11.4 OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC PARKLAND) IS …...DISTRICT NODE Because Day Care facilities are typically associated with Outdoor Playgrounds it is reasonable to examine Mississauga Plan

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

POUND & STEWART ASSOCIATES LIMITED

76

‘Accessory Use’ status. For example, the existing Day Care facility, located in the Oracle Building is under 5% of the floor area of office building, whereas Mississauga Plan specifies a maximum of 20 % of the Gross Floor Area may be devoted to ‘Accessory Use’. Therefore, Day Care facilities would qualify as ‘Accessory Use’ in the context of Mississauga Plan and the Zoning By-law. 11.4 OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC PARKLAND) IS LOCATED WITHIN THE

LBPIA OPERATING AREA IN PROXIMITY TO THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE

Because Day Care facilities are typically associated with Outdoor Playgrounds it is reasonable to examine Mississauga Plan in the context of Open Space (Pubic Parkland) located within the LPBIA and in proximity to the Gateway District Node. Mississauga Plan recognizes open space in terms of public parkland through the classification of two distinct parkland functions described as city parks and community parks. Within the LPBIA Operating Area a number of public parkland facilities exist in proximity to the Gateway District Node as described by Figure 22 and Table B. City and community parks provide opportunities for recreational experiences, educational and day outings for individuals, families and groups. In addition, parks provide opportunities for active and passive recreation, including opportunities for social interaction and include multiple purposes, and year round activities. Parkland P-317 abuts the Gateway District Node boundary to the south-west and includes softball and cricket playfield opportunities. In terms of the LBPIA Operating Area, a majority of public parkland is located between the 30 to 35 NEP/NEF composite noise contours, with some parkland located in areas exhibiting higher aircraft noise levels. The location of parkland and playgrounds in proximity to LBPIA is consistent with Transport Canada’s 1247E document, “Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports”. Playgrounds are permitted between the 30 to 35 NEF/NEP composite noise contours. It is noted that a certain types of Recreational Outdoor facilities, (i.e. athletic fields, golf courses, tennis courts, parks and picnic areas) are also permitted between the 30 to 35 NEF composite noise contours. Numerous public parkland facilities are located within the 30 to 35 NEF/NEP composite noise contours consistent with Mississauga Plan and the City parkland policies. Outdoor playgrounds are usually associated with Day Care facilities and therefore the location of these uses, as proposed; do not conflict with Transport Canada recommendations and the City’s Public Parkland policies.


FIGURE 22 – MUNICIPAL PARKS LOCATED WITHIN THE LBPIA OPERATING AREA AND/OR IN PROXIMITY TO THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE


77


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

Park No.

Location Location in NEF/NEP Contour

Name Function Mississauga Plan

Designation

Zoning By-law 0225-2007

Play- ground

Special Attributes (existing and Future)

Existing Future

P-317 Matheson Blvd. And Falbourne

30-35 Not Yet

Named

City Parkland

“City Park” OS2, E2 No Substandard, Softball, Cricket

None

P-224 Kennedy Road

30-35 Dunton Athletic Field

Community Parkland

“City Park” OS2 No Picnic Area, 4 Major

Softball, Washroom

None

P-302 West of Highway

410

30-35 Not Yet

Named

City Parkland

“Greenbelt” PB1 PB1-1, PB1-2 OS1 G1

No None 3 Senior Soccer, 2 Cricket, 1 Washroom

P-360 West of Highway

403

30-35 35-40

“Hershey

Complex”

City Parkland

“City Park” OS2-6, G2, PB1, PB1-3, PB1-4

No None None

P-199 Kennedy Road and Matheson

Blvd.

25-30 30-35

Britannia

Woods Com. Centre

Community Parkland

“Community Park”

G2 No Woodlot None

P-357 Matheson Rd., West

of Highway

403

30-35 Not Yet

Named

City Parkland

“City Park” PB1-6 Yes “Iceland” 4 arenas, 4

Basketball Hoops, 1 Cricket, 1

Playground, 1 Skateboard

Park, 2 Major Lit Soccer

None

Note: See municipal parks map Figure 22 showing locations within the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Operating Area in proximity to the Gateway District Node, City of Mississauga.


