prepared on behalf of orlando corporation ......transport canada – tp 1247e - land use in the...

PLANNING FOR CHILDCARE IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

PREPARED ON BEHALF OF ORLANDO CORPORATIONBY POUND & STEWART ASSOCIATES LIMITED

august 2008

CITYPL N.COM

V

Markhamwoods Business Centre305 Renfrew Drive, Suite 101

Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9S7Tel: (905) 305-9797

1-800-250-9056Fax: (905) 305-9801

Email: [email protected]: www.cityplan.com

Downtown Brampton

Gateway District Nodeand Intensi�cationCorridor (added)

N

Source: Places to Grow, Schedule 2, Places to Grow Concept

Mississauga City Centre

PLANNING FOR CHILDCARE IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE: CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES 4 3.0 BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY 7 3.1 Qualification regarding Noise 15 4.0 CLARIFICATION OF TERMS 19 4.1 Child Care 19 4.2 Day Care 19 4.3 Sensitive Land Uses 20 4.4 Schools: Private & Public 20 4.5 Commercial School 20 4.6 Community Uses 21 4.7 Employment Area 21 4.8 Adverse Effects 21 4.9 Airports 22 4.10 Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) Operating Area 22 4.11 Noise Measurement 22 4.12 Predicting Noise Annoyance near Airports 23 4.13 Definition and Context of the Canadian NEF/NEP Noise Contours 23 4.14 The Noise Exposure Forecast System (NEF) 23 5.0 GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (GTAA) -

NOISE MANAGEMENT – LAND USE PLANNING IN THE VICINITY OF AIRPORTS

25

5.1 Noise Exposure Contours 26 5.1.1 • Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) 26 5.1.2 • Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 26 5.1.3 • Local Variances from NEF Contours 28 5.1.4 • 1996 NEP/2000 NEF Composite Noise Contours 29 5.2 Summary 30 6.0 TRANSPORT CANADA – TP 1247E - LAND USE IN THE

VICINITY OF AIRPORTS (EIGHTH EDITION, (05/2005) 31

6.1 School Facilities: May be located within the 30 to 35 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) Values

31

6.2 Playgrounds: May be located within the 35 to 40 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) Values

31

6.3 Summary 32

POUND & STEWART ASSOCIATES LIMITED


7.0 ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS 33 7.1 Health Canada 33 7.2 IBANA as part of the Federal Research Council 33

8.0 PROVINCE OF ONTARIO - PUBLIC POLICY & PLANNING

OBJECTIVES 34

8.1 Provincial Policy Statement, May 22, 1996 (amended, February 1, 1997)

34

8.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) 36 8.2.1 • The Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System 37 8.2.2 • Implementing Ontario’s Vision through Policy 38 8.2.3 • The Promotion of Economic Development &

Competitiveness in Employment Areas 39

8.2.4 • Co-ordination of Infrastructure and Public Services 39 8.2.5 • ROPA 14 fits the PPS under Discretionary Permission 41 8.3 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) 42

9.0 PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRIES 48 9.1 The Ministry of Environment: Noise Near Airports 48 9.2 The Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services: the

Day Nurseries Act 50

9.3 The Ministry of Education: the Education Act 50

10.0 REGION OF PEEL PLANNING POLICIES 51 10.1 Region of Peel Child Care Policies 51 10.2 Urban System: Node Policies 53 10.3 Airport Policies 54 10.4 Region of Peel – Optimum Day Care Facility Size 61 10.5 Proposed Amendment to Region of Peel Official Plan 62

11.0 MISSISSAUGA PLAN - OPA NO. 25 & ZONING BY-LAW

NO. 0225-2007 63

11.1 Mississauga Strategic Plan 63 11.2 Mississauga Plan: Recognizing the Importance of Community Uses 64 11.2.1 Nodes are to be Transit Oriented with a Variety & Concentration of

Land Uses 67

11.2.2 The Gateway District Node & Business Employment 68 11.2.3 Mississauga Plan: Airport Policies 69 11.2.4 Mississauga Plan & Zoning By-law Exclude Community Uses from

The Gateway District & Gateway District Node 73

11.3 Accessory Use: Mississauga Plan & Zoning By-law 75 11.4 Open Space (Public Parkland) is Located within the LBPIA

Operating Area in Proximity to the Gateway District Node 76



11.5 Demand Forecast based on Existing Licensed Day Care Facilities in The Gateway District Node

79

11.6 Appeal of Mississauga OPA No. 25 is Complementary to an Application to Amend The Region of Peel’s Official Plan

84

11.7 Proposed Amendment to Mississauga Zoning By-law for Lands Owned by Orlando Corporation Located in the Gateway District Node

84

12.0 OVERVIEW OF PRIVATE & PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE

LBPIA OPERATING AREA 86

13.0 COMPARISONS: CASE STUDY APPROACH &

METHODOLOGY87

13.1 Vancouver International Airport (VIA), Richmond, British Columbia

88

13.2 Calgary International Airport (CIA), Calgary, Alberta 92 13.3 Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport, (PETIA), Montreal-

Dorval, Quebec 97

14.0 RECOMMENDED URBAN & BUILDING DESIGN

ELEMENTS TO MINIMIZE AIRCRAFT NOISE 101

15.0 ACHIEVING LBPIA & GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE

PLANNED FUNCTIONS 102

16.0 CONCLUSIONS 106 17.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 111



LIST OF FIGURES

City of Mississauga & Context FIGURE 1: MISSISSAUGA PLAN, SCHEDULE 6: PLANNING DISTRICTS

