Presentation to Whitehorse City Council
By Keith Lay, Active Trails Whitehorse Association, May 28, 2018
ISSUE: Adoption of a new All-Terrain Vehicle Bylaw and its potential impact on the January 2018, Robert Service Way Planning Study (RSWPS).
Comments:
1. The second paragraph of administration’s Analysis indicates that the revisions to this bylaw “will allow YCCMA members to operate on its leased property without violating the provisions of the ATV Bylaw.” This implies that the only users of the motocross park will be YCCMA members. Is this a correct assumption?
2. If we are correct in our assumption (see #1), then this should be emphasized in the fourth paragraph of the Analysis by adding the words “by YCCMA members,” as it will only be YCCMA members that can use the property in question.
As well, If the motocross park can only be used by YCCMA members, then this should be mentioned under the section entitled EXEMPTIONS in the revised bylaw by adding “when used by members of the YCCMA” after the word bylaw as indicated below.
Sections 6, 11, 14, and 24(2) of this bylaw shall not apply to that portion of Lot 1267, Quad 105 D/11, Plan 95980 CLSR, 2009-0088 LTO, located at #100 Robert Service Way, as shown on the map attached hereto as Schedule D and forming part of this bylaw, when used by members of the Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association.
3. The Analysis goes on to state “The proposed bylaw will allow Council, through the bylaw process, to designate future similar sites.” Additionally, the bylaw provides that the Managers of Bylaw Services and Parks and Community Development have the authority to designate like areas for special events lasting less than two weeks.”
The inclusion of these above two proposals in a revised bylaw is inadvisable.
Common sense would suggest that the City wait and see if this experiment with regard to the motocross park lease, and the changing of a bylaw to allow YCCMA “youth a place to ride without violating the provisions of the current bylaw,” actually works, before even considering the idea of designating “future similar sites.”
The second proposal gives Managers the authority “to designate like areas for special events lasting less than two weeks.”
It appears that we are about to allow the possibility of two week long “pop-up” motocross activities within the City of Whitehorse simply on the authority of City Managers, without any opportunity for the public to have input as to the appropriateness of such activities.
In addition, vague terms such as “like areas” and “similar sites” are used without any clear indication being given as to what these terms actually mean.
4. All comments in the amended bylaw that say “unless the ATV is being operated within an area of the City of Whitehorse where a special permit has been issued exempting this section of the bylaw” should be eliminated, as no “special” events as described in the Analysis should be granted.
The whole idea of the establishment of a leased motocross park was to provide one area in the city where YCCMA members could enjoy most of their activities.
The YCCMA has been given a 10-year lease, to a substantial amount of land. In addition, unless we are very mistaken, the City will soon be changing its ATV Bylaw in order that all YCCMA members (including children) are able to use the site without infringing on the City’s current ATV rules. One would think that for the time being that is sufficient.
Other than the exemption that the bylaw provides for the operation of an ATV on private land, the only exemption to the referred to provisions of the current bylaw, should be for members of the YCCMA who are using the leased property (motocross park).
5. Under Driver Eligibility there should be a requirement that all users of the motocross park carry a YCCMA membership card. This would allow bylaw officers to determine if users are eligible to use the park.
6. As Mike Beaman, president of the YCCMA indicated in a Yukon News article of May 10th, 2017, the organization “would be asking council to change the bylaw so kids could ride under the supervision of their parents.”
Therefore, the bylaw should include a requirement that anyone using the park, who is under the age of 16, and without a driver’s licence, should be under the supervision of a parent.
7. Any revised bylaw should include an additional requirement that all ATVs be trailered to the motocross park, as current rules will still apply to the operation of ATVs outside of the park and within City limits. Given that fact, almost all such vehicles owned by YCCMA members used at the motocross park will not be allowed to operate outside of the motocross park.
We were told at the time of the lease granting process that one of the reasons the motocross site was ideal for motocross activities was that it had a large parking area. Therefore, vehicles which can either pull a trailer or actually carry an ATV/motocross bike in the bed of a truck can be accommodated at the site.
Mr. Jarrod Davie (sp?) of the YCCMA, indicated at a May 8, 2017 City Council meeting, that due to ample parking at the site members would “transport their bikes” to the track. In other words, dirt bikes and other ATVs would be trailered to the site. (Video of the meeting supports this reference.)
According to the administration’s Analysis “the YCCMA advocates that when ATV users have a designated track to use instead of riding on unauthorized trails there is a positive impact to the environment.” As such, the organization should have no concerns with having a “trailering” requirement included in the amended bylaw.
8. Under Special Permits (36) the following should be deleted for reasons already given: Notwithstanding any other provision of this bylaw, the Manager of Parks and Community Development or the Manager of Bylaw Services may issue special permits for a period of time not to exceed two (2) weeks and may impose such conditions, restrictions, or exemptions deemed necessary or required to ensure that the provisions of this bylaw are met.
9. Included in the Definition section of the amended bylaw should be a definition of the acronym YCCMA.
10. We would like to know what is to be done to ensure only YCCMA members will use the motocross park?
11. The territorial Motor Vehicles Act is currently under review. Both YCCMA and the City should be aware that possible changes to the act might impact the use of ORVs in the Yukon with regard to public lands. Are we (ATWA) correct in our assumption that the motocross park is on public lands?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
By Keith Lay, Active Trails Whitehorse Association, May 28, 2018
ISSUE: Adoption of a new All-Terrain Vehicle Bylaw and its potential impact on the January 2018, Robert Service Way Planning Study (RSWPS).
Comments:
1. The second paragraph of administration’s Analysis indicates that the revisions to this bylaw “will allow YCCMA members to operate on its leased property without violating the provisions of the ATV Bylaw.” This implies that the only users of the motocross park will be YCCMA members. Is this a correct assumption?
2. If we are correct in our assumption (see #1), then this should be emphasized in the fourth paragraph of the Analysis by adding the words “by YCCMA members,” as it will only be YCCMA members that can use the property in question.
As well, If the motocross park can only be used by YCCMA members, then this should be mentioned under the section entitled EXEMPTIONS in the revised bylaw by adding “when used by members of the YCCMA” after the word bylaw as indicated below.
Sections 6, 11, 14, and 24(2) of this bylaw shall not apply to that portion of Lot 1267, Quad 105 D/11, Plan 95980 CLSR, 2009-0088 LTO, located at #100 Robert Service Way, as shown on the map attached hereto as Schedule D and forming part of this bylaw, when used by members of the Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association.
3. The Analysis goes on to state “The proposed bylaw will allow Council, through the bylaw process, to designate future similar sites.” Additionally, the bylaw provides that the Managers of Bylaw Services and Parks and Community Development have the authority to designate like areas for special events lasting less than two weeks.”
The inclusion of these above two proposals in a revised bylaw is inadvisable.
Common sense would suggest that the City wait and see if this experiment with regard to the motocross park lease, and the changing of a bylaw to allow YCCMA “youth a place to ride without violating the provisions of the current bylaw,” actually works, before even considering the idea of designating “future similar sites.”
The second proposal gives Managers the authority “to designate like areas for special events lasting less than two weeks.”
It appears that we are about to allow the possibility of two week long “pop-up” motocross activities within the City of Whitehorse simply on the authority of City Managers, without any opportunity for the public to have input as to the appropriateness of such activities.
In addition, vague terms such as “like areas” and “similar sites” are used without any clear indication being given as to what these terms actually mean.
4. All comments in the amended bylaw that say “unless the ATV is being operated within an area of the City of Whitehorse where a special permit has been issued exempting this section of the bylaw” should be eliminated, as no “special” events as described in the Analysis should be granted.
The whole idea of the establishment of a leased motocross park was to provide one area in the city where YCCMA members could enjoy most of their activities.
The YCCMA has been given a 10-year lease, to a substantial amount of land. In addition, unless we are very mistaken, the City will soon be changing its ATV Bylaw in order that all YCCMA members (including children) are able to use the site without infringing on the City’s current ATV rules. One would think that for the time being that is sufficient.
Other than the exemption that the bylaw provides for the operation of an ATV on private land, the only exemption to the referred to provisions of the current bylaw, should be for members of the YCCMA who are using the leased property (motocross park).
5. Under Driver Eligibility there should be a requirement that all users of the motocross park carry a YCCMA membership card. This would allow bylaw officers to determine if users are eligible to use the park.
6. As Mike Beaman, president of the YCCMA indicated in a Yukon News article of May 10th, 2017, the organization “would be asking council to change the bylaw so kids could ride under the supervision of their parents.”
Therefore, the bylaw should include a requirement that anyone using the park, who is under the age of 16, and without a driver’s licence, should be under the supervision of a parent.
7. Any revised bylaw should include an additional requirement that all ATVs be trailered to the motocross park, as current rules will still apply to the operation of ATVs outside of the park and within City limits. Given that fact, almost all such vehicles owned by YCCMA members used at the motocross park will not be allowed to operate outside of the motocross park.
We were told at the time of the lease granting process that one of the reasons the motocross site was ideal for motocross activities was that it had a large parking area. Therefore, vehicles which can either pull a trailer or actually carry an ATV/motocross bike in the bed of a truck can be accommodated at the site.
Mr. Jarrod Davie (sp?) of the YCCMA, indicated at a May 8, 2017 City Council meeting, that due to ample parking at the site members would “transport their bikes” to the track. In other words, dirt bikes and other ATVs would be trailered to the site. (Video of the meeting supports this reference.)
According to the administration’s Analysis “the YCCMA advocates that when ATV users have a designated track to use instead of riding on unauthorized trails there is a positive impact to the environment.” As such, the organization should have no concerns with having a “trailering” requirement included in the amended bylaw.
8. Under Special Permits (36) the following should be deleted for reasons already given: Notwithstanding any other provision of this bylaw, the Manager of Parks and Community Development or the Manager of Bylaw Services may issue special permits for a period of time not to exceed two (2) weeks and may impose such conditions, restrictions, or exemptions deemed necessary or required to ensure that the provisions of this bylaw are met.
9. Included in the Definition section of the amended bylaw should be a definition of the acronym YCCMA.
10. We would like to know what is to be done to ensure only YCCMA members will use the motocross park?
11. The territorial Motor Vehicles Act is currently under review. Both YCCMA and the City should be aware that possible changes to the act might impact the use of ORVs in the Yukon with regard to public lands. Are we (ATWA) correct in our assumption that the motocross park is on public lands?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Examples of ATV damage within the Robert Service Way Planning area:
|
|
February 28, 2018 update:
ATWA made a submission to the City of Whitehorse planning department voicing our concerns regarding the recently released January 2018 Robert Service Way Planning Study (RSWPS).
(See RSWPS at City’s webpage: http://whitehorse.ca/departments/planning-building-services/robert-service-way-area-plan )
We also sent a submission on September 7, 2017 outlining some of our concerns with the Robert Service Way Background Report. (You can see this report below our Feb. 28 submission.) It does not appear that any of our comments and suggestions were reflected in the recently released RSWPS.
Some of ATWA’s major concerns with the RSWPS relate to the following:
For details see ATWA’s full submission below:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
To: Mr. Kinden Kosick, Planner
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association
Re: Robert Service Way Planning Study
Date: February 28, 2018
Acronyms used in this submission:
ATWA Active Trails Whitehorse Association
ESAs Environmentally Sensitive Areas
MCR Miles Canyon Road
OCP Official Community Plan
RSWBR Robert Service Way Background Report
RSWPS Robert Service Way Planning Study
SLAP Schwatka Lake Area Plan
SLAPWG Schwatka Lake Area Plan Working Group
YCCMA Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association
Concerns with regard to Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
A) The January 2018 Robert Service Way Planning Study (RSWPS) indicates that there are three Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) in the region “two of which are also considered Significant Wildlife Areas.” (RSWPS p. 5) These areas are found on the Zoning Map attached to the Robert Service Way Background Report (RSWBR), although the ESAs are simply labelled Environmental Protection, and are not specifically differentiated on the Zoning Map as being ESAs. (See Figure 2)
Map 1 of the Official Community Plan (OCP) refers to the areas labelled Environmental Protection in the (RSWBR) as being ESAs.
The 2000 report entitled, Defining Ecologically Based Significant Wildlife Areas for the City of Whitehorse indicates that the majority of the land within these ESAs is considered to be of High Environmental Sensitivity.
As the RSWBR indicated, the 2000 report mentioned above “identified three ESAs within the study area boundary. The first two of which are also considered to be Significant Wildlife Areas:
1. Shallow, sheltered bays, open water, and riparian areas of small lakes, such as Ear and Hobo Lakes;
2. The Riverdale-Yukon River Flats Wildlife Area; and,
3. Steep, exposed silt bluffs below the airport.
Under the City’s ATV Bylaw, ATVs (including dirt bikes) are not permitted to operate in a number of areas including “an area designated as environmentally sensitive, the greenbelt, an open space, [and on] a non-motorized trail.” (See http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=110).