78



79

11.5 DEMAND FORECAST BASED ON EXISTING LICENSED DAY CARE FACILITIES IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE

Two existing Day Care facilities are located within two office buildings occupying lands in the Gateway District Node. We are advised by Orlando Corporation that from a corporate tenant/employee service point of view, work-place oriented Day Care facilities serve an important function within the business community organization. The ability to attract major corporate office investment is in part dependent on the ability to provide child care amenities such as Day Care facilities. The Oracle building is located at 110 Matheson Blvd. West/ 100 Milverton Drive. This company is a provider of technology services in an office building of about of about 18,199 m2 (196,000 sq. ft.) in floor area. The Oracle building contains the Hearts Child Care Centre (opened 2002) offering about 83 Day Care spaces. This facility includes about 418 m2 (4,500 sq. ft.) indoors, with an additional outdoor playground. The Day Care component of the office building represents about 2.3 % of the total floor area. Although the Day Care facility is located in the Oracle building, it is not exclusive to Oracle employees. Another example of existing Day Care in the Gateway District Node is located at 155 Matheson Blvd West, across from the Oracle building. In this office building campus, the Hearts Child Care Centre offers about 107 day care spaces. This facility includes about 604 m2 (6,500 sq. ft.) indoors, with an additional outdoor playground. In this case this Day Care facility as a component of the office building campus, represents about 4.5 % of the total gross floor area which is 13,458 m2 (144,865 sq. ft.). Please refer to photographs which further describe the buildings and the Day Care facilities located therein.


100 MILVERTON ROAD – ORACLE BUILDING HEARTS CHILD CARE CENTRE

155 MATHESON BLVD. WEST HEARTS CHILD CARE CENTRE


80


Combined, these Day Care facilities tend to at about 180 children of working families. About 50% of the children have parents working in close proximity to the day care facilities as advised by the Hearts Child Care Centre staff. Certification of the two existing Day Care facilities required approval of various Provincial, Regional and Local governments as part of the Day Care approval, and the planning and building related Site Plan Approval and Building Permit processes. For example, from a provincial perspective each Day Care facility must satisfy the Day Nurseries Act and the Health Act, among others. In terms of noise, each Day Care facility must comply with the Ministry of Environment standards. At the Regional level, the facilities must comply with the Regional Health Office and locally, the facilities must comply with the Fire Department, Zoning and Building Code standards, among other matters. All of the necessary approvals have been obtained as these facilities are in place and functioning at capacity. These Day Care facilities are located in the south-west portion of the Gateway District Node where accessible and proximate work-place oriented Day Care facilities are desirable to satisfy work-place demand. Successful businesses require work-place human services. In order to build a model of future Day Care facilities demand in the Gateway District Node, please refer to Table C which provides an overview of potential Day Care facilities demand based on a review of Orlando Corporation’s major office employment lands, within the south-west portion of the Gateway District Node, given the current level of Day Care service in this area. The success of the existing Day Care facilities, in the Gateway District Node, demonstrates the importance of work-place oriented Day Care facilities in areas of existing and planned high employment density. Existing Day Care facilities are geographically located at the south-west portion of the Gateway District Node and are at capacity, accommodating about 180 children, where about one half are work-oriented placements. Therefore, at a basic or minimum level, the current level of business employment in the south-west quadrant of the Gateway District Node creates a demand for about 90 work-place oriented Day Care spaces as set out on Table C.

Existing office space on the Orlando Corporation lands within the south-west quadrant of the Gateway District Node totals about 1.7 million sq. ft. Within the Gateway District Node there is a potential for an additional 2.06 million sq. ft., on Orlando Corporation lands alone, for a total office space of 3.76 million sq. ft. An employee yield of about 18,800 would occur based on an average of 200 sq. ft. per employee.

As there are two existing Day Care facilities operating within the Gateway District Node, using about one-half employee yield based on existing levels there would need at least two additional Day Care facilities to serve the Orlando Corporation development alone at a basic level. The actual number of Day Care facilities could be more based on individual ‘head office’ requirements and accessibility within the Gateway District Node.


