HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 22-04 REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 22-04
Date: May 13, 2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Growth Management Study: Phase 2 (Recommended Structure Plan)
Recommendations
Recommendations:
1. That Report PD 22-04 on the City's Growth Management Study: Phase 2 (Recommended
Structure Plan) be received;
That the Structure Plan for the Growth Management Study Area (dated
February2004, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited; Gravely Sorenson Lowes
Planning Associates Inc., Joseph Bogdan Associates Inc., and Enid Slack
Consulting Inc.), provided as Appendix I to Report PD 22-04, be endorsed as the
basis for establishing an urban boundary and land use designations, subject to a
subsequent report from staff as outlined in Recommendation 3;
That staff be requested to prepare a subsequent report for Council's consideration
on the official plan and other amendments, and the related processes required to
implement the Structure Plan for the Growth Management Study Area, taking into
consideration the matters outlined in Appendix II;
That staff in discussion with the Consulting Team, be requested to examine the
work program for the Phase 3 - Neighbourhood Plans of the Growth Management
Study, and make whatever modifications are necessary to ensure the program
supports and is consistent with the City's application to the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities 'Green Municipal Enabling Fund' for the preparation of a Sustainable
Neighbourhood Plan, and that staff and the Consulting Team then be authorized to
commence Phase 3;
5. That the following individuals be requested to consider and incorporate the City's
position on Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study as applicable, in undertaking
their respective activities and initiatives:
a. The Minister of Municipal Affairs in completing a development plan under
The Ontario Planning and Development Act for lands in Pickering;
b. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal in completing a Growth Management
Plan for the Golden Horseshoe area;
c. The Chair and members of the provincial Greenbelt Task Force when making
recommendations on a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe;
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date: May 13, 2004
Page 2
d. The Chair and members of Regional Council when making amendments to the
Durham Regional Official Plan, and that Regional Council direct the
Commissioner of Planning to incorporate the City's Growth Management Study
findings into the Durham Regional Official Plan Review;
e. The Minister of the Environment, and the President and CEO of the Ontado Realty
Corporation in completing the environmental assessment for lands in Pickering;
f. The Minister of Transportation, and the President and CEO of the 407 ETR in
finalizing the freeway interchange locations on Highway 407 in Pickering; and
g. The President and CEO of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority in completing
the draft Master Plan for the Pickering Airport Lands; and
That the City Clerk be requested to forward a copy of Report PD 22-04, together
with Council's resolution on the matter, to the individuals listed in Recommendation 5, as
well as the City of Toronto, the Town of Markham, the Town of Ajax, the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Rouge Park Alliance, the Federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Wayne Arthurs-MPP Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge,
Dan McTeague-MP Pickering-Ajax-Uxbddge, and any other interested groups, agencies
or individuals for their information and/or action.
Executive Summary: In early 2002, Council initiated a Growth Management Study
(GMS) to identify future urban growth options in central Pickering. The study area
boundaries are the CP rail line to the south, the York-Durham Townline Road to the
west, Highway 7 to the north, and Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary to the east.
In December 2002, Council approved the Terms of Reference, which were prepared
with the assistance of a Working Group made up of staff and Council from the City,
staff from other organizations, affected landowners (including the Province of Ontario)
and members of the public. In February 2003, Council selected a multidisciplinary
Consulting Team, led by Dillon Consulting Limited, to complete the three phase Study.
The Consulting Team completed Phase 1 in June 2003, and Phase 2 in February 2004.
On March 1, 2004, Council endorsed for consultation the Phase 2 Reports and directed
staff to circulate them to appropriate agencies and the public, for review and comment.
Comments have subsequently been received and have been considered in the
preparation of this Report.
The Consulting Team's recommended structure plan for central Pickering proposes
urban development to accommodate about 77,000 people and 33,000 jobs, on about
40% of the land within the study area, including lands in both the Seaton and
Cherrywood communities.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 3
Based on review and analysis of the Consulting Team's reports, and in considering all
comments received from the public, affected agencies, landowners and others, staff
recommends that Council endorse the Consulting Team's Structure Plan, as set out in
Appendix I, and directs staff to report back on the necessary official plan and other
amendments, and related processes to implement the Plan, taking into consideration
the various matters outlined in Appendix II. It is also recommended that staff and the
Consulting Team be authorized to commence Phase 3 of the Study, following an
examination of the Phase 3 work program to ensure it is consistent with the City's
recent application to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities 'Green Municipal
Enabling Fund' for the preparation of a Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan.
Staff also recommends that City Council's position on Phase 2 of the
Growth Management Study be forwarded for information, acceptance and/or action as
applicable, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Public Infrastructure
Renewal, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transportation, the 407 ETR,
the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Ontario Realty Corporation, the
Greenbelt Task Force, the Region of Durham, abutting municipalities, and others.
Financial lmplications: A total contribution of $620,000 was received from
landowners in the Study Area to undertake the Growth Management Study.