FIGURE 2: GATEWAY DISTRICT LAND USE MAP, CITY OF

MISSISSAUGA, SEPTEMBER 2007

FIGURE 3: GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE LANDS – CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ZONING BY-LAW 0225-2007

FIGURE 4: GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE LAND STATUS – CITY OF

MISSISSAUGA ZONING BY-LAW 0225-2007 FIGURE 5: GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE LAND AREA

FIGURE 6: GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE SOUTH-WEST QUADRANT

Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) and Vicinity

FIGURE 7: LBPIA VICINITY: CHILD CARE & ONTARIO EARLY YEARS CENTRES WITHIN THE LBPIA OPERATING AREA

FIGURE 8: LBPIA VICINITY: SCHOOLS WITHIN THE LBPIA OPERATING

AREA

FIGURE 9: LBPIA VICINITY: PRIVATE SCHOOLS WITHIN THE LBPIA OPERATING AREA

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

FIGURE 10: GTAA – AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS Places to Grow

FIGURE 11: PLACES TO GROW, SCHEDULE 2, PLACES TO GROW CONCEPT

FIGURE 12: PLACES TO GROW, SCHEDULE 2, PLACES TO GROW

CONCEPT, (ENLARGED CONTEXT OF GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE)



Regional Municipality of Peel Official Plan

FIGURE 13: PEEL REGION WITHIN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA (REGIONAL FIGURE 1)

FIGURE 14: SCHEDULE D: REGIONAL STRUCTURE

FIGURE 15: SCHEDULE H: LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT OPERATING AREA

FIGURE 16: L.B.P.I.A. OPERATING AREA (REGIONAL FIGURE 11)

FIGURE 17: AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE COMPOSITE CONTOURS (LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)

Mississauga Plan

FIGURE 18: SCHEDULE 2: URBAN FORM CONCEPT

FIGURE 19: LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OPERATING AREA (APPENDIX 1)

FIGURE 20: 1996 NEP/2000 NEF COMPOSITE NOISE CONTOURS

(APPENDIX J) City of Mississauga Comprehensive Zoning By-law

FIGURE 21: SCHEDULE ‘I’ TO SECTION 22Q PER ZONING BY-LAW 0448-2002

FIGURE 22: MUNICIPAL PARKS LOCATED WITHIN THE LBPIA

OPERATING AREA AND/OR IN PROXIMITY TO THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE

Vancouver International Airport (VIA), Richmond, British Columbia

FIGURE 23: CITY OF RICHMOND & REGIONAL AREA: CHILD CARE CENTRES ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL OF VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FIGURE 24: CITY OF RICHMOND & REGIONAL AREA: SCHOOLS

ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL OF VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT



FIGURE 25: CITY OF RICHMOND & REGIONAL AREA: PRIVATE SCHOOLS ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL OF VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Calgary International Airport (CIA), Calgary, Alberta

FIGURE 26: CITY OF CALGARY: CHILD CARE CENTRES ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL OF CALGARY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FIGURE 27: CITY OF CALGARY: SCHOOLS ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL

OF CALGARY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FIGURE 28: CITY OF CALGARY: PRIVATE SCHOOLS ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL OF CALGARY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport, (PETIA), Montreal- Dorval, Quebec

FIGURE 29: CITY OF MONTREAL: CHILD CARE CENTRES ABOVE THE 30 NEF LEVEL OF P.E. TRUDEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT



LIST OF TABLES

TABLE A: SUMMARY OF EXISTING / PLANNED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT

TABLE B: OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC PARKLAND) LOCATED WITHIN THE

LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OPERATING AREA AND/OR IN PROXIMITY TO THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

TABLE C: DAY CARE SPACE IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE:

PER EXISTING MAJOR OFFICE BUILDINGS BY ‘ORLANDO CORPORATION’

TABLE D: LAND USE PLANNING POLICY HIERARCHY MATRIX: DAY

CARE FACILITIES IN PROXIMITY TO L.B.P.I.A. NEP/NEF COMPOSITE NOISE CONTOURS

TABLE E: MATRIX COMPARISON OF LAND USE PLANNING POLICIES

IN PROXIMITY TO MAJOR CANADIAN AIRPORTS: SELECTED LAND USE PLANNING POLICY EXCERPTS REGARDING SENSITIVE LAND USES, I.E. DAY CARE FACILITIES & SCHOOLS




APPENDICES ‘A’ Inventory: Child Care & Ontario Early Years Centres above the 30 NEP/NEF

Composite Noise contour of the LBPIA Operating Area ‘B’ Inventory: Schools above the above the 30 NEP/NEF Composite Noise contour of

the LBPIA Operating Area ‘C’ Transport Canada: Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports Table 3: excerpts ‘D’ City of Mississauga Zoning By-law No. 0448-2002 ‘E’ City of Vancouver: Child Care Centres and Schools above the 30 NEF level of

Vancouver International Airport

Vancouver International Airport Authority: 2003 and 2015 NEF Noise Contours Maps

City of Richmond Official Community Plan: Generalized Land Use Map with 2003 NEF Noise Contour per Vancouver International Airport Authority

