A resident’s perspective.
To: City Council
From: HW
December 16 2013
RE: CSS -2013.37 That the conceptual design, location and preliminary budget estimate of the proposed permanent Skate park Facility be approved.The proposed permanent Skate Park Facility should not be approved at this time.
Instead staff should be directed to:
(1) engage the community in the search for a suitable location for a skatepark, seeking a prominent location that will highlight the park as an attractive asset to the built form in the downtown core.
(2) revise the cost estimates for the skatepark to bring the cost in line with the cost of equivalent skateparks in surrounding Ontario communities.
(3) revise the proportion of the cost assigned to Development Charges to be in conformity with the Development Charges Act.
See next pages
DiscussionThere are ten reasons why the proposed Skatepark location and the design and budgeted expenditure must not be approved at this time.
(1) The choice of location of the skatepark is not consistent with two provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement
The two statements are:
2.1.4 (Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.
2.2.2 (Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored.)
(2) The choice of location of the skatepark is not consistent with two provisions of the Protecting What is Valuable Chapter in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006
4.2.1.3. Planning authorities are encouraged to identify natural heritage features and areas that complement, link, or enhance natural systems.
4.2.1.4.. Municipalities, conservation authorities, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties are encouraged to develop a system of publicly accessible parkland, open space and trails, including shoreline areas, within the GGH(3) The site proposed cannot be approved since it is in violation of twelve provisions of Guelph’s Official Plan.
The twelve provisions of the Official Plan that are violated are:
3.6.18 (discouraging incompatible development in valleylands);
6.1 Objective d) (to maintain and enhance natural river valleys); 6.9 Objective a) To promote the retention, maintenance and enhancement of linear biophysical features as well as natural landscaped connections;
6.9.1.2 (The City will promote the protection and maintenance of all rivers, streams and creeks as environmental corridors. Land within the area of influence of streams and rivers should, where possible, be retained as, or rehabilitated to enhance its function as an environmental corridor.)
6.9.1.4 (the City will continue to support a program for naturalization of vegetation of parks, open space and storm water management areas, where appropriate.)
6.9.5 (The City promotes the future naturalization and environmental enhancement of the Speed and Eramosa river valleys).
6.9.5.1 (on adjacent lands to the Speed and Eramosa Rivers’ environmental corridor, the City will require development to be set back the greater of a) 30 metres from the river edge; or b) Where there is a steep slope adjacent to the river, 15 metres from the top of the slope.
7.12.6 (It is the policy of this Plan to continue to pursue the development of a linear open space system throughout the City based on the “Linked Open Space Concept”(Schedule 7).
7.12.6 f) (Supporting measures by the Grand River Conservation Authority, or any other public agency, to improve the river banks)
7.12.6 h) (Utilizing the “Management Master Plan of the River Systems Management Study” (June 1993) as a guide for the preparation of plans within the river corridors.
7.13 Objectives e) To acknowledge that the system also has a spiritual value providing visual pleasure, tranquility, recreation and renewal, essential to human health and wellbeing.
7.13.2 Core Greenlands (Development is not permitted within this designation. Uses that are permitted include conservation activities, open space and passive recreational pursuits that do not negatively impact on the natural heritage features or their associated ecological functions.)(4) The site proposed cannot be approved since it contradicts the provisions of the Management Masterplan of the River Systems Management Study
The Management Masterplan for Guelph’s River Systems, as adopted by Guelph City Council and still in effect, identifies the valleyland on the north bank of the Speed River downstream of Edinburgh Road to the City Boundary as the portion of the Speed River environmental corridor best suited to complete restoration to fully natural conditions. Much of this naturalization has taken place with all development set back at least 30 m from water’s edge and a substantial portion reforested.
(5) The absence of public consultation in the site- selection process violates the policies and requirements of the Community Engagement Framework adopted by City Council
The site selection process for the relocation of the skatepark was initiated in full conformity with the Community Engagement Framework with timely public announcements and the formation of an Advisory Working Group to assist staff in the selection process. In October 2010 an announcement was made that a City-wide public consultation process would be instituted once a short-list of possible skateboard park sites had been selected prior to final site selection and the initiation of skatepark design. This vitally-important public consultation has not taken place.
