May 4th, 2011 To: Commissioners of the Niagara Escarpment Commission: Re: City of Burlingtons Application for New

City Park - H/L/2010-2011/302 Dear Everyone On April 14th, I discovered a new application by City stapled to the Action Plan billboard at New City Park. This application raised a number of disturbing issues. The two of greatest concern are those that relate to 1) the proposed increased capacity of spectator seating, the fencing, and expanded parking at New City Park; and 2) the, as yet, undocumented impact of artificial turf in this park without a current Environmental Impact Assessment. These issues stand in contradiction to the Ministry of Natural Resources Ruling of April 7th of 2011; specifically, Condition 5, 9, 10, 11 & Condition 15. 1. a) This new Application by City requests additional spectator bleacher seating that was strictly forbidden in the MNR Ruling in respect to the previous Development Permit, H/L/2010-2011/056. Condition 11 states: No.11. The installation of bleachers shall take place only on the north side of the main soccer field as identified on the approved site plan - Map 3. Note: The site plan shows that the two soccer fields adjoining have no bleacher seating and these are not permitted under this Development Permit. The MNR based this restriction on the Recommendations of the Hearing Officers Report that states: The Hearing Officer finds that further development of the Park ... would not be in keeping with the natural character of the Escarpment environment. He suggests (and the MNR ratified his suggestions by invoking Condition 11) that, "bleachers and related parking areas for spectators are appropriately reduced in size". He recommends that any NEW application focus on the provision of recreational facilities for USERS rather than SPECTATORS in accordance with the Objectives of Section 3.1.1. of the NEP and that any future application provide adequate information to assess cumulative impact, and long term capacity. Yet, this new application by City now seeks increased seating for an allotment of 6 units of 70 seats of spectator bleacher seating for those two additional play fields equal to an added capacity of 420 seats - above and beyond the 1500 spectator seating already allotted for the centre soccer stadium - without providing any additional information to assess the cumulative impact and long term capacity on the public services and water requirements of same in this unserviced parkland area. This is unacceptable, and in contravention of Condition 10 & 11. b) None of the schematics supplied in this current application provide any data about the FENCES. Yet it is a known fact that artificial turf fields must be fenced in permanently. This must be done to deter wandering wildlife from peeing (and thus staining) the perma-green colour of plastic grass. How high will these fences be? Will they be mesh & see through - or will they be solid with restricted access for members only to the spectator bleacher area? Where are the specifications? They arent in the previous Development Permit and they arent in this one either. Yet, for sure, they are coming. This fact stands in contravention of Conditions 5 & 9. 1

c) on Figure 2 of this new Permit (L 202.1, drawn on February 2, 2011), the parking Lots A & B have expanded to 68 additional parking spaces in excess of the those already allotted beside the centre tournament field, again in contravention of the Hearing Officers Recommendations. With the additional seating, expanded parking lots, and undisclosed restricted access afforded by the fences, why is City attempting to CIRCUMNAVIGATE what both the Hearing Officer recommended and what the MNR explicitly stipulated in Condition 5, 9, 10 and Condition 11? Our position to the Commission is this: If it IS the intent of the Niagara Escarpment Commission to approve this application as is, in contradiction of the recent MNR Ruling & Conditions, then it seems appropriate to suggest that the NEC COMMISSIONERS now invoke their governing authority to DEMAND a stay to further development of New City Park because of this apparent change of use, a result of the increased seating capacity , undisclosed fencing requirements, and the additional parking allotments. To further elucidate this problem, compare the Development Permit to the approved Park Plan. (See A below Context Plan, L100.1, drawn on Feb 2, 2011. versus B below from the approved Park Management Plan of 2009). In the new application, the three soccer fields are scrunched up in an ugly environmentally-UNFRIENDLY solid carpet of artificial turf with no intervening vegetation. They will be fenced in. Now look at B, the truly approved & Preferred Site Plan for New City Park with its open access of well-placed multi-use play fields surrounded by plenty of vegetation to mitigate water run-off and balance the overall natural development. You must ask yourselves: What PURPOSE does it serve to cluster the soccer fields together? WHY has City veered off so completely from the approved & preferred Park Management Master Plan of 2009 in the 11th hour? The answer lies with the Pan Am organization. In December 2009, the PanAm Organization provided millions of dollars for the installation of artificial turf for tournament-grade soccer fields in this park. It is they who have demanded this cluster site requirement, a FACT documented at the Hearing in Exhibits A, L, M, N and O of my support material.

