Dear friends and associates - Time for an update. Kindly note, this 'newsletter' is long, but also necessary. Many of you have been following the dev
Dear friends and associates - Time for an update.
Kindly note, this 'newsletter' is long, but also necessary. Many of you have been following the development of the 2015 Pan Am Games in Southern Ontario. This newsletter is to inform you of the latest in the 'last minute' PanAm hi-jacking of the development of New City Park, a potentially spectacular public park on the Niagara Escarpment in Burlington. ... ( If you have no interest in this public issue, you can unsubscribe at the bottom of this newsletter, thanks & sorry for the trouble ... ) ... If you do have some familiarity with this 'problem', and remain opposed, as I do, to the installation of THREE fenced-in million dollar soccer fields of ARTIFICIAL TURF into a public park - supposedly protected under the Niagara Escarpment Plan - you can still, if you haven't , 'VOTE NO to the Pan Am Games in New City Park' - here
New CIty Park TODAY - Dateline: Sept 28th, 2010
As you can see by the above photo, the land has been scraped & graded PANCAKE FLAT ready for the installation of the artificial turf. At the moment, construction has come to a complete stand-still. The Development Permit has been Appealed. I will explain why & how this has happened - in the 11th hour - in front of the Enviromental Review Tribunal at City Hall on October 5th and will also offer my arguments why we should RETAIN New City Park as a GREEN park. It's not too late to save this park from becoming an eco-illogical disaster.
My full presentation follows: -
In my role as Presenter I object to this Development Permit and request that it be ‘dismissed’ on the basis of insufficient specification & technical data and a breach of several conditions
I intend to demonstrate two core issues that support this request.
1) insufficient public consultation about the use of artificial turf in New City Park 2) the inappropriateness, ‘unapproved’ and possible illegal use of artificial turf in this NEPOSS protected parkland area.
Background and Position:
New City Park is a 67 hectare NEPOSS protected park located at Kerns Road and Dundas Street. The northwestern section of the park was originally intended to be used for ‘recreational sport use’ with three ‘multi-use’ gaming fields, a ‘Nature pavilion’, storm-water management facilities including a fake lake with parking lots for cars. The central north section of the park was to contain two baseball diamonds, additional parking for access to the Bruce Trail, and two ‘open’ areas over the septic system nearer the brow’s edge. At present, 2 additional play fields and complimentary parking facilities will be developed on the west central section of the park near to the known Ecologically Sensitive Area. Presumably they will be natural grass.
The City of Burlington joined with other Municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe to successfully support the provincial bid to bring the 2015 Pan Am Games to Canada. In February 2009, the Province of Ontario’s not-for-profit bid corporation (BIDCO) announced the City of Burlington’s Sherwood Forest Park to be included in the final venue strategy for the 2015 PanAm/Parapan Games bid, as a site for soccer. After a ‘resident revolt’ that rejected that venue effective as of November 2009, the City Staff immediately proposed the site of New City Park as an alternative. At no time whatsoever were residents in the area asked if they were in agreement with this proposal. Instead, City Staff began to work with the PanAm organization to ‘modify’ the existing Park Plan to meet PanAm ‘site requirements’. [Exhibit A - City Staff Report PR-74-09] This report stipulates contractual obligations as well as terms & conditions with the PanAm organization. Note too the significant influx of PanAm funds for artificial turf.
New City Park is on top of the escarpment and at the rural backend of Ward 1 in Burlington. Butting up to it in the north western corner are two Wards that will, in fact, be most affected by the park development. Ward 15 of Hamilton off Kerns Road, and Ward 3 North of Dundas. Neither of these wards held ‘public consultations’ about the development of the park POST December 2009 after PanAm monies and influence re-designed the site schematics. Ward 1 supposedly held an ‘Open House’ in April of 2010, and used this ‘Open House’ to convince the NEC they had public support when “the vast majority of over 30 people” endorsed the ‘new’ plan.
My position can be summarized as follows: 1) the Development Permit is contrary to the City’s Future Focus Seven principles of civic inclusion and excellence in governance, reflecting little to no public consultation about the Pan Am Games BEFORE December 2009, or AFTER the Pan Am ‘re-design’ of New City Park; 2) the Development Permit is in many respects contrary to the NEC recommendations set out in the evolution of this parkland area; 3) no environmental impact analysis has been done in respect to artificial turf in New City Park, and, as such, there is no justification for the development of the ‘Centre for Soccer Excellence’ with three fields of artificial turf at this location. And finally, 4) the Development Permit is in violation of a current City By-Law.
1. The Process – Lack of Public Consultation
Please note: much of the preliminary information in this Section, supplied by the Pinedale Residents’ Association of Sherwood Forest Park, pertains to the early aspects of the Pan Am Bid. I have not attached all the documents they cite, but provide the ‘call numbers’ if anyone wishes to locate them through the Burlington City website at ‘www.burlington.ca’. I add this preliminary information as a necessary ‘prelude’ so that all may understand and appreciate the subsequent ‘sudden move’ of the Pan Am Games to New City Park with the subsequent ‘re-design’ of that park to meet the site requirements demanded by the Pan Am Games.
Since publicizing its intent to participate in the Pan Am bid, the City actively pursued to host the Games in Sherwood Forest Park, a ‘downtown’ venue, as their first choice – Staff Report PR 27/08 to Community & Community Services Committee held on May 7th, 2008 (and recommendations therein adopted by Council on May 20th, 2008) states:
“Staff will continue to involve Tourism Burlington in discussion to the bid as well as relevant Burlington sport organizations as required. Once a decision from the COC is made the City’s participation is determined and approved by Council, a Communication Plan will be developed in consultation with Corporate Communications”
There is no mention of any plan to discuss the proposal with the residents who resided in the vicinity of Sherwood Forest Park.
