City of
T2P 2M5
July 18, 2011
Dear Members of the
RE: Agenda Item No. 08 July
21, 2011 CPC Meeting
Amendments to the
Proposed Subdivision and
Land Use Redesignation; File #LOC2010-0004
This
response will formally document that the Paskapoo
Slopes Preservation Society ("PSPS") supports the recommendation of
the Corporate Planning Applications Group for REFUSAL of the application.
The
primary reasons for our objection to the proposal and support for Refusal are:
- Inadequate
Slope Stability Analysis and Peer Review
- Trading of
Invaluable ER lands for low-value developable lands
- No
Consultations with Paskapoo Slopes Joint
Advisory Committee
- Natural
areas not appropriately designated as Park plus Ownership and Protection
of the designated Park lands.
- No BIA
consideration of hydrology changes resulting from development
- No
appropriate buffering between development and natural area
- Inappropriate
form of development and inadequate design for
1. Slope Stability
It is our understanding that a Slope Stability
Analysis was done by the Applicant but there is no standard established by the
City of
It is our understanding that at least two other
current proposals for development on the Paskapoo
Slopes have undertaken similar studies with different levels of study and
different results with respect to Factors of Safety.
Despite extensive evidence of slumps and engineering
failures for various developments on the south Bow River escarpment including
other portions of the Paskapoo Slopes, Shaganappi, Wildwood and Douglas Fir, it is also our
understanding that the City has not implemented a standard for the scope and
quality of Slope Stability Analysis work or reviews.
The failure of the Applicants or the City to compare
the standards and results of such reviews on lands that have similar
characteristics and concerns, exposes the City to additional risk and
ultimately potential liability and cost by approving such developments,
particularly if the City is not completing a professional peer review of the
results and conclusions of the Applicants submissions.
It is note-worthy that the East Paskapoo
Slopes Area Structure Plan states on Page 12:
c) On the basis of the information provided in the Preliminary Terrain
Analysis, all lands with slope of 33 percent or greater are considered, for the
purposes of this Plan, undevelopable—to be taken as Environmental Reserve at
the outline plan stage.
Should more detailed hydrological assessment and sub-soil testing
indicate otherwise, an amendment to this Plan would be required to allow for
development on the subject lands. As a condition,
however, Urban Development, Land Use and Mobility must be satisfied that
site development will not pose unacceptable risk with regard to soil stability.
d) Where development is permitted, slope stability and hydro-geological
impact studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer shall be provided
in support of any land use or outline plan subdivision application, and shall
be subject to review by Urban Development, as per the current practice in
dealing with such applications. The cumulative impact of development on soil
stability shall be taken into consideration. A peer review by an independent
consultant shall also be undertaken.
The question remains as to why the same standard of
care and level of scrutiny and review is not being applied to the COP land as
the rest of the East Paskapoo Slopes?
2.Trading
ER lands
We are concerned that the City is agreeing to trade ER
lands including watercourses for potentially developable land up-slope from the
proposed development. Section 664 of the Municipal Government Act (“MGA”)
authorizes the City to take ER lands but we see nothing in the MGA that
authorizes the City to trade ER lands for other lands and in fact Section 671
requires that except as provided for in Section 676(1), ER land “must be left
in its natural state or be used as a public park”.
Section 676(1) provides a limited exception for other
uses that may be accomplished by a Council By-law and public hearing but are
unlikely to fit or be satisfied by the current proposal. In any case, it would appear
that the City must first designate and take the ER lands.
In addition the up-slope, potentially developable
lands would have little value in a normal commercial process due to their
difficult and expensive development potential. The ER lands are being traded
away on a one-to-one basis without regard to the disparity in commercial value,
resulting in an apparent substantial economic advantage of the Applicant.
3. Paskapoo
Slopes Joint Advisory Committee (“JAC”)
There have been no meetings and no process for the JAC
which was mandated by City Council to meet and consult with City staff to
better understand the proposal and gain expert insight into the plans and reports
submitted by the Applicant and the issues or implications of such. This is the
first instance in our 20 years of involvement with development proposals on the
Paskapoo Slopes that a there was no formal
consultation process for the stakeholders to meet collectively. The only
consultation has been one-to-one invitations from the Applicant to individual
stakeholders whereby we were provided with their interpretation and
perspective.
When City Council approved the East Paskapoo Slopes Area Structure Plan (“the ASP) and
subsequently the Canada Olympic Park and Adjacent Lands Area Structure Plan, it was with the clear understanding by
Council, the City Planners and all the stakeholders involved in the ASP that
all further levels of planning for the ASP area, would be undertaken with the
continued involvement and consultation with the stakeholders through the JAC.
