The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD 38-05PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: PD 38-05 Date: September 1,2005 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Dated July 14, 2005 EBR Registry Number PF05E0002 Recommendation: That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PD 38-05 as its comments on the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan, prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated July 14, 2005, EBR Registry Number PF05E0002; That Pickering Council ADVISE the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan is unacceptable to the City, and request the Minister to not submit the Provincial Plan to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, as there has been insufficient investigation, survey and consultation, as required by the Act, respecting all of the matters set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this Report, including: (a) inadequate consultation on the Provincial Plan with the public, the landowners and the City; (b) insufficient financial investigations on the impacts to the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham of the development set out in the Provincial Plan; (c) inadequate (d) incomplete (e) unresolved (f) unresolved (g) inadequate (h) inadequate economic development analysis; environmental investigations; issues with protection of First Nations sites and resources; transportation issues; analysis of agricultural viability; and urban land supply analysis; That Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to not pursue a Provincial Development Plan for Central Pickering under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, except in the context of a full environmental assessment; Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1, 2005 Page 2 That Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, prior to exchanging lands and allowing development to occur in Central Pickering, to enter into appropriate agreements with the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham respecting the provision of land for, and the timing, funding and type, of all municipal facilities and services required to ensure the development of an environmentally, socially and fiscally sustainable community, and respecting other matters of interest and concern to the municipalities; That Pickering Council TABLE draft Amendment 14 to the Pickering Official Plan, City Initiated: Modified Seaton Plan (OPA 05-002/P) in light of recommendations 2, 3 and 4; and That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 38-05 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Project Director for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Executive Summary: On December 13, 2004, Council adopted Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan implementing the results of the City's Growth Management Study (GMS) for lands in Central Pickering. On July 14, 2005, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing released for comment an alternate plan for the area, the proposed Central Picketing Development Plan, (the "Provincial Plan"), prepared under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA). The Plan envisages a "sustainable" urban community of up to 60,000 persons and 30,000 jobs on the Seaton lands, and a "thriving" agricultural area west of West Duffins Creek (the Cherrywood community in the City's GMS), set within an "extensive" natural heritage system. Although similar in some respects to Amendment 13, (the "City's Plan"), for Central Pickering, the Provincial Plan has some very significant differences that have not been adequately rationalized, explained or supported by sufficient investigation, survey or public consultation as required by the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994. There is no compelling information to indicate that the Provincial Plan is more appropriate than the City's Plan for Central Pickering. Accordingly, the Provincial Plan cannot be supported, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing should not submit the Development Plan to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval. In addition, although the City does not support the Province's use of the Ontario Planning and Development Act in Central Pickering, should the Province continue to pursue this course of action, it should only do so in the context of a full environmental assessment, consistent with the previous requests of Pickering Council and others. Report PD 38-05 September 1, 2005 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Page 3 Further, the Province of Ontario still currently owns substantial lands in Central Pickering. These are public lands and the Province has the responsibility to not exchange them with any private sector development interests without first having entered into appropriate agreements with the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham with respect to the provision of land for, and the timing, funding and type of all municipal facilities and services required to ensure the development of an environmentally, socially and fiscally sustainable community, and with respect to other matters of interest and concern to the municipalities. These include the provision of affordable housing, and the protection of First Nations sites and resources. With respect to the City's draft Amendment 14 (Pickering Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 05-002/P; City initiated: Modified Seaton Plan), it is recommended that Council table this Amendment given the concerns expressed in this Report on the Provincial Plan. Financial Implications: No direct financial implications in adopting the recommendations of this Report. A Financial Impact Analysis is under way regarding the effects to the City of implementing the community envisaged by the proposed Provincial Plan. Background: 1.0 PROPOSED PROVINCIAL PLAN FOR CENTRAL PICKERING 1.1 In the spring of 2004, as the City of Pickering was circulating the results of Phase 2 of its Growth Management Study, the Province of Ontario commenced the preparation of a land use plan for the same area. In June 2004, Council endorsed a recommended land use structure plan for lands in Central Pickering, as an outcome of the City's Growth Management Study (GMS) - Phase 2. The GMS had commenced in May 2002, and was based on 10 principles that expressed Pickering's priorities for land use and development in Central Pickering. Central Pickering includes the Seaton lands on the east side of West Duffins Creek, and the Cherrywood lands on the west side of West Duffins Creek. The GMS structure plan, prepared with the assistance of a multi-disciplinary consulting team lead by Dillon Consulting Limited, envisaged a sustainable, mixed use, transit-supportive urban development on lands comprising most of the Seaton community and some of the Cherrywood community, an active countryside area with rural settlements, with an extensive natural heritage system through both the urban and rural areas. The urban development would accommodate approximately 77,000 persons and 33,000 jobs. Report PD 38-05 September 1, 2005 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Page 4 However, as the structure plan and detailed Phase 2 reports were being circulated for comment (Phase 1 background reports had been released to the public about eight months earlier), the Province of Ontario commenced preparation of another "plan" for the same lands. This Provincial Plan was a "Development Plan", prepared under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA). A Development Planning Area" that included the Central Pickering lands had been established by an order signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about a year earlier (April 2003). The Province owns most of the lands in Seaton, and as part of its strategy to protect the Oak Ridge Moraine, proposed to exchange provincially owned lands in Seaton for privately owned lands on the Moraine. During the latter part of 2004, the City initiated and adopted Amendment 13, (the City's Plan), to the Pickering Official Plan, implementing the results of the City's GMS. At the same time, the Province, with the assistance of a multi-disciplinary consulting team headed by Planning Alliance Inc., undertook stakeholder consultations for the preparation of the Provincial Plan for Central Pickering. 1.2 In July 2005, the Province released its Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan for comment. The Provincial Plan was released by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at a public open house on July 14, 2005, and posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry, with the 60-day deadline for written comments ending September 12, 2005. The lands subject to the proposed Provincial Plan are shown on the map provided as Attachment #1 to this Report, and a copy of the EBR posting is provided as Attachment #2. In addition to the Provincial Plan, nine summaries of background studies, each of about 4 to 6 pages, were made available on the following topics: Agriculture; Cultural Heritage; Employment Lands; Housing and Mixed Use; Natural Heritage System; Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities; Stormwater Management; Transportation Network; and Water and Wastewater Servicing. Further, two reports were made available: a Natural Heritage System report prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (May 2005), and a Water Budget Assessment (June 2005) prepared by Clarifica Inc. The proposed Provincial Plan envisages a sustainable, mixed use, transit-supportive urban community of up to 60,000 persons and 30,000 jobs on the Seaton lands, and an agricultural area on the Cherrywood lands, within an extensive natural heritage system throughout both areas. The existing Hamlets of Brougham, Green River, Whitevale and Cherrywood remain. A copy of the proposed land use and transportation schedule from the Provincial Plan is provided as Attachment #3 to this Report (a full copy of the Provincial Plan was distributed to Council under separate cover). Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1, 2005 Page 5 1.3 Although the Provincial Plan has some similarities Growth Management Study - Amendment 13, there are a significant differences. to the City's number of For the Seaton Provincial Plan, · · lands, comparing the Provincial Plan to the City's Plan, the identifies a differently configured natural heritage system; uses a single, restrictive designation for the natural heritage system, rather than two open space designations (one restrictive; one permitting consideration of community uses subject to an environmental report), as in the City's Plan; · proposes an urban residential population of approximately 60,000 persons versus 39,000 in the City's Plan; · targets an urban employment to population ratio of 1 job for every 2 residents, where as the City's Plan results in a ratio of 1 job for every 2.3 residents; · proposes a direct connection of Whites Road - Sideline 26 over West Duffins Creek, rather than an indirect connection as in the City's Plan; · identifies a somewhat different overall transportation system; · proposes urban residential uses adjacent to the Hamlet of Whitevale, as opposed to Countryside in the City's Plan; · establishes a somewhat different arrangement of land uses, although in general, employment lands are located along Highway 407 and Brock Road in both plans, mixed use areas along parts of Taunton Road and Sideline 26, and residential Iow and medium in the other development areas; and · proposes high density residential uses (10,000 people) in employment lands, whereas the City's Plan does not. For the Cherrywood area, comparing the Provincial Plan to the City's Plan, the Provincial Plan, · designates all of the lands, except the rural settlements, as agricultural "preserve" whereas the City's Plan designates urban development for approximately 38,000 persons and 9,000 jobs in the south part, countryside with rural settlements in north part, and natural heritage system occurring throughout; · identifies a differently configured natural heritage system; · identifies the natural heritage system as an overlay to the primary agricultural "preserve" designation, which permits agricultural uses subject to an environmental report, rather than as two primary designations in the City's Plan (one restrictive; one permitting consideration of community uses subject to an environmental report); · proposes a direct connection of Whites Road - Sideline 26 over West Duffins Creek, rather than an indirect connection in the City's Plan; · identifies a substantially different transportation system, as there are no collector roads or Type C Arterials, and the proposed extension of Rossland Road-Third Concession extends only as far west as Whites Road in Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1,2005 Page 6 the Provincial Plan whereas in the City's Plan, it extends to the Toronto/York - Durham Townline Road; and proposes the range of agricultural, farm related, and secondary uses permissible by the Provincial Policy Statement, whereas the City's Plan permitted additional uses to be established without a farm operation on the lands. 1.4 2.0 The Provincial Plan has policies that do not appear in the City's Plan, addressing a number of matters including: the crossings of the natural heritage system; stormwater management, and details on a number of subsequent studies to be completed. Another amendment, draft Amendment 14 was also prepared. Staff has reviewed the Provincial Plan and the background information provided. Further, staff considered the public and agency comments received through a Statutory Public Meeting held to consider another plan that had been prepared by the City for the Seaton lands only. That plan, draft Amendment 14, incorporated a number of similar elements as the Provincial Plan, and was circulated to solicit comment on those common elements. The text of the Information Report prepared for draft Amendment 14 and the Minutes from the July 26, 2005 Statutory Public Meeting are provided as Attachments #4 and #5. Approximately 175 people attended. A table summarizing the written comments from ratepayer groups, the public and landowners plus the individual submissions are included as Attachments #6, and #7 - #33. A table summarizing the comments from agencies and other municipalities plus the individual submissions are also included as Attachments #34, and #35 - #41. DISCUSSION 2.1 The investigations, surveys and consultation undertaken by the Province in the preparation of the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan have not substantiated the merits of the Provincial Plan, compared to Council's Growth Management Study - Amendment 13. The release of the Provincial Plan occurred about six months after Council adopted Amendment 13 (the "City's Plan"), and a year after Council endorsed the Growth Management Study structure plan. As discussed in section 1.3 of this Report, there are fundamental differences between the two plans. However, the Province has not conducted sufficient or suitable investigations and surveys, including analysis of different policy frameworks and land use arrangements, to demonstrate the merits of the Provincial Plan over the City's Plan. Report PD 38-05 September 1,2005 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Page 7 As a minimum, the investigations required for the Provincial Plan should have explicitly analyzed existing positions, such as the City's Plan, as well as other options identified through their own research and consultation, obtained comments on the results of the analysis and preliminary conclusions, and then prepared a Provincial Plan for consultation. Some areas of concern include the following: · the financial impact: there was no financial analysis of the impacts of the development envisaged by the Provincial Plan, and no comparison of how the development of just the Seaton lands would compare to development as contemplated by the City's Plan; · the economic development framework: achieving "jobs first" was an important principle of the City's GMS; yet, no analysis was undertaken for the development on strategies to achieve "jobs first", such as requiring employment lands to be serviced prior to or coincident with the start of residential development; further, there is no rationale provided or any investigation produced about the effects of permitting residential uses within prestige industrial areas - just the position that 10,000 people should be accommodated on employment lands; there is no analysis demonstrating it is in the City's best interest to convert employment lands to residential; · the natural heritage system (NHS): there is no analysis of options - the GMS NHS was different and there was an earlier NHS as part of the commencement of the Ontario Realty Corporation Class Environmental Assessment; there was no water budget analyzing whether the wider corridors shown on certain creeks in the City's Plan would be more effective than assuming a constant buffer width; there was no disclosure about which creeks could be piped and why, and which woodlots could be taken down and why, effectively preventing debate on the matter; · cultural heritage and First Nations: part of the delineation of the City's NHS in the GMS was the inclusion of known First Nations sites; for the Provincial Plan, there is no evidence that an option was evaluated that revised the extent of the NHS to further protect sites; the results of the archeological work has not been shared with the City; · regional open space connections: the City's Plan maintains a significant open space linkage between the Rouge River and Duffins Creek watersheds, connecting from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine - there is no investigation disproving the adequacy of the linkage, and the need for the approach taken in the Provincial Plan; · hydrogeological resources: a public submission received on reviewing the hydrogeological aspects of the Provincial Plan concludes that the Provincial Plan is unacceptable in terms of its potential adverse impact on the sensitive hydrogeology, and that three dimensional modeling should be used to assess the community design (see Report prepared by K. Howard within Attachment #8); Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1, 2005 Page 8 2.2 · community uses within the natural heritage system: despite considerable discussion at some of the earlier consultation sessions, there is no investigation or analysis about the relative merits of applying the proposed restrictive approach to uses, compared to a less restrictive approach that permits consideration of community uses subject to an environmental report; · transportation system: the proposed direct connection of Whites Road- Sideline 26 compared to the City's Plan indirect connection requires further evaluation; a strong concern with a direct connection was raised repeatedly by the community (see Summary of Public Comments, Attachment #6); further, the merits of the future Rossland Road - Third Concession extension only to Whites Road requires justification; · urban development adjacent to Whitevale: the City's Plan maintains a countryside area around the Hamlet of Whitevale, in part because of the significance of the village's setting to the Heritage District designation; the Provincial Plan did not evaluate any alternate land use options adjacent to Whitevale, produce the results of any consultation confirming the residents' responses to urbanization, or demonstrate that the need to accommodate urban growth in this small area is most appropriate; · agricultural policies: the proposed strategies and uses read like the current Pickering Official Plan; notwithstanding that the City's Plan for Central Pickering has a smaller area for countryside uses, the City's Plan includes uses that do not have to be accessory to a farm use; there is no analysis evaluating the difference between the City's approach and that of the Provincial Plan; the background work noted that concerns from the local agricultural community and hamlet residents were addressed in the Provincial Plan's development stage - the concerns are not identified, nor is it explained how they were addressed; there is no analysis demonstrating how the proposed policies will address the challenges that will be faced by farmers in this area; · urban land supply: including Seaton, a 20 year urban land supply does not exist in Pickering; while many resident comments received through draft Amendment 14 support the Cherrywood Area for agriculture, the appropriateness of these lands for agriculture must be made in the context of the relative merits of these and other lands in Pickering for potential urban development; there is insufficient analysis of the effect of this Provincial Plan with respecting to long term land supply. The consultation process on the Provincial Plan is insufficient. The consultation process is insufficient for a proposal of this importance. Release of the Provincial Plan at an open house and on the EBR Registry the same day provides no opportunity for a stakeholder to have reviewed the document and effectively discuss its contents. No documentation has been made available regarding the views expressed at the various meetings held during 2004, or how these views relate to the Provincial Plan prepared. Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1,2005 Page 9 2.3 2.4 Through the consultation on draft Amendment 14, other comments have been received by the City respecting the proposed development of Seaton. As there is no documentation on previous input, it is not clear whether these are new issues, or whether they have been raised previously, and if so, how they were dealt with. Issues raised include: protection ofcoldwater creeks; · inadequacy of east-west and other transportation routes to meet existing demand; · potential that new development will engulf the Hamlet of Green River; and · anticipated cost of servicing the pockets of development. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing proceeds with finalizing the Provincial Plan for Central Pickering under the OPDA, it should be through the framework of an a full environmental assessment. Finalizing a Provincial Plan for Central Pickering, under the OPDA, is not supported. The Planning Act process for plan preparation, and the further processing of Amendment 13 will allow for the completion of an appropriate plan for Central Pickering. Nevertheless, should the Minister continue with the Development Plan, it is recommended the Minister only do so in the context of a full environmental assessment. This would also be consistent with earlier requests from the City, ratepayer groups, and other concerned residents to carry out a full environmental assessment for this proposed development. An agreement should be entered into between the Province of Ontario and the City of Pickering (and the Region of Durham as appropriate), to clarify matters related to the substantial implementation challenges that must be met to achieve the vision of the Provincial Plan. The Provincial Plan identifies a number of major implementation studies and plans to be completed at a later date. These include the Employment Lands Plan, Master Trail Plan, Natural Heritage System Management Plan, and servicing and transportation environmental assessments. In addition, there are outstanding infrastructure needs, such as the widening of Brock Road, provision of higher order transit service, and the construction of the Highway 407 interchanges that are critical to the development of Seaton (comments from the Ministry of Transportation are advising the City must contact 407/ETR about cost sharing for these interchanges, see Attachment #x). Moreover, a significant number of community facilities and services will also need to be provided as development commences. An expectation is placed on the City and the Region to provide necessary services and facilities to enable development, and meet the needs of the community, in a manner commensurate with the vision in the Provincial Plan. Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1,2005 Page 10 3.0 As the primary landowner within Seaton and a public body, the Province has a responsibility to not exchange the lands with any private sector development interests, without first having entered into appropriate agreements with the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham. The agreements should address two main areas: 1. the provision of land for, and the timing, funding and type, of all municipal facilities and services required to ensure the development of an environmentally, socially and fiscally sustainable community; and 2. other matters of interest and concern to the municipalities. For the City of Pickering, other matters of importance to the City (some of which were identified through consultation) that should be addressed through an agreement include the following: · protection of First Nations sites and resources in accordance with Council's Resolution #139/02; · establishing a strategy for existing tenants on Provincial lands; · commitment to affordable housing; · addressing accessibility in subdivisions design; · provision of additional urban design controls; · downstream stormwater management; · servicing of employment lands prior to, or coincident with, the commencement of residential development; · establishing major community facilities coincident with the commencement of residential development; and · incorporating sustainable development and design in residential, commercial and employment buildings. DRAFT AMENDMENT 14 (OPA 05-002/P) Draft Amendment 14 (a modified Seaton Plan, prepared by the City), contained a number of elements that were the same or similar to the Provincial Plan. Thus, input received through the July 26, 2005, Statutory Public Meeting and circulation of the draft Amendment has been used in preparing comments on the Provincial Plan. However, staff recommend Amendment 14 be tabled at this time. The reasons include the following: the issues raised in this Report requiring further review; comments received on the draft Amendment; and a number of requests from Provincial agencies, the Region of Durham and others to delay any further processing of Amendment 14 until the Provincial Plan is completed. Report PD 38-05 September 1,2005 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Page 11 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Despite the recommendation that draft Amendment 14 be tabled, the Minister has not substantiated the appropriateness of the Provincial Plan relative to the City's Plan (Amendment 13). It is recommended the Minister not submit the Provincial Plan to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval. However, in the event the Minister continues to pursue a Provincial Plan for the purpose of a land exchange, it should be in the context of a full environmental assessment and with appropriate agreements between the Province and the City and Region to ensure the development meets the vision of the Provincial Plan for an environmentally, socially and fiscally sustainable community. Attachments Detailed Information 1. Map showing lands subject to the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan 2. Environmental Bill of Rights Registry Posting 3. Land Use Schedule from proposed Central Pickering Development Plan 4. Text of Information Report PD 17-04 5. Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes held on July 26, 2005 Resident Comments 6. Summary of Written Public Comments 7. Cherrywood Residents' Association, Mike Wilfer, President (received August 12, 2005) 8. PACT, David Steele, Chair (3 - received July 11, 12, 2005 and Report prepared by K. Howard, August 18, 2005) 9. Jeff Archbold (received July 28, 2005) 10. Rob Burns (received August 15, 2005) 11. Trish Cooke-Harding (received July 22, 2005) 12. Graham, Sue, Leslie and Lauren Crawshaw (received August 12, 2005) 13. Don Harvey (received August 15, 2005) 14. Anthea and Ben Hillier (received July 25, 2005) 15. Carol Kaake & John Crouse (received July 22, 2005) 16. Ryan and Katherine Lucas (received July 22, 2005) 17. Rob Lyon (2 - received July 12 and August 16, 2005) 18. Mike J. McQuaid (received August 12, 2005) 19. Eleanor Nash (received August 12, 2005) 20. Tim Neal (received July 28, 2005) 21. Ernest Nemeth (received July 26, 2005) 22. Nick Nicolussi (received August 12, 2005) 23. Don Prince (received August 15, 2005) Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1,2005 Page 12 24. Irene Rautanen (received August 12, 2005) 25. Perry Rautanen (received August 15, 2005) 26. Aziza Rohoman (received July 22, 2005) 27. Rob Sands (received August 8, 2005) 28. Debbie Shortreed (received July 25, 2005) 29. Rosemary Speirs (received July 22, 2005) 30. Tim & Judy Stapleton (received July 26, 2005) 31. Isobel & Tommy Thompson (received August 11, 2005) 32. Dr. James C. Thompson (received August 16, 2005) 33. Nick Veronico (received July 26, 2005) Agency Comments 34. Summary of Agency Comments 35. Bell (received August 15, 2005) 36. Greater Toronto Airports Authority (received August 8, 2005) 37. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (received August 12, 2005) 38. Ministry of Transportation (received August 30, 2005) 39. Ontario Realty Corporation (received August 15, 2005) 40. Region of Durham (received August 25, 2005) 41. Township of Uxbridge (received July 19, 2005) Report PD 38-05 Subject: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan September 1, 2005 Page 13 Prepared By: Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Policy Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy Approved / Endorsed By: Neil Carroll, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning & Development GM:CLR:Id Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer All Directors Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Th,o~laT~O. Ouin~hief A~minist~, Offic/ ATrACHMEN? ~,~'-~ TO REPORT ~' PD · Ci~ of Pickering Planning a Development Depa~ment PROPER~ DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT P~NNING AREA OWNER VARIOUS DATE: AUG. 24, 2005 D~WN BY JB FILE No. OPDA SCALE: N.T.S. CHECKED BY OR ........................................... ~ ............................. PN-RUR ATTACHMENT #_,~. ~'0 EBR Registry Number: PF05E0002 Type of Posting: Policy Ministry: Municipal Affairs and Housing Status of Posting: Proposal Date Proposal Loaded: 2005/07/14 Comment Period: 60 day(s) Written submissions may be made between July 14, 2005 and September 12, 2005. NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR POLICY © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2005 Proposal Title: Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Short Description: As part of the Province's strategy to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Province is proposing to exchange provincially owned lands in Pickering (Seaton) for privately owned lands on the Moraine. To lay the foundation for a well-planned and progressive urban community in Central Pickering with a protected natural heritage system and to enhance agricultural viability in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve, the ministry is preparing a proposed land use plan that reinforces both the Province's Greenbelt Plan and key principles of the draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The province assembled the North Pickering lands in the early 1970s. The intent was to develop a community of 150,000 to 200,000 persons in conjunction with a new federal airport, which would be located immediately north of the provincially owned lands. The provincial land holdings in North Pickering often referred to as Seaton is identified as land for the City of Pickering's future urban expansion, and the exchange involves lands in this area only. On April 17, 2003, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing signed an order under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA) to establish a Development Planning Area covering the Pickering portion of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve and the Seaton lands. The Minister also put in place a Minister's Zoning Order pursuant to Section 47 of the Planning Actt, covering the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve in Pickering. The boundaries of the Development Planning Area were subsequently amended on March 25, 2004, to exclude the area known as Duffins Heights, for which a secondary plan had already been prepared and approved. The proposed Plan has eight goals: Natural Heritage The protection, maintenance and enhancement of natural features, functions and systems intended to sustain a viable and permanent natural eco-system. The Natural Heritage System is a key element to be functionally integrated into the community and provide opportunities for certain recreational and educational activities, while remaining cognizant of the proposed urban setting. Cultural Heritage The integration of cultural heritage into the new community fabric by drawing on the physical legacies of original aboriginal and European occupation. AT1ACH?J[~I #~ TO P, EPORI ~ PD~ Agriculture Ensuring that the Picketing portion of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve is permanently protected for agricultural and conservation uses by fostering a healthy near-urban agricultural community that integrates appropriately with the surrounding rural and urban areas. Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities The provision of an appropriate distribution of facilities to serve residents, workers and visitors, linked by a network of parks and open spaces that complement the Natural Heritage System. This network of facilities is to be connected by trails, walkways and roads, and integrated with individual residential neighbourhoods, mixed-use corridors and employment areas. Transportation and Transit The provision of a transportation system that provides for choices in transportation mode, including ensuring that the community is designed in a manner that supports public transit. Servicing Ensuring that the network of utilities required to serve the new urban community minimizes impacts on the environment, maximizes efficiency and use of existing infrastructure, and minimizes lifecycle costs. Employment The provision of high-quality employment opportunities that reflect the needs of the community, with the identification of sufficient employment lands to generate approximately one job for every two residents. Housing and Mixed-Use The provision of a range of housing types and densities that meets the needs of a diverse population, complements surrounding communities, and accommodates an eventual population of up to 60,000 residents at a population density that is transit-supportive. The notion of sustainability is integral to every dimension of the proposed Plan, which in turn places an increased emphasis on environmental stewardship during implementation. The Plan anticipates that this emphasis will lead to the greater involvement of local residents, agencies and interest groups in the operation and management of the of the resulting urban and agricultural communities, as well as the Natural Heritage System. Such involvement may take many forms, including the creation of environmental monitoring programs, harnessing of alternative energy sources, disconnection of rooftop downspouts, naturalization of parks and yards, and creation of composting and recycling programs. A copy of the proposed Development Plan for Central Pickering consultation document for Ontario is available on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing internet site identified at the end of this notice. Purpose of the Proposal: The purposes of the Policy Proposal Notice are: (1) to advise the public that the province is consulting on a proposed Development Plan for Central Pickering under the OPDA; and, (2) to provide 60 days for the public to comment on the proposed Development Plan for Central Pickering consultation document by directing their written concerns to the contact person noted below. Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person: Project Director North Pickering Land Exchange Team 777 Bay St., 3rd Floor Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5 ATTACH,¥FNT #_~ TO REPORi ~' PD~-~, ' o~ PHONE: (416) 585-6185 FAX: (416) 585-7305 Some Government offices have additional information on this proposal for viewing. These are listed below: North Pickering Land Exchange Team 777 Bay Street, 3rd floor Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5 PHONE: (416) 585-6366 FAX: (416) 585-7305 Additional material in support of this notice is available by clicking the following hyperlink(s): http://www.mah,gov,on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_l_6592_I ,html All comments will be considered as part of the decision-making by the Ministry if they: a. are submitted in writing; b. reference the EBR Registry number; and c. are received by the Contact person within the specified comment period. Please Note: No acknowledgment or individual response will be provided to those who comment. Ali comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. I ~ TO O~ eu!lep!s ~ aU!lap! t~ eu!leP!S 9~ aU!laP!S ~ eu!Iep!s eU!l u,~ol kueqJno-~JoA ATTACHIt,'IENI #~TO r~EF~OR'~ ,~ PD_ ,~ INFORMATION REPORT NO. 17-05 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF July 26, 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. '1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P City Initiated: Modified Seaton Plan Draft Amendment 14 City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the proposed amendment applies to lands generally bounded by the C.P. Rail line to the south, West Duffins Creek to the west, Highway 7 including the Provincially-owned lands north of the Hamlet of Green River to the north, and Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary to the east; these lands comprise the area of the Central Pickering Urban Area - Seaton Community (see Attachment #1 ); the area is also traversed by a number of smaller stream corridors including the Whitevale, Ganatsekiagon, Urfe and Brougham Creeks in the Seaton lands; the area is predominantly rural in character; the Hamlet of Whitevale abuts the western boundary of the Amendment area while the Hamlets of Brougham and Green River abut the northern boundary. BACKGROUND in May 2002, Council initiated a Growth Management Study (GMS), which focused on 10 Principles that expressed Pickering's priorities in land use and development decision-making for Central Pickering; in June 2004, Council endorsed a Structure Plan resulting from the completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the GMS prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited, et al. as the basis for preparing official plan amendments; in December 2004, Council adopted Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan, which implemented the GMS to create a sustainable transit supportive community for the Seaton and Cherrywood areas capable of accommodating approximately 77,000 people and a broad range of employment opportunities for approximately 33,000 jobs; Information Report No. 17-05 ATTACHMEN'r #_~'..,.