The continued failure to consult with the affected neighborhood and broader public is evident again in Report PR 53/08 to Special C&CS held on December 15th, 2008 wherein staff recount the outcome of a Workshop held in May 20th, 2008. Once again the stakeholders consulted included –
“Various sectors including sport, tourism, culture and business’.
Appendix ‘A’ to that Report includes the list of invitees. None of the groups consulted or invited included the broader public nor anyone from the community residing in the vicinity of the Park. The same Report (at section 4.1) speaks to the confidential nature of the bid and that the documentation related to the bid could only be released to the public in December of 2008. However, and contrary to that statement, it is clear that sports, cultural, tourism and business stakeholders were included in the discussions related to the confidential bid process, yet those most affected, the residents and general public, were shut out of the process. Once again the City failed to be transparent and properly consult with and provide notice to an important and affected stakeholder group, the residents.
The failure to consult with the public and the affected residents is in fact noted in Staff Report PR19/09 [Exhibit B} wherein it clearly states:
“Public consultations with respect to the Games has not yet occurred”
The lack of consultation with the public, and particularly the residents in the vicinity, is inconsistent with the City’s own Strategic Plan, Future Focus (7th Edition). [Exhibit C - 2007-2010 Edition] In particular the goal under the heading ‘Responsive Community’ provides that:
“Burlington is an inclusive and caring community”
This document sets goals and a standard for staff and Council which envisions a full consultative process. What City has done to date is hardly the sort of process that is “inclusive”.
Another stated initiative in Future Focus is that the City will: -
“explore joint partnerships opportunities for the development of recreational venues …”
Once again this statement is not congruent with the stated goal that the:
“ City & Community services, programs, parks and facilities contribute directly to the exceptional quality of life enjoyed by all Citizens of Burlington.”
The proposed use of Sherwood Forest Park and latterly New City Park as a “Centre for Soccer Excellence” promotes exclusivity at the expense of inclusion and quality of life enjoyed by all citizens of Burlington.
Finally, Future Focus states as another goal that Council will strive for “Excellence in Government”. This will be done by:
“ acting with the highest standards of leadership, and demonstrated in everything that the City of Burlington does both in the actions of City Council and in those of city staff … The City of Burlington will be customer focused where residents are part of City Council’s decision-making process. Burlington values communication as a key component of the overall strategic management of the city. The City will strive to keep Burlington residents informed and engaged so that all members of the Burlington community have the opportunity to have their voices heard.”
Unfortunately in the process to select both Sherwood Forest Park and then New City Park for their inclusion in the PanAm bid, City has fallen far short of these goals and its commitment to the public. Council has not consulted the public, and specifically the affected residents, leading up to the selection of the final ‘venue’ to host the Games.
Furthermore, also included with the City Future Focus is this declaration: -
“Protecting our city’s rural areas and escarpment lands from urban development has always been a priority for the City of Burlington. As our population numbers increase, and with the new legislated authority of the Greenbelt plan, the City of Burlington will continue to manage our city’s growth to ensure that our green spaces and rural areas remain protected. To protect our green spaces, the city will continue to plan for increased intensification in existing nieghbourhoods and will encourage the practice of sustainable and environmentally responsible developments to ensure that the values of the Burlington community are maintained and preserved for future generations."
In mid November 2009, City Park Staff developed a feasibility study – ‘Alternative Site Analysis & Site Recommendations’ City Report PR 74/09 [Exhibit A]. However, that Report again lacked public input. There is no public consultation evident with the neighborhood residents about holding the Pan Am Games in New City Park. It is somewhat ironically recommended within that report that ‘public consultations’ occur with “adjacent communities”.
New City Park was presented by City Staff to Council on December 14th, 2009, as the best ‘alternative’ of four suggested: Nelson High School, Sherwood Forest Park, and Gary Allen High School within the downtown core. Of those four, only New City Park is an undeveloped ‘rural park’ with no municipal services. Thus, in many ways, New City Park was a ‘blank slate’. This report demonstrates that the PanAm organization and City were already ‘committed’ to the re-location of the Games to New City Park.
There was also a snag on route. City had to get ‘permission’ from the NEC to host the Pan Am Games ‘Event’ during the summer of 2015. On February 18th, 2010, City pitched the NEC, and were turned down. But that did not STOP City or Pan Am from continuing on with the ‘re-design’ of the park to meet PanAm ‘site requirements’. The site plans affixed to the Development Permit when first drafted in February.
City claims there were two ‘public consultation’ AFTER December 2009 in February and April in Ward 1 about the Pan Am Games in New City Park. Yet, on review of Ward 1 newsletters from both February and April, no mention is made of the Pan Am Games. [Exhibit D - Ward 1 Newsletters] When I pointed this out to Mr.Magi at City Hall in July, the newsletters subsequently disappeared from the Councilor’s website. In the April newsletter, the ‘Open House’ was ostensibly about the Park, not about the Pan Am Games IN the Park. City later used this Open House to ‘demonstrate’ to the NEC ‘public support’ for the Pan Am Games IN the park, claiming that the “vast majority” of “over 30” supported the idea. [ Exhibit E – City & NEC Reports of June 17th]
In May of this year, site grading and the gouging out of the earth for the fake lake began.
Many in Ward 3 did not contest the initial Development Permit of April, because we did not KNOW or fully understand what was coming. We had not heard a thing about the Pan Am Games ‘development’ from our Councilor John Taylor or been invited to any ‘public consultation’, ever.
