300 Dufferin Avenue

P.O. Box 5035

London, ON

N6A4L9

May 10,2011

J. M. FlemingDirector, Land Use Planning a¡d City Planner

I hereby certify that the Municipal Council, at its session held on May 9, *:-10. That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the report

concerning public ieedback on the alternative land use and servicing options, and associated draft

background studies for the Meadowlily Secondary Plan BE REGEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Civic Administration and the City's Consulting Team will continue to receive public

and agLncy comments up to April 29,2011 and that the comments will be considered in the preparation ofgre préterréd land use plän 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 ãot 1, with a status updaté or with a draft preferred land use plan, servicing optíon, Class EA

documents, and secondary Plan;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following

individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:

. D, Stolarski, 11 Kintail Crescent, President, Friends of Meadowlily Woods - requesting that the

Meadowlily area be preserved and that the natural and cultural heritage of the area be enhanced

through use of a community centre or an environmental interpretive centre.o A. Stõlarski, 1140 Pondview Drive, Friends of Meadowlily Woods - noting that this area is a

showcase, and that consideration ota community centre at this location would be an idealfit.o e. Richardson , 2-1200 Riverside Drive, Friends of Meadowlily Woods - noting that a community

use would be the best land designation for this area based on the reasons outlined in the attached

communication dated April 20, 2011.o G. Smith, 141 Meadowlily Road, Friends of Meadowlily Woods - expressing the Friends thanks to

staff for their work to date, and providing the attached presentation outlining the rationale for theirpreference for Option 1 of the preferred land use concepts; noting this option will best preserve this

natural and culturaljewel of southeast London.o K. Risler, 5-192 Elmwood Avenue East - expressing concerns as outlined in the attached

communication with respect to the lack of explanation and assessment of the various development

options presented, and noting that brownfield redevelopment in the surrounding area should takeprecedent over the development of this area.

o Ç. Mulder, 932.5 Lorne Avenue - expressing concems with respect to potential loss of the woodland

and the loss of direction with the area plan; noting that more big box development is not desirable

and that more natural areas are needed in London.. J. Cuthbert, 31 Piers Crescent - expressing suppoÉ for the preseruation of Meadowlily Woods as it

is home to many species of endangered wildlife and vegetation, as outlined in the attachedcommunication.

. J. Nelson, 3032 Doon Drive - noting he once lived in the area of Meadowlily Woods and appreciatesits importance as a natural area; further noting that once the trees are gone, they are gone.

o C. Agocs, 1454 Sprucedale Avenue - expressing support forthe preservation of Meadowlily's rich

natural heritage, as outline in the attached communication.o M. Hinton, 691 Colborne Street - noting that unnecessary development in outlying areas only serves

to further erode the downtown area.¡ D. Wallace, 196 ElworthyAvenue- noting that people have an emotional connection to this special

area, that can't be quantified through charts and slides.

The Corporation of the Gity of LondonOffice: 519-661-2500 ext. 0969Fax 519-661-4892www. london.ca

. M. Parrott, 96 Wilson Avenue - noting that Option 1 of the preferred land use plans would have thelowest impact; further noting that a sustainable attractive, unique development does not describe a

big box proposal.o M. Graham, 1047 Aldersbrook Road - noting she would support an environmental heritage centre,

that this is an opportunity to bring back many endangered species in the area, and that the scrub

thicket is also important habitat for wildlife.. Resident, 618 Talbot Street - noting that their hydro bills contained a flyer indicating residents could

purchase trees to re-green the City, and commenting that it is not the citizens' fault that so many

natural areas are being removed.o g. Plewes, 652 Elias Street - requesting preservation of the Meadowlily area as there are very few

sites left like it.o K. Slezak, 18 Goodman Avenue - noting that there is already easy access to stores such as Wal-

Mart in the City.. J. Cordiner, 373 Byron Blvd. - inquiring as to how many members of the Committee had visited

Meadowlily Woods.r M. Kerr, 162 Elworthy Avenue - indicating this is a special area for both animals and people which

needs to be protected.e g. Wilcox, 138 Vauxhall - noting that as an artist he is inspired by the Meadowlily area, and inquiring

as to why a Wal-Mart on this site would even be an option.o R. Cousins, 44The Ridgeway - indicating that he is also an añist inspired by the natural beauty of

the City, but that his inspiration is unfortunately more recently coming from the destruction of thebeauty instead.

r K. Kunut, 374 Simcoe Street - noting he moved to London rather than Windsor because of ourextensive parks, not big box stores.

r T. Mc Clenagham,22O Baseline Road East - noting he is impressed with the number of people

expressing their concerns about quality of life and that Meadowlily Woods is an incredible tract ofland; further noting should the groundwater flow be disrupted on the adjacent site, the deep roots ofmature trees will be negatively impacted resulting in significant tree loss.

. J. White, 307 Burlington Crescent - noting that his family moved to London from Toronto when hewas a child as the air quality in London was better, however with so much tree loss that may nolonger be the case; further noting the City of London does not have a good reputation in theProvince for being environmentally sustainable.

¡ R. Morley, 1291 Rideau Gate - noting that the job numbers attached to the various models fordevelopment seems very subjective and should be reviewed.

