Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENT Appendix A7 – Table 1: Comments and Responses with Review Agencies (excluding TRCA) 1. Comment 8 on page 18 – We had previously identified a concern that transit impacts associated with stormwater management facilities on developable land abutting planned transit routes had not been assessed. The response to our concern advises that transit impacts “will be investigated through the NFSSR’s…”. Please provide more information on the methodology to be used to assess transit impacts as part of the NFSSRs. 2. Comment 13 on page 23 – We had previously identified a concern with the conclusion of Section 7.1.1 that “most development areas are within a 5 minute walk (or approximately 400m) of transit service”, as demonstrated in the routing plans presented in Appendix C7. We had suggested that: “It is premature to make such a conclusion. Our recommended approach is to assess transit access is to first geo-code the walking network and bus stop locations, and use GIS analysis tools to calculate walksheds or walking distances. This exercise is contingent on the completion of the Regional Services Class EA and the submission of resultant neighbourhood plans”. While this concern and suggested process are “noted” in Appendix A7, the conclusion of Section 7.1.1 remains the same. Consequently, we reiterate our concern with this conclusion. Chapter B – Water Resources 1. We understand that TRCA is also reviewing the MESPA document, and we rely on their expertise in providing comments on matters relating to water resources. In addition, the City of Pickering is also reviewing and commenting on the MESPA document to provide their expert knowledge and advice. 2. As noted above, we understand that hydrologic modelling, as further input to the MESPA is currently underway, and near completion, which may bring about further revisions to the MESPA. Further, we wish to advise that the ongoing CPDP Class EA for Regional Services is also addressing matters related to groundwater resources for the purposes of servicing Seaton. It is therefore premature for us to validate the conclusions and recommendations concerning water resources contained in the MESPA document at this time. Chapter C – Transportation 1. City of Pickering Official Plan – This section and other sections throughout the MESPA document should indicate that, given the declaration of Provincial interest on planning matters related to Seaton, OMB decisions related to the Pickering Official Plan conformity amendment, Neighbourhood Plans, plans of subdivision and zoning applications will not be final or binding until such time the Lieutenant Governor in Council confirms, varies or rescinds the decision(s) of the Board. 2. MEA Class EA Requirements – This section should be updated to reflect that a second PIC was held for the CPDP Class EA, and it should be clarified that the CPDP Class EA will not be completed in mid 2012 (refer to Attachment 1). Also, this section and other sections of the MESPA document should be updated to reflect that a revised Staged Servicing and Implementation Strategy (SSIS) was prepared in October 2012. RESPONSE The intent is to provide potential transit routes that meet the guideline of the majority of the residents are within a 5-minute walk of transit service. As NFSSR’s are completed, these routes can be updated to reflect the latest Neighbourhood Plan. Based on the transit Figures in Appendix C2 from the updated October 2012 SSIS the current Seaton Plan accommodates good potential transit service. No response required. No response required. Noted. Text in Chapter A and throughout MESPA revised accordingly. Noted. Chapter C text revised accordingly. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Chapter A7.7.1 Appendix A7 – Table 1 Chapter C1.2 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 29 Amos Environment + Planning
COMMENT 3. Highway 7 Widening – This Section identifies the potential transfer of Highway 7 from the Province to Durham Region. We suggest that speculation of the transfer of Provincial roads to Durham Region should be not included in the MESPA. Noted. The speculation has been removed from the text. RESPONSE REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Chapter C3.2.2 4. Route Planning – The materials provided do not include Appendix C7, which is supposed to show routing plans. As such, staff cannot confirm the claim that most development areas in Seaton are within a 400 metre (5-minute) walk of transit service. Should it be assumed that the route planning and Appendix C7 are consistent with the analysis conducted in the October 2012 version of the Proposed Staged Servicing and implementation Strategy (SSIS)? 