Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc.

Planning Associates Inc. 509 Davenport Road Toronto, Ontario M4V 1B8 Telephone (416) 923-6630 Facsimile (416) 923-6916 Principals: Warren Sorensen, P.Eng, MCIP, RPP Catherine Gravely, MES, MCIP, RPP Paul Lowes, MES, MCIP, RPP Senior Associate: Carol-Anne Munroe, MCIP, RPP March 31, 2010 Project: NP.PI Catherine Rose Manager, Policy Planning & Development Dept. Pickering Civic Centre, One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Madam: Re: Seaton Landowners Neighbourhood Plans Gap Analysis Our team has reviewed the 11 Seaton Landowners Neighbourhood Plans to assess their conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan); consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and their internal consistency with the framework of the City of Pickering Official Plan. The Plans were also reviewed and evaluated against the best practice in urban design and sustainability principles and actions. The team gap analysis review is summarized in this letter. We intend to use this analysis as the basis for refining the landowners neighbourhood plans in Module 2 and 3 of the Neighbourhood planning process. Landowners Neighbourhood Plans Overview The 11 Landowners Neighbourhood Plans largely reflect the designations of the CPDP but there are some significant differences in a few neighbourhoods. As well, in general terms the range of permitted densities are reflective of the CPDP, but in our opinion the range of permitted and contemplated uses and the assumed average densities do not seek to achieve the compact, walkable and transit supportive community envisioned through the CPDP or through the PPS and Growth Plan. The road alignments of the Neighbourhood Plans largely conform to the alignments in the CPDP, and the proposed Regional transportation network. As well, the Neighbourhood Plans for the most part identify medium density residential areas along the major transit routes in support of the proposed transit service. However, there is no detail provided as to how the neighbourhood plans will facilitate the early introduction of transit services

Planning Associates Inc. page 2 More significantly, many of the policies of the CPDP regarding walkability, compact development, mixed use neighbourhoods, neighbourhood nodes, planning for long-term intensification and cultural heritage integration have not been sufficiently addressed. As well, detailed design policies and directions are lacking and most of the plans are silent on sustainability principles and actions. Neighbourhood Plan Format With the exception of Neighbourhood Plans 7 and 8, the format and content of the Neighbourhood Plans lack specific objectives and policy direction. They are not structured in the form of an Official Plan Amendment and largely resemble Planning Reports. The Neighbourhood Plans repeat similar content and act as stand alone documents. This format doesn t fit with the structure of the City of Pickering Official Plan where the majority of policy direction is contained in the parent Official Plan and neighbourhood specific details / differences are addressed in the Neighbourhood Plans. The Neighbourhood Plans will be significantly simplified with policies applicable to all areas addressed in the amendment to the parent Official Plan. Neighbourhood Boundaries and Community Structure Although the neighbourhood boundaries conform to the CPDP, we question whether they represent the most appropriate boundaries for neighbourhood planning. The CPDP relies on the Natural Heritage System to define single neighbourhoods with little relationship to how the neighbourhoods relate, and how to create a central focus for groups of neighbourhoods. The principal element of any community plan is the establishment of a centre and the disposition of its remaining land uses surrounding it. The nature of a community s centre varies as the scale changes and their success is intrinsically linked to their careful location, function, and size planning. It is recommended that 6 Neighbourhood Planning Areas be recognized as shown on the Community Structure Map, Figure 1. Each of the CPDP Neighbourhood Plan areas become sub-neighbourhoods. Each Neighbourhood Planning Area is defined by the Natural Heritage System that serve as natural break points between the Neighbourhood Planning Areas referred to as Green Dividers on the Community Structure Map. At the same time, internal natural heritage system areas will serve as green spines that will further define the sub-neighbourhoods. A central Community Amenity Centre is proposed as a central community focal point for Seaton. This Community Amenity Centre may include a community park, a recreation centre, and/or a secondary school. The non-active portions of this central Community Amenity Centre could be located within the Natural Heritage System. There is also an opportunity to provide focal areas for each of these Neighbourhood Planning Areas based on the community nodes and local nodes in the CPDP.

