Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENT underground along City of Toronto corridors, specifically Eglinton Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East and the Scarborough rail transit (RT) converted to surface LTR”. There have been no revisions to The Big Move. The Big Move only indicates that these are proposed Other Rapid Transit (BRT / LRT / AGT). Any recent planning work on these lines reflects more detailed thinking that builds on, but does not revise, The Big Move. RESPONSE REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Steeles Avenue East • The MESPA states, “The Metrolinx publication “The Big Move” identified Steeles / Taunton (Project 59) between Milliken GO station and downtown Oshawa in its 25 year plan for Rapid Transit and envisioned a widening to six lanes including High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes”. Please replace this sentence with the following, as there are no references in The Big Move to widening to six lanes etc.: “The Metrolinx publication, “The Big Move”, identified Steeles /Taunton (Project 59), between Milliken GO station and downtown Oshawa, as Other Rapid Transit (BRT / LRT / AGT) in its Schedule 2: 25-Year Plan for the Regional Rapid Transit and Highway Network.” Ministry of Transportation – March 20, 2012 Chapter C - Transportation • Transportation of the MESP bases most of its transportation recommendations on the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) (2006). The transportation and transit component of the CPDP provides objectives and policies to address the internal network requirements for the area, as well as to ensure there is adequate inter-regional transportation infrastructure. MTO would suggest that the MESP include additional recommendations from the broader Durham Toronto York Area Transportation Study (2009) which supports the CPDP and the eastern Greater Toronto Area (GTA) component of the GGH and documents the inter-regional transportation needs of the larger Durham-Toronto- York area. Improving the inter-regional road and transit network will ensure that the land in Seaton will be serviceable and its value maximized to accommodate a long term population of 70,000 people and 35,000 jobs beyond 2031. Veridian Connections – February 21, 2012 We have only one comment to register for the MESPA and that is with regards to the 2 nd of the 4 potential Transformer station sites. We have modified the location slightly such that the area we will study will be on the North side of Taunton Road on the NE corner of the intersection of Taunton Road and Sideline 22. There were some potential archaeological concerns east of the reservoir highlighted in some other studies that we felt best to stay away from. Noted; text replaced. Comment noted. Acknowledged. Chapter C1.3.2.1 Chapter C 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 37 Amos Environment + Planning
RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS SWMF LOCATIONS (APPENDIX B) Pond # Comment Response February 2013 1 Pond now located within the development. The Pond is a linear pond adjacent to a Type B arterial road. How will major system flows be conveyed to the facility? +900m outlet pipe required to convey flows from the pond to the West Duffins Creek (major valley corridor). Where will Emergency outlet be directed to? Pond block reduced to 5% due to implementation of LID's, Pond block size may need to be adjusted depending on measures proposed. A sanitary trunk is proposed within the pond block. Major system flows to by-pass facility and will be conveyed in a pipe along future Concession 3 and will outlet directly to the West Duffins Creek. Emergency outlet to be directed to east woodlot (F31). Sanitary trunk to be within Concession 3 ROW not pond block. Refer to grading and servicing presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. 2 3 4 15.2 ha drainage diversion proposed, however drainage areas converge immediately downstream. Drainage to the pond is bisected by a proposed Type Major system flows will be conveyed by storm sewer to the facility, which will be a dry pond. Pipe will go to the southeast around the B arterial road. +400m pipe required to convey flows from the development to the pond, how will major system flows be directed to the pond? Pipe from pumping station. Pond size and configuration established through NFSSR design. Refer to NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. the development to the pond will cross a proposed Region pumping station/reservoir. The pond block represents 2.9% of the contributing drainage area. It was assumed the pond could be reduced in size due to the use of LID measures to aide in addressing the erosion control requirements. Size of facility may have to be adjusted due to LID measures proposed. SWM facility discharges to intermittent stream, just upstream of an incised valley. Alternative outfall locations may need to be considered. The outfall Refer to response to City Appendix B and C comments (Watercourse concerns and HDF Assessment) presented in Appendix B10- should be brought to the floor of the West Duffins Valley. Proposed Region Trunk sewer runs through pond block. B of the MESPA. Pond located adjacent to the Whites Road extension. +/-400m outlet will be required. In addition unsure as to how major system flows will be directed to Major system flows to be piped under Taunton Road and is proposed to by-pass facility and be piped directly to the West Duffins and from the pond, as the facility is cut off from the development by the existing Taunton Rd and proposed Whites Road extension. Also how will major Creek via Old Taunton Road. Emergency outlet flows (pond failure) to be directed to the east. Pond 6 & 7 also proposed to be system flows (emergency outlet flows) be directed to the valley floor? A 25% diversion of flows is proposed, however, the diversion is proposed to occur directed to facility. Refer to grading and servicing presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Refer to Appendix B and C on 2 gully systems, with flows conveyed to the West Duffins. A sanitary trunk is proposed to be placed within the pond block. (Watercourse concerns and HDF Assessment) for response on erosion potential. 