Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENT that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering. The MESPA has identified three road projects which are subject to the requirements of the Schedule C, MEA Class EA process. These road projects include: • Road I – North – South Type C Arterial Road (Sideline 24) • Road IV – East-West Special Type C Arterial • Road VI – East-West Employment Collector Phases 1 and 2 of the MEA Class EA process has been completed for three road projects, and Phases 3 and 4 of MEA Class EA process will be undertaken prior to road construction. City staff recommends that alternative design concepts for the preferred solution (Phase 3) and Environmental Study Reports (Phase 4) for each Schedule C road project be completed before the draft plan approval stage. We also understand that Phases 3 and 4 of the MEA Class EA process for these road projects will be undertaken by the Seaton Landowners Group (SLG). Please confirm. comments on Chapter A. RESPONSE The current lower threshold of $2.3M does not add or change the roads requiring MEA Phases 3 and 4. As well, Chapter C2 was clarified in response to these City Comments as follows: • The conditions of draft plan approval will make the completion of the Environmental Study Reports a requirement of the Planning Act approvals for the relevant plans of subdivision. • Phases 3-4 will be undertaken by Seaton Landowners Group • City will be an active stakeholder in this process • Updates to Road cost limits were addressed Please see previous responses in Chapters A and B. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Given the fact that City’s role during this MEA Class EA process will be as an active stakeholder and not as a commenting agency, we request that staff be consulted during the Phase 3 and Phase 4 MEA Class EA process for the above mentioned City arterial and collector roads. This section refers to Ontario Regulation 345/93, which outlines the Schedule C MEA Class EA requirements for the arterial and collector roads based on the estimated capital cost of the road construction project. The latest update to this regulation shows that the limit of $ 2.7 million is reduced to $ 2.4 million (2012 value). This statement should be revised to reflect updated construction cost value. MEA Class EA Requirements The MESPA states that the CPDP Regional Services Class EA Study is expected to be completed in mid 2012. Noted. Expected date of completion of the CPDP Regional EA is May 2013. The date is revised in the MESPA. Chapter C2 Revise the statement with updated completion date of May 2013. Problem Statement – Arterial and Collector Roads The third paragraph of this section refers to a CPDP policy that requires this MESPA to “confirm the overall major transportation system requirements, including bridge locations and open space crossings and Neighbourhood traffic calming measures”. This document fails to confirm the neighbourhood traffic calming measures for all proposed neighbourhoods in Seaton. Secondly, it is unclear who is responsible for formulating and implementing these neighbourhood traffic calming measures. Therefore it is recommended that the neighbourhood traffic calming measures for all Seaton neighbourhoods be described and suggest which measures should be implemented. It is our expectation that each Neighbourhood Functional Serving and Stormwater Report would provide further details on the traffic calming measures including type and location. Based on the CPDP policy, we also recommend that the MESPA establish and document transportation system requirements for the Special Type C Arterial road with direct frontages. As a point of clarification, traffic calming measures are not projects subject to the MEA Class EA and it is believed that this was included in the CPDP in case there were specific calming measures recommended. We suggest that the integrated planning for Seaton eliminates the need for traffic calming on Arterial and Collector Roads. Moreover, the modified grid network and traffic capacities on the higher-order roads will function with satisfactory levels of service, and hence traffic infiltration onto the lower road designations will be eliminated and traffic calming should not be required. Traffic calming measure options will be addressed in the Traffic Sensitivity Analysis to be submitted in support of the draft plans of subdivision and detailed within the Traffic Impact Studies to be submitted as part of the detailed engineering submissions for each plan of subdivision. Chapter C2.1 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 17 Amos Environment + Planning
COMMENT It is noted that the first bullet point a) has identified the westerly extension of Third Concession Road over CP Rail line and West Duffins Creek as a City Arterial. Please be advised that this section of the road will be a future Regional Road. Therefore we suggest that this road be identified as a future Regional Road instead of a City Arterial. Existing Roads RESPONSE This can be more appropriately addressed at the NFSSR stage. Noted, the road is now identified as a future Regional Road. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Chapter C3.1 This section states that, of the Regional roads, Brock Road and Whites Road are north-south and Rossland Road and Taunton Road are east-west. Please note that Rossland Road is not a Regional road. However, you could indicate Rossland Road as a “future Regional road”. Currently, it is under the City’s jurisdiction and named Third Concession Road. Change the text accordingly to reflect the correct information. The text has been revised to reflect this comment. MESPA has generally considered the ultimate road jurisdiction. Highway 407 Extension and Interchanges The second paragraph of this section states that, the EA approval for the existing 407ETR included two interchanges at North Road and a Sideline Road 24. It is our understanding that the location of two interchanges will be determined based on the Seaton planning process and built in conjunction with Seaton developments. The EA approval was not for the interchanges at North Road and Sideline 24. This statement appears to be incorrect. Please verify the statement for accuracy. We concur with the CPDP’s proposal to retain the existing over-passes at North Road and Sideline 24, and relocation of the proposed interchanges to Whites Road/Sideline 26 and the Rossland Road/Sideline 22 Extension. We also recognise that owners of 407ETR will prepare an addendum to confirm the interchange locations proposed in the CPDP and MESPA. This section states that the addendum to the original Highway 407 EA will be carried out coincident with the CPDP Regional Services Class EA. However we question the timing of this addendum. Please confirm the timings for the same. Highway 7 Widening This section continues to state that “traffic volumes on Highway 7 have remained stable in recent years and that there is residual capacity available. Consequently, widening of Highway 7 is not necessary for Phase 1 of the Seaton Development.” This statement addresses the widening requirement of Highway 7 for Phase 1 only and silent on the widening requirements for subsequent phases of Seaton development. Please include the recommendations for subsequent phases of Seaton development. We understand that 407ETR considers that the EA approval includes interchanges at North Road and Sideline 24. Accordingly, 407ETR are proceeding with an addendum to the approval to the interchanges to Sideline 26 (Whites Road) and 22 (Rossland Road). The ETR are coordinating this with the Region’s CPDP Class EA. Consequently, the timing of the EA approval should not be an issue. Recommendations have been made that traffic volumes along Highway 7 between Ninth Line and Brock Road be monitored to assist in determining when widening should occur. We expect diversion to the Highway 407 EAST extension to continue thus delaying the need for widening of Highway 7. Chapter C3.2.1 Chapter C3.2.2 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 18 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 39: COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 20
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 91 and 92:
Comments in white are satisfied. Co
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?