro One will be responsible for ensuring all requirements of the EA process are adhered to, including providing adequate consultation, evaluation of alternatives, and notice. During the EA process Hydro One will also be required to demonstrate that the project complies with the policies of the Regional Official Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation Plan. The Senior Management Group has reviewed this report. (A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing is included with this report and is also on file in the Regional Clerk's Office.) Attachment 1 - Council Rei2ort Attachment COUNG•I L - JANUARY "1 20 .gam Electrical Supp m� x� ter, Terri ofx , do York Region 1 East GWillimbury, Route Alternativ s .; HALL lRSH`�J_ �LTaw�n to IJe�rn�rgR_ MIT GE TS o ARMIT GE } w of ®.- urora ® ToWn.of Whitchurch- ® Stouffurakie, y . - T oWr,shiD a of King a o ow T ra. of " f Rlchrnond Hill it - ;y' Town of Ma rkhar. BUTTONVILL,-.TS � r 8 Cit of... n+• m' PARK�JAYTS ' 1 r VagFian '•�--�` m ,I l 1N \\ ■ I- �LZ ' Hydro Lines Legend Oak Ridges Moraine Boundary \\I, `\ `, R y ' •—� ALTERNATIVE 1 �ALTERNATIVE2 Urban Areas T"ns end Villages V PARKWAY BELT —•w Municipal Boundary Roads i OS p ilea .R ILLE TS ® Transformer Stations/Junctions Pr.aa..a, - Gepmaon Oivleron -eY6 —90— POCnpinyng ganra pevlSrvpH Fllpy $OOG Y 3 GQUIa0I1CS COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Attachment No. 2 Council Report Attachment Hydro One Meetings with Fork Region Stakeholders 1. LOCAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES March 25 — Markham Hydro, Hydro Vaughan, Richmond Hill Hydro, Aurora Hydro, Newmarket Hydro 2. MUNICIPAL COUNCILS April 8 — Hydro Vaughan Board of Directors (made up of the Vaughan Mayor and Councillors) April 13 — Markham Council April 19 — King Council April 20 — Aurora Council May 3 — Newmarket Council May 4 — Whitchurch-Stouffville Council Regional/Municipal Staff March 30 — Aurora staff April 1 — York Region staff April 5 — Richmond Hill staff April 6 King Township staff April 6 — Vaughan staff April 15 — Whitchurch-Stouffville staff April 16 — Newmarket staff —91— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Attachment 3 Council Report Attachment Examples of Typical Mitigation Measures TABLE J-1 Example of Typical Mitigation Measures Environmental Concerns Mitigation Measures AEplication WATER QUALITY Sedimentation of streams due to erosion -minimize use of slopes adjacent to During soil testing, selective cutting, from the right-of-way. streams construction and maintenance. - maintain a cover crop. During restoration following construction and long terns maintenance. -mechanical erosion control _. Stream bank erosion. - retain shrubby stream bank vegetation and In he clearing/maintenance, selectively cut or pmne trees. - selective spraying of herbicides. During line maintenance. - mechanical erosion control. Stream crossings, as required. Impedance of natural flow of streams - use and maintenance of appropriate stream At stream crossings during construction and /other surface waters. creasing device. line operation. - use of equalizing culverts in roads in During construction and throughout line wetlands. - operation. - use of corduroy in wetlands, where Line construction in wetlands. available, Ponding or channelization of surface - timing activities to stable ground Construction/maintenance on seasonally Waters due to rutting. conditions. unstable ground surfaces. - use of gravel reads. New line construction on unstable ground surfaces. Contamination of surface or ground - spill control material and procedures At station sites and in general whenever waters through spills or leaks of toxic readily available. toxic substances are used. substances. - site selection where possible. Stations warehousing sites and structures locations. Sedimentation of streams with pumped - containment of material when working in Dewatering during installation of augured soil/bentonite from dewatering the vicinity of water bodies. footings. operations. - use of sediment traps or settling tanks. When necessary during dewatering operation. - removal of material from the site. Restoration. Channel disturbance, sediment - installation of an appropriate crossing During access road construction. production at strearn crossings, device. - use of sediment traps or settling tanks. During access road construction. Increase in water temperature due to - retain shrubby stream bank vegetation Line clearing/maintenance. vegetation removal at stream crossings. and selectively cut/prune trees. - selective spraying of herbicides to retain as Line maintenance (vegetation control). much vegetation as possible on stream banks. Reduction in water storage capacity due - selective removal of vegetation. In identified source/recharge areas during to removal of vegetation or diversion initial line clearing. caused by rutting. - revegetation with compatible shrubs. Selection of structure sites and access routes. J-1 —9'2 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 TABLE J-I(Continued) Examples of Typical Migration Measures Environmental Concerns Mitigation Measures Appillcadon SOILS Soil compaction/topsoil-subsoil mixing. - avoidance of rutting by vehicles. Application in generally all phases of construction and maintenance, particularly during line clearing and construction. - construction timing. - use of gravel roads. - use of vehicles with low bearing pressure. " - stop activities when ground conditions are poor. Wind/water erosion. - avoidance of areas with high erosion Access road location erodible soils, potential, slopes. - timing activities to the most stable ground Access road location erodible soils, conditions. slopes. - slope stabilization. As required. -mechanical erosion control. As required. - vegetation erosion control Erodible soils, slopes, as a restomtion - recompaction of trenches. measure. installation of counterpoise, underground transmission fines. - avoid trenching parallel to the fall of a slope. Counterpoising on steep slopes. Contamination by petro-chemicals. - spill control material and procedures made At station sites or during the transport of - - readily available. oil containing equipment. - restoration methods investigated. As an ongoing process. FISH AND WII,DLIFE . Loss of habitat, breeding and/or food - environmental mapping to identify Prior to the startrof construction, line source for terrestrial wildlife due to sensitive sites. clearing Vegetation removal - avoidance of areas containing rare /- Access mad location, selective clearing endangered species. for new lines. - the creation of"edge" (may be considered Selective clearing on a right-of-way. a positive impact). - promofion of wildlife habitat through Restoration and right-of-way vegetation control and brush piles management. - avoid the filling of small wetlands. Access road and tower construction. Changes in composition of vegetation as - construction timing to minimize soil Right-of-way clearing and construction a result of soil disturbance. disturbance. activities in general. - restoration of soils to a stable condition. Restoration following construction. Removal or burial of stream bottom - minimize erosion from the right-of-way by Restoration and maintenance, habitat and increased turbidity due to maintaining a cover crop. sedimentation. - mechanical erosion control. As required during the operation of the line and maintenance of the right-of-way. -minimize stream bank erosion by retaining. At stream crossing during right-of-way shrubby bank vegetation and selective clearing. cutting/pruning of trees near watercourses. - installation of sediment traps when At any time during construction as. necessary, required - containment or filtering of pumped During the installation of tower footings spoil/water near watercourses. near watercourses. COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 TABLE d-1 (Continued) Esamples of Typical Mitigation Measures Environmental Concerns FISH AND WILDLIFE (con't) Miri anon Measures Application 1111*imeut to the mitigation of fish or wildlife. - avoid filling small wetlands serving as Small wetlands during access road and staging areas for waterfowl migration. tower pad construction. Impediment to the mitigation and/or breeding of fish or wildlife. - installation and maintenance of proper At steam crossings during construction and stream crossing device. w required for maintenance. - time construction activities to avoid During construction and maintenance. disturbance to migrating fish and wildlife or during breeding. - follow Ontario Hydro standards for the Near watercourses during line clearing and application of herbicides near watercourses, maintenance cycles. Change in the chemistry of water bodies. - minimize sedimentation of streams (see Near watercourses during line clearing, Water Quality). _ con-struction and throughout the operation of the line. - prevent cut vegetation from entering Line clearing and maintenance cycles. watercourses. - selective spraying or manual control of Line clearing and maintenance cycles. vegetation near watercourses. Increased water temperature as a result of clearing vegetation near streams, - selective removal of vegetation; pinning. At stream crossings during line clearing - retain shrubby bank vegetation. and maintenance cycles. At stream crossings during line clearing and maintenance cycles. VEGETATION Introduction of exotic plant species resulting from vegetation erosion control. - use of native species for erosion control. On areas where erosion control is necessary, Vegetation stress due to nutrient loss as a result of soil deterioration. - erosion control measures. The management of the right-of-way erosion prone slopes. Changes in vegetation due to soil disturbance (topsoil -subsoil mixing). - time construction/clearing to take During construction and line clearing advantage of stable soil conditions. operations, maintenance cycles, Loss of forested land - hectare for hectare reforestation. Selection of clear cutting of transmission -planting of wind breaks. line right-of-way, AGRICULTURE - landscaping plantings. Loss of standing crop due to access road and tower work site. - limit width of access and site of tower Agricultural area - generally all site. construction/maintenance operations. _ - monetary compensation for crop loss. Following determination of losses. - time construction to avoid growing season. Construction/maintenance. Soil Compaction - scheduling activities to times of the year Construction/maintenance, when soils are least susceptible to compaction. - stop activities when ground conditions are Construction/maintenance. poor. - use of equipment with low bearing Construction/maintenance. ca aci J-3 -94- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 TABLE J-1 (Continued) Esamples of Typical Mitigation Measures Environmental Concerns Mitt adon Measures A 1lcation AGRICULTURE (Continued) Soil Compaction (cont'd) - chisel ploughings Restoration. - monetary compensation for subsequent Property settlements. crop reductions. - use of gravel toads. Construction of new lines - locate access roads along existing traffic Construction/maintenance. routes. Topsoil -subsoil mixing/soil rutting. - scheduling activities. Scheduling for construction/maintenance activities. - stop activity when ground conditions are Field decisions during construction phase poor. ._, .. of project - use of equipment with low bearing Construction/maintenance. capacity. - use of gravel roads. Construction. - backblading/grading• Restoration. - addition of manures to offset fertility loss. Restoration. - compensation for reduced soil productivity. As a result of negotiated settlement - removal of soil and/or bentonite from Augured foundations. foundation operations. - segregation of topsoil and subsoil. Where required to prevent extensive' Disturbance to Farm Operations. - maintain contact with landownentenant mixing. Throughout construction and as regarding preferences. maintenance work is required. Damage to Field.Tiles. -'avoidance of file beds. Access road location landowner contact - minimize tile crossings. Access mad layout. -scheduling activities to times of the year All phases of construction/,,, ntenance when ground will support the equipment where the location of the tile drains is to be used. - known. - use of soft track equipment Construction/maintenance. - protection of tile crossings by the Conshuction/maimcnance. placement of heavy steel plate. - stop activities when ground conditions are Field decision during construction phase of poor. project- - repair damaged drains. Restoration. - compensate for damages. As a result of negotiated settlement. Loss of Livestock - - employ noise control treasures near During construction as required. sensitive livestock - construction of farm gates. Access road - construction. - securing farm gates. All activities. - clean-up construction materials which .1 As an ongoing process throughout all could be ingested phases of construction and maintenance. SOCIETAL IMPACTS - compensation for lost, injured livestock. Following completion of construction, as a Noise and Vibration - limit this type of work to daylight hours. result of negotiations.with claimant. All phases of construction where high noise levels could be a problem, e.g. residential - observe protocol or applicable municipal areas. All phases of construction where high noise bylaws. levels could be a problem, e.g, residential - use of appropriate methods where areas. As required - special circumstances; e.g. available, hospitals. -95- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 TABLE J-1 (Continued) Esamples of Typical Mitigation Measures Environmental Concerns Mitigation Measures AVRII,ation SOCIETAL IMPACTS Mud and Dust. - wetting down dry soils. All phases of construction. - chemical control of dust. As required. - cleaning roads to remove mud. As required. - temporary planting of grasses. When the project duration permits and dust is a major problem, - screen with natural or planted vegetation. Access roads - right-of-way clearing; restoration. - avoid linear access down the right -of- Access road location. way. - addition of topsoil to gravel access Restoration of access roads. roads. - hoarding construction sites. Station construction. - installation of landscaping in advance of Station construction. site completion. Appearance- Lines. - retain tree screens and curve access Where appropriate vegetation exists. routes. • - plant tree screens. Where appropriate. - avoid sensitive soils for access routes. Where possible. - stabilize erodible soils by vegetative or Where soils are subject to erosion. mechanical means. - add topsoil and seed gravel access Where exposed to public view. routes. Appearance - Stations. - paint hoarding to suit locale. Where appropriate. -install landscaping treatment in advance. Where construction program and site size permits. Inconvenience. - select cable design to suit traffic Where possible. conditions. - - select timing of construction. Where scheduling permits. Heritage Resources. - structural and/or locational adjustments. As required. - an and off site landscaping. As required. - install suitable enclosures. As required. - document and remove resource. As required. - relocate electrical facilities. As re uired. Note: The nature of the environment in the study area will determine the potential environmental effects for any project. Mitigation to address these effects will be determined on a case by case basis. Alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of net environmental effects (i.e., environmental effect - mitigation = net environmental effect). = COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors December 20, 2004 Ms. Carrie -Lyn Ognibene Hydro One Networks Inc. 483 Bay St., 9th floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P5 email: community.relations6 HydroOne.com Dear Ms. Ognibene: Re: Supply to York Region Draft Environmental Study Report Suite 5800, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario Canada M511 3Z7 Telephone (416) 369.7200 Facsimile (416) 369-7250 www.gowlings.com David Estrin Direct (416) 862-4301 Direct Fax (416) 863-3401 Assistant (416) 862-4360 david.estrin@gowlings.com The attached letter addressed to the Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Environment, and the reports and attachments listed below, which are also being sent to you by email, constitute the comments of the Town of Markham on the Supply to York Region Draft Environmental Study Report dated October 21, 2004, That letter to the Minister, as well as our previous correspondence to Hydro One dated August 16, 2004, indicates that the Town takes the position Hydro One has no legal basis to carry out a class EA study for this project based on the parent Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities. However, on a without prejudice basis to the Town's legal rights, the Town is supportive of Hydro One voluntarily agreeing to bump -up the project to an individual EA pursuant to s. 3.5.2 of the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities. Yours sincerely, GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP David Estrin Certified Environmental Law Specialist DE:tp Enclosures TOR —LAM 5920030/1 Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow I —97— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLa I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents December 20, 2004 Via email and hand delivery Hon. Leona Dombrowksy Minister of Environment 135 St. Clair Ave W. 12th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V 1 P5 Dear Minister: Suite 5800, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3Z7 Telephone (416) 369-7200 Facsimile (416) 369-7250 www.gowlings.com David Estrin Direct (416) 862-4301 Direct Fax (416) 863-3401 Assistant (416) 862-4360 david.estdn@gowllngs.com Re: Hydro One Networks Inc. Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), October 21, 2004, "Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study" We are writing to you and to Hydro One Inc. on behalf of the Town of Markham regarding the above matter. The Council of the Town of Markham is unanimously of the view that Hydro One has fundamentally disregarded the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and the public interest by the manner in which it chose a new 230 kv transmission line from Parkway Transformer Station in Markham to Armitage TS in Newmarket as its preferred means of solving power supply issues in York Region. We are writing at this time for several purposes. Our first purpose is to transmit to you a number of highly relevant expert reports which were commissioned by the Town of Markham and which document the compelling failure of Hydro One to comply with the requirements of environmental assessment law and practice. These are: Bancroft -Wilson Associates, "Review and Comment on the Hydro One Supply to York Region Draft ESR", which report details and SEE PAGE ( Ilif ) documents why the Hydro One Class EA Transmission Line study is fundamentally and irreparably flawed and also why it is not properly carried out as a Class EA. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow M COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson I.LP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 2 This report is authored by Chris Bancroft -Wilson, the former Ontario Hydro Supervising Planner responsible for environmental planning and environmental assessment, who was also Ontario Hydro's primary expert witnesses on transmission environmental assessment issues before the Joint Board; David K. Richmond, P. Eng., "Projected Magnetic Field Level Analysis", which discusses the results of magnetic field modeling and SEEPAGE( ) 54) reports on a matter in respect of which Hydro One has chosen silence, i.e., the extent to which magnetic field emissions will be increased and extend over houses and schools neighbouring the proposed right of way. SEE PAGE ( 143 ) Montr6al This report demonstrates that, e.g., in the portion of the right of way between Buttonville TS (16th Avenue in Markham) and Elgin Mills, which is abutted by numerous sub -division homes, an elementary school and a day care center, when the .rebuilt line Is operating at maximum load in 2015 (approximately four hours per work day during winter months and seven hours per work day during summer) o the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW in this area will be 10.1 mG, or 5 times greater than in 2004; and 0 2.6 times the width of land (184 feet or 56 m compared to the current 70 feet or 21.4 m) along both sides of the ROW will be exposed to 2 mG or greater of magnetic field emissions, compared to 2004 levels o Usually a 45m to 60 m separation from the ROW center is required to keep magnetic field levels at 2 mG or below, but to achieve these levels, the ROW would have to be 90 m to 125 m wide (it is generally 36.6 to 42.6 m wide— and less in some areas) or an equivalent area would need to be kept clear of occupied facilities. Those conditions do not exist for this project. Please note that aerial photographs are included with attachments to this letter, on which are plotted the projected extent of magnetic field exposure on residences, schools and other buildings neighbouring the proposed rebuilt 230 kv transmission line. Barker, Dunn & Rossi (BDR), Energy and Utility Management Consultants, `Transmission Line Undergrounding -- Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis", which study examined claims, made by Hydro One that undergrounding portions of the proposed line would be too costly to justify and that there would also be an unacceptable cumulative impact on rates if other municipalities sought undergrounding. Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow I COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 3 The BDR study shows undergrounding is clearly affordable and Hydro One cost speculation to be groundless. In other urban areas building underground transmission circuits has always been a Hydro One system cost. When the cost of undergrounding in Markham is similarly calculated as a system cost, the effect on a typical residential customer anywhere in Ontario will be negligible: * for example, month, or less than $1 per year; a relatively extensive program of undergrounding for the next 10 years in other urban areas which e.g. would underground 80 km of transmission circuits, would add between $0.39 and $0.89 per month more, in 2014, to a typical residential bill, than if no undergrounding work took place. Three further memolreports by David K. Richmond, P. Eng, Electrical Engineer with 30 years experience in transmission who was most recently VP, Toronto Hydro and formerly with Ontario Hydro. Mr. Richmond's memos cover the following issues: i) "Alternatives for Meeting New Load Requirements". This report outlines 16 alternative and sub -alternative ways of providing electrical SEEPAGE( 16110 ) load requirements to northern York Region. Hydro One's draft ESR only environmentally assessed two of these, Alternatives Al and B1. The majority of the 12 other transmission alternatives are either not discussed or dismissed by Hydro One as being unsuitable because they do not meet Hydro One technical, cost or timing criteria. Two other alternatives, "Alternative L - Long Range GTA Bypass Option" and "Alternative M-Integrated Resource Planning Option" are not considered at all by Hydro One, even though Ontario Hydro in the early 90's carried out and published a number of technical reports on proceeding with the GTA Bypass Option. ii) "Analysis and Alternative Viewpoint" regarding the Transmission System Planning Process. This report indicates that the system planning process carried out in 2003 by Hydro One and the York Region utilities examined transmission solutions that SEEPAGE( Iqb ) met immediate concerns, but that this work did not meet the longer term strategic transmission requirements of the area. Mr. Richmond finds that with a longer term view and with a staged development approach, as was carried out in the pest by Ontario Hydro for this area, other alternatives would have been identified which meet both the short and longer term requirements of York Region. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow -100- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 4 ill) "Interim Power Supply Measures". This report concludes there shortfalls forecasted for northern York Region that were not SEE PAGE ( (q9) considered either by Hydro One or the local utilities when they decided it was urgent to have a new 230 kv double circuit transmission line constructed beginning in 2005. As an initial step, the load forecast should be redone. This new forecast should incorporate appropriate demand response, conservation and any local (behind the meter) generation activities that will occur under the new Ministry of Energy initiatives. Considering the potential from all of these activities, it may be possible to defer line reinforcement by one or two additional years. Also, in the revised forecast, a more realistic and less aggressive growth rate should be utilized as suggested by Markham Planning and Development staff. If it was determined necessary to meet the forecasted load increases Option A Install an Intermediate Capacitor Station Will provide 50 MW of capacity which equals a minimum 5 years of projected power demand increases • Cost: $ 2-7 million; no EA required Installation should involve no supply disruptions • Hydro One Is proposinq same technique at 5 locations in its 10 Year Plan Option B String 1 or 2 new Distribution Lines on Existing Poles or on New Poles • Provides for 3 to 6 + years of growth in demand • New 44 kV line(s) can be installed on existing poles or on new standard poles from Buttonville to Armitage area • One line provides 30-35 MW — enough for 3 years growth • Cost: $2.5-3.0 million; Time: less than 1 year • No EA required; no municipal or other approvals required Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —101— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 5 Secondly, we are writing at this time: a. to advise you of the opinion we had provided to Hydro One on August 16, 2004, i.e., that Hydro One's use of the Class EA process is illegal. Hydro One must undertake an EA of its 10 Year Transmission Plan before it proceeds with an implementing aspect of that plan, i.e, the proposed rebuilt 230 kV transmission line; and any EA of that major project cannot proceed by way of a class EA but must be carried out as an individual, full EA; b. without prejudice to Markham's position, to i. clarify that the work carried out by Markham consultants, whose reports are attached, provides important information and analysis supporting an order to require a full EA in response to the numerous requests by others, and to offer the assistance of Markham's experts to the Ministry on the matters contained in their reports; ii. to respectfully suggest your staff remind Hydro One it has an obligation pursuant to the "Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities" (the parent class EA) to carefully and fully consider the many submissions it has received critical of its Class EA, and to "re-evaluate the rationale for the selection and... attempt to resolve the opposition" — before it does anything further; [[i. to suggest your staff remind Hydra One that pursuant to the parent "Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities" Hydro One can voluntarily agree that it should now undertake a full EA1; iv. to suggest your staff indicate that if Hydro One is not prepared to voluntarily carry out a full EA that it may wish to at least agree to mediation, given the many and substantive bump -up requests it and you have already received; v. to inform you that on a without prejudice basis to its legal position, Markham supports the use of mediation. t S. 3.5.2 of the parent Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities provides that "If there is expressed opposition to the selected project [the proponent] will re-evaluate the rationale for the selection and will attempt to resolve the opposition.... If all the expressed opposition cannot be satisfied, [the proponent] may decide to subject the project to an individual environmental assessment (i.e. bump -up)." Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —102— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents Page 6 Third, we are writing to assist you in understanding how Hydro One has been unresponsive to basic concerns about its EA process, which the Town of Markham provided to Hydro One as early as June Oh, 2004; and to respectfully suggest that unless the fundamental principles of environmental assessment are respected by one of the largest publicly owned corporations in Ontario, the EAA will become a meaningless statute. The Town Council asked Hydro One to ensure that in proceeding further "... that the following actions be undertaken by Hydro One prior to its determination of a preferred alternative: 1. That Hydro One undertake, as part of the Class Environmental Assessment Process, a fully documented identification and assessment of all possible routes and options for expanded power transmission capacity to northern York Region, including the use of other transmission corridors supplying northern York Region, the use of existing and proposed Ministry of Transportation corridors such as Highway's 404, 400 and future 427, pursuing new corridors on rural lands, and any other viable alternatives; 2. That Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, give greater consideration to environmental, social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines, and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost, 3. That Hydro One, in considering any alternatives within existing urban areas, undertake further detailed analysis relating to: a) A full inventory and assessment of natural features and wildlife corridors and functions that would be potentially affected by construction activities and transmission corridor operations and relationship to adjacent urban development; b) An assessment of the impact of the proposal on the intended use of the Hydro One transmission corridor for a future trail system activity linkages within urban areas; c) An assessment of the visual impact of the power transmission towers in an established urban environment, including an assessment of the potential economic impact on homeowners and the loss of enjoyment of residential yards that are in proximity to the hydro corridors; d) Review, with Transport Canada, the compliance of tower transmission heights with respect to Transport Canada Airport zoning regulations; Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —103— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowiing Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 7 e) Provide information on the effects of electromagnetic fields on human health; disclose the relative EMF strength emanating from the proposed 230 kV line; undertake a health risk assessment of the proposal in relation to adjacent urban land uses, in particular residential uses, schools and parks; and, identify mitigating measures that would ensure that any proposed changes in transmission capacity will not increase the public's exposure to electromagnetic fields. A similar resolution was passed June 24 by the Regional Municipality of York. Unfortunately, as is made clear by the Bancroft -Wilson Report attached to this submission, and as will become clear to your staff from the critiques of many others, Hydro One fundamentally failed to be responsive to these requests, which are consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. While we will not try and detail in this letter the fundamental disregard Hydro One had for these Town and Region requests, the following are illustrative: • Hydro One failed to carry out the "fully documented... assessment of all possible routes and alternatives" as requested, in that it used self-selected screening criteria which guaranteed that only the two existing Hydro corridors in the Region were studied and new ones suggested by others were immediately rejected. If an alternative suggested by others failed two of Hydro's criteria it would be not considered at all — and the two criteria which could fail any alternative were "(a) make the best use of existing transmission corridors" and meet the "scheduling criteria considered: lead time of options relative to required in service date". The result: the 7 new alternatives Hydro purported to add to its Class EA in response to overwhelming public concern were immediately eliminated, using Hydro criteria, and without public consultation. They were screened out at the outset, and never environmentally assessed as required under the EAA. • Hydro One also failed in its draft ESR to consider the request to "give greater consideration to environmental, social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines, and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost". In fact, Hydro One: o failed to carry out any form of meaningful social impact assessment, as illustrated by the fact that the draft ESR fails to mention that parents of children attending St. Monica Elementary School in Markham have expressed in overwhelming numbers their intention to withdraw their children from the school should Hydro One proceed with the new line. Hydro One is aware of these intentions, as well as the fact that the School Board is required to operate enrolment viable schools and that in the Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —104— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Banisters & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents Page 8 absence of adequate enrolment the School Board would have no choice but to close the school, which would also mean the relocation of a day care and other community facilities and programs. o repeatedly emphasizes that its over-riding criteria which dominated and screened out other alternatives were cost savings and getting the line in service within two years — not environmental or social considerations. See pg iv of the draft ESR which emphasizes "Achieving the Need Date at the Lowest Feasible Cost" and "Shortest Construction Time"; • Hydro One also failed in its draft ESR to include the requested "assessment of the potential economic impact on homeowners and the loss of enjoyment of residential yards that are in proximity to the hydro corridors" In response to the Town and Region of York concern on this issue, Hydro One dismisses concerns about property values stating that "the relative value of homes backing on rights of ways is a subjective matter" o ignores the fact that the Ontario Joint Board has previously ordered Ontario Hydro to offer to buy any residence within 75 metres of a proposed 230 kV transmission corridor because of perceived impacts on the use and value of the property. Rather than carrying out the requested assessment, Hydro One takes the approach that the responsibility for impacts is that of the Town and Region: o It infers Town and Regional planning are at fault for allowing development to occur in proximity to the ROW: "It is important to note that the existing transmission facilities were in place long before the surrounding development in the area. The Town of Markham was advised of the plans for redevelopment of the corridor over 20 years ago." o However, our review of subdivision applications over the last 20+ years indicates neither Ontario Hydro nor Hydro One ever sought a warning on title regarding proposed subdivisions or other development adjacent to this corridor, or otherwise commented adversely on such proposed development. Hydro One's approach is also highly unfair to the Towns of Markham and Aurora and their residents. Hydro One's approach is to cause considerable social, environmental and economic impacts on properties and people adjoining the line in Markham and Aurora, without .recognition of the benefits being obtained in other municipalities, and without attempting to mitigate impacts in Markham and Aurora where it is possible to do so by spreading mitigation costs to those who benefit. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —105— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Banisters & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 9 This proposed line will serve not only Markham, but most of York Region and also benefit Hydro One customers across other parts of Ontario, by taking load off the Claireville to Minden line, now feeding Newmarket. Despite the fact this new line will benefit many others across a large part of Ontario, Hydro One has unfairly refused to consider that a measure which could mitigate impacts in Markham, namely undergrounding a portion of the line, should be a Hydro One system cost. Hydro One's position is clearly not only unfair, but discriminatory to Markham. Currently Hydro One has an application before the Ontario Energy Board to construct two new 2.2 km 230 W underground transmission circuits in downtown Toronto. The project cost is $44.7 million. In its application, Hydro One states that "The proposed new underground transmission lines are considered network assets with the cost included in the network pool. These costs No doubt many other private as well as public sector proponents will be taking careful note of the way in which your office responds to this flawed, unfair and discriminatory approach to environmental assessment by Hydro One. 2 Application EB-2004-0436; Exhibit A, Tab 2, Schedule 1, pp.2-3. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow I —106— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents Page 10 Fourth, we are writing to ensure your office clearly understands the extent to which Hydro One has avoided assessing serious social and economic impacts being caused by this proposal. Concern about EMF is widespread and is causing real social impacts to the community and its institutions, such as St. Monica Elementary School. The Hydro One draft ESR ignores the concern in the Markham and Regional Council Resolutions regarding EMF: "Provide information on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on human health; disclose the relative EMF strength emanating from the proposed 230 kV line; undertake a health risk assessment of the proposal in relation to adjacent urban land uses, in particular residential uses, schools and parks; and identify mitigating measures that would ensure that any proposed changes in transmission capacity will not increase the public's exposure to EMFs;" Despite this clear resolution, Hydro One's draft ESR takes the position that "a health risk (from EMF) has not been established". Hydro One advances no specific measures it would take regarding what it admits to be "the seriousness of this issue and the associated public concern" other than to use its usual optimal phasing of conductors to reduce EMF and steel poles in place of lattice towers "where possible to reduce visual effects", noting this co -incidentally would bring a comparative reduction in EMF at the edge of the right of way. However, the fact is that there will be significant increase in EMF levels beyond those now present, and this is not discussed in the draft ESR. The report attached to this letter by David K. Richmond, P. Eng. "Projected Magnetic Field Level Analysis" contains the following information not disclosed by Hydro One: "Buttonville TS to Elgin Mills • In this portion of the ROW, which is abutted by numerous sub -division homes and an elementary school and day care centre, 0 2006 magnetic field values will be approximately 2 times higher (maximum loading levels) at the edge of the rebuilt transmission line ROW compared to the measured 2004 value; 0 2015 magnetic field values will be approximately 5 times higher (maximum loading levels) at the edge of the rebuilt transmission line ROW compared to the 2004 value; When operating at average load in 2015 o double the width of land (140 feet or 43 metres compared to the current 70 feet or 21.4 metres) along both sides of the ROW will be exposed to 2 mG or greater of magnetic field emissions; Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I . Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —107— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson I_LP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 11 o the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW in this area will be 9 mG3, or 4.5 times greater than that measured in 2004; When operating at maximum load in 2015 (approximately four hours per work day during winter months and seven hours per work day during summer) 0 2.6 times the width of land (184 feet or 56 metres compared to the current 70 feet or 21.4 metres) along both sides of the ROW will be exposed to 2 mG or greater of magnetic field emissions, compared to the 2004 level; and . o the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW in this area will be 10.1 mG, or 5 times greater than that measured in 2004. Parkway TS North of Highway 7 to Buttonville TS As of 2015: • In this portion of the proposed rebuilt line, which also has numerous existing and under -construction homes and higher density residential units in close proximity, magnetic field emissions will be 21.6 mG, at the edge of the ROW (120 ft) for maximum loading conditions; • When operating at average load, land within 161 feet or 49 metres on both sides of the ROW center line will be exposed to 2 mG or higher of magnetic field emissions; • At maximum loading conditions, the width of land on both sides of the ROW exposed to these levels of magnetic field emissions increases to 190 feet or 58 metres, The Engineering Report concludes: "Although Hydro One has included design measures that would somewhat reduce magnetic field levels, it is difficult for them to achieve high quality magnetic field reductions in this particular corridor with an overhead construction approach. With overhead lines, distance is what is required to achieve significant magnetic field abatement. As can be seen from the study results usually a 45m to 60m separation from the ROW centre line is required to keep magnetic field In other words, this narrow corridor, surrounded in large part by residential uses and public parkland, is clearly the wrong place to be building a major new transmission line. Also problematically, while Hydro One acknowledges that Ontario Hydro funded "several million collars of peer -reviewed research under the guidance of the Royal Society of Canada ... to contribute to the scientific understanding of potential health 3 Hydro One, draft ESR, Supply to York Region, Appendices. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow MM COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 12 effects resulting from EMF exposure", Hydro One fails to quote from or acknowledge the findings and recommendation of the resulting Royal Society of Canada Report, published in 2000, prepared for Ontario Hydro (and by that time Hydro One). Importantly, the Royal Society of Canada report contradicts Hydro One's position on EMF. Entitled "Report of the Panel Monitoring Ontario Hydro's Electromagnetic Field Risk Assessment Program", the report makes the following findings and recommendations which contradict the Hydro One attitude towards EMF and substantiate real concerns in this area. The Royal Society agrees there are health effects from EMF exposure and recommends "prudent avoidance". 7.4 Employees of the Electrical Utilities "Overall then, despite the limitations, there appears to be some small increase in risk of leukemias and perhaps brain tumors associated with EMF exposure. We note that in a number of studies brain tumors and leukemias are each observed to be increased, providing replication not seen for other cancers. The pattern, while not entirely consistent, seems clear, although the increased risk is small." (pg 40, emphasis added) "In conclusion, we note that these cases of leukemia and brain tumors occurred over the 19 years in the study so that the incidence rate is rouahlY 1-2 extra cases a Year attributable to EMF exposure in this large cohort of workers leavers and retirees." (pg 41, emphasis added) 7.5 Leukemia in children leukemia associated with EMFs although the magnitude of the increase is difficult to assess." (pg 42, emphasis added) 8. Conclusions 8.1 "In general these investigations are part of, and consistent with, the comments and conclusions of the Working Group of the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences [2]. That is, they support their conclusion that 60 Hz electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans." 8.2 "The evidence for a concern about possible cancer risk being associated with these fields comes from three Ontario Hydro sponsored studies." "Second are the studies of malignancies among employees of Ontario Hydro,examined alone and together with similar studies at Hydro Quebec and Electricite de France (see Section 5.3). These studies suggest, albeit with some inconsistencies, a relationship between magnetic and electric fields and the risk Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —109— COUNCIL = JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents I Page 13 of leukemia and possibly brain tumors. These results are consistent with the meta -analyses of other studies as reported by the Working Group. Third is the study of pediatric leukemia in Ontario. This study used a wide range of methods of assessing exposure and the results suggest an increased risk associated with increased magnetic field exposure (see Section 6.2)." 8.4 The NIEHS [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences] made the following statement its final report in June 1999 [55). "The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures." "The Panel of the Royal Society agrees with this proposal to reduce exposure. These studies and others suggest that passive regulatory action, or in the words of M.G. Morgan [3], "prudent avoidance", should be directed to reducing emphasis added) 9. Recommendations "Despite their limitations, epidemiological studies now appear to show a electric fields in the human body indicate that fields sufficient to effect genetic pg 47, emphasis added) In our opinion, given these findings of the Royal Society of Canada that electrical workers and children exposed to EMF do have a higher probability of suffering leukemia and other significant health damage, it was clearly wrong for Hydro One to state, as they do in their d raft ESR, that "a health risk (from EMF) has not been established". Hydro One also demonstrates clear disregard for the public interest by taking the position the "precautionary principle" is inapplicable to its activities and that it has no responsibility for evaluating potential siting choices using the concept of "prudent avoidance" — principles accepted in Canadian and U.S. regulatory systems. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow —110— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents Page 14 This approach is consistent with the practice of other regulators, such as, the California State Public Utilities Commission, which has responsibility for approving transmission facilities in that state, and which has for at least 10 years considered EMF to be a fundamentally important issue in its decisions. In a 2004 decision considering the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a new 230 kV transmission line, (Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Decision 04-08-046 dated August 19, 2004) the California PUC observed that in 1991, it found that "while EMF studies available at that time did not conclude that an EMF health hazard exists, it was appropriate to adopt several EMF policies and programs because of public concern and scientific uncertainty. We required that utilities undertake no -cost EMF mitigation measures and that they implement low-cost mitigation measures to the extent approved through a project's certification process. We defined low-cost to be in the range of 4% of the total project cost but specified that this 4% benchmark is not an absolute cap." The California PUC, in its 2004 decision, also noted that "The state of scientific knowledge has advanced in the period (since 1991). While causation has not been proved definitively, several studies in the intervening years found correlations that we cannot responsibly ignore... we must proceed with the knowledge that EMF exposure may increase the risk of certain health effects." The California PUC then went on to find that "it is entirely appropriate and prudent for us to consider the EMF levels that would be created by the various possible routings and configurations of the project". The policy position of the California PUC is consistent with the Town of Markham and Regional Council's cautionary request to Hydro One for evaluation of EMF effects. Unfortunately, Hydro One has ignored not only these requests, but also wishes to deny the findings of the Royal Society of Canada. Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow I —111— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Banisters & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents Page 15 Conclusions For the reasons provided in this letter, and those contained in the annexed expert reports, as well as those which you will receive in comments from others, it is evident that Hydro One's approach to environmental assessment requires immediate and clear rectification in order to assure the viability of EA in Ontario. If one of the largest publicly owned corporations in Ontario is seen to be able to treat the public interest, as embodied in accepted principles of EA, with the disdain evident in its Class EA for this project, the legislation will be meaningless and the objectives of EA thwarted, i.e., "the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment." Fortunately, and contrary to the impression which Hydro One has tried to create, there are clear means of providing increased power to York Region while Hydro One undertakes the work it should have carried out from the beginning: a full, individual EA, with Terms of Reference subject to public consultation and Ministerial approval. We believe that the facts in this natter are compelling as to why an individual and proper EA is required. Given Hydro One's fundamentally flawed EA, the alternatives and the serious impacts which have been ignored, it is clear that allowing Hydro One to do anything less than a full and proper EA would send the wrong signal to others as to the integrity and significance of EA practice in Ontario. Assuming you have the jurisdiction to do so, having regard for Markham's position that there must first be EAA approval of the Hydro One Ten Year Transmission Plan, this is clearly the occasion for you as the Minister to accede to the requests made by so many others, i.e., order a full and individual EA. Yours sincerely, GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP David Estrin Certified Environmental Law Specialist c.c. Hydro One Networks Inc. DE:tp Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow I —112— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP I Barristers & Solicitors I Patent & Trade Mark Agents Page 16 Reports and Other Attachments Enclosed • Review and Comments on Hydro One Supply to York Region Draft Environmental Study Report, December 20, 2004, Bancroft -Wilson Associates • Photo of St. Monica's Catholic Elementary School, viewed through transmission tower, taken by Stephanie Lake • Projected Magnetic Field Level Analysis, December 17, 2004, David K. Richmond, P. Eng. o Appendix 1: Select Aerial Photographs With EMF Contours Showing Extent of Magnetic Fields from Proposed 230 kV Transmission Line • Transmission Line Undergrounding — Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis, December 20, 2004, Barker, Dunn & Rossi • Alternatives for Meeting New Load Requirements, September 11, 2004, David K. Richmond, P. Eng. • Analysis and Alternative View point, November 8, 2004, David K. Richmond, P. Eng. • Interim Power Supply Measures, November 20, 2004, David K. Richmond, P. Eng. 5919481 Montreal I Ottawa I Toronto I Hamilton I Waterloo Region I Calgary I Vancouver I Moscow -113- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Bancroft -Wilson Associates Review and Comments IsI Hydro One Supply to York Region Draft Environmental Study Report December 2004 Prepared for: The Town of Markham Hydro One Task Force Prepared by: Chris Bancroft -Wilson Bancroft -Wilson Associates Environmental Consultants 17296 Humber Station Road Caledon East, Ontario LON 1E0 —114— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Table of Contents A.1 Expertise and Experience in Transmission Planning, Route Selection and Environmental Assessments....................................................................................................... I A.2 Summary of Main Comments on the Hydro One Draft ESR......................................... 1 • define risks in the context of the risk bearer; .......................................................................... 5 • acknowledge the legitimacy of public risk perception; .......................................................... 5 • recognize that public perceptions can cross the boundary into reality and be the cause of real and observable socio-economic impacts; ......................................................................... 5 ESRExecutive Summary .......................................................................................................... 14 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................15 1.1 Need for the Undertaking..........................................................................................15 1.2 Purpose of the Undertaking....................................................................................... 18 1.3 Description of the Undertaking................................................................................. 18 1.4 Approval Process and Regulatory Requirements..................................................... 18 2. CLASS EA PROCESS..................................................................................................... 20 2.2 Select System Options.............................................................................................. 20 2.4 Initial Stakeholder Notification. ...................................... ......................................... 