It was only in early July of 2010, after reviewing an article in The Bay Observer, that I personally started having questions about what seemed to be a peculiar ‘development’. It was reported how the projected Pan Am attendance for the Games had ‘dropped’ from an anticipated 10,000 to 5,000 in one month, and as such, NEC had re-considered City’s application to hold the Pan Am Event in New City Park. Many details within that article were news to me. I looked for further information about New City Park on the Burlington City website. There was little information there at that time. So, I began a correspondence with Nancy Mott-Allan, current Senior Strategic Advisor at the NEC, who subsequently re-directed me to Allan Magi, Executive Director, Corporate Strategic Initiatives, City of Burlington, to find out more.
When Mr. Magi wrote that the PanAm Games at New City Park would be a “once in a generation international sporting event” - thus admitting no long term benefit for future generations - I began to wonder why the park was being re-designed to meet PanAm ‘site requirements’. [Exhibit F – Magi Correspondence] I went public with my petition, ‘Vote NO to the PanAm Games in New City Park’.
On August 1st, the first ‘full page’ description about New City Park and the Pan Am Games in New City Park appeared on the Burlington City website.
Sherwood Forest Park’s Pinedale Residents Association had near a year to ‘organize’ their objection to the Pan Am Games at Sherwood Forest Park, I’ve only had two months. Even so, the public response has been immediate and supportive – three newspaper articles with follow up, radio coverage, and today, of over 240 supporters. [Exhibit G – Supporters]. Do Burlington citizens and “adjacent communities” really WANT this spectacular rural Niagara Escarpment park to be the City’s vision of a ‘tourism sports destination’ with three fields of artificial turf?
Tangentially, since July of this year, I have made repeated requests to Scott Stewart at City Committee Services for data relating to ‘public consultations’ about the PanAm Games in New City Park. These requests have gone unanswered. On August 12th, at City Hall, in the morning, I spoke with John Taylor, Ward 3 Councilor, and asked him directly about ‘public consultations’ POST December 2009 about the development of the PanAm Games in New City Park. He said there had never been any. (This remark was witnessed by his assistant, Rosemary Fitzpatrick, standing with him.) . I repeated, “None?” He answered, “Never”.
Using information provided in Ms. Vanderbrug’s Affidavit in the ‘motion’ to dismiss the Appeals under ‘Public Consultations’, it is apparent that a preponderance of sporting clubs, tourism, businesses, and vested stakeholders OTHER then the general public and ‘adjacent communities’ were consulted prior to Dec 2009 - contrary to the City’s Future Focus ‘vow’ of ‘inclusively’. ‘Public consultations’ about the Pan Am Games IN New City Park with Wards 15 and 3 have been non-existent.
Finally, on August 30th, 2010, Mayor Cam Jackson, published a letter in the Burlington Post with the title - ‘New City Park development pre-dates Pan Am Games bid’: -
"The city’s vision was to develop the largest urban park in our city’s history …
...This is a ‘city’ park, not a neighbourhood park …"
I responded, on the Burlington Post and Meetup.com/Friends of City Park websites –
Thank you for that detailed explanation of the city’s vision to create an ‘urban park’ in a known Ecologically Sensitive Area. Perhaps that oxymoron explains why you are so keen about artificial turf, aka, ‘plastic grass’. Artificial turf only has a ‘play’ expectancy of 5 -10 years before it heads to a toxic dump. Surely it would be more ecologically responsible to just let kids play on dirt as they have done for generations
…
As for the name ‘New City Park’, that is as confused a concept as saying that the park is for all citizens but not for the neighbours. New City Park did predate the Pan Am Games, in much the same way that this ancient escarpment predated naming. New City Park is an invented name (and not very imaginative at that) and, as such, really has nothing to do with this very real sense of place, known well, coincidentally, by the neighbourhood. [Exhibit H – Mayor’s Letter/mlh response]
II. The development of New City Park
In the New City Park Master Plan & Development Strategy Final Report (PR 31/07) [Exhibit I – City Staff Report PR 31/07] it is recommended that Council prepare a plan that conforms to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, stating:
“In February 2005, the Province enacted the Greenbelt legislation and the site was transferred from the Parkway West Planning Area jurisdiction to the Niagara Escarpment Plan. As a result, the Park site will remain outside of the City’s urban boundary for a minimum of 10 years…. Within these new planning parameters, the vision for the park was modified from a campus-style to a natural environment concept, with greater emphasis on providing a balance between sports fields and enhancement of the site’s natural features”.
In that report, it states that the Master Plan and Technical studies were completed in December 2006. (4.0). No mention whatsoever is made of the use of artificial turf in the proposed sporting fields that would be used for “soccer, rugby or football” or how it would directly impact on the Hydro-geologic Evaluations, Site servicing and the Storm Water Management studies.
It goes on to say that during 2007, meetings were held with the NEC & the MNR in order that the Technical Studies were fully understood and deemed to be complete.
In Appendix ‘C’ of that document, Neil Hester, Senior Strategic Advisor for the NEC at that time, stipulated the development of the sports fields as an acceptable use provided: -
"1(e) The City can demonstrate, after further public consultation, that the public and other public agencies generally supported the development of sport fields in the park. 2.That the NEC will reserve judgment on the total number of sport fields that it deems to be appropriate pending further studies, and the results of public consultation. 3. That the number of lighted sports fields be limited to a maximum of three fields to be located in that north-west corner of the New City Park provided that: a) the City can demonstrate that the lighting will not have an adverse visual effect on the natural heritage values (including wildlife habitat) in areas of the park that will be zoned ‘Nature Reserve’ b) that the lighting will not have a substantive visual impact on the Bruce Trail and the lights standards will not be visible from the Bruce Trail.. 4. The Niagara Escarpment Commission’s final position on the Master Plan, including the number of permitted sport fields, their location and lighting will require additional information to be presented by the City to demonstrate to the Commission that: a) The long term capacity of the site can support the use without substantial negative impact on the Escarpment environmental features such as contours, water quality, natural vegetation, and wildlife population, visual attractiveness and the Bruce Trail. b) The sports fields and associated facilities can be designed, located and aligned in harmony with the existing topography of the site."
