Be safe and let's hope the weather warms up so can better enjoy our outdoor activities along McIntyre Creek.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays & Seasons Greetings
Be safe and let's hope the weather warms up so can better enjoy our outdoor activities along McIntyre Creek.
Letter from Yukon Conservatrion Society to Mayor & Council
December 19, 2012
To: City of Whitehorse Mayor and Council
Dear Mayor and Council,
Thank you for the December 12, 2012 consultation
meeting regarding the proposed Porter Creek D (PC-D) subdivision, and for
delaying your decision about whether to proceed with additional planning for
PC-D in order to hear once again from the public. We appreciated your
open-minded approach at the meeting and the useful questions that you raised.
I have summarized below a number of the points that I
presented at the December 12th meeting on behalf of the Yukon
Conservation Society, and some that I did not have time to present.
The Yukon Conservation Society is asking you not to
proceed with planning for PC-D, because:
- there
is no need for PC-D;
- moving
ahead with planning for PC-D would be a waste of money, and prejudice a
decision in favor of developing PC-D;
- there
is no compromise or “smaller, gentler PC-D” that will end the opposition to
this contentious proposal;
- Whitehorse
people gave up a well loved green space – the Porter Creek Lower Bench, and
helped plan Whistle Bend with the understanding that Whistle Bend was the
alternative to PC-D;
- Middle
McIntyre Creek has far more to offer as a natural area for recreation,
education and wildlife than it would as a housing subdivision.
No need for PC-D
At the November 27 Council and Senior Management Meeting about PC-D, the
highest forecasts for population growth, and hence housing needs, were
presented as the ‘safe’ assumption, to ensure that Whitehorse does not again
experience a housing shortage. The information presented by City staff assumed
a Whitehorse
housing demand of 6,000 units (Yukon
government’s high prediction) to 9,500 units (Official Community Plan’s high
prediction) over the next 20 years. A ‘unit’ is a household of 2.5 people. The Yukon
government’s high growth scenario assumes the need for 300 units per year. The
OCP high growth scenario assumes 450 new units will be needed per year.
The difference of 3500 units between the Yukon
government and OCP 20 year estimates shows how imprecise these predictions of
housing requirements are.
YCS examined population growth numbers for Whitehorse for the 20 years
between 1991 and 2011. During that time the population grew by about 3757
(about 188 people per year). This means that over that 20 year period, at 2.5
people per unit, 1503 units would have been required, not 6,000 – 9,500 units.
It is unclear how many units were actually built or the number of occupants per
unit. What we can determine from these numbers is that over the past 20 years,
75 units per year would have been required at a rate of 2.5 people per unit –
not 300 to 450 units per year.
Even in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 when population growth was
faster than the previous decade, it has been nowhere near the high growth
predictions. Between 2001 and 2011 Whitehorse’s population grew by
4,218. At 2.5 people per unit of housing, this translates into 1687 units, or
169 units per year. This demand is still far short of the high growth
predictions of 300 to 450 units per year.
Part of the reason that City staff suggest basing planning decisions on
the highest forecasts is the Conference Board of Canada’s prediction that “over
the next decade, several new mines will come into production. Between 2013 and
2020, mining output in Yukon
will grow by an average compound rate of 10.7 per cent per year.”
However, we all
know that the likelihood of all proposed mines coming on line is highly
questionable given that mineral prices have already slumped since last year. And
we know that new mines in remote locations do not lead to much housing demand
in Whitehorse,
since so many workers live outside of the Yukon and fly in and out of the mine site.
Using the highest population growth forecasts does not
seem ‘safe’ unless citizens agree that, in order to be ‘safe’ they are willing
to trade their green spaces for housing that may not be needed.
Even assuming the high forecasts for growth in housing
demand, the numbers do not show a need for PC-D. Here are the estimates that
City staff provided for potential new housing units coming on line over the
next 20 years:
Public:
• Whistle Bend 3500
• Porter Creek D 600
• Infill 730
Total Public Units: 4830
Private:
• First Nations land 850
• Vacant/Underused lots 1500
• Existing Residential with zoning changes 400
Total Private Units: 2750
TOTAL UNITS
(Public and Private): 7580
If the 600 units that were assumed for PC-D are
subtracted from the total, according to these estimates there will be
approximately 6980 units coming on line over the next 20 years. This number
sits between the high forecast scenarios presented by Yukon government (6000) and
the Official Community Plan (9500). And this number does not include the new
rural residential housing that is being developed around Whitehorse.
Even at 600 units PC-D would be a small contribution
to overall housing needs for the next 20 years.
Whistle Bend properties are not selling at
the moment with so many private housing options coming on line. It doesn’t make
sense to create competition for both private developments and Whistle Bend by
creating PC-D.
Single family dwellings along this beautiful creek
would only be accessible to the wealthy, which does not address the pressing
need for low cost housing in Whitehorse, regardless of how much or little our
population grows.
There are
several reasons not to proceed with planning for PC-D:
City staff tell Mayor and Council that a decision to
move ahead with pre-design and consultation about PC-D, including a Charrette,
does not constitute a decision to move ahead with developing the subdivision.
This may be technically correct. But, as Counsellor Irwin pointed out at the November
27 CASM meeting, it is obvious that the more money spent and the further along
in the process the City of Whitehorse gets, the more pressure there will be to
build PC-D.
Creating a plan now, to potentially “put on the shelf”
if the City decides not to go ahead with PC-D at this time does not make sense.
The 2005 Pine
Street Extension Porter Creek
Feasibility Study commissioned by the City isn’t useable now because
conditions, costs and situations have changed. Spending more money on
developing a plan for PC-D that may never be used does not make fiscal sense.
The number of housing units proposed for PC-D is a
moving target: is it 400, 600, 250, or 150? City staff have said that the
minimum number of housing units required for cost recovery for PC-D is 400.
Therefore, there will be pressure to have at least 400 houses in Middle
McIntyre Creek.
The City doesn’t necessarily have to recover costs
when creating the infrastructure for a new subdivision; currently City Planners
are talking about something in the range of 150 to 250 units. Regardless of the
number of units being proposed, one has to ask why contemplate creating a huge
conflict, including possible civil disobedience, and ruining a beautiful natural
area, for such a small housing gain?
It has been suggested that there needs to be a plan on
the table so that everyone knows what we are really talking about. We disagree,
because any amount of housing and roads in Middle McIntyre Creek is too much. YCS, Friends of McIntyre Creek and others
have already extensively laid out our concerns about the likely impacts of
housing and associated infrastructure in this area. These are the predictions
of people who are familiar with development practices in the city, and the
ecology and recreational and educational uses of Middle McIntyre Creek.
If not PC-D,
where?
At the December 12th meeting we were asked
“If not PC-D, then where is new housing development acceptable?”
We would like to clarify that it was our understanding
that Whistle Bend was the alternative to PC-D. Before the land for Whistle Bend
was cleared, the Porter Creek Lower Bench was a very popular recreation area.
It was used by horse riders, walkers, skiers, bird watchers, and ORV users.
Nonetheless, the Yukon Conservation Society and many other community
organizations and individuals supported the development of Whistle Bend. We
spent much staff and volunteer time helping to plan Whistle Bend through the Charrette
process.
We supported and helped plan Whistle Bend in good
faith, with the understanding that by building this massive new neighborhood,
PC-D would not be required. While we may
never have been explicitly promised that Whistle bend negated the need for
PC-D, that was our assumption. Local people have already voluntarily and
cooperatively made a huge sacrifice by supporting Whistle Bend. Whistle Bend is
one of the answers to the question “If not PC-D, then where?”
In addition, City planners have identified other options to meet housing
demand over the next 20 years: infill, First
Nations land, vacant/underused lots, and
existing residential with zoning changes.
On behalf of the Yukon Conservation Society and the
many people who use and enjoy Middle McIntyre Creek every day all year round,
as well as the wildlife that live in, and travel through this area, I am asking
you, Mayor and Council, to vote not to proceed with further planning for Porter
Creek D. Please let us end this conflict
and work together to create affordable housing solutions elsewhere, and a new
plan for Middle McIntyre Creek that protects and enhances the environmental,
educational and recreational values of this cherished area.
Sincerely,
Karen Baltgailis
Executive Director
Yukon Conservation Society
Friday, December 7, 2012
Dec 12, 2012 Porter Creek D Public Information Session
Hi Friends of McIntyre Creek,
here's
a chance to speak with our new Mayor and Council about how you feel
about the proposed Porter Creek D subdivision. This is an important
opportunity to tell Mayor and Council "NO" to further planning of Porter
Creek D!
Porter Creek “D” Public Information
Session
City Hall, Council Chambers
5-7pm, Wednesday December 12th
The former City Council awarded a contract to a consultants’
group to do planning for Porter Creek “D” approximately one year ago. The new
Council will be revisiting that decision at a Council meeting in the new year. A
decision about whether or not to allow development to occur would only occur
much later, if and when planning is complete.
This meeting on December 12th will provide a
chance for the public to ask questions, share views and help inform Council’s
decision on whether or not to proceed with doing planning in Porter Creek “D”.
It will also give Council a chance to ask questions of the
public.
Snacks will be provided.
If you have questions, please write to me directly and I will
make sure all information is shared. Please also forward this on to whomever you
would like. The meeting will be publicly advertised as well.
Thanks!
