I find this regrettably problematic. Both the Traffic Study and the Noise Study for a proposed development project in Oshawa appear to have conclusions based on questionable data. This raises the question, how reliable are they really?
The two consultants who prepared the studies for the developer incorrectly identified the road speed limit as 40km when it is 50km. The Traffic Study incorrectly identified the site's abutting intersection as a Two-Way Stop when it is an All-Way Stop; and the Noise Study consultant stated the road grade abutting the access/egress driveway to the project is zero, when the developer's multi unit building plan requires a retaining wall to be built on the one acre site due the grade slope and the engineering report for the subject lot shows an incline of over 3 meters.
Question 1) How useful is a study that is based on incorrect facts?
Question 2) Is there not a perceived bias when it is the developer paying for the study?
Question 3) Does a City planning department need additional resources to review studies submitted by developers to ensure they are reliable?
Road safety in and around new development projects is of paramount importance. In fact, this slide from a power point presented to Council last fall at an education and training meeting, for the soon to be completed Updated Neighbourhood Traffic Management guide, spells out key PLANNING POLICY TOOLS:
"INCREASED FOCUS on road planning/design that is appropriate for new neighbourhoods.
►GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPERS TO ADHERE TO specific municipal road design standards, reducing costs of future road improvements
►GOOD ROAD DESIGN IN THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION STAGE contributes to safer streets for all road users long-term"
**************************************************************
I often duplicate my Facebook posts on my Blog. When I posted this on Facebook today there were comments by others which seemed to take the discussion in another direction (as often happens on Facebook). I post on social media to raise awareness and to hear and learn other's points of view. But there were a couple points when it seemed individuals were jumping to conclusions before having a true understanding of the process.
Below are a couple of my comments:
Development Services senior staff have the final say on site plans, but Council approves Plans of Subdivision.
If you are interested, here's the 2007 Oshawa Report describing how and why the site plan approval was delegated to staff http://app.oshawa.ca/.../DS-07-297-Site_Plan_Control_rec.pdf
Many municipalities have site plan control by-laws similar to Oshawa's.
Brampton explains their site plan control process very well on their City webpage. Oshawa's webpage could explain it more clearly, for example, nowhere does Oshawa state like Brampton does, that "approval of Site Plan applications has been delegated by Council to Planning staff".
Here is the link to Oshawa's webpage: https://www.oshawa.ca/business-and.../site-plan-control.asp
Here is Brampton's: https://www.brampton.ca/.../Site-Plan-Application-Process...
Oshawa residents must know how hard Oshawa Development and Planning Staff work, not just with developers but also with residents.
For example, recently three staff spent an intense three hours one evening with area residents, both Ward Councillors and a site plan applicant's architect. They made a presentation on the steps involved in the planning process, and opened the floor to a fulsome discussion. They listened, answered many questions and advised they would follow-up with more information. It was clear they were committed to try and help the parties develop options on their differences, as a way either to attain some satisfaction. compromise or acceptance on several divergent points.
My post here is not faulting any party, just pointing out the expectation that consultant's studies need to be reliable and unbiased; and the public and their elected have the right to speak up to ensure their perspective is known when they believe there is a possibility the safety and design of a project may be compromised.
As some commenters raised the issue of fees, there are many charges paid to the City, before the building permit fees and development charge note this list of application fees for 2021: https://www.oshawa.ca/.../2021-Planning-Fees-Brochure.pdf
Someone asked if the 2 Studies mentioned at the top of this page were rejected. They were not.
I only received copies of the 2 Studies July 9th, having asked for them earlier due to area residents concerns about the project. It seems similar to a problem from 2 years ago related to another traffic study for the planned Phase 3 of the Chartwell/Ormand Dr. seniors residence project, which also raised many residents concerns. City staff at that time ended up ordering a peer review, and after a lot of effort on the part of two residents in particular and the Ward 1 Councillors the Region agreed to a right in, right out only access on Ritson to the new planned parking lot. In both that scenario and this current situation what it takes to make good things happen are keen and informed residents speaking up to demand changes, with support from their elected...who need support from their colleagues on Council to approve policy changes.
Unfortunately, finding a majority vote on Council can be challenging, especially given some of the dynamics of the executive leadership, both elected and administrative, the variety of issues, and competing goals and priorities. Often when I ask questions and do research into issues I hear objections about 'getting into the weeds'. To change policy, imo going through the weeds can help point to alternate ways for improving long term outcomes.
As I wrote before, and this is not to discredit developers, but their focus and the focus of their buyers and tenants is more short term. Municipal planners, municipal financial officers and the Council members are the people who must focus on the long term, what is best for both current and future City stakeholders.