Under the current Development Permit, as I have already show, 1 (e) and 2 have been breached through the lack of public consultation. Further, conditions 3 (a) & (b), and 4 (a) & (b) will be breached. The Development Permit also does not ‘align’ with the Technical studies presented in the ‘approved’ Park Management Plan of 2009. The stadium has ‘moved’, thus the light analysis will ‘change’ The influx of tons of artificial turf will negatively impact the water quality, natural vegetation and wildlife population because it is a known toxic synthetically coloured non-organic product. The current plan does not offer any management of the water run-off from the soccer fields other then to allow it to accumulate in the fake lake. Neither does the current plan address how the effect of intense heat generated by the artificial turf will affect the ecosystem in the park, nor how the excessive heat of the artificial turf fields will be mitigated during the summer months. Permanent fencing around the artificial turf fields is anathema to the attractive ‘open vistas’ that the existing topography offers and the additional bus parking venue paves over more parkland, thus contributing to an overall ‘disharmony’ of use.
The Conclusion of this Staff Report states: “The Master Plan achieves a balance of active & passive activities that will meet the future needs of Burlington residents and visitors by providing a ‘high quality’ sports field. …This locations holds exciting potential as a sports tourism destination”.
Again, at no point during this report is artificial turf recommended or suggested. Nor is general public support evident that conceptually endorses the park as ‘sports tourism destination’.
In fact, Guy Granka, representing over 150 Friends of Kern Cliff Park (the parkland area immediately below the proposed New City Park) opposed this evolving ‘vision’ as early as 2006. . He appeared before the Niagara Escarpment Commission on Februrary 16th, 2006 with this submission:
To the members on the Niagara Escarpment Commission
My name is Guy Granka, I am a life long resident of Burlington. I have been hiking the Kern Cliff area since childhood and continue to do so almost daily. I am a member of the Bruce Trail Association, Burlington Field and Stream Rescue and Ontario Nature. I am not here today representing any of these groups.
My statement today is in regards to the City of Burlington’s Draft Concept Plan for a new Sports Park to be located above Kern Cliff Park on the Niagara Escarpment. I represent a group of people who are opposed to this plan and have already presented a petition from this group of concerned citizens to the NEC. There are approximately 165 names on our petition. The signatures on our petition represent a cross section of people throughout the immediate community and beyond.
We call ourselves the “Friends of Kern Cliff “. This group officially came into being as a vehicle to express our concerns regarding the plans for the New City Park above the current park. Having said that, the core of our group, a small handful of current park users have made and continue to make significant contributions to the park. We are not organized, we do not have a budget and we do not hold meetings. What we really do is, by example, show a profound respect for the park. We have removed hundreds of pounds of garbage, broken glass, tires, you name it from the park. We continue to keep Kerns Rd. free of litter from below the park entrance all the way to Dundas St and also the interior of the park. We have to date planted 30 native trees with money from collecting bottles and cans. We provide over a 100 volunteer hours per year at the park. We are currently in the planning stages of a tree-planting event at the park with Burlington Field and Stream Rescue tentatively scheduled for May of this year. We have committed 500.00 to Field and Stream Rescue specifically for this purpose. If this planning is successful, it is our intent to invite the Bruce Trail Association and the Tyandaga Community to participate in this event We will of course be seeking approval of the City of Burlington for this event.
Our opposition is not to a park itself but rather the current plan, which we believe, will not compliment the existing park. The plan was presented by the City of Burlington to concerned citizens on Jan.23, 2006 . Our group in fact applauds the City for purchasing this valuable piece of the Niagara Escarpment. However we feel that the concept of a Large Sports Park containing 7 sports fields, 1500 seat stadium seating, meeting rooms, concessions and possibly artificial surfaces does not offer any true environmental protection of this area.
To truly protect the Niagara Escarpment we believe it should be rehabilitated as a natural environment to show the level of commitment that we have in protecting the Escarpment. People who are drawn to this area come here for the quiet enjoyment, beautiful scenery, appreciation of nature, the outdoors, and the hiking opportunities that exist. The proposed sports park does not compliment this use.
While agreeing that sporting opportunities are required by our children we believe that these opportunities already exist in Burlington if we simply inventory and manage the areas we already have such as existing city parks, schools, churches etc. Certainly we could look at other areas within Burlington that might each have room for one or two playing fields. Is there really a need to put all these sports fields in one spot?
The current plan does not in my opinion provide adequate buffer and is too grand in scale. It offers no real protection to the natural environment. It encroaches and further fragments wildlife travel and hunting corridors. It eliminates field areas that provide an ecosystem that many small mammals and birds use for nesting and feeding.
The amount of traffic and litter in this area will only increase as a result of increased use.
I suggest that this area is in fact more valuable left as a natural area and allowed to rehabilitate and regenerate. It is an opportunity for us to show true commitment and stewardship for the protection of the Niagara Escarpment. We are increasingly running out of such natural areas within the boundaries of our cities. What a jewel this area is only 15 minutes from downtown Burlington! Sometimes nature needs to be saved solely for nature’s sake. If we save this area I doubt we will be criticized by future generations for protecting too much of this “stepping stone “ to the Niagara Escarpment.
So I respectfully submit to you, the Members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission,
our petition and request that this area be preserved in a natural state.
I thank you for your time and for your consideration.
Respectfully
Guy Granka
Friend of Kern Cliff
...
