Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 2011) CITY RESPONSE (October 2012) RESPONSE comment within the MESPA related to potential conflict between the pond, and Regional infrastructure. If conflicts are deemed a concern by City staff, from an operations and maintenance perspective, and alternative pond location may be required. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Archaeological Assessment Required The number of dots in this column indicates the level of archaeological assessment required for the site. Given that Pond 46B requires a Stage 4 Archaeological Assessment it seems very likely that this will not be a suitable site for a pond. The location of SWMF #46B has no implications with respect to Archaeological Assessment. All archaeological assessments have been completed with the exception of SWMF #2, 24 and 30. These investigations will be completed as part of the NFSSR work. No further concerns. No response required. Chapter B Appendix B6 Competing Land Uses for the Pond Block Sites with known competing land uses, not including those due to the Region of Durham’s Class Environmental Assessment for Regional Services in the City of Pickering and the floodplain, should protect for an alternative pond location. This includes Ponds 2 and 15. Furthermore, as Pond 1 is not located in Seaton and has extensive issues with respect to the servicing for this facility and potential groundwater contamination from the landfill, an alternative location for the pond must be provided. SWMFs 1 and 2 have been relocated. With respect to the location for SWMF15, there is adequate space to accommodate this SWMF and the proposed GO Station Site. This use will require stormwater treatment and the proposed SWMF location is appropriate. No further concerns. No response required. Chapter B Appendix B6 • Stormwater Management Plan (Section 8.0) A detailed review of the recommended SWM plan in the MESP has indicated that the type and location of the best management practices (BMP’s) have not been selected with consideration for the NHS, future operations and maintenance requirements or safety as required in the CPDP. As seen in Appendix A of our letter, there are several issues that have been identified with respect to the viability of the pond location shown in the MESP. For example, 59 of the 69 ponds will require a liner due to high groundwater elevations, 42 of the 69 ponds will outlet to intermittent streams, 32 of the 69 ponds have grade differences of 5m or greater across their pond blocks and 59 of the 69 ponds will require special considerations for a safe and secure outlet. Due to these issues there are serious concerns around the location, type and feasibility of the BMPs that are being recommended in the MESP and how the site selection process conforms with the intent of CPDP. An evaluation of alternatives and a comprehensive SWM/LID strategy have been prepared and presented in the MESPA. In addition and as discussed at various meetings with the agencies and incorporated into the agreed-upon Table of Contents for the NFSSRs, further analyses of LID measures will be undertaken in the NFSSRs. The Annotated Table of Contents prepared for the NFSSRs and presented in Chapter J, Appendix J2, of the MESPA outlines the requirements for a stormwater cost analysis. No further information is presented in the MESPA. No further concerns. No response required. Chapter J Appendix J2 In addition, the preferred stormwater management strategy has not been selected based on the financial implications of long term maintenance requirements of these BMPs for the City. Future maintenance costs were not considered or included in the evaluation of the SWM alternatives, and there was no discussion or analysis of this in the MESP. Life cycle costs need to be completed to make the best informed decisions on the preferred stormwater management strategy. This cradleto-grave timeframe is warranted because future costs associated with the 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 15 Amos Environment + Planning
COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 2011) CITY RESPONSE (October 2012) RESPONSE use and ownership of the asset are often greater than the original design and construction costs and may vary significantly between alternative solutions. The CPDP’s Servicing goal was quite clear in its specific objective of minimizing life cycle costs. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION The experience of GTA municipalities has been that the continued operations and maintenance of end-of-pipe facilities is a significant financial and environmental liability for the municipality. This issue is imperative to the City of Pickering as the 69 proposed end-of-pipe facilities is an enormous addition to our existing stormwater management infrastructure (an increase of approximately 350% of the number of ponds than are currently present in the municipality). Furthermore, the current state of stormwater management practice is to use preventative and distributed approaches to managing stormwater through source and conveyance control measures with end-of-pipe facilities only being considered when all other options have been exhausted. Additionally, from a municipal operations standpoint, how the different types of stormwater management facilities are maintained varies greatly. Maintenance of LID type facilities can be accomplished by current operations staff, whereas, stormwater management pond cleanouts are very time consuming, require an extensive approval process including expertise that the City would have to retain through outside services. Chapter C – Transportation COMMENT RESPONSE REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Steeles Avenue East “A 1992 Municipal Engineer’s Association (MEA) Class Environmental Assessment (MEA Class EA) study of Steeles Avenue East between the Durham Boundary and McCowan Road, approved a widening of Steeles Avenue East to four lanes and allowed the City to undertake various improvements alone.” This section of the MESPA refers to a 1992 Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class Environmental Assessment (MEA Class EA) study of Steeles Avenue East between the Durham Boundary and McCowan Road, which approved a widening of Steeles Avenue East to four lanes. Additionally, the Durham-Toronto-York Transportation Study also recommended widening of Steeles Avenue East from 2 to 4 lanes in the short term. City staff recognizes that the Steeles Avenue East is outside of the Seaton boundary, however there is a critical need to widen Steeles Avenue East between Markham Road and Durham boundary to accommodate future traffic needs of Seaton. The MESPA document does not include any recommendation to widen Steeles Avenue. Therefore, City staff recommends that the recommendation for widening of Steeles Avenue be included in the document. This section of the report records previous reports and studies and is not an appropriate location for our comments and recommendations. Steeles Avenue is discussed in more detail in the October 2012 SSIS. The ultimate timing for the widening of Steeles Avenue west of the York-Durham border will be the subject of additional study to be completed as a condition of development beyond Phase 1 of Seaton if the widening is not advanced before Phase 1 is substantially built out. Funding of the project will require inter-governmental and agency agreements to be completed which is beyond the scope and Terms of Reference for this MESPA. Chapter C1.3.2.1 MEA Class EA Requirements The MESPA provides specific recommendations for arterial and collector roads within Seaton Chapter A provides an overview and clarification of the MEA Class EA requirements/interpretation as noted above in the response to Chapter C2 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 16 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 33 and 34: Area Parks over 4 hectares Parks 4
Page 37: COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 20
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 89 and 90:
Comments in white are satisfied. Co
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?