|
Transportation Committee Comité des transports Minutes 15 / ProcÈs-verbal 15
Wednesday,
6 October 2004, 9:30 a.m. le mercredi 6 octobre 2004, 9 h 30 Champlain Room,
110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest |
Present / Présents: Councillors / Conseillers J. Stavinga
(Chair / Présidente),
C. Doucet (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen,
E. El-Chantiry, J. Legendre, M. McRae, D. Thompson
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
No declarations of interest were filed.
Ratification du
procÈs-verbaL
Minutes 14 of the Transportation Committee Meeting of Wednesday, 15 September 2004 were confirmed.
PRESENTATION
POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET RENVOIS
2. TERRY
FOX DRIVE – RICHARDSON SIDE ROAD TO GOULBOURN FORCED ROAD (ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM) PROMENADE TERRY-FOX – ROUTE SECONDAIRE RICHARDSON AU CHEMIN GOULBOURN
FORCED (ADDENDA À L’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE)
ACS2004-DEV-POL-0021
DEFERRED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 2004
Appearing before Committee to answer
questions on this item were Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and
Growth Management (PGM), Steven Stoddard, Senior Project Manager, PGM, Shawn
Doyle, Dillon Consulting, Dan Brunton, Brunton Consulting Services and Sue Murphy, Planner II, PGM. The Committee received a memorandum from the
Deputy City Manager, providing additional information as requested at the
September 1 meeting, which is attached to the above-noted report and was distributed
with the agenda of this meeting.
In response to questions and comments from
Councillor Legendre about the passageway, Mr. Brunton responded that the point
of the passageway is not to replicate an urban landscape but to facilitate
communication between two sides of that natural area. It would be large enough to facilitate large animals such as deer
but this roadway is way too long through prime deer habitat to be able to
effectively mitigate it against those hits and there will be lots of deer mortality
along that road, which is unavoidable unless the whole road is elevated. Fencing works reasonably well for large
animals such as deer and elk but does not work well for wolves and smaller
animals; they also cost millions of dollars to put in place and are not really
ecological. Ms. Murphy informed that
the primary purpose of the passageway is to facilitate a connection in terms of
the South March highlands for ecological function and drainage. In response to Councillor Legendre’s
expressed disappointment about the comments of the Mississippi Valley
Conservation Authority (MVCA), Mr. Brunton stated that this is, ecologically, a
terrible place to put a road but, on balance, in consideration of all other
criteria, it has been decided that it is best to put the road there if a road
must be built. He stated that the
passageway would not guarantee that there would be the desired connectivity but
it will provide some potential for it.
He further noted that there will be losses in wetland habitat and substantial
losses in upland habitat but conceded that the passageway attempts to reduce
that to the greatest degree possible and keep in reasonable operation the most
important functions for which the area was defined. Mr. Lathrop added that staff relies on the MVCA, respects their
ability to make valuable recommendations, and are satisfied about their
comments with respect to the loss of land in the floodplain being minimal. He pointed out that such losses are something
that staff tries to minimize as much as possible and thus the reasoning for
choosing this alignment.
Chair Stavinga pointed out that she, like
some other current Transportation Committee members, had not participated in
this process prior to 2000 and she felt that the memorandum that had recently
been provided by the Deputy City Manager was very helpful in alleviating some
of her concerns and perhaps those of other members as well. She suggested to staff for future reference
that this type of background information should be provided to Committee when
dealing with environmental assessments that have been approved by other bodies
at another point in time.
Councillor Feltmate pointed out that Terry
Fox is a very important transportation link in the west that is intended to be
part of a network with many more links, some of which are still to be
built. She felt that it should proceed
as quickly as possible given the development in the area that is depending on
it.
Councillor Bloess suggested that there must
be a better way of building this road and he opined that it will compound
negative environmental impacts.
When queried by Councillor Cullen, Mr.
Lathrop informed that the Official Plan designation for this area, dealt with
by the Planning and Environment Committee on 14 September, will rise to Council
concurrent with this report, on 27 October.
Councillor El-Chantiry felt that every road
in the area, not just Terry Fox, has deer problems and wondered why special
consideration is being given to the matter in light of this. Mr. Brunton concurred and pointed out that
the impact of this passageway on deer populations will be negligible and that
it will be more of an ecological passageway than a large animal passageway.
