City of Guelph - City of Guelph - TJL TRANSPORT …...mapping (Figures 3 and 4), the Site appears to...

GUELPH | OW EN SOUND | LISTOWEL | KITCHENER | LONDON | HAMILTON | GTA

650 W OODLAWN RD. W., BLOCK C, UNIT 2, GUELPH ON N1K 1B8 P: 519-824-8150

WWW.GMBLUEPLAN.CA

Prepared By:

TJL TRANSPORT LIMITED

Phase One Environmental Site Assessment 300 Water Street, City of Guelph

GMBP File: 116115-02 May 19, 2017

PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

300 WATER STREET, CITY OF GUELPH

GMBP FILE: 116115-02

MAY 19, 2017

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 1

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 1

3. PHASE ONE ESA FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Site Location and Description ......................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Site Physiography and Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Water Well Records ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Historical Uses of the Site and Surroundings .................................................................................................. 4

3.5 Other Records Review ................................................................................................................................... 5

3.5.1 ERIS Report ............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.5.2 MOECC and Environment Canada Records Review ................................................................................. 5

3.5.3 TSSA Fuel Safety Division Database ........................................................................................................ 5

3.5.4 Guelph Fire Department ........................................................................................................................... 6

3.6 Site Zoning and Permits ................................................................................................................................. 6

3.7 Site Reconnaissance ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3.7.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................................ 6

3.8 Adjacent and Nearby Properties ..................................................................................................................... 7

4. ASSESSMENT FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (APECS) .................................... 8

4.1 Fill Material .................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Fuel Storage Tanks........................................................................................................................................ 9

4.3 Asbestos Containing Materials, Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation, Ozone Depleting Substances, Leaded Paint .................................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ............................................................................................................................ 10

4.5 Registered Waste Generators ...................................................................................................................... 10

5. LIMITED FIELD INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Applicable Site Condition Standard .............................................................................................................. 11

5.2 Limited Field Investigation Findings .............................................................................................................. 12

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 12

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................... 13

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 13

8.1 Contacts with Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 13

8.2 Contacts with Private Companies ................................................................................................................. 13

8.3 Reference Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 14

9. STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 15

10. QUALIFICATIONS OF ASSESSORS ............................................................................................................ 15




MAY 19, 2017

II

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Aerial Photographs

Appendix B City Directory

Appendix C Ecolog Eris Report

Appendix D Ministry of Environmental and Climate Change

Appendix E Technical Standards and Safety Authority

Appendix F Guelph Fire Department

Appendix G City of Guelph Zoning Information

Appendix H Selected Site Photographs

Appendix I Limited Field Investigation Information

PEOPLE | ENGINEERING | ENVIRONMENTS

PAGE 1 OF 16

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited (GMBP) was retained by TJL Transport Limited (hereafter referred to as the “Client/Owner”) to undertake a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) the property located at 300 Water Street, City of Guelph, Ontario (hereafter referred to as the Site).

The Site is approximately 0.21 hectares (0.51 acres) in size and is located in the west part of the City of Guelph, at the westerly extent of Water Street, south of the intersection of Water Street and Denver Road as presented on Figures 1 and 2. The Site is currently owned by TJL Transport Limited and is currently vacant. It is our understanding that the subject Site is currently the subject of a zone change application, to allow for the development of several townhouse units and a duplex at the property (9 units in total). The residential lots are proposed to be serviced with municipal water and sewage.

The Phase One ESA was undertaken to identify potential and/or actual environmental concerns or risks associated with the Site resulting from current and/or historical land uses on the Site and the neighbouring properties. It is our understanding that this Phase One ESA is being conducted to support the rezoning process and that it is not required to support a Record of Site Condition (RSC) under Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 153/04 (as amended).

2. METHODOLOGY

The Phase One ESA was conducted in general accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) as presented in Report No. Z768-01, Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (November, 2001). The purpose of a Phase One ESA is to identify actual and potential environmental concerns or risks associated with the Site. These environmental concerns may be the result of current or historical uses of the Site or surrounding properties. The Phase One ESA process involves the review of documents, maps, interview(s) with persons with knowledge of the property and other recorded information in conjunction with the observations of a reconnaissance visit to the Site by the Assessor. Based on the information gathered, an assessment of the potential environmental concerns can be made and, if warranted, recommendations offered for further investigation. A brief description of the records reviewed and the reconnaissance visit follows.

Background physiographic, geological, hydrogeological and topographical information for the Site and the surrounding area was assembled from several sources including documents made available to GMBP during the site servicing design and land development process and other concurrent Studies at the Site, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Geographic Information System (GIS), Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA), the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), publications from the Ontario Geological Survey and others.



MAY 19, 2017





MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 2 OF 16

Aerial photographs of the Site and surroundings were obtained from the National Air Photo Library for the years 1964, 1982 and 1990 and from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Geographic Information System (GIS) for the years 2000 and 2015. Aerial photographs were assessed for indication of historical land uses and identification of relevant land features. Copies of reviewed aerial photographs are provided in Appendix A.

Fire insurance plans (FIPs) available at the University of Guelph Library were reviewed to assess historical ownership and uses of the Site and the vicinity. The subject property and the surrounding area were outside of the available coverage provided by FIPs at the time of their publication (1960).

A search of the City Directory records for the City of Guelph in the vicinity of the Site was requested from Ecolog ERIS to ascertain occupancy for the Site and surrounding properties. Summary of the reviewed City Directory records as provided by Ecolog ERIS is enclosed in Appendix B.

An environmental risk report was requested from EcoLog ERIS (ERIS report) to review available historical and environmental databases and provide information on reported spills, registered waste generators and fuel storage tanks. The ERIS report covered a search area extending at a 250 m radius from the property. The ERIS Report is provided in Appendix C.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Waste Disposal Site Inventory (MOE, 1991) was reviewed to identify closed and active waste disposal sites in the vicinity of the Site. A summary of the landfill inventory database is included in Appendix D. The local District Office of the MOECC was contacted for review of their records pertaining to the subject property. The MOECC response is included in Appendix D.

