ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 10, :00 P.M. MEETING ROOM C CITY OF GUELPH - CITY HALL 1 CARDEN STREET A G E N D A

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 10, :00 P.M. MEETING ROOM C CITY OF GUELPH - CITY HALL 1 CARDEN STREET 1) Call to Order 2) Roll Call and Certification of Quorum A G E N D A 3) Declarations of Pecuniary Interest or Conflict of Interest 4) a) 78 & 82 Eastview Road EIS TOR o Review of Staff Report o Information from WSP Group Limited o Hearing of Delegation(s) o In Committee Discussion Motion 5) b) EIS TOR for Paisley Park 7117 Wellington Road 31 (SW corner of Paisley and Whitelaw in the City of Guelph) o Review of Staff Report o Information from NRSI o Hearing of Delegation(s) o In Committee Discussion Motion 6) Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meeting 7) Correspondence & Information 8) Other Business 9) Next Meeting 10) Adjourn Meeting Dates and Membership - NHAP Update Upcoming Workshops EAC MEMBERS PLEASE CALL IF UNABLE TO ATTEND

2 January 10, 2017 Environmental Advisory Committee Item Proposal Location Eastview Road EIS Terms of Reference The proposal is for the creation of a residential townhouse development. The EIS is being prepared to support a zoning bylaw amendment to support approximately 63 townhouse units in an R.3A zone with an internal private road and a stormwater management facility. The site is located on the north side of Eastview Rd and west of Starwood Drive. It contains portions of the Provincially Significant Guelph Northeast Wetland Complex Swamp and Significant Woodland. The site is roughly 3.25 ha in size. See attachment 1. Background The site is located in the Clythe Creek Subwatershed. The City s Official Plan designates the site as general residential and significant natural area. The significant natural area designation is due to the known presence of significant woodland, significant wildlife habitat and portions of the provincially significant Guelph Northeast wetland complex. The site is currently zoned Urban Reserve and Residential [R.1B- 39(H)]. The specialized residential zone is associated with conditions for consent with minimum front yard widths of 14 m. Through an EIS and EIR done for the neighbouring property at 66 Eastview by MMM Group, a rare ELC community (Silky dogwood mineral thicket swamp) was identified. As well candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat was identified including: raptor winter feeding/roosting habitat, woodland area-sensitive breeding bird habitat, amphibian woodland breeding habitat, woodland/specialized raptor nesting habitat, amphibian movement corridors and terrestrial crayfish habitat. Some locally significant bird species were also identified through breeding bird studies. Also through the neighbouring EIS, a City trail alignment has been proposed which includes a potential route on this property. See attachment 2. The site also includes a hedgerow and individual trees that are part of the City s urban forest. GRCA has been circulated on the EIS TOR and provided comments on November 16, Their comments have been integrated below as appropriate. Comments from Parks Planning staff were provided in December 2017 and have been integrated below as appropriate. Feedback from the Engineering team has also been received and integrated into this report. Comments Staff have reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Study Terms of Reference (EIS TOR) prepared by WSP and dated October 31, 2017 and have the following comments: 1. Section 2.2 and the remainder of the EIS TOR should refer to the City s current (2014) OP Consolidation and not OPA 42. The current consolidation includes the natural heritage system policies that Page 1 of 8

3 were part of OPA 42 which have been in full force and effect since June 4, Furthermore, there are some policy references in the list that have the wrong dates (i.e., Endangered Species Act). Under the Guidance document section, the City s Guidelines for the preparation of Environmental Impact Studies should be referenced. 2. In addition to those listed in section 3.1, the neighbouring subdivision known as Grange Hill Phase 7 has a 2006 Environmental Impact Study by Dougan and Associates and a 2011 Environmental Implementation Report by Aboud and Associates which should be referenced and used as background information. 3. The GRCA comments indicate that the 2013 wetland limit may be acceptable depending on whether the limit on the subject properties was reviewed in the field by the GRCA. This will need to be confirmed through the EIS and in consultation with City staff. Typically, wetland limits have a five year life span and as such the applicant may wish to have it re-verified by the GRCA to ensure it lasts the life of the project. Water Resources and Hydrological Functions 4. Consideration should also be given to the protection of groundwater functions including recharge in accordance with the City s Water Resource policies. On a related note a review and consideration of any recommendations or requirements from the Clythe Creek Subwatershed Study within the EIS should also be considered. 5. Section 4.4.2: It is not clear how the monthly wetland water balance, site water balance and stormwater management plan will be supported in absence of site specific hydrogeology information. As indicated in comments from the pre-consultation meeting, the water balances and SWM will need to be supported by hydrogeological investigations and it is our expectation that site specific boreholes and piezometer information, as well as a Guelph permeameter test following the CVC/TRCA LID manual methods is undertaken and provided to inform the zoning bylaw amendment. 6. The SWM design should include opportunities to incorporate low impact design (LID) technologies utilizing a treatment train approach to assist with achieving a water balance for the site, and maintaining infiltration and recharge functions should be incorporated. The location of the SWMP should also be sited in the context of the hydrological and ecological functions of the site, and the EIS will need to provide support for its location. Terrestrial Vegetation 7. Please note that soils should be done to support ecological land classification. Also, note that the natural areas within the study area and outside of the subject property are owned by the City of Guelph and as such can be studied in detail (i.e., to vegetation type) as access is permitted. 8. Please clarify why spring ephemeral flora surveys are not being undertaken given the deciduous forest communities located within the study area? 9. In the EIS, please also include a column for locally significant Page 2 of 8

