BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DIRECTOR, … · 2013-05-31 · agendaitemc pep# meadow111...

AgendaItemC P e p #

Meadow111 Seconda Plan &7614/ 0. Zarmtt

I TO: I _ _ ~~

CHAIR AND MEMBERS - I BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE I FROM: I JOHN M. FLEMING

DIRECTOR, LAND USE PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER I

MEADOWLILY SECONDARY PLAN SUBJECI:

PUBLIC RESPONSE ON ALTERNATIVE LAND USE & SERVICING OPTIONS

and DRAFT COMPONENT STUDIES

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20,201 1 @ 7:OO prn

1 That, on the recommendation of the Director,.Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following report concerning public feedback on the alternative land use and servicing options, and associated draft background studies for the Meadowlily Secondary Plan BE RECEIVED for information;

”n BEING NOTED that administration and the city% consulting Team will continue to receive public and agency comments up to April 29,201 1. The comments will be considered in the preparation of the preferred land use plan and servicing options, the sanitary servicing EA and stormwater servicing EA, and the secondary plan report.

IT BEING FURTHER NOTED that Planning staff will report back to the Built and Natural Environment Committee, in June 2011. with a status update or possibly with a drafl preferred land use plan, servicing option, Class EA documents, and secondary plan.

I PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER I February 14,201 1 Information report to Built and Natural Environment Committee on the alternative land use

options and draft background studies being circulated to members of the public, landowners and stakeholder groups.

May 11,2009 Report to Planning Committee and Public Participation Meeting recommending approval of the Terms-of-Reference.

February 9,2009 Report to Planning Committee and Public Participation Meeting on the drafl Terms-of- Reference.

September 30,2008 Report to Planning Committee and Public Participation Meeting regarding a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application (02-7430), regarding 168 Meadowlily Road South.

BACKGROUND

The Meadowlily Secondary Plan and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) is a City led and Development Charge funded project that was initiated by London City Council in May 2009. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the servicing context, and establish a basis for the consideration of future land use planning and development approvals within the Meadowlily planning area. The focus of the Secondary Plan and EA review is on lands currently undeveloped and designated as “Urban Reserve- Community Growth” in the micial Plan.

I

1

Meadowlil Seconda Plan 8-76141 G. ';y arrett

The study area is approximately 95 hectares (235 acres) in size, with 65 hectares (161 acres) of land currently designated as 'Open Space". The primary study area comprises the lands located east of Highbury Avenue, between the Thames River and Commissioners Road E, and includes the City-wide Sports Park, which forms the east boundary of the study area. This area has approximately 1000 metres of frontage along Commissioners Road East. Substantial tracts of land, within the study area, are held in public ownership and contain significant environmental features.

On March 9,201 1, a public open house was held to seek public response on five alternative concepts, prepared for the Secondary Plan and Class EA. The public comments received at the time of preparing this report are summarized in Appendix 'A, attached. The summary of respondent names is provided in Appendix '6. Todate, Planning staff received a total of thirty one responses - I telephone, and 30 written submissions. The comments generally reflect lwo opposing viewpoints - protection ofthe entire area from any development, versus support for a range of commercial and/or residential land uses with mitigation measures in place to protect the ESA lands.

Following the community meeting on March gm, some of the public stakeholders expressed interest in the City convening a meeting batween themselves, Commissioners Centre Limited (CCL), City Planning staff, and the Ward Councillor for Meadowlily, Sandy White. In light of the issues raised todate, the timing of this meeting is appropriate before the City progresses to the next stage of the public review process, including the preparation of the preferred land use and servicing options, evaluation and analysis of the Class EA component of the review, financial impact analysis, and preparation of the secondary plan report. The stakeholder meeting is scheduled for April 12m. The outcome of this meeting will be presented verbally at the BNEC meeting on the 20m of April.

Consistent with the approved Terms of Reference, the result will be a preferred land use plan and associated policies; and sanitary servicing EA and stormwater servicing EA. The land use and servicing document, which is intended to form the basis of a Secondary Plan, is intended to provide a comprehensive framework for long term planning decisions within the study area: and implementation of the Class EA for sanitary and stormwater servicing.

The Meadowlily Secondary Plan will be prepared within the general context of the Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS), which cc-ordinates the timing of City-initiated infrastructure works with the approval of development applications, and identifies priority areas for growth over the 0 to 5 ,6 - 10, and 11 to 20 year time periods. If there are any servicing recommendations arising from the flnal land use plan that would affect the current GMIS, such changeswould be noted in the final recommendations for the Meadowlily Secondary Plan.

The proposed Secondary Plan shall provide a "big picture" analysis of long term planning opportunities and constraints with a primary emphasis on promoting sustainable growth patterns, attractive and viable urban naighbourhoods, and natural heritage protection. While it is recognized that in undertaking this planning exercise therewill be many competing interests, the Secondary Plan proposes to accommodate the right balanceafgrowth, community revitalization through urban design concept and guidelines, economic development and environmental protection objectives.

The alternative land use options and background studies for Meadowlily are available on the City of London website at: httD://~.london.ca/meadowlil~. Reference copies of the land use concepts and background documents are also available for review in the Planning Division offlce at 206 Dundas Street and the Development Approvals Business Unit office on the Omfloor of City Hall, as well as the Pond Mills branch library (1 166 Commissioners Rd. E.). It is noted, since the Community meeting on March gm, a change was made to the land use options to reflect the ESA boundary delineation, as recommended in the Natural Heritage Study, which protects the existing hedgerow along Baoelina Road road allowance, east of Meadowlily Road S. The change necessitated an adjustment to the proposed land use designations by extending the Open Space designation to the south, and shifting a proposed local road to the south, shown on the Illustrative plan, adjacent to the €SA. The City website was updated to include the necessary revision to the options.

Planning staff will continue to receive public and agen& comments up to the end of April for consideration in the preparation of the draft preferred land use plan, servicing option, financial impact analysis, and secondary plan report.

3

AgendaIhmL: Page#

Meadowlll Seconda Plan 4-76141 G. Zarrett

NEXT STEPS IN THE SECONDARY PLAN PROCESS I For reference, the attached chart (see Appendix 'C) shows the steps that have been completed since February 201 I and the remaining steps that will be completed over the next several months. The Secondary Plan processwill proceed to completion in accordance with the following key steps and tentative timeframe:

June or September, 201 I - Information report at Built and Natural Environment Committee A staff report will be given either on a status update or, if available, on the draft preferred land use plan and servicing option, Class EA process, financial impact analysis and Secondary Plan report.

June or September, 201 1 - Public Meeting No. 4 on the draft preferred land use plan and servicing option, Class EA process, financial impact analysis and Secondary Plan report.

Target October/November, 2011 - Public Meeting No. 5 - Statutory public meeting at Built and Natural Environment Committee. The Official Plan Amendment (OPA), Secondary Plan and Class EA submitted to Council for approval. The timing to proceed with the OPA. Secondary Plan and Class EA is dependent on the outcome and direction of the draft preferred land use plan and servicing option.

CONCLUSION I This public meeting on April 20, 201 I, of the Built and Natural Environment Committee, is to give the public an opportunity to express their views in a public forum. Planning staff will continue to receive comments up to the end of April for consideration in the preparation of the draft preferred land use plan and servicing options, the sanitary servicing EA and stormwater servicing EA, financial impact analysis, and the secondary plan report.

Community involvement has been an integral part of the planning process. The alternative land use options and background studies have been presented to the public at a community meeting held on March 9,201 I, and a Stakeholder meeting scheduled for April 12,201 1,

It is anticipated the draft preferred land use and servicing alternative, Class EA, financial impact analysis, and Secondary Plan report will be brought forward, in June 201 1, for public review.

)I PREPARED BY: I SUBMITTED B Y I

BARRETT, AlCP ER - CITY PLANNING 8 RESEARCH

RECOMMENDED BY:

JOHN 1111. FLEMING, MCIP, RPP DIRECTOR, LAND USE PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER

Aoril9. 201 1

I ‘

0 0 0

0

I '

Y) E 0 .- c 0" m c 0

m u)

.- 2

I

r r

Agenda item # Fane X ... Mendowlil Seconda Plan

6-,Sl4/ G. Zarrett

Appendix ‘0’ Responses to Public Liaison Letter and Publication in “Living in the CRy”

TeleDhone

Hank Vanderlaan, No Address Provided

1. Hand delivered letter, No contact name or address provided 2. Nature London, P.O. Box 24008, London ON N6H 5C4 3. Irene Mathyssen, MP, London-Fanshawe 4. Shawn Lewis, Assistant to MP, London-Fanshawe 5. Dr. R. Greg Thorn, UWO, 1151 Richmond Street North, London, ON N6A 587 6. Marie Ormsby, 232-2025 Meadowgate Boulevard, London, ON 7. Salima Rawji, Commissioners Centre Limited, 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100,

Vaughan, ON L4K 5x3 8. Andrew Stolarski, 1140 Pondview Road, London, ON 9. 969743 Ontario Ltd and Andy Dziadura, 72 Ann Street London, ON I O . Holly Stover, 723 General Service Building, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1 11. Karen King, 305-304 Oxford Street West, London, ON N6HITl 12. Fred Lane, No address provided 13. David and Winifred Wake, 597 Kildare Road, London, ON N6H 3H8 14. Melissa Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. 318 Wellington Road, London, ON N6C 4P4 15. David Heap, 85 Forward Avenue, London ON N6H 1 B8 16. Rick and Carol Richardson, No address provided 17. Gary Smith and Susan High, 141 Meadowlily Road South, London, ON N6M 1C3 18. Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road, London, ON N6G 1Y5 19. Keith Rislar, 5-192 Elmwood Avenue, London, ON N6C 1K2 20. Rachel Ayres, No address provided 21. Bonnie Wodin, No address provided 22. Patty Webber, 34 Chalet Court, London, ON 23. Jan Smith, No address provided 24. Melissa Parrot, 96 Wilson Avenue B, London, ON N6h 1x7 25. Danielle Rowaan, No address provided 26. John and Ann Moore, No address provided 27. Naj Kanaan, No address provided 28. Cortney Dakin, No address provided 29. Sarah Nariwonczyk. No address provided 30. Marcy Saddy, No address provided

16

Page# ,

Agenda nom Y Pa e # FIG1

COMMENTS ON MEADOWLILY AREA PLAN

Protecting the features and functions of the ESA should be the primary consideration. The more development put close to an ESA, the greater the impacts from intrusions into the area (this can be seen in urbanized parts of the Medway Valley Heritage Forest and Sifton Bog). Regardless of the form of development, barriers to accessing the ESA, except from limited access points as determined by a Conservation Master Plan, should be required. This includes human access as well as that caused by untreated run off.

At this point in the process, it is not clear to me how Section 15 of the City's Official Plan will be satisfied:

The Official Plan, Section 15 of the Official Plan, says, in part:

New or expanded infrastructure shall only be permitted within Natural Heritage areas including stream corridors where it is clearly demonstrated through an environmental assessment process or an environmental impact study (EIS) that there is no reasonable alternative for locating that infrastructure elsewhere.

COMMENT Sewers in ESAs are also contrary to the PPS (2.1.6). As the city has not done a good job of monitoring the post development impacts of infrastructure on ESAs, it is not clear how the work can demonstrate there will be no negative impact on natural features and functions.

If any infrastructure emplaced crosses into the ESA, the following section 15.3.3 of the new OP should apply:

iiil As conditions of approving infrastructure projects in natural heritage areas, the City may require specific mitigation and rehabilitation measures and/or compensation for the damage to natural features and functions caused by the construction or maintenance of the infrastructure.

From Storm Sewer studv:

2.2 Existing Watercourses The Meadowlily ESA is drained by a six small intermittent streams discharging through local ravines and flowing directly into the Thames River. The ravines are described in the Jhames Area Subwatershed Study as creating unique conditions in terms of slopes with moist microclimates and organic soils. The subwatershed study classifies these ravine tributaries as Type 2 watercourses. flows are intermittent and do not support a permanent fish community. The

subwatershed study also notes that several of the ravine tributaries in the South Thames subwafershed ore susceptible to erosion and could cause localized impairment of habitats in the Thames River i f erosion problems develop.

COMMENT It is not clear from the draft work to date how these ravine tributaries can be protected. As these drain to the north, any post development flows must be retained without changing the water quality. It is not clear from the report how this can be done with the more intensive forms of development.

From the Sanitaw and Water Studv (0 aae 131

There is on opportunity to service the south portion of the property, above on elevation of 270m, using the existing high level pressure watermain on the soufh side of Commissioners Rood. Proper watermain looping would be required for develoDments in excess of 80 units.

COMMENT It seems that the northern port (even parts south of the road allowance) of the property cannot be serviced without affecting the ESA or without great cost. This suggests there is an opportunity to concentrate any development along Commissioner's Road. If so, then the northern section should be dedicated to the City and added to the ESA as buffer.

Transportation Servicinq

As shown in the slide entitled Transportation Servicing, Option 4 requires works that is not included in the city's Development Charge study. As such, this work, if constructed, should be at the proponent's cost.

Sandy Levin 59 Longbow Road London, N6G 1Y5

Holly Stover 1201 1 87' Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T6G OY8 March 18,201 1

Heather McNeely Planning Division City of London P.O. Box SO35 London ON N6A 4L9

Dear Heather McNeely:

I am writing with my comments about the proposed developments north of Commissioners Road next to Meadowlily Woods. I fully appreciate the need to expand the city and provide more housing and infrastructure. This letter is not meant to criticize the hard work and planning that has gone into this development project. I would like to compliment you on your level of public engagement and the amount of planning and strategic thinking that has gone into this project. I request that you please read my comments below and take them into consideration when selecting and finalizing your selected option for this development project and in the execution of this development.