Mike
EllisA/Manager
Planning Services
Monday, November 26, 2012
Meeting Nov 27th
Don’t forget about the CASM (Council and Senior Management) meeting tomorrow (Tuesday, November 27th at 5:00 p.m.) at City Hall this to review the Draft Stakeholders Consultation Process Review of the Porter Creek D Working Group.
I believe it will be in the 2nd Floor Board Room facing 2nd Avenue but it may be in Council Chambers. At the very least we’ll find out when we get there.
Once again it would be nice to get as many people out as possible.
I believe it will be in the 2nd Floor Board Room facing 2nd Avenue but it may be in Council Chambers. At the very least we’ll find out when we get there.
Once again it would be nice to get as many people out as possible.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
November 4, 2012 - Destruction
I hadn't been hiking the McIntyre Creek area for a couple of weeks, and when on my hike yesterday, found a slide just past the little bridge near the pump house. It wasn't apparent what had caused it, but likely an ATV or snowmobile that might have tried to go up the hill. There were tracks at the bottom, but not the top, so what ever started the slide started it from the bottom.
I met a By-law officer just parked at the Pump house, and later again as I approached my vehicle near the traffic circle at Mountain view drive. I asked him what he was looking for and he said he had a report that a grader had gone down a trail at the barricade on the other side of the bridge. I hadn't noticed it when I was walking, as I was watching the trail for rocks and roots that tend to jump out and trip people in this in between time where the snow isn't deep enough to cover all the hazaards, but deep enough to disguise them.
So today on my walk, I watched for the destruction, and it indeed appears a grader had gone part way down the trail. Now this isn't an ATV or snowmobile with a blade, but the tracks were definitely wide enough to be a real sized grader. These machines aren't just something you can pick up at your local rental store, so it is a bit of a mystery as to why it was down that road, and why it decided to go down the trail trashing everything. I did not walk the entire trail length, but met a few people who came off the trail who told me the destruction didn't go far, and it didn't seem to have any reason for having been done.
I'll never understand what motivates people to destroy nature for what appears to be a meaningless act.
I met a By-law officer just parked at the Pump house, and later again as I approached my vehicle near the traffic circle at Mountain view drive. I asked him what he was looking for and he said he had a report that a grader had gone down a trail at the barricade on the other side of the bridge. I hadn't noticed it when I was walking, as I was watching the trail for rocks and roots that tend to jump out and trip people in this in between time where the snow isn't deep enough to cover all the hazaards, but deep enough to disguise them.
So today on my walk, I watched for the destruction, and it indeed appears a grader had gone part way down the trail. Now this isn't an ATV or snowmobile with a blade, but the tracks were definitely wide enough to be a real sized grader. These machines aren't just something you can pick up at your local rental store, so it is a bit of a mystery as to why it was down that road, and why it decided to go down the trail trashing everything. I did not walk the entire trail length, but met a few people who came off the trail who told me the destruction didn't go far, and it didn't seem to have any reason for having been done.
I'll never understand what motivates people to destroy nature for what appears to be a meaningless act.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Will Mayor and Council Candidates Protect McIntyre Creek?
Oct. 12, 2012
The Friends of McIntyre Creek, Porter Creek Community Association, Takhini North Community Association, Yukon Bird Club and Yukon Conservation Society asked all of the mayoral and council candidates in the City of Whitehorse’s 2012 election to state their position on protecting Middle McIntyre Creek.
Middle McIntyre Creek is the natural area bordered by the Alaska Highway in the west, Mountainview Drive in the east, Porter Creek subdivision to the north, and Yukon College and Takhini North subdivision to the south.
The City of Whitehorse is proposing to build the Porter Creek-D subdivision in Middle McIntyre Creek, filling all the flat land north of the creek. The current City Council has decided to move forward with preliminary design and planning for Porter Creek-D, but has not voted to proceed with the subdivision.
“This is one of the most well-used outdoor recreation, wildlife viewing and nature education areas in the City of Whitehorse,” said YCS Executive Director Karen Baltgailis. “It provides habitat to at least 74 species of mammals, fish and birds. That’s why local environmental and community organizations oppose the proposed Porter Creek D subdivision, and want Middle McIntyre Creek protected for future generations.”
“The future of McIntyre Creek is an important issue for Whitehorse voters,” said Friends of McIntyre Creek board member Gerry Steers. “Time and time again City Council Chambers have been filled with concerned citizens when Council proposes to ruin the natural character of the area by building a subdivision and roads. We asked the candidates to state their position on protecting Middle McIntyre Creek to help voters make an informed decision on Oct. 18th.”
Candidates were asked “If you are elected on October 18, 2012, will you oppose the proposed Porter Creek-D subdivision and associated roads?” They were also asked to briefly summarize their vision for the future of Middle McIntyre Creek.
.
If you are elected on October 18, 2012,
will you oppose the proposed Porter Creek-D subdivision and
associated roads? In 50 words or less please summarize your vision
for the future of Middle McIntyre Creek.
Mayor
Dan Curtis: YES
I fear the planning and development of
McIntyre Creek would have an adverse effect on private developers and
the investment they have made to address the Whitehorse housing
shortage. The development or subsequent planning of development
on McIntyre Creek is not something I will support - it does not make
economic sense.
Scott Howell: UNDECIDED
I feel strongly that the need for
development in the McIntyre Creek corridor is not just a threat to
wilderness but also an exercise in redundancy. I am proposing a
re-examination of Porter Creek D and greenbelt infill lots.
Bernie Phillips: UNDECIDED
If elected, I would
support re-evaluating the design of Porter Creek-D with community
input at every step of the process. We need to protect existing
vegetation and wildlife habitat when housing development takes place,
not strip the land bare. I do not support any more development along
the creek corridor.
Rick Karp: UNDECIDED
The honest answer is "I don't
know". I am on record as saying the completion of the design
phase will give us something concrete to discuss. Then we will know
the impact of a Porter Creek D and together we will be
able to decide whether to move forward or not.
Mandeep Singh Sidhu: NO
No, I would not oppose the
Porter Creek-D subdivision. I support creating housing options for
the current and future residents of Whitehorse. The D subdivision
should be a “last resort.” The development is an eventuality and
sensible planning with strict conditions is key to maintaining the
environment in the area.
Councillors
Betty Irwin: YES
In my time on Council, I have
consistently voted against the proposed Porter Creek-D subdivision.
McIntyre Creek has been deemed a park in both the OCP of 2010 and in
the Strategic Sustainability Plan. This area should be considered a
municipal treasure and protected as such.
Cam Kos: YES
I
believe the middle McIntyre Creek area should remain undeveloped, as
everyone can enjoy this zone and it is part of what makes Whitehorse
unique. In addition, Yukon College can offer environment courses
right on their doorstep, and the city should help promote, support,
and protect locations such as this."
Pat Berrel: YES
I am categorically opposed to any
development of McIntyre Creek corridor, EVER! There is no
justification for any kind of development in and around the McIntyre
Creek watershed. If elected, I will propose that we make the
McIntyre Creek watershed a wilderness heritage site.
Jocelyn (Joy)
Curteanu: YES
We should tap into other unused or
underused urban areas first before we turn to areas that may threaten
the delicate balance of our ecosystems. I would like to see
McIntyre Creek preserved for the appreciation, education and
enjoyment of my children, my children's children, and many future
generations to come
Julie Menard: YES
I'm a
friend of McIntyre Creek; therefore my vision for the future of
Middle McIntyre Creek is to make it an official city park. If
a city is expanding, its heart needs to be green; offer a space to
protect the ecosystem and for us to stay connected to nature.
Roslyn Woodcock: YES
I’m not sure
why, as a city, we are even asking this question. Given the response
to Whistle Bend I see no rationale for opening the discussion. This
is a highly utilized inner city green space; part of our livable
“wilderness city” and I don’t support development of the area.
Mike Tribes: YES
Yes, I will oppose the PC-D
subdivision. My vision for Middle McIntyre Creek is to
protect it for recreation and wildlife. I'd like to work with
FOMC and other groups to develop a vision for this area.
Al
Fedoriak: YES
If elected
I, Al Fedoriak will work to stop planning and development of Porter
Creek D and to take the steps necessary to permanently protect the
area from any type of development that would have or appear to have a
negative impact on McIntyre Creek.
Leona Kains: (reply came late for this original posting - Oct 19, 2012)
“I am opposed to any
development in The McIntyre Creek area. I would like this area to remain as is
for the beauty, recreational and educational purposes. This is an area I use
for my family. Government needs to concentrate on non-purchased lots and
houses in Whistle Bend and Copper Ridge.”
Kirk Cameron: UNDECIDED
My efforts revealed the
connector bridge to the Alaska Highway is NOT needed. I pushed for a
dialogue on competing values for McIntyre Creek area (all groups
agreed), and we are awaiting its outcome. The new Council must
consider the facilitator’s report before making a reasoned decision
on this critical issue!
John Streicker: UNDECIDED
Green spaces are vital to Whitehorse.
McIntyre Creek as a stream and a wildlife corridor is especially
important. It is also important to note that housing and in
particular attainable housing is currently a major concern. We need
to decide as a community where we should grow.
Michael Kokiw:
UNDECIDED
While Whitehorse needs
more housing, the Porter Creek D subdivision will impact McIntyre
Creek’s sensitive ecosystem. An independent facilitator hired by
the City has conducted a values discussion about the area,
development, and access. Council must be guided by that eventual
report, including the public input it contains.
Randy Collins:
UNDECIDED
To be totally
honest, I personally don't know enough about this project to comment
one way or the other. I used to live in Porter Creek and I do
understand the area talked about, but I haven't seen the plans or
documentation about the plan to really know what is going on.