. C. DeBoer, 1821 Royal Crescent - noting that as a retired school teacher she would often take herpupils to Meadowlily Woods to experíence the wonder of the woods, and questioning why we wouldpave over such a site.

o Q. Lang, 1084 The Parkway - President, Thames Talbot Land Trust - noting that the Land Ïrustowns property on this site from the Bridge to Highbury Avenue, and that they have a legalresponsibility to ensure those lands are protected in perpetuity; further noting that shoulddevelopment occur adjacent to these lands, there will be considerable threats from erosion, exoticspecies invasion and groundwater.

o M. Golf, 1318 Staffordshire Road - noting that their family purchased the subject property along theroadway many years ago and that it is private land.

e fl. Lokko, 1 35 Meadowlily Road South - noting that there is a strong social connection amongst theusers of the natural area and that anything other than Option 1 would be detrimental to the area.

o f(. McKeating, 329 Victoria Street - noting that any development so close to a natural area willcreate an adverse impact from run-off, litter and lighting; further noting that careful considerationshould be given as to what type and how many jobs will actually be created from the proposeddevelopment.

. J. Buyze, 35 Glenroy Road - noting that Pond Mills Square is almost empty except for hruo storesand that there is no need for a big box development in this area.

o W. Stolarski, 1145 Pondview Road - presenting a video for the Committee with respect toMeadowlily Woods.

. Resident, 84 Golfdale Crescent - noting that economic development is important to the communityand that Wal-Mart also provides jobs in the City.

. J. MacDonald, 105 Cherryhill Crescent - inquiring as to what type of standards will be required forthe developments, such as LEEDS.

o R. Delaney, 66 Piers Crescent - noting there are many vacant areas where redevelopment couldtake place and that there have already þeen too many natural areas lost in the City.

. Resident, 328 Horton Street East - noting that the type of jobs that could be created from thisdevelopment are not those that will retain university and college students;

it being also pointed out that the following individuals submitted communications regarding this matter:

The Corporation of the City of LondonOffice: 519-661-2500 ext. 0969Fax: 51 9-661-4892www. london.ca

. S. Levin, 59 Longbow Roado H. Stover, 1201187th Avenue, Edmonton Alþerta. K.E. Risler, 5-192 Elmwood Avenue Easto $. Rawji, Commissioners Centres Limited¡ R. Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. representing Mr. and Mrs. R. Andrew. 969743 Ontario Ltd. and A. Dziadura,T2 Ann Streeto [{. Parrott, 96 Wilson Avenue Bo M. Saddy, E-mailo $. Nariwonczyk, E-mailo Q. Dakin, President, Environmental Science Association, University of Western Ontarioo N. Kanaan, E-mail. J. Moore and A. Moore, E-mail. J.M. Smith, E-mailo P. Webber, 34 Chalet Court¡ D. Heap,85 Fonruard Avenueo R. Ayres, E-mailo J(. King, 305-304 Oxford Street Westo F. Lane, E-mailo D. Wake and W. Wake, 597 Kildare Roado $. Wodin, E-mailo ft. Richardson and C. Richardson, E-mailo M. Ormsby, 232-2025 Meadowgate Boulevardo p. Stolarski, President, Friends of Meadowlily Woodso S. Brown, President, Stoneybook Heights/Uplands Residents Associationo Q. Smith and S. High, 141 Meadowlily Road Southo Ç. Thorn, Department of Biology, University of Western Ontarioo A. Caveney, Past President and Member of the Conservation Committee, Nature London. l. Mathyssen, Member of Parliament for London-Fanshawe, NDP Critic for the Status of Women.

(201 1-D11 -09) (1 0/1 1 /BNEC)

C. SaundersCity Clerktjb

cc: G. Barrett, Manager lll, City Planning and ResearchH. McNeely, Senior PlannerD. Stolarski, President, Friends of Meadowlily Woods, 11 Kintail Crescent, London, ON N6E 1J4A. Stolarski, Friends of Meadowlily Woods, 1140 Pond View Drive, London, ON NsZ 4K4C. Richardson, Friends of Meadowlily Woods, 2-1200 Riverside Drive, London, ON N6H 5C6G. Smith, Friends of Meadowlily Woods, 141 Meadowlily Road, London, ON N6M 1C3K. Risler, 5-192 Elmwood Avenue East, London, ON N6C 1K2G. Mulder, 932.5 Lorne Avenue, London, ON NsW 3L1J. Cuthbert, 31 Piers Crescent, London, ON N6E 121J. Nelson,3032 Doon Drive, London, ONC. Agocs, 1454 Sprucedale Avenue, London, ON NsX 1J4M. Hinton, 691 Colborne Street, London, ON NOA 324D. Wallace, 196 Elworthy Avenue, London, ONM. Parrott, 96 Wilson Avenue, London, ON N6H 1X7M. Graham,1047 Aldersbrook Road, London, ON N6G 2X1Resident, 618 Talbot Street, London, ON N6A 2T5S. Plewes, 652 Elias Street, London, ON NsW 3N6K. Slezak, 18 Goodman Avenue, London, ON NsZ 4GBJ. Cordiner, 373 Byron Boulevard, London, ON N6K 2L6M. Kerr, 162 Elworthy Avenue, London, ON NOC 2M7S. Wilcox, 138 Vauxhall Street, London, ON N5Z 187R. Cousins, 44The Ridgeway, London, ON N6C 141K. Kunut, 374 Simcoe Street, London, ON N6B 1J7

The Corporation of the City of LondonOffice: 51 9-661 -2500 ext. 0969Fax: 51 9-661 -4892www. london.ca