The two consultants who prepared the studies for the developer incorrectly identified the road speed limit as 40km when it is 50km. The Traffic Study incorrectly identified the site's abutting intersection as a Two-Way Stop when it is an All-Way Stop; and the Noise Study consultant stated the road grade abutting the access/egress driveway to the project is zero, when the developer's multi unit building plan requires a retaining wall to be built on the one acre site due the grade slope and the engineering report for the subject lot shows an incline of over 3 meters.
Question 1) How useful is a study that is based on incorrect facts?
Question 2) Is there not a perceived bias when it is the developer paying for the study?
Question 3) Does a City planning department need additional resources to review studies submitted by developers to ensure they are reliable?
Road safety in and around new development projects is of paramount importance. In fact, this slide from a power point presented to Council last fall at an education and training meeting, for the soon to be completed Updated Neighbourhood Traffic Management guide, spells out key PLANNING POLICY TOOLS:
"INCREASED FOCUS on road planning/design that is appropriate for new neighbourhoods.
►GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPERS TO ADHERE TO specific municipal road design standards, reducing costs of future road improvements
►GOOD ROAD DESIGN IN THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION STAGE contributes to safer streets for all road users long-term"
**************************************************************
I often duplicate my Facebook posts on my Blog. When I posted this on Facebook today there were comments by others which seemed to take the discussion in another direction (as often happens on Facebook). I post on social media to raise awareness and to hear and learn other's points of view. But there were a couple points when it seemed individuals were jumping to conclusions before having a true understanding of the process.
Below are a couple of my comments:
Development Services senior staff have the final say on site plans, but Council approves Plans of Subdivision.
If you are interested, here's the 2007 Oshawa Report describing how and why the site plan approval was delegated to staff http://app.oshawa.ca/.../DS-07-297-Site_Plan_Control_rec.pdf
Many municipalities have site plan control by-laws similar to Oshawa's.
Brampton explains their site plan control process very well on their City webpage. Oshawa's webpage could explain it more clearly, for example, nowhere does Oshawa state like Brampton does, that "approval of Site Plan applications has been delegated by Council to Planning staff".
Here is the link to Oshawa's webpage: https://www.oshawa.ca/business-and.../site-plan-control.asp
Here is Brampton's: https://www.brampton.ca/.../Site-Plan-Application-Process...
Oshawa residents must know how hard Oshawa Development and Planning Staff work, not just with developers but also with residents.
For example, recently three staff spent an intense three hours one evening with area residents, both Ward Councillors and a site plan applicant's architect. They made a presentation on the steps involved in the planning process, and opened the floor to a fulsome discussion. They listened, answered many questions and advised they would follow-up with more information. It was clear they were committed to try and help the parties develop options on their differences, as a way either to attain some satisfaction. compromise or acceptance on several divergent points.
My post here is not faulting any party, just pointing out the expectation that consultant's studies need to be reliable and unbiased; and the public and their elected have the right to speak up to ensure their perspective is known when they believe there is a possibility the safety and design of a project may be compromised.
As some commenters raised the issue of fees, there are many charges paid to the City, before the building permit fees and development charge note this list of application fees for 2021: https://www.oshawa.ca/.../2021-Planning-Fees-Brochure.pdf
Someone asked if the 2 Studies mentioned at the top of this page were rejected. They were not.
I only received copies of the 2 Studies July 9th, having asked for them earlier due to area residents concerns about the project. It seems similar to a problem from 2 years ago related to another traffic study for the planned Phase 3 of the Chartwell/Ormand Dr. seniors residence project, which also raised many residents concerns. City staff at that time ended up ordering a peer review, and after a lot of effort on the part of two residents in particular and the Ward 1 Councillors the Region agreed to a right in, right out only access on Ritson to the new planned parking lot. In both that scenario and this current situation what it takes to make good things happen are keen and informed residents speaking up to demand changes, with support from their elected...who need support from their colleagues on Council to approve policy changes.
Unfortunately, finding a majority vote on Council can be challenging, especially given some of the dynamics of the executive leadership, both elected and administrative, the variety of issues, and competing goals and priorities. Often when I ask questions and do research into issues I hear objections about 'getting into the weeds'. To change policy, imo going through the weeds can help point to alternate ways for improving long term outcomes.
As I wrote before, and this is not to discredit developers, but their focus and the focus of their buyers and tenants is more short term. Municipal planners, municipal financial officers and the Council members are the people who must focus on the long term, what is best for both current and future City stakeholders.