Councillor Dave Stockdale: NO
I will not oppose the Porter Creek ' D'
subdivision for the simple reason that I do not know what that will
look like. I will oppose the construction of roads in the area, but
feel that in the best interest of the community I must consider some
in-filling.
Summary of Votes Regarding Opposing Porter Creek 'D'
Yes Will Oppose:
Pat Berrel
Jocelyn Joy Curteanu
Dan Curtis
Al Fedoriak
Betty Irwin
Cam Kos
Julie Menard
Mike Tribes
Roslyn Woodcock
No Will Not Oppose Porter Creek "D"
Dave Stockdale
Mandeep Singh Sidhu
Undecided:
Kirk Cameron
Kirk Cameron
Randy Collins
Scott Howell
Rick Karp
Bernie Phillips
Michael Kokiw
John Streicker
Bernie Phillips
Michael Kokiw
John Streicker
Did Not Respond:
Dave Austin
Jean-Sebastien Blais
Garth Brown
Helen Geisler
Mike Gladish
Leona Kains
Sharon Shorty
Patrick Singh
Conrad Tiedeman
Sharon Shorty
Patrick Singh
Conrad Tiedeman
Friday, October 5, 2012
Middle McIntyre Creek Values - Information Gaps And Outstanding Questions
Information from: Friends of McIntyre Creek, Yukon Conservation Society, high school and Yukon College educators, Yukon Bird Club, Porter Creek Community Association and Takhini North Community Association
Our organizations oppose the development of the proposed Porter Creek-D (PC-D) subdivision in Middle McIntyre Creek because of the significant and unmitigatable impacts it would have on the area’s socio-economic values like recreation and education, and environmental values like wildlife and clean water and air.
We also believe that inaccurate information is being used to support the need for the proposed PC-D subdivision and insufficient information has been collected to fully understand the impacts of the development should it proceed. Further information collection from stakeholders would also allow for important, alternative visions for future use of the area to emerge.
Below is a summary of the socio-economic and environmental values of Middle McIntyre Creek and how they would be impacted by the proposed PC-D subdivision. Also summarized below are what we feel to be important information gaps and outstanding questions regarding the proposed PC-D subdivision that have not been adequately addressed to date by City of Whitehorse staff.
Values
1) Recreational Values
One of the most important values of the Middle McIntyre Creek area is the diversity and quality of recreational opportunities the area supports. These recreational opportunities in turn contribute to physical and mental human wellbeing. The recreational values of McIntyre Creek largely flow from the following three qualities: a) large size, b) central location within walking and biking distance of many Whitehorse residents and c) wildlife and nature-viewing opportunities.
a) Large size. Approximately 345 hectares of land is currently available for recreation purposes in the Middle McIntyre Creek area. This does not include land designated in the Whitehorse Official Community Plan as Institutional and First Nation. The proposed PC-D subdivision would significantly reduce the area of land available for recreational use and concentrate the impacts of continued use on the remaining, most sensitive, riparian areas.
- Walking, running, biking, ATVing and snowmobiling, berry picking, fishing, dog walking, bird watching, and plant and wildlife viewing are all popular recreational activities in the Middle McIntyre Creek area. The large size of the area allows these diverse activities to co-exist without significant overlap and also spreads out the human presence which contributes to the wildlife sightings that attract people to the area.
- The large size of the area buffers users from urban sounds (traffic noise, lawnmowers), sights (roads and houses) and smells (car exhaust) which provides an important sensation of escaping from the city and being immersed in nature.
- The large size supports a certain population and diversity of wildlife – if this area is reduced by development of the PC-D subdivision, wildlife numbers and diversity will be reduced as well.
- If PC-D is developed, recreational activities will be concentrated on the south side of the creek. However, the size of land available for recreation purpose on the south side will shrink in the future due to the planned road connecting Yukon College with the Alaska Highway, new Yukon College development, and buildings on KDFN land.
b) Central location within walking and biking distance of many Whitehorse residents.
- To preserve our quality of life, Whitehorse needs to be forward-thinking like the creators of New York City’s Central Park and Vancouver’s Stanley Park. Central Park and Stanley Park are more developed and exist in a much more urban setting than Middle McIntyre Creek, but these Parks are centrally located and easily accessible. Much of the 13,000 hectares of land contained in Whitehorse’s five designated parks is not central and accessible in the same way as Middle McIntyre Creek.
- People don’t have to drive to recreate in Middle McIntyre Creek as there are a number of neighbourhoods within walking distance including Porter Creek and Takhini. McIntyre Creek may also provide greenspace to the growing population in Whistle Bend. This is good for climate change and reducing traffic congestion.
- People who choose not to drive or can’t afford a car need accessible green space.
- Central areas with creeks and wetlands are limited in the City
- A centrally located natural area provides benefits to health, quality of life and nearby property values. Studies show that health and property values close to green space are higher. The health benefits of urban green space are important. They stem both from the opportunity to engage in healthy outdoor exercise, and the psychological benefits of escaping to a quieter, less stressful environment.
c) Wildlife and nature-viewing opportunities.
- PC-D would result in extensive clearing of the relatively intact forest lands that occur north of the creek. While there are human caused impacts on the north of the creek (Pine Street extension dirt road, the dirt road from Mountainview Drive, the snow dump and disturbance of wetland edges below the Yukon College), this side is much less impacted than the south side of the creek. There is a whole field of science focused on ecological rehabilitation. Cities in the south are trying to restore green space. The focus in Whitehorse should be on restoring these impacted areas, not creating more impacts.
- If PC-D is developed, most of the recreation activities in Middle McIntyre Creek will be concentrated in the south side of the creek. Much of the south side of the creek is impacted by roads, old gravel pits, the pump house, power lines, etc. so the nature-viewing experience will be negatively impacted
- The natural character of the area supports a diversity of wildlife including birds, large and small mammals, and amphibians. Narrow buffers along the creek, flanked by roads and housing will not preserve this natural character.
- Roads associated with the subdivision would create noise and pollution and road-kill, reducing the quality of the experience and wildlife viewing opportunities.
- Middle McIntyre Creek provides a diverse network of main trails and smaller, more secluded ones. This diversity of trails provides relaxation and nature-viewing opportunities that would not be provided by a small number of trails in narrow buffers, with the sights, sounds and light from nearby houses and roads nearby.
- Many of the trails on the flat, most walkable land will be lost should PC-D proceed, which would reduce accessibility and nature-viewing opportunities for the public.
- PC-D would result in the loss of many of the most well-used trails in the area
- This area contains urban wetlands, which are increasingly rare.
2) Educational Values
We have summarized below some of the educational activities conducted by local school teachers and Yukon College instructors in Middle McIntyre Creek. This information is not complete and we hope that the City of Whitehorse will take steps to contact the schools and Yukon College to become fully informed about educational use of the area, how this use would be impacted should development of the PC-D subdivision and accompanying infrastructure proceed, and alternative visions for future use of the area that would support educational activities.
The benefits of Middle McIntyre Creek for educational activities include:
- Proximity to schools and Yukon College. These educational institutions don’t have to bus students to the educational area, which saves on green house gases, cost and time. All of these factors make outdoor education more convenient and affordable and therefore more likely to happen.
- Relatively intact ecosystems, including old growth forest, south facing slopes, and riparian zones provide a rich, year-round educational environment.
- Easily accessible fish and wildlife for study purposes, including over 100 bird species, diverse small mammals, large mammals and Chinook salmon and other fish.
Alain Dallaire, Wood Street School
- Has been conducting water quality and quantity studies with his students in the south and north ends of the McIntyre creek area for at least the past 10 years.
- In 2006, with the collaboration of the Yukon government Department of Environment, the Wood Street School hosted an Envirothon that involved students working intensively in the Middle McIntyre Creek area for close to a week, studying trail use, forest structure and the possible environmental impacts of development in the area. At least 50 students from four different high schools participated in the event.
- Mr. Dallaire regularly takes students to study plants in the area because of the high species diversity.
Kathryn Aitken, Instructor/Coordinator, Yukon College
- Uses Middle McIntyre Creek trails for her Ornithology Course and guest lectures.
Bob Sharp, Yukon College Instructor and Yukon Department of Education
- Has used the area as a classroom for 18 years as a high school teacher and for the past 11 years working with the Yukon Department of Education and Yukon College-
The Experiential Science program uses the area extensively. A number of short and long term studies have been conducted in the area that use the range of ecosystems found in the valley. Forestry, habitat and aquatic studies represent only a few of the studies conducted within the McIntyre Creek ecosystems.
- Mr. Sharp has taught the Outdoor Pursuits and Field Studies course in the Yukon Native Teacher Education Program (YNTEP) for the past 11 years. During this time the McIntyre valley area has been used for more than 80% of these classes. A variety of studies have been conducted that use the aquatic environments, the upland pine ridges and the riparian spruce zones, including salmon census, orienteering activities, and nature interpretative activities. These studies have found that that the area is largely still in a natural state.
- In 2006 the Yukon Envirothon included 15 studies addressing the proposed PC-D subdivision. Envirothon provides positive experience for the youth of Whitehorse and encourages community involvement. Participation in Envirothon fosters a deeper understanding of, and respect for the local landscape and environment, and increases the ability of local youth to actively engage in environmental and civic issues in the City of Whitehorse. Training in practical field skills, mentorship from local professionals, and the tackling of real-world environmental issues is providing Whitehorse youth with a taste and vision of potential education and career directions. Data collected and observations made by Envirothon participants provide valuable reference information and the possibility exists for Envirothon to participate in long-term monitoring of this and other areas of Whitehorse.