4 species in the plant list and analyze the data relative to City policies for Habitat for Significant Species. Their locations should also be referenced in the report and mapping. Our local species list can be found online. 10. The site is also regulated under the tree by-law. A Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan is to be included in the EIS and should also include: a. A tree inventory for all individual trees and hedgerows on site and all trees along the feature edge, particularly those whose driplines are within 6 m of any proposed development including the trail alignment (i.e., not the entire swamp) that are 10 cm DBH or larger. The inventory should include a table with attributes such as: Tree # corresponding to plan/drawing, species name, dbh, crown diameter, condition (vigour), biological health, overall condition, remarks, tree ownership (private, public, shared/boundary) recommended action (removal, preservation) and rationale (health, grading, development, etc.). b. Tree Protection Fencing locations and other associated mitigation/protection measures as recommended. Note that TPF is to follow City Standard SD-90a which can be found on the City s website under Part B Contract Specifications c. A hazard assessment for all trees that would be within striking distance (generally 30m) of structures and facilities including proposed trails and consider removals where needed. Please note that this will need to include the edges of the woodland where trail connections are being assessed. d. Consistent with the City s Official Plan, identify opportunities for protection, enhancement and restoration of trees within the Urban Forest. e. Where preservation is not possible, as agreed to by the City, compensation is required. As such the EIS should include analysis of tree removals and proposed compensation plan. Note that the City uses a 3:1 replacement ratio to compensate for trees and consult with Official Plan policies and City staff for further guidance on vegetation compensation. Wildlife Studies, Significant Wildlife Habitat and Habitat for (Locally) Significant Species 11. With respect to the proposed field surveys (that will inform that analysis in regards to Significant Wildlife Habitat and Habitat for (locally) Significant Species: a. While it may the case the amphibian breeding habitat is not present on the subject property, this should be confirmed during the appropriate field season through habitat identification during the spring and scoping of provisional amphibian breeding call count surveys following the marsh monitoring protocol for areas within 50m of the site, given the reconnaissance site visit was undertaken at the end of August and the past field surveys were undertaken in Page 3 of 8

5 b. ELC work should also consider Lepidoptera and Odonata habitat characterization and should identify areas with concentrations of milkweed for breeding feeding habitat associated with Monarch (Species of Special Concern). c. The Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee (Special Concern) has been found in the City in close proximity to the subject property. Given the potential for habitat on and adjacent the subject property the field program should include surveys for it and habitat characterization should be undertaken. Consult with the MNRF Guelph District for methodology. Consider the host plant species and whether they are present within the subject property and/or study area, and the methodology guidance for Rusty-patch bumble bee in the Provincial Draft Recovery Strategy Appendix 3. d. Winter raptor areas Given the size of the Guelph Northeast Swamp combined with the open habitat to the east of the site at the Eastview Landfill which provides foraging opportunities, the SWH screening should include consideration for raptor winter feeding/foraging habitat as candidate and the EIS should undertake two winter surveys to search for evidence of roosting within the study area. e. In addition to the early spring surveys for suitable habitat and snake emergence, area based surveys following the milksnake methodology developed by MNRF Guelph District should be utilized to thoroughly asses snake presence/absence. Also note that in addition to the existing building and fencerows onsite, the adjacent swamp may also include suitable opportunities for over wintering and habitat should be noted through ELC work. f. With regards to Woodland Raptor Nesting please ensure the field work for raptor nesting is undertaken during leaf off period, which could be coupled with the bat cavity tree searches. 12. Please also include a column for locally significant species in the wildlife list and analyze the data relative to City policies for Habitat for Significant Species. Their locations should also be referenced in the report and mapping. Our local species list can be found online. Data and Impact Analysis 13. Opportunities for protection, enhancement and restoration of the Natural Heritage and Urban Forest should be identified in accordance with the City s OP. 14. Habitats for species of conservation concern (special concern and rare wildlife species) it would be beneficial for the EIS to go through each potential habitat/species group in order to understand what is being assessed (such as monarch butterfly and yellow banded bumble bee as noted above). 15. A buffer analysis should also be included within the constraints and opportunities and/or impacts assessment discussion. While the City s OP does include policies for minimum buffers the establishment of larger buffers also warrants consideration in the Page 4 of 8