20 2.5 Inventory Environment.............................................................................................20 2.6.1 Screening Process................................................................................................. 21 3.2.2 Socio-economic Features..................................................................................... 24 4. Public Consultation........................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Input from the Stakeholders...................................................................................... 28 4.2.2 Government and Agency Contacts and 4.2.3 Stakeholder Correspondence ........ 28 4.2.4 Special Initiatives..................................................................................................30 4.3.2 Alternatives...........................................................................................................30 4.3.3 Real and Perceived Effects.................................................................................. 31 • define risks in the context of the risk bearer; ........................................................................ 32 • acknowledge the legitimacy of public risk perception; ........................................................ 32 • recognize that public perceptions can cross the boundary into reality and be the cause of real and observable socio-economic impacts; ....................................................................... 32 4.4 Final Notification............................................................................................................ 34 5. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS......................................................... 34 5.2 Routing Objectives.................................................................................................... 34 5.4 Route Identification Process.....................................................................:............... 36 5.4 Route Screening........................................................................................................ 37 5.5 Comparative Evaluation of Short -Listed Routes ...................................................... 38 5.5.1 Human Settlement / Resources / Heritage Criteria Group .................................... 39 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................40 7. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 40 8. MONITORING PROGRAM............................................................................................ 41 9. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................41 APPENDICES - Maps and Mapping........................................................................................ 41 Bancroft -Wilson Associates i December 2004 -115- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 A. Introduction & Summary of Main Comments on the Hydro One Draft ESR Bancroft -Wilson Associates were retained by Gowlings, solicitors for the Town of Markham/Aurora Hydro One Task Force, to review the Hydro One Supply to York Region draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) dated October 21, 2004 and provide our professional comments on its methods and results having regard for the requirements of the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities, the Environmental Assessment Act, and environmental assessment practice in Ontario. A.1 Expertise and Experience in Transmission Planning, Route Selection and Environmental Assessments I am a professional environmental planner and environmental assessment specialist with 30 years of experience in all aspects of EA. I have a BA Hons. in Geography and Economics from the University of Guelph. In addition, I have over 20 years experience in the planning, environmental assessment and approval of transmission facilities in Ontario with the former Ontario Hydro with considerable expertise in preparing individual and Class EAs. I was a Supervising Environmental Planner at Ontario Hydro for twelve years with responsibility for conducting route and site selection studies and environmental assessments for high voltage (115 kV — 230 kV) and extra high voltage (500 kV) transmission facilities. I and my department were responsible for designing and carrying out land use and environmental studies to identify, evaluate, assess and recommend preferred alternative transmission routes for new transmission facilities across Ontario. I was also fully involved in the public involvement and socio-economic impact assessment programs associated with those transmission projects as well as the technical and system evaluations of alternative transmission options and routes. I have served as an expert environmental witness, on behalf of Ontario Hydro, for transmission route selection, public consultation, environmental assessment methods and evaluation results for the Southwestern Ontario Transmission Plan Stage and Route Stage consolidated hearings and for the Demand Supply Plan Environmental Assessment hearings regarding transmission route selection and the Ontario -Manitoba transmission project. Details of my transmission planning and environmental assessment expertise and experience are found in part B, on page 11. A.2 Summary of Main Comments on the Hydro One Draft ESR It is my professional opinion that: Bancroft -Wilson Associates -116- December2004 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 draftiES'R for "Final review", The "Final Notice" required by the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities ("Class EA') presumes that the ESR provided for final public and agency review is at least complete. The Supply to York Region draft ESR does not contain any of the public input, comments or concerns from the second round of PIC's conducted by Hydro One in October 2004. In addition it does not include any of the Hydro One responses to that input and concerns, nor their numerous commitments to future actions and inclusion of certain documentation in the draft ESR. This is clearly inconsistent with s. 3.4 of the Class EA. York Region Supply Study (YRSS) conducted in 2003 recommended the preferred transmission option. "... the report recommends the following steps: initiate environmental assessment, preliminary engineering and project development work under Plan B and Confirm that Plan B is indeed the lowest cost plan.... " [YRSS p. 31 Conclusions and Recommendations]. Plan B in the YRSS became Option 1 in the draft ESR. This fact was confirmed by Hydro One in the ESR. `Hydro One's Transmission. Solutions report documented the need for transmission reinforcement in York Region and Hydro One's preferred solution [ESR p.2, para. 2]. As a result the ESR process initiated by Hydro One was designed and carried out on the basis that Plan B was the recommended plan and that the only alternative was Plan A. Additional "givens" when commencing the ESR process were, that Plan B had lesser environmental impact than any other alternative and that Plan B was preferred by the municipal utilities in York Region that it was meant to serve. These assumptions and facts are clearly indicated by the materials produced by Hydro One prior to the start of the ESR and are repeated in the introduction to the draft ESR. [ESR p.iv parag. 4] engineers at hIydro;i�ne This fact is evident throughout the draft ESR and was clearly detrimental to the EA process carried out by Hydro One, the public consultation program, the identification and evaluation of alternatives and the subsequent decision making process. • Six distinct areas of the Supply to York Region EA process are seriously compromised: 1) the selection of a recommend system option prior to commencement of the EA study; 2) the criteria and "policies" used in the routing objectives; 3) the screening process and criteria used to screen out alternative options; 4) the environmental evaluation process which among many short -comings failed to adequately assess socio-economic effects; Bancroft -Wilson Associates -117- December 2004 COUNC.I L — JANUARY 11, 2005 5) the EASR fails to conclude if the net environmental effects of the recommended undertaking are acceptable; and 6) the public consultation program was basically an "announce and defend" exercise by Hydro One with no evidence that public or municipal input was seriously wanted, considered or utilized in the EA process. This is in marked contrast to the recognition of the need to do so by Ontario Hydro, in a 1993 study to supply more power to this same area. In its 1993 study, Ontario Hydro recognized the need for "Alternatives to" described as "Generic System Options" "Will be considered throughout the project to meet the growing needs of the BES". They include: • transmission options purchases from other utilities • demand management options for moderating the level and pattern of electricity consumption within the study area • operational measures for alleviating the stress of present. [Scope Document, Greater Toronto Area Reinforcement Study (Report 91212, Revision 2, May 1993)] Note that four of the above five do not involve new transmission lines. The 2003 YRSS was a technical system study. "The preferred plan has been selected based on technical considerations. The issue of cost allocation between (sic) utilities was not addressed." [YRSS p. 1]. There was no environmental or social assessment included in the study and no environmental professionals were on the study team. However, surprisingly the report states on p.28 "A number of other options.... were considered but eliminated due to technical or environmental concerns." And on p.30 "Plan B is preferred for the following reasons:.., and it is expected to have a lesser environmental impact". Throughout the draft EASR Hydro One implies that the YRSS "assessment" of transmission options included environmental and social criteria. pvemdug and dommated the Yair use of other criteria, particularly social isnpacs; The use of routing objectives or guidelines is a common practice in a transmission project. Normally the guidelines include environmental and technical criteria. The SYR project "objectives' are similar to those usually applied in transmission studies, but they differ substantially in the inclusion of two "objectives". Objective 3. [p. 45, parag. 5] "To the maximum extent possible existing transmission corridors should be utilized before new corridors are developed..." and Bancroft -Wilson Associates —118— December 2004 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 the addition of this statement to several of the environmental criteria "i.e. should new transmission corridors be necessary". As a result, the normally important criteria "to avoid residential areas" becomes, for the SYR project routing objective #6, "To the maximum extent possible, avoid existing and planned residential areas (i.e. should new transmission corridors be necessary" [p. 45, parag. 5] • In its "screening process", Hydro One implies there exists a provincial policy or "long standing planning criterion" that requires it to "fully utilize existing R/Ws before considering any new R/W" in its transmission planning studies and EAs. As a former Supervising Environmental Planner at Ontario Hydro with 20 years experience in transmission planning and EA I can categorically conclude this is an inappropriate and prejudicial criterion. Existing ROWS are always considered in transmission studies and EAs, but to suggest that new or partially expanded ROWS cannot be considered equally is entirely wrong, misleading and a complete distortion of historical Ontario Hydro and recent Hydro One practice in planning new transmission facilities. Examples are provided below from the ESR for the Supply to Oakville project illustrating how routing criteria traditionally considered the impact on adjoining residents. • In my experience in supervising, conducting and reviewing transmission planning projects at Ontario Hydro I have never seen the objective to use existing ROWS given such overriding and dominant weighting in any transmission planning project at the expense of other potential routes using new or even expanded ROWS. consrdering atLy short term prnterun supply options in the_JaS2— e.g. building additional 27.6 kV feeders on road allowances — to delay the in service date for new transmission facilities beyond the end of 2006 / early 2007 and thereby provide additional time to consider other reasonable supply options. "Likelihood of Achieving Need Date: The majority of the options identified would have a significant likelihood of not meeting the project need date. The key factors are associated with extended approval processes including longer construction periods and the time required to expropriate property or to negotiate the purchase of properties. Longer rights of way will require longer construction periods. Seven of the options are about 2 times longer than the shortest option (Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS). " [ESR p.55, parag.11 • Given the current situation with extensive public and municipal opposition, the numerous deficiencies in the SYR EA, the remaining approval process requirements and the need to acquire new easement rights for portions of the ROW for Option 1, there is in fact no way Hydro One's recommended undertaking can be in service by early 2007. Hydro One and the local utilities will therefore be forced to develop interim measures to maintain the integrity of the supply to York Region. • By their exclusionary and incorrect use of the above screening criteria Hydro One restricted the scope of the EA study alternatives to only two existing rights -of -way— Options 1 and 2. 'As a result of the screening, the options that made exclusive use of existing transmission Bancroft -Wilson Associates 4 December 2004 —119— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 corridors in York Region were selected for more detailed analysis. " [p. 12,parag. I ] Hydro One thereby failed to fully or adequately consider other reasonable transmission alternative. methods that could potentially supply the needs of northern York Region with less environmental, social and community impact. It should be noted that Ontario Hydro has planned and had approved hundreds of transmissio n projects over the past 30 years for facilities utilizing existing and completely new ROWs. which included: • define risks in the context of the risk bearer; • acknowledge the legitimacy of public risk perception; • recognize that public perceptions can cross the boundary into reality and be the cause of real and observable socio-economic impacts; .to 1e snng line; ana wno WMii- not be physically �rsplaced, were q-lg1�enreal re�azd In this case, the socio-economic impact assessment included criteria such as resident displacement, resident disruption, compatibility with community character, disruption of community facilities, and displacement or disruption to business operations. These criteria were defined Bancroft -Wilson Associates -120- December 2004 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 and applied along side the land use and environmental factors which integrated social and economic considerations into their `situation' definition statements. The ESR contains only two evaluation criteria related to properties or residents and they are `potential for removal of existing land uses" and `Potential for Resident /Property Owner Concerns (e.g. concerns about EMF, property values, visual effects)" [ESR Table 5.3 Evaluation of Alternative Routes, p. 65] In fact the second criteria used by Hydro One is only an estimate of the number of properties adjacent to the alternative routes. The indicator is "Estimated number and linear extent of adjacentproperties" and concludes "653 adjacent properties" for Option 1 and "723 adjacent properties" for Option 2. [EAS, Table 5.3, p.65] The Hydro One ESR and environmental assessment include no evaluation or data on actually how many homes or residences are adjacent to the alternatives, how many residents maybe affected or what the effects and disruption on this number of residences and residents might be. The criteria "disruption to residences, properties and land uses" have always been important criteria in a transmission siting and evaluation process. However, equally important criteria, that can often result in greater total individual and community impact, are "disruption or effects on adjacent residents, property owners and communities". Once again, the Supply to the Town of Oakville ESR provides an example of the types of evaluation criteria normally used to assess Human Settlement and Socio-economic effects in a transmission Class EA: Table 6.1 — Environmental Evaluation of Northern Sub -routes [Supply to the Town of Oakville ESR, page 41] Human Settlement Factor Criteria: • Number of buildings removed • Number ofproperties affected • Number of homes within 50/1001250m (of the ROW) • Number of schools within 5011001250m (of the ROW) Table 6.3 Socio-economic Effects Comparison of Northern Sub -routes. • Resident Disruption • Compatibility with Community Character • Community Facility Disruption In my experience these or very similar criteria have been used in Ontario Hydro EA transmission studies to evaluate effects on residences and residents since the early 1980's. The above criteria were used by Ontario Hydro's Environmental Services and Approvals Department as recently as 1997 in the Oakville Class EA transmission supply project; a project, which in fact has many similarities to the Supply to York Region Project. How Hydro One's evaluation process could suddenly by revised and reduced to two simple evaluation criteria `S emoval of buildings and disruption to property owners" is astounding. can only assume that the usual Human Settlement and Socio-economic criteria, as applied in the Supply to Oakville Class EA were deliberately excluded by the Hydro One Bancroft -Wilson Associates —121 December 2004 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Environmental and/or System Planning management so that the extensive effects on residences, residents and communities would not be evaluated or acknowledged in the ESR. While Hydro One went to great lengths to demonstrate there are minimal environmental and land use effects (e.g, no displacement of homes or businesses) associated with utilizing the existing ROW, they totally minimize the significant socio-economic effects that result from using an existing narrow ROW through residential areas. The EMF issue is addressed with numerous quotes and rhetoric but with no firm data indicating the anticipated field strengths along the recommended undertaking, any commitment to what field strengths will be maintained and their relationship to international standards. project requires the dismantling and removal of the existing line, tower and tower foundations and then the construction of the new line with more towers, in new tower locations and will result in almost double the construction period, construction activities, construction disturbance and potential for construction impacts as opposed to building the same line on a new right-of-way. In addition this major heavy construction operation must take place in a narrow 100-140 foot wide corridor through 10 km of residential area and 5km of parkland and environmental areas. However, this aspect of the project is not considered in the evaluation of alternatives nor presented by Hydro One as a disadvantage or basis for potentially increased impacts or disturbance to residents, park users or sensitive plant, avian or animal species near the line. • It is somewhat incredulous that Hydro One is unable to provide any studies regarding effects on property values despite the fact they and Ontario Hydro have been in the ROW Bancroft -Wilson Associates 7 December 2004 -122- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 acquisition and expropriation business for decades. The statement from a Hydro One real estate agent at one of the PICs that property values may decrease by 10% during the construction phase was raised by local residents at the October 2004 PIC in Aurora. Hydro One officials indicated the issue would be addressed in the draft ESR. It is not addressed or acknowledged in the draft ESR. Optaon I rs pre£ertedouer Ophon 2The primary purpose of an environmental assessment, whether a Class EA or Individual EA, is to assess and compare the environmental and social effects and implications of various alternative methods of carrying out an undertaking and to assess and evaluate the net environmental effects or residual effects of constructing and operating the recommended undertaking. zegarding corr�cnum-m social;; economic, vrsual; health and.othe po .gnbal rmpacts of Hydro One's two options thatneede`4.d to Sull%y studied, assessed and documented by Hydro One in the EA project. Reading just a few of the points raised by these submissions and what the Municipalities considered necessary for a thorough assessment of the potential impacts and effects of the transmission options, and which were subsequently entirely ignored by Hydro makes it obvious that • Hydro One officials at the PICs and the wording contained in the Draft ESR clearly demonstrated Hydro One's defensive and intransigent attitude to any public or municipal questioning of their process, alternatives, analysis or motives. An example from the draft ESR on p.32 " The agreement to consider a broader range of alternatives also generated demands for a broader public consultation program to include residents and municipal officials in the potentially affected areas. These demands were expressed by those opposed to the initial two York Region transmission options. Hydro One regarded this recommendation as premature and not lust cause for further delay. " • Several other examples from the draft ESR that demonstrate Hydro One's contempt for any public participation are provided under section 4. Consultation. o At the October PICs Hydro One committed to provide summary reports of the PICs in Richmond Hill and Aurora on their web site within a few days. A search of the Hydro One York Region Study web site on December 9`h, 2004 could not locate any summaries of the October PICs. Bancroft -Wilson Associates -123- December 2004 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 o The identification and evaluation of seven additional transmission options in the summer of 2004 by Hydro One was the result of extensive public and municipal pressure. However, the subsequent evaluation of these new options by Hydro One was highly contrived, done without any public review, inherently flawed and clearly biased in favour of Hydro One's two original options. • The EA is seriously deficient in not identifying and forthrightly discussing in the main text, the extent and significance of the residual concerns predicted by Hydro One's own assessment [Table 5.4] `ybr property owners and residents concerns regarding health effects, decreased property value and increased visibility "during and after construction in relation to the 653 adiacent properties and 2 schools. " • In Table 5.4, and no where else in the ESR, Hydro describes the residual effects on residents and property owners: "Residual Effects —Although resident/property owner health and visual concerns will be reduced through mitigation measures in tower design, it is still expected some people may remain anxious over these concerns. "No further discussion of this net effect or its significance is provided in the draft ESR. Bancroft -Wilson Associates -124- December 2004 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 The EA Act requires a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the recommended undertaking. S 5.6 and S 9. provide only brief summaries of the advantages of the preferred option ( e.g. less schools adjacent than Option 2) and no description of the disadvantages e.g. 632 properties adjacent, adjacent to two schools / school yards, potential anxiety to residents re EMF, property values etc. The residual effects are only presented (buried) in Table 5.4 and appear nowhere else in the ESR text. • The discussion of potential environmental effects and mitigation measures in section 7 is superficial and provides no substantive commitments to actions or assurances to agencies or the public about how mitigation and corntruction activities will be managed to avoid impacts. • There are no monitoring program issues related to Hydro One's own acknowledged residual effects related to anxiety over EMF concerns, decreases in property values, schools or visual effects. Hydro One continues to ignore the legitimacy of these issues and clearly has no idea how to deal with them. The data maps used to calculate the `Length of existing residential development" for the route evaluations were outdated: `Data Source: Region of York (orthorectified image 1999, single line road network 2004, parcel fabric 2004) Map Art Publishing Toronto and Area (2005) " [Appendix A, p.l Data Sources]. Note the date of the image used to display the existing development in York Region is 1999. This indicates any information obtained form this map base is seriously out of data and makes any of "the length through residential areas" or in fact any of "the lengths through numbers" provided in the EA highly suspect and likely inaccurate. The parcel fabric would only show existing property and lot boundaries. There would be no way of knowing if they were built on or what use they supported. Hydro One apparently measured the length through residential and commercial/industrial development, but without the use of updated ortho photo images of the development on that parcel fabric it would not reveal what was actually in place on each property. What was vacant land in 1999 could well be subdivision in 2004. • One alternative is to share the 404 highway ROW. Towers on the edge / fenceline of the ROW and new easement ROW on private property; • Another is to build a 230 kV transformer station north of Highway 9 on property Hydro already owns at Penville SS on the Essa to Clareville 500kV ROW and build a 9-10 kin 230 line on new ROW to connect to the existing line at Holland Marsh Jct.then into Armitage TS Another is to take a new 230 kV line down from ESSA TS on the existing 500kV ROW — there is lots of room as Hydro owns 600+ feet - and then turn east on a new ROW to Holland Marsh Jct. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 10 December 2004 -125- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Evaluaie the signtjIccznce o nny z emaznzngnef effects or'concerns,- B. Professional Transmission Planning and Environmental Assessment Expertise and Experience- C. Bancroft -Wilson • From 1972 to 1975, I was a Management and Professional Trainee in the Property Division of Ontario Hydro, where I trained in real estate appraisal, acquisition and land use planning. • In 1975 I joined the newly established Route and Site Selection Division of Ontario Hydro as a planner, and later senior planner, in the Land Use and Environmental Planning Department where I worked on individual and Class EA projects for new 115kV, 230kV and 500kV transmission facilities throughout Ontario. • From 1980 to 1990, I was a Supervising Planner in the Land Use and Environmental Planning Department and supervised a multidisciplinary group of 10 -16 environmental specialists conducting environmental planning studies and preparing individual EAs for the Southwestern Ontario Transmission Plan Stage and Transmission Route Stage projects. • From 1983 1988, I was the Supervising Planner responsible for the environmental planning and environmental assessment on three major transmission planning studies in southwestern Ontario resulting from the Plan Stage approvals and subsequent court decisions. • The overall EA project was named the Southwestern Ontario Transmission Study and involved 4 separate but coordinated projects to select preferred transmission routes for 500kV transmission lines: between Bruce NPD and Essa TS near Barrie; between Bruce NPD and the London area; for a new London Area 500kV-230kV TS site; and, a 500kV line between the new London Area TS and the Nanticoke GS on Lake Erie, Bancroft -Wilson Associates 11 December 2004 -126- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 • Each of the 3 routing studies involved the identification, evaluation and detailed environmental assessment of over 1000 km of alternative transmission routes. Our studies and routing alternatives considered the use of existing Hydro corridors, abandoned rail lines, the partial use and expansion of existing Hydro corridors and the 400 series of highways as well as numerous entirely new rights -of -way. All these routing alternatives were accepted, evaluated and considered equally in these EA studies. The EA was subject to an extensive government and public review, followed by hearings under the Consolidated Hearings Act. • The Route Stage hearings for the Southwestern Ontario Transmission Study EA extended over a period of 16 months in 1985-1986. As the Supervisor of the four environmental study teams that produced the environmental analysis and assessment components of the EA I was the lead environmental witness for Ontario Hydro. I believe I spent in excess of 30 days on the witness stand at the central and four project locational hearings. • As an expert witness on the environmental effects of transmission lines and facilities I have given considerable evidence on both the methods and process for identifying and assessing the impacts of transmission lines and evaluating alternative plans, routes or sites. One particular point, which is highly relevant to the Supply to York Region project, and was included in my evidence and that of my colleagues during the Southwestern Ontario hearings, was that length of a transmission route is not necessarily an accurate indicator of overall environmental impact of that route or that the total number of environmental situations affected are in themselves indicators of overall environmental impact. • This evidence regarding how we conducted these impact assessments at Ontario Hydro in the 1980's was supported by the Joint Board in its 1987 Reasons for Decision, in which the Board actually approved our environmentally preferred plan and not Ontario Hydro's recommended plan. • In 1989, based on my experience with the EAA and EA process I was seconded to the MOE's EA Project Improvement Process which subsequently became the EA Task Force. I was one of three principal authors of the final Task Force Report, which subsequently became the basis for several of the 1995 revisions to the EAA. In 1990, on my return to Ontario Hydro I was selected to be the environmental manager for the specially established Ontario -Manitoba Interconnection Project (OMIP) Department. I was responsible for the EA process design, EA route identification, evaluation and selection studies, supervision of a large team of Ontario Hydro environmental planners and another environmental team formed from two large environmental consulting firms. The project resulted in the selection of a preferred route, from Timmins, Ontario to the Ontario -Manitoba border, a distance over 1100 km, on an entirely new right-of-way. During the Ontario Hydro Demand - Supply Plan Hearings in 1991-2 I was one of four expert witnesses on Panel 7 - Transmission, which dealt with transmission system planning, the OMIP and general transmission planning and EA related matters such as route evaluation and selection, social impact assessment and public consultation. The DSP hearings were cancelled in 1992 after Ontario Hydro realized that the economic slow -down in Ontario would result in a surplus of generation capacity for several years. In 1998 Bancroft -Wilson Associates was retained by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, largely based on my experience with EA application to the electricity sector, to develop a new environmental assessment process for electricity sector projects. The opening Bancroft -Wilson Associates 12 December2004 -127- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 of the electricity market to competition and the introduction of Bill 35 made both public and private electricity project undertakings subject to the EAA and government wanted to make. the EA process more streamlined and efficient. • Between 1998 and 2001 we worked with the MOE, other Ministries, Ontario Hydro, other industry stakeholders and public interest groups to develop the Environmental Screening Process for Electricity Projects. The ESP was a self -assessment process similar to the Class EA process, with specific requirements on a proponent to: notify and consult with stakeholders, agencies and the public; fully identify, assess, and mitigate potential environmental effects; evaluate the significance of any remaining net effects or concerns; assess the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the project; and, to address and resolve any agency, stakeholder or public concerns and issues related to the project. • I was one of the principle authors and personally wrote most of the EA process, criteria and consultation requirements in the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, March 2001. The Guide includes a screening checklist that covers a wide range of the environmental and socio-economic aspects that must be considered and assessed under the ESP. • In 1999 I was retained by Ontario Power Generation, (OPG) to prepare a report documenting the development and evolution of transmission and generation facility siting and EA processes in order to identify related "best practices" developed in these areas by Ontario Hydro from early 1970's until March 1999. I and three co-authors produced the report "Ontario Hydra Siting Experience, The Development of Best Practices", December, 1999 • The "best practices" were identified based on my own experience, as well as those of the other report authors and other former Ontario Hydro practitioners. They included our collective understanding and knowledge of the historical evolution of the siting process, the introduction of EA and application of EA principles, the major projects involved and the development of project applications of various processes and practices. • In 1999 Bancroft -Wilson Associates was also retained by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to prepare a set of guidelines for proponents developing electricity projects, which at the time the OEB thought would fall under their environmental approval jurisdiction in a fashion similar to natural gas projects. I and another consultant subsequently prepared the Ontario Energy Board `Environmental Guidelines for the Siting, Construction and Maintenance of Electricity Transmission and Distribution Facilities in Ontario' [First Edition Draft 4, December, 1999]. • I continue to work in the environmental assessment and electricity sector and have recently worked on: an independent electricity generation project under the ESP; the development of Terms of Reference for a Parent Class EA; the federal EA for the Pickering `A' Restart project; two nuclear waste management EA projects for OPG. I am also currently retained as an environmental technical advisor to the Canadian Electricity Association and as an Aboriginal consultant by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office of AECL on two federal EAs for the Port Hope Area Initiative. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 13 December 2004 -128- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 C. Specific Comments on the Draft ESR — Presented by ESR Section Headings ESR Executive Summary documentrs misleading apd understates the significance of.the piojecti The document also uses the terms "reinforcement", "replace" and "replacement". Traditionally an upgrade — in an EA context and in terms of Hydro One's Parent Class EA - refers to improving or upgrading an existing line by replacing certain components such as conductors, insulators, raising the towers or adding new towers to reduce sag so that more power can be transmitted through the line. Tot#11V removing a46r o1c11ine andseplacrri'itwith 0yeaa'much-large and The statement describing the YRSS "an assessment process" is incorrect and misleading in the context of what it involved — technical and cost only- and in terms of this Class environmental assessment process. Identification and Assessment of Transmission Options — [p.iv, 4th parag.] The following is a substantially misleading statement: Benefits of Proposed Undertaking - "In comparison with the other options the undertaking offers the least environmental effects... and the least disruption to the natural and social environment. " A detailed effects assessment was only carried out for options 1 and 2. (S. 5.5) All other reasonable options were eliminated before proceeding to the detailed alternative evaluation and comparison. Which options required the displacement of homes and businesses?? [ p. v, parag. 1] • The ESR should clearly state that the net environmental effects of the undertaking are predicted to be relatively minor and/or ofan acceptable nature and therefore justify proceeding with the preferred transmission option 1. (refer to Class EA Doc. Pl-1 s1.2 the Undertaking) Just saying the effects are less than another option tells the reader nothing about the actual residual effects of the proposal as required by the EA Act. concerns, Referring to various municipal resolutions expressing concern, the ESR states "These resolutions have been passed despite the fact that the undertaking is a York Region solution to a York Region need"[ ESR p. v, parag.7] It is instructive that even in writing the ESR Hydro One cannot understand why some municipalities and their residents might not support the proposed undertaking. Hydro cannot apparently appreciate the perspective of those living in the Region, i.e. that it is not a York Region solution but a Hydro One solution being imposed on York Region, and perhaps it is not a very good and certainly not the only solution. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 14 December 2004 —129— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 would tie canstdeted as well;Sas alternaYtvea to The Hydro One process that occurred here did not provide for these opportunities. Further, the Hydro One process is not consistent with recommendations made by the Porter Commission with respect to public participation such as the following: "12.1 Ontario Hydro should be encouraged to continue, and where necessary, to expand its public participation program to ensure that the public is fully involved. Hydro should adopt joint planning processes whereby real decision -making authority is shared with, and in some cases left to the initiative of, citizen representatives. " Proyu}ce s electncity trar{srriission system; In my 20 plus years at Ontario Hydro I have never heard this excuse used for impacting so many communities, neighbourhoods and people. This facility is being planned today, in today's environment and subject to today's EA and planning requirements and standards and today's community expectations. e�eated Hydro One's corporate responsibility and provincial mandate is to identify, develop and propose a reasonable and acceptable transmission solution or solutions for York Region. If Hydro One wants York Region to do their work for them they should fully fund York Region's efforts. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Need for the Undertaking • The Class EA process for the Supply to York Region and results were predetermined by the results of the York Region Supply Study conducted in 2003. Hydro One's 2004 Transmission Solutions report documented the need for transmission reinforcement in York . Region and "documented the need far the transmission reinforcement in York Region and Hydro One's preferred solution". [ p. 2 para. 2] Bancroft -Wilson Associates 15 December 2004 —130— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Hydro One establishes the need for the undertaking in section 1.1 of the ESR. The required in service date for the undertaking, to avoid power shortages in northern York Region, is also briefly mentioned in s. 1.1. "Based on separate assessments by the Independent Electricity Market Operator (IMO), and a joint study conducted by the York Region utilities and Hydro One, a transmission reinforcement is required to maintain reliable electricity supply by the winter of 2006/07." [ESR p.1, parag. 31 However, in spite of the short time frame available to remedy these potential supply shortages, no discussion of various alternative short term or interim measures available to Hydro One or the local utilities to postpone or alleviate this problem in the short term are discussed in the YRSS. To provide only a two year window to complete approvals and construct the facilities is highly impractical, unreasonable and prejudicial to other feasible alternatives. Given the current situation with extensive public and municipal opposition, the numerous deficiencies in the SYR EA, the remaining approval process requirements and the need to acquire new easement rights for portions of the ROW for Option 1, there is in fact no way Hydro One's recommended undertaking can be I/S by early 2007. Hydra One and the local utilities will therefore be forced to develop interim measures to maintain the integrity of the supply to York Region. By not providing or considering any short term or interim supply options in the ESR — e.g. building additional 27.6 kV feeders on road allowances — to delay the in-service date for new transmission facilities beyond the end of 2006 / early 2007 Hydro One created an artificial and unrealistic I/S date and screening criteria that eliminated all other transmission alternatives except options 1 and 2. "Likelihood of Achieving Need Date: The majority of the options identified would have a significant likelihood of not meeting the project need date. .The key factors are associated with extended approval processes including longer construction periods and the time required to expropriate property or to negotiate the purchase of properties. Longer rights of way will require longer construction periods. Seven of the options are about 2 times longer than the shortest option (Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS). " [ESR p.55, parag.l] recent example, Ontario Hydro commenced the Supply to the Town of Oakville planning studies in 1991 for new 230 kV facilities to be constructed in 1998. `In 1991 Oakville Hydro and Ontario Hydro initiated a joint planning study to examine the adequacy of the electrical supply facilities serving the Town of Oakville. " And `An environmental assessment was initiated in October 1994 to obtain the necessary government approvals required under the EA Act... " [Ontario Hydro Class EA Supply to the Town of Oakville, Feb. 1997, page A-1, parag.3 & 4] The eventual recommended plan —115 kV Burlington/Upper Middle Road — was to be constructed in 1998. "This plan would require the construction of 14km of 115kV double circuit transmission line from Burlington to Palermo Junction in 1998; the construction of a new 230 kV Trafalgar TS in 1998; the construction of a small capacity 115kV station at Bronte TS in the 1998-2000 period, subject to growth. " [Supply to the Town of Oakville ESR p. 12,parag. 5] Bancroft -Wilson Associates 16 December 2004 —131— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Hydro One continues to play on the urgent need to proceed with transmission improvements again towards the end of s. 1.1 "Given current load forecast information and the lead times necessary for approval and construction offacilities, there is currently some risk that Hydro One's transmission facilities will not be able to reliably supply YorkRegion's electricity needs during peak periods, beginning in late 2006 The need to proceed with transmission improvements is urgent to minimize the consequences ofservice disruption. " [ ESR p.3, parag.6] The cry of "Urgency" was a tactic of Ontario Hydro for decades. In the nineteelr seventies Ontario Hydro was predicting 7% annual load growth and the need to double generation capacity every seven years in the province to avoid blackouts with new transmission lines everywhere. During the 1980's and 1990's Ontario Hydro finally recognized the only way to plan, assess and obtain approval for major new facilities was to take the necessary time and conduct comprehensive, integrated system planning and EA studies with fall public involvement. Developing need and system planning solutions in a vacuum was out. Instead, system options and supply studies were evaluated environmentally and socially to identify the best options for further detailed assessment using integrated facility siting and EA studies. Recommendations and decisiournaking were only accepted by conducting open, transparent, public planning and EA studies that included public scrutiny of criteria, a complete range of alternatives and a rationale and traceable decision making process. The days of using "urgency" and "blackouts" as a means to justify a hasty and contrived planning process were over. The Draft ESR on p. 2 parag. 4 states "The YRSS recommended.., the reinforcement of transmission facilities supplying northern York Region from either Buttonville TS or Claireville TS. " This statement is not supported by the text of YRSS report which states "The report recommends the following steps: initiate environmental assessment, preliminary engineering and project development work under Plan B and Confirm that Plan B is indeed the lowest costplan.... "[YRSS p. 31] Hydro One further demonstrates their lack of understanding of the EA process and planning issues involved for a major new transmission project such as this on p. 2, last parag, of the ESR. `Hydro One assumed that this study (YRSS) would confirm York Region's agreement with the need for the transmission reinforcement within the Region and the options to be considered. " Since there was absolutely no input from Regional or municipal planning staff, municipal or Hydro environmental planners, provincial agencies and ministries or the public, how could Hydro One possibly expect blanket Regional support for such a limited technical study of alternative transmission options? `public concern was expressed about the apparent absence ofproposals for new generation facilities and demand management programs within York Region which conceivably could defer the need date for new transmission. .....Those opposing transmission solutions are looking to these options to eliminate any effects within their neighbourhoods and are demanding a full examination of options as a prerequisite to further transmission planning." [ ESR p.3 parag.71 Bancroft -Wilson Associates 17 December 2004 —132— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 1.2 Purpose of the Undertaking The stated purpose of the undertaking includes such objectives as "lowest feasible cost consistent with employee and public safety and economic, social and environmental aspirations.... " [ESR p.4 parag. 4] It does not include the normal environmental commitment wording such as that contained in the EA Act "...providingfor the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment" or the wording used in the Ontario Hydro Parent Class EA for Transmission document to describe an undertaking under the Class EA process. "The undertaking for which approval is hereby requested is any project which falls within the class ofprojects defined above and which has been identified and deemed environmentally acceptable by the process described in this document. " [Class EA, R 6 Apr 92 p.1.1 s1.2] 1.3 Description of the Undertaking The following statement again illustrates Hydro One cannot apparently understand why people are concerned and why they expect a more comprehensive, open and honest assessment of transmission and other alternatives in an EA process. `Although the focus of that opposition was to stop the project and/or force the selection of other routes, the basis for opposition has largely focused,(sic) on concerns regarding property values, aesthetics and perceptions of EMF health risks. " [ESR p.5 parag. 6] 1.4 Approval Process and Regulatory Requirements • It ismas n]ht-hAioua [ESR Pg. 6, 2ad parag.] "The Class EA is consistent with the Category B screening process described in the MOE Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects and the projects subject to the Class are also consistent with Category B projects." The referenced screening process for electricity projects has a detailed Appendix C "Screening Criteria" and requires a proponent to answer the question whether the project has the potential for a negative environmental effect "criterion' listed in the schedule, without consideration of mitigation or impact management measures. Among the criterion which must be addressed are the following: Land Bancroft -Wilson Associates 18 December 2004 —133— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 2.1 have negative effects on residential, commercial or institutional land uses within 500 metres of the site? 2.3 be inconsistent with municipal land use policies, plans and zoning by-laws? Socio-economic 6.1 have negative effects on neighbourhood or community character? 6.8 cause public concerns related to public health and safety? • If there is the potential for such effects, `Me proponent must provide additional information and analysis in the screening report to describe those effects, identify mitigation or impact management measures to prevent to reduce the effects, and assess the significance of any remaining net effects." [MOE Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, March 2001, p.30,parag.5] Unfortunately, the draft ESR fails to `provide additional information and analysis in the screening report to describe those effects [Guide, Appendix C, p.69, 91 st parag.] just listed, and fails to "identify mitigation or impact management measures to prevent to reduce the effects, and assess the significance of any remaining net effects. " [Guide, Appendix C, p.71, last parag.] • [ESR p. 6, last parag.] "The approval process for both individual and Class undertakings also varies. Class EA's are not normally subject to detailed governmental review. This is consistent with the more frequent nature of these undertakings, the predictable environmental effects and the common process under which Class projects are planned and constructed. " This description of the "nature" of Class EA undertakings provided in the ESR conveniently fails to include the additional wording about the nature of a Class EA project that is contained in the Parent Class EA document. "...will be relatively small in scale, will have acceptable environmental effects..." [Class EA Doc R6, pl-1 Introduction] • However, for many years it has been recognized that building 230 kv lines in urban areas would be controversial and generate substantial opposition. For example, in the prior version of the parent Class EA, the following statement was made: "Ontario Hydro usually transmits electrical energy via overhead lines, except in densely populated areas where underground transmission lines may be used. The decision as to which will be used for a specific undertaking is dependant on the overall environmental implications of each. " [pg 4-1 of Revision 3, March 1986]. In the current version of the parent Class EA the words "and costs of each" have been added — but the otherwise the section remains the same — recognizing that their may well be controversy about such lines in "densely populated areas". • P. 8, parag. 2. Hydro One states that "The individual EA will not necessarily introduce new information of more extensive analysis of options. " This statement is incorrect and misleading. It is intended, along with the following statement that "a bump -up will lead to a prolonged and costly approval protest.... well beyond forecast need dates" to threaten and coerce the municipalities and residents with the prospect of power shortages if Hydro doesn't get its way. An individual EA would require a Terms of Reference, which is subject to public and agency input and review and MOE approval, and which can be tailored to the particular nature of the issue to be addressed. Given the scale, location, significance of the project and the potential environmental effects involved, both for Hydro One, local residents Bancroft -Wilson Associates 19 December 2004 —134— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 and the involved municipal councils, this is clearly an undertaking which merits an individual EA. 2. CLASS EA PROCESS The following statement is incorrect, misleading and is not supported by the draft ESR. The only socio-economic criteria consider was displacement of homes and businesses, a human settlement aspect. "The planning process used by Hydro One to identify and select the recommended plan for supply to York Region has integrated technical and economic analyses with existing and proposed land uses, the natural environment and the socio- economic environment" [P.11, parag. I] 2.2 Select System Options • The following statement is factually incorrect. According to the YRSS report, it was a technical study and there was in fact no environmental assessment of the options. "This study further assessed two of these options, and concluded that the Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS option was preferred based on preliminary, technical, cost and environmental considerations. "[p.11, parag.4] 2.4 Initial Stakeholder Notification The following provides further evidence of Hydro One's misleading public representation of the project, and the purpose of the YRSS, in its initial public announcement of the project in April 2004. An assessment of transmission options and the recommendation of a preliminary preferred option was documented in the York Region Supply Study in July 2003, and in Hydro One's Transmission Solutions Report in February 2004. " [p13, parag.l] The YRSS was not an actual "assessment" of transmission options in the EA context, but a technical evaluation of options as indicated in the YRSS Foreward "The preferred Plan has been selected based on technical considerations". The preceding statement is also the only occasion in the ESR where the term "preliminary" is used in conjunction with "preferred option". A small attempt at back tracking by the Community Relations author who likely recognized that no EA project is supposed to continence with a firm "preferred option." 