City of Richmond Official Community Plan: Specific Land Use Map with 2003 NEF Noise Contours per Vancouver International Airport Authority

‘F’ City of Calgary: Child Care Centres and Schools above the 30 NEF level of

Calgary International Airport

City of Calgary Official Plan: Future Conceptual Urban Structure with 2003 NEF Noise Contours per Calgary International Airport Authority

‘G’ City of Montreal: Child Care Centres and Schools above the 30 NEF level of

Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport

City of Montreal: NEF/PBP Noise Contours ‘H’ Proposed Amendment to Region of Peel Official Plan ‘I’ Proposed Draft Adopting By-law Amendment for Mississauga Plan and Gateway

District policies ‘J’ Proposed Draft Amendment to Mississauga Plan and Gateway District policies ‘K’ Proposed Draft Amendment to City of Mississauga Zoning By-law No. 0225-

2007 ‘L’ Definitions as set out in Selected Documents


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Child Care Centres, such as Day Care facilities are important community uses, which support the needs of working families. Where these community uses are work-place oriented, they tend to locate in, or adjacent to, higher density urban employment nodes, where customer convenience, accessibility, and public transit opportunities exist, among other amenities. Current regional and city planning policies and zoning regulations prohibit the location of Child Care Centres in the Gateway District; which is completely contained within the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Operating Area. This “blanket” exclusion also includes the Gateway District Node (a major Employment Node), with its focus on Hurontario Street, a major regional urban corridor. Orlando Corporation advises the ability to attract high quality corporate office investment in the Gateway District Node, (the gateway portion of Orlando’s Heartland Business Community), is in part dependent on accommodating the personal and community service needs of working families; through the provision of convenient and well located work-place oriented childcare opportunities. Traditionally a stay at home parent could attend to children. However, today’s family structures include single parents who work, and/or families where both parents work. This situation places demand on the need to deliver adequate child care services. Employers acknowledge that the growing problem of employee absenteeism may be reduced by recognizing and minimizing work-life conflicts. Conveniently located, work- place oriented child care assists in relieving work-life conflicts as it provides workers the option of having their children closer to them during their work day. While there are various options regarding the delivery of child care services, licensed child care services are preferred, where working parent(s) are unable to look after their children during working hours. Statistics Canada advises, “Children who participated in an early childhood program at ages 3 and 4 were more likely to be judged by their teachers as being near the top of the kindergarten class in communication and learning skills than those who did not attend an early childhood program.” (The Daily, Statistics Canada, October 14, 1999). The following statistics as provided by Regional Staff summarize the serious lack of Day Care facilities/services in the Region of Peel today:

• There are 180,000 children aged 0-10;

• There are 100,000 children aged 0-5, representing about 56% of the total;

• There are 22,000 licensed Day Care spaces;

• There are 4,500 Peel subsidized Day Care spaces geared to income, with 2,300 waiting for subsidized spaces;


i


• About 70% of families have working mothers in the Region;

• There are approximately 21,200 children enrolled in private or semi-private

licensed Day Care facilities;

• The Region of Peel has in place about 350 Subsidy Agreements with private Day Care facilities which represents about 10% of the total 3,500 private facilities;

• At this time the Region of Peel has 12 operational Day Care facilities

serving the families of 800 children;

• It is a Regional corporate objective to accelerate their Day Care subsidy program which is undeveloped in the Region particularly given the high demand for Day Care facilities;

Given that working families are in need of child care services, it is appropriate to consider the availability and accessibility of this service, particularly in areas of major employment activity, like the Gateway District Node. In terms of Mississauga Plan and the City’s comprehensive Zoning By-law, working families are served by only two existing Day Care facilities, (located in the south-west quadrant of the Gateway District Node), which are legal permitted uses under the City’s recently approved Zoning By-law. These Day Care facilities were approved prior to the enactment of Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendments prohibiting these uses today. In terms of Mississauga’s recently adopted comprehensive Zoning By-law, Day Care is defined as;

Means a building or structure or part thereof, with or without an outdoor play area, used for temporary care which does not exceed twelve (12) consecutive hours in one (1) day, of more than five (5) persons. Care may be provided for children, seniors and/or disabled persons.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to examine and consider a planning basis to support Child Care Centres, such as Day Care facilities, as a permitted use within the City’s Gateway District Node. While this use was permitted as a primary stand-alone use in the past, the use is now prohibited by Mississauga Plan and the City’s comprehensive Zoning By-law. Further, as community uses support working families, it is therefore reasonable to view this use as accessory or ancillary uses, to the primary employment activities supporting the planned function of this major employment area as well.


