Next on the agenda we have other delegations in regards to Red Hill Project Noise Mitigations Options. It's in the report 9.9, we've bumped that up to 8.1 (s/be 8.2?). I would ask our Staff to first give a brief presentation and then I'll go to Mr. Orzel who's listed here as a delegation.

Chris Murray : By way of providing some context to the Committee, we met on June 10 in the evening, with the Expressway Implementation Committee (EIC) and a fair portion of that meeting was spent on the noise issue and I think somewhere in the order of about 50 residents from the Red Hill area did attend and there were comments that were made at that meeting that have had some influence on this report that is before you now. I think it's important to point out that it was at that committee meeting that Staff were directed to bring a report forward as fast as possible to Public Works so that if there was an opportunity to start pursuing non-noise barriers options, that we could do that and that's why effectively, we're here before you today. I guess the other point too is the focus here is on residents' properties back onto the roadway where through a noise report that we've undertaken we've concluded that a barrier is warranted and we've had meetings with the property owners because the optimal position to put the barriers on their property. So that's basically the focus of our meetings and the focus of our report now. Once it comes up.This is the same presentation that was heard on the 10 th , just to let you know what we are talking about for the next 10 minutes. (Overheads were handed out, and for transcription of presentation see Expressway Implementation Committee meeting held June 10, 2004.) In terms of consultation, I'm just going to turn the floor over to Nicole. Nicole: Some of you have heard this before so I'll try to make it a bit brief. My name is Nicole ??? and I'm the communications facilitator for the Red Hill Valley Project (RHVP) and ??? for the Red Hill Expressway Implementation Committee. . going to present the highlights of the noise wall meetings.and focus specifically on the 12 possible options for noise mitigation that residents have suggested the City consider. Even though there's a lot of anxiety around the City's project, I would like to express my thanks for the resident's participation and suggestions. Just a very quick overview of the process, this is an important part of the City's community relations program for the RHVP. The purpose of that program is to ensure that residents and other stakeholders are included in discussions around the 9 options related to the RHVP and kept informed of construction activities and schedules and when we went out to talk to people at these noise wall meetings we had a few purposes in mind. One is obviously to share some information regarding the anticipated increase in noise that would be generated by traffic, hear from residents regarding their issues and concerns, opportunities or questions they have, walk through the read yard of the properties to give residents an idea of where the proposed noise wall would generally be located, answer questions and get an early idea of residents interest of having a noise wall constructed on their property and/or to discuss other alternatives. So just picking up on the map you saw from Chris, 100 properties have been identified by the City that could be impacted by noise, 64 of those properties had at least one representative that participated in a noise wall meeting. There were 12 meetings in April and May, as Chris said, also had a meeting last July. So that's 13 in total. 119 people participated and the Red Hill Valley Neighbourhood Association (RHVNA), which is a relatively newly formed group, participated in 4 of those. The meetings were hosted by residents.they were typically held in the evening, having 10 people on average at each. Process wise we took notes at each meeting and distributed those notes in draft to all participants. Comments were received from 2 of the 119 participants on those notes. In some cases there wasn't much time for ??? so we're making sure that if we're making sure that if we receive any supplementary ideas that they're passed on to the City. A Facilitator's report was produced.I have a few extra here for anyone in the room who wants one. .frequently asked questions raised, printed on the back of this report, along with responses from the City. It addresses the concerns of people who weren't able to attend the meeting have an idea of what happened and there were also come concerns that by taking the yard, street by street approach, we were taking a divide and conquer approach to these meetings. so this makes sure that there's a consistent set of responses. Key issues raised. There were 2 sort of sets of issues. The whole set related to noise and I'll focus on those for today's meeting, but there are a number of other issues at the forefront. . Although there were some people interested in a noise wall, most people were not interested and would like the City to come back with other alternatives. They asked if the City could use the money, currently budgeted for noise wall, to pay for these alternatives, and these are summarized on p.6 of this report. There were 12 options suggested, and I believe Chris went into these with a lot more detail and I'll just summarize them quickly. A number of people suggested instead of having a noise wall, they would like to have backyard landscaping including planting trees.not small trees but larger trees.another suggestion that the noise wall be built immediately adjacent to the expressway.consider building a berm beside the expressway and putting a noise wall on top of that berm or trees on top of the berm, suggested that the City construct the wall partway down the slope of the valley. essentially options are coming from residents who are not really interested in having that wall block the view in their yard. Another suggestion where properties extend down into the valley, to fill in the valley portion of the property potentially putting a noise wall or trees or berm at the end of that section, was suggested that the City consider providing funds directly to property owners ???, suggested the City look at ways to control noise at the source, particularly truck noise, improving the indoor living environment for people who feel they will no longer be able to enjoy their backyards.air conditioning or improved windows. Constructing a steel wall immediately adjacent to the expressway was suggested, and then constructing a wooden fence at the rim of the valley, although it won't do much for noise a number of residents say it will be nicer to look at. . There was also concern that none of the alternatives, including the noise wall will effectively mitigate noise to MOE standards.other concerns, that if people wait until after the expressway is constructed to make a decision . the money will no longer be available. . concerns about what happens when one resident wants the wall and others do not, and also concerns about property values will drop . will the City compensate them, there's a disagreement about the City's position on property values.further dialogue would be beneficial. Additional suggestions: fund a tax break to residents who live adjacent to the valley, consider deeding City lands at the valley rim to abutting properties, and consider mitigation to those property owners who do not live adjacent to the valley. .other things in the forefront of peoples' minds.people are very concerned about the air quality, property damage, standing water in storm water management ponds, West Nile virus, loss of trees, garbage in the valley, lack of time and accurate information about the project, concerns about other locations and designs for the expressway were not considered . We did receive some feedback from a couple of people on the draft meeting note and . raised concerns about the documentation, but it doesn't convey the emotions and frustrations, anger and confusion that many residents have experienced as a result of this project. And some concern that the report contains documentation of the full range of perspectives shared including minority positions.Some people were very critical of the information received, however there were some others as well, said it was the most information they had ever received, and the first time many had heard about the design changes .The City at the meeting made a commitment to provide feedback to the residents on the results of the EIC meeting .

Collins : Any questions of Staff or consultant?