I was born and have lived most of my life in London. In June 2009 I graduated from the University of Western Ontario with an Honors Bachelor of Environmental Science degree. In September 2010, I moved to Edmonton, Alberta to complete my M.Sc. degree in Land Reclamation (commonly known as ecological restoration in Ontario). During my undergraduate years I found my love of botany and studying ecology and conservation sciences. I have greatly enjoyed spending time in London's natural areas hiking in the woods and canoeing the Thames River identifying plants and observing wildlife. However, I have also seen the damage urban development has had on these natural areas. Southwestern Ontario is unique in the country for its biodiversity and the number of rare and endangered flora and fauna because of its geographic location and warm climate. The Thames River alone hosts numerous aquatic Species At Risk whose populations are declining yet have miraculously survived urban and rural development adjacent to the river. In my field of study it is easy to become discouraged and depressed at the amount of biodiversity that has been lost due to human activity but I am encouraged and amazed by the natural areas that we still have and I am driven to protect them. Unfortunately, in southwestem Ontario, the majority of our natural areas (> 90%) have been cleared for agricultural or urban development, leaving a tiny percentage of remnant patches left. We are very lucky that some of these small patches are on the outskirts of our cities. I do not know what will happen to the native species that are found in these small patches in the future because their populations are so small and fragmented and they are continually threatened by development. We could easily loose them all one day if things continue the way they are going.

March 18,201 1 Page 2

One of these areas is Meadowlily Woods. During my undergraduate degree I made many trips to Meadowlily Woods with my professors to study the plants, fungi and wildlife present. I have hiked through and identified the flora and fauna in forests all over the province of Ontario and across Canada and I can say with total honesty that I have never encountered any forest like it. Each visit we would identify at least 50 species of fungi (mushrooms among other types) and plants. In addition to the biodiversity of Meadowlily Woods, there are old growth deciduous tree species such as Sugar Maple and Blue Beech that are over 100 years old. Just standing in the presence of these majestic old growth trees is breathtaking and there is no other expenenx like it. We need to protect Meadowlily Woods for future generations so that our great great grandchildren will know what it is like to stand under a Blue Beech tree, to feel its smooth bark and to look up in awe at its size and its splendor.

You may be asking, we are not clearing the entire woods, only half of the current remaining area near the southern border, so why am I concerned? I have reviewed the options that have been proposed from “passive” to “intensive”. All of these plans clear the same amount of forested area and will impact Meadowlily Woods severely ecologically in several ways. The first impact will come from non native invasive plant species, which have already spread to the majority of London’s natural areas regardless but the issue will worsen with more intense development aruund the border. The huge patches of cleared lawn in the recreational park areas that you would like to build in the middle of the forest so people can play soccer and Frisbee will reek havoc on the ecological integrity of Meadowlily Woods. First of all, lawn species are typically non native grass species such as Poa prateitsis (Kentucky Bluegrass) that spread into natural areas and form dense colonies that displace native plants.

European Buckthorn (Rhamnus carharrica) is a non native shrub species that people began planting for hedges on their properties about IO years ago. Hundreds of properties in London have this species planted despite the fact that it is capable of spreading to natural areas and displacing native plant species. It is now the most common woody species in London and is the dominant understory shrub in the majority of London’s natural areas. It has displaced most of the native shrub species that used to grow in healthy stands in London’s natural areas. There are countless other examples. In the subdivisions people will plant numerous non native horticultural species in their gardens and hedges that will spread off of their properties into the woods. This is inevitable and is a phenomenon worldwide that cannot be stopped unless we stop developing into our natural areas. Non native invasive species do not have any natural controls in their non native environment so they can aggressively thrive and out compete native flora. They will also discard their lawn clippings and garden waste into the forest, another source of invasive plant species propagules that will spread into the forest. As a result, the native tree and wildflower species that make Meadowlily Woods such a unique and special place will further decline, some may disapear.

In addition to the severe impact that non native plant species will have on Meadowlily Woods from this proposed development, the introduction of more people to the area will bring in more people to the forest that will trample and damage the vegetation. People

March 18,201 1 Page 3

will also bring more litter and trash into the forest. Fertilizer, silt, diesel oil and other chemical run off from the recreational areas, commercial areas and during construction will alter the chemical conditions of the water and soil killing sensitive species found in the natural area. The erosion and silt loading from the construction phase of the project will damage local waterways smothering aquatic species and the erosion will degrade slopes and damage native plant communities. Not only will this precious forest be degraded by the development but we will lose any opportunity to protect it in the future and expand its area so that we may preserve the unique flora and fauna so future generations can enjoy them. If Meadowlily Woods is going to remain intact we need to expand its area, not decrease it. Developing in this significant forest is destroying this forest. All you have to do is look at what is happening to Sifton Bog, is it literally surrounded by development. The natural chemistry of the bog is being altered by fertilizer run off from the surrounding residential development and it is becoming eutrophic.

My proposed suggestion is to choose another location for this development or to leave a larger buffer zone next to the woods. There is no way that the ecological integrity of the woods is going to be preserved if such a huge area is going to be cleared and developed upon. At the very least the parks in the middle of the forest should not be built. It is ridiculous to call this "passive" when it involves clear cutting an Ontario heritage forest to build a lawn so people can run around and play soccer when there are perfectly suitable areas for this on the other side of Commissioners Road where the forests have already been cleared. Again, I apologize I am trying to be as constructive as possible but it is difficult because of what is at stake. Meadowlily is our last chance to preserve and protect a small remnant of our once vast Carolinian forest. Development will completely transform and degrade this forest if it is not spaced further apart.

Thank you for listening to my concerns about this project. I hope that they will be taken into consideration and that they have provided some insight as to what the impact of urban development is on our small patches of natural habitats we have left in southern Ontario, no matter if it is a residential park or a shopping mall, the impact is great. I hope that an alternative decision can be reached that better protects Meadowlily Woods and provides larger b&er zones around the woods to preserve its ecological integrity. I hope that one day I can show my great grandchildren the forest and Meadowlily and it will still have all of the tree species that I love and they will know what it is like to stand underneath a 100 year old beech tree.

Sincerely,

Holly Stover

KEITH E. RISLER TeleDhone/FAX: (5191 439-5413

5192 Elrnwood Ave E London, ON N6C 1 K2

Email: [email protected]

Heather McNeely Planning Division City of London P.O. Box 5053 London, ON N6A 4L9

March 29,2011

Dear Ms. McNeely:

Vi e-&

. . K-thve Ian d use w n c e m semiane OD tions.

I understand that the City of London’s Meadowlily “Notice of Public Meeting No. 3” invites public input to be submitted by March 31,2011. The comments solicited I presume are intended for consideration as part of your recently announced April 20,2011 meeting, which is to “receive an update from the Planning s t d o n stakeholder feedback recorded to date; an& to receive written or oral sub- misions from the pubfie on alternative land use and servicing options for Meadowlily and related draft background reports.“ Accordingly, I offer these comments:

1. Justlflcatlon for development optlons unclear: I reviewed the land-use options documents as posted on the City’s Meadowlily website (See “Option-Development_marO9-1 l-rev-marl5-ll.pdf’ and also the PDF labeled as “Mead-BkgStudy-OptionDev-febll-rev.pdf‘). It would be appropriate in evaluating each of the draft options to assess whether each is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). I don’t see documentation making this case in the documents as posted, however. While a page in a PowerPoint presentation on sanitary options references the PPS, the development options as drafted make no effort to position each development option in terms of potential PPS consistency. This absent consideration may imply that the development options as proffered require a more grounded justification before being further evolved and melded into a final choice;

2. Gap-fill selections unclear: It is not easily evident from the posted draft documents what previous documents and studies the City will admit as part of its gap-fill process; the City’s Meadowlily web page says the City will gap-fil and lists a range of documents available for such use. The fuzziness on which documents will be re-used raises the concern that the draft development options and draft documents could be reliant on imperfect data, as was the case. before the City-led process was

Page 1 of 3

initiated. A clear delineation of which documents will be recycled as gap-fill would be useful in evaluating the validit) of proffered development options, and help ensure that taxpayers get proper value for money in this process;

3. Citizen input shaped: The 31-page Land Use options PDF appears to take all the public input additively at face value, adding each suggestion on top of each other without measure of the degree of public support for -or validity of-each option. It then imports in context that the public process is seeking all of the possible options rolled up together. Hence one page of the document states that the suggestions have been for an interpretive centre, expanding the ESA, a green space legacy, community garden, “multi-family residential with green roofs” along with “meaningful employment”, “additional retail” and a “4-story height limit on development”. Unsurprisingly the proposals field more-intensive development options more numerously than less-intensive options, given that the additive approach contextually suggests a drive for development. This morphing of public input appears to have been driven in part by a City-sponsored Meadowlily workshop in which options were “collaboratively” framed around minimal, middle, and intensive levels of development. Problematically, it is not my impression that contributing citizens have generally modeled their views on this tiered approach (see Point 5 below):

My sense is that a possibly unbalanced impression of Meadowlily development input is expressed by the development options as stated. The options give an impression that the public push is on-having evolved via public input-for what are essentially a variety of green- marketable suburban developments adjacent to Meadowlily Woods. On the contrary, a reasonable read of the process thus far is that in general London citizens have supported a wisely framed minimal-development approach, typically featuring an interpretive centre and a meaningful buffer surrounding Meadowlily Woods. One does not recall members of the public clamoring for closely attached housing developments, or for that matter multiple development choices reflecting multiple degrees of development. Development options asserted to have grown from public input should reflect the tone and tenor of public input thus far. More- intensive options with less public support should be clearly indicated as such.

4. Development push contextually Implied:

Whatever the public desire or the planning goals, the Meadowlily process should be guided by solid facts and careful assessments as to the validity of any major development occurring at the top of or beside Meadowlily Woods. While the draft reports appear detailed, I am struck by the thin textual explanation of the development options themselves. Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement requires development decisions to be consistent with the PPS. I would wonder why each Meadowlily development option is not prefaced by the best information currently at hand as to why each option qualifies as consistent with the PPS, since PPS consistency is a requirement of land use planning decisions.

Page 2 Of 3

Ensuring such consistency has been assessed with respect to the Meadowlily options would help guarantee a resilient Meadowlily planning process worthy of taxpayers' costs. While it may be argued that this is not the point in the process to assess possible choices in terms of the PPS, it makes sense to think in such terms now, to ensure that the time and expense of this process is not wasted. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment at this time.

Sincerely,

KEITH E. RISLER

Page 3 of 3

Telephomt (905) 7606200 FaX (906) 780-6201 SmartlCentres 700 Applewood Cresoent, Vaughan, ON, L4K 5x3

4ril5'4 201 1

He& McNoely SClliOCPIUlW City Planning and Research, Planning Division City of London 519-661-2500 C X ~ . 5074

Dear Ms. McNeely,

Re: Meadowlily Secondary Plan Comments

The following are somc preliminary comments on the materials prcssnted at the M a h Om, 2011 Public Information Centre for tha Meadowlily Secondary Plan. We are pleased that much of tha work undertaken by ABCOM and Urban Strategies Inc. has confirmed the findingg of the technical reports submitted far the Commissioners Con& Limited (CCL) applications in 2007 (027430). We however question whether the CCL studies w m considex or asaI as mfennce material in the development of the Meadowlily Secondary Plan studies.

For the purpose of this submission we have provided general comments on the following: TransportationSetViCing Natural Haitage Study & Archaeological and Built ?Ieritagc Backgruund Assessment Sanitary &Water Servicing Drahage and S t o m a t a Management LmdUscOptioos EvaluationCritcria

In addition to this letter of comment, we will be providing a detailed letter of response to the above studies prior to the April 1 la, 201 1 deadline.

Transportation Servicing Om of OUT main waccrns in the realm of transportation servicing is the need for an additional signalized intersection alollg Commissioners Rd. between Meadowlily Rd Snd Meadowgate Blvd. We concur with AECOM's recornmendation that this signalized h ~ d m is needed under land me Option 'Ilme, but also believe that it is necessary under Option Four and Five. In addition to the signahed intersection raf.renced above, a linkagc connecting Commissioners Road at Meadowgate Boulevard should be cons idd . The. Meadowlily sports park surface parking lot is accesscd inrmediately opposite the Meadowgate intersection. Since land use options illushate the possibility of a wmmunity facility on the CCL lands, at least one option should also consider a mad or driveway linkage in thii location. We suggest that any loas of surface parking spaces within the park can be made up for on the Meadowlily Park site or through negotiations with neigbbouring landownas.

Other puestions we wish for the Cy/AECOM to consider regard growth assumptions. The predominately retail focusad land use option indicates that either a new direct accnss ramps m required, or auxiliary tuming lanes for traffic at the ramp terminal intcmctions. Clarification is needed regarding traffic

thresholds quiring this ramp or additional turning lanes. Clarification is also required on benefits and detemnts of each of these proposed options (additional lanes versus a dedicated ramp).

Natural Heritage Study & Archaeological and Built Heritage Backgronnd Assessment We m pleased to see that Golders Associates concurs with our assertion that the CCL lands have been active farm land since 1942 Given this we have contentions with some labeling shown in the above studies showing the CCL as an ESA an^ - the label of tbe ESA should be removed from CCL lands as they are not considered within the ESA a r a We also do not agree with the hedge row on CCL's as BSA as the hedgerow is in poor condition and has a poor linkage function to the other areas. Lastly we would request that the City/AECOM reconsider the protection ares on the drainage features on CCL's land. Currently they are treated the same as those in the downstream areas but we would argue that they are unique to each other. We will provide a detailed response concerning the above. issues our April 11". 2011 submission.