81


TABLE C – DAY CARE SPACE IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE: PER EXISTING MAJOR OFFICE BUILDINGS BY ‘ORLANDO CORPORATION’ Major Office Buildings by Orlando Corporation Gateway District Node

Area (Ha)

GFA FSI Estimated Employees based on “Occupant Load Factors” per OBC at 200 sq. ft. per Employee at one times coverage

Employee Occupancy based on potential Major Building Office Density

Estimated Demand for Work- Place oriented Day Care based on Existing Development

Estimated Demand for Work- Place oriented Day Care based on estimated Build-out of Existing Development

Purolator Courier, et al

(5995 Avebury Rd.)

2.81 14,837 m2 (159,703 ft2)

0.5 800 1,600 9 18

Oracle Corporation, et

al (Matheson

Blvd.)

7.53 18,200 m2 (195,898 ft2)

0.25 980 3,920 12 48

Heartland Corporate

Centre (Hurontario

St.) (Dun and

Bradstreet) (CCRA)

8.62

50,943 m2 (548,355 ft2)

0.6

2,418

4,030

32

53

Citibank 4.35 17,187 m2 (185,000 ft2)

0.5 925 1,850

10 21

Ingram Micro, et al

(55 Standish Ct.)

8.49 44,593 m2 (480,000 ft2)

0.53 2,400 4,528 28 53

115 – 155 Matheson Blvd W. (Assorted

Tenants)

4.52 13,458 m2 (144,864 ft2)

0.30 724 2,413 9 30

Total or Average*

36.32 159,219 m2 (1,713,820

ft2)

0.44*

8,247 18,341 100 Spaces (Rounded)

223 Spaces (Rounded)

GFA - Gross Floor Area FSI - Floor Space Index OBC - Ontario Building Code Note: Numbers are approximate

The relationship of Day Care facilities to employees in terms of the existing context can also be examined based Public Service Canada direction in terms of their own work-place Day Care. It is significant to note the Federal Government has a policy which applies to all Departments and other portions of the Public Service listed in Part I of Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act as it relates to every work-place day care centre. General Policy 1.2 reads,


82


‘The total number of actual or proposed centres, including the one under active consideration, in the municipality or census subdivision as set out in the Geographic Location Master File (see references), must not exceed one for every 4,000 employees.”

Therefore, under this scenario and based on an estimated yield of 18,800 employees on the Orlando Corporation lands alone (south-west quadrant) within the Gateway District Node, there would be justification for about five (5) Day Care facilities. This is generally consistent with the existing demand analysis model above per Table C. Please note that the Orlando Corporation land component of the Gateway District Node is about 60% of the total land area and ultimate built out within the Node.

In summary, at full maturity the Gateway District Node is planned as a high density employment node. Based on today’s ratios, it is reasonable in our opinion to expect high demand for future Day Care facilities. The current planning restriction which prevents new accessory use work-place oriented Day Care services reduces the pace of office commercial investment in the Node and compromises high quality office commercial opportunities in the Node making it less attractive to ‘head office’ investment. It also compromises the human service levels with reduced Day Care opportunities for existing employees with jobs in the Gateway District Node and undermines planned function. Highly accessible accessory use work-place oriented child Day Care services, is a desirable Community Use which would complement corporate and employee needs and help satisfy the serious shortage of licensed Day Care facilities in the Region of Peel today and in the future. Figure 6, is an oblique view aerial photograph of the Gateway District Node dated summer 2004 illustrating existing built form and functional attributes. Office buildings with the existing Day Care facilities are noted. Both the Dufferin Peel Catholic School Board of Education and the Peel School Board of Education head offices are prominently located within the Gateway District Node at the intersection of Hurontario Street and Matheson Blvd and do not have work-place oriented Day Care facilities. The Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow Growth Plan recognize major employment areas like the Gateway District Node based the requirements for compact areas and intensification. Allowing accessory use work-place oriented Day Care facilities to locate on lands located below the 35 NEP/NEF Composite Noise Contour will strengthen the maturity rate of the Gateway District Node and satisfy the serious lack of human services (i.e. work-place Day Care) per the Region of Peel. The amount of building opportunity that remains in the Gateway District Node is particularly significant in terms of the contribution this will also bring to the City’s tax base, completing planned function and urban form, and the efficient use of public services delivery through the intensification associated with Transit oriented development.