2.5 Inventory Environment Eight "environmental factors" are listed for which Hydro One states it collected information. A listing of the information collected for each factor is found in ESR Appendix A. Most of this information is "length" or `numbers". There is however no inventory of the features of the socio-economic environment e.g. people and community, such as community character, Bancroft -Wilson Associates 20 December 2004 -135- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 cohesiveness, enjoyment of property, lifestyle and culture, number of residents adjacent to the existing lines, number of communities or neighbourhoods affected, numbers of students attending schools and using community facilities within, e.g 75 metres of the route. The "human settlement" factor only considers buildings not how people are affected e.g, number of schools adjacent are counted but there is no qualitative assessment of the significant of the effects on those individual schools. An EA requires more than a comparison of numbers, e.g., how are Seneca College Campus and students affected vs the St. Monica Elementary School which will be forced to close as a result of parental concerns about exposure by children to EMT from the upgraded line to be located immediately adjacent to the school. This is a major deficiency of the EA process and ESR. 2.6.1 Screening Process ➢ Duplication and exclusionary criteria — "Technical criteria" — land requirements; and "Provincial Policy" criteria — to make best use of existing corridors. These criteria are the same and the incorrect use of the joint use criteria is exclusionary to any new ROW. ➢ Duplication — "Safety of Joint Use corridors" under Technical, is the same criteria as "MOT requirements for 400 series highways", under Provincial Policy & Mandate. ➢ It was unreasonalile`for Hydro 01. td have relectd"the use of Tomorridorsa have g'regwi- to the pravlous PPsm lion of Ontano Ilydtq, as exemplified in the following excerpt from an Ontario Hydro Report considering future transmission capacity required in this part of the GTA: "As part of the infrastructure planning for the GTA, the Ministry of Transportation is conducting two highway studies, the Bradford By -Pass and the 404 Extension, which affect portions of South Simcoe County, York and Durham Regions, and overlap with selected zones and corridors identified by Ontario Hydro. Where these overlaps occur, the zones and corridors will be assessed to determine the cumulative impacts of hint right-of-way combining the transmission facilities and highway, or a separated right-of-way for each facility or a joint right-of-way in critical locations only. This will be accomplished through a coordinated cooperative planning program which has been established with the Ministry. Each proponent will seek independent approval of its respective undertaking."i (Ontario Hydro, Scope Document, Greater Toronto Area Reinforcement Study (Report 91212, Revision 2, May 1993), pg. 131 ➢ Exclusionary criteria — "Lead time of options relative to required in-service date: Hydro One and the IMO created the short lead time by delaying commencement of the Bancroft -Wilson Associates 21 December 2004 —136— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 YRSS and. then the ESR process. It is completely feasible to institute certain interim measures to extend the in-service date by 2-3 or even 5-10 years, but this was ignored by Hydro One. ➢ The "Socio-economic criteria" were exclusionary and completely inadequate — No homes would be displaced on existing ROW options but several hundred residents live adjacent to them. Displacement of homes, community features and businesses is both a human settlement and socio-economic issue. Since no homes were removed by Options 1 or 2, and Hydro One only assumed removals for the other new ROW options, the socio- economic screening was biased against new ROWs. It would have been fairer and more relevant if it considered number of residents living adjacent to or within 75m of the route. (this was a commonly used criteria in previous EAs for transmission), Undoubtedly Options 1 and 2 would have performed worst for that criteria?? • Aside from the inappropriateness of the exclusionary process adopted, Hydro One failed to consider relevant social and environmental features to be avoided from the outset. These concerns were raised by municipalities and the public through out the project but were not acknowledged, assessed or addressed in any meaningful way by Hydro One in the ESR. • In 1991 Ontario Hydro when proposed to build a new 230 kv circuit into the City of Windsor, it decided that it would avoid doing this by way of overhead lines and proposed doing so by way of underground cables. As Hydro described the area: `As the line enters the built up area south of Windsor... the cross streets become more heavily congested with residences. In this area six houses are within 75 metres of the centreline of the right ofway and are therefore considered to be in close proximity' Reasons stated by Ontario Hydro for eliminating the alternative of removing reusing a Hydro - owned right of way included: "this alternative affects more private properties... there are more proximities to residences than with the preferred alternative. " [Environmental Report #90366, 230 kV Transmission Line from Walker TS to J.C. Keith G.S, Windsor, 19911 • A similar example of concerned citizen, community and municipal opposition to new or upgraded lines in urbanized areas arose in Oakville in 1996. Ontario Hydro had conducted a system options study and completed a Class EA study that proposed to replace an existing 115kV line with a much larger 230 kV line. (Concerned adjacent residents and an adjacent public school make this project eerily similar to the SYR project.) In the Oakville case Ontario Hydro agreed to reconsider its electrical system studies to supply Oakville and to redo the EA process. `At the January 1996 workshop Ontario Hydro agreed to review the Bancroft -Wilson Associates 22 —137— December 2004 COUNCIL — JANUAR.Y 11, 2005 electrical needs for the Town of Oakville and so by doing restarted the entire planning process for the project. " [ Supply to the Town of Oakville ESR, February 1997, p.3, parag.l] At Ontario Hydro the final selection of a preferred route or site was normally a study team decision, subject to senior management approval and public review". We attempted to take the results of the costs, technical, land use and environmental and socio-economic evaluations and reach a consensus on the "best" or preferred route or site. In general, the study team looked for a route that had the least negative environmental and social effects, provided the most economic benefits, and was technically feasible and cost effective. This in fact is the process and logic described in the selection of the preferred route for the Supply to Oakville project. [Oakville ESR, p.101, s.8.2.3 Decision Rationale] • As the lead environmental witness during the Southwestern Ontario Transmission Project EA hearings I provided evidence on how we as a transmission planning team selected the preferred transmission routes. The Joint Board repeated my testimony in its Reasons for Decision on the Southwestern Ontario Transmission Plan (1987): "The following is the logic adopted by Ontario Hydro which the Joint Board feels is appropriate and worth mentioning —Hydro believes that once the need for a transmission line or facility has been established, the main focus and effort of all should be to find the `least worst route'. " (The Joint Board, 1987) I coined the term "least worst route" in my evidence because as Hydro planners we recognized that any transmission route, no matter how short, how much on existing ROWS, or how well planned, would have some degree of impact on the social and natural environment. It is my opinion that at the outset of the YRSS and looking for ways in which transmission capacity could be approved in York Region, it would have been consistent with "best practice" for Hydro One to not arbitrarily and simply assume that the use of transmission corridors that had been established as early as 1945, and along which land use had markedly changed over a period of more than 50 years with literally hundreds of residences, schools and parks adjacent to the ROW would provide an environmentally and socially acceptable solution for reinforcing the suuDly to Northern York Region Irideed'=had Hydro -One • In fact, Ontario Hydro reached this conclusion in a 1991 report examining transmission options in the northern GTA. Ontario Hydro had itself recognized that any f ntler use of this corridor, which in places is no more than 100 feet wide, which had been established in what was a rural area in 1945 but which by 1990 was surrounded by residential subdivisions, Bancroft -Wilson Associates 23 December 2004 —138— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 would be an area in which strong controversy and opposition would occur. Specifically, in an Ontario Hydro Report "North -South Transmission Reinforcement and Toronto By -Pass Concept Study", January 1991 prepared by John C. Sinclair, Senior Project Engineer and, Transmission Lines, Programs Department, (a highly experienced and respected transmission planning Engineer), an extensive evaluation was made of existing rights of way in terms of options for redevelopment. In this study Ontario Hydro recognized that it was advisable to evaluate the various transmission options in terms of their `approvability'. "What we are trying to avoid, based on past experience, is any detailed study of transmission alternatives with major technical, environmental, economic or regulatory constraints. The purpose of the report is to present a strategy for the NSTP project that involves only those transmission options that have a reasonable chance of approval by The authors recognized that "... If we dismiss an existing line from consideration, there must be a valid cost or technical argument that outweighs the environmental argument for Hydro to fidly utilize existing corridors. " However, he then stated: "Sometimes there are environmental arguments to support avoiding an existing corridor. " • Having established the desirability of avoiding the use of existing rights of way for new lines in certain "sensitive" areas on the basis that proposals for such areas could be foreseen to lead to controversy and would likely not lead to an approval, even if otherwise it was desirable to use them, Ontario Hydro then went on to specifically evaluate the existing 100 foot wide ROW from Armitage TS to Buttonville TS. Ontario Hydro's conclusion was that this corridor was in the category: "No Expansion". 3.2.2 Socio-economic Features This section is completely inadequate by any current SEIA professional EA standards as far as identifying and describing the socio-economic environment, communities, residents, community facilities — schools and relevant official plan policies affected by the options. Socio-economic Impact Assessment (SIA) became a component of routing or siting studies at Ontario Hydro beginning in 1976. It has expanded and evolved since then to become a major component and standard requirement of all provincial and federal EAs in Canada , • Socio-economic impact assessment is a comprehensive assessment of the effects of a project on a community that included consideration of all aspects of the project that have the potential to affect the socio-economic environment. At Ontario Hydro, the SIA for projects Bancroft -Wilson Associates 24 December 2004 —139— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 included all aspects of the community, including its psychological, sociological, economic, cultural and physical dimensions. This differed from the traditional "social impact, assessment" approach which was more narrowly focused on social and psychological. impacts. At Ontario Hydro `socio-economic impacts' were changes that occurred in people's lifestyles, cultural traditions and communities as a result of the development of a new project, policy or program, and that were perceived as significant by them. In 1987, the Bulk transmission West of London transmission project included a Socio- economic factor "communities and regions" which had several socio-economic route evaluation criteria that could be affected by the presence of a transmission line. These criteria were used along with the environmental and technical criteria to assess and evaluate the effects of the alternative routes. The criteria were: Community Character Residents Economy Community Facilities and Services Lifestyle and Culture [Bulk Transmission West of London, Appendix C, PC-1] The project thereby assessed resident displacement effects, disruption effects of the new transmission line on communities, which had traditionally been evaluated by mapping buildings under the human settlement factor, and described the social effects on the residents, the character of their community and effects on community services. As previously mentioned the Supply to Oakville project in 1996 included a substantial SIA component. It used factors and criteria to address the special requirements for the redevelopment project within a heavily urbanized area. In this case, the socio-economic impact assessment included criteria such as resident displacement, resident disruption, compatibility with community character, disruption of community facilities, and displacement or disruption to business operations. [Oakville ESR, Socio-economic Factor and Criteria p.30-31] At the Southwestern Ontario Transmission hearing, as the Land Use and Environmental Planning witness for Ontario Hydro, I presented evidence about the disruption to "indirectly affected residents living within 75 metres of the right of way for a proposed 230 kv transmission line (i.e. near by but not `directly affected') such that the Joint Board made it a condition that any such individuals on the approved routes, whose residence or primary buildings were within 75 metres of the edge of the right of way, had the option of having their residence and buildings relocated or their entire property purchased by Hydro. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 25 December 2004 —140— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Another Ontario Hydro study, which was to examine alternatives for providing more transmission capacity in York Region, prepared in 1993, also corroborates the serious and important role for social impact assessment in transmission studies: In this Ontario Hydro report, a description of the "Socio-economic Impact Assessment" program was provided. A definition is given: "Socio-economic impacts are changes to the current peoples' lifestyles, cultural traditions and communities as the result of the development of a new project, and that are perceived as significant by them. The objective ofSEL4, therefore, is to identify and understand the consequence of change for people and communities. It also provides the affected people and communities with a medium through which their concerns can be analyzed and addressed so that project design, development and operation eliminates, minimizes and offsets any negative Socio-economic impacts and enhances positive ones. " [Scope Document, Greater Toronto Area Reinforcement Study (Report 91212, Revision 2, May 1993), pg 40] • Further, under methodology with regard to SETA, the following is stated: "A profiling exercise of the affected communities is then undertaken whereby the existing Socio-economic and cultural conditions are described which provides a basis for understanding any changes that may occur. SETA then predicts social, cultural and economic affects on individuals, families, organizations, communities, regions, institutions and other social units which may occur during project planning, construction and operation. The significance ofproject-induced changes are then assessed, alternatives evaluated, and finally recommendations are made on a preferred way to proceed with an undertaking which will included impact management measures to mitigate potential negative impacts and enhance benefits." [pp. 40 — 41] 4. Public Consultation itgrdeci'ion from the iRSS;i Hydro One officials at the PICs and the wording contained in the Draft ESR clearly demonstrates Hydro One's defensive and intransigent attitude to any public or municipal questioning of their process, alternatives, analysis or motives. Two examples in the draft ESR on p.32 " The agreement to consider a broader range of Bancroft -Wilson Associates 26 December 2004 —141— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 alternatives also generated demands for a broader public consultation program to include residents and municipal officials in the potentially affected areas. These demands were expressed by those opposed to the initial two York Region transmission options. Hydro One regarded this recommendation as premature and not just cause for further delay. " And "Hydro One remained confident that the options put forward at the first information centres would stand up to further analysis and comparison. " These statements are made despite the fact there was no previous environmental assessment of the options considered in the YRSS. They clearly demonstrate Hydro One's attitude to legitimate public input and requests to consider other alternatives. • The following quote is another unfortunate example, in Hydro One's own words, of their superior attitude, intransigence to and condescending attitude towards meaningful public consultation from the very start of the EA process. `Following the first information centres, public concern was expressed regarding redevelopment of transmission corridors in York Region. Council resolutions were passed in Vaughan, Markham, King Township and Aurora opposing alternatives within those communities. Hydro One was urged to expand the alternatives beyond York Region. While Hydro One believed the options presented at the first information centre offered the lowest environmental effects, the least disruption to property owners and the lowest impact to ratepayers, Hydro One agreed to consider the options suggested by stakeholders." [p. 12,parag. 5] • The above statement provides clear evidence that Hydro One had already made up its mind that Option 1 was the best alternative from the very beginning of the EA process, in spite of not yet having conducted any public consultation or environmental or socio-economic assessment of the options! • Among the best practices we identified in the area of public involvement were the following: Public involvement was initiated at the earliest possible stage in project or program planning. • Public involvement program design ensured that the program suited the unique project needs, the siting process requirements and the consultation expectations of the potentially affected communities and stakeholders. • In my review of what has transpired in this SYR Class EA project, public involvement was not initiated until basic decisions had already been made by Hydro One as to the necessary timing of the project, the need for the project, and the only preferred types of routes that would be considered as well as alternatives to. • The Hydro One process that occurred here did not provide for these opportunities. Further, the Hydro One process is not consistent with recommendations made by the Porter Commission with respect to public participation such as the following: "12.1 Ontario Hydro should be encouraged to continue, and where necessary, to expand its public participation program to ensure that the public is fully involved. Hydro should adopt joint planning processes whereby real decision -making authority is shared with, and in some cases left to the initiative of, citizen representatives. " Bancroft -Wilson Associates 27 December 2004 —142— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 The Porter Commission went on to suggest how Hydro might bridge the "inevitable communications gap" between Hydro experts and non -expert publics, an early call for the concept of "participant funding": "12.2 Ontario Hydro should ensure that the participants in the utility's participation program have access to independent expertise whether that expertise is supportive of or opposed to Ontario Hydro's planning concepts." Another technique used by Hydro was working groups/citizens' committees to involve key stakeholders from local public and environmental interest groups, professional organizations, industry associations, residents' associations and municipal representatives in siting and EA projects. Ontario Hydro practitioners considered these types of groups to be extremely useful and valuable as a means to obtain real public involvement and siting studies. Yet, this was not a process used by Hydro One at the outset of the SYR EA project. While a Public Advisory Group was formed in July, this was well after Hydro One had made fundamental decisions on need for the project, required in service dates, that existing rights of way were to be used, and had arrived at predetermined route preferences. It was too much too late in the process for the PAG to fulfil the valuable role Ontario Hydro had identified for such groups. 4.2 Input from the Stakeholders 4.2.2 Government and Agency Contacts and 4.2,3 Stakeholder Correspondence • Another EA principle and requirement in an EA is to demonstrate and document how stakeholder input was used and considered in the EA process. No such description is provided in the draft ESR documentation. • Clearly Hydro One received input on what to assess and consider in their evaluation of alternative transmission options, including socio-economic criteria and schools adjacent to the ROWs, from the very first meetings with municipal Councils (see below). Unfortunately, most of this input was ignored by Hydro One in their subsequent evaluation process. One's two options that needed to fully studied, assessed and documented by Hydro One in the EA project. Reading just a few of the points raised by these submissions and what the Municipalities considered necessary for a thorough assessment of the potential impacts and effects of the transmission options, and which were subsequently entirely ignored by Hydro One, makes it obvious that Hydro On�;Was eit)ler','unvlhiig`to carry out or incapabl6'o Bancroft -Wilson Associates 28 December 2004 -143- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 King Twv: early issues — in report sent to Hydro One on May 71h 2004 The Hydro One EA study should consider: • Nearby landowner effects • Environmental effects • Easements, cost Town of Markham. June 1, 2004 And that the following actions to be undertaken by Hydro One prior to its determination of a preferred alternative: • "That Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, give greater consideration to environmental and social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities areas, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost." • Hydro One provide an assessment of the visual impact of the transmission towers in an established urban environment, including an assessment of the potential economic impact on homeowners and the loss of enjoyment of residential yards in proximity to hydro corridors; • Provide information on health effects on humans; disclose the relative EMF strength emanating from the proposed 230 kV line. City of Vaughan: June 14 resolution • Hydro One should fully document the identification and assessrent of all possible routes and options for supplying York region including — existing transportation corridors, and new corridors on rural lands. • In evaluating all alternatives, give greater consideration to environmental, social and economic impacts on existing urban areas and established residential areas, including schools adjacent to and in proximity to the transmission corridors. • Provide a full inventory and assessment ....and relationship to adjacent urban development York Region, June 24 - June 2 Planningrep eport Hydro One should consider in their EA process: • Visual impact of transmission lines in an established urban environment • Assessment of the potential economic impact on homeowners, and • The loss of enjoyment of residential yards in proximity to the lines Town of Aurora P104-086 That Council request the following actions to be taken by Hydro One prior to its determination of a preferred alternative...: Bancroft -Wilson Associates 29 December 2004 —144— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 • Hydro One undertake, as part of the Class EA process, a fully documented identification and assessment of all possible routes and options for expanded power supply to northern York Region... • "That Hydro One , in evaluating all alternatives , give greater consideration to the medical, visual, environmental and social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities areas, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost." 4.2.4 Special Initiatives Public Advisory Group • The timing, scope and mandate of the PAG were too late, too narrow and too restricted by Hydro One to ever succeed. `As is discussed in Chapter 4, a Public Advisory Group was initiated to carry out an independent evaluation of options. The group was composed of representatives of municipal and regional representatives within the Study Area, Provincial Ministries, the Federation of Agriculture and public interest groups (e.g. Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, STOP, etc). [p.15, parag.2] • The PulilcAduisory Committee was dgomed to"failure fromtho start for,thiee baste reasons 4.3.2 Alternatives As the draft ESR document progresses the purpose and scope of the YRSS continue to evolve in Hydro One's mind. "Based on these forecasts and input from the public, the team developed a broad range of available transmission alternatives which could reliably support growth in the region. The team then screened these alternatives to identify options reasonable for further consideration and assessment and concluded with the identification of a preferred option, subject to further analysis and examination under the EA and OEB approval processes. "[p.33, parag. 3] Bancroft -Wilson Associates 30 December 2004 —145 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 • This is Hydro One's response / justification for selecting a highly unpopular and socio- economically high impact route that is broadly opposed in the York Region. "Hydro One's conclusion is that the EA process has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. There is a solid rationale for selection of the preferred option. No single option is free from public opposition. The preferred option is strongly opposed by many local residents. However, it is believed that had other options been selected, the same would be true within those affected communities. All factors considered, these communities would have a stronger basis to oppose an option that passes through their community. " [p.37, parag.3] ............... • ;'.As a former supervising environmental planner of transmission facilities I find the preceding statement highly unprofessional, presumptuous, incredibly naive and lacking any factual supporting evidence. Iaetl belreverthere are atleast.three feasible'transnussion oiRio s 4.3.3 Real and Perceived Effects An interesting heading. Who at Hydro One is qualified to determine what are "real" and what are "perceived" effects? Public attitudes and perceptions of risk are legitimate public concerns in an EA. Hydro One is entirely dismissive and condescending towards such public concerns because they have not undertaken or even understood the need for a qualified assessment of what actually constitutes socio-economic effects. As we reported in our Best Practices report: "More recently, the SIA for the Supply to Oakville project (1994) used factors and criteria to address the special requirements for the redevelopment project within a heavily urbanized area. In this case, the socio-economic impact assessment included criteria such as resident displacement, resident disruption, compatibility with community character, disruption of community facilities, and displacement or disruption to business operations. These criteria were defined and applied along side the land use and environmental factors Bancroft -Wilson Associates 31 December 2004 —146— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 which integrated social and economic considerations into their `situation' definition statements." [pg. 74] • a 56 risks in the context of theMk bearer; • recogmze that publicperceptions can cross thG b5urdary into realie cause of real and observable soeio ecpnomlc unpacts Although the local Catholic school board has informed parents it is making plan to shut down an elementary school located beside the ROW because of parental concerns regarding EMI` exposure arising from the Hydro One proposal, Hydro One does not even mention the issue. St. Monica's Elementary School is located immediately adjacent to the ROW. It provides schooling for 532 children, in addition to providing pre and post school day care, and serves an important community center function, providing a center for heritage language training, music lessons, and adult education. The closing of this almost -new school (10 years old) no doubt represents a financial loss to the school board and taxpayers, but also will deprive the community of a key resource. This is a clear example of why it is necessary, in accordance with one of the key principles of SIA adopted by Ontario Hydro set out above, to "recognize that public perceptions can cross the boundary into reality and be the cause of real and observable socio-economic impacts". Unfortunately Hydro One has failed to do this. • Hydro One received requests from residents, as well as formal resolutions from the Town of Markham and Regional Municipality of York, for studies of health risks of EMF. The municipal resolutions requested Hydro One to: "Provide information on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on human health; disclose the relative EMF strength emanating from the proposed 230 kV line; undertake a health risk assessment of the proposal in relation to adjacent urban land uses, in particular residential uses, schools and parks; and identify mitigating measures that would ensure that any proposed changes in transmission capacity will not increase the public's exposure to EMFs;" Unfortunately, Hydro One not only did not disclose information concerning EMF or undertake a health risk assessment but in effects dismisses these concerns, taking the position there is "lack of evidence establishing that EMF is harmful". • While in the ESR Hydro One acknowledges that Ontario Hydro funded "several million dollars of peer -reviewed research under the guidance of the Royal Society of Canada ... to contribute to the scientific understanding of potential health effects resulting from EMF exposure", Hydro One fails to quote from or acknowledge the findings and recommendation of the report, published in 2000. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 32 December2004 —147— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 The Royal Society of Canada reviewed health studies of Hydro employees and children exposed to EMF, found health effects from EMF exposure and recommended "prudent avoidance". • Some quotes from the Royal Society Report: • "Despite their limitations, epidemiological studies now appear to show a small increase in risk of leukemias and perhaps brain tumors associated with EMF exposure Similarly, genetic studies, though atpresent not rigorously replicated, demonstrate that EMFs can have deleterious effects on mammalian cellspresumably through induced electric fields. • Recent calculations of induced electric fields in the human body indicate that fields sufficient to effect genetic damage could occur, though rarely, in environments in which employees of Ontario Hydro and the public are exposed. " • 8.2 "The evidence for a concern about possible cancer risk being associated with these fields comes from three Ontario Hydro sponsored studies. "... "Second are the studies of malignancies among employees of Ontario Hydro, examined alone and together with similar studies at Hydro Quebec and Electricite de France (see Section 5.3). These studies suggest, albeit with some inconsistencies, a relationship between magnetic and electric fields, and the risk of leukemia and possibly brain tumors. These results are consistent with the meta-analvses of other studies as reported by the Working Group ;s section figure of the ROW indicating the profile of field strengths across the ROW, at the ROW edge and at the rear wall of many adjacent homes to give the public an objective basis for understanding the actual EMFs for this project. Hydro One indicates that it will use certain mitigation techniques to reduce EMF and the results of these measures should be clearly provided in the EASR. In addition a table presenting various field strength standards for transmission lines from around the world and Hydra One's standards should be provided for comparison. Although Hydro One presents numerous results of EMF reviews, it is unable to provide or reference any studies on property values adjacent to transmission lines. This, in spite of the fact the former Ontario Hydro was involved in studying and dealing with these issues in ROW acquisition and expropriation for over 50 years and there is an extensive body of research on the subject related to ROW acquisition in North America. Hydro One should include a review of key findings and its proposals to mitigate any potential impacts on property values. [p41, parag 7] Bancroft -Wilson Associates 33 December 2004 -148- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 4.4 Final Notification • Hydro One issued "Final Notification" commencing the sixty day review period for the draft EASR. ' A Final Notification for the project was issued on October 19, 2004 to people on the project contact list and through ads in local newspapers. The notice announced the forthcoming availability of this draft Environmental Study Report. It also included a description of the project, advice on providing comments in the 60-day review period, the rights of the public under this Class EA process (including the bump -up provision) and the availability of this Environmental Study Reportfor public review. Copies of the reports are provided for review at local libraries, local utility offices, municipal offices, Hydro One offices, and on the project website" [p.44, parag. 4] • However, the draft ES R is incomplete and does not include any of the public input and concerns raised at the second round of PICs or Hydro One's responses or commitments to that input. EASR — p.25 — `Second Round of Public Information Centres — to be completed" On numerous occasions at those PICs, Hydro One officials made commitments to include certain responses, actions and to include specific documentation in the draft ESR. (e.g. An e-mail from B McCormick to staff advising them not to discuss ENO with the public at the PICs.) These PICs were the first opportunity for the public to review the screening of the nine options carried out by Hydro One and to respond to Hydro One's selection of the preferred alternative; therefore, the documentation and use of this public input is critical to understanding and completing the Class EA process and documenting this in the ESR. • The draft ESR fails to provide any reviewer with the complete information on which to review a bump -up request to the Minister. Hydro One cannot argue that this information will be included in the Final ESR because it is not subject to any further public or agency review. The review period should be suspended until Hydro One can provide a complete draft ESR for "Final Review", including the results, input and Hydro One commitments from the second round of PICs. • At the October PICs Hydro One committed to provide summary reports of the PICs in Richmond Hill and Aurora on their web site within a few days. A search of the Hydro One York Region Study web site on December 9th, 2004 could not locate any summaries of the October PICs. 5. EVALUATION OFALTERNATIVE METHODS 5.2 Routing Objectives The use of routing objectives or guidelines is a common practice in a transmission routing project. Normally the guidelines include environmental and technical criteria. The SYR project "objectives' are similar to those usually applied in transmission studies, but they differ substantially in the inclusion of two "objectives". Objective 3. [p. 45, parag. 51 "To the maximum extent possible existing transmission corridors should be utilized before new corridors are developed... " and the addition of this statement to several of the environmental Bancroft -Wilson Associates 34 December 2004 —149— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 criteria "i.e. should new transmission corridors be necessary". As a result, the normally important criteria "to avoid residential areas" becomes, for the SYR project routing objective 6, "To the maximum extentpossible, avoid existing and planned residential areas (i.e. should new transmission corridors be necessarv) " • The SYR Routing Objectives are described in the ESR p. 45-46: The following objectives were used to assist in the development ofalternative routes: 1. The alternatives must have a reasonable likelihood of meeting established need dates 2. The alternatives must meet technical requirements (e.g. technical standards for corridor width), 3. To the maximum extent possible existing transmission corridors should be utilized before new corridors are developed. This will avoid displacement of homes, businesses and institutions and adverse effects on existing infrastructure, agricultural productivity, vegetation, wildlife habitat, sensitive areas, recreational areas, wildlife, etc., 4. To the maximum extent possible, follow linear land uses/severances (i.e. should new transmission corridors be necessary), 5. To the maximum extent possible, follow existing property boundaries (i.e. should new transmission corridors be necessary), 6. To the maximum extent possible avoid existing and planned residential areas (i e should new transmission corridors be necessary), 7. To the maximum extent possible, avoid environmentally sensitive areas, 8. To the maximum extent possible, avoid existing and planned park lands, and 9. To the maximum extent possible, minimize the length of alternatives to reduce costs and environmental effects. `EqATpe u=typzc�j vDrdmg found m three, of thesegutrng gbjecttves is underluied for ernpkiasis, For a comparative example of traditional routing guidelines or objectives I refer to the Supply to the Town of Oakville Class EA project carried out by Ontario Hydro in 1996-97. This project also dealt with a heavily urbanized area with several existing transmission lines and other ROWS. These objectives are similar to SYR but differ significantly in that they do not exclude the identification and consideration of route alternatives on new ROWS. The route identification guidelines for Oakville were: 1. Must meet system needs. 2. Follow existing linear land uses/severances, where possible. 3. Minimize impacts onprivate property owners 4. Follow existing property boundaries, where possible. 5. Avoid existing and planned residences/areas. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 35 December 2004 -150- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 6. Avoid environmentally sensitive areas. 7. Avoid existing and planned park land 8. Minimize the length of alternatives to reduce cost. 5.4 Route Identification Process "The route identification was based on: " [p. 46, parag. 3] In this section of the ESR Hydro One tries to imply that the Class EA project involved the identification of route alternatives. It raises the question of why develop routing objectives when the only two routes were already identified in the YRSS. Only the two existing ROW alternatives were presented to Councils and the public at the commencement of the study. Even when pressed by the municipalities and public to consider other alternatives Hydro One refused to identify reasonable new route alternatives that could be properly evaluated. (obviously they realized that any new ROW options would be penalized and excluded for not meeting provincial policy.) Use of Existing. Corridors The description of the Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS (Option 1) [p. 46] makes no mention of the narrow ROW width —100 feet in some places — or the presence of several schools adjacent to the ROW. This is a significant matter with respect to EMF, tower design and construction activities, and part of the reason a previous 1992 Ontario Hydro assessment of utilizing existing ROWS in York Region concluded reusing or upgrading this existing ROW was not feasible. In justifying reliance on existing ROWS, Hydro One sates: "One of the most important planning criteria is to make best use of existing rights of way before consideration is given to developing or clearing new rights of way. This has been a long standing planning consideration that has been applied since the 1970's. The Porter Commission on Electric Power Planning (1980) reached this conclusion after a multi year planning and public hearing process. This is a very practical planning criterion that recognizes the affects that are created on families, businesses, etc. when new rights of way must be carved through urban and rural areas. " However, a§" a,'former Ontario Hyiro ,environmental supeiuisor Bancroft -Wilson Associates 36 December 2004 —151- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Hydro and other ROW`s was always an unportant constderation in transmission EA studies, but rt was netier at the exclusion o cnr1siddrrn�alternatroe routes on newb�S. Examples of past Ontario Hydro EA projects and more recent Hydro One projects support this approach. In 1997 the Supply to Oakville EA project considered existing and new ROW options. In the early 1990's Walker TS to J.C. Keith in Windsor, the Ontario Manitoba Interconnection transmission project and the concept studies for the Sudbury to Toronto and GTA By-pass transmission reinforcement studies all considered routes involving new ROWS as well as existing ROWS. 5.4 Route Screening Screening process criteria #2. `Does the option comply with mandate and policies of Provincial Ministries and Agencies (e.g. MTO, Ministry ofEnergy)?" [p.51, parag. 1] Hydro One implies there exists a provincial policy or "long standing planning criterion" that requires it to "fully utilize existing R/ Ws before considering any new RIW" in its transmission planning studies and EAs. As discussed in S. 2.6.1 the interpretation and application of this criterion by Hydro One is incorrect and highly prejudicial in the screening of options. As a former Supervising Environmental Planner at Ontario Hydro with over 20 years of experience in transmission planning and EA I can categorically state that I have never seen, read or heard of Hydro One's current interpretation and use of the Porter Commission and government responses to the DSP. `As explained in Chapter, 4.0, there is a longstanding provincial planning criterion to make the best use of existing rights of way before consideration is given to new rights of way. This stemms (sic) from a recommendation of the Porter Commission on Electric Power Planning (1980). The Ministry of Energy accepted those recommendations at that time and subsequently reinforced the importance of this criterion during the Demand Supply Plan Strategy (1988) and Plan (1990). " [ p. 54, parag.I To my knowledge, Hydro One themselves, have never previously interpreted those recommendations or government responses in such a restrictive manner. E.g. In the relatively recent Supply to Oakville Class EA project there is no mention of this criterion originating from government policy or "provincial planning criteriod'. I was the lead environmental witness for the Consolidated Hearings on the Southwestern Ontario Transmission project over a period of two years and also appeared as the lead environmental transmission planning witness on the Ontario Hydro Demand Supply hearings in 1990. In my numerous direct evidence on Ontario Hydro's transmission planning and environmental assessment processes, practices, and subsequent cross examinations, the use of the "planning criterion" as described by Hydro One was never discussed, raised or implied. • If this is such an important "planning criterion" for Hydro One why is it not mentioned or discussed in the parent Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities which has been updated Bancroft -Wilson Associates 37 December 2004 -152- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 since the Porter Commission recommendations? Hydro One has clearly distorted the use and meaning of this criterion for its own purpose to defend its decision to only consider and evaluate existing ROWS for the Supply to York Region. In-service date criterion. "Likelihood of Achieving Need Date: The majority of the options identified would have a significant likelihood of not meeting the project need date. The key factors are associated with extended approval processes including longer construction periods and the time required to expropriate property or to negotiate the purchase of properties. " This criterion is also heavily biased and exclusionary to any other than Hydro One's two original alternatives. There are various interim measures that could be used to extend the US date to permit consideration of other options with less socio-economic effects. By their use of these exclusionary screening criteria — use only existing ROWs and the failure to meet the in-service date - Hydro One restricted the scope of the EA study alternatives to only two existing rights -of -way — Options 1 and 2. `As a result of the screening, the options that made exclusive use of existing transmission corridors in fork Region were selected for more detailed analysis. " [p. 12,parag. 11 Hydro One thereby failed to fully or adequately consider other reasonable transmission alternative methods that could potentially supply the needs of northern York Region with less environmental, social and community impact. 5.5 Comparative Evaluation of Short -Listed Routes • The evaluation criteria are listed but do not include any socio-economic criteria. [p. 57, parag.II • Hydro One presents various tables with comparative evaluations — which are basically a comparison of two poor alternatives. Option 2 is poorer than Option 1, so Option 1 is preferred. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 3$ December 2004 —153— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 5.5.1 Human Settlement / Resources / Heritage Criteria Group • The title provides further evidence that Socio-economic effects were not adequately considered or assessed in this EA. • The assessment lacks any qualitative assessment of effects, discussion or even acknowledgement of potential effects or concerns re. schools, adjacent neighbourhoods, residents, enjoyment of property, real estate values etc. • The visual assessment is typical of Hydro One's focus on only comparative differences between the options and the lack of any meaningful or adequate assessment of the actual residual or net effects. "The evaluation of the two options suggests that the appearance of the landscape would be affected in both options. In Option 2, the percentage increase in number of towers is greater than in Option 1. The increase in height of the towers is greater in Option I than in Option 2 (i.e. 80 to 140 feet). All factors considered, there is no significant difference in options" The net effects assessment Table 5.4 concludes for potential changes to appearance of the landscape: There is potential for some incremental visual effects associated with an increased number of towers, at an increased height, extending across the landscape for 25 km; The residual effects after mitigation are: ' Mitigation would reduce effects on the physical appearance of the landscape; some residual incremental visual effects may occur over the 25 km corridor. " Potential for Resident/Property Owner Concerns (e.g. concerns about EMF, property values, visual effects) Indicator - Estimated number of adjacent properties and Number of adjacent institutional properties (schools, colleges, nursing homes etc.). Potential Effect -There is concern regarding health effects, decreased property value and increased visibility by resident/property owner during and after construction in relation to the 653 adjacent moverties and 2 schools. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 39 December 2004 —154— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Residual Effect — Although resident/property owner health and visual concerns will be reduced through mitigation measures in tower design, it is still expected some people may remain anxious over these concerns. Note that the EA evaluation in Table 5.4 does not even attempt to count the number of residences adjacent to the lines let alone indicate the number of residents who mayreside adjacent to the ROW and be subject to the concerns listed. How does Hydro One assess and present the overall significance of theses anxieties? How will mitigation reduce these fears and concerns? Obviously the EA is seriously deficient in not determining the extent and significance of the net effects and residual concerns predicted by Hydro One's own assessment. • The Act and the ESP Guide (refer to comments on s.5.4 above) requires a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the undertaking. S 5.6 provides only a brief description of the advantages of the preferred option and no description of the disadvantages e.g. 632 properties adjacent, adjacent to two schools / school yards and the residual effects discussed in Table 5.4 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The project requires the dismantling and removal of the existing line, tower and tower foundations and then the construction of the new line with more towers, in new tower locations and will result in almost double the construction period, construction activities, construction disturbance and potential for construction impacts as opposed to building the same line on a new right-of-way. In addition this major heavy construction operation must take place in a narrow 100 foot wide corridor through 10 km of residential area and 51m of parkland and environmental areas. However, this aspect of the project is not presented by Hydro One as a disadvantage or basis for potentially increased impacts or disturbance to residents, park users or sensitive plant, avian or animal species near the line. • The construction schedule and overall timeframe is not provided. It is assumed one cannot add all of the activity time periods provided on p. 79 as some may overlap or occur. coincidentally. The reader has no basis for determining the period of the construction and the potential disruption to their community and home. It is assumed the construction period will last at least 24 months. • However, in EASR section 7.3 Hydro One states: "Construction activities, although short in duration, are often the most intensive and intrusive. Consequently, they can have the greatest potential effects ".[p.88, parag.1] • Hydro One should commit to review the R/W development plan [p. 80, parag. 3] with the public and adjacent land owners. 7. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES • The discussion of potential environmental effects and mitigation measures is superficial and provides no substantive commitments or assurances to agencies or the public. Bancroft -Wilson Associates 40 December 2004 -155- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 • No headings are provided on pages 90, 91, 92 to indicate the duration of effects. 8. MONITORING PROGRAM • There are no monitoring program issues related to Hydro One's own acknowledged residual effects related to anxiety over EMF concerns, decreases in property values, schools or visual effects. Hydro One continues to ignore the legitimacy of these issues and has no idea how to deal with them. 9. CONCLUSIONS The EA Act and the ESP Guide require a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the recommended undertaking. S 9. provides only a brief summary of the advantages of the preferred option and no description of the disadvantages e.g. 632 properties adjacent, adjacent to two schools / school yards, potential anxiety to residents re EMF, property values etc. The residua 1 effects are only presented (buried) in Table 5.4 and appear nowhere else in the ESR text. APPENDICES -Maps and Mapping The scale and date of information used by Hydro One's consultants does not provide the detail, resolution, or current information sources necessary to conduct a through and accurate analysis or assessment of the potential effects of the undertaking on the environment and in particular the residential areas and built-up areas. Example: [Appendix A p.l Data Sources] Indicator: Length of existing residential development Data Source: Region of York (orthorectfied image 1999, single line road network 2004, parcel fabric 2004) Map Art Publishing Toronto and Area (2005) • While the road and parcel information is current the image that indicates present land use and residential development is dated 1999 and is therefore seriously out of data and makes any of the length through residential areas and therefore any other "lengths through" distances provided in the EA highly suspect and likely inaccurate. TOR-,AW %5919702\1 Bancroft -Wilson Associates 41 December 2004 -156- CdUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Projected Magnetic Field Level Analysis Proposed 230kV Hydro One Transmission line from Parkway TS to Armitage TS Report Prepared for the Town of Markham Hydro One Task Force by David K. Richmond, P. Eng. Electrical Engineer 30 Years Experience in Transmission, Distribution & Substations Former VP, Toronto Hydro, Stations & Engineering Services Former Ontario Hydro Transmission & Station Design Engineer December 17, 2004 —157— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Introduction This report reviews magnetic fields produced by the present use of a transmission line in the corridor between the Parkway Transformer Station (TS) in Markham and the Armitage TS in Newmarket and the projected magnetic fields which would result from the proposal by Hydro One to dismantle that installation and replace it with a 230 kV double circuit transmission line. Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible lines of force that surround any alternating current electrical device. Power lines, electrical wiring, and electrical equipment all produce EMFs. Magnetic fields result from the flow of current through wires and increase in strength as the current increases. Magnetic fields are measured in units of gauss (G) or tesla (T). Electric fields are produced by voltage and increase in strength as the voltage increases. Electric fields are shielded or weakened by materials that conduct electricity. Even materials that conduct poorly, including trees, buildings, and human skin can provide significant shielding. Magnetic fields, however, pass through most materials and are therefore more difficult to shield. Both electric fields and magnetic fields, however, decrease rapidly as the distance from the source increases. Even though power lines produce both electric and magnetic fields, most recent research has focused on potential health effects from magnetic field exposure. This is because some epidemiological studies have reported an increased cancer risk associated with incidents of magnetic field exposure. No similar associations have been reported for electric fields and many of the studies examining biological effects of electric fields were essentially negative.1 Summary of Findings A magnetic field measurement of 2 mG (milligauss) was made in 2004 at the edge of the right of way (ROW) of the current transmission line at a location in Markham between Buttonville TS and Elgin Mills. This was measured approximately 70 feet or 21.3 metres from the ROW center line. 2 Based on the computer simulations carried out for this study by Kinetrics of projected magnetic field emissions from the proposed 230 kV rebuilt transmission line, and using published Hydro One assumptions for line structure construction and measures to minimize magnetic field emissions, the following discussion summarizes projected magnetic field emissions compared to the present 2 mG level at the edge of the ROW in Markham. 1 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/National Institutes of Health htto•///ww gov/emfra ip_d/home htm Measurement by Power Line Systems Engineering, May 10, 2004, for the York Catholic District School Board —158— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Buttonville TS (16th Avenue) to Elgin Mills TS In this portion of the ROW, which is abutted by numerous sub -division homes and an elementary school and day care centre, o 2006 magnetic field values will be approximately 2 times higher (maximum loading levels) at the edge of the rebuilt transmission line ROW compared to the 2004 measured value; c 2015 magnetic field values will be approximately 5 times higher (maximum loading levels) at the edge of the rebuilt transmission line ROW compared to the 2004 measured value; • When operating at average load in 2015 o double the width of land (140 feet or 43 metres compared to the current 70 feet or 21.4 metres) along both sides of the ROW will be exposed to 2 mG or greater of magnetic field emissions; o the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW in this area will be 9 mG3, or 4.5 times greater than that measured in 2004; • When operating at maximum load in 2015 (approximately four hours per work day during winter months and seven hours per work day during summer) 2.6 times the width of land (184 feet or 56 metres compared to the current 70 feet or 21.4 metres) along both sides of the ROW will be exposed to 2 mG or greater of magnetic field emissions, compared to the 2004 level; and o the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW in this area will be 10.lmG, or 5 times greater than that measured in 2004. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS As of 2015: • In this portion of the proposed rebuilt line, which north of Highway 7 also has numerous existing and under -construction homes and higher density residential units in close proximity, magnetic field emissions will be 21.6 mG, at the edge of the ROW( 120 ft) for maximum loading conditions; 3 Hydro One, draft ESR, Supply to York Region, Appendices -159- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 When operating at average load, land within 161 feet or 49 metres on both sides of the ROW center line will be exposed to 2 mG or higher of magnetic field emissions; • At maximum loading conditions, the width of land on both sides of the ROW exposed to that level of magnetic field emissions increases to 190 feet or 58 metres. Although Hydro One has included design measures that would somewhat reduce magnetic field levels, it is difficult for them to achieve high quality magnetic field reductions in this particular corridor with an overhead construction approach. With overhead lines, distance is what is required to achieve significant magnetic field abatement. As can be seen from the study results, usually a 45m to 60m separation from the ROW centre line is required to keep magnetic field levels at 2 mG or below. To achieve these field levels, the ROW would either need to be 90m to 125m wide or an equivalent area would need to be kept clear of occupied facilities. Those conditions do not exist for this project. Background Hydro One has stated that the 230kV transmission supply to northern York Region is projected to require reinforcement by the winter of 2006/2007. This 230kV double circuit line (B82V/1383V) extends from Claireville TS to Minden TS. As well as supplying Armitage TS, this line is also tapped (to other stations) at Brown Hill, Beaverton and Lindsay. Hydro One has reviewed various transmission reinforcement alternatives, but its preferred option is to construct a new double circuit 230kV line from Parkway TS to Armitage TS. York Region Load Growth Projections In a joint load forecasting exercise carried out in 2003, Hydro One and the local distribution companies (LDCs) stated that load growth in York Region was anticipated to be approximately 4% yearly until 2008 and approximately 3.4% yearly from 2008 until 2013. In addition, they stated a number of new transformer stations would be required as follows: —160— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Table 1 York Region TS Requirements Connection Year Station Description and Location 2004 Markham # 3 (second area) Extension to existing Markham # 3 facility Located in the Parkway belt in southern Markham 2005 Amutage # 3 (third area) Extension to existing Armitage facility Located in S/E Newmarket 2005 Vaughan # 1 (second area) Located in the Parkway belt in southern Vaughan 2007 Markham # 4 (new facility) Located in the Elgin mills area near Woodbine Ave 2008 Vaughan # 4 (new facility) Located in the area of central Vaughan 2013 Richmond Hill # 3 unknown 2013 Vaughan # 5 unknown TS Location and Transmission Connection Strategy It is our understanding that if the Parkway TS to Armitage TS transmission line is placed into service, it will be initially utilized to supply Buttonville TS as well as most of the Armitage TS load. Furthermore if the future Markham #4 TS (Elgin Mills area) is constructed in 2007, it will also be connected to this proposed transmission line. Therefore utilizing the station loads provided by Hydro One for 2006 and 2015 detailed in the attached Appendix Table App-2 and assuming the connection approach described above, the anticipated loading on the various line sections can be projected and this projection is illustrated in the Appendix in Table App-3. Proposed Transmission Line Design Parkway TS to Buttonville TS Section For this section of the project (approximately 3.5 km), Hydro One proposes to replace the existing 230kV double circuit line with a higher capacity facility utilizing steel poles instead of lattice towers. The proposed line will have more current carrying capacity (two conductors /phase) and have a shorter span length than the existing circuits. In summary, the ten 140-foot lattice towers will be replaced with fifteen 125-foot steel poles. Buttonville TS to Elgin Mills Junction —161— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 The existing 115kV transmission line would be replaced with a 230kV double circuit transmission line constructed with 130-foot steel poles. This line would be approximately 5.5km in length. Elgin Mills Junction to Bloomington Junction The existing 115kV transmission line would be replaced with a 230kV double circuit transmission line constructed with 140- foot steel lattice towers. This line would be approximately 7.5km in length. Bloomington Junction to Armitage Junction The existing 115kV transmission line would be replaced with a 230kV transmission line constructed with 130-foot steel poles. This line would be approximately 7.5km in length. Armitage Junction to Armitage TS The existing l I5kV transmission line would be replaced with a 230kV double circuit line on 130-foot steel poles. This line section would be approximately lkm in length and consists of only six spans., Request for Professional Services In Oct/ 04 Kinectrics was requested to carry out a review of the magnetic field levels expected from the proposed transmission line. They were asked to carry out a computer simulation for three different line structures (140-ft lattice tower, 130-ft steel pole and a 125-ft steel pole) along with a variety of different loading levels as follows: Table 3 Kinectrics Review Requirements Line 1 Load (MVA) Line 2 Load (MVA 0 160 0 320 0 480 80 80 160 160 240 240 The line loading levels noted above generally represent 33%, 66% and 100% of the nominal average load rating of the proposed line. Utilizing these values along with the linear relationship between magnetic field levels and circuit loading, allows field strength to be calculated for circuit loads of various other values. Kinectrics was also requested to model various conductor and phase arrangements to illustrate the relationships for maximum magnetic field reduction (at ground level). —162— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Kinectrics is a very well regarded research and scientific organization located in the Toronto area. Kinectrics provides services to the utility marketplace and has more than 250 employees, many of them scientists and engineers. It is now an independent company but prior to utility restructuring in Ontario (1999), it was the research arm for the former Ontario Hydro. As such, this Company has more than 90 years of experience with utility operations and technology. Magnetic Field Simulation Results General Magnetic fields associated with transmission lines are directly correlated to the current flowing in the line and inversely correlated to the distance from the line. With respect to parallel lines constructed on the same towers, the magnetic field levels can be reduced when optimal phase positioning arrangements between the two circuits are utilized. In carrying out their work Kinectrics assumed: • Balanced current in all phase conductors • Tower dimensions and circuit loading as noted • Conductor height assumed at maximum sag (mid -pan) • Induced currents in the sky wires Discussion of Results Parkway TS to Buttonville TS As noted above, it is proposed that 125-ft.steel poles be used in this section of line since the ROW traverses a residential area. The magnetic field profile that would be associated with this line section is depicted in Fig 1 and in Fig 2 of the Kinectrics Report. It can be seen that by utilizing optimal phase relationship arrangements, the field within the ROW can be lowered appreciably. Viewing Fig 2 (optimized phasing), the graph depicts the magnetic field level for a cross section of the ROW for a double circuit transmission line with each circuit loaded at 240 MVA (total of 480 MVA). Since the ROW width in this line section is assumed to vary from 100ft. to 120ft. to 140ft., the distance from the centre of the ROW to the ROW edge is assumed to vary from 50ft. (15.1m) to 60ft. (18.2m) to 70ft.(21.3m). Therefore assuming Hydro One utilizes a line with an optimized phasing arrangement, it can be seen from Fig 2 that the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW would vary from 11.0 mG to 14.0 mG to 17.3mG. As noted above, this is the field level associated with a line loading of 480 MVA. From Table App-3, it can be observed that the load on this line section is projected to be 728 MVA (max.) in 2015 and so the field levels associated with this load would be modified by a factor of 728/480. Therefore the field levels at the ROW edge in 2015 are anticipated to be from 16.7 mG to 21.2 mG to 26.3 mG. —163— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 The 2006 loading for this line section is projected to be 418 MVA (max.) and so Fig 2 can also be used to ascertain the anticipated magnetic field levels. As above, the fields at the ROW edge are noted to be 11.0 mG (21.3m) and 14.OmG (18.2m) and 17.3 mG. (15.lm). Modifying these values by 418/480 yields field levels of 9.6 mG, 12.2 mG and 15.1 mG for the 2006 load. Buttonville TS to Elgin Mills Junction Steel poles are also proposed for this section of line and the poles suggested for usage are 130ft. in height. The ROW for this portion of the line traverses a residential area and also comes in very close proximity to a scl-nol and daycare centre. The magnetic field profile associated with this line section can be derived from Fig 19 of the Kinectrics Report. Since the ROW width of this line section is also assumed to vary from 100ft. to 120ft to 140 ft., the distance from tlm centre of the ROW to the ROW edge is assumed to vary from 50ft. (15.lm) to 60ft. (18.2m) to 70 ft. (21.3m). Therefore, from Fig 19 it can be seen that the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW varies from 8.0 mG to 9.5 mG to 11.5 mG. As noted on tlr graph, this is the field level associated with a line loading of 480MVA. From Table App-3, it can be seen that the load on this line section is projected to be 604 MVA (max.) in 2015 and so the field levels associated with this load would be modified by a factor of 604/480. Therefore the field levels at the ROW edge in 2015 are anticipated to be in the range of 10.1 mG to12.0 mG to 14.5 mG. The 2006 loading for this line section is projected to be 266 MVA (max.) and so Fig 19 can also be used to ascertain the anticipated magnetic field levels. Modifying the original values by 266/480 yields field levels of 4.4 mG, 6.3 mG and 5.2 mG for the 2006 load at the edge of the ROW. Elgin Mills Junction to Bloomington Junction Lattice towers with a height of 140ft. are proposed for this section of line. The ROW in this area is in a more rural environment and generally the line is not close to buildings or other facilities. The magnetic field profile associated with this line section can be derived from Fig 11 of the Kinectrics Report. Since the ROW width in this line section is also assumed to vary from 100ft. to 120ft to 140 ft., the distance from the centre of the ROW to the ROW edge is assumed to vary from 50ft. (15.1m) to 60ft. (18.2m) to 70 ft. (21.3m). Therefore, from Fig 11 it can be seen that the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW varies from 14.0 mG tol9.0 mG to 22.0 mG. As noted on the graph, this is the field level associated with a line loading of 480 MVA. From Table App-3, it can be seen that the load on this line section is projected to be 424 MVA (max.) in 2015 and so the field levels associated with this load would be modified by a factor of 424/480. Therefore the field levels at the ROW edge in 2015 are anticipated to range from 12.4 mG to 16.7 mG to 19.4 mG. The 2006 loading for this line section is projected to be 266 MVA (max.) and so Fig 13 can be used to ascertain the anticipated magnetic field levels. Modifying the original values by 266/320 yields field levels of 8.3 mG, 10.1 mG and 12.5 mG for the load in question. -164- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Bloomington Junction to Armitage Junction Due to the residential nature of this portion of the line, it is proposed that t30-ft. steel poles be utilized. The magnetic field profile associated with this line section canbe derived from Fig 19 of the Kinectrics Report. Since the ROW width in this line section is also assumed to vary from 100ft. to 120ft. to 140 ft. for most of the length, the distance from the centre of the ROW to the ROW edge is assumed to vary from 50ft. (15.1m) to 60ft. (18.2m) to 70 ft. (21.3m). Therefore, from Fig 19 it can be seen that the magnetic field level at the edge of the ROW varies from 8.0 mG to 9.5 mG to 11.5 mG. As noted on the graph, this is the field level associated with a line loading of 480 MVA. From Table App-3, it can be seen that the load on this line section is projected to be 424 MVA (max.) in 2015 and so the field levels associated with this load would be modified by a factor of 424/480. Therefore the field levels at the ROW edge in 2015 are anticipated to be from 7.1 mG to 8.4 mG to 10.1 mG. The 2006 loading for this line section is projected to be 266 MVA (max.) and so Fig 19 can be used to ascertain the anticipated magnetic field levels. Modifying the original values by 266/480 yields field levels 4.4 mG, 5.3mG and 6.3 mG for the 2006 load. Average vs. Maximum Line Loadings and Effect on Magnetic Field Values As noted within, the magnetic field results provided for the various sections of the proposed line correspond to the maximum daily load carried by the line in the years 2006 and 2015. It is the case that circuit loading is variable throughout a 24-hour period and the time -based average value would be less than the maximum load current. To arrive at an average value of circuit loading, Hydro One has carried out a statistical analysis and they have stated that they consider 70% of maximum load to be an appropriate choice for a time -based average. In fact, Hydro One used this "70 %" value in all of their magnetic field computations for this project and they did not provide magnetic field values for any other circuit loading, levels. Some Health Scientists, however, are of the opinion that the fields associated with both maximum current levels as well as those related to average currents are important when considering magnetic field effects. Given that Ontario experience is that during winter and summer months essentially maximum loading occurs for several hours during working days, a 24-hour averaging methodology wherein only 70% of maximum loading is considered would understate the exposure of persons to magnetic fields during those maximum loading periods. As indicated, the maximum circuit load on these kinds of transmission lines is not a transient type phenomenon. A review of the circuit loading pattern for most lines such as these would indicate that the load level is within 5% of the peak for more than 3 or 4 hours every week day or normal working day during the winter. As for the summer, the comparable duration would be 6 or 7 hours. —165— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Observations General Using the Kinectrics Report and scaling the graphs for the particular current values of interest, magnetic field levels can be provided for the various sections of the proposed transmission line. Since the circuit loading will be higher near Parkway TS, the magnetic fields will be relatively higher in this area. Since circuit loading is projected to increase year over year, the magnetic field levels will also increase with time. ROWMagnetic Field Comparisons Table 3 illustrates current and projected magnetic field values for 2006. Table 4 illustrates comparisons for 2015 between projected magnetic fields at the ROW edge as presented by Hydro One and those derived from the Kinectrics modeling exercise. It can be seen that the projected magnetic field levels from the two organizations compare reasonably well for most line sections when average load levels are utilized. When maximum load level projections are used, however, the Hydro One results are significantly understated. In addition, the Hydro One results for the rural lattice tower section are understated for both maximum and average loading conditions. It is difficult to explain the variation in results obtained from Hydro One and Kinectrics for the lattice tower design, even when the different assumptions utilized by these two organizations are taken into consideration. As well as using average load currents, Hydro One uses an average distance for the conductor heights. Kinectrics, on the other hand, uses the mid - span distance to compute the height from ground to conductor. This conductor height differential, however, would not account for the differences that were noted. Table 3 Magnetic Field Comparisons - ROW Edge, 2006 Values in mG Line Section Hydro One Kinectrics Kinectrics Present Level Peak 70% (At 21.3m, 18.2m and (At 21.3m, 18.2m and 15.1m) 15.1m) Parkway to Not 9.6 - 12.2 - 15.1 6.7 - 8.5 -10.6 Not Buttonville Available Available Buttonville to Not 4.4 - 5.2 - 6.3 3.1 - 3.6 - 4.4 2.0 Elgin Mills Available Note 1 Elgin Mills to Not 8.3 - 10.1- 12.5 5.8 - 7.1- 8.8 Not Bloomington Available Available Bloomington to Not 4.4 - 5.3 - 6.3 3.1 - 3.7 - 4.4 10.5 -11.5 Armitage Available Note 2 Note 1: Measurements carried out by Power Line Systems Engineering on May 10,2004. Note 2: Measurements carried out by Hydro One on various occasions during 2004. 10 -166- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Table 4 Magnetic Field Comparisons — ROW Edge, 2015 Values in mG Line Section Hydro One Kinectrics Kinectrics Peak 70% (At 21.3m, 18.2m and (At 213m, 18.2m and 15.1m) 15.1m) .Parkway to 11.0 16.7 - 21.2 — 26.3 11.7 - 14.9 — 18.4 Buttonville Buttonville to 9.0 10.1 - 12.0 — 14.5 7.1 - 8.3 -10.0 Elgin Mills Elgin Mills to 6.5 12.4- 16.7-19.4 8.7 - 11.7 — 13.6 Bloomington Bloomington to 6.5 7.1- 8.4-10.1 5.0 - 6.0— 7.0 Annita e Magnetic f eld Comparisons Adjacent to the ROW Table 5 and Table 6 illustrate the expected magnetic field value contours adjacent to the ROW for projected load levels in 2015. Values are shown for both peak loads and average loading levels. Table-5 Magnetic Field Contour Lines 2015 Maximum Values Distances in Metres ( from Centre Line) Line Section 2mG level 5mG level 7mG level Parkway Buttonville 58 37 32 Buttonville Elgin Mills 56 34 30 Elgin Mills Bloomington 52 35 30 Bloomington Armitage 43 30 23 11 —167— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Table 6 Magnetic Field Contour Lines 2015 Average Values Distances in Metres ( from Centre Line) Line Section 2mG level 5mG level 7mG level Parkway Buttonville 49 32 25 Buttonville Elgin Mills 43 30 23 Elgin Mills Bloomington 46 28 25 Bloomington Armitage 37 23 20 Conclusion In response to community concerns, many utilities have attempted to significantly reduce the magnetic field levels both on, and directly adjacent to, their ROWS. "Best Practice" organizations have attempted to achieve magnetic field levels in the relatively low single digits (measured in mG) at the edge of the ROW. In addition, at occupied locations directly adjacent to the ROW, they have attempted to achieve levels of 2mG or below. As can be seen in the documentation, it is not anticipated that Hydro One will meet these criteria in many cases for this project, particularly when time frames approaching 2015 are considered. In order to illustrate areas which will be exposed to magnetic field levels higher than 2 mG, our data were transposed onto aerial photographs. The results indicate that there are numerous houses and other facilities which will receive magnetic field levels above that criterion. These are in locations which vary in distance from 431n to 58m from the center line of the ROW when 2015 maximum load levels are considered. If 2015 average loads are used, the corresponding distances are 37m and 49m from the ROW centre line. Although Hydro One has included design measures that would somewhat reduce magnetic field levels, it is difficult for them to achieve high quality results in this particular corridor with an overhead construction approach. With overhead lines, even with double circuit arrangements and compact configurations, distance is what is required to achieve significant abatement. As can be seen from the documentation, usually a 45m to 60m spacing is required from the ROW centre line. Therefore, the ROW would either need to be 90m to 1251n wide or an equivalent area would need to be kept clear of occupied facilities. It goes without saying that those conditions do not exist for this project. ldkr Dec 17, 2004 12 CH-1-)D COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX The future year -over -year load increases in the various area municipalities are projected to be: Table App-1 Area Yearly Load Increases Location Load Increase(Yr./Yr.) Markham 12 MVA to 15 MVA Richmond Hill 12 MVA to 14 MVA Vaughan 32 MVA to 38 MVA Aurora, Newmarket and HI Rural 10 MVA to 12 MVA The above yearly load increases were obtained from "The York Region Supply Study, Adequacy of Transmission Facilities and Transmission Supply Plan, July 10, 2003" The future station load projections at Armitage TS, Buttonville TS and Markham #4 TS for the load to be connected to the proposed ParkwayTS to Armitage TS line are as follows: Table App-2 Station Incremental Load (Peak Load) Year Armitage 1&2 Markham #4 Buttonville 2006 266 MVA N/A 152 MVA 2007 280 MVA 40 MVA 150 MVA 2008 295 MVA 80 MVA 145 MVA 2009 315 MVA 110 MVA 140 MVA 2010 330 MVA 130 MVA 135 MVA 2011 350 MVA 140 MVA 130 MVA 2012 370 MVA 150 MVA 125 MVA 2013 390 MVA 160 MVA 125 MVA 2014 410 MVA 170 MVA 124 MVA 2015 1 424 MVA 180 MVA 124 MVA The loads for 2006'and for 2015 were provided by Hydro One and the remaining values were calculated using generally consistent year -over -year increases 13 -169- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 The loads for the various sections of the proposed line are projected as follows: Table App-3 Line Loadings (Peak Load) Year Elgin Mills to Buttonville to Parkway to Armitage Circuits Elgin Mills Buttonville Circuits Circuits 2006 266 MVA 266 MVA 418 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Buttonville 2007 280 MVA 320 MVA 470 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2008 295 MVA 375 MVA 520 WA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2009 315 MVA 425 MVA 565 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 (Buttonville Markham #4 2010 330 MVA 460 MVA 595 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2011 350 MVA 490 MVA 620 WA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2012 370 MVA 520 MVA 645 WA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2013 390 MVA 550 MVA 675 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2014 410 MVA 580 MVA 704 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 2015 424 MVA 604 MVA 728 MVA Armitage Armitage Armitage Markham #4 Buttonville Markham #4 The above values were obtained from the station connection approach described in Table 1 and the station loads detailed in Table App-2 14 —170— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Table App-4 Magnetic Field Levels Projected for 2015 Calculations to Derive 2mG Contour Lines Line 2015 2015 Centre Line 2015 2015 Centre Line Section Scale Derived Distance Scale Derived Distance Factor Magnetic Factor Magnetic Kinectrics Field Kinectrics Field Fig Fig Max Load Avg Load Parkway 728/480 1.32 mG 58 m 510/480 1.88 mG 49 m Buttonville Fig 2 (190ft.) Fi 2 (161ft. Buttonville 604/480 1.59 mG 56 m 424/480 2.26 mG 43 m Elgin Mills Fig 19 184ft.) Fig 19 (141ft.) Elgin Mills 424/480 2.26 mG 52 m 297/320 2.15 mG 46 m Bloomington Fig 11 171ft.) Fi 13 (151ft.) Bloomington 424/480 2.26 mG 43 m 297/480 3.23 mG 37 m Armitage Fig 19 1 (141ft.) I Fig 19 (12111. 15 -171- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Table App-5 Magnetic Field Levels Projected for 2015 Calculations to Derive 5mG Contour Lines Line 2015 2015 Centre Line 2015 2015 Centre Section Scale Derived Distance Scale Derived Line Factor Magnetic Factor Magnetic Distance Kinectrics Field Kinectrics Field Fig Fig Max Load Avg Load Parkway 728/480 3.30 mG 37 m 510/480 4.71 mG 32 m Buttonville Fig 2 121ft.) Fig 2 105ft. Buttonvilte 604/480 3.97 mG 34 m 424/480 5.66 mG 30 m Elgin Mills Fig 19 112ft. Fig 19 1 (98ft. Elgin Mills 424/480 5.66 mG 35m 297/320 5.39 mG 28 m Bloomington Fig 11 11511) Fi 13 (92ft. Bloomington 424/480 5.66 mG 30 m 297/480 8.10 mG 23 m Armitage Fig 19 98ft.) Fig 19 (75ft.) Table App- 6 Magnetic Field Levels Projected for 2015 Calculations to Derive 7mG Contour Lines Line 2015 2015 Centre Line 2015 2015 Centre Line Section Scale Derived Distance Scale Derived Distance Factor Magnetic Factor Magnetic I{inectrics Field Kinectrics Field Fig Fig Max Load Avg Load Parkway 728/480 4.62 mG 32 m 510/480 6.59 mG 25 m Buttonville Fig 2 (105ft.) Fig 2 (82ft.) Buttonville 604/480 5.56 mG 30 m 424/480 7.92 mG 23 m Elgin Mills Fig 19 98ft. Fig 19 75ft. Elgin Mills 424/480 7.92 mG 30 m 297/320 7.50mG 25 m Bloomington Fig 11 98ft. Fig 13 (82ft.) Bloomington 424/480 7.92 mG 23 m 297/480 11.3 mG 20 m Armitage Fig 19 75ft. Fig 19 67ft. 16 -172- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding -- Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis prepared for The Town of Markham by Barker, Dunn & Rossi December 20, 2004 -173- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 BDR Qualifications of the Authors Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham Barker, Dunn & Rossi (BDR) is an energy and utility management consulting firm with offices in Toronto, ON and Fairfax, VA. BDR provides technology and consulting services to companies that collectively power more than 90 percent of the homes and businesses across North America. In all, it has provided regulatory reform and restructuring expertise in more than 15 countries, spanning six continents. BDR's clients in its electricity sector practice include governments, regulators, municipalities, consumers, and generators, as well as transmission, distribution and integrated utilities. BDR's Ontario -based consultants have been involved in the electricity sector for many years, both as consultants and in management positions within utilities. In preparation to meet the requirements of corporatization and re -regulation, BDR consultants advised over 100 Ontario in matters of ownership options, joint venturing, divestment, expansion through acquisition and business planning. BAR continues to advise Ontario clients in matters of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures; business and strategic planning; and regulatory compliance. BDR's resources involved in this Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis include consultants with career specialization in the areas of utility financial management, financial modeling, cost allocation studies and rate designs. Barker, Dunn & Rossi 1 DetenrGer20, 2004 —174— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 1.1 STUDY SCOPE AND APPROACH.............................................................................................................3 1.2 RATE IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH UNDERGROUNDING PART OF MARKHAM TRANSMISSION. LINE .......3 1.3 CUMULATIVE RATE IMPACT OF INCREASED LEVEL OF UNDERGROUNDING.........................................4 2 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................8 3.1 DATA COLLECTION..............................................................................................................................8 3.2 MODELING......................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................. 12 4 IMPACTS OF UNDERGROUNDING IN THE TOWN OF MARKHAM.........................................13 5 IMPACTS OF FUTURE UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM............................................................14 December20, -175- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 1.1 Study Scope and Approach This study was performed by Barker, Dunn & Rossi (`BDR") on behalf of the Town of Markham to assess the potential impacts on transmission rates and consumer prices related to changes in the level of underground construction of transmission lines by Hydro One Networks Inc. ("HONI"), rather than overhead construction. Markham residents are concerned by potential environmental and health impacts of a proposed 230 kV overhead transmission line, and placing the line underground has been proposed as an alternative. Issues raised by HONI in connection with the suggestions for undergrounding part of the transmission line proposed for Markham that are addressed in this study are: ➢ higher costs for underground as compared with overhead construction of part of the Markham transmission line and the potential impact of the incremental costs on rates; and ➢ the cumulative impact on rates that might result from potential demand in other municipalities for increased undergrounding of transmission lines. BDR based its analysis on publicly available information sources, including HONI's filings with the Ontario Energy Board ("OEB"), its financial statements and tariff schedules, and widely available industry information. Detailed cost information was not available for either completed or proposed projects. As a result, estimates of the costs of overhead lines were based on summary information provided by HONI, and the costs of lines installed underground were based on ratios derived from reports prepared by the predecessor of HONI. A model was created to test impacts based on the transmission rates in isolation, and as part of the total cost of electricity service to customers in the Town of Markham. The model used the "rate base/revenue requirement" principles that have been used and are expected to continue to be applied in setting transmission rates under regulation by the OEB. This approach assesses rate impacts based on HONI's total system and customer base, and avoids the necessity to assume local load growth or system benefits on a project by project basis. 1.2 Rate Impact Associated withUndergroundingFartofMarkham Transmission Line HONI has estimated that the incremental cost for construction of a 12 km section of the proposed 230 kV transmission line underground instead of overhead would be $70 million. The effect of this $70 million incremental cost for constructing 12 km of line underground on transmission system rates would be to increase HONI's 2006 revenue requirement by approximately $8.9 million, or 0.7% as compared with the base case. The effect on the total cost of electricity for a typical Markham residential customer consuming 1,000 kWh of —176— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 BDRTransmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham electricity monthly, would be an increase of 7.6 cents per month. This represents 0.7% (seven tenths of a percent) of the transmission component of the customer's bill, and 0.075% (slightly more than seven one -hundredths of a percent) of the customer's total electricity bill. 1.3 Cumulative Rate Impact oflncreased Level of Undergrounding To address the issue of potential demand in other municipalities for additional undergrounding, the study also examined the cumulative effects of ten years' incremental undergrounding costs (i.e. effects on 2014 rates). Scenarios as to the number of kilometres of line that might be undergrounded under a reasonable, consistent policy in the future were developed for illustrative purposes. The scenarios assumed that over a 10-year period (2005 through 2014) between 50 and 200 kilometres of transmission lines would be installed underground rather than overhead in addition to any underground projects currently planned by HONT For each installation scenario, a low and a high cost assumption was tested. In total, therefore, ten scenarios were analyzed, assuming total incremental capital additions to HONI's rate base over ten years ranging from $263 million to $2,365 million. The table at the end of this section summarizes the results. If a program of undergrounding were implemented by HONI starting in 2005, resulting in installation of 80 km. of underground lines by 2014, and the costs shared by all users of HONI's system through the network transmission charges, the cumulative impact is that 2014 transmission rates are higher, as compared with no undergrounding projects in addition to the current plan, by between 3.4% and 7.7%, depending on the estimate of incremental costs. However, since transmission charges represent only about 11 % of the customer's total bill', the impact on the customer's total cost of consuming electricity would be between 0,37% and 0.84%. A typical Markham Hydro residential customer consuming 1,000 kWh of electricity per month would pay between $0.39 and $0.89 per month more, in 2014, than if no incremental undergrounding took place. Total bill impacts of two percent are possible, but would require: ' Customer impact analysis was based on a Markham Hydro residential customer consuming 1000 kWh of electricity per month, applying rates in effect at December, 2004. Transmission charges represent 11.0% of such a customer's total electricity bill, which also includes energy charges, distribution fixed and variable changes, a debt recovery charge, and other regulated charges related to the wholesale market. Transmission charges were computed to represent approximately 10.7% of the total bill for a Markham Hydro General Service customer consuming 6,000 kWh per month and 11.4% for a customer consuming 200,000 kWh per month. Across Ontario, the proportion of the customer's total bill represented by transmission charges would depend on several factors, which are related to customer size, class and load factor, and to the distribution rates of the local distribution company ("LDC") serving the customer. The same analysis carried out for a different size customer of a different LDC might therefore result in a figure slightly different from 11 %; however, in the context of an estimate of order of magnitude of impacts such differences would not be significant Barker, Dunn & Rom - 4 2004 -177- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham ➢ a consistently high level of undergrounding activity (averaging 20 km annually) for ten years; and ➢ that the incremental cost of undergrounding, as compared with overhead installation, be at the high end of the estimated range ($10.8 million per km) on average for all projects. In BDR's estimation, no information has been put forward to indicate that this combination of conditions has high probability of occurring. Dunn &Rossi 5 December20, 2004 —178— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 OOO) 0 p0� 00 we» H ea vs .» en Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham G Twember20, 2004 —179— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding BDR Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham 2 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE Hydro One Networks Inc. ("HONI") is proposing to construct certain 230 W overhead transmission facilities in order to deal with potential transmission overloads in York Region. The facilities will be situated in the Towns of Markham, Aurora and Newmarket, and the proposed routing will bring high voltage lines within close proximities to residential housing, parklands and schools. Strong concerns have been raised by residents about the effects of the lines on the environment and on the health of the residents and schoolchildren. As a result, the Town of Markham (the "Town") is attempting to gather information to support the development of viable alternative proposals that will meet local electricity supply needs and address the environment and health concerns. The Town has retained advisors to assist in discussions and in any formal proceedings that may result. One alternative that would mitigate environmental and public health concerns is for HONI to construct underground rather than overhead facilities. HONI's system is 99% overhead, with only 263 km of line in urban areas currently underground. HONI's initial response to the proposed underground construction alternative is that it would be too costly, and have an undesirable impact on transmission rates. Also, HONI has expressed the concern that if it accepted the underground alternative in York Region, HONI may have to develop policies calling for underground construction in similar circumstances anywhere in Ontario and therefore the costs to be considered in assessing rate impact should be not only the costs of the Markham assets, but the cost of implementing a consistent policy for future system design and construction throughout Ontario. In order for HONI to recover the cost of the new assets through rates to consumers, the costs would have to be approved for inclusion in its rate base by the Ontario Energy Board. Despite expressing these concerns, HONI did not provide any calculations on potential rate impacts. In order to assess the reasonableness of HONI's expressed concerns, the Town retained Barker, Dunn & Rossi ("BDR") to estimate the incremental costs of underground construction of components of the transmission system, and to determine, based on this cost estimate, the impact of the increase in average transmission costs on rates and charges to consumers. BDR has extensive North American as well as particular Ontario experience in utility revenue requirement development, cost allocation, and rate designs, as well as other assignments involving development of long term financial models. The BDR consultants involved in this Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis have developed revenue requirements and designed both bundled and distribution rates for Ontario utilities, and completed numerous assignments involving the financial modeling of regulated and unregulated energy businesses. A sample of relevant consulting assignments includes: Dunn rC-11M COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding BDR Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham ➢ due diligence review of regulatory and business aspects of HONI (including transmission) for a potential purchaser of a 49% interest in HONI; ➢ development of unbundled revenue requirement and transmission tariff for the Volta River Authority, Ghana; ➢ cost allocation and rate designs for Enwave District Energy, a Toronto steam distribution system; ➢ three cost allocation studies for distribution utilities in New Brunswick, one of which included a long term rate increase strategy and rate designs for all customer classes; ➢ financial modeling of distribution utilities as a basis for consideration of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures; and ➢ financial modeling of generation businesses and individual generation project proposals. The assignment consisted of: ➢ gathering relevant data to the extent available, ➢ developing cost estimates and projections, ➢ modeling and projecting HONI's regulated rate base and revenue requirement on a basis that reflects the manner in which its future transmission rates are expected to be established; ➢ incorporating estimates of the incremental cost of undergrounding reflecting a range of reasonable assumptions; and ➢ comparing the resulting transmission costs and total customer bill. 3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Data Collection In the context of the processes now underway, HONI has no obligation to provide cost or technical information to support the investigations of other parties, as it would in, for example, a rate approval proceeding before the Ontario Energy Board. It was therefore necessary to obtain all data for the study from public sources. In order to answer the question of impacts of changes of costs on rates to consumers, two approaches are possible. A methodology for assessing the rate impacts of an individual pool funded project (intended to apply to load connections) is set out in the Transmission System Code. In order to adapt this approach to the needs of this Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis, it would be necessary to incorporate assumptions as to the future incremental loads and other system benefits on a project by project basis. Since no data were available on which to base such specific assumptions, the second alternative was adopted. This method involves development of rates by building up a revenue requirement from the utility's costs, following the approach used (and expected to continue) in regulated utility rate approvals by the OEB. A rate base, —181— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Preoared for the Town of Markham revenue requirement and rates were computed for each year (2005 through 2014) based on historical financial data for HONI, cost increase projections, and factors or allowances established in prior OEB decisions. This approach allows the rate impacts of incremental capital expenditures to be assessed without specific assumptions as to the location or technical specifications of individual projects. The filings of HONI's predecessor company for initial approval of a transmission revenue requirement and rates, and the OEB's decision in that matter therefore represented a starting point for the analysis. The application was filed in 1999, and includes forecasts for 2000. As well as being out of date, the documents did not segregate costs by asset class, and did not include any analysis that would assist in identifying the costs that might result from underground as compared with overhead construction. However, there is no more recent general revenue requirement filing by HONI with the OEB, and HONI's current transmission rates are based on the revenue requirement established in that proceeding. In the hope of obtaining more current data, and perhaps more detailed data to supplement the rate filing, BDR reviewed HONI's financial statements for 2002 and 2003. Unfortunately, although more up to date, these proved to be a poor source because all figures are reported at a high level of aggregation, and because the "assets" in the financial statements include categories which would not be part of HONI's regulated rate base. However, some current transmission operating cost and capital expenditure information was taken and used in the analysis. The models built for the analysis therefore incorporate data from the rate application, data from the financial statements, and estimates. HONI is also required to obtain approval to construct significant specific facilities. A review was made of the files in five such applications, to obtain available data on the location, length and cost of each project. Only one project was identified as consisting of underground work. The cost per km of line on two overhead projects was given at $1.4 million and $1.9 million. BDR was advised that HONI had estimated the range of costs per km for overhead transmission lines at between $1.2 million and $1.8 million in the course of discussions related to the current York Region project. Since these data are consistent, it was decided to use the values of $1.2 million and $1.8 million as the "low" and "high" scenario costs per km of overhead lines, respectively. BDR consulted informally with engineers experienced in electricity system design and construction, and were informed that underground transmission could be expected to cost between 5 times and 7 times as much as the same length of overhead lines, and was advised that this is consistent with figures mentioned by HONI. BDR also reviewed a report2 compiled by HONI's predecessor, Ontario Hydro, which provided estimates of costs for overhead and underground lines at 1992 cost levels. While the actual figures in the report z Greater Toronto Region, Electricity Supply Project, Technical Evaluation Manual, Transmission Projects Grid System, Ontario Hydro, date unknown. Barker, Dunn & Rain 9 December20, 2004 —182— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 BDRTransmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham were not considered current enough to use directly, it was assumed that the cost relationships between overhead and underground (underground costing between 5 and 6.5 times as much as overhead) would continue to be valid. A cost multiplier of 5 times was therefore used in the "low cost" scenarios and 7 times in the "high cost" scenarios. No data were available to assist in determining how many kilometres of line would need to be undergrounded, should HONI adopt a consistent policy of undergrounding under the conditions faced in Markham. BDR therefore developed 5 scenarios for comparison, assuming that a range of 50-200 km of lines are undergrounded over a 10-year period. Some scenarios involved equal annual levels of undergrounding activity, while others involved more undergrounding in some years than in others. The model was designed to enable any pattern of undergrounding activity to be input and analyzed. To complete the modeling, BDR also incorporated estimates of cost escalation, tax rates and other data from its usual sources. Cost escalator assumptions are consistent with recent CPI increases, and the same assumptions were used by the Government's consultants in their analysis framework for offerings of generation and demand side capacity. Tax assumptions are based on current indications of future federal and provincial corporate tax rate levels. For system load growth assumptions, BDR drew on forecasts published by the Independent Electricity Market Operator ("IMO"). The same assumptions have been applied by BDR in recent value modeling for regulated and unregulated Ontario clients. Assumptions as to the capital structure and allowed return to investors for HONI, which would be part of its regulated revenue requirement, and for the allocation of total revenue requirement to cost pools, were based on the approaches and factors used in establishing HONI's present transmission rates. The following table sets out some key figures and assumptions, and their sources or rationales. barker, Lunn 0 Kossi 10 5,mxb,r20, 2004 —183— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Assumptions Annual load growth Wage and materials cost escalation (aid) Depreciation rate on midyear gross plant Regulated Productivity Improvement Factor Achieved Reduction In Controllable Costs Income Taxes as Percentage of Pre-tax earnings Gross Distribution and General Plant Capital Additions - Historic Capital Additions Forecast Retirements Opening Accumulated Depreciation Working Capital Rate of Return on Rate Base Common Equity Preferred Shares Medium and Long Term Debt Common Equity Preferred Shares Medium and Long Term Debt Revenue Requirement Transmission OM&A Incl. Corp Services Incremental Cast due to Undergrounding Transmission OM&A Cost Escalator Other Regulated Income Cost Pool Percentages Network Pool Line Connection Pool Transformation Connection Pool Cost Pool Charge Determinants Network Pool Line Connection Pool Transformation Connection Pool Rates Per kW per Month, 2004 Network Pool Line Connection Pool Transformation Connection Pool Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham From IMO Demand Forecast 2005-2014, 0.9% for energy, adjusted slightly to reflect expectation of higher growth of peak relative to energy BDR estimate, reflective of industry specific costs (of NERA projections of 2% annual CPI growth Based on ratio of depreciation to gross plant In.1999 and 2000 Test Years as flied with DEB In RP-1999-0044 Assumption eliminates any potential distortions due to regulatory lag or effects of PBR Assumption eliminates any potential distortions due to efficiency gains by Hydro One, which are unrelated to decisions with respect to undergrounding Forecast tax rates, assumes normalized basis of taxation, based on deemed financial structure. Opening 2000 Value as filed with OEB In RP-1999-0044 Based on 2002 and 2003 Flnanclal Statements BDR Estimate Opening 2000 Value as filed with DEB In RP-1999-0044 Based on levels approved in RP-1999-0044 Based on approved levels In RP-1999-0044 Based on approved levels In RP-1999-0044 _ Based on approved levels In RP-1999-0044 Based on approved levels In RP-1999-0044 Based on approved levels in RP-1999-0044 Based on approved levels In RP-1999-0044 Historicfrom 2002 and 2003 Financial Statements Inflation adjustment; Increased due to growth assumed to be offset by efficiencies Historic levels as filed In RP-1999-0044, escalated annually ae'..+rq From cost pool allocations filed In RP-1999-0044 ". From cast pool allocations filed In RP-1999-0044 M' From cost pool allocations filed In RP-1999-0044 Coincident peak demands, Initially estimated from rates, afterwards from growth Coincident peak demands, initially estimated from rates, afterwards from growth Coincident peak demands, initially estimated from rates, afterwards from growth As approved April 30, 2002 _ As approved April 30, 2002 As approved April 30. 2002 —184— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham 3.2 Modeling A model was developed that would build up a regulated rate base and revenue requirement for HONI according to the principles that would apply in setting its transmission rates. A base case model was developed as a basis for comparison of alternative future scenarios to the year 2014. The model develops each year's rate base by computing mid -year net plant, and adding working capital3. The rate base provides the basis for return to shareholders, PILS, and interest to be computed. Depreciation is estimated based on the ratio of depreciation expense to gross plant in the 1999 rate filing. OM&A expense is initially taken from financial statements and escalated by 2% thereafter. The 2% is assumed to take account of input cost escalations, growth, and any operating efficiencies realized by HONI. An assumption was made for purposes of this study that the rates would change each year to match changes in costs. New rates were computed for HONI on an annual basis by starting with the 1999 breakdown of the revenue requirement into cost pools. For 2002, the approved level of rates is known; using these rates and the estimated 2002 revenue requirement, an estimated level of the billing determinants for each cost pool is computed. These amounts serve as a proxy for actual data on the load levels on which customers would be billed at the transmission rates. The computed load levels can then be escalated in the model by a growth factor, so that the rates reflect not only changes in costs, but also changes in load on the system. An annual growth rate of 1 % is estimated, based generally on the IMO's most recent 10-year "Outlook" report. Once rates are computed, they can be compared year over year, and any scenarios developed can be compared by looking at the aggregate impact over ten years (i.e. to 2014). 