Lastly, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the one of the reference studies used (Meadowlily SubdiviSbn Study, EGS International Inc 2002) was not bpooght to CCL's attention during our meeting's with City staff regarding CCL's 2007 rezoning submission.

Sanitary &Water Servicing Section 2.1.3 of the repon states that the existing Summerside Subdivision was designed to accommodate an area to the North of Commissioners Road. It states that the existing U ) O m diameter d e t sewez at the intersection of Meadowlily Road and Commissioners Road is corrently designed to handle a flow of 7.6 Us. We request clarification regardins this flow rate as the City records indicate that the existing sanitsly system was designed to accept sanitary sewage 15.1 US as per the h t b Tech report dated August 12,ZOO4. Detailed calculations wil l be provided in our letter of Aptill l*, 201 1.

At this time we have no comments with regards to water servicing, as it is consistent with CCL's 2007 Functional Servicing Report prepared by Dillion Consulting Limited.

Drainage and Stormwater Management Becaw the AECOM report is still general at this point, we require farther clarification on the impacts to CCL's laud regarding storm water management. The AECOM report makes reference to concerns with the morphology of the existing ravines. and that baseflow must be mnintained. We would l i i to reiterate that CcL's S W M design for w site included maintaining the W o w to the ravines. and was designed to limit discharge from the site during post development conditions to the predevelopment rata of the two year event.

In addition to the comments above, we offer the following comments with respect some. of the S M options p e n t e d . Option 2 SWM Pond on the "Land Use Option 4A SWM Alternatives" figure, the location is not ideal since the natural gradient of this site is to the north. Additional infrashuchm would also be required to direct runoff from thii site to the pond. With regards to the proposed pond located along Meadowlily on the "Land Use Option 4B S W M Alternatives" figure, this would require a significant amount of infrastructure to direct runoff from this site to the pond.

Lastly, based on our experience, stormwater management facilities are, not typically located within ESA areas. Further to a meeting we had with the City of London on January 4", 2007, the ESA boundary and associated buffet requirements were viewed as a constraint to development on this site. As such, we do not feel that locating a SWM facility within the &SA was considered a viable option at the time. We also

,

2

request clarification on what considerations have been made r e g d i g alternative methods of retention. Examples include low impact development methods, and various storm water storage techniques such as underground, roottop. and parking lot used in combination with quality control systems such as Stonaceptor. In addition, CCL is open to low impact development methods to help d u c e the size rcqukement for a s t o m pod.

Lend Use Options CCL is committed to working with the City in developing the site in a manner that mults in an attractive development, that flows from the neighbou* uses including the sports facility and commercial development in the i d i a t e atea. Conccphlal plans which were submbd as part of the. Umr OfEiCial Plan and Zoning By-law amendments will be modified to incorporate many of the illusWve points and objectives outlined in the Meadowlily Area Plan study including:

Provjding llmactjve built form along the Commissioaus Road and Meadowlily Road frontages and within the CCL site irself, Incorporating an internal transportation network for vehicle and active transportation modcs;

a Providing "green linkages" in the form of well planted walkways and open spaces within the pmperty linking the future community in the Meadowlily Study Area and the existing community to the south to the CCL property, the City Wide Sports Park and the Meadowlily Woods arts; Incorporating energy saving innovations into the future buildings on the site; and, Incorporating unique dcaign fsarures which make the development of the CCL site unique. This could include the incoxpantion of stylized gateway features nflecting a thcm for the study area. and incorporation of landscaping and architecturel elements.

In gmml clarification is quimd regarding growth and absorption assumptions, and how this market idonnation helped to shape and frame the various options. In reviewing the Land Use Oplions, we note that there appears to be a lack of indication as to possible synergies and linkages to the current and future land uses on the south side of Commissioners Road: For example, there is the possibility of a mid-block intersection between Meadowlily Road and Meadowgate Boulevard, which could serve 86 full w e s s to the Summerside Community Chulrh and Conuncrcial property south of Connnissioners Road and the CCL property. This would allow for an additional degrcc of connectivity bctwecn the Study Area and the neighboaring community.

We note that thc concepts, with the exception of one, all show a community centle on the CCL land, Although not opposed 10 a facility locating on this property (provided the economics of the development make sense), further discussions are necessary between CCL and the City.

In addition to the comments above, we offa the following comments with respect to each of the land use options prestntcd at the PIC

LMd Use Option One: We do not support this alternative, as it is an underutilization of land within the City's urban boundary. The lands are cumntly designated 'Urban R e m , ' ; slated for development of some form; and do not haw. significant constraints to development. If this option were to be pursued it would amount to expropriation of private land through an Official Plan amendmnt process.

Lund Use Options Two and Wee: We do not support thwc options. We believe them is unrealized economic benefit by the little to zero commercial land being designated in these options. Additionally, as noted above, there cwld be vehicular access out to Commissioners Road at the intersection with Meadowgate.

3

LMd Use Option Four dc Five: We support these land use options as they arc genernlly nnecrive of the Offkial Plan and Zoning By-law ammdmeot applications submitted to the City by CCL. in 2007. Thest options wil l provide significantly mor0 employment compared to Options One, Two and Thm. We also fed that the retail comercial land shown on the CCL parcel in Option 4 is needed and is warranted. To thttpoinl we would likc to dmw special alrenlion to & CCL’s 2007 MGP Ma&t Demand and Impact Analysis s&&, and Urbahfet~ic Imps 2008 Peer Review that both indicate the b e l of commercial show in Oplion F o w &just@& We note that the configuration of the site, and particularly the large anchor store may change to reflect some of the comments and discussion through this area plan process. We would also d i the illustrative development concept to incorporate our general comments set out above in our general comments abont all the Land Use Options.

Evaluation Criteria We believe the evaluarion critaia an incomplete. Little to no regard has been paid to transportation, sanitary, and ecunomic cost benefit analysis. The criteria cumntly presented arc vague and little explanation has been given on how ranking system will work in practice. We believe this process should be transparent, and that detailed explanations should be given on how the ranking system will be used.

In regard to the economic cost benefit analysis we would likc to emphasize the importance not only to the cost side of the equation but also the revenue side. This woold include propem tax rcvenucs, building permit fees, etc. The financial analysis would also have to look at the timing for realization of return on investment (i.e. in this arcn of the City. high density residential development may not be realjzed as quickly as commercial uses and therefore the City would not realize the year over year tax rcveuue if large amounts of the developable land within the study area remained vacant). Consideration should be given to how the issues such as infrastructure development and land purchase will be financed, and when this might occur.

A clearer indication ofthis is needed to understand the full implications ofthe recommendations et out in tbe prcaentcd materials. To re&rafe, any a p p d of the MeadowllEp Secondcvy Plan Sruwss without proper economic andJ7mnchl conddsrrrlion is premature.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our preliminmy comments on the presented mat8rials. As mentioned we will be provided a detailed response on the above g e n d issue prior to the April 1 I*. 2011 deadli . In the mcantimc, if you have any questions, wish to discnss these comments, please call either Joshua Kaufman of this office or I at 905-760-6200.

Yours auly,

[email protected] (905) 760- 6200 x 7958

4

Telephone (US) 760-6200 Fax (e061 760-8201 smartbltres 700 FqptWaod C w m t Vaughan. ON, L4K 5x3

April 119 201 1

Heather McNceIy Senior Planner City Planning and Research, Planning Division City of London 519-661-2500 txt. 5074

Dear Ms. McNecly.

Re: Detnied Comments - Meadowlily Secondary Plan Comments

This letter acts as a follow up to our letter dated April 5". 201 1 when Commissioners Centre m t e d (CCL) provided general comments on:

Transportation Servicing Natural Hcritsgc Study & Archaeological and Built Heritage Background Assessment Sanitary &Water Servicing Drainaga and Stonnwatcr Management Land Use Options Evaluationcriteria

As we arc pleased that much of the work undertaken by A X O M and Urban Strategies Inc. has confirmed the fmdings of the technical reports submitted for the Commissioners Catm Limited (CCL) applications in 2007 (027430) we would like to taka the opportunity now to elaborate on our general comments from our April 5', 2011 lettcr of comment.

Transportanon Servicing One of our main concerns in the realm of transportation servicing is the need for an additional signatid intersection along Commissioners Rd. be4ween Mcadowliy Rd and Meadowgate Blvd. We concur with AECOMs recornmendation that this signalized intersection is needed under land use Option Three, but also bclicve that it is necessary under Option Four and Five. In addition to the signalized intersection referenced above, a linkagu connecting CommiSSioners Road at Meadowgats Boulevard should be considend. The Meadowlily sports park surfacc parking lot is accessed immediately opposite the Meadowgate laterseaion. Since land use options illustrate the possibility of a community facility on the CCL lands, at least one option should also consider a road or driveway linkage in this location. We suggest that any loss of surface parking spaces within the park can be made up for on the Meadowlily Park site or through negotiations with neighbouring landowners.

Other questions we wish for the City/AECOM to consider regard growth assumptions. Thc pdominately retail focused land use. option indicates that either a new dirtcr access ramps are required, or nu- d n g lanes for W c at the ramp terminal intustctions. Clarification is n& regarding nrdfic thresholds requiring this ramp or additional turning hes . Clarification is also rquired on benefits and dstermcnts of each of thtse proposed options (additional lanes versus a dedicated ramp).

Natural Heritage Study We are pleased to see that Goldem Associates concurs with our assertion that the CCL lands have been active farm land since 1942. Given this we have contentions with the labeling shown in the Natural Heritage study showing the CCL as &I ESA area - the label of the M A should be removed from CCL lands as they am not considered withii the ESA area. The trecs around the buildings on CCL's lands are not considered cultural woodlands and therefore this label (page 28, Map 3) should be revised.

We do not agree with the hedge row on CCL's as ESA land. The as the hedgerow is in poor condition and has a poor l i g e function to the other m s . CCL provided an analysis of this hedgerow in Dillion Consulting's July 2008 report @age 8). This report was reviewed by AECOM and not contended. This hedgcrow is 230 m long, but only includes 34 trees that arc greata than 15 cm dbh. The trees within this hedgerow are in fair to poor coodition, and non-native species are also present. CCL strongly disagrees with interpreiidion of the City of London's EnvlronmentalManagement Guideline 3 in this inslmee.

We would request that the CityIAECOM reconsider the protection areas on the drainage features on CCL's land. Currently they an treated the s ~ m c as those in the downstnam areas but we would argue that they are unique to each other. The drainage feature on CCL's land consists of a tile drain, which drains the agriculture lield, while the downstream feature has a dircct connection to the Tharnes River, and would therefom support direct fish habitst CCL has conducted intensive studies on the subject property confirming that the drainage moving down this swale is a result of tile drains- these studies were not mentioned by AECOM and should be reviewed as they contain relevant infonnation to the Meadowlily Secondary Plan. Page 21 of the AECOM report it self reports that the drainage feature on CCL's lands has numerous fish barriers due to high gradient, log jams, shelves, and insufficient flow. With regards to mapping of this ravine feature, there are inconsistencies between various Maps (i.e., Map 1 shows them as overland drainage: Map 2 shows no drains, Maps 3 and 4 show them as rivers; Map 5 shows them as tile drain outlets, Map 6 shows them as small watercome). It is important that these inconsistencies am comted in the report.

It should be noted that twenty-four species of butterflies were observed by ABCOM including the Monarch (species of concern). This number is not unusual given the environs of the area (it.. Thames River, forests, and open meadows); however, CCL has limited habitat potential as it is cropped with com/soybeans.

Lastly. we would like to draw attention to the fact that the one of the r e f m c e studies used (Meadowlily Subdivision Study, EGS International b c 2002) was not bmught to CCL's attention during our meeting's with City staff regarding CCL's 2007 rezoning submission. Appendix J also seems to be missing tium the Natural Heritage Study- AECOM or the City should provide these document in order for the review to be completed accurately.

Archaeological and Built Heritage Background Assessment We strongi) &agree with Recommendation I and 8 contained m f i Archaeological and Built Heritage Background A s s e m e n t We would like to reiterate that that Figure 3 of the repm indicates that the entire CCL site is Listed as "Assessed to Archamlogical standards and awaiting clearance". Under recommendation 1 - while we do not object to heritage importance of Park Farm, we feel that designating the entire study area as a Heritage Conservation District is extrema and inconsistent with the Official plan polices of the City of London. Under recommendation 8 - again while we do not object to the heritage importance of Park Farm, we feel that appropriate buffer areas will be in pIace do to the existence of the ESA area and that these will be sufficient to pmtect the Park Farm area

1

Sanftpry &Water Serdcing Section 2.1.3 of the report states that the existing Summerside Subdivision was designed to accommodate an area to the North of Commissioners Road. It states that the existing 200mm diameter outlet sewer at the intersection of Meadowlily Road and Commissioners Road is currently designed to handle a flow of 7.6 Us. We request clarification regarding this flow rate as the City reco~ds indicate that the existing sanitary system was designed to accept sanitary sewage 15.1 Us as per the Earth Tech report dated August 12,2004.

At this time we have no comments with regards to water servicing, BS it is consistent with CCL’s 2007 Functional Servicing Report p n p d by Dillion Consulting Limited.

Drainage and Stormwater Management Because the AECOM report is still general at this point, we require further clarification on the impacts to CCL’s land regarding storm water management. The AECOM report makes nfermce to concans with the morphology of the existing ravines, and that baseflow must be maintained. We would like to reiterate that CCL’s SWM design for our site included maintaining the baseflow to the ravines, and was designed to l i t dischergc Erom the site during past development conditions to the pre-development rates of the two year event.