The Fuels Safety Division of the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) was contacted for review of their records on underground and aboveground fuel storage tanks on the Site and on select neighbouring properties. The TSSA response is included in Appendix E.

The City of Guelph Fire Department (GFD) was contacted for a review of their records pertaining to the subject property due to historical fire(s) at the property. The response from the GFD is included in Appendix F.

The City of Guelph Zoning Bylaw (1995)-14864 and associated zoning maps were reviewed to gather information about current land uses at the Site and the neighbouring properties. Applicable zoning map and information is provided in Appendix G.

The MOECC Record of Site Condition (RSC) Registry was reviewed to determine whether a Record of Site Condition has been submitted for the Site or its neighbouring properties. A Record of Site Condition is required to be completed as part of the process of transitioning a property of former industrial/commercial land use into one of residential, parkland, agricultural or other land use for which a more stringent environmental quality standard is applicable. As such, presence of a Record of Site Condition and associated environmental investigations for a particular property may provide information on potential for environmental impacts or risks to adjacent properties.

Reconnaissance of the subject property was completed on April 10, 2017 by Ms. Joanna Olesiuk, B. Sc. (Env.), C. Tech., of GMBP. Photographs of the subject property and surrounding properties were taken during the reconnaissance and select photographs are included in Appendix H.

A Hydrogeological Study was conducted by GMBP concurrent with the Phase One ESA. Additional information collected during the hydrogeological field investigation was reviewed for this Phase One ESA. Pertinent information is included in Appendix I.

3. PHASE ONE ESA FINDINGS

The findings from the records search, additional studies and the site reconnaissance were compiled and are presented herein. For the purpose of clarity in discussion, north direction shall be taken to be along Denver Street, with Water Street oriented west to east (as opposed to southwest to southeast).




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 3 OF 16

3.1 Site Location and Description

The subject Site is located in a predominantly residential land use setting in the west part of the City of Guelph at 300 Water Street, south of the intersection of Denver Road and Water Street, as shown on Figure 1 and 2. The Site is currently vacant and is tree covered with two unpaved driveways off of Water Street. The Site is approximately triangular in shape and is bounded to the north by Water Street, to the east by Denver Street and to the south by an electrical utility corridor. There is an easement for driveway access over the Hydro One lands on the west site of the Site according to information from the City of Guelph.

Legal description of the Site is Part of Lot 1, Concession 4, Division G in the City of Guelph. The current Owner, TJL Transport Limited obtained the ownership of the property in August 2014 from Habitat for Humanity.

3.2 Site Physiography and Hydrogeology

Geologically, the Site is located in the physiographic region known as the “Guelph Drumlin Field”, which is centred on the City of Guelph (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The local soils in this area generally consist of stony tills and deep gravel terraces typical of drumlins and melt water spillways (Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

Overburden stratigraphy in the general vicinity of the Site is reported to consist of gravel, silt and sand (Modern Alluvium) soils (Karrow, 1968 in Jagger Hims Limited, 1998). Based on the physiographic and quaternary mapping (Figures 3 and 4), the Site appears to be located in the Spillways physiographic landforms and the surficial soils in the general vicinity of the Site are reported to consist of outwash deposits (Chapman and Putnam, 1984; Ontario Geological Survey, 2000 and 2007). Based on regional mapping, the overburden deposits in the vicinity of the subject property are approximately 5 to 10 metres in depth in site vicinity (Jagger Hims, 1998).

From the review of available MOECC well records in the vicinity of the Site, the shallow soils are reported to consist of sandy loam, gravel/gravel with clay and cobbles to a depth of approximately 5 to 6 mbgs overlying the dolostone bedrock. The bedrock in the Guelph area is the Silurian age dolostone of the Guelph and the Amabel Formations (Jagger Hims, 1998; MOECC, 2017c). Based on available MOECC well records for a bedrock water supply well located northeast of the Site, overburden deposits consist of outwash glaciolacustrine gravels of Winconsian age, with fluvial sediments deposited by the Speed River mapped within 100 m of the water supply well location (Jagger Hims, 1998). At the location of the well, brown limestone bedrock was encountered at approximately 5.8 metres below ground surface (mbgs) (Jagger Hims, 1998).

A geotechnical investigation was conducted at the Site in 2012 by V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated. The soils encountered at the locations investigated as part of the geotechnical study generally consisted of topsoil up to 0.8 m thick, overlying a unit of sand and gravel with trace silt, which extended to 5 mbgs at the deepest point of investigation.

Shallow groundwater flow often correlates to topographical features and groundwater typically flows towards nearby lakes, streams, and wetland areas, except where modified by utility and service trenches. Based on the overall site topography, the local contour information reviewed on the GRCA Watershed Viewer GIS and water bodies in the Site vicinity, the shallow groundwater flow direction in the overburden is inferred to be northwesterly to westerly towards the Speed River located approximately 260 m to the northwest of the Site which flows southwesterly. On a regional scale, groundwater flow through bedrock is reported to be to the southwest with local component of flow towards the Speed River (Jagger and Hims, 1998).

While the groundwater flow direction is inferred for the Site, an accurate assessment of groundwater flow direction can only be completed through the installation of an appropriate number of groundwater monitoring wells and regular water level measurements to establish local groundwater flow patterns with more certainty.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 4 OF 16

3.3 Water Well Records

There are currently no MOECC well records identified on the Site (MOECC, 2017c). Two monitoring wells were drilled on the Site as part of 2017 Hydrogeological Study. Findings from the drilling conducted at the Site are discussed in Section 5.2.

Several well records were identified in the site vicinity, consisting of monitoring wells/testholes, abandonment well record, and a Municipal water supply well located to the northeast of the Site inferred to be City of Guelph Membro Well. Information from the local wells was used to determine geological conditions for the property as described in Section 3.2.