ii


This Planning Assessment Report, prepared on behalf of Orlando Corporation, supports a privately initiated Region of Peel Official Plan Amendment application; ROPA 14. Its purpose is to strengthen Planning for Child Care in the Gateway District Node. Orlando Corporation properties comprise a majority area of the Gateway District Node. Co-incidently appeals are in place regarding the City’s OPA No. 25 and comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 concerning Planning for Child Care in the Gateway District Node as well. As professional land use planners we are qualified to provide an opinion regarding land use, and in support of our opinion, draw on various sources of governmental policies and recommendations. The findings and recommendations of this report are both factual and opinion in nature and are the result of our research and experience as professional land use planners. Through the process of researching and completing this Planning Assessment Report, we believe our recommendations are reasonable, desirable and represent good planning, and are in the public interest. BACKGROUND Over the past few decades social and labour force changes have been dramatic resulting in changing responsibilities for child care services. Although mothers traditionally attend to child care responsibilities, the increased tendency for women to participate in the paid labour force has increased the demand for Child Care services. The Region of Peel provides public services. It is a goal of the Region to have adequate, efficient and a planned cost effective system of Regional Services. In this context, it is a regional objective to provide service delivery levels consistent with public needs and financial realities. Regional Strategic Plan objectives apply to human services in a manner that enables Peel residents to enjoy safe and healthy lives in safe and healthy communities. The provisions of such services foster the creation of community identity and community self-reliance. Regional initiatives support child care services to “give all of Ontario’s children the best possible start in life and help them achieve success in school.” (Best Start, Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the Ministry of Education) Ten vision statements of the City of Mississauga are set out in the City’s Strategic Plan 2000 for the New Millennium to respond to the challenges and growth realized by the City. Objectives and strategic actions are set out therein, among other matters, promoting competitive advantage for business, attracting new business and retaining current business, by offering good growth prospects and the provision of high-quality jobs. As part of the City’s Strategic Plan, Mississauga Plan sets out Goals and Objectives, as well, establishing the general direction of planning and development in the City. Mississauga Plan protects for Community Uses, and under Goals and Objectives recognizes that working and living areas require sufficient locations for community uses, such as Child Care Centres. Conveniently located Community Uses support the planning and development of the City and Region.


iii


The Region of Peel, and particularly the City of Mississauga, have been successful in achieving long term population and employment objectives over the past twenty-five years continuing to be a net importer of labour. The Gateway District Node, as part of the Gateway District, is a significant higher density employment location. While achieving economic objectives, the City is also committed to providing for community services and facilities which support the workplace and the lifestyles of working families. Work-place oriented Day Care facilities are an important community use that serves the needs of working families of the City of Mississauga. Urban Form, Community Identity, Goals and Objectives policies per Mississauga Plan identify Employment Nodes, such as the Gateway District Node. An Employment Node, is an area which will contain a greater intensity of employment, commercial and community facilities, which are privately and publicly accessible to the people working in these areas. Heartland Business Community (‘Heartland’) is a master planned business community by Orlando Corporation of approximately 567 hectares (1,400 acres) in land area, and representing about 40% of the Gateway Planning District. According to City data, in 2007 the Gateway Planning District represents employment of about 54,000 with a target of 70,750 by 2036. Although ‘Heartland’ is approximately 80% built out, substantial office commercial employment growth opportunities remain within the Gateway District Node portion of the Gateway District. As Canada’s largest builder of industrial/commercial communities, Orlando Corporation advises that from a corporate tenant/employee service point of view, well-located, accessible and convenient work-place oriented Child Care Centres, serve an important function within their business community. The City’s ability to attract and retain high quality corporate office employment and investment in central Mississauga is in part dependent on being able to accommodate the services required by working families. Two licensed work-place oriented Day Care facilities function within the Gateway District Node today. These facilities are located in the Oracle and Matheson Road office building complexes in the south-west quadrant of the District Node. A number of private schools, while closer to the airport, are located peripheral to the Gateway District Node. This community land use, much like Day Care facilities, is more suitably located within the higher density boundary of the planned Gateway District Node. In terms of relative distance, Hurontario Street (south of Highway 401) generally bisects the Gateway District Node and the City of Mississauga. Hurontario Street is located approximately 5.5 km (3.4 miles) from the closest runway threshold (06R Arrivals and 24L Departures), at Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LPBIA). As the Gateway District Node is entirely contained within the LBPIA Operating Area, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (‘GTAA’) will be requested to provide input in consideration of these planning matters.


iv


THE GTAA & TRANSPORT CANADA The GTAA Airport Master Plan Summary Report refers to Noise Management, advising that the GTAA is committed to managing and operating the Airport, balancing regional economic growth and development while being sensitive to the concerns of surrounding communities. “Transport Canada and the GTAA recognize that the most effective way to minimize the impact of aircraft noise is through proper land use planning in the vicinity of airports. However, since land use is a provincial jurisdiction, the GTAA can only participate in this process in an advisory role.” (The GTAA Airport Master Plan Summary Report, Noise Management, page 48) The Region and City rely on the Airport NEP (1996 Noise Exposure Projection) NEF (2000 Noise Exposure Forecast) / composite noise contour mapping as released by the GTAA. This mapping is based on airport operations, to restrict any new development deemed sensitive to noise and undesirable in the proximity to the Airport. Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) / Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) composite noise contour as defined in Mississauga Plan:‘means a line linking specific locations predicted to be subject to the same noise exposure value based on the most stringent of an airport’s NEF and NEP.’ This mapping is further included in Appendix J of Mississauga Plan, 1996 NEP/2000 NEF Composite Noise Contours. As a further source on land use near airports, Transport Canada prepared and issued TP1247E, Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports, as amended, the latest being the eighth edition. The purpose of this document, among other matters, is to describe the operational characteristics of airports which influence land use outside the airport property boundary while recommending where applicable, guidelines for land use which would be compatible with airport operations. For example, the GTAA applies Transport Canada’s Guidelines in its recommendations to the Region and City, advising that residential development is not compatible with lands located at or above the 30 NEF (Noise Exposure Forecast value), and therefore rejects new residential development within the LBPIA Operating Area, (‘AOA’); the boundary of which generally follows the limit of a GTAA refined 30 NEP/NEF composite noise contour. Regional and City planning policies support this recommendation. As it has for residential areas, the Transport Canada TP1247E document also includes recommended guidelines regarding the location of schools and playgrounds in proximity to Canadian airports. Based on Transport Canada’s documentation, school facilities and playgrounds may be located on lands, between the 30-35 NEF noise contours, subject to conditions. Although Transport Canada’s guidelines do not specifically refer to Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities as a specified use, it is our opinion that it is reasonable to consider this activity in this same context, since among other comparables, child care or Day Care use occurs in the day-time only. It is noted that the Ministry of Environment