Murray : As Nicole pointed out, the next few slides give you an idea of the properties that back onto Red Hill.many cases it will be difficult to provide noise barriers for them, given the proximity of their yards to their homes and building a wall will certainly hem them in, which has led us to having to look at non-barrier alternatives. .many do not want a noise wall built on their property, and there are alternatives.being recommended tonight. Many alternatives do not have a mitigative effect of reducing noise in the backyards.some said build it (noise wall) now, some said wait 'til later, that was certainly the minority view. Landscaping: people made it very clear to us they do not want to see seedlings or whips, they were talking more about mature softwoods.they were concerned that we would come in and in plantation style, just put down the trees.we have provided details in the report. . We have some concerns about the wall being beside the expressway a) being effective and secondly being cost. The wall in many locations would have to be a minimum of 5 to 6 metres tall, and even then likely taller. We have some concerns about it standing up, given wind in the area as well as storm water management issues. Last point, most important, whether or not building it taller than 5 or 6 metres would even be effective. The third option, berm beside the expressway, the noise wall again, we're working with a very limited platform down in the valley so putting a wall and redesigning the creek, bringing in storm water management facilities, and then the cost of trying to put a berm in there and grade to anything acceptable would obviously be very difficult in such a limited space. Whether you're putting a wall on top of the berm, or trees on top of it, a berm of any form beside the road down in the valley would be very difficult. I think it would fundamentally undermine our natural channel design. A noise wall partway down the slope, again, we'd have to build it quite tall, but we'd have to access it down the slope - that means we're going to have to come in from the top or bottom, so whatever vegetation that happens to be still remaining today would be obviously affected by that alternative. It would add, certainly, a lot of costs to the noise wall answer. Planting trees down the valley slope, again, what we're saying is that non-wall alternatives such as trees won't have any kind of mitigative benefit from a noise perspective, although visually it may serve some purpose, but we don't see that as a way to address the issue. Filling in slopes to put noise walls in, as you know the Conservation Authority has regulatory responsibility for any work within a flood plain within the fill regulation line and putting fill in that area would be a problem, not only to us but to the Conservation Authority and wouldn't be supported. Funds directly to property owners for use at their discretion, we have concerns about that. What we're trying to do here is address a noise related problem and so we've discouraged simply writing a cheque. We feel it's probably best to focus our energies and resources on things that, if they don't limit or reduce the noise effect, at least they do some kind of screening because if we could get the project out of view, it may help somewhat in dealing with this project. Again, we prefer to see that the, our resources spent on non-barrial alternatives that they be spent on screening related matters. Controlling noise at the source, truck restrictions that was mentioned, again, part of the purpose for building this project is to try and get truck traffic off the local arterial streets and onto a road that is properly designed to handle it. So that would be working against that direction. Air conditioning and triple glazed windows, there is a recommendation to go forward with this. This is used as a last resort in instances and it's not widely used certainly by the Ministry of Transportation. The idea here is to at least provide those people who do not have air conditioning or glazed windows, a way they can, at least, enjoy living space within their homes recognizing that the noise conditions outside for some may be a little bit louder than is presently the situation and it would be quite a concern for them. So this is a measure that can have some benefit for those that don't have air conditioning. Steel wall next to the expressway, same kinds of problems as we see in point 2, almost identical, in this particular case, a steel wall . may in fact amplify the problem. Wood fence at the rim of the valley, again would be a visual screen and we do support that. Fund tax breaks for inconvenience, we don't know if that's even within our ability to do, I guess, precedents that are set for other projects around this city where construction does take place and those kinds of breaks don't occur comes to mind, so we're not recommending that. Deeding land to residents, in some cases you have a situation where the rear property yard line does not go all the way to the top of the valley slope and what you have is it goes part way towards that top, and then we own, for argument's sake, the last 5 or 10 metres, and the concern people have here is that we would come in, sometime in the evening or mid-morning to put a wall where they clearly don't want one and so I don't think we can rule out deeding or selling that land to the property owner, if Council wishes us to do that. They would obviously assume full responsibility for the land in taxation. Mitigation for homes not immediately adjacent to the expressway, the focus of noise assessment or impact assessment is typically on those whose backyard, rear outdoor living areas are exposed to the noise source. Others that are further away, we're not saying you won't hear it but there is very little we can do from a noise mitigation perspective for you. Compensation for those decreases in property values, as we pointed out, it's difficult to identify causal link between property values going up or down as a result of building a major roadway such as this. And then visual buffering for other residential property, this was an issue that was raised at the EIC meeting on the 10 th , and we're prepared to engage in a process whereby we can talk to the people to find out specifically what they think would help separate themselves from the roadway, and so we 're prepared to have those discussions. People on Glen Castle Drive is one area in particular, but we believe there may be others where people want us to sit down and talk. So in terms of recommendations, first, the Staff authorize backyard noise wall, now or later, or backyard landscaping, fencing and/or window air conditioner treatment. 2nd recommendation, that EIC receive and consider all landscaping, fencing or window air conditioning treatment, submitted by the property owner, based on a formal quote from a qualified contractor. That's been reviewed and commented on by Staff . c) that Staff offers to purchase property on willing buyer/willing seller basis, in instances where the effectiveness of a noise wall can be noticeably improved. This deals with the situation where you have, although it's not the majority, you have walls being wanted by one property owner, and then the one in the middle doesn't want it. Our concern is we're not going to build a noise wall unless we know it can be effective. So we have a gap between 2 property owners that want a noise wall. We feel we should be able to go and approach the property owner and see whether or not they would be prepared to sell us that home, cause then we can fill in the gap and therefore make the noise wall effective. Item d) the Staff be authorized to implement the process to select a noise mitigation option identified in item b. Effectively a letter that makes clear what it is that the City's prepared to do to help address the noise consequences and that's in Apx. B. And then, as mentioned previously, a process whereby we'll go and we'll talk to those people where we might be able to provide some additional visual buffering of their properties to the project and bring that back for Public Works Committee consideration.

Collins : I'm going to ask Mr. Orzel to come down before we open up to members of the committee. I just have a feeling that when we get into questions we're going to get into debate and Mr. Orzel's going to be sitting for quite some time, then I'll open it up to questions and comments from the committee. I have the speakers list of C. Merulla , Ferguson , so if you'll just hold it for a couple of minutes, Mr. Orzel, if you want to come down to the podium?