Under the City’s Snowmobile Bylaw, snowmobiles are not permitted to operate in “an area designated as environmentally sensitive,” although they can operate on “any other area of the City not specifically excluded” in the bylaw such as non-motorized trails, the greenbelt, and in open spaces.
The RSWPS emphasizes that Ear Lake is an ESA. Yet it also says, “the area between Miles Canyon road and Ear Lake is a possible candidate for lower impact motorized trails.” (p. 19)
How can it be a “possible candidate” if said proposed motorized trails are located in an ESA, an obvious violation of the ATV and Snowmobile Bylaws, and of the OCP?
The OCP states, “Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.” (18.5.1)
“The Trail Plan [also] recommends the creation of a map of “out and away” trails for motorized recreation vehicle usage. This map shall be designed to strongly discourage the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas.” (18.5.2)
Concerns with regard to RSWPS’s Trail Designations and Construction recommendations:
The RSWPS implies that “dirt bikers [currently] connect to trails that run east of Ear Lake on to Miles Canyon, an action that would be in violation of current City bylaws.
This study suggests that because “there are no designated motorized multi-use connections to or from the motocross track” that run “east of Ear Lake and on to Miles Canyon,” that some should be provided. (RSWPS p. 19)
This is an assumption that should be questioned, as there are obvious alternatives to designating and/or building yet more motorized trails for such a purpose.
One that has already been suggested is that those using the motocross track should trailer their vehicles to the site. In fact, Mr. Jarrod Davie (sp?) of the YCCMA, indicated at a May 8, 2017 City Council meeting, that due to ample parking at the site members would “transport their bikes” to the track. In other words, dirt bikes and other ATVs would be trailered to the site.
However, despite this the 2018 RSWPS recommends the following:
B) “Designate MMU trails to/from the motocross track and construct a new MMU singletrack section parallel to Miles Canyon Road to facilitate safer connection.” (RSWPS #3, p. 20)
There are obvious concerns with these recommendations.
1. There are 4 #3’s on the map on page 20 of the planning study. Please refer to the “3” that is located near the airport. Its location implies that the study is proposing to permit ATVs to use a section of the airport perimeter trail in order to access the motocross track from the Alaska Highway.
All sections of the airport perimeter trail (except the section along the East side of the Alaska Highway) should be formally designated non-motorized (summer and winter). It is well used by a variety of non-motorized users, and to combine them with motorized users is not a sensible or logical thing to do. It would be an obvious safety issue, as well as a major disturbance to those who are using active forms of recreation and transportation, something the City purports to promote. (The Alaska Highway section should be designated multi-use or mixed use.)
In addition, the recommendation ignores Section 18.5.1 of the Official Community Plan, which states: Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails.
The recommendation will simply encourage dirt bike operators to turn left or right where #3 enters the perimeter trail. As a result, the rest of the non-Alaska Highway part of the perimeter trail (in both directions) will be exposed to ATV use.
As well, #3 cuts right through an ESA to the point where it connects with the airport perimeter trail, and skirts the ESA as it heads to the Alaska Highway. Just because there is an existing route through the ESA, its existence does not mean that motorized use of the route should be encouraged. Instead, the area should be restored, not degraded further.
City bylaws do not permit ATVs or snowmobiles to operate “in an area designated as environmentally sensitive.” (See http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=110 p.4, and http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=74 p. 7)
2. The second #3, which is located directly to the south of the one last discussed also goes briefly through an ESA. However, the rest of the #3 route skirts the ESA, so in this case designation of #3 from Robert Service Way as motorized, seems reasonable, although as we will indicate later, unnecessary for the purpose intended.
3. The last #3 refers to the possible construction of a new motorized trail “parallel to Miles Canyon Road [in order to] facilitate [a] safer connection [with the motocross track].” (RSWPS p. 20)
Part of this proposed trail goes between the White Pass and Yukon Route railway corridor and Robert Service Way. However, as far as we understand, that land has yet to be transferred to the City of Whitehorse from the Yukon Government, even though this was a recommendation of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan.
If the land has not been transferred then this should be mentioned in the report, as it may directly impact the possibility of a motorized trail being built through this land.
As well, we were under the impression that White Pass owns the land immediately to the left and right of the tracks. Although we have not been able to confirm the extent of this ownership, some information we have obtained indicates that ownership may extend to 50 feet on either side of the track. The study does not provide any information as to how much land would be left to build a motorized trail.
If the building of the trail requires the permission of White Pass, then that should be mentioned.
This also appears to be an ESA area, and if so, to allow motorized use of the area would contravene the ATV Bylaw and Snowmobile Bylaw.
The OCP states, “Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.” (18.5.1) Thus, the envisioned motorized connection may well contravene the OCP.
There is no need for a cross walk for ATVs to cross RSW from the Miles Canyon road. The ATV bylaw presently allows ATVs to drive across restricted roadways, provided they do so at a right angle, which they can do from Miles Canyon road to the motocross track. (See ATV Bylaw section 24. (4).)
As previously mentioned, even the YCCMA suggested before Council in May of 2017, that its members would trailer their vehicles to the motocross track. The bottom line is that there is no need to designate or build motorized trails to satisfy a non-existent need.
Comment: What is to prevent motorized operators who conform to MVA and City ATV Bylaw regulations from using the Miles Canyon Road to access the motocross track? (The Alaska Highway could be used to access the Miles Canyon Road.) There would be no need for any new motorized trail designation or development in order to access the motocross track if this route was used.
4. The Schwatka Lake Working Group should have been consulted on several aspects of the RSWPS, as the latter study overlaps areas covered in the SLAP. To ATWA’s knowledge no such consultation took place.
The 2018 RSWPS also recommends the following:
C) “Designate MMU connections near Ear Lake and consider MMU singletrack designation/development between the RSW area boundary and MCR.” (RSWPS #4, p. 20)
There are also obvious concerns with these recommendations.
1. The proposed motorized trail (#4) seems to cut back (off #3 trail) to the east shoulder of Robert Service Way before leaving the road as it begins to curve to the west. It then proceeds right through an ESA to the east of Ear Lake before it appears to cut back to the Miles Canyon Road for a time, before heading off the road to the west, and from there into the unknown.
We cannot tell if this route impinges on the route of the Yukon River Trail Marathon, as the map(s) are difficult to read. (It would have been helpful if this route had been drawn in on the provided maps, as then it would have been easier to determine the route of this proposed motorized trail in relation to the trail marathon course, a route that is used by both walkers and runners throughout the summer months.)
2. Much of this proposed motorized trail (at least the part of it that we are shown) covers an area that was part of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan, a plan that was approved by Mayor and Council in March of 2015, and which said that “Trail work in this area should be focussed on enhancing existing trails rather than building new ones.” (SLAP p. 17)
If the City fails to heed the SLAP direction with regard to trails in the overlap area, a direction Mayor and Council approved in 2015, then it will undermine public confidence in such plans, and give people the impression that it is pointless to get involved in any planning process in which the City embarks.
In addition, although we are now told that City planners often overlap boundaries when preparing reports such as these, it would be in the public interest to inform the latter of this regular occurrence, else the public will lose faith in the process and stop participating.
When people spend much time going to various types of public engagement activities, answering surveys, and preparing written submissions, it is disheartening to see those efforts usurped by another study.
3. Once again the Schwatka Lake Working Group should have been consulted on certain aspects of the RSWPS, as the latter study overlaps areas covered in the SLAP. To ATWA’s knowledge no such consultation took place.
4. The study’s idea (RSWPS #4 p. 20) of designating motorized “connections near Ear Lake and [considering motorized] singletrack designation/development between the RSW area boundary and MCR,” contravene the ATV Bylaw, Snowmobile Bylaw, and section 18.5 of the OCP.
5. The Robert Service Way Background Report itself suggests that motorized access to the Ear Lake area be avoided in order “to minimize effects to staging waterfowl in the Bert Law and Ear Lake areas.” (RSWBR p. 20)
Comment: As mentioned previously, what is to prevent motorized operators from using the Miles Canyon Road to access the motocross track? (The Alaska Highway could be used to access the Miles Canyon Road.) (See p. 5)
D) Other Concerns, Questions, and Comments:
1. The RSWPS indicates that new City of Whitehorse non-motorized routes are planned for the area. However, it fails to mention that these so-called non-motorized trails are open to snowmobile use in the winter as per the Snowmobile Bylaw. In fact, all of the trails in this plan are actually multi-use trails and “accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation). (OCP 18.5.1.)
The failure to make the above clear in the RSWPS misleads the public into thinking that the City is actually creating trails that will not be motorized in winter or in summer. Either change the Snowmobile Bylaw to mirror the ATV Bylaw to prohibit the operation of snow machines in open spaces, green spaces, and non-motorized trails, or be honest with the public. The former is the sensible approach.
2. What are “lower impact motorized trails?” It seems like an oxymoron.
3. It appears that almost all the suggested designated and developed motorized trails mentioned in #3 and #4 on page 20 of the study would, if approved, violate both the ATV Bylaw, the Snowmobile Bylaw, and the OCP.
Why would those responsible for preparing this report make recommendations that violate the aforementioned bylaws, and the OCP?
At the beginning of trail task force discussions participants are always told that their recommendations must respect current City bylaws and the OCP. Why should the RSWPS be any different?
4. The RSWPS advocates building motorized trails and/or designating existing trails motorized, in order to bring motorized dirt bikes to the motocross track.
The City’s OCP says that we should adopt the opposite approach.
“To avoid conflict between motorized and non-motorized trail users, the City Parks & Recreation Master Plan and Trail Plan recommend the idea of “out and away” trails. These trails would be designated for motorized use, allowing those residents routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.” (OCP Section 18.5)
In addition “out and away” trails are supposed to do the following:
a) ensure that motorized vehicles are taken away from ESAs located within City boundaries
b) discourage ORV operators from operating on the non-motorized trails of the City
c) escape from the urban form and connect to a broader network of trails and destinations beyond its boundaries
d) leave the limits of the City entirely (CITY OF WHITEHORSE TRAIL PLANNING: GUIDING DOCUMENTS & CONSIDERATIONS p. 1 http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=8050)
The Robert Service Planning Study serves to bring motorized users “in and near” rather than “out and away.” Are we to ignore the City’s OCP when it does not serve the interests of consultants, City planners and administrators, and special interest groups?
5. The RSWPS survey results tell us that “non-motorized trail use was generally the most supported form of recreational development” in the area under study. (RSWPS p. 8) If this is the case, then why does the study support the designating and building of motorized trails in the region, which can only result in increased conflict between motorized and non-motorized users?
The answer seems to be that creating new motorized routes and new designated motorized trails in the area under study, will make it easier for dirt bikers to get to the motocross track. However, a YCCMA member (as mentioned previously) said before City Council that due to the availability of ample parking space at the motocross track, that its members will be able to trailer their family’s ORVs to the area.
Going to the expense of building, maintaining, and designating motorized trails for “approximately 100 members . . . many of whom are families with children,” seems illogical. (See Yukon News article of 5/10/17 by Lori Garrison) Note: The membership figure given before Council on May 8, 2017 by a representative of the YCCMC was 60 to 70.
6. Why was the public not given all the relevant information in the Robert Service Way Background Report that was necessary to make informed responses to certain questions contained in the study’s public survey, or in written responses to the planning study? Specifically, we are referring to issues related to recreation within the planning area.
Under 2.2 Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans, the Official Community Plan (OCP) is mentioned. However, certain aspects of the OCP that we feel relevant to the area under study are not mentioned. (See Section 18.5, and Section 18.5.1)
As well, Active Trails Whitehorse Association is curious as to why the 2007 Trail Plan, although listed under Related Documents on the City’s webpage dedicated to the Robert Service Way Planning Study, is not found under Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans in the Background Report.
In addition, the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws are not considered as being relevant to the study, even though sections of both bylaws are directly applicable to issues related to recreation in the area under study.
7. ATWA is also curious as to why the following comment (see next paragraph) was made in the Background Report with regard to trail planning for Whitehorse South.
“Trail planning for the “Whitehorse South” area – effectively the municipal area south of Robert Service Way – was initiated in Fall 2016 with a Task Force comprised of neighbourhood residents and trail user groups. Before taking a hiatus in December, Task Force members were favouring the designation of several dirt bike-specific motorized multi-use (MMU) routes in the Ear and Schwatka Lake areas, connecting through to McCrae.”
ATWA has had a member on the trail task force for Whitehorse South since its inception. Task force members actually voted on the possibility of a dirt bike loop within an ESA near the Kwanlin Dun land disposition. The results were not disclosed, but the impression with which we were left, suggested that the majority of task force members opposed it, and a few (including ATWA) were insistent that the KDFN be contacted to ensure its views on the subject were considered.