Approximately $100,000 remains for the completion of Phase 3. Additional costs of
about $15,000 (plus GST and expenses) have been incurred for the Consulting Team
to review and respond to comments received on Phase 2, and these costs are being
funded from the Planning & Development Department's professional and consultative
budget (account #2611-2392).
BACKGROUND:
1.0 CONSULTATION ON PHASE 2 REPORTS
1,1
Pickering Council requested an independent growth management study of
lands abutting the existing south Pickering urban area based on 10 guiding
principles and various ground rules set out in the Terms of Reference.
In early 2003, Council approved the proposal from a multi-disciplinary consulting
team led by Dillon Consulting Limited (the Consulting Team) to undertake a
Growth Management Study (GMS) for the Study Area. The Study Area,
bounded by Highway 7 to the north, York-Durham line to the west, CP rail line to
the south, and Sideline 16/Ajax-Pickering boundary to the east, abuts the
south Pickering urban area. A context map, showing the Growth Management
Study Area, Toronto and Markham, the Oak Ridges Moraine, west Durham and
Lake Ontario is provided as Attachment #1.
Attachment #2 lists for reference, the guiding principles, the ground rules, and
the existing Council resolutions for transportation guiding matters identified for
consideration through the Study.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 4
1.2
1.3
Following the Consulting Team's completion of the second phase of the
three-phase Study, City Council, on March 1, 2004, requested staff to
circulate the Phase 2 Reports and report back with recommendations.
Phase 1, Background, was completed in June 2003. Phase 2, the Recommended
Structure Plan, was completed in late February 2004. At the end of Phase 2, Council
received Report PD 11-04 of the Director, Planning & Development. That Report
contained some background on Phase 1, an overview of the Phase 2 process,
and a written description of the recommended structure plan. The text of that
Report (PD 11-04) is provided for reference (see Attachment #3).
Appendix I to this Report (PD 22-04) is the Recommended Structure Plan,
together with selected land use statistics.
City staff delivered a consultation program during March and April to publicize
and release the Phase 2 documents. Details of the consultation program are
provided in Attachment #4. A summary of the comments made at the 'drop-ins'
and meetings with members of the public is provided as Attachment #16, and a
summary of all written comments received is provided as Attachment #17.
This Report to Executive Committee contains staff's findings and recommendations
for Council's consideration.
An overview of comments finds strongly held but opposing views about
development in central Pickering.
Comments on the Structure Plan range from requests to develop more of the
lands on the west side of West Duffins Creek to accommodate growth, to
protecting all lands on the west side of the creek for agriculture and open space
purposes.
Other comments speak to the ecological and cultural sensitivity of the Seaton
lands, while an opposite position suggests reducing environmental protection
and accommodating more people at higher densities.
Some comments suggest no development in the Study Area while other
comments state the Study is comprehensive, and arrived at appropriate
conclusions. Specific comments were also received on some of the land use
designations and various transportation matters.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 5
(a)
Agency comments are generally supportive of the Phase 2 Reports
with the exception of Durham Planning.
Most agencies are supportive of the Structure Plan, or can work with the City at
further stages to address specific issues (see Summary Table of Agency
Comments - Attachment #7, and individual letters - Attachments #8 to #15). The
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority supports the natural heritage
system, and will work with the City at future phases of the study, and through the
development approvals process to deal with details required in the future. The
City of Toronto supports the high priority given to protecting and enhancing the
natural heritage system and the proposals for compact communities well-served
by transit with extensive mixed use and medium density residential areas.
The Durham Regional Planning Department provided detailed comments on the
Structure Plan Report and Market Analysis Report, some of which are highly
critical of the Consulting Team's work. The Region suggested that additional
growth occur in Seaton through a less aggressive environmental protection
model, and noted that a 90,000 population target may be achievable through the
introduction of significantly higher densities. Other comments expressed related
to: the inadequate weight given to protection of agricultural lands; the potential
inability to maintain the long-term integrity of the proposed Heritage Corridor
designation; the potential inability to protect and enhance the remaining
countryside for food production over the long-term; the underestimation of
servicing costs for the Structure Plan; and inadequate designation of high density
development. The Consulting Team's response to the Region's comments is
provided as Attachment #6.
Staff was surprised with the comments provided by the Region (given that
Regional staff participated on the Steering Committee and, with the exception of
not supporting any development into the agricultural assembly from a policy
position and concern with the amount of environmental lands proposed for
protection within the Study Area, did not express these concerns during the Study).
Due to the significance of the Region's comments, staff requested a written
response from the Consulting Team. Their response is included as Attachment #6.