Ed Orzel : "My name is Ed Orzel. I'm a property owner on Garvey Cres. I'm also a barrister and solicitor. (end of tape side B) This all starts with the April 3 noise report and quite frankly on p. 20 it states between King St. E. and Queenston Rd., east side of Expressway . the City of Hamilton's preliminary feasibility study also indicates that barriers cannot be practically implemented in this area due to technical, administrative or economical concerns. So that when you start with a report that says that they can't do anything you have to be very suspect of the dog and pony show that comes to your door. Mr. Murray starts off by saying "barrier is warranted". When you say that, it's the exact opposite of what we've read in the report and it makes for an adversarial position. In that same report he is charged with coming up with alternatives where barriers do nothing for the rest of us. There isn't one alternative that you have seen on that presentation that came from the committee. Not one. Are they doing their job? Well, if they had longer arms they could pat themselves on the back. But, there isn't one recommendation there. All those recommendations came from residents and of all the 12 recommendations you only see one they're prepared to go with and that's the landscaping and perhaps the triple-glazed windows. They talk about the noise wall on the rim of the valley and so that you understand any of those properties the noise wall only affects within the shadow of the noise wall itself. So if you had a picnic table, you could sit behind there and the noise would be attenuated but 50 yards down, or 50 feet down where the house is located there is no attenuation of noise whatsoever and don't go to sleep with your windows open with the wall - your 6 or 7 foot wall. In the meantime, what good is a wall if it doesn't help the residents in the house. It's not there from a beauty aspect. The motto "more than a road" quite frankly from the standpoint of the people who came to these meetings, in what they heard, the motto is more a fiasco that affects them, because they get nothing from this except the detraction of their ravine lots and when you hear the noise attenuation (??,,,) the residents. When you see the magnification of the noise of 3 (dB) it magnifies I think 6 or 7 times. That's what they get. For what? And then you have somebody comes down and tells you that your ravine lot that you have owned for 50 or 60 years does not go down in value. When you have a highway, 130 yards from you, just below where we had a creek before, are you going to advertise 'ravine lot with highway'? Or is there some monetary value to this. And these are the things that have been pushed and forced on these people and there has got to be some solution. The people are not happy with what they have heard, they are not happy with the cooperation that we got from our committee. I am waiting over 2 months for a reply to a question that I asked. Still in the process. If it hadn't been for Mr. Collins coming onto the scene the residents would be totally in the dark. The information that they received is only that which the committee decided in their wisdom to tell us. And it varied from meeting to meeting, because I was there at each meeting. Now, we have heard something about we're willing to purchase your home and I've asked for the MOT (??.) 'willing buyer, willing seller' what is the value of a home? We've asked for that information. The only thing that we've heard from the committee was that if you have a wall on one side, wall on the other side, they might purchase the home in the centre to continue the wall. And what about all those other homes that are affected that you can't do anything for them. Where is that information. Why doesn't the committee come up with something like that. That's one of the questions that I've been asking in excess of 2 months. The whole process, and I'll limit my remarks, one of the other questions that I would put to the committee is in the report that I read. We have Dundonald, Parklands Dr., Armstrong Ave., Talbot Rd., Coronation Ave., were all listed as warranting noise walls but were not technically feasible. There have been no backyard meetings at these locations and I'm asking why not. I said I'd be brief. We trust that the committee here will consider us as resident taxpayers and do something for us. Listen to us, because certainly the committee was not listening to us.

Collins : Any questions to Mr. Orzel.? (no questions) Thank you Mr. Orzel.

Collins : Open up to question to Staff then we'll get into general discussion.

C. Merulla : to Mr. Murray . With respect to the questions that were presented, do you have a response to any or all of his (Ed Orzel) concerns?

Chris Murray : In terms of what the report says I think one has to make a distinction between when noise mitigation is warranted and when it's feasible. Clearly increases of the nature that are projected for the area that are outlined in this report are such that you have to look at whether or not you can in fact do something about it. Recognizing that these properties where we think that the most effective way of mitigating noise would be to build a barrier in the back yard of privately owned property. Questions of feasibility arise quickly as to whether or not people would want a barrier in their backyard and I guess b) where would you put it and how much living space would it leave for the person. We wouldn't build a barrier unless it had a noticeable benefit; we're not required to build a barrier unless it has a noticeable benefit and that's why we went to the backyards and met with people and of all the addresses that are listed in Apx. A, invitations were sent to all of those people asking them whether or not they were interested in having a backyard meeting so we could talk about noise mitigation, what we can and cannot do. So our concern wasn't whether or not noise mitigation was warranted, it was whether or not it was feasible, and if it's not feasible, people don't want it. What can you do? What's the alternative to it? That's basically what our report is trying to address.

Merulla : And with respect to the feeling that certain areas weren't organized for the meeting, what would the rationale for that be?

Murray : All the addresses, . that are listed in Apx. A were sent notifications requesting whether or not they'd be interested in having a backyard meeting to talk about the very issue we talked at 13 meetings about, so if there wasn't any response that would be the reason why we didn't meet, but -

Collins : Mr. Orzel's point was that there were streets that border the valley that weren't on the list.

Murray : Oh, are not on the list -

Collins : Coronation, Talbot -- .

Murray : Well, again, the properties that we contacted were the ones warranting mitigation, so in some cases, the increases in noise were such that we wouldn't need to do anything about it. In other words, if the increase in noise over the existing was less than 5 db then going in and putting a barrier in isn't basically warranted and isn't required. But we can, maybe the short answer, we can look at streets that he is suggesting that we should have investigated and I'll be able to conclude whether or not it was warranted, meetings were warranted. I can address that.

Merulla : Can I just have direction at this point to include amend part E, and state that in addition to Apx A at the beginning of that, to include Coronation, Talbot (interrupted by Collins )

Collins : ???. any other street that borders the valley .

C. Ferguson : (to Murray ) Is the issue noise or is it combined with sight?

Murray : The issue primarily is noise and what can you do about noise and there is some potential, if you could visually block out the noise source, recognizing that the noise itself is not having any effect, if you can visually obstruct the noise source that may help people cope with the increase in noise they are going to experience. This was something that was raised at the meetings. People were saying, you know, they would like us to pursue this option. We said repeatedly that by planting there wouldn't be any reduction in noise as a result 'cause you'd have to plant a fairly dense bush in order to have any appreciable or noticeable decrease in noise, technically speaking. But we viewed it that if it helps people cope with it then that's something worth pursuing.

Ferguson : How effective is a concrete wall beside the road. I understand the noise would hit the wall, go over the wall and come down, so how effective is a concrete wall right next to the road?

Murray : It'll depend on how high, -

Ferguson : 5 metres.

