When council last considered the
PenEquity application for a big box development south of Highway 401
at Wellington Road, it decided by a narrow margin that it could use a
little more information. Accordingly, staff was instructed to
complete an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on the woodland and
wetland, check with the applicant to see if he would consider saving
some or all of the woodland, find out how many and what kinds of jobs
the project would create, and report back to the Planning and
Environment Committee PDQ.
Staff did so when the committee met
this week. That's pretty damned quick. Indeed, it was so PDQ that
there was virtually no opportunity to review the additional reports
and arguments provided by the proponent of the project a few days
earlier. Even the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA)
and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) which between them have
regulatory authority over development in environmentally sensitive
areas (ESA's) had barely had time to look at the documents provided
by PenEquity's consultants, let alone review them.
Staff had good reason to report
back before an evaluation of the additional materials could be
provided. Council had set it an impossible task, or at least, if not
impossible, certainly contradictory. On the one hand, council wanted
staff to undertake an EIS for the applicant. But an EIS is required
only if the natural feature is to be retained. Council, on the other
hand, wanted to give the applicant the option of retaining it or not.
Perhaps a brief review would be in
order here. PenEquity wants to build a shopping centre with cinemas,
a hotel and a gas bar on a 76 acre property at the corner of Dingman
Drive and Wellington Road. The plan it has in mind calls for
eliminating Vegetation Patch 10102, an unevaluated 10 acre woodland
containing some 10,000 trees and a wetland. Staff had recommended
allowing the development but retaining the woodland as open space.
But in real estate, location is
everything and the location of the woodland was problematic for
PenEquity. The proponent of the development was not prepared to
budge, staff reported. Either the woodland was out or the proponent
was outa here.
Besides, the woodland was not all that
significant, PenEquity's consultants reported. No way there were
10,000 trees. They found only 1,653 good sized trees over 15cm in
diameter. And almost 80% of those were ash or elm which, if not dead
already, certainly soon would be since these are notoriously subject
to destruction by emerald ash borer or dutch elm disease. As for the
wetland, PenEquity's evaluator, Aecom, had concluded that it wasn't
provincially significant, and neither the city nor the UTRCA had had
time to review that assessment.
There was also the issue of the jobs.
Here, the situation was no clearer. PenEquity couldn't point to
specific partners or tenants, not the cinemas, the hotel, nor the gas
bar. Hence, it was impossible to say what kind of jobs or how many
there would be and whether or not they would be worth the sacrifice
of a woodland.
Staff wasn't changing its professional
recommendation. Director of Planning John Fleming made it clear that
any change in the original recommendation to save the woodland would
be the committee's, not staff's. However, if the committee was
prepared to allow the destruction of the woodland, staff would
suggest that compensation for the removal be set at something in the
neighbourhood of 6:1, that is, 6 new trees for every tree removed.
And not just the big ones. PenEquity had offered a compensation of
0.8 to 1.
Finally, staff reported, there would be
little precedence-setting by how this application was handled by
council. Of the 168 unevaluated vegetation patches in the city, only
five were, like this one, not protected by the city tree by-law, and
two of these had already been largely denuded. Staff suggested that
all of these and one other anomalous situation be included on the
Official Plan schedules to be afforded the standard protection.
This was the staff report. Mayor
Fontana wasted no time in appropriating it as an endorsement of what
he had been promoting all along, giving the developer whatever he
wanted.
Never mind that the developer's reports
had arrived too late to be evaluated by staff or the regulatory
agencies; after all, PenEquity had hired Aecom to assess the
vegetation patch. The city itself had sometimes used Aecom. It was a
certified organization which used professionals. No need for an
independent review. Surely you could accept the opinion of a
certified wetland evaluator. That had to be worth something. If Aecom
said the woodland wasn't sustainable, that was good enough for him.
Bud Polhill was chairing the meeting,
but the mayor was clearly in control. Although this part of the
meeting was reserved for technical questions, Fontana was stating his
position from the get go and appealing to others to share his
viewpoint. Approve the application here and now; no need to get a
staff evaluation of the information provided by the applicant. Yes,
trees would be cut down, but they were dead or dying, it said so in
the report. It was not sustainable. What was left was 400 healthy
trees. At what price should council protect them? Much better that
they find another piece of property with a woodland at risk and buy
that. After all, there was a reserve fund for that, wasn't there? And
hadn't PenEquity said that it would make a gift to the city in
compensation for the woodland? As for the wetland, was there really
one? Wasn't it just a result of extraction and grading? Besides,
there were always holding provisions. If it turned out to be an
actual wetland, the project would be held up at site plan. There was
no risk to the city in going ahead.
And the jobs! He gets really ticked
when someone says they are only retail jobs. He doesn't demean any
jobs. They are great for students and seniors. Don't we want to keep
young people in the city?
He moved that they go ahead as
requested by the applicant. Maybe throw in a clause saying it was
noted that there will be holding provisions to cover off on any
concerns regarding the presence of a significant woodland or
compensation. They could have their cake and eat it too.