T. McClenagham, 220 Base Line Road East, London, ON N6C 2P1

J. White, 307 Burlington Crescent, London, ON NsZ 3G6R. Morley, 1291 Rideau Gate, London, ON NsX 1WBC. DeBoer, 1821 Royal Crescent, London, ON NsW 247Q. Lang, President, Thames Talbot Land Trust, 1084 The Parkway, London, ON N6A 2X1

M. Golf, 1318 Staffordshire Road, London, ON N6H 088H. Lokko, 135 Meadowlily Road South, London, ON N6M 1C3K. McKeating, 329 Victoria Street, London, ON NOA 2C6J. Buyze, 35 Glenroy Road, London, ON N5Z 4H2W. Stolarski, 1145 Pond View Road, London, ON NsZ 4K3Resident, 84 Golfdale Crescent, London, ON NOC 5P4J. MacDonald, 105 Cherryhill Crescent, London, ON N6H 2L7R. Delaney,66 Piers Crescent, London, ON N6E 123Resident, 328 Horton Street East, London, ON NOB 1L4S. Levin, 59 Longbow Road, London, ON NOG 1Y5H. Stover, 12011 S7thAvenue, Edmonton Alberta, T6G OYB

S. Rawji, Commissioners Centres Limited, 700 Applewood Crescent, Vaughan, ON, L4K 5X3Mr. and Mrs. R. Andrew c/o R. Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., 318 Wellington Road, London, ON N6C4P4969743 Ontario Ltd. And A. Dziadura,T2 Ann Street, London, ON NOA 1PgM. Saddy, E-mailS. Nariwonczyk, E-mailC. Dakin, President, Environmental Science Association, University of Western Ontario, E-mailN. Kanaan, E-mailJ. Moore and A. Moore, E-mailJ. M. Smith, E-mailP. Webber, 34 Chalet Court, London, ON N6K 3C7D. Heap, 85 Forward Avenue, London, ON N6H 188R. Ayres, E-mailK. King, 305-304 Oxford Street West, London, ON N6H 1T1F. Lane, E-mailD. Wake and W. Wake, 597 Kildare Road, London, ON N6H 3H8B. Wodin, E-mailM. Ormsby ,232-2025 Meadowgate Boulevard, London, ON NOM 1KgS. Brown, President, Stoneybrook Heights/Uplands Residents Association, E-mailG. Thorn, Department of Biology, Biological & Geological Science Building, University of WesternOntario, London, ON N6A 587A. Caveney, Conservation Committee, Nature London, P.O. Box 24008, London, ON N6H 5C4l. Mathyssen, Member of Parliament for London-Fanshawe, NDP Critic for the Status of Women,1700-D Dundas Street, London, ON NsW 3CgS. Ellis, 702 Downview Crescent, Oshawa, ON L1H 7W3J. M. Bowles, PhD, 22154 Fairview Road, Thorndale, ON NOM 2P0J. Cushing, London Advisory Commitiee on Heritage, E-mailJ. Quail, E-mailG. Mulder, E-mailM. Lane, 237-2025 Meadowgate Boulevard, London, ON N6M 1KgN. McClure-Telfer, 26 Rexway Road, London, ON N6G 3C3S. Turner, Chair, The Urban League of London, Grosvenor Lodge, 11017 Western Road, London,ON N6G 1G5

The Corporation of the City of LondonOffice: 51 9-661-2500 ext. 0969Fax: 51 9-661-4892www. london.ca

Ma¡ch 31,2011

SUMMARY OF IDEAS AND SUGGESTiONS PREPARED FOR BNE COMMITTEEre OPTiONS 1 THROUGH 5 OF MEADOV/LLY AREA PLAN.

1. OPEN SPACE: - AIl Plans show i4 Hectares of open space. v/ouid it bepossible to highlight these areas at the Public Participation Meeting on April 20ú,so everyone knows exactly where they are. Are these hectares all l-ocated in theone large space, or smaller spaces? Is Open Space the same in all Options?

Z. RESIDENTIAL LTNITS DENSITY: Option 3 \Ã/ith 2045 Residential Units (93per hectare) is not consistent with the current residential area, nor with protectionof the Natural Area. The GFA is signifieantly higher than the other Options, anddoes not therefore seem to be as "livable'? * tit" õther options.

3 NATURE/INTERPRETIVE CENTRE - Only Option 1 addressed the need for aNature Interpretive Centre, (2,940 m2 ). However, the location in Option 1 is notthe best, since parking along Meadowlily Rd. is very limited. Entrance into theMeadowlily Environmentall Significant Area wouid best be served from theSports Field Area (better parking, and already being used by TREA as a meetingpoint for their hikep.) V/ould it be possible to have the Nature Interpretive Centrecombined with thelcommunity Centre as a much better use of all resources, landavailable, financial resources, and location next to the Sports Fields.

4. a) COMMTiNITY CENTRE: - ALL options do provid.e for a Community Centreof 7,800 m2. Such a Community Centre would meet the needs of growingneighbourhoods of Summerside, and Old Victoria Area , and would still beaccessible from the Hamilton Rd. Area by crossing over the MeadowlilyPedestrian Bridge. This is a positive response to Community needs expressed atprevious public participation and visioning sessions.