Murray : What you have to do is block, if you can see the traffic you can hear it. It's not like the QEW where you have a 5 metre wall that's beside a road and just on the other side of that wall are homes at the same level as the roadway. Our situation is obviously different. We have properties that are perched up on top that if you stand in the backyard and look down, you can see the traffic. If you can see the tops of the trucks then you're not having any mitigative benefit whatsoever from the wall. So the wall has to be sufficiently high in order to not see any of that traffic, and we believe that in many locations, a wall that is higher than 5-6 metres tall, which itself, just to reinforce a wall, to keep a wall like that standing in light of windloads and everything else, you're going to have to anchor it in ways that you don't normally anchor walls right now using H piles. It's height would vary if your objective was to block that eyesight, your viewing of the traffic, it'd be higher than 5 or 6 metres and then the question gets asked would the noise not still come over top. Of course it would. Would it really provide any real kind of benefit for those people who live adjacent to the road and we have some serious doubts about that. We could go into a detailed investigation of that and hire a consultant to do that but this was something that was discussed when the report was being written and no one thought it would be effective.

Collins : To be fair Councillor, the comments that I've heard, in addition to maybe noise attenuation and the issue, those people who are using the valley, who might be using the trails, or using the valley for some other purpose, their access to the highway itself, I believe the current proposal is chain link fence (is that correct - yes), and the issue that was raised dealt with access to the road, whether you're talking about people using the valley or animals that reside in the valley and the migration associated with those animals. So in addition to the noise issues those other matters came up, not necessarily related to the homes particularly, but those people who use the valley or anybody who lives in the neighbourhood, those are the issues that were raised.

Ferguson : The issue here is the whole ward as opposed to a casual visitor, is it?

Collins : It is, but the whole issue of why would you build a wall adjacent to a road, those are 2 other rationales that were used in addition to noise and esthetics.

Ferguson : The recommendation is to ??? on a one-off basis of these properties.

Murray : You might categorize it that way, yes, but the reason we're saying landscaping and fencing and glazed windows and air-conditioning is something each individual property owner could consider and then working with the contractor, could come up with an answer that would then come back to the committee and the committee would decide whether or not it wants to support it. It is a one-off, it puts some control back in the hands of the property owner.

Ferguson : Is there a parallel ??? is there a parallel with 403, ???.

Murray : Parallel in what sense?

Ferguson : I'm sorry - noise.

Murray : Where a property owner is perched over -

Ferguson : highway 20 - I don't know.

Murray : Not so much highway 20, 'cause I think the road is pretty much at grade with residences. 403, there might be something similar to this. We have a variation in property ownership here too. We have people who have lived here for several decades. In fact, around the time that the project was being considered even back in the '50's and then made part of the Official Plan in Hamilton in the '60's, so I think this is a unique situation that does warrant an approach that is a little different than what we would typically do. If I look at our expectations of developers when developing beside major roadways. It's not uncommon for their rear backyard facing windows to be glazed for that purpose. So I don't think it's unusual in that sense.

McHattie : .apologize, not able to be at the EIC meeting last week.trying to get a sense of potential costs in all this, because there are a number of options which range quite widely in costs, with all the mitigative options which you went through in your presentation, but there's also the potential toll outside for acquiring up to 102 homes, if that was the way it went. We've also heard about the potential for a lawsuit as well. We've had Mr. Orzel speak to that. I'm trying to get a sense of projected costs, depending on the options, and I realize that's difficult to do, but even just a range would help, and an idea of whether that money is already in the budget we've approved for the project or if this would be above and beyond. I guess that would depend which option we go with if there's some really expensive options which might be beyond what we've already envisioned in the budget. .I'm concerned about the timing of this as well. We approved a budget back a couple months ago and this seems to be an addition to that. So perhaps if I could ask that question first.

Murray : We did budget for walls through this area and so we're not - this isn't above and beyond unless of course the decision is to provide the non-barrier answers and come back later and provide the barrier. So we've budgeted for the barrier, the estimate is in the area of about $500 or $600 per metre, we're assuming a wall that is about 2-3 metres tall, so, you know, terms of round figures, somewhere in the order of $1.5 million.

McHattie : Thanks. I'm curious - concerned about the different takes on whether this is even going to have an impact whatsoever. I think the earlier report referred to by Mr. Orzel said there really isn't any options that truly dealt with the noise. I'm agreeing with that. I think, based on what you've said over the last couple minutes, there are not options that might make people feel better, they might not actually have much of an impact. .I'm exasperated by trying to deal with this point in the design of the road, and whether actually finding out now that the road is going to have quite significant impacts from the noise perspective and we're not able to deal with that. It sounds to me the only way to deal with this, in light of C. Ferguson 's questions and the difficulty of whether the barrier really makes a difference or not, even beside the road, in the problems with height, structural problems with that . Do we actually need to enclose the road, do we actually need to build a berm over the top of the road entirely and enclose the road, is that the only way, cost and all that stuff aside, is that really the only way, if we were really truly trying to mitigate the noise impacts. I could talk in a moment about the potential air pollution impacts as well, that I'm sure will be the next issue, the noise issue is here with us now. I looked at the ?Cole's? report and the ??? report and it talks about the air quality concerns, being the one thing that was talked about most at those meetings beyond the actual noise issue. So if we're into a similar discussion at a future meeting, about how we're going to deal with air pollution, how we're going to mitigate for that, I can't see any immediate answers to that, and whether the price of the road could actually increase significantly, this seems like a real possibility to me. I guess I'd like to ask what is the answer here. If we're really looking at mitigating the noise in the way that it should be to reduce the (dB) levels to something that's acceptable - are we looking at enclosing the road?

Murray : We, as part of the noise assessment study, approach the project the same way that MTO approaches its roadway projects and other municipalities approach theirs, in that they look at an open road and with the traffic on it, they project what the increases in noise levels would be for those people who, you know, are sensitive perceivers in close proximity to that road. So we approached it very much in a normal fashion. I don't recall of any of the impact assessment studies that I've ever done in the past, where entombing a road was seen to be a viable way of addressing noise impacts, and, you know, I guess in short to say would that mitigate the noise to acceptable levels. I mean, you'd have to study that, I don't know that it would, because then you'd have to vent, and I'm just, off the top of my head, you would have to if you're going to entomb a roadway 71/2 k. long, you would obviously have to have ventilation systems which generate noise in themselves, so you maybe creating, instead of a noise that moves, you'd have stationery noise problems, so we did not assess it. It's certainly something that, if it was an option, this Committee wanted us to pursue, we can look at it, but I doubt, based on my experience in impact assessment work and noise studies, that you would be mitigating it down to anywhere near what you have out there today.