Ed Balys stated that the landowners have agreed to
donate 120 acres of March Highlands to expand the City-owned park lands (the
Regional Conservation Lands) and a further 20 acres of the north tip of the
special study area as park lands. His
concern lies with the fact that 500m of Terry Fox Drive will run through this
pristine escarpment area. He conceded
that it is not possible to make the road disappear, but he suggested that the
impacts could be greatly lessened by the sinking it into the bedrock by about 2
metres, relocating the passageway to Shirley’s Brook and placing the storm
water catch pond on the west side of Terry Fox. Mr. Balys submitted written comments to this effect, a copy of
which is held on file. Councillor
Feltmate pointed out that the comments submitted by Mr. Balys are a reflection
of his own opinions and do not reflect those of most of the community.
In response to Mr. Balys’ suggestions, staff
provided the following comments:
·
The
profile of the area was set based on various constraints: a) engineering
constraints to design a roadway profile as a continuous line because it must
make sense in context of the overall roadway and not just the 500 metres that
Mr. Balys has referred to; b) the necessity to choose a profile that respects
the existing topography of the rock nulls as a key environmental feature; and
c) consideration of cost construction and the need to balance the amount of
material that would have to be removed to construct the roadway with the amount
of material that would have to be brought in to support it.
·
The
suggestion that the road could be narrowed through that area to 35metres is
misleading. The City’s standard for
arterial roadways would require at least 45 metres and beyond that there would
be engineering considerations requiring clear zones on the shoulders and to the
rock face.
·
The
profile can be looked at through the detail design phase and if there is an
opportunity to change or lower it, to the overall benefit of the project, it
can be accommodated outside of the Environmental Assessment Addendum process.
·
The
stormwater catch pond is located at the east side of the roadway because of the
existing topography of the land. The
roadway is passing through a large north to east curve and as it passes, the
road surface tilts slightly and all of the water will drain naturally to the
inside of the easterly part of the road.
It is possible to collect it and transfer it to the west side, but this
was not considered because the east side is the most logical placement for it
and a move to the west side might require a change in the profile of the road.
·
The
location of the passageway was based on several studies that determined that it
will not work elsewhere. It was
determined that, biologically, there is a need to allow the maximum amount of
ecological connectivity across this one natural area at that location.
Councillors Legendre, Cullen, Bloess and
Doucet were not in support of approval of this addendum and raised following
points:
·
there
seems to be some conflict between what was approved in 2000 and what is being
presented now with respect to the way this road does/does not determine the
urban boundary
·
it
is difficult to consider the roadway design without considering the planning
element. Should Council approve the
Planning and Environment Committee recommendation, a major part of the natural
environment area will become developed
·
several
projects in the past have been stopped or aborted because they did not protect
green spaces and did not fit with the urban landscape and values of the time
and there is still opportunity to change or stop this project, particularly as
the capital has not yet been approved
·
mitigations
being offered are not sufficient to offset the environmental impacts and damage
that will be done and this roadway will compound previous mistakes
·
the
world and its values have changed and the City will have to grow differently if
costs and environmental impacts are to be reduced and that can be achieved by
voting down projects such as this which harm the environment and spawn more
growth
Councillors Bédard, El-Chantiry, McRae, Thompson and Stavinga
were in support of the staff recommendations and raised the following points:
·
the majority of the community is in support of this project and would
like it to proceed as quickly as possible
·
the
MVCA have expressed their support of the mitigation measures
·
this
is an addendum process and not the appropriate time to make changes to the
overall project or try to stop it completely
Mr. Lathrop clarified that the roadway itself
was approved in 2000 as part of the environmental assessment process. The fact that there will be a route was
stated as part of the Official Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, as part of
the growth of the Kanata urban area and as a needed link in the transportation
system around Kanata. The Addendum
attempts to mitigate environmental impacts by making specifications, such as
those related to property requirements for the rail grade specifications which
are needed in order to make sure that the east-west railway line can be grade
separated for future light rail. If
this Addendum were not accepted by Committee, the road would still proceed but
without the mitigation measures.
The Committee then considered the report
recommendation.
That the Transportation
Committee recommend Council approve:
1.
The Environmental Assessment Addendum recommendation, as illustrated
in Document 1 Recommended Addendum Alignment, to modify the roadway alignment,
the roadway cross-section, and the property requirements for the future railway
grade-separation of Terry Fox Drive between Richardson Side Road and Goulbourn
Forced Road.
2.
The finalization and filing of the Terry Fox Drive – Richardson Side
Road to Goulbourn Forced Road – Environmental Assessment Addendum Report
detailing the above noted recommendations.
CARRIED
Nays (4): R.
Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The
Committee adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Anne-Marie Leung Councillor Janet Stavinga
Committee Coordinator Chair