v


for the Province of Ontario treats schools and Day Care facilities the same in assessing Indoor Aircraft Noise Criteria. School facilities are Permitted Uses below the 35 NEF noise contour per Transport Canada. As a land use, schools may be acceptable in accordance with the appropriate condition and are subject to the limitations indicated therein. Schools should not be located close to the 30 NEF noise contour unless the restrictions outlined per Note D are applied as follows: “These uses should not be approved unless a detailed noise analysis is conducted and the required noise insulation features are considered by the architectural consultant responsible for the building design.” Therefore in this context it would appear that schools and Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities may be located on lands between the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contours (as per Appendix J, Mississauga Plan), subject to conditions, i.e. satisfying building insulation standards and providing a supporting acoustical study. Co-incidentally, Transport Canada refers to Community Uses, such as Nursing Homes and Hospitals (which involve night-time occupancy) as also permitted uses between the 30 and 35 NEF noise contours, subject to the same restrictions as outlined in Note D above. Technically on this basis, the Gateway District Node, (primarily located between the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contour per Appendix J) could also support Day Care facilities based on Transport Canada criteria. Existing private schools, while not within the Gateway District Node, are peripheral to the Node and typically located within the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contours. Playground is a Permitted Use below the 40 NEF noise contour per Transport Canada: Playgrounds are a permitted land use in the 35 to 40 NEF noise contour land area, without restrictions. This is important as playgrounds are typically associated with Child Care Centres/ Day Care facilities and schools. “The indicated land use is not considered to be adversely affected by aircraft noise and no special noise insulation should be required for new construction or development of this nature.” In summary, from a land use planning perspective, Transport Canada acknowledges school facilities are conditionally permitted within the 30 to 35 NEF noise contour lands, in the vicinity of Canadian Airports, per their guidelines and recommendations. Playgrounds are permitted without restriction. It would be reasonable therefore to consider accommodating Day Care facilities with outdoor playgrounds similarly; subject to appropriate building and facility design requirements. There are shared objectives at all levels of government and the private sector, which recognize the presence and importance of the LBPIA as a significant component of the economy, which attracts and serves industries and businesses in the Greater Toronto


vi


Area. At the same time, all levels of government and the private sector recognize the importance of providing well located and adequate community services to satisfy the needs of working families. Orlando Corporation, a well established corporate citizen, supports these shared objectives. The Province, Region of Peel and the City of Mississauga, among other parties such as the GTAA, have respected vested interests in ensuring efficient planning and development programs, levels of service and the smooth day-to-day operations of their activities. While Transport Canada and the Provincial planning policies set the standards that apply to land use decisions, regional and local governments implement and enforce land use policies. It is reasonable to re-instate the permission for accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities on lands owned by Orlando Corporation as part of the Gateway District Node, as long as the proposal is supported by an appropriate detailed noise analysis which incorporates recommendations for implementation in terms of building and outdoor facility design. Based on Transport Canada’s guidelines per TP1247E, this process is required for the construction of office buildings within the 30 to 35 composite noise contour in any event. CASE STUDIES: LAND USE IN PROXIMITY TO OTHER CANADIAN AIRPORTS As requested by Region of Peel and City of Mississauga Planning Staff, our research investigated related land use inventories and permissions given to Day Care and school facilities in the vicinity of other major Canadian airports. By comparison we examined the context of land use planning in the vicinity of Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal International Airports. Our findings indicate that Day Care facilities and schools are indeed located on lands in proximity to these major airports; between the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contours. Provincial, regional and local land use planning policies generally accept these community based land uses in this context. LAND USE PLANNING ASSESSMENT In planning for Child Care in the Gateway District Node, we considered a number of policies, guidelines and recommendations, guided by two questions which form the basis of our Land Use Planning Assessment Report. Achieving planned function is an important basis of our Planning Assessment as summarized in the following: Will permission to locate accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities in the Gateway District Node, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour portion of the LBPIA Operating Area result in negative impacts on the long-term function of LBPIA?


vii


In our opinion locating a sensitive land use, such as accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities, in a Gateway District Node portion of the LBPIA Operating Area will not result in negative impacts on the short and long-term function of LPBIA for the following reasons:

i) Transport Canada guidelines acknowledge the location of certain noise sensitive land uses within the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contours, subject to building noise insulation recommendations. It would not be expected that Transport Canada would acknowledge these uses if they would have a negative impact on the long term function of any federally regulated airport. The proposal is not in conflict with the guidelines as established by Transport Canada.

