STAFF REPORT WATERDOWN/ALDERSHOT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) PHASE 2

Transcription

1 March 15, 2007 STAFF REPORT RE: WATERDOWN/ALDERSHOT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) PHASE 2 RECEIVED: August 8 th, 2005 PROPONENT: City of Hamilton, City of Burlington, and Region of Halton PURPOSE: To seek Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) support of the Phase 2 Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Study Report from Dillon Consulting Ltd. PROPOSAL: The Phase 2 Study Report recommends the Preferred Road Improvement Solution identified as: North-South Solution Geometric improvements and widening of Waterdown Road to 4 lanes from Hwy 403 to Mountain Brow Road; Widen eastern section of Mountain Brow Road to 4 lanes east of Waterdown Road; New Waterdown Road ROW north of Mountain Brow Road to connect with Dundas Street through the future OPA No. 28 development lands; and King Road to remain at 2 lanes. The need for geometric improvements and/or access restrictions to the existing King Road to remain open as a 2-lane road in the future will need to be evaluated in Phase 3 of the EA Study; and East West Solution Starting from the west, a new 2-lane North Link By-pass at 26 to 32 m ROW from Dundas Street West at Rock Chapel Road continuing as a new northern by-pass ROW; The ROW then swings south past Centre Street to connect with Parkside Drive east of Churchill Avenue; Widening Parkside Drive to 4 lanes (30-32 m ROW) to the eastern edge of the Up Country development block; New north-south ROW along the eastern edge of the Up Country development block; and

2 Connect with Dundas Street and widening Dundas St (6 lanes) to a midway point between Kerns Road and Brant Street SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Support the preferred road options as presented in the Phase 2 Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Study Report from Dillon Consulting Ltd., and support proceeding to the next phases of the EA. STATUS: The Phase 2 Report for the (Class) EA has been completed. If this Report is approved by both Hamilton and Burlington Councils, the Consultants will proceed with the next phases of the Municipal Class EA process (alternative designs for the preferred solution). A cost-sharing agreement between the City of Hamilton and the City of Burlington for the north-south road improvements also needs to be finalized before proceeding. The Council of the City of Hamilton endorsed the Phase 2 Report on March 1, The City of Burlington s Engineering Department (in Report E23/06), recommended that Council approve the preferred routes in the Phase 2 Study. Council of the City of Burlington referred Report E-23/06, dated April 8, 2006 back to staff on May 1, 2006 directing them to report back to Burlington s Community Development Committee with a further investigation into the full implications of the following options: Option 3 Three-lane Waterdown Road, including consideration of bike lanes within a permanent three lane configuration, as well as minor improvements to King Road to enhance the north-south capacity. Option 5 Status quo (leave Waterdown Road and King Road as two-lane roads). The City of Burlington retained Totten Sims Hubicki (TSH) to provide an independent review of the existing King Road and to develop a functional plan for an improved King Road option as requested by Council. The review included a safety and capacity analysis. Dillon Consulting completed a comparative evaluation, of the 3-lane Waterdown Road/Improved 2-lane King Road option and the Phase 2 recommended 4-lane Waterdown Road option, which included the TSH assignment work. On December 1, 2006 Dillon Consulting concluded that the 3-Lane Waterdown /Improved King Road option is not a superior option over the 4-lane Waterdown Road Option, and that the 4-lane Waterdown option should remain as the preferred option. The City of Burlington s Engineering Department, (in Report E25/07), dated February 16, 2007 has recommended to Burlington s Community Development Committee that Council endorse the findings of the Phase 2 Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Study Report from Dillon Consulting and recommends 2

3 proceeding in conjunction with the City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton with Phases 3 and 4 of the EA Study, subject to the following conditions: That Phase 3 evaluate options for a phased implementation of the 4- lane Waterdown Road that would include an initial 3-lane option; That Phase 3 evaluate and confirm a design alternative to allow King Road to remain open, as a single lane, at the Escarpment crossing that permits 2-way traffic through the use of traffic signals; Finalization of a cost-sharing agreement with the City of Hamilton; Priority of Phase 3 is work required to fully address all detailed design questions raised by Waterdown Road residents including road alignment, impacts to individual properties and land acquisition requirements; and That staff report back to Council on the Phase 3 preferred design alternative as part of consideration for approval of Phase 4. Part B of the Engineering Department Report recommends that, subject to Council s approval of the above recommendations, Burlington staff be directed to confirm and consult with the public and stakeholders on recommendations for the (separate) Kern s Road EA Study that includes a southbound closure of Kerns Road at the Escarpment crossing and northbound turn restrictions on Kerns Road, prior to reporting back to Council with the Phase 4 Transportation Master Plan EA Study Report. On Monday, March 5, 2007, Burlington s Community Development Committee met to consider the Engineering Report and to hear delegations. NEC staff attended the meeting, at the request of the City, and indicated that the staff was supportive of the preferred options because they have the least overall environmental and visual impacts. The Community Development Committee will continue the meeting on Wednesday, March 7, BACKGROUND: Transportation Master Plans carried out in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process generally consist of: Broad scope and an analysis of a transportation system to outline a framework for future works and development; Recommendations for a set of works which are to be implemented over an extended period of time. Master plans provide the context for the implementation of specific projects which make up the plan and satisfy, as a minimum, Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. The City of Hamilton, in conjunction with the City of Burlington and the Regional Municipality of Halton, is finalizing Phase 2 of the Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan using the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The plan is intended to allow the development of the transportation system of the OPA 28 lands in an orderly, effective and economical manner. 3