In relation to dirt bike use in the Ear Lake area, it was mentioned to the task force that there were issues associated with ESAs in the area. There were potential linkages to trails that dirt bikers currently use (illegally), but ATWA’s member does not recall being specifically asked to support the designation of those trails. The task force has not concluded and is to reconvene after consultation occurs with the first nations and White Pass. Thus, many things have yet to be settled, and to imply otherwise is simply inappropriate.
The Whitehorse South Trail Task Force has yet to release a draft trail plan containing its recommendations. Even when this is done City Council will have to review the draft plan before its approval.
As well, the Whitehorse South Trail Task Force is not going to resume meeting until after the City has conducted a Wolf Creek MMU exit Survey. In addition, the Wolf Creek Community Association is also conducting a public survey on issues with regard to the trail plan.
Therefore, the RSWBS comment above (see words in italics) should not have appeared in the planning study’s Background Report, and are prejudicial to the current study. Survey participants may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue are subject to question.
The Background Report again refers to Whitehorse South trail planning when it says, “while the area (the municipal area south of Robert Service Way) is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Area, the low levels of non-motorized use and distance from residential areas were felt to take precedent. Furthermore, this approach was felt to encourage compliance with restrictions on motorized use on other trails in the planning area with higher value to non-motorized recreationalists.”
ATWA has several concerns with this statement. One has already been stated: There has been no draft trail plan released with regard to Whitehorse South, and even when released the draft plan would have to be reviewed by Council before its approval. As mentioned previously, the City has yet to conduct its Wolf Creek MMU exit survey, and the WCCA is currently involved in conducting its own public survey.
Such comments (like the previous one mentioned) are prejudicial to the current study and, in ATWA’s view, entirely inappropriate. Once again, survey participants and/or those making written submissions may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue, and/or their written comments on said issues will be subject to question.
To ATWA, the inclusion of these comments demonstrates a lack of concern with regard to proper process, and may well violate the Terms of Reference of the Whitehorse South Trail Task Force. (See Whitehorse Neighbourhood Trails Task Force (WNTTF) Code of Conduct 10.1)
8. The reference in the RSWBR to Environmentally Sensitive Areas once again reflects the cavalier approach that the City takes with regard to such areas.
The City always claims that it can “mitigate” damage to ESAs. The word means to “make less severe.” So, the City will go ahead and damage ESAs, but do so in a less severe manner. One has to question why the City even bothers to designate areas as being ESAs if it is going to treat them with such a lack of respect.
ATWA has heard on a number of occasions from City representatives that ESAs were a mapping exercise and that their ecological importance was questionable. However, our information indicates that, in fact, experts were involved in identifying ecologically significant areas within the City. Indeed, some of those experts were involved in the Kwanlin Dun Heritage and Ecosystem Conservation Design Proposal.
9. The RSWBR says “Interviews were held with fellow governments and various organizations with expertise and/or interests in the study area to ensure that both the Project Team and City understood current, historic, and traditional uses and the breadth of issues and opportunities.” (p. 3)
Members of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan Working Group were not consulted even though it would seem obvious that said members would have “interests in the study area.” This was very strange given the fact that the group is actually mentioned in the RSWBR, and the report refers to recommendations contained in the SLAP. (See SLAP p. 9)
Active Trails Whitehorse Association was not contacted even though it is a member of the SLAP Working Group, has been both directly and indirectly involved in the development of numerous trail plans, regional park plans, bylaws, and area studies. It also has an associate who sits on the Whitehorse South Trail Task Force.
In addition, it would have been appropriate to make efforts to contact some of the walking groups in the City who often use the area under discussion. A December 20, 2017 article by Jennifer Trapnell entitled Whitehorse Walks! which appeared in What’s up Yukon, mentioned the names of numerous walking groups in the City of Whitehorse, two of which have over 100 members.
10. The RSWBR refers to recommendation 24 of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan and says that this recommendation asks the City to “strengthen trail connections between Schwatka Lake and Ear Lake.” (RSWPS p. 9)
The SLAP does say that trail connections to Ear Lake should be strengthened, but not by building new trails. The Schwatka Lake Area Plan goes on to say that there are other ways to strengthen connections such as “[developing] wayfinding signs and maps to place at trail heads and [in parking areas].” (SLAP p. 17 Recommendation 23)
As mentioned previously, the SLAP says, “Trail work in this area should be focussed on enhancing existing trails rather than building new ones,” and goes on to recommend that the City should “enhance trails that [already] connect to Ear Lake.”
11. What did respondents mean when they referred to “waste or underutilization of land as one of the “most frequently cited dislike about the study area?” (RSWPS p. 8)
12. Survey questions and results should be made available on the City’s website under the Robert Service Way Planning Study. This would permit citizens to make their own conclusions as to what the results actually mean.
13. Why is there no explanation in the RSWPS as to what the term non-motorized really means in this City? The survey apparently suggests that “non-motorized trail use was generally the most supported form of recreational development” in the area under study.
However, survey participants were not told that non-motorized trails in the area are open to snowmobile use in the winter, nor were they told that such vehicles are allowed to use greenbelts and open spaces in the area.
So, are we to assume that those supporting non-motorized trails think that they are supporting non-motorized trails (summer and winter), or non-motorized trails (summer only)?
14. The Schwatka Lake Area Plan recommended that the land “between the White Pass and Yukon Route railway corridor and Schwatka Lake, be transferred from Yukon Government to the City of Whitehorse.” (SLAP p. 9) The RSWPS should indicate whether or not this has been done.
15. The RSWPS refers to contamination issues within the area under study. It mentions the fact that motorized activities (among others) within the area “have the potential to result in soil and/or groundwater contamination by heavy metals, fuels, solvents, etc.” (RSWPS p. 6) This potential occurs in an area that has three ESAs.
To actually encourage more motorized activities in such an area through the designation and building of unnecessary motorized trails is not the way to go about addressing the above-mentioned concern.
16. The use of phrases in the RSWPS such as, “there were many expressions of support” and “reasonably strong support” needs supporting documentation to be considered seriously. Failure to publish the survey results implies that the City believes the public is not able to make its own conclusions about responses to survey questions.
17. The RSWPS says, “Pedestrian and bicycle connections between the ball diamond and campground, as well as between the MT (Millennium Trail), airport escarpment, and Miles Canyon Road (MCR) are marginal.”
The connection between the Miles Canyon Road and the MT are not marginal. The Yukon River Trail Marathon route goes through the Robert Service Campground parking lot and on to the very wide southeast shoulder of Robert Service Way, before it cuts through the shoulder and on to the Miles Canyon Road near Yukon Energy. (There is a trail sign at this point.) As well, one can ride, run, or walk on the east side of RSW from the referred to trail sign, and either connect to the MT just past the Robert Service Campground, or go through the campground to the MT.
Certainly signage could be improved along this route, as people are at times walking, running, or cycling with their backs to the traffic. However, it is much safer to be on the east side than to cross RSW. As mentioned, the route is very wide and quite safe regardless of the direction one is going. A sign asking drivers to be aware of pedestrians, cyclists, and runners posted near the cut-off trail that leads to the Miles Canyon would be a welcomed addition.
18. As far as the lack of connection between the ball diamond and the campground is concerned, one wonders if such a connection is needed. Is there evidence to suggest that campground users want such a connection? Most local people would drive to the ball diamond.
Crosswalks are not without financial cost, both in their construction and maintenance. As well, it should be remembered that RSW is a major point of entry to our City, and the disruption of traffic flow may not be well received by the motoring public.
19. The RSWPR says “43% of participants who don’t use the motocross track expressed support for its continued use, while 30% expressed opposition.” That leaves 27%. What did those indicate with regard to the track?
From where did the above information come, as there does not seem to be anything in the survey questions that would allow one to come up with these statistics?
20. The RSWPR suggests the City “Explore the potential for relocating the snow dump to the Ear Lake area over the next 10-15 years.” The rationale behind this suggestion should be given.
21. The RSWPR suggests that the “public response to the idea of MMU [multi-use] trails in the RSW study area is notably more supportive than that received for such trails in other areas.” Considering the fact that there is now a leased motocross track in the area, and that its potential users (YCCMC) would be directly interested in such trails, it is hardly surprising that this would be the case.
It is also possible that there is less opposition to dirt bike use in the area because no one lives nearby. Therefore, residents are not directly impacted by the noise such bikes generate. However, if trails in the region under study are built and/or designated to allow motorized use, it will be the tourists and citizens who use this area and pursue active forms of recreation, that will be disturbed by the noise and general disturbance that these vehicles will cause.
22. The RSWPR makes the comment that the “RSW [area] poses an opportunity to site singletrack (narrow) MMU [multi-use] trails with comparatively little disturbance and cultivate stewardship and responsible etiquette in a user group that has felt marginalized in recent years.”
The suggestion that such trails will cause “comparatively little disturbance” is not supported with any documented evidence.
Strange how a marginalized group has been able to get a 10-year lease on 6.9 hectares of land in the area under study, and get the City to entertain changes to the ATV Bylaw, which are supposed to go before City Council in March.
Quite frankly, the above comments to which we have referred do not belong in the RSWPS.
23. The RSWPS talks about adding new Alaska Highway active transportation crossings, and lists several possible locations. The most logical location would be at Hillcrest Drive or Roundell Road, as this would allow a safer way for non-motorized residents of Hillcrest to cross the Alaska Highway and connect with the airport perimeter trail and to downtown Whitehorse.
24. The area around the south parking/camping in the Robert Service Campground needs to be better protected from the incursions of ORVs. Unfortunately, these incursions are likely to increase as a result of the motocross track lease grant. Unless appropriate fencing is installed, more ORVs will be crossing Rotary Centennial Bridge and cutting through the greenbelt and possibly the campground to reach Robert Service Way and the motocross track.
25. By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the City would not be faced with the monetary costs associated with designing, building, designating, and maintaining such trails.
Not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area would avoid potential conflict between motorized and non-motorized users that may occur in an area where “the most supported form of recreational development” is non-motorized.” (RSWPS p. 8)
By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the OCP, Snowmobile Bylaw, and ATV Bylaw would continue to be upheld with respect to ESAs and the operation of ATVs in places outside of the motocross track, thus helping to protect such areas from further degradation.
By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the recommendation of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan, a plan approved by City Council in March of 2015, concerning trails in the “overlap” section would be honoured, specifically that “trail work in this area should be focused on enhancing existing trails rather than building new ones.”
By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the Robert Service Way Background Report’s suggestion that motorized access to the Ear Lake area be avoided in order “to minimize effects to staging waterfowl in the Bert Law and Ear Lake areas” would be upheld. (RSWBR p. 20)
Thank you for your acceptance and review of this submission.
Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
[email protected]
www.activetwa.org
________________________________________________________________________________________
September 2017 update:
Submission from Active Trails Whitehorse Association
to the City of Whitehorse Project Manager and Consultant
for the Robert Service Planning Study - Background Report
Date: September 7, 2017
Section A:
One of the major concerns that Active Trails Whitehorse Association has with regard to the Robert Service Way Planning Study is the Background Report itself.
We are concerned that the public is not being given all the relevant information that is necessary to make informed responses to certain questions contained in the public survey, or in possible written responses to the planning study. Specifically, we are referring to issues related to recreation within the planning area.
Under 2.2 Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans, the Official Community Plan (OCP) is mentioned. However, certain aspects of the OCP that we feel relevant to the area under study are not mentioned. (See Section 18.5, and Section 18.5.1)
As well, Active Trails Whitehorse Association is curious as to why the 2007 Trail Plan, although listed under Related Documents on the City’s webpage dedicated to the Robert Service Way Planning Study, is not found under Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans in the Background Report.
In addition, the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws are not considered as being relevant to the study, even though sections of both bylaws are directly applicable to issues related to recreation in the area under study.
As well, information with regard to the motocross park lease is incomplete. (See Section E below.)
Section B:
ATWA is also curious as to why the following comment (see next paragraph) was made in the Background Report with regard to trail planning for Whitehorse South.
“Trail planning for the “Whitehorse South” area – effectively the municipal area south of Robert Service Way – was initiated in Fall 2016 with a Task Force comprised of neighbourhood residents and trail user groups. Before taking a hiatus in December, Task Force members were favouring the designation of several dirt bike-specific motorized multi-use (MMU) routes in the Ear and Schwatka Lake areas, connecting through to McCrae.”
ATWA has a member on the trail task force for Whitehorse South. Task force members actually voted on the possibility of a dirt bike loop within an ESA near the Kwanlin Dun land disposition. The results were not disclosed, but the impression with which we were left suggested that the majority of task force members opposed it, and a few (including ATWA) were insistent that the KDFN be contacted to ensure its views on the subject were considered.