6 EIS and is also reflected in the City s OP policies. Trails and Parks Planning 16. As noted during pre-consultation and in the EIR for the 66 Eastview Road Site, there is a planned trail route leading from Carter Park to Eastview Park as noted in the Guelph Trail Master Plan and the City s Official Plan (OPA 48 Schedule 8). The EIS is to review the EIR for 66 Eastview Road and examine this trail with respect the 78 & 82 Eastview Development Proposal. The EIS should refine the design for the proposed trail (surfacing, width, connection to city lands, grading, etc.) and note any impacts to the NHS. Consult with city staff regarding trail width and surfacing. See Attachment Please ensure the scope of the EIS includes provision of recommendations related to: a. Any required design measures necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy any expected negative impacts upon natural heritage features; b. The closure of existing foot trails and potential ad-hoc trails, if not part of the proposed conceptual trail alignment; c. The management of the buffers to natural heritage features, along the trail route including removal of hazard trees and invasive species; d. Cleanup of debris and waste within the natural heritage features and their identified buffers as necessary; e. Restoration of the natural heritage features and their identified buffers as necessary; and f. Design and installation of interpretive signage to be provided at all trail access points and along the trail route to provide resident education on the area s provincially significant wetlands and storm water management pond and address many of the common resident impact items including dumping of yard waste, encroachments, pet waste, etc. Suggested Motion Staff recommends that the Environmental Advisory Committee conditionally support the EIS Terms of Reference for Eastview Road, prepared by WSP, providing a revised EIS TOR is provided which includes: Proper legislative and policy references; Clarification as it relates to the field study program including information relating to spring ephemeral vegetation, amphibian breeding habitat, raptors (wintering and nesting), snake habitat, habitats for species of conservation of concern (including monarch butterfly, yellow banded bumble bee) and habitats for significant species using methodologies that are supported by the Guelph District MNRF, where applicable; Clarification that the EIS will also include an evaluation of Habitat for Significant Species, as applicable and that this be carried into the impact assessment; Clarification that the EIS will also include a tree inventory and related analysis for protection enhancement and restoration of trees forming part of the City s urban forest; Page 5 of 8

7 Consideration for the protection of groundwater functions including recharge through site-specific hydrogeological investigations to inform the application; Incorporates the development of a stormwater management approach that achieves a pre to post water balance for the site and surrounding natural areas using low impact development techniques as part of the EIS and supporting technical studies; Incorporates a buffer analysis and seeks opportunities for enhancement and restoration; and Incorporates a proposed trail network into the development and undertake an impact analysis for the proposed alignment which considers mitigation techniques. Page 6 of 8

8 Attachment 1: Site Map and NHS limit (Official Plan Schedule 10) Page 7 of 8

9 Attachment 2: Natural Heritage Feature limits and Trail alignment from 66 Eastview EIR dated January 2014 Page 8 of 8

10 January 10, 2018 Environmental Advisory Committee Item Proposal Location Paisley Park EIS Terms of Reference Wellington Road 31 The proposal is to allow combination of residential uses including stacked townhouses and apartment buildings along with related areas for parkland and open space, internal streets and parking as well as areas for storm water management. The site is located on the south west side of the intersection of Paisely Rd and Whitelaw Rd. The property is part of a larger parcel that extends into Wellington County, the subject lands and corresponding study area will focus on the portions of the lands that are within the City limits and the adjacent natural heritage features. Background The site is located along the boundary of the Ellis Creek and Speed River sub watersheds; The subject lands are designated low density greenfield residential and significant natural area. The significant natural area designation is due to the presence of minimum buffers from the significant woodland/wetland adjacent to the site. The woodland/wetland adjacent to the site is also identified as core greenland in the County of Wellington Official Plan and is also regulated by GRCA. Comments The site is also regulated under the City s tree by-law. Staff have reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Study Terms of Reference (EIS TOR) prepared by NRSI and dated December 1, 2017 and have the following comments: Water Resources/ Hydrological Functions 1. Based on existing information it is the understanding of staff that there may not be a surficial outlet/ drainage point from the wetland feature and it may be internally draining. This should be assessed and confirmed through the EIS and supporting technical studies in order to inform the site design particularly stormwater management and the related impact analysis for the feature. 2. The EIS TOR indicates that the EIS will be supported by a detailed hydrogeological study/monitoring program to inform preparation of a wetland water balance. Staff note that this study should consider utilizing a combination of monitoring wells/piezometers both along the feature edge and within the wetland to be able to assess existing hydrological functions particularly given the lack of an apparent surficial drainage Page 1 of 3