McHattie : .It seems like the options we had before really don't solve the problem, they don't solve the noise problem, so we're left in a position where we have to do, you know, a really half-way job on this and the residents will still have the noise problems that they have today, will have when the road is begun, so it's really unfortunate. The other comment I would have, the sort of ad hoc approach that's been suggested where people fill out a form and everything comes to the Implementation Committee, sounds like a really wrong-headed approach. The Committee's going to have to decide whether it's a good idea or not to glaze the windows. The Committee has limited knowledge about the benefits of glazed windows or landscaping or fencing. And to do this on a hodge podge basis, certainly the noise is not going to be attenuated, if it's done in that way. And the Committee is going to be dealing with individual situations which seems incredulous to me, that we would follow that approach. So, I guess I just want to express the frustration with the road going in this particular place. It simply doesn't work. A full environmental assessment would have found that. It would have found that the air pollution problems which we'll hear about next, will also not be mitigated. I guess we'll let the process continue as it is but we're not going to have a very good solution. Bruckler : This certainly is a complex issue and the fact that it requires different approaches.Would we be in a situation some years down the road perhaps if there is discontent with the residents if we didn't proceed in some of the areas with the noise attenuation wall, or can we even speculate on that aspect?

Murray : I think the answer to your question was the response we got from some of the people that we met with and they said it's offensive maybe that a noise wall would be in their backyard. They'd like to wait to see the road open and traffic on it just to see exactly what it is they're dealing with, which of course would give them so idea, you know, of what the noise or sound levels would be. With roads, you know, as they do overtime, volumes do increase but certainly they would get an idea day 1 when it opens just what it is the change is all about. I think that' why they're saying if they want to forego the other options that we have already said we know don't work and that may help people to cope with it a bit better. That they would want us to pursue putting a wall in if it was effective at a later date. You know, it's one of these 'time will tell situations'.

Bruckler : I certainly think we want to cooperate with the residents because it will impact them. With respect to costing, would there be an upset limit because in some cases we might be looking at glazed windows, landscaping, perhaps a wall or no wall. So would we be dealing with an upset limit or would we be dealing with a one-off with each property?

Murray : That's your discretion. We thought about that, whether or not a ceiling would be appropriate and what ceiling would you propose for each property and that starts to become a question as to what is reasonable and fair. The intent here is to put in front of people options which they have some control over which do obviously have costs associated with it and we can look at those costs when they're brought forward to the Committee and the Committee can decide whether or not it's reasonable and fair to go forward with that work. So that is an option, to set an upset limit and just to stick to that but what you have in front of you does create some flexibility for a property owner to try and find something that works best for them.

Braden : First of all let me say that I'm pleased that this report came today. I don't normally like reports walked on . we're in a jackpot here and I'm sorry that every member of Council isn't here because to solve this problem is going to be tricky. So that's my opening comment . Everybody said, we know all the answers to all the problems for 20 years, just build it. Obviously we didn't have any of the answers to things like this and we've got no idea about the money. My first question to Chris is this: . What's our budget for dealing with all of the impacts that are sort of related to the expressway. So in other words, there's no sense talking about noise, because if you're going to . about noise, tomorrow I'm going to sue you for air. And so these things could balloon forever. So what's the volume of money we have to deal with impacts. If we talk about being within budget, we got to know about the numbers.

Murray : The budget that we're working on for completing the north-south portion of the project--

Braden : No, no, no, no. Not that. Not talking about building the road, we're talking about dealing with the neighbors, as the road impacts the neighbors.

Murray : If it's related to the neighbors, the 102 that we're talking about here, in the terms of the monies that have been set aside for, if everyone was to request a noise barrier, I think I said to C. Collins $1.5 million is a round figure. Braden: Can I just clarify that. Is that just noise, or could that be lifestyle and all the other stuff?

Murray: That's strictly the costs associated with the noise barrier. Braden : Just with noise. Is there another figure to deal with all of the other things, that aren't as easy to deal with as noise but are similar, i.e. developing allergies, lifestyle, all these other things that might be related to noise but may not be. In other words, view, does view have anything to do with noise? Is there a budget for those things, and if so, what is it?

Murray : Not for - we did not create a separate budget for buffering people from the roadway, although clearly a wall would provide a buffer.

Braden : Let's deal with the idea about the wall and/or landscaping and/or air conditioning. We need to have this in the open. What's our long term responsibility? For example we just had this one on QE. Who's going to rebuild that wall in 20 years? When the air seal goes in the triple glazing, who's going to pay for replacement of that glass? And the air conditioning, who's not only going to pay for the air conditioning, but who's going to pay for the energy to run the air conditioner? Presumably we got a view on that.

Murray: In terms of a wall going on the property, the responsibility would be ours, not only for putting it in, but long term. In terms of putting in glazed windows and air conditioning, it's a one time up front cost for that. In terms of the long term maintenance of it, it would not be our responsibility, nor are we suggesting it should be. In terms of the operation of an air conditioning unit, again, the increased hydro bills are not within the responsibility of the City.

Braden : Adjacent to the private homes into the land of the valley, where there is not going to be construction, is there a reason, presuming there's some, is there a reason we didn't start this planning 10 years ago, so that the trees now would have been of some size and the cost would have been minimal?

Murray : Certainly in 1997 we received approval for a process, and certainly in 1999 through to about 2002 there was some question as to whether or not the federal was right in their attempt to replant the project. That certainly put things on hold, which then, once that was resolved, we were able to finalize the reports and move forward with construction of the project. So, could we have spent the money on planting 10 years ago? Conceivably yes, but that would have been before any environment impact assessment work and design work was completed. We're at the point now where obviously, we're in construction and the final stages of detail design and contracting so this is the point in time where we have an opportunity to directly assess the consequences, look at the backyards to determine how best we build the wall, if we could, or was invited to, and then move forward from there.

Braden : If the present owner doesn't want the wall, and they're reluctant to sign up, there's no reason to sign off, they sell it in 3 years and the new owner says you got a responsibility to me. We start this thing up again and build the wall? And we're not talking about individuals, let's talk about a group. So how long are we going to deal with these kinds of additional costs?

Murray : I think the intent of Staff, is that if someone does not want the wall built on their property, then we need to recognize that, and so it's documented that there was a point in time in which the offer was made available and the decision of the property owner was to not accept it. And so whether that means registering on title or whatever means Council would have us do, we would do that, so that this doesn't become a perpetual discussion. So I mean our idea is certainly to try and resolve the issue to the extent we can right now, using, as I pointed out, barrier/non-barrier means and that those that want to put off the decision until later, until the project is open, that we would grant obviously that, but at some point in time, a decision has to be made and that would be reflected with the property.