In relation to dirt bike use in the Ear Lake area, it was mentioned to the task force that there were issues associated with ESAs in the area. There were potential linkages to trails that dirt bikers currently use (illegally), but ATWA’s member does not recall being specifically asked to support the designation of those trails. The task force has not concluded and is to reconvene after consultation occurs with the first nations and White Pass. Thus, many things have yet to be settled, and to imply otherwise is simply inappropriate.
There has been no draft trail plan released with regard to Whitehorse South, and comments like the above should not have appeared in the planning study’s Background Report, and are prejudicial to the current study. Survey participants may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue are subject to question.
The Background Report again refers to Whitehorse South trail planning when it says, “while the area (the municipal area south of Robert Service Way) is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Area, the low levels of non-motorized use and distance from residential areas were felt to take precedent. Furthermore, this approach was felt to encourage compliance with restrictions on motorized use on other trails in the planning area with higher value to non-motorized recreationalists.”
ATWA has several concerns with this statement. One has already been stated: There has been no draft trail plan released with regard to Whitehorse South, and comments like the one already mentioned, are also prejudicial to the current study. Once again, survey participants may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue will be subject to question.
Section C:
The reference in the Background Report to Environmentally Sensitive Areas reflects once again the cavalier approach that the City takes with regard to such areas.
The City always claims that it can “mitigate” damage to ESAs. The word means to “make less severe.” So, the City will go ahead and damage ESAs, but do so in a less severe manner. One has to question why the City even bothers to designate areas as being ESAs.
ATWA has heard on a number of occasions from City representatives that ESA’s were a mapping exercise and that their ecological importance was questionable. However, our information indicates that experts were involved in identifying ecologically significant areas within the City. Indeed, some of those experts were involved in the Kwanlin Dun Heritage and Ecosystem Conservation Design Proposal.
Section 18.5.1 of the OCP says, “Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.” As well, both the ATV and Snowmobile bylaws say that such vehicles are prohibited from using areas that are “designated as environmentally sensitive.”
Section D:
The Background Report comment suggesting that the City should create or open up additional so-called non-motorized trails to dirt bikes to save other more valued so-called non-motorized trails from dirt bike use is simply illogical. It is condoning the illegal use of trails: ATVs (unlike snowmobiles) are prohibited from using non-motorized multi-use trails.
As well, 18.5 of the OCP refers to the fact that both the 2007 Trail Plan and the OCP recommend the idea of “out and away” trails “designated for motorized use, allowing those residents routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.” In other words, the idea is to utilize routes that will take ORVs away from the City (urban areas) and not into the City.
The Background Report itself suggests that the Ear Lake and Bert Law Island areas should be restricted to non-motorized uses at all times of the year. (See following references to page 17 and 20 of the Background Report.)
“Light development such as recreational trails designed for pedestrian and other non-motorized uses can be accommodated in this area but should be carefully planned with the assistance of a qualified terrain professional and pathways.” (p. 17) “Avoiding motorized access to minimize effects to staging waterfowl in the Bert Law Island and Ear Lake areas.” (p. 20)
Section E:
The Background Report mentions the motocross track area. Unfortunately, it leaves the impression that the area is now leased to the YCCMA for 10 years, and that there is no possibility of the lease being curtailed.
In fact, the motocross conditional lease mentioned on page 26 of the report has a three-month notice for termination in its list of conditions. In other words, the City only needs to provide a three-month notice to the motocross club to terminate the lease if, for example, the City determines the land is best suited for other purposes.
This fact should have been mentioned both in the Background Report and where questions addressing the motocross track area are found in the public survey. If survey respondents are under the impression that the motocross park is a done deal (at least for the next ten years), then they may base their response to survey questions related to the issue on an incorrect assumption.
It should also be noted that the major objection ATWA had to the lease grant was that it should have been considered in conjunction with the Robert Service Way Planning Study. This was not mentioned in the Background Report and it should have been.
Although the City may have been in discussion with the YCCMA for two years, the seemingly fast-track approval process of the lease just prior to the start of the Robert Service Planning Study was inappropriate and resulted in needless controversy.
The Robert Service Way Planning Study would have been a perfect place to get the opinions and suggestions of the public with regard to the possibility of establishing a motocross park in the area, and would have avoided much of the needless controversy and resultant conflict that took place when the motocross park came up for discussion before City Council. The City needs to become more cognizant of what constitutes proper process.
We do have other concerns with regard to the motocross park. As the YCCMA will still not be able to use the area for its younger members due to restrictions found in the City’s ATV Bylaw, pressure will be exerted to open up the bylaw to allow children to use the site.
The City of Whitehorse should be aware that the Canadian Paediatric Society credits the City of Whitehorse for having stricter regulations on ORV use than does the Government of Yukon. * http://www.cps.ca/en/status-report/off-road-vehicle-safety-legislation
Unfortunately, the presence of the motocross track in its current location will encourage ATV operators to use City trails to get to the location. This, despite the claim, that owners will trailer their vehicles to the site.
ATWA is concerned with the continued illegal use of the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent green spaces to connect to Robert Service Way and from there to the motocross park. The City needs to do more to protect the Millennium Trail and adjacent green space from illegal use by ORVs.
Some effort has taken place this summer by unknown parties to protect this area, but more substantial City placed barriers are needed. ATWA is told that the City does not have the money for such a project. However, perhaps it could access Community Development funding to help finance the work. The continuation of the motocross lease may well exasperate the current situation.
According to the Background Report, “Every Canada Day the MSDRA hosts a mud bog and attracts approximately 20 competitors from the Yukon and elsewhere and some 1500-2500 spectators (Fischer, pers. comm). (The reference given in the Background Report does not allow us to verify this information.)
Certainly other use considerations should be discussed with regard to the area encompassed by the motocross park and mud bog area. One mud bog event per year, and (at present a number of undetermined potential events at the motocross park) may not constitute the best or most efficient use of this area.
According to the Background Report, the area is apparently unsuitable for housing due to its proximity to the airport. (p. 45) However, is there actually some government restriction on putting housing on this site due to the nearby presence of airport runways? Apparently, “Updating the noise contour data, potentially as part of the airport master plan update currently underway, would provide clarity on this issue.” (p. 45)
Section F:
Once again the City continues to provide misinformation with regard to the 2007 Trail Plan as it relates to trail designation. The Background Report states that “Trails are designated either non-motorized or motorized multi-use (MMU), the latter allowing for snowmobiles, ATVs, and dirt bikes.” This is only partly true, as the trail plan states that non-motorized trails are also multi-use.
Unfortunately, the City continues to claim that a MMU trail includes non-motorized users, which is not what the 2007 Trail Plan suggests at all.
According to the trail plan the City has motorized multiple use and non-motorized multiple use trails. Trails that are simply designated multi-use combine various types of motorized and non-motorized users, as does the Hamilton Boulevard paved trail, which is correctly labeled.
One wonders why City administration continues to define the term MMU as a trail that includes a variety of both non-motorized and motorized users. It is most confusing.
In addition, there are numerous references to non-motorized trails in this Background Report. However, unless trails are listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw as off-limits to snowmobile use, or are paved trails paid for by Federal Gas Tax monies, or are signed as off-limits to snowmobiles, such as at least one part of the Trans Canada Trail is, or as certain trails located behind homes are, then they are open to snowmobile use as per the Snowmobile Bylaw.
It is time that reports such as this one were completely honest with the public with regard to the status of so-called non-motorized trails. The recent controversy over the Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail only serves to illustrate this point. Regrettably, in our City no does not mean no when it comes to motorized use of trails.
Section G:
Currently part of Stage 1 of the Yukon River Trail Marathon goes through the Schwatka Lake Study Plan Area. It would be sad to see this trail impacted by any development in the Robert Service Planning Study area.
This trail should only be open to walkers and runners as some areas of the trail are easily impacted by overuse. At present, there does not appear to be much bike use of the trail, probably because of its route and lack of flow. Certain parts of the trail are subject to erosion and the trail needs to be constantly monitored to ensure the safety of users.
If this trail should receive increased use as a result of decisions made at the conclusion of the Robert Service Way Planning Study, then it may not bode well for this spectacular walking and running trail.
There seems to be some overlap with regard to this study and the already City Council approved Schwatka Lake Area Plan. As the latter was completed first it should take precedence when it comes to trails and recreation possibilities within the area of overlap.
Section H:
Although we have expressed some concern with regard to misinformation in the Background Report, and have suggested that those areas be corrected, we certainly appreciate the work that has gone into the report’s preparation. If those areas of the Background Report were addressed and corrected, then we would have a document that in some form could and should be made available to the public after the study has been completed.
Active Trails Whitehorse Association appreciates the opportunity of making this submission.
Notes:
*Off-road vehicles are especially dangerous when operated by children and young adolescents. They tend to take more risks and lack the experience, physical size and strength, and cognitive and motor skills to operate these vehicles safely.
In Canada, snowmobiling has one of the highest rates of serious injury of any popular winter sport, with most injuries occurring among youth.41
According to Parachute’s Cost of Injury in Canada report, 33 children and youth younger than 19 years of age died in 2010 alone due to off-road vehicle activities, while 1,019 were hospitalized.42 The total economic burden for ATV and snowmobile injuries in this age group was nearly $150 million dollars.43
The Canadian Paediatric Society urges provincial and territorial governments to introduce and enforce off-road vehicle legislation. Children younger than 16 years of age should not be permitted to operate off-road vehicles. Driver education and helmet use should be mandatory. http://www.cps.ca/en/status-report/off-road-vehicle-safety-legislation
______________________________________________________________________________________________
ATWA made a submission to the City of Whitehorse planning department voicing our concerns regarding the recently released January 2018 Robert Service Way Planning Study (RSWPS).
(See RSWPS at City’s webpage: http://whitehorse.ca/departments/planning-building-services/robert-service-way-area-plan )
We also sent a submission on September 7, 2017 outlining some of our concerns with the Robert Service Way Background Report. (You can see this report below our Feb. 28 submission.) It does not appear that any of our comments and suggestions were reflected in the recently released RSWPS.
Some of ATWA’s major concerns with the RSWPS relate to the following:
- Consultation not inclusive
- Material included in the Background Report is prejudicial to the finished study and demonstrates a lack of proper process
- Relevant information was not provided in the Robert Service Way Background Report that was necessary to make informed responses to certain questions contained in the study’s public survey, and/or in written responses to the planning study.
- Certain recommendations violate the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws
- Certain recommendations fail to respect applicable sections of the Official Community Plan and the 2007 Trail Plan
- The planning study ignores certain recommendations of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan, a plan approved by Mayor and Council in 2015.
- Certain recommendations pertaining to ESAs violate existing bylaws, and fail to respect applicable sections of the OCP, and the 2007 Trail Plan.
- Lack of information given as to what the term non-motorized trail actually means
For details see ATWA’s full submission below:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
To: Mr. Kinden Kosick, Planner
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association
Re: Robert Service Way Planning Study
Date: February 28, 2018
Acronyms used in this submission:
ATWA Active Trails Whitehorse Association
ESAs Environmentally Sensitive Areas
MCR Miles Canyon Road
OCP Official Community Plan
RSWBR Robert Service Way Background Report
RSWPS Robert Service Way Planning Study
SLAP Schwatka Lake Area Plan
SLAPWG Schwatka Lake Area Plan Working Group
YCCMA Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association
Concerns with regard to Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
A) The January 2018 Robert Service Way Planning Study (RSWPS) indicates that there are three Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) in the region “two of which are also considered Significant Wildlife Areas.” (RSWPS p. 5) These areas are found on the Zoning Map attached to the Robert Service Way Background Report (RSWBR), although the ESAs are simply labelled Environmental Protection, and are not specifically differentiated on the Zoning Map as being ESAs. (See Figure 2)
Map 1 of the Official Community Plan (OCP) refers to the areas labelled Environmental Protection in the (RSWBR) as being ESAs.
The 2000 report entitled, Defining Ecologically Based Significant Wildlife Areas for the City of Whitehorse indicates that the majority of the land within these ESAs is considered to be of High Environmental Sensitivity.
As the RSWBR indicated, the 2000 report mentioned above “identified three ESAs within the study area boundary. The first two of which are also considered to be Significant Wildlife Areas:
1. Shallow, sheltered bays, open water, and riparian areas of small lakes, such as Ear and Hobo Lakes;
2. The Riverdale-Yukon River Flats Wildlife Area; and,
3. Steep, exposed silt bluffs below the airport.
Under the City’s ATV Bylaw, ATVs (including dirt bikes) are not permitted to operate in a number of areas including “an area designated as environmentally sensitive, the greenbelt, an open space, [and on] a non-motorized trail.” (See http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=110).