3.4 Historical Uses of the Site and Surroundings

Information about the historical land use of the Site was gathered from several sources including aerial photographs (Appendix A), City Directory listings (Appendix B), as well as other available historical records and information reported from other sources, as discussed. The findings from these sources are presented to illustrate the historical land use of the Site and its surroundings to aid in the identification of areas of potential environmental concern.

The Site is not currently listed on the City of Guelph “Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties”, however according to a Guelph Mercury article (May 11, 2015), the two-storey home located at the property was listed on the municipal registry of cultural heritage properties historically. Guelph Mercury further reported that the private residence was vacant in recent years, and has been taken down by a demolition contractor in 2015 following reports of mischief and minor fires at the property. A more recent Guelph Mercury article (January 17, 2017), which presents information about the subject Site reportedly from City of Guelph files, indicates that the home at the property was previously erroneously dated as being built in the 1890s. It has been reported that it was built in the 1920s (Guelph Mercury, January 17, 2017).

A review of aerial photographs from 1964, 1982, 1990, 2000 and 2015 was completed to assess historical land use of the subject property and surrounding areas. Aerial photographs are enclosed in Appendix A.

As shown on the aerial photograph from 1964, the Site appears to be tree covered. Although not discernible with certainty based on the resolution of the available photograph, there is a clearing present on site with what appears to be a structure. Lands within the Site vicinity are not developed and appear as agricultural or vacant land along the easterly bank of the Speed River. What is inferred to be the Guelph Dolime quarry is located to approximately 500 m to the southwest of the Site. Additional development can be seen in Site vicinity in 1982 and 1990, with Denver Road right-of-way constructed by the time of the 1982 aerial image. In the 2000 photograph, there appears to be a path on the property leading through the property to the electrical utility corridor, and by the time of the 2015 photograph, the Site residence appeared to be removed (demolished). Demolition debris does not appear to be stored on the Site, which was corroborated by the current property Owner who indicated that the demolition debris, including foundation material, was removed for off-site disposal.

The Site was not shown on the available 1960 Fire Insurance Plans (FIPs) as its location was just outside of the available coverage provided the FIP. As shown on the FIP for that portion of the City, the properties in the Site vicinity include a church and residential properties as well as some commercial/industrial uses including the Hydro-Electric Power Commission and Royal Paving Ltd. located to the east of the Site. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission property located at 225 Edinburgh Road South is shown to have a single underground fuel storage tank located to the east of the Site, inferred to be located greater than 200 m east of the Site.

The City Directory records for the Site and the neighbouring properties (available through Ecolog ERIS) dating back to 1954 were reviewed in approximate 5 to 10 year increments (Appendix B). Based on review of the available records, the first registered listing for the Site appears to be in 1970 for single tenant residential use, until the last available record for the Site in 2011. The listings for neighbouring properties include Guelph Community Christian School at 286 Water Street, Guelph Public Works Department/Waste and Recycling at 45 Municipal Street, and residential listings.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 5 OF 16

Further details of the City Directory listings for neighbouring properties are presented in the City Directory summary enclosed in Appendix B.

3.5 Other Records Review

3.5.1 ERIS Report

The Ecolog Environmental Risk Information System (ERIS) report compiles information from over 50 private and public databases relevant to environmental risk. The databases store information such as, but not limited to reported spills, waste generators registered under Ontario Regulation 347, fuel storage tanks (private, retail, historical, and others), MOECC orders, compliance and convictions. The available environmental database search was requested for the Site and surrounding properties within a 250 m radius of the Site. There were no records listed for the subject Site in the ERIS report.

The ERIS report identified records for the neighbouring properties within 250 m radius of the Site, which are further discussed in Section 3.8 and 4.5. The Ecolog ERIS report with further details on the identified records is enclosed in Appendix C.

3.5.2 MOECC and Environment Canada Records Review

A response from the MOECC, Guelph District Office indicates that there are no Orders in MOECC’s records for the Site or the Site Owner (Appendix D).

A search of the 1991 Waste Disposal Site Inventory (Appendix D) indicates that there are seven historical, closed waste disposal sites or properties where historical landfilling or waste deposition activities have reportedly taken place, within 5 kilometres of the Site. Two of these reported sites are within one kilometer of the subject property, one to the north on Wellington Street (located crossgradient), and one southwest (located downgradient). The third Site, located in Guthrie Park, approximately 630 m to the east, is considered to be upgradient to crossgradient of the Site. Based on the separation distance and the location of these historical landfill sites, they are inferred to pose low potential for environmental impacts or risks to the subject property. The remaining identified closed historical waste disposal sites are located at downgradient or hydraulically separate locations (i.e. located west of the Speed River). There are no active waste disposal sites within 1,000 m of the subject Site identified in the 1991 MOECC Landfill Inventory.

The MOECC Record of Site Condition (RSC) Registry was reviewed for listings in the vicinity of the Site (Ontario MOECC 2016a and 2016b). There were no properties within 500 m radius of the Site identified in the RSC Registry. The closest RSC property appears to be approximately 1,000 m to the north, west of the Speed River, inferred to be located hydraulically separate of the subject Site on Edinburgh Road South. Based on the separation distance and the downgradient location, this RSC property is not considered to pose a source of environmental risk to the subject Site.

The Site or the properties in the vicinity were not listed in the Inventory of Coal Gasification Plants and Coal Tar Sites (MOECC, 1987).

The Site was not listed on the MOECC Hazardous Waste Information Network (HWIN) registered generator list (https://www.hwin.ca) or in Environment Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database.

3.5.3 TSSA Fuel Safety Division Database

A request for information was submitted through e-mail correspondence to the TSSA to search the Site and select adjacent properties for records of fuel storage. The TSSA database has no records pertaining to the Site or the adjoining neighbouring properties for which the file search was requested.