;

b) Could consider{tion might be given to ONE COMPLEX , housing theCommunþ Centrç AND Nature Interpretive Centre, for a total of less squ,aremetres than -10,75Q if built separately. Washroom space could be accessible iflocated in an area þommon to both, parking could be shared, and lessening theGFA of 2 stand-alþne buildings with separate facilities in each.. Could a Librarybe considered as Pflrase 2 if there is suffrcient land available, again with theLibrary being desiþned to share cornmon facilities.

i

c) LIBRARYT Tþ" current Library is a rented facility; when does the Leaseexpire in that Stri$ Mall on Commissioners Rd.? The GFA could be lowered bybuilding a two-stoLey complex

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

PageZ ì

6. PAVED PARKING: - The GFA in Option 4 with Big Box Retail is not thehighest, but it dqes jnot include the major paved area that would be required\toservice this large r{tail footprint. A major concern with Option 4 would also bethe floodlighting reþuired for Commercial zoning with its impact on wildlife, plusthe use of snow removal salt and chemicâls which would drain down into theESA, or into the Thames River, unless it is pumped into the sewage treatrnentplant. 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 alsouse the Pottersburg site? What is the usage totally once Summerside is built outand Old Victoria is completely built out under the current design? Will thecapacity meet groundwater being pumped in from the Meadowlily area? It is theCity's stated goal to clean up pollution of the Thames River, so presumably therewould be no plans for groundwater to be diverted into the Thames River.

7. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT RE BROWNFIELDS: - The ProvincialPolicy Statement is clea¡ that Municipalities not approve additional Commercialspace where there are significar-rtbrownfields. A short list of the brownfields innearby areas would be: Directly off401 (one end of the Commercialdevelopment on thÞ West side of Weltington Rd. is completely empty and ForLease; further down V/ellington Rd. both Homesense and Toys 'R Us big boxstores have closed; and directly over the Highbwy Overpass within walkingdistance, the central portion of the shopping centre there has now beendemolished; furthq East on Commissioners Rd. there are many boarded-up retailoutlets. There are ptill stores on the opposite side of the road which are for rent.

I

OTHER RETAiL êVAILABLE: Besides the obvious retail space availabledirectly across froþ Meadowlily Road on the South side of Commissioners (Ronalocation), where ttiere is already space allocated for a large Superstore, there willbe new Retail spa{e becoming available at the Old Victoria looation ; i.e. a TownCentre and a Neigþbourhood Retail component. This means that MeadowlilyRoad itself will beltotally sunounded with Retail - to the South (big box retailwith space still avririlable, and Summerside Strip Mall; South (Hamilton Rd.Business Area witþin walking distance) - to the West (stores closing alongCommissioners, big box space available due to demolition) - and to the East withVictoria Ridge (2 Retail components). When the population of that"neighbourhood area" is calculated - what is the Retail available per personwithin that extended neighbourhood?

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

Page 3

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

Respeotfull submitted,

Rick and Carol Richardson

Ms. Heather McNeelyc/o Ms. Lorlelei FisherLondon City Clerk's OfficeLondon Planning DivisionCity of LondonP.O. Box 5035London, ON NOA 4Lg

Concerns w¡th Respect to the Meadowlily Area planoptions for Land use and sewer and storm waterDraft Study, February/March, 201 1 :City File No. 0-7614, Meadowlif áfternative land use concepts and servicíng options

30 March 2OI1

Ms. McNeely and Ms. Fisher,

As the senior Planner for the Meadowlily Area secondary ptan andas secretary for the Council Committee for Built and Naturat Heritage99uld You please fotward these concerns to the Public ParticipationMeeting, April 2Ofor the Meadowlily Area plan?

!-and use options, servicing of storm water ManagementMeasures and Sanitary Sewer options Using Meadowlily Roadsouth and/or Meadowlily woods Environmentally significantArea:

eery$mtfh egffirf*14I **esdffi il$ ffi@, _$ÐutflLondon, GN fffiü{ ?gS

1) Disturbing the roadway and areas around Meadowlily RoadSouth will also disturb the boundaries and buffers asiociatedwith Mead owt i ty woods E nvi ron mentat ty s ¡g n¡ncã ni ãrlålBoth the Natural.fe{tgge and the Builtänd-cultural Heritagestudies attached to this Area plan suggest the landscape andthe natural areas of Meadowlily are träsures in andthemselves.

The Built and Ct¡ltural Heritage Study suggests that the areas oT parkFarm Heritage Farmstead, Meadowlily eriãge and Meadowlíly Millruins as well as the rural landscape oi Meaãowlily Road Soupr itselfdeserue to be designated as a Cultural Heritage bonservation Areaar¡d that means changing the layout of the to"ã and its environsviolates the spirit of seeking to maintain and protect the existingroadway and allowances.

The Natural Heritage study attached to the Meadowlily Area planDraft Studies also suggests that the Environmentally Significant Areadeseryes to be protected, not just in terms of its ¡nteriorlbut also itsmargins and buffers.are a key part of maintaining anJpr;tdng thisnatural area. Disturbances to the boundaries and buffàrs of thisnatural area also affect the rest of the Meadowlily Area. Thehedgerows, edge.gffgcts and protective undergrowth on the edges ofthe Environmentally Significant Area protect añd ma¡ntain the morerare and significant species within the natural area. To disturb thelandscape of Meadowlily Road South is to disturb the nature of thearea itself.