- This site is being proposed for use in future Envirothons.
Gerald Haase, Instructor, Yukon College
- Mr. Haase teaches two courses at Yukon College through which students are involved with McIntyre Creek:
o Biology 050 is offered every fall from September to the end of December. This course is a pre-requisite for the Renewable Resources Management (RRMT) program. In the Stream Invertebrate Lab students become familiar with the middle McIntyre Creek area from the pump house pond downstream about a kilometer to an area where invertebrate sampling occurs. This lab has been done for approximately 10 years.
o RRMT 134 – Salmon Hatcheries and Related Fisheries Practices, is offered every second year as an elective for first-year students through the RRMT program. The McIntyre Creek Salmon Incubation Facility (MCSIF) exists in large part to provide educational opportunities to these students, and to provide educational activities to students throughout the public school system. RRMT students perform several labs at the incubation facility, and a group of students (2-6) are employed part-time when there are eggs or fry present to maintain the facility, monitor eggs and remove dead ones, and monitor, feed and maintain fry rearing conditions. McIntyre Creek is known as a Chinook salmon spawning stream, and as an important fry rearing habitat. The incubation facility has existed since approximately 1996 with funding from the Yukon River Panel. In 1999 the facility was administered by Whitehorse Correctional Centre, with funding from various sources. In September 2002 the administration of MCSIF was transferred to the Northern Research Institute, where it now resides. The incubation facility has great potential for providing research opportunities as Yukon College expands its research capabilities both through NRI and expanding programs in the School of Science.
- Gerald Haase notes “As an instructor, I do have great concerns about the preservation of McIntyre Creek in its present form. It is a very healthy ecosystem in the middle of Whitehorse. However, should development occur as has been planned (PC-D), the integrity of the stream ecosystem would undoubtedly be compromised. At present, many residents of Whitehorse use the creek for its walking trails, to fish for grayling or for rainbow trout, to bike or run, and to pick cranberries and mushrooms. There are numerous classes at Yukon College that use the stream for educational purposes. There are several yearly clean-ups occurring along the stream and in-stream. A higher density of people living very close to the creek itself is bound to result in more incidental garbage, more human-wildlife interactions, and possible stream degradation. This creek is a largely unrecognized jewel in the heart of Whitehorse; with enough foresight, it will remain so for generations to come.”
There are a number of questions related to educational uses of Middle McIntyre Creek that need to be answered before the development of PC-D can be considered:
- The College Endowment Lands: There has been no recent public discussion of how the people of Yukon would like to see the land around the Yukon College used. Development of the land near the Yukon College, including the proposed PC-D subdivision, cannot be considered until the College Endowment Lands have been titled to the College.
- What needs to be maintained to continue to have the current level of educational activities or even expand them?
- How will current educational activities be impacted by the proposed PC-D subdivision?
o Roads create safety issues for young students and teachers may reconsider using the area for educational purposes if there is a lot of traffic due to the new subdivision. Currently school classes use the dirt roads for cycling – busy roads will likely discourage school bicycling trips.
o Noise, light and contaminants from roads and housing will reduce wildlife presence and quality of habitat, which is a main educational focus in the area.
- How can the area be improved for educational purposes? E.g. boardwalks along sensitive wetlands, interpretive signage, garbage cans, decommission some trails, more re-vegetation activities, designating motorized and non-motorized trails. The McIntyre Creek watershed could also be the focus of a multi-disciplinary, long-term watershed management case study, involving numerous educational institutions.
3) Environmental Values
McIntyre Creek is not a pristine watershed. Waterflows in the creek have been impacted since the 1950’s in order to generate hydroelectricity, Icy Waters Ltd. flushes waste water into the creek, the Raven’s Ridge access road was built within the riparian zone, the creek is crossed by three major roads (the Alaska Highway, Mountainview Drive and Range Rd), the lower reaches of the creek were once used as a garbage dump and recreational activities have created trails that have encroached on the riparian areas along the creek. Despite these numerous impacts, the McIntyre Creek watershed continues to support a diversity of plants, fish, birds and other wildlife. Socio-economic values like recreation and education in Middle McIntyre Creek are to a large extent based on the environmental values of the area.
Middle McIntyre Creek as a Wildlife Corridor and as Habitat
- McIntyre Creek is identified as the largest contiguous Significant Wildlife Area within the City of Whitehorse in Defining Ecologically-Based Significant Wildlife Areas for the City of Whitehorse: August 15, 2000, Prepared for: City of Whitehorse Planning Department and YTG Department of Renewable Resources, Wildlife Viewing Program, Prepared by: Applied Ecosystem Management Ltd.
- The forests of McIntyre Creek are not only used as a travel corridor for wildlife moving across the city, but also provide both wintering and breeding habitat for many species.
- A YG Environment document submitted to YESAB (YESAB Project #2008-0024) notes that “This area and surrounding lands are known to be home to a variety of species; namely raptors, bear, coyote, martin, wolf as well as numerous small mammals and birds.” This same document also notes that development in the upper region of McIntyre Creek, like Raven’s Ridge and the City of Whitehorse Landfill, funnels animals travelling to/from Fish Lake through the area and that “these types of lands are classic wildlife corridors and are invaluable for a multitude of species.”
- A local knowledge workshop conducted by the Yukon Conservation Society and the Friends of McIntyre Creek in 2011 identified seventy four species of birds, mammals, fish and amphibians in the Middle McIntyre area. These organisms use the area for different life processes, including breeding, feeding, migration and movement. This workshop collected knowledge of moose, grizzly and black bear use of the Middle McIntyre Creek area as a travel corridor to move between the Yukon River and larger habitat patches to the east and west of Whitehorse.
- The proposed development has the potential to adversely affect the water regime and quality of McIntyre Creek, which is habitat for wood frogs, all life history stages of rainbow trout, round whitefish, arctic grayling, slimy sculpin, and wintering, rearing and spawning habitat for Chinook salmon.
- The Yukon Bird Club has provided the City of Whitehorse with information on the bird and habitat values in the McIntyre Creek area for over 15 years.
o The protection of McIntyre Creek and surrounding forests is critical, not only to birds which migrate through the area, but especially to birds which breed there.
o A number of bird species observed in the Middle McIntyre Creek area have larger habitat requirements that would not be protected by the proposed 250 meter corridor, centered on the creek. In particular, this would impact birds of prey in the area such as Northern Goshawk, Boreal Owl, and Great Horned Owl, which require larger areas of habitat for breeding. These raptors are sensitive around their nest sites, and require large areas of forest to hunt for prey. They require the large forested areas that Middle McIntyre Creek provides. Protecting these forests is crucial to maintaining habitat and populations of these large birds of prey.
o Many of the forest-dwelling species observed in Middle McIntyre Creek such as Swainson’s Thrush, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Townsend’s Warbler, Boreal Chickadee, and Three-toed Woodpecker require the intact forested habitats found in the Middle McIntyre Creek area. Housing and road development in this area would result in direct habitat loss and forest fragmentation triggering the decline and disappearance of species in this area. Protecting the forests of Middle McIntyre Creek will protect critical habitat for these species.
o Three bird species listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act have been sighted in the Middle McIntyre Creek area: Rusty Blackbird (Special Concern), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Threatened) and Common Nighthawk (Threatened). One nest site of the Olive-sided Flycatcher in the Middle McIntyre Creek area has been confirmed.
Despite this well documented local and Yukon government knowledge of the importance of this area to wildlife, the City of Whitehorse Commissioned a McIntyre Creek Wildlife Corridor Assessment from Environmental Dynamics in 2011, and has used this study to justify the proposed PC-D subdivision.
The EDI report was flawed in many respects, including:
- The report only looked at McIntyre Creek’s regional significance as a travel corridor for large mammals like moose and bear. It did not look at Middle McIntyre Creek’s importance as a local wildlife travel corridor and as habitat for resident wildlife, including birds and aquatic wildlife.
- The report did not assess wildlife use of the area year-round. Cameras were in place from April 21 to September 19. The report acknowledges that moose are more likely to use the area in the winter months.
- The report discusses moose, bear and deer but not lynx. In addition, the focus on large mammals excludes discussion of pine marten, an animal of special significance in southern Yukon. Pine marten were the third most observed animal in the study, after coyote and black bear and before deer and moose. In the Yukon a male marten’s territory covers about six square kilometers; a female requires about four square kilometers. Clearly a narrow riparian buffer will not provide adequate habitat for marten.
- Discussion of impacts is limited to the physical footprint of the proposed developments with particular focus on the PC-D subdivision with little discussion of roads proposed for the area. For example, the report states “Semi-aquatic mammals use habitat in relatively close proximity to McIntyre Creek, so are unlikely to interact with the PC-D residential development”. No consideration is given to the obvious fact that residents and their pets will move beyond the subdivision to the creek where interactions will occur.
- There is no discussion of how increased noise and human and car traffic will impact the remaining habitat and the ability of wildlife to continue to use the area, beyond claims that a 250 meter buffer centered on the creek will mitigate all impacts for medium and small animals.
- Given that the study did not look at bird use of the area, the speculative statement that most diversity of birds in McIntyre Creek occurs in riparian areas without providing references is beyond the scope of the study.
- There was no discussion of the potential impacts of development on hydrology and water quality.