~ r0 Page 2 3.0 3.1 3.2 in the spring of 2005, City staff discussed Amendment 13 with the Province of Ontario, the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, prospective Seaton developers/landowners and other relevant agencies that resulted in new information being presented for the City's consideration and identified possible changes intended to enhance the plan for Seaton; on July 7, 2005, notice of a July 26, 2005 Public Meeting was mailed to all persons on the GMS mailing list, advertised in the Community Page of the News Advertiser on three separate Wednesdays, and added to the City's website; a follow up letter to the City's previous notice (including a map of Amendment 13 GMS area) was mailed on July 20, 2005; this letter clarified Council's position regarding Amendment 13 for both the Seaton and Cherrywood areas and provided the context for draft Amendment 14 and the Province's Development Plan (see Attachment #2); this Information Report presents draft Amendment 14 and the key options that differ from Council's current position (Amendment 13) for the Seaton lands only. OFFICIAL PLANS Durham ReRional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the Seaton lands as Living Area and Employment Area and the Agricultural Assembly portion as Permanent Agricultural Reserve and Major Open Space System; the lands north and east of the Hamlet of Green River are designated as Special Study Areas 1; a Regional Node h for a proposed Durham College campus and a Main Central Area designation is also located on the Seaton lands; a network of Type A, B, and C arterial roads are also designated; Pickerin.q Official Plan the Pickering Official Plan designates the Seaton lands as the Seaton Urban Study Area and Natural Areas on Schedule ! - Land Use Structure; the area surrounding the Hamlets of Whitevale and Green River are designated as Agricultural Areas and Natural Areas; also on Schedule I, the remaining part of Deferral 31 relating to the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood is shown; the Seaton Urban Study Area policies require the community to be a compact urban area, the preparation of neighbourhood plans and phasing strategies, and other matters relating to community development; in addition to conservation, passive and similar recreational uses, the Natural Areas designation permits agricultural uses outside of valley and stream corridors, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and areas of natural and scientific interest; Information Report No. 17-05 ATTACHMENT #, ~L TO REPORI # PD ~-C)5 Page 3 4.0 - in the Agricultural Areas designation, permissible uses include primary agricultural uses and complementary and supportive agricultural uses such as agricultural industries, home businesses; and farm-related businesses; - the Schedule II- Transportation Network designates an arterial road system within the Seaton area, the arterial road alignments have been deferred pending further study; - for reference, copies of Schedules I, II, Schedule IV-3, and Schedule IV-4 to the existing Official Plan are attached in the draft Amendment. CITY INITIATED DRAFT AMENDMENT 14 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL 4.1 PLAN General Overview the City of Pickering proposes to amend the Pickering Official Plan in order to implement the land use structure for the Central Pickering Urban Area - Seaton Community; the draft Amendment document includes a correction to policy 3.9 changing the minimum and maximum net residential density from over 80 units and up to and including 140 units per net hectare to 40 units and up to and including 80 units per net hectare for the Medium Density designation; the attached amendment includes the following policy and Schedule revisions to the Official Plan (see Appendix I): 1. revise certain lands on Schedule I- Land Use Structure as follows: · replacing the Seaton Urban Study Area designation with the designations of Local Nodes, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors, Low Density Areas, Medium Density Areas, and Prestige Employment Areas; · revising the configuration and extent of the NaturalAreas designation; · replacing the existing Agricultural Area designation north, east and south of the Hamlet of Whitevale with a new Countryside Area designation that permits non-agricultural related uses and an Active Recreation Area designation; · replacing the Agricultural Area designation with Prestige Employment Areas for land further north of Whitevale; · replacing the Agricultural Areas designation with an Active Recreational Areas designation for lands immediately north of the existing Whitevale Golf Course to reflect their current ownership; · correcting the boundary for the Federal Airport Lands to exclude the Provincially-owned lands located north of Highway 7, adjacent to the Hamlet of Green River, and adding urban designations for those lands; · revising the transportation schedule to show new arterial road and future collector road alignments and to delete three Highway 407 overpasses located at Sideline 22, Country Lane, and Brock Road; Information Report No. 17-05 ATIAOHMENI' #, /'2z' F0 FIEPORI # PD -~ '-O.~ Page 4 · adding a policy supporting lower right-of-way widths for arterial roads within the Seaton Community; · adding policies requiring the extension of Regional water and sanitary sewerage services to the Employment Areas before residential development is permitted within the Seaton Community; · adding policies requiring the establishment of major community facilities concurrent or prior to residential development commencing; · adding policies increasing the residential density ranges within the Low Density Areas, Medium Density Areas, Local Nodes, and Mixed Corridors designations; revise Schedule II- Transportation System showing new arterial and collector road alignments, deleting three Highway 407 overpasses located at Sideline 22, Country Lane, and Brock Road, and changing the symbol for the Highway 407/Townline Road Interchange from Proposed to Ex/sting; and add new policies requiring: · the development of residential neighbourhoods to incorporate sustainable design elements; · future studies prior to permitting residential development within the Seaton Community; · the maintenance and enhancement of the Open Space System; · the completion of an Environmental Report to permit community uses within the Open Space System; · minimal impacts on the Open Space System by road and utility crossings within the Seaton Community; · the application of planning and design principles for locating stormwater management systems within the Open Space System of Central Pickering. 5.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 5.1 Resident Comments as of the writing of this report, two area residents have contacted the City seeking information relating to draft Amendment 14 (see Attachments #3 and ~); 5.2 Agency Comments - the Township of Uxbridge indicated no comments (see Attachment #5). Information Report No. 17-05 AT'I'ACHMENT # /./Z. ~lO REPOR'f # PD "7'._.~-o~ Page 5 6.0 6.1 6.2 7.0 7.1 STAFF COMMENTS Key Options Proposed In Draft Amendment 14 That Differ From Amendment 13 there are key options being considered in draft Amendment 14 that differ from Council's current position (Amendment 13) respecting land use and transportation as follows: reconfiguring the Open Space System to reflect most of the Province's Open Space System configuration; revising the Open Space System to no longer include both the Natural Areas and Active Recreational Areas designations except for the Whitevale Golf Course; replacing the Open Space System on lands located between the tributaries of Whitevale Creek to Residential Low Density; revising the overall transportation network and reconfiguring the areas designated Low, Medium and Mixed Use; and extending Whites Road to cross West Duffins Creek to connect with Sideline 26, subject to a policy requiring re-examination of need, justification and alternatives during the required Municipal Class EA process. Proposed Provincial Development Plan For Central Pickerinq on July 14, 2005, the Province released the "Central Pickering Development Plan" for the Provincially-owned Seaton area and for the Cherrywood area under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994; the Province's plan for the Cherrywood area differs significantly from Pickering Council's position as presented in Amendment 13; however, City staff collaborated with the Province and other agencies in the preparation of the Development Plan for the Seaton area to ensure that the plan accommodated many of the land use and transportation elements contained in Pickering's Amendment 13; also the plan is very similar to draft Amendment 14, with the exception of a slightly different natural heritage system, more residential development near Whitevale, and a small reduction in employment lands north of Whitevale. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority the Region of Durham is the approval authority for local official plan amendments when there is a regional official plan amendment required; Information Report No. 17-05 ATTACHMEN'~ ~_.~ ...... Page 6 7.2 General written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to the proposed amendment to the official plan, you must make a written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning Department. 8.0 OTHER INFORMATION 8.1 Appendix APPENDIX I: Draft Amendment 14 O~G]~..U., S~GI~F,D ]~¥ OP 01NAt, $lGh' BY Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Policy Catherine L. Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy GM:jf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development ATTACHMEN'I' ~, ~" TO REPOR~' ~ PD 38 C)~ Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, July 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. The Director, Planning & Development provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting and introduced staff. The Manager, Policy, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (i) INFORMATION REPORT NO. 17-05 PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 05-002/P CITY INITIATED: MODIFIED SEATON PLAN, DRAFT AMENDMENT 14 CITY OF PICKERING Cathy Rose, Manager, Policy, provided an overview of the proposal and City's official plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #17/04. Don Caldwell, 1605 Belinda Court, stressed his objection and concern with respect to the stress on Whites Road with the proposed connection to Hwy. 407. David Steele, 966 Timmins Gardens, stated his support of Amendment 13, the balancing of the population over two areas and the transportation corridor of the Growth Management Study. Seaton's population should be no more than 38,000, which is what Council adopted. He stated his concern respecting the coldwater streams. He requested that approval of this amendment be delayed until further study. Bob Johnson, 2655 Foreststream Trail, expressed his concerns regarding the proposed connection of Whites Road and Hwy. 407. He suggested east/west corridors be considered to alleviate the traffic volume on Hwy. 401. Intersecting north/south arterial roadway between the community and Highways 407 and 401 is not appropriate. John Guizzi, 60 Hwy. 7, Green River, suggested that new housing and prestigious employment would swallow up Green River and connecting Hwy. 407 to Whites Road would be dangerous. Mike Williams, 2250 Whites Road, advised that a 20 to 25 minute backup is caused each day due to the 6,000 cars presently traveling Whites Road. He questioned the expected amount of traffic with this proposed connection and what the proposal is for crossing the CP rail tracks. He expressed his concern with the affect this development would have on Duffins Creek. ATTACHMENT #.., .~' TO REPOR'I' # PD ~-O.~ Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, July 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. 10. 11. Tommy Thompson, 3181 Byron Street, questioned what a countryside designated area can contain and what is the Cities position on natural heritage. Cathy Rose, Manager, Policy, stated that a countryside designation would allow agriculture and other secondary uses such as a) produce stand, if produce is the product of that property; and b) wine, if property produces grapes, and other uses such as an antique store. Cathy further stated that the OP currently protects heritage homes and open space. Tommy Thompson, 3181 Byron Street, stated that developers should be requested to consider heritage homes taken over by the Province. Chris Jacobs, 694 Beckworth Square, stated his concern with traffic re-routing through the residential area to avoid the Whites Road backup. He questioned the hydro, water and sewage connection and commented on current flooding and his concern with the possible increase. He further questioned what a prestigious business would cover. John Bousfield, 3 Church Street, representing West Duffins, stated that Seaton and the related employment area is unlike anything ever planned in Ontario. The Provincial Plan and Amendment 14 for lower population in Seaton are identical. Figures planned for Seaton are exemplified as good growth and the total growth density of Seaton is well below urban growth. Scattered planned areas in Seaton would be costly for servicing. A financial impact analysis report should be completed on services for these developments. West Duffins lands are far less challenging, more cohesive and more economical than Seaton lands. 12. 13. 14. Jan de Vries, 1947 Spruce Hill Road, suggested solving the congestion problems along Whites Road before considering additional access. He questioned the planning of the crossing of Taunton Road, suggesting that a very long bridge would be required. He further suggested building on the gravel pit land and save the agricultural land. Gabriel Untermann, 4560 Sideline 2, Claremont, questioned the inclusion of the airport lands and was advised that these lands must be shown as they are included in the Regional Official Plan. She further questioned what the prestigious development lands will look like. Gord Hayford, 1878 Fairport Road, stated his concern with the traffic and the massive bridge required over the CP rail. With this proposed connection and the expense of using Hwy. 407, residents will travel south on Whites road to Hwy. 401 causing increased congestion. -2- ATTACHMENT # REPOR'[ ~ PD -~' .TO Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, July 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. David Donnelly, questioned the cost to the taxpayers if the City remains on this course of action and wondered when the consultants will be requested to once again review the Growth Management Study. He further questioned the cost to taxpayers if this amendment goes before the Ontario Municipal Board. Cathy Young, 1851 Shadybrook Dr., questioned the plans for schools, will children be bused to school, have shopping centres and fire halls been planned and who pays and supports them. Carmen Montgomery, 917 Grenoble Blvd., advised of her volunteer work with Second Chance Wildlife Sanctuary and questioned what will happen to the wildlife and the Sanctuary if this is approved. Siegfried Wall, 639 Breezy Drive, stated his concern with the traffic impact on south Pickering and the increase on the present taxpayer base. Northern traffic will not use Hwy. 407 due to the expense, but will travel south on Whites Road to Hwy. 401. He questioned how this area would be governed. Graham Crawshaw, 219 Concession 3, stated his opposition to development in Cherrywood but his agreement to Amendment 14. Rob Lyon, 478 Concession 4, expressed the need to protect the coldwater streams. He questioned what would happen to the wildlife and heritage aspects of these lands. Council requested a full environmental assessment and this is still required. He questioned why Amendment 14 has been developed and who directed Planning staff to develop it. 21. 22. 23. Debbie Broomer, 656 Weyburn Square, advised of her opposition to Amendment 14 and her concerns with increased traffic congestion and bridge construction. Wesley Nair, 3855 Sideline 32, questioned if Council has evolved a consensus position on the demolitions and evictions on airport lands. Mike Wilfer, 2 Jomar Ave., Cherrywood, questioned from whom Council receives direction. He stated that Pickering was invited by the Province to participate but instead Pickering initiated the Growth Management Study. Pickering are taking a 1960's approach to planning. The agricultural preserve needs to be used for agricultural purposes not developed. He requested that the process not be rushed but be worked out in more detail. -3- ATTACHMENT #_ ~ _TO REPO~*r ~ PD_ ,_~-~ Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, July 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. 24. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Jim McCafferty, 1801 Eastbank Road, stated his opposition to the extension of Whites Road to Hwy. 407, advising that the present traffic congestion will get worse. Dwight Gauthier, 860 Whitevale Road, questioned if Council is opposed to this Amendment and advised of his opposition to the development of Seaton. Sandy Rider, 494 Whitevale Road, suggested consideration be given to moving residents east/west not south. The bridge is not required over Duffins Creek if Seaton is planned right. Peter Rodrigues, 750 Whitevale Road, stated his opposition to both Amendment 13 and 14. He stated that he is not in support of paving over fields or spreading out development, density is better. He stated his concern with respect to pollution, quality of life, sewage and the wildlife. He suggested that developers be compensated with money not land. He further stated that heritage homes must be left where they are, not relocated. Chris Thom, 824 Foreststream Trail, stated her concern with the Amendment 14 crossing stating that her home is in the path of the bridge. The following residents forwarded their comments to the Clerk's Division in opposition to Amendment 14: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) J) k) Tim Neal, 1988 Fairport Road Jeff Archbold, 598 Sheppard Avenue Glen & Clare Tucker Tim & Judy Stapleton, 1834 Shadybrook Drive Nick Veronico, Aspen Road David Donnelly Anthea & Ben Hillier, 1741 Spruce Hill Road Ryan and Katherine Lucas, 632 Cognac Cres. Carol Kaake & John Crouse, Ada Court Trish Cooke-Harding Aziza Rohoman Debbie Shortreed -4- ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS NAME DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Cherrywood August12 · encourages the City to work with the Province in the Residents' development of Seaton and to abandon their efforts in regards Association, to the development of the Rouge Duffins Agricultural Michael J. Preserve; Wilfer, · strongly concerned about the declining state of the natural President, environment; · requests more cooperation between various levels of government; PACT, July 11,12 & · does not believe Amendment 14 justifies that development David Steele, August18 can proceed in a safe, sustainable and environmentally Chair responsible manner; · concern with the hydrogeological aspects of the proposed plan, including salt and sediment in stormwater, increased temperatures; · requests supporting information including traffic studies; · concern that Whites Road will become a "highway"; · requests further information from the Province regarding environmental information; · requests full individual environmental assessment of Provincial Plan; · does not believe Provincial Development Plan justifies thal development can proceed in a safe, sustainable and environmentally responsible manner; · retained Professor Ken W. F. Howard, Vice-President of International Association of Hydrogeologists and Chair of the IAH Commission of Groundwater in Urban Areas and Professor at University of Toronto who undertook a review of the Provincial Plan from a hydrogeological aspect; - a Final Report, entitled A Review and Critical Analysis of Hydrogeological Aspects of the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan, dated August 10, 2005 has been prepared; Report concludes, in part that urban planning should no longer be seen as a two-dimensional exercise; given the hydrogeological complexities of the Provincial Plan study area, none of the mitigation measures for groundwater impact can be adequately evaluated without a 3-D numerical model of the aquifer system; - Report further states that the Provincial Plan fails to appreciate the potential threats and issues, nor does it adequately identify the program of work required to ensure that the proposed development is sustainable and adequately protects the subsurface environment; ATTACHMENT # ~ TO SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) NAME DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Jeff Archbold July28 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road and increased traffic in the neighbourhood; · building permits for housing should not be approved until employment is created · is there going to be GO train station in Seaton in order to provide mass transit for people who don't work in Seaton; Rob Burns August 15 · opposes to the expansion of Whites Road and its connection to Highway 407; Trish Cooke- July22 · opposes the potential direct connection of Whites Road / Harding Sideline 26, and resulting increased traffic in the neighbourhood; Graham, Sue August 12 · opposes the Official Plan and its amendments in those areas Leslie and in which it differs from the Provincial Plan for the Seaton lands Lauren until such a time that the City supports the agricultural and Crawshaw natural heritage plan for the greenbelt/agricultural Reserve lands; Don Harvey August 15 · supports Province's proposed Central Pickering Development Plan; Plan is consistent City's current Official Plan; · only support Amendment 14 as needed to allow Seaton to develop and to protect the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve; · most residents of Cherrywood support protection of Agricultural Preserve; Anthea and July 25 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road; Ben Hillier Carol Kaake & July 22 · opposes to the potential expansion of Whites Road; John Crouse Ryan and July 22 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road; Katherine Lucas Rob Lyon July 12 & · opposes OPA 14; compared to Amendment 13, plan August 16 increases population and decreases buffers along creeks; · a full environmental assessment is the only way to arrive at best solution for environment; · notes an error showing a creek in vicinity of his property continues to appear on City's mapping; · notes there is no high density housing designated despite statements that the plan provides for compact urban form; · concerned with inability to achieve the future studies required prior to development; · does not support designation of north part of Whitevale Golf Course lands to open space - recreational areas; -2- A3"rACHMEN'r # ~ TO REPOR] # PO, ~ SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) NAME DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Rob Lyon July 12 & · concerned re: impacts to natural heritage system from (continued) August 16 domestic pets and children; · concerned plan is more sprawl and that it won't be transit supportive; · concern re: impact on creeks of stormwater runoff (temperature and salt); · disagrees with Whites Road / Sideline 26 direct connection; · concern that use of narrower right of ways on roads will lead to inability to properly clear snow; · concern with ability to protect First Nations sites; · concern with the cost of servicing area; Mike J. August 12 · requests City Council not to enact or approve any OPA for McQuaid Central Picketing until the Province has completed its process on behalf of under the OPDA; 113373 · requests City revise its amendment to conform with Provincial Ontario Inc., Development Plan; Mattamy · recommends various changes to draft Amendment 14: (Seaton) - revised 2011 population to 14,100 and 2016 population to Limited and 37,000; Oakridges - revised policy on maintaining character of Whitevale Road Farm Co- as it would be at odds with an urban community; tenancy et al. - buried utility lines should only be required ony where proven technically and economically reasonable; - does not support requirement for servicing of employment lands prior to or coincident with start of residential development, but suggests a strategy to service employment lands "early" would be acceptable; - does not support requirement for provision of major community facilities coincident with major phases of development; costs are unknown and facilities undefined; Planning Act and Development Charges Act does not provide for this; - requests clarification that master environmental servicing plan preparation and neighbourhood plan preparation can occur at the same time; - disagrees with neighbourhood plans being amendments to Pickering Official Plan; - requests reduced right-of-way widths for local roads (such as 17 metre local road and 20 metre collector); - requests a sub-regional or sub-central mixed use area permitting 50,000 square metres of retailing and personal service uses along Taunton Road; -3- ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPOR'I' # PD SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) NAME DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Mike J. August 12 - requests mixed use - community node at Sideline 26 and McQuaid future Whitevale Road by-pass be relocated in its entirety (continued) to the south-east corner, not split in the middle with a road; - suggests policies be added to prevent erosion of employment areas to commercial uses; Eleanor Nash August 12 · supports no development of Agricultural Preserve lands and requests that any amendments for the Seaton reflect this; Tim Neal July 28 · objects to the City's plan; Ernest July26 · supports need for proper transit planning including potential Nemeth extension of Whites Road as shown in draft Amendment 14; Nick Nicolussi August 12 · Amendment 14 should not be changed from Amendment 13 without correcting the whole amendment; · supports the City's current Official Plan to keep the area around Cherrywood as an agricultural area; · does not support changing cultural significance of Hamlet by naming the whole area "Cherrywood Area"; should retain Hamlet of Cherrywood and rural clusters; Don Prince, August 15 · supports all recommendations in the OPA concerning the Ontario preservation of farmland and countryside associated natural Farmland and cultural values; Trust · the use of conservation easements, involving partnership with the Ontario Farmland Trust, may be a vehicle to preserve farmland; Irene August 11 · opposes the plans for development as outlined by the City's Rautanen OPA 14; · supports the Province's protection and management of the Agricultural Preserve and natural heritage lands, and the recognition of this area's unique demographics; Perry August 15 · opposes the City's proposal as it continues the urbanization of Rautanen valuable farmland; · supports the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan as it protects preserve and allows development of Seaton; · urges the City to agree with the provincial plan; Aziza July 22 · opposes the potential expansion of Whites Road; Rohoman Rob Sands August8 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road and increased traffic in the neighbourhoods; -4- ATTACHMENT #, ~ TO REPORT # PD ~-~5 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) NAME DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Debbie July 25 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road and the City's Shortreed OPA 05-002/P; Rosemary July 22 · opposes the loss of agricultural land to urban development; Speirs does not support any development on lands the Agricultural Preserve; · concerned development in Little Rouge, Petticoat and Duffins watersheds will destroy lands vital to health of environment; · questions why there is a need to expand development closer to Whitevale; Tim&Judy July26 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road and Stapleton increased traffic in the neighbourhood; Isobel & August 11 · opposes the potential extension of Whites Road because of Tommy increased traffic; Thompson · also opposes a second crossing of West Duffins creek so close to the existing four lane bridge; · suggests a timed set of traffic lights at the junction of Sideline 22 and Taunton Road and another at the existing junction of Whites Road and Taunton Road; also suggests a higher priority could be placed on upgrading Sideline 22; · suggests Province offer ownership of the heritage homes along Whitevale Road to the existing tenants; Dr. James C. August 16 · opposes the Growth Management Study and Amendment 13 Thompson because of inclusion of Agricultural Preserve; · supports the Province's proposed Central Pickering Development Plan to protect the Duffins Rouge Permanent Agricultural Preserve; suggests Province should re-assume ownership of these lands from private ownership; · concern that policies in both City's and Province's Plan about responsible development, preservation of natural and cultural heritage, and protection of environment, are not true in practice, and a tragedy will result; · opposes any development in Seaton and recommends lands be included in Provincial Greenbelt; Nick Veronico July 26 · opposes the City's plan; -5- ATTACHMEN1 # "7 t'[;~ REPOR] # PI} ~]:3~,*C~_-~ CHERRYWOOD RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION CHERRYWOOD, ONTARIO F ECE VED ~.-., -T-/ .-,~ '~ OF PiCKERING "! ~'~N~ .~[i'~G & OEVELOPMENT ~EPARTMENT City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Plan&devl~city. pickerinq .on .ca Re: Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P City Initiated: Modified Seaton Plan Draft Amendment 14 & Amendment 13 In response to the city's request for input on this subject matter, our association had a meeting on August 10, 2005 at the Whitevale Community Center. Representatives of the Provincial Government were invited and did attend our meeting and provided us with valuable information on the Provinces' Development Plan for Central Pickering. Both Brian Kozman and Dale Toombs did a great job of fielding many of our questions regarding the proposed Plan and were very committed to the ideals of the Province and it's plan to make Seaton a Community that all can be proud of. In no uncertain terms they reaffirmed the commitment of the Province to maintain The Rouge Duffins Agricultural Preserve as an integral part of the Plan as it has been legally set out from the onset of the sale of the properties back into private ownership by the ORC. Our association has never accepted the position that Pickering Council has adopted over the years, starting from the inclusion of the Ag. Preserve in the (GMS) through Draft Amendments 13 &14. We strongly encourage the City to act responsibly and work co-operatively with the Province in the Development of Seaton and to abandon their efforts in regards to the development of the Rouge Duffins Agricultural Preserve. Neither our past nor our current City Mayor and Council were given a mandate by the Public to ignore the Province and effectively assist their own Developer friendly interests and negate Agricultural Easements that were to be upheld by the City in perpetuity and were contingent on the sale of the lands. ATTACHMENT #-~TO REPORI ~ PD, During the Public Meeting of July 26, 2005 in Council Chambers, many people living south of the Ag. Preserve voiced their concerns of increased traffic on Whites Rd. and access to the 401 by this new population north east of them in Seaton. The Province is dealing in earnest with these concerns. It will be enough of a challenge dealing with the development of Seaton. How ridiculous would it be if the cities vision of 37,4000 people drove out of the Ag. Preserve down to the 401 every day The recent letter to Mayor Ryan from: Hon. David Ramsay & Hon. David Caplan Minister of Natural Resources Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal Spells it out loud and clear. The sale of the lands in the Rouge Duffins Agricultural Preserve by the Province to the farmers for an average per acre cost of $4 - 5,000.00 was never intended to allow a Golden Opportunity for a few developers eager to capitalize on the sale of public agricultural lands and rip-off the Ontario Tax Payer. Nor was it the intention of the Province to allow the City of Pickering to financially prosper from such a venture, especially when given the responsibility of the protection of the Agricultural Easements in "Perpetuity". Too much time and Tax Payers money has been wasted on this fiasco under the direction of some of our elected City officials that have brought this city down the wrong garden path. Too much time and effort by concerned Pickering Citizens and many others from outside of this City has been unnecessarily spent fighting for the preservation of the Ag. Preserve. For the most part, it's been an exercise in frustration by many of us. Trying to permeate the thick skin of City Council with a logical, practical 21st. Century resolution to the all too familiar urban sprawl concept that grew out of the post WW2 Era. There are many challenges that we will face in the future: Global warming and climatic changes that leave no certainty of consistent agricultural environments in traditional farming areas. Paving over these areas and replacing crops with hungry bellies is not insightful. My brother lives in Winnipeg, many of their crops were either never planted or have failed as a result of excessive rain. In Ontario we are dealing with drought conditions and Iow water levels this season. ATTACHMENT # 7 TO REPORT # PD, 3~ -0_~ 3 We need to preserve our agricultural lands, the GTA's devouring too much good land at an alarming rate. The rising cost of Energy in all forms will bring changes to our euphoric ideals of the 3000 Km. Garden Salad. The Southern States and Mexico provides us with much of our produce, will this be economically viable when petroleum consistently exceeds $1.00/litre and higher in the future. On top of polluting the plant with Diesel Fuel Emissions in order to deliver us a salad that could be grown all year round in near urban Fields and Green Houses. Wind Turbines can help provide ample, clean power for our agricultural and community needs, producing energy in harmony with food sustenance. Air quality and pollution from all our over development puts increasing demands on our health system. We need green spaces between our populated areas for better quality of life for all. Let our children be closer to nature, not boxed in subdivision after subdivision after subdivision. On a hot summers eve driving off the 401 and to my house off of Concession 3, the temperature drops on average 3 Degrees Celsius and I still see the occasional Deer. The Provincial Plan to develop Seaton and protect the Ag. Preserve was brought back to life in light of the Oak Ridges Moraine land swap. This situation arose out of the good conscience of the public and the government to necessitate the preservation of the Oak Ridges Moraine and expand it to link the Moraine to Lake Ontario via the R.D.A.P. This meeting of the minds culminated in the Greenbelt Plan and for that we commend the Ontario Government. All major Ontario Political Parties of the last couple of decades have strived to see this realized. It is very refreshing and satisfying to see that successive governments have maintained the status quo and have improved upon it with time. Now we need to see that the Plan comes to fruition and that it is preserved in perpetuity, so that future generations may thank us for our efforts. Much work is needed by all levels of Government to see this through. This will only be achieved; by all levels of government working together for the benefit of the common Tax payer, you & I. ( This all started with the Fed's Plan to build an airport in Pickering. The Hamlets of Brougham and Claremont are paying a dear price right now. Families being faced with evictions from homes that they have raised their children in for decades and with no clear or open plan by the Federal Government or the GTAA to definitively say what they are doing and the time frame. Homes are continuing to be built in some areas while others are being torn down. This is not fair. ) The possibility of an airport in Pickering will definitely effect the Big Picture of what the Province and the City are trying to achieve with the area of Seaton. ATTACHMENT #, "7 TO REPOR3 # PD ~'~'~ 4 We, in the public, do not see enough co-operation between levels of government and we demand; open and broad inclusion of all levels of government in this undertaking. As for the City of Pickering, we have a Great Opportunity to do something first- class here, with an intelligently designed Community of Seaton and a vibrant near urban agricultural area, Pickering can be the envy of many and respected around the world for it's ingenuity. Rise to the occasion and think beyond the box. We are living in an era when sometimes, Smart Growth means no growth unless it pertains to growing sustenance and better well being. Pickering deemed itself a millennium city at the turn of the century, now it is time to prove it. After our meeting with Brian Kozman and Dale Toombs was concluded, we had an open discussion and then voted unanimously in favor of the Provincial Plan and opposed the Cities Plan, which has consistently included the development of the Ag. Preserve. The following people attended and voted at our meeting of August 10, 2005 Bruce Flattery Lydia Dobbin Minno Dyck Shirley Gibbons Vincent Gazbony Christine Gazbony Graham Crawshaw Sue Crawshaw Rob Dixon Gail Dixon Doug Moss Wayne Adair Cecille Adair Rick Nicolussi Etelka Nagy Tom Mason Debra Mason Sandy Rider Steven Graham Jan Pezybyski 2475 Altona Rd. 253 Davidson St. 256 Davidson St. 795 Concession 3 219 Concession 3 240 Davidson St. 420 3rd Concession 1 Jomar Ave 240 Cherrywood Ave 240 Cherrywood Ave. 2312 Heska Rd. 494 Whitevale Rd. 3215 North Rd. 7853 Concession Rd. ATTACHMENT# '7 TO REPORT # PD, .~--.C.'C~ Irena Saovo Rhonda Mendes Sue Zuro Doug Zuro Mary John Mike Wilfer Debi Herron Kristin Probed Vince Probed Perry Rautaneu Don Harvey Lizanne Harvey Eleanor Nash Margaret MacKinnon James Anne Ward Bill Lytwynchuk Janet Lytwynchuk David McEIdon Colin O'Handley Irena Przyboylska Brenda Taylor Tom Martin Greg & Stacey Rossetti 218 Davidson St. 227 Concession 3 207 Concession 3 2 Jomar Ave. 400 Concession 3 400 Concession 3 445 Concession 3 470 Concession 3 2645 Altona Rd. 760 Concession 3 283 Concession 3 827 Concession 3 435 Concession 3 2640 Altona Rd. 785 Concession 3 430 Concession 3 ? Concession 3 Thank you for the opportunity of further comment on the project at hand. It is with our hopes that the City earnestly considers our views and comments and takes to heart the wishes of their citizens of Pickering. Sincerely, Michael J. Wilfer President Cherrywood Residents' Association ATIACtt~,~ENI #_ ~' FO (Copied from email received on July 11,2005) David Steele wrote; · Director of planning MR.N.Carrol, I have read the Pickering planning department released draft amendment document #14 and I am disgusted with your vision for seaton. This is nowhere near the P.G.M.S. vision of protecting the environmentally sensitive areas in seaton. 1 No sediment ponds will protect the three cold water streams as the average temperature from hard service water reaches a high of 80 degrees temperature. 2. Nowhere do you request salt and sediment run off from new infrastructure such as roads and bridges. 3. This is not the natural environmental and heritage areas that the P.G.M.S selected. 4. No groundwater and surface water studies completed to measure hard surface run off from new urban areas. 5. How much of the woodlots are being cut down in your vision of seaton? 6. You have not studied the impact on wetlands from hard service run off. 7. You do not mention protection of the three aquifers. 8. Sixteen roads cross over creeks and streams, crazy 1950s planning. 9. The PGMS calculated a max population of 24,000-38,000 for seaton. 10. Welcome to Whites road highway, the 401 will not be approachable from this main artery road. 11. Lands north of Whitevale golf course belong to 'Whitevale Golf Cub".They somehow bought land for $2,500.00 a acre. Eighteen soccer fields are needed now for P.S.C who are refusing members in its club, and you are more concerned in zoning land for the golf club? 12. Could you let me know who gave you permission to release this document? ATTACHMENT#, ~ TO REPOR'!' # PD ,~" 13 A independent environmental assessment is required for Seaton as approved and requested by the City of Pickering council. 14. In my opinion you have made a deal with the province of Ontario. 