We have reviewed their response and are in full support of the
Consulting Team's position that the Region has misinterpreted or misunderstood
many fundamental aspects of the Study, including the:
· need to balance competing principles;
· lack of reasonable alternatives for urban area expansion in the City that avoid
prime agricultural lands;
· importance of designating a sufficient supply of land to accommodate growth,
to allow related planning for infrastructure and financing;
· focus of high intensity growth through the Mixed Corridor designation along
significant arterials and proposed transit routes;
· importance of ecological system protection in the Study Area.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 6
Further, Regional staff appear to have:
· overstated the extent of servicing and transportation cost underestimates;
· not considered the interplay of market demand and land use designations;
· not considered the proposed average density of 30 units per net hectare as a
significant increase over current average densities; and
· not acknowledged the consistency of the proposed community design with
existing official plan policies supporting compact, intensive, mixed use,
transit-supportive urban areas.
Pickering's closest First Nation, (the Mississaugas of Scugog Island), also
attended meetings and open houses, and have been involved throughout the
process. Their representative advised at the April 8th Technical Review &
Advisory Committee meeting that an appropriate process has been established
through this Study, to allow consideration of and respect for First Nations
heritage. They do not object to development within the Study Area as set out in
the Recommended Structure Plan so long as heritage resources are protected
adequately.
(b)
Written submissions were received from two community
associations that generally supported the Phase 2 findings and four
environmental organizations that opposed in principle the
development of the agricultural assembly lands. Two-thirds of the
approximately 75 written submissions received from individuals also
opposed development of the agricultural assembly lands.
The City received submissions from two community associations, Liverpool West
Community Association (LWCA) and Pickering Ajax Citizens Together (PACT).
The associations indicated support for the Phase 2 Structure Plan and provided
specific comments on the Phase 2 Report for consideration in the next planning
phase. PACT also noted that urban development would increase the amount of
stormwater run-off and decrease the quality of the run-off. These changes have
the potential to cause erosion and impair the water quality of the creeks, if not
addressed. PACT requests that detailed study of stormwater management
issues take place prior to commencing Phase 3.
At a meeting to discuss the relationship between the Recommended Structure
Plan and the Rouge Park, the General Manager of the Rouge Park suggested
using ecological criteria for determining the extent of buffers and corridors. This
approach allows an indicator (whether groundwater infiltration, interior forest
habitat, or species migration for example) to be established, and buffers and
corridors to be established that retain the integrity of the ecological system for
future generations.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 7
Submissions were received from the following environmental organizations
supporting the protection of the agricultural assembly lands:
· Green Door Alliance
· Federation Of Ontario Naturalists,
· Altona Forest Stewardship Committee
· Friends of the Rouge Watershed
The City received a total of 77 submissions from the public on the Phase 2
Reports through letters, emails and comment forms (see Summary Table of Wdtten
Public Comments - Attachment #17, and individual submissions - Attachments #18 to
#94). Approximately two-thirds of the submissions supported the protection of the
agricultural assembly lands, and the remaining one-third supported the Phase 2
Reports including some development of the agricultural assembly lands. There
were also comments expressed by individuals attending the 'drop-ins' and
meetings with staff (see Attachment #5). Fifteen form letters were submitted
expressing opposition to the inclusion of the lands on the west side of
West Duffins Creek in the Study and to the Study's conclusions supporting some
development on these lands, as well as support for inclusion of the western part
of the Study Area and two-thirds of the Seaton lands as greenbelt (with the
western part of the Study Area in agriculture in perpetuity).
However, there were also submissions supporting the findings of the Phase 2
Reports and stating that growth is necessary for a strong and healthy
community. An individual commented that the Province's expropriation
accelerated the decline of north Pickering as a viable agricultural area and that
serious farming has moved out along with farming services and investment.
Another individual expressed a similar sentiment that intensive farming left the
Pickering community a long time ago, and that cash-cropping these lands is
difficult without the proper farming infrastructure and intensity.
Some comments suggested reducing the area for protected ecological lands
within the Seaton lands to allow more development within the Seaton lands. The
comments argue that replacing natural systems with urban uses would achieve
greater servicing efficiency and eliminate the need for urban uses on the
Cherrywood lands. A number of comments received suggested that Pickering
provide for a lesser amount of growth.
Submissions were also received from PMA Brethour Research, Bousfield Inc.
(consultant for the West Duffins Landowners' Group), and Templeton Planning
Limited (consultant for Hollinger Farms Ltd.). Bousfield Inc. submitted a detailed
response and provided an overview of their comments at a meeting with staff.
Proposed changes to the Structure Plan, as well as comments on agriculture,
servicing/engineering, population/employment growth, and land requirements
were provided. The proposed changes included:
- adding more employment lands, residential areas and a major commercial
centre in the Cherrywood area;
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 8
2.0
2.1
2.2
revising the open space system, and permitting a broader
countryside uses (e.g. institutional and active recreational uses);
and extending various roads for greater accessibility.
range of
DISCUSSION
The Consulting Team's Structure Plan is recommended for Council's
endorsement, as it is a sound basis for establishing a new urban boundary
and land use designations in central Pickering.
