Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 2011) CITY RESPONSE (October 2012) RESPONSE outlined in the City’s design guide, which is consistent with Policy 11.45 of the Conformity Amendment. In addition to the above the City requests that the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing Reports provide provisions for operation and maintenance requirements, specifically as it relates to maintenance access requirements. City staff have, through the review of the SWM Matrices (Appendix B6-B), identified 18 stormwater management facilities (out of the 60 proposed facilities) which alternative locations, or additional facilities may be warranted for consideration. Concerns with these facilities may be associated, but not limited to the following; Geotechnical, Major System flow direction, Operation and Maintenance, etc. A detailed list of concerns associated with the proposed SWM facilities is provided in Appendix B. Please note that City staff still have significant concerns associated with erosion of watercourses which have no current defined channel, have existing erosion issues, or are classified as gully systems. City staff has identified 17 watercourses of concern (Appendix C), where erosion may potentially occur, regardless of the level of SWM controls. City staff would like to work proactively with representatives from TRCA, MNR, and the SLG to address this issue. In addition to the issues identified above, the City has concerns with the requirements to maintain water balance to some of the headwater drainage features identified in the MESPA. A majority of these features should be considered Gully systems, or systems with no defined channel, where erosion will be an issue due to the mitigation measures proposed. Details related to the City’s concerns, and recommendations for the mitigation measures have been provided in Appendix D. The Annotated Table of Contents, which sets out the scope of work required for the NFSSRs, has been revised to reference the City’s “Stormwater Management Design Guidelines” and identify the need for maintenance access for SWM facilities. The concerns for each SWM facility have been reviewed and responses provided as Appendix B to these comments. Please note that the analysis presented in the MESPA is a high level review of the location for SWM facilities and that more detailed analysis of geotechnical, major system flow direction, pond configuration and operation and maintenance design considerations will take place as part of the NFSSRs. Each of the 17 watercourses of concern have been reviewed and a response provided as Appendix C to these comments. This has been incorporated into the MESPA in Chapter B Section 10.5. The City’s concerns regarding headwater drainage features have been reviewed and a response provided as Appendix D to these comments. Additional discussion of the proposed mitigation measures for augmentation to headwater drainage features is presented in Chapter B Section 10.5. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION J2.0 Appendix J2 Chapter B, Section B10.0 Provincial Responsibilities Although the MESP provides a recommended stormwater management plan for Seaton, there is no discussion on the role of the Province regarding longterm operations and maintenance of stormwater management facilities within the Natural Heritage System (NHS). It is further complicated by the fact that until all future impacts are known, the need for additional easements from the Province to mitigate the impacts cannot be determined. Any potential impacts on these lands such as increased flooding, erosion, residual impacts on the aquatic system due to increased runoff volumes, decreased baseflow, thermal instability, water quality, etc. must be reviewed and approved by the Province. We concur with TRCA that an overall approach to provide the appropriate mitigation/ compensation for direct impacts (i.e. crossings, changes in flow regime) should be developed in consultation with TRCA, Region and the Province. The role of the province was discussed at the MESPA/NFSSR Coordination meeting (February 17 th , 2011). Comment noted. City staff are unclear as to how the response provided addresses the City’s concern. City staff are requesting clarification/direction from the province for the following; • Given that the CPDP is a provincial plan, the province will need to provide final signoff on impacts to the NHS, specifically as it relates to the presence of endangered species. • Clarify the City’s role and responsibility for addressing future impacts to the NHS, specifically as it relates to municipal drainage being directed to the NHS (i.e. stormwater management, feature based water balance). • To ensure success of the SWM plan the MNR needs to be involved at this stage of the process. If MNR’s involvement is left to the detailed design phase of the process, then there will be less viable options for mitigation. In addition under the Planning A meeting between TRCA, MNR and the City took place on November 7, 2012 where the topic of management of infrastructure in the NHS was discussed. As discussed at this meeting and outlined in an email from OILC dated January 31, 2012, the Province does not have a role regarding the long-term operations and maintenance of stormwater management (SWM) facilities, including Low Impact Development (LID) measures, constructed within the Natural Heritage System. These SWM facilities and LID measures will be constructed by the Private Developers, based on approved design by all of the appropriate authorities, and after a specified operating maintenance period that satisfies the Municipality, responsibility for the facility will be with that Municipality. The Province has identified that it will provide to the Municipality an Exclusive Easement for the Chapter H, Appendix H15-D The Sernas Group Inc., Stonybrook Consulting Inc. December 2011, Revised February 2013 Master Environmental Servicing Plan - Amendment SPL Beatty, Bird and Hale Limited, Earthfx Inc. 07161 Seaton Community, City of Pickering AMEC Earth & Environmental, R.J. Burnside Appendix A7 – Page 5 Amos Environment + Planning
COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 2011) CITY RESPONSE (October 2012) RESPONSE Act MNR is the only agency with the official power to comment on impacts to the NHS. City staff request MNR involvement through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, through the “one window” planning approach. purpose of ownership/stewardship of the facility that will also provide unfettered access to the SWM facility/LID measures REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION 2012 Duffins Creek Hydrology Update (NEW COMMENT) It is the City’s expectations that the SLG will respect the results of the Hydrology Update, as well as implement the recommended level of stormwater management controls. Specifically, water quantity controls in the form of Unit Rates are being developed for the Seaton area. Based on preliminary assessments, stormwater management controls will be required for all sub-watersheds including unnamed tributaries of the West Duffins Creek and the Whitevale Creek, with the minimum level of control being the 2 to 100 Post to Pre. level of control. Specific to the Seaton development, drainage directed to the main branch of the West Duffins Creek will not require quantity control. Durham Regions CPDP Environmental Assessment (NEW COMMENT) City staff has significant concerns related to the lack of coordination between the SLG and the Region. Related to stormwater management, the intention was for Regional infrastructure to drain to development ponds, as needed and where technically feasible. There are a number of issues related to Regional infrastructure and the stormwater management plan for Seaton, specifically; • How major system flows will be directed to SWM facilities, where a Regional road bisects the catchment area. • How many additional ponds will be required to address Regional Rd. drainage only? • Who will be responsible for assessing the impacts of Region’s swm plan (specifically erosion control), where a specific, Region only, pond or SWM measure is required? In all instances SWM facilities required to address the Regions drainage will be responsibility of the Region, not the City. As noted above, the results of the 2012 Duffins Creek Hydrology Update have been incorporated into Chapter B, Section B5.1. Further analysis has been completed as part of this MESPA with regards to implementation of the 2012 Duffins Creek Hydrology Update SWM criteria for Whitevale Creek. This analysis is presented in Chapter B Section 5.3. Coordination with the Region with respect to SWM facilities and Regional road drainage has been/will be undertaken through the NFSSR design process. Each NFSSR will identify which Regional Roads will drain to which SWM facility and which roads require on-site SWM controls. This has been included in the revised Annotated Table of Contents for the NFSSRs which is presented in Chapter J, Appendix J2. With respect to the specific comments, the following response is provided: • This will be avoided where possible; however, if this is not possible, the proponent (land developer) will have to adhere to the Region’s design criteria with respect to major system flows across Regional roads and accommodate the major system drainage either by capturing and conveying by storm sewer or ensuring the road is adequately designed to accommodate the drainage. • No additional ponds will be required to address Regional Road drainage. All road drainage will be directed and accommodated by the proposed SWM facilities wherever possible. Should this not be possible, on-site controls for quality and erosion will be required and the closest SWM facility will be required to over-control to provide the necessary quantity controls. Direction on Regional Road drainage and SWM facilities has been provided in Chapter D Section D3.4. • As noted above, Region only ponds will not be required. For on-site controls, the Region will be required to meet the SWM criteria outlined in this MESPA for quality, erosion and water balance. The potential impacts have therefore been assessed through this MESPA. Chapter B Section 5.3. Chapter D, Section D3.4 Part B – Specific Comments • Water Balance and Groundwater Modelling (Section 4.0) The mitigation strategy of disconnected roof leaders to ground needs to be confirmed against municipal standards. The City’s development standards require that lots with frontages of 12m or less must have connected downspouts. As such, areas with frontage less than 12m should not be accounted for in the mitigation strategy of roof leaders to ground. Rather, high density areas should convey their roof drainage via a clean water collector to a centralized infiltration facility on public For the purposes of the PRMS model, assumptions with respect to LID measures were made. This included an assumption that roof leaders from residential areas would be disconnected to maximize infiltration. The model actually calculates the runoff from the cells of the impervious surface and then transfers it to a pervious surface where it infiltrates. Hence the model captures the process that occurs whether the roof leaders are disconnected and the water infiltrates on the lawn or Acknowledged, the City’s SWM design guidelines are clear as to when disconnected roof leaders is appropriate. NFSSR’s will clarify the type of LID measure to be recommended for the development area. The 2011 MESPA modelling included disconnected rear yard roof leaders for low and medium density residential lots. It was assumed that 25% of the roof area would drain to the front directly connected to the storm sewer system. The remaining 75% would discharge to the rear yard. The City’s criteria with respect to mandatory directly connected roof leaders for lots with Chapter B4.7 The Sernas Group Inc., Stonybrook Consulting Inc. December 2011, Revised February 2013 Master Environmental Servicing Plan - Amendment SPL Beatty, Bird and Hale Limited, Earthfx Inc. 07161 Seaton Community, City of Pickering AMEC Earth & Environmental, R.J. Burnside Appendix A7 – Page 6 Amos Environment + Planning
Page 1 and 2: CHAPTER A - INTRODUCTION 1.0 STUDY
Page 3 and 4: of alternatives for the arterial an
Page 5 and 6: These MESP study requirements were
Page 7 and 8: ownership of the Province. Lands ou
Page 9 and 10: Within the MESP Study Area, Ganatse
Page 11 and 12: hydrology for erosion and flood con
Page 13 and 14: It is important to note that the ME
Page 15 and 16: projects are considered pre-approve
Page 17 and 18: Table A9.2 provides a summary of th
Page 19 and 20: the Environment for Part II Order r
Page 21 and 22: • Takes into account externally p
Page 23 and 24: YORK DURHAM LINE SIDELINE 32 NORTH
Page 25 and 26: COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 20
Page 27: COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 20
Page 33 and 34: Area Parks over 4 hectares Parks 4
Page 41 and 42: COMMENT It is noted that the first
Page 43 and 44: COMMENT dispersed in terms of date.
Page 45 and 46: COMMENT Staff agrees with this reco
Page 47 and 48: species.” COMMENT GHD should furt
Page 49 and 50: COMMENT RESPONSE REPORT CHAPTER AND
Page 51 and 52: COMMENT was endorsed by City Counci
Page 53 and 54: COMMENT 3. Highway 7 Widening - Thi
Page 55 and 56: COMMENT 4. Section 4.0 - Phase 2 Re
Page 57 and 58: COMMENT • Section 3.0, last sente
Page 59 and 60: COMMENT Reg”, should be removed.
Page 61 and 62: RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS SWMF LOCA
Page 67 and 68: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
Page 79 and 80:
Comments in white are satisfied. Co
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103:
show all

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?