- It recommended a 250 meter ‘wildlife corridor’ centered on McIntyre Creek, with no consideration of habitat needs of resident wildlife, nor discussion of the impacts of concentrating all the current human use, plus people from PC-D and the developing subdivision of Whistle Bend, into the fragile riparian zone that they propose for wildlife habitat.
- The report did not consider the potential impacts of the PC-D subdivision on resident and migratory birds:
o Habitat loss: Direct loss of breeding, foraging and wintering habitat as a result of new development.
o Habitat degradation: Various factors can 'chip away' at habitat integrity when it is adjacent to a developed area. For example, new trails and trampling by humans and dogs could disturb ground and shrub cover, with potential loss of particular breeding or foraging niches. There are likely also microclimate changes associated not only with the edge immediately adjacent to the development but also with the openings and edges created by new trails. These microclimate changes can alter plant composition and distribution, which could have subsequent impacts on other species including birds. Trails and disturbed areas are sources for invasives such as white sweet clover which are transported into areas through construction work and the use of backfill. The proximity of homes to forest would make removal of trees for personal use (woodstoves) a significant concern, particularly dead trees that are critical for cavity nesters.
o Predation: Cats and small carnivores (foxes, coyotes) are significant predators of birds and their nests. Both pets and foxes and coyotes would be expected to increase in abundance in the area due to human residences. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) estimates that cats likely kill more than 4 billion animals per year in the U.S., including at least 500 million birds.
o Lack of science on best practices for riparian buffers in Yukon. Current guidelines are derived from those used in BC and are not based on empirical data from the Yukon. While 250 meters may be sufficient to accommodate the territory size of many species breeding in the area, information on territory size is not known for most species, including Rusty Blackbird which is a federal species of special concern.
- Despite impacts from recreational use, the Middle McIntyre Creek area is an ecologically diverse and functioning ecosystem. The EDI report uses the disturbance from recreational use as justification for the proposed subdivision and roads. This not only disregards the clear evidence that the area supports a diversity of environmental services and wildlife use, but also suggests an attitude that once impacted in any way, natural spaces within the City limits are not worth protecting and restoring.
- Although the EDI report did find signs that moose and bear use the area, they recommended that the City of Whitehorse should not manage for moose and bear due to the potential for human-wildlife conflicts. We are not aware of any recent bear-human conflicts in Middle McIntyre Creek – the area is large enough that large mammals can move through it without coming into conflict with people. However, there will be more conflicts with bears if the area they share with people is greatly reduced by building PCD. A Yukon government document submitted to YESAB (YESAB Project #2008-0024) for a project proposal on McIntyre Creek west of the Alaska Highway notes “As developed lands continue to expand into wild lands they have the potential for attracting certain types of wildlife (bears, coyote, wolf, etc). The development of this area as residential has potential to set up ongoing wildlife interaction and conflicts. There is recognition that these situations set the stage for potential predator conflicts in perpetuity where the wild carnivores are systematically removed. This has impacts on not only a species at risk (Grizzly bear), but the ability of Conservation Officers and wildlife managers to respond.”
Information Gaps and Outstanding Questions
1. PC-D is not infill
- The City of Whitehorse Growth Strategy defines infill as “development within the City’s existing neighbourhoods – areas already serviced by public infrastructure and amenities.”
- There are significant gaps in existing infrastructure in Middle McIntyre Creek and the proposed infrastructure would constitute a significant expense. This calls into question whether PC-D can be defined as infill using the City’s Growth Strategy definition.
- The common element in most definitions of infill is that infill aims to limit urban sprawl. The proposed PC-D subdivision and accompanying roads would be urban sprawl into a large natural area and does not work towards the commonly recognized need to reduce urban sprawl.
2. City Planners have stated that PC-D is only financially feasible if the entire flat area north of McIntyre Creek between Mountainview Drive and the Alaska Highway is developed, and that housing prices would be higher if only the portion east of the Pine Street Extension were developed. Cost or profit by the City and Yukon government must not determine the future of Middle McIntyre Creek – the intrinsic values of the area should determine its future.
3. More accurate information is needed about the full physical footprint of the subdivision, including accompanying roads and other infrastructure. Often, a significant amount of land around a development must be cleared to provide areas for heavy machinery to operate.
4. Inconsistent Information
- Important information provided by City staff keeps changing. This indicates that the proposal for PC-D is not based on facts.
- In December 2011, City Planners indicated that they wished to submit a proposal to YESAB for Whistle Bend Phases 3-5 and PC-D together. Planners said to City Council that failure to make a decision on moving ahead with this joint Whistle Bend and PC-D YESAB submission would likely result in a delay of lot availability in Whistle bend Phases 3-5 because the YESAB submission would be delayed. Planners implied that it was very complicated to move ahead with Whistle Bend without PC-D and the connector roads. Community groups objected that these two proposed developments needed to be assessed separately, which subsequently happened, with no delay to the Whistle bend YESAB assessment.
- It was also later determined that contrary to information that City staff had previously provided, a proposed road across McIntyre Creek was, in fact, not needed for Whistle Bend Phases 3-5.
- At first we were told that all the flat areas north of the creek need to be filled with 400 houses in order to pay for the infrastructure. Then we were told that they are now thinking 200 – 300 units.
5. Housing Supply and Demand
- The Chamber of Commerce and Realtors Association have argued that Whitehorse needs PC-D because the Whitehorse population is growing, lots of mining workers are arriving who need housing, and people want options/variety of housing – they don’t all want to live in Whistle Bend. This unsubstantiated rationale for PC-D provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Realtors Association is not appropriate to base decisions about the future of Middle McIntyre Creek upon.
- In a June 1 article in the Whitehorse Star, Councillor Ranj Pillai expressed concern over the rushed, uninformed approach the City is taking to housing development, especially when it comes to PC-D: “We need to identify where we need lots, identify which projects are in the works already and identify the capacity to meet the needs.” We agree.
- Independent Analysis needed: the city and Yukon government should not rely on the real estate industry to forecast housing needs, but must undertake an independent analysis of housing needs.
- The City has stated that in addition to Whistle Bend and infill, the proposed PC-D subdivision is required to meet housing demand, however we have not seen figures justifying this claim. A report is needed that includes an analysis of houses currently for sale, vacant lots and lots with derelict houses that could be developed, and potential housing on private property and First Nations lands.
- The greater Whitehorse housing supply: The City does not seem to be considering any of the developments in the Whitehorse periphery when estimating future housing availability. Each of the hamlets surrounding Whitehorse is being encouraged to decrease the minimum lot subdivision size. This would add more than 400 available lots. Also not included are large plots scheduled for subdivision like the McGowan lands that could provide as many as 130 additional lots.
- There are many more homes available this year than one year ago. In May, Real Estate Association President Val Smith said Yukon wide the number of units available today for occupancy within 90 days is twice or more the number available at this time last year. A year ago, there were 111 residential listings in all categories, houses to condos, not including private sales and sales through the PropertyGuys organization. Today there are 261 residential listings, up by 150, or significantly more than double what there was last May. Whitehorse accounts for 213 of those listings. PropertyGuys had another 112 clients selling their homes, 80 of whom are in Whitehorse. In addition, in May City of Whitehorse records showed there are 178 residential developments of all sorts in the works, but primarily units in multiple housing developments, like condos and townhouses.
- We need affordable housing – not single family dwellings on large lots. So 200 – 300 new single family houses on large lots filling up all the flat areas north of McIntyre Creek does not address our housing needs.
- Have planners analyzed the contribution that private land development could make to Whitehorse’s housing needs?
- Whitehorse residents and YESAB need much more accurate information about potential new housing units that may come on line (proponents are required to provide alternatives to their proposed projects when they go through YESAB – if the City proceeds with a YESAB assessment of PC-D the City needs to provide this information to YESAB.)
- The City of Whitehorse needs to be pro-active about encouraging private property owners to create affordable housing through tax penalties and incentives.
6. Population dynamics and growth projections:
- The housing forecasts are, to a large extent, based on population forecasts. The population forecasts are in turn based primarily on two sources: Yukon Health Care enrolments and census data with school enrolments used to supplement and check the forecasts. The problem with these data is that the Yukon Health Care enrolment is not validated. Entry into the program is encouraged while exiting the program is problematic. A ground-truthing of these data was done a number of years ago, which found that a significant number of those supposedly enrolled in the Health Care program had moved or died. To what extent is this still the case? What proportion of the itinerant mining employees are on Yukon Health Care?
- How accurate are the City’s population projections? Will Whitehorse grow at the high or even medium scenario’s laid out in the OCP for the next 25 years? Has it ever? How terrible to have PCD built and then realize this enormous sacrifice was completely unnecessary.
- The mining sector: How much of Whitehorse housing demand does mining activity account for? The mining exploration expenditures show little reflection in retail sales, indicating that many of those employed in mining and exploration are not resident to the Yukon. YG needs to conduct a more detailed analysis of employees at the Minto mine, for example, to see how many are resident, itinerant, or employed here but live away from the Yukon. To plan for large scale development without such information is irresponsible. In any case, the mining exploration boom has already slowed down.
7. OCP Growth and Demand Projections
- The Official Community Plan says that at a high growth rate of 3.5% we need 450 new units per year for 25 years, at a medium rate of 2% we need 225, and at low rate of .5% we need 50.
- PC- D would be less than one year’s worth of new units at high growth, or one year’s worth at medium growth. Why would we destroy the recreational, educational and ecological values of this area for one year’s worth of expensive housing?