4 Order in Council 1262/2002, of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, dated June 19, 2002, approved OPA No.28 and the associated Amendments #107 and 109, in the Former Town of Flamborough. This Cabinet approved expansion of the Urban Boundary in the Waterdown Area will add approximately 2000 residential units to the North Waterdown Area, approximately 1000 units to the Upcountry Estates Development Area and approximately 3500 residential units to the South (east) Waterdown Area, south of Dundas Street. However, the approved version of OPA 28, including Waterdown South, and related Memorandum of Agreement approved by Cabinet, put the majority of development within the urban expansion area on hold awaiting the completion of: A Class EA for the Dundas Waste water treatment plan expansion/diversion (completed); A Master EA Transportation study, including an implementation plan approved by the City of Burlington and Town of Flamborough; Secondary plans where Council deems necessary; and A financing strategy for the preferred solution A previous Transportation Master Plan Study, undertaken by Stantec Consulting Ltd. in September 1999, was not finalized due to the impending amalgamation to create the new City of Hamilton. Outstanding agency and public issues were not finalized. NEC staff participated in the Stantec study, but the NEC did not take a position on any of the Stantec proposals. This previous study was not approved by the Region of Halton, the Former Town of Flamborough, the City of Burlington or the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth. Consequently, a new EA process was initiated in 2003 to address changed conditions, including the need for additional capacity in the overall transportation network due to the pending development of the OPA 28 lands. Other changed conditions since 1999 include: opening of Highway 407, potential Highway 403 interchange with King Road withdrawn, Highway 403 and Waterdown Road interchange, Highway 6 restricted access facility, the amalgamation of the former Town of Flamborough into the City of Hamilton, the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, the addition of the Linklands to the NEP, the imposition of Development Control to part of the Linklands and a new Watershed study. EA Study Phase 1 Problem or Opportunity The EA Phase 1, dated April 2004 concluded: The need for additional east-west capacity in the transportation network, due to OPA 28; The need for additional north-south capacity in the transportation network due to OPA 28; and The need to consider all options to provide additional east-west and northsouth capacity; and the independence of the Aldershot/Waterdown transportation study from the Mid Peninsula Highway initiative (due to a 4

5 different market than the traffic that is forecast to use the expanded municipal road network). EA Study Phase 2 Alternative Solutions Phase 2 followed the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process. This Phase examined all reasonable and feasible alternatives to address the transportation network capacity deficiencies identified in Phase 1 of the Transportation Master Plan Study. A range of transportation modes including roads, transit, rail, walking and bicycling were examined. The following alternatives were evaluated: Do nothing (status quo) Transit Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Roadway Alternatives The approach considered all modes of travel to solve the transportation problem. The consultants undertook a modelling scenario which reduced single occupant auto travel in the study area by up to 15 percent through increased transit use and TDM measures. This did not solve the transportation capacity deficiency. Several roadway alternatives combined with increases in transit were developed to determine which roadway alternatives would address the problem. Do Nothing Alternative - The Consultants determined that this alternative would not solve the problem. Additional north-south and east-west road capacity is needed to accommodate growth up to Transit Transit solutions will form a component of the recommended solutions, but transit alone will not solve the road capacity deficiency. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - TDM strategies attempt to delay, defer or even eliminate the need for new transportation infrastructure by: promoting walking and cycling; promoting public transit and ride sharing; and influencing auto demands in peak commuter periods. These measures will be developed as part of the Transportation Master Plan process. Roadway Alternatives - Roadway alternatives were pre-screened based on their ability to solve the capacity problem. Alternatives that did not solve the problem (and subsequently did not receive further evaluation) included: a) Widening of Kerns Road between Dundas Street and North Service Road; b) Widening of Brant Street between Dundas Street and Highway 403; c) Widening of No. 1 Sideroad between Evans Road and Cedar Springs Road; d) Widening of Dundas Street to 4 lanes between Highway 6 and Brant Street (A 4- lane/6 lane Dundas Street widening option was reviewed); and e) Improving the existing 2-lane King Road (no Waterdown Road improvements). 5