In addition to the comments above, we offer the following comments with respect some of the SWM options presented. Option 2 SWM Pond on the “Land Use Option 4A SWM Alternatives” figure, the location is not ideal since the natural gradient of this site is to the north. Additional infrastructure would also be required to direct mnoff from this site to the pond. With regards to the proposed pond located along Mead~wliy on the ‘Zand Use Option 4B SWM Alternatives” figure, this would require a significant amount of infrasln~chue to direct runoff from this site to the pond.

Lastly, based on our experience, stomwater management facilities are not typically located w i t h ESA arcas. Furthar to a meeting we had with the City of London on January 4&, 2007, the ESA boundary and associated buffer requirements were viewed as a constraint to development on this site. As such, we do not feel that locating a SWM facility within the ESA was considered a viable option at the time. We also request clarification on what considerations have been made regardiig almative methods of retention. Examples include low impact development methods, and various stonn water storage techniques such as undergmund. rooffop, and parking lot used in combination with quality control systems such as Stormceptof. Iu addirion, CCL is open to low impact development methods to help reduce the size requirement for a stonn pond.

Land Use Options CCL is committed to working with the City in developing the site in a manner that results in an attractive development, that flows from the neighbowing uses including the sports facility and commctcial development in the immediate ana. Conceptual plans which were submitted as part of tbe 2007 Official plan and Zoning By-law amndments will be modified to incorparate many of the illustrative points and objectives outlined in the Mcadowliy A m Plan study including:

ploviding attmtive built form dong the Commissioners Road and Meadowlily Road frontages and within the CCL site itsee Incorporating an internal transportation network for vehicle and active transportation modes,

3

Providing " p n linkages" in the form of well planted walkways and Open spaces within the property linking the future community in the Meadowlily Study Area and the existing community . to the south to the CCL property. the City Wide Sports Park and the Meadowlily Woods area; Incorporating energy saving innovations into the hlure buildings on the site; and, Incorporating unique design features which make the developmnt of the CCL site unique. This could include the incorporation of stylized gateway featuns reflecting a theme for the study arca, and incorporation of landscaping and architectural elements.

In general clarifcatim is r e q u i d regarding growth and absorption assumptions, and how this market information helped to shape and frame the various optbn~. In reviewing the Land Use Options, we note that there appears to be a lack of indication as to possible synergies and linkages M the current and future land uses on the south si& of Commissioners Road. For example, tben is thc possibility of a mid-block intersdon between Meadowlily Road and Meadowgate Boulevard, which could serve as full access to the Summerside Community Church and Commtrcial ptoperty south of Commissioners Road and the CCL p r o m . This would allow for an additional degne Of COMectiVity &ween the Study Ana and the neighbouring community.

We note that the concepts, with the exception of one, all show a community centre on the CCL land. Although not opposed to a facility locating on this property (provided the economics of the development make sense), fuRher discussions are necessary between CCL and the City.

In addition to the comments above, we offer the following comments with respect to each of the land use options presented at the PIC:

Land Use Optiot~ One: We do not support this alternative, as it is an underutilization of land withiin the City's urban boundary. The lands are cunently designated 'Urban Reserve,'; slated for development of some form; and do not have significant constraints to development. If this option were to be pursued it would amount to expropriation of private land t h n g h an Official Plan amendment process.

Land Use Options %o and Three: We do not support these options. We believe there is unrealized economic bsnefit by the little to zero conunercial land being designated in these options. Additionally, as noted above, there could be vehicular access out to Commissioners Road at the intersection with Meadowgate.

Land Use Option Four & Flue: We support these land use options as they arc generally reflective of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications submitted to the City by CCL in 2007. These options will provide significantly mre employment compared to Options One, Two and Thrse. We also feel that the retail commercial land shown 011 the CCL parccl in Option 4 is needed and is wcnranted. To tkia point we would like to d m special artention to & CCL's 2007 MGP Market Demand and Impact Ana&& sludy, and UrbanMetric Inc's 2008 Peer Rsvisw that both indicate the b e t of conunemial show in Oph'on Fow & ]us&..d Page 29 of UrbanMetric's Peer Review dated March 28*, 2008 states "generally there are sufficient sales to support [CCL's development] as proposed. Fmthermore, expanding the retail space at the Highbury and Commissioners intemection could assist in the renewal of Pond Mills Square".

We believe that Option Four is the most consistent with the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) given that:

4

o Locating a commercial centre along an already services, major arterial such as Commissioners will create an efficient land use pattern (Section 1.1.3.2)

o Option Four will create. the most new jobs and municipal tax revenue and thmby promote the financial well being of the municipality and the Province (Section 1.1.1 .a)

o Option Four provides a range of retail and service commercial activities located along a major road comdw and at a density typical for modem commecciQl development (Section 1.3.1)

o Option Four utilizes existing major infrastructure that is already in place to facilitate the proposed development (Section 1.1.3.2)

o Option Four minimizes commuting to other commercial notes given its proximity to the already existing commercial centre on opposite side of Commissioners Rd (Section 1.6.5.4)

o Option Pour meets an identifd needs in the retail markct, as identified in the MGP market study, and confirmed in the UrbanMeaics peer review, and cmtes new employment opportunities (Section 1.3.1)

o Option Four wil l not impact the vitality and viability of London's downtown or its mainstreets, BS c o n f d in the MGP market shldy, and the UrbsnMetrics peer mview (Section 1.7)

We note that the configuration of the site, and particularly the large anchor store may change to reflect some of the comments and discussion through this area plan pmcess. We would also modify the illustrative development concept to incorporate our general comments set out above in our general commonts about all the Land Use Options.

Evaluation Criteria We believe the evaluation criteria am hwmplete. Little to no regard has been paid to transportation, sauitary, and economic cost benefit analysis. The criteria cunrently pnrented are vague and little explanation has been given on how ranking system will work in practice. We believe this process should be transpatent, and that detailed explanations should be given on how the ranking system will be used.

In regard to the economic cost benefit analysis we would l i i to emphasize the importance not only to the cost side of the equation but also the revenue side. This would include property tax revenues, building permit fees, etc. The financial analysis would also have to look at the timing for realidon of retum on inveshnent (Le. in this area of the City, high density residential development may not be realized as quickly as commercial uses and thenfore the City would not nalize the year ova year tax ~ t v c n w if large amounts of the developable land within the study ana remained vacant). Consideration should be given to how the issues such as infrastructure development and laad purchase will be flnanccd, and when this might occur.

A clearer indication of this is needed to understand the full implications of the ncommendations set out in the presented maerials. To reitmate, any approval of the McadowUry Secondarp Plun sludies w h u i proper economic andfaumcial comidem&n is premabe .

In addition m the above we would like to provide the following qucstionslcomments for consideration regarding the draft Evaluation Criteris:

In General: o How is each criterion being weighted? Based on the preliminary evaluation p r e w d it appears a

numeric weighting will be assigned to each concept. This criteria weighting methodology should be made available for review.

5

o Are some of the principles and objectives considered to be more important than others? If so, how was this determined? And how will it impact the overall evalnation?

o Which senicing strategies are being considered for each land use concept? Or will a separate evaluation be completed for each servicing Option?

o There are no measures to assess market demand for a given land use option. The evaluation criteria should include measures which assesses marketability of a given option.

o A measure shonld be included for number of jobs created. o The percentage of land use mix for each wncept should be determined, in order that the potential

revenue stream for each can be evaluated.

Criterin. R o d Out the Summerside Communi@: o

Criteria: Enhance the Thames Valley Corridor: o

o

Include a measure for diversity of employment opportunities

What is considered a “generous gnen buffer adjaccnt to identified ESA’s”? Is there a target buffer that has been established for this secondary plan that is greater than other ESAs in the City? What is considered “lower intensity uses”? The measure should address the potential that impacts to the ESA can be addressed and mitigated

Criteria: Establish Commissioners as a Neighbourhood Main Street: o It should be noted that limiting the capacity of Commissioners Road for local traffic is not consistent

with the City of London Official Plan and therefore this criteria needs to be amended to reflect the existing designation. Commissioners Rd is identified as an arterial road in the Official Plan, which include the following definition of an arterial road - “Arterial - serves high volumes of intra-urban traffic at moderate speeds, and has controlled or limited property access” (Chapter 18.2.2 i) (c)). Limiting the capacity of Commissioners Road for only local uaffic is not consistent with the designation.

Criteria: Meets Class Environmental Assessment It$?utructure C r i t e h o What is meant by the criteria ‘%valuates potential effects 011 residents, neighbourhoods, businesses,

communify character, social cohesion and archaeological and heritage. components as well as municipaVprovincia1 development objectives”? Thii criterion includes a large number of elements, which are not necessarily related to each other. The environmental assessment should consider what the impact of the alternative concept is on each of these elements. Is the intention to identify the preferred concept as one that limits potential impacts on each of the criteria? Clarification is needed.

o The concepts shonld also be evaluated based on the need for property acquisitions andlor easements. Some of the servicing scenatios, especially with regards to the SWM facilities, may require property acquisitions in order to be viable and therefore the need for land needs to be added to the criteria for evaluation.

o Does impacts on businesses only consider existing businesses? If so how are lost future opportunities being considered?

o It is not clear how the criterion “Considers technical suitability, efficiency. replacement, operation and other engineering aspects of the system” wiU be evaluated. Clarity and transparency is needed around these criteria.

o The potential loss of development charges, futon tax revenue and employment potential needs to be considered. Capital costs, operational and maintenance costs should each be considered separately. The estimated servicing costs for each option should be calculated and assessed. The economic impact with regards to revenne should also be evaluated separately.

6

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our detailed comments on the draft Meadowlily Secondary plan studies. If yon have any questions, wish to discuss these comments, please call either Joshua Kaufman of this o f f e or I at 905-760-6200.

Yours truly,

SalimaRaWjtl Commissioners Centns Limited srawiiasmartfen tres.cmn (905) 760.6200 s 7958

7

May 13,2010

Ms. Heather McNeely Planning and Development City of London 204/206 Dundas Street London, ON NBA iG7

Dear Ms. McNeely:

Re: Draft Land Use Options & Draft Background Studies

Northwest Corner of Meadowlily Road 6 Commbsloners Road London, ON

Me8dowllly Am8 Plannlng Study

Our File: ANDILONIIO-01

We are the planning consultants for Mr. and Mrs. Robert Andrew, owners of approximately 0.62 hectare (1.53 acres) of vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Meadowlily Road and Commissioners Road East (the ‘subject lands’). Initial comments regarding the Meadowlily Area Planning Study were submitted to Ms. Nancy Pasato, Senior Planner, following the Visioning Session & Public Meeting held on February 10, 2010 and the Community Design Workshop & Public Meeting held on April 27, 2010. Since then, we have been monitoring the process.

Following the release of the draft land use options and draft background studies on March 1, 201 1 and our attendance at the third Public Meeting held on March 9, 201 1, we wish to provide the following additional comments.

7. Having requested that consideration be given to the redesignation of the subject lands to permit their development for a range of commercial uses, draFt Land Use Opflons No. 4 and No. 6 d m our preferred optlons. To ensure that the whole of the subject lands are proposed to be designated retail, we request that a version of the draft land use options be produced with the existing lot lines overlaid.

2. With regard to the mixed-use (retaitlresidential) designation contemplated for the subject lands in draft Land Use Option No. 2 and No. 3, we are concerned about the intended built form. We propose that stand-alone retail buildings be permitted, much as the illustrative drawing associated with draft Land Use Option No. 2 shows stand-alone residential buildings on lands proposed to be designated mixed-use (retailhesidential). Clarification should be provided as to whether the intent is to provide a mix of uses over the designated area, or to permit only mixed-use buildings.

3. The illustrative drawing associated with draft Land Use Option No. 3 shows both a stand-alone residential building and mixed-use buildings on lands proposed to be designated mixed-use (retailkesidential). With regard to the mixed-use buildings shown,

318 Wcllingion Road. London. ON, N6C 4P4 TEL (S19)474-7137 FAX(519)474-2284

Email: -lrn.com

we are concerned about the limited amount of retail that can be sustained within this built form, particularly towards the interior of the study area, removed from the arterial network and larger residential neighbourhoods.

4. The low-density residential designation contemplated for the subject lands in draft Land Use Option No. 1 is, in our opinion, a severe underutilization of prime developable land,' generating relatively low traffic demands while located adjacent to a major arterial roadway and in close proximity to an access ramp to the limited access freeway; and with the potential land use impacts (Le. noise, vibration, etc.) that would occur between the low-density residential and major traffic bearing roadways.

5. For draft Land Use Options No.1-5, we note that the land use designations are shown as precise forms, based on specific dimensions and spatial relationships in a manner that doesn't allow for flexibility at the time of plan of subdivision or development.

6. Having reviewed the draft Transportation Servicing Component Study, dated June 2010, intended to guide the Land Use Concept Plan for the Meadowlily Area, we suggest that an update provide clarification as to the future transportation improvements associated with the draft land use options. While we recognize the transportation Improvements recommended in the draft Transportation Servicing Component Study are unlikely to change due to the range of unitdgross door area that were modeled, the draft Transportation Servicing Component Study considered four planning alternatives for the Meadowlily Area, comprised of the same land use types, but with different locations, intensities and distributions from the five draft land use options to be considered going forward.

7. With regard to the draft Drainage and Stormwater Management Component Study and draft Sanitary and Water Servicing Component Study that are dated April 2010, we wish to reserve the right to comment further once the alternatives have been evaluated and preliminary recommendation are made. Based upon our present review, we suggest that the opportunities and constraints outlined in Section 3.0 of the draft Drainage and Stormwater Management Component Study be updated to include a centralized stormwater management facility on the west side of the study area as shown on draft Land Use Option 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A SWM Alternatives.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments. We will continue to monitor and participate in the Meadowlily Area Plan process.