Under the City’s Snowmobile Bylaw, snowmobiles are not permitted to operate in “an area designated as environmentally sensitive,” although they can operate on “any other area of the City not specifically excluded” in the bylaw such as non-motorized trails, the greenbelt, and in open spaces.
The RSWPS emphasizes that Ear Lake is an ESA. Yet it also says, “the area between Miles Canyon road and Ear Lake is a possible candidate for lower impact motorized trails.” (p. 19)
How can it be a “possible candidate” if said proposed motorized trails are located in an ESA, an obvious violation of the ATV and Snowmobile Bylaws, and of the OCP?
The OCP states, “Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.” (18.5.1)
“The Trail Plan [also] recommends the creation of a map of “out and away” trails for motorized recreation vehicle usage. This map shall be designed to strongly discourage the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas.” (18.5.2)
Concerns with regard to RSWPS’s Trail Designations and Construction recommendations:
The RSWPS implies that “dirt bikers [currently] connect to trails that run east of Ear Lake on to Miles Canyon, an action that would be in violation of current City bylaws.
This study suggests that because “there are no designated motorized multi-use connections to or from the motocross track” that run “east of Ear Lake and on to Miles Canyon,” that some should be provided. (RSWPS p. 19)
This is an assumption that should be questioned, as there are obvious alternatives to designating and/or building yet more motorized trails for such a purpose.
One that has already been suggested is that those using the motocross track should trailer their vehicles to the site. In fact, Mr. Jarrod Davie (sp?) of the YCCMA, indicated at a May 8, 2017 City Council meeting, that due to ample parking at the site members would “transport their bikes” to the track. In other words, dirt bikes and other ATVs would be trailered to the site.
However, despite this the 2018 RSWPS recommends the following:
B) “Designate MMU trails to/from the motocross track and construct a new MMU singletrack section parallel to Miles Canyon Road to facilitate safer connection.” (RSWPS #3, p. 20)
There are obvious concerns with these recommendations.
1. There are 4 #3’s on the map on page 20 of the planning study. Please refer to the “3” that is located near the airport. Its location implies that the study is proposing to permit ATVs to use a section of the airport perimeter trail in order to access the motocross track from the Alaska Highway.
All sections of the airport perimeter trail (except the section along the East side of the Alaska Highway) should be formally designated non-motorized (summer and winter). It is well used by a variety of non-motorized users, and to combine them with motorized users is not a sensible or logical thing to do. It would be an obvious safety issue, as well as a major disturbance to those who are using active forms of recreation and transportation, something the City purports to promote. (The Alaska Highway section should be designated multi-use or mixed use.)
In addition, the recommendation ignores Section 18.5.1 of the Official Community Plan, which states: Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails.
The recommendation will simply encourage dirt bike operators to turn left or right where #3 enters the perimeter trail. As a result, the rest of the non-Alaska Highway part of the perimeter trail (in both directions) will be exposed to ATV use.
As well, #3 cuts right through an ESA to the point where it connects with the airport perimeter trail, and skirts the ESA as it heads to the Alaska Highway. Just because there is an existing route through the ESA, its existence does not mean that motorized use of the route should be encouraged. Instead, the area should be restored, not degraded further.
City bylaws do not permit ATVs or snowmobiles to operate “in an area designated as environmentally sensitive.” (See http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=110 p.4, and http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=74 p. 7)
2. The second #3, which is located directly to the south of the one last discussed also goes briefly through an ESA. However, the rest of the #3 route skirts the ESA, so in this case designation of #3 from Robert Service Way as motorized, seems reasonable, although as we will indicate later, unnecessary for the purpose intended.
3. The last #3 refers to the possible construction of a new motorized trail “parallel to Miles Canyon Road [in order to] facilitate [a] safer connection [with the motocross track].” (RSWPS p. 20)
Part of this proposed trail goes between the White Pass and Yukon Route railway corridor and Robert Service Way. However, as far as we understand, that land has yet to be transferred to the City of Whitehorse from the Yukon Government, even though this was a recommendation of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan.
If the land has not been transferred then this should be mentioned in the report, as it may directly impact the possibility of a motorized trail being built through this land.
As well, we were under the impression that White Pass owns the land immediately to the left and right of the tracks. Although we have not been able to confirm the extent of this ownership, some information we have obtained indicates that ownership may extend to 50 feet on either side of the track. The study does not provide any information as to how much land would be left to build a motorized trail.
If the building of the trail requires the permission of White Pass, then that should be mentioned.
This also appears to be an ESA area, and if so, to allow motorized use of the area would contravene the ATV Bylaw and Snowmobile Bylaw.
The OCP states, “Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.” (18.5.1) Thus, the envisioned motorized connection may well contravene the OCP.
There is no need for a cross walk for ATVs to cross RSW from the Miles Canyon road. The ATV bylaw presently allows ATVs to drive across restricted roadways, provided they do so at a right angle, which they can do from Miles Canyon road to the motocross track. (See ATV Bylaw section 24. (4).)
As previously mentioned, even the YCCMA suggested before Council in May of 2017, that its members would trailer their vehicles to the motocross track. The bottom line is that there is no need to designate or build motorized trails to satisfy a non-existent need.
Comment: What is to prevent motorized operators who conform to MVA and City ATV Bylaw regulations from using the Miles Canyon Road to access the motocross track? (The Alaska Highway could be used to access the Miles Canyon Road.) There would be no need for any new motorized trail designation or development in order to access the motocross track if this route was used.
4. The Schwatka Lake Working Group should have been consulted on several aspects of the RSWPS, as the latter study overlaps areas covered in the SLAP. To ATWA’s knowledge no such consultation took place.
The 2018 RSWPS also recommends the following:
C) “Designate MMU connections near Ear Lake and consider MMU singletrack designation/development between the RSW area boundary and MCR.” (RSWPS #4, p. 20)
There are also obvious concerns with these recommendations.
1. The proposed motorized trail (#4) seems to cut back (off #3 trail) to the east shoulder of Robert Service Way before leaving the road as it begins to curve to the west. It then proceeds right through an ESA to the east of Ear Lake before it appears to cut back to the Miles Canyon Road for a time, before heading off the road to the west, and from there into the unknown.
We cannot tell if this route impinges on the route of the Yukon River Trail Marathon, as the map(s) are difficult to read. (It would have been helpful if this route had been drawn in on the provided maps, as then it would have been easier to determine the route of this proposed motorized trail in relation to the trail marathon course, a route that is used by both walkers and runners throughout the summer months.)
2. Much of this proposed motorized trail (at least the part of it that we are shown) covers an area that was part of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan, a plan that was approved by Mayor and Council in March of 2015, and which said that “Trail work in this area should be focussed on enhancing existing trails rather than building new ones.” (SLAP p. 17)
If the City fails to heed the SLAP direction with regard to trails in the overlap area, a direction Mayor and Council approved in 2015, then it will undermine public confidence in such plans, and give people the impression that it is pointless to get involved in any planning process in which the City embarks.
In addition, although we are now told that City planners often overlap boundaries when preparing reports such as these, it would be in the public interest to inform the latter of this regular occurrence, else the public will lose faith in the process and stop participating.
When people spend much time going to various types of public engagement activities, answering surveys, and preparing written submissions, it is disheartening to see those efforts usurped by another study.
3. Once again the Schwatka Lake Working Group should have been consulted on certain aspects of the RSWPS, as the latter study overlaps areas covered in the SLAP. To ATWA’s knowledge no such consultation took place.
4. The study’s idea (RSWPS #4 p. 20) of designating motorized “connections near Ear Lake and [considering motorized] singletrack designation/development between the RSW area boundary and MCR,” contravene the ATV Bylaw, Snowmobile Bylaw, and section 18.5 of the OCP.
5. The Robert Service Way Background Report itself suggests that motorized access to the Ear Lake area be avoided in order “to minimize effects to staging waterfowl in the Bert Law and Ear Lake areas.” (RSWBR p. 20)
Comment: As mentioned previously, what is to prevent motorized operators from using the Miles Canyon Road to access the motocross track? (The Alaska Highway could be used to access the Miles Canyon Road.) (See p. 5)
D) Other Concerns, Questions, and Comments:
1. The RSWPS indicates that new City of Whitehorse non-motorized routes are planned for the area. However, it fails to mention that these so-called non-motorized trails are open to snowmobile use in the winter as per the Snowmobile Bylaw. In fact, all of the trails in this plan are actually multi-use trails and “accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation). (OCP 18.5.1.)
The failure to make the above clear in the RSWPS misleads the public into thinking that the City is actually creating trails that will not be motorized in winter or in summer. Either change the Snowmobile Bylaw to mirror the ATV Bylaw to prohibit the operation of snow machines in open spaces, green spaces, and non-motorized trails, or be honest with the public. The former is the sensible approach.
2. What are “lower impact motorized trails?” It seems like an oxymoron.
3. It appears that almost all the suggested designated and developed motorized trails mentioned in #3 and #4 on page 20 of the study would, if approved, violate both the ATV Bylaw, the Snowmobile Bylaw, and the OCP.
Why would those responsible for preparing this report make recommendations that violate the aforementioned bylaws, and the OCP?
At the beginning of trail task force discussions participants are always told that their recommendations must respect current City bylaws and the OCP. Why should the RSWPS be any different?
4. The RSWPS advocates building motorized trails and/or designating existing trails motorized, in order to bring motorized dirt bikes to the motocross track.
The City’s OCP says that we should adopt the opposite approach.
“To avoid conflict between motorized and non-motorized trail users, the City Parks & Recreation Master Plan and Trail Plan recommend the idea of “out and away” trails. These trails would be designated for motorized use, allowing those residents routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.” (OCP Section 18.5)
In addition “out and away” trails are supposed to do the following:
a) ensure that motorized vehicles are taken away from ESAs located within City boundaries
b) discourage ORV operators from operating on the non-motorized trails of the City
c) escape from the urban form and connect to a broader network of trails and destinations beyond its boundaries
d) leave the limits of the City entirely (CITY OF WHITEHORSE TRAIL PLANNING: GUIDING DOCUMENTS & CONSIDERATIONS p. 1 http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=8050)
The Robert Service Planning Study serves to bring motorized users “in and near” rather than “out and away.” Are we to ignore the City’s OCP when it does not serve the interests of consultants, City planners and administrators, and special interest groups?
5. The RSWPS survey results tell us that “non-motorized trail use was generally the most supported form of recreational development” in the area under study. (RSWPS p. 8) If this is the case, then why does the study support the designating and building of motorized trails in the region, which can only result in increased conflict between motorized and non-motorized users?
The answer seems to be that creating new motorized routes and new designated motorized trails in the area under study, will make it easier for dirt bikers to get to the motocross track. However, a YCCMA member (as mentioned previously) said before City Council that due to the availability of ample parking space at the motocross track, that its members will be able to trailer their family’s ORVs to the area.
Going to the expense of building, maintaining, and designating motorized trails for “approximately 100 members . . . many of whom are families with children,” seems illogical. (See Yukon News article of 5/10/17 by Lori Garrison) Note: The membership figure given before Council on May 8, 2017 by a representative of the YCCMC was 60 to 70.
6. Why was the public not given all the relevant information in the Robert Service Way Background Report that was necessary to make informed responses to certain questions contained in the study’s public survey, or in written responses to the planning study? Specifically, we are referring to issues related to recreation within the planning area.
Under 2.2 Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans, the Official Community Plan (OCP) is mentioned. However, certain aspects of the OCP that we feel relevant to the area under study are not mentioned. (See Section 18.5, and Section 18.5.1)
As well, Active Trails Whitehorse Association is curious as to why the 2007 Trail Plan, although listed under Related Documents on the City’s webpage dedicated to the Robert Service Way Planning Study, is not found under Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans in the Background Report.
In addition, the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws are not considered as being relevant to the study, even though sections of both bylaws are directly applicable to issues related to recreation in the area under study.
7. ATWA is also curious as to why the following comment (see next paragraph) was made in the Background Report with regard to trail planning for Whitehorse South.
“Trail planning for the “Whitehorse South” area – effectively the municipal area south of Robert Service Way – was initiated in Fall 2016 with a Task Force comprised of neighbourhood residents and trail user groups. Before taking a hiatus in December, Task Force members were favouring the designation of several dirt bike-specific motorized multi-use (MMU) routes in the Ear and Schwatka Lake areas, connecting through to McCrae.”
ATWA has had a member on the trail task force for Whitehorse South since its inception. Task force members actually voted on the possibility of a dirt bike loop within an ESA near the Kwanlin Dun land disposition. The results were not disclosed, but the impression with which we were left, suggested that the majority of task force members opposed it, and a few (including ATWA) were insistent that the KDFN be contacted to ensure its views on the subject were considered.