The Consulting Team, during their analysis and evaluation, used information
from technical studies, the Team's technical expertise, the Team's professional
experience, agency and public comments, the Study's principles and ground
rules, and the current and emerging policy context. In recommending a structure
plan, the Consulting Team identified an appropriate balance point between
competing interests.
Most comments received that disagreed with the Study's conclusions reiterated
concerns about the inclusion of lands on the west side of the West Duffins Creek
for any potential urban uses. Comments received that addressed specific
elements of the Recommended Structure Plan did not undermine the integrity of
the Plan, or the Consulting Team's rationale. Considering this, and the
comments below, staff recommend that Council endorse the Recommended
Structure Plan as the basis for land use designations and a new urban area
boundary for lands within the Growth Management Study Area.
The Plan protects our natural and cultural heritage.
(a)
The Consulting Team used an 'environment first' approach in order
to maintain and enhance the environmental integrity of the Study
Area.
From the outset of the Growth Management Study, the Consulting Team
recognized the high quality of the natural environment of the Study Area,
particularly of the Seaton lands. As an outcome of Phase 1, an ecological
system of natural features linked with corridors in key locations to enhance the
system was defined as a common foundation for all land use options. The
design of the natural heritage system is intended to protect all significant natural
areas and functions, with the introduction of urban and countryside uses.
The importance of groundwater to the health of the ecological system, clearly
expressed in Phase 1, became the subject of a specialized Water Budget
Analysis during Phase 2. The Study used information available through the
TRCA's report, A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek,
completed in August 2003. The Study also used the latest groundwater
modeling techniques to analyze land use impacts. Through testing of five land
use options, the Water Budget Analysis identified the importance of maintaining
significant lands in open space and similar non-development categories within
each subwatershed.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 9
Staff supports the Recommended Structure Plan as it maintains an appropriate
balance of development and non-development land uses. Further, staff agrees
that the Plan's approach to integrate the robust web of environmental features as
a setting for urban uses will be raising the bar for urban development. Staff finds
it most appropriate for the consultants to have considered a larger physical area
within which to accommodate urban uses and achieve improved ecological
protection.
Staff concurs with the integration of the local Natural Heritage System, Natural
Corridors and Countryside designations of the Recommended Structure Plan
with the regional greenspace linkages, for the following reasons:
· the Plan would allow for a continuous greenspace linkage between
Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine;
· the linkage would build on the Rouge Park lands, incorporate countryside
lands from Markham and Pickering, and connect to the Federal greenspace
lands;
· the linkage would be at least 4 km wide between Finch Avenue and
Highway 7;
· the greenspace would provide a wildlife linkage between the Rouge River and
Duffins Creek watersheds; and
· the Plan would provide a strong urban separator between Pickering and
Toronto/Markham.
Staff supports the recommended policy approach for the natural heritage
corridors to undertake detailed environmental reports at later stages of planning
and development. Through these reports, the precise location and extent of
natural heritage corridors would be identified to accommodate wildlife linkages,
groundwater infiltration, and recreational uses as appropriate. Staff also
supports the policy approach for the natural heritage system that requires
additional detail at the neighbourhood planning and development review with the
understanding that the open space system will be rounded/squared off where
necessary. Staff will further explore the use of ecological criteria in defining
buffers and corridors.
Staff is satisfied that the matter of stormwater management has received an
appropriate level of review to enable recommendation of the Structure Plan. The
Water Budget Analysis identified that significant stormwater run-off will occur
with urbanization, and recommended that controls be established to mitigate
adverse impacts. Staff agrees with the importance of stormwater management
in maintaining the quality of the streams in the Study Area as noted by PACT.
However, more detailed review cannot be done until areas for development and
the specific neighbourhood boundaries and land uses are confirmed. Phase 3 of
the GMS, preparation of the detailed Neighbourhood Plans, will include
additional work on stormwater management, and further stormwater
management work will also be done in the preparation and review of specific
development applications.
Report PD 22-04 Date: May 13, 2004
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Page 10
(b)
The Recommended Structure Plan fulfills the principle of respecting
cultural heritage through protection of known archaeological sites,
protection of lands around Whitevale, and along Whitevale Road.
The Consulting Team's approach to respecting cultural resources from all time
periods is appropriate.
The Recommended Structure Plan protects most known, significant First Nations
and other archaeological sites within a Natural Heritage or Natural Corridor
designation. Within the lands identified for development, the work that has been
done stresses the importance of continuing to consult with First Nations, and to
identify and recognize new archaeological sites through the neighbourhood plan
and plan of subdivision stages.
Staff is currently preparing revised general official plan policies and departmental
procedures in response to a previous resolution of Council on archaeological
resources and consultation with First Nations. These policies would apply
City-wide. One of the issues staff has identified for detailed review in reporting
back to Council on official plan amendments to implement the GMS is whether a
'special archaeological policy area' is required for the Lamoreaux neighbourhood
in Seaton.