11 connection to/from the wetland. 3. Stormwater management should consider low impact development opportunities as part of the design of the site. The stormwater management approach will also need to look at both water quality and water quantity as part of the design. Field Surveys 4. The breeding bird survey locations appear to provide coverage of both the woodland/wetland feature and the smaller naturalizing/meadow areas on the site. 5. In relation to the screening for species at risk: a. The Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee (recently listed as SC) is not included in the species at risk table and should be considered as there are current (2017) records for this species within the City. Given that the species will inhabit mixed woodlands, wetlands and forest edges there would appear to be potential for habitat adjacent that may warrant consideration with respect to impacts. 6. In relation to the review of potential significant wildlife habitat (SWH) (pg. 3) and appendix II: a. Based on the snake surveys proposed it would sound like the woodland/wetland area may have potential for hibernacula (candidate SWH). Please clarify. b. Similarly there may also be potential for seeps and springs within the adjacent woodland/wetland area that may also be candidate SWH. c. Is there potential for amphibian breeding within the wetland/woodland feature? Is there potential for vernal pools? Staff would suggest that anuran surveys may be merited for the adjacent wetland/woodland feature, particularly given the likelihood of the feature being the proposed storm water outlet for the development proposal. 7. Pertaining to Habitats for (locally) Significant Species (HSS) habitats that support locally significant species should be identified (similar to the SWH process) and assessed per the OP policies, including with respect to impacts. While this is noted in the TOR at a high level, staff note that this analysis within the EIS should also include consideration for habitat types that may not be SWH but could be locally significant (i.e. raptor wintering areas, raptor nesting, breeding birds, amphibian breeding). Page 2 of 3

12 Data Analysis and Impact Assessment 8. Opportunities for protection, enhancement and restoration of trees within the Urban Forest should also be identified through the EIS and supporting TIPP. 9. A buffer analysis should also be included within the impacts assessment /avoidance discussion. While the City s policies establish minimum buffer requirements consideration of larger buffers should form part of the analysis in the EIS. 10.The EIS should also recommend mitigation measures such as environmental education and outreach opportunities, demarcation, and any recommendations for monitoring plans. 11. Construction related mitigation measures should also consider the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction December 2006 for any erosion and sediment control measures/recommendations. 12. A map should also being included within the EIS showing the confirmed feature boundaries, as well as their buffers. Suggested Motion Staff recommends that the Environmental Advisory Committee conditionally support the EIS Terms of Reference for Paisley Park, prepared by NRSI subject to the following: THAT a revised EIS TOR is provided which includes: Clarification that the supporting hydrogeological study design incorporate a combination of monitoring wells and piezometers both along the woodland/wetland feature edge and within the feature to be able to assess existing hydrological functions and conditions; The EIS and supporting studies will assess and determine whether the wetland feature is internally draining in order to inform the characterization of the feature and its functions as well as the corresponding impact analysis. Clarification as it relates to the field study program regarding the need for amphibian studies for the wetland; Identification of Opportunities for protection, enhancement and restoration of trees within the Urban Forest as part of the EIS; Page 3 of 3

13 81.4m 108.0m 485.5m Whitelaw Road (233sq.m.) 6 Storeys 6 Storeys (216sq.m.) 74 Units 74 Units (292sq.m.) (388sq.m.) 31.0m 165.0m Paisley Road 6 Storeys 100 Units (353sq.m.) Public Park 8392sq.m. 50.4m (1198sq.m.) Steep Slope Common Amenity Area (5,065.m.) 359.7m (390sq.m.) (488sq.m.) 83.1m 6 Storeys 124 Units 89.3m SWM Pond 6 Storeys 116 Units 30m Treeline Buffer 88.5m 27.7m 27.7m Site Area: 7.01ha. Zoning: Residential R.4A (Apartment) Regulation Required Provided Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Number of Units 6m 1/2 Bldg. Ht. (9m) 20% Lot Depth (129.3m) max m 9m 191.2m 701 B2B Stacked Towns: 213 Apartments: 488 Density FSI 100 u.p.h u.p.h. 0.7 Max. Bldg. Height 6 Storeys 6 Storeys Parking Spaces Barrier-Free Parking Common Amenity Area 1, spaces 2 12,090m 877 (1.25sp/unit) Surface: 397 Underground: min spaces 2 8,623m Armel Corporation DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Paisley and Whitelaw Roads, Guelph Preliminary NOTE: This concept has been prepared for general feasibility purposes only. Building code requirements and technical / architectural design have not been addressed. Scale 1:2000 Meters August 14, 2017 Project No.: Drawn By: SL