15. The PGMS has been a total waste of time and money, why do you waste peoples time?. 16. No traffic studies completed. 17. To say explore environmental studies will be completed later or in piecemeal fashion is not the proper way to plan in 2005. 18. To explore ways to maintain fish habitat, are you admitting you will destroy the creeks and streams.. 19. Buffers are the 1950s way of planning to protect waterways, water travels in all directions above and below ground from hard surface urban areas. Frenchman's Bay is a fine example of that, the most polluted bay in Ontario and guess what causes 100 tons of sediments to flow into the bay each and every year. The 401 transportation corridor that the TRCA have not accepted is the cause of pollution in the bay to this date.. A official comment paper will be forwarded to you shortly. David Steele 966 Timmings Garden Pickering Ontario.. ATTACHMENT d~TO (Copied from email received on July 12, 2005) To: Mr. Grant McGregor, Principle Planner- Policy Cc Director of Planning City of Pickering. July 12, 2005 From: Mr.D.Steele. Re: Seaton PACT and Liverpool West Community Association 48 Questions. City of Pickering. Official comment paper #2, The following 48 questions are official questions and information that we have been requested from the consultant who was hired by the province of Ontario to complete the E/A class c environmental assessment for seaton. Mr. S.Willis from M.M.M informed me yesterday that he is not in the position to release any documents from our 48 questions that was submitted to him in 2003-2004. He did advise me that we should continue to seek the answers from the Ministry of Housing or the City of Pickering as he cannot demand any reports from the Provincial Ministry of Housing. I therefore submit the 48 questions to Mr.G. McGregor, City of Pickering planning department and await all the environmental science reports that support the provincial plan, buffer zones for Seaton. I have retained the services of two University academics to peer review the province of Ontario seaton plan. This will also apply to the Pickering Seaton Plan amendment #14. The academics are in the department of environmental science. in two Universities. One specializes on groundwater modeling and salt impact on aquifers, streams, creeks and the other specializes on wetlands. It is important that we receive all materials in an expedient manner, as my comment paper to the Ministry of Environment has a very narrow window. Background. The City of Pickering completed stage one and two of the P.G.M.S. in which a population of 28,000 to 38,000 was recommended for seaton. The City of Pickering Council passed a resolution that adopted the PGMS. The City of Pickering Council passed a resolution to seek an independent E/A from the Province of Ontario for Seaton. The PGMS urban areas were determined by research on hydrogeological modeling. The PGMS vision was to protect the environmental sensitive areas and the heritage areas in Seaton. ATTACH~NTI ~' TO REPORT d FI)$8 -0~ City of Pickering releases Seaton amendment #14. City of Pickering planning department receives letter from D.Steele doc one seaton. Question. Please supply me with all answers, documents, environmental science reports, comment papers to the 48 questions that was sumitted to Marshall - Macklin- Monaghan who has directed the majority of the questions in his response spread sheet dated the 11/07/05 to the Ontario Provincial Ministry of Housing and the City of Pickering. P.A.C.T. ATTACHUEN%f ~ TO - PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS TOGETHER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT November 30th, 2004 Should have been Oct~30th, 2004. Jan 3, 2005 David Steele 966 Timmins Garden Pickering, Ontario L 1W 2Y2 Dear Mr. Willis: We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss the proposed Provincial EA and related plans for Seaton. However, we will need appropriate information from you to allow us have a meaningful discussion with you. Following below, we have assembled a list of outstanding questions, many of which have been submitted previously to Mr. J. Butticci, yourself and the MMAH to which we have not received answers to-date. Could you please provide us with appropriate documentation and written answers that respond to all of these questions. With respect to documents, maps etc., could you kindly provide copies in duplicate to expedite review by our community members. A. Alternatives 1. Please provide us with copies of the details of the public consultation conducted with respect to identifying and narrowing alternatives. 2. Please provide us with copies of the details of how alternative of future Duffins Creek Park System was considered and how undertaking contributes to planning and implementation of such an integrated natural park system. 3. Please provide us with copies of the details of how the alternatives of including in the undertaking other urban land holdings, of a contiguous and non-contiguous nature, were considered and assessed in terms of their contribution to reducing development pressure and related adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands. 4. Please provide us with copies of the details on the information and criteria used to assess relative environmental attributes and sensitivity of Seaton lands, Oak Ridges Moraine lands, agricultural preserve lands and various tracks of abandoned urban brownfield lands. 5. Please provide us with copies of the details on the targets established by the provincial government with respect to: population density land area development charges revenue land value. Affecting this undertaking, and also the related Uxbridge lands (which has not been finalized but will also affect the Seaton lands that are subject of this EA). 6. Please provide us with copies of the details of the documentation on the direction provided by provincial government as to how and to what extent the undertaking must achieve the targets in #5. ATTACHMEI'~T # ~ TO REPOR'I'~ PD ,.~-C~3 B. Hydrology and Hydrogeology 7. Please provide us with copies of the details of the original hydrology and hydrogeology research conducted. 8. Please provide us with copies of the details of the existing hydrology and hydrogeology research relied upon. 9. Please provide us with copies of the details of outline of the hydrology and hydrogeology expertise used in the EA. 10. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the classification, description, evaluation and mapping of existing hydrology and hydrogeology: groundwater aquifers wetlands and groundwater discharge and recharge areas cold water streams and Duffins Creek. 11. Please provide us with copies of the details of the detailed proposals on how the integrity of hydrological resources in # 10 can be protected in general terms if the undertaking proceeds. 12. Please provide us with copies of the details on the research conducted to assess salt impacts on the environment including groundwater aquifers, creeks and wetlands from urban development and from the installation of new infrastructure such as bridges and transportation corridors. 13. Please provide us with copies of the details of detailed proposals on how environmentally sensitive lands and water quality are to be protected from impacts in #12 if the undertaking proceeds. 14. Please provide us with copies of the details on research conducted to assess and prevent urban heat impacts on groundwater aquifers, creeks, particularly cold water streams, and wetlands from future development if the undertaking proceeds. 15. Please provide us with copies of the details of the studies that show building site areas selected by the province of Ontario and various forms and densities of future development and on research conducted to assess impacts on groundwater aquifers and on groundwater recharge and discharge areas. 16. Please provide us with copies of the details on the studies that show building site areas selected by the province of Ontario and various forms and densities of future development and on research conducted to assess impacts on creeks, cold water streams, wetlands, woodlots, and key habitats from hard surface water run off. 17. Please provide us with copies of the details of the proposals on how environmentally sensitive lands and water quality are to be protected from impacts in #15 and #16 if the undertaking proceeds. C. Environmentally Sensitive Lands 18. Please provide us with description, evaluation lands. 19. Please provide us with grounds and culturally proceeds. 20. Please provide us with copies of the details of Detailed information on the classification, and mapping of First Nation burial grounds and culturally significant copies of the details of Detailed proposals on how First Nation burial significant lands in #18 are to be protected if the undertaking copies of the details of the information on the classification, description, evaluation and mapping of surface soil quality, geological features, hazard lands and related attributes of the Seaton lands. ATTACHMEi'~JT #.. ~ TO REPORT # PD_ ,~J~-C,~ 21. Please provide us with copies of the details of the proposals on how environmental resources in #20 are to be protected if the undertaking proceeds. 22. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the classification, description, evaluation and mapping off woodlots - vegetation - land habitats - water habitats. 23. Please provide us with copies of the details of the proposals on how environmental resources listed in #22 are to be protected if the undertaking proceeds. 24. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the classification, description, evaluation and mapping off - fauna - aquatic life - cold water fisheries. 25. Please provide us with copies of the details of proposals on how environmentally sensitive lands listed in #24 are to be protected if the undertaking proceeds. 26. Please provide us with copies of the details of the studies that identify impacts on the environment including groundwater aquifers, surface water, wetlands and fisheries from the disturbance of contaminated leachate and contaminated groundwater from installation of new infrastructure on lands in the vicinity of the Brock West landfill. 27. Please provide us with copies of the details of the proposals on how environmental impacts listed in #26 are to be avoided if the undertaking proceeds. D. Infrastructure and Land Use Planning 28. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the population-density- employment ratio-land area scenarios considered and criteria used to assess these. 29. Please provide us with copies of the details of the forecasts and studies conducted for road and transportation requirements in Seaton and surrounding areas into Pickering and Markham. 30. Please provide us with copies of the details of the forecasts and studies conducted on cost to install physical infrastructure on Seaton land if the undertaking proceeds. 31. Please provide us with copies of the details of the forecasts and studies conducted on cost to install social infrastructure on Seaton land including schools, hospitals, community safety, parks, recreation facilities and social services if the undertaking proceeds. 32. Please provide us with copies of the details of the forecasts and studies conducted on commercial and industrial land use potential and new long-term jobs in Seaton, and the impact on Pickering's residential-employment ratio. 33. Please provide us with copies of the details of the public consultations conducted with farmers and tenants in Seaton. 34. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the agricultural quality of lands and the long term viability of agricultural lands in Seaton, the agricultural preserve, and other GTA agricultural lands, and how these were assessed. 35. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the how the undertaking impacts farmers/tenants in Seaton who have been farming or living in the community for the last fifty years. 36. Please provide us with copies of the details of how the land value that will be assessed for agricultural lands affected by the undertaking. 37. Please provide us with copies of the details of how the value of this agricultural land compare to the value of agricultural land in Whitevale and the agricultural preserve. ATTACHMEi'~T # ~ TO REPORT # PD 3~-0~ 38. Please provide us with copies of the details of the studies on how Whitevale will be sustained in the long term as a viable community in the context of the proposed undertaking and other provincial government proposals, and detailed forecasts and studies on the future size of Whitevale. 39. Please provide us with copies of the details of the information on the future infrastructure requirements and costs for Whitevale and who is to pay to install new infrastructure. E. General Background Information 40. How do you see the Class EA being different from a Class "D" individual EA. 41. Please provide us with copies of the details of ORC's authority to recommend a Class "D" individual EA to the Minister of the Environment. 42. Please provide us with copies of the details of the rationale for the decision to use a Class "D" EA for the proposed 407 extension in Durham. 43. Please provide us with copies of the details of examples of other proposals with Class EAs have been similar to the current undertaking for the ORM - Seaton land transactions, and how are these proposals and undertakings seen as being similar. 44. Please provide us with copies of the details of the the land swap agreement, or request the provincial government to do so, in the interests of an open and transparent process. 45. Please provide us with copies of the details of the detailed terms of reference to the public, in the interests of an open and transparent process. 46. Please provide us with copies of the details of how are you relating the EA research for this undertaking to other recent research such as the P.G.M.S. 47. Please provide us with copies of the order in council from MBS detailing the reasons for the sale of the additional farmland sold for $2,500.00. per acre without competitive bids to Whitevale Golf Club. 48. Please provide us with copies of the details of the competitive bid process used in the sale of the lands to the Whitevale Golf Club. Once we have received this information, and have had a reasonable opportunity to review it, we would be only too happy to arrange a mutually agreeable time to meet and discuss this issue very important issue. David Steele. 966, Timmins Garden Pickerng Ontario L1W-2L2. 416-688-3815. cell. PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS TOGETHER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P.A.C.T.) c/o 966 Timmins Garden, Pickering Ontario, L1W 2L2, Attention: David Steele Tel: 905-837- 0117; e-maih dj.steele~sympatico.ca City of Pickering planning Department Dear Mr. McGregor Enclosed is a report prepared by Professor Ken Howard of the University of Toronto. The report is a review and critical analysis of the hydro geological aspects of the Province's Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (PCPDP). The PCPDP covers the Provincial land in Seaton and a portion of the agricultural preserve land (Cherrywood) in the City of Pickering. Professor Howard expresses serious concerns about the PCPDP and is critical of the proposed land use plan for Seaton. He states that "The PCPDP is essentially two- dimensional in concept and ignores the complex hydro geological system, the sensitive aquifers and the potential long term impacts of urbanization on the quantity and quality of water in local wells and the river system". Professor Howard's concludes that, from a hydro geological stand point the PCPDP, as it currently exists, is unacceptable and that the "approach to urban design needs to be reconsidered". Professor Howard is concemed that rapid growth in the GTA "is giving rise to serious questions about the environmental sustainability of this growth and the potential long term impacts on the quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources". This issue is acknowledged by the Province's own initiatives in Source Water Protection and the Commissioner of Inquiry, Justice O'Connor's recommendations on Walkerton. Locally, on lands adjacent to the PCPDP, recent problems with the YDSS tunnel construction along 16th avenue and the Provincial bump-up of the future YDSS southeast collector to a full EA reinforce the need to address potential impacts on water resources. PACT has encouraged the Province to undertake a full Individual Environmental Assessment of Seaton prior to preparing a final plan. As a community group we delivered a petition from 3,500 members of the public in Pickering and Ajax who supported our call for a more detailed review of Seaton. We believe that in it's current form, the PCPDP does not justify that development can proceed in a safe, sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. Professor Howard conclusions provide further evidence to support this position. We believe that City of Pickering OPA #14 in its current form, the O.P.A. does not justify that development can proceed in a safe, sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. Professor Howard conclusion provides further evidence to support this position. ATTACHMENT#_ ~ TO REPORT # PD_ 3~-05 We once again call on the City of Pickering council to demand the Province's activities in central Pickering to a full Individual Environmental Assessment. Sincerely, David Steele. Chair of P.A.C.T. cc: Mr. M Brenner acting Mayor City of Pickering. ATTA REPORT # PD___~8- 6)5 A Review and Critical Analysis of Hydrogeological Aspects of the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Final Report Central Pickering Development Plan Ken W.F. Howard MSc, PhD, PHG, PGeo, CGeol FGS Vice-President of the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH), Chair of the IAH Commission on Groundwater in Urban Areas and Professor at the University of Toronto August 10th, 2005 Ref: 2005/1/PCPDPa Executive Summary The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is experiencing rapid urban development with serious questions raised concerning the environmental sustainability of this development and the potential long-term impacts on the quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources. The Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (PCPDP) exemplifies these concerns. Most of the study area lies within the Duffins Creek watershed and has been the subject of debate for over two decades. Duffins Creek and neighbouring watersheds have provided a major focus of research study at the University of Toronto since the early 1980s. The hydrogeological complexity of this region is well documented in the scientific literature but is amply demonstrated by the serious sub-surface conditions recently encountered along 16th Avenue in the neighbouring Rouge River catchment during sewer construction for the YDSS (York-Durham Sewer System). A particular concern is that the PCPDP study area supports three aquifers and numerous private wells, the majority located in the Middle Aquifer immediately beneath the Newmarket Till aquitard. This aquifer receives recharge via regional flow paths from the Oak Ridges Moraine to the north, but is also replenished locally via soil zone recharge within the PCPDP study area with subsequent leakage through the Newmarket Till. Replenishment rates are variable and sensitive to numerous factors including, but not limited to, the hydraulic properties of the Halton Till, a heterogeneous, clay-rich deposit that caps most of the study area. Locally, the Halton Till contains abundant gravel, sand and silt and supports an active groundwater flow system. It is impossible to reliably estimate potential impacts of any land use change on groundwater resources in the PCPDP study area without a full understanding of the Halton Till and how its hydrogeological properties vary across the area. Of notable concern within the PCPDP study area is that the aquifers are Iow storage systems which, contrary to popular belief, are significantly more sensitive to changing conditions than high storage systems such as the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer. The sensitivity of the study area aquifers must be acknowledged when measures for mitigating potential impacts of urban development (quality and quantity) are designed. Assessment of potential impacts on study area streams and wetlands is complicated by the hydrogeological conditions within the Duffins Creek watershed. Much of the flow originates as baseflow (discharging groundwater) from one or more of the three aquifers present. Relative contributions depend on the extent to which the streams incise the layer-cake, aquifer-aquitard system. While detailed flow analysis of isolated stretches of streams and rivers can begin to unravel the complexities of this interaction (something that has not been done) such analyses will shed little information on how the various contributions will change under altered land use conditions. A further complicating factor is that inflow of groundwater has a profound impact on stream quality in the PCPDP, and water quality in the contributing three aquifers is quite different, the shallow Upper Aquifer showing greatest anthropogenic impacts. In effect, it is impossible to reliably estimate potential impacts of land use change within the PCPDP study area on stream water quality and quantity without a detailed understanding of the aquifer system, its properties, and the nature of its hydraulic interaction with various stream reaches. Such studies are seriously lacking. Recent hydrochemical studies at the University of Toronto confirm that urbanisation has severely impacted groundwater underlying more established parts of Toronto. Most problems stem from lawn, garden and parkland fertilizers/pesticides and the use of road de-icing chemicals. As evidenced in Howard - Final Report - Page 1 ATTACHI~'{ENT # L ~' TO REPOR'[ # PD_ 38--05 2000 by the Walkerton events, bacteria may also represent a potential problem where recharge via the till cap (the Halton Till in the Toronto area as opposed to the Elma Till in Walkerton) is rapid. A properly planned and appropriately designed urban area (i.e. based on sound science and engineering) can prevent most potential problems associated with urban development. However, mitigation of potential impacts can be successfully achieved only if the properties and dynamics of the system (in 3-D space and time) are fully understood. As it currently stands, the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (PCPDP) fails to appreciate the potential threats and issues; neither does it adequately identify the program of work required to ensure that the proposed development is environmentally sustainable and adequately protects the subsurface environment. The PCPDP is essentially "two-dimensional" in concept and ignores the complex hydrogeological system, the sensitive aquifers and the potential long-term impacts of urbanisation on the quality and quantity of water in local wells and the river system. In fact, the term "aquifer" is absent from the entire planning document. The water balance studies completed to date are similarly "two-dimensional", are severely limited in scope, and do nothing to reassure existing residents that their wells will be protected and that springs, streams and wetlands will not dry up seasonally or permanently. Proposed buffer zones (setbacks) can not be expected to protect streams and wetlands receiving groundwater along flow paths that can be several kilometres long. If the protection of ground and surface water is to be guaranteed, .there is a strong need to bring the planning process into line with modern hydrogeological thinking. Major progress in water resource protection has been made since the Walkerton tragedy, and planners would do well to heed the Commissioner of Inquiry, Justice O'Connor's recommendations including, most notably, his insistence that watershed-based source protection plans be developed that include groundwater flow models to describe the fate of contaminants in a watershed. Such models will, for example, allow the potential impacts of road de-icing chemicals on well and stream water quality to be determined, and can be used equally effectively to describe the potential impacts of recharge depletion on well water levels, stream flows and wetlands. It comes as no surprise that following the serious problems encountered during YDSS tunnel construction along 16th Avenue, groundwater flow models have become the preferred choice for evaluating potential impacts of dewatering for all future YDSS projects. In conclusion, urban planning should no longer be seen as a two-dimensional exercise. In the interests of groundwater protection, the time has come to acknowledge groundwater flow dynamics and the extended time frames over which impacts of land use on groundwater can occur, and fully incorporate an understanding of the sub-surface into the deliberation/decision-making process. There are numerous ways that the potential impacts of urban development can be managed and reduced to environmentally acceptable levels. However, given the hydrogeological complexities of the PCPDP study area, none of these mitigation measures can be adequately evaluated without a 3-D numerical model of the aquifer system. From a hydrogeological standpoint, the PCPDP, as it currently exists, is unacceptable. The approach to urban design needs to be reconsidered. It is strongly recommended that the essentially "two-dimensional" planning approach promoted by the PCDCP be abandoned in favour of an iterative approach that fully utilises calibrated, 3-D groundwater flow models as an integral part of the planning process, to test and evaluate alternative land use configurations. Feedback from these models would be used to refine the land use plan until a satisfactory balance between development objectives and water resource protection objectives is achieved. While such an approach may require additional drilling to provide key input data, notably with respect to the Halton Till cover, the adoption of such a state-of-the-art, decision-making approach will ultimately ensure that development of the PCPDP lands can proceed in a safe, sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. Howard - Final Report - Page 2 ATTACHMENT// o¢ ,TO REPORT ~ PD ~ -<9~ 1. Introduction The Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Metropolitan Toronto and Region of southern Ontario, shares a problem that is common to many cities throughout the world. It is undergoing explosive urban growth with serious questions being raised regarding the environmental sustainability of this development and the potential detrimental impact on groundwater resources and the environment as a whole. This report critically examines hydrogeological aspects of the "Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan" (PCPDP) (Planning Alliance Inc., 2005). The study area (Figure 1) lies predominantly within the Duffins Creek watershed, and has been the subject of planning debate for over two decades. The report is not designed to promote the position of any interested party or focus group and should be considered neither pro- nor against development. Its primary purpose is to summarise important scientific research findings published on the area during the past 30 years or more, and highlight issues requiring special attention during the planning process. PICKt=RIN(; LEGEND Figure 1. Development Planning Area (from Planning Alliance Inc., 2005). Howard - Final Report - Page 3 ATTACHIV~E~IT # ~,,_~, t0 REPORT ~' Pi) ~-05 Following this brief introduction, the review is divided into four main parts. The first part (Section 2) provides an overview of the hydrogeology of the study area and draws attention to issues of broad relevance to the proposed development. The second and third parts (Sections 3 and 4) deal respectively with potential water quantity and water quality concerns, and Section 5 provides a concluding discussion and recommendation. References are provided in Section 6. 2. Hydrogeology of the Study Area The hydrogeology of the Duffins Creek watershed is complex (Gerber and Howard, 2002) and has been the subject of considerable study for thirty or more years, notably by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the University of Toronto. During the early 1990s, parts of the study area were investigated intensively during the Interim Waste Authority's (IWA) search for a new GTA landfill (IWA Limited, 1994a-e), and in the mid-1990s, the Geological Survey Canada conducted a stream flow survey (Hinton, 1996) as part of its study of the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer. The earliest systematic hydrogeological work in the Duffins Creek and Rouge River watersheds was carried out in the 1970s by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (Sibul et al. 1977; Ostry, 1979) and identified as many as 14 aquifers in the two basins. Four of these (originally named Green River, Greenwood, and the Upper and Lower Brougham Aquifers) occur beneath the PCPDP study site. During the 1980s, Howard (1985) and Howard and Beck (1986) demonstrated: · that all 14 aquifers are regionally interconnected to form a single, integrated groundwater flow system that extends from the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario, · that the Halton Till, a regionally extensive near surface deposit and long regarded as relatively "tight" or "impermeable" and a protective cover for the underlying aquifers, readily transmits groundwater vertically and in some cases horizontally, and · that over a third of the Duffins Creek / Rouge River well waters were contaminated by anthropogenic activity, with aquifers well to the south of the Oak Ridges Moraine just as impacted, if not more so, than the Moraine aquifer itself. Elevated nitrate and chloride were the major concerns. These three important findings spawned 20 years of follow-up research at the University of Toronto. The first series of studies responded to the water quality issues and focussed on wells and springs throughout the GTA. The work reconfirmed the "leaky" nature of the Halton Till cover and demonstrated widespread contamination of shallow groundwater with road salt as the primary source (Pilon and Howard, 1987; Eyles and Howard, 1988). This surprised many since the common assumption at that time was that the majority of salt applied to roads each winter is flushed into storm drains the following spring and conveyed directly to urban streams and Lake Ontario (i.e. impacts on groundwater were thought to be minimal). Evidence clearly points to the contrary. Concentrations of chloride measured throughout the GTA range from around 400 mg/L in shallow springs along the Scarborough Bluffs (Eyles and Howard, 1988) to about 13,000 mg/L in shallow sub-surface waters near urban highways Howard - Final Report - Page 4 ATTACHMLI'J] # ~' REPORI # PD (Howard and Beck, 1993). By comparison, sea water contains 19,000 mg/L. A study of 23 springs in the GTA by Williams et al. (1999) showed concentrations of chloride as high as 1,400 mg/L. Background levels in Ontario are typically <20 mg/L. To investigate this issue further, a catchment road salt budget was carried out on the urbanised Highland Creek catchment in the east end of Toronto over a period of two years (Howard and Haynes, 1993). It demonstrated that less than 50% of the salt applied each year is removed from the catchment annually by storm sewers, the majority entering the shallow subsurface to the potential detriment of groundwater quality (Howard et al., 1993). Recognising that road salt is not the only source of contamination in a large urban region, the research program was further expanded in the mid-1990s with a chemical audit performed for all historical and current sources of potential contamination in a 700 km2 region of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) (Howard et aL, 1996; Howard and Livingstone, 1997). It revealed the potential for landfills, septic systems, underground storage tanks and chemical fertilizers to contribute to contaminant loadings in an urban area (Howard and Livingstone, 2000). During the 1990s considerable research was also conducted on the role aquitards (sediments that are less permeable than those that form water-supply aquifers) exert on regional flow systems, water budgets and transport of contaminants. For example, while there was now general recognition that "tills leak" and "large urban areas potentially contaminate", there was a serious need to: · quantify the till leakage rates in the context of the regional aquifer systems, · quantify the potential chemical impacts in terms of dilution capabilities, flow rates and travel times, and · develop means of incorporating policies for groundwater protection into the urban planning process. Much of this work was conducted on the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer and in the Duffins Creek watershed and involved drilling, test pumping, water level monitoring, isotopic analysis, and the development of several regional 3-dimensional groundwater flow system models, one of which (Gerber and Howard, 2002) focused in detail on the Duffins Creek watershed. The results have been widely published in peer-reviewed books and journals (Gerber and Howard, 1996; Howard and Gerber, 1997; Gerber and Howard, 1997; Gerber and Howard, 2000; Gerber et al., 2000; Gerber and Howard, 2002). In the context of the Duffins Creek watershed and the PCPDP study area, key findings and their implications for potential development are as follows: The Aquifers. The watershed is underlain by 3 aquifers (these days commonly referred to as the Upper, Middle and Lower Aquifers) separated by two regionally extensive aquitards (Figure 2). All 3 aquifers are present in the PCPDP study area, although the Middle Aquifer tends to be the preferred groundwater resource. The Upper and Middle Aquifers receive recharge locally (i.e. as recharge through the soil zone from above), but also receive water from the Oak Ridges Moraine via long, sometimes deep, flow paths. In all likelihood, the Lower Aquifer receives most of its recharge via similar flow paths from the Oak Ridges Moraine. Travel along these paths (Figure 3) can take thousands of years. The key to responsible long-term Howard - Final Report - Page 5 AT'rACHMEN] # ~' TO REPORT ~ PD. ,-~"0~ management of study area aquifers is a prior understanding of the sources of recharge, spatially and over time, and a particular knowledge of the relative contributions of recharge received both locally and regionally. It should also be recognised that compared to the large, high storage and therefore resilient Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer, PCPDP study area aquifers are relatively Iow storage systems that are significantly more susceptible to changing conditions. It is important that this susceptibility or "sensitivity" be acknowledged when measures for mitigating potential impacts of urban development (quality and quantity) are designed. The Halton Till. The PCPDP study area is draped by the Halton Till, a depositional product of the most recent glacial advance (about 13,300 years before present (BP)). It forms a Iow relief plane with undulating streamlined hills (drumlins) and, except in the north-west corner where clay-rich "Lake Markham" sediments were deposited during a pause in the glacier's retreat, forms the uppermost geological unit, typically 10m or so thick. As such, the Halton Till has a significant influence on local recharge to the underlying aquifers. The Halton Till's reputation as a protective cover for underlying aquifers has long passed. Despite the significant presence of clay material, the Halton Till is heterogeneous and in places contains abundant gravel, sand and silt. Locally, it supports an active groundwater flow system which allows rapid recharge to the underlying Upper Aquifer. The hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of the Halton Till ranges over four orders of magnitude from about 10-9 mis to around 10.5 mis (Gerber and Howard, 2000). While the geometric mean is about 4x10'7 ms-~, the adoption of such a value as "representative" of the PCPDP study area, could lead to a serious miscalculation of sub-surface fluxes. Estimates of recharge through the Halton Till plain generally range from 125 to 200 mm/a (IWA, 1994e; Gerber, 1994) (approximately 50% of the recharge rate along the Oak Ridges Moraine). In sandier areas, recharge rates may well be above this range while in areas where the till is poorly permeable, recharge rates may be significantly lower. Where the Halton Till is overlain by Lake Markham deposits, recharge to the Upper Aquifer is likely to be 50mm/a or less. 3. The Newmarket Till (also known as Northern Till). The regional groundwater flow system is largely controlled by vertical leakage from the Upper to the Middle Aquifer through the Newmarket Till aquitard (Gerber and Howard, 2002). In the PCPDP study area, vertical leakage through the Newmarket Till to the underlying Middle Aquifer (the primary groundwater resource) likely averages 30 to 40 mm/a but will be locally variable depending on variations in the till's permeability and the vertical gradients of potentiometric head. Flow velocities through the Newmarket Till are typically in the order of l m per year (i.e. relatively high) downwards, which has important implications for the fate of any contaminants released to the shallow, Upper Aquifer. The Creeks. Analysis of flow in the creeks is complicated by the complex hydrogeological conditions within the Duffins Creek watershed. Groundwater flow simulations using numerical models demonstrate that contrary to popular belief, headwater springs that discharge above 275 masl (metres above sea level) (one of Howard - Final Report - Page 6 ATT~CHMBT[ i~ <~ .TO REPOR'I' # PD 3g'~ the commonly accepted planning boundaries for the Oak Ridges Moraine) are not the primary source of baseflow in the system (Gerber and Howard, 2002). While 60% of the baseflow may ultimately have originated as recharge on the Oak Ridges Moraine, the majority of this water enters below the 275 masl contour, and suggests that the goal of protecting the quality of water discharging to Duffins Creek is as much, if not more, about preventing contamination of groundwater off the moraine (to the south) as it is about protecting groundwater O._Qn the moraine. The development of adequate protection measures also requires that the source of the baseflow be known. For example, while 75 to 80% of baseflow discharge within the Duffins Creek watershed is derived from the Upper Aquifer, 20-25% is contributed by deeper aquifers. This means that any prediction of potential impacts of reduced recharge within the PCPDP study area on local streams must recognise the relative contributions of each aquifer to the stream, how this changes along the stream reach, and how changes to aquifer recharge (soil zone recharge or "groundwater infiltration") are likely to affect each of these contributions. In the PCPDP study area, the situation is especially complicated by the fact that some stream reaches are contained within the Newmarket Till aquitard and receive most of their local baseflow from the Upper Aquifer, while other stream reaches penetrate the Newmarket Till entirely (generating high vertical gradients across the Till), and acquire significant contributions of flow from the Middle and Lower Aquifers (Figure 4). Over-simplified analysis of stream flows can lead to a distorted interpretation of stream basefiow conditions and the potential impacts of urbanisation. Contaminant Travel Times. Throughout the Duffins Creek watershed, groundwater flow velocities within aquifers are slow (typically less than 100 m per year) meaning contaminant impacts can take decades or centuries to materialise (Gerber and Howard, 2002; Howard and Livingstone, 2000). This is not a problem when predicting future impacts in areas which, historically, have been essentially pristine. However, in areas with a prior history of contaminant release (e.g. septic tanks, old landfills, old underground storage tanks or road salt application (all characteristics of the PCPDP study area and surrounding groundwater catchment), the quality of groundwater, as observed in wells or receiving streams, is unlikely to be a true representation of the long-term, steady state condition since contaminant plumes have only just embarked upon their slow journey. All rivers in the GTA can anticipate a significant increase in salinity in future years simply due to road salt that has already accumulated in the system and has yet to be released as baseflow (Howard et al., 1993). The implications for urban planning purposes are important. In evaluating potential impacts of future land use change on water quality in the study area, due consideration must be given to water quality degradation that can be anticipated but is yet to be observed at monitoring stations. While, the well owner in Whitevale may be convinced that future degradation of his/her water quality as a result of future development will be within acceptable limits, he/she also needs to be forewarned of the deterioration that might reasonably be expected as a result of impacted water already in the system e.g. as a result of historical salt application along Highway 7, Highway 407 and other major roads. Howard - Final Report - Page 7 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPOR'I' # PO.