Approximately 250 m southeast from the Site, at 45 Municipal Street, TSSA identified a record of fuel storage. More information regarding this finding is presented in Section 3.8 and 4.2. The e-mail query and response from the TSSA are included in Appendix E.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 6 OF 16

3.5.4 Guelph Fire Department

The Guelph Fire Department was contacted for a search of their files with respect to records related to the subject property. Guelph Fire Department reported responding to three fire occurrences at the property in an abandoned house and shed on March 14, March 27 and April 29, 2015. No outstanding violations or work orders against the property were on file with the Fire Department. No records of spills, material storage or hazardous environmental issues were on located in the property file. Fire Department response is included in Appendix F.

3.6 Site Zoning and Permits

According to the City of Guelph Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as Amended by By-law (20120 - 19507, the Site is currently within Residential Single Detached (R.1B) zone permitting single detached dwelling or an accessory apartment with uses such as bed and breakfast, day care, or group home. It is our understating that it is proposed to change the current Site zoning to Residential Townhouse (R.3A) with special regulations, to permit site development into several townhomes and a duplex dwelling.

Neighbouring lands are within the Urban Reserve (UR), Park (P.3), Residential Townhouse (R.3A) and Residential Single Detached (R.1B) zones. Copies of the zoning map and allowable developed uses under the applicable zoning bylaw are included in Appendix G.

3.7 Site Reconnaissance

Site reconnaissance was conducted by Ms. Joanna Olesiuk B. Sc. (Env.), C. Tech of GMBP on April 10, 2017. The weather conditions were recorded as clear and sunny with temperature near 15°C. Ms. Olesiuk was accompanied by Mr. Joe Rider of TJL Transport Limited, the current Owner of the subject property who provided information on recent history of the property. Select photographs from the site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix H.

3.7.1 Site Description

The Site is accessed from Water Street through two unpaved laneways at the westerly and easterly extent of the property. The Site is currently vacant and is heavily treed throughout the majority of the property, with an open area where the former residence and a shed were located, in the easterly portion of the property.

The Site is topographically high and at grade with adjoining properties along the southern portion of the property and generally lower lying throughout the wooded area along Water Street. What appears to be a swale is present along Water Street and is overgrown with trees. There was no standing water at the time of the Site visit within the lower lying area of the property.

No visual evidence of the former structures including the former water supply well or a septic bed was observed at the time of the visit. As reported by Guelph Mercury (May 11, 2015) and Mr. Rider, the home was vacant in recent years, and was demolished in 2015 following a series of fire occurrences at the home and the shed. Mr. Rider indicated that the demolition debris, including the former foundation and concrete, was removed for off-site disposal.

The septic tank that formerly serviced the residence was also reportedly pumped out and removed off-site. Mr. Rider reported that there was no water supply well to the best of his knowledge at the property, and that the home water supply consisted of a water cistern at the time of ownership transfer.

Visual assessment of the Site grounds and along the property lines did not reveal apparent signs of environmental impact to the property such as stressed vegetation, evidence of illegal waste deposition or surficial soil staining. Minor debris was seen scattered throughout the property at some locations (i.e. the occasional wood product and concrete fragments, fragments of metal and wire fencing material). What appeared to be slag material was noted on the ground surface at the location of the easterly driveway (Section 4.1 contains additional information related to this observation).




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 7 OF 16

Since the time of the Phase ONE ESA site reconnaissance, two monitoring wells were drilled at the property as part of the Hydrogeological Study conducted at the property by GMBP. The wells were drilled by a licenced well drilling contractor, with further pertinent details discussed below.

3.8 Adjacent and Nearby Properties

Adjacent and nearby properties were observed from the Site and from public rights-of-way during the site reconnaissance. Adjacent neighbouring properties are shown on Figure 2. Further details of activities at the neighbouring properties are contained in the City Directory (Appendix B), EcoLog ERIS report (Appendix C), with selected pertinent details discussed below. Selected photographs are presented in Appendix H.

North

To the north of the Site is the Water Street right-of-way, beyond which is a residential development, the Village on the Green (at 295 Water Street). EcoLog ERIS listed this property in the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) database for a standby power system.

To the north/northeast of the Site, the EcoLog Eris report identified several records in the Water Well Information System database for a municipal water supply well (inferred to be City of Guelph Membro Well), a test well and an abandonment/other record for 290 Water Street and the vicinity. Other records at this location include an Ontario Spills database record for a spill of 4,000 L of suspended solids/sand/silt water via a storm sewer to the Speed River (2015), two (2) past ERIS searches and a record in the Ontario Regulation 347 Waste Generators database for City of Guelph water supply and irrigation system naturalized wastes code.

Further to the north/northeast the EcoLog ERIS report identified a record in the Ontario Spills database for a spill of 10 L of engine oil to road, with no environmental impact anticipated. Beyond the developed lands, further to the north are parkland and the Speed River.

To the northeast of the Site, is a Community Centre with a daycare and an educational facility at 286 Water Street.

Based on the inferred groundwater flow direction, the properties to the north are considered to be located downgradient of the Site and based on the nature of use of these properties (mainly residential, parkland and community use); they are considered to pose low potential for environmental impacts or risks to the Site.

East To the east of the subject Site is the Denver Road right-of-way. Beyond Denver Road is an undeveloped property. Further to the east are commercial properties including Hydro One electrical utility yard and transformer station (located approximately 250 m east of the property at 225 Edinburgh Road South). To the east/southeast is the City of Guelph Public Works Yard (located approximately 200 m southeast of the property at 45 Municipal Street). The 45 Municipal Street property was identified in the EcoLog ERIS report for the following:

Ten (10) records in the Ontario Regulation 347 Waste Generator database for various waste streams;

Two (2) records in the Certificate of Approval database for a Waste Management System; One (1) record in the Private and Retail Fuel Storage Tank database; Eight (8) records in the List of TSSA Expired Facilities for expired listings of fuel storage tank,

full-serve/self-serve facility, propane refill centre/propane storage tank, private fuel outlet; Two (2) records in the Fuel Storage Tank – Historic database for active and removed UST

tanks at the subject property;




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 8 OF 16

Four (4) records in the Fuel Storage Tank database including: o 25,000 L double wall gasoline underground storage tank (UST) installed in 1996; o 22,700 L single wall gasoline UST installed in 1976; o 2,200 L double wall “other” UST installed in 1995; and, o 25,000 L double wall diesel UST installed in 1996.