ii) Noise sensitive land uses such as Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities

will be located as an accessory use in high quality office buildings, or free-standing buildings as part of an office campus, well insulated from aircraft noise. This would require an Acoustical Report to be approved as part of the building permit process. Outdoor playgrounds are also considered by Transport Canada where this use can be located unrestricted on lands between 30 to 35 NEF, and with restrictions on lands within the 35 to 40 NEF noise contours. In the context of the Gateway District Node, playgrounds would be below the 35 NEF noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan and subject to noise mitigation requirements concerning location, design and materials.

iii) In our opinion no physical changes would be required to the LPBIA as a

result of allowing accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities to locate within the Gateway District Node on lands located below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan.

iv) NEF is a cumulative noise metric which takes into account both day and

night-time air traffic movements. It is noted that a dramatic increase in weighting is applied to night-time air traffic versus day-time air traffic movements. Therefore, on this basis it would be reasonable to expect that the NEF noise contours would be decreased in size where night-time air traffic is not included, or where night-time traffic does not occur. It is important to note that the typical working hours and operation of Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities are approximately 07:00 to 18:00 which is not during LBPIA night-time air traffic activity.

v) In our opinion no re-routing of LBPIA flights would be expected as a

result of allowing accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities to locate in the Gateway District Node on lands located below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan.


viii


vi) It is noted that the Ministry of Environment for the Province of Ontario

treats schools for example, and Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities the same in assessing Indoor Aircraft Noise Criteria. It is our opinion schools and Day Care facilities may be located on lands below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan, subject to conditions, i.e. satisfying building insulation standards and providing a supporting Acoustical Report.

vii) Corporate interests may perceive proximity to LBPIA, in terms of the

Gateway District Node, as a desirable locational factor influencing a business decision to locate in the Gateway District Node. On the basis business investment is viewed as positive by the GTAA, high quality office commercial build out of the Gateway District Node would have a net positive impact on the long term function of LBPIA by generating more passenger and cargo volumes, for example.

viii) With respect to the existing two licensed Child Care Centres/Day Care

facilities with playgrounds currently operational in the Gateway District Node, we are not aware of any concerns regarding aircraft noise in terms of operations at this time.

ix) In our opinion endorsement of accessory use work-place oriented Child

Care Centres/Day Care facilities within the Gateway District Node, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan would not expose LPBIA to the risk of public pressure to change, restrict, and curtail current operations and future growth.

Will the lack of accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities in the Gateway District Node, result in negative impacts on the regional and local planned functions, such that the ultimate development of this major Employment Node, in terms of the full range of land uses that constitute a Node, will be compromised? In our opinion preventing accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities in the Gateway District Node, will impinge on the ultimate planned function of this major central Employment Node, where access to a wide variety of accessory community and commercial services is warranted for the following reasons:

i) Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) and Places to Grow/Growth Plan reinforce the importance of the Region’s and City’s major Employment Areas like the Gateway District Node in achieving Ontario’s planning vision. The planned function and form of this major Employment Node, combined with the function of the Hurontario Corridor, (which bi-sects the Node, and connects two provincially planned Urban Growth Centres) deserves special attention.


ix


ii) A basic planning principle in Places to Grow includes ‘complete’

communities, and in terms of a ‘complete’ employment community, the Gateway District Node would be one which is supported by a broad range of complementary or accessory uses to effectively minimize work life conflicts and trip generation. Employment opportunities and multiple service opportunities in situ, makes employment communities stronger and working conditions easier.

iii) City of Mississauga District Nodes are based on design principles that

encourage high quality urban design, distinctive architecture, landscaping and pedestrian activity. It is a principle that “…employment density should be sufficiently high to support transit usage”. As well, “community, cultural, and recreational facilities should be encouraged to locate in Nodes.” In support of these principles, the City of Mississauga has embarked on a major land/use transportation study on Hurontario Street to determine the feasibility of accommodating Higher Order Transit to support major office and transit oriented development. Mississauga Staff advise, “We are working with the City of Brampton to improve this important connection between the two cities. We want this study to set the vision and focus of development and future transit needs of this vital corridor. Both Mississauga’s and Brampton’s Transportation Plans have recognized the potential significance of this high-order transit corridor for many years.”

iv) The planned function of the Gateway District Node includes high

employment density, major offices and a mix of supporting land uses, further strengthened by planning objectives to establish high levels of accessibility to public services including existing and planned public transit facilities along the Hurontario Corridor, among other attributes. According to City Staff, “Hurontario Street carries the highest transit ridership of any Mississauga Transit Corridor, with 25,000 riders each day. It also links to GO Transit commuter Rail stations and future BRT routes.”

v) The Gateway District Node provides community focus and identity, being

part of a centrally located corridor in Mississauga, and as such functions as a well located and major Employment Node with future opportunities for compact, mixed use.

vi) The Gateway District Node provides a focus of activity for the

surrounding areas as this central Node has excellent accessibility, a prestigious profile and a relatively high level of existing transit services; and major future transit possibilities to support major growth and intensification in the future.


x


vii) A long term planning objective is to create compact urban form in the Gateway District Node. Transit oriented development supports intensified density and major office investment and broadens access. The provision for work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities will enhance opportunities for pedestrian circulation distinguishing the significance of this Node from the surrounding area.

viii) The Gateway District Node is emerging as an Employment Node having

many of the planning attributes as noted above. Continuing to restrict Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities delays and compromises major office investment where accessible community services, work-place oriented amenities are needed to support planned function.

ix) High quality, multi-storey office business locations require significant

corporate commitment and investment. Important community service amenities such as Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities support the function of prestigious ‘head office’ companies that choose to locate in higher density multi-storey office campuses. The availability of community service amenities supports new office building investments, contributing to planned function and form. Employment Nodes substantially support regional and local property tax assessment.

