Loading...
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