In relation to dirt bike use in the Ear Lake area, it was mentioned to the task force that there were issues associated with ESAs in the area. There were potential linkages to trails that dirt bikers currently use (illegally), but ATWA’s member does not recall being specifically asked to support the designation of those trails. The task force has not concluded and is to reconvene after consultation occurs with the first nations and White Pass. Thus, many things have yet to be settled, and to imply otherwise is simply inappropriate.
The Whitehorse South Trail Task Force has yet to release a draft trail plan containing its recommendations. Even when this is done City Council will have to review the draft plan before its approval.
As well, the Whitehorse South Trail Task Force is not going to resume meeting until after the City has conducted a Wolf Creek MMU exit Survey. In addition, the Wolf Creek Community Association is also conducting a public survey on issues with regard to the trail plan.
Therefore, the RSWBS comment above (see words in italics) should not have appeared in the planning study’s Background Report, and are prejudicial to the current study. Survey participants may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue are subject to question.
The Background Report again refers to Whitehorse South trail planning when it says, “while the area (the municipal area south of Robert Service Way) is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Area, the low levels of non-motorized use and distance from residential areas were felt to take precedent. Furthermore, this approach was felt to encourage compliance with restrictions on motorized use on other trails in the planning area with higher value to non-motorized recreationalists.”
ATWA has several concerns with this statement. One has already been stated: There has been no draft trail plan released with regard to Whitehorse South, and even when released the draft plan would have to be reviewed by Council before its approval. As mentioned previously, the City has yet to conduct its Wolf Creek MMU exit survey, and the WCCA is currently involved in conducting its own public survey.
Such comments (like the previous one mentioned) are prejudicial to the current study and, in ATWA’s view, entirely inappropriate. Once again, survey participants and/or those making written submissions may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue, and/or their written comments on said issues will be subject to question.
To ATWA, the inclusion of these comments demonstrates a lack of concern with regard to proper process, and may well violate the Terms of Reference of the Whitehorse South Trail Task Force. (See Whitehorse Neighbourhood Trails Task Force (WNTTF) Code of Conduct 10.1)
8. The reference in the RSWBR to Environmentally Sensitive Areas once again reflects the cavalier approach that the City takes with regard to such areas.
The City always claims that it can “mitigate” damage to ESAs. The word means to “make less severe.” So, the City will go ahead and damage ESAs, but do so in a less severe manner. One has to question why the City even bothers to designate areas as being ESAs if it is going to treat them with such a lack of respect.
ATWA has heard on a number of occasions from City representatives that ESAs were a mapping exercise and that their ecological importance was questionable. However, our information indicates that, in fact, experts were involved in identifying ecologically significant areas within the City. Indeed, some of those experts were involved in the Kwanlin Dun Heritage and Ecosystem Conservation Design Proposal.
9. The RSWBR says “Interviews were held with fellow governments and various organizations with expertise and/or interests in the study area to ensure that both the Project Team and City understood current, historic, and traditional uses and the breadth of issues and opportunities.” (p. 3)
Members of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan Working Group were not consulted even though it would seem obvious that said members would have “interests in the study area.” This was very strange given the fact that the group is actually mentioned in the RSWBR, and the report refers to recommendations contained in the SLAP. (See SLAP p. 9)
Active Trails Whitehorse Association was not contacted even though it is a member of the SLAP Working Group, has been both directly and indirectly involved in the development of numerous trail plans, regional park plans, bylaws, and area studies. It also has an associate who sits on the Whitehorse South Trail Task Force.
In addition, it would have been appropriate to make efforts to contact some of the walking groups in the City who often use the area under discussion. A December 20, 2017 article by Jennifer Trapnell entitled Whitehorse Walks! which appeared in What’s up Yukon, mentioned the names of numerous walking groups in the City of Whitehorse, two of which have over 100 members.
10. The RSWBR refers to recommendation 24 of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan and says that this recommendation asks the City to “strengthen trail connections between Schwatka Lake and Ear Lake.” (RSWPS p. 9)
The SLAP does say that trail connections to Ear Lake should be strengthened, but not by building new trails. The Schwatka Lake Area Plan goes on to say that there are other ways to strengthen connections such as “[developing] wayfinding signs and maps to place at trail heads and [in parking areas].” (SLAP p. 17 Recommendation 23)
As mentioned previously, the SLAP says, “Trail work in this area should be focussed on enhancing existing trails rather than building new ones,” and goes on to recommend that the City should “enhance trails that [already] connect to Ear Lake.”
11. What did respondents mean when they referred to “waste or underutilization of land as one of the “most frequently cited dislike about the study area?” (RSWPS p. 8)
12. Survey questions and results should be made available on the City’s website under the Robert Service Way Planning Study. This would permit citizens to make their own conclusions as to what the results actually mean.
13. Why is there no explanation in the RSWPS as to what the term non-motorized really means in this City? The survey apparently suggests that “non-motorized trail use was generally the most supported form of recreational development” in the area under study.
However, survey participants were not told that non-motorized trails in the area are open to snowmobile use in the winter, nor were they told that such vehicles are allowed to use greenbelts and open spaces in the area.
So, are we to assume that those supporting non-motorized trails think that they are supporting non-motorized trails (summer and winter), or non-motorized trails (summer only)?
14. The Schwatka Lake Area Plan recommended that the land “between the White Pass and Yukon Route railway corridor and Schwatka Lake, be transferred from Yukon Government to the City of Whitehorse.” (SLAP p. 9) The RSWPS should indicate whether or not this has been done.
15. The RSWPS refers to contamination issues within the area under study. It mentions the fact that motorized activities (among others) within the area “have the potential to result in soil and/or groundwater contamination by heavy metals, fuels, solvents, etc.” (RSWPS p. 6) This potential occurs in an area that has three ESAs.
To actually encourage more motorized activities in such an area through the designation and building of unnecessary motorized trails is not the way to go about addressing the above-mentioned concern.
16. The use of phrases in the RSWPS such as, “there were many expressions of support” and “reasonably strong support” needs supporting documentation to be considered seriously. Failure to publish the survey results implies that the City believes the public is not able to make its own conclusions about responses to survey questions.
17. The RSWPS says, “Pedestrian and bicycle connections between the ball diamond and campground, as well as between the MT (Millennium Trail), airport escarpment, and Miles Canyon Road (MCR) are marginal.”
The connection between the Miles Canyon Road and the MT are not marginal. The Yukon River Trail Marathon route goes through the Robert Service Campground parking lot and on to the very wide southeast shoulder of Robert Service Way, before it cuts through the shoulder and on to the Miles Canyon Road near Yukon Energy. (There is a trail sign at this point.) As well, one can ride, run, or walk on the east side of RSW from the referred to trail sign, and either connect to the MT just past the Robert Service Campground, or go through the campground to the MT.
Certainly signage could be improved along this route, as people are at times walking, running, or cycling with their backs to the traffic. However, it is much safer to be on the east side than to cross RSW. As mentioned, the route is very wide and quite safe regardless of the direction one is going. A sign asking drivers to be aware of pedestrians, cyclists, and runners posted near the cut-off trail that leads to the Miles Canyon would be a welcomed addition.
18. As far as the lack of connection between the ball diamond and the campground is concerned, one wonders if such a connection is needed. Is there evidence to suggest that campground users want such a connection? Most local people would drive to the ball diamond.
Crosswalks are not without financial cost, both in their construction and maintenance. As well, it should be remembered that RSW is a major point of entry to our City, and the disruption of traffic flow may not be well received by the motoring public.
19. The RSWPR says “43% of participants who don’t use the motocross track expressed support for its continued use, while 30% expressed opposition.” That leaves 27%. What did those indicate with regard to the track?
From where did the above information come, as there does not seem to be anything in the survey questions that would allow one to come up with these statistics?
20. The RSWPR suggests the City “Explore the potential for relocating the snow dump to the Ear Lake area over the next 10-15 years.” The rationale behind this suggestion should be given.
21. The RSWPR suggests that the “public response to the idea of MMU [multi-use] trails in the RSW study area is notably more supportive than that received for such trails in other areas.” Considering the fact that there is now a leased motocross track in the area, and that its potential users (YCCMC) would be directly interested in such trails, it is hardly surprising that this would be the case.
It is also possible that there is less opposition to dirt bike use in the area because no one lives nearby. Therefore, residents are not directly impacted by the noise such bikes generate. However, if trails in the region under study are built and/or designated to allow motorized use, it will be the tourists and citizens who use this area and pursue active forms of recreation, that will be disturbed by the noise and general disturbance that these vehicles will cause.
22. The RSWPR makes the comment that the “RSW [area] poses an opportunity to site singletrack (narrow) MMU [multi-use] trails with comparatively little disturbance and cultivate stewardship and responsible etiquette in a user group that has felt marginalized in recent years.”
The suggestion that such trails will cause “comparatively little disturbance” is not supported with any documented evidence.
Strange how a marginalized group has been able to get a 10-year lease on 6.9 hectares of land in the area under study, and get the City to entertain changes to the ATV Bylaw, which are supposed to go before City Council in March.
Quite frankly, the above comments to which we have referred do not belong in the RSWPS.
23. The RSWPS talks about adding new Alaska Highway active transportation crossings, and lists several possible locations. The most logical location would be at Hillcrest Drive or Roundell Road, as this would allow a safer way for non-motorized residents of Hillcrest to cross the Alaska Highway and connect with the airport perimeter trail and to downtown Whitehorse.
24. The area around the south parking/camping in the Robert Service Campground needs to be better protected from the incursions of ORVs. Unfortunately, these incursions are likely to increase as a result of the motocross track lease grant. Unless appropriate fencing is installed, more ORVs will be crossing Rotary Centennial Bridge and cutting through the greenbelt and possibly the campground to reach Robert Service Way and the motocross track.
25. By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the City would not be faced with the monetary costs associated with designing, building, designating, and maintaining such trails.
Not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area would avoid potential conflict between motorized and non-motorized users that may occur in an area where “the most supported form of recreational development” is non-motorized.” (RSWPS p. 8)
By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the OCP, Snowmobile Bylaw, and ATV Bylaw would continue to be upheld with respect to ESAs and the operation of ATVs in places outside of the motocross track, thus helping to protect such areas from further degradation.
By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the recommendation of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan, a plan approved by City Council in March of 2015, concerning trails in the “overlap” section would be honoured, specifically that “trail work in this area should be focused on enhancing existing trails rather than building new ones.”
By not building or designating motorized trails within the Robert Service Way Study area, the Robert Service Way Background Report’s suggestion that motorized access to the Ear Lake area be avoided in order “to minimize effects to staging waterfowl in the Bert Law and Ear Lake areas” would be upheld. (RSWBR p. 20)
Thank you for your acceptance and review of this submission.
Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
[email protected]
www.activetwa.org
________________________________________________________________________________________
September 2017 update:
Submission from Active Trails Whitehorse Association
to the City of Whitehorse Project Manager and Consultant
for the Robert Service Planning Study - Background Report
Date: September 7, 2017
Section A:
One of the major concerns that Active Trails Whitehorse Association has with regard to the Robert Service Way Planning Study is the Background Report itself.
We are concerned that the public is not being given all the relevant information that is necessary to make informed responses to certain questions contained in the public survey, or in possible written responses to the planning study. Specifically, we are referring to issues related to recreation within the planning area.
Under 2.2 Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans, the Official Community Plan (OCP) is mentioned. However, certain aspects of the OCP that we feel relevant to the area under study are not mentioned. (See Section 18.5, and Section 18.5.1)
As well, Active Trails Whitehorse Association is curious as to why the 2007 Trail Plan, although listed under Related Documents on the City’s webpage dedicated to the Robert Service Way Planning Study, is not found under Relevant Legislation, Studies and Plans in the Background Report.
In addition, the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws are not considered as being relevant to the study, even though sections of both bylaws are directly applicable to issues related to recreation in the area under study.
As well, information with regard to the motocross park lease is incomplete. (See Section E below.)
Section B:
ATWA is also curious as to why the following comment (see next paragraph) was made in the Background Report with regard to trail planning for Whitehorse South.
“Trail planning for the “Whitehorse South” area – effectively the municipal area south of Robert Service Way – was initiated in Fall 2016 with a Task Force comprised of neighbourhood residents and trail user groups. Before taking a hiatus in December, Task Force members were favouring the designation of several dirt bike-specific motorized multi-use (MMU) routes in the Ear and Schwatka Lake areas, connecting through to McCrae.”
ATWA has a member on the trail task force for Whitehorse South. Task force members actually voted on the possibility of a dirt bike loop within an ESA near the Kwanlin Dun land disposition. The results were not disclosed, but the impression with which we were left suggested that the majority of task force members opposed it, and a few (including ATWA) were insistent that the KDFN be contacted to ensure its views on the subject were considered.