3.3 Scenario Development As explained in section 11, two cost scenarios were identified. The "low cost" scenario assumes that overhead lines cost $1.2 million per km to construct, and that underground lines cost 5 times that amount. The "high cost" scenario assumes that overhead lines cost $1.8 million per km to construct, and that underground lines cost 7 times that amount. These 3 It is anticipated that HONI's next OEB rate approval will involve a change from the currently approved approach to computation of working capital allowance for rate base, and that the change will reduce rate base. However, in order to limit the number and magnitude of variables in considering transmission rate impacts of undergrounding, modeling of years to 2014 assumed no change in the approach to working capital allowance. Similarly, although it is anticipated that the OEB will reduce market -based rates of return and interest, the currently approved levels were assumed in the model to remain in place until 2014. In reality, the timing of rate increases would be determined by many factors including govemment policy, regulatory policy (such as Performance -Based Regulation), and administrative considerations. These issues are not reflected. The analysis simply determines the level of rates that are implied by the costs computed within the model. Barker, Dunn & Rossi 12 December 20, 2004 —185— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding BDR Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham computations result in a "low" incremental cost per km of $4.8 million, and a "high" incremental cost of $10.8 million. Five scenarios were also developed to reflect alternative estimates of the amount and timing of incremental undergrounding projects that might be carried out. The following table shows each of these scenarios and computes the annual and total incremental capital additions for undergrounding, for the "low" and "high" cost assumptions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 2005 2006 200T 2008 Z09 M10 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Coat per km°LOW' - Incremental Only 4.8 4.9 6.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 U 6.7 Coat per Nm"HIGH"-Incremental Only Iola 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.7 11.9 12.2 12.4 12.7 12.9 Incremental Undergroanding Scenario gA 8 i5., 5 :i!'5 5 ji 5 5 ��.r 5 5:91't S . f.W Total lnaremenal Capital. 'Low N0 24.5 25.0 25.6 25,0 26.5 27a 2Za 29.1 25.] 2al Total Incremental Capital.'HigM 54 .0 65.1 66.2 57.3 56.5 $9.6 60.8 62.0 63.3 64.5 591.3 Incremental Undergrounding Scenario NB „5 ;':t5.x Y 15 $c',5 * $ -:: 15 5 ('epdF 5 15 , 5 f'Ia:aO Total Incremental Capital, -LOW' 24.0 24.5 74.9 25.5 28.0 79.5 27.0 27.6 84.4 28.7 422.0 Total lnaemanml Capital, "High" MC 55.1 168.5 57.3 58.5 178.9 60.8 62.0 189.6 54Z 949.4 Incremental Under9rounding Scenario gC ,1D :'":1f0 10 ,u":10 10 t10 W i;ufk 10 10 ,!X.i YO i.F100 Total Incremental Cepital,'Low" 48.0 49.0 49.9 50.9 52.0 53.0 MA 55.1 56.2 57.4 525.6 Total Incremental Capltal,-Hitih- 10aa 110,2 112.4 114,6 116.9 119.2 121.6 124.1 126.5 129.1 1,182.6 Incremental Undergrounding Scenan. gO 10 1.1 a M1 , 10 P9101:iji I.10 10 10 t,201 I'= 10 ':130 Total Incremental Capital, lave 48.0 97.9 49.9 50.9 103.9 53,0 54.1 55.1 112.5 57.4 6927 Total Incremental Capllel,"High" 108.0 220.3 1124 114.6 233.6 It" 121.6 124.1 253.1 129.1 1,S36.2 Ir,anemental Undergroundin9 Swnal.WE I 2q a ':; 201 20 ![ii2o 9 20 !'29 20 "!it 120t,,, 20 UIF e.20 , Ip�20a Totat lncremenW Capful,"lux+ 96A 97.9 99.9 101.9 103.9 icon 108.1 110.3 112.5 114.7 1,051.2 Total Incremental CaplWl,"HI9h- 215.0 220.3 224.7 229.2 233.8 238.5 243.3 MIA 20.1 258.1 2,365.1 4 IMPACTS OF UNDERGROUNDING IN THE TOWN OF MARKHAM HONI provided preliminary budgetary estimates for the York Region project, both for an overhead line and for an overhead line with underground sections through built areas. The preliminary cost estimate for the construction of an overhead double circuit 230 kV transmission line replacing the existing transmission line on the corridor from Parkway transformer station to Armitage transformer station is about $60 million dollars. The preliminary cost estimate for the same double circuit 230 kV transmission line, assuming that approximately 12 km of line are buried underground, is about $130 million.5 The effect of this one time $70 million incremental capital expenditure for constructing 12 km of line underground was modeled by assuming that the work is carried out in 2005, and that the cost is included in total as part of rate base in 2006. The effect of this $70 million incremental cost for constructing 12 km of line underground on transmission system rates would be to increase HONI's 2006 revenue requirement by approximately $8.9 million, or 0.7% as compared with the base case. The effect on the total cost of electricity for a typical Markham residential customer, consuming 1,000 kWh of electricity monthly, would be an increase of 7.6 cents per month. This represents 0.7% (seven tenths of a percent) of the 2004 email from Carrie -Lynn Oanibene, HONI COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham transmission component of the customer's bill, and 0.075% (slightly more than seven one - hundredths of a percent) of the customer's total electricity bill. rJ IMPACTS OF FUTURE UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM The base case model was first used to determine the transmission rate increases that will occur by 2014 without assumed incremental undergrounding. The cost assumptions are conservative (2% cost escalation annually and 1% annual load growth), along with existing regulatory policies as to deemed capital structure and rates of return to investors. The annual increase in revenue requirement averages approximately 1.4% per year, but because of growth in system usage, rates increase by only about 0.4% annually. By 2014, rates are approximately 4.4% higher than in 20046. This rate level serves as a base for comparison with the other scenarios. To produce the scenarios, the total incremental cost of undergrounding as computed for each scenario was added each year starting in 2005, including an allowance for cost escalation (2.0%). This results in an additional increase in rate base, and the model computes incremental depreciation expense, accumulated depreciation, interest, PILS, and return to shareholders. It was assumed that OM&A expenses would remain unchanged as a result of the undergrounding, as compared with the base case. In developing the specific rates resulting from the scenarios, it was assumed that all the incremental underground assets would belong to the "network pool", and therefore be recovered in the transmission network charge This assumption is consistent with a September, 2004 filing by HONI with the OEB, in which approval is sought for construction of two new 2.2 km 230 kv underground cable circuits in Toronto. The project cost estimate is $44.7 million. In its application HONI states that "The proposed new underground transmission lines are considered network assets with the costs included in the network pool. These costs are to be recovered through incremental transmission network revenues." 7 However, the impact summary assumes that the consumer would be subject to network, line connection, and transformation connection cost pool charges. 6 This is indicated by the figure 1.044 for the Base Case 2014 transmission rates. The figure is a ratio of the rate level for the scenario in that year to the rate level in the year 2004. ' HONI application EB-2004-0436, Exhibit A. Tab 2. Schedule 1. no. 2-3 Deeenrber —187— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 fi &I 1t li: W ease Lase, No Incremental Undergroundmg Low Incremental Coss Incremental Undergrounding 50 km Incremental Undergrounding 80 km Incremental Undergrounding 100 km Incremental Undeigroundlog 130 km Incremental Undergrounding 200 km High Incromental Costs Incmmeniai Und.,g=r ing 50 km Incremental Undar,rounding 80 on Incremenlal Underyrounding 100 km Inaemenlal Undergrounding 130 km Inaemenlal Underyrounding 200 km Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 20052006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013.2014 1.005 1.009 1.014 1.018 1 A 23 1.027 1.031 1.036 1.040 1.044 1.007 1.014 1.021 1.028 1.034 1.041 1.047 1.054 1.060 1.066 1.007 1.014 1A25 1.012 1.039 1.050 1.057 1.063 1,073 1.079 1.009 1.016 1.028 1.037 1.046 1.054 1.063 1.071 1.080 1.088. 1.009 1.023 1.032 1.041 1.055 1.064 1.072 1.080 1.093 1.101 1.013 1.028 1.042 1.055 1.069 .1.082 1.095 1.107 1.120 1.132 1.010 1.020 1.029 1.039 1.049 1.058 1.067 1.076 1.085 1.093 1.010 1.020 1.040 . 1.050 1.059 1.078 1.088 1.096 1.115 1.124 1.015 1.030 1.045 1.060 1.074 1.089 1.102 1.118 1.129 1,143 1.015 two 1.058 1,070 1.095 1.109 1.123 1.136 1.159 1.172 1.02A 1.051 1.076 1.101 1.126 1.150 1.173 1.197 1.219 1.241 This table shows the rate impacts of each scenario for each year. Note that for 80 km and 130 km scenarios, year -over -year increases are uneven because the level of undergrounding is assumed to be greater in some years than in others. However, as shown in the following graph, annual fluctuations are less important than the overall upward trend in the rates as a result of the cumulative effects of higher capital spending. 1.30 1.25 1.05 1.00 Transmission Prices as Compared with 2004 Levels due to Undergrounding Scenarios 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Veer -ietl Nlgn -100 Low 130 High -130 Low -200 High -200 Law, -50 Hlgh -50 Low ^^^-80 High 60 Low No Incremental UG The table in Section 1 shows the cumulative effects of a 10-year undergrounding program based on these scenarios. Moderate scenarios in terms of level of activity per km produce impacts after 10 years of between 3.5% and 9.5% of the transmission rates depending on the Barker, Dunn & Rossi 15 Deomber20, 2004 -188- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission Line Undergrounding Rate Impact Investigation and Analysis Prepared for the Town of Markham cost assumptions, and a maximum of just one percent of the total bundled bill. Modest levels of undergrounding at sensitive locations could be undertaken with impacts of one-half percent or less of total bills. The computation is illustrated for a residential customer consuming 1,000 kWh per month, using Markham Hydro's rates currently in effect. The computation was also tested for typical customers in the General Service class, with very similar results. Should a scenario be developed which incorporates analysis of specific transmission projects, including lengths of lines, portions to be installed underground, and cost alternatives, these could be analyzed, and the rate impacts determined, using the model and methodology described in this report. barker, Dunn 0-Eassi 16 Dere mher 20, 2004 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 a) Y y D O > E L sC O O O O cE0 magi 0 • +C N N v, c0 m 0) M a) 'O .'C. .O-� T a) E C O m .— C a) t��a) �a) V > C G% O'¢ M • in Y ca ~ O -O Cc: O C cQ _ S 1 �o. ^ 0- 0,oO tm °-0 a)U)NW c >, O vya�' S a)cm r-o cp T �j •� 'O O ^+ c O cni. O O- 0 Q O I— Q O O,'a O C _U .a) maa))c pro w (na W t ❑ > — N N0-0 y 7- c m� 00 O �'2 O 4-1 -- E CM T Q 0 ° L :O O �_ C O Q .Q ._ a) a) J a) U)i 0 (� N > L O .> . aS :2 a3 C W i 0 O L w K U Q U N aI O O O co C O U) O N c O E0 i c E U) U O 7 O c 0 0 a c cs L c L •C E U O O cn'ao8 O a) 0m� c E > 0 > 'C c E O C.) Y +-_ e U ai ca -o a) c O o U E U L >. U) 0 T U) () a7 H � (a as ~ C V- O ;E as O <a U) c m ❑. ° c rn c c _ '> a O O �O o =a _CL O c N O 0 O CD M C N � 2 a3 r O 0 a) o O r M a) -0 tm C 0 � c: or r- rn -0 a a O o O) 0 O o X O a) 'o EEaE"�•` Y O N y O co U t0 > X O Lo > c N O N U N 0 0 w O O o U a) U L C L C U� U O 0 a) -o a) 0 ■ _o a) O a) a) ❑ ❑ U ZIOZI >ZI ` U) O O O C) O UN UNO= Q Q O w ° > a U) �, Ln L 0) f6 w O C c 3 -0 :a _ •L N � L 1 � BCL 0L —190— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 c E T p a) o c E 0 0 c O c T c o p c c a CD a) 'O p : 'O a) (a -0 C c �> C N ccG O m c m C C> a) = w c:U> N c () c> a)C a) O O L N O p L O C C O U a) O c` c U C U) O L C )n > Cnsy y 0 (nLy > UJ� T pay (n �fns N • f •� Ui L m L N U y m W L N ca p C L .c M O c 'C O O 'E m O -c .L ca p "'' L U N a ) C j" a) s :� C O N c a C a3 N C a c N c -0 O c > c a 3 m> c � c > Q Ca O-° '0 CL2a a) X o o O- o •o c O o •O � aa) a o c o. U)) z a)A a SIL a Sd a z aa))EL z a) a) _ c _ U o c co . c: U c) 7 o M a) L :3. U O° AirnL � �p dc m � .0) O M) — m O N.7.0 (3) a)a) : O Oo O C 7 C 0— a) 0 7m O -0 O �` -0 x �(a VOE pO E E a a) O � O ap E E a) O 6 U Cn N O E L y N .`1 a) L " -r- m L 1Y a) a). L a3 O U V. a C r Y a) L Cn > x O O> C O ''t > c C O C a) O Q O) > C O Co N O a) U co O O U 'd• O Ca — U _. U U lL N' O O U O m 7 U c 7 U o O U o L O U „--� J O L O U O L U • a) C a) rn m p U L a) m QJ a) O m .0 s L o ❑ L ❑ m ca p J O ❑ mt L) co L)O L L ~ L a) C O�U C a) •.p OM > >, c:x O� a) N U•> c:X 0 a) O O> >, O U S❑ U N O 2 U N W O U N O Sco U • Q m U U W L O L O L O > L L 000 L y O V 0.: , , w 00 myfn a)FF-H UU) c �� W > a)~�- d~Ho >_ dyv m > W c3�cm cd'�°xa �> = (D L ,.• v •ia E W L L E= a) �t(L +(+ Qv t*v QVQ* Q N —191— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 C C r 0 2 CB 0 C 0 L >l >, O NCL Ca m y Q '(D N> C +O C> p YU)> N Y p N Y Q U) N O C) -O O -0 0 O 3 0- aM 3 d• (O C a 7~ LC .� N N N ((n f N N 0 U) CD fn m CO .B 'OO C E O N d CL C `Lo N a) U > n.o c o Nan L 333 3��aa)i `- x p md, o. oo� O O y CLQ W O y a) x Q WZ ro a) 0 0" ZZ m fA C M Z oi'v-'U _ c O 3 _ a) l O N Q N iCD �_ C C y .5 5 D An (D fl a) 0 > a) O L a) •C a) 0 C V 3 C l0 3 C 0 � C 3 C C" 3 'O m 0_r '0 +- o a -p 0= U -O p_ 0 0 -0-0 IU C L a)0o O (6 0) L a)�o O (Q 0) L � M L 4"' M L 00 c 0 E a -E Q oE E a) Y ) m Y 43 > G O O O U )O > O t0 O N >XO (O O U )O ) O 0 co > O a3) 't 0 U C U a) a) a) -o Qa) a) -0 nm a) -0 (D -0 o 0g 0 0L 3 a) 0-1-- Z0 3 a) am 3 a) �L ❑a) ❑ (D 0-9-- ❑ a) 0� ❑a) asU 00 )0 �0 �0 a) N Y .L. p a)-0 Cp V) Y C C, a) Y CC:, y Y C(D > > NOS O UN UN UN UN r LL � Q9 c- = r L O a% U) 07 of O ° x U LLJ I d— N W a)O mZ S R O O U L- '— U` U 2 �" C a)ID 01 L== 0 � 0a o ° 0 c..:° U=Cx <CF-L) QF�—U0 41�-vin 4YQ m -192- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 0 §E j§ & ) 2 % 2 ƒ \ » §/ k \ ]/ \ / ) 7 � ® ) co 0, M0 -_ . _ )\ *2 —/ ©\$ ]G ©7Enc ]p/=) \c 2= 9% ]E2 E/ a)02 2( }/ \§ 2) \} =co z, a-in2=o z0- CLm \} 7 1 0 / \/\ \\\ \\ )20 j©® ©@ ±2° _ -0o= _ !® � � -0 a ) \ 0 0 ) 0 CD ®0 °k0 ®i\ \7/ § a)%)© � \ 2 ±© }fe ' . . $ \ ° ° (D a") § §/S@ §§\ 7/6 &0 g« �\C) \ °2 _\ 2 §S\ =ca \3{\\ . /) )\ \ 6 S\ o o 6 ) ,e t2 #2 #2 ®2 - \\\/ \\ §\ ƒ\ k \§ 0 i/\ 1aM . I �2� {f] \ £ 70� a) CD ®77 )/ - ao4 a§■ <� . -193- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 c c W O as a) c J � v U O) C — c O C -0 @ a) c > N a) �_ t U N 0 O U 0) � N > O 0 N 0 -O li6 F- V-� N a) a as u) w O a5 O CO 2ca c N a) urcj a) (a 0 of CD o.�allo N 0 CL of C > c m 0 ` U a) 7 cn 0) O 0 CL O c d a 0 .E Z 0 (n L c Q. F- N 0 O O () .L� O a) > O a5 'O "0 (0 L " C 1 " a a) Oc c m C c -00 (D0'0 -00 a) C > a) O +1 0 N U .6 Q O -0-0 S a) L 3 [O w 0 a) L .— (D — 0) (D N N C ra m C E c m 3 E 3 C Y a) CL � U m c a) a) a 3 c?N O� W C.) [O to ca w m U .0 w ca c m — m = 3= CDco o s 3 • N � OL ■ m c m ..`. L N „_., m c 5 c N a> m a C O L J => '0 Y c c U U m CD M (a a� 0N N m a> al N m v IM � N a) m QL rn 0 N a)> rn O uJ 0 U) 0 0 (D O to CD O 0 Q 0 -194- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 c 'a 4� V L o 0 E (D E aZ� Q a) c > a3 -O O 1 -O Y aS N C U N a) U O 0 0 O N N O, a) 0 U N ++ :«+ ++ V! y I cu a) 0 E E O a) a) N m ) m .o C U C > c "O C a) O N E C K � 0 0 O C a) « N LD ca .4" a1 _� C 0)y a� U a) �. a) c oc, U) cua) - m c�,a a`)m� m W V) p m U 7 a) a3 — U > 7 Q) v p n a) M E OL __ ,O a) 0 ,O_ m a) O r- uJ UE �ams C OL a) a) -o ��Em Q ZI N •- ,, N a) a) ?ao?- C a) O c O a_ - oU) -' 0r)a O c a) N ca > I— C 1_ E OI E a) U C7 W ii d v L 0 O I U)) <(D O a)-0O > O m td C_ L m C 1 Y Y Q s a -195- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Transmission System Planning Process Hydro One/York Region Utilities Analysis and Alternative Viewpoint Prepared for the Town of Markham/Town of Aurora Hydro One Task Force By David K. Richmond, P. Eng. Summary The system planning process carried out in 2003 by Hydro One and the York Region utilities reviewed transmission solutions that met immediate concerns. These did not, however, meet the longer term strategic transmission requirements of this area. With a longer term view and with a stage development approach, as was carried out in the past by Ontario Hydro for this area, other alternatives would have been identified which meet both the short and longer term requirements. Background As part of a Load Forecasting exercise the York Region Utilities, along with Hydro One, participated in a system planning process to reinforce the area transmission system. This review consisted of supply side alternatives only for reasons that have been well chronicled. Various transmission alternatives were reviewed and one of these was selected for further more detailed assessment. Planning and Review Process Utilized The planning process that was used was very tactical in concept and had a short term reactive focus. The primary concern that was identified was the projected overload on the 230 kV Claireville TS to Minden TS transmission circuits. In addition to this, was the need to have connection points for the various area transformer stations that were projected over the next decade. In order to meet these needs, it was proposed that another north/south transmission line be located in the Region. This line could then provide load relief for the B82V/B83V circuits and make available connection points for new transformer stations. Previous Ontario Hydro System Planning Methodology In the past there was an attempt to look past immediate concerns and to try to also envisage future needs and future conditions. With this approach, it was thought less likely to be burdened with sub- optimal solutions that would shortly require modification. Using this methodology, Stage1, Stage 2, etc. and Ultimate Stage solutions were put —196— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 forward in a milestone based approach. It is also fair to say that most large, well regarded utilities use these system planning technigms. Long Range Planning Applied to the York Region Situation It is interesting to note that considerable long range thinking has already been carried out with respect to the GTA and surrounding areas. This information is captured within various documents prepared by the former Ontario Hydra. With regard to potential B82V/B83V overloading and future TS connections, clearly some transmission reinforcement is necessary. If there are no generation solutions possible because of the current policy vacuum, then considerable additional transmission will be needed. A long range solution previously put forward by Ontario Hydro, envisaged a solution that would meet these needs and also meet longer term requirements. The longer term needs at that time were considered to be a northern GTA high voltage bypass and improved connections to the existing north/south 500kV lines. Not only do those needs still exist today, but they are greater now due to the heavy Cherrywood TS to Claireville TS load flows and the proposed Manitoba to southern Ontario transmission link. Proposed Long Term Transmission Solution Ultimate Stage A long range proposal put forward by Ontario Hydro approximately ten years ago envisaged a 500kV bypass north of the Region and then curving southward and. connecting into the existing 500kV circuits that are located adjacent to the 401 highway. This proposal consisted of a double circuit 500kV line running from the existing Claireville to Essa to Sudbury 500kV corridor. It would be connected to these lines north of Hwy 9 and then run eastward to a new station location in the Uxbridge area. The line would then run in a southerly direction and connect to the existing Southern Ontario 500 kV system at Bowmanville Switching Station. This solution would meet all of the longer term strategic requirements for this portion of the provincial power system. It also lends itself to a solution for the current requirements Stage Development (Stage 1) The proposal described above would be a considerable undertaking. Although I have no doubt that something such as this will eventually be installed, it doesn't have to be brought forward all at one time. As an initial stage, a line section from the proposed new station site in Uxbridge to a location north of Oshawa could be constructed. It is also proposed that the line would be built to conventional 500kV standards. The southern terminal of this line would then be connected to existing 230kV circuits in the Oshawa area. The northern line terminal would be connected to dr Claireville TS to Minden TS 230kV line east of the Brown Hill station. With this line initially energized at 230kV, it would meet all the short term requirements as identified in the original Load Forecast/Planning document. In other words, it would provide load relief for the —197— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 B82V/B83V circuits and as such would allow the new Armitage TS extension to be connected to these lines. In addition, it would also allow the proposed Vaughan TS #4 to be connected to the B82VB83V circuits in 2008. As for the next proposed Markham station (which is scheduled in the 2007 to 2008 time period), it could be supplied from Buttonville TS. Assuming this facility was located in the Elgin Mills area, circuits (presumably underground) could be extended approx. 5 km from the Buttonville station to this new location. Stage Development (Stage 2) Although the Stage 1 Development proposal would satisfy the current York Region needs, it would not meet the broader strategic objectives that were previously mentioned. In order to transition towards a GTA bypass and improved linkages to the Claireville to Sudbury north/south circuits, further work would be necessary. As a Stage 2 project, a 500kV line could be built from the Claireville TS to Essa TS corridor (near Hwy 9) to the Uxbridge area. Ultimate Stage In order to complete this plan, a 500kV/ 230kV transformer station would be required in the Uxbridge area. With this facility in place, the transmission line from Uxbridge to Oshawa could be reterminated at Bomanville to a 500kV connection. These changes would then allow for a complete 500kV by pass around the GTA. With the 500kV/230kV station at Uxbridge, a connection could be made to the Claireville TS to Minden TS circuits and load relief for these lines could still be provided Conclusions The system planning process that was carried out in 2003 by Hydro One and the York Region utilities did provide transmission solutions that met immediate concerns. These solutions did not, however, meet the longer term strategic transmission requirements of this area. With a longer term view and with a stage development approach, both requirements could have been satisfied. /dkr Nov 8/04 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Interim Power Supply Measures York Region Electrical Supply By David K. Richmond, P. Eng. For the Town of Markham/Town of Aurora Hydro One Task Froce November 20, 2004 Summary There are clear interim solutions available to avoid electrical supply shortfalls forecasted for northern York Region that were not considered either by Hydro One or the local utilities when they decided it was urgent to have a new 230 kv double circuit transmission line constructed beginning in 2005. As an initial step, the load forecast should be redone. In the revised forecast a more realistic and less aggressive growth rate should be utilized as suggested by Markham Planning and Development staff. In addition, this new forecast should incorporate appropriate demand response, conservation and any local (behind the meter) generation activities that will occur under the new Ministry of Energy initiatives. Considering the potential from all of these activities, it may be possible to defer line reinforcement by one or two additional years. Assuming that it was determined to meet the forecasted load increases regardless of demand -response and conservation measures, there are two clear facility options that could ensure the forecasted demand for the next 5-10 years. These are: Option A Install an Intermediate Capacitor Station -Will provide 50 N1W of capacity which equals a minimum 5 years of projected power demand increases -Cost: $ 2-7 million; no EA required •Installation should involve no supply disruptions -Hydro One is proposing same technique at 5 locations in its 10 Year Plan Option B String 1 or 2 new Distribution Lines on Existing Poles or on New Poles -199- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 -Provides for 3 to 6 + years of growth in demand -New 44 kV line(s) can be installed on existing poles or on new standard poles from Buttonville to Armitage area -One line provides 30-35 MW — enough for 3 years growth -Cost: $2.5-3.0 million; Time: less than 1 year -No EA required; no municipal or other approvals required Background The "York Region Supply Study, July 10103" stated that the northern part of York Region may soon experience electrical overload problems. Currently there is only one high voltage supply to this area and this is a double circuit 230kV (B82V/B83V) line running from Claireville TS to Minden TS. As well as providing supply to Armitage TS and to Minden TS , these lines have three additional stations tapped at Brown Hill, Beaverton and Lindsay. With respect to York Region specifically, Armitage TS supplies load to Newmarket, Aurora and the Hydro One eastern distribution service area in the Region ( East Gwillimbury and Stouffville -W hitchu rch). Current and Near Term Situation In the Supply Study Report it is indicated that the load on the Claireville TS to Minden TS circuits will approach its capacity limit in the winter of 05/06. This study further indicates that the determining factor for required actions are voltage levels (post -contingency) at the Armitage TS. This fact would indicate that circuit thermal overloads are not the only contributing factor, but perhaps power factor concerns and inadequate localized VAR support are also problematic for these circuits. Further exacerbating the circuit loading situation, is the requirement for another station connection (Vaughan #4) in 2007. 2 —200— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Need Requirement (As described) In summary, the Report indicates that the critical factor is the Load Meeting Capability (LMC) of the B82WB83V circuits at Armitage with one line out of service. The Supply Study Report indicates this will occur in the Winter of 05,06, whereas the recently issued Environmental Study Report states this will not occur until the Winter of 06/07. As noted above if both circuits are in service, no problems will occur. If one circuit trips off line during a non peak interval, there still should be no difficulties encountered. If, however, one circuit is lost during a period of peak demand, line overloading will almost certainly occur. Short Term Mitigation Measures As an initial step, the load forecast should be redone. In the revised forecast a more realistic and less aggressive growth rate should be utilized as suggested by Markham Planning and Development staff. In addition, this new forecast should incorporate appropriate demand response, conservation and any local (behind the meter) generation activities that will occur under the new Ministry of Energy initiatives. Considering the potential from all of these activities, it may be possible to defer line reinforcement by one or two additional years. Clear interim measures Facilities that could realistically be put in place by 2006 include the following: 3 —201— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Option A Install an Intermediate Capacitor Station -Will provide 50 MW of capacity = minimum 5 years of projected power demand increases. -Cost: $ 2-7 million; no EA required -Installation should involve no supply disruptions • Note that Hydro One is proposing same technique at 5 locations in its 10 Year Plan Option B String 1 or 2 new Distribution Lines on Existing Poles or on New Poles -Provides for 3 to 6 + years of growth in demand -New 44 kV line(s) can be installed on existing poles or on new standard poles from Buttonville to Armitage area -One line provides 30-35 MW enough for 3 years growth -Cost: $2.5-3,0 million; Time: less than 1-year -No EA required; no municipal or other approvals required Other Mitigation Measures to Avoid/Meet Circuit Overload Conditions With respect to actual short-term mitigation measures to meet circuit overload conditions: • An automated response for imminent overload conditions should sound alarms at both Hydro One and local LDC Control Centres and personnel should then monitor the situation closely . • If an actual overload condition occurs, field crews should be called to site(s). —202— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 • Utilize the 44kV back up line from Buttonville TS to the Aurora/Newmarket service area and carry out suitable load switching at Armitage TS to reduce load on B82WB83V to rated levels. • If the 44kV line back up is unavailable or is insufficient, initiate back up mobile generation at Armitage TS. • If the 44kV backup solution and/or the mobile generation prove to be insufficient or unavailable, ask Hydro One System Operators to carry out voltage reduction at all tapped transformer stations on circuits B82V/B83V (Armitage, Brown Hill, Beaverton and Lindsay). • If required as a final measure, undertake distribution feeder switching at Armitage TS on a 30- minute rotational basis (utilize residential load only and avoid critical installations such as hospitals, seniors facilities, fire/police etc.). To enable the above noted action hierarchy to take place, various initiatives need to be carried out prior to the occurrence of overloads as follows: Back up plan Installation Requirement Cost Potential Load Reduction 44kV back up line from - Modify Buttonville TS $2.5M to 30 MW Buttonville to Newmarket - Build 20 km of 44kV line $3,5M - Modify feeder connections at Armitage TS 5 —203— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Stand -By generation at - Modify station Discuss 1 MW to 4MW Armitage TS connections at Armitage with TS Service -Arrange fuel availability Provider - Rent S/B units on a monthly basis Voltage reduction at four - none No 1.5MW to H1 TS locations charge 2.5MW Feeder switching within - none No 1 MW to 4MW Armitage TS low voltage charge service area —204— k r<. ITEM # J Z &��d�'!611 215 Industrial Parkway South, Box 157, Aurora, Ontario L4G 3H3 Telephone (905) 727-4612 Fax (905) 727-7340 January 7, 2005 Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive Box 1000 Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Attn.: Mr. Scott Somerville CAO RECEIVE® JAN 0 7 2005 J/ ADMINIS-rHA"ION Re: Reinforcement of Transmission Supply Facilities to York Region — Hydro One Networks Inc. Dear Sir, On September 30, 2004, the Town Council of Markham asked the Town Council of Aurora to support its resolution to have their local electric distribution company undertake a study and prepare a report to address the potential effects of various transmission options under review as part of the Hydro One Class Environmental Assessment process. At its October 12, 2004 council meeting, council passed a resolution endorsing the Town of Markham's resolution. Aurora Hydro contracted this review to Acumen Engineered Solutions International Inc. (AESI), a reputable independent consulting firm which has expertise in the electrical industry in both Canada and the United States. AESI was directed to consider the issues raised in the PowerStream report and how these issues relate to Aurora Hydro. The factors associated with the potential effects of the options include: • The ability to service growth • Reliability • Technical Efficiency • Environment Effects • Timing, and • Profitability —205— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -2- Attached to this letter is the AESI report "Review of Options to the Southern York Region Transmission Line Project", dated December 2004, for your review and release to Council. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Need for New Supply Facilities Aurora Hydro was involved in the York Region Supply Study - 'Adequacy of Transmission Facilities and Transmission Supply Plan 2003 - 2013', dated July 10, 2003 (the Transmission Plan). It concludes that new supply facilities are needed for the Aurora/Newmarket area in the winter of 2005/2006. All local utilities in York Region, including Aurora Hydro, participated in the Transmission Plan and we continue to agree with its findings with respect to our service area. Through our participation in Hydro One's planning process, we are satisfied that all appropriate transmission options were given proper consideration. While the timing for the transmission line reinforcement is determined to be 2006/2007, a more pressing issue is the need for new transformation facilities. These facilities step the voltage down from 230kV to 44kV to allow the local utilities to distribute electricity to their respective service areas from the area transformer station (TS). The TS that currently supplies the Aurora/Newmarket area, Armitage TS located in Newmarket, is at capacity, and in fact was overloaded during peak times in the summer of 2002. Having mild summers in 2003 and 2004 has allowed reliable supply to continue. In the event of normal summer weather the load demand on the Armitage TS would exceed its available capacity. This would require Hydro One to request the public for voluntary load reductions, followed by voltage reductions and if unsuccessful in meeting the available load capacity, Hydro One would move to roaming outages on individual feeder lines to reduce load sufficiently to meet available transformation capacity. Council may recall that at its council meeting on April 20, 2004, Hydro One representatives presented the issue of transmission facility upgrades being considered for the area that included the transmission line options as well as the need for a new TS to be located in Aurora as a preferred option. With opposition being raised related to the transmission line options, the timelines for the transmission facilities upgrades have extended the process creating a supply capacity issue on the existing TS that services Aurora/Newmarket. -206- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -3- Roles and Responsibilities In considering the supply issue to York Region, you should appreciate that The Electricity Act, 1998 and all subsequent enacted legislation pertaining to the electric industry in Ontario, places all responsibility for electricity supply on the industry's participants and regulatory agencies. Neither York Region nor any of the local municipalities within York Region have any direct authority in this matter. Aurora Hydro, as the local utility, has the legislated and regulatory obligation to the Ontario Energy Board and our customers and it is these requirements that are guiding our position in this regard. These are separate from our corporate obligations to our municipal shareholder. New supply facilities to serve York Region's northern electricity customers are needed in the winter of 2005/2006. It is important that we all understand how essential reliable electric supply is to the well being of Aurora and the broader Region of York. The AESI report concludes that of the options considered by Hydro One, and of the generation and distribution options, the Parkway TS to Armitage TS option is the preferred option for its superior reliability and ability to fully service long term growth. At the Borealis Hydro Electric Holdings Inc. Board of Director's meeting of December 21, 2004, the Board concurred with the recommendations in the ASEI report and support providing the report to council. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, AURORA HYDRO CONNECTIONS LIMITED /ohn L. Sanderson, P. Eng. President and C.E.O. cc: George Steeves Board of Directors Chair -207- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 mom COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 InternationalAESI Acumen Engineered Solutions a IN Aurora Hydro Connections Limited Line Project Dec. 2004 Milton Office: Atlanta Office: 775 Main Street E. 7000 Central Parkway Suite IB Suite 1475 Milton, Ontario Atlanta, Georgia Canada, L9T 3Z3 U.S.A., 30328 Phone: (905)875-2075 Phone: (678) 320-1895 Fax : (905)875-2062 Fax : (770) 522-8115 F-Mail: aesi@aesi-ine.com Web Site: www.aesi-inc.com -209- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................1 2. Background................................................................................................2 3. Need for Upgraded Supply to York Region ................................................ 3 4. Support for Upgraded Electrical Supply to York Region ............................4 5. Load Growth.............................................................................................. 5 6. Identification and Assessment of Transmission Options ............................ 5 7. HONI's Consultation Process.................................................................... 6 8. The EA Process — Class versus Individual and "Bump up" Recommendation....................................................................................... 6 9. Alternatives................................................................................................6 10. The HONI Recommended Option..............................................................8 11. The Public View......................................................................................... 8 A. Health Issues and EMFs..................................................................... 8 B. Aesthetics..........................................................................................10 C. Property Values................................................................................. 10 D. Burying of Transmission Lines..........................................................10 12. The Distribution Option versus the Transmission Option .........................11 13. Reliability and Power Quality Issues of a Transmission versus a Distribution Option...................................................................................13 14. The Consequences of Delay.................................................................... 13 15. The Difference between Options from AHCL's Perspective .....................14 A. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS with new Aurora TS ... 14 B. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS with Armitage TS Upgrade.............................................................................................15 C. Claireville TS to Armitage TS............................................................16 D. The Distribution Option......................................................................17 E. The Distributed Generation Option .................................................... 18 16. Recommendation.....................................................................................18 APPENDIX1......................................................................................................20 Item # 9 from the Meeting of the PowerStream Board of Directors 22nd September2004................................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX2......................................................................................................22 Map from HONI Draft Environmental Study Report showing routes for Options 1 and2.................................................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX3...................................................................................................... 24 EMF Questions & Answers Booklet National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences............................................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX4...................................................................................................... 47 Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Summary Report for the Newmarket and AuroraArea........................................................................................................ 47 AESI Inc. —210— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX5...................................................................................................... 52 Average Magnetic Fields in 2015 (for the 230 W line between Gormley and Armitage Junction) From Appendix G of the HONI Draft Environmental Study Report................................................................................................................. 52 APPENDIX6......................................................................................................56 Example of a typical distribution line with multiple circuits compared to the existing transmission line and the 230 W alternatives ...................................... 56 APPENDIX7...................................................................................................... 59 November 9 2004 letter from Minister of Energy, Dwight Duncan to Markham Mayor, Don Cousens..........................................................................................59 AE51 Inc. —211— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 1. Executive Summary Aurora Hydro Connections Limited (AHCL) has been directed by Aurora Town Council to respond to a report by the President and CEO of PowerStream to the PowerStream Board of Directors regarding the Southern York Region Transmission Project. Hydro One Networks ]he (HONI) has filed a Draft Environmental Study Report on Electrical Supply to York Region (referred to in the Environmental Study Report as the "Undertaking") with stakeholders in York Region. AHCL engaged AESI Acumen Engineered Solutions International lnc.(AESI) to review these two documents and to prepare this report in response. As a participant in the joint assessment by the York Region Utilities (York Region Supply Study 2003) AHCL fully appreciates the need for reinforcement of the electricity supply system within the Region. AHCL and HONI have been concerned for some time that under certain design contingency conditions the two existing 230 kV circuits supplying Newmarket, Aurora and the surrounding areas would be unable to reliably meet growing electricity demand by the winter of 2006/2007. There has been no doubt that upgrades to the transmission system in York Region are required. In summary, all of the electrical facilities from the transmission level and downstream to the 44 kV lines, that supply Aurora, are at or nearing their limit and will need relief to satisfy the growth of the community. The need for transmission facilities hinges on the confidence in the predictions of load forecasts. The longer the term of the forecast, the more speculation is involved. Current load forecasts concur with the predictions stated in the 2003 York Region Supply study. HONI originally identified two preferred options for transmission lines which were expanded to nine at the suggestion of the public. After evaluation and assessment of all nine options HONI has selected the Parkway Transformer Station (TS) to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS option. The alternative of Distributed Generation is a viable option if a number of financial and legislative hurdles can be cleared and if it can be realistically brought into service in the required time lines. Similarly, the new Provincial initiative for Conservation and Demand Side Management with its goal of 5% is insufficient to defer the need for transmission facilities in the planning time line. A Distribution Option has also been proposed which is inferior technically and economically to a transmission option. AESI Inc. 1 —212— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 The public was consulted extensively and while agreement could not be reached on the issues it appears that the process was fair and inclusive. There is debate to "bump up" the Class Environmental Assessment to an Individual Assessment. It appears that the two processes are not dissimilar and that there is not an order of magnitude or review to the Individual Assessment that is not present in the Class Assessment. Furthermore, it is of great concern that the change of review status will significantly extend the process out past the forecast need dates. The number one issue in the minds of the public was the effect of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs). A review of publicly available material confirms that EMFs are proportional to current and inversely proportional to the square of distance and not related to transmission lines only. EMFs exist in much of the electrical equipment we live with on a daily basis and are predicted to be no higher from the proposed transmission line than the distribution line in service on the Right of Way today. There is no evidence that property values will change as a result of the line upgrading and burying the circuits is not a justifiable expense for the electricity ratepayers in Ontario. Delay is not an option. The consequences of reduced reliability as a result of electrical infrastructure overloading will be unacceptable to Aurora residents and would certainly provide grounds for those looking to seek accountability and liability. Of the options considered, the Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS with a new Aurora TS option is preferred for its superior reliability and ability to fully service long term growth. It is the shortest and least expensive route and makes optimum use of an existing Right of Way. The examination of distributed generation investment by the private sector is also endorsed with the acknowledgement that timely availability would defer the need for transmission by a number of years. 2. Background Aurora Hydro Connections Limited (AHCL) has been directed by Aurora Town Council to respond to a report 1 by the President and CEO of PowerStream to the Powerstream Board of Directors regarding the Southern York Region Transmission Project. 1 Appendix 1 — Item # 9 from the Meeting of the PowerStream Board of Directors 22Id September 2004 AESI Inc. 2 —213— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Hydro One Networks Inc (HONI) has filed a Draft Environmental Study Report on Electrical Supply to York Region (referred to in the Environmental Study Report as the "Undertaking") with stakeholders in York Region. The issues raised in the PowerStream report will be addressed using the HONI Draft Environmental Study Report as the primary source of reference supplemented by AESI's comments and data as appropriate. The issues addressed in the PowerStream report are as follows: 1. Ability to service new growth: This will include an analysis of the location of existing and potential facilities (capacity) and their proximity to growth areas. 2. Reliability: Effects on the corporation's ability to reliably service its customers (including power quality and voltage stability) 3. Technical Efficiency: What are the effects of the options on magnitude of line losses for the distribution solution and the transmission solution? 4. Environmental Effects: The difference in appearances, differences in EMFs — relative strength of electromagnetic fields and differences in proximity to populated areas will be examined. 5. Timing: What effect does time have in addressing each option (i.e. Class EA compared to full individual EA)? 6. Profitability: The financial effect on PowerStream of each of the options under consideration. 3. Need for Upgraded Supply to York Region As a participant in the joint assessment by the York Region Utilities (York Region Supply Study 2003) AHCL fully appreciates the need for reinforcement of the electricity supply system within the Region. AHCL and HONI have been concerned for some time that under certain design contingency conditions the two existing 230 kV circuits supplying Newmarket, Aurora and the surrounding areas would be unable to reliably meet growing electricity demand by the winter of 2006/2007. There has been no doubt that upgrades to the transmission system in York Region are required. From the Town of Aurora's perspective the need for a supply upgrade at the transmission level is compounded by the fact that AHCL is supplied by three 44 kV lines originating from Armitage TS in Newmarket and a fourth 44kV line that is shared with HONI and hosts the generation facility at Keele Valley Landfill site. In 2002 AESI Inc. 3 —214— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 the load in Aurora peaked at 82 MW, approaching the limits of the 44 kV lines presently serving the community. Additional 44 kV lines are not available because, under peak load conditions, the transformers at Armitage TS exceed their Limited Time Rating (LTR or thermal overload capacity) and there are no other viable sources of distribution supply in the area. In summary, all of the electrical facilities from the transmission level and downstream to the 44 kV lines, that supply Aurora, are at or nearing their limit and will need relief to satisfy the growth of the community. Increasing the 230 kV capacity will not alleviate the overloading of Armitage TS. Upgrading the 230 kV lines and increasing the transformer capacity at Armitage TS will not alleviate the capacity constraints of the 44 kV lines supplying Aurora. Upgrades and increases at all three levels (transmission, transformation and distribution), or equivalent viable alternatives, are required to ensure the future electrical supply to the Town of Aurora. 4. Support for Upgraded Electrical Supply to York Region AHCL has supported and participated in the HONI Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities the objective of which was, "to provide safe and reliable electricity supply to customers in York Region at the lowest feasible cost, consistent with employee and public safety, taking into account the social environment and economic aspirations of the people of Ontario". These words are, in effect, a mission statement for the project and a touchstone for what HONI set out to accomplish. There has been considerable criticism of HONI and objections to the proposal to upgrade transmission lines in York Region on numerous levels during the public participation portion of the Environmental Assessment. That is the essence of the public consultation process— to table proposals and listen to various points. of view, the pros and cons and then select the option.that best reflects the interests of all parties. While an ideal outcome would be a win/win for everyone involved that is not always possible. HONI and the Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) in York Region have an obligation to serve electricity customers in York Region and to accomplish that goal; additional electrical transmission capacity is needed if the York Region Municipal Councils are to proceed with their current development plans. While some may dispute the need for supply capacity, most accept the requirement but disagree on where a transmission line should be located. In reviewing the HONI Draft Environmental Study Report and particularly its Appendices it seems that the objections to the transmission line routes were based primarily on their proximity to the objectors and the solutions based on transferring the impact to another location. At public information sessions in Kleinburg the attendees' preferred solution was to build a line through Markham and at public information sessions in Markham the attendees' preferred solution was to build a line through Kleinburg. AESI Inc. 4 —215— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 HONI was further criticized for not taking on responsibilities beyond its mandate. These frustrations are understandable but the reality of the restructured electrical industry is that HONI is not Ontario Hydro with responsibility for integrated electricity resource planning and it is not government therefore the company is unable to offer solutions other than those that are transmission related. If other solutions become apparent that mitigate transmission facility overloading, HONI can alter its plans and defer facilities as appropriate. With such polarized debates and unrealistic expectations it has been impossible for HONI to come to consensus. AESI as an impartial third party has tried to be as objective as possible in its review of the facts and the options. 5. Load Growth The need for transmission facilities hinges on the confidence in the predictions of load forecasts. The York Region LDCs have used the Planning Criteria adopted by their City and Town Councils to determine the future electrical demand within the Region. However there is a level of uncertainty with respect to any forecasting exercise. As such, long-term forecasts should be applied cautiously. Any unexpected changes to assumptions, economic pressures or events such as September 11t", 2001 or the black out of August 10, 2003 can impose changes that were not contemplated at the time of forecasting. The longer the term of the forecast, the more speculation is involved. There are also many unknowns related to government directives such as Conservation, Energy Efficiency, Demand Management Measures and Commodity Pricing, all of which could affect peak forecasts. Current load forecasts concur with the predictions stated in the 2003 York Region Supply study. 6. Identification and Assessment of Transmission Options In the public consultation phase HONI identified two preferred transmission options — Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS and Claireville TS to Armitage TS .2 After public consultation and suggestions that not enough options had been considered HONI added three options that had previously been considered and four more new options for consideration including potential supplies from outside of York Region and alternate routes within York Region. Upon analysis, construction along any of the seven new alternate routes would be longer, more expensive and the need to establish new corridors would add to the time required for design, property acquisition or easements and construction. The new transmission corridor options were also contrary to the Provincial government's view that "to take full account of Provincial land use policies, wherever it is feasible to upgrade existing corridors this option should be evaluated before seeking approvals for new corridors". This only makes sense; 2 Appendix 2 Map from HONI Draft Environmental Study Report showing routes for Options 1 and 2 AESI Inc. 5 —216— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 there is no point establishing new corridors when existing corridor capacity can be expanded and upgraded. 