~,,~_~_O__~. (m amsl) a 320 280 24( 160 C8( I 160' ~--L~880000 120- 4870000 280' d 200' .160' 120- 4859O00 Duffins Creek CI '~ 240 ' 200 -160 · 120 80 Duffins 4850000 Easl~g m Northing Lake Ontari¢ shoreline 654000 Late Wisconsinan Model Layer ~ Lake Iroquois 1,2 I Halton Till 1,2 ~'_~ Mackinaw Interstadial/Oak Ridges Complex (Upper aquifer) 3 Glaciofluvial and glaciolacustdne with sand and gravel outwash / Northern/Newmarket till (23 000-18 000 BP) 4 Middle Wisconsinan ~ Thomcliffe Fm. (Middle aquifer) $ Deltaic sand and lacustrine silt and clay interbedded with diamict (<50 000 BP) Early Wisconsinan .... J Sunnybrook Diamict 6 ~ Scarborough Fm. (Lower Aquifer) 7 Deltaic sands and glaciolacustrine silt and clay (-70 000 BP) Figure 2. Three aquifers (Upper, Middle and Lower) (layers 3, 5 and 7) are separated by aquitards (layers 4 and 6). The Upper Aquifer is locally confined by a third aquitard (layers1,2) (predominantly by layer 2, the Halton Till). Section a-a' passes north to south directly through the PCPDP study area; section b-b' passes just to the east of the study area (from Gerber and Howard, 2000). Howard - Final Report - Page 8 ATTArJH)"Y)ENI # ~' TO ( T~'a tu) N OLL V,,Vq'13 -R Figure 3. North-east to south-west illustrative section showing recharge areas (red arrows) and regional groundwater flows (black arrows). Note that recharge takes place via the Halton Till plain and is not simply confined to the Oak Ridges Moraine. Howard - Final Report - Page 9 ATTACHMENT # ~-..~TO REPORI' # West Duffins k Duff ins Creek m amsl C~ 245 amsl ~eadwaters < 275 m amsl Lake Iroquois shoreline mm m streamflow gauging station area of significant headwater discharge area of significant discharge river in Northern till river in lower aquifer or Lake Lake Ontario Figure 4. The Duffins Creek watershed showing the relationship between streams and the local hydrogeology (from Gerber and Howard, 2002). PCPDP study area streams receive groundwater as baseflow discharge from all three aquifers. Relative amounts depend on whether the rivers sit within the Halton Till, the Newmarket Till or fully penetrate the Newmarket Till to draw water from the Middle and Lower Aquifers. Howard - Final Report - Page 10 ATTACHIVIENI # . ~ TO REPORT # PD -~" O~ 3. Potential Water Quantity Issues A pre-and post development water budget for the PCPDP study area has been provided recently by Clarifica (2005) using an in-house approach that is not well documented and does not appear to have received peer review in the scientific literature. The methodology, while simple in concept (i.e. using a lumped analysis approach) is difficult to follow, and the sources of key input data are unclear. The models are calibrated using overland runoff estimates only (not using groundwater discharge), and in several cases the calibration is poor (see the Urfe catchment (1999) calibration, for example, on page C-5 of the Clarifica report). Moreover, the results are not intuitively correct. For example, in all the study area catchments for which development is proposed, the reduction in soil zone infiltration (ranging from 4.4% to 27%) is significantly less than both the anticipated total imperviousness (ranging from 11% to 40%) and directly connected imperviousness (ranging from 8% to 30%). If this is explained by runoff from imperviousness that is not "directly connected", subsequently infiltrating in adjacent vegetated areas as "indirect recharge", it begs the question as to whether such additional recharge be sustained everywhere within the catchment, particularly given the heterogeneity of the Halton Till. Concerns over such details aside, the primary problem with the Clarifica report is that it is two-dimensional and fails to address the major issue which is how, and over what time-frame will the flow system change? Soil zone infiltration may well be reduced by less than 10% when averaged over the entire study area, but as indicated by Table 8 of the Clarifica report, the Brougham, Whitevale and Ganatsekiagon watersheds can expect reductions in soil zone infiltration of 27%, 14.3% and 11.9%, respectively. In total, soil zone infiltration will be reduced by well over half a billion litres of water per year. The Clarifica report makes the unsupported assumption that there is a linear relationship between groundwater infiltration and baseflow along the entire length of the creeks, and suggests that for the Urfe, West Duffins, Ganatsekiagon and Whitevale Creeks, at least, average baseflow contributions will remain above the 25% threshold required for trout production. The questions that really need to be addressed by the water budget studies include, amongst many: 1. to what extent do heterogeneities in the Halton Till affect the distribution of recharge across the watersheds? 2. what proportion of soil zone recharge contributes to aquifer recharge and how much moves relatively quickly through the shallow subsurface to enter streams and wetlands? 3. by how much will these proportions change following development? 4. to what extent will recharge to each of the three aquifers underlying the study area be lowered as a result of reduced infiltration? 5. by how much will water levels drop in the large number of water wells operating in the study area? 6. over what time frame will water levels drop and will some areas be impacted more seriously than others? 7. which and how many groundwater-fed wetlands will become dry as a result of reduced infiltration? 8. over what time frame will these wetlands dry up? Howard - Final Report - Page 11 ATTACHe/lENT #~ .... TO REPORI # PD_--~C-s "0~. .................. 9. for those groundwater-fed wetlands that remain, what changes can be expected, and over what time frame will these changes occur? 10. to what extent will natural overland runoff to area wetlands be affected recognising that runoff from large parts of the study area will be managed as storm water? 11. to what extent will spring flows be affected .... and which springs will dry up? 12. which stream reaches will dry up permanently ..... and which will dry up only during the summer months? 13. are the proposed buffer zones (setbacks) of, for example, 3Om, 50m and 120m scientifically justified and appropriate from the perspective of potential impacts on surface water features? 14. how can groundwater seepage/discharge areas be adequately protected by buffer zones (a key "Natural Heritage System" objective - see page 31 of the PCPDP (Planning Alliance Inc., 2005)) given that groundwater flow paths to those seepage/discharge areas range up to 10 km or more? 15. recognising that runoff will increase by as much as 200% and will therefore become a much larger constituent of stream flow, along which stream reaches, and at what times of the year will baseflow contributions to total stream flow approach or fall below the 25% trout production threshold? These questions (and similar questions) need to be addressed in a scientifically defensible manner before alternative urban design plans are debated, and before, population targets are set and land uses are assigned (including land uses such as "agricultural lands" and "linkages"). For example, recognising the heterogeneous nature of the Halton Till cover, there remains a risk that key recharge areas are paved while less important recharge areas are preserved. Clarifica's analyses may prove to be perfectly reasonable and justified, but the scope of work completed to date is simply insufficient to provide the answers required. Three important steps need to be taken: Environmental Objectives. Realistic and measurable environmental objectives need to be agreed. Zero change is never an option as any land use change will create impacts, some negative, others positive. The challenge is to set objectives that are measurable and meaningful in the context of the study area and the needs of the living environment and residents. For example, recognising the area's wetlands, the well users, and the aesthetic as well as environmental benefits of local streams, the "25% trout production threshold" for baseflow is not an appropriate measure of acceptability. What about well owners who may have to lower their pumps and anticipate higher pumping costs? What about residents who find their local stream reduces to a trickle in the summer months? Instead of planning according to "standards of practice" e.g. by establishing largely arbitrary buffer zones or setbacks, appropriate "standards of environmental performance" need to be established e.g. "stream flows during summer months should not be lowered by more than 10% for 95% of the stream reach", and/or mean groundwater levels should not be lowered by over 0.5 m, and plan in order to meet those specific obiectives. 2. Data. Adequate hydrogeological data need to be collected, notably, but not limited to the regional variability of the characteristically heterogeneous Halton Till and the Howard - Final Report - Page 12 ATTACHMENT # ~--~TO gradients of potentiometric head that influence flow within this important unit. Although parts of the study area are well studied as a result of landfill site investigations, many areas are less well understood. Impact Assessment through Modelling. Potential impacts of urbanisation on surface and sub-surface flows in the area must be investigated with one or more groundwater flow system models, and urban design options should be developed iteratively using feedback from these models until a satisfactory balance between development objectives and water quantity protection objectives is achieved. Groundwater models were explicitly identified by Justice Dennis O'Connor in Part 2 of the Walkerton Inquiry Report (O'Connor, 2002b) as a necessary element for source water protection. The technology is well advanced, the sub-surface knowledge base is generally good and there is no reason why hydrogeological models should not be an integral component of the planning process, especially in areas underlain by important and sensitive aquifers. 4. Potential Water Quality Issues A common concern associated with urbanisation is the potential introduction of contaminants that can seriously degrade drinking water quality (Howard and Gelo, 2002; Howard, 2002; Howard and Israfilov, 2002; Howard, 2006, in press). The most severe impacts are usually caused by point sources such as: · leaks from underground storage tanks containing solvents, brines, gasoline and heating fuels, · municipal waste disposal (landfilling) (Howard et al., 1996), · industrial discharges, leaks and spills (Nazari et al., 1993; Burston et al., 1993), · stockpiles of raw materials and industrial wastes, · spillages during road and rail transport of chemicals. However, while point sources can cause severe degradation of water quality on a local scale, non-point sources can render large areas of the aquifer unpotable by simply elevating solute concentrations and bacterial counts to levels that may just marginally exceed drinking water quality standards. Distributed and line sources (i.e. non-point sources) include: · effluent from latrines and cesspits (Foster et al., 1999, Morris et al., 1997), · leaking sewers and septic tanks (Eiswirth and Hotzl, 1997; Robertson et al., 1991) · oil and chemical pipelines, · lawn, garden and parkland fertilizers and pesticides (Kolpin et al., 1997; Flipse et al., 1984; Morton et al., 1988), · road de-icing chemicals (Nysten and Suokko, 1998; Howard and Haynes, 1993; Howard and Beck, 1993; Thunqvist, 2004), · oil and grease and rubber from motorized vehicles, · wet and dry deposition from smoke stacks. In terms of the PCPDP study area and the currently proposed land uses, most problems potentially stem from lawn, garden and parkland fertilizers/pesticides, the use of road de-icing Howard - Final Report - Page 13 chemicals, and runoff from roads and highways containing oil grease and rubber. Shopping plazas are an especially serious potential source of groundwater contamination by read salt. ,As evidenced at Walkerton (O'Connor, 2002a), bacteria may be a problem where recharge via the till cap is rapid. Other potential risks include spills from industrial premises and the enhanced mobilization of contaminants already present in the system (e.g. septic tank effluent, and landfill leachate from the Brock West Landfill which occurs along the southern boundary of the PCPDP study area) due to changes in the hydrological system such as a lowering of the regional water table. A properly planned and appropriately designed urban area (i.e. based on sound science) can prevent the majority of, if not all hydrological (including hydrogeological) impacts of urban development. However, mitigation of potential impacts can be successfully achieved only if the dynamics of the hydrological system (in 3-D space and time) are fully understood. As it stands, the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (Planning Alliance Inc. 2005) does not show an adequate awareness of the potential threats and issues; neither does it show an appreciation for the program of work required to ensure that any development that takes place is environmentally sustainable and adequately protects the subsurface environment. Warning signs include the following: The Planning Goals. The goals of the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (page 20 of the plan) are commendable but, as explained on page 7 of the plan, are simply "ideals" which may be unachievable. Objectives, on the other hand are described as "ends, actions or situations that are capable of attainment or measurement", and in effect represent the meaningful criteria by which the plans should be evaluated. For what it is worth, the only "goal" of the plan that relates to the subsurface is described under "Natural Heritage", and the goal for this element is "to protect, maintain and enhance the natural features, functions, and systems intended to sustain a viable and permanent natural ecosystem". The Natural Heritage System. The Natural Heritage System is described on pages 30 to 34 of the PCPDP. Ten key features of this system are listed including wetlands and streams/watercourses, but there is absolutely no mention of water in the subsurface. In fact, the word "aquifer" is absent from the entire "two-dimensional" planning document. Groundwater seepage/discharge areas manage to make the list of features, and on page 30 one of the future tasks is apparently "to define appropriate buffer zones for each identified feature". This raises serious concerns with regards to the protection of groundwater. By all accounts, the intention is to "protect" groundwater discharge/seepage zones, where the fresh groundwater emerges (apparently by a prescribed "buffer zone"), but pays little or no consideration to aquifer recharge areas where contaminants potentially enter the aquifer system. This makes little sense. Well owners in the area should be extremely disturbed. Protection of Groundwater Quality. Page 53 of the PCPDP does suggest that protection of groundwater quality and quantity is an important objective (and note, not simply an idealistic "goal"). Indeed, maintenance of the natural hydrologic cycle and function of the watersheds is also described as an objective. However, the context of these statements is important. Both objectives are described explicitly as "in respect of servicing" (i.e. with regard to stormwater, water supply, wastewater and utility services). This incorrectly implies that management of Howard - Final Report - Page 14 stormwater will resolve all potential impacts from urbanisation - quality and quantity. If that were the case, springs in urban areas throughout the GTA would not show impacts (on quality and quantity) of urban development, something they clearly do. Stormwater management can partially resolve potential groundwater problems but are not a panacea, and in many cases will simply transfer such problems to receiving surface water bodies. A particular concern is that stormwater systems will not collect all urban sources of contamination including: · the majority of fertilizers, pesticides and de-icing salts used by residents; · the 50% or more of salt applied to roads that, by one means or another (spray, infiltration through cracks and crevices and recharge via roadside swales), manages to elude stormwater drains and reach the aquifer; · urban runoff from imperviousness that is not "directly connected" (Clarifica, 2005). Moreover, stormwater management will not resolve the potential problem of reduced aquifer recharge unless "recharge management" (artificial recharge) is adopted. Recharge management can be an effective solution to the problem of depleted recharge in urban areas, but is not without risk and can potentially introduce contaminants to the aquifer. It should only be practiced with a thorough prior understanding of subsurface hydrogeological conditions (including a comprehensive appreciation of the regionally variable characteristics of the Halton Till cover) and the potential sensitivity of receiving aquifers. Without such knowledge, it is impossible to identify the most appropriate sites for the installation of recharge management facilities and, related to that, where residential areas are most effectively sited. As indicated, there are numerous ways that impacts of urban development on the hydrologic system can be managed and reduced to environmentally appropriate levels, but there are steps that must be taken if well users are to be reassured, and if potential damage is to be confined to acceptable limits. In some respects, these steps are not unlike those that need to be adopted from a water quantity perspective. They include: Problem Definition. The first steps in finding a resolution to any problem are to acknowledge a problem may exist and define the potential scope of that problem. Until there is an acceptance that stormwater collection will not fully solve the potential impacts on groundwater quality and quantity, no solution will be forthcoming. Standards of Performance. Realistic and measurable water quality objectives must be established - objectives that will safeguard both well users and receiving streams. As indicated above, zero change is an unrealistic option; however, small changes can often be accommodated without serious loss of hydrologic function. There is a precedent - the MOE Reasonable Use guidelines dictate what are acceptable water quality impacts at the property boundary adjacent to a landfill, and it is quite conceivable that a similar approach could be adopted for establishing water quality impacts associated with urban development. 3. Impact Assessment and Contaminant Flow Modeling. Contaminant loadings associated with any proposed land use change are not difficult to predict. The real Howard - Final Report - Page 15 ATTAOHI~IENT #, ~ TO REPORT # PD --~, -0~ challenge is to convert those chemical loadings into water quality parameters (chemical concentrations) in time and 3-dimensional space and provide reassurance that groundwater quality will remain acceptable for all time. For example, it is relatively easy to estimate how much salt or nitrogen fertilizer might be used annually as a consequence of urbanisation. The difficulty lies in predicting the concentration of chloride, nitrate (or similar water quality parameter) that can be anticipated in a resident's well or at a receiving stream, 25 or 50 years from now, and providing assurance that such levels will be acceptable (i.e. meet the standards of performance established in 2. above). The only reliable means of determining the fate and potential impacts of contaminant releases in a catchment is to use groundwater flow models, a conclusion clearly drawn by Justice O'Connor in his recommendations for source water protection following the Walkerton Inquiry (O'Connor, 2002b). In the PCPDP study area, groundwater flow models would allow impacts to be predicted as a function of time and provide feedback that would allow refinement of the land use plan. Moreover, models would allow recharge facilities to be sited so as to maximise the use of sub-surface storage and minimise risks associated with potential chemical spills. An example of the benefits of the modeling approach is shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7 (Howard and Maier, 2006, in press). Figure 5 shows the predicted long-term impacts of salt application in the Duffins Creek watershed prior to any development on the PCPDP lands. Contours shown represent predicted chloride concentrations in the Upper Aquifer when chemical steady state is reached. Figure 6 shows predicted long-term chloride concentrations following urban development, while Figure 7 demonstrates how chloride changes with time in 3 randomly selected observation wells. Models such as these can be developed for a whole range of land use scenarios and mitigation measures within the PCPDP study area, with adjustments made to the development plan until impacts fall within acceptable levels. 5. Concluding Discussion and Recommendation The Greater Toronto Area, similar to many urban centres around the world, is experiencing rapid urban development with serious questions being raised concerning the environmental sustainability of this development and the potentially detrimental impacts on the quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources. Urban planning can no longer be regarded as a two-dimensional exercise. In the interests of groundwater protection, planners and legislators must be required to fully incorporate an understanding of the sub-surface into the deliberation/decision-making process. Where appropriate, they must acknowledge hydrogeological complexity, groundwater flow dynamics and the extended time frames over which impacts of land use on groundwater can occur. The PCPDP study area lies well to the south of the Provincially recognised "Oak Ridges Moraine" (ORM) (as defined by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001) and, as such, is not directly affected by ORM legislation. Nevertheless, as well demonstrated in the scientific literature, the ORM is just one component of a complex multi-layered aquifer system that extends from beyond the shoreline of Lake Simcoe in the north to Lake Ontario in the south - a regional system that supplies wells and feeds wetlands and streams far beyond the Howard - Final Report - Page 16 REPC RT # PD. ~ ORM boundary. From an environmental standpoint, the aquifer system within the PCPDP study area is as much, if not more, in need of management and protection as the ORM itself. Itel mg,'L 17~) mg/L ~Z~ mg,'L I~ mlpl- ~100 ~ I:~O0~ m~/L Figure 5. Long-term, steady state chloride concentrations in the Upper Aquifer as a result of road salt application, prior to urban development in the PCPDP study area (shown by yellow line). Predictions were generated using Modflow. Howard - Final Report - Page 17 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD~~ ~38000 df2~O0 dt5~O0 d~9000 dSLO00 d51~00 660000 Figure 6. Long-term, steady state chloride concentrations in the Upper Aquifer as a result of road salt application following one scenario of development in PCPDP study area (shown by yellow line). Predictions were generated using Modflow. Howard - Final Report - Page 18 ATTACHIVIENT #_ ~ TO o Figure 7. The change of chloride with time in 3 randomly selected, shallow observation wells within the PCPDP study area. The blue line shows the predicted change without development and the pink line shows the change following development. Predictions were generated using Modflow. Note that while the rates of degradation appear rapid, the changes do in fact occur over a period of several hundred years. Howard - Final Report - Page 19 ATTACHMENT#... ~o TO REPORT # PD._~ Hydrogeological Issues The hydrogeology of the Duffins Creek watershed is complex (Gerber and Howard, 2002). The watershed supports three relatively "weak" aquifers separated by two regionally extensive aquitards. The uppermost aquifer is overlain by the Halton Till, a heterogeneous, clay-rich deposit that contains abundant gravel, sand and silt, and locally supports an active groundwater flow system. All of these units are present within the PCPDP study area, and the potential complexities of the aquifer system are amply demonstrated in the region by adverse, unanticipated sub-surface conditions recently encountered along16th Avenue in the neighbouring Rouge River catchment during sewer construction for the YDSS (York-Durham Sewer System). As clearly demonstrated by the YDSS project and the response of the Province to the severe problems encountered, impacts on the sub-surface can not be fully evaluated without a thorough understanding of local hydrogeological conditions. A particular concern within the PCPDP study area is that the aquifers are relatively Iow storage systems that are significantly more susceptible to changing conditions than high storage systems (e.g. the aquifer underlying the Oak Ridges Moraine). It is essential that the susceptibility or "sensitivity" of study area aquifers be acknowledged when measures for mitigating potential impacts of urban development (quality and quantity) are designed. A particular concern is that the PCPDP study area supports numerous private wells, many within the Middle Aquifer that lies beneath the regionally extensive but leaky Newmarket Till (Northern Till) aquitard. This aquifer receives replenishment both regionally (as recharge via the Oak Ridges Moraine to the north) and locally (via recharge within the PCPDP study area and subsequent leakage via the Newmarket Till). Replenishment rates are regionally variable and depend on numerous factors including, but not limited to, the hydraulic properties of the Halton Till and its variability across the region. It is impossible to reliably estimate potential impacts of any land use change within the PCPDP study area without a comprehensive understanding of the Halton Till and how its hydrogeological characteristics vary across the area. Streams and Wetlands Assessment of potential impacts on study area streams and wetlands is complicated by the complex hydrogeological conditions within the Duffins Creek watershed. While part of the flow in local streams is due to overland runoff from the surrounding sub-watershed and is relatively easy to assess, much of the flow, especially during summer months enters as baseflow from one or more of the three aquifers present. Relative contributions depend on the degree to which the stream channel has penetrated the aquifer system, the hydraulic properties of each aquifer and the gradient of pressure that is acting at any one time. While detailed flow analysis of isolated stretches of streams and rivers can begin to unravel the complexity of this issue, such analyses shed little light on how various contributions will change under altered land use conditions. A further complicating factor is that inflow of groundwater in the PCPDP has a profound impact on stream quality, and water quality in the three aquifers is quite different, the shallow aquifer showing greatest anthropogenic impacts. In effect, it is impossible to reliably estimate potential impacts of land use change within the PCPDP study area on stream water quality and quantity without a full understanding of the Howard - Final Report - Page 20 ATTACHI¥1EI~T #_.~ ,TO qEPhR')~ ~' PD_.~.~.~--05 aquifer system, its properties, and the nature of its hydraulic interaction with various stream reaches. Limitations of the PCPDP As it currently stands, the "Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan" (PCPDP) is two- dimensional and fails to appreciate the complex hydrogeological system, the sensitive aquifers (more sensitive than the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer) and the potential long-term impacts of urbanisation on the quality and quantity of water in local wells and the river system. The water balance studies completed to date are severely limited in scope and there is nothing to reassure existing residents that their wells will be protected (with respect to both quality and quantity) and that streams will not be unduly impacted. Proposed buffer zones (setbacks) may provide some measure of protection for surface water bodies fed entirely by surface water runoff, but will not provide adequate protection for streams and wetlands receiving groundwater. The Preferred Approach Recent hydrogeological and hydrochemical studies at the University of Toronto confirm that urbanisation has severely impacted groundwater underlying more established parts of Toronto. Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws exist that may limit degradation from future development. However, it is not clear that the legislation - essentially a patchwork of statutes, policies, programs, regulations and guidelines - is sufficiently versatile to deal with the wide range of potential urban contaminants and the dynamics of groundwater flow within the complex, glacial aquifer system (Howard, 1997). If the protection of ground and surface water is to be guaranteed, there is a strong need to consolidate available legislation and bring it into line with modern hydrogeological thinking. In many respects, "modern hydrogeological thinking" is enshrined in Part 2 of the Report on the Walkerton Inquiry where Justice O'Connor describes a blueprint for groundwater resource protection in Ontario that requires source protection plans be developed for all watersheds in Ontario. He indicates that, at a minimum, plans should include: · a water budget for the watershed, or a plan for developing a water budget where sufficient data are not yet available; · the identification of all significant water withdrawals, including municipal intakes; · land use maps for the watershed; · the identification of wellhead areas; · maps of areas of groundwater vulnerability that include characteristics such as depth to bedrock, depth to water table, the extent of aquifers, and recharge rates; · the identification of all major point and non-point sources of contaminants in the watershed; · a model that describes the fate of pollutants in the watershed; · a program for identifying and properly decommissioning abandoned wells, excavations, quarries, and other shortcuts that can introduce contaminants into aquifers; · the identification of areas where a significant direct threat exists to the safety of drinking water; Howard - Final Report - Page 21 · the identification of significant knowledge gaps and or research needs to help target monitoring efforts. Urban planners should acknowledge Justice O'Connor's important advice and act accordingly. From a planner's perspective, groundwater protection is normally incorporated into the urban planning process by defining standards of practice i.e. explicit directions or guidelines Which would, for example, exclude certain types of development and land use activity in specified areas e.g. in "buffer zones", and recharge areas of major aquifers. This type of approach is easy to administer and is readily incorporated into planning tools such as geographical information systems. However, the approach has little merit in southern Ontario where recharge is almost ubiquitous, and till cap heterogeneities and dynamic flow systems prevent "protection zones" from being defined with the necessary degree of confidence. Instead, a standards of performance approach is often more appropriate as it provides greater flexibility in urban design and encourages planning innovation. The standards of performance approach would designate limits for the degree of acceptable groundwater quality degradation, and may also, for example, require that total recharge (direct and indirect) be maintained at pre-development levels. Just as importantly, the standards of performance approach would put the onus on the proponent to perform the necessary sub-surface investigations and provide designs (including monitoring programs, mitigation measures and contingency plans) that would ensure environmental performance standards are met for all time. The standards of performance approach is data demanding but is directly compatible with Justice O'Connor's recommendation that groundwater flow models be developed that "describe the fate of pollutants in the watershed". Such models can be used equally effectively to describe the potential impacts of recharge depletion on well water levels and stream flows and, as indicated, the potential impacts of road de-icing chemicals on well and stream water quality. The Most Appropriate Plan of Action Recognising: 1. the hydrogeological complexity of the study area, 2. the sensitivity of study area aquifers and receiving streams, 3. the severe limitations of the "Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan", and 4. the recommendations of Justice O'Connor following the Walkerton Inquiry, the appropriate course of action is clearly apparent. While there are numerous ways that potential impacts of urban development on the hydrologic system can be managed and reduced to environmentally appropriate levels, none of these methods can be properly evaluated without a well calibrated numerical model of the aquifer system. Justice O'Connor was obviously convinced of the importance of aquifer modeling for resource protection purposes, and following the serious problems encountered during YDSS tunnel construction along 16th Avenue, aquifer models have become the preferred choice for evaluating potential impacts of dewatering for future YDSS projects. Aquifer modelling is no more a panacea for Howard - Final Report - Page 22 environmental protection in urban areas as storm water management; nevertheless, it is just as essential. Recommendation In terms of the PCPDP study area, it is strongly recommended that the essentially 2- dimensional planning approach be abandoned in favour of an iterative approach that fully utilises calibrated, 3-D groundwater flow models as an integral part of the planning process, to test and evaluate alternative land use configurations. Such an approach may require additional drilling to provide key input data, notably with respect to the Halton Till cover. Ultimately, however, adoption of such a state-of-the-art decision-making approach will ensure that development of the PCPDP lands can proceed in a safe, sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. 6. References Clarifica, 2005. Water budget assessment for the Pickering GMS Study Area. Eiswirth, M. and Hotzl, H., 1997. The impact of leaking sewers on urban groundwater. In J. Chilton et al. (eds.), Groundwater in the Urban Environment: Volume 1: Problems, Processes and Management; Proc. of the XXV11 IAH Congress on Groundwater in the Urban Environment, Nottingham, UK, 21-27 September 1997. Rotterdam: Balkema, 399-405. Eyles, N., and Howard, K.W.F., 1988. A hydrochemical study of urban landslides caused by heavy rain: Scarborough Bluffs, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25, 466. Flipse, W.J.Jr., Katz, B.G., Lindner, J.B. and Markel, R. 1984. Soumes of nitrate in ground water in a sewered housing development, central Long Island, New York. Ground Water 22: 418-426. Foster, S., Morris, B., Lawrence, A., Chilton, J. 1999. Groundwater impacts and issues in developing cities - An introductory review. In J. Chilton (ed.). Groundwater in the Urban Environment: Selected City Profiles, Rotterdam: Balkema: 3-16. Gerber, R.E. 1994. Recharge Analysis for the Central Portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, 172p. Gerber, R.E. and Howard, K.W.F. 1996. Evidence for recent groundwater flow through Late Wisconsinan till near Toronto, Ontario. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, 538-555. Gerber, R.E. and Howard, K.W.F. 1997. Ground-water recharge to the Oak Ridges Moraine. In Environmental Geology of Urban Areas, edited by Nick Eyles, Geological Association of Canada, Geotext 3, 173-192. Gerber R.E., Boyce J. and Howard, K.W.F., 2000. Evaluation of heterogeneity and field-scale groundwater flow regime in a leaky till aquitard. Hydrogeology Journal Vol. 9, 60-78. Howard - Final Report - Page 23 Gerber, R.E. and Howard, K.W.F., 2000. Recharge through a regional till aquitard: three dimensional flow model water balance approach. Groundwater, 38, 410-422. Gerber R.E. and Howard, K.W.F., 2002. Hydrogeology of the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer system: implications for protection and management from the Duffins Creek watershed. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences (CJES) 39, 1333-1348. Hinton, M. J. 1996. Measuring stream discharge to infer the spatial distribution of groundwater discharge. In Proceedings of the Watershed Management Symposium, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada. December 6-8, 1995, 27-32. Howard, K.W.F. 1985. An approach to recognising Iow level contamination of groundwaters in shallow sedimentary aquifers. Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada 20, No. 2, 1-11. Howard, K.W.F and P. Beck. 1986. Hydrochemical interpretation of groundwater flowsystems in Quaternary sediments of southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 23: 938-947. Howard, K.W.F. and Beck, P.J., 1993. Hydrogeochemical implications of groundwater contamination by road de-icing chemicals. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 12 (3), 245-268. Howard, K.W.F., Boyce, J.l., Livingstone S. and Salvatori, S.L.,1993. Road salt impacts on groundwater quality - the worst is yet to come. GSA Today vol. 3, No. 12, 301-321. Howard, K.W.F. and Haynes, J. 1993. Groundwater contamination due to road de-icing chemicals - salt balance implications. Geoscience Canada 20, (No. 1): 1-8. Howard, K.W.F., Eyles, N. and Livingstone, S., 1996. Municipal landfilling practice and its impact on groundwater resources in and around urban Toronto. Hydrogeology Journal 4, no. 1, 64-79. Howard, K.W.F. 1997. Incorporating policies for groundwater protection into the urban planning process. In: Chilton J. et al., Groundwater in the Urban Environment. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam Vol 1. 31-40. Howard, K.W.F. and Livingstone, S., 1997. Contaminant source audits and ground-water quality assessment. In: Eyles, E. (ed.) Environmental Geology of Urban Areas. Special Publication of the Geological Association of Canada. Geotext #3, 105-118. Howard, K.W.F. and Gerber, R.E. 1997. Do tills beneath urban Toronto provide adequate groundwater protection? In: Chilton J. et al., Groundwater in the Urban Environment. AA Balkema, Rotterdam Vol 1. 