HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 22-03
REPORT TO
PLANNING COMMITEE
Report Number: PD 22-03
Date: April 25, 2003
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Rouge Park Alliance
- Alliance Resolution 95/02 Discouraging Infrastructure in the Rouge Park
Recommendations:
1.
That Report Number PD 22-03 concerning Resolution 95/02 of the Rouge Park
Alliance about discouraging infrastructure in the Rouge Park, be RECEIVED by
City Council;
2.
That the Rouge Park Alliance be ADVISED that the City supports the review and
approval of municipal infrastructure projects through the Rouge Park under the
Environmental Assessment Act, which provides a rigorous and consistent review
process while ensuring that the goals, objectives, and principles articulated in the
Management Plans for Rouge Park are considered; and
3.
That a copy of Report Number PD 22-03 be FORWARDED to the Rouge Park
Alliance and all Rouge Park Partners for their information.
Executive Summary: On November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance passed
Resolution 95/02 to establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of the Rouge Park lands
for new infrastructure sites and routes. This resolution was forwarded to all Rouge Park
Alliance Partners for endorsement.
Staff has reviewed the Resolution and do not consider that the freestanding resolution
of the Rouge Park Alliance requesting the establishment of a viqorous policy
discouraqinq any new infrastructure throuqh the Park is required. The forceful position
of their Resolution is contrary to the review process established in the approved
Rouge Park and Rouge North Park Management Plans, and may prejudice the
establishment of necessary municipal infrastructure.
Pickering continues to support the goals, objectives and principles of the Rouge Park,
and its management plans. The Park plans recognize that municipal infrastructure
projects may be proposed within the Rouge Park, and require that projects be reviewed
and approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. Among other matters, this
process ensures there is a demonstrated need for the infrastructure, that alternatives
have been considered, and any approval granted is tested against the Park's goals,
objectives and principles.
Report PO 22-03
Date: April 25, 2003
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Page 2
Financial Implications:
Not Applicable.
Background:
1.0
Rouae Park Alliance Resolution
1.1
The Rouge Park Alliance requested the Park partners to support and
implement its resolution to establish a vigorous policy discouraging new
infrastructure in the Rouge Park.
On November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance passed Resolution 95/02 "to
establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of the Rouge Park lands for new
infrastructure sites and routes, including new pipelines, transmission lines,
transportation corridors, communication towers and similar uses". The Alliance
forwarded the resolution to the City and the other Park partners, with a request
that the partners endorse this infrastructure policy and assist in implementing it
within their jurisdiction or area of responsibility (see Attachment #1).
1.2
The Council of the Region of Durham supports the use of the
Environmental Assessment Act process to review municipal infrastructure
projects in the Park, not the stronger position proposed in Resolution 95/02.
On March 26, 2003, Durham Regional Council adopted a resolution to support
"the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects through the
Environmental Assessment Act, as it provides a rigorous and consistent process,
which ensures that the values, goals and objectives for the Rouge Park,
expressed in its Management Plans, and alternatives for location are taken into
account in the approval of infrastructure projects" (see Attachment #2). In
addition, York Regional Council adopted a similar resolution advising that
Regional infrastructure improvement projects are subject to review and approval
under the Environmental Assessment Act.
2.0
Discussion
2.1
The City supports the goals, objectives and principles of the Rouge Park,
and its management plans, which plans have a process for dealing with
new infrastructure proposed within the Rouge Park.
The City currently supports, and should continue to support the goals, objectives
and principles of the Rouge Park, the Rouge Park Management Plan (which
covers the Park south of Steeles Avenue), and the Rouge North Management
Plan (which covers the Park north of Steeles Avenue).
Report PO 22-03
Date: April 25, 2003
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Page 3
The Rouge Park Management Plan contains a process for dealing with
infrastructure within the Park. A number of rail lines, hydro corridors pipelines,
and sewer and water right-of-ways currently exist within the Park. Although no
new roads are permitted through the Park south of Steeles Avenue, utilities and
services are not precluded from continuing to exist or new facilities being
permitted in existing right-of-ways.
Similarly, the Rouge North Management Plan (RNMP) deals with infrastructure
and recognizes that the planning of infrastructure through Rouge Park North must
have regard for environmental impacts in addition to technical and economic
considerations (section 6.4.2.2). Further, section 6.4.2.3 of the RNMP
acknowledges the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act and the
Planning Act in the planning and design of municipal and provincial transportation
facilities. The RNMP does not prohibit transportation facilities from being improved
or implemented in the park and does not limit such improvements to those that
are currently planned or under consideration.