Three (3) records in the Ontario Spills database related to past spills of oily sludge and diesel fuel to ground, storm sewer and interceptor.

Based on the inferred groundwater flow direction, this property is inferred to be located crossgradient to upgradient of the subject Site. Based on the location and the separation distance, significant impacts to the subject Site from this property are not suspected. Further discussion related to the potential for impacts to the subject Site is provided in Section 5 including a summary of results of field activities carried out during the concurrent Hydrogeological Study, which provides additional information regarding the potential for impacts or risk from the neighbouring upgradient land uses. West

To west of the Site is the terminus of Water Street, beyond which is parkland and a public trail. Properties to the west, based on the inferred groundwater flow direction are considered to be located hydraulically downgradient to cross-gradient of the subject Site and based on the nature of use are not considered to be a source of significant environmental impacts to the subject Site.

South

To the south of the Site is an electrical utility corridor. Further to the south are residential properties. The Ecolog ERIS report listed a record in the Ontario Spills database for a spill of antifreeze fluid to road at a property located at 41 Pacific Street, approximately 150 to the southwest of the Site. The record noted no environmental impact was anticipated from this spill.

Based on the inferred groundwater flow direction, the properties to the south/southwest of the Site are considered to be located hydraulically crossgradient/downgradient of the Site and based on the nature of use, are considered to pose low potential for environmental impacts or risks to the Site.

For further details on the identified records at the neighbouring properties, refer to the Ecolog ERIS report in Appendix C.

4. ASSESSMENT FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (APECS)

The information gathered from the site reconnaissance and the records search was reviewed to identify Potentially Contaminating Activities (PCAs) within the search area. These PCAs were then assessed in the context of additional available information, such as site setting and geology associated with the Site, to determine whether these should be considered as Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APECs) relevant to the Site. An APEC is an item that presents an environmental concern with respect to environmental risk where further investigation is recommended. Additional information obtained as part of the Hydrogeological Study at the Site was used in the assessment of APECs.

4.1 Fill Material

Historically, fill materials imported to construction sites were not necessarily scrutinized for quality and as such, deleterious fill materials could be deposited and potentially become an environmental concern and liability to a property.

The Site appears to be generally at grade with the surrounding properties and slightly topographically lower in the wooded area along Water Street. Based on the residential development of the property circa 1920, it appears that the Site has not been expensively filled.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 9 OF 16

The drilling conducted as part of the 2012 geotechnical investigation 0.05 m of fill material encountered at one borehole location (in the westerly laneway). The drilling conducted as part of the GMBP Hydrogeological Study identified a layer of fill/disturbed soil, approximately 0.4 m thick at the location of MW-01. The same layer of fill was not encountered at the location of MW-02. No evidence of impacts, staining or deleterious fill material was reported at the investigative boreholes at the time of the hydrogeological and geotechnical investigation drilling.

During the Site visit, the Owner indicated that easterly driveway at the property was widened and reinforced at the time of the house demolition to provide access for construction vehicles. The Owner inquired with the Contractor who performed the work about the origin of the fill/soil material used to reinforce the driveway and it was reported that the material used originated from the Site. At the time of the site visit, what appeared to be occasional slag fragments were noted at the ground surface of the driveway material. While the origin of this material is not known, it appears that it is limited in nature and confined to the driveway as the same material was not identified at the investigated locations during the drilling conducted as part of the hydrogeological investigation. The fill/disturbed soil material identified at one of the investigated locations (MW-01) did not contain slag fragments therefore it is not expected to be widespread in occurrence. Deleterious fill material or suspect materials were not reported during the geotechnical investigation (V. A. Wood (Guelph) Inc., 2012).

As reported by the Owner, the demolition debris from the Site structures, including the foundation and the septic tank were removed off-site, therefore it is not expected that the demolition debris was used as fill at the site. During subsequent development at the Site and earth moving activities, should any demolition debris, impacted soils or deleterious fill material be identified (including in the driveway) it is recommended that those soils be removed off-site for proper disposal.

4.2 Fuel Storage Tanks

On-Site

Fuel storage tanks are a frequent cause of environmental impacts. Leaking tanks may produce a long-term, continuous source of hydrocarbon products that may impact soils and groundwater, especially in the case of aged underground fuel storage tanks which did not have a reliable means of leak detection. Underground fuel storage tanks are also often accompanied by underground piping, which may also be susceptible to leaking and release of hydrocarbons. Additionally, fuel impacts may be found some distance away from a tank (whether aboveground or underground) in the vicinity of the fuel tank fill point.

No records or evidence of fuel storage tanks were found during the site reconnaissance at the Site. The Fuels Safety Division of the TSSA reported they have no records (maintained as of circa 1980’s) on file indicating the presence of underground or aboveground fuel storage tanks on the subject Site.

No records of fuel storage on the subject Site were listed in the ERIS report in the currently maintained or historical fuel storage/TSSA databases. The current Owner indicated that there was no fuel oil tank servicing the former residence at the time ownership transfer.

Off-Site

The TSSA records (Appendix E) did not identify records of fuel storage tanks located on neighbouring properties adjoining the Site. In the greater Site vicinity, the TSSA and the EcoLog ERIS report identified records of fuel storage at a property at 45 Municipal Street, located upgradient to crossgradient of the subject property. Based on the aerial photograph of the area, the inferred location of the fuel island and the fuel storage tanks is approximately 220 m southeast of the subject property.

The Hydro-Electric Power Commission property located at 225 Edinburgh Road South was shown to have a single underground fuel storage tank located to the east of the Site, inferred to be located greater than 200 m east of the Site on a historical fire insurance plan dated 1960.