433-438. Howard K.W.F. and Livingstone, S.J., 2000 Transport of urban contaminants into Lake Ontario via sub-surface flow. Urban Water 2, 183-195. Howard, K.W.F, 2002. Urban groundwater issues - an introduction. In Howard, K.W.F. and Israfilov, R. (eds.) 2002. Current problems of hydrogeology in urban areas, urban agglomerates and industrial centres. NATO Science Series IV Earth and Environmental Sciences vol. 8, 1-15. Howard K.W.F. and Gelo, K., 2002 Intensive Groundwater Use in Urban Areas: the Case of Megacities. In: Llamas, R. and Custodio, E. (eds.) Intensive use of groundwater: Challenges and Opportunities (publishers: Balkema) 35-58. Howard - Final RePort - Page 24 Howard, K.W.F. and Israfilov, R. (eds.). 2002 Current problems of hydrogeology in urban areas, urban agglomerates and industrial centres. NATO Science Series: IV Earth and Environmental Sciences 8, 504 pp. Kluwer. Howard, K.W.F., 2006 (in press) (editor). Challenges in Urban Groundwater Management. Selected Papers in Hydrogeology Series. International Assoc. Hydrogeologists. Springer-Verlag. Howard, K.W.F. and Maier, H. 2006, (in press). Potential impacts of road salt on urban development in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Selected Papers in Hydrogeology Series. International Assoc. Hydrogeologists. Interim Waste Authority. 1994a. EA document IV, geology/hydrogeology, technical appendix 1: Site T1 for Durham Region landfill site search. Prepared by M.M. Dillon Limited, February, 1994. Interim Waste Authority. 1994b. EA document IV, geology/hydrogeology, technical appendix 2: Site EE4 for Durham Region landfill site search. Prepared by M.M. Dillon Limited, February, 1994. Interim Waste Authority. 1994c. EA document IV, geology/hydrogeology, technical appendix 3: Site EEl0 for Durham Region landfill site search. Prepared by M.M. Dillon Limited, February, 1994. Interim Waste Authority. 1994d. IWA landfill site search, Metro/York Region, Step 6 hydrcgeological report Site M6. Prepared by Fenco MacLaren Inc, February 1994. Interim Waste Authority. 1994e. Detailed assessment of the proposed site EEl1 for Durham Region landfill site search, Technical appendices Parts 1 and 3 of 4. Prepared by M.M. Dillon Limited, October 1994. Kolpin , D.W., Squillace, P.J., Zogorski, J.S., Barbash, J.E. 1997. Pesticides and volatile organic compounds in shallow urban groundwater of the United States. In J. Chilton et al. (eds.), Groundwater in the Urban Environment: Volume 1:Problems, Processes and Management; Proc. of the XXV11 IAH Congress on Groundwater in the Urban Environment, Nottingham, UK, 21-27 September 1997. Rotterdam: Balkema, 469-475. Morris, B.L., Lawrence, A.R., Foster, S.D. 1997. Sustainable groundwater management for fast- growing cities: Mission achievable or mission impossible? In J. Chilton et al. (eds.), Groundwater in the Urban Environment: Volume 1: Problems, Processes and Management; Proc. of the XXV11 IAH Congress on Groundwater in the Urban Environment, Nottingham, UK, 21-27 September 1997. Rotterdam: Balkema, 55-66. Morton, T.G., Gold, A.J. and Sullivan, W.M. 1988. Influence of over watering and fertilization on nitrogen losses from home lawns. J. Environ. 17, 124-130. Nazari, M.M., Burston, M.W., Bishop, P.K., and Lerner, D.N. 1993. Urban ground-water pollution - A case study from Coventry, United Kingdom. Ground Water 31,417-424. Nysten, T. and Suokko T. (eds.) 1998. Deicing and dustbinding - risk to aquifers. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Helskinki, Finland, October 14-1 1998. Nordic Hydrological Programme, NHP Report No. 43: 269pp. Howard - Final Report - Page 25 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001. http:llwww, e-laws.gov.on.calDBLawslStatuteslEn,qlish101031 e.htm O'Connor, D.R. (2002a). Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. Part One - The events of May 2000 and related issues. Queen's Printer for Ontario. 504 pp. O'Connor, D.R. (2002b). Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. Part Two - A strategy for safe drinking water. Queen's Printer for Ontario. 588 pp. Ostry, R.C. 1979. The Hydrogeology of the IFYGL Duffins Creek Study Area. Water Resources Report 5c, Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Toronto, Ontario. Pilon P. and Howard, K.W.F. 1987. Contamination of sub-surface waters by road de-icing chemicals. Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada 22(1), 157-171. Planning Alliance Inc., 2005. Central Pickering Development Plan. Proposed July 14, 2005.98 pp. Robertson, W.D., Cherry, J.A., Sudicky, E.A. 1991. Ground-water contamination from two small septic systems on sand aquifers. Ground Water 29: 82-92. Sibul, U., K.T. Wang and D. Vallery. 1977. Ground-Water Resources of the Duffins Creek-Rouge River Drainage Basins. Water Resources Report 8, Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Toronto, Ontario. Thunqvist, E.L., 2004. Regional increase of mean chloride concentration in water due to the application of deicing salt. Science of the Total Environment, 325, 29-37. Williams, D.D., Williams, N.E., Cao, Y., 1999. Road salt contamination of groundwater in major metropolitan area and developing areas. Water Resources, 34(1), 127-138. Howard - Final Report - Page 26 ATTACHMENT # '~ 1'0 REPORI ~ PD ,,~' (Copied from email received on July 28, 2005) Hello Mr. Brenner, Thank you for sending out the informational paper regarding the proposed Whites Road Expressway. My family and I share your concerns about this proposal, and do not wish to have it increase traffic in our neighbourhood. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening. I hope that this correspondance adds to the voice against the proposed expressway. The addition of a community of 60 000 people north of the present boundaries for 'urban' Pickering will be a significant impact to the region. Already, southbound traffic on Whites Road, north of Hwy 2 causes virtual gridlock to the point that I bypass this intersection many mornings. When it is convenient, could you please respond with where the original expressway route was going to be? In addition, is there going to be any way to ensure that there are jobs being created in Seaton to reduce the amount of commuting? My opinion is that permits for housing should not be approved until there are definite employment positions in the area. In that way, hopefully the people who move into Seaton will move there to be near a job that does not require commuting. As more employment positions are created, additional housing permits could be allotted. Also, is there going to be a train station in Seaton connected to, say Ajax GO station in order to provide mass transit for people who don't work in Seaton? The present planning model of building hundreds or thousands of houses in areas without retail or commercial/office space is so unecologically and ecnomically viable as to be laughable. Thank you for your time, and for your effort to stop the proposed Whites Road Expressway. Truly, Jeff Archbold 598 Sheppard Avenue Pickering ATTACHUEN? # /J TO REPORI* # PD__ ~:-o~ (Copied from email received on August 15, 2005) We received your letter dated July 14, 2005 regarding Whites Road Expressway. We were away on vacation and could not attend the July 26th meeting. We object to the expansion of the Whites Road and it's connection to the 407. We are in agreement with the Official Plan in that it does not support what is being proposed on Whites Road. Sincerely, Rob Burns 1809 Eastbank Road, Pickering ATTACHMENT,f', // ,TO REPOR'I ~ PD ,~'O~ (Copied from email received on July 22, 2005) Dear Mr. Brenner I wish to voice my opposition to this thru email as I am unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday July 26th (no tiem was mentioned on the letter ) I have lived in the Amberlea area for 5 1/2 years, our home backs on to Whites rd just south of Finch We have noticed more traffiic on whites yearly and don't wish to increase the amount using Whites rd by offering a ramp onto the 407 hwy when we moved in we found out shortly afterwards about the proposed pickering pipeline, we weren't very happy about that and were thrilled when it was stopped due to area residents opposition I hope as a community we will be able to stop these plans as well. we have a great community in Pickering and don't want to bring its popularty down by putting this thru I am curious to know what was the recommended choice for this and why its not being done there? Trish Cooke-Harding Ofa Spoc Team/Digital Bundles Scarborough 416-279-7660 new email address trish .cooke-harding@bell .ca ATTACHMENT/L /'~ TO REPORT # PD 3~ (Copied from email received on August 12, 2004) Re public comment on Amendment 14 We wish to go on record with the following comment regarding the growth mangement study and official plan amendment. We are in opposition to the official plan and its amendments in those areas in which it differs from the Provincial plan for the Seaton lands, until such a time that the City of Pickering supports the agricultural and natural heritage plan for the greenbelt/Agricultural Reserve lands. We encourage the City to work with the provincial authorities to come to a progressive, far-sighted and permanent agreement for Pickering, while respecting the historical framework and the intent of previous recommendations and studies for presently "undeveloped" areas. Graham Sue, Leslie and Lauren Crawshaw 219 Concession 3 Pickering ATTACHMENT# /~ ,TO REPORI# PD ~ (Copied from email received on August 15, 2005) August12,2005 His Worship David Ryan Mayor, City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex 1 The Esplanande Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mayor Ryan: My wife, Lizanne, and I live in the Hamlet of Cherrywood with our three sons. In response to the City's request for comment on OPA 14, we write to express, once again, our support for the provincial government's Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan. To the extent that OPA 14 is necessary to proceed with the province's plan to develop Seaton and protect the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve, we support the amendment. We also ask that you seriously consider the letter you recently received from the Honourable David Ramsay, Minister of Natural Resources, and the Honourable David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastrucure Renewal. Earlier this year you were quoted in the local media expressing your anger and frustration at the possibility that residents and environmental protection groups might commence litigation against the City with respect to the disposal of the easements referred to in that letter. Your concern was the cost of litigation to the taxpayers of Pickering. Given the province's intention to bring forward legislation to re- establish the easements if Pickering does not live up to its commitments, we expect that litigation will not be necessary. Surely you do not now intend to waste Pickering taxpayers' money continuing a misguided opposition to the province's plan. As you know, the development of north Pickering has been well considered and thoroughly planned over decades. In protecting the Agricultural Preserve, the province's plan is consistent with that planning process and with the City's Official Plan prior to the recent passing of OPA 13. It is consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding executed by the City and the agricultural easements placed on the lands as a part of that MOU and held (until recently) by the City. It is consistent with the public position of the majority of elected councillors at the time of the last municipal election, including Councillors Pickles and Holland. '~'rTACHIVlt~NT #~TO REPORT # PD ..~-o5 Residents of Cherrywood are almost unanimous in their support of protection for the Preserve. Having discussed the issue with most people who live in the Hamlet and many in the surrounding area we know of only 3 or 4 households which support OPA 13 and the Growth Management Study - which was proposed and funded by developers who own most of the land. Each of those GMS supporters purchased their lands with easements under the MOU within the past 6 years and each stand to make a considerable profit on their 'investment' if development is permitted. Aside from those individuals for whom personal profit is an incentive there is virtually no support in Cherrywood or the Agricultural Preserve for the Growth Management Study recommendations. You know that. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Sincerely, Don Harvey 470 Concession 3 Rd. Pickering, ON L1X2R4 (905) 837-5103 ATTACHMENT #_/~ TO REPOR'I' # PD, .~ (Copied from email received on July 25, 2005) Cannot attend the meeting on July 26th.but we STRONGLY OBJECT to any such plan to have a "Whites Road Express Way". ANTHEA and BEN HILLIER 1741 Spruce Hill Road Pickering AT'rACHrt, P, EI'~,F[ ,~,, /~' TO REPOR'[ ~' PD, --~' c_~'~ (Copied from email received on July 22, 2005) We just received your notice about the Whites Rd expansion. Unfortunately we cannot attend the meeting Tuesday about expanding Whites Rd. but are against the expansion. We live in Amberlea and on weekday mornings face back-ups turning left onto Briarwood Gate and then left onto Whites Rd and getting past Dunbarton to go south to the 401 Eastbound because of the traffic congestion in the area. Please add our names to the list of objectors to the proposal. Thanks. Carol Kaake & John Crouse Ada Crt Pickering 905-831-3466 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT # PO_ (Copied from email received on July 22, 2005) Maurice, Thank you for bringing to our attention the proposal to extend Whites Rd north to Hwy 7. When we moved from Whitby to Pickering two years ago, we moved in the hopes of accomplishing two goals. The first was to get away from the rapid growth in the "town" of Whitby, the second was to settle our family in a mature neighbourhood. We have seen a lot of growth happening in the northern part of the city (south of the train tracks, north of the power lines), and now Rosebank north of Finch. Extending Whites road north to connect to the 407 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to us. There are already exits for Townline Rd and Brock, why does the 407 need another exit at Whites? As a runner, I am already seeing an increase of traffic on 3rd concession between Fairport and Altona and often head into the Seaton trails at Forestream. I would hate to see Seaton be destroyed to accommodate an extended road way. I could also imagine the nightmare drive to the Go station in the morning with an additional ten thousand vehicles. The one point in your memo that I do not agree with, is the need for an overpass at the CN tracks. While I wouldn't like to live underneath the Burlington Skyway, I do believe that emergency services such as the fire and police departments need a route north of the city to be able to respond without having to wait for a train to pass. One alternative to a bridge would be to create new stationd north of the tracks. Please make note that I do not know if emergency services have the right of way over trains, so this might not be a valid point. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday, July 26th as we will be out of the city enjoying a well earned summer vacation. If there is anything we can do to support you and our fellow residents outside of attending this meeting please let us know. Sincerely, Ryan and Katherine Lucas 632 Cognac Cres Pickering, ON L1X 1L9 Phone: 416-238-2531 Email: katherine-lucas@rogers.com Dear Madam Clerk: (Copied from email received on July 12, 2005) I am a citizen of the City of Pickering and I was shocked to receive my copy of OPA 14. I have attended and participated in virtually every council and public meeting for a number of years but am very disappointed in this document. The City of Pickering conducted a very expensive Growth Management Study, which included many opportunities for public input and comment. The study was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant science and the development needs of the City for the future. The final result was a balanced compromise that was acceptable to most people. Council endorsed that position and passed a resolution to confirm its position. In addition, Council unanimously passed a resolution that requested the Minister of Environment to conduct a Full Environmental Assessment of the Seaton Land Swap. Up until OPA 14 the process represented a logical progression in planning. This was despite the action of the Province of imposing the draconian OPDA to to force its will to fulfill its promises to Richmond Hill. OPA 14 appears to be nothing more than a complete capitulation to the Province with total disregard for the protection and preservation of the environmentally sensitive and heritage lands in Seaton. The Seaton Lands have the last three cold water streams in the GTA, large contiguous woodlots and huge uncontaminated aquifers which will require very special protection. But OPA 14 appears to increase the population density while reducing the environmental buffers and setbacks. Where is the protection of the heritage sites, the environment...and the future for our children? I would like to know the date and time of, and to receive copies of all minutes or staff notes taken during the meetings and teleconferences; and all communication or direction from the Province or its consultants in relation to OPA 14. I would like to receive copies of the new information in terms of hydrogeological/infrastructure studies that support OPA 14 and the City's reversal in position. One can only assume that the Province is surreptitiously steering this process on a platform of political promises rather than sound science and engineering principals. I await your response to prove me wrong. Rob Lyon 478 Concession #4 Pickering ON L1V2P9 August16,2005 City of Pickering, Planning Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RE: PickerinR OPA 14 Comments Dear Mr. Carroll: I live in the Agricultural Assembly. I bought the land through a local real estate agent at fair market value as listed on MLS (Multiple Listing Service). My property had an Agricultural Easement on it. I comment from the point of view of someone who is directly affected by OPA 14. In addition, I spent six years at the University of Guelph where I studied Fish and Wildlife Biology. In my career, I have been employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources as both a fisheries and as a wildlife biologist. I was also worked for the Research Division of Ontario Hydro conducting terrestrial and aquatic environmental impact assessments. While I do not have any training in planning, I have read very extensively on the subject since moving to my present home. The City of Pickering is an anomaly of the planning process. If not for a failed joint attempt by the provincial and federal governments thirty years ago to develop a satellite airport and city to service it, Pickering would most certainly be a very different place. Toronto, the fourth-largest city in North America, would sprawl east to Clarington. That sprawl would be a homogeneous mass of residential development similar to Ajax or Mississauga. Specifically I believe that OPA 14 should never have been put forth as an option. To start with, Pickering Council has been cuckolded by the provincial government in its haste to fulfill ill-conceived promises made during the heat of an election campaign. I am confident that when Councilor Dickerson and council asked staff to talk to the Province, they did not expect to have staff add a nip and a tuck to the OPDA and offer it up as a Pickering solution to the stalemate. Council has unanimously gone on record asking for a Full Class D Environmental Assessment. Mr. David Steele has collected more then 3500 signatures from the residents of Pickering and Ajax requesting a full Environmental Assessment. A full Environmental Assessment is the only open public transparent way to arrive at the best solution for Pickering and for the environment in its broadest sense. OPA 14 undercuts the unanimously stated position of Council. ATTACHUENT ~ /'7' TO REPORlt PO The Natural Heritage System is based on MNR and Toronto Region Conservation Authority maps that the Province knows and freely admits are erroneous. Two days before the OPDA Open House in July, Mr. Brian Korsman, Project Director, OPDA - Development of Seaton, called me at home to tell me that the maps that the Province had been using were wrong and that they were being fixed on a "go-foward basis". During the Development of OPA 13, Catherine Rose of Pickering's Planning Department informed me that the maps had been corrected, but OPA 14 continues to show maps which both the province and the city know to be erroneous. To repeat as fact that which you know to be false is to discredit yourself and this process. No matter how many times the Province and the City of Pickering show the misleading maps, the creeks that are incorrectly depicted will never appear. The time to correct the maps of the creeks passed long ago. The misconceptions arising from the incorrect maps are indelibly ingrained in the public's mind. Pages 2 & 3: addresses the concept of compact urban form and the map attachment has "High Density" as part of the legend. But there is no area of "High Density" shown on the map. SO WHERE IS THE HIGH DENSITY IN YOUR COMPACT URBAN FORM? How are we to arrive at the stated goal without high density housing? I asked one of the planners from Dillon the same question during the Growth Management Study and was told that high density housing would "never sell", and that the buying public want detached houses with a front and back lawn. Page 2: alludes to "future studies and work prior to development" How do you hope to achieve these? Pages 3 & 9 (d) The Whitevale Golf Course as "Green Space": the Whitevale Golf Course was sold from public trust to a private company on 09/30/1999 (Instrument number LT923073) for $2,845,000 and on 07/10/2002 (Instrument number DR92052) for $155,000. This is within the Region's Official Plan as a growth or living area and can be developed into housing by zoning changes. The Transportation Study released by the Province as part of its OPDA shows the Whitevale Golf Course as housing. This land must never be developed as housinq due to the unfortunate circumstances of its sale. The Whitevale Golf Course has 530 members who all stand to make incredible capital gains on their investment. This would be the biggest single cash grab of Pickering's development. To consider joining the two pieces of property is ludicrous as it would eliminate one extra step in the conversion of the golf course to housing. The residents of Whitevale are the ones to pay the price for this portion of the decision. Page 8 (a, b &c), 9 (f & g), 14 (viii): the Natural Heritage Area (NHA) immediately adjacent to urban housing will lead to significant conflict with the NHA losing on every point. The conflicts will arise from the direct impacts of cats and dogs and children venturing into the corridor. The impact of domestic and feral cats on small mammals and birds is very well documented in literature, and is both horrific and significant. The impact of dogs, both domestic and feral, on all mammals and ground-nesting birds would have a significant adverse impact. ATTACHMENT// /'7 TO The impact of older children with their litter and vandalism on the nature paths and the First Nations heritage sites will take a toll. They will be bringing First Nations pottery shards to show and tell in the classroom then discarding them like so much waste. Developing the urban form before planning the Natural Heritage Areas is like putting the cart before the horse. It is unfortunate that the Natural Heritage features will be seriously degraded with limited or no hope of recovery by the time the plan is finished. Thus a full EA is critical in achieving the best outcome for all. Page 9 (e) "transit oriented community": The OPDA placed public transit as priorities 6 and 7 on a list of 7 priorities. The primary means of transit will be individual cars - each contributing to smog and air pollution. The Provinces assertions on the development of Seaton are for an innovative work-live-play community. But all you are offering is more urban sprawl. Page 9 (h): The City is on record as opposing the development of an airport but by acknowledging on page 9, you undercut your Council's stated position. Page 12 (q & r): The financial documentation should be first and foremost and should be part of a Full Environmental Assessment. Page 13 (iv - vii) 15 (viii) and 28 (di - iii): Currently West Duffin's Creek supports a resident brook and brown trout population and a transient population of spring- and fall- spawning coho and chinook Salmon, and rainbow & brown trout. But the proposed urban form will exterminate these existing cold water fisheries. Proposed storm water management ponds will elevate the base-flow temperature of the streams and cause any fish eggs to hatch too early and the larval fish to starve. The impact of road salting will reduce the fecundity of fish by prematurely hardening the eggs during fertilization. The net effect of elevating base flow temperatures and road salting will result in the conversion of the last cold water streams in the GTA to warm water streams devoid of higher aquatic life. No mention is made of the magic storm water treatment that will stop the salt from entering the storm sewers. I know of no viable technology to remove the salt from the stream through storm water treatment. At the OPDA open house last month the storm water expert had no clue how to handle the issue of salt. In fact he couldn't even name a single flow model that might address this issue while I could name and describe three and explain why they are not suitable. Page 16 (x): It is illogical to "require" consultation when you are in an OPDA process and the City's options are zero. ATTACHMENT d' //'7' TO Page 16 (y): I totally disagree with the creation of the Whites Road Expressway and building another bridge over West Duffin's Creek. The construction of a Whites Road expressway will directly impact a very large group of existing residences with nois odor and dust from the huge traffic flow with no available space to install mitigating measures. The Growth Management Study which utilized Brock Road has publicly- owned land on both sides and is readily available space to mitigate the impacts of the very large traffic flows. In addition the existing built-out culverts make this the obvious choice. Page 20: Again there is no treatment available for the salt runoff. Page 22 3.9 (b): If one is to achieve the stated goal of OPA 14 then you Must have high density to make the transit option Viable. Page 24 5.18 4.10 (d): Due to the narrower road right of ways and without the available pace to place the snow on, the roads and walkways of Seaton will be totally clogged. The City will be sued for every child's death due to the impassable walkways. Page 26 5.20 4.14 (f): Council already has a position opposing this issue. Page 27 5.22 8.10 (d): Short of removing every trace of the first nations sites how will they be protected. The area is not serviced by the York-Durham Trunk Sewer. Who will bear the cost of this servicing? Will the Province as part of its OPDA pay for the servicing? The construction of the employment lands adjacent to the Highway 407 will require a very large investment in infrastructure to supply water and remove sewage. Who will bear the costs of this infrastructure, in both the short-term construction costs and the long-term maintenance costs? As a taxpayer I do not want to be responsible for these costs nor do I want them deferred to my children. Should you wish to discuss my comments or wish clarification please do not hesitate to contact me Yours truly, Rob Lyon Michael J. McQuaid, Q.C. E-mail mcquaid@weirfoulds.com Direct Line 416-947-5ozo File ooo56.a993o REPUR! ~ PD ,~'~ ~ WeirFould. BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS August 10, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE Debi A. Bentley, CMO, CMM III City Clerk City of Pickering Corporate Services Department One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Bentley: Re: ' Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P City Initiated: Modified Seaton Plan Draft Official Plan Amendment 14 ("OPA 14") City of Pickering We received a copy of your letter of July 7, 2005 forwarding a copy of proposed OPA 14 and explaining the City's process. We have been asked to compile the comments from the companies that will be receiving lands from ORC in the Central Seaton Community and their consultants, the Sernas Group and IBI. For purposes of these submissions we have referred to those companies (113373 Ontario Inc., Mattamy (Seaton) Limited and Oakridges Farm Co-Tenancy et al.) as the Pickering Land Group ("PLG"). Key Provisions of the Ontario Planning and Development Act ("OPDA") and proposed OPA 14 Comments on specific sections of the proposed OPA 14 follow but we would be remiss if we did not bring to Council's attention that the provisions of s. 13(b) of the OPDA provides: "no municipality.., shall pass a by-law for any purpose that conflicts with the plan." Council will be aware that MMAtt published its proposed Development Plan on July 14th and is engaged in a 60 day public consultation process that will likely lead to adoption by the.Minister of a formal Development Plan this fall. The Exchange Tower, Suite 16oo P.O. Box 480, 13o King Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5X Telephone 416-365-111o Facsimile 416-365-1876 Website www.weirfoulds.com AT'I'ACHMEN'r # /~' TO WeirFould. BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS Furthermore the provisions of sections 15 and 16, (copies attached for ready reference) give the Minister power to resolve conflicts upon notification to the Council of such conflicts. Bearing in mind these provisions of the Act and that Council is engaged in a public process that involves both a significant number of the City's population and area of development we would urge Council not to enact or approve any OPA for the Central Picketing area until the Province has completed its process under the OPDA. Specific Comments on Sections of Proposed OPA 14 The following comments are provided in the order that the item appears in the text of the proposed OPA 14. For the most part, these comments relate to new policies or items that were left blank in the last draft of modified OPA 13. 1) Section 2.12 a) ultimate population target for the Seaton Community of 43,000 people Comment The target of 43,000 persons for the development land area proposed on Schedule 'A' appears reasonable, however this target is based on a developable land area, which is significantly different from the proposed OPDA. For the reasons set out in Part 1 of our letter above describing the importance of conformity between the OPDA Plan and any City OP, any differences in developable land areas and population targets should be discussed and resolved with representatives of the Ministry during the consultative period ending September 14, 2005 so that the City's plan, as finally adopted, fully conforms with the Province's Development Plan. PLG is concerned with the adoption of any plan by the City that might not conform to the population targets and designated development areas that might be finally determined through the OPDA Plan. All such issues should be resolved prior to the final adoption of OPA 14 to avoid any conformity issues. 2) Section 2.12 b) and Table lB interim population target of 30,200 people in 2016 distribution of population by neighborhood over time AT'I'ACHMEI'J'I' #/~~~ TO REPOR'I # PD <..-~ 'c WeirFould. BARRISTERS 8, SOLICITORS Comment The pace of growth and distribution of population within Seaton to 2011 is in general accord with that anticipated by the PLG. However, we anticipate that there will only be 3 years of occupancies to 2011, resulting in a lower target to that year. On the other hand, we expect the pace of growth between 2008 and 2011 to be maintained right through to 2016. As a result, we recommend that Table lB be revised as follows: CENTRAL PICKERING URBAN AREA - SEATON COMMUNITY POPULATION TARGETS BY YEAR Neighborhood 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 16 Lamoreaux 9,700 10,600 Name to be confirmed 17 Name to be determined 18 Name to be determined 2,200 11,100 19 Name to be determined 2,300 20 Name to be determined 6,300 21 Name to be determined 2,200 6,900 Total Population Targets: Central Pickering Urban Area - Seaton Community 14,100 37,700 3) Section 2.13 d) - recognize the heritage character of the Whitevale Road corridor from Whitevale Hamlet to the Whitevale Road by-pass. Comment: The heritage character of Whitevale Road east of the cemetery is that of a rural road. This character is fundamentally at odds with the development of an urban community. Actual heritage structures can be preserved through other policies of the Official Plan. However, it is not a valid exercise to preserve the "existing cultural heritage value or interest of the landscape" in an urban context. We therefore ask that the policy be amended so that the "heritage corridor" ends at the cemetery. ATTACHMENT# /~o TO REPOR'r # PD ,.~-0~ WeirFoulds ,. ~ARRI~TERI~ & 8DLICITOR8 4) Section 2.13 (i) (i) require buried utility lines Comment: Policies such as this should not be stated in the absolute without m~ understanding of the costs and benefits attached. In this regard, we suggest that the policy be qualified by adding the words "where technically and economically reasonable" after the words "buried utility lines". 5) Section 2.13 k) requires the extension of piped water and sanitary sewer services to the Employment Area ahead of or concurrent with the commencement of residential development within the Seaton Community. related to this policy are: Section 2.13 m) (i), Section 2.13 q) and Section 2.13 s) - which require this policy to be implemented by the Employment Area Study, the Financial Impact Study and holding provisions. Comment: The PLG will not acquire any Employment lands as a result of the lm~d exchange with the Province. However, the Province has insisted that all services be oversized and designed to provide for ready servicing of the Employment lands and PLG has instructed its engineers to design all sewer and water infrastructure for Phase 1 of the Seaton Community so as to provide capacity to the Employment Area and other areas such as the possible new federal airport. Further PLG have agreed with the Province to front-end Phase 1 of the community and discussions to that end are underway with the Region. For the City's information, we attach a copy of Schedule 5 of the Minister's Development Plan upon which we have delineated the limits of Phase 1 Servicing Area. The services being installed by the PLG will bring sewer and water facilities closer to the Employment lands which are currently owned by the CRC, a provincial body. However, the actual extension of sewers to these lands will be the responsibility of the Region, CRC and any successors to CRC. The development of the PLG Phase 1 lands should not be dependent on a third party's servicing or t*TTACHIV~,ENT # /~> TO REi:'OR'~'// PD..._,_~, -L.~'~ WeirFoulds,.,. ~ARRISTER8 & 80t. ICiTOR8 marketing decisions. 'Furthermore, it will not be economically viable for the PLG to extend sewers and water to the Employment areas before revenue from residential development is available nor in PLG's view would that be a prudent planning decision. Servicing will occur in a south to north manner m~d will be phased to coincide with the pace of development. The timing and construction of services, including construction triggers, will be included in the front-ending funding agreement entered into with the Region of Durham under the Development Charges Act. Therefore, we ask that this policy be replaced with the policy proposed in the Modified OPA 13 discussions, namely: "Identify a strategy to service the employment lands early in the development of Central Pickering" 6) Section 2.1.13 n) - requires the provision of major conununity facilities coincident with the commencement of each phase of residential related to this policy are: Section 2.13 q), Section 2.13 s) and Section 2.15 b) which require this policy to be implemented through the Financial Impact Study holding provisions and the conveyance of lands for community facilities for a nominal anuount, Comment: The PLG strenuously objects to these policies for the reasons noted below: - major community facilities are not defined; - such facilities may have to be identified at the commencement of each phase, but they should not be provided until they are needed; - the dedication of community facility lands for a nominal amount is contrary to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act; and - the use of holding provisions to require the entering into agreements with regard to the above is an improper use of the power granted under the Plmming Act~ 7) Section2.13 u) - implement results of MESP through ... neighborhood plans ... following Councils' endorsement of the MESP. ATTA¢t41V~ENT #_/~ TO WeirFould. BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS Comment: It is the PLG's understanding that Neighborhood Plans will be prepared at the same time as the MESP is being completed, although the MESP must be completed in order to complete the Neighborhood Plans. We have no difficulty with this policy as long as our understanding regarding this process is confirmed. 8) Section 2.13 w) requires Neighbourhood Plans to be incorporated by amendment to the Official Plan Comment: It has been the PLG's understanding that Neighborhood Plans throughout Pickering are adopted by Council as development guidelines not as OPA's, which are subject to third party appeal. The PLG requests that the status of Neighborhood Plans in Seaton continue to be treated as Council's adopted guidelines. 9) Section 2.13 w), x) requires the identification of sub-phasing plans, which may stage development based on community facility availability. Comment: It is the responsibility of municipalities and school boards to provide community facilities in a timely manner. The PLG will be required to pay development charges for these facilities and set aside land to accommodate them (for which the landowners will be paid market value). The PLG will not agree to have development held back if the responsible agencies are not able to fulfill their obligations. 