The Hamlet of Whitevale and surrounding lands are designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act as a "heritage district". The Recommended Structure Plan
establishes a Countryside area around Whitevale to respect the heritage district
and buffer the historic hamlet from proposed urban development to the north and
east.
The Structure Plan also proposes two special residential categories. The first is
a Heritage Corridor that requires new development along Whitevale Road, east
of Whitevale, to have a residential density at the lower end (a maximum of 12
units per net hectare) of Low Density Residential, and a lot layout and housing
character that reinforces the heritage character of the roadway. The second is a
Special Residential Area representing the existing Hamlet of Cherrywood, and
the clusters of Cherrywood East and West. This policy requires that new
adjacent residential development be designed to provide for a compatible
interface with a transition of densities toward these settlements. Also, the
Recommended Structure Plan appropriately identifies lands between the Hamlet
of Brougham boundary and Highway 407 as Special Study Area. This area has
constrained access and potential impacts from Highway 407 and Employment
Area uses.
Although the Hamlets of Brougham and Green River were not part of the Study
Area, staff will be examining the interface between these hamlets and the
adjacent Employment Areas.
Report PD 22-04 Date: May 13, 2004
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Page 11
(c)
The Recommended Structure Plan establishes a Countryside area in
the north-west part of the Study Area, to support the principle of
fostering a healthy and vibrant countryside.
Staff concurs with the vision and location for the Countryside area. The
Consulting Team envisions protecting the north-west part of the Study Area,
including lands surrounding the Hamlet of Whitevale, for a broad range of
countryside uses beyond traditional agriculture. Staff concurs that these uses
could include retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and non-agricultural
countryside uses such as pick-your-own, farm tours, farm vacations, country
inns, bed and breakfasts, farmhouse dining rooms, rural theatres, country spas,
and farm markets. Staff also encourages consideration for other uses including
solar and wind farms.
In addition, staff supports the findings of the Phase 1 Agricultural Community
Assessment Report. The Agricultural Assessment noted that the farming
industry requires more than just soils of high capability: there needs to be farm
infrastructure; larger parcels are preferred over small parcels; and the protection
from urban development.
Throughout the GTA and the Study Area, much of the soil is rated as having a
high capability for agriculture, and thus, the Consulting Team concluded that
virtually no GTA urban area expansions could occur without being located on
prime agricultural lands. Within the Study Area, the best agricultural lands are
located in the north-west section. The Consulting Team notes this area also
abuts that part of rural Markham that has soils of an equal or higher capability for
agriculture. Furthermore, the lands in the north-west part of the Study Area have
larger, scenic parcel sizes, relative to the land south of Taunton Road, west of
West Duffins Creek. Staff shares these observations and conclusions.
The Consulting Team noted that establishing Countryside in the north-west
sector contributes to an open space, rural separator between Toronto/Markham
and Pickering, and between the Hamlet of Whitevale and the Seaton urban
development. Staff will determine the specific permissible countryside uses
during the detailed review of issues identified in Appendix II.
2,3
The Recommended Structure Plan proposes compact urban form that is
transit-supportive and allows economic use of infrastructure.
The Recommended Structure Plan accommodates approximately 76,900 persons
within 24,800 dwelling units situated within pedestrian-scaled neighbourhoods,
having a range of housing types and densities, and offering a broad range of
employment opportunities for approximately 33,000 people, while protecting a
robust and extensive greenspace system.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May13,2004
Page 12
The Consulting Team has carefully and appropriately balanced the desire for
environmental protection with other important objectives to provide living space
and employment lands, as well as protect a viable countryside area, in
accordance with the principles and ground rules set out by Council.
The Plan is supported by staff as it accommodates Pickering's projected 20-year
population growth, set out by the Region of Durham, and is consistent with
conservative time frames allowed under the Provincial Policy Statement. In
considering the amount of growth to be accommodated in the Study Area, the
Consulting Team assumed about one-third of new population growth projected for
Pickering would be accommodated through intensification and infill in south
Pickering. Staff concurs with this amount. A table is provided as Attachment #5
summarizing existing and proposed urban population and employment projections,
for south and central Pickering, compared with Regional population projections.
The Consulting Team's use of an average density of 30 units per net hectare,
(which is higher than current development that averages 15 to 20 units per net
hectare), is transit-supportive, yet would produce housing mix and form that is
realistic and marketable. Staff agrees with the Plan's arrangement of
Mixed Uses along the higher order arterials as these areas will allow the
development to intensify over time. Using this higher density ensures as little
land as possible is used for development.
The two proposed communities of Cherrywood and Seaton would form a logical
extension to the existing south Pickering urban area. Staff supports the
Consulting Team's findings that the Plan would make efficient and economic use
of existing and proposed infrastructure considering per capita costs, and
minimizing bridge crossings.