Yours very truly,

ZELINKA PRIAMO LTD.

Richard Zelinka, MES, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner

cc. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Andrew

31 8 Welliagton Rod. London, ON, N6C 4P4 TEL (519)474-7137 FAX(519)47&?284

CriY OF LONDON MEADOww[LY SECONDARY PLAN

& MUNECIPAL a A s s ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~NT

Comments: Pleaee ti= this form to provide any written commonts. YOLU comments can be handed at the Public Meeting on March 9,2011 or matled!faed to the following address by March 23,2011:

. hBCOM(Canada)Inc. ati Plaza

250 York Stre&, Suite 410 London, Ontario N6A 6Kz

Fa: (519) 673-5975 Alunrion: Tony Fediw

Commcne:

We respecttvely request consideratloo be given to the proposed land use / development as illustrated by Figure 1. Subject proparry is located on the North West corner of Old Baseline Road and Meadowlily Road South. Development would comprise o f a mlx of Low and Medium Density residential and be located on the southern proportion of an 19 acre pawl of land that includes both MN129 and MNlOl Meadowlily Road South (See Figure 2).

The development Incorporates planned llke and similar land uses South of Old Baseline Road with consideratian to green llnkages throughout to connect to assests North. The proposal would open UP

dive1oprner)t land North of Old Baseline Road bounded by a new and larger wlndow street immediately to the North and the West. The Northern and Western limit otthe proposed new window Street would dspend upon the level of servicing proposed immediately South of these properties. The longer wlndow strmt will create greater open vista for the public to take pleasure In the lands Ncrth and West of this development.

The proposed development could posslbly open up an additional 8 acres of land generating more tax base wlth assentially no Impact on servicing or long term operating and maintenance costs.

9. -..-?: I lC7l # pi;:-.; ,:"

;I- .~ -.-. L,% Y... . . .,

; ! 1754 From: Melissa Parmtt Sent: Wednesday, March 30,2011 7:16 PM To: McNeeV, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Amstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Oner, Stephen; Baechler, Jonl; Branwombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subjeck Meadowlily Area of Study

Dear Mayor, Councillors and staff,

I am writing to express my concern about the Meadowlily Development. I have been following this story and attending the meetings and presentations, alongside many other concerned citizens of London.

Regardless of the development scenario we eventually choose for Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired result would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE & ATTRACTIVE development. Here are my questions and comments regarding our available options and potential approach necessary to achieve these goals.

SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, poilution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run, would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a city which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease homelessness and poverty. Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method to development. I encourage building these residentiakommercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth. Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS? A new big box development would not be a unique addition to London. Yet another big box is not going to draw creative people, retain young people or create unique jobs. It would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want to stay in this city. You don't hear of people graduating from university with the goal of getting hired at Wal-mart! These big box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience. Smaller businesses and locally run stores offer unique merchandise.

The typical subdivision mega homes are not unique, they more closely represent a cookie cutter design. We have the chance to build cutting edge communities, with green energy features and natural community spaces that can be shared and enjoyed. Plans should include more gardens and less garages, which leads me to attractiveness ...

ATTRACTIVENESS? - There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuelkar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. 1 support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residentiallcommercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.

I do not want to see London make the same mistakes again and again, destroying the precious natural areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier, paved over, carbon copy disaster area. We are the forest city, we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas! Yes, Londoners want sustainable, attractive, unique communities. How do you foresee us creating one?

_ _ Melissa Parrott 96 Wilson Avenue B London, ON N6H 1x7

From: Marcy Saddy Sent: Wednesday, March 30,2011 11:07 PM To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Oner, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Bmnxombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; Whlte, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subject: Meadowllly Development



Regardless of the development scenario we eventually choose for Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired result would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE 8 ATTRACTIVE development. Here are my questions and comments regarding our available options and potential approach necessary to achieve these goals.

SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would w even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run - would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?




ATTRACTIVENESS? -There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuekar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. 1 support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residential/commercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.

I do not want to see London make the same mistakes again and again, destroying the precious natural areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier, paved over, carbon copy disaster area. We are the forest city, we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas! Yes, Londoners want sustainable, attractive, unique'communities. How do you foresee us creating one?

Marcy Saddy London, ON

_ _

From: Fina and Oxide Sent: Wednesday, March 30,201l Subject: Hear your people, keep Medowlily sustainable.



Regardless of the development scenario we eventually choose for Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired result would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE 8 ATTRACTIVE development. Here are my questions and comments regarding our available options and potential approach necessary to achieve these goals.

SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run -would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?




ATTRACTIVENESS? -There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an Impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuellcar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a

development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study lo entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residentiakommercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.


With gratitude and concern, Sarah Nariwonczyk -London Ontario

From: Cottney Dakin Senl: Wednesday, March 30,2011 11:33 PM TO: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Owr, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscornbe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; Whlte, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subject: Local Alternatives




SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With

potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run - would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a city which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease

homelessness and poverty. Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method to development. I encourage building these residentiakommercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth. Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS? A new big box development would not be a unique addition to London. Yet another big box is not going to draw creative people, retain young people or create unique jobs.

It would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want to stay in this city. You don't hear of peopie graduating from university with the goal of getting hired at Wal-mart! These big

box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience. Smaller businesses and locally run stores offer unique merchandise.


ATTRACTIVENESS? -There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a

new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuelkar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residentialicommercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.

I do not want to see London make the same mistakes again and again, destroying the precious natural areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier. paved over, carbon copy disaster area. We are the forest city, we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas! Yes, Londoners want sustainable, attractive, unique communities. How do you foresee us creating one?

Cortney K. Dakin

-_

President of the Environmental Science Association The University of Western Ontario London, ON

From: Naj Kanaan Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:27 AM To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstmng, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Orser, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denlse; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subject: Dear Mayw, Councillors and staff,


I am writing to express my concem about the Meadowlily Development. I have been following this story and attending the meetings and presentations, alongside many other concerned citizens of London.

Regardless of the development scenario we eventually choose for Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired resull would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE & ATTRACTIVE development. Here are my questions and comments regarding our available options and potential approach necessary to achieve these goals.

SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase trafk, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run -would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a city which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease homelessness and poverty. Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method to development. I. encourage building these residential/commercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth. Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.



ATTRACTIVENESS? - There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuekar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

. . I 'a, 7 *! 3.: .'? "L . . , ?-"'-- -1 .. ....,. .

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residentiakommercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.


N. Kanaan University of Western Ontario

From: Ann Moore Sent: Ttlursday, March 31,2011 8:07 AM To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Orser, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subjea: Meadowlily Woods


We are writing to express our concerns about the Meadowlily Development. We have been following this story alongside many other concerned citizens of London.

Regardless of the development scenario we eventually choose for Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired result would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE &

ATTRACTIVE development. Here are some questions and comments regarding our available

options and potential approach necessary to achieve these goals.

SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be

out of the picture. The distance from city centre would increase traffic, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of

another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store, paired with failing big box locations as

well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and

power to run -would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a city which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease

homelessness and poverty. Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method to development. I encourage building these residentiallcommercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small

business growth. Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS? A new big box development would not be a unique addition to London. Yet another big box is not going to draw creative people, retain young people or create unique jobs.

It would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want to stay in this city. You don't hear of people graduating from university with the goal of getting hired at Wal-mart! These big box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience. Smaller businesses and

locally run stores offer unique merchandise.

The typical subdivision mega homes are not unique, they more closely represent a cookie cutter design. We have the chance to build cutting edge communities, with green energy features and natural community spaces that can be shared and enjoyed. Plans should include more gardens and less garages, which leads us to attractiveness ...

ATTRACTIVENESS? - There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter,

packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. We fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss,

vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With

the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

We are not so naive that we believe we will stop development in London. We are only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuekar culture. We need to

be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

We support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs

and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but we must stress our support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residential/commercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.

We do not want to see London make the same mistakes again and again, destroying the

precious natural areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier, paved over, carbon copy disaster area. We are the forest city, we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas! Yes, Londoners want sustainable, attractive, unique communities. How do you foresee us creating one?

John and Ann Moore London, ON

From: Jan Smith Sent: Thursday, March 31,2011 10:43 AM To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Oner, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscornbe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Mesrbergen, Paul; Brown, Denlse; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Cc: Jan Smith Subject: Meadowlily Development


I am writing t o express my concern about the Meadowlily Development. I have been following this story and attending the meetings and presentations, alongside many other concerned citizens of London.

Regardless o f the development scenario we eventually choose f o r Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired result would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE & ATTRACTIVE development. Here are my questions and comments regarding our available options and potential approach necessary to achieve these gwls.

SUSTAINABILIN? Allowing a Smart Centre o r other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake, Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out o f the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollutionand commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition o f another big box, The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones. suitable f o r residents o f the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able t o afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power t o run - would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solor panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags ore not sustainable living units, especially in o city which has been trying t o portray an image o f its attempts t o decrease homelessness and poverty. Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method t o development. I encourage building these residential/commercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth. Small businesses support the Canadion economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS? A new big box development would not be a unique addilion t o London. Yet another big box is not going t o draw creative people, retain young people o r create unique jobs. I t would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want t o stay in this city. You don't hear o f people graduating from university with the goal o f getting hired at Wal-mart! These big box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience. Smaller businesses and locally run stores offer unique merchandise.

The typical subdivision mega homes are not unique, they more closely represent a cookie cutter design. We have the chance t o build cutting edge communities, with green energy features and natural community spaces that can be shared and enjoyed. Plans should include more gardens and less gorages, which leads me t o attractiveness ...

ATTRACTIVENESS? - There is nothing attractive obout a big box store, the amount o f litter, pockaging. waste and pollution reared from i t 's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are obundant. I fear with impeding development that many species wi l l suffer from habitat loss, vehicular Occident increase and pollution in the oir, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods ond river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial t o maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new apprwch can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, offordable living conditions and alternative transportation: An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuel/car culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness ond education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that wauld encourage people t o come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study t o entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must s i r e s my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar t o Wortley village, with mixed residential/commercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely bolanced, walkable neighbourhood.

I do not want t o see London make the same mistakes again and ogain, destroying the precious natural areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier, pved over, carbon copy disaster orea. We are the forest city. we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas! Yes, Londoners want sustainable, attractive, unique communities. How do you foresee us creating one?

Sincerely, Janet M. Smith

From: Patty Webber Sent: Thursday, March 31,2011 11:47 AM To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Orser, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subject: MEADOWULY WOODS


I am writing to express my concern about the Meadowlily Development and the threat it poses to this important natural area.

Regardless of the development scenario we eventually choose for Meadowlily, it has been indicated in the city presentations that the desired result would be a SUSTAINABLE, UNIQUE & Al lRACnVE development.9 Here are some questions and comments articulated so well by Melissa Parrott regarding our available options and potential approach necessary to achieve these goals.

SUSTAINABlUTY?* Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake.9 Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture.$ The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollution and commute times.9 Small businesses, along with existing brge retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box.9 The jobs would not be hlgh quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourh0od.e The turnover rates of these jobs is very high.$ An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development.+ With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (If I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box79 Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run - would we be encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a clty which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease homelessness and povetty.9 Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go!$ Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustalnable method to development.@ I encourage building these residential/commercial spaces, which provlde affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth.9 Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS?* A new big box development would not be a unique addition to London.@ Yet another big box is not going to draw creative people, retain young people or create unique jobs.9 It would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want to stay in this city.9 You don't hear of people graduating from university with the goal of getting hired at Wal-mart!O These big box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience.$ Smaller businesses and locally run stores offer unique merchandise.

The typical subdivision mega homes are not unique, they more closely represent a cookie cutter design.9 We have the chance to build cutting edge communities, with green energy features and natural community spaces that can be shared and enjoyed.9 Plans should include more gardens and less garages, which leads me to attractiveness. ..

ATTRACTIVENESS7 - There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines. The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is rlght now.9 Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant.9 I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water.9 There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area.

With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. SmaU scale development is crucid to maintainhg the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. 0 I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methds, affordable livihg condtions and alternab've transpo~ation; An appmch that nuftures education and creativiv, small businesses and local pmduction, while dizcouraghg excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fast1 fueycar culture. developments do not mean better developments!

We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains.$ This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town.$ Thls could provide jabs and areas of study to

entice and inspire Lond0nen.O We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map.$ I support developing communitles similar to Wartley village, with mixed residentlal/commercial dwelllngs, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighburhood.

I do not want to see London make the same mistakes again and again, destroying the precious natural areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier, paved over, carbon copy disaster area.$ We are the

forest cky, we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas!$ Yes, Londoners want sustainable,

attractive, unique communities.$ How do you foresee us creating one?

Sincerely, Patty Webber 34 Chalet Crt. London (in wholehearted agreement with M. Parratt)

, ., ~ . . . . . _ . . I . , ,.- . . . I- . . __. .

From: David Heap Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:23 PM TO: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Anstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Oner, Stephen; Baechler, loni; Branscornbe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subject: Meadowlily planning priorities

Dear City Council members, Although I live in the other end of the city, I have taken an active interest in the Meadowlily area for a number of years, including participating in the public process that led to the current city-led planning process, a laudable initiative which should hopefully lead to more citizen-led planning in London. I would like to take this opportunity to comment, both negatively and positively, on some of the options before us at this point.