In relation to dirt bike use in the Ear Lake area, it was mentioned to the task force that there were issues associated with ESAs in the area. There were potential linkages to trails that dirt bikers currently use (illegally), but ATWA’s member does not recall being specifically asked to support the designation of those trails. The task force has not concluded and is to reconvene after consultation occurs with the first nations and White Pass. Thus, many things have yet to be settled, and to imply otherwise is simply inappropriate.
There has been no draft trail plan released with regard to Whitehorse South, and comments like the above should not have appeared in the planning study’s Background Report, and are prejudicial to the current study. Survey participants may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue are subject to question.
The Background Report again refers to Whitehorse South trail planning when it says, “while the area (the municipal area south of Robert Service Way) is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Area, the low levels of non-motorized use and distance from residential areas were felt to take precedent. Furthermore, this approach was felt to encourage compliance with restrictions on motorized use on other trails in the planning area with higher value to non-motorized recreationalists.”
ATWA has several concerns with this statement. One has already been stated: There has been no draft trail plan released with regard to Whitehorse South, and comments like the one already mentioned, are also prejudicial to the current study. Once again, survey participants may well be influenced by such comments, and their answers to questions related to the issue will be subject to question.
Section C:
The reference in the Background Report to Environmentally Sensitive Areas reflects once again the cavalier approach that the City takes with regard to such areas.
The City always claims that it can “mitigate” damage to ESAs. The word means to “make less severe.” So, the City will go ahead and damage ESAs, but do so in a less severe manner. One has to question why the City even bothers to designate areas as being ESAs.
ATWA has heard on a number of occasions from City representatives that ESA’s were a mapping exercise and that their ecological importance was questionable. However, our information indicates that experts were involved in identifying ecologically significant areas within the City. Indeed, some of those experts were involved in the Kwanlin Dun Heritage and Ecosystem Conservation Design Proposal.
Section 18.5.1 of the OCP says, “Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.” As well, both the ATV and Snowmobile bylaws say that such vehicles are prohibited from using areas that are “designated as environmentally sensitive.”
Section D:
The Background Report comment suggesting that the City should create or open up additional so-called non-motorized trails to dirt bikes to save other more valued so-called non-motorized trails from dirt bike use is simply illogical. It is condoning the illegal use of trails: ATVs (unlike snowmobiles) are prohibited from using non-motorized multi-use trails.
As well, 18.5 of the OCP refers to the fact that both the 2007 Trail Plan and the OCP recommend the idea of “out and away” trails “designated for motorized use, allowing those residents routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.” In other words, the idea is to utilize routes that will take ORVs away from the City (urban areas) and not into the City.
The Background Report itself suggests that the Ear Lake and Bert Law Island areas should be restricted to non-motorized uses at all times of the year. (See following references to page 17 and 20 of the Background Report.)
“Light development such as recreational trails designed for pedestrian and other non-motorized uses can be accommodated in this area but should be carefully planned with the assistance of a qualified terrain professional and pathways.” (p. 17) “Avoiding motorized access to minimize effects to staging waterfowl in the Bert Law Island and Ear Lake areas.” (p. 20)
Section E:
The Background Report mentions the motocross track area. Unfortunately, it leaves the impression that the area is now leased to the YCCMA for 10 years, and that there is no possibility of the lease being curtailed.
In fact, the motocross conditional lease mentioned on page 26 of the report has a three-month notice for termination in its list of conditions. In other words, the City only needs to provide a three-month notice to the motocross club to terminate the lease if, for example, the City determines the land is best suited for other purposes.
This fact should have been mentioned both in the Background Report and where questions addressing the motocross track area are found in the public survey. If survey respondents are under the impression that the motocross park is a done deal (at least for the next ten years), then they may base their response to survey questions related to the issue on an incorrect assumption.
It should also be noted that the major objection ATWA had to the lease grant was that it should have been considered in conjunction with the Robert Service Way Planning Study. This was not mentioned in the Background Report and it should have been.
Although the City may have been in discussion with the YCCMA for two years, the seemingly fast-track approval process of the lease just prior to the start of the Robert Service Planning Study was inappropriate and resulted in needless controversy.
The Robert Service Way Planning Study would have been a perfect place to get the opinions and suggestions of the public with regard to the possibility of establishing a motocross park in the area, and would have avoided much of the needless controversy and resultant conflict that took place when the motocross park came up for discussion before City Council. The City needs to become more cognizant of what constitutes proper process.
We do have other concerns with regard to the motocross park. As the YCCMA will still not be able to use the area for its younger members due to restrictions found in the City’s ATV Bylaw, pressure will be exerted to open up the bylaw to allow children to use the site.
The City of Whitehorse should be aware that the Canadian Paediatric Society credits the City of Whitehorse for having stricter regulations on ORV use than does the Government of Yukon. * http://www.cps.ca/en/status-report/off-road-vehicle-safety-legislation
Unfortunately, the presence of the motocross track in its current location will encourage ATV operators to use City trails to get to the location. This, despite the claim, that owners will trailer their vehicles to the site.
ATWA is concerned with the continued illegal use of the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent green spaces to connect to Robert Service Way and from there to the motocross park. The City needs to do more to protect the Millennium Trail and adjacent green space from illegal use by ORVs.
Some effort has taken place this summer by unknown parties to protect this area, but more substantial City placed barriers are needed. ATWA is told that the City does not have the money for such a project. However, perhaps it could access Community Development funding to help finance the work. The continuation of the motocross lease may well exasperate the current situation.
According to the Background Report, “Every Canada Day the MSDRA hosts a mud bog and attracts approximately 20 competitors from the Yukon and elsewhere and some 1500-2500 spectators (Fischer, pers. comm). (The reference given in the Background Report does not allow us to verify this information.)
Certainly other use considerations should be discussed with regard to the area encompassed by the motocross park and mud bog area. One mud bog event per year, and (at present a number of undetermined potential events at the motocross park) may not constitute the best or most efficient use of this area.
According to the Background Report, the area is apparently unsuitable for housing due to its proximity to the airport. (p. 45) However, is there actually some government restriction on putting housing on this site due to the nearby presence of airport runways? Apparently, “Updating the noise contour data, potentially as part of the airport master plan update currently underway, would provide clarity on this issue.” (p. 45)
Section F:
Once again the City continues to provide misinformation with regard to the 2007 Trail Plan as it relates to trail designation. The Background Report states that “Trails are designated either non-motorized or motorized multi-use (MMU), the latter allowing for snowmobiles, ATVs, and dirt bikes.” This is only partly true, as the trail plan states that non-motorized trails are also multi-use.
Unfortunately, the City continues to claim that a MMU trail includes non-motorized users, which is not what the 2007 Trail Plan suggests at all.
According to the trail plan the City has motorized multiple use and non-motorized multiple use trails. Trails that are simply designated multi-use combine various types of motorized and non-motorized users, as does the Hamilton Boulevard paved trail, which is correctly labeled.
One wonders why City administration continues to define the term MMU as a trail that includes a variety of both non-motorized and motorized users. It is most confusing.
In addition, there are numerous references to non-motorized trails in this Background Report. However, unless trails are listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw as off-limits to snowmobile use, or are paved trails paid for by Federal Gas Tax monies, or are signed as off-limits to snowmobiles, such as at least one part of the Trans Canada Trail is, or as certain trails located behind homes are, then they are open to snowmobile use as per the Snowmobile Bylaw.
It is time that reports such as this one were completely honest with the public with regard to the status of so-called non-motorized trails. The recent controversy over the Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail only serves to illustrate this point. Regrettably, in our City no does not mean no when it comes to motorized use of trails.
Section G:
Currently part of Stage 1 of the Yukon River Trail Marathon goes through the Schwatka Lake Study Plan Area. It would be sad to see this trail impacted by any development in the Robert Service Planning Study area.
This trail should only be open to walkers and runners as some areas of the trail are easily impacted by overuse. At present, there does not appear to be much bike use of the trail, probably because of its route and lack of flow. Certain parts of the trail are subject to erosion and the trail needs to be constantly monitored to ensure the safety of users.
If this trail should receive increased use as a result of decisions made at the conclusion of the Robert Service Way Planning Study, then it may not bode well for this spectacular walking and running trail.
There seems to be some overlap with regard to this study and the already City Council approved Schwatka Lake Area Plan. As the latter was completed first it should take precedence when it comes to trails and recreation possibilities within the area of overlap.
Section H:
Although we have expressed some concern with regard to misinformation in the Background Report, and have suggested that those areas be corrected, we certainly appreciate the work that has gone into the report’s preparation. If those areas of the Background Report were addressed and corrected, then we would have a document that in some form could and should be made available to the public after the study has been completed.
Active Trails Whitehorse Association appreciates the opportunity of making this submission.
Notes:
*Off-road vehicles are especially dangerous when operated by children and young adolescents. They tend to take more risks and lack the experience, physical size and strength, and cognitive and motor skills to operate these vehicles safely.
In Canada, snowmobiling has one of the highest rates of serious injury of any popular winter sport, with most injuries occurring among youth.41
According to Parachute’s Cost of Injury in Canada report, 33 children and youth younger than 19 years of age died in 2010 alone due to off-road vehicle activities, while 1,019 were hospitalized.42 The total economic burden for ATV and snowmobile injuries in this age group was nearly $150 million dollars.43
The Canadian Paediatric Society urges provincial and territorial governments to introduce and enforce off-road vehicle legislation. Children younger than 16 years of age should not be permitted to operate off-road vehicles. Driver education and helmet use should be mandatory. http://www.cps.ca/en/status-report/off-road-vehicle-safety-legislation
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Service Way Area Planning Study:
Public engagement for The Robert Service Way Area Planning Study has now been completed. According to the City's website, "The next step in this project is for the consultant to consolidate comments and prepare a draft report. There will be an opportunity to review and comment on the draft report before it is finalized. It is expected that the report will be ready for review in late October or early November [of 2017]." (Update: It does not now appear that the report will be ready until early in 2018.)
ATWA made a nine page written submission to the City concerning this study. (Submission posted above)
ATWA's main problem related to this study, involved what we felt was the inappropriateness of the City announcing the Robert Service Way Area Planning Study, a study that was supposed to involve public input, and then just as public input sessions were to begin, dropped into the mix a lease and conditional use application by the Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association (YMCCA) that concerned the area currently under study. It was our feeling that this action was prejudicial to the planning study.
ATWA felt that the best option was to include the YMCCA request in the planning study, and let the public decide whether or not it should be accommodated in the final plan.
We mentioned the above concern in our letter to Mayor & Council with regard to the YCCMA lease and conditional use application for a dirt bike track in the Robert Service Way area. Please see below.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Public engagement for The Robert Service Way Area Planning Study has now been completed. According to the City's website, "The next step in this project is for the consultant to consolidate comments and prepare a draft report. There will be an opportunity to review and comment on the draft report before it is finalized. It is expected that the report will be ready for review in late October or early November [of 2017]." (Update: It does not now appear that the report will be ready until early in 2018.)
ATWA made a nine page written submission to the City concerning this study. (Submission posted above)
ATWA's main problem related to this study, involved what we felt was the inappropriateness of the City announcing the Robert Service Way Area Planning Study, a study that was supposed to involve public input, and then just as public input sessions were to begin, dropped into the mix a lease and conditional use application by the Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association (YMCCA) that concerned the area currently under study. It was our feeling that this action was prejudicial to the planning study.
ATWA felt that the best option was to include the YMCCA request in the planning study, and let the public decide whether or not it should be accommodated in the final plan.
We mentioned the above concern in our letter to Mayor & Council with regard to the YCCMA lease and conditional use application for a dirt bike track in the Robert Service Way area. Please see below.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
May 14, 2017 letter to Mayor & Council
Please note that the motocross conditional lease has a three-month notice for termination in its list of conditions. (See Minutes of May 23, 2017 Council meeting)
In other words, the City only needs to provide a three-month notice to the motocross club to terminate the lease if, for example, the City determines the land is best suited for other purposes.
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association with regard to the YCCMA lease and conditional use application for a dirt bike track in the Robert Service Way area
To: Mayor and Council
The president of the YCCMA says that, “we’re doing this for the kids [in order] to give them a place to ride.” (Yukon News/May 10, 2017 Lori Garrison article). However, as children will still not be able to ride at the location under discussion it is rather pointless to grant the lease and conditional use application.
In the same newspaper article Mr. Beaman also said “we are hoping they [City Council] will make an amendment in the bylaw [ATV Bylaw of 2012] to do things the way the rest of the country does.” He seems to be implying that there are no restrictions on the use of ATVs by children in other areas of Canada, which is not exactly the case.
The Canadian Paediatric Society specifically “credits Whitehorse for having stricter regulations” with regard to ORV use. (See http://www.cps.ca/en/status-report/off-road-vehicle-safety-legislation-2016-report and look at the chart provided.)