Braden : I'm asking within a legal view, if you make an offer to me on property that I own and I don't want to accept it, I don't believe you can put anything on title to my property. We got a lawyer here and he's going to tell you that. I mean, as an owner who want to make money, I'm going to call the shots and you're not going to put restrictions on my property, so if you offer it to me for 3 years, I don't think (we can pay for that advice) that you can do that. And I'm not looking for free legal advice right here, but I want our lawyers to come forward and do that. I certainly would've thought that in my previous life if the city had tried to do that. We need that clarified. If I can keep going, you talked before and you talked to Committee and I appreciate this, but it's a bit ambiguous for us. Talked about the idea, we wouldn't build a wall unless there's a significant benefit. So can you give an idea, for instance, of what might be a significant benefit and what may not be. I'm not asking you to define, but give some range to say this is obviously a benefit and this is obviously not. If you were here earlier this morning you heard about the 10 (dB) increase and maybe making a 5 (dB) difference. If both of them make it unbearable to sit outside, I need you to tell me if you call that a significant benefit if you still can't use the property.

Murray : I'll just by way of example. You have an existing outdoor noise level right now of 55 dBa, and with the project, the projected increases 62dBa, which is an increase of 7. The decision on whether or not to put a barrier up, first, hinges on the issue of feasibility. If I were to put the barrier in, would I be able to generate any noticeable decrease in the sound level. In other words, a noticeable is over 3 dBa. O.K. And what you're trying to do is you're trying to work the existing, which in this example is 55, which is also conveniently, the standard one tries to achieve generally, certainly in an urban environment. So if you could, if you're studies told you that by putting in a barrier at its right location, you could experience a 5 dB decrease, which in this case would take you to 57. That is noticeable and you would move forward with that mitigation. If by placing a barrier you find that you are going to reduce it by say only 1 or 2 dB, which isn't noticeable, you wouldn't do it. OK. In the case of a stretch of homes where some want the barrier, maybe 1 or 2 in the middle don't, the holes in the wall would render the wall ineffective, generally. And so that's why you would approach those people and ask whether or not they'd be interested in selling. We're not intending here, obviously, to expropriate anyone in order to build a wall. So if they refuse to, and you're left with very little that you can do from a noise attenuation perspective to benefit those people. That's why, I think, we have the other options that we're trying to offer people that in some way, shape or form try to address the situation. This is what we heard, but we made clear that we don't see them as really doing anything for the outdoor backyard noise environment.

Braden : With regard to just the noise, is one of the options simply to give people money. Say, we can't help you, we're going to give you $10,000?

Murray : That was mentioned. Staff are not recommending that.

Braden : . We had a member of Staff with a comment at the Committee that said, something like, you know, there's not proof that this kind of thing is going to lower property values. That's just too annoying for anyone professionally to say that comment because in fact we know it's not true, and it only has to be true in one instance to make it misleading. So I'm suggesting professionally, that we be very careful about that comment. In what C. McCarthy said, in talking about the quarry, I assure you that property values ??? are now down. In this case, the guy with the pool, whether he has a view now or later, or whether he has a wall, clearly, you pay for what you get. The last thing I want to say is, we can't go in this with hodge podge stuff. We can't go in this just with noise. There's a lawyer out there. We gotta go in with the whole picture, otherwise this process is going to entertain us for 10 years and bankrupt us - I'm exaggerating with that word "bankruptcy". But we don't want to make this a make work project for city Staff . We don't want to just solve the noise problem, then deal with the allergy problem, and then deal with something else. We gotta see the whole picture, we gotta solve it once. So the hodge podge things reminds me of how we deal with developers. You know, we got sustainable development, we got Vision 2020, we deal with everybody one way, and then 3 other developers we deal with differently. We ought to know that by now. We gotta deal with people straight up, the whole picture, straight up front, and, we gotta know if we can afford it. I just can't believe $1.5 million ??? for what. So what I asked the Committee, and what I ask you sir, we need to know what the parameters are, timing, what we're prepared to pay, how many houses we're prepared to build. I would ask you sir, please, give us maps to show, with colours or something, who's really affected, something that a person who doesn't know the area well, can get, so when I look I can see all the red dots are people that you can't build a wall, you got a real issue, and maybe the pink dots are the people that a noise wall might help. But we need to see what this problem looks like, and I believe you have that information. So I would ask that you get us something that's helpful for us so we can understand the extent of this. . It's just so maddening to hear of such a big problem, and we were pretending for the last 15 years that this thing was all fine. Thank you.

Mitchell : Following along the lines of C. Braden , I want to say that our Staff have done an awful lot of work on this and it wouldn't really matter where this road was goin', you'd have a whole lot of similar problems when it comes to noise and noise barriers. I know the Staff are trying to keep this recommendation as open as they can, so in the future the neighbours that live there have all the flexibility we can possibly give them. But that doesn't necessarily mean that's the absolute right way to go. Personally, I think I'd rather prefer to know, as C. Braden said, where is it feasible to put up the berms and the trees. If you could put up a berm and the trees, that should be the first choice, and do that everywhere you can. That is feasible and it makes sense. Then the next choice would be, from that grouping of people, whether you just wanted a visual tree barrier or not as we saw on some of the slides. On those slides, we saw given areas where the noise was going to be affected and decisions had to be made on each one of those given areas. Some of those can't have a berm and trees; some of those could have a wall; some of those can't have a wall. And have our Implementation Committee try to make those decisions, and not have it come down to one person wants a wall, one person wants a visual barrier, one person wants a berm, because we're not gonna get anywhere in that scenario. It's kind of like layout the guidelines by the committee, and if you can do it in a certain fashion, your first choice is this, that's what we want, berm and trees, 2 nd choice something else, 3 rd something else. Take it and the people have that choice. You can't have everybody individually havin' a say here. So I think the Staff have worked incredibly hard so far. I'd like a little more information as C. Braden mentioned too. Those philosophies Chris, because we must know that on those different points on your slide, where the red shows where we had to have noise reduction, what we can and can't do, because each one's different. So I'd like to see that report please.