First, what should not happen at Meadowlily includes two major planning errors which must be avoided: big-box retailers and large single-family homes. Big box retail is highly unsustainable, unattractive and generic (Le. the opposite of unique); moreover, its seriously negative impacts on local economies have been well-documented. The small number of precarious low-wage jobs that such retail outlets might produce would be more than set off by job losses in local small business which are actively (and notoriously) targeted for extinction by big-box retailers. Irreversible watershed dammage, damage to wild-life habitat and increased waste make big-box retail the most undesirable option for the city in general, and for Meadowlily in particular. Similarly, additional large single-family dwellings in this area would have huge environmental impacts without enhancing the land-use significantly for the community.

So, what should happen at Meadowlily? The least invasive options (increased natural spaces, sports areas, an interpretive centre andcommunity gardens with no additional housing or commercial properties) should be preferred in that they enhance a unique natural setting while making it more accessible to the broader community. If there is to be any commercial or residential additions in this area, they should be mixed-use type development: small business storefronts with multi-unit (medium density) housing, offering a blend of rent-geared-to-income, market rental and owned properties with community (including natural) spaces. Small businesses and a diverse residential population, some of who can work, show and play right there, all add up to a recipe for a vibrant community. This could ideally be achieved in a narrow strip along Commissioners, leaving maximal area for transition to green spaces north towards the ESA.

Let me stress that any additonal commercial I housing development in this area must be very modest in size and as close as possible to Commissioners, in order to safeguard the irreplaceable natural asset which is Meadowlily woods. In this sense, while option 4 (big-box retail) is clearly the worst of those presented, all of the options have a similar-sized footprint in terms of increasing the amount of paved (developed) area north of Commissioners. Expanding the ESA and shrinking the area potentially to be "developed" must also be considered as viable options. And of course, the wishes of Meadowlily area residents must remain paramount throughout the process.

Thank you for this opportunity for input. Sincerely, David Heap

85 Forward Ave. London N6H 188

_ _

From: rachel ayres

To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Orser, Stephen; Bsedrler, lonl; BranKOmbe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meetbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; USher, Harold; Blyant, Judy: White, Sandy; Fontana. Joseph; MEC Subject Meadowlily

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:52 PM


I am writing to express my concem about the Meadowlily Development. I have been following this story and atlending the meetings and presentations, alongside many other concerned citizens of London.

I value what little green space we have left in this city and would like to urge those in decision making positions to really reflect on the value of undisturbed natural forest areas.

The wild plants, trees and animals play an extremely important role in our future and the futures of our children.

The following is the input of a friend of mine who I think has some really well thought out points and good ideas, which I agree with. I hope that you have already read it, but if not I urge you to take a few minutes and check it out.

Thank you very much,

Rachel Ayres


SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighburhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big tmx? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run. would we he encouraging (demanding) green energy options (solar panels etc)?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a city which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease homelessness and poverty. Multifamily, affordable homes are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above have been mentioned during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method to development. I encourage building these residentialicommercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth. Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS? A new big box development would not be a unique addition tu London. Yet another big box is not going to draw creative people, retain young people or create unique jobs. It would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want to slay in this city. You don't hear of people graduating from university with the goal of getting hired at Wal-mart! These big box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience. Smaller businesses and locally run stores offer unique merchandise.

The typical subdivision mega homes are not unique, they more closely represent a cookie cutter design. We have the chance to build cutting edge communities, with green energy features and naNral community spaces that can be shared and enjoyed. Plans should include more gardens and less garages, which leads me to attractiveness.

ATTRACTIVENESS? - There is nothing amactive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines.

The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, Nn-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encowages sustainable energy methods, affordable living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nulures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuellcar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residentiakommercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkahle neighbourhood.

I do nut want to see London make the same mistakes again and again, destroying the precious natnral areas in our city and creating an uglier, dirtier, paved over, carbon copy disaster area. We are the forest city, we need to appreciate and protect our natural areas! Yes, Londoners want sustainable, attractive, unique communities. How do you foresee us creating one?

A g m W Item Pa e # FIG] From: 6.6. Sent: Sunday, April 03,2011 2% PM To: McNeely, Heather; Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Jweph; Orser, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denlse; Usher, Harold; Btyant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Sub$?& Concern about the Meadowlily Development


I am writing to express my concern about the Meadowlily Development.

Any development in and to this area will be detrimental to any species animal as well as plant that depend on this area to sustain it's survival.

This is a critical time in history and I believe that the green spaces in the city as well as those located on the outskirts of the city need to be protected as areas that sustain life.

The city needs a plan to preserve and sustain these havens, because everyone will be affected by climate change. The question remains what changes will occur? Perhaps maintaining the green spaces will help balance any devastating effects.

It's time for the Mayor, Councillors and staff to look at preserving the history of the "Forest City" step back and embrace a plan that values these wild areas that add health and beauty to the city as a whole.

Respectfully;

Karen King

London Ontario N6H IT1

$305-304 OXJO~ Sf. W.

From: Fred Lane Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:50 AM To: McNeely, Heather Subject: Meadowlily Secondary Plan

Good day Ms McNeely,

I am a new resident in the Meadowlily area and have not had the opportunity to express my opinion on the planned development for this area. As I am working on the date of the next public meeting I thought this would be a venue for me to express my feelings, I'm fully aware that one mans opinion doesn't carry much weight alone, however I would like to pass on my opinion and thank you for listening.

Fmtly I am against any development that would adversely effect the wildlife in this area. My wife and I spend quite some time wandering around this area and thoroughly enjoy the area just as it is. I am totally against a Big Box store on the north side of commissioners when there is already a retail area to the south with plenty of room for expansion. As for residential development. It is my feeling that any sort of stacked housing would be a detriment to the area and totally detract from the wilderness feel of the area. As well as put too much human traffic demand on the existing forested area.

Meadowlily is a haven in the east end of of the city that should be left alone and protected kom development for the sake of generations to come. There must be plenty of other areas in the city that can be developed without having such an effect on an already practical wilderness site.

Thanks for taking the time to read my little rant. Cheers Fred Lane

Agonda Item # Pa e #

ElGI From: W or D Wake Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:30 PM To: McNeely, Heather Subject: Meadowliiy Area Plan

Dear Ms. McNeely:

Thank you for the opportunity to review materials relating t o the Meadowlily Area Plan. There i s a considerable amount of material available for review, and additional time for public review would have been helpful.

Although we live several kilometres from the Meadowlily area, we have great appreciation for the important natural featuresof the Meadowlily ESA. Thus, we were pleased to see that AECOM has undertaken a Natural Heritage Study, including a review of the €SA Boundary. We view this Natural Heritage Study as an essential component o f this planning process.

As noted in the Natural Heritage Report, several small watercourses flow through the Meadowlily ESA to the Thames River. Both the Natural Heritage Report and the Stormwater report highlight the existing erosion problems in these watercourses. In considering development options for lands adjacent to the Meadowlily ESA, drainage issues will be of critical concern. The potential for increased flows, caused by development is a serious threat t o all parts o f this €SA, including the Meadowlily Nature Preserve. It is encouraging to see that the revised €SA boundary identifies protective corridors on either side of small watercourses. However, we are concerned that even with such protective corridors in place, flooding and erosion issues will be exacerbated if development proceeds in the headwaters of these small streams.

In addition to the drainage concerns, establishment of a suitable buffer outside of the €SA boundary is an essential consideration. We note that a number of issues, including the extent of the buffer, will be addressed through a future Environmental Impact Study (EIS). We encourage development of a buffer that exceeds the minimum guideline of 10 metres.

When development occurs adjacent to any €SA, the ESA is often subject to increased stress, especially through encroachments and uncontrolled public access. Such stresses may occur, whether the development is either residential or commercial. In the case of Meadowlily ESA, we note that the Conservation Master Plan is more than twenty years old. This Master Plan must be updated, prior to preparation of any development-related €IS. In particular, the Master Plan should be updated to address access points, trails, and the latest information regarding site sensitivities and protected species.

Yours truly,

David and Winifred Wake 597 Kildare Road London ON N6H 3H8

Agenda Item I Pa e # A

From: Bonnie W Sent: Thursday, March 31,201 1 6:26 PM To: McNeely, Heather: Polhill, Bud; Armstrong, Bill; Swan, Joseph; Orser, Stephen; Baechler, Joni; Branscombe, Nancy; Brown, Matt; Hubert, Paul; Henderson, Dale; Van Meerbergen, Paul; Brown, Denise; Usher, Harold; Bryant, Judy; White, Sandy; Fontana, Joseph; MEC Subject: Meadowlily development plan




SUSTAINABILITY? Allowing a Smart Centre or other large big box development in this location would be a huge mistake. Being on the outskirts of town, sustainability would immediately be out of the picture. The distance from city center would increase traffic, pollution and commute times. Small businesses, along with existing large retail outlets would suffer from the addition of another big box. The jobs would not be high quality, well paying ones, suitable for residents of the new development neighbourhood. The turnover rates of these jobs is very high. An employee of the big box would not be likely able to afford a home in the new development. With potential current expansions to the Argyle Mall store (if I am not mistaken), paired with failing big box locations as well, why would we even consider paving over so much more good land and developing another big box? Not to mention, these developments require substantial amounts of lighting, heat and power to run -would we demand green energy options, such as solar panels etc?

Large, single family homes with 2 car garages and huge price tags are not sustainable living units, especially in a city which has been trying to portray an image of its attempts to decrease homelessness and poverty. Creating neighbourhoods of multifamily, affordable homes with community centres are the way to go! Storefront small businesses with housing units located above encourage community and have been supported during presentations as being a successful, sustainable method to development. I encourage building these residentiallcommercial spaces, which provide affordable accommodations and nurture small business growth. Small businesses support the Canadian economy and local production.

UNIQUENESS? A new big box development is not a unique addition to London, Yet another big box is not going to draw creative people, retain young people or create unique jobs. It would not provide a reason for London's creative class to want to stay in this city. You don't hear of people graduating from university with the goal of getting hired at Wal-mart! These big box developments do not provide a unique shopping experience. Smaller businesses and locally run stores offer unique merchandise and foster a strong downtown.


ATTRACTIVENESS? - There is nothing attractive about a big box store, the amount of litter, packaging, waste and pollution reared from it's parking lots and check-out lines.

The Meadowlily area is attractive as it is right now. Trees, native species and wildlife are abundant. I fear with impeding development that many species will suffer from habitat loss, vehicular accident increase and pollution in the air, ground and water. There is no doubt that a large development would have an impact on this fragile environmentally significant area. With the woods and river being downhill from the proposed development site, run-off and pollution from a large scale would be inevitable. Small scale development is crucial to maintaining the already attractive and extremely valuable natural traits of the area!

I am not so naive that I believe we will stop development in London. I am only hopeful that a new approach can be attained, one that encourages sustainable energy methods, affordable

living conditions and alternative transportation; An approach that nurtures education and creativity, small businesses and local production, while discouraging excessive pollution, energy wasting building designs and an utter dependency on fossil fuelkar culture. We need to be smart about this and realize that bigger developments do not mean better developments!

I support the idea of building an educational center in the area, that will focus on public awareness and education about the species and eco-system that Meadowlily contains. This is a development that would encourage people to come from out of town. This could provide jobs and areas of study to entice and inspire Londoners. We may not get the choice of what to build, but I must stress my support for concepts like this one, which could put London on the map. I support developing communities similar to Wortley village, with mixed residential/commercial dwellings, small scale stores providing a nicely balanced, walkable neighbourhood.


Thank you for considering my point of view,

Bonnie Wodin

March 31.201 1

SUMMARY OF IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS PREPARED FOR BNE COMMITTEE re OPTIONS 1 THROUGH 5 OF MEADOWLILY AREA PLAN.

1. OPEN SPACE: - All Plans show 14 Hectares of Open Space. Would it be. possible to highlight these areas at the Public Participation Meeting on April 20”, so everyone knows exactly where they are. Are these hectares all located in the one large space, or smaller spaces? Is Open Space the same in all Options?

2. RESIDENTIAL UNITS DENSITY: Option 3 with 2045 Residential Units (93 per hectare) is not consistent with the current residential area, nor with protection of the Natural Area. The GFA is significantly higher than the other Options, and does not therefore seem to be as “livable” as the other options.

3 NATURE/INTERPRETIVE CENTRE - Only Option 1 addressed the need for a Nature Interpretive Centre, (2,940 m2 ). However, the location in Option 1 is not the best, since parkng along Meadowlily Rd. is very limited. Entrance into the Meadowlily Environmental1 Significant Area would best be served from the Sports Field Area (better parking, and already being used by TREA as a meeting point for their hikes.) Would it be possible to have the Nature Interpretive Centre combined with the Community Centre as a much better use of all resources, land available, financial resources, and location next to the Sports Fields.

4. a) COMMUNITY CENTRE: - ALL options do provide for a Community Centre of 7,800 m2. Such a Community Centre would meet the needs of growing neighbourhoods of Suxnmerside, and Old Victoria Area, and would still be accessible from the Hamilton Rd. Area by crossing over the Meadowlily Pedestrian Bridge. This is a positive response to Community needs expressed at previous public participation and visioning sessions.

b) Could considerqtion might be given to -COMPLEX, housing the Community Centre AND Nature Interpretive Centre, for a total of less square metres than 10,759 if built separately. Washroom space could be accessible if located in an area Common to both, p a r h g could be shared, and lessening the GFA of 2 stand-alone buildings with separate facilities in each.. Could a Library be considered as Phase 2 if there is sufficient land available, again with the Library being desiwed to share common facilities.

c) LIBRARY: T e current Library is a rented facility; when does the Lease expire in that Strip Mall on Commissioners Rd.? The GFA could be lowered by building a two-stotey complex.