2.2
The stronger policy direction contained in the Rouge Park Alliance
resolution is not supported by any reports.
Resolution 95/02 of the Rouge Park Alliance is not supported by any reports
evaluating the effectiveness of the current management approach for
infrastructure or demonstrating the need for a stronger policy position. The
Alliance has not provided information justifying a position against considering the
use of the publicly-owned Rouge Park lands as an appropriate and necessary
location for new infrastructure sites and routes.
The view appears to be related to another position of the Alliance to request a
"bump up" of the Class Environmental Assessment of the York Durham Sewer
System-Southeast Collector Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project between Box Grove in
Markham and Pickering's municipal boundary.
2.3
Staff does not consider the establishment of a strong policy discouraging
new infrastructure appropriate as it would be contrary to the approved
management plans and could prejudice the establishment of necessary
municipal infrastructure.
The provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act govern all infrastructure
projects involving municipalities. The Act requires the proponent to fulfill its
responsibilities to the public to protect the environment and to deliver its services
in an efficient, economic, and environmentally responsible manner. This process
ensures that the need for the project is justified, alternatives are examined, and
the values, goals and objective expressed in the Management Plans for the Park
are taken into account in planning for infrastructure projects.
Report PO 22-03
Date: April 25, 2003
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Page 4
If supported, the Alliance resolution could result in a policy that impedes the
provision of cost efficient and environmentally sound infrastructure for Durham
and Pickering residents. Despite the policy intent to discourage new
infrastructure sites and routes, it could be used to constrain future improvements
to Steeles Avenue or the proposed extension of GO Train service on the
St. Lawrence & Hudson Rail line through Pickering. Further, it could be used to
support the closing of existing roads through the Park, such as Twyn Rivers Drive.
The closure of Tywn Rivers Drive would be contrary to Council's position to
maintain Twyn Rivers Drive as a 20-metre road allowance through the
Rouge Park.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance be advised that the
City supports the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects within or
through the Rouge Park under the Environmental Assessment Act, which ensures
that the goals, objectives, and principles articulated in the Management Plans for
Rouge Park are taken into account.
Attachments:
1.
Letter dated December 17, 2002, from R. M. Christie, Chair, Rouge Park
Alliance, including Resolution #95/02, correspondence from John O'Gorman,
and a report from Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park Alliance
Letter dated March 27, 2003, from P.M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Region of
Durham including Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-29
2.
Report PO 22-03
Date: April 25, 2003
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Page 5
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
Grant McGregor, MCI ,RPP
Principal Planner - Policy
(k¿~¡¿~ xl-..
Catherine Rose
Manager, Policy
GM:jf
Copy: David Ryan, City Councillor - Ward 1 (Rouge Park Alliance Representative)
Chief Administrative Officer
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy (Rouge Park Alliance Alternate)
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
~I
.,
T
~
Rouge Park
ATTACHMENT # I TO
REPORT # PO z:z.. - 03
Rouge Park
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, ON L4G 3GB
Tel:
Fax:
(905) 713-6038
(905) 713-6028
December 17, 2002
Mayor Wayne Arthurs and Councillors, and
Mr. Bruce Taylor, Clerk
City of Pickering
One The Esplanae
Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7
/fJæ '
Dear May~rs and Councillors and Mr. Taylor:
Re: Infrastructure in Rouee Park
At its meeting on November 22,2002, the Rouge Park Alliance expressed concern about the cumulative effect
of communications towers, major sewers, and other infrastructure projects which are being proposed in what
is intended to be a significant natural environment park, theRouge Park. ' ,
The Alliance passed a motion to establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of Rouge Park lands for
new infrastructure sites and routes, including new pipelines, transmission lines, transportation conidors,
communication towers and similar uses.
The Rouge Park Alliance further asks all its partners, including the City ,of Pickering, to endorse this
infrastructure policy for the Rouge Park, and to assist in implementing it within your jurisdiction or area of
responsibility.
Thank you for helpIng to make the Rouge Park an outstanding natural area.
Sincerely,
¿.ð~
R. M. Christie
Chair
Rouge Park Alliance
LY/dm
Att.