It would appear that the NEC was not ‘listening’ to the valid concerns of local residents, but rather was equally as excited by the potential development of a ‘sport tourism destination’.
City was following their own ‘vision’ for the park.
...
Fast forward two years to the NEC Staff Report dated Sept 3rd, 2009, [Exhibit J – NEC Recommendation to endorse the Park Management Plan of April 2009] when it is first suggested that “two of the fields may have artificial turf” - three years after the Technical Studies were concluded and deemed ‘complete’ in 2005/2006. In the Servicing sector of that report it states that
“As the property is outside the urban area, it must be serviced through wells and a septic systems. Well testing was conducted and a 2 meter drawdown in water depth resulted. There are still some private wells in the area so NEC staff have recommended to the City that it develop a well protection program before development occurs to ensure that if any private wells are impacted through the water taking by the Park, that an appropriate response plan is in place. The servicing report has indicated that they will attempt to minimize irrigation and on-site sewage flow in the design of the servicing system and through the use of artificial turf on some of the playing fields.”
Again, no technical study or environmental impact assessment was included or affixed that addressed the proposed use of artificial turf.
Furthermore, this document confirms the continued lack of public consultation:
“Although there has been no recent public consultations, City staff advise that the Park Concept Plan has not changed since consultation, and they are confident that the public supports the Management Plan and the concept of the Park.”
In the Request for Proposal RFP-09-46, Addendum #4, issued November 5th, 2009, [ Exhibit K} questions are repeatedly posed concerning the necessity of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) especially as it pertains to the storm-water management system and the use of artificial turf. City’s response to these questions - based on hydrologic reports of 2005/2006 that did not include any technical or environmental assessment of artificial turf - is:
“It is anticipated, based on previous studies completed and consultation with agencies that a full EIA will not be required for Phase 1. “
This is not an open or transparent disclosure of the proposed intent and use of artificial turf in the New City Park.
Could it be that resistance to a full EIA can be linked to the timeline of the Federal Stimulus Funds that ‘expire’ in March 2011?
According to PR-74-09 [Exhibit A], over three million dollars of Federal Funds were earmarked specifically for artificial turf. An EIA in conjunction with a complete technical analysis of artificial turf, shock-absorbing substrates, cleaning & anti-static products would have significantly held up the development of the park and thus threatened the ‘timeline’ of the Stimulus Funding. This problem is now compounded by the addition of a THIRD ’million dollar’ PanAm FIFA 1-Star Certified centre ‘soccer’ field that jettisons in several hundred more tons of synthetic product into this park. If the park were fully ‘natural’, such as a ‘conservation area’, it would seem more appropriate that an EIA might not have been necessary. That is simply not the case now.
The City of Burlington has since invited proposals to provide a detailed design package for the construction of New City Park Phase 1. That contract has been awarded to the Landplan Collaborative Group Ltd, of Guelph Ontario.
The Park Management Plan of October 2009 currently in use is their ‘blueprint’ for the park. In conversation with R.Macdonald of the Landplan Collaborative Group on August 30th 2010, he confirmed that “no technical analysis” of artificial turf was ever done. Quote: “If you are asking me if we understood the technical issues of artificial turf – The answer is no.” End quote.
This is substantiated by Ms. Vanderbrug’s affidavit in the ‘motion’ to dismiss the Appeals when she outlines the ‘Technical Studies’ done to date. No mention is made of an EIA that includes any technical analysis or impact of artificial turf.
In the ‘approval’ for the Park Management Plan of October 2009 for New City Park, the two main signatories, Mark Frawley, Director of the NEC, and Ray Pichette of the MNR, signed on February 10th, 2010. The Acting Director of City’s Parks & Recreations, Steve Zorbas, signed on March 8th, 2010. Between those two dates an ALTERNATE site plan was ‘adopted’, dated February 19th. (See Development Permit – Map 3)
Compare the site schematics of New City Park BEFORE PanAm ‘site changes’ - [Exhibit L -‘Appendix D’ of City Staff Report PR 74-09 and taken directly from the Plan Management Plan of 2009) - against the New City Park design changes AFTER PanAm. These changes were made before the Park Management Plan was ‘approved’ by the THIRD signatory Steve Zorbas and are in the Development Permit under discussion today. [Exhibit M & N. & O]
(Note: Exhibit ‘O’ (not included in this newsletter) is a visual of the FILE NAME visible on the City website for Exhibit N - NCP Phase 1/DRAWING/Sketches/PAN AM REQUESTS/L028’ )
These new schematics include PanAm requested ‘site requirements’ with the never-before seen inclusion of now 3 (three) ‘soccer’ fields of artificial turf. All fields have been ‘shifted’ in location to meet Pan Am’s preferred ‘set up’ of a ‘cluster’ playing field formation with all fields on the same ‘axis’. In that schematic and in the subsequent Development Permit now before us, the main entrance has been resituated, the main parking lot was ‘switched’ in location with the centre tournament field (thus affecting, as previously mentioned, the Park Management Plan’s Technical Studies concerning the lighting schematics.) The former ‘Nature Pavilion’ was re-located to be adjacent to the gaming fields to serve as a revised ‘change-room’ and ‘administrative’ centre. The entire area has been ‘scrunched up’ except that the MAIN stadium/tournament field with the stadium lights now trespass FURTHER into the park. The baseball diamonds with the expanded parking/roadway on their western flanks also have moved further into the parkland area. This new location of the lit diamond field also contravenes the ‘approved’ lighting assessments of the Park Management Plan. Obviously neither Frawley or Pichette ‘endorsed’ this ‘revised’ PanAm site plan that was produced AFTER they signed off on the Park Management Plan of October 2009.on February 10th.