. A.) NEW Application Permit Context Plan L.100.1 - vs - B.) approved Preferred Park Plan In short, what we, the taxpaying public, are getting - compared to what was pitched to us (and to the NEC Commissioners on June of last year), is now LIGHT YEARS AWAY from the 2

ORIGINAL, preferred and on public record park design. We ask you, WHO is this park really for - us or them? It is time the NEC Commissioners reined in this runaway PanAm park development. 2. a) On April 21st, 2011, I received the following communiqu from David Johnston, NEC Planner, regarding my earlier query about the intent of the City to now do a CURRENT Environmental Impact Assessment as stated in Condition 15 of the MNR Ruling of April 7th, 2011. David wrote: Condition 15 of the Ministers decision is in regards to the recommendations of the EIA being implemented that was undertaken as part of the Master Plan. NEC staff will not be asking for an update but it is up to the NEC to decide. You likely mean hydrogeological study. The components of the turf were reviewed by the Hearing Officer and there were expert witnesses called to testify and who gave expert opinion evidence, including toxicology, at the hearing. The evidence is that there is little to no concern over water quality or environmental impact. The NEC will be presented with a staff report and you can state your case. It will decide.

This is a very creative and somewhat misleading interpretation of the 2011 Ruling & Conditions. In the approved Park Management Plan of 2009, several hydro-geo technical studies were completed in 2005/6/7. Further to Davids note, Allan Magi, Executive Director of Corporate Strategic Initiatives at Burlington City Hall, supplied me with an Environmental Impact Assessment done by North-South Environmental Inc., produced in April 2010. Both David, on behalf of the NEC, and Allan, on behalf of the City of Burlington, now claim all has been reviewed to satisfaction. But, note the dates -2005/6/7, and, for the Environmental Impact Assessment - April 2010. The component parts of plastic grass - with its 3 inch polyethylene yarn stitched into a solid plastic carpet set on top of a base layer of Sophrasphalte M & rubber-crumb (20,000 crushed tires PER FIELD ) - were not IDENTIFIED until the Hearing of October 5th, 2010 . That is six months after the Environmental Impact Assessment of 2010 was completed, and four to five YEARS after the preliminary water-geo technical studies were done. NONE of these above reports take into account the CURRENT REALITY of three fields of artificial turf in New City Park. This is unacceptable, and in contravention of Conditions 10 & 15. Furthermore, other components that constitute the FULL installation and maintenance of artificial turf were NOT identified at the Hearing, namely; the unidentified super-adhesive glues used to bond the synthetic turf layers together; the unidentified sanitizing chemicals used to clean & sterilize this product between game play; and the frequency of use of said products throughout the limited life-cycle of 5-10 years for artificial turf. There is NO analysis anywhere of the impact that all of these components, in whole or in part, will have on the eco-system when they are washed off by rain or storm-water that drains directly into the new lake and the known Ecologically Sensitive Area - UNTREATED. None of this REALITY is addressed in the technical studies of 2005/6/7, or the approved Park Management Plan of 2009, or the last E.I.A of April 2010. For the NEC and City Staff to now claim that all regulatory bodies knew what artificial turf is and how it will interact with the ecology of this site is FALSE. Please note, there is no technical analysis of artificial turf anywhere in the Park Management Plan. We ask you, how can anyone 3

interpret artificial turf vis a vis this site if the technical data for artificial turf was never included in that Plan? Rod Macdonald, of the Landplan Collaborative Group, and principal Designer of the Park Management Plan, told me in August, 2010 If you are asking if we understood the technical aspects of artificial turf, the answer is NO. A technical analysis of artificial turf is not anywhere to be found in the approved Park Management Plan. How could the environmental regulatory bodies approve the impact and consequences of this product in 2005/6/7 or early 2010 when neither the lead designer nor they knew anything about the product until AFTER the Hearing of OCTOBER 5th 2010? City & NEC STAFF also now claim that expert witnesses at the Hearing say there is no toxicity. However, this recent claim also flies in the face of a number of the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) supplied at the Hearing. Those MSDSs specifically document Hazardous Alerts in relation to combustion, water usage, fire hazard, human inhalation and contact. For example, review the Soprasphalte M Material Safety Data Sheet attached to this letter, (and supplied at the Hearing by the City Legal team on behalf of the installer). Embryo-toxicity, mutagenicity, teratogencity, and reproductive toxicity do not have any statistical evaluation. The MSDS states, NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE. It is unregulated. Soprasphalte is also highly flammable. The MSDS states: Do not allow product or runoff from fire control to enter storm or sanitary sewers, lakes, rivers, streams or public waterways. ... Provincial and federal regulations may require that environmental and/or other agencies be notified We ask you, where is a CURRENT Environmental Impact Assessment that documents this products impact on the water in this park? There isnt one. This contravenes Condition 10 & 15 of the MNR Ruling. b) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, one item not covered by these on-City-payroll experts is the physical component of rubber infill. Photo illustration below: -