Staff concurs with the Consulting Team's assessment that constraints to urban
development outside the Study Area include the:
· Federal ownership of the Pickering airport site;
· on-going airport master planning process;
· prohibitions on noise-sensitive uses, such as residential, on lands to the east
and south-east of the airport site;
· designations under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
· discontinuity from the Ajax urban area boundary, from south Pickering, and
from existing water and sanitary servicing facilities.
Staff also concurs with the Consulting Team's conclusion that lands with soils
having a high capability for agriculture are present in areas outside the
Growth Management Study Area, and have similarly high quality environmental
systems. No obvious advantage is gained by considering these areas over the
Growth Management Study Area, even if the constraints noted in the previous
paragraph were overcome. Thus, the Consulting Team's conclusion to direct
growth to the Study Area is reasonable, and within that Area, the most suitable
land for development has been identified in the Recommended Structure Plan.
Report PD 22-04 Date: May 13, 2004
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Page 13
2.4
Significant employment opportunities are created along Highway 407 and
in the Mixed Use Areas.
Staff agrees with the Consulting Team's recommended location for major
employment along Highway 407. These lands are intended for high quality
prestige employment, light manufacturing and office uses in a business park
setting. Staff supports the Study's findings that the Highway 407 employment
lands will be highly desirable in light of the decreasing supply of employment
lands on controlled access highways to the west and north of the GTA, coupled
with Pickering's location abutting Toronto.
The Major Institutional Node, and other Mixed Use areas, located principally
along the main arterial roads also provide appropriate locations for employment,
given their high visibility and accessibility. Although staff anticipates further
reviewing the location of the Institutional Node prior to reporting back on official
plan amendments to implement the Plan, its role in providing significant
employment would be unchanged.
The Recommended Structure Plan provides opportunities for about 33,000 jobs.
Staff concurs that this is an appropriate amount for central Pickering, given that
south Pickering is anticipated to accommodate another 20,000 jobs by 2031, in
addition to the current 30,000 jobs in south Pickering (see Attachment #5).
2.5 The Recommended Structure Plan protects Pickering's current downtown.
Staff agrees with the designation of multiple locations for Mixed Use Corridors,
Community Nodes, Local Nodes, and Neighbourhood Nodes. These designations
will provide locations for the retailing of goods and services, community and
recreational uses. Although staff will be further reviewing the locations and
amount of retail floor space suggested for each type of Node, this general
approach of the Plan, to not duplicate the existing downtown, is supported.
2.6
The Recommended Structure Plan is compatible with emerging airport
plans.
Staff concurs with the Structure Plan's approach to the Pickering airport site.
Although a decision has not been made to construct an airport, the
Consulting Team has appropriately designed a community that can
accommodate a future regional reliever airport. The location of employment
lands adjacent to the airport lands would capitalize on the potential economic
opportunities of an airport. Also, the Plan ensures no noise sensitive uses (such
as residential) are located within lands subject to severe potential airport noise.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May 13, 2004
Page 14
2.7
2.8
2.9
An appropriate range of transportation choices is provided through the
Plan.
Staff supports the proposed modified grid network of arterial roads, coupled with
higher order transit spines that are proposed to connect central and south
Pickering through the Recommended Structure Plan. The Plan allows an
evolution of transit services over time from express bus service on mixed traffic
or high occupancy vehicle lanes, to eventually exclusive transit lanes within the
road right-of-way. Transit loops using Whites, Taunton and Brock Roads are
intended to connect with the existing GO Station in south Pickering, with
potential future transit service on Highway 407 or Highway 7, and future
GO Stations along the CP rail line. Staff will be reviewing the establishment of
higher intensity land uses around the proposed GO Station sites.
Staff agrees with the general locations of the proposed Highway 407
interchanges through the Seaton lands, as they reflect Council's established
position to not be located on North Road and Sideline 24. As the interchanges
are important for access to the both the employment area and the airport, staff
will be examining the precise location of these interchanges in conjunction with
the airport master planning process. An additional north-south access across
Highway 407 will also be considered by staff as an option to improve access!bility
across Highway 407 for employment traffic. Further, the specific designation of
certain road segments including Townline Road south of Taunton Road, and
Sideline 22, will also be reviewed.
Staff also supports the Structure Plan's Neighbourhood design principle of
having a 10-minute walk to a Neighbourhood Node offering local conveniences.
Staff also concurs with the importance of designing neighbourhoods with
connections and trails for cycling and walking.
Strategies for quality urban design and community sustainability are also
recommended.
Staff supports the Consulting Team's conclusions and recommendations on
urban design as a complementary implementation strategy to achieve the vision
of the Recommended Structure Plan. In addition, the Consulting Team's
inclusion of suggested sustainability strategies for implementing the
Recommended Structure Plan sets the stage for Phase 3 of the GMS.
The Recommended Structure Plan allows for flexibility in phasing growth,
to respond to the City's planning principles and future financing options.