CONCLUSIONS The Gateway District Node is a major centrally located Employment Node. A major restriction compromising the full development and planned function of the Gateway District Node is the current inability to accommodate Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities which are deemed sensitive to aircraft noise. Today’s social climate includes family structures with single parents who work, and/or families where both parents work. This situation places demand on the need to deliver adequate child care services in the Region of Peel and the City of Mississauga. Employers acknowledge that the growing problem of employee absenteeism may be reduced by recognizing and minimizing work-life conflicts. Conveniently located, work place oriented child care assists in relieving work-life conflicts as it provides workers the option of having their children closer to them during their work day. While there are various options regarding the delivery of child care services, licensed child care services within a major employment area is preferred, as working parent(s) are better able to conveniently respond to their children during working hours. There is a major shortfall in the provision of Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities in the Region of Peel today. Given that working families are in need of child care services, it is appropriate to consider the availability and accessibility of this service, particularly in areas of major employment activity, like the Gateway District Node.


xi


The LBPIA Airport Operating Area is substantial in land area, ‘blanketing” about one quarter of the City of Mississauga urban land area. The GTAA advises that the LBPIA generates, “…up to 185,000 total jobs…” (GTAA 2006, Noise Management Report). Therefore it is concluded that all reasonable and desirable locational opportunities for work-place oriented Day Care facilities, particularly where it substantially fulfils broader provincial, regional and local planning policy objectives be considered. It is determined that:

i) With respect to the Provincial Policy Statements of 1996, updated to 1997 and 2005, the re-development of sensitive land uses such as Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities may be considered above the 30 NEF composite noise contour where there would be no negative affect the long–term function of an airport; in this case LBPIA. We are of the opinion the objective of ROPA 14 fits under this discretionary permission.

ii) Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) and Places to Grow/Growth Plan

reinforce the importance of the Region’s and City’s major Employment Areas like the Gateway District Node in achieving Ontario’s planning vision. The planned function and form of this major Employment Node, combined with the function of the Hurontario Corridor, (which bi-sects the Node and connects two provincially planned Urban Growth Centres) deserves special attention.

iii) A basic planning principle in Places to Grow includes ‘complete’

communities, and in terms of a ‘complete’ employment community, the Gateway District Node would be one which is supported by a broad range of complementary or accessory uses to effectively minimize work life conflicts and trip generation. Employment opportunities and multiple service opportunities in situ, makes employment communities stronger and working conditions easier.

iv) Nodes are based on design principles that encourage high quality urban

design, distinctive architecture, landscaping and pedestrian activity. It is a principle that “…employment density should be sufficiently high to support transit usage”. As well, “community, cultural, and recreational facilities should be encouraged to locate in Nodes.” The City of Mississauga has embarked on a major land/use transportation study on Hurontario Street to determine the feasibility of accommodating higher order transit to support major office and transit oriented development.

v) The planned function of the Gateway District Node includes high

employment density, major offices and a mix of supporting land uses, further strengthened by planning objectives to establish high levels of accessibility to public services including existing and planned public transit facilities along the Hurontario Corridor, among other attributes.


xii


vi) The Gateway District Node provides community focus and identity, being part of a centrally located corridor in Mississauga, and as such functions as a well located and major Employment Node with future opportunities for compact, mixed use.

vii) The Gateway District Node provides a focus of activity for the

surrounding areas as this central Node has excellent accessibility, a prestigious profile and a relatively high level of existing transit services; and major future transit possibilities to support growth and intensification in the future.

viii) A long term planning objective is to create compact urban form in the

Gateway District Node. Transit oriented development supports intensified density and major office investment and broadens access. The provision for work place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities will enhance opportunities for pedestrian circulation distinguishing the significance of this Node from the surrounding area.

ix) Important community service amenities such as Child Care Centres/Day

Care facilities support the function of prestigious companies that choose to locate in higher density multi-storey office campuses. The availability of community service amenities supports new office building investments, contributing to planned function and form. Employment Nodes support regional and local property tax assessment.

x) Noise sensitive land use such as Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities,

including an outdoor playground will be located as an accessory use in high quality office buildings, or free-standing buildings as part of an office campus, well insulated from aircraft noise. This will require an Acoustical Report to be approved as part of the building permit process.

xi) Community service amenities such as accessory use Child Care

Centres/Day Care facilities support companies located in higher density office campuses and support planned function and form. From a corporate tenant/employee personal service point of view, work place oriented Day Care facilities serve an important function within the business community. The ability to attract high quality corporate ‘head office’ investment is in part dependent being able to accommodate this desirable community amenity.