It is unfortunate that the Mayor feels that anyone who raised any objections to the lease and conditional use application was [“demonizing”] people who have motorbikes and ATVs. (See Yukon News article mentioned above.) I am sure that the four people who took the time to make written submissions opposing the applications, and the three people who expressed their concerns directly before Council would not appreciate his suggestion. (Please note that there were no written submissions supporting the applications, and only one person appeared before Council to support the applications, that being the president of the YCCMA.)
In its Analysis of Issues Raised concerning the “Conditional use approval to authorize the use of a dirt bike track facility in conjunction with approval of a lease agreement with Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association,” administration gave its response. It is to these responses that we reply.
Timing of application with the Robert Service Way Area Planning Study (Administration’s response)
“Changes to the land use designation of the proposed lease area are not expected to be in place until 2019. Administration is proposing the lease agreement contain a revised 3-month termination clause that could be used in the event a new use is planned for the area.”
ATWA response:
A lease is taken in order to provide long-term security for the leaseholder. The City states that any “changes to the land use designation of the proposed lease area are not expected to be in place until 2019.” This could mean that the leaseholder would only have the property for two seasons of use (2017 and 2018). It simply does not make sense for the YMCCA (and the City) to put much time and effort into preparing the area for the intended use with the threat of termination hanging over its head.
It may prove far more beneficial for the association to look for a suitable long-term location outside the City of Whitehorse for its activities. It has the time to do so as its activities can be accommodated through the kindness of one of its members on the latter’s property outside the City.
Administration does not address the concern expressed with regard to the inappropriateness of the City announcing the Robert Service Way Area Planning Study, a study that is supposed to involve public input, and then just as public input sessions are supposed to begin, drops into the mix a lease and conditional use application that involves the area currently under study. This action is prejudicial to the planning study.
The best option is to include the YMCCA request in the planning study and let the public decide whether or not it should be accommodated in the final plan.
Noise (Administration’s Response)
“Concern was raised that entering into a lease agreement will increase the noise associated with the increased ORV use. Administration is proposing that activity on the lease be restricted to the hours of 7am to 11pm to avoid nuisance noise at night time.”
ATWA response:
How is the YMCCA going to ensure that “activity on the lease be restricted” in such a manner? Apparently, the area cannot be fenced (due to cost), or monitored twenty-four hours a day. The only time the club will ever be able to enforce noise, the ATV Bylaw (which includes rules concerning the “suppression of exhaust noises”), and MVA regulations is during actual club competitions.
Improvements for dirt bike activities on the property will only encourage more use of the area in question by non-YMCCA operators, and a corresponding increase in noise levels at all hours of the day and night.
Increased presence of illegal ORV’s using trails (Administration’s response)
“Concern was raised that entering into a lease agreement will increase the amount of ORV using the Millennium Trail and other non-motorized trails. Users of the YCCMA facility will need to trailer their bikes to and from the site or use designated road right-of-way’s to access the facility.”
ATWA response:
Administration seems to think that the only time this area is going to be used is when the YCCMA holds major events. The concern is that the improved dirt bike park will attract non-YCCMA members from all parts of the City. Already a new unauthorized trail has been cut through the green belt between the Robert Service long-term parking and camping area and the Yukon Energy fence by ORVs.
OCP Violation (Administration’s response)
“Concern was expressed that Official Community Plan does not allow non-human- powered forms of recreation in a Public Service zone. This is not correct as this definition is related to active transportation and does not apply to the term active recreation”
ATWA response:
Administration’s response does not address the concern. The OCP Glossary defines Active Transportation as “any form of human-powered transportation, such as walking, cycling, using a wheelchair, in-line skating, or skateboarding. There are many ways to engage in active transportation, whether it is walking to the bus stop, or cycling to school/work.”
In defining Active Transportation as stated the City is also by default defining active living or active recreation. You will note that motorized transportation is not included in the definition. Therefore, when one engages in “human-powered transportation,” one is also engaged in active living or active recreation as 18.3.5 of the OCP suggests.
The entire section 18.3 of the OCP, which refers to Recreation Areas Land Use Designation, does not make one reference to motorized activities. We believe that the intent is to ensure that all such areas within the City of Whitehorse are to be used for active outdoor recreation facilities, those that provide for only non-motorized recreational activities.
Administration did not respond to our comment concerning Section (18.5) of the OCP. (See below.)
In addition, the intent of the OCP (18.5) is to provide “out and away” trails “designated for motorized use, [to allow motorized users] routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.” The presence of a legal dirt bike park in the location under consideration will do just the opposite.
Enforcement of City’s ATV Bylaw (Administration’s Response)
“Concern was raised that members of YCCMA will not be able to follow the regulations associated with the City’s ATV Bylaw. Ongoing violations of any statute, regulation, or by-laws of any governmental authority relating in any way to the use or occupation of the lease property would be considered a breach of lease terms and would result in the City taking action to terminate the lease through the 3-month termination lease clause.”
ATWA Response:
This is a very ensuring statement, but how does the City plan to enforce it? A bylaw officer would need to attend every event put on by the club at this location to ensure the ATV Bylaw is enforced. And, due to the fact that the area will see additional use during non-event days, how does the City plan to ensure the area is monitored?
Liability Concerns (Administration’s Response)
“Concern was raised that the proposed lease agreement would increase liability to the City. The YCCMA is required to maintain $5 million dollar liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured party. The City will work with YCCMA to install signs and fencing to help prevent improper use of the site and inform of associated risks.”
ATWA Response:
Perhaps administration could explain what it means when the City is named “as an additional insured party?” Does not this mean that the City is assuming increased liability?
Questions: It appears that the City is going to “work with YCCMA to install signs and fencing to help prevent improper use of the site and inform of associated risks.” Who is going to pay for this? We were told that fencing the entire site was not within the realm of possibility for the YCCMA. Is the City going to assume this cost? Has Council been supplied with an estimated cost to the City of this fencing and signage?
Please note that the motocross conditional lease has a three-month notice for termination in its list of conditions. (See Minutes of May 23, 2017 Council meeting)
In other words, the City only needs to provide a three-month notice to the motocross club to terminate the lease if, for example, the City determines the land is best suited for other purposes.
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association with regard to the YCCMA lease and conditional use application for a dirt bike track in the Robert Service Way area
To: Mayor and Council
The president of the YCCMA says that, “we’re doing this for the kids [in order] to give them a place to ride.” (Yukon News/May 10, 2017 Lori Garrison article). However, as children will still not be able to ride at the location under discussion it is rather pointless to grant the lease and conditional use application.
In the same newspaper article Mr. Beaman also said “we are hoping they [City Council] will make an amendment in the bylaw [ATV Bylaw of 2012] to do things the way the rest of the country does.” He seems to be implying that there are no restrictions on the use of ATVs by children in other areas of Canada, which is not exactly the case.
The Canadian Paediatric Society specifically “credits Whitehorse for having stricter regulations” with regard to ORV use. (See http://www.cps.ca/en/status-report/off-road-vehicle-safety-legislation-2016-report and look at the chart provided.)
It is unfortunate that the Mayor feels that anyone who raised any objections to the lease and conditional use application was [“demonizing”] people who have motorbikes and ATVs. (See Yukon News article mentioned above.) I am sure that the four people who took the time to make written submissions opposing the applications, and the three people who expressed their concerns directly before Council would not appreciate his suggestion. (Please note that there were no written submissions supporting the applications, and only one person appeared before Council to support the applications, that being the president of the YCCMA.)
In its Analysis of Issues Raised concerning the “Conditional use approval to authorize the use of a dirt bike track facility in conjunction with approval of a lease agreement with Yukon Cross Country Motorcycle Association,” administration gave its response. It is to these responses that we reply.
Timing of application with the Robert Service Way Area Planning Study (Administration’s response)
“Changes to the land use designation of the proposed lease area are not expected to be in place until 2019. Administration is proposing the lease agreement contain a revised 3-month termination clause that could be used in the event a new use is planned for the area.”
ATWA response:
A lease is taken in order to provide long-term security for the leaseholder. The City states that any “changes to the land use designation of the proposed lease area are not expected to be in place until 2019.” This could mean that the leaseholder would only have the property for two seasons of use (2017 and 2018). It simply does not make sense for the YMCCA (and the City) to put much time and effort into preparing the area for the intended use with the threat of termination hanging over its head.
It may prove far more beneficial for the association to look for a suitable long-term location outside the City of Whitehorse for its activities. It has the time to do so as its activities can be accommodated through the kindness of one of its members on the latter’s property outside the City.
Administration does not address the concern expressed with regard to the inappropriateness of the City announcing the Robert Service Way Area Planning Study, a study that is supposed to involve public input, and then just as public input sessions are supposed to begin, drops into the mix a lease and conditional use application that involves the area currently under study. This action is prejudicial to the planning study.
The best option is to include the YMCCA request in the planning study and let the public decide whether or not it should be accommodated in the final plan.
Noise (Administration’s Response)
“Concern was raised that entering into a lease agreement will increase the noise associated with the increased ORV use. Administration is proposing that activity on the lease be restricted to the hours of 7am to 11pm to avoid nuisance noise at night time.”
ATWA response:
How is the YMCCA going to ensure that “activity on the lease be restricted” in such a manner? Apparently, the area cannot be fenced (due to cost), or monitored twenty-four hours a day. The only time the club will ever be able to enforce noise, the ATV Bylaw (which includes rules concerning the “suppression of exhaust noises”), and MVA regulations is during actual club competitions.
Improvements for dirt bike activities on the property will only encourage more use of the area in question by non-YMCCA operators, and a corresponding increase in noise levels at all hours of the day and night.
Increased presence of illegal ORV’s using trails (Administration’s response)
“Concern was raised that entering into a lease agreement will increase the amount of ORV using the Millennium Trail and other non-motorized trails. Users of the YCCMA facility will need to trailer their bikes to and from the site or use designated road right-of-way’s to access the facility.”
ATWA response:
Administration seems to think that the only time this area is going to be used is when the YCCMA holds major events. The concern is that the improved dirt bike park will attract non-YCCMA members from all parts of the City. Already a new unauthorized trail has been cut through the green belt between the Robert Service long-term parking and camping area and the Yukon Energy fence by ORVs.
OCP Violation (Administration’s response)
“Concern was expressed that Official Community Plan does not allow non-human- powered forms of recreation in a Public Service zone. This is not correct as this definition is related to active transportation and does not apply to the term active recreation”
ATWA response:
Administration’s response does not address the concern. The OCP Glossary defines Active Transportation as “any form of human-powered transportation, such as walking, cycling, using a wheelchair, in-line skating, or skateboarding. There are many ways to engage in active transportation, whether it is walking to the bus stop, or cycling to school/work.”
In defining Active Transportation as stated the City is also by default defining active living or active recreation. You will note that motorized transportation is not included in the definition. Therefore, when one engages in “human-powered transportation,” one is also engaged in active living or active recreation as 18.3.5 of the OCP suggests.
The entire section 18.3 of the OCP, which refers to Recreation Areas Land Use Designation, does not make one reference to motorized activities. We believe that the intent is to ensure that all such areas within the City of Whitehorse are to be used for active outdoor recreation facilities, those that provide for only non-motorized recreational activities.
Administration did not respond to our comment concerning Section (18.5) of the OCP. (See below.)
In addition, the intent of the OCP (18.5) is to provide “out and away” trails “designated for motorized use, [to allow motorized users] routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.” The presence of a legal dirt bike park in the location under consideration will do just the opposite.
Enforcement of City’s ATV Bylaw (Administration’s Response)
“Concern was raised that members of YCCMA will not be able to follow the regulations associated with the City’s ATV Bylaw. Ongoing violations of any statute, regulation, or by-laws of any governmental authority relating in any way to the use or occupation of the lease property would be considered a breach of lease terms and would result in the City taking action to terminate the lease through the 3-month termination lease clause.”
ATWA Response:
This is a very ensuring statement, but how does the City plan to enforce it? A bylaw officer would need to attend every event put on by the club at this location to ensure the ATV Bylaw is enforced. And, due to the fact that the area will see additional use during non-event days, how does the City plan to ensure the area is monitored?
Liability Concerns (Administration’s Response)
“Concern was raised that the proposed lease agreement would increase liability to the City. The YCCMA is required to maintain $5 million dollar liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured party. The City will work with YCCMA to install signs and fencing to help prevent improper use of the site and inform of associated risks.”
ATWA Response:
Perhaps administration could explain what it means when the City is named “as an additional insured party?” Does not this mean that the City is assuming increased liability?
Questions: It appears that the City is going to “work with YCCMA to install signs and fencing to help prevent improper use of the site and inform of associated risks.” Who is going to pay for this? We were told that fencing the entire site was not within the realm of possibility for the YCCMA. Is the City going to assume this cost? Has Council been supplied with an estimated cost to the City of this fencing and signage?