5. (a) Conformity with MEA Class EA Process – The Region has previously conveyed to the MESP Project Team (e.g. in our September 2011 comments letter) that our preference is that the Class EA studies for the three roads that are subject to Phases 3 and 4 of the Schedule C process, be conducted in advance or concurrent with the subdivision approval process. The three roads in question are Sideline 24 Type C Arterial; the east-west special type C Arterial; and the east-west employment road collector. The MESP Project Team’s response to our request indicates that the completion of Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA planning process prior to subdivision approvals is not a requirement of the Municipal Class EA, and that subdivision approvals could proceed before the EA process commences. Appendix C2 contains potential transit route plans from the October 2012 SSIS update. (a) Refer to responses to Chapter A. Since issuing the MESPA, there has been an iterative and coordinated process for planning the subdivisions and neighbourhood plans while accommodating road alignments. There has also been extensive study of creek crossings including discussions with TRCA. Consequently, we are confident that the Region’s concerns have been fully addressed. SLG is working closely with the City (as a stakeholder) regarding these roads. Regardless of the timing of subdivision draft plan approvals, there will be conditions requiring road works to be completed. The MESPA will form the basis and provide the location of the City's arterial and collector roads. As noted above, when an Environmental Study Report is required for one of City arterial and collector roads, it will be done in consultation with City staff prior to subdivision plan approval and all further details of the road will be examined on a site specific basis. Chapter C7.1.1 Chapter C10 (b) In light of the recent amendment (August 2011) to the integration provisions in the Municipal Class EA process (Section a2.9) and Ontario Regulation 345/93, if a private sector developer is proposing an undertaking of a type listed in Schedule C, and the undertaking involves the provision of roads, water or wastewater facilities for the residents of a municipality, it is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure that they have fulfilled all of the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act requirements for their project, as well as obtaining any other necessary approvals or permits. (b) There was no change to O.R. 345/93 in August 2011. The Seaton Landowners Group is not specifically pursuing the “integrated approach” as described in Section A.2.9 of the Municipal Class EA. The Seaton Landowners Group is fulfilling all their requirements under the Planning Act and EA Act and will obtain the necessary approvals prior to construction in a coordinated manner. (c) However, with the Seaton development applications appealed to the OMB and the declaration of Provincial interest, the requirements of the integrated approach have not been met until the OMB/Lieutenant Governor in Council renders a decision allowing the project to proceed. Once approval is granted, then the appropriate consultation requirements to meet Schedule C requirements should be met. (d) The Region’s concern with the process is, if the Class EAs are conducted after the subdivisions are approval, then “connecting the dots” for the NSH crossings between different subdivision boundaries would create a piecemeal approach in terms of looking at alternative alignments. (e) Further, and notwithstanding the environmental analysis conducted as part of the MESPA, a subsequent EA process after approval is given may preclude the optimal crossing location, because the beginning and end points would be very difficult to shift once subdivision plans are approved. It is recommended that we meet on this matter for further discussion. 5. Recommendations – The MESPA should be updated to reflect the phasing of Regional Roads in the October 2012 version of the SSIS. Noted. (c) This would be true if Seaton Landowners Group were operating under the “integrated approach” as set out in Section A.2.9 of the MEA Class EA however that is not the case. (d) The Seaton Landowners Group is not piece-mealing the study of the City arterial and collector roads. Instead of doing a sequential series of studies, the Seaton Landowners Group is carrying out a Master Plan to address all the Roads on a broad level at the outset via the MESPA. Only after all the overall study is complete will the Schedule C arterial and collector roads be considered at a design level with only very minor revisions to the recommended alignments at the same time as the plans of subdivisions are being finalized. (e) The Seaton Landowners Group is combining environmental analysis with land use planning in a manner that assures that the general location for the City’s arterial and collector roads selected as part of the MESPA (which addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA) will be carried forward successfully through the review of alternative alignments in Phases 3 and 4 which will be carried out via Environmental Study reports while the subdivisions are being finalized. Recommendations are consistent with the revised October 2012 SSIS. Chapter C12 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 30 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 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: COMMENT was endorsed by City Counci
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 103:
Comments in white are satisfied. Co
show all

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

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

Delete template?

Save as template?