Planning Associates Inc. page 3 Land Use Designations and Conformity with CPDP The land use designations of the Neighbourhood Plans 6, 10, and 11 dated March 2009 that were submitted to the City have slightly changed as shown on the Compiled Neighbourhood Plan by Sernas dated September 2009. It is unclear which is the intended position of the landowners and must be clarified. The Compiled Neighbourhood Plan shows land uses for Neighbourhood 15 that differ from that of the CPDP. Yet, the landowners have not submitted a plan for this neighbourhood and any mapping should reflect the CPDP designations. The designations in the Neighbourhood Plans largely conform to the designations in the CPDP, and its noted that boundaries of designated areas generally match the boundaries of the CPDP, but do not always exactly follow the CPDP. However there are notable exceptions. These differences are set out on the attached Figure 2. The CPDP permits minor modifications through the Neighbourhood Plan preparation. The determination of whether these changes are minor and appropriate will be undertaken in the next stage of the process. Densities and Permitted Uses In general terms, the permitted densities conform to the density ranges of the CPDP. But the assumed average density is at the bottom end of the range for the medium density except for Neighbourhoods 1 and 2. There is virtually no mention of mixed use or small convenience commercial sites within the medium density designations with the exception of Neighbourhoods 1 and 2. There is no consistency in the range and type of permitted uses in the residential designations. The vision for the Mixed Corridors, Community Nodes and Local Nodes is not well thought out or is too vague to provide useful municipal direction. Land Budget and Population Capacity Based on the density range of the CPDP, Seaton could accommodate between 51,030 and 96,704 based on the land uses in the landowners neighbourhood plans However, the landowners plans provide for approximately 57,352 largely due to a low average density for medium density housing forms. Achieving 70,000 does not appear to be unreasonable. Compact and Mixed Use Neighbourhoods It is an objective of the CPDP to develop mixed-use areas, which support a mix of high density residential uses in association with related commercial and institutional uses. Policy 4.8.6 a) calls for a compact neighbourhood structure with a mix of land uses. Policy 4.8.6. b) plans for an integration of commercial, residential, and employment uses to ensure that neighbourhood centres are popular and active destinations. Policy 4.8.6 e) provides that highest development density should be provided at the neighbourhood centres.

Planning Associates Inc. page 4 However, there is little to no direction, or strategy on how to achieve integration of commercial with residential to support the local residents, to create mixed uses or to create neighbourhood centres as per CPDP policies 4.5.2, 4.8.6, and 4.7.7. As well there is little policy guidance or articulation of the intended vision or function of the Mixed Corridors, Community Nodes and Local Node. More detailed vision for these areas is necessary to provide adequate policy direction. Connected and Walkable Neighbourhoods It is an objective of the CPDP to create neighbourhoods that foster a sense of community, and promote social interaction. In part, that is to be achieved through the creation of neighbourhoods that encourage active transportation. Policy 4.8.6 d) requires the consideration of pedestrian requirements for safety and comfort in the location and design of transit stops, day care centres and community facilities. In addition to pedestrian comfort, the provision of destinations to walk to is key to creating walkable neighbourhoods, and is a fundamental aspect for providing transportation choices, as per CPDP 4.5.2. However, there is no analysis of walkability distance to neighbourhood centres, community centres, or public community-focused facilities as per CPDP 4.8.6 and the Growth Plan. As well, the Neighbourhood Plans do not discuss how the arterial and collector roads can be made more pedestrian comfortable as per CPDP 4.8.6. There also has been no overall analysis on how the neighbourhoods will link to each other in order to create compact, walkable, permeable neighbourhoods as per CPDP 4.5.3, and a connected Seaton community overall. This is particularly important in Seaton with the extensive natural heritage system and the separated pods of developable areas. Planning for Long-term Intensification The CPDP requires the Neighbourhood Plans to consider the ability to accommodate more intensive land use activities over time to support increasing transit levels, and to facilitate the early introduction of alternative transportation facilities and retail and service uses (Section 4.5 Policy 10, p. 58, and Section 4.8.7). The Neighbourhood Plans are largely silent on this matter. Schools At least one elementary school is proposed for each neighbourhood. This is a positive element and in theory allows for walking to school. In a number of cases these elementary schools are paired with neighbourhood parks. However, there is no analysis or documentation presented which provides a rationale for the number of schools proposed, and whether the number of schools proposed meets School Boards needs. The Durham School Boards have identified the need for three secondary schools, two public and one Catholic, through the MESP. The Neighbourhood Plans dated March 2009 do not