7. HONI's Consultation Process HONI's consultation process has been reviewed; it was fair, extensive and inclusive. HONI held multiple public information sessions and where concerns were raised they were addressed and additional information sessions were held, including an Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) workshop, with the opportunity for opposing views to be expressed. The process was fully documented and transparent with hard copies of all material made available along with electronic versions and full disclosure on a dedicated website. In some cases verbatim transcripts and details of questions and concerns are documented to ensure that no spin is put on the content or that the content is not lost in summary or editing. 8. The EA Process - Class versus Individual and "Bump up" Recommendation The debate over whether the Class Environmental Assessment addresses all the issues has been reviewed along with the suggestions that the process should be "bumped up" to an Individual Assessment. Whether the intent is to delay the process or ensure the review is more complete and addresses more options is not clear but it appears that the two processes are not dissimilar and that there is not an order of magnitude or review to the Individual Assessment that is not present in the Class Assessment, rather, the differences are more a matter of complexity and regulatory burden. Furthermore, it is of great concern that the change of review status will significantly extend the process out past the forecast need dates. 9. Alternatives There have been suggestions that the electrical infrastructure would not need additional facilities or transmission line upgrading if the full effects of integrated resource planning, Conservation and Demand Management (C&DM), were practiced. That theory is worthy of consideration, but the Province's target for C&DM is a 5% demand reduction by 2007. With growth in York Region of almost that amount annually a 5% reduction through C&DM is not enough to influence the need for electrical infrastructure upgrade over a ten-year planning period. Other suggestions include distributed generation (DG) and it is acknowledged that additional generation within York Region would be a potential alternative to transmission. AHCL has been actively participating with Newmarket Hydro and a third party for a proposed 300 MW of DG for York Region, however there are technical and financial barriers that need to be addressed before the proposal can move into the design, location selection or construction planning stages. Timing could also be an issue. While the generation equipment can be manufactured relatively quickly, integrating it into the electrical system would AESI Inc. 6 —217— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 require co-ordination and design of electrical facilities to connect it to the transmission or distribution systems. If DG can make the transition from proposal to reality it could defer the need for a transmission line for up to ten years, however cautious judgment is required if the DG cannot overcome the hurdles and is delayed at the proposal stage. It would be a risky alternative to defer electrical transmission planning while DG is only a possible alternative. For DG to become a viable alternative it would need the full and uncompromising support of the Provincial Government. To the extent that DG contributes to relieving transmission congestion and adds much needed generation this should not be that difficult. Even if such DG were to be built; to ensure reliability of supply within York Region it would be good utility practice to eventually back up such supply facilities with adequate transmission lines and TS facilities. In the case of Aurora there are no transmission lines in the vicinity and generation would be limited to the amount of power that that could be carried by AHCL's 44 kV lines, i.e. 30 MW maximum per line. That would constrain the size and location of potential DG sites which may or may not be economic for the proponents. A 230 kV transmission line on the other hand could support generation in excess of several hundred MW. There are also concerns about the type of generation and its availability and reliability. The generation mix across the Province allows the IMO to mix and match the available generation facilities to satisfy the Provincial load curve at any time of day or night. Base nuclear or hydraulic generation is supplemented with coal, oil or gas plants at peak times. It would be impossible to replicate such a mix in York Region and if for example the plants in the region were dedicated to peak demands, then natural gas would be the primary available fuel. In the event that those plants were not operating at certain times then York Region would need to rely on its back up supply of transmission lines, TSs and 44 kV lines. These concerns could be mitigated if there is redundancy and diversity in the DG built in York Region and if the DG is dispatched on by the IMO in a preferred manner, other than pricing, to relieve transmission congestion and transformer overloading. It is understood that the proposal referred to above would be for six 50 MW units located in Newmarket which somewhat satisfies the redundancy concern. As a last word the following is an extract from a report written by the Ontario Energy Board on Smart Metering released gch November 2004. It is a reference to DG which is worthy of note with regard to DG as a solution. "Although locating a plant in a dense urban area is possible and probably desirable from the point of view of access to the load centre, it is more likely to be opposed by local residents and unlikely to satisfy environmental assessment AES! Inc. —21 8— 7 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 standards. Therefore, capacity intended to serve urban areas would probably be located outside those areas and transmission access then becomes an issue"s 10. The HONI Recommended Option The option selected by HONI to move forward with the Draft Environmental Study Report is to upgrade the existing structures on the Right of Way between Parkway TS in Markham and Armitage TS in Newmarket. Between Parkway TS and Buttonville TS this means upgrading an existing 230 kV two -circuit structure to new 230 kV two circuit structures. Between Buttonville TS and Armitage TS, the section that passes through Aurora, there is an existing single circuit structure built to 115 kV standards but operating at distribution voltages (44 kV at the north end and 27.6 kV at the south end, separated by an open point) that would be replaced by a two circuit 230 kV structure. 11. The Public View At the Public Information Centres HONI handed out forms to enable attendees to comment or express concerns. In Appendix C of the Draft Environmental Study Report the comments are printed verbatim and the areas of concern tabulated. There were 237 comment sheets completed and the top ten concerns in declining order were: EMF Health Concern re children, people in general 58% Opposed to Alternative 1 (Parkway/Armitage) 55% Explore other routes 35% Property value will decrease 30% Destruction of natural Environment 30% Avoid school areas 29% Opposed to Alternative 2 (Claireville/Armitage) 25% Bury Line 20% Towers unsightly 13% Reroute to 400 series Highway 12% A. Health Issues and EMFs The number one public concern over the need for and location of a new transmission line was EMFs and health concerns. The presentations made by the selected experts in the area of EMFs at the public information session held by HONI, have been reviewed. The questions raised by the participants and the numerous concerns expressed about EMFs were also noted. The following are interpretations and opinions from this review of publicly available materials. a Smart Meter Implementation Plan — Draft Report of the (Ontario Energy) Board — Appendix C, P 54 AESI Inc. —219— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 The public's concern about EMFs is perhaps the result of an overabundance of conflicting information. While much ground was covered at the workshop it was not apparent that the most fundamental and basic principles of EMFs were stated. The following facts may have assisted the attendees: o EMFs exist as a naturally occurring phenomenon o The human body creates its own natural magnetic fields o The human body experiences natural magnetic fields from the earth o EMFs are experienced every day from computer screens, fluorescent lights, electric stoves, toasters, house wiring, office equipment, industrial machinery and many more objects and appliances that use electricity as well as distribution lines and electrical equipment commonly found on every street with electrical supply and transmission lines4 o EMFs from electrical equipment are directly proportional to current. o The EMFs in electrical wiring in the home, distribution lines on the street and transmission lines are not a function of voltage. On the other hand, like four lane highways, transmission lines are built to move a lot of electricity therefore the average transmission line may carry higher currents than the average distribution line but if both carry the same currents the EMFs are comparable subject to conductor spacings and geometry. o EMFs from electrical equipment are inversely proportional to the square of distance therefore the farther away a measurement is taken from the wires carrying the current the lower the fields. o EMFs from a transmission line are the same type as the EMFs from a fluorescent light or house wiring. Wiring that is lightly loaded will have low levels of EMFs. Wiring carrying heavy currents will have high levels of EMFs. A person standing in a house 100 feet away from a transmission line loaded at 100 amps and also next to wiring to the house carrying 100 amps will experience lower EMFs from the transmission line than the house wiring. In the same circumstance a transmission line with 500 A may create higher EMFs than wiring in the house with 15 A or it may be less. The phenomenon is a function of current and distance. The studies on EMFs have been inconclusive and contradictory and it is easy to appreciate why people are fearful and have grave concerns. It should be understood that portraying EMFs as only being present in transmission lines is not correct. The EMFs measured at the edge of the right of way in the Aurora area today are higher than the EMFs that are predicted to be present on a new transmission line in the year 2015.5,6 This is due to the current on the existing distribution line and Appendix 3 EMF Questions & Answers Booklet — National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 5 Appendix 4 Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Summary Report for the Newmarket and Aurora Area obtained from the HONI Community Website 5 Appendix 5 Estimated Average Magnetic Fields (for the 230 kV line between Gormley and Armitage Junction) in 2015 from Appendix G of the HONI Draft Environmental Study Report AESllnc. —220— 9 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 the height and conductor configuration compared to the combination of currents and conductor arrangements on the proposed 230 kV transmission line. In conclusion we defer to Health Canada's statement that "there is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposures at levels normally found in Canadian living and working environments". B. Aesthetics It is accepted that any overhead electrical facilities are more unsightly than an unencumbered streetscape, vacant land or underground electrical facilities. HONI and electrical utilities worldwide build overhead transmission facilities wherever the space is available. In such circumstances it is deemed uneconomic and unnecessary to consider burying them. However, there are structural designs available that some believe to be more aesthetically pleasing than others. For that reason HONI is proposing to utilize a single steel tower carrying multiple 230 kV circuits for built up areas versus the conventional lattice style tower which would be relegated to less sparsely populated areas. . C. Property Values The transmission corridors were well established and existed before most homes were built therefore it is presumed that any devaluation of a property because of proximity to a transmission line, if in fact there is any, has occurred and that the property owners benefited from this when the property was purchased. Also the property owners should have been well aware of the use of the lands and the potential for that use to change over time. While being adjacent to a transmission line is being cited as a detraction by those concerned about health and aesthetics it also has its benefits in terms of privacy, secondary land use and access to the Right of Way for recreational uses. D. Burying of Transmission Lines The suggestion that the line be buried where it is adjacent to residential properties is not supported unless there is a cost sharing arrangement with the beneficiaries. A number of members of the public who supported burying the circuits did so with the caveat that "it should not raise taxes". If we refer back to the touchstone or mission statement that the goal is "to provide safe and reliable electricity supply to customers in York Region at the lowest feasible cost, consistent with employee and public safety, taking into account the social environment and economic aspirations of the people of Ontario'; it cannot be met if the line, or even sections, are buried without increased costs. HONI estimates 5 to 7 times the amount and given AHCL's own experience with underground distribution this estimate is not disputed, which would result in a premium even on the lowest cost option of $220 to $330 million. This premium is unconscionable if paid for by electricity ratepayers outside York region and sets unaffordable precedents. It is also completely unrealistic for those that would AESI Inc. 10 —221— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 benefit since there less than 1000 properties next to either line option and the resulting cost would be more than $220 to $330 thousand per home. Even if it were to be broadly interpreted that those that benefited were the entire Region it is inconceivable that taxpayers in Vaughan and Richmond Hill would subsidize the aesthetics of a line in Markham, Aurora and Newmarket when numerous of their other residents own properties adjacent to overhead transmission lines. While buried transmission circuits would eliminate aesthetic concerns they would not eliminate EMFs. A person standing over the line could be exposed to EMF levels greater than if the lines were above them on towers and the EMFs would still be present even at a distance, since they cannot be shielded. However, some mitigation could be possible depending on the circuit and spacing configuration. 12. The Distribution Option versus the Transmission Option The draft report refers to a distribution option. As with the other seven options considered or conceived, the distribution option looks beyond the two originally proposed. The distribution option is an option in name only. Without an upgrade to Armitage TS which is only possible with upgraded transmission supply the only source of distribution capacity would be a TS in the southern York region 230/500 kV corridor, most likely Buttonville TS with load being transferred to Parkway TS or elsewhere to compensate. HONI suggests that up to twenty "distribution" circuits (approximately 5 — 6 pole lines would be required over time to meet the growing needs for power in Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Aurora and Newmarket. Simply describing a need for distribution circuits masks a problem. The distribution voltage in Southern York Region is 27.6 kV. Newmarket, Aurora and HONI utilize 44 kV for subtransmission voltage stepped down to lower distribution voltages at substations, That means a new TS would be required as the source of the Northern York 44 kV feeders and an additional TS for the 27.6 kV feeders. Since a new TS would be required either at Armitage or Aurora that does not add to TS costs but the engineering principle of building it in Markham to supply Northern York is indefensible. Neither can the distribution option be used as a stop gap to defer transmission, as has been suggested, since there is no source of spare 44 KV capacity available and 27.6 kV is incompatible for Northern York Region. . If such a Southern TS solution were pursued a first design consideration would be the egress of the distribution circuits from the TS. Given the existing congestion the only practical solution would be underground construction for up to several kilometres. From there the lines would have to be overbuilt on existing pole lines with one or two existing 28 kV circuits below them and routes found along the streets and concession roads of York Region to build the lines 15 to 20 AESI Inc. —2 2 2— 11 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 kM north. Unless lines were built on both sides of the road allowances that would mean five to six separate routes.7 This reintroduces the question of aesthetics. If, in built up areas, a single steel pole transmission line with six or seven conductors on a 125 foot tower is considered to be unattractive then the aesthetics of a 65 to 70 foot pole with up to four 44 kV circuits (12 conductors), two 28 kV circuits (7 conductors) and communications lines underneath should also be evaluated. Furthermore, the design would require five or six of these structures, several on the north south routes between Markham and Newmarket and the rest between other sources of distribution supply and load centres in southern York Region. As previously indicated, it is Health Canada's view that EMFs as encountered in our daily lives are not a health hazard. However, for those who doubt this view, it should be pointed out that the distribution option represents a presence of electrical currents in closer proximity to urban structures over longer distances than the transmission line option. Cost is a serious consideration for the distribution option. The transmission option is paid for by HONI and becomes part of the pooled cost of transmission payable by all electricity customers in the Province. Not only would the distribution option be more expensive it would have to be paid for by the LDCs who would receive the power. Therefore, Aurora Hydro would have to pay for 1 (pole) line, Newmarket Hydro 2 lines and HONI say 2 lines. It is estimated AHCL's cost to build a double circuit 44 kV line from Buttonville to the Town of Aurora, a distance of just under 20 kM, could be in excess of $8 million. The cost for the new lines would initially be paid by the shareholder through debt and collected against future load growth through increased costs to developers increasing the per lot costs of developments in Aurora compared to other communities in York Region. There is also the issue of energy efficiency, an item that is currently the driving factor behind the provincial government's Conservation and Demand Management (C&DM) initiatives. All electric utilities, in Ontario, are being encouraged to implement programs to promote energy efficiency, reduce losses and reduce electrical demand. The electrical losses from a 44 kV distribution solution are far higher than those from a 230 kV transmission line simply because of the physics. The lower the voltage the higher the current and the more lines are required to carry the equivalent power. Losses are a function of the current squared, resulting in this dramatic increase in losses and therefore wasted energy at lower voltages. For the same load carried over the same size 7 Appendix 6 shows an example of a typical distribution line with multiple circuits compared to the existing transmission line and the 230 W alternatives AESI Inc. 92 —223— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 conductor on single circuits the losses are 27 times higher at 44kV than at 230kV8. This factor becomes reduced as multiple circuits become a requirement. For two circuits delivering 25 MW each, a total of 50 MW, to the Town of Aurora at the end of a 20 kM distribution line the peak losses would be over 3 MW — the electricity required to supply 1,000 homes. The value of this wasted electricity to Aurora customers would ultimately exceed $1 million per year. 13. Reliability and Power Quality Issues of a Transmission versus a Distribution Option The issues of reliability and power quality favour a transmission solution.A 230 kV transmission line on its dedicated right of way is, by design and actual experience, highly reliable. It is not vulnerable to vehicular traffic and is protected from lightning by sky wires. The instances of failures of 230 kV transmission circuits are extremely low. 44 kV lines on the other hand most often follow public roadways. They are vulnerable to vehicle accidents, pole fires, animal intrusions and are more susceptible to lightning. The Town of Aurora would certainly receive a less reliable electricity supply from the distribution option. This becomes an issue and consideration for businesses and industries considering the establishment of new facilities in any community. 14. The Consequences of Delay The load growth in York Region is incremental and although the addition of one new home will not suddenly, one day, cause the lights to go out; instead load will be added gradually over the next few years. Ontario has experienced mild summers in 2003/4, but the weather pattern of 2002 will be repeated and consistent days of hot, humid conditions will occur. HONI operators monitoring the provincial load will note areas of concern where, under.certain conditions, the demand will exceed the capacity of the equipment and will issue requests to the LDCs for consumer appeals to cut back on use. If successful, the load will ease back and the crisis will pass. The more load that is added the more often these crises will occur until one day there will be a failure or the appeals are not enough and load shedding will have to be initiated. These would be of a rotating nature and might last an hour or more. Once the crisis has passed there would be no interruptions until the next day and as soon as the weather has cooled the ability to serve load would return to normal. This third world level of reliability would be completely unacceptable to residential, commercial and industrial customers in York Region and even more s Example: 24 Megawatts at 44 W = 350 amps, 24 Megawatts at 230 W = 67 amps. Losses = Current Squared *'Resistance". 3502 * R = 12250*R. 672*R = 4489*R. 12250 * R/4489 * R = 27. AESI Inc. —2 2 4 13 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 so if it became known that the responsible parties were aware of the situation years in advance and did nothing. A recent letter from the Minister of Energy, Dwight Duncan, to the Mayor of Markham, Don Cousens, and which was copied to the Town of Aurora reinforces this concern.9 At some point, AHCL, either alone or in concert with Newmarket Hydro and HOW could contemplate seeking relief from the "obligation to serve" condition in their distribution licences. It is difficult to predict the course such an event would take and the roles and reactions of the different stakeholders. The respective municipal councils may decide to review their planning criteria in response to the difficulties and/or postpone the issuance of building permits. This would certainly result in a vigorous response from the land development community in York Region. The questions of accountability and liability for such a situation would likely be the subject of intense legal challenges. 15. The Difference between Options from AHCL's Perspective HONI considered nine options in its Environmental Study. Since seven of these options have costs far in excess of the lowest cost option and cannot be in service until after the required dates, comments are restricted to the two preferred options considered by HONI, the variations of the preferred options and additional viable options that have developed, namely: a. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS route with new Aurora TS b. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS route with new Armitage TS Upgrade TS c. Claireville TS to Armitage TS route d. The Distribution Option. While the Distribution Option has been discussed, above, for completeness it will be analyzed using the same factors as the other options. e. Distributed Generation Using PowerStream's six factors the five options have been compared from AHCL's perspective. A. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS with new Aurora TS 1. Ability to service new growth. This option will enable relief of the existing transmission lines and the capacity at Armitage TS. AHCL would need to build new 44 kV distribution lines from the new TS that will adequately service new growth for the next 10 years and beyond. A new T.S. would be located in Aurora and close to the load growth. 9 Appendix 7 — November 9 letter from Minister of Energy Dwight Duncan to Markham Mayor, Don Cousens AESI Inc. — 2 2 5 — 14 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 2. Reliability: This is the shortest transmission line and distribution line option therefore the exposure to reliability and power quality issues would be the most favourable. 3. Technical Efficiency: a. Transmission: This is the shortest transmission route and therefore the least cost and most technically efficient. This is the lowest losses transmission option. b. Distribution: A new Aurora TS would require the shortest 44 kV lines and is the most efficient technical option. Use would be made of existing 44 kV lines and loads split where feasible for increased cost.effectiveness. This is the lowest losses distribution option. 4. Environmental Effects: The proposal is to replace an existing 115 kV lattice structure with a 230 kV single steel pole structure in built up areas and lattice towers in more rural areas. While the steel tower for 230 kV would be higher than the 115 kV lattice many regard the appearance as more aesthetically pleasing. The route will create concerns about EMFs because even though it is shorter it traverses more built up areas, particularly residential, than the Claireville by Armitage route. However, the level of EMFs is predicted to be no greater than the line that exists on the Right of Way today and in some sections less because the current will be lower. 5. Timing: This option is under 50 kM and eligible for a Class EA which can meet the in-service dates required. 6. Profitability: A new Aurora TS could be built by HONI or by the LDCs, this decision would be the subject of a separate business case analysis. If the TS was owned and operated by HONI there may be a capital contribution requirement from the LDCs, depending on their load forecasts. AHCL distribution costs would be for 44 kV lines required to tie into existing lines estimated at 2 to 4 kM at a cost of $1 million to $2 million chargeable to developers on new load growth. This option would represent the lowest cost to AHCL since it reduces the lengths of 44 kV lines that AHCL will be required to build at shareholder cost. It is of note that any lines not needed by AHCL as a result of the new Aurora TS can be utilized by Newmarket Hydro or HONI which results in additional overall resource savings. B. Parkway TS to Buttonville TS to Armitage TS with Armitage TS Upgrade 1. Ability to service new growth: This option will enable relief of the existing transmission lines and the capacity at Armitage TS to be increased. AHCL would need to build new 44 kV distribution lines from the new TS that will adequately service new growth for the next 10 years and beyond. 2. Reliability: This would have the same transmission reliability as (a) but more distribution line exposure to reliability and power quality issues therefore it would rank somewhat lower. 3. Technical Efficiency: AESI Inc. -2 2 6- 15 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 a. Transmission: This is the shortest transmission route and therefore the least cost and most technically efficient transmission option. This is the lowest losses transmission option. b. Distribution: The requirement to build 6 to 10 kM of 44 kV lines is less efficient than a new Aurora TS which would require shorter 44 kV lines therefore it is not the most efficient technical option. This is the second lowest distribution losses option. 4. Environmental Effects: The proposal is to replace an existing 115 kV lattice structure with a single steel pole in built up areas and lattice towers in more rural areas. While the steel tower for 230 kV would be higher than the 115 kV lattice many regard the appearance as more aesthetically pleasing. The route will create concerns about EMFs because even though it is shorter it traverses more built up areas, particularly residential, than the Claireville by Armitage route. However, the level of EMFs is predicted to be no greater than the line that exists on the Right of Way today and in some sections less because the current will be lower. 5. Timing: This option is under 50 kM and eligible for a Class EA which can meet the in-service dates required. 6. Profitability: If capacity at Armitage TS is increased AHCL would be required to build approximately 6 to 10 kM of double circuit 44 kV line to extend service from Newmarket to Aurora at an estimated cost of between $3 million to $5 million chargeable to developers on new load growth. C. Claireville TS to Armitage TS 1. Ability to service new growth. This option will enable relief of the existing transmission lines and the capacity at Armitage TS to be increased. AHCL will be able to build new 44 kV distribution lines from the new TS that will adequately service new growth for the next 10 years and most likely beyond. 2. Reliability: 230 kV line is extremely reliable but the longer transmission line length would theoretically, be exposed to more reliability and power quality issues than Options (a) or (b). Distribution exposure would be the same. 3. Technical Efficiency: a. Transmission: This is not the shortest transmission route and therefore not the least cost or most technically efficient transmission option. This is the least losses efficient of the transmission options. b. Distribution: The requirement to build 6 to 10 kM of 44 kV lines is less efficient than a new Aurora TS which would require shorter 44 kV lines therefore it is not the most efficient technical option. This is the second lowest distribution losses option. 4. Environmental Effects: The proposal is to replace an existing 230 kV lattice structure with two circuits on double steel poles in built up areas and double circuit lattice towers in more rural areas. The addition of the second circuit would be regarded by some as unattractive but the change AESI Inc. - 2 2 7 — 16 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 to the double pole structure might be regarded as an improvement over a lattice structure. The route will create concerns about EMFs but even though it is longer it traverses less built up areas, particularly residential, than the Parkway to Buttonville to Armitage route. However, the level of EMFs will be no greater than the line that exists on the Right of Way today and in some sections less because the currents on the two lines will be lower. 5. Timing: This option is under 50 kM and eligible for a Class EA which can meet the in-service dates required. 6. Profitability: If capacity at Armitage TS is increased AHCL would be .required to build approximately 6 to 10 kM of double circuit 44 kV line to extend service from Newmarket to Aurora at an estimated cost of between $3 million to $5 million chargeable to developers on new load growth. D. The Distribution Option 1) Ability to service new growth: This option does not necessarily relieve the existing transmission lines nor does it necessarily free up capacity at Armitage TS, it transfers growth to new distribution lines and limits more load on the existing facilities. AHCL will be required to build new 44 kV distribution lines from a new TS in southern York Region north to Aurora to adequately service new growth for the next 10 years and most likely beyond. 2) Reliability: This would be the lowest level of reliability and power quality of any option since the line would be exposed to reliability and power quality issues over its entire 20 kM length 3) Technical Efficiency: a) Transmission: Whether there is transmission from Parkway to Buttonville or no transmission this is the least cost or no cost transmission option. Since this option involves no or little transmission the losses from transmission are minimal. b) Distribution: The requirement to build multiple 20 to 25 kM of 44 kV lines is so technically and economically inefficient it is not a bona fide option in the present climate of the provincial government's Conservation and Demand Management (C&DM) initiatives. The distribution losses are significantly greater than the losses for the shortest transmission option by a factor of the current squared. 4) Environmental Effects: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While AHCL builds overhead 44 kV lines in its service territory as a necessity, building multiple circuit lines to avoid a single transmission line is questionable in aesthetic terms. The construction of multiple 44 kV lines which would be as heavily loaded (electrical currents) as a transmission line (if not more to keep the numbers of circuits down) does not eliminate EMFs and potentially creates higher magnetic fields and more exposure because of the greater distances and closer proximities to residential properties. 5) Timing: This option does not require an EA and could meet the in-service dates required if joint use agreements can be negotiated with PowerStream and HONI to overbuild existing facilities where required. AESI Inc. 17 -228- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 6) Profitability: This option requires AHCL to build somewhere in the order of 20 kM of double circuit 44 kV line at a cost estimated to be at least $8 million chargeable to developers on new load growth. E. The Distributed Generation Option 1) Ability to service new growth: The details will depend on configuration of electrical facilities. In all likelihood additional TS facilities will be added close to Armitage TS at the same time as the DG is built. AHCL will be required to build new 44 kV distribution lines from a TS in southern York Region north to Aurora to adequately service new growth for the next 10 years and most likely beyond. 2) Reliability: This would neither be the lowest nor the highest level of reliability and power quality of the options. 3) Technical Efficiency: a) Transmission: This option is the most efficient from a transmission perspective because it defers the need for the transmission line and will lower transmission losses. b) Distribution: The requirement to build 6 to 10 kM of 44 kV lines is less efficient than a new Aurora TS which would require shorter 44 kV lines therefore it is not the most efficient technical option. This is the second lowest distribution losses option. Environmental Effects: This will depend on the location of the DG and the Environmental Assessment and approvals required. 4) Timing: This option has the potential to meet the critical in-service dates required. 5) Profitability: Assuming capacity at Armitage TS is increased AHCL would be required to build approximately 6 to 10 kM of double circuit 44 kV line to extend service from Newmarket to Aurora at an estimated cost of between $3 million to $5 million chargeable to developers on new load growth. 16. Recommendation Of the options considered there is no doubt that the Parkway TS by Buttonville TS by Armitage TS with a new Aurora TS is the best option for AHCL and the Town of Aurora. It offers superior reliability; it is the shortest and least expensive option; it makes optimum use of an existing right of way; it can fully service long term growth by relieving capacity at Armitage TS thus providing growth potential for Newmarket; it creates the potential for a new TS able to serve Aurora and load in the central part of York region and frees up existing 44 kV line capacity that can be used by Newmarket Hydro or HOW In addition, while concerns have been expressed about EMFs, the detailed information provided by HONI indicates that the EMF levels on the 230 kV transmission line will be less than on the 44 kV line that exists on the right of way today. AES! Inc. 18 -229- COUNCIL,- JANUARY 11, 2005 The examination of distributed generation investment by the private sector is also endorsed with the acknowledgement that timely availability would defer the need for transmission by a number of years. AESI Inc. 19 -230- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 1 Item # 9 from the Meeting of the PowerStream Board of Directors 22nd September 2004 AESI Inc. 2 p -231- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 1Ism 19 for; r1fo4mlino FSt�vF:RSTREAMIPIG 3d7 t3911EDIReCT"CRSiEE`"fPtC�-SEFrf=�ASERZ;i!"- 4 L147p�F Di1 Sb ilaER'N YC»ii� Gii7N Yf��NSAU S5 M f iPd t?�'L.iEl,7 PRPOrt'.:yU o President & CEO and the FVP & C00 " Zeper„nn_e�st�t;%gee? ➢ The President and CEO I f4athar with tare FVP end CC)Q rerorrrrmer!d that the Br of Olrecrors recoi"/Os the fOlkiwing upstate report as an information Item, iilp-r a—ie Attaches} Is a report outlining the chr®nutozy Of known af'ents tq �awarµEresam ausociated milli y,e Rilgi©nal $upply Planning pracesg in York Region over the past two years, -90Nl hes Completed the stakeholder ednsu➢tation part of its Class rE110rtlr)meniei Assesvient (E'A p1"r) *46, Th%v.. are. in a amnion in mAmi4 thmi, rann,s+.,. an.- nt3.,r,.e.....a 1—a—.___, ., , PowerStmern has committed to studying and ryporting on a➢rprrspriala Cactus MoclAtt d'r:fth the pote11101 effects Of the varknts trartsmissron options an the CW.i craflrxn.. Thane faatore will iactudfi: i. Ability to aeNice new organk, gro+ry b, This will Indude an anely is of 8ha tuafiexn of a)dstir<J and pri%tisl fartIIA ss (capacibj) and theirProximltyto gnt)nrttt area& 2, Il9li8biiify: Effwts err, the seep xat4an's ability to ratably setvfine Ike Customers (lncluding power quality and voltage $t,0llity). rL Technical Ct9icianey; What are the affects of !her opknns on magnitude of line; losses for Urn distribotlorn solution and the trjnsalissinn soluiton? 41, F:rivironmentai Effects: "rho differences in rappea-mrirs, differences in EMF6 irtative strength of ste rromagnetir, 7alds, and differences in pfaArnity to puprelated area., will be examined, 6. Timing: 1'tlhat affect does limehave en audM—Sing option (1.e., class EA compared to foil Individual EA)7 6. ProTltebility: The thanc'.ia, effect or! PoiverSiraarn of each of the options under cansiGerailur. f'c:wer;atream's F lanninng Utvlskrn is slgl svnlving. 'i he proieot p&aple that will be raapansibla fur liiis 1Ype of work and this study in paniculer rernaln to be iitr'ed. Proceedlog With this study ahead Of lnelizing the P!anninto 0, gsnizaten could be Sin;,;s'Ad by the use of outside rQsourm (t; ontracl Engineers or consultanis). .'� rii:;nLgt np' 80r,'tit)n5' L]i t%11S Stt1c7V r';tj r8tl,111rtS ); i;l@riPiC OXperti @. It ragvired. we will rht8in t'he ant r.�:cs Of appropriate angineering consultants that are, experts in this •miry, These consullards an+i w:," P,Nth 'fed Wojc inskl, neeCtor of P irarnu)e. ;ur sitr;'rt is it', hnng t yrePrlklaryµ WI to tha hoard in Novem)er + u AESI Inc. 21 —232— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 2 Map from HONI Draft Environmental Study Report showing routes for Options 1 and 2 AESI Inc. P2 -233- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 eM11En}.jl I 'M El Lake Shocoe � o E, /.R"M-n AY i z DURHAM OF YORK `'\ pp ouff '•s J ,i , ® WITONNLLER r`IGI¢FA CR'. 'GJ`�IEb9q or,p� +`. I ELL nx "Na.. A\ i 'H PMMWYIB / MTT OF ran 7e y e ,r' j SUPPLY TO YORK REGION FIGURE 5°1 OPTIONS UTILIZING EXISTING TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS Y, r r' Map Faafurea Data Soume• «,t 00.1 Ugn 5W XV Lbo oq pwwegwwbryM P%'`� Lake Ontario .�ax,�a"»wmNxe¢x •• Op�lanY EMNbaaaa XVLb¢ Soale+aso.¢go opllm 3 ---' ENminp 116 XVLIne m ® Tnnslormar Stnibn AESI Inc. 23 -234- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 3 EMF Questions & Answers Booklet National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences AESI Inc. P4 -235- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 M HS The, Nallongl lnst9ti! & of Eevironmefitol unalth scipnoes t s' Your EMF Environment This chapter discusses typical magnetic field exposures in home and work environments and identifies common EMF sources and field intensities associated with these sources. How do we define.EMF exposure? • How is EMF exposure measured? What are some typical EMF exposures? What are typical EMF exposures for people living in the United States? What levels of EMF are found in common environments? What EMF field levels are encountered in the home? • What are EMF levels close to electrical appliances? What EMF levels are found near power lines? How strong is the EMF from electric power substations? • Do electrical workers have higher EMF exposure than other workers? • What are possible EMF exposures in the workplace? • What are some typical sources of EMF in the workplace? • What EMF exposure occurs durinq travel? • How can I find out how strong the EMF is where I live and work? • How much do computers contribute to my EMF exposure? • What can be done to limit EMF exposure? How do we define EMF exposure? Scientists are still uncertain about the best way to define "exposure" because 5m experiments have yet to show which aspect of the field, if any, may be relevant to reported biological effects. Important aspects of exposure could be the highest intensity, the average intensity, or the amount of time spent above a certain baseline level. The most widely used measure of EMF exposure has been the time -weighted average magnetic field level. Inc. 25 —236— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 IN B How is EMF exposure measured? Several kinds of personal exposure meters are now available. These automatically record the magnetic field as it varies over time. To determine a u a person's EMF exposure, the personal exposure meter is usually worn at the waist or is placed as close as possible to the person during the course of a work shift or day. EMF can also be measured using survey meters, sometimes called "gaussmeters." These measure the EMF levels in a given location at a given time. Such measurements do not necessarily reflect personal EMF exposure because they are not always taken at the distance from the EMF source that the person would typically be from the source. Measurements are not always made in a location for the same amount of time that a person spends there. Such "spot measurements" also fail to capture variations of the field over time, which can be significant. What are some typical EMF exposures? The figure below is an example of data collected with a personal exposure meter. q Personal Magnetic Hold Exposure ..1fRsu@W 'Veem AxTgMW S�iR14if� Udrvryf H,. I &reuse' tWor 5vxmbeSt Sl?"111rk ' ovn lurk k ' In the above example, the magnetic field was measured every 1.5 seconds over a period of 24 hours. For this person, exposure at home was very low. The occasional spikes (short exposure to high fields) occurred when the person drove or walked under power lines or over underground power lines or was close to appliances in the home or office. Several studies have used personal exposure meters to measure field exposure in different environments. These studies tend to show that appliances and building wiring contribute to the magnetic field exposure that most people receive while at home. People living close to high voltage power lines that carry a lot of current tend to have higher overall field exposures, there is considerable AESI Inc. 26 —237— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 variation among houses. What are typical EMF exposures for people living in the United States? Most people in the United States are exposed to magnetic fields that average t less than 2 milligauss (mG), although individual exposures vary. The following table shows the estimated average magnetic field exposure of the U.S, population, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. government as part of the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (EMF RAPID) Program. This study measured magnetic field exposure of about 1,000 people of all ages randomly selected among the U.S. population. Participants wore or carried with them a small personal exposure meter and kept a diary of their activities both at home and away from home. Magnetic field values were automatically recorded twice a second for 24 hours. The study reported that exposure to magnetic fields is similar in different regions of the country and similar for both men and women. AESI Inc. 27 -238- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 The following table shows average magnetic fields experienced during different types of activities. In general, magnetic fields are greater at work than at home. Estimated Average; Magnetic Field Exposure of the U:S. Population for Various Activities Population exposed (%) Overage rlew jnlb) "- ' :; :I dome i bed _ I _"Work .,1.- School 0.5: 69 48 t 81 w 63 1 38 30' 49 25 2 14 14 20 ;.�.. 3.5 3' 7.8 7.21 13 1.6 4 4.7 4.7 8.0, > 1 5 3,5 3.7 4:6 7.5 1.2 1.6 2.6 10 .0.9.,0.8 1.3 15 0, 1' 0,1 0 9 ource: Zaffanella,µ1993. Travel 87.0 f 48.0 f I 13.0 4.1 1.5 1.0 05 >02 AESI Inc. 28 -239- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 What levels of EMF are found in common environments? Magnetic field exposures can vary greatly from site to site for any type of `" environment. The data shown in the following table are median measurements ,�r,>, taken at four different sites for each environment category. AESI Inc. 29 -240- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 What EMF field levels are encountered in the home? Electric Fields Electric fields in the home, on average, range from 0 to 10 volts per meter. They can be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times weaker than those encountered outdoors near power lines. Electric fields directly beneath power lines may vary from a few volts per meter for some overhead distribution lines to several thousands of volts per meter for extra high voltage power lines. Electric fields from power lines rapidly become weaker with distance and can be greatly reduced by walls and roofs of buildings. Magnetic fields Magnetic fields are not blocked by most materials. Magnetic fields encountered in homes vary greatly. Magnetic fields rapidly become weaker with distance from the source. The chart on the left summarizes data from a study by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in which spot measurements of magnetic fields were made in the center of rooms in 992 homes throughout the United States. Half of the houses studied had magnetic field measurements of 0.6 mG or less, when the average of measurements from all the rooms in the house was calculated (the all -room mean magnetic field). The all -room mean magnetic field for all houses studied was 0.9 mG. The measurements were made away from electrical appliances and reflect primarily the Alkoo ra nwa,. Vo of rwn os that ax "ded a�a� s,�tizPdektt� rssagnnRE�Slnl�fsa?at(+a%e�i4 asks soy. fields from household wiring and outside power lines. G.G me M RIG 14 mG I.) mG 6.6 mG If you are comparing the information in this chart with measurements in your own home, keep in mind that this chart shows averages of measurements taken throughout the homes, not the single highest measurement found in the home. AESI Inc. 30 —241— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 What are EMF levels close to electrical appliances? Magnetic fields close to electrical appliances are often much stronger than those from other sources, including magnetic fields directly under power lines. 'Appliance fields decrease in strength with distance more quickly than do power line fields. The following table, based on data gathered in 1992, lists the EMF levels generated by common electrical appliances. Magnetic field strength (magnitude) does not depend on how large, complex, powerful, or noisy the appliance is. Magnetic fields near large appliances are often weaker than those near small devices. Appliances in your home may have been redesigned since the data in the table were collected, and the EMF they produce may differ considerably from the levels shown here. as . b 35 7rj 5ourm C1 twIm Duukes and Ra:lfaW�bgS'.xkWSOfth, The graph shows magnetic fields produced by electric blankets, including conventional 110-V electric blankets as well as the PTC (positive temperature coefficient) low -magnetic -field blankets. The fields were measured at a distance of about 2 inches from the blanket's surface, roughly the distance from the blanket to the user's internal organs. Because of the wiring, magnetic field strengths vary from point to point on the blanket. The graph reflects this and gives both the peak and the average measurement. Inc. 31 -242- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Sources of Magnetic Fields (mG)* AESI Inc. 32 —243— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Sources of Magnetic Fields (mG)* Distance from source 6 r 1 L2 J 4 1 _ :n Sources I 9Kitchen Sources, ERS 30 5 ELECTRIC OVENS+ Lowest 70 16 2 Median 100 20, 3 , Highest �ENERS �500 Y ELECTRIC RANGES 40 I 3 }} 600 150 120 .t 2 Lowest Med1500 1 300 30 ,kkk'4 Hlghe t E MAKERS? 44' 'REFRIGERATORS Lowest Median 10 IHlghes# 1 ASHERS TOASTERS 10 6; J2 Lowest 20 10 4 100 80 7 1 l; Median Highest 3ROCESSORS 20 5. jBedroom Source 30 6 2' DIGITAL CLOCK**** 130 20 31 Lowest ,GE DISPOSALS Median highest 80 10 2, ANALQG CLOCKS I "100 20 3, !!! (conventional' clock fat WAVE OVENS*** [ 1D0 1 r f 1 Lowest Median 10 2 Highest I 300 i 200 30 20 BABY MONITOR (unit nearest child) ` Lowest � �1 100 f 16 1 Median 600 } 100 10 1 Highest ------ ...... AESI Inc. 33 -244- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Sources of Magnetic Fields (mG)* undry/Utility'Sources µV ' ECTRIC CLOTHES DRYERS 4� Nest dent han 1 3 hest . \SHING MACHINES -1 - Nest dian 20 7. hest 100 ;: 30 6 )NS,.... _ .. .1_... vest;' dian 8 1 hest ;' 20 3 _ pi rro[ecnon Hgency; laar. ante from" tithe operating appliance could taken before the appliance had been turned :)n **** Most digital clocks have low magnetic `fields. In some ane magnetic fields are produced by the motor that drives the hanc are electrically powered using alternating current, as are all the tables. AESI Inc. 34 -245- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 IEH3 'Q 9' The Nati4nai InslOute of FnvuronraenW HeelUh Sciences EMF C�iet�l€I~i8. Answers dune 200t*4, Your EMF Environment Part 2 This chapter discusses typical magnetic field exposures in home and work environments and identifies common EMF sources and field intensities associated with these sources. • How do we define EMF exposure? • How is EMF exposure measured? • What are some typical EMF exposures? • What are typical EMF exposures for people living in the United States? • What levels of EMF are found in common environments? • What EMF field levels are encountered in the home? • What are EMF levels close to electrical appliances? • What EMF levels are found near power lines? • How strong is the EMF from electric power substations? • Do electrical workers have higher EMF exposure than other workers? • What are possible EMF exposures in the workplace? • What are some typical sources of EMF in the workplace? • What EMF exposure occurs during travel? • How can I find out how strong the EMF is where I live and work? • How much do computers contribute to my EMF exposure? • What can be done to limit EMF exposure? What EMF levels are found near power lines? Power transmission lines bring power from a generating station to an electrical substation. Power distribution lines bring power from the substation to your =" home. Transmission and distribution lines can be either overhead or underground. Overhead lines produce both electric fields and magnetic fields. Underground lines do not produce electric fields above ground but may produce magnetic fields above ground. Power transmission lines Typical EMF levels for transmission lines are shown in the chart on page 37. At a distance of 300 feet and at times of average electricity demand, the magnetic AESI Inc. 35 -246- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 fields from many lines can be similar to typical background levels found in most homes. The distance at which the magnetic field from the line becomes indistinguishable from typical background levels differs for different types of lines. Power Distribution Lines Typical voltage for power distribution lines in North America ranges from 4 to 24 kilovolts (W). Electric field levels directly beneath overhead distribution lines may vary from a few volts per meter to 100 or 200 volts per meter. Magnetic fields directly beneath overhead distribution lines typically range from 10 to 20 mG for main feeders and less than 10 mG for laterals. Such levels are also typical directly above underground lines. Peak EMF levels, however, can vary considerably depending on the amount of current carried by the line. Peak magnetic field levels as high as 70 mG have been measured directly below overhead distribution lines and as high as 40 mG above underground lines. How strong is the EMF from electric power substations? In general, the strongest EMF around the outside of a substation comes from the power lines entering and leaving the substation. The strength of the EMF from equipment within the substations, such as transformers, reactors, and capacitor banks, decreases rapidly with increasing distance. Beyond the substation fence or wall, the EMF produced by the substation equipment is typically indistinguishable from background levels. Do electrical workers have higher EMF exposure than other workers? Most of the information we have about occupational EMF exposure comes from ':. studies of electric utility workers. It is therefore difficult to compare electrical workers' EMF exposures with those of other workers because there is less information about EMF exposures in work environments other than electric utilities, Early studies did not include actual measurements of EMF exposure on the job but used job titles as an estimate of EMF exposure among electrical workers. Recent studies, however, have included extensive EMF exposure assessments. A report published in 1994 provides some information about estimated EMF exposures of workers in Los Angeles in a number of electrical jobs in electric utilities and other industries. Electrical workers had higher average EMF exposures (9.6 mG) than did workers in other jobs (1.7 mG). For this study, the category "electrical workers" included electrical engineering technicians, electrical engineers, electricians, power line workers, power station operators, telephone line workers, TV repairers, and welders. AESI Inc. 36 —247— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 fi5kt F Heir ja ef�be aki5g4�.