8. Timing of the need for more lots
- The 3500 units planned for Whistle Bend will supply the City with enough housing for 11 to 12 years at a growth rate of 2.6%. If the First Nations Land and Tank Farm take 5 years to come on line, Whistle Bend, infill and smaller private development will provide ample housing in the meantime.
Areas of current or potential future housing development:
Proposed PC-D – 80 hectares, 200-300 units
Tank Farm – 57 hectares, 350 lots
Former Mackenzie RV Park (south of Crestview), 4.96 hectares, 100 units
Rezoning Bylaw has provisions to increase density of downtown – by how much?
Downtown South – 600 additional housing units
First Nation Land – what is housing potential?
Ingram – housing potential?
How many infill lots have just been or are currently under development?
Greater Whitehorse: potentially 530 lots
Our organizations oppose the development of the proposed Porter Creek-D (PC-D) subdivision in Middle McIntyre Creek because of the significant and unmitigatable impacts it would have on the area’s socio-economic values like recreation and education, and environmental values like wildlife and clean water and air.
We also believe that inaccurate information is being used to support the need for the proposed PC-D subdivision and insufficient information has been collected to fully understand the impacts of the development should it proceed. Further information collection from stakeholders would also allow for important, alternative visions for future use of the area to emerge.
Below is a summary of the socio-economic and environmental values of Middle McIntyre Creek and how they would be impacted by the proposed PC-D subdivision. Also summarized below are what we feel to be important information gaps and outstanding questions regarding the proposed PC-D subdivision that have not been adequately addressed to date by City of Whitehorse staff.
Values
1) Recreational Values
One of the most important values of the Middle McIntyre Creek area is the diversity and quality of recreational opportunities the area supports. These recreational opportunities in turn contribute to physical and mental human wellbeing. The recreational values of McIntyre Creek largely flow from the following three qualities: a) large size, b) central location within walking and biking distance of many Whitehorse residents and c) wildlife and nature-viewing opportunities.
a) Large size. Approximately 345 hectares of land is currently available for recreation purposes in the Middle McIntyre Creek area. This does not include land designated in the Whitehorse Official Community Plan as Institutional and First Nation. The proposed PC-D subdivision would significantly reduce the area of land available for recreational use and concentrate the impacts of continued use on the remaining, most sensitive, riparian areas.
- Walking, running, biking, ATVing and snowmobiling, berry picking, fishing, dog walking, bird watching, and plant and wildlife viewing are all popular recreational activities in the Middle McIntyre Creek area. The large size of the area allows these diverse activities to co-exist without significant overlap and also spreads out the human presence which contributes to the wildlife sightings that attract people to the area.
- The large size of the area buffers users from urban sounds (traffic noise, lawnmowers), sights (roads and houses) and smells (car exhaust) which provides an important sensation of escaping from the city and being immersed in nature.
- The large size supports a certain population and diversity of wildlife – if this area is reduced by development of the PC-D subdivision, wildlife numbers and diversity will be reduced as well.
- If PC-D is developed, recreational activities will be concentrated on the south side of the creek. However, the size of land available for recreation purpose on the south side will shrink in the future due to the planned road connecting Yukon College with the Alaska Highway, new Yukon College development, and buildings on KDFN land.
b) Central location within walking and biking distance of many Whitehorse residents.
- To preserve our quality of life, Whitehorse needs to be forward-thinking like the creators of New York City’s Central Park and Vancouver’s Stanley Park. Central Park and Stanley Park are more developed and exist in a much more urban setting than Middle McIntyre Creek, but these Parks are centrally located and easily accessible. Much of the 13,000 hectares of land contained in Whitehorse’s five designated parks is not central and accessible in the same way as Middle McIntyre Creek.
- People don’t have to drive to recreate in Middle McIntyre Creek as there are a number of neighbourhoods within walking distance including Porter Creek and Takhini. McIntyre Creek may also provide greenspace to the growing population in Whistle Bend. This is good for climate change and reducing traffic congestion.
- People who choose not to drive or can’t afford a car need accessible green space.
- Central areas with creeks and wetlands are limited in the City
- A centrally located natural area provides benefits to health, quality of life and nearby property values. Studies show that health and property values close to green space are higher. The health benefits of urban green space are important. They stem both from the opportunity to engage in healthy outdoor exercise, and the psychological benefits of escaping to a quieter, less stressful environment.
c) Wildlife and nature-viewing opportunities.
- PC-D would result in extensive clearing of the relatively intact forest lands that occur north of the creek. While there are human caused impacts on the north of the creek (Pine Street extension dirt road, the dirt road from Mountainview Drive, the snow dump and disturbance of wetland edges below the Yukon College), this side is much less impacted than the south side of the creek. There is a whole field of science focused on ecological rehabilitation. Cities in the south are trying to restore green space. The focus in Whitehorse should be on restoring these impacted areas, not creating more impacts.
- If PC-D is developed, most of the recreation activities in Middle McIntyre Creek will be concentrated in the south side of the creek. Much of the south side of the creek is impacted by roads, old gravel pits, the pump house, power lines, etc. so the nature-viewing experience will be negatively impacted
- The natural character of the area supports a diversity of wildlife including birds, large and small mammals, and amphibians. Narrow buffers along the creek, flanked by roads and housing will not preserve this natural character.
- Roads associated with the subdivision would create noise and pollution and road-kill, reducing the quality of the experience and wildlife viewing opportunities.
- Middle McIntyre Creek provides a diverse network of main trails and smaller, more secluded ones. This diversity of trails provides relaxation and nature-viewing opportunities that would not be provided by a small number of trails in narrow buffers, with the sights, sounds and light from nearby houses and roads nearby.
- Many of the trails on the flat, most walkable land will be lost should PC-D proceed, which would reduce accessibility and nature-viewing opportunities for the public.
- PC-D would result in the loss of many of the most well-used trails in the area
- This area contains urban wetlands, which are increasingly rare.
2) Educational Values
We have summarized below some of the educational activities conducted by local school teachers and Yukon College instructors in Middle McIntyre Creek. This information is not complete and we hope that the City of Whitehorse will take steps to contact the schools and Yukon College to become fully informed about educational use of the area, how this use would be impacted should development of the PC-D subdivision and accompanying infrastructure proceed, and alternative visions for future use of the area that would support educational activities.
The benefits of Middle McIntyre Creek for educational activities include:
- Proximity to schools and Yukon College. These educational institutions don’t have to bus students to the educational area, which saves on green house gases, cost and time. All of these factors make outdoor education more convenient and affordable and therefore more likely to happen.
- Relatively intact ecosystems, including old growth forest, south facing slopes, and riparian zones provide a rich, year-round educational environment.
- Easily accessible fish and wildlife for study purposes, including over 100 bird species, diverse small mammals, large mammals and Chinook salmon and other fish.
Alain Dallaire, Wood Street School
- Has been conducting water quality and quantity studies with his students in the south and north ends of the McIntyre creek area for at least the past 10 years.
- In 2006, with the collaboration of the Yukon government Department of Environment, the Wood Street School hosted an Envirothon that involved students working intensively in the Middle McIntyre Creek area for close to a week, studying trail use, forest structure and the possible environmental impacts of development in the area. At least 50 students from four different high schools participated in the event.
- Mr. Dallaire regularly takes students to study plants in the area because of the high species diversity.
Kathryn Aitken, Instructor/Coordinator, Yukon College
- Uses Middle McIntyre Creek trails for her Ornithology Course and guest lectures.
Bob Sharp, Yukon College Instructor and Yukon Department of Education
- Has used the area as a classroom for 18 years as a high school teacher and for the past 11 years working with the Yukon Department of Education and Yukon College-
The Experiential Science program uses the area extensively. A number of short and long term studies have been conducted in the area that use the range of ecosystems found in the valley. Forestry, habitat and aquatic studies represent only a few of the studies conducted within the McIntyre Creek ecosystems.
- Mr. Sharp has taught the Outdoor Pursuits and Field Studies course in the Yukon Native Teacher Education Program (YNTEP) for the past 11 years. During this time the McIntyre valley area has been used for more than 80% of these classes. A variety of studies have been conducted that use the aquatic environments, the upland pine ridges and the riparian spruce zones, including salmon census, orienteering activities, and nature interpretative activities. These studies have found that that the area is largely still in a natural state.
- In 2006 the Yukon Envirothon included 15 studies addressing the proposed PC-D subdivision. Envirothon provides positive experience for the youth of Whitehorse and encourages community involvement. Participation in Envirothon fosters a deeper understanding of, and respect for the local landscape and environment, and increases the ability of local youth to actively engage in environmental and civic issues in the City of Whitehorse. Training in practical field skills, mentorship from local professionals, and the tackling of real-world environmental issues is providing Whitehorse youth with a taste and vision of potential education and career directions. Data collected and observations made by Envirothon participants provide valuable reference information and the possibility exists for Envirothon to participate in long-term monitoring of this and other areas of Whitehorse.
- This site is being proposed for use in future Envirothons.