2) Servicing the Area in terms of sewer and water services in orthrough the Environmentally Significant Area is in violation ofthe Provincial Policy statemeniregarding Natural Heritagefeatures like natural areas, wetlands andwoodlands. Sections2.1-2,3 of the wise use and Management of Resourcesportion of the policy statement suggests:

"The diversity and connectivity of naturalfeafures in an area, andthe long-term ggological function and biodiversity of natural heritagesystems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible,improved, recognizing lÍnkages between and among naturalheritage features and areas, surface water features ánd groundwater features." Provincial poticy Statemenf, Section 2

ln addition, section2.1.3.1 also applies, "Development and sitealteration shall not be permitted in: significant habitat of endangeredspecies and threatened species..." as there are several rare,endangered and threatened species identified with MeadowlilyWoods Environmentally Significant Area.

3) ln the Gity of London official ptan it arso directs that:

New or expanded infrastructr¡re shall only be permitted within NaturalHeritage areas including stream corridors where it is clearlydemonsfated through an environmentalassessment process or anenvironmental impact study that there is no reasonabie alternative forlocating that infrastructure elsewl'¡ere. The City and other relevant publicauthorities shall in any case consider methodsfor minimizing impactswhen reviewing proposals to construct transportation, comrnlun¡àt¡on,serfferage or other infrastructure in natural heritage areas. Official plan,15.3.3

For instance the "mitigation measures" of installing the existingsewer in the Northeast comer of Meadowlily Woodé EnvironmentallySignificant Area have still left large portions of the sewer area withouttrees, nor was any of the previous habitat for birds and wildliferestored as suggested by that plan to limit damage to theEnvironmentally significant Area. The absence of the trees.hasdiminished indigenous plant species and reduced natural habitatwhile at the same time encouraging the growth of invasive plantspecies.

The City of London Official Plan suggests that such encroachmentsand invasions of natural areas snoùlã only bà considered afteradequate Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmàntallmpact study would suggest.there is no other alternative. Theproblem with this sanitary sewer and water study is that it does Norseem to take into account the very natural heritáge and culturalheritage studies attached to the ltieadowlily Area-plan study-Dgcuments, but instead seems to use the äpparent necessi"ty otdevelopment to JUSTIFY forcing this new èipanOed infrastruðirr"in, around or even through Meadówlily woods Env¡ronmentallySignificant Area. This is not in keeping with the City's Official plan orthe Provincial Policy Statement's suggêsted proted¡ons for naturãl

-

areas.

Closing Comments:

Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area qualifies forthese protections and assurances ín teims of:

1) Biodiversity

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

3) Natural featu.res, Relatively undisturbed example of lngersollGlaciat Moraine

4) Long-term ecologicar functionality as protected habitat

5) Highly-scored as a provincially Designated wefland

6) contains rare, endangered and threatened species within itsboundaries as determined by the Ministry of Ñatural Resourcesand the Canadian Ministry of the Environment

Needing to justiff the incursion of such infrastructure on the basis ofhousing or commercial/retail space seems unreasonable with manyunused building lots in the adjacent area of Sumrnerside Subdivisionas well as large amounts of available lots for comrnercial expansionacross commissioners Road East. There are vast amounts ofa'bandoned, unused comrnercial facilities as well in the immediatearea, west of Highbury. lt seems especially absurd in the light of theNatural Heritage and Archaeological and eúilt Heritage BacklroundAssessment recommendations attached to the rest óf tfre MéadowlilyArea Study.

Respectfully Submitted,

Å.'Å.* /4LSusan High

Gary Smith

141 Meadow{ily Road SouthLondon, ON N6M 1C3519€80-7488Email: smith7488@rogers.com

susanahigh@yahoo.ca

Presentation to Built and Natural Heritage Committee

Meadowlily Secondary Plan: Alternative Land UseConcepts and Servicing Options:

City File No. 0-7614

Wednesday, April 20, 2011C¡ty of London, Ontario

First, of all I would like to thank the Chair and the members ofthe Built and Natural Heritage Committee for having the opportunityto address the matter of the Meadowlily Secondary Plan and thestudies of the Meadowlily Area that have been generated by this city-led process. I would also like to thank Ms. Heather McNeely andGregg Barrett as well as their staff for all of the hard work that theyhave done leading this plan and process.

Second, l'd like to address a few concerns about thedocuments that are the focus of this part of the plan and study that isbeing addressed tonight, the Land Use Options document as well asthe Storm Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing studies. I would directyour attention to the Second Page/Slide of that study which isdisplayed on the screen here. lt was explained to us at a March 9Public Open House that these are the guiding priorities of theconsultants who are working on this plan.

Safeguard environmentally sensitive areasRespond to site topographyProvide green linkagesConnect to neighbourhood assetsÖreate a sense of placeTransition in density and use from Commissioners Road to ESAlandsLocate'like uses adjacent to similar usesProvide a hierarcl'.ry of movement

I first would like to address item one on that list, SafeguardingEnviron mentally Significant Areas.

The Provincial Policy Statement regarding Natural Heritagefeatures like natural areas, wetlands and woodlands. Sections 2.1.2,3 of the Wise Use and Management of Resources portion of thepolicy statement suggests:

.The diversity and connectivity of natural features in anarea, and the long-term ecological function andbiodiversity of natural heritage systems, should bemaintained, restored or, where possible, improved,recognizing linkages between and among natural heritagefeatures and areas, surface water features and groundwater features." Provincial Polícy Statemenf, Section 2

Some of the examples of the Land Use Options document, especiallyOptions 2-5 seern like to disturb the roadway and areas aroundMeadowlily Road Sot¡th as well as disturbing the boundaries andbuffers associated with Meadowlily Woods EnvironrnentallySignificant Area. Both the Natural Heritage and the Built and CulturalHeritage Studies attached to this Area Plan strongly suggest thatlandscape of the Meadowlily Area and the natural areas are treasuresin and of themseflves and ought to have these boundaries respectedand in certain instances thg buftêrs increased. This would be inkeeping with the Frovincial Policy Statement on Natural Areas as wellas respecting existing conditions.