%Ntrr lij] 9S eA SQAa iiblt7 fwatiM 6i m {rtan4 9 i mt i3adtlN iWOM,10{ksho to 415 TIP ... _.. aaf - _..0101 fJ..vxsAmpnttciisiit�tai �'� 35 t�7 a:3 6.a e3� fEWP Appp:Is akPo4tFti+i�4lpf 7Sin Sdal dim,' 9Bte fsald pia W f3ormt @a 0 a;. rwdiKV119 to is 03 afii eat f"3#i4klrkomifiQ ST.5 19.5 9.1 tk ej Soo IN molaolrW a,.eaaa Ay ion iem pysr� tmtiRP �— 6a nt {raaRB 9lin ia9at� E±taYkrieAlgMJFm7 3rd 3A t,4 013 a.t Ma WgnrtRf.uw,sS to 29A 123 9$ EF idagnefic Field Tram a 9004LV Transmissiart Uno. Momsurtol mtbo Right-M-VWy grery smirwtesfor 1 tgoek A fr i f6t7Hs1-,Y§N[YaHadt Cac Itmori-0y 3&amr, 41fnleYvM004=2:ai Imo. 1,1:>Eimmnvsy=9a,a ?iestrk f Wx =Porn porter lines we tclatively vahle betonse Wne soltaga doesn't thange wrf m"h, G Alfteik finds an AIM beet fluctuate groatiy as mhunt. ¢barges la tespisniv Ea ahangl ng loads. Mlagnetlt fwldi must IT dalawibad statittlomr In terms of astaagot,dnatim mi,014.Tireetmgnetitii4ldt &Wle are mom takoralod to PI powra:' 4me1 far I9M a�oetoll r4ean tNds. avting atak taadq fiomt m; tyf the tihnel, magiiat4 liekh are About 7n.ite as Stromd as the mean k+,rlr ztiava, Tha grapls ae ti* ton ti an example of tv4w Nyam1re114 volt-otol dueng oma4 Vek fat one SC.itk'vtF4rAnTI iiem ilne. •711aim aie .pp7e51 ihNFE AE S a1 id;3 f31 i5narf�tsmind 90f W1019474Steritei 4raEagMr HAM€nth.- Ptttillt fforthwod, They erefor general imlormetiaa. F� Inioxmetian obvol a Speeilk line. Mutt 11w utility that. operwithelfne, Sowtefloam'Alle pm er Adralmloralian, 19sK 37 -248- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 What are possible EMF exposures in the workplace? The figures below are examples of magnetic field exposures determined with exposure meters worn by four workers in different occupations. These measurements demonstrate how EMF exposures vary among individual workers. They do not necessarily represent typical EMF exposures for workers in these occupations. Magnetic Field Expo Sowing machine operatorin garment factory yy __ .f,l�l tJ 40 Gasrtwe k #rt tAmam 9:iq Am 1F:aC. SAC PM M m� The sewing machine operator worked all day, took a 1-hour lunch break at 11:15 am, and took 10-minute breaks at 8:55 am and 2:55 pm. Recirldim 60 — 4o MON 0..9 GP6ntkt{k � m�.arr;o.#• . a dA 'yJg Ey t4 .. re The electrician repaired a large air-conditioning motor at 9:10 am and at 11:45 am. tyres of Workers (nrG) fdamtenanza meefre7llc 40 a ea v le G24nNR .7- xa +y t§ t a,H mi vieam 1@&earm It'A a 11l* l 11'35 am fi`.k: Pm The mechanic repaired a compressor at 9:45 am and 11:10 am. dmaer"ent office worker 40 3 I k� iA to I 1 o_- .. Mean; %T Geomork mm:7 k* The government worker was at the copy machine at 8:00 am, at the computer from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm and also from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm. 'The geometric mean Is calculated by squaring the values, adding the squares, and then taking the square root of the sum. Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and U.S. Department of Energy. The tables below can give you a general idea about magnetic field levels for different jobs and around various kinds of electrical equipment. It is important to remember that EMF levels depend on the actual equipment used in the workplace. Different brands or models of the same type of equipment can have different magnetic field strengths. It is also important to keep in mind that the strength of a magnetic field decreases quickly with distance. AESI Inc. 38 —249— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 If you have questions or want more information about your EMF exposure at work, your plant safety officer, industrial hygienist, or other local safety official can be a good source of information. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is asked occasionally to conduct health hazard evaluations in workplaces where EMF is a suspected cause for concern. For further technical assistance contact NIOSH at 800-356-4674. AESI Inc. 39 —250— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 What are some typical sources of EMF in the workplace? Exposure assessment studies so far have shown that most people's j EMF exposure at work comes from electrical appliances and tools ' and from the buildings power supply. People who work near, transformers, electrical closets, circuit boxes, or other high -current electrical equipment may have 60-Hz magnetic field exposures of hundreds of milligauss or more. In offices, magnetic field levels are t` often similar to those found at home, typically 0.5 to 4.0 mG. However, these levels can increase dramatically near certain types of equipment. AESI Inc. 40 —251— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 C3 -252- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 N R -253- Ci C h w Q COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 What EMF exposure occurs during travel? Inside a car or bus, the main sources of magnetic field exposure are those you pass by (or under) as you drive, such as power lines. Car batteries involve direct current (DC) rather than alternating current (AC). Alternators can create EMF, but at frequencies other than 60 Hz. The rotation of steel -belted tires is also a source of EMF. Most trains in the United States are diesel powered. Some electrically powered trains operate on AC, such as the passenger trains between Washington, D.C. and New Haven, Connecticut. Measurements taken on these trains using personal exposure monitors have suggested that average 60-Hz magnetic field exposures for passengers and conductors may exceed 50 mG. A U.S. government -sponsored exposure assessment study of electric rail systems found average 60-Hz magnetic field levels in train operator compartments that ranged from 0.4 mG (Boston high speed trolley) to 31.1 mG (North Jersey transit). The graph below shows average and maximum magnetic field measurements in operator compartments of several electric rail systems. It illustrates that 60 Hz is one of several electromagnetic frequencies to which train operators are exposed. Workers who maintain the tracks on electric rail lines, primarily in the northeastern United States, also have elevated magnetic field exposures at both 25 Hz and 60 Hz. Measurements taken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show that typical average daily exposures range from 3 to 18 mG, depending on how often trains pass the work site. Rapid transit and light rail systems in the United States, such as the Washington D.C. Metro and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, run on DC electricity. These DC -powered trains. contain equipment that produces AC fields. For example, areas of strong AC magnetic fields have been measured on the Washington Metro close to the floor, during braking and acceleration, presumably near equipment located underneath the subway cars. AESI Inc. 43 —254—' COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 caaldaa 4.. Nonh Jxrw,r PanNt wny RrantA nnAxa4A6au4haaxt Coxidarpda Nr} MkANmM Wtiaetltlsr4Yf M* iAufi'WS.ttKj!]tVrwfn A�lttYNiXdGI M%1r tiYkl� Loft 1r.11q Po1S [[Uskmplp>W*dfrow "WD$WbW" These graphs illustrate that 60 Hz is one of several electromagnetic frequencies to which train operators are exposed. The maximum exposure is the top of the blue (upper) portion of the bar; the average exposure is the top of the red (lower) portion. How can I find out how strong the EMF is where I live and work? �A: The tables throughout this chapter can give you a general idea about magnetic field levels at home, for different jobs, and around various kinds of electrical equipment. For specific information about EMF from a particular power line, contact the utility that operates the line. Some will perform home EMF measurements. You can take your own EMF measurements with a magnetic field meter. For a spot measurement to provide a useful estimate of your EMF exposure, it should be taken at a time of day and location when and where you are typically near the equipment. Keep in mind that the strength of a magnetic field drops off quickly with distance. Independent technicians will conduct EMF measurements for a fee. Search the Internet under "EMF meters" or "EMF measurement." You should investigate the experience and qualifications of commercial firms, since governments do not standardize EMF measurements or certify measurement contractors. At Work, your plant safety officer, industrial hygienist, or other local safety official can be a good source of information. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sometimes conducts health hazard evaluations in workplaces where EMF is a suspected cause for concern. For further technical assistance, contact NIOSH at 800-356-4674. AESI Inc. 44 —255— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 How much do computers contribute to my EMF exposure? Personal computers themselves produce very little EMF. ' However, the video display terminal (VDT) or monitor provides _ some magnetic field exposure unless it is of the new flat -panel design. Conventional VDTs containing cathode ray tubes use i magnetic fields to produce the image on the screen, and some emission of those magnetic fields is unavoidable. Unlike most other appliances which produce predominantly 60-Hz magnetic fields, VDTs emit magnetic fields in both the extremely low frequency (ELF) and very low frequency (VLF) frequency ranges. Many newer VDTs have been designed to minimize magnetic field emissions, and those identified as "TCO'99 compliant" meet a standard for low emissions. What can be done to limit EMF exposure? Personal exposure to EMF depends on three things: the strength of the magnetic field sources in your environment, your distance from those sources, and the time you spend in the field. If you are concerned about EMF exposure, your first step should be to find out where the major EMF sources are and move away from them or limit the time you spend near them. Magnetic fields from appliances decrease dramatically about an arm's length away from the source. In many cases, rearranging a bed, a chair, or a work area to increase your distance from an electrical panel or some other EMF source can reduce your EMF exposure. Another way to reduce EMF exposure is to use equipment designed to have relatively low EMF emissions. Sometimes electrical wiring in a house or a building can be the source of strong magnetic field exposure. Incorrect wiring is a common source of higher -than -usual magnetic fields. Wiring problems are also worth correcting for safety reasons. In its 1999 report to Congress, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences suggested that the power industry continue its current practice of siting power lines to reduce EMF exposures. There are more costly actions, such as burying power lines, moving out of a home, or restricting the use of office space that may reduce exposures. Because scientists are still debating whether EMF is a hazard to health, it is not clear that the costs of such measures are warranted. Some EMF reduction measures may create other problems. For instance, compacting power lines reduces EMF but AESI Inc. 45 -256- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 increases the danger of accidental electrocution for line workers. We are not sure which aspects of the magnetic field exposure, if any, to reduce. Future research may reveal that EMF reduction measures based on today's limited understanding are inadequate or irrelevant. No action should be taken to reduce EMF exposure if it increases the risk of a known safety hazard. AESI Inc. 46 —257— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 4 Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Summary Report for the Newmarket and Aurora Area (obtained from the HONI Community Website) AESI Inc. 47 -258- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Electric and Magnetic Field (EMFI Summary Report for the Newmarket and Aurora Areas. Background: To address local concerns about increased levels of electric and magnetic fields associated with the double circuit 230 kV transmission line proposed for York Region, Hydro One measured existing magnetic fields at various locations in the study area. Measurements were made on June 23, 2004 using an EMDEX Snap — 3 axis Magnetic Field Survey Meter. This report presents the result of Hydro One field measurements at three locations in the Newmarket and Aurora area: October Lane, Pinnacle Trail, and Sandford Street near the Armitage Public School. It should be noted that EMF levels fluctuate during the day depending on electricity load demand and the data is a snapshot of the EMF levels at the time of measurement. The report also presents the predicted 2015 average EMF levels at the same locations with the proposed new 230kV line in service between Parkway TS (in Markham) and Armitage TS (in Newmarket). AESl Inc. 48 —259- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 October Lane and Pinnacle Trail - Aurora EMF readings were conducted at . October Lane and Pinnacle Trail on June 23, 2004. The results are shown in the graphs below. The obtained readings were within expected ranges for energy flows. The small increase in EMF levels in areas west of the right- of-way (R-of-W) centerline is due to underground distribution lines. Future predicted EMF levels are also illustrated. Aurora MagneOe Fleld Measurement Location June 23, 2004 f as October Lane, Aurora Magnetic Field Measurements, June 23, 2004 30 26 Wealem odes of ighl R.e4Way 20 N to to 16 E 10 Lacel utiNly uMeryrounddiaMbutbn {seder (19.a kVJ see graph betow a 6 levets Ritlht-of-Way 0 -120 -100 -80 -60 40 -20 0 Distance from Western ed0o of R-of-W (motersi Measured & Predicted Magnetic Fields - October Lane, Aurora —June 23/04 measurements — Prodlct1. 2016 12 10 rn 6 e 4 2 Western a -of-W 0 .40 -36 -30 -25 .20 -15 -10 -6 0 Distance from Western edge of R-of-W (motors) Aasumptlona for 20i6 predkted values: Alternative f with pole -type structure, opflmal phasing, Slid predlcfed loads, Magyretb fields essociWed with Hydro One facilities only, AESI Inc. 49 —260— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Pinnacle Trail, Aurora Magnetic Field Measurements June 23, 2004 55 50 45 40 y 35 U! WoRht-cf-Way 30 25 E 20 15 MrAifiPrn to- levels Ri ht-of-VVa 5 0 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 Distance from Western edge of R-of-W (meters) Measured & Predicted Magnetic Fields - Pinnacle Trail, Aurora — June 23/04 measurements —Predicted 2015 12 10 a m c 6 4 Westem edge of R-of-W 2 0 .40 -35 -30 -26 -20 -15 -10 -6 0 Distance from Western edge of R-of-W (meters) Assumptions for 2015 predicted values: Alternative 1 with pale -type structure, optimal phasing, and predicted loads. Magnetic fields associated with Hydro One facilities only. AESI Inc. 50 —261— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Sandford Street near Armitage Public School - Newmarket An EMF profile was conducted on the corridor near'the Armitage Public School on June 23, 2004. The school is located north of the Armitage Jct just south of Sandford Street. The corridor currently contains a double circuit 230 kV line. The graph shows the measured EMF profile at the school, and future levels based on predicted line loading. With the proposed Parkway TS to Armitage TS line, EMF levels will fall due to reduced loads on the conductors by the school. 4rnr0� �4ia_ Sanford Street, Newmarket Magnetic field Measurements, June 23, 2004 30 — 25 Western edge of Rlgbf uF'Nub 20 ca a> 15 1 for future levels 5 .e Right - of - Way 0 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 Distance from Western edge of Right -of -Way (meters) Measured & Predicted Magnetic Fields -Sandford Street, Newmarket June 23f04 Measured — Predld0 2015 10 3 weetsmt edge of � R�oFVv fA 6 E 4 2 0 40 -30 -20 -10 0 Distance from western edge of Right -of -Way (meters) sslmNulom' for 2011 predlote ivahies: Existing line nearthe school remains unchanged, howeverthe current is reduced as some load is tranaferce to the ne line from Parkwayto Anita as, Ma anefic geld Is for HydroOno acilNles only —262- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 5 Average Magnetic Fields in 2015 (for the 230 kV line between Gormley and Armitage Junction) From Appendix G of the HONI Draft Environmental Study Report AESI Inc. 52 -263- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 m -a .COD L LL- U � c � 3 � }§2\ N/ )k $ & fk l� -264- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 12 .k k� \\ 0. 4:3 Ll -265- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 CIN —266- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 6 Example of a typical distribution line with multiple circuits compared to the existing transmission line and the 230 W alternatives AESI Inc. 56 -267- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Example of 230 kV lattice structure. HONI is proposing a single steel pole as an alternative. Note residential homes adjacent. Example of 230 kV single steel pole structure being proposed by HONI AESI Inc. 58 —269— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 APPENDIX 7 November 9 2004 letter from Minister of Energy, Dwight Duncan to Markham Mayor, Don Cousens AESI Inc. 59 -270- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 Minister of Energy Hearst Block, 4th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto ON MA 2E1 Tel.: 416-327-6716 Fu:416-327-6754 NOV - 9 2004 Ministre de I'Energle Edifice Hearst, 4e 6tage 900, we Bay Toronto ON M7A 2E1 T61.: 416-327-6715 T612c.:416-327.6754 His Worship W. Donald Cousens Mayor Town of Markham Anthony Roman Centre 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, Ontario UR 9W3 Dear Mayor Cousens: MW u Thank you for your letter enclosing Markham Town Council's resolution regarding new transmission and the proposed Ontario Power Authority (OPA). A copy of the resolution was also sent to me by Ms. Sheila Birrell, Markham Town Clerk. Forecasts by both the Independent Electricity Market Operator and local distribution companies in the York Region have indicated that existing Hydro One transmission facilities which deliver power to the northern York Region will likely reach capacity by the winter of 2005/2006 as a result of rapid load growth in the Newmarket and Aurora area. In order to protect the reliability of supply to the northern York Region, Hydro One has developed several transmission solutions. The Hydro One Board has recently identified their preferred transmission route, As with all transmission projects, there is an existing environmental assessment process as well as a requirement for Ontario Energy Board approval prior to the start of construction. Both processes allow for public input. Please note that a completion of the environmental approvals will not commit Hydro One to begin construction. Hydro One will only begin implementation of this option if it is asked to do so by York Region and the affected local distribution companies (LDCs). York Region and the LDCs may continue to examine other alternatives — including increased demand management, local generation, and distribution solutions — and then decide how best to proceed. I agree that, in future, the choice between alternative solutions could certainly fall within the mandate of the OPA in the context of Integrated Power System Planning, as proposed in Bill 100, However, the legislation is still before the legislature and I believe it would be irresponsible to delay consideration of solutions for York Region given current growth forecasts. .../cont'd AESI Inc. 60 -271- COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 -2- If you have any concerns about the Hydro One proposal, I would suggest that you contact Mr. James O'Mara, Director, Environmental Assessments and Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1 L5, You can also address your concerns directly to Hydro One by writing to Ms. Rita Burak, Chair, Hydro One Inc., 430 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2P5. I can assure you that the Ministry of Energy will continue to monitor this situation in order to ensure that Hydro One proceeds in a manner that improves reliability without jeopardizing our environment — particularly in this unique area. I appreciate you bringing the concerns of Markham Town Council to my attention. Sincerely, Dwight Duncan Minister c: The Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier The Honourable Greg Sorbara, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance Rita Burak, Chair, Hydro One Tom Parkinson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hydro One Scott Somerville, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Aurora John Livey, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Markham Sheila Birrell, Town Clerk, Markham David Estrin, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP AESI Inc. -2 7 2- 61 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 TOWN OF AURORA AGENDA ITEM 13 COUNCIL REPORT No. ADM05-001 SUBJECT: Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission Capacity in Markham -Newmarket Corridor FROM: Scott Somerville, Interim Chief Administrative Officer DATE: January 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS The Chief Administrative Officer recommends; THAT the following report of the CAO directed by Council on December 14, 2004, respecting the provision of a response(s) to the issues raised by Mr. Richard Johnson by email of December 3, 2004 and pertaining to Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission Capacity in Markham -Newmarket Corridor be received for information. BACKGROUND On December 14, 2004 Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive response to the issues raised by Mr. Richard Johnson in his email of December 3, 2004 respecting Hydro One's Proposed to Expand Transmission Capacity in Markham -Newmarket Corridor and to report to Council in January 2005. The responses to Mr. Johnson's questions and enquiries cannot be answered in their entirety by town staff; consequently, some great deal of reliance must be placed on the communications, reports, positions and recommendations that have been addressed by the Hydro One Joint Task Force (Markham/Aurora); the Region of York; The Town of Aurora; the Town of Markham; and Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd.; all of which, through this report, are being filed with Aurora Town Council for information and consideration, and all of which are public documents along with the original Hydro One Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) dated October 21, 2004. Current Status From a local municipal perspective, the current status of matters related to Hydro One is as follows: • The Town of Aurora, on December 15, 2004 filed a formal request with the Minister of the Environment that the Hydro One — Class E.A. be formally "bumped up" to a full individual E.A. to be carried out under the legislative direction of the Environmental Assessment Act. • The Town of Aurora has endorsed the request of the Town of Markham to subject matters related to the Hydro One corridor to formal mediation. —273— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 2 - Report No. ADM05-001 • The Region of York has formally requested the Minister of the Environment to "bump up" the Class E.A. to an individual E.A. under the Environmental Assessment Act, support the Town of Markham's request for mediation, support local generation initiatives and ask the Federal Minister of Health to review the issue and impact of EMF's • The Town of Markham in it's written formal position, has made a case for a Minister's Order for a full and individual E.A. as well as requesting mediation of the issues. • Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. have responded to the basic issue of future power requirements and addressed, from it's perspective other pertinent matters. It should be pointed out that throughout the Hydro One corridor intervention process it has consistently been the position of the Town of Aurora to limit it's activities to participation in the deliberations of the joint Hydro One Task Force (Markham/Aurora) and the Town has not, coincidentally, undertaken any formal participation in activities outside of these above noted parameters. Consequently, many of the answers to Mr. Johnson's questions are repetitive in nature given that the Town of Aurora has participated as part of a larger inter -municipal group. i.e. the Hydro One Task Force, and has not independently advocated its position outside of that jurisdiction. Mr. Johnson's Questions and Responses What actions has Aurora Hydro taken with regards to the town's request to review the 2003 York Region Supply Study? Response: Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. has responded to the Town of Aurora's request for review of supply — Please see the communication of January 7, 2005 and Report entitled "Reinforcement of Transmission Supply Facilities to York Region — Hydro One Networks Inc." filed with Town Council January 11, 2005. 2. What impact will Aurora Hydro's conservation plan have on the required delivery date for future power supply upgrades? Response: Please see Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. report entitled "Reinforcement of Transmission Supply Facilities to York Region — Hydro One Networks Inc." filed with Town Council January 11, 2005. —274— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 3 - Report No. ADM05-001 Has Aurora Hydro explored local power generation or back up generation capabilities? Response: Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd.; Newmarket Hydro; the Town of Newmarket and the Town of Aurora are jointly examining the feasibility of local power generation. A joint report of Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. and the Town of Aurora is being prepared for presentation to Council in February 2005. 4. Has Aurora Hydro met with David Richmond of the Task Force to discuss any of his 14 (plus) alternatives? David is a well respected technical consultant that is very experienced in network planning. Response: Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. has not dealt with the Task Force's consultants nor was it asked for input by the Task Force or it's consultants. 5. Does the town of Aurora plan to respond to STOP's letter from Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in which we requested all stake holders to come together in a co-operative fashion to address York Region's power needs in a responsible manner? No one that received a letter has responded to our request as of yet. Response: The Town of Aurora is a contributing and participating member of the Hydro One Task Force (Markham/Aurora) consequently the Task Force takes its advice and counsel from the Council and consultants on process, technical and legal matters. Does the town plan to follow up with Dr. Jaczek regarding the health issues posed by EMFs? In my lengthy discussion with her she recognized the reason for concern. Does the town share the concerns of residents regarding adverse EMF health effects? Response: The Town of Aurora's consideration of technical and health issues related to Hydro One corridor issues to date have been taken through the deliberations and recommendations of the Hydro One Task Force. Any initiatives that need to be taken politically or administratively are done so in consultation with the Task Force in a coordinated manner. —275— COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 4 - Report No. ADM05-001 Has the town asked Federal Minister of State (Public Health) Dr. Carolyn Bennett to clarify the federal position on EMF's and at the same time requested that recent EMF studies be reviewed ?There have been major developments in our awareness of EMF health concerns over the past 12 years? Response: Same response as question #6 8. Has anyone in the town made an effort to contact Dr. Magda Havas in order to discuss her research. Dr. Havas travels the world consulting governments on this issue and she has had a very difficult time delivering her message locally. Response: Same response as question #6 9. Has anyone in the town contacted MP Belinda Stronach on this issue given that she has raised this issue federally? Response: Same response as question #6 10. Has anyone in the town contact Lui Temelkovski, Member of Parliament (Liberal), Oak Ridges -Markham, regarding this issue given that he has addressed this issue in the House of Commons and shares the resident's concerns? Response: Same response as question #6 10. Has anyone from the town contacted provincial authorities in order to address this issue (including the road blocks that nullify the business case for local power generation as it is being explored by Newmarket)? Response: Through the Offices of the Mayor of Newmarket and Aurora and the administration(s) of Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. and Newmarket Hydro political, and technical representations have, and are being made, to ensure that the minimum possible number of constraints are brought to bear on an objective assessment of a local power generation option. -276- COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 5 - Report No. ADM05-001 11. Has anyone from the town spoken with MPP Frank Klees regarding this matter, given that he has raised this issue in the Provincial Legislature and shares the concerns of residents over the safety of our children? Response: Same response as question #6 12. Has anyone discussed this issue with the Region in order to shed light on this issue and share our concerns? If so, what is the Region's position on this matter? Response: The Region of York has extensively assessed and considered the relevant issues surrounding the Hydro One proposal and has responded through it's own political and technical report entitled "Hydro One's Proposal to Expand Transmission Capacity in Markham/Newmarket Corridor" filed with Town Council on January 11, 2005. 13. Has anyone explored the viable alternative of under grounding the cables in residential areas? This has proven to be the solution in other jurisdictions and the costs presented by Hydro One do not match up with what other experts have told residents. In any case, I trust that $2 - $3 added to our monthly hydro bill would be justified given the benefits that would result. We are being asked to pay $4 per month for smart metres to reduce power consumption and we are being charged $300 to $750 a year for new health care costs, therefore when I put the potential cost to bury the lines into perspective I think we have a reasonable case to do so as a prudent avoidance of risk measure. No one has addressed this as a serious alternative. Response: The Town of Markham's position on Hydro One corridor issues short titled "Supply to York Region Class E.A. Transmission Line Study" filed with Town Council in January 11, 2005 outlines the options of burying hydro lines and relative costs. 14. Has the town reviewed the E.A. process and noted the incredible number of flaws in both the process (which is under review provincially) as well as the manner that Hydro One has dealt with this process? The legal opinions from Gowlings and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell outline just a few of these concerns. Response: The Town of Aurora and Markham have both utilized the legal and technical resources of the Hydro One Task Force in formulating their individual yet similar responses to the Minister of the Environment on the E.A. process utilized by Hydro One and the Town of —277— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 11.2005 - 6 - Report No. ADM05-001 Aurora with Markham's concurrence, is placing the technical reliance for it's position on the reports, statistics and documentation appended to the Town of Markham's response. 15. Are all possible measures going to be taken in order to try to deal with this issue as required by the town's resolution? If so, who is going to back up Councillor Morris in this regard? Response: Councillor Morris, Councillor Gaertner along with Chief Administrative Officer Scott Somerville are the Town of Aurora's representative on the Hydro One Task Force and actively participate in the Task Force's consideration and deliberations of all issues placed before it; reporting back to Town Council on all recommendations for action as recommended by the Task Force. It must be recognized that the Town Council can only undertake such action (offensive or defensive) that it is legally empowered to do by legislation or regulation. In addition, the Town council has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the Town of Aurora, as a whole, which among many other things includes the provisions of a reliable power supply to all its residents and businesses through its wholly owned regulated, hydro distribution company Aurora Hydro Connections Ltd. 16. Although I have been told Dr. Jaczek's letter has been posted on the town's web site (as required by the town's resolution), I still can not find it. Any direction in this regard would be appreciated. Also note that an updated letter may be required in light of recent discussions I have had with Dr. Jaczek. Response: Dr. Jaczek's letter (Region of York Medical Office of Health) dated 2004 is posted on the Town of Aurora's Website. 17. Is the town aware of recent legislation, legal actions 1 decisions and school board resolutions in other jurisdictions that have addressed the same concerns residents in our area have expressed? Connecticut, Illinois, California, B.C., Edmonton and Toronto are a few places where this issue has been dealt with recently. Response: The Hydro One Task Force acts as the facilitator for the collection of data and precedent related to the Hydro One Corridor issue. The Town of Aurora is a contributory and participating member of the Task Force and has access to any and all public information, if required. 18. Homes located beside the proposed towers will take longer to sell and will sell of less as a result of the aesthetic impact of the towers and the perceived (or real) health concerns associated with EMF's. Has the town taken any action to explore this issue? Many studies and common sense suggest(s) that 140 foot towers —278— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 January 11, 2005 - 7 - Report No. ADM05-001 spaced every 900 feet and located 50 to 70 feet from resident's back fences will NOT have a positive impact on our community and it is my hope that the town recognizes this and will take steps to defend us from such an outcome. Response: The Town of Aurora does not have legislative jurisdiction and is not empowered in any other way to allow it to intervene into private real estate transactions nor does it have expertise or competency to express opinions or positions on EMF's; this task would appear to be a Federal Government responsibility through it's "public health" Ministries and Agencies. The Town has, however, posted information clauses in new subdivision agreements adjacent to the Hydro corridor. Please Note: For consolidation of information purposes please find attached to this report a copy of the "bump up" request of the Town of Aurora as ratified by Town Council on December 14, 2004. A copy of the original "Hydro One Networks Inc. Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), October 21, 2004, Supply to York Region Class E.A. Transmission Line Study" may be obtained, upon request, from the Corporate Services Department. Respectfully submitted, Scott Somerville —279— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 , o,Nn of, �r TOWN OF AURORA 11�xe.RP,o.,,�-. EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING 04-37 HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004 VIII CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION (Added Item) - Memo from the Office of the CAO Re: Hydro One Corridor — "Bump up" Letter; Moved by Councillor Morris Seconded by Councillor Vrancic THAT the Town of Aurora Letter of Objection to Hydro One's draft Supply to York Region Environmental Study Report (ESR) and Request for a "Bump Up" order to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act, be forwarded to Hydro One Networks and the Minister of the Environment as the Town of Aurora's formal position on the Utility's "Supply to York Region Environmental_ Study Report" (ESR) document. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE SENT BY:. Corporate Services ACTION DEPT,: Corporate Services INFO DEPT.: CAO, Legal, api-T111 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Added Recommendation To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Scott Somerville, Interim Chief Administrative Officer Date: December 14, 2004 Re: Item #9 Hydro One Corridor — "bump up" letter RECOMMENDATIONS The Chief Administrative Officer is recommending that the attached letter, substantially in the form presented, be forwarded to Hydro One Networks as the Town of Aurora's formal position on the Utility's "Supply to York Region Environmental Study Report" ("ESR") document; it being pointed out that, in concurrence with Council's direction of November 23, 2004 that the Municipality is requesting a "Bump Up'YOrder to Comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act. Scott Somerville a Page 1 —281— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 [Town of Aurora] December 15, 2004 Ms. Carrie -Lynn Ognibene Hydro One Networks 483 Bay St., A Floor Toronto, Ontario M5O 2P5 Re: Town of Aurora Letter of Objection to Hydro One's draft Supply to York Region Environmental Study Report ("ESR') and Request for a " Bump Up"/Order to Comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act Dear Ms. Ognibene: Summary We are writing to express the Town of Aurora's strenuous objection to the draft Supply to York Region Environmental Study Report (ESR) issued by Hydro One on October 21, 2004. In summary, and on a without prejudice basis to the Town's legal rights given our serious concerns regarding the applicability to this project of the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities, the Town submits: a) The ESR deadline for comments and requests for bump -ups should be suspended until Hydro One provides a complete draft ESR for "Final Review". The Draft ESR dated October 21 is incomplete and is therefore inadequate to submit for public review and comments. The "Final Notice" required by the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities ("Class EA") presumes that the ESR provided for final public and agency review is at least complete. The Supply to York Region draft ESR does not contain any of the public input, continents or concerns from the second round of Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings conducted by Hydro One in October 2004. In addition it does not include any of the Hydro One responses to that input and concerns, nor numerous Hydro One commitments to future actions and inclusion of certain documentation in the draft ESR. This is clearly inconsistent with s. 3.4 of the Class EA. —282— 1 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 b) Before submitting its ESR and the package of objections received in response to the Final Notice to the Environment Minister, Hydro One must re- evaluate the rationale for its preferred alternative, given the "expressed opposition" and must "attempt to resolve the opposition." This could be done through voluntary mediation. Once the period for comment on the ESR is properly closed, Hydro One must not simply hand the package of objections to the Environment Minister, but rather must first, in accordance with s. 3.5.2 of the Class EA, re-evaluate the rationale for its selection of the preferred alternative, given the "expressed opposition" and must "attempt to resolve the opposition." This means Hydro One must carefully analyze the submissions made in response to the Final Notice, and objectively consider why the submissions made are not acceptable. One way in which Hydro One could do this is to voluntarily engage in mediation with interested parties, including the Town. c) In the event Hydro One declines to take the required actions outlined above, or intends to proceed as contemplated by the draft ESR, the Town requests Hydro One voluntarily "bump up" this undertaking to a full, individual assessment. In the event Hydro One declines to voluntarily do so this letter also constitutes a request by the Town that the Minister of -Environment issue an Order under Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act requiring a full individual environmental assessment. As indicated, these requests are made on a without prejudice basis to preserve the rights of the Town given our serious concerns regarding the applicability to this project of the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities. The Hydro One Draft ESR Fails to Respond to Aurora Council's July 13 2004 Concerns Hydro One was informed during June and July, 2004 that a large number of residents of York Region, as well as the Councils of the Towns of Aurora and Markham, and the Regional Municipality of York, all had substantial concerns regarding the Hydro One EA process. A review of the draft ESR indicates that Hydro One has ignored those concerns. In the result, Hydro One has proceeded to confirm its pre -determined preference for the Parkway to Armitage route in an unfair process which —283— 2 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 • failed to fairly consider the environmental, social and economic impacts of its preferred route on existing and future urban areas and communities in close proximity to the preferred route; • refused to consider reasonable interim alternatives for meeting demand which would provide time for a full and proper environmental assessment study to be carried out; • failed to fairly assess alternative power supply options and routes presented by the public; and • used self-selected criteria not publicly disclosed until the draft ESR was published to ensure Hydro One's original preference would be justified and other reasonable alternatives eliminated. The Hydro One process was clearly driven and inappropriately influenced by technical and cost factors which dominated the exercise and pre -determined the outcome. There was no substantive assessment of the significant social effects of the project, particularly for the current and future residents of the Town in closest proximity to the chosen corridor. In the result the Hydro One draft ESR fails to meet basic environmental assessment principles, standards and accepted practices. The Town passed the following resolution on July 13, 2004 expressing its concerns with the Hydro One process: 111. That Hydro One be advised that the Council of the Town of Aurora adamantly opposes the current alternatives to upgrade the electric power supply to York Region; 2. That Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, be asked to ensure that there be no EMF risks imposed upon any existing or future residents in the Town of Aurora; 3. That Council request that the following actions be undertaken by Hydro One prior to its determination of a preferred alternative for the upgrade of the supply of electricity to serve northern York Region: 3.1 Hydro One undertake, as part of the Class Environmental Assessment Process, a frilly documented identification and assessment of all possible routes and options for expanded power transmission capacity to northern York Region, including the use of other transmission corridors supplying northern York Region, the use of existing and proposed Ministry of Transportation corridors such as Highway's 404, 400 and future 427, pursuing new corridors on rural lands, undergrounding of system, and other alternatives; 3.2 Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, give greater consideration to medical, visual, environmental, social and economic —284— COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost: After reviewing the Hydro One Draft ESR October 21, 2004 it is evident that key components of this resolution have been ignored, specifically the ones underlined above. In particular, the draft ESR failed to carry out the "fully documented... assessment of all possible routes and alternatives" as requested by the Town, and as required by the Environmental Assessment Act. Hydro One has treated the ESR process as an opportunity to "announce and defend" its preferred alternative, rather than undertaking a serious examination of alternatives. Hydro One's preferred alternative for reinforcing the supply to York Region was predetermined before the Class EA process was even started, and the draft ESR process was manipulated, without public knowledge or notice, so as to ensure that alternatives suggested by others would fail. The York Region Supply Study (YRSS) conducted in 2003 recommended the preferred transmission option. "...the report recommends the following steps: initiate environmental assessment, preliminary engineering and project development work . under Plan B and Confirm that Plan B is indeed the lowest cost plan...." [YRSS p. 31 Conclusions and Recommendations]. This fact was confirmed by Hydro One in the ESR. "Hydro One's Transmission Solutions report documented the need for transmission reinforcement in York Region and Hydro One's preferred solution [ESR p.2, para. 2]. As a result, the ESR process initiated by Hydro One was designed and carried out on the basis that Plan B was the recommended plan and that the only alternative was Plan A. Additional "givens" when commencing the ESR were, that Plan B had lesser environmental impact than any other alternative and that Plan B was preferred by the municipal utilities in York Region that it was meant to serve. These assumptions and facts are clearly indicated by the materials produced by Hydro One prior to the start of the ESR and are repeated in the introduction to the draft ESR. [p.iv parag. 4] In response to stakeholder concern, while Hydro One announced that it would examine seven alternatives identified by stakeholders, overlooked in its initial process, behind closed doors Hydro One cobbled together a set of screening criteria that were guaranteed to eliminate all seven of the additional alternatives — before the promised evaluation was undertaken. For example, Hydro One publicly agreed to examine rights of way adjacent to transportation corridors, and then summarily eliminated any joint -use alternatives in its screening process. This screening and elimination was not made known until the draft ESR was published and therefore without any public involvement or notice.. Hydro One's other exclusionary screening criteria included cost, in-service date and selective policy considerations — criteria that very closely resembled the criteria —285— 4 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 applied in the Supply Study. This conduct leads to the conclusion that the ptuported acceptance of seven alternatives for consideration was a sham exercise, as Hydro One never intended to actually assess, and did not assess, the additional alternatives. • Hydro One created these exclusionary screening criteria, used to remove the other seven alternatives, without any public consultation, public involvement or even notice. In fact, Hydro One chose not to inform either the Town or the public about its creation or use of these self-created exclusionary screening criteria. Their use was revealed only when the draft ESR was published October 21, 2004. Hydro One also failed in its draft ESR to consider the Town request to "give greater consideration to ... environmental, social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines, and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost" In fact, Hydro One: • failed to carry out any form of meaningful social impact assessment • continued to allow cost and technical considerations to subjugate any other consideration, by repeatedly emphasizing that its over-riding criteria were cost savings and getting the line in service within two years - see pg iv of the draft ESR which emphasizes "Achieving the Need Date at the Lowest Feasible Cost" and "Shortest Construction Time". The 2003 Supply Study considered neither environmental nor socio-economic impacts, and was carried out without any public input or expert agency review. Unreasonably, and unacceptably, the draft ESR does little to fill in the gaps left by the Supply Study in relation to either socio-economic or environmental impact. Hydro One is being intransigent in insisting that its preferred option ought to be accepted by local host conummities, irrespective of valid and unanswered environmental and socio-economic concerns. Failing to consider the social impacts being caused to existing residents living in very close proximity to the existing corridor is particularly unfair in that although Hydro One claims there has always been an intention to rebuild the line to 230 kV, neither it nor Ontario Hydro took any steps to warn potential purchasers of homes adjacent to the right of way (ROW), so that Aurora residents could choose to avoid these risks, despite routinely registering such warnings on subdivisions agreements along the Parkway Belt ROW. Hydro One's proposal would also see tower heights nearly double in areas where the ROW passes through residential neighbourhoods, lowering property values and changing the essential character and aesthetic of these communities. Not only has Hydro One —286— 5 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 flatly refused to compensate homeowners for these impacts, the ESR itself completely overlooks these impacts. In fact, the only socio-economic impact that Hydro One appears to be willing to consider is the outright displacement of homes and businesses within a new ROW. However, Hydro One from out outset ruled out considering a new ROW, and it has unreasonably and obstinately refused to consider displacement of residents in homes adjoining the ROW who will leave, or pull their children from area schools, due to EMF concerns, as well as refused to consider the impacts on community institutions and cohesiveness. While Hydro One went to great lengths to demonstrate there are minimal environmental and land use effects (e.g. no displacement of homes or businesses) associated with utilizing the existing ROW, they totally minimize the significant socio-economic effects that result from using an existing narrow ROW through residential areas. The so-called "socio-economic criteria" were irrelevant, unfair and inconsistent with accepted practice in Ontario. No homes will be displaced on the existing ROW options -- yet several hundred residents live adjacent to them. Yet that was not a criteria! Hydro One would have been relevant, fairer, and more consistent with past practice, if its socio-economic screening criteria considered number of residents living adjacent to or within 75m of the route — this being a commonly used criteria in previous EAs for transmission. No doubt that would have created problems for Hydro One, in that Options 1 and 2 would have performed badly, if not worst of all, for that criteria. Hydro One's choice of criteria were never discussed or reviewed with the public and the results were only presented at the October PICs. They were biased against any new ROWS and designed to screen out all other options but Hydro One's preference. Hydro One's disregard for fair and appropriate socio-economic criteria is illustrated by the fact that it: cavalierly dismisses concerns about property values stating that "the relative value of homes backing on rights of ways is a subjective matter" ignores the fact that the Ontario Joint Board has previously ordered Ontario Hydro to offer to buy any residence within 75 metres of a proposed 230 kV transmission corridor because of perceived impacts on the use and value of the property. It is incredible that Hydro One is unable to provide any studies regarding effects on property values despite the fact they and Ontario Hydro have been in the ROW acquisition and expropriation business for decades. The statement from a Hydro One real estate agent at one of the PICs that property values may decrease by 10% during the construction phase was raised by local residents at the October 2004 PIC in Aurora. Hydro One officials indicated the issue would be addressed in the draft ESR. It is not addressed or acknowledged in the draft ESR. The primary purpose of an environmental assessment, whether a Class EA or Individual EA, is to assess and compare the envirommental and social effects and implications of —287— 6 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 various alternative methods of carrying out an undertaking and to assess and evaluate the net environmental effects or residual effects of constricting and operating the recommended undertaking. The Draft ESR fails to provide any credible assessment of the net environmental effects of the preferred alternative, any summary of the residual effects of the undertaking or any of the "disadvantages" of the undertaking as required by the EA Act. The Hydro One Draft ESR Ignores the Town's Concern that Hydro One Ensure There will be No EMIT Risks. Hydro One's preferred option would see the capacity of the transmission line, which is currently used as a 44 kV distribution line, increase from 115 kV to 230 kV, with an accompanying increase in the line's power and electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Neighbours of the ROW rightly fear the potential impacts of EMFs upon their health and well-being, impacts that will be imposed upon them involuntarily. Community concerns are dismissed in the ESR as "perceived" rather than real risks — despite Hydro One's wholesale failure to examine socio-economic impacts in the ESR in relation to any of the alternatives examined. Despite the clear request for assurance that there will be no health risk from EMF, Hydro One's draft ESR takes the dismissive position that "a health risk (from EMF) has not been established". Hydro One advances no specific measures it would take regarding what it admits to be "the seriousness of this issue and the associated public concern" other than to use its usual optimal phasing of conductors to reduce EMF and steel poles in place of lattice towers "where possible to reduce visual effects", noting this co- incidentally would bring a comparative reduction in EMF at the edge of the right of way. The EMF issue is addressed with numerous quotes and rhetoric but with no firm data indicating the anticipated field strengths along the recommended undertaking, any commitment to what field strengths will be maintained and their relationship to international standards. Quite problematically, while Hydro One acknowledges that Ontario Hydro funded "several million dollars of peer -reviewed research under the guidance of the Royal Society of Canada ... to contribute to the scientific understanding of potential health effects resulting from EMF exposure", Hydro One fails to quote from or acknowledge the findings and recommendation of the resulting Royal Society of Canada Report, published in 2000, prepared for Ontario Hydro (and by that time Hydro One). Importantly, the Royal Society of Canada report contradicts Hydro One's position on EMF. The Royal Society finds, based on studies including those done involving Ontario Hydro workers, that there are health effects from EMF exposure and recommends "prudent avoidance". —288— 7 COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2005 Given the Royal Society of Canada findings that electrical workers and children exposed to EMF do have a higher probability of suffering leukemia and other significant health damage, it is appropriate to conclude Hydro One has been fundamentally disingenuous and deceitful in stating, as they do in their draft ESR, that "a health risk (from EMF) has not been established." Hydro One also demonstrates callous disregard for the public interest by taking the position the "precautionary principle" is inapplicable to its activities and that it has no responsibility for evaluating potential siting choices using the concept of "prudent avoidance" — principles accepted in Canadian and U.S. regulatory systems and which has been recommended by the Medical Officer of Health for York Region. Unfortunately, Hydro One has ignored not only the Region's Medical Officer of Health, but also wishes to deny the findings of the Royal Society of Canada and its recommendation of prudent avoidance to EMF exposure. Hydro One has, in the result, again failed on this issue to be responsive to the Town's resolution. Further Concerns - Unresponsive and Misleadine Process From the outset, concerned stakeholders have advised that technically viable and environmentally preferable alternatives have been overlooked, and that the rush to meet an in-service date of 2006 is artificial and unnecessary. Perhaps the greatest disappointment to Aurora throughout the Class EA process has been Hydro One's handling of the studied and constructive input offered by stakeholders in relation to such alternatives. Hydro One has been offered a myriad of potential solutions to the transmission need identified in the Supply Study, including alternative long-term solutions and short-term measures that could be implemented to meet any need over the near term and permit a proper planning and assessment process to take place. Hydro One's fundamental lack of respect for both the EA process and for affected communities is perhaps best illustrated by its process of public "consultation". There have essentially been two rounds of public consultation. The first round of PICs, held in April 2004, announced the project and the two alternatives which Hydro One had pre - selected for review. The second round of PICs, held in October 2004, announced the selection of the preferred alternative. The only attempt to permit stakeholder input into the evaluation and selection process carried out between April and October took the form of a Public Advisory Group, that was aborted after a single meeting, without providing an explanation to participants. Nowhere along the way were stakeholders advised of the screening process that Hydro One was undertaking behind closed doors, or offered the opportunity to comment on these criteria or evaluation criteria. Encountering legitimate community concern is not a reason for avoiding public involvement; rather, it is a signal that consultation to date has —289— 8 Massa e Page 2 of 3 ..