This current schematic does not “adhere to the site schematics outlined in the Park Management Plan”, nor has it been “designed in a manner appropriate to the natural heritage and topography of the site.” The new placement of the artificial illumination will most definitely “have a negative impact on the Escarpment’s scenery and natural environment. “ [Exhibit J – NEC Recommendation, under Section, Park Zones, pg. 6]
It is evident that PanAm & City ‘redesigned’ this park effective of December 2009 as a PanAm ‘sports tourism destination’ amplified by Federal Stimulus and PanAm funding to maximize the use of artificial turf for their own ends, without adequate or appropriate MNR/NEC ‘approval’, or “adjacent community” consultation.. We haven’t been asked, we have been told.
Meanwhile, also in February of 2010, in the City Staff Report PR-12-10, [Exhibit P] City staff recommend: -
" that Council approve the draft City of Burlington International Sports Events Hosting Policy (B.I.G.) that addresses the desire of Council to have a policy regarding the City’s involvement with international sports events and a consistent, fair and open decision-making framework for administering, reviewing, evaluating and supporting national, provincial, regional and invitational sport events."
This Report was sent to Tourism Burlington, The Burlington Economic Development Corporation, Burlington Chamber of Commerce, Burlington Downtown Business Association, the Midweek Cycling Club and ONE soccer group - The Burlington Youth Soccer Club.
There are currently 47 soccer fields in Burlington, with 7 more coming, including 3 artificial turf ones at New City Park. Why do we need so many? WHY are three artificial turf fields NEEDED at New City Park? Why are 5 (five) soccer fields needed at New City Park? [Exhibit H - Mayor’s Letter] The only plausible explanation is that PanAm wants them, as do the Burlington Youth Soccer Club. The Federal/PanAm ‘funds’ are subsidizing their exclusive objectives. It is obvious that City is actively soliciting ‘soccer’ with preferential treatment given to the Burlington Youth Soccer Club.
Finally, and worth noting, the PanAm/Parapan City Addendum of June 17th to the Park Management Plan that outlines the then proposed big PanAm ‘Event’ during the summer of 2015 was not endorsed by Ray Pichette of the MNR until August 16th, 2010, long after the Notice of Decision - and Appeals - were ‘in play’. In terms of a consistent ‘approval process’ - shouldn’t MNR’s ‘approval’ of the Amendment have been explicit with NEC’s ‘conditional approval’ of the Development Permit issued on July 16th? Either MNR ‘approval’ is needed BEFORE an Addendum is added to the Plan, or it isn’t. If it is, then it looks like this entire ‘approval process’ was inappropriately ‘rushed’. If it isn’t, then this would suggest that MNR ‘approval’ for the Park Management Plan itself is somewhat auxiliary.
In phone conversations on August 24th & 25th with Ray Pichette, Director of Natural Heritage & Protected Spaces at MNR, who ‘approved’ the Park Management Plan of October 2009 BEFORE the injection of PanAm Funds, site-reconfigurations and influx of artificial turf, he said he was not fully aware that three soccer fields were ‘artificial’. This ‘fact’ is not stated in the PanAm/Parapan Addendum, it only states – “3 soccer fields”. – no mention is made of artificial turf. [Exhibit Q – Pichette’s Approval]
The next day, on August 26th, he sent me the following email: -
To margaret lindsay holton
From: Pichette, Ray (MNR)
Sent: August 26, 2010 8:59:21 AM
To: margaret lindsay holton
Ms. Holton
My staff have done a quick search of management plans and we are unaware of any park under the NEPOSS program that has or is planning some form of artificial turf.
Ray Pichette
Director, Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces
Ministry of Natural Resources
Conclusion of Secton 1 & II.
It is clear that the ‘approved’ Park Management Plan of October 2009 does not adequately anticipate or document the environmental or health impact that tons of artificial turf will have in this known ecologically sensitive parkland area. Nor does it adequately anticipate or document the water use needed to service three artificial turf fields. It also does not anticipate or document how the increased sport use of artificial turf soccer fields will change the demands on water or sewage. And, to repeat, no EIA evaluates artificial turf use.
Overall, the re-design of the park has moved substantially away from its intended purpose - as stated in the ‘approved’ Park Management Plan of 2009: -
“to develop a naturalized environmentally friendly and sustainable design”
New City Park is now very much ‘out of balance’ as a revised ‘Centre for Soccer Excellence’ with a super-abundance of fenced-in plastic grass. The Development Permit currently before the Hearing supports that objective - in contravention of the intended and ‘approved’ purpose of the park.
All told, the Permit embodies a misrepresentation of fact, and a deliberate obfuscation of purpose. The public and “adjacent communities”, let alone the environmental regulatory agencies, were not sufficiently informed or ‘consulted’ about the avalanche of artificial turf now sliding into New City Park.
In further conversation with a few of the regulatory authorities who signed off on the Development Permit it has become apparent that few KNOW what artificial turf really ‘is’, let alone that it has to be replaced, and that its ultimate destination is landfill. (Conservation Halton, Region of Halton, Ministry of Environment.) Conceptually, ‘artificial turf’ is a rather benign term equivalent to saying a chair is a chair. But, in fact, artificial turf is a composite of toxic unsustainable non-biodegradable materials that will significantly impact on environmental and human health within this park.
This should be of great - and natural - concern to all.
III. The Impact of Artificial Turf in New City Park
Since no EIA was done, the impact of artificial turf in this parkland area has not been adequately documented, analyzed, or evaluated. In the Development Permit, as an example, note specifically the storm-water drainage system in map - Figure 4. All drainage arrows lead to the fake lake. That lake drains directly into the ESA – the Ecologically Sensitive Area. All water used to ‘wash off’ the, as yet, unidentified sanitizing & anti-static products, and all water used to repeatedly ‘cool’ this inorganic synthetic product when it reaches in excess of 120F will be redirected into the park – untreated. This is an ecological disgrace.