Also the City of London Official Plan also directs that:

New or expanded infrast¡'ucture shall only be permitted withinNatural Heritage areas including stream corridors where it isclearly demonstrated through an environmental assessmentprocess or arl environmental impact study that there is noreasonable alternative for locating that infrastructureelsewhere. The City and other relevant public authorities shallin any case consider methods for minimizing impacts whenreviewing proposals to construct transportation,communication, sewerage or other infrastructure in naturalheritage areas. Official Plan, 15.3.3

@

I would like to point out to the Ghair and the committee thatthere are already numerous examples of the ways in whichsupposedly "minimizing impact'has resulted in compromising theexisting conditions in and on the boundaries of Meadowlily WoodsEnvironmentally significant Area, that in fact, these 'mitigationmeasures" have already affected the edges and interior of the naturalarea in a negative manner.

F¡rst, the storm water management pond adjacent to the city-Wide Sports Park at one point empties into the first stream that flowsinto the third ravine in Meadowlily Woods virtually without any erosioncontrol measures at all. When the supply to that fills that pond isnormal, there isn't that much problem, but when the surface water ishigher than norn'ral the excess from that pond explodes into thatravine with considerable force and the ESA pays too high a price foreven that level of so-called "passive" use. Some of the banks of thisravine are quite steep from the erosion caused by the oversupply.

Second the Natural Heritage Study attached to this Plan alsomentions an area close to the city-wde sports Fierds whendiscussíng the large and mature aspects of Meadowlily Forest closeto that arça:

...this community consists almost entirely of sugar mapletrees and is the largest forested community within thestudy area. Community age ranges from young tomature. Select specimens measure up to 1 rnetre indiameter. North of the Sports Park, several endangeredbutternut (.Iuglans cinerea) trees occur near the boundaryof the culturai thicket. page 27

The close proxirnity of the existing fields already encroaches uponthese rare and protected species and deserves to be protected toassure that the highest terrace of the Environmentally SignificantArea is maintained or improved upon, not threatened.

Finally there is an example of infrastructure development thathas already produced negative environmental impacts on Meadowlilywoods in the Northeast comer of the Natural Area. I point yourattention to Panel/Page 16 of the Sanitary sewer study from theAEcoM documents. ln the upper left corner there is a red lineindicating the Summerside/Jackson Sewer as it enters the naturereserve and makes it way across the South Branch of the ThamesRiver to the Pottersburg Sanitation Facility.

This Slide (8) shows where that sewer enters Meadowlilywoods and you will note the vehicle tracks that go to the seruicingarea of the sewer as well as the fact that the forest canopy here hasbeen disturbed and this leaves the entire area vulnerable to invasionby non-indigenous and undesirable species in the natural area.Occasionally it is also an access point for undesirable traffic into theESA at a vulnerable point close to where streams enter the ThamesRiver and again alose to provincially and federally protected andendangered species like the wood-poppy.

I would suggest then that, the Land Use Options 2-5 need to besignificantly downsized to existing conditions in the Meadowlily areaor that these proposed developments will in fact damage andcompromise the green and natural areas of Meadowlily. That theMeadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area as well as therural nature of the Meadowlily landscape at large on both sides ofMeadowlily Road South will be damaged by more negative impacts toits plants and wildlife.

The Built and Cultural Heritage Study suggests that the areasof Park Farm Henitage Farmstead, Meadowlily Bridge and MeadowlilyMill ruins as well as the rural landscape of Meadowlily Road Southitself deserve to be designated as a Cultural Heritage ConseruationArea and that means changing the layout of the road and its environsviolates the spirit of seeking to maintain and protect the existingroadway and allowances.

@

The Natural Heritage Study attached to the Meadowlily Area planDraft Studies also suggests that the Environmentally Significant Areadeserves to be protected, not just in terms of its interior" but also itsmargins and buffers are a key part of maintaining and protecting thisnatural area. Disturbances to the boundaries and buffers of thiõnatural area also affect the rest of the Meadowlily Area. Thehedgerows, edge effects and protective undergrowth on the edges ofthe Environmentally Significant Area protect and maintain the morerare and significant species within the natural area. To disturb thelandscape of Meadowlily Road South is to disturb the nature of thearea itself.

The Provincial Policy statement once again with respect to itsprotection of natural heritage suggests;

qDwelopment and site alteration shall not be permitted in: significant

habitat of endangered species and threatened species..." Section2.1.3.1

It seems then that more consideration be given to Land useOption 1 for the following reasons:

It provides for:

1. Community Centre for SE London, near City-WideSports Park

2. Extension of Environmentally Significant Area at theCorner of Meadowlily and Commissioners Road

3. Keep Meadowlily Clean and Green, improvecommunity facilities for youth and seniors, it is Not just a"do nothing."

@

Such a plan also respects:

1)2)3)

4)5)6)

BiodiversityConnectivity, 126 acres proper,623 acres in total (MNR)Natural features, Relatively undisturbed example of lngersollGlacial MoraineLong-term ecological functionality as protected habitatHighty-Scored as a Provincially Designated WetlandContains rare, endangered and threatened species within itsboundaries as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resourcesand the Canadian Ministry of the Environmer¡t

All of these are priorities mentÌoned on Page 2 of the Land UseOptions document I showed you at the beginning of this presentation.