83


11.6 APPEAL OF MISSISSAUGA OPA No. 25 IS COMPLEMENTARY TO ITS APPLICATION TO AMEND THE REGION OF PEEL’S OFFICIAL PLAN

In order to implement Orlando Corporation’s full planning and development program for lands in the Gateway District Node, an amendment to Mississauga Plan is required. Orlando Corporation’s appeal of Mississauga OPA No. 25 is complementary to its application to amend the Region of Peel’s Official Plan, as noted above. A copy of the proposed amendment in draft in located in Appendix ‘H’ of this report. It is recommended Mississauga Plan policies be amended to specifically re-instate land use permissions for Child Care Centres, such as accessory use work-place oriented Day Care facilities within the Gateway District Node. Permission is requested for the redevelopment or infilling of Day Care facilities on the lands designated for Business Employment in Nodes, where the subject lands are located below the 35 NEP/NEF composite noise contours. Amendment No. 25, Section 3.11.2.1.7 has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Community Uses, i.e. Day Care is provided under Airport, Aircraft Noise, policy 3.11.2.1.7, where the use is permitted below the 35 NEF/NEP composite noise contour of the LBPIA Operating Area…on an individual basis. (underline added) Although this policy applies to other Planning Districts, such as East Credit, Malton and Meadowvale Village, it is proposed the Gateway District Node be applied similarly. Formal recognition would require modification to appropriate Mississauga Plan sections 3.11.2.1.7, among others as appropriate. Based on review of Mississauga Plan policies, permission to locate Day Care facilities would require recognition of the Gateway District Node as an area of exception. Appendix ‘J’ contains a copy of our proposed amendment to Mississauga Plan, which applies to the Gateway District Node constituting part of the Gateway District. The appeal of Mississauga Plan OPA No. 25, as it relates to this matter, may result in amendment which would be in accordance with Regional File No. ROPA 04:002, as noted above. 11.7 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MISSISSAUGA ZONING BY-LAW FOR

LANDS OWNED BY ORLANDO CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT NODE

Zoning permissions per the City’s comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 apply to Employment in Nodes within the Gateway District Node, as defined per Mississauga Plan. Employment in Nodes or the E1 zoning incorporates no maximum Floor Space Density however relies on other limiting factors such as satisfying parking requirements, and setbacks, etc. and includes a range of uses such as office and personal service uses, among other uses.


84


The following matters are appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by Orlando Corporation through its Solicitor’s Aird & Berlis, and identified as Appeal No.3 per the following section: 1) Employment in Nodes (E1) on lands zoned Exception E1-14, E1-15 and E1-16

below the 35 NEP/NEF composite noise contour so as to permit new accessory use Day Care facilities as an additional permitted use. More specifically, Employment 8.2.2 Exceptions zones, Employment in Nodes on lands zoned E1-14, E1-15 and E1-16 below the 35 NEP/NEF composite noise contour so as to permit new accessory use Day Care facilities as an additional permitted use as follows:

Line 8.2.2.14.1 of Exception E1-14 to add; new accessory Day Care Line 8.2.2.15.1 of Exception E1-15 to add; new accessory Day Care Line 8.2.2.16.1 of Exception E1-16 to add; new accessory Day Care

2) Subsection 2.1.23 which reads as follows: Lester B. Pearson International Airport

(LBPIA) Operating Area Restrictions

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, a day care, hospital, long-term care dwelling, public school or private school shall not be permitted within the hatched area identified on Schedule 2.1.23 of this Subsection.

In this case it is proposed the regulation wording, ‘…unless otherwise excepted.’; be added to the end of sub-section 2.1.23 to recognize that Exception E1-14, E1-15 & E1-16 lands.

3) Subsection 8.1.2.1 which reads as follows:

An accessory use shall only be permitted accessory to an Office or medical office and shall be contained wholly within the building or structure used for an office and/or medical office.