One of Council's 10 Study principles was to stage development to be consistent
with the other principles. Staff supports the Consulting Team's finding that it is
technically feasible to service either the Cherrywood or the Seaton community
first.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date: May 13, 2004
Page 15
3.0 SOME MATTERS REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILED REVIEW AHEAD OF
PREPARING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
4.0
Review and analysis of the Study, including agency and public comments, finds
several areas of the Structure Plan would benefit from more detailed review prior
to official plan amendments being prepared. Some of these areas have already
been mentioned under the discussion of the Recommended Structure Plan.
The matters cover a variety of disciplines, and resolution of one issue may cause
other supportive changes to the Plan.
The main areas of detailed review are listed below and are outlined in details in
Appendix II. It should be noted that this review in no way undermines the
appropriateness and integrity of the Recommended Structure Plan. The review
is intended to allow detailed examination of specific issues that are required to
be addressed before an official plan amendment can be initiated. Main review
areas are:
1. Specific land uses permitted within the various designations and the precise
establishment of an urban boundary;
2. Review of specific certain road linkages and various transportation details; and
3. Review of various details related to natural and cultural heritage.
PICKERING'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY CAN (AND SHOULD)
INFORM ON-GOING PROVINCIAL, REGIONAL AND OTHER ACTIONS AND
INITIATIVES.
Several important and large-scale planning and infrastructure initiatives are
on-going that may directly or indirectly affect lands in Pickering. These initiatives
include:
· a development plan under The Ontario Planning and Development Act, for
lands corresponding to the Growth Management Study Area in Pickering;
· a growth management study for the 'golden horseshoe';
· a greenbelt study for the 'golden horseshoe';
· a class environmental assessment for the severance and sale or disposition
of provincially owned lands in the Seaton community;
location of interchanges in the Seaton community;
a master plan process for the Pickering airport site; and
a review of the Durham Regional Official Plan.
The Growth Management Study reports, (together with Report PD 22-04), provide
perspective and valuable information on existing and future land use planning in
Pickering. Given the comprehensive scope of the City's Growth Management
Study, the other planning and land use initiatives would significantly benefit from
considering and where applicable, incorporating the GMS results into their
reviews.
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May13,2004
Page 16
5.0
Staff recommend that the study reports, this staff report, and Council's
recommendations be forwarded to the appropriate Ministers, departments,
agencies and others as necessary.
CONCLUSIONS
Council received an independent, comprehensive study on growth in central
Pickering. The Study presents a compelling argument for a logical, efficient
extension of urban growth on lands both east and west of West Duffins Creek.
The Phase 2 Reports provide an appropriate balance of Council's study
principles, and has considered the Study ground rules.
Although staff has identified several areas that require additional review ahead of
preparing amendments, these matters do not affect the integrity of the Structure
Plan. Staff will review these matters and report back to Council together with
proposed processes to implement the Structure Plan for the Growth Management
Study Area, taking into consideration the applicable legislative framework.
It is also recommended that Council request staff and the Consulting Team to
examine the work program for Phase 3 of the Study, make appropriate revisions
to ensure the program supports Pickering's application for a 'Green Municipal
Enabling Fund', and then commence Phase 3. The City's grant application,
through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, proposes the preparation of a
sustainable neighbourhood plan.
During this study, a number of Provincial and Regional planning and other
initiatives were on-going or have been commenced. The Phase 2 Growth
Management Study provides excellent information for these initiatives. It is
therefore recommended that Council forward Report PD 22-04 and the Phase 2
Reports to the individuals responsible for these initiatives, and to other key
individuals and agencies including the MPP and MP for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge;
the Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority, abutting urban municipalities,
the Rouge Park Alliance and other interested groups, agencies or individuals for
their information and/or action.