Planning Associates Inc. page 5 reflect these needs. However, the Compiled Map by Sernas (September 2009) does show proposed locations for three secondary schools. Two secondary school sites are located adjacent to community parks one north of Whitevale and the other east of Brock Road. A third secondary school site is located along Sideline 24 in Neighbourhood 10. Secondary Schools are high transit generators and should be considered in locations along major transit spines. Further discussion is required with the School Boards to confirm the number of elementary schools needed and appropriate general locations. We are also having discussions with the City s parks planners on the most appropriate location of parks and their size to determine whether they should be paired with schools and if so whether synergies could lead to smaller sized parks. Community Parks and Recreation Centres The Compiled Neighbourhood Plan (September 2009) shows two community parks, each book-ending the community in the far west near Duffins Creek and in the far east near Brock Road. These two Community Parks are over 5 kilometres apart, and equates to approximately 35 minute walking distance (approximately 2.8 kilometres) for residents living in the centre of the community. The separation distance significantly reduces accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. It is not clear if the proposed sizes of the community parks reflect the City s requested sizes. The Compiled Neighbourhood Plan also identifies two Recreation Centres one on Brock Road beside the Community Park and one in the Hamlet Open Space, also at book-end locations. No analysis was presented to indicate the catchment areas that these locations are capable of serving, and their degree of walkability. As well, these facilities are not in the locations suggested by the City in June 2009. These facilities need to be considered in terms of their relationship to major transit routes and their ability to conveniently serve the population. A more central community park and recreation centre should be considered and explored as shown on Figure 1. The other two community parks may be appropriate in peripheral locations but their locations need further analysis and discussion with the City parks planners. The appropriate size of community parks and recreation centres are also being explored with the parks planners.

Planning Associates Inc. page 6 Parks Some Neighbourhood Plans provide neighbourhood parks, some provide parkettes/village squares, and some provide both. With one proposed District Park, three proposed Community Parks and the extensive NHS, we need to review the role and function of Neighbourhood parks, village squares and parkettes. This review has been started in consultation with the City parks planners. Other Community Facilities It is a policy of the CPDP (Section 4.4.3) to identify and refine the location of social, institutional, open space and recreational facilities. It is also a CPDP objective (Section 4.4 objective 3) that facility locations serve two or more neighbourhoods, where possible. The Neighbourhood Plans are silent in this regard. With the exception of neighbourhood parks, parkettes, and elementary schools, there is no mention of arts and cultural facilities, libraries, places of worship, or recreation centres in the Neighbourhood Plans. Some of the community facilities (i.e. libraries) are identified through the MESP, but these and others need to be addressed in the Neighbourhood Plans. The MESP acknowledges that day cares, long-term care, and homes for the aged will need to be planned for the community. However, only Neighbourhoods 7 and 8 permit such uses. The permission for these uses will need to be addressed in all Neighbourhood Plans. The proposed Municipal Operations Centre in Neighbourhood 14 has been identified as a priority by the City. This will need to be addressed in the Neighbourhood Plan for this area. Retail Distribution The retail commercial study, Evaluation of Retail/Service Space Needs For The Seaton Community by Robin Dee (2010) identified the potential for 1.7 to 1.8 million sq. ft. of retail and service commercial floor space that will need to be accommodated in the Neighbourhoods. Other than Neighbourhood 11, there is very little discussion on how this retail space should be distributed through the Seaton Community. Further planning analysis is required to determine the appropriate distribution of that retail space which addresses the matters previously raised and conforms to the CPDP and other provincial and City direction. Road widths, functions and alignment Each of the Neighbourhood Plans discuss role and rights of way of the road hierarchy. We need to confirm these with the engineering services staff with particular focus on minimizing rights of way and creating walkable streets. This discussion is underway.

Planning Associates Inc. page 7 Block Structure Within the neighbourhood plans, many local street blocks are too long to permit pedestrian permeability - some are over 300 metres. These should be redesigned along with policy guidance for a more pedestrian walkable block length. Support for Transit The proposed transit routes of the Neighbourhood Plans are based on Schedules 2 and 4 of the CPDP. Based on a 5-minute walk from Minor Transit Corridors and a 10-minute walk from Major Transit Corridors, it appears that approximately 90% of the neighbourhood areas are served and accessible within a 10 minute walk (800 metres) from transit corridors. However, since then, the Region has released a draft Recommended Transit Network (November 2009). There are now some discrepancies between the proposed transit routes of the Neighbourhood Plans and the Region s proposed network that will need to be sorted out. As well, the CPDP requires that Neighbourhood Plans facilitate the early introduction of transit services. The Neighbourhood Plans are largely silent on this matter. Archaeological Assessments The CPDP requires Neighbourhood Plans to consider previously completed archaeological and heritage assessments (policy 4.8.5 b)). All neighbourhoods have completed archaeological assessment stages 1 to 3. However, little detail is provided in terms the results or any required preservation measures as per CPDP 4.2.6. Relationship with Cultural Heritage Resources Seaton holds unique cultural heritage assets, which are diverse and significant. The CPDP recognizes and respects Seaton s cultural heritage, as evident in the objectives of section 4.2. However, there is very little mention or consideration in the Plans of the findings of past cultural heritage studies or initiatives. As well, there is no detail on how to ensure land uses near or adjacent to cultural heritage resources respect and integrate the resources into the neighbourhoods as per CPDP 4.2.1 f). There is also little discussion on the role of Whitevale Road and how it can be protected as a cultural landscape element and how it and the cultural resources along the road can be integrated into the neighbourhood design as per CPDP policies 4.2.1 and 4.7.7. In this regard, the recommendations of the Whitevale Road Heritage Corridor Review (2010) prepared by Bray Heritage will need to be incorporated into the Neighbourhood Plans.