Further discussion related to reported off-site fuel storage tank presence is included in Section 5.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 10 OF 16

4.3 Asbestos Containing Materials, Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation, Ozone Depleting Substances, Leaded Paint

Asbestos was widely used in variety of construction materials in the past. The use of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in building materials was discontinued around 1985. Ontario Regulation 278/05 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1990, defines ACMs as materials that contain 0.5 per cent or more of asbestos by dry weight. Federal and Provincial Occupational Health and Safety Acts, and the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), identify asbestos as a carcinogenic health hazard that is regulated. Because of these regulations, the production of asbestos containing materials has been widely discontinued since the mid 1980’s.

Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) was installed primarily in wall cavities during the 1970s as an alternative to the typical insulation materials at that time. Its appearance can vary from white to tan in colour and resembles Styrofoam. Over time, UFFI that is exposed to the air, becomes wet, or has been damaged, can potentially release formaldehyde vapours, which can cause various human health effects. Due to the documented health concerns, the use of UFFI insulation was discontinued in 1980.

The most common ozone depleting substances (ODS) of concern are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, which were commonly used in air conditioning, refrigeration, and in the manufacture of rigid foam. The initial control of these substances was implemented in 1987 and the complete phase-out of these substances was finalized between 1994 and 1995.

Lead was used as an additive in paints prior to 1960 to make paint wear well and dry quickly and evenly. Leaded paint is a potential source of environmental impact or risk primarily if it is in poor condition and flaking. Most indoor and outdoor paints produced before 1950 contained substantial amounts of lead. Since 1976, the amount of lead in interior paint has been limited by law. Although the lead content of exterior paint is not regulated, Canadian paint manufacturers have voluntarily ensured that no lead is intentionally added. Exterior paint with lead carries a warning label.

There are currently no structures located on the subject Site, therefore impacts from the ACMs, UFFI, ODSs or leaded paint are not expected.

4.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Between 1920 and 1978, PCBs were used extensively as a dielectric fluid in electrical transformers, motor capacitors, and fluorescent light ballasts. Current legislation prohibits the manufacture and sale of new equipment containing PCBs (1980).

There are currently no structures located on the subject Site services with transformers, fluorescent lighting or other structures containing PCBs, therefore impacts from PCBs are not expected.

4.5 Registered Waste Generators

As indicated in the ERIS report (Appendix C), several records of registered waste generation were identified in the Ecolog ERIS at the neighbouring properties, as previously discussed.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change through the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Regulation 347 sets out strict provisions for storage, registration, transport and disposal of generated industrial/hazardous wastes. If handled, stored and disposed of properly, as per current regulations, these registered wastes pose a limited environmental risk and limited potential for impacts to the subject properties. However, it is outside the scope of the current assessment to thoroughly study the waste handling and overall operations of the neighboring and surrounding properties.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 11 OF 16

5. LIMITED FIELD INVESTIGATION

As part of a Hydrogeological Study at the subject property which is being undertaken concurrently with the Phase One ESA, two boreholes were drilled and two monitoring wells (MW-01 and MW-02) were installed at the subject Site at locations shown on Figure 1 in Appendix I.

Based on the records of fuel handling and use at the neighbouring property located at 45 Municipal Street as previously discussed (Section 3.8 and 4.2) as well as a general screening of soil and groundwater quality at the subject property, samples were collected from MW-01 on May 1 and 3, 2017. During drilling, a soil sample was collected from MW-01 from approximately 3.8 to 4.4 mbgs (sampling interval in the vicinity of the water table) for the analysis of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene (BTEX) and Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) F1 to F4 fractions. A groundwater sample was collected from MW-01 on May 3, 2017 for the analysis of BTEX, F1 to F4 PHCs, metals and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Groundwater samples were not collected from MW-02, due to insufficient water column.

The samples were collected using industry accepted protocols for the requested analysis and submitted under standard Chain of Custody protocol to Maxxam Analytics Inc. (Maxxam) of Mississauga, Ontario for environmental analysis. Maxxam is an environmental laboratory accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (CALA) and by the Standards Council of Canada for the analyses requested as part of this investigation.

Summary of the results of the analyses (with detections above the laboratory reporting limit) are presented on Table 1 (Groundwater VOCs) and Table 2 (Groundwater metals) enclosed in Appendix I. The laboratory Certificate of Analysis is also included in Appendix I. Additional details regarding the limited field investigation are presented in the Hydrogeological Study report (GMBP, 2017).

5.1 Applicable Site Condition Standard

For the purpose of environmental investigations, impacts to lands are determined by comparison to the criteria identified in the Soil, Ground Water, and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011), under Ontario Regulation 153/04 (as amended), hereafter referred to as the Standard.

In determining the applicable regulatory criteria of the Standard, the property use, groundwater use scenario, and soil texture must be selected.

A review of site conditions indicates the following:

1. The subject property is located within the City of Guelph, which uses groundwater as a source for

municipal drinking water.

2. The municipal water system is available to properties within 250 m of the subject property, including

the subject property itself.

3. The site is currently under residential land use zoning and is proposed to continue under residential

use.

As part of the determination of the soil Standards under O. Reg. 153/04 (as amended), the soil must be defined as “fine and medium textured” or “coarse textured” based on site conditions. By definition, coarse textured fill and soils contain more than 50 percent by mass of particles greater than or equal to 75 µm in diameter. Based on the occurrence of coarse textured soils at the subject property, the site soils are classified as “coarse textured”. Generally Standards for coarse soils are more stringent than for fine textured soils.