Needing to justify the incursion of such ir¡frastructure on the basis ofhousing or commercial/retail space seems unreasonable with manyunused building lots in the adjacent area of Summerside Subdivisionas well as large amounts of available lots for commercial expansionacross Commissioners Road East. There are vasta.mounts ofabandoned, unused commercial facilities as well in the immediatearea, west of Highbury. lt seems especially absurd in the light of theNatural Heritage and Archaeological and Built Heritage BackgroundAssessment recommendations attached to the rest of the MeadowlilyArea Study.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gary Smith141 Meadowlily Road SouthLondon, ON N6M 1C3519€80-7488Email: smith7488@rogers.com

susanahigh@yahoo,ca

KEITH E. RISLER

'"lffi'; ?:',i#, iiå?,iä ülÍ5-192 Elmwood Ave E

London, ON NóC lK2

As I noted in my written remarks, I'm concerned that the underlying rationale for thestated development options is not as clear as it could be at this point. lt is also un-clear what informalion is being relied on as gap-fill data.

The Consultant's wording suggests that the options are essentially tentative ideas,but it would have helped to know why each option was framed as such in the firstplace. Presenting the options in this partial vacuum might lead the outcome towarda level of development that is not generally community-supported.

Without knowing exactly what background research the options are predicatedon-apart from the draft studies-the question is raised as to which options arereally in play. lt is difficult to address the pros and cons of each option apart from itsindividual rationale.

This question of what information is being relied on has also been raised by SmartCentres in their letter to the Planning Division dated April 5'n 2011.In that letterSmart Centres itself questions whether studies first submitted as part of the originalproposal a few years ago "were considered or used as reference material to thedevelopment of the Meadowlily Secondary Plan studies."

That is a good question to ask because it goes to the question of research quality.Reliance on ungrounded data could weaken the quality of the planning that resultsfrom all this effort, and it could end up justifying development that perhaps shouldnot be occurring on a large scale.

One such document submitted in the original proposal was the 2007 MGP MarketDemand and lmpact Analysis study, which Smart Centres argues in its April 5'n let-ter supports Option 4.

It is problematic if we are relying on that document, because the Peer Review ofthat same Smart Centres-favored study found fault with it in the key area of poten-tialjob losses that a big development could precipitate.

The Peer Review notes that the Zellers and Food Basics stores across HighburyAvenue, as well as the Wal-Mart White Oaks store, would be put at risk of closure

Page 7 ofZ

(ry

by a big development. (See Peer Review: Malone Given Parsons, South East Cityof London Market Demand and lmpact Analysis, November 2007, pp. 23-24.).

The Peer Review contextually raises the possibility that while many jobs might becreated by the development, many jobs might also be lost in other areas of the City.Moreover, the diversity of employment opportunities would be reduced, contrary tothe import of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

The issue of gap-fill selection strongly underscores the importance of knowing whatdata is being relied on as a foundation for each option.

ln validating options there ís however a significant feasibility filter in the form theOntario Provincial Policy Statement on land use planning, known for short as thePPS.

The PPS and its guide document for citizens clearly state that development deci-sions as wefl as Official Plans are to be PPS-consistent.

Read as a whole--as the province says it is to be read--the PPS imports that com-mercial developments should first go into existing brownfield sites or empty retailspace (of which there is plenty a short distance from Meadowlily). The PPS greatlydisfavors locating big new developments adjacent to or within high-significance en-vironmentally-sensitive areas and has a strong emphasis on preserving existingemployment. Altogether the PPS would seem to filter out big commercial develop-ment atop Meadowlily Woods.

The general drift of public input has been toward several variations of low-development scenarios with a wide buffer around Meadowlily, and not toward a se-ries of increasingly development-intensive options.

I urge the Committee to maximize the public investment in this City-led process byrelying on valid information carefully aggregated thus far before fínalizing anyMeadowlily land use scenario, while making clear what all the informational inputsare wefl in advance of any selected options being locked in as a final choice.

-30-

Page2 of2

(,Ð

'Ø

Thursday, March-31-11

To the Members of City Council:

I am speaking with you tonight to express my support for the protection and preservation of Meadowlily

Woods in London, Ontario. This unique ecosystem of Meadowlily Woods is an integral component of

southern Ontario increasing fragmented natural areas. And in my opinion, must be preserved.

Meadowlily Woods natural settings ( excluding active farm Iand and urban lots ) extends over an area

l-35 Hectares which includes Meadowlilv and Old Victoria plannins districts. The unique flora and fauna

within the Meadowlily Woods ecosystem - such as the incredibly rare wood poppy, over L50 species ofbirds , (including over 70 known nesting species ) , many rare and exotic insects , such as butterflies and

several endangered and threatened mammals and reptiles is one of last refuges of this size left in this

part of Canada.

Meadowlily Woods is part of the Dorchester Watershed and according to the Upper Thames River

Conservation Authority is home to 33 Species at Risk in 2007. On-going research by Ontario Nature

indicates that keys corridors such as along the Thames River must be protected in junction with isolated

islands bf protected ecosystems to ensure the natural function of forests, wetland, and grasslands. Large

developments near these areas are shown to hêve a negative effect on the ecological landscape.