In this case it is proposed the regulation wording, ‘…unless otherwise excepted.’; be added to sub-section 2.1.23.

Please refer to the attached Appendix ‘K’ which provides further information regarding the proposed zoning for the lands owned by Orlando Corporation within the Gateway District Node.


85


12.0 OVERVIEW OF PRIVATE & PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE LBPIA OPERATING AREA

As part of our research an inventory of private and public schools was conducted for lands in proximity to the LBPIA Operating Area. Both public and private schools were inventoried because of the relationship of schools as set out in the Transport Canada’s TP 1247E, Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports. The findings indicate a clustering of private schools outside of residential areas located to the south east of the Gateway District Node, but not within it. With respect to Public Schools these facilities are located in Meadowvale Village and Malton community primarily, including a cluster in Brampton between Torbram and Airport Roads, north of Highway No. 7. All schools within the LBPIA Operating Area are generally located between the 30 and 35 NEF/NEP composite noise contours. Clearly the clustering at the south-east of the Gateway District Node is interesting in that these private school facilities are located between the 35 to 40 NEF/NEP composite noise contours. Some of these private schools appear to have opened over the past five years. In their current context, the private schools typically function as primary uses on the lots which they occupy.


86


13.0 COMPARISONS: CASE STUDY APPROACH & METHODOLOGY In support of the foregoing a locational survey of Day Care facilities and schools (private and public) was conducted within the lands in vicinity of Lester B. Pearson International Airport, (LBPIA) in preparing this report. This work was conducted by field survey early in 2004 and updated in 2007. In a similar context, other major airports in Canada were also examined, including (Vancouver) Richmond, Calgary and Montreal. To conduct the locational survey work for these distant airports, the use of the internet and phone calls were employed. Vancouver International Airport (Richmond, BC) (‘VIA’), Calgary International Airport (Calgary, AB) (‘CIA’) and Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport (Dorval, QC),(‘PETIA’), are the busiest airports in Canada after Lester B. Pearson International Airport (‘LBPIA’) based on passenger counts. These airports are also located proximate to major urban areas in Canada and provide a basis to understand the locational context of Day Care facilities and schools (private), relative to airports and Transport Canada’s NEF noise contours. Our research examined the location of Day Care facilities, and private and public schools, relative to the 30 NEF (Noise Exposure Forecast) contour lines, in communities neighbouring Canada’s busiest airports. The planning regulations in place concerning Day Care facilities and schools above the 30 NEF contour line were also reviewed. The results of our research are described on individual city key maps showing the NEF contours, relative to the airport, including day care centres and school locations. In preparing these city key maps we obtained NEF contour lines for VIA, PETIA and CIA directly from their respective airport authorities. The NEF contour line maps were scanned into digital jpg format to overlay each individual city. Without visiting these cities we were able to determine the locations of child care, and public and private schools within each city through the Internet. For example, www.411.ca is a website which provides the locations of businesses by type, and allows a user to locate selected business types by a distance from a Canadian postal code. We searched for “daycare, child care, and schools” as business types and searched within a 10 kilometre radius of the postal code of each airport. The results were a display of numerous locations. The location for each individual address was searched and displayed on a digital map, which was later plotted by hand on a hard copy of a map of each city. The lands surrounding the airport are inventoried where child care locations are numerically plotted, as yellow circles, and public and private schools are numerically plotted as red circles. The numbers in each circle are referenced by location on each city map. The data collected for each facility includes the company name, address, date opened, approximate number of students/children in attendance, approximate size, the presence of an outdoor play area, the official plan designation, if the facility is located in an airport regulated area, zoning classification, the context of the facility relative to a NEF noise contour line, and its tenure type. To finalize this step, aerial images from


87



88

www.keyhole.com were used for the locations in Richmond, B.C., and Dorval, QC., to give the viewer an image of the selected locations. Aerial images of Calgary were not used, as they do not exist on the keyhole website. It should be noted that the locations of each facility and the locations of the NEF contour lines on each map are approximate due to the scale and type of maps we received from each airport and due to the scale of the digital maps presented by www.411.ca. City Planning Departments and Airport Authorities were contacted to obtain existing official plan designations, zoning, and airport operating area regulations so as to determine land use related restrictions relative to aircraft noise levels. 13.1 VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (‘VIA’), RICHMOND,