Therefore, Table 2 Standard (i.e. for a potable groundwater scenario) for coarse textured soils with a residential/parkland/institutional property use has been selected as the applicable Standard for the purposes of the investigation.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 12 OF 16

5.2 Limited Field Investigation Findings

Based on the subsurface investigation completed by GMBP during the Hydrogeological Study, the stratigraphy of the soils beneath the Site consists of a topsoil layer (approximately 0.3 m thick), overlying fill/disturbed soil at the location of MW-01 (up to 0.4 m thick, not observed at the location of MW-02), glaciofluvial sand and gravel (between about 3.1 and 4.3 m thick), overlying silt till (up to about 0.25 m thick, not observed in MW-01). Limestone/dolostone bedrock was encountered at about 3.9 mbgs at the location of MW-01 and 4.7 mbgs at MW-02. No visible impacts to the soils or deleterious fill material were identified during drilling at the investigated locations. The results of the analyses of the groundwater are summarized in Table 1 and 2 (Appendix I) along with the applicable standards of the Ontario Regulation 153/04. The Laboratory Certificate of Analysis is included in Appendix I.

Based on reported results of analyses, the concentrations of F1 to F4 fractions of PHCs and VOCs in the sample from MW-01 were below the laboratory detection limits and below the applicable Standard for the Site. Trace concentrations of BTEX compounds were detected (i.e. 1.1, 1.8, 0.39 and 1.3 µg/L of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, respectively) which is well below the applicable Standard values (i.e. 5, 24, 2.4 and 300 µg/L for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, respectively). These reported concentrations of BTEX compounds are considered to be at trace levels occasionally encountered in urban areas specifically with neighbouring commercial operations involved in fuel handling and associated activities, and are not considered to pose a significant environmental impact to the subject property.

The groundwater sample collected from MW-01 for metals and general chemistry parameters revealed detectable concentrations of several dissolved metals at levels below the applicable Standard. The elevated levels of calcium and magnesium are typical of groundwater in the Guelph area, reflecting contact with calcareous deposits such as the local limestone and dolostone bedrock or derived overburden materials. The reported concentrations of sodium and chloride are most likely attributed to road salting activities and are also below the Standard. Overall, the general water chemistry appears to be typical of an urban area. For additional details regarding the limited field investigation refer to Hydrogeological Study report (GMBP, 2017).

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND ASSESSMENT

The pertinent findings of the Phase One ESA for part of 300 Water Street are summarized as follows:

The legal description of the Site is Part of Lot 1, Concession 4, Division G in the City of Guelph. The Site is located in the older portion of the City in a residential, park and institutional land use

setting, with commercial development located to the east of the Site. The Site is currently vacant and consists of a wooded area and an open area where historically a

residential dwelling was located. The private residence has been demolished with debris reportedly removed from the Site in 2015 following reports of mischief and minor fire occurrences.

The Guelph Fire Department reported there are no records of spills, material storage or hazardous environmental issues were on located in the property file based on occurrences investigated by the Fire Department.

The native soils at the Site consist of glaciofluvial sand and gravel overlying silt till (at some locations). Limestone/dolostone bedrock was encountered at about 3.9 to 4.7 mbgs at the investigated locations.

No records or evidence were found in searched records to indicate the historical presence of fuel storage tanks on-site or at properties in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

Due to the 2015 demolition and removal of the residence, the potential for environmental risk is low with respect to the presence of hazardous building materials (e.g. lead paint, asbestos-containing materials, ozone-depleting substances, and urea formaldehyde foam insulation).

Sampling of soil and groundwater at the Site was conducted as part of concurrent Hydrogeological Study.

Reported analytical results of a sample of soil and groundwater collected from a monitoring well on the Site indicate no impacts related to Petroleum Hydrocarbons, metals and Volatile Organic Compounds.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 13 OF 16

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed to identify potential and/or actual environmental concerns associated with the Site resulting from land use activities, whether current or historical and whether those occurred on-site or on nearby lands. It is our understanding that this Phase One ESA is conducted to support a rezoning application process.

No actual sources of environmental concern or impacts to the Site were identified due to current or historical on-site operations or off-site impacts. Based on the findings of this Phase One ESA, the potential for environmental impacts or risks to the Site due to on-site and off-site sources is considered to be low. Consequently, a Phase Two ESA is not recommended at this time.

It is recommended that the on-site monitoring wells (or any historical water supply well(s) if encountered) be decommissioned in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 when these are no longer required for environmental monitoring purposes.

8. REFERENCES

8.1 Contacts with Agencies

Fuels Safety Division Technical Standards and Safety Authority 14th Floor, Centre Tower 3300 Bloor Street West Toronto, ON M8X 2X4 Attn: Public Information Centre Tel: 877-682-8772

National Air Photo Library Natural Resources Canada 615 Booth Street, Room 180 Ottawa, ON K1A 0E9 Tel: 613-995-4560 Fax: 613-995-4568 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Guelph District Office 1 Stone Road West Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 Tel: 519-826-4255 Fax: 519-826-4286

8.2 Contacts with Private Companies

EcoLog Environmental Risk Information Service (ERIS) Limited 12 Concorde Place, Suite 800 Toronto, ON M3C 4J2 Tel: 416-510-5204 / 877-512-5204 Fax: 416-510-5133 E-mail: [email protected]




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 14 OF 16

8.3 Reference Materials

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2001. Standard Z768-01, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

City of Guelph. 2016. Pre-consultation Meeting for 300 Water Street Letter from ms.Sylvia Kirkwood, Development Planning Services to Mr. Hugh Handy, GSP Group Inc.

City of Guelph. 2012. Historic Landfill Sites map. Planning, Building, Engineering-Environmental Services.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 2007. Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release--Data 228.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Volume 2

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited. 2017. Hydrogeological Study for Proposed Residential Development – 300 Water Street, Guelph. (In progress).

Grand River Conservation Authority. Aerial Photographs – 2000, 2010, 2015 Online Web GIS Watershed Viewer. Accessed at http://grims.grandriver.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=grca_viewer&ddsid=12e9eb

Guelph Mercury. Historical Home Torn Down on Guelph’s Water Street. May 11, 2015. Accessed Online April, 2017.