Presently, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources considers Meadowlily Woods both a Habitat forEndangeredandThreatenedSpeciesandProvinciallySignificantWetlands.

From a purely economic view, it makes sense to preserve an area which is unique and can add to one

person's quality of life. W¡th the advent of the internet, wide use of technology that enables a business

to operate effíciently anywhere , and a shortage of workforce driven by baby boomers retiring. A

younger , scare workforce looks for outdoor amenities . The labour market today is in the driver/s seat

and communities need to have it all to attract this talent. You attract the right people - you can attract

new businesses to operate in our " Forest City " .

J etLTHkgT

Meadowlily Woods is a quiet and beautiful place to connect with nature. And Nature never goes out of

style. All we have to do is leave it alone and enjoy it. For one example, in 2007 the Kingston Naturalists

travelled to London to view the birds in Meadowlily Woods. Think about it - this area could attract

naturalists from all over and addiq'to London Tourism.

Environmentally Significant areas like Meadowlily Woods are a quickly vanishing resource world-wide.

London is fortunate to have a place like Meadowlily Woods and we can't afford ln this very competitive

global market to lose any distinction that sets us apart from everyone else.

Thank You

@)

Comments on the Meadowlily Secondary PlanApril 20,2011 Public Meeting, Built and Natural Environment Committee

Submitted by CarolAgocs, 1454 Sprucedale Avenue, London N5X1J4

Thank youJor this opportunity to comment on the Meadowlily planning options. I

would like to begin by commending Councilfor undertaking this exercise as acity:-¡"¿ rather than developer-led planning process, and one funded bydevelopment charges. lt is also very encouraging that community stakeholdersare offered frequent oppor-tunities to contribute to the process at various stages.I hope these aspects of the Meadowlily process will set a precedent for futuresecondary planning and environmental assessment exercises in London.

My comments come from my perspective as a resident of [-ondon, but not of theMeadowlily community. Meadowlily's rich natural heritage is an asset to theentire City of London and should be preserved for all Londoners, includingpresent residents and future generations. The Forest C¡ty has very fewremaining natural areas of the scale and rich biodiversity represented by theMeadowlily Environmentally Sensitive Area, the Meadowlily Nature Preserve,and the Highbury Woods. lt would be irresponsible and sho¡t-sighted to impairthe sustainability of this natural heritage for the sake of development that couldjust as well take place on brown field sites or lands that lack unique and valuableenvironmentalfeatures. DecisÍons about Meadowlily's future will require thebalancing of competing interests and visions, but such decisions need toconsider a broader urban canvas. lf London needs more high-density resÍdentialdevelopment or bíg-box retail stores, let this kind of development take placeelsewhere, where there will be no threat to scarce and irreplaceable naturalheritage. Under Section 15 of London's Official Plan, protection of London'snatural heritage system is required

The drafi Natural Heritage Study of the Meadowlily areahas documented thepresence of extensive mature deciduous forest, including an endangered species(butternut), a federally recognized endangered plant (the wood poppy), 19regionally or provincially rare species of flora, and two species of fish and two ofmussels that are species at risk. The researchers identified 74 species of birds,including a species ranked as threatened nationally and provincially, 16 priorityspecies identified by Partners in Flight, and 37 species listed as ConservationPriority birds for Middlesex County. According to the report, "variety in vegetationcommunities gives rise to a very rich and diverse population of birds, mammalsand herptiles" (sec. 2.4). The topography of the area is sensitive, and includesnumerous ravines and gullies with steep gradients, intermittent creeks andwetlands. A natural area such as this is irreplaceable and an asset to the entireregion, and it must be sustained.

,4\

@

2

Among the five land use options that have been recently proposed, I supportOption 1, the passive use, Iimited growth model, which would give priority to theprotection of the ecosystem represented by the Thames River corridor andMeadowlily Woods. The ESA should be expanded to include the lands nofth ofCommissioners Road East to the Thames River, and west and north of theSports Park, and restoration should be undertaken to link existing vegetatÍonpatches to the north and west to form a sustainable habitat for flora and fauna.No servicing infrastructure, storm water management ponds or paved pathwaysshould be built within the expanded ESA. There should be a generous bufferzone - 50 meters at a minimum - between the ESA and the Sports Park and anydeveloped area. Expansion of the Sports Park might be appropriate. As well,care must be taken to avoid erosion issues with respect to the small ravines andwatercourses within the ESA that may arise from adjacent development, andexisting erosion problems should be corrected.

Under Option 1 there would be no development east of Meadowlily Road or northof Commissioners Road East, but low impact development could take place westof Meadowlily Road near existing housing. This small developed area wouldpresent an opportunity to plan a model community for London that wouldexemplifo principles of place-making, livability, sustainability and sensitivity to theadjacent natural environment. The proximity of the ESA would be a focus ofcommunity pride and identity. Mixed medium density low-rise and síngle famílyhousing types, small retail stores, a park, a community garden, and acommunity/tibrary and interpretative centre would be consistent with this kind ofdevelopment. The consultants' reports suggest that this scale of developmentcould be accommodated with existing sanitary servicing infrastructure.

Given the sensitivity and uniqueness of the natural heritage, lt would beappropriate to delay final decisions about land use in the Meadowlily area untilthe Conservation Master Plan has been updated, with ternns of referencedeveloped in consultation with community stakeholders.

The process of development now underway in the Meadowlily area has thepotential to be a model of which our City can be proud. Citizens will be watching.