APPENDICES:
I GMS - Phase 2 Recommended Structure Plan with land use statistics
II Recommended Structure Plan Matters Requiring Further Staff Review
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date:
May13,2004
Page 17
ATTACHMENTS:
Context Map and Detailed Information
1. Context Map
2. Growth Management Principles, Ground Rules and Council positions from Terms
of Reference
3. Text of Report PD 11-04
4. Consultation Program on the Phase 2 Reports
5. Urban Growth Projections
6. Consulting Team Response to Regional Planning Comments
Agency Comments
7. Summary of Agency Comments
8. Municipal Property & Engineering Division (received March 29, 2004)
9. Region of York (received April 27, 2004)
10. Region of Durham Planning Department (dated April 23 and received April 27, 2004)
11. Region of Durham Planning Department (dated April 26 and received April 27, 2004)
12. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (received May 10, 2004)
13. Greater Toronto Airports Authority (received April 8, 2004)
14. Bell Canada (received April 1,2004)
15. City of Toronto (received May 11,2004)
Resident Comments
16. Summary of Public Comments Expressed at 'Drop-In' Open Houses and Meetings
17. Summary of Written Public Comments
18. Neil Acton (received April 1,2004)
19. Peter Armstrong (received March 25, 2004)
20. Glenn Austin (received March 31,2004)
21. A. Beatson (received April 2, 2004)
22. J.R. Bousfield, on behalf of West Duffins Landowners' Group
(received March 31,2004)
23. Andrew Brethour on behalf of PMA Brethour Research (received April 2, 2004)
24. Robert Brown (received March 31,2004)
25. Brian Buckles, on behalf of Green Door Alliance (received April 2, 2004)
26. Howard Burkholder (received April 1,2004)
27. Scott Collins (received April 2, 2004)
28. Ted Conway (received March 30, 2004)
29. Graham Cranshaw (received April 4, 2004)
30. Mark Donnelly (received April 1,2004)
31. Declan Dunn (received March 30, 2004)
32. Jim Faught (received April 1,2004)
33. Mike Fearon (received March 24, 2004)
34. Angelo Firrincieli (received April 2, 2004)
35. Bruce Flattery (received April 6, 2004)
Report PD 22-04 Date: May 13, 2004
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Page 18
36. Mark Flowers on behalf of Duffin Capital Corporation (received April 6, 2004)
37. Mark & Judy Francis (received March 15, 2004)
38. Brad Frizzell (received March 23, 2004)
39. Linda Gasser (received April 1,2004)
40. Steven Graham (received March 17, 2004)
41. Betsy Gummow (received March 19, 2004)
42. Heather Hamilton (received March 15, 2004)
43. Don Harvey (received April 8, 2004)
44. Debi Herron (received March 22, 2004)
45. Martin Herzog, on behalf of Liverpool West Community Association
(received April 5, 2004)
46. Shawn Hewl (received March 31,2004)
47. Judy Hicks (received March 24, 2004)
48. Brian & Geraldine Hollinger (received April 2, 2004)
49. Dave Hollinger (received March 26, 2004)
50. Matt Hollinger (received March 25, 2004)
51. Sylivia Holloway (received April 5, 2004)
52. Stephen Hunt (received April 1,2004)
53. Ed Jegg (received April 6, 2004)
54. Carolyn Johnson (received April 19, 2004)
55. Ira Kagan (received April 2, 2004)
56. Harvey Kirsch (received April 13, 2004)
57. Colin Knauf (received March 31,2004)
58. Stella Kryzanowski (received March 30, 2004)
59. Peter Lewarne (received March 29, 2004)
60. Bonnie Littley (received March 30, 2004)
61. Douglas Lockrey (received March 23, 2004)
62. Rob Lyon (received April 6, 2004)
63. George Malcolm (received March 29, 2004)
64. Carmela Marshall (received March 30, 2004)
65. Jon Morgan (received March 30, 2004)
66. Valerie Morris (received April 2, 2004)
67. Eleanor Nash (received April 6, 2004)
68. John Newell (received April 28, 2004)
69. Larry Noonan, on behalf of Altona Forest Stewardship Committee
(received March 23, 2004)
70. Terry Nuspl (received March 29, 2004)
71. Kevin O'Connor (received April 2, 2004)
72. Elaine Parrington (received April 1,2004)
73. Christine Parrott (received March 15, 2004)
74. Mark & Linda Petty (received April 14, 2004)
75. Tari Piper (received March 30, 2004)
76. Ashmore Reesor (received March 30, 2004)
77. Bob Reesor (received April 2, 2004)
78. Da~e Reesor (received March 31, 2004)
79. Peter Renzetti (received April 2, 2004)
80. Todd Ricketts (received March 22, 2004)
Report PD 22-04
Subject: Growth Management Study: Phase 2
Date: May 13, 2004
Page 19
81. Sandy Rider (received March 26, 2004)
82. S. & J. Schaefer (received March 30, 2004)
83. Sadhana Sivasubramaniam (received March 31,2004)
84. Rosemary Speirs (received March 30, 2004)
85. Tim & Judy Stapleton (received March 16, 2004)
86. David Steele, on behalf of Pickering Ajax Citizens Together (P.A.C.T.)
(received April 15, 2004)
87. Gary Templeton, on behalf of Hollinger Farms Ltd. (received April 2, 2004)
88. Martin Thomas (received March 30, 2004)
89. Jim Thompson (received April 1,2004)
90. Steve Tuckett (received April 4, 2004)
91. Vivian Vandenhazel (received March 17, 2004)
92. William Wilder (received March 31,2004)
93. Mike Wilfer (received March 22, 2004)
94. Gordon Willson (received April 5, 2004)
Prepared By:
Grant McGregor~ M~'Pi Re
Principal Planner- Policy
Approved / Endorsed By:
Neil Carrol~PP
Director, Planning & Development
Catherine Rose
Manager, Policy
GM/CR:Id:jf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
City Solicitor
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
>'"'T'-..,~'~'~/ ~ /~,, ,,,'/~/,'.~-~ /
'Y'h~ma~ J. Q~inn, Chib. f/Adminis~~O~fi~'er ~