6 At the closest point the pond is 23m from the top of bank, 63 m away from the active erosion scar. -28% decrease in post development drainage area, over existing conditions. There is a significant grade change from proposed outlet to point where watercourse drains to the West Duffins, erosion is an existing issue, as receiving system is a steep gully. Flows from Pond 6 combine with flows from Pond 7, 20 and 21 prior to discharge to the West Duffins. Channel erosion will be a significant concern. Flows should be conveyed directly to the West Duffins Creek. Facility combined with facility 4 in NFSSR. Refer to grading presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Pond has been eliminated. 7 10 11 12 13 Pond ultimately drains to the same gully system as Pond 6, however on the west branch. There is a significant grade change from proposed outlet to point where watercourse drains to the West Duffins, erosion is an existing issue, as receiving system is a steep gully. Flows from Pond 7 combine with flows from Pond 6, 20 and 21 prior to discharge to the West Duffins. Channel erosion will be a significant concern. Flows should be conveyed directly to the West Duffins Creek. No major issues associated with the pond location. Co-locating the pond outfall within the Region ROW is an ideal configuration. Located at the end of a 20m drop across drainage area, groundwater may be an issue. Pond also proposed to discharge to an intermittent watercourse, which has no defined channel. Erosion will be an issue at the immediate discharge point. Also ponds 10, 11, 12, and 13 drain to the same receiving system, which is seasonal; erosion within the entire catchment (to GA8) will be an issue. Grading with the development will be an issue, unsure how major system flows are directed to the facility as drainage from the south portion of the development will need to flow uphill, through a Regional Road. The facility is also located at the end of a 20m drop across drainage area, groundwater could be an issue. Pond also proposed to discharge to an intermittent watercourse, which has no defined channel. Erosion will be an issue at the immediate discharge point. Also ponds 10, 11, 12, and 13 drain to the same receiving system, which is seasonal; erosion within the entire catchment (to GA8) will be an issue. 16m drop in elevation across the catchment occurs, groundwater could be an issue. Outlet structure can be co-located within the Regional Road ROW. Pond also proposed to discharge to an intermittent watercourse, which has no defined channel. Erosion will be an issue at the immediate discharge point. Also ponds 10, 11, 12, and 13 drain to the same receiving system, which is seasonal; erosion within the entire catchment (to GA8) will be an issue. A trunk water main is proposed adjacent to the pond block. 9m elevation change is observed across pond block, detailed grading deferred to draft plan stage. Drainage area is bisected by a collector road, as such, unsure how major system flows are going to be directed to the facility. Grades on the north portion of the site are lower than grades within the proposed pond block; overall site grading will be an issue. A trunk water main is proposed adjacent to the pond block. Facility combined with facility 4 in NFSSR. Refer to grading presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Pond has been eliminated. Refer to grading presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Refer to Appendix B and C (Watercourse concerns and HDF Assessment) for response on erosion potential. Refer to grading presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Refer to Appendix B and C (Watercourse concerns and HDF Assessment) for response on erosion potential. Refer to grading presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Refer to Appendix B and C (Watercourse concerns and HDF Assessment) for response on erosion potential. Refer to grading and servicing presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. 14 Unsure how west portion of the catchment area will be directed to the pond, as a Regional Road bisects the site. A +/-470m outfall pipe is required to Refer to grading and servicing presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16. Emergency overflow weir will be located on the south side convey flows to a wetland complex to the south of the pond, unsure where or how emergency outlet flows will be conveyed from the pond. of the facility such that grading would maintain the existing drainage pattern. 15 Pond is required to service proposed Go station. 7 to 10m drop in elevation from pond to valley floor, outfall location and access will be a challenge. Grading to be reviewed as part of NFSSR for Neighbourhood 17 (not yet completed as lands are outside of Phase 1). A 20m change in elevation occurs within drainage area. Outlet can be co-located within Regional ROW, and directed to appropriate location within West Refer to grading and servicing presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Facility is proposed to be eliminated as quantity controls 16 Duffins Valley. +/- 200m outlet pipe required, unsure how emergency outlet flows will be directed to the receiving system. A sanitary trunk is proposed adjacent to the pond block. are not required for flows discharging to West Duffins Creek. Quality and Erosion control will be provided through the implementation of on-site controls and LID measures. 17 Pond proposed to discharge flows to intermittent HWDF, erosion will be an issue as the system is an intermittently defined channel. A 6m change in elevation observed across pond block. A sanitary trunk is proposed adjacent to the pond block. Refer to grading and servicing presented in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Facility is proposed to be eliminated as quantity controls are not required for flows discharging to West Duffins Creek. Quality and Erosion control will be provided through the imp
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 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: COMMENT Reg”, should be removed.
Page 63 and 64: RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS SWMF LOCA
Page 65 and 66: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?