These rubber granules, used to create tensile verticality within the plastic grass, are LOOSE. They will travel on the soles of many running shoes into the parkland area thus impacting the surrounding landscape. They will also be washed off during routine maintenance back into the storm-water system and thus the ecologically sensitive area un-captured - and UNTREATED. And finally, they will also be ingested and integrated into the food chain of all living things in this park. 4

Consider this link for a visual of how PLASTIC enters into the LIFE CYCLE of just the avian population. See - http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-dead-birds-filled-with-plastic-2011-4 Sample image from that link is provided below: -

Here is another link that demonstrates how plastic enters the aquatic eco-system http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380628/Scampi-food-scare-plastic-stomachs-seacreatures-caught-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml How can any sane person (or expert) claim that these un-documented non-biodegradable rubber granules will NOT impact the existing ecosystem and migratory wildlife population throughout the entire food chain of this park? A CURRENT Environmental Impact Assessment MUST be done AGAIN in conjunction with all eco-regulatory authorities Conservation Halton, the Region of Halton the Ministry of Environment and the NEC. All must sign off using their FULL KNOWLEDGE of the LONG TERM IMPACT of artificial turf - with all its component parts - in this landscape as per Condition 10 & 15 of the MNR Ruling. To not do so, to let the Environmental Impact Assessment of early 2010 and the hydro-geo technical studies of five years ago stand AS IS - without consideration of the impact of plastic grass on the short & long term health of this fragile ecosystem - is - and will remain - an ecological disgrace. It is simply ecologically criminal to proceed without a CURRENT E.I.A. In conclusion, we ask that the NEC Board 1) deny this Application to add the additional spectator bleacher seating for 420, the additional parking for 68 and the un-disclosed fencing as all these added elements contravene Condition 5, 9, 10 & 11 of the MNR Ruling; and, 2) demand that a CURRENT Environmental Impact Assessment be done that integrates & realistically evaluates the impact of artificial turf in its entirety on this precious parkland area with its finite water supply, as per NEP 2.6, (Items No.:6, 8, & 9), and Condition 10 & 15 of the MNR April 7th, 2011 Ruling. We ask that the Niagara Escarpment Commissioners carefully consider the Hearing Officers Recommendations about the further development of this parkland area. Understand his concerns about the apparent on-going metamorphosing of the approved Park Plan evident within this current Applications attempt to change its use to a SPECTATOR-HEAVY venue. Weigh his words with the MNR Ruling. Then, please, understand the City of Burlingtons relentless and ambitious PUSH to just keep on doing whatever they must to make this their chosen PanAm tournament-soccer venue for 2015 5

Please, we ask that you apply your good common sense to the long term well-being of this unique and irreplaceable Niagara Escarpment natural parkland area. Once it is gone, it will be gone for good. Thank you. Margaret Lindsay Holton p.s. Two other points of interest: 1) There has been a recent public campaign to discredit my position on the little-known fact of the PanAm hijacking of New City Park. I have been accused of withdrawing my Appeal before the Hearing of October 5th, 2010, thus, supposedly, undermining my credibility. To be clear, initially I was representing two appellants of the SEVEN who appealed - that of our family and that of Friends of City Park. City Legal brought a Motion to Dismiss ALL appeals shortly before the Hearing took place, claiming all were without merit and vexatious. In response to this legal threat, I withdrew the 2nd Appeal to prove I was not. Soon thereafter, after further discussion with my family, it was concluded that, as a private citizens, it was not sustainable that we should personally carry the expense of $1400 per diem in projected legal fees defending New City Park, a PUBLIC concern. We withdrew our appeal. I then immediately applied for Presenter status as a stand-alone concerned citizen at the Hearing in support of the remaining Appellant who was not scared off by City Legal. The Motion to Dismiss was knocked down by the Hearing Officer. A few of us were finally ALLOWED to speak. We did our best without legal representation. Collectively, we could not afford to fly in so-called experts from the States as did City at taxpayers expense. In retrospect, it seems somewhat excessive that City used such aggressive tactics to try to SILENCE local residents efforts to publicly disclose the FACT of the last-minute PanAm hi-jacking of this park. Today, our combined response to these tactics is this: the Truth Shall Prevail. 2) City Legal also supplied an MSDS at the Hearing for Tencate, a seemingly benign artificial turf substance that is not even going into the park according to the supplier. This attempt to deliberately MISLEAD the Hearing Officer is of great concern to us, and should also be to you, the Commissioners of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Attached: 1 )Soprasphalte M Material Safety Data Sheet (2009) - two pages 2 ) Weblink: Environmental & Human Health Inc. Report about Artificial Turf (identifying known carcinogens & related issues of toxicity ). This document was the only one of our multiple support materials allowed by the experts at the Hearing of October 5th, 2011) - http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/health_effects.shtml ) Everyone should review this.