Planning Associates Inc. page 8 Relationship with the Natural Heritage System Seaton is to be developed based on a strong and symbiotic relationship with nature. As such, the interface of the urban neighbourhoods with the Natural Heritage System should be sympathetic of the natural area. New urban neighbourhoods are to protect and enhance the Natural Heritage System, strengthen its relationship to urban areas, and ensure that natural areas are safe and form part of everyday life in the community (CPDP policy 4.1.11). Almost all neighbourhoods have been proposed with a significant proportion of their perimeters backlotted. Design policies will be required to identify the circumstances where views to the natural heritage system are to be created through a variety of design solutions and where backlotting is appropriate. Stormwater management facilities are permitted within the Natural Heritage System. There is opportunity to integrate the urban areas with the Natural Heritage System, and facilitate trail and open space linkages via proposed stormwater management facilities that are located within the Natural Heritage System. However, there is little policy direction regarding this in the Neighbourhood Plans. Sustainability Principles The CPDP provides six broad sustainable community principles in policy 5.1.6 that are to be achieved. Neighbourhood Plans are to integrate these principles through the identification of short-, medium-, and long-term actions. However, sustainability actions are missing in the Neighbourhood Plans. Draft sustainability principles and a range of possible actions are being developed and will be reviewed with the public. Yours very truly, SORENSEN GRAVELY LOWES PLANNING ASSOCIATES INC. Paul Lowes, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP Principal Attachments Copy

Figure 1: Community Structure

BROCK RD Figure 2: Seaton Compiled Landowner Neighbourhood Plan CPDP Land Use Compared to Landowner Plans 32 SIDELINE NORTH RD 28 SIDELINE 26 SIDELINE 22 SIDELINE 20 SIDELINE BROUGHAM RD 16 SIDELINE # Denotes a difference in land use between CPDP and Landowner Plans Landowner Plan Land Uses HIGHWAY 7 SIDELINE 20 Low_Density NORTH RD 22 SIDELINE COUNTRY LANE DONNALEA AVE Medium_Density High_Density RC PS Local_Node Commercial Mixed_Corridor Subcentral_Node Community_Node Elementary School Recreation_Complex Neighbourhood Park Open_Space Police_Services Operation_Centre_Emergency_Response Employment_Area Revised_NHS Whitevale Hamlet Hamlet_Open_Space Whitevale_Golf_Course HS CP High School Community Park Seaton Boundary NOTE: ponds are situated in the locations represented by "". They do not overlap any land uses shown on this map. 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 Meters ± 1:30,000 4 CONCESSION RD MARTINS ST ALTONA RD N1 HS CP CHURCHWIN ST NORTH RD GOLF CLUB RD Circle # CDPD Designation Neighbourhood Plan Designation 1 Low Density Medium Density 2 Low Density Medium Density 3 Mixed-Corridor Low Density 4 Community Node Medium Density 5 Low Density Medium Density 6 Mixed Corridor Medium Density 7 Low Density Medium Density 8 Low Density Medium Density 9 High Density Low Density 10 Mixed Corridor High Density 11 Low Density Medium Density 12 Mixed Corridor on the north side. Community Node on the south side Sub-Central Commercial Node on north and south sides 13 Low Density Medium Density 14 Local Node and Medium Density Local Node ROSEBANK RD RC 3 CONCESSION RD N2 WHITES RD N3 2 3 N9 26 SIDELINE 13 1 TAUNTON RD W 9 6 4 11 24 SIDELINE 24 SIDELINE N4 N11 HS N5 WHITEVALE RD N6 N10 10 8 14 12 7 5 PS N7 MULBERRY LANE N8 N12 N15 3 CONCESSION RD TILLINGS RD BROCK RD RC CP HS FORBROCK ST 5 CONCESSION RD N14 N13 ROSSLAND RD W 4 CONCESSION RD