Guelph Mercury Tribute. Hallett, Doug. Guelph Residents Concerned About Water Street Grove. January 17, 2017. Accessed Online May, 2017

Intera Technologies Ltd. 1987. Inventory of Coal Gasification Plant Waste Sites in Ontario. Volume II. Prepared for Ministry of the Environment Waste Management Branch.

Jagger Hims Limited, 1998. City of Guelph Aquifer Performance Evaluation, Volume 1, Southwest Quadrant, City of Guelph.

Karrow P. F. 1968. Map 2153. Pleistocene Geology of the Guelph Area, Southern Ontario, Ontario Division of Mines (in Jagger Hims Limited, 1998).

Ontario Geological Survey. 2010. Surficial Geology of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release 0 Data 128- Revised

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2017a. Records of Site Condition Registry: July 1, 2011. Accessed on November, 2016 at https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/records-site-condition

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2017b. Records of Site Condition and Transition Notices: October 1, 2004 to June 30, 2011. Accessed at https://www.lrcsde.lrc.gov.on.ca/besrWebPublic/generalSearch

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2017c. Interactive Well Records Database. Accessed November, 2016 at: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-well-record-data

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2017d. Hazardous Waste Information Network. Accessed April 2017 at https://www.hwin.ca/hwin/

The Underwriters’ Survey Bureau, Limited. 1987 (revised 1906), 1960. Fire Insurance Plans for City of Guelph.

V.A. Wood (Guelph) Inc. 2012. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Residential Development, 300 Water Street, City of Guelph, Ontario. Ref No. G3231-2-7. Prepared for Habitat for Humanity, Wellington County.




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 15 OF 16

9. STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

The information presented in this Phase One ESA report is intended for the sole use of TJL Transport Limited. GM BluePlan Engineering Limited accepts no liability for use of this information by third parties. Any decisions made by third parties on the basis of information provided in this report are made at the sole risk of the third parties.

The scope of this Phase One ESA was limited to a review of the history of the Site; a review of available regional mapping and available background reports and information; surface/topographic features; contact with relevant regulatory agencies; review of available historical records and reports; a site reconnaissance completed on April 18, 2017 and limited field investigation completed as part of a Hydrogeological Study at the Site. This Phase One ESA assumes that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) under O. Reg. 153/04 (as amended) is not required to be filed for this property.

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited cannot guarantee the accuracy or reliability of information provided by others or presented in records and reports available for the property. GM BluePlan Engineering Limited does not accept liability for unknown, unidentified, undisclosed or unforeseen surface or sub-surface contamination that may be later identified.

The conclusions pertaining to the environmental condition of soils and groundwater identified at the Site are based on the visual observations at the locations of the investigative boreholes only and on the analytical data for the selected soil and groundwater samples. GM BluePlan Engineering Limited cannot guarantee the environmental condition of soil and/or groundwater that may be encountered at the site at locations that were not specifically investigated as part of the Hydrogeological Study as described herein.

The analytical findings represent soil conditions at the locations sampled only and do not necessarily represent the environmental condition of all fill/subsurface soils or groundwater located on the Site. Further classification of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at locations other than those investigated as part of the Hydrogeological Study (i.e. in other locations across the property) would require additional subsurface investigation and further laboratory analyses.

The scope of this Phase One ESA was limited to investigating the actual or potential sources of environmental impact or environmental risk and does not include full confirmation of actual environmental impact or environmental risk. While comments have been made regarding the inferred groundwater flow direction and the perceived risks of potential environmental concerns to soil and groundwater at the Site from on-site or off-site sources, full confirmatory assessment of soil and groundwater conditions (beyond those investigated as described herein) is beyond the scope of this assessment. Further, while comments have been made regarding the perceived risks of potential environmental concerns, a complete risk assessment is beyond the scope of this report.

This report is believed to provide documentation of site conditions as of April 10 and May 3, 2017.

10. QUALIFICATIONS OF ASSESSORS

Phase One ESA research and site reconnaissance were performed by Ms. Joanna Olesiuk, B. Sc. (Env.), C. Tech. under the direct supervision of Mr. Matthew Nelson, P. Eng, P. Geo.

Ms. Olesiuk, B.Sc. (Env.), is an Environmental Technologist with over eleven years of experience in environmental and hydrogeological investigations. Ms. Olesiuk has been involved in conducting field activities, performing data analysis and report writing for numerous Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessments, site remediation, hydrogeologic studies, dewatering studies and various environmental investigations for residential, commercial and industrial properties.

Mr. Nelson, M.Sc., P. Eng., P. Geo. is an Environmental Engineer/Hydrogeologist with over sixteen years of experience with environmental, hydrogeological, and remedial investigations. Mr. Nelson has experience preparing numerous Phase One and Phase Two Environmental Site Assessments, environmental investigations, and the completion of Phase Three site remediation projects. Mr. Nelson has been involved with




MAY 19, 2017

PAGE 16 OF 16

detailed environmental site investigations for several large commercial and industrial properties in Canada and the United States.

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited has completed numerous Phase One Environmental Site Assessments, which also include follow-up Phase Two Environmental Site Assessments. GM BluePlan Engineering Limited has also been involved with the remediation of numerous sites, and with the preparation of a Record of Site Condition for residential, commercial and industrial properties.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited

Per:

Joanna Olesiuk, B. Sc. (Env.), C. Tech.

Matthew Nelson, P. Eng., P.Geo.

FIGURES

APPENDIX A: Aerial Photographs

APPENDIX B: City Directory

APPENDIX C: Ecolog Eris Report

APPENDIX D: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

APPENDIX E: Technical Standards and Safety Authority

APPENDIX F: Guelph Fire Department

APPENDIX G: City of Guelph Zoning Information

APPENDIX H: Selected Site Photographs

APPENDIX I: Limited Field Investigation Information

Date post:	07-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

City of Guelph - City of Guelph - TJL TRANSPORT …...mapping (Figures 3 and 4), the Site appears to...

Documents