(Note: Similar letter sent to All Rouge Park Alliance Partners)
cc:
Councillor David Ryan, City of Pickering
Mr. Tom Melymuk, City of Pickering
ATTACHMENT' I TO
REPORT I PO 22. - 03
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES OF ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE MEETING #7/02,
NOVEMBER 22, 2002
MOTION:
Res. #95/02
Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Seconded by: Derek Lee'
THAT Rouge Park staff, in cooperation with TRCA staff, review the final version of the Class EA
document for the York Durham Sewage System-Southeast Collector Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project,
and, if there remains insufficient ground water information to assess potential impacts and realistic
mitigation, the Rouge Park Alliance request a "bump up" to a full individual environmental assessment
durin'g the review period;
AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of Rouge Park
lands for new infrastructure sites and routes, including new pipelines,' 'transmission lines,
transportation corridors" communication towers and similar uses;
"'-"
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park partners endorse this infrastructure policy and assist in
implementing it within their jurisdictions and areas of responsibility.
MOTION AS AMENDED .................................................... CARRIED
, "
'i
",i i Ii PU, .~,~.::_Q9N'
la.I
29 Grandview Ave.
Thornhill, Ont.
L3T lG9
June 3, 2002
Mr. Ron Christie
Chair, Rouge Park Alliance
50 Bloomington rd, W., 3rd Floor
Aurora, ant.
14G 3G8
Dear Mr, Christie: ",' ,~, ., ",
Markham's senior river, the Don, suffered the pains of development before thê',',,:"""" ""ê;;
Therefore, there are lessons to be taught to the,later,developed Rouge. The le~~~'ii;,',""
senior to junior are usually about what NOT to do and that is why I write today,' ',"""
" ',' ',~
In three of our valleys within the past nine moIiths,' infr~t:l"Ucture lai4 fifty Y.~arS ,"
"no ,,' .,. "', " '",',,', '"i!J:","'. . '<, ',c",, ,,} 'i"..,.,;"""
deteriorated to the' point of fái1ure. The valleys' áre Pomona Park Þ.Y:M~jJ.<:r:êtSoI1, ,
Park and German Mills at Steeles.In each case a significant road håd'tobe èo"
into the valley to allow construction machinery to access the sewer line. The co ,
of the road meant that the fifty years of restoration and naturalization (that .' ,en
developed after the initial destruction of the environment for the initial constnl' <.1f
thein:&astructure) was quite destroyed. The destruction of trees and other v . """,,'on
leaves an obvious record. The impact on aquatic life and wildlife in the area WIll' be '
totally unrecorded. ,. ,
The point, then, as I have made directly to Markham Council, is tha.ti!!~,fj,
to establish any infrastructure up any river/stream va.J.1~y if Y9l.J, ~ë)itto'~Ç,
following reasons: "". .' .. "'"
. initial destruction of habitat
""" ';','ß
. the certainty that ANY infrastructure will eventually require repaiÌ' and/or
replacement
cost of~o~~ction of an, access road (9~repair/replacement
concom.itãnf destruction of habitat a.gåin.
cost of environmental restoration afterwards
cost of loss from environmental advantages of mature habitat (e.g. trees planted
as a restorative measure do not absorb as many pollutants as the larger trees that
they replace) , .','"
cost of pollutants/destruction caused by the broken in:&astructure (flood, sew~ge
pollution, etc,) in an environmentally sensitive area" . ",' "..'.
cost and" difficulty of monitoring vis a vis the ease of monitoring .iî,';fJl.~
in:&astructure were beside a roadway and more apparent (see San :Diêgb'~
Canyon Watch program) ,
cost of the withdrawal of public use for the time of the breakage through
restoration
.
,." '"
.
.
.
.
.
.
q;:"'H,,\"rrJ# I TO
',"j";""~'~~IJ___'b2 -03
4.1
.
cost of environmental change and destruction as a direct result of construction
(e.g de-watering for trenches and then the resulting "French drain" effect on an
aquifer)
the usually ignored hann to the fauna
not in the extreme .but very definitely, the Rouge valley is liable to seismic
activity
with further climate change imminent, the next "stonn of the century"(Hazel) is
closer than we think.
.
.
.
There is a plan for the York-Durham sewer to go down the Rouge valley for part, q~its
length. The supporting argument is based upon costs calculated purely as the expenditure:
of dollars. Please keep the construction out of the valley. Please keep, ~1J~~~
out of ()~ river V;~~t~~" ' "" , .,'¡,;,"~¡:?;ti1J~"}"
" "',..'""i ,r';;'"""".""'.l','"",,,,""¡",;'h,"""" """:"n"~,,,')"""i! "~'t¡~'i'tr"
Municipalities háv~;âlrêadY êursedpiiJi: ,Of the, RolÎg~ 'system wifi¡ ,š~~~rãt1(f, '
.. ,,' 'J ,'" ,,'" .., "': ',Y'" ," ,'."
down .some Valleys such as the sewer that traverses Milne Park. Please do not w. e
further exploitation ,gf ~~ vaHÿY~~"".Pmm9te th~,jg.~ß. that tJ1Ÿ Rq~~T,,~~tr~~~~¿~~
beco1D.e a sot1J;ce "for:, "pld gr()~" fQ,J:est - wb.~cb. can only bap,p~;Ili.,1f ~~~,,:l~,;:,J!~
distUtbånce '6fconStru:ètióÌ1. ' . "'; , , ! '}"" ','<' .. :'"A;'"
Sincer~ly,
John O'Gorman
cc: Ñ!afkhámCouricil ' " .'