-•COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 1 would like to request that this e-mail be added to Council's agenda for discussion at the December 14th Council meeting. I am not clear on the procedures that are followed in this regard, but I think that the issues raised below are relevant to the concerns presented by our community and I would appreciate an update from Council on the actions that they have taken to date. Also note that I just sent you a press release from Trent University that I would appreciate being brought to councils attention as it relates to the potential health effects of EMFs and the most current findings in this area. I do appreciate that the town has agreed to follow through on the commitment it made on July 13th to send a bump -up letter and I have offered to assist with information if the town feels this would be helpful. We are now more than half way through the comment period and our time is limited to respond to the many issues outstanding. The recent actions taken by the town to clarify the EMF levels along the corridor are also appreciated and in this regard I sent an e-mail to Mayor Jones pointing out some additional Information that is required in order to make Hydro One's EMF readings scientifically useful (their current posted EMF readings are misleading and incomprehensive). As requested by the Deputy Mayor, I am happy to provide a list of questions for the town's consideration. The following questions remain to be answered... 1. What actions has Aurora Hydro taken with regards to the town's request to review the 2003 York Region Supply Study ? 2. What impact will Aurora Hydro's conservation plan have on the required delivery date for future power supply upgrades ? 3. Has Aurora Hydro explored local power generation or back up generation capabilities ? 4. Has Aurora Hydro met with David Richmond of the Task Force to discuss any of his 14 (plus) alternatives ? David is a well respected technical consultant that is very experienced in network planning. 5. Does the town of Aurora plan to respond to STOP's letter from Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in which we requested all stake holders to come together in a co-operative fashion to address York Region's power needs In a responsible manner ? No one that received a letter has responded to our request as of yet. 6. Does the town plan to follow up with Dr. Jaczek regarding the health issues posed by EMFs ? In my lengthy discussion with her she recognised the reason for concern. Does the town share the concerns of residents regarding adverse EMF health effects ? 7. Has the town asked federal Minister of State (Public Health) Dr. Carolyn Bennett to clarify the federal position on EMFs and at the same time requested that recent EMF studies be reviewed ? There have been major developments in our awareness of EMF health concerns over the past 12 years ? 8. Has anyone in the town made an effort to contact Dr. Magda Havas in order to discuss her research. Dr. Havas travels the world consulting governments on this issue and she has had a very difficult time delivering her message locally. 9. Has anyone in the town contacted MP Belinda Stronach on this issue given that she has raised this Issue federally ? 10. Has anyone in the town contact Lui Temelkovski, Member of Parliament (Liberal), Oak Ridges - Markham, regarding this issue given that he has addressed this issue in the House of Commons and shares the resident's concerns ? 10. Has anyone from the town contacted provincial authorities in order to address this issue (including the road blocks that nullify the business case for local power generation as it is being explored by Newmarket) ? 11. Has anyone from the town spoken with MPP Frank Kees regarding this matter, given that he has raised this issue in the Provincial Legislature and shares the concerns of residents over the safety of our children ? 12. Has anyone discussed this issue with the Region in order to shed light on this issue and share our concerns ? If so, what is the Region's position on this matter ? 13. Has anyone explored the viable alternative of under grounding the cables in residential areas? This has proven to be the solution in other jurisdictions and the costs presented by Hydro One do not match up with what other experts have told residents. In any case, I trust that $2 - $3 added to our monthly hydro bill would be justified given the benefits that would result. We are being asked to pay $4 per month for smart metres to reduce power consumption and we are being charged $300 to $750 a year for new health care costs, therefore when I put the potential cost to bury the lines into perspective I think we have a reasonable case to do so as a prudent avoidance of risk measure. No one has addressed this as a serious alternative. 14. Has the town reviewed the EA process and noted the incredible number of flaws in both the process -292- 12/3/2004 COW L - JANUARY 11, 2005 Page 3 of 3 (which is under review provincially) as well as the manner that Hydro One has dealt with this process ? The legal opinions from Gowlings and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell outline just a few of these concerns. 15. Are all possible measures going to be taken in order to try to deal with this issue as required by the town's resolution ? If so, who is going to back up Councillor Morris in this regard ? 16. Although I have been told Dr. Jaczek's letter has been posted on the town's web site (as required by the town's resolution), I still can not find it..hny direction in this regard would be appreciated. Also note that an updated letter may be required in light of recent discussions I have had with Dr. Jaczek. 17. Is the town aware of recent legislation, legal actions / decisions and school board resolutions in other jurisdictions that have addressed the same concerns residents in our area have expressed ? Connecticut, Illinois, California, B.C., Edmonton and Toronto are a few places where this issue has been dealt with recently. 18. Homes located beside the proposed towers will take longer to sell and will sell of less as a result of the aesthetic impact of the towers and the perceived (or real) health concerns associated with EMF's. Has the town taken any action to explore this issue ? Many studies and common sense suggest(s) that 140 foot towers spaced every 900 feet and located 50 to 70 feet from resident's back fences will NOT have a positive impact on our community and it is my hope that the town recognises this and will take steps to defend us from such an outcome. Regards, Richard Johnson 37 October Lane, Aurora -293- 12/3/2004 COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 2005 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA By-law Number 4631-05.0 BEING A BY-LAW to Confirm Actions by Council Resulting From The Meeting of January 11, 2005. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the action of the Council at its meeting held on January 11, 2005 in respect to each motion, resolution and other action passed and taken by the Council at the said meeting is, exceptwhere prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board is required, hereby adopted ratified and confirmed. 2. THAT the Mayor and the proper officers of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain approvals where required and to execute all documents as may be necessary in that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal to all such documents. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 11" DAY OF JANUARY, 2005. READ A THIRD TIMEAND FINALLY PASSED THIS 11' DAY OFJANUARY, 2005. T. JONES, MAYOR B. PANIZZA, TOWN CLERK - 31- ADDITIONAL ITEMS TABLED FOR COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, January 11, 2005 ➢ Revised Minutes from the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting of December 13, 2004 (Corrections to Item 4 recommendations and the preambles of Items 11 and 5) ➢ Additional information regarding Item 6 — Correspondence from The Region of York, Re: Local Health Integration Networks ➢ Report ADM05-02 — South Asian Tsunami Relief ➢ Request from Councillor West to defer the following items to a future meeting in order to obtain additional information: • Item 3 (4) — LS04-061 - Green Roof Technology • Item 7 — Resolution from the Town of Georgina Re: Health of Lake Simcoe Watershed + Item 8 — Resolution from the Town of Newmarket Re: Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition's Wave, Healthy Yards, Healthy Waters Program ➢ Request from Councillor Buck to delete Item 5 — Memorandum from Town Clerk/Director of Corporate Services Re: Attendance of Members at Meetings 'TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT REVISED No. EAC04-07 SUBJECT: December 13, 2004 Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting FROM: Chair - Councillor Morris Council Members - Councillor Gaertner Committee Members - Robert Cook, Ellen Mole, Darryl Moore, Susan Walmer and Klaus Wenrenberg DATE: January 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Committee Record of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting 04-07, held on December 13, 2004 be received for information; and 2. Correspondence from Ml Development Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application THAT the correspondence from Ml Development Re: Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application be received. 3. Correspondence from Susan Walmer 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting THAT the correspondence from Susan Walmer Re: 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting be referred to the Public Awareness/Education Sub -Committee. 4. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One EMF Readings - Town of Aurora; and Copy of Response from Hydro One EMF Readings - Town of Aurora THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings - Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings - Town of Aurora be received; and THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council that they obtain expert advice to interpret the EMF readings to determine the impact of current readings and the impact of anticipated future EMF values; THAT further expert advice be obtained on how the variations of the readings based on time and load will impact the area. THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings - Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: January 11, 2005 - 2 - REVISED Report No. EAC04-07 EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be forwarded to Mr. David Richmond of the Markham/Aurora Task Force for his comments and any analysis he can provide. 5. Discussion of `Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner THAT staff report No. PL04-107 Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received. 6. Correspondence from Darryl Moore - Car Free Dav THAT the correspondence from Darryl Moore Re: Car Free Day be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting, 7. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Substance in Stream — Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street THAT the Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Re: Substance in Stream — Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street be received. 8. Correspondence from Councillor Morris Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study THAT the Correspondence from Councillor Morris Re: Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. 9. Memorandum from the Director of Public Works York Region Waste Management— Residents Study -Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management THAT the Memorandum from the Director of Public Works Re: York Region Waste Management — Residents Study — Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management be referred to the Waste Management Sub - Committee. 10. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Petro Canada — 50 Industrial Parkway South Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Ministry of the Environment— 50 Industrial Parkway South Response from Petro Canada - 50 Industrial Parkway South THAT the Committee recommends to Council that representatives from Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be invited to appear at a Council meeting to advise the Town how this issue related to the spill at 50 Industrial Parkway South will be resolved; and January 11, 2005 - 3 - REVISED Report No. EAC04-07 THAT staff be directed to continue following up with Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment to have this issue resolved. 11, Correspondence from the Region of York Tree By-law — A New Regional Forest Conservation By-law THAT Town staff be directed to prepare a report commenting on and providing recommendations on the Region of York's Tree By-law. BACKGROUND Attached for the information of Council are the Minutes of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting EAC04-07, held on December 13, 2004. COMMENTS Nil. OPTIONS Nil. CONCLUSIONS Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of Committee Record No. EAC04-07 Prepared by: Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk, ext. 4222 i Councillor Phyllis Morris, Chair Environmental Advisory Committee :b? ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECORD MEETING NO. 04-06 Date: Time and Location: Monday, December 13, 2004 7:00 p.m., Leksand Meeting Room, Aurora Town Hall, 100 John West Way Committee Members: Councillor Morris, Chair, Councillor Gaertner, Robert Cook, Ellen Mole, Darryl Moore, Susan Walmer, Klaus Wehrenberg Regrets: Mary Hill, David Tomlinson, Staff Attendees: Wayne Jackson, Director of Public Works Karyn Bagley, Council/Committee Secretary Councillor Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Ellen Mole Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the content of the agenda be approved as circulated by the Corporate Services Department with the following amendment: ➢ THAT the In -Camera session be moved to the top of the agenda to allow for adequate consideration of the matter. CARRIED Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04.07 Page 2 of 8 Monday, December 13, 2004 IN CAMERA —PERSONNEL MATTERS Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Robert Cook THAT the Committee proceed In Camera to discuss personnel matters. The meeting reconvened in public session. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS Moved by Robert Cook Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT meeting Record No. 04-06 be adopted as printed and circulated by Corporate Services. CARRIED DELEGATIONS None MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES 2. Correspondence from MI Development Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the correspondence from MI Development Re: Request to Defer Tree Cutting Permit Application be received. CARRIED 3. Correspondence from Susan Walmer 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Robert Cook THAT the correspondence from Susan Walmer Re: 2004 Anti -litter Wrap Up Meeting be referred to the Public Awareness/Education Sub - Committee. CARRIED Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Monday, December 13, 2004 Page 3 of 8 4. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One EMF Readings —Town of Aurora Copy of Response from Hydro One EMF Readings — Town of Aurora Councillor Morris informed the Committee that Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Readings were requested by the Town from Hydro One for Civic Square Park, Hamilton Park, and Chapman Park. Mr. Wayne Jackson, Director of Public Works, presented the correspondence from himself to Hydro One and the response from Hydro One regarding the EMF Readings — Town of Aurora to the Environmental Advisory Committee. The Director of Public Works has already presented these two pieces of correspondence to Council. Committee members agreed that more information and further analysis is needed on whether the EMF readings from Civic Square Park, Hamilton Park, and Chapman Park represent normal and safe levels. Moved by Ellen Mole Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be received; and THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council that they obtain expert advice to interpret the EMF readings to determine the impact of current readings and the impact of anticipated future EMF values; THAT further expert advice be obtained on how the variations of the readings based on time and load will impact the area. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The Committee stressed the importance of being kept involved and informed on this issue. The Committee agreed that Mr. David Richmond, member of the Markham/Aurora Task Force, should be made aware of these readings and given the opportunity to comment. Councillor Morris will be advising Council at tomorrow night's Council meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee's position and recommendations on this issue. Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Darryl Moore THAT the correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora and Copy of Response from Hydro One Re: EMF Readings — Town of Aurora be forwarded to Mr. David Richmond of the Markham/Aurora Task Force for his comments and any analysis he can provide. CARRIED Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Monday, December 13, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Moved by Robert Cook Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee meeting continue past 9:00 pm. CARRIED Moved by Darryl Moore Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT Agenda Item 11 - Discussion of "Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner be brought forward at this time. CARRIED 11. Discussion of "Places to Grow" by Councillor Gaertner The Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe report went to Council on September 21. Councillor Gaertner had advocated that the 2C lands be classified as environmentally sensitive lands to ensure that the lands remain protected, but this was not successfully accomplished. Council having already endorsed the Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as is, the Environmental Advisory Committee was advised that they can only make recommendations to Council on this subject and reiterate its desire to be involved in the public consultation process that will take place over the next year. The Director of Public Works informed the Committee that the direction from the Interim CAO is that staff are to bring information such as this to the appropriate Committee to be reviewed there. Moved by Ellen Mole Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT staff report No. PL04-107 Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received. CARRIED 7. Correspondence from Darryl Moore Car Free Day Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Robert Cook THAT the correspondence from Darryl Moore Re: Car Free Day be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. tCc_R Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Monday, December 13, 2004 Page 5 of 8 0 Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Substance in Stream - Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street The Director of Public Works advised the Committee that nothing else has appeared in the stream, and that this was most likely an isolated case of irresponsible dumping. The Director of Public Works confirmed that the substance appeared to be grease floating on the water, and that the total cost for the cleanup was under one thousand dollars. Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the Correspondence from the Director of Public Works Re: Substance in Stream - Orchard Heights Boulevard/Yonge Street be received. W— T,7MIUs Correspondence from Councillor Morris Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT the Correspondence from Councillor Morris Re: Oak Ridges Moraine Invasive Species and Stewardship Study be deferred to the January 10, 2005, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. CARRIED 10. Memorandum from the Director of Public Works York Region Waste Management - Residents Study - Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Darryl Moore THAT the Memorandum from the Director of Public Works Re: York Region Waste Management - Residents Study - Attitudes and Behaviour Patterns Towards Waste Management be referred to the Waste Management Sub - Committee. WNTZI1W7 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 6 of 8 Monday, December 13, 2004 5. Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Petro Canada — 50 Industrial Parkway South Correspondence from the Director of Public Works to Ministry of the Environment — 50 Industrial Parkway South Response from Petro Canada - 50 Industrial Parkway South The Director of Public Works presented the Committee with the correspondence from himself to Petro Canada, the correspondence from himself to the Ministry of the Environment, and the correspondence from Petro Canada regarding 50 Industrial Parkway South. The Director of Public Works expressed his disappointment that no additional boreholes were being monitored which would, he felt, limit our ability to track the migration of the contamination. The Director of Public Works informed the Committee that Petro Canada has advised the Town there is no ongoing leak. The Director also explained that the Town is not privy to the information that Petro Canada obtained through their review of this incident. The Director of Public Works confirmed that there has not been any progress on this February 2004 spill, since November 30, and that the Town is still awaiting for Petro Canada's next round of work. Moved by Robert Cook Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the Committee recommends to Council that representatives from Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be invited to appear at a Council meeting to advise the Town how this issue related to the spill at 50 Industrial Parkway South will be resolved; and THAT staff be directed to continue following up with Petro Canada and the Ministry of the Environment to have this issue resolved. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. Correspondence from the Region of York Tree By-law — A New Regional Forest Conservation By-law Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Robert Cook THAT Town staff be directed to prepare a report commenting on and providing recommendations on the Region of York's Tree By-law. CARRIED Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 7 of 8 Monday, December 13, 2004 IN CAMERA— PERSONNEL MATTERS Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Darryl Moore THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends to Council the following names, as submitted, be appointed to the various Sub - Committees: Naturalization/Wildlife Planning Barbara Best Robert Elliot Tracey Etwell Nicole Arsenault Suzanne Reiner Peter Piersol Linda Housser Mahipal Jadeja Bvlaws/Policv Rizwan Orianna Brodbeck Ken Turriff Maristela Schiavo Waste Manaaement Carol Cooper Wendi Cutts Al Wilson Richard Wizemann CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS BY MEMBERS Public Awareness/Education Catherine Marshall Angie Thurston Mathew Bertin Ildi Connor Mark Fernandes Stephen Granger Janny Hogen Vid Prezel Councillor Morris informed the Committee that the Environmental Advisory Committee's Terms of Reference may be reviewed at the December 14th Council meeting as requested by Councillor Buck, Susan Walmer advised that she will be appearing as a delegation at the Council meeting to provide an update on other area Environmental Advisory Committees and their terms of reference, and to also provide an update on the positive work being carried out by Aurora's Environmental Advisory Committee. Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 04-07 Page 8 of 8 Monday, December 13, 2004 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT the meeting be adjourned at 9:50pm. CARRIED NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee will take place on Monday, January 10, 2005, at 7:00 pm in the Leksand Room. 01/11/2005 11:04 FAX 905 885 2046 YCH ADMIN. York Central Hospital Phone 905-80-12t2 10 Trench Street Fax 905-W-2455 alehmond Hill, ON wmvyorkeentratoH.ea Canada LGi; 4Z7 December 20, 2004 Hon. George Smitherman Minister of Health and Long -Term Care Hepburn Block, IOth Floor 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2C4 Dear Minister Smitherman: Re: Local Health integra<h�r Network Boumdgries : ,41 York Central Hospital for better health care Jar bcttcr health On October 150, the York Region Joint Executive Committee forwarded a respse on the Central Local Hcaltb Integration Network (LEE), You will note there are 2 proposals for minor rcoonfigurations: l . Maintain the York Region hospitals as a LFDN 2. As the above proposal would have created realignment issues for North Yor General Hospital and Humber River Regional Hospital, we alternatively suggested that the Cenral LHIN be preserved, but add back in Markham Stouffville Hospital from Cedtrai East LHIN. Further, Headwaters health Care Centre sent a request to the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care Health Results Team to join the Central LHIN, We also acknowledge that -there are other suggestions in play for reconfigurating Central LHIN, These also require a response. We are most anxious to move forward on working with all the Central LHIN stakeholders. We took forward to hearing from you soon, Sincerely, ,4, 4tIV-/M.6 Bruce W. Herber president & CEO .4ttachmerit Copy to: Dan Carriere, President & CEO, Southlake Regional Health 40b Baynham, President & Chief Executive Offroer, Headw Bonnie Adamson, President & CEO, North York General H Edward Takacs, President & CEO, Stevenson Memorial Ho James MacLean, President & CEO, Markham-Stouffville H Rueben Devlin, President & CEO, Humber River Regional Alan O'Dell, Administrator, Shouldioe Hospital Care Centre 01/11/2005 11:04 FAX 905 883 2046 YCH ADMIN. 0003 October 15, 2004 Executive Summary • The York Region Joint Executive Committee (Markham Stouffville Hospital, Southlakc Regional Health Centre, York Central Hospital and Toronto Grace Hospital) support and commend the Government for the principles and objectives that underpin its policy directions for Local Health Integration Networks. • The York Region Joint Executive Committee (YRJEC) has worked very hard within York Region to try and achieve the same objectives espoused by the LHIN framework. • The success of LHTNs will depend on true partnership, built on trust, commitment, common vision and, in many cases, history. • The YRJEC is very concerned that the proposed boundaries for the Central and Central East LHINs will divide York Region and will ran counter to the very objectives for which LHINs are being established. • York Region has a number of examples of integrated activities in place and a series of proposed integration initiatives at various levels of planning and approval. • The division of York Region would have serious implications for local access to services since most service providers use this regional boundary as a natural parameter for planning and service delivery, I, • The YRJEC believes that the very low "Localization Index" for the Central LHIN is a strong indicator of the "poor" fit of this proposed LHIN. • The existing hospitals of the YRJEC are committed to work with the Provincial Government to establish a York Regioubased LHIN to serve York Region and to make it successful. • The success of a York Region LHIN would be facilitated by the partnerships of York Region Joint Executive Committee members, the Regional Municipality of York, the York Region CCAC, and service providers throughout the region, • Recommendation York Region Joint Executive Committee requests the Ministry to change our LHIN boundaries to create a York Region LHIN (to include MSH, SRHC, YCH, TGH, Stevenson Memorial Hospital and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital). 01/11/2005 11:05 FAX 905 883 2046 YCH ADMIN. F& 004 LHIN Response On behalf of the York Region Joint Executive Committee (Markham Stouffville Hospital, Southlake Regional Health Centre, York Central Hospital and Toronto Grace Hospital), we would like to express our support and commend the Government for the principles and objectives that underpin the Government's policy directions for Local Health Integration Networks. The York Region JEC is on record in supporting improved integration of all health services in the Region. This was described in our joint strategic plan submitted to the HSRC many years ago. Since then we have continued to work together and with our local community partners to make integration a reality. Trying to foster coordination and cooperation in such a complex system as health care while making it more focused and accountable is no easy task. The JEC, for one, has worked very hard within, York Region to try and achieve the same objectives espoused by the LHIN framework. We therefore welcome the Ministry's strategy of supporting local providers and consumers through the establishment of LHINs to create a structure to implement improved health care services. The LHINs success w111 not be attained by hard work alone. Its success depends on true partnership. Partnerships take trust, conuttitment, common vision and in many cases history. By dividing partners who have years of working together the momentutn will be lost and success much slower to . achieve. Introducing new and significant partners, cultures and geographically remote community interests makes success more elusive as well. Our efforts have not ended with traditional relationships and partnerships. The Region of York through the ,formation and support of the Human Services Planning Coalition has brought together a broad spectrum of health and social service partners to seek better ways to meet the needs of a rapidly growing and graying population. Thas partnership is unique to Ontario and a model that the LHINs could learn from as it addresses its mandate. York Region', of necessity, has formed strong bonds and partnerships in order to serve our communities We represent a geographic milt of almost 900,000 that will reach a million people within the next few years. The JEC is very concerned that the proposed boundaries for tb.e LHIN's will serve to dismantle a successful constellation of regional partnerships, which is contrary to the very objectives for which LHINs are being established. Our commitment is to work with the Provincial Government to make a LHIN that serves York Region successful. We have answered the three questions posed in the October 6 h LHIN announcement with that perspective. We have one major recommendation for a change in our LHIN grouping to create the foundations of success. Our comments are as follows: 01/11/2005 11:06 FAX 805 $83 2046 YCH ADMIN, Ca1)05 L What examples of healthcare integration already exist in your WIN area? The major examples of success by the York SEC and its partners now crosses over 2 LHINs as the boundaries are currently proposed. The three acute care hospitals in York Region (Markham Stouffville Hospital (MSH), Southlake Regional Health Centre (SRHC) slid York Central Hospital (YCH,)) were mandated by the Health Services Restructuring Commission (and regional geography) to create a Joint Executive Committee empowered to establish regional and shared services. Examples of our success are our Regional MRI Program, our Regional Laboratory Service Agreement, our Regional Preschool Speech Program (which also involves the Region of York's Child Services), our Regional Cardiac Program, our Regional Dialysis Program and a number of specialties for which we have regional call arrangements amongst our physicians (eg. Plastics, Ophthalmology), The SEC has recently completed a review of how to be more successful in planning and operating as a regional hospital group. This study examined several key issues including an empowered SEC, development of a single strategic plan, multi -site program management and service consolidation. This work will likely not proceed under the proposed LHIN structure that places the hospitals in different LHINs. We also have a number of proposed integration initiatives at various levels of planning and approval, For example, there is a plan endorsed by the Joint Executive Committee to have the Toronto Grace Hospital (TGH) relocate in York Region on the Markham Stouffville Hospital campus, Included in this relocation is a plan to expand beds for Complex Continuing Care (123 beds total with 89 from MSH and 34 from SRHC) and Rehabilitation (58 beds), Tn addition to the significant sharing and integration that will occur between TGH and NISH, this coordinated strategy is bringing a new centre of excellence serving all of York that otherwise would not exist. This initiative resulted from the joint agreement of all hospitals in York to give up some of their current resources to create a new integrated resource that will better serve the Region. As well, other regional proposals under development will address stroke patients, palliative care and other populations. Unfortunately, our proposed LHIN has three of our hospitals (MSH, TGH and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital) placed in the Central East LHIN along with hospitals that ixave little to no service or community connectivity. The other two York Region hospitals (SRHC, YCR) are placed in the Central LHIN along with Stevenson Memorial (affiliated with SRHC) and two Toronto Hospitals. This breaks up our natural plamlung boundary and daseatens a number of existing and future planning initiatives. Although we appreciate that the implementation of LHINs is not supposed to disturb existing partnerships and referrals the reality is that these relationships will be difficult to maintain. The planning for LHINs will require considerable time and resources of provider partners. Where current relationships span LHINs (with the exception of teaching hospitals' referrals), the ability to properly participate in the planning of a 01/11/2005 11:07 FAX 005 "3 2046 YCII A6MIN, 10006 second LHIN will be compromised, .As funding responsibility begins to roll out to the LH1Ns funding of services in one LIHN to serve another could become contentious. 2. What sire the critical factors for the successful implementation of the LHIN in your area" The Blain Critical Success Factor The first and most important critical factor is the "fit" of the organizations within the LHIN. We oornmcnd the Ministry for recognizing this factor and for utilizing a scientific and thoughtful methodology to try and create the LHIN "fxt", Given that methodology we would suggest that the LHINs that are most successful from the start are the ones with the highest "Localization Indexes" (ie. best "fit"). Unfortunately, next to the Central West LHIN with the lowest Localization Index of 57.8, the Central LHIN has the next lowest "fit" at 60.8. All other LHINs are at 74.9 or above with many well over 90. We believe that the very low "Localization Index" for the proposed Central LAIN is a strong indicator of the "poor" fit of this LHIN. We believe relationships between the York hospitals are relatively high pushing the index up, and relationships between York hospitals and the two north Toronto hospitals are relatively low, explaining the low "Localization Index" for the proposed LHIN. The Central East LHIN appears to do somewhat better but its "Localization Index" may be deceiving. Although the overall index is 74.9, the interaction of the hospitals that make up the index, particularly those located around the borders of the LHIN, is in fact quite low. Our sense is that our "Localization Index" score would be higher if our LHIN was a York Region LHIN with MSH,TGH and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital included and NYGH and HRRH excluded. Given the regional planning we have done over the past few years we feel that the York Region's "Localization Index" score is increasing and will continue to increase as we bring on the Regional Plans that we have approved (eg. Toronto Grace Relocation, Regional Cancer Centre, full implementation of the Regional Cardiac Program). York Region was one of the last regions in the province to create a District Health Council and has spent many years trying to catch-up to the health planning done by other regions. To now have to add on the challenge of working with new organizations where the "fit" is weak creates serious impediments to success. For example, although we have done a great deal of health planning within York Region and with its affiliated hospitals, we have done little to no planning with North York General Hospital and Humber River Regional Hospital or with the hospitals in. Central East. 01/11/2005 11:07 FAX 005 883 2040 YCH ADMIN. Z007 The Central and Central East LHINs have split York Region, our natural political boundary in half This lack of continuity of our regional boundary has implications for the success of the LHIN since the LHIN is for healthcare planning and not just hospital planning. Knowing the Ministry's desire to focus on the community sector as well as prevention and health promotion the roles of the CCAC, long-term care and Public. Health become quite significant. Local access to such services as Public Health and the CCAC are impacted since they use this regional boundary as a natural parameter for their planning and service delivery. In addition, the creation of synergies with this community sector would be much simpler and more effective if we were dealing with all of York Region in one LH.TN and not two. As well, York Region has been the most successful region in Ontario in receiving significant financial support from its Regional Government to assist in infrastructure development ($78 Million) for hospitals. This commitment and future access to York Region assistance would be placed in jeopardy by the current LHIN configuration, This leads us to our major recommendation; We ask the Ministry to change our LHIN boundaries to create a York Region LHIN (to include MSH, SRHC, YCH, TGH, Stevenson Memorial Hospital and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital). This change would create a York Region LH1N together with its affiliated hospitals in Uxbridge and Alliston. We strongly believe that this change to the LHIN would enable much easier health care planning not only amongst the hospitals but also amongst the many other health services that have traditionally been planned on regional geography. This change would also lower the population base of the Central East region which is the largest at 1.5M, making its chances of success higher. It would also help NYGH and liFJW find a better "fit" for their organizations. Given the population of York Region at 872,000 today with a projection to exceed I M by 2006, a York Region LHIN would have the critical size to ensure its success. Issues such as how to respond to this population growth are common to York Region service providers, and perhaps are not reflected in the issues that face the North Toronto hospitals' and their more stable communities. The Second Critical Success Factor After creating the best "fit" possible, the next challenge is to improve and expand on the comprehensiveness of the LHIN in serving its local population. To do this, we believe that the LHINs need to establish regional services that would help to ensure more local access for services within the LHIN boundaries. There are many examples of high volume regional services that can do this. A prime example of such a service is already included by the Ministry in their LHIN announcement; Regional Cancer Centres. The 01,111/2005. 11:08 PAX 905 883 2046 YCH ADMIN. wi008 Ministry went to great lengths to ensure that each LHIN had a Regional Cancer Centre. Our revised LHIN proposal maintains this objective. Patients with cancer are a large and increasing group who often need to access specialized cancer services in specific Regional Cancer Centres. By creating a Regional Cancer Centre in each LHIN, the "Localization Index" scores and hence the "fit" of the LHIN increase as patients are able to locally access services within their LHIN, We noted with interest the fact that the areas with the lowest "Localization Index" scores are the 5 LHINs without an existing regional cancer centre in their LHIN (Central West- 57,8, Central-60,8, Central East-74.9, North Si.meoe Muskoka-76,0, Mississauga Oakville•77.6), All LHINs with an existing (or more than one existing) Regional Cancer Centre have "Localization Index" scores over $0. 3, What role can you and your organization play in collaboration with the Ministry as the LIUN planning work continues in your area? We believe we can play a very active role in collaborating with the Ministry to ensure the success of our LHIN. The working relationships established by the York Regional Joint Executive Committee (YRJEC) and the Human Resources Planning Coalition provide a solid foundation for the development of a York Region LHIN. We know that the creation of a York Region LHIN will allow us to capitalize on the natural partnerships that go beyond the hospital sector within York Region. The YRJEC is willing to work with the Ministry to make the LHIN initiative work that best serves the needs of York Region. We would of course appreciate open dialogue with the Ministry regarding our piimarp recommendation associated with a York Region LHIN. If the Ministry is unable to accommodate the YRJEC's recommendation regarding establishment of a York Region LHIN (incorporating MSH/TGH, SRHC, YCH, Stevenson Memorial Hospital and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital) we would recommend that any final decision would reintroduce MSH/Ti`GH and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital into a "Central" LHIN with its existing York Region partners. 01/11/2005 11:09 FAX 906 889 2046 YCH ADMIN. zo(19 CharlWble Ouslness No.+ 13179 7$40 R40001 6 E3 Duvts Drive S O U T H L A K E 1�0Suite 101 N E C I O N A L N E A L T N CENTRE Newmarket, Ontario F O U N D AT ION Gar 232 October 14, 2004 Via email to: transforminghealth@moh.gov.on.ca Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care Health Results Team loth Floor Hepburn Block 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto, ON M7A 2C4 Dear Health Results Team: T: 90-fiss-7333 F: 906.836.5651 Toll Free: 3.677.4$7-2036 WOS114l Wvm.&outhlokereyf0n0).Org I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Southlake Regional Health Centre Foundation to express our full support for the York Region hospital's appeal regarding the proposed grouping of hospitals in the Central Local Integrated health Network (LHIN). This Foundation was established 24 years ago with a mission to raise hinds to support the equipment and infrastructure needs of the Southlake Regional Health Centre (SRHC). In this era of increasing health care needs and limited govemrnent resources our mission is even more relevant today than it was in 1980. The Foundation's ability to meet Ministry of Health and Long Term Care expectations for the community's contribution towards health care expenditures is dependant on the goodwill and generosity of the residents of York Region and south Simcoe County, In April 2004, Ipsos-Reid conducted a public opinion survey, on our behalf, among 400 residents and 13 5 donors. The results are statistically reliable and document the hospital preferences and affiliations among the residents of York Region and south Sbbcoe. • Arnong all residents, SRHC and York Central are `tied' as the top hospital destinations followed olosely by Markham-Stouffville • There is a strong correlation between geography and hospital preference. 01/11/2001 11:10 FAX 905 888 2040 YCH ADMIN, 16010 Health Results Team 2- October 14, 2004 Ministry of Health and Long -Tam Care The survey results also explain the soocess of our most recent Capital limdraising campaign in support of the Regional Cardiac Program, redevelopment and expansion. • Total awareness of SkHC is 75% among residents of York Region and south Simcoe County (Note: Hospital name was changed years prior in 2000) ® Overall, SRHC has a positive public image with both residents and donors • Fami liarity breeds 'positivity' in teams of ratings and impressions r Residents who have been patients being far more positive than residents with no personal experience with SRHC e 44% of residents were aware of SRHC's Regional Cardiao program • 42% of residents were aware of SRHC's Regional Cancer Centre This Foundation's ability to meet MOHLTC expectations and raise money from the .residents of York Region and south Sinacoe County will be compromised by the hospital grouping in the proposed LKIN. The residents of our Region have a strong awareness and affiliation with the York Region hospitals and we have demonstrated with our fundraising success that the residents of York Region are prepared to invest in healthcare for Yoricitegton. The .Board of Directors for the Scuthiake Regional Health Centre Foundation urges you to consider and accept the proposed appeal which calls for a new grouping in the "Central' LHIN incorporating Markham Stouffville Hospital, York Central hospital, Southlake Regional Health Centre, Stevenson Memorial hospital, Toronto Grace Hospital and Uxbridge Cottage Hospital. Best regards, Ken Pearson air of the Board Eouthlake Regional Health Centre Foundation Carol Oliver President Southlakce Regional Health Centre Foundation 01/11/2005 11:10 FAX 905 889 2046 VCH ADMIN. Roil October 15, 2004 Ministry of Health and Long- Terra Care Heap Results Team 10th Floor Hepburn Block 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2C4 Re: LHIN Reconfiguration On behalf of Stevenson Memorial Hospital, I wish to express support for the reconfiguration of the Local Health --Integration Network (LHIN) for Central (Markham Stouffville Hospital, Southlake Regional Health Centre, Stevenson Memorial Hospital, Toronto Grace Hospital, Uxbridge Cottage Hospital, and York Central HospitaD. We continue to support the strong working relationship with Southlake Regional Health Centre and, by extension, the other hospitals in the reconfigured LHIN. Sincerely, Edward Takacs President & CEO c: Dr, Nigel Gripper, Chair, Board of Directors, Stevenson Memorial Hospital John Ytsma, Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Stevenson Memorial Hospital Major Dennis Brown, CEO, Toronto Grace Hospital Dan Carriere, CEO, Southlake Regional Health Centre Bruce Harbor, CEO, York Central Hospital Dr. James R, MacLean, CEO, Markham Stouffvllle Hospital & Uxbridge Cottage Hospital 01/11/2005 11:11 FAX 005 $43 2046 Y'CH ADMIN. Z 012 The Regional Murkmpality of York 17250 Yonge Street, Box 147 Newmarket, Ontario UY 621 BILL FISCH, Brno, LLD. ��i+ Te1, 90S09S1231, 903.731-020I Regional Chair & C.E.O. '�' Fax: 905.695.1230 October 15, 2004 Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care Health Results Team f Oth Floor Hepburn Block W Grosvenor Street Toronto, ON M7A 204 To Whom it May Concern: I am writing this letter to support the position of three hospitals that serve York Region - Southlake Regional Health Centre, York Central and Markham Stouffville. We have developed a close working relationship with the three hospitals In recent years and have been pleased with the way they have collaborated to ensure our residents receive the highest quality healthcare. I commend the Minister of Health and Long -Term Care for moving forward on a process of transforming Ontario's healthcare system to make it more patient -centred and responsive to local needs. The establishment of Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) to support local providers and consumers is a direction that supports our own efforts at integration and partnership. As an example, York Region provided $62 million to jointly fund the expansion of our three hospitals four years ago and, although not a municipal responsibility was a sound investment for York Region. Now that our hospitals in York Region have established a partnership and have been working together for some time, It is distressing to learn that the boundaries for the Central LHIN will potentially break up this team. With Markham Stouffvllle located in a different LHIN, the benefits we have gained from the collaborative achievements of the York Region Joint Executive Committee are compromised. York Flegion's current population is 873,000 and is expected to reach one million within the next few years. We are of a sufficient size to establish a York Region LHI N and have a proven track record of working together with 1;^e hospitals that are geographically located in our Region. With many of our other major public services delivered on a region -wide basis (eg. Police, Schools, Public Health), fragmenting our healthcare system, by removing Markham Stoutfville Hospital from our local network, will work against the goal of integration and partnership that we are striving to achieve in York Region. Ol/11l2005 1.1:11 FAX 005 885 2046 YCH ADaIN. 013 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to you on this important step in healthcare transformation. We look forward to future dialogue and continued improvement in our healthcare system, Yours truly, Evil Fisch F.giorial Chair & CEO