BRITISH COLUMBIA A large portion of the City of Richmond is exposed to airport noise due to the location of VIA on Sea Island, to the north-west of the urban core. The result is that a significant portion of the north-central and north-western urban communities of Richmond are located on lands above the 30 NEF contour line. Our research locates four child care centres and five schools on lands above the 30 NEF contour line as noted on our city key map. (See Figures 23, 24 and 25). The City of Richmond refers to the land use guidelines, as provided by Transport Canada for lands in the vicinity of the airport. However, because a large portion of the City of Richmond is above the 25 NEF contour line, the City is currently preparing its own land use regulations in the vicinity of VIA. In this process the City is currently developing policies to regulate land use relative to airport noise and has completed two reports: The City of Richmond: Research to Review City Airport Noise and Residential Development Policy Consistency; and, the Official Community Plan, Aircraft Noise Sensitive Development Policy. The City of Richmond Planning Department maintains that Day Care facilities and schools are acceptable land uses between the 30 and 35 NEF noise contour lines, as long as proper building insulation is in place to mitigate the noise from aircrafts. The City of Richmond Official Community Plan, as adopted in 1999, does not include a formal policy restricting land use in the vicinity of airports on the basis of aircraft noise. We note large portions of land, above the 30 NEF contour line are designated mixed use and various residential densities.


FIGURE 23 – CITY OF RICHMOND & REGIONAL AREA - VIA


89


FIGURE 24– CITY OF RICHMOND & REGIONAL AREA - VIA


90



91

FIGURE 25-– CITY OF RICHMOND & REGIONAL AREA - VIA


Consider, Section 5.1 Objective 5: Continue to co-operate with the Vancouver International Airport Authority to manage and reduce aircraft noise to minimize its disturbance to the community. Here the City refers to an “Aircraft Noise Insulation” Map, shown as orange on our city key map. The policies as set out for the Aircraft Noise Insulation are as follows:

a) Continue to coordinate land use planning to provide for orderly development based on noise and safety considerations in areas under the flight path;

b) Manage indoor noise in homes built under flight paths; continue to require

noise abatement covenants for sites being rezoned or subdivided for new residential development in areas identified as requiring noise insulation (see Aircraft Noise Insulation Map);

c) Reduce aircraft noise at the source, where feasible, by pressing for regular

review and implementation of the Airport’s Noise Management Plan to achieve maximum noise reduction;

d) Ensure community input through participation in the Vancouver International

Airport Aeronautical Noise Management Committee. The City of Richmond: Research to Review City Airport Noise and Residential Development Policy Consistency is a report which assesses Day Care facilities and schools with recommendations on indoor and outdoor noise mitigation standards. Of particular interest is the Table titled, Summary of Existing Airport Noise Mitigation Standards contained within the report. In particular, reference to Day Care facilities in terms of different jurisdictional guidelines and regulations is identified. It is reasonable to acknowledge Day Care facilities are conditionally acceptable on lands affected by the 30-35 NEF contour lines. In conclusion, the City of Richmond accepts Day Care facilities and schools between the 30 and 35 NEF level as long as proper insulation is in place to mitigate noise. 13.2 CALGARY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (‘CIA’), CALGARY, ALBERTA The City of Calgary has a large portion of urban land exposed to airport noise. Please refer to our city key map showing that Calgary appears to have more airport context Day Care facilities and schools, than the other cities researched, besides Lester B. Pearson International Airport. In total there are five child care centres and nine schools above the 30 NEF contour line. (See Figure 26, 27 and 28). As per The Calgary Plan, the City has two airport vicinity special regulation boundaries. These two boundaries are the Calgary International Airport Zoning Regulations, (red boundary) which is regulated in conjunction with the Calgary International Airport Authority, and the City of Calgary; and the Calgary International Airport Vicinity