I have been informed by staff that the reason for not doing any public consultation prior to site selection was that the decision to do the public consultation required by the Community Engagement Framework was made by staff members who are either no longer working on this project or are no longer employed by the City of Guelph. Staff members taking over the project in 2011 decided not to hold public consultations because the motion of City Council of October 9 2009 that initiated the study made no mention of public consultation
(6) The lack of notification and of opportunity to comment on an important planning decision violate the policies and requirements of the Open Government Framework adopted by City Council
The standard City of Guelph procedure on planning matters is to hold two meetings of City Council before making a decision. The first meeting is an information-only meeting to allow presentations on a planning application by anyone who wishes to raise questions or concerns or express support. The second meeting of Council is a decision meeting with a staff report that recommends approval or rejection of the application and responds to concerns raised at the first public meeting. The planning process and the public meetings are well publicized by notification signs on the subject property,
newspaper advertisements, and notices on the City website. Individual notification is mailed to anyone who has commented on the proposal or expressed interest in the planning process. There has been no such notification process and no public information meeting for the skatepark planning proposal.(7) The required consultation with the City of Guelph Advisory Committees responsible for advising City Council and Staff on planning proposals for the riverlands of Guelph has not taken place.
The City of Guelph appoints Advisory Committees with special knowledge and expertise to assist and advise staff and City Council on specific areas of policy to help ensure a comprehensive and knowledge-based policy-development process is used and to assist in developing meaningful community engagement. Examples are Accessibility Advisory Committee, Downtown Advisory Committee, Heritage Guelph. The Advisory Committee with designated responsibility for advising on a specific type of policy is always central to the City of Guelph decision-making process with early contact, and timely updates and requests for assistance provided to the Advisory Committee as the policy-development process goes on.
In the case of a possible location for development in the Speed River Environmental Corridor the two Advisory Committees with a mandate to advise are the River System Advisory Committee and the Environmental Advisory Committee. Each has a role early in the process in helping define evaluation criteria for the determination of feasibility. In the case of the proposed skateboard- park location in Silvercreek Park not only were neither Advisory Committee brought into the process at the beginning neither has been consulted at any stage and City Council is being asked to give final approval to the site without any input from its specially-appointed Advisory Committees.
(8) The proposed skatepark eliminates parking at a location where cars parked in the natural area is already a problem.
The proposed site has parking outside the 30 m setback from the river. The proposed skatepark would eliminate this parking area. The City is completing planning for formalizing the first 2.7 km of the Guelph Cambridge Trail which has a trailhead at this location. Long-distance trail users require parking at the trailhead to make it easy of access, as occurs at other intercity trailhead locations.
(9) The proposed budget for construction of the skatepark is double the largest costs found for comparable parks in Ontario and other communities
The table of Other Communities Skatepark Installations (City Council Minutes Sept 26 2011) showed that of the nine skateparks in Ontario communities reviewed, eight were constructed for $500,000 or less and only one was above this figure. I have additional information from two U.S. locations that have recently fund-raised for skateparks in communities of less than 10,000 people and the two skateparks have costs of $350,000 and $405,000 with all the funding coming from the community not the City tax-supported budget.
(10) The allocation of 90% of the funding for the skateboard park from Development Funds contravenes the provision of the Development Charges Act (1997)
Development charges collected under the Development Charges Act can only be used for the Growth-related Capital Costs of providing municipal services. Development charges cannot be used to improve level of service or to replace existing infrastructure. The skateboard park project is a relocation of the Deerpath Park Skateboard Area (City Council minutes Oct 19 2009). It appears that it is not eligible for Development Charge funding as it is replacing existing infrastructure and is not growth-related. If evidence is available that a portion of the project is growth related it is certainly not 90 %. The user population in the age group 5 to 24 y in Guelph has not increased appreciably for several decades. HW