'M~khâìh êòÎ1s~JA}atiöñ cOmiri1ft~ec",
Friends of the Rouge Watershed
Save the Rouge Valley ~ystem
",';,
",
,", ^'"
",,;, ',h;,
",'
, ~, ,i;,
ATTACHfvlENT #_-L- TO
REPORl # PO 2.2 '"'°L.....-.
.a. I
TO:
Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #7/02, November 22, 2002
FROM:
Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park
RE:
York Durham Sanitary Sewer Project
KEY ISSUE
The Region of York has prepared a draft Class Environmental Assessment of its proposed York
Durham Sanitary Sewer section which would cross the Rouge Park in Markham and Toronto by one
of several candidate routes. The Rouge Park staff and the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) have provided comments on the draft EA, and, as indicated during the
proponent's presentation at the October 25,2002 Alliance meeting, a final Class EA document is
to be prepared and submitted early in 2003. There would be a co~ent period followìng
submission.
While there are many broad and specific issues related to the expansion of this sewer system, Rouge
Park staff see two issues that are uniquely within the mandate of the Alliance and its partners.
1.
The Rouge Park should not be. viewed as a cheäp and convenient dumping ground for
in:fi:astructure; and
2.
It is clear from the proponent's presentation to Rouge Park staff, to the Heritage Committee,
and to the Alliance, that no detailed geotechnical and hydrogeological work is to be done
until a preferred alignment is detemrined. Recent experience with dewatering for Qther
nearby sewer construction suggests that significant and extended lowering of the waterJ~'þl~ .
can be expected. In addition to impacts on wells, which may be mitigated after a fash1oh.:ùf
many cases, we fear lengthy disruptions to base flow impacts to the Rouge River, greatly
altering cold water aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic life. These impacts are unlikely
to be effectively mitigated.
With the present, very limited level of hydrogeological infonnation supplied by the
proponent, I feel that it is not possible to develop an infonned opinion on the extent oftÄ~$e
impacts and the differences in such impacts which would result from selection of each of the
alternative routes. A full, individual Environmental Assessment is a mechanism which
requires a greater level of comparison of alternatives, compared with the Class EA process
presently underway.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Rouge Park staff, in cooperation with TRCA staff, to review the final version of the
Class EA document, and, if there remains insufficient ground water information to assess
potential impacts and realistic mitigation, the Rouge Park Alliance should request a "bump'
up" to a full individual environmental assessment during the review period;
ATTACHMENT # ,. TO'
REPúRT # PO 2-2 - 03
~..1
Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #7/02, November 22,2002
Re: York Durham Sanitary Sewer Project
Page 2
~~
AND THATlhe Rouge Park Alliance establish a vigorous policy to<di~~,!!r3ge the use o~
Rouge Pa.~l{ lands for new infrastructure sites and routes, including new pipelines,
transmi~sfon lines, transportation corri~~!~. c~_mmunication towers and other uses;
/_.-- "'-r- .-...- -..-.. -- ..- '-."'.-.""-"--....-----.'-"" ~ "-. -.--.- --------....
~" ANlYFUR.T. . HE.' 'OR. THAT Rouge Park partners endorse this infrastru~îñrë'põiftYãïïïï. .-ãšSlS})n
/ impÍementing it within their jurisdictions and areas of responsibility. "/'
C.. ' -; . ....-.-....--- --.--~-"
-""""" ......,..,..-- ----_: ---
¡ .
Report prepared by: Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park
For information contact: Lewis Yeager, 905-713-7374
Date: November 14, 2002
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Clerk's
Department
PO BOX 623 .
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E.
WHITBYON L1N6A3 .
CANADA
(905) 668-7711
1-800-372-1102 .
