This winter there will be at least two public discussions that directly affect South-East Winnipeg’s meandering Seine River. About 26 kilometers in total length, the urban Seine forms the literal spine of the Riel Community and its 3 City council wards. Local ENGO Save Our Seine is usually well known to the three councillors representing the Riel Community Committee and to City staff because of that fact.
This fall there will be 2 new councillors on the Riel CC. While Winnipeg is seemingly awash in provincial MLAs, our city councillors all have huge wards. There is an immense amount of information for new councillors to learn in a very short time. Seine River issues are but a small part of that steep learning curve.
The upcoming Precinct K DASZ, a subdivision and rezoning application for a new residential development, is the first South Royalwood DASZ that directly affects the Seine riverbank. Genstar’s 2014 application for its Bonavista community, the former Fraipont provincial landbank, only included lands extending as far west as the CPKC Emerson subdivision line. This winter’s joint application by Qualico/Waterside/Terracon will physically touch Seine River lands directly for the first time.
Save Our Seine had a fractious experience with a previous DASZ, the 2004 Grandin Park (Ladco/Province of Manitoba) joint application for Royalwood Phase 2. The net result of that heated public discussion was saving most of the Bois-des-esprits riparian forest, which was certainly well worth the effort for all involved.
Initial indications are that Qualico’s small amount of Seine riverbank, especially the low-lying Smith Farm coulee forest, will be protected as new City Public Reserve (PR) lands. This is comforting to know beforehand.
To date Landmark Planning, Qualico’s favourite planner, has shared little information about the plans for the linear park in the new City PR lands. While the Bois-des-esprits parklands to the north eventually needed gravel pathways, culverts, park benches, and even a land-swap with a condo corporation for a trail right-of-way, there have been no clues yet about future South Royalwood trails and any public amenities. Should there be any conflict between Qualico and Save Our Seine, not presently foreseen, City councillors will not have a lot of institutional experience on how to mediate such a conflict.
In its 35 plus years Save Our Seine (SOS) has attended countless DASZ public hearings. Usually SOS is lucky to have a few board members that are interested in such matters. Like City councillors, SOS board members have to accumulate a lot of information about the development process and the various actors involved.
I am old enough to remember the monthly road show where politicians, City staff and the public made their way every month to St. Vital City Hall, St. Boniface Hotel de Ville or to the community centre in St. Norbert. In winter all of us would remove our parkas and try to make ourselves as comfortable as we could in the public venues. The City never had a true homefield advantage back then. They were all away games.
While public meetings are more genteel affairs now, held in the daytime at 510 Main Street, public meetings back then were held in the evening, often stretching past midnight. It was often a test of stamina to wait for the City’s final decision at the end of the meeting. City staff must have been overjoyed when such road show hearings were cancelled.
City staff and politicians have always recommended that developers talk to Save Our Seine first before making a public application. A short meeting with SOS was often all it took to gain their support. SOS members are not experts in development, but they are fiercely protective of their little river. Getting SOS onboard early is always a good idea.
Since developers may still be in their due diligence phase when they first meet public stakeholders like SOS they have to balance sharing a vision of their development plans with the fact that many costs and engineering details have yet to finalized. The temptation to give a pretty picture is overwhelming. Stakeholders could be shown many new planted trees, a lovely gazebo that the public can also use, a public pathway that the community can access, a community meeting space that future condo owners and the public can utilize. Those plans are even shared during the initial sales and marketing phase, before the building plans are finalized and approved by the Riel CC. In the Creek Bend community, we have seen many examples where developers have not made good on their promises. The gazebo at the Legend was never built. The public AT trail at the Villas was never constructed. The land is now posted against trespassers. The community meeting room at the Oxbow was never constructed. There was no cost to the developers for those omissions.
At later building plan approval meetings the developer can make extra profit with minimal public notice. With the contentious DASZ meeting now in the past, tweaks can be made. At the 110 Creek Bend public meeting the developer asked for a zero-foot clearance backyard on the riverbank. This was approved. City Parks staff were later horrified to find that all future construction and maintenance for the building would have to be done on public land. The City was forced to sign a caveat that they would never build a maintenance shed next to the Oxbow building.
The most remarkable incident was the recent 180 Creek Bend building plan amendment. A line of trees carefully preserved between the apartment building and the bungalow condos next door was suddenly eliminated. While the City councillor at the time was forced to make a public apology for the apparent sleight-of-hand, the Province has adamantly refused to reverse the City’s flawed decision. The trees will certainly be felled during future building construction.
Build first and ask permission later is a common ploy used by developers. A small 4 building condo project on St. Anne’s Road once built a wooden back deck into the Seine River PR lands behind its property. Rather than have the illegal deck removed, the City instead sold a section of its environmentally sensitive PR land to the developer.
The moral behind these stories is that the public, and even the City itself, are often forced to accept such fait accomplis by the development community. If there is literally no price to be paid, such errors of omission and commission will continue along the Seine River and in other parts of the City.
Public groups often find themselves at public consultation meetings where they suddenly find out that the subject of the meeting is something they have little to no knowledge or even interest in. At a Floodway Authority meeting they can’t actually propose new and interesting uses for the floodway. The City bylaw review process is not about what they thought it was. These aren’t the droids you are looking for.
The upcoming St. Vital Perimeter South sector planning process may be another such disappointment. While Save Our Seine may think that this is an opportunity to discuss future plans for Qualico’s Sumka forest and other parts of the Vermette forest, the truth may be quite different. If managing public expectations is part of the planning consultant’s job, Landmark will have to work south of the Perimeter to get needed community buy in.
In the last 200 years there has been a lot of urban and rural development along the Seine River. Much of it was not very good for the river’s long-term health and sustainability. It would benefit Save our Seine and the community to at least look at the last 40 years on what has happened south of Abinojii.
Highest and best use analysis has almost always determined that Residential Multi-Family is the best use of riverbank lands west of the Seine River, with R1 residential single-family detached housing being the best use of lands east of the Seine River. Why is that? Can that be reasonably expected to be the model for future development south of the Perimeter Highway?
Does SOS and the community prefer permeable gravel trails or more accessible asphalt trails? How does the community feel about gabions, the rock-filled wire-cages now favoured as best practice for managing slopes along the river?
How can the community get assured public access to public AT river trails built behind RMF complexes?
How can the public get assurances that new trees planted by developers will be maintained or replaced in the decade or decades after they are planted?
How can forest be preserved if more than 10% of a developer’s subject property is forested?
How can local history and Metis culture be preserved and honored?
How can the local deer population be protected from vehicular collisions and reduced habitat?
How can more river crossings be affordably and sustainably planned and built?
How can a plan for Seine River development for the next 50 years be made?
This will certainly be an interesting winter for Save Our Seine and for the larger community.