But not so fast. There are other
members of the committee as well as attending councillors not on the
committee who have some questions and comments.
There was also a significant audience
in the public gallery. Some of them had submitted letters of protest
but, as Polhill reminded them, this was a consent item, meaning no
one else got to speak unless a question was specifically put to them
by the committee.
Committee member Paul Hubert was the
first to speak. The previous speaker (the mayor) had certainly
diverged a long way from technical questions, he noted. But this was
a very technical report. Committee members had received 50 to 60
additional pages that very day. It would be disrespectful to staff,
the applicant, the ecologist and the regulatory agencies to simply
move ahead without giving thoughtful consideration to these
additional reports. He was not an ecologist. He needed to hear from
these experts. What did they have to say? He addressed his concern to
staff. How different was this patch from other woodlands across the
city? Did they also contain ash and elm?
Forester Ivan Listar responded from the
public gallery. Woodlands are living ecosystems, he pointed out. They
are all different, and their vegetation grows and dies. The trees
don't all drop dead at once. There is an understory which forms the
woodland of tomorrow.
The opportunity to ask the next question went to Councillor
Sandy White. She had been the one to cast the deciding vote at
council to refer the matter back to staff a couple of months ago.
Back then, as councillor for ward 14, she had been sitting at the far
right of the horseshoe beside ward 13 councillor, Judy Bryant. With
no one to guide her, she had become confused about what she had been
voting on.
But now, seated conveniently beside the
mayor, she knew her responsibility.
Unfortunately, she really couldn't
think of any technical questions. She made a fainthearted stab at
several but withdrew them as quickly and as vaguely as she had made
them, leaving staff bewildered. Finally, she commented that, since
the city had used the services of Aecom in the past, there was no
reason to review their report on behalf of the applicant.
“We should trust them,” she
concluded.
Her viewpoint was not shared by
Councillor Nancy Branscombe. She wanted to wait for the reports from
the UTRCA and the MNR before making a decision on this. At site plan,
council would only have an opportunity to make suggestions; they
wouldn't have any authority to say yea or nay. The word that she and
other committee members had received from the MNR and the UTRCA
hadn't sounded all that promising.
And they were dealing with an
ecosystem, not just a bunch of trees. “You can't just plop them
here and there,” she pointed out.
She wasn't trying to hold up the
development. If the MNR said it was great to do this and this, fine.
She would be all for it.
“That's what they will say,”
Fontana interrupted, as is his wont. Everyone else has to wait his or
her turn.
“I want to hear them say it,”
Branscombe retorted. And furthermore, she wanted it noted that the
only person to suggest that these were “only retail jobs” was the
mayor. “No one else is saying that.”
The mayor was petulant. He hadn't said
that anyone on council had suggested that, but he had heard it
somewhere. From someone.
Then Usher joined the fray. The
property at issue is in his ward and his constituents have questions.
They need answers from the MNR and UTRCA. And why should volunteers
keep on planting trees if the city just allows them to be cut down?
Clearly, he had seen the morning paper raising this issue.
Finally, it was Joni Baechler's turn to
speak. She is not a member of this committee but she serves on the
Trees and Forest Advisory Committee and is known as a fierce advocate
for woodland and wetland protection.
She pointed to her experience on these
issues.
“I've been around the block,” she
said, and then, realizing the potential for misinterpretation, tried
to retract. She meant environmental issues, she laughed, embarrassed.
The gallery shared in her laughter.
As a community activist and as a
councillor, she had been involved in numerous appeals to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB) to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The
developers always hired consultants. Northdale Woods, UWO Gibbons,
Hyde Park. The list goes on and on. In each case, the developer had
consultants to say the areas weren't significant but the OMB
determined otherwise.
“No one on staff has vetted this,”
she pointed out. Not the ecologist, Bonnie Bergsma. Not the urban
forester, Ivan Listar. There was a heck of a lot of work to be done.
Not doing so would risk an unprecedented fight with the community.
Reforest London had assessed the economic value of a mature tree at
$600 to $1,000. Where was the compensation for that?
Her comments earned her an enthusiastic round of applause to the annoyance of the mayor. How dare she say staff hadn't done anything, he demanded, deliberately misconstruing her remarks, but the public could easily see through the tactic.
Matt Brown, also not on the committee,
weighed in next. A lot had changed in regard to the application, he
noted, because of additional information. They had come a long way.
What about putting in hard and fast holding provisions, that is, not
allowing the development to proceed unless certain conditions and
approvals had been met? Would that help, rather than relying on an
“it being noted” clause?
It wouldn't hurt, Fleming conceded,
although it would be somewhat redundant since building permits can't
be issued unless the MNR and the UTRCA give the go ahead. But you
could throw in the compensation requirement as well. And, of course,
they could always withhold third reading of the by-law until all the
conditions had been met.
A few others had yet to speak. Judy
Bryant was choked up. She couldn't see why the proponent couldn't
incorporate the woodland as part of a spectacular development. “There
are so few of them,” she pleaded.