Gerald Haase, Instructor, Yukon College
- Mr. Haase teaches two courses at Yukon College through which students are involved with McIntyre Creek:
o Biology 050 is offered every fall from September to the end of December. This course is a pre-requisite for the Renewable Resources Management (RRMT) program. In the Stream Invertebrate Lab students become familiar with the middle McIntyre Creek area from the pump house pond downstream about a kilometer to an area where invertebrate sampling occurs. This lab has been done for approximately 10 years.
o RRMT 134 – Salmon Hatcheries and Related Fisheries Practices, is offered every second year as an elective for first-year students through the RRMT program. The McIntyre Creek Salmon Incubation Facility (MCSIF) exists in large part to provide educational opportunities to these students, and to provide educational activities to students throughout the public school system. RRMT students perform several labs at the incubation facility, and a group of students (2-6) are employed part-time when there are eggs or fry present to maintain the facility, monitor eggs and remove dead ones, and monitor, feed and maintain fry rearing conditions. McIntyre Creek is known as a Chinook salmon spawning stream, and as an important fry rearing habitat. The incubation facility has existed since approximately 1996 with funding from the Yukon River Panel. In 1999 the facility was administered by Whitehorse Correctional Centre, with funding from various sources. In September 2002 the administration of MCSIF was transferred to the Northern Research Institute, where it now resides. The incubation facility has great potential for providing research opportunities as Yukon College expands its research capabilities both through NRI and expanding programs in the School of Science.
- Gerald Haase notes “As an instructor, I do have great concerns about the preservation of McIntyre Creek in its present form. It is a very healthy ecosystem in the middle of Whitehorse. However, should development occur as has been planned (PC-D), the integrity of the stream ecosystem would undoubtedly be compromised. At present, many residents of Whitehorse use the creek for its walking trails, to fish for grayling or for rainbow trout, to bike or run, and to pick cranberries and mushrooms. There are numerous classes at Yukon College that use the stream for educational purposes. There are several yearly clean-ups occurring along the stream and in-stream. A higher density of people living very close to the creek itself is bound to result in more incidental garbage, more human-wildlife interactions, and possible stream degradation. This creek is a largely unrecognized jewel in the heart of Whitehorse; with enough foresight, it will remain so for generations to come.”
There are a number of questions related to educational uses of Middle McIntyre Creek that need to be answered before the development of PC-D can be considered:
- The College Endowment Lands: There has been no recent public discussion of how the people of Yukon would like to see the land around the Yukon College used. Development of the land near the Yukon College, including the proposed PC-D subdivision, cannot be considered until the College Endowment Lands have been titled to the College.
- What needs to be maintained to continue to have the current level of educational activities or even expand them?
- How will current educational activities be impacted by the proposed PC-D subdivision?
o Roads create safety issues for young students and teachers may reconsider using the area for educational purposes if there is a lot of traffic due to the new subdivision. Currently school classes use the dirt roads for cycling – busy roads will likely discourage school bicycling trips.
o Noise, light and contaminants from roads and housing will reduce wildlife presence and quality of habitat, which is a main educational focus in the area.
- How can the area be improved for educational purposes? E.g. boardwalks along sensitive wetlands, interpretive signage, garbage cans, decommission some trails, more re-vegetation activities, designating motorized and non-motorized trails. The McIntyre Creek watershed could also be the focus of a multi-disciplinary, long-term watershed management case study, involving numerous educational institutions.
3) Environmental Values
McIntyre Creek is not a pristine watershed. Waterflows in the creek have been impacted since the 1950’s in order to generate hydroelectricity, Icy Waters Ltd. flushes waste water into the creek, the Raven’s Ridge access road was built within the riparian zone, the creek is crossed by three major roads (the Alaska Highway, Mountainview Drive and Range Rd), the lower reaches of the creek were once used as a garbage dump and recreational activities have created trails that have encroached on the riparian areas along the creek. Despite these numerous impacts, the McIntyre Creek watershed continues to support a diversity of plants, fish, birds and other wildlife. Socio-economic values like recreation and education in Middle McIntyre Creek are to a large extent based on the environmental values of the area.
Middle McIntyre Creek as a Wildlife Corridor and as Habitat
- McIntyre Creek is identified as the largest contiguous Significant Wildlife Area within the City of Whitehorse in Defining Ecologically-Based Significant Wildlife Areas for the City of Whitehorse: August 15, 2000, Prepared for: City of Whitehorse Planning Department and YTG Department of Renewable Resources, Wildlife Viewing Program, Prepared by: Applied Ecosystem Management Ltd.
- The forests of McIntyre Creek are not only used as a travel corridor for wildlife moving across the city, but also provide both wintering and breeding habitat for many species.
- A YG Environment document submitted to YESAB (YESAB Project #2008-0024) notes that “This area and surrounding lands are known to be home to a variety of species; namely raptors, bear, coyote, martin, wolf as well as numerous small mammals and birds.” This same document also notes that development in the upper region of McIntyre Creek, like Raven’s Ridge and the City of Whitehorse Landfill, funnels animals travelling to/from Fish Lake through the area and that “these types of lands are classic wildlife corridors and are invaluable for a multitude of species.”
- A local knowledge workshop conducted by the Yukon Conservation Society and the Friends of McIntyre Creek in 2011 identified seventy four species of birds, mammals, fish and amphibians in the Middle McIntyre area. These organisms use the area for different life processes, including breeding, feeding, migration and movement. This workshop collected knowledge of moose, grizzly and black bear use of the Middle McIntyre Creek area as a travel corridor to move between the Yukon River and larger habitat patches to the east and west of Whitehorse.
- The proposed development has the potential to adversely affect the water regime and quality of McIntyre Creek, which is habitat for wood frogs, all life history stages of rainbow trout, round whitefish, arctic grayling, slimy sculpin, and wintering, rearing and spawning habitat for Chinook salmon.
- The Yukon Bird Club has provided the City of Whitehorse with information on the bird and habitat values in the McIntyre Creek area for over 15 years.
o The protection of McIntyre Creek and surrounding forests is critical, not only to birds which migrate through the area, but especially to birds which breed there.
o A number of bird species observed in the Middle McIntyre Creek area have larger habitat requirements that would not be protected by the proposed 250 meter corridor, centered on the creek. In particular, this would impact birds of prey in the area such as Northern Goshawk, Boreal Owl, and Great Horned Owl, which require larger areas of habitat for breeding. These raptors are sensitive around their nest sites, and require large areas of forest to hunt for prey. They require the large forested areas that Middle McIntyre Creek provides. Protecting these forests is crucial to maintaining habitat and populations of these large birds of prey.
o Many of the forest-dwelling species observed in Middle McIntyre Creek such as Swainson’s Thrush, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Townsend’s Warbler, Boreal Chickadee, and Three-toed Woodpecker require the intact forested habitats found in the Middle McIntyre Creek area. Housing and road development in this area would result in direct habitat loss and forest fragmentation triggering the decline and disappearance of species in this area. Protecting the forests of Middle McIntyre Creek will protect critical habitat for these species.
o Three bird species listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act have been sighted in the Middle McIntyre Creek area: Rusty Blackbird (Special Concern), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Threatened) and Common Nighthawk (Threatened). One nest site of the Olive-sided Flycatcher in the Middle McIntyre Creek area has been confirmed.
Despite this well documented local and Yukon government knowledge of the importance of this area to wildlife, the City of Whitehorse Commissioned a McIntyre Creek Wildlife Corridor Assessment from Environmental Dynamics in 2011, and has used this study to justify the proposed PC-D subdivision.
The EDI report was flawed in many respects, including:
- The report only looked at McIntyre Creek’s regional significance as a travel corridor for large mammals like moose and bear. It did not look at Middle McIntyre Creek’s importance as a local wildlife travel corridor and as habitat for resident wildlife, including birds and aquatic wildlife.
- The report did not assess wildlife use of the area year-round. Cameras were in place from April 21 to September 19. The report acknowledges that moose are more likely to use the area in the winter months.
- The report discusses moose, bear and deer but not lynx. In addition, the focus on large mammals excludes discussion of pine marten, an animal of special significance in southern Yukon. Pine marten were the third most observed animal in the study, after coyote and black bear and before deer and moose. In the Yukon a male marten’s territory covers about six square kilometers; a female requires about four square kilometers. Clearly a narrow riparian buffer will not provide adequate habitat for marten.
- Discussion of impacts is limited to the physical footprint of the proposed developments with particular focus on the PC-D subdivision with little discussion of roads proposed for the area. For example, the report states “Semi-aquatic mammals use habitat in relatively close proximity to McIntyre Creek, so are unlikely to interact with the PC-D residential development”. No consideration is given to the obvious fact that residents and their pets will move beyond the subdivision to the creek where interactions will occur.
- There is no discussion of how increased noise and human and car traffic will impact the remaining habitat and the ability of wildlife to continue to use the area, beyond claims that a 250 meter buffer centered on the creek will mitigate all impacts for medium and small animals.
- Given that the study did not look at bird use of the area, the speculative statement that most diversity of birds in McIntyre Creek occurs in riparian areas without providing references is beyond the scope of the study.
- There was no discussion of the potential impacts of development on hydrology and water quality.
- It recommended a 250 meter ‘wildlife corridor’ centered on McIntyre Creek, with no consideration of habitat needs of resident wildlife, nor discussion of the impacts of concentrating all the current human use, plus people from PC-D and the developing subdivision of Whistle Bend, into the fragile riparian zone that they propose for wildlife habitat.