92



93

Protection Area Regulation, Alberta Regulation 318/79, as amended (AVPA). (blue boundary). The City of Calgary Planning Department confirms the Calgary International Airport Zoning Regulations are set out in Land Use By-law 2P80, with reference to the Calgary International Airport under Section 19. of the Airport Vicinity Special Regulations. The Provincially regulated AVPA is a document that controls the type of development that can occur in areas near aircraft flight paths. This regulation prohibits noise sensitive uses in certain areas. In review this document there are no regulations that discourage or prevent Day Care facilities or schools. Section 1(1) of this document reads: In this Schedule,

(a) “C” followed by a number, where it appears in one of the NEF Area columns in Table 1 opposite a particular land use, means that the land use is permitted subject to the condition set out in Table 2 bearing the same letter and number;

Per Table 1: Land Uses, Day Care Facilities, Schools, Kindergartens & Colleges are uses located in the C2 category between the 30-35 NEF contour line. Schedule C, Table 2, Land Use Conditions reads as follows:

‘C1 or C2 Construction of buildings shall conform to the exterior acoustic insulation requirements of Part 11 of the Alberta Building Code 1990 for those NEF Areas other than the NEF 25-Area unless otherwise states in this Regulation. Where either of these conditions is specified, the development officer shall indicate on the development permit the NEF Areas in which the proposed development would be located for reference of the building inspector at the time of the building permit application.’

In conclusion, the City of Calgary and the Province of Alberta have no restrictions prohibiting Day Care facilities or schools between the 30-35 NEF contour line. However, it does have regulations set out, based on acoustical design mitigating noise from aircraft from the provincially designated AVPA.


FIGURE 26- CITY OF CALGARY - CIA


94


FIGURE 27-CITY OF CALGARY -CIA


95



96

FIGURE 28- CITY OF CALGARY - CIA


13.3 PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, (‘PETIA’), MONTREAL-DORVAL, QUEBEC

Montreal’s Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport is Canada’s fourth busiest airport, after Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Vancouver International Airport and Calgary International Airport. (See Figure 29). The Montreal Airports Authority and the City of Montreal rely on Transport Canada’s guidelines 1247E, Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports. We are advised that local government planning proposes to incorporate noise policies into their Official Plans to recognize Transport Canada’s guidelines, as noted above. At this time there are no formal regulations regarding land use as affected by aircraft noise surrounding the airport. Presently Action 21.1 (an amendment to their Official Plan) is under review. The noise component of this item reads as translated as follows:

In the same way, Transport Canada establishes projections of the perceived noise PBP (NEF) translated by curves graduated from 25-40 which also appear with the illustration. Transport Canada consider that the sectors characterized by PBP whose curve is higher than 30 are less compatible with residential occupation. Consequently the City envisages the following measurements:

To prohibit residential and institutional occupation in the sectors characterized by PBP whose curve index is higher than 35;

To subject residential and institutional constructions in sectors of PBP whose curve index is higher than 30 to sound proofing standards.

From our findings, one Day Care facility exists above the 30 NEF contour line. In particular we note Bombardier Canada has a Day Care facility located on the airport grounds. In summary, by researching other major Canadian Cities, having the three highest passenger traffic volumes after LBPIA, we conclude that these cities have multiple existing Day Care facilities and schools located in the vicinity of these airports, which are located between the 30-35 NEF contour. Furthermore, it is a common requirement of all areas to ensure acoustical standards that mitigate aircraft noise. Tables D and E are in Summary Matrix format respectively and describe land use planning policy hierarchy in Ontario and major Canadian Airports in terms of proximity to NEF levels.


97


FIGURE 29- CITY OF MONTREAL – P.E.T.I.A.


98


TABLE D: LAND USE PLANNING POLICY HIERARCHY MATRIX: DAY CARE FACILITIES IN PROXIMITY TO L.B.P.I.A. NEF/NEP COMPOSITE NOISE CONTOURS


99



100

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

Documents

11.4 OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC PARKLAND) IS …...DISTRICT NODE Because Day Care facilities are typically associated with Outdoor Playgrounds it is reasonable to examine Mississauga Plan