As usual, Dale Henderson had his own
proposal. He had been elected, he pronounced, to create jobs and
keep down taxes. Those were his only concerns. If people were worried
about trees, they need only go for a walk, collect some seeds from
the roadside and plant them in their backyards. No cost to the
developer or the city. No more chitchat, chitchat. Just get it done
before the developer packs up and leaves.
Hubert was not impressed. He's not
concerned just with jobs and taxes but with building a livable city, he said.
When they were elected, they took an oath to uphold the laws. You can't
just steamroll over professional standards and council policies.
White had another concern. How would
the media report what had taken place that evening? You couldn't
trust them to get it right. They would just say whatever they wanted
and get the public all riled up. She suggested that the city put out
a press release.
“We can't do that,” Polhill
responded. “It still has to go to council.”
But White had a point. In the confusion
that ensued, given all the amendments to past and present
recommendations, and splitting motions for separate votes, few in the
gallery had any idea of what was being voted on.
Still, the final outcome was clear. The
committee was recommending giving the green light to PenEquity to
pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
This time, White knew how to vote. She
joined Bud Polhill, Dale Henderson and the mayor in supporting the
motion to accommodate the developer. Hubert and Branscombe were
opposed.
This time, White was sitting beside the
mayor. For her, in politics, as in real estate, it's location,
location, location.
8 comments:
This city has half empty malls all over the city why are they trying to get another big mall built and destroy trees and wetlands and wildlife in order just to create jobs and retail part time jobs at best? Looks like Fontana is getting desperate to fulfill his promise of creating jobs even though the jobs will be retail and lower paying. Municipal election is coming up so guess getting this mall built will make him look good, he thinks. Not in my eyes and most likely not in a lot of other people's eyes either. This will be another big box mall that will last a few years and then go by the wayside of the other half empty malls in the city and it will have cost millions and a lot of trees and wetlands and possibly economic problems for people living out n that area. Tree roots hold back water and the wet lands help drain water. Guess the mayor and city councilors are too blind to that fact. Fontana and a lot of other councilors at city do not have my vote and will show it in the upcoming election.
Wa-Wa-Wah! ... Please Mr. Mister Mayor, I wanna sit beside you because sumbuddy wasn't so nice to me, Mister Mayor ... Can I sit in your chair when you go outside for a smoke, Mister Mayor ... Wa-Wa-Wah!
Don't let Mr. Bill sit in your chair, Mister Mayor ...
Mister Mayor ... will you please buy me a new plastic pail and shovel if I vote your way, Mister Mayor? Please Mister Mayor ... will you be my friend in the sandbox? I promise to be a good little girl, Mister Mayor ...
I hope there is a provision for the roof of the development to be covered with photo-electric panels; I mean that would compensate somewhat for the loss of carbon-fixing the woodlot and the wetlands are doing. By the way, is there London Transit service to that mall? What would that cost? What would the environmental costs of having people drive to work at this shopping centre. On Wonderland Road, just a mile or so away there is a shopping centre which would be quite equivalent to the one that is proposed. It is interesting that the Rona near Summerside is closing, now that people are settled in that development area. Should not the city think of resource-efficient-people-maximizing ways of creating development?
I hope that UTRCA and the MNR will do the necessary evaluations free of public pressure in any way.
The provincial regulations exist for good reasons, and there is a natural heritage legacy to protect for all generations to come.
Presently, we seem to behaving like there is no tomorrow and only today matters. Tomorrow will come soon enough and I hope that we will keep our eyes on the long term needs of the entire region.
If the McCormick's factory is almost dead and ready to go, why not just tear down it, and have Pen Equity put their stupid mall there? After all then they'd have a community in which to stick all those wonderful jobs and businesses on a bus route in the middle of an area that might benefit the most from it. But leave our trees and wetlands alone. I'm fed up with big businesses calling all the shots and government giving in. Makes me wonder if Mr. Fontana has a under the table deal to make a few bucks should he get things to go their way.
Matt Brown said nothing. Trying to pander to the crowd and to the funders of the next municipal campaign. Shame. I thought he was one of the "good guys" but I was wrong.
What Council did was violate its own policies, its professional advice with a couple of bold faced lies and misrepresentations. Shame.
Gee, Gina, what would we do without you to let us know what's really going on?
Thanks for all your hard work.
After reading how keen certain Council members are to ram this through, you'd swear they're being paid off.
Speaking of location, this proposed "next generation" development (a meaningless term used to impress) is actually in a LOUSY location. First, it's in the middle of nowhere. It's closer to St Thomas than half of London. Second, it's behind a big box store which will reduce its visibility. Third, only one bus route goes past the 401. It doesn't even have weekend service and the bus stop is on the other side of Wellington. Great for customers and workers!
More importantly. Look across the street. Loblaws and McDonalds couldn't make a go of it there. Look directly opposite the 401 at the complex that's been abandoned for years. And that's a much better location. Maybe Penequity should buy it and redevelop it.
Nobody in their right mind would locate their store here. If this is approved, I predict little more will happen than the cutting of trees and draining of wetlands.
Post a Comment