Artificial turf has many known toxic properties. In the name of public interest, these are elucidated in the attachments to this presentation [Exhibit S - Artificial Turf & Related Docs ]. and via the other Presenter at this Hearing. In brief, the surface material is not a welcoming habitat to anything living except bacteria. It does not oxygenate or purify rainwater. It heats up into ‘heat islands’ with temperatures often 80 degrees higher then ambient temperature. When hot, it smells. These ‘heat islands’, in turn, greatly affect human health and the soil organisms beneath and adjacent to the fields. Artificial turf requires constant watering to cool and clean the fields. Water run-off from the fields will go directly into the fake lake – untreated - and thus poison all visiting wildlife that will now drink from the lake. Increased game-play time (conceivably from dawn to 11pm) with constant and heavy rotation on artificial turf will also substantially ‘stress’ the auxiliary services of the park, like sewage. Toxic materials used in the construction of the artificial turf gaming fields include bonding adhesives and ‘rubber crumb’. These items will eventually go into the natural area of the park on the soles of many feet. Artificial turf presents a flammable fire hazard. How would a field fire of artificial turf in this location be fought to minimize the release of toxic fumes? Who will be monitoring this material as it breaks down before ‘replacement’? How and where will this toxic material be disposed of when a replacement field becomes necessary? All these elements, and more, should be properly, and expertly, considered.
Since early September, 2010, I have repeatedly requested a ‘Material Data Sheet’ (known in the industry as an ‘MSDS’ – Material Safety Data Sheet) from Sols Sportica of Quebec. They won the contract to supply and install the million dollar artificial turf in June of this year. They are not manufacturers of this material, only suppliers & installers. If there are NO ‘environmental or health issues’ associated with this product, it is reasonable to think that they would readily supply a Material Satefy Data Sheet from their preferred ‘artificial turf’ manufacturer. They have not done so.[Exhibit R]
Furthermore, artificial turf has to be replaced ever 5-10 years. No calculations have been done that included that in the Park Management Plan or the City Staff Report PR 74-09 recommending New City Park as the ‘alternate location’ for the Pan Am Games. Certainly taxpayers are little aware that they will be carrying this burden to replace the turf in the years ahead. This is not fiscally responsible or indicative of an open and transparent communication on behalf of the City.
In opposition, City & the NEC have said that they are to minimize use of water drawn from the park. This is their ‘public’ rationale for not using natural turf. Yet, there is a now a storm-water ‘fake lake’ of some depth and breadth that could easily be used to water ‘real grass’. This is the same water that will also be used to ‘service’ the artificial turf fields. Water will also be transported in to irrigate the new escarpment brow plantings (aka the ‘stadium light screen’)
.
Cumulatively, the water needed to irrigate less intensive ‘recreational use’ unfenced ‘multi-use’ natural grass playing fields would be substantially LESS then installing, maintaining and replacing THREE million dollar plastic grass ‘tournament level’ soccer fields every 5-10 years. No?
The obvious next question, and, perhaps the most important of them all: WHY is City developing a ‘high end’ tournament-level soccer sports park facility in New City Park with three fields of artificial turf when the natural infrastructure just does NOT support it?
The answer is this: - they have been offered the money to develop the park as long as they meet Federal and PanAm pre-conditions of ‘A Centre for Sport Excellence’ with a focus on ‘soccer’
This park was originally intended for naturalized eco-friendly ‘recreational’ sport use balanced to the bio-diverse ecosystem of the natural environment for all to enjoy, not intensive tournament play on unsustainable eco-unfriendly fenced-in plastic grass with a steel stadium that will dominate the entire landscape as is now the case. Increasingly, this NEPOSS protected park is becoming ‘elitist’, ‘exclusive’ and top-heavy with an eco-illogical use of artificial turf.
Currently, this exquisite natural parkland area has been ‘over-designed’ to accommodate one
‘out of town’ client, the PanAm organization. Why should one business decide what a Burlington park should be? After their departure in 2015, the park will evidently become the ‘trophy park’ of one City-favoured soccer club, the Burlington Youth Soccer Club. Is it right that ONE sport franchise dominate a public NEPOSS park?
IV- Illegal Usage of Rural Open Land
Finally, in reviewing the Development Permit, it is apparent that over 40% of this one LOT will eventually be covered with ‘impervious material’, ie. three fields of ‘impervious’ artificial turf, parking lots, roadways and a building. This stands in direct contravention of one of City’s own By-Laws under Rural Open Use - 4.0 - 01 Zone (Open Space) 4.5 (b).
It is pertinent to include the reason that the Niagara Escarpment Commissions first refused the PanAm Games ‘Event’ in New City Park in February 18th of 2010 as stated in the NEC Staff Report of June 17th , [Exhibit E]. The NEC rejected the initial PanAm Amendment on the basis that:
“ New City Park is not be used for the Pan Am Games and that a Park in the urban area of the City outside of the Niagara Escarpment Plan should be used for the purpose of the Pan Am Games and that the Appendix ‘B’ outlining the amendment to the Master Plan for the purpose of the Pan Am Games not be accepted.”
…
Reason - The majority view of the Commission was that the use of the City Park for the Pan Am Games was too intensive and therefore environmentally inconsistent and incompatible with the recreational use of lands in the Niagara Escarpment Parks and Open Space System. The commission's endorsement of the Pan Am Games would inevitably lead to more similar special events over time making this park no different than any intensively used urban park outside the NEP”
They got it right the first time.
By the time City re-pitched the NEC on June 17th, site grading for the PanAm Games and three fields of artificial turf had already begun. Their park was well underway.