Our research has considered Transport Canada 1247E guidelines and recommendations concerning land use in the vicinity of airports due to the affect of aircraft noise. In terms of Transport Canada guidelines we are of the opinion, it is reasonable to treat Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities and schools similarly. These community uses may be located on lands between the 30 to 35 NEF noise contour values, subject to conditions, i.e. satisfying building insulation standards and providing a supporting Acoustical Report.


xiii


These land use permissions are evident per Canada’s other major airports in terms of the land use planning policies and regulations investigated. With the exception of LBPIA Operating Area, these community uses are permitted between the 30 to 35 NEF noise contours in Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal, subject to noise mitigation design standards. In the case of Ontario, the Provincial government has also adopted the Transport Canada parameters, as a result of the Ministry of Environment Guidelines. The GTAA recognizes Transport Canada guidelines via a Planning Contour system as set out on Toronto Pearson International Airport Operating Area (AOA) and Composite Noise Contours. The Peel of Region and City of Mississauga incorporate planning policies which effectively exclude work-place oriented accessory use Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities from locating on lands within the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contours as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan. This negatively affects the planned function of the Gateway District Node. The MOE “Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning: Requirements, Procedures and Implementation”, Section 4.1 Aircraft Noise, requires a detailed Acoustical Report for all proposals that are located at or above the 25 NEP/NEF. Although a land use may be deemed sensitive, there are important distinctions to be made, particularly between day-time and round the clock use. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) recognizes (Annex to Publication LU-131) an important distinction in assessing Indoor Aircraft Noise Criteria over a 24 hour period, acknowledging that there is a distinction between Indoor NEP/NEF where used as an assessment criteria for the evaluation of acoustical insulation requirements in terms of sensitive land uses. For example, “Living/dining areas of residences, sleeping quarters of hotels/motels, theatres, libraries, day-care centres, places of worship, etc.” are distinguishable, and less sensitive to indoor Aircraft Noise than are “the sleeping quarters of residences, hospitals, nursing/retirement homes, etc.” which require a higher standard to be met. From the MOE perspective it is necessary to satisfy sound level criteria as part of the Building Permit process to obtain approval for land use, i.e. Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities. Given the Canadian climate, building insulation is an important component of building design and architecture, which contributes to aircraft noise abatement. It is proven by IBANA (Insulating Buildings against Noise from Aircraft) that proper aircraft noise insulation on buildings can achieve desired indoor sound levels. IBANA is an aircraft noise abatement program under the National Research Council which has just completed a three year project that “gives architects and builders a new and better design tool for insulating buildings against noise from aircraft.” (IBANA; December 18, 2007) Although the Region of Peel, and in particular the City of Mississauga, are successful in achieving long term population and employment objectives, they both suffer from a serious lack of Child Care Services/Day Care facilities given the increased demand due to labour force and social climate changes. While achieving economic objectives, the City is


xiv


also committed to providing community services which support the population living and working in the City. As the City is now in a maturing state and subject to fresh Provincial Planning policies, land use intensification is required to achieve public service efficiencies, reduce trips and increase reliance on public transit, among other matters. Well located and accessible work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities continue to emerge as important community uses that serve the needs of working families and is an important component of completing a major employment area like the Gateway District Node. Mississauga Plan, Urban Form and Community Identity policies, and the Goals and Objectives, prescribe Employment Nodes, such as Gateway District Node, as containing a greater intensity of employment, commercial and community facilities, accessible to the people they serve. In our opinion approval of the private initiated Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 14) will strengthen the functionality and form of the Hurontario Street corridor office commercial lands in the Gateway District Node; while fulfilling the broader planning goals and objectives of the Province, Region and City. We are of the opinion that the only reason accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities are not currently permitted within the Gateway District Node is related to aircraft noise; even though these sensitive uses function within day-time hours and are to be located below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan. Allowing work-place oriented accessory use Day Care facilities will satisfy community service levels in the Gateway District Node supporting the achievement of planned function. Endorsement of accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities within the Gateway District Node, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan would not expose LPBIA to the risk of public pressure to change, restrict, and curtail current operations and future growth. This report supports the Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 14) and the appeals to Mississauga Plan OPA No. 25 and the City of Mississauga Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007.


xv



xvi

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) This Land Use Planning Assessment Report be given full consideration in terms of the Regional Official Plan application ROPA 14, as filed with the Region of Peel and the Orlando Corporation appeals regarding the City of Mississauga’s Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007;

2) Consideration be given to the direction provided in the Transport Canada 1247E

document and the Ministry of Environment’s noise mitigation policies and procedures as it relates to planning permissions to re-instate accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities located in the Gateway District Node of the LBPIA Operating Area, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan;

3) Consideration be given to the policy direction provided by the Provincial Planning Statements, and by Provincial Public Infrastructure and Renewal policies through the Places to Grow and the Growth Plan as a basis to formally endorse planning permissions to re-instate new accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities located in the Gateway District Node of the LBPIA Operating Area, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan;

4) Appropriate amendments occur to the Region of Peel Official Plan, Mississauga

Plan and the City of Mississauga Zoning By-law, recognizing accessory use work-place oriented Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities within the Gateway District Node lands, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan;

5) Where Child Care Centres/Day Care facilities are proposed within the Gateway

District Node, below the 35 NEF composite noise contour as set out on Appendix J, Mississauga Plan, that all Provincial, Regional and City requirements are met to ensure compliance;

6) Through discussions regarding site and building designs, appropriate noise

mitigation features be incorporated into building/playground architectural elements so as to address noise associated with aircraft traffic.

Philip J. Stewart, MCIP, RPP Principal, Pound & Stewart Associates Limited