Merulla : I have to disagree very strongly with the previous 2 speakers only a simplistic view, if you look at this and say one size fits all. Clearly it doesn't, as many other issues that we deal with around this table on a regular basis. The only concern at this particular meeting of council should be bottom line. So whether or not $5000 buys a wall or buys windows or air conditioning is really irrelevant, so long as we don't exceed whatever that amount is, so at the end of the day what we should be doing is trying to empower the neighbourhood, not disempower them by imposing not only a highway, which I am sure these people didn't want, but also imposing what the solution should be on their behalf. What that does, it just ties in to the whole perception that we're not listening. I have to commend Staff on their efforts here. It isn't a one size fits all; it's not simplistic, it's very complex, but at the end of the day, allow individual residents to determine where that money should be allocated, as long as it doesn't exceed a certain amount, which I concur with C. Braden . Why would we impose on them not only the highway but how they should be dealing with the issues which could be over and above noise issues . We're dealing with odour issues, visual issues as well, allow the residents to determine what that is and I'll move this report quite strongly.

Bruckler : I think I'm somewhat in the middle of the road in this one. .If we allow total flexibility, it's a little difficult for the committee to make a determination as to what might work best in what situation. So if we could get some .uniformity in certain areas, and still maybe give the residents a choice. .Looking at the plan, see what might work best in certain situations and then perhaps giving some choice within that range, as opposed to a wide-open range that may not be a benefit to the residents and an additional waste of money for the community. How you work that into a resolution, I'm not quite sure.I think that would be my preference.

Whitehead : Just a couple questions of Staff . (audiotape turned to side D)

Murray : It's measured over a 24 hour period. The example that I used was just an example at the very beginning. I did indicate what the noise increase would be. The range is from the mid 50's to 70, depending on where you are situated, relative to the road and the volume of traffic on the road.

Whitehead : The ambient sound that currently exists is being measured (Murray: Yes). Now the ambient sound could be different from one household to another.

Murray : .It depends on what noise sources are in the area. If you look, say, towards the area of Greenhill, where you are some distance away from the Linc and still some distance from King, which carry a fair bit of traffic, you have a fairly quiet area. As you start to approach the QEW, you have that dominant noise source which is the QEW and that tends to affect the ambient noise level in your backyard. It varies from one end to the other.

Whitehead : Understanding families and how they enjoy life.have we done any determination analysis of the periods of time when a family normally likes to enjoy their yards, evenings, weekends, what the ambient sound noise would be there. On top of that you have shift workers.I'm trying to understand the quality of life issues. I heard you talk about the wall - the wall under certain circumstances would work, provided the whole community buys into it. . Do we understand noise abatement and is there a process we can go into, an option, we can look at for individual house owners, if in fact that's the road we end up going down? .Is there any knowledge of what we can do to assist the individual house owners as opposed to one fits all?

Murray : The modeling approach that we followed was the one that was prescribed by the Min. of Transportation and Environment through it's protocol. The specific model we used was laid out in the exemption order which was submitted to the province back in 1996 and approved 1997. So that kinda specifies how we go about assessing the noise. It doesn't get as specific as what you're saying, what would the ambient or the projected noise be at 5 o'clock in the morning for this resident vs. that resident . not that level of detail. .One size fits all comment, I think what the report's trying to do .is avoid the one size fits all. The alternatives, if you look at the back of the report, if there's outright rejection for the wall in the majority of instances, I mean technically speaking, you don't need to do more than stop right there. Those that want it, we'll provide it . those that don't want it, we can stop there. That would be it. We've come up with these other options which, again recognizing they don't do anything from a noise reduction perspective, they do help people cope with the potential situation, and so that's why we recommended them, and it's a personal choice, not imposing anything in terms of landscaping on them, what types of trees they must have, or where they plant them.it's something they can decide for themselves and bring back to the committee and then Staff would comment on what's being proposed. So we're trying to create flexibility.it's not a simple situation. We're trying to propose a process here whereby people can make decisions for themselves.

Whitehead : The other question I have is What kind of follow up will be done, once the expressway is built, in understanding the real impacts vs. the perceived, what is "guessed" impacts, relative to noise?

Murray : Monitoring, just to see how effective the mitigation has been, whether the walls produced the kind of reduction that was expected. .I understand there was assessment done (referring to the Linc), in fact the walls along that area in some cases, did provide more benefit than what was projected. The answer is monitoring.

Whitehead : If what has been proposed, or what has been implemented, does not provide what was expected, what is their recourse, is there a contingency plan?

Murray : If you're speaking about the noise wall, within the realm of possibility, could the noise wall not produce a measurable benefit. .One thing to think about when you look at impact projection work, one area that's had a fair bit of experience in the accuracies is in the area of noise impact assessment mitigation. We believe if it's warranted in an area and we believe that building one will provide a benefit, typically we can prove that. In terms of the other alternatives we're talking about here, whether the visual barriers, the buffers help people cope better with the project, that's an area that you don't see too often done. We could follow up to see whether or not it does provide some benefits, but recognizing again that it won't do anything to reduce noise.

Whitehead : Where I was leading is that not just noise statement, but any issue that may impact on the immediate residents. My concern - if there's real impacts that were not understood before the expressway was built, I want to understand what the recourse is for those residents, relative to working with the City to solve those issues. Is there going to be a contingent fund in place to address those kinds of issues - potentially?

Murray : I'm not sure where it is that we haven't assessed, I'm not sure where it is that we're not trying to mitigate. Maybe I just don't understand the question.

Whitehead : i.e. I do grading issues. I have engineers signing on for grading issues because it's supposed to work. But then what's supposed to work doesn't work. In development, we hold back dollars and securities that can help mitigate those kinds of issues. I'm asking you, what kind of contingency are we going to have in respect to funding if things don't work the way we expect them to work?

Murray : There are contingencies built into the budget of contractors in the event something doesn't go as planned.there is money in the budget to fix the problems. In terms of noise mitigation, there isn't a contingency if the noise wall doesn't work, for good reason. We generally believe.that where's it's warranted and you do put it in, there is a notable decrease, not always to the level that it was before; in many cases it's not. We can't mitigate for peak sounds such as horns blasting, or anything like that. . We don't have a contingency for noise walls if they're not as effective as we think.

Whitehead : Thank you. The last question is, a little off the topic, but I'm curious of where we're at in terms of getting a settlement with the federal government for the lawsuit.

Murray : We've not taken the final formal legal proceedings yet with the federal government. That's something that time's not run out on; if it's something Council wants to pursue obviously we can. We can bring back a report ASAP if you wish to highlight exactly where we are with respect to that matter, and what's been attempted in order to recoup monies that have been spent by the City dealing with that whole process and we could get a recommendation from you to move forward with legal proceedings if you wish.

Whitehead : Thank you.

Collins : There are no further speakers on my list other than myself, I'm going to ask C.Mitchell to take the Chair, while I get to say a few words.