The General Policies S.2.4 of the ASP in fact references
the formation and mandate of a joint advisory committee “to address the
concerns of the Coach Hill/Patterson Heights community and other groups
involved in the preparation of this Plan”. It further states that "The
main function of the committee is to establish a platform for informed
discussions involving representatives from appropriate business units in
Administration, community groups and the landowners." Also, "The
committee will have access to the professional expertise and resources
available within the Administration."
4. Natural Area
Designation and Protection as Park
The remaining ER and MR areas after the trade-off of
ER lands (identified as Site 8) are designated in the proposal as DC rather
than Park and from the “Applicant’s Submission Appendix IV Page 1” it is not
clear whether all of this will be transferred to the City and if so, whether it
will be protected as Park or whether it will open to commercial use by COP with
extensive trail development and restricted public use.
There should be clear and open disclosure of the plans
and process for future use and decisions in respect to such use of significant
natural areas such as the Paskapoo Slopes. There is
no mention of other related City Plans that address the protection and
preservation of the Paskapoo Slopes in the
consideration of the designation and use of the lands within Site 8.
5. BIA consideration of
hydrology
It is our understanding that the BIA has not addressed
the changes in hydrology resulting from this development and the potential
impacts it would have on the significant natural habitats found on the Paskapoo Slopes. Without consideration of this aspect of
development and any base-line studies, there is significant potential for loss
of the invaluable diversity of habitats currently found on the Slopes.
6. No buffering between
the Development and Natural Areas
Adequate buffering between the proposed development
and the natural areas should be required to mitigate impact on the wildlife, reduce
uncontrolled usage of the natural area and enhance the appropriate use and
enjoyment of the
7. Inappropriate form of
development and design.
The size, scale and visual impact of the proposal has
not been shown to comply with the City’s Entranceway Policy or with the
requirements for visual perspectives as required for other proposals on the Paskapoo Slopes. Design aspects that have been ignored are
the slope adaptive design requirements that would reduce the amount of grading
and back-filling and thereby both visual and environmental impacts.
Conclusion
The
Application has major deficiencies and we request that it be refused.
Sincerely,
Hugh Magill
President, Paskapoo Slopes Preservation Society
CC: Alderman Hodges
Alderman Pootmans
Mayor Nenshi
FOIP
Wording:
We request copies of Slope
Stability Studies submitted with respect to development plans and proposals on
the Paskapoo Slopes and any comments, notes and/or
reviews of these studies including internal reviews and third party, external
or consultant reviews. These studies and related reviews should include
proposals for Belvedere Ranches, Canada Olympic Park, Patterson Point and Patterson
Ridge (Quinn Corp lands).
Additional
Documents not supplied and required:
§ BIA
§ Slope Stability
Report and Review
§ Conditions of
Approval provided by Planning to Applicant on Tuesday, July 19th.
§ Letters submitted
to CPC
§ Revised Plan as
handed out to CPC
§ Minutes from CPC
Meeting
§
Additional
Issues resulting from CPC:
Site 8
§ City not planning
to be take the ER and MR as ER and MR even though it is all ER and MR except those
minor portions that are traded for ER in Site 6 & 7. Instead City plans to
take as a fee simple purchase for $1 so that they have more latitude on what
they can have for programming, uses and development on
the Site 8 lands. ER classification would not allow construction of buildings
on the ER lands so there would be a potential problem with constructing
buildings that Parks and/or Winsport might want on
the lands. Ie. warming huts, kiosks
§ Site will be
zoned DC in order to allow recreation and sport uses by Winsport.
Including special events (races) and special event tents.
Site 6 &
7
§ Sites are
non-compliant with slope adaptive policy because of the nature of retail sites
which require large flat areas. A mixed use could permit more slope-adaptive
construction or a taller building structure could provide opportunity for more
compact construction that would enable economic underground or above-ground
parking while reducing the stripping and grading requirements.
§ Winsport feels they are a special case that justifies getting
the highest value development (retail) because of the good they do for the
community. (Not a planning criteria and a slippery slope for planners to go
down… where to draw the line and who is good enough to fit into this special
category of exemption from the usual planning requirements.)
Winsport was asked how the retail proposed on these
sites complements or is important to their programs aside from purely the
dollars involved from selling the approved developable lands? They couldn’t
respond with anything.
§ Winsport is contributing nothing for the construction of the
improved grade-separated 6 lane interchange. In 2006, the cost was estimated at
$20M while today it is well over $60M and the City had agreed to contribute $20
towards it. The interchange is essential to further expansion by Winsport. In most instances a new development would be
required to contribute to the upgraded interchange when they are at least
partially responsible for the traffic demand. What other major interchange
improvement has been funded without a contribution by a major development that
created the need for such?
§