10) Section 4.1 d) encourages the use of lower right-of-way widths for arterial roads in the Seaton Community in order to achieve compact development efficient use of land and a pedestrian oriented streetscape. /g WeirFoulds BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS Comment: This strong support for reduced road rights-of-way should be extended to roads under the City of Pickering's jurisdiction. The PLG suggest that this policy be expanded to include a commitment from Council to use 17 metre local road and 20 metre collector road rights-of-way. 11) Schedule 'A' - Mixed Use areas - the plan currently proposes a commercial hierarchy in Seaton that includes two Community nodes and one local node. Comment: Based on the experience and studies in other communities and the advice of its market consultant, IBI, sub-regional commercial facilities will be needed in the Seaton Community for the planned residential population. The PLG is of the opinion that the Official Plan should include a sub-central area of about 50,000 square meters for Central Pickering to be located north and south of Taunton Road at Sideline 22 as shown on the attached Schedule. Currently, the Durham Regional Official Plan provides for a Main Central Area of some 100,000 square metres of floorspace in the Seaton Urban Area. Accordingly, for the City's official plan to conform to the Region's official plan as required under the Planning Act, the City's plan should provide policies and a designation on the land use schedule for such a sub-regional or sub-central commercial area The PLG's suggestion is a reduction in the level of commercial significance to be applied to the Seaton Central Area. In addition, with regard to the Community Node at the intersection of Sideline 26 and Whitevale Road (re-aligned), we note that the land use schedule shows this designation split by the north/south arterial road. This will, in effect, create two smaller nodes which would not fulfill the role of a Community Node in the commercial hierarchy. It is recommended that the full node be designated at the south-east comer of the intersection with Mixed Corridor and Medium Density designations replacing the Community Node at the south-west comer. These changes are also shown on the attached schedule. The PLG has commissioned IBI to prepare a report confirming in writing the commercial need identified by IBI verbally to PLG and outlined above. That report will be sent to Council as well as the Province shortly. PLG is also in the process of WeirFoulds BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS filing submissions respecting the details of the commercial designation as shown on the Province's Schedule 2: Land Use. The PLG also strongly recommends to the City and the Province that policies be added to protect the viability of the commercial hierarchy within the Mixed Use Areas and to protect the Employment Area from erosion due to commercial re- designations. Such policies would prohibit the re-designation of Employment lands for large scale commercial uses notwithstanding any enabling Regional Official Plan policy to the contrary. As a final note, the City's Official Plan should recognize and designate on its schedules the Community and local nodes shown on Schedule 2; Land Use of the Province's Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan so as to fully conform to that Development Plan. Further, as noted in the comments in paragraph 1 above, PLG submits that Council should not finalize its policies respecting commercial uses within its Official Plan before the finalization of the Development Plan this fall so as to ensure that the City Plan, as finally adopted, reflects the Minister's Development Plan. 3. Future Notice I obtained a copy of your letter of July 7 from one of the owners. I would ask that you add my name to the list of persons who receive notice of any of any meetings or dealings with the area affected by this proposed OP. Yours very truly, WeirFoulds LLP MJM/ves Encl. 840128.1 Michael J. McQuaid, Q.C. 8 ATTACHMENT # /~' TO REPOR'I # PD ._~:, ~ o5 Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A Page 8 of 11 11, After considering the submissions and COlmnents received and the recommendation of the hearing officer or the Ontario Municipal Board, the Minister may approve the proposed amenchnent, in whole £'~ ~n part, make modifications and approve the amenchnent as modified or refuse the amendment, in whole or '~. jart. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 11. Notice of decision 12. The Minister shall forward a copy of his or her decision to the clerk of each municipality or secretary-t-~e-asurer of each planning board which is within the area covered by the proposed amendment, the parties to the hearing and such other persons or public bodies as the Minister may determine. 1994, c, 23, Sched. A, s. 12. By-laws, etc., to conform to plan 1~,3 Despite any other Act, if a development plan is in effect, (a) no municipality or local board as defined in the Municipal Affairs ~tct having jurisdiction over the area covered by the plan or in any part of it and no ministry shall undertake any public work, any improvement of a structural nature or any other undertaking within the area covered by the development plan that conflicts with the plan; and (b) no municipality or planning board having jurisdiction in such area shall pass a by-law for any purpose that conflicts with the plan. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 13; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. t~o~nflicts 14, Despite any other Act, if there is a conflict between a development plan and an official plan or zoning by-law covering part or all of the same area, the development plan prevails. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 14. Resolutions of conflicts 15. (1) If, in the opinion of the Minister, an official plan or a zoning by-law is in conflict with a development plan that covers, in whole or in part, the same area, the Minister shall advise the council of the municipality or the planning board that adopted the official plan or that passed the zoning by-law of the particulars of the conflict and shall invite the municipality or the planning board to submit, within such time as the Minister specifies, propgsals for the resolution of the conflict. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 15 (1). Power to amend local plan (2) If the council of a municipality or the plamfing board fails to submit proposals to resolve the conflict within the time specified by the Minister or, if after consultation with the Minister on such proposals, the conflict cannot be resolved and the Minister so notifies the council or the board in writing, the Minister may by order amend the official plan to make it conform to the development plan. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, (2). Effect of order ATTACHMENT #./~' TO REPOR'I' # PD ~-, Ontario Plmming and Development Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A Page 9 of 11 (3_) An order under subsection (2) shall have the same effect as though it were an amendment to the official plan adopted by the council of the municipality or the planning board and approved by the appropriate approval authority. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 15 (3). Not regulation ~ An order under subsection (2) is not a regulation within tl~e meaning of the t~egulations Act. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 15 (4). Official plan or zoning by-law required 16, 1(2) If a development plan is in effect in a municipality or any part of it and the municipality does not have an official plan in effect or has not passed a zoning by-law covering the municipality or tha, part of the municipality covered by the development plan, the council of the municipality, upon being notified in writing by the Minister, shall, within such time as is specified in the notice, prepare and adopt a plan for approval as an official plan or pass a zoning by-law that confon~s to the development plan and submit the plan for approval. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 16 (1). Official plan or zoning by-law required £23_ If a development plan is in effect in a planning area or any part of it and the planning board does not have an official plan in effect or has not passed a zoning by-law covering that part of the planning area consisting of territory without municipal organization that is covered by the development plan, the planning board, upon being notified in writing by the Minister, shall, within such time as is specified in the notice, (~'}are and adopt a plan for approval as an official plan or pass a zoning by-law that conforms to the d¢~)elopment plan and submit the plan for approval. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 16 (2). Minister's order 17. O) The Minister may, in respect of any land in the area covered by a development plan, make orders exercising any of the powers conferred upon the Minister under clause 47 (1) (a) and subsection 47 (2) of the Planning Act. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 17 (1). Same (2D. Section 3 of the Planning Act does not apply to an'order under subsection (1) and an order need not conform to an official plan in effect in the area covered by the order. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 17 (2). Zoning orders 18. Nothing in this Act derogates from the power of the Minister to make an order under section 47 of the Planning Act even if there is a development plan in effect in the area to be covered by the order. 1994, c. 23, Sched. A, s. 18. ._. {ver to acquire land 19. _(_D For the purpose of developing any feature of a development plan, the Minister may, in the name of Her Majesty, acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise or, subject to the Expropriations Act, ATTACHMEI'~T # /~' TO REPOR'I ~ PD ATTACHMENT REPOR'I ~ PO .-~-u,~ -- SCHEDULE 'A' TO DRAFT AMENDMENT 14 AMENDMENT AREA SHOWING PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS EXTRACT OF SCHEDULE ! TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN UPDATED EDITION 3 SHEET 1 OF 3 LAND USE STRUCTURE EMPLOYMENT ARF_.AS FREEWAYS AND MAJOR U'FILITIES GENERAL EMPLOYMENT ~7~ POTENTIAL MUL'~I--USE PRESTIGE E~PLOYI~ENT ~ CONTROLLEO ACCESS AREAS MIXED EMPLOYMENT OTH[R ~ES/GNATIONS URBAN RESiDENTiAL AREAS ~ urBA~ STUDM ATTACHMENT # //~ _TO REPOR'I # PD__~ *c:..~ __ (Copied from email received on August 12, 2004) To the Councillors and Mayor Ryan: I wish to clarify my position regarding the newly released Draft Amendment 14 which was discussed the other night at a Statutory Public Meeting at the Council Chambers. You have clearly stated that this amendment does not change your position on the place of the Agricultural Preserve lands in the City's plans for development as per the Growth Management Study. While I realize that this amendment is attempting to come to a compromise on the Seaton lands only, it feels rather misleading to publish a map of the area (Schedule A of the amendment document) which implies that the Agricultural Preserve is not to be developed at all. The public is already confused enough. I wish to register my long term position that the Agricultural Preserve lands should not be developed, and that any amendments to the Seaton Plan should reflect that. I do not understand how a development plan that uses much more agricultural and conservation land to build much more housing could be argued to be more environmentally sustainable than the current provincial plan. Let's keep our agricultural lands in food production, where they are truly needed. Sincerely Eleanor Nash Pickering, Ontario (905) 294-0820 ATTACHMENT # ~,~o TO REPORI#PD .~* (Copied from email received on July 28, 2005) To: Brenner, Maurice, Councillor Subject: Whites Road Express Way Mr. Brenner, I received your July 14th letter regarding the above subject, thank you. I have a few questions: 1. I don't see it listed as an agenda item for the Public Meeting Tuesday night. Will the Plan Amendment in fact be discussed? 2. Where can I obtain more information about the Plan Amendment and proposed Whites Rd. Expressway? 3. For reasons of prior commitments, I may be unable to attend the Public Meeting tonight. If required, how does one go about expressing objection to the plan? Thank you Tim Neal 1988 Fairport Rd. t-d.neal@sympatico.ca ATTACHMEN'r #. ~ ! .TO REPOR'I' ~ PD, (Copied from email received on July 26, 2005) I am not quite sure were start in responding to your tirade re. Pickering OPA 05- 002/P. As will be away from the province on the 26tth, I would request that Mayor Ryan read the following into the minutes of the next Councill meeting so that it becomes a mater of public record. First of all I do not even live in your Ward. Mr. Brenner. I did however receive your tirade about a Whites Rd. / 407 connection. I do use the Whites Rd. exit from 401 on a regular basis and, unfortunately, most of the time at rush hour. Most of the traffic seems to dissipate east and west at Hwy. 2. Yes it is a mess at times but a little intervention by the Province, Region and City would go a long way to solving the log-jag problems As an aside could you have the Region provide you and the public with the # of traffic incidents at Whites Rd. & Hwy 2 ,Whites & Old Sheppard, Whites & Finch, Whites & Regional #3 and Whites & Taunton. Also, could you provide verification / substantiation regarding your allegation of another 10,000 cars a day using Whites Rd. When I do come across 407 and take the convulsed route to get to Whites Rd., again at rush hour, I find very few if any cars using Whites Rd. Most cars on 407 and Taunton continue eastward to Ajax / Whitby / Brooklin. This is a classic NIMBY stance that serves the purposes of a select group YES you are there to serve your self serving constituents ( read voters who elected you ) but you have a larger role in serving the City of Pickering. Think beyond the end of your nose or the next election and envision what Pickering will / should like in the next 20 - 30 - 50 years. Stop navel gazing and open your eyes to the future. Without proper planning for transit options for the thousands of people that will live in Seaton you will be repeating the disasters of the past - think of how traffic could move into downtown Toronto if Davis had not cancelled the Spadina Expressway - or if Scarbourgh had not cancelled the extension of Kingston Road along the Hydro corridor into the downtown area. With regard to the 26 / 07 / 05 Meeting could you please have on hand (with several handouts) Statistics about the AADT, AWAT & AAWT at Hwy. 2 and the Whites Rd off ramp./Whites Rd, & Finch / Whites Rd. & Finch and Whites Rd. & Taunton. It is not rocket science for your publicly funded staff to source. - and if they can not source they MUST be fired - it only takes ' 15 seconds of their 'precious time' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if your lackadasicke staff who sit around chatting each other up in stead of attending to REAL 'customers' - FIRE THEM ATTACHMENT #,, ,.~ ! TO REPOR'I' # PD ~ -0..~ AND STOP WASTING MY TIME -THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY SUPERVISED BY YOU AND ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE OR RESPONSIBLE TO ANYONE. Bye the way, who sourcred and suppling and fundding you with this mis- enforcemation about these suppuseed 10,000 cars a day usiing Whites Rd.and at what times and at what parts of the roadway and and at what daytimes.. We are repeatedly told that we learn from history and that history repeats itself. - so let us learn from past mistakes, Forgo personal and parochial viewpoints and get on with your mandate to manage to help manage the City and what it will look like long after you are gone from public life - being a Councilor is only a temporary position - so either embrace the future or dig yourself a pit to fall into when reality finally hits you. EN - Ward 2 Pickering ATTACHMENT #., ¢~ TO (Copied from email received on August 12, 2005) Comments regarding amendment 14 -Amendment 14 should not be changed or sectionalized from amendment 13 without correcting the whole amendment. feel that amendment 13 is attempting to change the City's Official Plan. - The city's existing Official Plan for the Hamlet of Cherrywood was designed and developed with full support of the residents. This area was to stay as an agricultural area. - Now the city is trying to force their new plan down our throats. They are not listening to the residents. - We do not want the cultural significance of the Hamlet changed by naming the whole area the "Cherrywood Area". We want the Hamlet, and the clusters to remain. That is why so much time and effort was taken to create the existing Official Plan. - It appears that the Mayor and Council have their own agenda which only includes support from the developers. - The City of Pickering is not being honest and forthcoming with the residents. No more back room deals with the developers. -The City of Pickering's politicians should respect the wishes of the residents and not think they know better. Rick Nicolussi 240 Cherrywood Avenue Pickering, Ontario L1V 2P9 AT~ACHMEN3 #_~_-~ ,TO REPOR1 ~ PD .~ ',~,i~ OF P!C~<EF]~NG CLANN NG,.-~.~. '~",.--',;'~l ..... ~PME'qT ,O E P/~ ~ '7 M E N T University of Guelph' RiChards Building, Guelph, ON N:tG 2Wl (519) 824-4120 ext. 52686 J (fax) (519} 824-5730 I farmlandOuoguelph.ca www.farmland,uoguelph.ca August 11, 2005 Mr. Nell CarrOll Director, Manning and DeveloPment BY FAX: 905-420-6064 Re: Picketing Official Plan/bnendnmnt OPA OS-O02/P OiLy Znitiated~ 14odifled Sea*on Ptan This letter is to acknowledge, ~th thanks, the receipt of copies of your correspondence dated ~)uly 7m and 20% 2O05. lan Attrldge, Counsel of the Ontario Farmland Trust, and I made a presentation at the Statutory Public [nformation Meeting held in the Council Chambers on October 14~, 2004, concerning OPA 04-O02jP. Our submission was set out in our letter of October 21~, 2004 to the City, a copy of which Is attached fOr your ready reference. At this tirne~ we would simply like to reiterate that while the Ontario Farmland Trust is a new organizaUonr we have considerable experience and expertise to offer, we are continually working to develop creative sotuUons to foster the preservaUon of farmland and retat~d features in various locations across Ontario; we support all recommendations, in this Offidal Plan Amendment concerning the preservation of farmland and countryside and associated natural and cultural values. Conservation easemerrcs involving partnership with the Ontario Farmland Trust may be a vehide to be uuIIzed to achieve this end. In the event ~ we can be of any assistance In this area, please'do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely, D6n Prince, V~e President Ontario Farmland Trust The mission of the Ontario Farmland Trust is to protect and preserve farmland and assodated agricultural, natural and cultural features in the countryside and to research and educate to further the preservation of these lands for the benefit of current and futuregenerations, ATI'ACH~EI~,IT #-~.._~1'0 REPOR! ~ PD ~; 'C'~ University of Guell)h; Richards BUilding, Guelph, ON NZG 2W! (519) 824-4~.20 ext. 52686 I (fax) (5~.9) 824-5730 1 farmlandOuoguelph.ca www.farmland.uoguelph.ca October 2J., 2004 Xl~l~dueUm~ The City of picketing has undertaken a Growth Management Study in the north part of the CRy and is considering an Offidal Plan Amendment (OPA) to implement the Study and other input it has received. The area under consideration includes prime agricultural lands and lands subject to agricultural easerr~L~ held by the City. This submission presents the Ontario Farmland Trusts perspective on the Study and OPA, part~ularly the need to continue to protect prime agrloJItural lands and ensure that they remain avaLlable for agriculture. Backliround on Ontario Farmland Trust The Ontario Farmland Trust (OFT) Is a new non-profit corporation and registered charity with a mandate to I)rotect farmlands and assodated rural fleatures in Ontario. OFT considers ~farmlands~ to be farms and the asso~ated mosaic of agricultural, natural and cultural features in the countryside. OFT works with landowners and other partners to achieve win-win solutions, particularly In accluidng land interests, applying tax incentives and developing related approaches. We ate seeking land donations and agricultural easements throughout Ontario, including within the 5tudy's area, in Markham and in relation to provincially held lands. While relatively new, the expertise and experience within OFT is extensive.. Our Board and staff include senior members of the University of Guelph, Ontario FederaUon of AgdoJItUm, Christian Farmers FederaUon Of Ontario, and Ontario Land Trust Alliance, as we~l as expeder~ed farmers and conservationists, among others. OFT maintains an active research partnership with the University of Guelph and connections with the American Farmland Trust (a leader in farmland conservaUon and funding Lq the United states}, The Ontado Farmland Trust is aware of the history and context of the Growth Management Study and OPA lands. Throughout the last decade~ members of our team have parfldpated in various studies and consultattons regarding the Study Area, the federal airport, Rouge Park arid Markham lands, among others. Normtheless, our organization is relatively new and our Board is now seeking an appropriate role to play within the broader area. ATTACHMENT # ,~,~.~ TO Our expertise and networks allow us to develop innovattve and practical approaches to land owne~p, including the use of agricultural __~ ~nents and mlatod financing and tax smategies. We are also acUve in research .and polio/deveJopme~l~ thereby bringing solutions From other jurisdictions to bear on issues here in Ontario. October 16m was World FOOd Day, as designated by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. This year, the theme was 'BIodiverslty and Food Security". It gives us reason to pause to consider the following: · The pdce of o]1 has risen (in large part due to insecurity of supply) while international markets have been dosed to beef exports, thus leading to increased concem about food security and domestic production * The GTA Agrictdtural Ecortomtc Lmpact Study documented 150,000 famllartd acres lost to producUon in the GTA between 1976 and 1996, and noted that a large percentage of the farmland ~11 in production is designated for future urban development .* HoSt of the Study area lands are Oass 1-2 for agriculture, a rare capacity in Ontario and Canada. Beyond such concerna, protecting farmland has a number of well known sodal and enviromma~al benefFrs. It also has significant economic benefits for munictpai~ies: · Agriculture contributes local employment opportunities and economic diversity and _~_bility to the local economy, with the agricultural industry staying put and farms passed down through the generations. Year in and year out, the sale of agdculbJral products provides a net inflow of dollars to ~he local economy. - Farms c~n save cormmtniUes money by conl~buUng mom in taxes than they demand in b~x-supported services. A ne~ positive tax ratio of taxes raised versus taxes spent (on average SXX:I) has bee~ documented in study after study in the United States, compared to a net negative ratio for housing developments (on average SXX:I). Farmland's open space nature adds value to the assessment base of nearby properties, such as tho~e within and beyond the Study Area. · Agriculture contributes to the tourism and other industries, and associated services. The background facts leading to the establishment of the Agricultural 'Assembly.and the agricultural easem are well known. Through the sate of provincially owned lands in north Picketing and the resolution of land use planning issues, some 5000 acres of agricultural lands in Ute Study Area are now under agricultural easements, held by the City of Picketing. Farmers and other landowners who acquired title to these lands were fully aware of the easements before they purchased their properties. They paid less than market value for the lands because they were subject to the easements. References in the various documents at the time note that the easements were intended by all parttes to be kept in place in perpetuity. 2 ATTACHMENT fl ~.-~' TO REPOR'~ ~ PD We could not find roferences to these easements in the Study documents, yet they are an important conslderaUon in the proposed OPA. Given that the OPA proposes some development in the area under easements, we would like to see details about the City's plans for the easements and a public process to discuss their ful~re. Ideally, this would occur at the same time as the OPA Is being c~nsldered by the public, staff and Council. The City can consider itself fortunate to hold Such easements. While Plckering already has acquired easements, many communities in the United States are investing millions of dollars to purchase agricultural easements to protect their local economies and prevent urban sprawl. Nost local programs are found In the suburban and semi-rural parts of major metropolitan areas, with populations of more than 100,000 and rapid population growth. Of 46 programs, recently studied~, 30 were established by County governments, 4 by townships, and one by an urban municipality. Together, the 46 programs have spent a total of US$1.8 billion tO protect 887,000 acres on 5,800 farms. Them am a number of ways that farm conservaUon easement programs am conceived, managed and funded. Some examples of projects receiving matching federal funds are located in Dane County, Wisconsin ($340,000) and Kane County, ]lllnois ($888,000), Howard County, Na~yland, spent $193 million on such programs..[n 2002, Ohio's Agricultural Easement Purchase Program received applications from 442 interested landowners, representing over 60,000 acres in 49 counties across the state. Twenty-four farms were accepted Into the program, representing 4586 acTes from 13 counUes. The CIb/of Pidcering has a unique opportunity and agricultural asset in its hands. can be a leader In agricultural protection and growth management, attracting interest, visitors and investment from across the continent. It can capitalize on the new economic engine - namely, quality of life. ]It can help consolidate agricultural areas, create stability, and foster the resulting investment that has been missing for* so lOng in the area. GNen this Opportunity, the significanc~ of these lands for agriculture, their contribution to the economic health of the C~y, and the previous commitments by various governments, the Ontario Farmland Trusts position is to support the protection of the Agricultural Assembly lands under easement, for agriculture. In condus~on, 'while the Ontario Farmland Trust is a new organization, we have considerable experience and expertise to offer. OFT iS developing creative solutions to foster the preservation of farmland and related features in various locations across Ontario. We support the retention of the Agricultural Assembly lands in agriculture, with agricultural easements remaining in place. We appreciated the opportunity to make a presentation at the public m~ng of October 14, 2004, and the invitat~n to discuss o~r concerns. Pleese do not to contact OFT should you have further' questions on this su~rt. We look parl:ld~nl~ in ~ prOCeSS. Don I~ince ~an Attddge Vice-President Counsel On behalf of U~e Onta~o Farmland Trust and the Farmland Pn~-rvaUon Research Project: ATTACHMENT ~ o~ TO R£POR3' # PD_ ~ (Copied from email received on August 12, 2005) August 11,2005 Mayor Ryan, My family and I have been residents of the hamlet of Cherrywood since 1988. We have followed, with great concern, the contention between the City of Pickering and the Ontario government regarding the proposed urban development of the agricultural preserve which surrounds us in Cherrywood. Having studied both the Central Pickering Development Plan as outlined by the Provincial government, and the City of Pickering's plans as outlined in the City of Pickering OPA-14 I most adamantly. DO NOT support the plans for development proposed by the City of Pickering. I fully support, and applaud, the Ontario government's positive commitment to the protection and management of the Agricultural Preserve and natural heritage lands, and their recognition of this area's unique demographics.. As stated in the letter from the Hon. David Ramsay and the Hon. David Caplan, the Provincial government is prepared to take action if the easements are not re- instated, and I would urge the City of Pickering to comply with their request as soon as possible; any legislative action to the contrary would only be a waste of time and taxpayers' money. With respect, Irene Rautanen 445 Concession 3 Rd. Cherrywood (Pickering), ON L1X 2R4 RE:PORI # PD Z~g -c-,~, (Copied from email received on August 15, 2005) August 11th, 2005 Cherrywood, Ontario Mayor Ryan, I would like you to consider these comments regarding the Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA-14 which covers the Cherrywood & Seaton Areas as detailed in the City Of Pickering's Growth Management Study. Firstly, I do NOT support the city's proposal as it continues the urbanization of valuable farmland which is not justified under any circumstances. Secondly, I DO endorse the Central Pickering Development Plan as put forward by the Ontario Government which is committed to protecting the Agricultural Preserve and allow for urban development only in the Seaton area. Thirdly, I urge you to agree with the provincial plan as the Ontario Government would appear to have both the political and legal "high ground" which would make any legal challenges by the City and/or Region doomed to failure and only result in costing the taxpayers of Pickering more money due the associated legal fees. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and trust that all publicly elected officials who are involved with these issues will make the correct decision with the needs and wishes of their constituents in mind. Perry Rautanen 445 Concession 3 Road Pickering, Ontario L1X 2R4 905-420-1654 ATTACHMENT # ~G TO REPOR'[ # PD ..~, '-C~ (Copied from email received on July 22, 2005) To: Brenner, Maurice, Councillor Subject: Whites Road Express Way Dear Mr. Brenner, we are unable to attend the meeting re the above and we do object very strongly to the above. I live on Napanee Road. Thank you Aziza Rohoman Direct Line: 416-863-4480 Fax: 416-863-4592 e-mail: aziza.rohoman@fmc-law.com ATTACHMENT ~ o'~7 TO REPOR'r # PD, ~' (Copied from email received on August 8, 2005) Mr. Brenner Thank you for sending the information letter regarding the potential extension to Whites Rd. I was very disappointed that I was away on vacation the day of the meeting because I would have attended and I would have spoken. I live on Belinda Court which backs onto Whites Rd just south of Strouds. We have lived here for seven years and the traffic noise has gotten worse every year. The traffic noise is so bad that there are times when we can not sit in the backyard and have a normal conversation. Not only is it loud we listen to racing that goes on every night. I can not imagine any plan that would increase the traffic volume. If the city moves forward with this they should start the process now to open an ambulance site in the Amberlea plaza. Whites Rd is already a race track, there is never any police presence and the cars race up and down the street all day long. Because of a physical problem I have to walk for 1/2 hour several times a day and more often than not I walk up and down Whites Rd or to the Plaza on Stouds so I see the problems first hand every day. I will guarantee you that if you stand at the intersection of Whites and Strouds for 3 cycles of the lights you will see a minimum of 6 traffic violations ranging from running the red to illegal turns. This road is already a problem, please keep up the fight. Rob Sands ATTACHMENT # ';~ .TO REPOR'I' # PD ----.~'~' ~ (Copied from email received on July 25, 2005) Dear Mr. Brenner, thank you for your letter dated July 14 regarding the Whites Rd express way. As a new resident of Pickering and one of the homeowners in the Pine Creek area that backs onto the hydro property to the north, I am not at all happy with the proposed plans to expand Whites Rd. Unfortunately, at this time of year, like alot of others we will be on vacation at the time of the meeting. I would like my voice to count, however wonder if major issues such as this one are purposely slated for the summer months when residents are likely to be out of town? I would like to object via this email to Pickering's Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P. This is such a beautiful area of Pickering to be in and I bought here because of the nature and peacefulness that I look out to on a daily basis. Please don't let this become another Scarborough! Thank you for keeping us informed. Debbie Shortreed REPORi ~ PO 3~-~-~ (Copied from email received on July 22, 2005) To: Neil Carroll, Director, Planning and Development, City of Pickering. July 21, 2005 Mr. Carroll: Thank you for your invitation to the public meeting July 26, and for sending the copy of Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P. Unfortunately I will be away and cannot attend, so I wished to send my comments in advance. I am astonished and disappointed that the City is pressing ahead with plans for developing the Duffins-Rouge Agricultural Preserve, which is supposed to be covered by agricultural easements "in perpetuity" and further is protected by the provincial Greenbelt. You acknowledge "significant ares of differences" with the Province's "Central Pickering Development Plan" but cite only the City's "proposed road crossing over West Duffins Creek." Your proposal to build another road over the Duffins watershed is distressing enough. But your map also shows huge yellow and pink areas of proposed housing and commercial development which would destroy the Preserve. Between Finch and Taunton Roads you propose Iow and medium density housing, "mixed "commercial corridors, retailing "nodes" and other development that would urbanize the whole south end of the Preserve. To the north of Taunton Road there are plans for other large urban and commercial developments, and intense infill all along Highway 407 which you call "mixed employment" by which I assume you mean office buildings and factories. I am shocked that Pickering would still be proposing to bulldoze some of the best agricultural lands in Ontario. I realize that Pickering officials like to claim the agricultural lands are no longer viable, but that is because of uncertainty over the future--the land itself remains Class A, and rich and fertile. As well, you propose to develop all around the Little Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and Duffins Creek watersheds, on green lands vital to the health of the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Rouge Park, the Altona Forest, and vital to our water table and our future water supplies. I would urge you to reconsider. Planning for our children's future means we must find another way to house ourselves than by continual urban sprawl. REPOR1 ~ PD ~'~0~ Can you please tell me why Pickering proceeds so stubbornly with its Growth Management Plan (iand now is expanding its proposed areas of development near Whitevale) in face of opposition from area groups and local environmentalists? Why are you ignoring the Provincial Planning process and the Greenbelt Act? As a resident and taxpayer, I am genuinely puzzled and disturbed to find my local municipal government engaged in what appears to be a war of attrition with the Province. I hope, for the sake of the future, that you will end the standoff; acknowledge the importance of the Agricultural Preserve, and of the wonderful watersheds and forests with which Pickering is blessed. Yours sincerely, Rosemary Speirs 1815 Altona Road, Pickering, Ont., L1V IM6 905-509-2777 ATTACHMENT # ..~0 TO REPORI # PD ~,-C_~-~ (Copied from email received on July 26, 2005) Maurice, I agree we can not handle any more cars on Whites road in the Kingston road area in particular. As with our fight with York over the water pipe, many of the same issues remain. The key one is safety. With two schools facing onto Whites and 3 more within blocks, we don't need more cars mixed in with the walking students, dozens of school buses and parent transport. When school is in session the traffic is backed up from Briarwood Gate all the way to the 401 from 7:30 am to 9:30. Adding more cars will just encourage drivers to find those 'neat' shortcuts like Strouds and Shadybrook to zip over to Fairport and get to the 401 east ramp. This already happens when large backups occur. Whites Road is already a speedway until 2 in the morning. No one does the posted speed limit. Truck traffic keeps going 7/24 supplying the Dominion and Independant retailers. Hope we can make it to the meeting on Tuesday. Tim & Judy Stapleton 1834 Shadybrook Drive 905-831-2089 ATTACHMENT d,,,, ~ i~ TO REPORT ~ PD.., -~-~.'~ City of Picketing Planning & Development Department, One, The Esplanade Picketing, Ont. Attn. Grant McGregor or Catherine Rose Re OPA 05-002P 31 §l,Byron St., Whitevale,Ont. Aug. 11 th.2005 CiTY OF PtuKER/NG PLAikJf'.iiNG & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We have two comments which we w/sh to address regarding this amendment. Firstly in regard to the proposed connection between the extensions of Whites Road and Sideline 22. We were horrified to bear of the objections at the July 26th. Meeting from many residents which indicate that even the current traffic on Whites Road during weekdays, was fast becoming unmanageable. The increase ora good proportion of Seaton Traffic in addition would be very ill-advised. Secondly the addition of another crossing of West Duffins Creek so close to the existing four lane bridge seems extraordinarily expensive and environmentally disastrous. This would be one of three proposed additional crossings all in quite close proximity. The only proposal we would offer is to put in a carefully timed set of traffic lights at the junction of Sid¢ine 22 and Taunton Rd. and another at the existing junmion of Whites Rd and Taunton Rd. The latter might provide a workable alternative and perhaps channel some of the traffic (southbound in the morning and north at night) on to alternate routes. Another measure that could be considered is a higher prior .ty being given to the Sideline 22 extension. Our second comment is regarding 2.15. We realise that this is not entirely in your hands, but rest assured we will pressing the same case on the Provisional Government. This refers to the expropriated houseS, mainly, bu! not all on4Hhe Whitevale Road which have been hanging in limbo since 1974. The original expropriated owners in some cases are still tenants of these houses, now paying probably three to four times the total they, received, and to think they would be turned over to the "tender" mercies of developers who would acquire these properties is unconscionable. Nobody knows which of these houses would be ruled as heritage houses. They could not all become museums and your suggestion that they be conveyed to the appropriate public agency for a nominal amount is cruel: The Province has had its fair share, so why not convey them to the occupiers for that same nominal amount until th~· wish to leavej, Everyone seems to be agreed that the Whitevale Road must be preserved but it would look rather strange without its existing streetscape. AT'I'ACHMEIklT # ~--~._.