5. Is there any Capital Cost budgeted for a new Library in the future in that area?

6 . PAVED PARKING: - The GFA in Option 4 with Big Box Retail is not the highest, but it does not include the major paved area that would be required\to service this large rqtail footprint. A major concern with Option 4 would also be the floodlighting rekpired for Commercial zoning with its impact on wildlife, plus the use of snow removal salt and chemicals which would drain down into the ESA, or into the Thames River, unless it is pumped into the sewage treatment plant. What is the capacity of Pottersburg with the Old Victoria area included? What is the capacity of the Summerside sewate treatment plant, or do they also use the Pottersburg site? What is the usage totally once Summerside is built out and Old Victoria is completely built out under the current design? Will the capacity meet groundwater being pumped in from the Meadowlily area? It is the City’s stated goal to clean up pollution of the Thames River, so presumably there would be no plans for groundwater to be diverted into the Thames River.

7. PROVINCIAL POJACY STATEMENT RE BROWNFIELDS: - The Provincial Policy Statement is clear that Municipalities not approve additional Commercial space where there bre significant brownfields. A short list of the brownfields in nearby areas would be: Directly off 401 (one end of the Commercial development on the West side of Wellington Rd. is completely empty and For Lease; further down Wellington Rd. both Homesense and Toys ‘R Us big box stores have closed; and directly over the Highbury Overpass within walking distance, the central portion of the shopping centre there has now been demolished; further East on Commissioners Rd. there are many boarded-up retail outlets. There are still stores on the opposite side of the road which are for rent.

8. OTHER RETAIL VAILABLE: Besides the obvious retail space available directly across fro location), where t ere is already space allocated for a large Superstore, there will be new Retail spade becoming available at the Old Victoria location ; Le. a Town Centre and a Neig bourhood Retail component. This means that Meadowlily Road itself will be f totally surrounded with Retail - to the South (big box retail with space still av ’ ’lable, and Summerside Strip Mall; South (Hamilton Rd. Business Area witvn walking distance) - to the West (stores closing along Commissioners, big box space available due to demolition) -and to the East with Victoria Ridge (2 betail components). When the population of that “neighbourhood area” is calculated -what is the Retail available per person within that extended neighbourhood?

9. JOBS: There has been concern expressed that the 440 jobs quoted under Option 4 would mostly be the same jobs now being held at Argyle Mall and/or White Oaks Mall, as these are in leased space; and one or both would most likely be closed if the zoning requested by Smart Centres is approved for 168 Meadowlily Rd. south.

Meadowlily Road on the South side of Commissioners (Rona f

10. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA: It appears that only Option 1 leaves the existing homes intact. Does that imply that expropriation would be used to move these owners from their current properties?

Respectfull submitted,

Rick and Carol Richardson

From: donsby@ Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:57 PM To: McNeely, Heather Subject: City File 0-7614

I was at the meeting a few weeks ago at the church on Cornmissloner's regarding the change for the comer of Meadowlily and Comm.. I must say I was vely impressed with the planning that has gone into this.

For me personally, I would very much like to see a Wal-mart on that mrner as well as some smaller stores. Even though the mall on the south side of Comm. where Rona is, has not flourished to say the least, I would hope that another big box store would bring more customers and help out the "little" guy. More stores have closed in that little strip mall, than new ones opening!!!!

My concern at present is the issue of lack of parking for cars at the playing fields adjacent to this property in mention. It is a total nightmare out here on the weekends with cars and trucks parked everywhere. I guess my question is, why would this many playing fields be allowed to be put in, without sufficient parklng for those attending? I don't think it would be right to expect Wal-mart to build and maintain a parking lot for the playlng felds. Great for the tax payer, if the city could get away with it.

Is there any word on when (or If) Loblaws intend to open in the vacant land between Rona and the church?

Look foward to your reply.

KEEP UP ME GOOD WORK

Marie Onsby 232-2025 Meadowgate Blvd. London

FRIENDS OF MEADOWLILY WOODS 141 Meadowlily Road South, London, ON. N6M IC3 w.meadowlilywoods.ca

April 11,2011

ATT: Lorelei Fisher and Heather McNeely City Hall 300 Dufferin Avenue London, ON. N6B 122

The vision of Meadowlily Area Plan is much more than the boundaries and borders that are being discussed in the community visioning process. The actual vision that is chosen and implemented for Meadowlily Area will have a significant impact for the city and the people London. A significant part of the Meadowlily Area has been sustainable as an environmental gem for centuries, The Friends of Meadowlily Woods ask that this area be protected and preserved for future generations. The only vision for the Meadowlily Area is one that viable and sustainable.

A viable option for the Meadowlily Area would include preserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage of the area. A community center and interpretative centre would certainly complement the area with the adjacent the City Wide Sports Park. The features and benefits of this area include; Meadowlily Nature Preserve, Park Farm, Meadowlily Cemetery (First Nations), Meadowlily Woods ESA, home to the Meadow Lily also known as the Canada Lily, an endangered species found in Meadowlily Woods, Meadowlily pedestrian bridge, Meadowlily Community Garden, and low density residential homes that include seniors, families and people that have respected and preserved this area. The vision for Meadowlily is much more than selecting an option one (1) through (S), it is about people that have come together to embark on a vision and plan for Meadowlily over the last three (3) years, to inspire community involvement, participate actively in the visioning process, and be a part of creating a community that liveable, sustainable, and is engaged in protecting and preserving elements that are part of London’s identity, the Forest City.

What choice is viable for Meadowlily? The choice that is in line with the Provincial Policy Statement, that is in line with following the guidelines of planning that include constraints and opportunities, that are in line with appropriate zoning, features that complement the area and benefit the community, and in line with our vision for the future is what makes London and Meadowlily the BEST for our city.

Choose to preserve, protect and enhance Meadowlily that is the only sustainable and viable choice.

Sincerely,

Dorothy Stolarski President of Friends of Meadowlily Woods

A V M ~ Item ff Pa e #

Ell-?xl From: STANLEY BROWN Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:OS PM To: Fisher, Lorelei cc: Subject: Meadowlily

Dear Lorelei:

I am writing regarding the application to develop in the Meadowlily area. I realize that this email is a little late, but I would appreciate if you couldplease append it to the associated Planning Committee agenda item regarding this issue.

The Stoneybrook HeightslUplands Residents Association (SHURA) supports the position of the Friends of Meadowlily Community Association. The land use designations for the area should reflect the natural and cultural character of the Meadowlily area and have the least intrusive impact on the ESA. Option 1 is preferable to other options. Broad buffers adjacent to the ESA are essential for the maintenance and protection of the natural heritage features and functions. This lesson has been learned in other environmentally sensitive areas in London. This Environmentally Sensitive Area is unquestionably one of the most environmentally diverse. If the city truly stands for protection and enhancement of the natural heritage system, then this area must be protected, expanded and enhanced.

Thank you,

Stan Brown President, SHURA

Ms. Heather McNeely do Ms. Lodelei Fisher London City Clerk’s office London Planning Division City of London P.O. Box 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

Concerns with Respect to the Meadowlily Area Plan Options for Land Use and Sewer and Storm Water Draft Study, FebruaryIMarch, 201 1 City File No. 0-7614. Meadowlily alternative land use concepts and servicing options

30 March 2011

Ms. McNeely and Ms. Fisher,

As the Senior Planner for the Meadowlily Area Secondary Plan and as secretary for the Council Committee for Built and Natural Heritage could you please forward these concerns to the Public Participation Meeting, April 20 for the Meadowlily Area Plan?

Land Use Options, Servicing of Storm Water Management Measures and Sanitary Sewer Options Using Meadowlily Road South andlor Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area:

1

Agonda item Pa e #

1) Disturbing the roadway and areas around Meadowlily Road South will also disturb the boundaries and buffers associated with Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area. Both the Natural Heritage and the Built and Cultural Heritage Studies attached to this Area Plan suggest the landscape and the natural areas of Meadowlily are treasures in and of themselves.

The Built and Cultural Heritage Study suggests that the areas of Park Farm Heritage Farmstead, Meadowlily Bridge and Meadowlily Mill ruins as well as the rural landscape of Meadowlily Road South itself deserve to be designated as a Cultural Heritage Consewation Area and that means changing the layout of the road and its environs violates the spirit of seeking to maintain and protect the existing roadway and allowances.

The Natural Heritage Study attached to the Meadowlily Area Plan Draft Studies also suggests that the Environmentally Significant Area deserves to be protected, not just in terms of its interior, but also its margins and buffers are a key part of maintaining and protecting this natural area. Disturbances to the boundaries and buffers of this natural area also affect the rest of the Meadowlily Area. The hedgerows, edge effects and protective undergrowth on the edges of the Environmentally Significant Area protect and maintain the more rare and significant species within the natural area. To disturb the landscape of Meadowlily Road South is to disturb the nature of the area itself.

2) Servicing the Area in terms of sewer and water services in or through the Environmentally Significant Area is in violation of the Provincial Policy Statement regarding Natural Heritage features like natural areas, wetlands and woodlands. Sections 2.1.2,3 of the Wise U s e and Management of Resources portion of the policy statement suggests:

"The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecdogkai function and bicdiiersity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features." Provincial pdicy Statement, Section 2

In addition, Section 2.1.3.1 also applies, "Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species ..." as there are several rare, endangered and threatened species identified with Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area.

3) In the City of London Official Plan it also directs that: New or expanded infrastructure shall only be permitted within Natural Heritage areas including stream corridors where it is clearly demonstrated through an environmental assessment process or an environmental impact study that there is no reasonable alternative for locating that infrastructwe elsewhere. The C i and other relevant public authorities shall in any case consider methods for minimbing impacts when reviewing proposals to construct @ansportation, communication, sewerage or other infrastructure in natural heritage areas. Official Plan, 15.3.3

For instance the "mitigation measures" of installing the existing sewer in the Northeast comer of Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area have still left large portions of the sewer area without trees, nor was any of the previous habitat for birds and wildlife restored as suggested by that plan to limit damage to the Environmentally Significant Area. The absence of the trees has diminished indigenous plant species and reduced natural habitat while at the same time encouraging the growth of invasive plant species.

The City of London Official Plan suggests that such encroachments and invasions of natural areas should only be considered after adequate Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Study would suggest there is no other alternative. The problem with this sanitary sewer and water study is that it does NOT seem to take into account the very natural heritage and cultural heritage studies attached to the Meadowlily Area Plan Study Documents, but instead seems to use the apparent necessity of development to JUSTIFY forcing this new expanded infrastructure in, around or even through Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area. This is not in keeping with the City's Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement's suggested protections for natural areas.

Closing Comments:

Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area qualifies for these protections and assurances in terms of

1) Biodiversity

2) Connectivity, 126 acres proper, 623 acres in total (MNR)

3) Natural features, Relatively undisturbed example of Ingersoll Glacial Moraine

4) Long-term ecological functionality as protected habitat

5) Highly-Scored as a Provincially Designated Wetland

6) Contains rare, endangered and threatened species within its boundaries as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Canadian Ministry of the Environment

A

Needing to justify the incursion of such infrastructure on the basis of housing or commerciallretail space seems unreasonable with many unused building lots in the adjacent area of Summerside Subdivision as well as large amounts of availaMe lots for commercial expansion across Commissioners Road East. There are vast amounts of abandoned, unused commercial facilities as well in the immediate area, west of Highbury. It seems especially absurd in the light of the Natural Heritage md Archaeological and Built Heritage Background Assessment recommendations attached to the rest of the Meadowlily Area Study.

Respectfully Submitted,

Susan High

Gary Smith

141 Meadowlily Road South London, ON N6M IC3 51 9-680-7488 Email: [email protected]

susanahig heyahoo .ca

Putting the 66 S 99 Back in ESAs Part 11: Threats to Meadowlily

by city planners Greg Thorn

Department of Biology University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada

I

Environmentally Significant Areas

London is fortunate to have, and to have designated, 16 ESAs, 7 of them managed by the UTRCA

Meadowlily Woods, Medway Valley Heritage Forest, Sifton (Byron) Bog, Warbler Woods, and Westminster PondsPond Mills Conservation Area

Kains Woods, Kilally Meadows,

1

ALL ESAs are Significant

The Medway Heritage Forest ESA protects at least 5 Endangered Species of plants, molluscs & vertebrate animals, 4 Threatened, 5 of Special Concern (Le,, not counting Insects or Fungi, etc.) Lists such as these could be presented for all of the London’s ESAs - they all contain regionally, provincially, or nationally significant species because they are tiny remnants of our natural areas Their continued value depends on their protected CORE area and this, in turn, depends on a protected buffer area surrounding the core.

Meadowlily Woods: Before proposed development

2

Meadowlily Woods: After proposed development

!ore -

Please do not PLAN to degrade our ESAs!

Planning should consider the input of the city’s own experts: staff ecologists and members of EPAC Planning should consider inputs fkom experts and local residents in the community Planning should include a proper EIS and extensive ecological analyses, not carried out by the same consulting firm hired by the developers

3

Please protect our ESAs Planning should consider ecological principles, not just economic principles

a Of the five planning options presented in the March 9 Open House, even Option I (“Passive”) is too aggressive, and represents a threat to continued protection of Meadowlily Woods ESA. The other four options (“Medium” to “Built Up”) are absolutely unacceptable and, based on the environmental and community inputs the city has already had, should not even be on the table for consideration.

4

Nature London The McIhrraith Field Naturalists of Landon Ontario Inc.