If the NEC had not permitted the Amendment on June 17th, 2010, would the park still be getting three fields of artificial turf? It appears so. The Pan Am Games are still coming. The Development Permit reflects their ‘intent’.
Conclusion of Section III & IV
The Environmental Stewardship envisioned in City’s Future Focus [Exhibit C] states:
“Burlington will be a clean, green and environmentally healthy city where the city actively participates and encourages environmentally responsible programs, policies and actions that work to improve and restore our natural environment.”
How is an artificial turf legacy in New City Park extolling an “environmentally responsible”
program, policy or action for a “clean, green and environmentally healthy city”? How does this legacy “improve” or “ensure that the values of the Burlington community are maintained and preserved for future generations”? How does the use of artificial turf in this rare and ecologically sensitive parkland area demonstrate that collectively we are responsible stewards of the planet, and that we care about the planet’s present and future health? How does the use of artificial turf demonstrate to future generations a clear and compassionate understanding of our co-existence with, and continued dependence on, the natural world?
Little to no thought has been given to the impact that tons of this known toxic product will have in New City Park. Artificial turf will cover ups hectares of the living earth in New City Park forever.
The use of this product within this park is irresponsible and unsustainable.
Artificial turf does not BELONG in an NEPOSS protected public park.
If artificial turf does go in, it will be the first park of 130 parks to get it.
In conclusion, City has moved very quickly in the first six months of this year, and somewhat duplicitously, to implement their urban ‘vision’ of a ‘sports tourism destination’ of a “high-end” soccer ‘Centre’ in conjunction with the Pan Am Games organization replete with ‘tournament level’ artificial turf in New City Park.
Their ‘vision’ demonstrates a profound disregard and disrespect for the living eco-system of this wholly unique Niagara Escarpment landscape in a NEPOSS protected park.
The NEPDA’s primary purpose as stated is to "provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with the natural environment." R.S.O. 1990, c.N2,s.2.
As a manifestation of City’s ‘vision’, the Development Permit under review is a blatant violation of the NEPDA.
Recommendations:
1) Dismiss the City Development Permit – H/L/2010-2011/056 on the grounds of insufficient specification data, contraventions of existing and prior NEC conditions, and finally, lack of public consultation about the use of artificial turf.
(Also, just for the record, ‘informing’ and ‘advertising’ do not equal ‘consulting’.)
2)Ideally, go back to the preferred ‘balanced’ vision included in the Park Management Plan of 2009 and retain all ‘multi-use’ recreational gaming fields as natural grass as befits a living parkland area within the NEPDA.
3) Split this Development Permit in two.
At present no site schematics are attached that define the lighting schematics, nor is there sufficient visual data to evaluate the proposed steel stadium aka “permanent bleacher seating for 1500” at a proposed cost of over half a million dollars, (as stated in PR-74-09. [Exhibit A ] ).The third ‘centre tournament’ field with the permanent ‘seating’ has only been vaguely proposed. It is impossible to determine what is truly intended based on these sketchy specifications. As such, there are breaches in the affixed conditions of the Development Permit, see #7. #11 and #12.
Equally, consider the ‘artist’s concept’ for the Pan Am Stadium submitted by City to Bidco.. [Exhibit T] Is this what we are really going to get? Does this ‘visually’ fit in with the existing topography and exquisite natural scenery of New City Park?
Furthermore, why is the City seeking approval for the third ‘tournament’ centre gaming field with the stadium seating now when they don’t intend to build it now? Could it be that they need that ‘approval’ in order to secure the final funds & ‘approval’ from the PanAm organization to now use New City Park as an intense “soccer training & practice site” during the summer of 2015? (Front Page, Hamilton Spectator, August 27th, 2010)
Or is it simply that they do not want the ‘public’ to wear out their FIFA 1-Star Certified ‘tournament level’ soccer field in advance of the Games coming to town?
The answer can be found in the City Staff Report PR-74-09 [Exhibit A] - :
"The main stadium fields and practice field would be constructed and ready for use in 2011. The city would have to guarantee the condition of these fields in 2015, and take corrective measures if the field is deemed deficient due to use prior to the games.”
At present, it looks very much like the much tooted Pan Am Legacy will hard hit the wallets of the community of Burlington taxpayers for generations to come. It is they who will bear the on-going maintenance and replacement costs of ‘expired’ million dollar PamAm and Federally funded artificial turf in this exclusive fenced-in ‘soccer park’.
4) IF artificial turf is be included in this park, at the very least a detailed and complete technical analysis and EIA should be conducted vis a vis the hundreds of tons of synthetic product and concurrent cleaning materials that will be utilized.
A full environmental and health assessment should be done in conjunction with a comprehensive ‘Material Safety Data Sheet’ BEFORE these inorganic toxic unsustainable products go into what ought to be an exemplary NEP example of a GREEN ‘eco-friendly and sustainable’ Niagara Escarpment parkland area for ALL to enjoy.
Respectfully submitted
Margaret Lindsay Holton
...
Final comment: to you all -
We co-exist with other species within the natural world.
Parks are a living vital link that manifests our on-going connection to this marvelous planet that sustains us all.
Help PROTECT & PRESERVE this park for the NEXT GENERATION
VOTE NO to the Pan Am Games in New City Park - here
Thank you..
And please, continue to Spread the Word - FORWARD this newsletter to other planet care-takers.. young & old. If we don't protect and preserve the natural world, rest assured, the natural world won't protect & preserve us ...
Have a great fall -
Lindsay
p.s. I will be sending one more mailer about this 'issue' to let people know the verdict before Christmas. Thank you all again for your encouragement and support.
You are also more then welcome to join our 'new' website, 'Friends of City Park' or link with me personally on Facebook or Twitter - or all three!!