~_T0 REPORI # PD, ~-0_5 (Copied from email received on August 16, 2005) To: North Pickering Land Exchange Team Pickering Planning and Development Department From: Dr. James C. Thompson Date: August 16, 2005 Re: Comments on the proposals for the Seaton Lands and "Central" Pickering.. Having attended the recent meetings at which the Province rolled out its "Central Pickering Development Plan" and the City of Pickering launch its "Draft Amendment #14" to its Official Plan, and have heard the various arguments and comments pro and con, and having studied carefully the large amounts of printed material relating to these proposals, I now feel that I can offer my general views on both of them. These views are entirely my own and do not necessarily represent those of any other individual or organisation. I was, and still am, consistently opposed to Pickering's "Growth Management Study (GMS)" because of the inclusion in it of the Duffins-Rouge Permanent Agricultural Preserve (DRPAP). I objected to the Study being financed by the same developers to whom, regrettably, a previous Provincial Government had allowed the land to be sold, albeit at 'agricultural prices' and who would now stand to gain the most by it being developed. The proposals advanced by the GMS were entirely predictable, as was the acceptance of the GMS by Pickering Council. Since the election campaigns of many of the members of Council had been funded by these same developers, it was inevitable that Council would accept the GMS in return. It was equally inevitable that Pickering Council would then renege on its solemn undertaking to protect the DRPAP in perpetuity through the imposition of agricultural easements on title at time of sale. The developers bought the land, and the developers want to build on the land, not have it preserved for agriculture or open space, so the easements had to go. Aided and abetted by Pickering Council, the developers and land speculators were to be permitted to engage in a colossal theft from the people of Ontario. For all these, and many other reasons, I opposed the GMS and I opposed Amendment #13 to the Official Plan endorsed, again entirely predictably, by Pickering Council. The Province's proposal places the DRPAP in the newly established Greenbelt. This aspect I support and applaud. Assuming no back-sliding by the Province, the problems of the land now being owned by developers still remain. The only viable solution seems to be for the Province to re-assume ownership of the land, by paying the developers what they paid for it, to re- establish the perpetual easements, removing them from Pickering's jurisdiction and placing them under an independent Land Trust, and then to re-sell the lands under the most stringent conditions. Whether the Province will have the courage to take these steps remains to be seen. As far as the Seaton Lands are concerned, I have stated in the past that, if any development were to take place, it must be undertaken under the most tightly controlled and responsible conditions and that all the unique features of this large area of beautiful and productive countryside. Both sets of proposals pay much lip-service to the notions of responsible development, to the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, and to the protection of the environment. If these statements were to be true in practice, then perhaps a catastrophe might be averted. However, since it is inevitable that it will prove to be impossible to comply with all these fine ideas, a major tragedy will result, and a heinous crime will have been committed against the people of Ontario and Canada - past, present and future generations. My views are now that no development of the sorts proposed should occur in Seaton, that the Seaton Lands should be totally included in the Provincial Greenbelt, and that new plans should be developed to meet that changed reality. Some of my reasons for coming to this opinion are, briefly: It is not often that I agree with any member or representative of the West Duffins Landowners Association, since the motives of that body, it being a front for developers in the DRPAP, are totally suspect. However, when their spokesman at the recent Pickering meeting commented on the complexity and fragmentation of the proposed Seaton developments, I could not but agree with him. He, of course, wishes to deflect attention back to development in the DRPAP, but his words strengthened my conviction that development of Seaton would simply not be possible in an environmentally responsible fashion and that the consequences would be disastrous. ATTACHMEI'~IT # ~ ~, TO 2. It is also not often that I agree with Mr. David Steele, whose motives are similarly suspect due to his liaisons with the developers in the DRPAP, but he continued expressions of concern for the Seaton environment and requests for a detailed environmental assessment, also reinforce my view that development in Seaton simply should not happen. 3. The Province has stated that, once a Plan (its Plan?) for Seaton has been adopted, the implementation of the Plan will be in the hands of local authorities. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that Pickering will be able to control the developers and ensure that "responsible development" occurs and that all due regard for the environmental and other issues will be maintained. Pickering is controlled by developers, it does not control them. This would lead inevitably to an environmental disaster. 4. Every time I drive into Markham, past the lunar landscape created by the massive developments around 9th Line and Box Grove, my heart sinks as I foresee the same thing happening in Seaton. But in Seaton, there is much more land and it is much more sensitive and the catastrophe would be that much greater. 5. I object to both Plans tacitly assuming that the Pickering Airport folly will proceed. Many of the projections for "prestige employment" are based on the supposed drawing power of an airport. The Pickering Airport is by no means a certainty, with substantial local opposition. Even our M.P., Mark Holland, has now taken the courageous step of stating firmly that he is opposed to any form of airport at Pickering. 6. "Prestige Development", which is a buzz-phrase in both Plans, was likened fondly by a member of Pickering's Planning Department to that which has sprawled along Highway 404. That sprawl consists of massive glass and concrete blocks, surrounded by acres of parking, set in a green desert that has been de-weeded and de-bugged by the application of tons of chemicals, all harmful to the environment. This is not "prestigious", it is an environmental slum. Placing a lot of that along Highway 407, down Brock Road and elsewhere, would rival or even exceed golf courses in their destructive effects on the environment. 7. Once the lands, and the heritage houses that remain on them, pass into the hands of the developers, I have no faith that these aspects of our history will be preserved. We have all seen the torching of heritage houses on developer owner land in the DRPAP, even on land that does not (yet?) show on anyone's plan for development. We witness the eviction of tenants, the boarding up, and the destruction and burning ATTACHMENT #_ ~ '~ TO REPOR'f # PD of homes in Seaton and on the Airport Lands. No level of Government, be it Federal, Provincial, Regional or Municipal seems to have the slightest will to preserve our history. The developers will want to destroy it all, and Pickering will not be able to control the developers. There is little to choose between the two Plans for Seaton: the Province will put in more people (-60,000) and more jobs, using more of the land at a slightly higher density; Pickering proposes fewer people (-43,000) and jobs, using a little less land, but at lower density. However, Pickering, of course, still presses for development in the DRPAP and the placing of another 37,000 people around Cherrywood. In summary, I support the Provincial Plan for the Greenbelt in the DRPAP, and I condemn Pickering for having sold its soul to the development interests in that area. I do not support either Plan for Seaton, since I believe that either would create an environmental and cultural disaster. The Province has the power to control these affairs, since it still owns most of the Seaton Lands. I sincerely hope that it will exercise its responsibility and take the step of declaring Seaton to be part of the Greenbelt. With that in place, the Province and Pickering should then bring forward a joint new plan for the Greenbelt area - one that cannot and must not involve mass development. Thank you for wading though my comments. I do not expect many of you to agree with them, but I hope you will respect my views as I struggle to understand yours. James C. Thompson 16th August 2005 (Copied from email received on July 26, 2005) Dear Maurice, I am a resident on Aspen road in Pickering and I am absolutely appalled by this city plan. Not too long ago the city had intentions of running a water pipeline under Whites road and now this. I am a professional who works long hours so I am unable to attend the meeting on the 26th but please let me know if there is anything I can do to help stop this insanity. Regards, Nick Veronico SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS AGENCY DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Bell August 15 · recommends modified polices to 2.13 (i) and (v) for coordination of utility services; Greater Toronto August4 · the land use designations are compatible with the Airports Authority operation of a future airport on the Federal Airport site; · will work with the City to identify the ranges of permissible uses for those lands that fall with the proposed Interim Airport Protection Area; · the Highway 407 interchanges at Sidelines 26 and 22 provide greatest flexibility in design of northerly airport connection, and minimize conflicts with future airport layout; · the GTAA would like to provide input into the propose Highway 407 Employment Lands Study; Ministry of August 12 · requesting that Council hold consideration of Municipal Affairs proposed Amendment 14 in abeyance until such and Housing times as the consultation on the provincial Development Plan is completed; · further discussions between Pickering and provincial staff have occurred regarding the results of the consultation process and a final decision is made with respect to the provincial Development Plan; Ministry of August 30 · Amendment appears to be in keeping with direction Transportation for new and infill development; · Suggests stronger policy direction be included on phasing and staging, to support live/work goals; suggests benchmarks be added to certain sections; · Transit infrastructure should also be phased to provide level of services sufficient to meet various stages of growth and development of Seaton; · Recommends "ETR" follow all references to Highway 407; · Recommends 407 transitway and transitway station sites be recognized in plan; stations should be shown in southwest quadrant of existing/proposed interchange sites; suggests related policies be added; · Municipality will be required to contact 407/ETR and the MTO to seek an agreement on the proposed interchange locations (Sideline 26 and Sideline 22); an operational study will be required to demonstrate the spacing is safe, to standard, and complies with Concession and Ground Lease Agreement between MTO and 407/ETR; SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS (continued) AGENCY DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Ministry of · City will need to discuss cost sharing with the Transportation 407/ETR; (continued) · Highway 7 should not be classed as a Type A arterial, but a provincial highway; roads intersection with Highway 7 should have appropriate right-of-way to facilitate widenings and intersection improvements; Ontario Realty August 15 · ORC mandate is to maintain and optimize value of Corporation real estate portfolio, ensuring real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives of government; · provincial position related to the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP) lands not reflected in the draft amendment; · concerns that policies requiring servicing of employment lands prior to, or coincident with, start of residential development would be inefficient use of servicing capacity; recommends several policy changes regarding this (sections 2.13 (k) & (s)); · recommending specific changes to the draft amendment in the following areas: delete reference to OPA 13 as the basis for OPA 14; Revise configuration of natural heritage system consistent with Provincial Plan; exclude lands in Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve from boundary of amendment; redesignate employment lands around Green River, Brock Road and Sideline 16 to residential as plan is over optimistic in the population to jobs ratio; replace the 407 Employment Lands Study requirement with an Economic Development Study or Market Analysis requirement; - modify proposed policy 2.13 (w) to include the Ministry of Culture; - remove or revise proposed policy 2.13(w) (ix) relating to matters relating to built form as it is beyond the scope of the Planning Act; - delete proposed policy 2.15 requiring lands to be sold for uses consistent with the policies of the Pickering Official Plan and Durham Regional Official Plan; - proposed policy 2.15 (b) inconsistent with ORC mandate to optimize value of real estate; - redesignate the Countryside designation surrounding Whitevale east of Duffins Creek to Urban Residential Areas with residential design guidelines to address the nature and character of Whitevale; -2- ATTACHMENT # .~'~ ~ TO REPDR~ f~ PD ~ oC~ SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS (continued) AGENCY DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Ontario Realty - clarify or delete proposed policy 15.9 (e) regarding Corporation the recommendations of an Environmental Report (continued) for community uses within the Open Space System; - modify proposed policy 2.13 (h)(iii) to reflect a 30 NEF standard consistent with the PPS; - delete proposed policy 2.13 (o) and (p) relating to Durham College/University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Rouge Valley Hospital; - modify proposed policy 2.13 (q) to require public agencies and landowners to jointly fund financial analysis studies; Region of August 25 · pleased that amendment reflects similar content to Durham Province's draft Development Plan for Seaton; may wish to include policies from Development Plan in Amendment 14; · premature to consider adoption of Amendment 14 until results of City's and Region's financial impact studies known; · various revisions required to transportation network including: Rossland Road / Sideline 22 should be changed to Type B arterial (not Type C); · need more east-west Type C arterials to carry transit and improve traffic flow; consider changing specific collectors to Type C arterial; · Highway 7 should be designated as Transit Feeder; · Connect Type C arterial over CP Railway to connect with Duffin Heights; Consider linking population phasing (section 2.12) to master environmental servicing plan and master plan environmental assessment processes; · Requires further testing of the transportation network, including linkages with Toronto and York Region, to determine travel demand and modal split, also requires a further capacity analysis on accommodating projected volumes and traffic signal progression; · Delete policy 2.13(y) regarding options the environmental assessment should address for the future Whites Road / Sideline 26 crossing of West Duffins Creek; policy 2.13(z)is preferred wording; · Suggest rewording of policy 2.13(z)(ii) from "feasibility of" to "the location of" Sideline 24; · Suggest rewording of policy 3.5(d)(iii) to identify that reduced road right-of-way widths shall take into consideration operational an safety criteria; -3- SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS (continued) AGENCY DATE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Region of August 25 · Notes a potential inconsistency between the objective Durham of providing a transit supportive community and (continued) supporting road right-of-ways at lower end or permissible range; · Suggests additional collector roads may be required as neighbourhoods develop; · Population and employment figures are consistent with Regional Official Plan Review Discussion Paper; · Proposed population to jobs figure exceeds Regional target; · Suggest rate of residential development be confirmed as proposed figure of about 1500 units per year is twice what developers are advising through Fiscal Impact Study; · Anticipated density of 21 units per gross hectare exceeds the requirements of the Regional Official Plan (17 upgh); anticipated density of 57 residents and jobs per gross hectare exceeds standard in Province's Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (50 residents and jobs per gross hectare); · Unclear what is contemplated in terms of servicing for hamlets; · Countryside designation satisfies requirement for buffer adjacent to Whitevale; buffer required for Brougham; · Consider adding policy on reducing direct outdoor light trespass; · Would be preferable if utility lines buried throughout community, not just in mixed use areas; · Supports policy on servicing of employment lands prior to, or coincident, residential development in Seaton; this would require employment land study to be undertaken immediately; · Express concerns with considering residential in employment areas through employment lands study; concerned with converting employment lands to residential, impacting live-work ratio and overall job targets; · Other technical and editorial suggestions provided. Township of July 19 · no comment; Uxbridge 4 BeU ATTACHUENT t_~ ~* TO REPOR! ~ PD Right Of Way Floor 5, 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ont. M1P 4W2 Tel: 416-296-6291 Toll Free 1-800-748-6284 Fax: 416-296-0520 August 15, 2005 ans years 2 3 2005 CITY OF PICKEfllNG PICKERING, ONTARIO FiECE IVED 2 3 2005 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Neil Carroll, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director, Planning and Development City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7 Re: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P Draft Amendment 14 Modified Seaton Plan Dear Mr. Carroll, Bell Canada has had an opportunity to review the City's Proposed Official Plan Amendment 05-002/P, Draft Amendment 14 (OPA), and would like to take this opportunity to suggest modifications to the policies of the OPA to ensure appropriate policies exist to guide the planning and development of telecommunications infrastructure for this new community. The suggested modified policies reflect standard policies and wording that Bell Canada has developed, which have been implemented in planning policy documents by numerous regional and local municipalities over the past several years. The following section contains only the relevant policy excerpts from the OPA, modified to include Bell Canada's preferred wording. Our suggested revisions are shown in italics and bold. ATTACHMENT #._.~--,~' TO REPORT # PD August 2005 2 Under Section 2.13 we recom~nend the following: "In addition to the other policies in this Plan, for the Central Pickering Urban Area - Seaton Community, City Council shall, (i) for utility services: (///) (iv) (v) ensure that all public and private utilities be planned for and installed on a coordinated and integrated basis in order to be more efficient, cost effective and minimize disruption and that all large, above ground utility infrastructure be located and designed to be compatible with its environment; encourage utility providers to Consider innovative methods of containing utility services on or within streetscape features such as gateways, lamp posts, transit shelters, etc.; support the coordinated planning and installation of utilities in initial common trenches, where possible, to avoid unnecessary over digging and disruption of municipal rights of way; require buried utility lines on strategic lands such as those designated Mixed Use Areas, where a high quality public realm is essential to integrating the planned mix of uses and intensity of development; identify the precise extent of buried utility lines through the neighbourhood planning process; and, (v) address the following through the MESP: (x) identify existing and proposed major utility requirements, such as appropriate locations for large utility equipment and utility cluster sites, installations, corridors, easements and substations, in consultation with all interested utilities and telecommunication providers;" Should you have any questions please contact John La Chapelle of our Right-of-Way Control Centre as follows: Bell Canada Floor 5 BLUE, 100 Borough Drive Toronto, Ontario M1P 4W2 Phone: (416) 296-6291 Fax: (416) 296-0520 ATTACHMENT # ..~J~' 'ro REPORT # PD ,.-,,~ -~)5 August 2005 3 Bell thanks you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the City's Proposed Official Plan Amendment for the modified Seaton Plan (OPA 05-002/P), and would request to be notified of any further meetings, reports, decisions, etc. related to this matter. John La Chapelle, MCIP, RPP Planl]er, Manager - Right-of-Way Control Centre (/.../..c~: Rick Engelhardt, Senior Planner and Regional Manager - Municipal LiaiSon Natalie Wright, Regional Manager, Bell Network Service Chris Tyrrell, Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited ATTACHMENT GTAA PLANi', tNG & DEVELOPMEN¥ Transmitted by Facsimile (905) 420-7648 CiTY OF PICKERING PICKEFilNG, ONTARIO GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Corporate Affairs Steve Shaw Vice President, Corporate Affairs Tel: (416) 776-3364 Fax: (416) 776-7566 August 4, 2005 Ms. Catherine Rose Manager, Policy City of Pickering - Planning & Development Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 05-002/P City Initiated: Modified Seaton Plan Draft Amendment 14 City of Pickering We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Seaton Plan OPA. Our comments are as follows: Land Use The Land use designations as reflected on Schedule A (Land Use Structure) of the amendment are compatible with the operation of a future airport on the Federal Airport site. We will work with the City to identify the range of permissible uses for those lands that fall within the proposed Interim Airport Protection Area (per the boundary reflected in the GTAA's Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report, November 2004). Transportation System The Highway 407 interchanges at Sideline 26 and 22 as reflected in Schedule B are consistent with the Central Pickering Development Plan as proposed by MMAH and provide the greatest flexibility in the design of a northerly connection to the airport and, in our view, minimize any conflicts with the future airport layout. Crt' lh?l I[*i(,llh) .\i~p(~t!:S '\tilhori()' i;.t ~ i;:~2; .~', '. i. ;I I i ( oEv,';Ih lhixc I'hon,.. (.I16) 776.3000 Fax. (416) 77(',.77 t6 ']'l)l'f)lliO [l£'~iI'!;()lt [Ill('l'lKli](ll! ii '~J:'l 3! J( ['Olli{: ~.'.JJ. ():it~il'i(3, (};Ill,Ifil [ '3J! [1¢2 W~'X~v. gt;I I.L'Olll ATTACHMENT #,, ,~,,~b TO REPORI' ,~ PD ,.~-©,~ Ms. Catherine Rose City of Pickering August 4, 2005 Hwy 407 Employment Lands Study The GTAA has interest in the proposed Highway 407 Employment Lands Study and would like an opportunity to provide input to the study. Yours truly, GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Steve Shaw Vice President, Corporate Affairs Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Mun;cipal Services Office Central Ontario 777 Bay Street, 2'~ Floor Toronto ON MSG 2E5 Phone: 416-.585-6226 Fax: 416.585-6882 Toll*Free: 1-800-668-0230 Ministbre des Affaires rnunicipales et du Logement ~ureau des services aux municlpalit6s Centre de t'Ontario 777, rue Bay, 2''d ~tage Toronlo ON MSG 2E5 T~l~phone: 416-585:6226 T~l~copicur: 4.16-585-6882 Sans teals; 1-800-668-0230 August 11, 2005 Ms. Debi Bentley, CMO, CMM III City Clerk Cit7 of Pickering Growth Management Study Project Manager One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Ontario Dear Ms, Bentley: Re: Proposed Amendment 14 to the City of Pickering Official Plan We are in receipt of a copy of proposed Amendment 14 to the City of Picketing Official Plan, described as the Modified Seaton Plan, As you are aware, the Province has prepared a proposed Development Plan under the Ontario Planning and Deve/opmentAct, 1994 for both the Search lands and the Durham Region Agricultural Preserve. This proposed Development Plan was released for a 60 day public consultation period on July 14, 2005. Accordingly, we are requesting that Council hold consideration of p~'oposed Amendment 14 in abeyance until such time as the consultation on the provincial Development Plan is completed, further discussions between Town and provincial staff have occurred regarding the results of the Consultation process and a final decision is made with respect to the provincial Development Plan. Section 14 of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 provides that, if there is a conflict between a development plan and an official plan covering part or all of the same area, the development plan prevails. We are of the view that it would be premature for Council to consider proposed Amendment 14 until a final decision is made with respect to the provincial Development Plan. Only at that juncture can informed consideration of proposed Amendment 14 occur within the context of a finalized and approved provincial Development Plan, If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please call me directly at (416) 585-6109, Yours. truly, /,~ ~ Manager, Community Planning and Development c.o, A, Georgieff, Region of Durham N. Carroll, City of Pickering T. l~arrell, MNR D, Cooper, OMAF · ~ TOTC:::IL PRGE.02 ~ Ministry of Ministate de~ Transports RECEIVED AUG 3 O 2005 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ontario Date: August 30,2005 City of Pickering Picketing Civic Complex Planning Department One The Espanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 File: OPA 0S-002JP Attention: Grant McGregor Dear Sir: RE: Pickering Official Plan Amendment City Initiated: Modified Seaton Plan Draft Amendment No. 14 ...City o_f Pickerin,q We have completed our review of the draft amendment and offer the following comments for you information. The amendment appears to be in keeping with the province's policy direction for new and inflll development as outlined in the draft Growth Plan and the Transportation Strategy. While the MTO supports the land use and transportation objectives of the plan, it is important that the phasing policies of the plan provide strong direction to ensure that residential and employment growth are staged in a manner that supports the live/work goals. Similarly, transit infrastructure should also be phased In a manner thai provides a level of service sufficient to meet the demands of the Seaton Community at the various stages of its growth and development. The MTO suggests that stronger policy direction be included within the OPA's phasing or staging plan. It is suggested that some definitive criteria/benchmarks be established so that employment lands and residential lands are developed in a balanced manner that will ensure that the five/work environment is established in the early stages of Seaton's growth. For transit, It is suggested that a staging or phasing plan be established so that as residents move into this new community, transit is visibly present and land along the transit spines are developed with priority to promote a transit culture that will achieve the modal split targets. This stronger policy direction can be achieved through the inclusion of criteria/benchmarks in existing phasing sections such as 2.13 (e), 2.13 (m)(i) and 2.13(n) or through the drafting of a new section on overall phasing objectives. The Ministry recommends that the initials ETR follow all references to Highway 407 in the Plan to minimize confusion between the privately owned and operated Highway 407 Electronic Toll Route (ETR) through Pickering and the Mlnis[ry's Environmental Assessment (EA) of the 407 corridor east of Brock Road. Such references to be change include: · Page 4, item 2, under Draft Amendment. points 3 and 4 · Page 8, item 2.1.3, parts {m) and (v): and · Page 26, item 4.14, (f) ATTACHMENT# -~-~ TO REPORT ~ PD ~ -~ The City should be aware that that on January 17, 2005, the Minister of the Environment approved the Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference (ToR) for Highway 407 East. The Ministry of Transportation is now proceeding with an EA that includes a Planning/Need.report that will identify transportation problems and opportunities in the Durham Region and surrounding areas. This will allow for a study area to be defined within which alternatives will be generated, assessed and evaluated. Currently however, the Ministry is not in a position to determine the outcome of the EA process. The City's understanding while the 407 East EA study is underway is appreciated. The 407 Transitway and Transitway station sites need to be properly recognized in this plan. The MTO recommends changes be applied to the locations where the existing Highway 407 ETR facilities are in place, but not past the present terminus of the Highway at Brock Road. · Schedules A and B be amended to show the Highway 407 Transitway running parallel to the south side of Highway 407 with the appropriate 407 Transitway label , Schedules A and B be modified to include a symbol labeling the Transitway stations in the southwest quadrant of each existing/proposed Highway 407 interchange · Policies be added to the plan that ensure the Transltway station sites are recognized in the Official Plan and that the stations are compatible with the adjacent land use designations. Section 4.14, on page 26 states "to require the construction of two Highway 407 intemhanges in Seaton, which in accordance with the approved Environmental Assessment, have now been precisely located in the Seaton Community, at Sideline26 interchange be constructed first as the transportation needs of Central Pickering dictate, and the Sideline 22 interchange be constructed at a later phase as the community develops an as greed to by the City". The municipality should be aware that the MTO's EA does not depicted exact locations for the two interchanges at Sideroad 26 and Sideline 22. The EA only showed a conceptual layout of an interchange at North Road and Sideline 24. The final locations for these interchanges were subject to negotiations with affected stakeholders. The municipality will be required to contact 407/ETR and the MTO to seek an agreement on the proposed interchange locations (i.e. Sideline 26 and Sideline 22). This will require an operational study showing that the proposed interchange spacing is safe and to standard and must comply with the Concession and Ground Lease Agreement between the MTO and the 407/ETR. Once the recommendations of the operational study are agreed upon, the City will need to discuss cost sharing with the 407/ETR. Section 5.18 on page 24 indicates that City Council shall support the use of narrower right-of-way widths for arterial roads within the Central Pickering Urban Area - Seaton Community, It appears that Highway 7 is classified as an arterial road on sheet 1 of the merged Schedules A and B showing the transportation and road system. Provincial highways in official plans should never be classified as by function but rather by jurisdiction and as such we wlll require that Highway 7 be show as a provincial highway and not as an arterial. It is important that Highway 7 and all roads intersecting with Highway 7 maintain an appropriate R.O.W. width to facilitate future widening and intersection improvements. The plan shows lands that are adjacent to Highways 407 and Highway 7 designated as prestige Employment Areas. Such development will result in increased demand for access to adjacent highways. All requests for access will be subject to the prior approval by the MTO in accordance with Ministry access policy. Yours truly, c.c. Central Region - Corridor Management Attn: Charlle Petro Urban Planning Office: Attn; Caroline De Groot Heather Doyle Senior Planner Provincial and Environmenta~ Planning Office Ontado Soci~t~ Realty immobilibre Corporation de I'Ontario 11 th Floor 11 ~ btage Ferguson Block Edifice Ferguson Queen's Park Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario Toronto, Ontario M7A 1N3 M7A 1N3 Tel: 416-327-2755 Fax: 416-212-1131 August 12, 2005 Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Planning and Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 BY FAX AND COURIER Re: Preliminary Comments on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 14 Dear Mr. McGregor: The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) would like to thank you the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to Pickering's Official Plan (OPA 14). The ORC is a crown agency that manages the Province's real property on behalf of the Government of Ontario with a mandate to maintain and optimize value of the portfolio, while ensuring that our real estate decisions reflect the public policy objectives of the government. ORC is supportive of the City's objectives of developing provincial lands in North Pickering, east of West Duffins Creek and outside of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP) lands. On April 11, 2005, The Hon. Gerry Phillips, then Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, wrote to you to express concern about the removal of agricultural easements for the DRAP lands. This letter, and following letters including one on May 25, 2005 to Roger Anderson, Chair of'the Regional Municipality of Durham and one from David Ramsey to you on July 29, 2005 made clear the position of the provincial government and its expectations that the City of Pickering and Durham Region would honour the commitments that were made to preserve the area for agriculture. However, our preliminary review indicates that the provincial position related to the DRAP lands is not reflected in the draft amendment. In addition, we note that there are a number of policies that are not in conformity with the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan under the Ontario Planning and Development Act (QPDA) and the Greenbelt Plan. We would request the City to await the finalization of the Central Pickering Development Plan, released for public review and comment on July 14, 2005, since OPA 14 would as a minimum have to conform to the finalized OPDA Plan. ORC also has specific concerns with policies in the amendment from the perspective of facilitating timely development in a manner that is equitable. We trust that these concerns, which are outlined below, can be resolved in a way that protects both the City's and ORC's interests. ORC Concerns Re.qardinq City of Pickerinq OPA 14 1. Draft Basis Page two of the draft amendment states that the draft OPAl4: Iof Amendment 13 (OPA 13) to the Pickering Official plan, which implemented the GMS". "has been determined to be appropriate following City Council's adoption in December 2004 ATTACHMEN'r # .~' TO Amendment 13 in the Pickering Official Plan cannot be processed or realized as a result of existing protections including the Greenbelt Plan and Minister's Zoning Order (Regulation 152/03 made under the Planning Act). In addition, proposed land uses in OPA 13 within the DRAP lands are not consistent with a 1999 Memorandum of Understanding between ORC and the City to maintain these lands in agricultural use. As a result, OPA 13 is not an appropriate basis for OPA 14. Comment No. 1: ORC requests the reference to OPA 13 as the basis for OPA 14 be removed. 2. Study Area The study area of the draft indicated in Schedule I of the Draft OPA 14 is not consistent with the Government of Ontario position related to the DRAP lands as lands west of West Duffins Creek are included. We recommend that relevant schedules be modified to reflect current and proposed provincial plans for this area. Comment No. 2: The Area of the Amendment should be modified so that it does not include the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve consistent with current and proposed provincial plans for this area. 3. Population and Employment Projections Page two of the draft amendment provides population and employment projections for the Seaton lands: "Overall, the plan provides for the development of approximately 43,000 residents and 28,000jobs, achieving a gross 57 density of jobs and residents." According to these projections, the City of Pickering plan for Seaton will provide for an employment-to-population ratio of 0.65:1. The provincial draft Central Pickering Development Plan, under the Ontario Planning Development Act, provides for an employment-to-population ratio of 1:2, which translates to one job for every 2 people. Very few municipalities reach the 1:2 ratio and most typically provide for .45 jobs for every resident. Based on these comparisons, there is an excessive amount of employment lands present in draft OPA 14 resulting in an imbalance between lands designated "Prestige Employment Areas" and "Urban Residential Areas". In addition, this imbalance diminishes the probability of reaching the provincial objective of a population of 60,000 people for Seaton. Seaton could realize a more reasonable employment-to-population ratio by designating additional lands "Urban Residential Areas" in the vicinity of Brock Road and south of Highway 407 and by designating Urban Residential Areas at a higher density. We have provided a map of some of the potentially developable portions of Seaton where we feel that these changes could be considered. Comment No. 3: We recommend revising policies and schedules to recognize an employment-to-population consistent with accepted employment and population ratio standards through the following changes: a) Designating additional developable lands "Urban Residential Areas" (refer to attached Map A), ~,TTACHMEN? # ~ ? TO REPOR'~ # PD, ~~ b) Designating additional higher density residential land uses within Urban Residential Areas, and c) Increasing the projected population target to 60,000 people 4. Natural Heritaqe Matters The Natural Heritage System (NHS) described in Section 2.13 (a) and (b), and illustrated in Schedule I differs from that determined by the provincial government and illustrated in the draft Central Pickering Development Plan. This system has been defined by experts from MNR with input from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other agencies and should be reflected in this amendment. Comment No. 4: The system shown on OPA 14 should be modified to reflect the NHS present in the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan, under the Ontario Planning and Development Act. 5. Employment Matters The draft OPA 14 proposes to add as section 2.13 of the Plan, City policies related to Central Pickering Employment Matters. There are two proposed policies in this section that are of concern to QRC. i) With respect to the servicing of Employment Areas (section 2.13), the draft OPA 14 proposes that City Council shall: "(k) require the extension of piped water and sanitary sewer services to the Employment Area ahead of, or concurrent with, the commencement of residential development within the Seaton Community;" ORC believes that the extension of piped water and sanitary sewer services to the Employment Area ahead of the commencement of residential development within the Seaton Community does not represent a logical extension of services. We would prefer an approach, which provides that development can proceed subject to existence of full services (water, storm and sanitary sewer, roads) irrespective of the land use that is being serviced. This policy could be rewritten so that it does not compromise future development opportunities, where servicing/infrastructure capacity is present to accommodate development. Comment No. 5: This policy should be rewritten so that it does not compromise logical phasing and future development opportunities for any land use where servicing/infrastructure capacity is present to accommodate development. ii) With respect to any development in the Prestige Employment Area, it is proposed in section 2.13, subsection (m) that a "Highway 407 Employment Lands Study" be completed prior to the completion of the first Neighbourhood Plan. The proposed "407 Employment Lands Study" as contemplated in the draft amendment would require detailed zoning and design performance standards, and established precincts for large and small employment parcels in addition to Neighbourhood Plans and Plans for Subdivision for the Seaton Community. The necessity for an additional "407 Employment Lands Study" as a prerequisite to development is not accepted by ORC. Sections 51, 34 and 41 of the Planning Actalready provide for a statutory process where such matters such as servicing, lotting and performance standards can be adequately addressed. It is our view that additional layering of processes might hamper timely development of these lands and thus should be avoided. However, an Economic Development Study or Marketing Analysis that ensures that the Prestige Employment Areas are viable would be a more appropriate approach for furthering our joint objectives of achieving early uptake of employment lands. MAH has supported an Economic Development Study or Marketing Analysis in their draft OPDA Plan for Central Pickering. If a "407 Employment Lands Study" is considered essential to City Council, ORC would request that the identification of locations with the potential for residential designations also be required as part of the study, consistent with our earlier comments (no.2). In addition, the study should consider alternative uses outside of Prestige Employment that would support the Economic Development Study/Marketing Analysis Plan. Comment No. 6: The 407 Employment Lands Study requirement should be removed and an Economic Development Study or Market Analysis should be pursued to facilitate early uptake of employment lands. 