(Mitchell takes Chair).

Collins : I want to emphasize one of the points made by the delegation Mr. Orzel today. We visited the homes along the valley and asked for the input of those people who live there. What you see before you today.is a result of, as Mr. Orzel stated, what residents had offered up and suggested as alternatives or in addition to any that many come in the future. I was going to suggest this morning that we look at costing the issue of a wall within the valley and coming back to Council or Committee sometime in the future and debating that. That was an issue I think, we heard on every single street, whether it's the noise mitigation issues, which C. Ferguson had in some of his questions, or whether it dealt with animal migration or recreational users in the valley. It's still an issue that's unresolved and I think that needs to come back. It's not addressed here in the recommendations. It was highlighted at the EIC meeting and I would ask, as I'm the Chair, that somebody move that in my stead. As another option we come back with that. So you would have an issue where we have actually solicited input from the residents. I understand some of the concerns that have been raised, but I ask that you don't let your politics of the project hold us back from making some progress with people who live in the area. So I know we have split and divergent opinions on whether in favour or against the project, but I think what we've heard from those people who have been involved in meetings and those people who presented, not only at the Implementation Committee, but Mr. Orzel's comments here today. We've heard quite clearly that we were looking for some options other than the wall and on most streets people were saying it's not feasible, from an esthetic standpoint it's going to look terrible, we don't know what the noticeable increase is going to be, perceptually or in reality, until the road actually opens. So let's leave the issue of the wall until the road's actually open. In place of that, in the interim, don't forget construction is underway as we speak, and we have 2-3 years growing opportunity if we are to start our landscaping plan and other iniatives at this time. There are opportunities to make some progress, and it's not discounting some of the unresolved issues we have, and that's exactly why we have an Implementation Committee. And I don't think Chris is suggesting that we come forward with every single household and say here is the plan, we need the Committee to approve that. I think what he's saying is the expressway committee will be the body who deals with appeals. And so if someone comes forward with something that Staff may consider unreasonable, then it would come to that committee for some discussion. In my discussions with those residents is, looking to abuse this process.understanding there is some concern about the bottom line, people honestly come forward and say here's what I'd like to see in lieu of the wall in the interim, and so to suggest that someone might try to take advantage of that I'm saying that won't happen, but I think to say to start off on that foot, really, it's one step forward and two steps back, if we're going to start with that kind of mistrust when we're trying to actually build some kind of communication lines with those people who are going to be affected by the project. So I'm in favour of this, in fact, I think there should be more recommendations added to this. As I said, if we could have someone move that staff report back on the cost of installing the wall, adjacent to the road, for the road through the valley, I would appreciate that. We have to take into account C. Merulla 's amendment that deals with the other streets that Mr. Orzel and others have mentioned at the sub-committee level, that we won't discount them in the future in regards to possibly looking at other mitigating factors, and that would be added to part E. I don't feel comfortable with some of the words that are in part A & B. It says 'or backyard landscaping, fencing or air conditioning window treatment'. I think the consensus was it was 'and/or', so that a range of options are going to be available, instead of just one option. So if I can offer that as my suggestions as to where we go in moving forward. I understand there will be some differences of opinion. I would put those forward if someone could move them.

Mitchell (acting Chair): Moved by C. Jackson , seconded by C. Ferguson on the amendment that C. Collins presented. All in favour. Carries.

(Collins returns to Chair).

Collins : C. Merulla had a motion, an amendment to part D, in addition to Apx. A that staff investigate the possibility of visually buffering other residential areas from the expressway portion of the road and so forth, and I think the example we gave was Glen Castle, but that would include, I think, the list that Mr. Orzel presented earlier: Talbot, Brookstream - . I think staff are aware of what other streets border and they would come back to the committee if we are expanding the list in the Apx. A.

McCarthy : My concern with this is that we ultimately bump the price of these mitigative measures if we're suggesting a wall and other mitigative measures. So without a decision coming forward in terms of commitment, can we have a costing of what that would be before any approval is granted?

Murray : The question, so that it's clear, what would the cost be of the noise wall plus these other options per property? Obviously, I can't give you an accurate -

McCarthy : As long as the costing comes back that analyzes that for us before any decision is made because just the debate around the table here has bumped up the cost, obviously - I would probably say double, because you suggested $1.5 million in lieu of that wall, and now we're looking at a wall and other mitigative measures. Are we now looking at $2.5 million? So I'm just concerned that we don't ultimately keep escalating the price of -

Collins : If we could have that before Council, as I said, time is the issue because construction has started and the residents are looking to move on some of these initiatives. That's why we had this added on as a 'walk on' as C. Braden mentioned originally. We wanted to beat the summer schedule that we have, so if you don't mind that coming back for Council rather than holding up the report. Chris, that's possible to have it before Council?

Murray : We'll try and get something together.

Mitchell : They're moving a lot of dirt down there and the goal of that group was to keep any dirt in the area so you didn't have to bring it in, you could use all that was there. Do we have berms and tree plantings proposed now in certain places?

Murray : We do. The Glen Castle area, for example, is one. We have a road incut and right beside it is a berm that will be landscaped.

Mitchell : I guess my point, and I am sure staff are doing that, in places where a berm fits because it can fit and it's gonna benefit neighbours and everybody, I'd like to think that we can get to that position and get to that process soon. So that we can have that dirt moved there affordably.as quickly as possible.

Collins : Mr. Orzel, before we move on?

Mr. Orzel : Because a couple of questions were asked. I know the price of my lot, for a 2 metre wall is 15,000 to 20,000. That's just one lot, it's not an oversized lot, it's 65 feet wide. That's neither here nor there. But when I hear a $1.39 million budget, I'm somewhat shocked, because the majority of the properties, from a noise attenuation standpoint, cannot be brought within provincial limits. We are not even going into the particulate pollution which may come later. You're asking what it's going to cost you? If there's 102 properties that cannot be attenuated, down the line you're looking at 102 lawsuits for injurious affection. So when you think in terms of the budget, is there recourse for these residents? Yes, there is recourse. People who have owned this property, such as my self since '56, are they there to accept a noise level that cannot be attenuated? I don't think so, and I don't think our courts do either. So keep that in mind.

Collins : Thank you Mr. Orzel. I've a mover in C. Merulla , seconded by C. Jackson, and of course that is as amended here this morning. All in favour?

C. Braden : (speaks w/o mic)

Collins : That's fine, Councillor. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favour, opposed, Carries. Thank you. Thank you for those people who showed up and waited patiently this morning.

Continue to Part 3