P.O. Box 24008. London, Ontario N6H 5C4

Actively concerned with Nature since 1890

February 23,2010

Ms Nancy Pasato, Planner Planning and Development, Planning Division London City Hall 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

Dear Ms Pasato:

RE: MEADOWLILY AREA SECONDARY PLAN PUBLIC MEETING, FEB. 10, 2010

The following comments about the Meadowlily Area Secondary Plan, discussed at the above mentioned meeting, are submitted on behalf of Nature London (formally known as the McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, Ontario Inc.).

1. Theme 1. A Liveable Community. a) Nature London believes that, first and foremost, a “liveable community”

needs lots of conserved natural green space to provide essential air purifying and water filtering and retaining attributes for a healthy community. Aside from allowing many wildlife and native plant species to enrich our city, a natural environment also serves as an important psychological booster for many people seeking respite &om the stresses of daily urban life. Designated Open Space features (Meadowlily Nature Preserve, owned by the Thames Talbot Land Trust; Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significunf Area, and the sports park) constitute about two thirds of the Meadowlily Secondary Plan Area, and form a very important green corridor along the Thames River. If anything, these should be heavily buffered with plantings of native shrub and tree species south to Commissioners Road, especially the depression leading into the ravine at the north side of the field on the northeast comer of the Commissioners RoadMeadowlily Road intersection. It is important to consider the provincial “Big Picture” Green Comdor and Greenways concept in London, even though this concept may not yet be part of the Official Plan.

Agenda Item # Pa e #

Fl EJ

b) Commercial development of any kind in the Secondary Plan Area would

c) Any residential housing development should be confined to the be inappropriate.

southwestem comer, west of Meadowlily Road, and should be of the low- density, single residence type. The,"finger" of ORCG-designated space (opposite the entrance to the Environmentally Significant Area and Park Farm) extending north between the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area and the wooded area south of the Meadowlily Nature Preserve should, ideally, be incorporated into the Environmentally Significant Area to strengthen the green corridor.

d) If there is to be development of any kind in the field at the northeast comer of the Commissioners Road/Meadowlily Road intersection, it should be an Environmental Interpretive Centre (or small community centre or clinic), using environmentally sustainable designs of the LEED building type, and close to Commissioners Road. This would be something of which the Summerside Community could be proud. A small square, incorporating memorial native tree and shrub plantings and benches, with a central fountain might be an ideal fit with an Environmental Interpretive Centre. There should be a wide buffer area with native plant species planted in it, between any development and the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area.

2. Theme 2. Attractive Place. a) One of the most attractive features of any suburban area is an attractive

stretch of river, and this Secondary Plan Area is adjacent to a beautiful stretch of the South Thames. The river should be treasured and the green corridor to its south should be protected and buffered at all costs.

b) Road infrastructure should be kept to a minimum in the Meadowlily Secondary Plan Area. Meadowlily Road south of the Thames should have restricted rruflcflow and should not become a north-south thoroughfare through construction of a new bridge to replace the historic Meadowlily Bridge. If this road were widened to become an important link with the north, it would have a very detrimental, fragmenting effect on the green corridor comprising the Meadowlily Nature Preserve and the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area, and possibly interfere with the movement of wildlife, both migratory and resident species. It would be nice to see an avenue of hardy native trees planted along Meadowlily Road to beautify it.

c) If a multi-use paved pathway is to be installed from the Highbury Ave Bridge south to Commissioners Road, it should be installed alongside Highbury Ave rather than through the Meadowlily Secondary Plan Area. No paved multi-use pathways should be included within the Environmentally Significant Area.

should be aesthetically in keeping with the Open Space areas of the Plan, and should have a minimal footprint. It should certainly not be allowed to

d) Any residential development in the southwest comer of the Plan Area

have any adverse water-runoff effects on the Meadowlily Nature Preserve, Environmentally Significant Area or the South Thames River. It should also have wide buffers between houses and existing wooded areas. No storm-water management facilities should be within the Environmentally Significant Area.

3. Theme 3. A Sustainable Community a) Sustainability means a low drain on the City’s taxes; self-supporting

features such as LEED buildings; easily maintained features; low energy and sewer costs; easily accessible and reliable mass transportation; a healthy natural environment. This means minimizing intrusions into the Environmentally Significat Area. This includes a minimal number of trails and no pathways. Our understanding of the city’s terminology is that pathways are paved and multi-use trails are for foot traffic only and not paved.

b) An efficient bus service, with designated “bus-only” lanes, would serve Commissioners Road well south of the Secondary Plan Area.

4. Theme 4. A Unique Identity a) The South Thames River and the unique Meadowlily Woods

Environmentally Significant Area (and the Park Farm site) make this Secondary Plan Area unique and well worth protecting. Both Meadowlily Nature Preserve and Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area are gems. Interpretive signs along the trails in the ESA would tie in well with an Environmental Interpretive Centre alongside Commissioners Road. Commercial development would be entirely inappropriate and should be kept out of the Plan Area.

b) The historic Meadowlily Bridge should be preserved, if possible, and designated a Heritage Bridge.

Thank you for giving these comments careful consideration.

Yours truly,

Anita Caveney, Past President

Cc: Com Marr, Planner AECOM Canada Inc. [email protected]

Actively concerned with Nature since 1864

March 25,201 1

Heather McNeely Senior Planner Planning Division City of London P.O. Box 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

Dear Ms McNeely:

Re: Draft Land Use and Servicing Options for Meadowlily Area Secondary Plan

Nature London wishes to make the following comments about the Land Use and Servicing Options presented at the Meadowlily Area Secondary Plan Public Meeting No. 3 held at Summerside Community Church on March 9,20 1 t .

1. Land Use Options As an organization that has for many decades been concerned with the protection of significant natural areas in London, Nature London wishes to reiterate its desire to see a minimal amount of development in the Meadowlily Plan area, as expressed in its letter of February 23,2010 sent to the former City Planner on the project, Nancy Pasato (please see attachment). For the reasons expressed previously, Nature London would prefer to see only a community centre (or branch library) and an environmental interpretive centre built on the developable area in the northeast comer of the Commissioners Rd- Meadowlily Rd intersection. This would leave a lot of green space for re-naturalization projects and to act as a buffer south of the Meadowlily Woods ESA boundary. A small public park or memorial garden closer to Commissioners Rd could form an attractive link between the community centre and the interpretive centre. Nature London would support a small low-density residential development at the northwest comer of the Commissioners Rd-Meadowlily Rd intersection, but does not favour any development in the lower-grade area (‘finger projection’) on the northwest side of Meadowlily Rd, which should be kept as a green corridor linking the Meadowlily Nature Preserve and the Meadowlily Woods ESA, as shown in the “Big Picture” cross-hatching on Schedule B1 of the Official Plan. Nature London feels that commercial development is not appropriate for the Plan area because runoff from rain events and from snow melts from large-surface parking lots is detrimental to an ESA, even with mitigation measures.

.

Agenda item (I Pa e # ElGI

Nature London also feels that medium- and high-density residential development would be inappropriate for the Plan area and should be kept to the south side of Commissioners Rd. Preferred Option: Nature London supports Land Use Option 1, but without any development in the ‘finger projection’ on the northwest side of Meadowlily Rd.

2. Storm Water Management (SWM) Serving Options In keeping with its support of Land Use Option 1, Nature London supports SWM Serving Option 1, requiring little SWM management, and using swales, filters, rain barrels as necessary. As storm water and sanitary sewer servicing in the ‘finger projection’ area of Meadowlily Rd would likely be technically or economically unfeasible, according to comments made by engineers at the March 9 meeting, no residential development should be carried out in this area. The servicing strategy with the least impacts on the features and functions of the ESA should be selected.

Nature London supports a request made by a member of the audience (Dave Wake) at the March 9 meeting that a better clarification be posted online of how water flow through the ESA will be monitored and controlled for each servicing option. It is important to ensure that post-development flows are a net benefit to the ESA and that monitoring is put in place to ensure such targets are achieved. In the case of fairly recent development on the east side of Sifton Bog ESA, regular post-development monitoring of water flows into the ESA does not seem to have taken place. Preferred Option: Nature London supports S W M Servicing Option 1. The servicing strategy with the least impacts on the features and functions of the ESA should be selected for the small amount of development in Land Use Option 1.

3. Sanitary Sewer Servicing Options Again, in keeping with its support for Land Use Option 1, Nature London supports Sanitary Sewer Servicing Option 1, requiring a pumping facility to take sewage across Commissioners Rd to hook up with sewers on the south side. The most appropriate servicing strategies should be used for the small amount of development in Land Use Option 1. Preferred Option: Nature London supports Sanitary Sewer Servicing Option 1 using strategies appropriate for the small amount of development in Land Use Option 1.

4. Natural Heritage Strategy Nature London is satisfied with the Natural Heritage Strategy Study undertaken by AECOM and the draft report of January 25,201 1 on its results and conclusions, as posted on the City of London web site. Nature London supports City-led area studies.

Nature London is pleased with AECOM’s conclusions that the Meadowlily Woods ESA boundary be extended (as shown in Map 6 - ESA Boundary Delineation), based on Guidelines 3,4 ,6 and 7 relating to internal vegetation linkages; watercourses; marshes,

thicket swamps or untreed wetland communities greater than 0.2 ha in size; and cultural savannahs, woodlands and old fields that minimize negative edge effects.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Land Use and Servicing Options presented at the March 9,201 1 public meeting. Nature London hopes that the above input will be given serious consideration, in the long-term interests of a very special green area in the city.

Yours truly,

Anita Caveney. Past President and member of the Conservation Committee

Cc: Tony Fediw, Project Manager, AECOM

T I 1 5184W745 F a : 51968514662

n-acoonmon h m m h m cmn-

Irene Mattiyssen Member Of Parliament fW London-Fanrhawe

NDP ClltlC h r the Status Of WomOn, Deputy Wtlc for PubUc Safety

London Cily Hall Planning Department 300 Duflerin Ave. London ON

Attention: Heather McNeely

March 25.201 1

To City Council 8 Staff,

As the federal Member of Parliament for London Fanshawe. I am writing to file official comment on the Meadowlily Area Secondary Plan.

I have attended as many of the public meetings on this issue as my schedule has allowed. and ensured that a representative from my office was in attendance when I could not be. I have also hosted a public meeting with constituenls-tnore than 200 attended-in regard to the proposed zoning change and development plan for the property at168 Meadowlily Rd.

I have reviewed the five options put forward by the consulting firm retained by the City of London to develop options. I have reviewed the additional materiels in regard to the water and sewage issues, traffic concerns-including the need for significant upgrades to the Highbury Ave cloverleaf to accommodate commercial traffk If Options 2-5 were to proceed.

Meadowlily Woods is an Environmentally Significant Area and we must not invest in development projects that will jeopardize this environmental treasure. Further developing a retail complex far from the core of the city IS at odds with "smart growth" planning. The proposals put forward would require consumers to reach such retail outlets in cars, or by public transit. Current public transit sewice in this m a is wholly inadequate to support any meaningful retail development The infrastructure required to support this new retail shopping plaza will be an e n m o u s cost. at a time when the municipality is making every effort to hold the line on spending with no guarantee of future return on investment. Moreover, the city already has a surplus of vacant commercial property, including vacant space urgently in need of redevelopment in the immediate vicinity, on the northwest corner of Highbury and Commissioners, the 'Pond Mills Square Mall", and along the northern side of Commissioners Rd between Highbury and Adelaide. Given the high rates of vacancy in the immediate area, it is doubtful that additional development would be any more successful.

www.irmemathyssen.ca

Ottawa Loru/mt i7OC-D Dundw SI. London ON NSVJ 3C9 To1 5196854745 Fsr519805i42

IMotCa*non. C k M F w 6 M r " " I

Irene nfatfipen Member Of Parliament for London-Fanshawe

NoP CMIC for me status or women. oepw C ~ H C for Public safety

Although I know supporters. developers and proponents claim that commercial development will result in more jobs for Londoners. However, development jobs are temporary in nature, and permanent jobs will only be low paying minimum wage jobs, More importantly the job numbers have no actual basis in real planning. When questioned about the validity of job numbers the consulting firm replied that the numbers were a formulaic calculatiin based on square meters of development, and were not representative of actual jobs

The history of such development encroaching upon natural areas is not a posnive one for London. Problems that have arisen over other such areas as the Wesminister Ponds and the ponds behind Parkwood are prime examples Wildlife habitat. water quality and the low of trees and indigenous species of plant Me are just a few of the issues. I do not believe any of the options presented take into full account the importance of preserving this environmental treasure. However, Option 1. which provides for single family residences present the least objectionable manner in which to move forward.

Finally, I wish to impress on City the importance of the investments made by the federal government in regard to rehabilitating the Thames River Corridor. Commercial development in the area in questions does not ft the Canadian Heritage River System mandate and designation for the Thames River. if the City were to proceed with any significant commercial development in this area, there is no guarantee that federal funds will continue to be available to our community through Environment Canada for Thames River Corridor projects

Therefore, it is my view that proposals 4 and 5 are completely Unacceptab\e. PrOpOSa\s 2 and 3, suggesting a mix of small retail and residential develop present concerns for me, although I do concur that the incorporation of a community centre and/or an environmental interpretive centre as laid out in these p r o p a i s is commendable.

It is my recommendation that the City pursue Proposal 1 as the most appropriate model for rezoning and planning in this study area.

Sincerely.

Irene Mathysseen, Member of Parliament for London-Fanshawe NDP Critic for the Status of Women Wd

www.irmemathyssen.ca

BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DIRECTOR, … · 2013-05-31 · agendaitemc pep# meadow111...

Documents

Transcript of BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DIRECTOR, … · 2013-05-31 · agendaitemc pep# meadow111...