6. Development Requirements Included in the proposed section 2.13 of the OPA 14 is City policies outlining Central Pickering Development Requirements. ORC has concerns with the following development requirements: Sub-section (w) requires Neighbourhood Plans to be approved for each of the Seaton Community Neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood Plans are required to include: "(i) consideration of the archaeological and heritage assessments approved by the Ministry of Culture and Communication;" We note that the Ministry concerned with archaeological and heritage assessment is the Ministry of Culture (with "and Communications" omitted). It is understood by ORC that the Ministry of Culture (MOC) approves Archaeological assessments only and that MOC undertakes reviews of heritage assessments and provides comment as appropriate; however, MOC approval is not required. Proposed policies within the Central Pickering Development Plan and ongoing work as a component of the Category C Class environmental assessment being undertaken for the Seaton Land Exchange will provide a detailed policy framework for assessing heritage resources. Comment No. 7: The ORC suggests that proposed policy 2.13 (w) be changed to reflect the Ministry of Culture role and that the need for this policy be reconsidered in light of existing and proposed policies of the Central Pickering Development Plan and ongoing work being undertaken by ORC. ii) City policies related to Central Pickering Development Requirements in section 2.13 propose that City Council should: "(s) through the use of the holding provisions of the Planning Act, require proponents of development to enter into agreements with the City and Region respecting various development related matters including but not limited to the matters outlined in sections 2. 13 (k) and (n);" ATI'A~HME~'~JT #_..-..~ ~ .TO The ORC does not agree with the use of a holding symbol for lands where services are available and environmental issues have been thoroughly studied. We do not support policies that could compromise logical phasing and future development opportunities for any land use where servicing/infrastructure capacity is present to accommodate development. Comment No. 8: The ORC suggests that section 2.13 (s) should be re-written to reflect the changes made to section 2.13 (k) regarding the provision of service, based on ORC's comment no.5. iii) City policies related to Central Pickering Development Requirements in section 2.13 (w) propose that City Council should require neighbourhood plans that include: "(ix) identification, by the City in collaboration with the landowners, of environmental sustainability measures to be incorporated in the development;" ORC is of the view that provincial policy, the proposed Central Pickering Development Plan, existing Region of Durham, City of Pickering and Conservation Authority policies contain adequate sustainability measures in terms of spatial setbacks, water management, ecological integrity and connectivity and other matters. This policy speaking to measures to be incorporated into development seems to be speaking to matters related to the actual built form of development. It is important to point out that the inclusion of such a policy speaking to measures to be incorporated "in the development" would be beyond the scope of the Planning Act, the statutory framework for this amendment. Comment No. 9: We suggest that this policy be removed or revised to be an encouragement policy in order to address the limitations of the Planning Act 7. Disposal of Provincial Lands i) The draft OPA 14 proposes to change section 2.16 of Chapter Two of the current official plan to state in the new section 2.15 that City Council shall encourage the Province to dispose of its lands in Seaton, provided: "(a) the lands are sold for uses consistent with the policies of this Plan and the Durham Regional Official Plan;" Decisions of the provincial government related to the disposal of its assets are already subject to statutory requirements that include Planning Act requirements. An official plan policy restating this is not appropriate and should be removed. ii) It also states that: "(b) lands that serve important public purposes, are for community uses or facilities, or contain significant natural or cultural resources are conveyed for a nominal amount to the appropriate public agency;" The above recommendation is inconsistent with our mandate to ensure that real estate decisions reflect the public policy objectives of the government and to maintain and optimize value of the portfolio. In addition, it is important to also note that the Province has not yet determined the outcome of the Seaton lands after the land exchange is complete. Should the Province retain the lands, they will be with a p.ublic body and a transfer will therefore not be required. Furthermore, if municipal conveyances are required for roads, easements, etc., these can be addressed in subsequent subdivision and site plan agreements in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. ORC is committed to protecting archaeological and natural heritage resources while maximizing the value of all potentially developable provincially owned Seaton lands. ORC is pleased to work with the City to ensure that appropriate lands are available to the City/Region, but at fair market value. We are currently not aware of any lands of interest to the City in Seaton with the exception of an interest for a potential fire station/training facility in the vicinity of Brock Road north of Taunton Road. If there are properties of interest to the City and public agencies we would also ask that any requests for lands be communicated to ORC so that a mutually agreeable approach that ensures taxpayers' interests are protected can be developed. Comment No. 10: The above policies, which suggest third party involvement, should be removed and requests related to provincial lands of interest to the City and public agencies should be communicated to ORC. 8. Countryside Areas Desiqnation Table Two in Chapter Three (Land Use Categories and Subcategories), and section 3.12 provides for the designation of Countryside Areas. The Countryside Area as proposed would, in addition to permitting agri-tourism and non-agricultural uses, act as a buffer between the Hamlet of Whitevale and its environs that are designated a Heritage Conservation District. Community comments and proposed policies suggest that the extent of the proposed Whitevale Buffer is not appropriate and that design guidelines can achieve the same ends while encouraging a more efficient utilization of developable land consistent with the objectives of the City and Province. Comment No. 11: The Countryside Areas designation surrounding Whitevale east of Duffins Creek should be designated Urban Residential Area with residential design guidelines to address the nature and character of Whitevale. 9. Open Space System Desiqnation In Chapter Three, subsection (c) states that stormwater management systems may be permitted within Open Space System Designations, provided a number of planning and design systems are met. Subsection (d) states that similar planning and design matters are addressed with respect to road and utility crossings of the Open Space System - NaturarAreas. In addition, subsection (e) refers to the recommendations of an Environmental Report in section 15.9, but detailed content of the environmental report and the above planning and design matters is not provided. These matters will already be covered through proposed policies of the Central Pickering Development Plan, policies related to Master Environmental Servicing Plans, Neighbourhood Plans and normal municipal review processes. If additional policy is being considered, details should be provided so that we comment on the implications of these policies. Comment No. 12: We request that this section should be either clarified or removed from the amendment. 10. .General ORC would like to make the following additional comments with regard to specific policies: i) In section 2.13 (h) it is proposed that City Council is required to acknowledge the intent of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) to establish an Interim Airport Protection Area (IAPA), "(iii) generally following the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast contour as defined on mapping provided by the G TAA;' The Greater Toronto Airports Authority only requires the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) standard in Zone F. Furthermore, this draft policy is inconsistent with Policy 1.6.7.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) that speaks to a 30 NEF standard. ORC believes that these additional protection measures may not be warranted and could restrict the highest and best use of applicable Seaton lands. Comment No. 13: The proposed OPA 14 policy 2.13 (h)(iii) should be modified to reflect a 30 NEF standard consistent with the PPS. City policies related to Central Pickering Major Community and Institutional Uses in section 2.13 propose that City Council should: "(o) collaborate with Durham College / University of Ontario Institute of Technology to secure a campus site that is highly accessible by roads, and is located on a transit spine;" and, "(p) collaborate with the Province and the Rouge Valley Hospital to address health care needs in the City including securing an appropriate site for a health care facility;" ORC is of the view that the inclusion of a policy related to specific users should be avoided throughout the document as the Planning Act cannot speak to users only uses. We recommend replacing this policy with a policy that permits such institutional uses in the Employment Areas designation if this is the City's intent. Comment No. 14: This policy should be removed and replaced with another policy related to expanded uses in Employment Areas. City policies related to Central Pickering Financial Matters in section 2.13 propose that City Council should: "(q) require the landowners, in collaboration with the Region of Durham, to prepare municipal and regional financial analyses of the impact of the development of the lands including the provision of required community facilities, services and infrastructure, in a manner that provides for achievement of municipal objectives including but not limited to those matters set out in sections 2. 13 (k) and (n)". "(r) following Council's endorsement of the municipal financial impact analysis, require the adoption of appropriate measures and financial arrangement, including front-ending agreements, cost sharing agreements, phasing and staging agreements, and development charges, to ensure that the Seaton Community does not cause a financial burden on the City or Region and provision of facilities, services, and infrastructure. ATTACHMENT #~ TO REPORT # PD_ With respect to these two proposed policies, the ORC would like to express that the onus for financial analysis lies with all parties including the Region and the City. A joint approach to financial analysis or a municipal lead approach is a normal accepted practice across Ontario. The requirement for only the landowners to fund such studies is unreasonable, specifically as they relate to (k) and (n), which are municipal interests. Comment No. 15: This policy should be removed and or replaced with one that places the onus on public agencies and landowners to jointly fund financial analysis studies. 11. Schedule I Based on the abovementioned concerns, ORC would like to see changes made to the Schedule I that complements proposed Official Plan Amendment 14 (refer to map A). Comment No. 17: The following changes should be made to reflect the respective ORC concerns: a) The Seaton boundary should be modified to show all new "Urban Residential Areas" and "Prestige Employment Areas" as being east of West Duffins Creek and consistent with the Province's proposed Central Pickering Development Plan, b) Changes to "Urban Residential Designations" and "Prestige Employment Designations" to ensure more reasonable employment-to-population ratio standards. c) The NHS shown on OPA 14 should be modified to reflect the NHS of the Central Pickering Development Plan, under the draft OPDA, and d) The Countryside designation east of and adjacent to the hamlet of Whitevale should be re-designated "Urban Residential Area': Concludinq Comments: ORC is committed to working with the public, City of Pickering, Region of Durham, and agencies to create a common plan for Seaton. We believe that the timely and efficient development of Seaton Lands taking into account greenspace and heritage issues is of mutual interest to the City and the Province and our comments should be viewed in the spirit of moving us toward this shared objective. ORC would like to thank you again for the opportunity to raise our concerns and to consult with you on your proposed amendment. I would be pleased to meet to discuss our concerns further. Slncerely /1 /.. ? I"-~/~'/'JOhn/MacKenzie, MCIP, RPP fl ~/ General Manager Planning, A~et Review ~T1ACHMENI # ~>~ 1'0 Designation changed from ti Prestige Employment Area to Urban Residential Area Designation Changed from Prestige Employment Area to Urban Residential Area Seaton boundary lmodified to be east of West Duffins Creek. Designation Changed from Countryside Area to Urban Residential Area Seaton boundary modified to exclude road. Since roads are permitted in Green Belt (subject to tests) it is not necessary to include within boundar Designation Changed from Prestige Employment Area to Urban Residential Area Inq_1892 Picketing ag map revisionsa.mXd August 10, 2005. For illustrative Purposes only. All areas are approximate. August 23, 2005 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E 4TM FLOOR PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA 905-668-7711 Fax: 905-666-6208 E-mail: planning@ region.durham.on.ca www. region.durham.on.ca A.L. Georgieff, MClP, RPP Commissioner of Planning Grant McGregor, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Principal Planner- Policy Planning & Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 2 5:2005 PICKER1NG DEVELOPMENT UEPA;:~TMENT Dear Mr. McGregor: Re: Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 File: OPA 05-002/P Thank-you for the opportunity to.review and comment on the above-noted Proposal to amend the Pickering Official Plan. We have circulated the information package and draft Amendment 14 to various Regional Departments, and wish to provide the following consolidated comments and observations for your consideration: General "Service Excellence for our Communities" Overall, we are pleased to see that draft Amendment 14 reflects the efforts that have taken place over the course of 6 months of meetings with the Province, TRCA, future Seaton land owners and the Region in order to provide the best possible plan for the Seaton Community, The results of this collaborative effort are also reflected in the Province's draft Development Plan for Seaton. Given that the Province's draft Development Plan has now been released, you may wish to consider adding some of the more detailed policies contained in the Development Plan to Amendment 14 --policies related to the installation and integration/groUping of utilities and ground infrastructure, for example. Regional Official Plan Conformity To enable consideration of the City's amendment proposal, an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) is required to address a number of matters, including population, employment, roads, the Regional Node, the Main Central Area, land use designation changes surrounding the Hamlet of Green River, the. proposed "Countryside Areas" designation east of the Hamlet of Whitevale, etc. We note that the 100% Post Consumer A"'IACHMEN'! # z/lO ,TO Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 requirement for a ROP amendment is acknowledged in the information package. Financing/Servicing o As you are aware the Region requires a study of the staging and timing of development to address the financial impacts on the Region prior to the development of Seaton, in accordance with the ROP. Terms of reference for such a Study were prepared by the Region; a consulting firm was retained; and the Study is now underWay. Once the Study is completed, it will .be peer reviewed and subsequently, if favourable, considered in the Region's deliberations on approving Amendment 14 and the associated ROP amendment for Seaton. The City's Financial Impact Study Terms of Reference includes the requirement of studying 4 scenarios~, in addition to the. consideration of th e financial impacts and economic benefits associated with servicing the employment lands area (407 corridor) prior to or concurrent with residential development (page 3, item 1.5 of draft Terms of Reference). Draft Amendment 14 includes policies ((2~13 (k) and 2.13 (k)(i)), which "require the extension of piped water and sanitary sewer services to the Employment Area ahead of, or concurrent with, the commencement of residential development...". Given that the City's Financial Impact Study has not yet been completed, it is our understanding that it would be premature to consider adoption of Amendment 14. Transportation/Transit Overall, draft Amendment 14 recognizes the need for an integrated transportation system provided through a hierarchy of arterial and local/collector roads to serve various transportation modes. Transportation Network- Schedule 'B' Schedule B designates most of Sideline 22 as a Type C arterial, with a "T-intersection" at the future Rossland Road extension across West Duffins Creek. Only a small "stub" of Sideline 22, between Highway 7 and the east/west collector south of Highway 407, is shown as a Type B arterial road. This is 1 The four scenarios include: the City's Plan for Seaton, including an airport; the City's Plan for Seaton excluding an airport; the Province's Development Plan for Seaton, including an airport; and the Province's Development excluding an airport. Pickering Official Plan Draft' Amendment 14 'inconsistent with the Regional staff position conveyed during our recent meetings, that Rossland Road/Sideline 22 should be designated as a continUous Type B arterial road. A Type B arterial road designation more appropriately suppods the future interchange on Highway 407. A Type C arterial would reduce the effective capacity and ultimate level of service on the road. Designating Sideline 22 as a Type B arterial road is also consistent with the arterial road spacing in other urban areas in the Region. In addition, the Region's Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Province's draft Development Plan both identify Rossland Road as a Transit Corridor. A Type B arterial road . designation will ensure that this facility can evolve to support the higher levels.of transit service, characteristic of transit corridors. Overall, there is a lack of east/west arterials throughout the Seaton Community serving the Type C function. As such, the east/west collector road between 5th Concession/Whitevale by- pass and North Road, and North Road between the east/west road and Highway 7, should be designated as Type C arterials. This would also provide opportunity for higher levels of transit service, compared, to a collector road, due to a wider right-of- way and improved traffic flow. For consistency with the Major Transit Corridor designations proposed in the Province's draft Development Plan, Highway 7 west of sideline 26 should be designated as "Transit Feeder Service". We note that a section of North Road is erroneously designated asa "Freeway". The east/west Type C arterial road through the neighbouring Duffin Heights community terminates at the CP Belleville rail line. This road should be shown to connect to Taunton Road, adjacent to the proposed GO Transit rail station. Policies Proposed policy 2.12 -This policy provides a generalized phasing plan through population and employment targets by Neighbourhood Plan to 2016. From a transportation perspective, a phasing plan is important because any imbalance in population and employment growth has a significant implication on the transportation network. A lower rate of employment growth relative to population growth away from 1 job for every 1.55 residents would set out-commuting trends that Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 o will be hard to reverse. Perhaps this policy should be tied to the Municipal Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Regional Master Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) processes to meet its targets and promote a balanced live/work relationship, as growth is phased. Proposed policy 2.13 (w)(vi) - This policy requires that, in the approval of Neighbourhood Plans for the Seaton Community, "a traffic management plan addressing such matters as intersection traffic controls, designation of through streets, establishment of speed zones, potential traffic calming features and locations, on-street parking regulations, and provision of pedestrian crossings" shall be included. Based on our review of the travel demand analysis'contained in t. he Phase 2 Growth ManagemenrStudy's "Recommended Structure Plan", our previous comments on Draft Amendment 13 questioned the ability of the proposed transportation network to support the Land Use Structure. While this proposed policy is a positive step in the implementation process, the network for the Seaton Community as a whole should to be tested in more detail at a macro level, including bordering areas in York Region and the City of Toronto, to determine the ultimate travel demand and modal splits on arterial roads. Also, a further capacity analysis ~s required to ensure that the network can accommodate projected volumes, while accommodating the progression of' traffic between signalized intersections, at a satisfactory level of service. PrOposed policy 2.13 (y) - This proposed policy should be deleted, as it would unduly influence the outcome of the Environmental Assessment (EA) that must be undertaken for the Whites Road/Sideline 26 connection over West Duffins Creek. The examination of alternatives is an integral part of the EA process, that would consider whether a new crossing of the West Duffins Creek is necessary to ensure that Whites Road functions as a Type A arterial road. It is suggested that Whites Road be addressed in proposed policy 2.13 (z) in a similar manner to 3rd Concession Road. PrOposed policy 2.13 (z) (ii) - It is suggested that this proposed policy be reworded by making reference to "the location" of, rather than "the feasibility" of, Sideline 24 between the southerly east/west Collector road and Taunton Road. The EA process will ultimately determine if, in fact, the crossing is feasible and warranted through an examination of potential environmental constraints and travel demands. A specific policy to identify Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 10. 11. "feasibility" for the EA process is redundant, and appears to undermine the purpose of undertaking the EA. Proposed policy 3.5 (d) (ii) - This proposed policy supports the use of "alternative road design standards to minimize the footprint of roads." Reducing rights-of-way to minimum acceptable standards should not compromise operational and safety considerations (e.g., signalization, transit service, snow clearance, etc.), or the provision of transit supportive rights-of: way. Therefore, it is suggested that the policy be reworded to read "use road design standards that minimize the footprint of roads, taking into consideration operational and safety criteria". Proposed policy 4.10 (d) - This proposed policy identifies supporting the use of right-of-way widths for arterial roads at the lower end of the ranges permitted i.n policy 4.10 (b). Where wider road allowances (i.e., right-of-way widths) are required, a key consideration should be to protect for arterial road cross- sections which are transit-supportive. The proposed policy does not identify transit-supportive environments as a consideration for wider rights-of-way, yet transit-supportive environments are a key development principle for the Seaton Community (refer to proposed policy 2.13 (e)). For example, Major Transit Corridors such as Brock Road and Taunton Road should be planned to accommodate dedicated transit lanes with a median and platform, as travel demands increase. Protecting the minimum right-of-way for a Type A arterial road (i.e. 36 metres) would preclude .this possibility. 12. Although Schedule B designates a network of collector roads, it is suggested that policy 4.10 recognize that additional collector roads may be recognized in the Seaton Community as Neighbourhood Plans are approved. The current Collector Road network is not in keeping with that which exists in the rest of the Pickering Urban Area. It is anticipated that the need for additional collector roads will be recognized as neighbourhoods develop. Population and Employment Draft Amendment 14 (policy 2.12 (a)) proposes an "ultimate" target of 43,000 people and 27,800 jobs for the Seaton Community. The lands to the east of the Hamlet of Whitevale are designated "Countryside Areas", which restricts residential development. Draft Amendment 14 also includes policy to undertake a "Highway 407 Employment Lands Study" (policy 2.13 (m)), which is to include an evaluation of "potential opportunities and constraints for the integration of high density residential Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 within the employment lands." As such, it would appear that the "ultimate" target population for the Seaton Community presented in draft Amendment 14 could exceed 43,000 persons. The appropriateness of presenting the 43,000 figure as an "ultimate" target should be reconsidered. The ROP provides for a 2021 population of 45,000 and 22,500 jobs, with an ultimate target of 90,000 persons and 45,000 jobs. However, recent population forecasts prepared for the ROP Review, estimate a 2021 population of approximately 54,000 for Seaton, with little remaining capacity for residential growth beyond 2021. This estimate was based on a Natural Heritage System that is not as refined as that which has recently been developed by the City and the Province, and a "Living Area" designation on the lands to the east of Whitevale. Also, it is noted that, for the purposes of the FiScal Impact Studies that are underway, a population figure of 49,000 for the Seaton Community is being used. The Province's draft Development Plan for Seaton proposes an eventual population of up to 60,000, and 30,500 - 34,000 jobs. The Province's population figure of' 60,000 is based on the assumption that 5% of employment lands could be used for high-density residential, otherwise the population figure would be in the order of 50,000. The Province's draft Plan differs from the City's proposed Amendment 14, in that some lands to the north east and southeast of Whitevale, are proposed for residential development, whereas the City is proposing a "Countryside Areas" designation, which would restrict residential development. Overall, recognizing the variances in approaches, the population and employment figures that are being proposed by draft Amendment 14 and the Provincial Development Plan appear to be consistent, and are considered to be consistent with the ROP Review Discussion Paper. Ratio of Jobs to Population As a target for the Region, policy 3.2.2 of the ROP prescribes a ratio of jobs to population of 50%, or 1 job for every 2 residents. Draft Amendment 14 proposes a ratio of jobs to population of 64.7%, or 1 job for every 1.55 residents. The Province's draft Development Plan proposes a ratio of jobs to population of 50.8% - 56.7%, or 1 job for every 1.97 - 1.76 residents for a population of 60,000, and a ratio of 61-68%, or1 job for ~very 1.64 - 1.47 residents for a population of 50,000. As such, both proposals exceed the requirements of the ROP. Achieving these targets is essential for the Seaton Community to emerge as a model community. Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 Rate of Residential Development Table'1B of draft Amendment 14 targets the 2011 population for the Seaton Community at 18,000 persons. Based on an occupancy factor of 3 persons per unit, this would equate to 6,000 new residential units over the first four years of development (2008-2011), or approximately 1,500 units per year. Based on recent FisCal Impact Study meetings with consultants, the City, Province, and future Seaton landowners, development forecasts of 750 new residential units per year (i.e. 250 new units per year for each of the three future landowners) were discussed. This rate of development is half of what is being proposed by draft Amendment 142. Given these differences in growth rates, it is suggested that the rate of residential development be confirmed through the Fiscal Impact Study work, and if necessary, Table 1B revised accordingly. Neighbourhood Configurations We note that the configuration, boundaries and number of the Urban Neighbourhoods differ between the City's proposed Amendment and the Province's proposed Development Plan. The City proposes 8 new neighbourhoods in Seaton, while the Province proposes 13. This should be reconciled. Densities The overall residential density for Seaton as proposed by draft Amendment 14 is 21.0 units/gross hectare (8,5 units/gross acre). The Province's draft Development Plan proposes a "n ear term" density of 27.7 units/gross hectare (11.2 units/gross acre), which would accommodate a population of up to 50,000, with a "longer term mature" density of 39.5 units/gross hectare (16 units/gross acre), which would accommodate a population of up to 60,0003. As presented in the ROP Review Population, Employment and Urban Land Discussion Paper (pages 29, 30), the 1993 ROP was based on a residential density of 17 units/gross hectare (7 units/gross acre), with a density of 25 units/gross hectare (10 units/gross acre) considered to be reflective of a mature urban state that would be achieved over a longer period of time. Both draft Amendment 14 and the Province's draft Development Plan 2 The Provincial draft Development Plan does not provide anticipated growth rates or time frames for the development of Seaton 3 The 60,000 population figure is based on the assumption that 5% of employment lands could be used for high-density residential. Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 exceed the density requirements espoused by the ROP. This is expected, given the ROP's direction of developing Seaton as a model community, coupled with the direction to develop urban areas in a more compact form supportive of transit use. On page 2, "DRAFT BASIS" of the Amendment, it states that "Overall, the plan provides for the development of approximately 43,000 residents and 28,000 jobs, achieving a gross 574 density of jobs and residents." It is noted that this density figure exceeds the Province's Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe density requirement of 50 residents and jobs per hectare5 for designated growth areas (i.e. greenfields) that are currently within urban boundaries designated in official plans. Hamlets Draft Amendment 14 does not address the future servicing status of the Hamlets of Brougham, Green River and Whitevale.'lt is still unclear as to what is contemplated, in terms of future servicing, for these Hamlets. It should be noted that the ROP requires that development within Hamlets is to be individually serviced with private drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems, and only provides for the extension of municipal services to Hamlets as an exception. The ROP (policy 8.3.3 g)) requires the provision of an open space buffer to separate the hamlets of Brougham and Whitevale from the Seaton Urban Area and to protect heritage resources' in the area. As such, two approaches to provide such buffers/separation have been proposed: Draft Amendment 14 proposes to introduce a new "Countryside Areas" designation (approximately 61 hectares) to the east of Whitevale. In addition, the draft Amendment includes policies to recognize the heritage character of the Whitevale Road corridor (policy 2.13 d)). bo The Province's Draft DevelOpment Plan for Seaton proposes a '~/hitevale Heritage Open Space" designation straddling East Whitevale Road, with "low density areas" to the north and south. In addition, the draft Development Plan includes policies requiring appropriate transitional design 4 It is assumed that this figure is being expressed as 57 residents and jobs per hectare. s Policy 2.6.2 of Province's draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 and compatibility in the associated Neighbourhood Plan (page 37). Both approaches would satisfy the requirement of the ROP for buffers to separate the Hamlet of Whitevale from the Seaton Urban Area. However, as noted previously, an amendment to the ROP would have to be considered to enable approval of a "COuntryside Areas" designation in the Pickering Official Plan, as proposed by draft Amendment 14. Design Matters In order to' promote energy efficiency, reduce light pollution and generally enhance the environment, it is suggested that consideration be given to adding the following new pOlicy: "require outdoor lighting associated with development and roadway lighting, that does not cause direct light trespass, glare and up light, to conserve energy and protect the night sky for its scientific'value and natural interest". Proposed policy 2.13 (i) - This proposed policy, which attempts to minimize the obtrusive nature of above-ground utilities, is admirable, and may,go a long way in the development of a model community if utility lines are required to be buried for all of the Seaton Community. As it stands, the proposed policy appears to focus on Mixed Use Areas, thereby suggesting that it may be optional in other land use designations. Em ployment Matters Proposed policy 2.13 (k) -This proposed policy, which requires "the extension of piped water and sanitary sewer services to the Employment Area ahead of, or concurrent with, the commencement of residential development within the Seaton Community", is consistent with ROP policy 8.3.3 d), which requires "that the Seaton community 'shall be developed on the basis of .... d) the provision and adequate and diverse employment opportunities within the first phase of development". For more clarity however, it is suggested that the following wording be considered: require the extension of piped water and sanitary sewer services to the Employment Area prior to, or coincident with, residential development within the Seaton Community." ~?iAOHME~)I #_ ~ _TO Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 We note that the Province's draft Development Plan does not require extension of services to the Employment Areas prior to or coincident with residential development within the Seaton Community. This omission is not consistent with the intent of the ROP. Proposed policy 2.13 (m) - As an observation, given that proposed policy 2.13 (k) requires the extension of services to the Employment Area prior to or coincident with residential development within the Seaton Community, the Employment Study required under policy 2.13 (m) would have to be undertaken immediately, as no residential development in Seaton woUld be permitted to proceed, until the study is completed, including the identification of priority locations within the Employment Area lands for initial servicing, as required by proposed policy 2.13 (m) (ii). Proposed policy 2.13 (m) (iv) -This proposed policy woUld require the consideration of high density residential uses within all the Employment Lands within the Seaton Community. We note that the Province's draft Development Plan suggests the Brock Road By-pass and key locations along Highway 407 as areas to consider for residential development within Seaton's Employment Lands. Although we suggest that the proposed policy contained in draft Amendment 14 be more specific as to the general locations where high density residential development may be appropriate, we also wish to express concerns about converting Employment Lands to Living Area uses, asit may impact the live-work ratio and overall job targets that are being promoted in the Seaton Community. Proposed policy 2.13 (m) (vii) - Consider clarifying or replacing the word "precincts". Perhaps the policy should be expanded to address the fact that the Employment lands have merged in title as a result of Provincial acquisition, and that an evaluation of suitable parcel sizes for the types of employment uses appropriate for the Seaton Community must be determined. Proposed policy 2.13 (m) (ix)- The ROP, policy 8.3.3 g) requires the provision of an open space buffer io separate the hamlet of Brougham from the Urban Area and to protect heritage resources in the area. Proposed policy 2.13 (m) (ix) suggests that buffers are optional, which is inconsistent with the ROP. Technical/Editorial Given that the City adopted Amendment 13 in December 2004, which included the Seaton Community, it is not clear how the City .~TTACHMENT #_ ~'~ TO Pickering Official Plan Draft Amendment 14 intends to proceed with the ado ption of another amendment fOr the same land. Proposed policy 2.13 (m) (i) - It is suggested that the same wording as policy 2.1.3 (m) be used for this policy (i.e. "prior to, or coincident with"). Proposed policy 2'. 13 (n) - For clarity, it is suggested that the term "major" in the phrase "major community facilities" be better defined. Perhaps examples of major facilities should be included in the policy. Proposed policy 3.5 (c) - It is suggested that the words "Central Pickering" be replaced with the words "Seaton Community", so that this new policywill be consistent with the Other new policies (d) and (e) that are being introduced for the Seaton Community. We understand that City staff is considering changes to proposed Amendment 14 as comments are received. In this regard, please be aware that we may have further additional comments as the process proceeds. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yo/~ truly, Dorothy E. SjrjClner, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Senior Planner Strategic Planning Branch C.C. Mary Simpson, Director, Financial Planning, Finance Dept. John Presta, Director, Environmental Services, Works Dept. Susan Siopis, Director, Transpodation and Field Services, Works Dept. Doug Lindeblom, Director, EconOmic Development & Tourism, Economic Development and Tourism Depart. Ramesh Jagannathan, Manager, Transportation Planning & Research, Planning Dept. Peter Nundy, Manager, Development Approvals, Works Dept. Jim McGilton, Manager, Engineering Planning & Services, Works Dept. Tony Wong, Manager, Environmental Health, Health Dept.- Ted Galinis, General Manager, Transit N:\Strategic PB\Staff Folders\ds~omdramend14.doc 11 P~T'IACHMENT #,,,,/TZ! TO The Corporation of the Township of In The Regional Municipality of Durham July 13, 2005 Town Hall 51 Toronto Street South P.O. Box 190 Uxbridge. ON LgP ITl Telephone (905) 852-9181 Facsimile (905) 852-9674 Web www, town,uxbridge,on,ca ~icK~RiNG, ONTARi~,, .... ' ~ RECEIVED City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplande Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 JUL t 9 2005 CitY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attention: Ms. Debi A. Bentley Cit7 Clerk Re: Pickering Official Plan Amendment CPA 05-002/P Draft Amendment 14 Further to your letter of July 7 enclosing Draft Amendment 14 to the Pickering Official Plan, we have no comments at this time but would appreciate being appraised of any further deVelopments. Yours truly, Debbie Leroux Clerk DL/ljr b CLERK'S DiVISiON FILE NO.: i FORWARD COPY MAYOR I ! iNFO. SYSTEM:¢, ~ CAO ~ ! LIBRARY ~ BY-LAW [ l MUN. PROF, & ENG,( ; CORA SERVICES t t OPERATIONS [OUST. CA.~ ! I¢"°~' & ~ ECON. DEVEL I I SUPPLY & '1 t2-L: c~c_+-;c, n