Fax: (905)0668-9963
E-mail:
clerks@region.durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
Pat M. Madill, A.IVi.c.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
"SERVICE EXCELLENCE
for our COMMUNITY"
ATTACHMENT' 2'-- TO
REPORT I PO 22 - D3
o./~' ¿-'J c:::>
',/b: ...~. ~
/' (. , r' ~"¡;'~
ED
March 27, 2003
t~n-v OF PiCKERiNG
~'Ù\NNINGi 8. DEVELOPfv1ËI\n
, DEP/IRTMENT
, CLERK'S DIVISION
,Mr. Lewis Yeager,
General Manager
Rouge Park Alliance
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 3GB
Rouge Park Alliance Resol ution 95/02,' File: 4.1.35.10.1
íQyrfjje: A01 )~
Mr. Yeager, the Planning Committee of Regional Council considered the
above' matter and at-a meeting held on March 26, 2003, Council adopted the
following recommendations of the Committee:
"a)
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be advised that the Region of Durham
supports the reviåw and 'approval of municipal infrastructure projects
through the Environmental Assessment Act, as it provides a rigorous and
consistent process, which ensures thatthe values, goals and objectives
for the Rouge Park, expressed'in its Management Plans, and alternatives
for location are taken into account in the approval of infrastructùre
projects; and .
THAT a copy of Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-29 be
forwarded to the Rouge Park Alliance and the City of Pickering."
b)
())~
P.M. Madill, AM.C.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
PMM/cb
cc:
B. Taylor, Clerk, City of Pickering
AL. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning
œ
100% Post Consumer
ATTACHMENT' 2- TO
REPORT # PO 2..2. -03
The Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Planning Committee
From: Commissioner of Planning
Report No.: 2003-P-29
Date: March 11, 2003
~
PLANN!NG & DE"/ELOPMEI\!T
DEP/wniVIF.NT
SUBJECT:
Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02, File: 4.1.35.10.1
Correspondence 2003-113 dated December 17,2002 from A.M. Christie, Chair, Rouge
Park Alliance
RECOMMENDAT~ONS:
a)
b)
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance, be advised that the Region of Durham
supports the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects through
the Environmental Assessment Act, as it provides a rigorous and consistent
process, which ensures that the values, goals and objectives for the Rouge
Park, expressed in its Management Plans, and alternatives for location are
taken into account in the approval of infrastructure projects; and
THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report 2003-P-29 be forwarded to the
Rouge Park Alliance and the City of Pickering.
REPORT:
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
PURPOSE
This report provides information on a resolution by the Rouge Park Alliance
related to new infrastructure through the Rouge Park.
BACKGROUND
On November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance adopted a resolution
(Attachment 1) to establish a "vigorous policy to discourage the use of the
Rouge Park lands for new infrastructure sites and routes, including new
pipelines, transmission lines, transportation corridors, communication towers
and similar issues". The Alliance also requested that its partners endorse this
23
ATTACHMENT' 2- TO
REPORT # PO 2. 2. -03
Report No.: 2003-P-29
Page No.2
3.
3.1
3..2
3.3
4.
4.1
infrastructure policy and assist in implementing it within their jurisdictions and
areas of responsibility. .
COMMENTS
Although there are no written reports expressing the reasons for the
resolution, it is apparent that the Alliance is taking a stand against the use of
publicly owned Rouge Park lands as a convenient location for infrastructure.
This may be a reaction to a number of infrastructure projects reviewed by the
Alliance in recent months, including a component of the York Durham
Sewage System in York Region and a communications tower in Toronto.
The process followed for approval of new infrastructure varies depending on
the type of infrastructure and the agency who has the approval authority. In
some instances approvals are governed by legislation such as the Federal
and Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Acts, which require extensive
consultation. In other instances, such as communications towers, the
governing legislation (i.e. Radio Communication Act) is less prescriptive with
regard to stakeholder consultation.
All infrastructure projects involving the Region of Durham and other
municipalities are governed by the provisions of the Environmental
Assessment Act. The Act ensures that the Rouge Park and the values, goals
and objectives expressed in the Management Plans for the Park, north and
south of Steeles Avenue, are taken into account in planning for infrastructure
projects.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance, be advised that the Region
of Durham supports the review of municipal infrastructure projects through the
Environmental Assessment Act. The Act provides a rigorous and consistent
process, which ensures that the values, goals and objectives for the Rouge
Park, expressed in its Management Plans, are taken into account in the
approval of infrastructure projects. As an agency that may require the
establishment of new infrastructure that may encroach upon the Park, the
24
""i"',¡- 2:. .TC
;,1 ~~._:-:Q~.-,-~_.
Report No.: 2003-P-29
Page No.3
Region will continue to engage interested parties in a manner appropriate to '
the project.
£¥
A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
;7 ~?(
G.H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment:
1.
Correspondence 2003-113 from Rouge Park Alliance
H:\ 1-2\agendas\2003\O3-11-03\Rouge Park Alliance.doc
25