- The report did not consider the potential impacts of the PC-D subdivision on resident and migratory birds:
o Habitat loss: Direct loss of breeding, foraging and wintering habitat as a result of new development.
o Habitat degradation: Various factors can 'chip away' at habitat integrity when it is adjacent to a developed area. For example, new trails and trampling by humans and dogs could disturb ground and shrub cover, with potential loss of particular breeding or foraging niches. There are likely also microclimate changes associated not only with the edge immediately adjacent to the development but also with the openings and edges created by new trails. These microclimate changes can alter plant composition and distribution, which could have subsequent impacts on other species including birds. Trails and disturbed areas are sources for invasives such as white sweet clover which are transported into areas through construction work and the use of backfill. The proximity of homes to forest would make removal of trees for personal use (woodstoves) a significant concern, particularly dead trees that are critical for cavity nesters.
o Predation: Cats and small carnivores (foxes, coyotes) are significant predators of birds and their nests. Both pets and foxes and coyotes would be expected to increase in abundance in the area due to human residences. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) estimates that cats likely kill more than 4 billion animals per year in the U.S., including at least 500 million birds.
o Lack of science on best practices for riparian buffers in Yukon. Current guidelines are derived from those used in BC and are not based on empirical data from the Yukon. While 250 meters may be sufficient to accommodate the territory size of many species breeding in the area, information on territory size is not known for most species, including Rusty Blackbird which is a federal species of special concern.
- Despite impacts from recreational use, the Middle McIntyre Creek area is an ecologically diverse and functioning ecosystem. The EDI report uses the disturbance from recreational use as justification for the proposed subdivision and roads. This not only disregards the clear evidence that the area supports a diversity of environmental services and wildlife use, but also suggests an attitude that once impacted in any way, natural spaces within the City limits are not worth protecting and restoring.
- Although the EDI report did find signs that moose and bear use the area, they recommended that the City of Whitehorse should not manage for moose and bear due to the potential for human-wildlife conflicts. We are not aware of any recent bear-human conflicts in Middle McIntyre Creek – the area is large enough that large mammals can move through it without coming into conflict with people. However, there will be more conflicts with bears if the area they share with people is greatly reduced by building PCD. A Yukon government document submitted to YESAB (YESAB Project #2008-0024) for a project proposal on McIntyre Creek west of the Alaska Highway notes “As developed lands continue to expand into wild lands they have the potential for attracting certain types of wildlife (bears, coyote, wolf, etc). The development of this area as residential has potential to set up ongoing wildlife interaction and conflicts. There is recognition that these situations set the stage for potential predator conflicts in perpetuity where the wild carnivores are systematically removed. This has impacts on not only a species at risk (Grizzly bear), but the ability of Conservation Officers and wildlife managers to respond.”
Information Gaps and Outstanding Questions
1. PC-D is not infill
- The City of Whitehorse Growth Strategy defines infill as “development within the City’s existing neighbourhoods – areas already serviced by public infrastructure and amenities.”
- There are significant gaps in existing infrastructure in Middle McIntyre Creek and the proposed infrastructure would constitute a significant expense. This calls into question whether PC-D can be defined as infill using the City’s Growth Strategy definition.
- The common element in most definitions of infill is that infill aims to limit urban sprawl. The proposed PC-D subdivision and accompanying roads would be urban sprawl into a large natural area and does not work towards the commonly recognized need to reduce urban sprawl.
2. City Planners have stated that PC-D is only financially feasible if the entire flat area north of McIntyre Creek between Mountainview Drive and the Alaska Highway is developed, and that housing prices would be higher if only the portion east of the Pine Street Extension were developed. Cost or profit by the City and Yukon government must not determine the future of Middle McIntyre Creek – the intrinsic values of the area should determine its future.
3. More accurate information is needed about the full physical footprint of the subdivision, including accompanying roads and other infrastructure. Often, a significant amount of land around a development must be cleared to provide areas for heavy machinery to operate.
4. Inconsistent Information
- Important information provided by City staff keeps changing. This indicates that the proposal for PC-D is not based on facts.
- In December 2011, City Planners indicated that they wished to submit a proposal to YESAB for Whistle Bend Phases 3-5 and PC-D together. Planners said to City Council that failure to make a decision on moving ahead with this joint Whistle Bend and PC-D YESAB submission would likely result in a delay of lot availability in Whistle bend Phases 3-5 because the YESAB submission would be delayed. Planners implied that it was very complicated to move ahead with Whistle Bend without PC-D and the connector roads. Community groups objected that these two proposed developments needed to be assessed separately, which subsequently happened, with no delay to the Whistle bend YESAB assessment.
- It was also later determined that contrary to information that City staff had previously provided, a proposed road across McIntyre Creek was, in fact, not needed for Whistle Bend Phases 3-5.
- At first we were told that all the flat areas north of the creek need to be filled with 400 houses in order to pay for the infrastructure. Then we were told that they are now thinking 200 – 300 units.
5. Housing Supply and Demand
- The Chamber of Commerce and Realtors Association have argued that Whitehorse needs PC-D because the Whitehorse population is growing, lots of mining workers are arriving who need housing, and people want options/variety of housing – they don’t all want to live in Whistle Bend. This unsubstantiated rationale for PC-D provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Realtors Association is not appropriate to base decisions about the future of Middle McIntyre Creek upon.
- In a June 1 article in the Whitehorse Star, Councillor Ranj Pillai expressed concern over the rushed, uninformed approach the City is taking to housing development, especially when it comes to PC-D: “We need to identify where we need lots, identify which projects are in the works already and identify the capacity to meet the needs.” We agree.
- Independent Analysis needed: the city and Yukon government should not rely on the real estate industry to forecast housing needs, but must undertake an independent analysis of housing needs.
- The City has stated that in addition to Whistle Bend and infill, the proposed PC-D subdivision is required to meet housing demand, however we have not seen figures justifying this claim. A report is needed that includes an analysis of houses currently for sale, vacant lots and lots with derelict houses that could be developed, and potential housing on private property and First Nations lands.
- The greater Whitehorse housing supply: The City does not seem to be considering any of the developments in the Whitehorse periphery when estimating future housing availability. Each of the hamlets surrounding Whitehorse is being encouraged to decrease the minimum lot subdivision size. This would add more than 400 available lots. Also not included are large plots scheduled for subdivision like the McGowan lands that could provide as many as 130 additional lots.
- There are many more homes available this year than one year ago. In May, Real Estate Association President Val Smith said Yukon wide the number of units available today for occupancy within 90 days is twice or more the number available at this time last year. A year ago, there were 111 residential listings in all categories, houses to condos, not including private sales and sales through the PropertyGuys organization. Today there are 261 residential listings, up by 150, or significantly more than double what there was last May. Whitehorse accounts for 213 of those listings. PropertyGuys had another 112 clients selling their homes, 80 of whom are in Whitehorse. In addition, in May City of Whitehorse records showed there are 178 residential developments of all sorts in the works, but primarily units in multiple housing developments, like condos and townhouses.
- We need affordable housing – not single family dwellings on large lots. So 200 – 300 new single family houses on large lots filling up all the flat areas north of McIntyre Creek does not address our housing needs.
- Have planners analyzed the contribution that private land development could make to Whitehorse’s housing needs?
- Whitehorse residents and YESAB need much more accurate information about potential new housing units that may come on line (proponents are required to provide alternatives to their proposed projects when they go through YESAB – if the City proceeds with a YESAB assessment of PC-D the City needs to provide this information to YESAB.)
- The City of Whitehorse needs to be pro-active about encouraging private property owners to create affordable housing through tax penalties and incentives.
6. Population dynamics and growth projections:
- The housing forecasts are, to a large extent, based on population forecasts. The population forecasts are in turn based primarily on two sources: Yukon Health Care enrolments and census data with school enrolments used to supplement and check the forecasts. The problem with these data is that the Yukon Health Care enrolment is not validated. Entry into the program is encouraged while exiting the program is problematic. A ground-truthing of these data was done a number of years ago, which found that a significant number of those supposedly enrolled in the Health Care program had moved or died. To what extent is this still the case? What proportion of the itinerant mining employees are on Yukon Health Care?
- How accurate are the City’s population projections? Will Whitehorse grow at the high or even medium scenario’s laid out in the OCP for the next 25 years? Has it ever? How terrible to have PCD built and then realize this enormous sacrifice was completely unnecessary.
- The mining sector: How much of Whitehorse housing demand does mining activity account for? The mining exploration expenditures show little reflection in retail sales, indicating that many of those employed in mining and exploration are not resident to the Yukon. YG needs to conduct a more detailed analysis of employees at the Minto mine, for example, to see how many are resident, itinerant, or employed here but live away from the Yukon. To plan for large scale development without such information is irresponsible. In any case, the mining exploration boom has already slowed down.
7. OCP Growth and Demand Projections
- The Official Community Plan says that at a high growth rate of 3.5% we need 450 new units per year for 25 years, at a medium rate of 2% we need 225, and at low rate of .5% we need 50.
- PC- D would be less than one year’s worth of new units at high growth, or one year’s worth at medium growth. Why would we destroy the recreational, educational and ecological values of this area for one year’s worth of expensive housing?
8. Timing of the need for more lots
- The 3500 units planned for Whistle Bend will supply the City with enough housing for 11 to 12 years at a growth rate of 2.6%. If the First Nations Land and Tank Farm take 5 years to come on line, Whistle Bend, infill and smaller private development will provide ample housing in the meantime.
Areas of current or potential future housing development:
Proposed PC-D – 80 hectares, 200-300 units
Tank Farm – 57 hectares, 350 lots
Former Mackenzie RV Park (south of Crestview), 4.96 hectares, 100 units
Rezoning Bylaw has provisions to increase density of downtown – by how much?
Downtown South – 600 additional housing units
First Nation Land – what is housing potential?
Ingram – housing potential?
How many infill lots have just been or are currently under development?
Greater Whitehorse: potentially 530 lots
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