6 The Consultants concluded that improving the existing 2-lane King Road, as the only road improvement, does not solve the north-south capacity problem. Even an expanded 4-lane King Road would not solve the transportation problem. King Road also does not provide a direct route to Highway 403 via the Waterdown Road interchange, and would provide a less effective connection to the Aldershot GO Station. However, an option that included a 2-lane King Road with an improved 2- lane Waterdown Road was included in the final alternative evaluations. The final evaluation consisted of four (4) east-west road improvement alternatives and three (3) north-south road improvement alternatives that were considered to be capable of solving the roadway capacity deficiencies. (See Table 1). North-South Alternatives Option 1 King/Waterdown Road Geometric Improvements Option 2 - Waterdown Road Widening Option 3 King Road Geometric Improvement & Waterdown Road Widening East-West Alternatives Option 1 New North Road Option 2 Parkside Drive Widening Option 3 Dundas Street Widening Option 4 Parkside Drive Widening and New North Road The road improvement alternatives were developed as corridors, and not specific routes. The routes will be identified in detail as part of Phase 3 of the Class EA process. Evaluation Criteria The Consultants based their assessment and evaluation on five criteria groups that included: Natural Environment Social Environment Economic Environment Cost Transportation Service Consultant Evaluation of Alternative Road Improvement Options Map 1 (attached), identifies the road alternatives relative to the NEP Area and NEP designations. North-South Routes The Consultants have concluded that the key advantage of the preferred option (Option 2) is that it avoids the substantial negative natural environment effects of Options 1 and 3 resulting from the King Road extension and 6

7 improvements ( including ANSI and ESA core areas, Escarpment Natural Area and the Bruce Trail Corridor). The Consultants also conclude that environmental effects associated with Waterdown Road can be lessened by moving the widening to the west side of the road to avoid effects on the ANSI/ESA (and Escarpment Natural Area) lands to the east of Waterdown Road (Sassafras Woods) and rerouting the new northern extension section to along Mountain Brow Road. Option 2 also results in substantially less watercourse crossings. The advantages of Option 2 (preferred Option) noted by the Consultants include: much lower natural environment effects, lower economic effects, and least cost. The options were considered to be fairly equal with respect to the social environment. East-West Routes The Consultants have concluded that Option 4 (preferred Option) has less natural environmental impacts that Option 1, with the key advantage that it results in much less Provincially Significant Wetland being affected, less ESA removed (edge area), less other woodlot removed, and less length of route adjacent to ESA/ANSIs. It avoids many of the natural features removal effects associated with the more damaging Option 1. Option 2 (Parkside Road Widening) and Option 3 (Dundas Street Widening) have less environmental effects, but impact more land in the NEP Area (mostly urban) than in Options 1 and 4. The Consultants prefer Option 4 (Hybrid North Route) because: It avoids the most significant natural environmental effects associated with Option 1. There would be no removal of core ANSI or ESA areas and minimal loss (0.2ha) of Provincial Significant Wetlands. Removal of natural habitat is limited to edge areas and more detailed routing work should be able to lessen these effects; It has the least number of residential and business displacements; It largely avoids exising residential and business areas. There would be no impact on the downtown core area of Waterdown; It is significantly less expensive than Option 2 and 3, and only slightly more expensive than Option 1 (the least expensive); It provides a higher level of transportation service and a safer option than the more urban options; and It can serve as a by-pass to move truck traffic out of the Waterdown area. From a NEP Area perspective, Option 1 and Option 4 are less disruptive than the other two options, as they avoid more of the Plan Area. Of these two, Option 4 is preferred (by NEC staff). Option 1 poses a greater environmental threat because it passes through the edge of several portions of the Lake Medad Valley Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland. 7

8 The Consultants Preferred Road Improvement Solution North-South Solution (Option 2) Geometric improvements and widening of Waterdown Road to 4 lanes from Hwy 403 to Mountain Brow Road; Widen eastern section of Mountain Brow Road to 4 lanes east of Waterdown Road; New Waterdown Road ROW north of Mountain Brow Road to connect with Dundas Street through the future OPA No. 28 development lands; King Road to remain at 2 lanes. The need for geometric improvements and/or access restrictions to the existing King Road to remain open as a 2-lane road in the future will need to be evaluated in Phase 3 of the EA Study. The selection of Waterdown Road /Mountain Brow Road as the preferred north/south corridor has generated considerable concern from residents fronting on these roadways or living close to the corridor. The Consultants developed a preliminary conceptual design for this corridor intended to: Minimize property impacts; Minimize the displacement of homes in the vicinity of Waterdown Road/Mountain Brow Road; and Provide the necessary capacity to accommodate forecasted traffic by the year The Consultants believe that some of the impacts in the corridor can be mitigated through detailed route selection and design treatments in future phases of the Class EA. East-West Solution (Option 4) Starting from the west, a new 2-lane North Link By-pass at 26 to 32 m ROW from Dundas Street West at Rock Chapel Road continuing as a new northern by-pass ROW; The ROW then swings south past Centre Street to connect with Parkside Drive east of Churchill Avenue; Widening Parkside Drive to 4 lanes (30-32 m ROW) to the eastern edge of the Up Country development block; New north-south ROW along the eastern edge of the Up Country development block; and Connect with Dundas Street and widening Dundas St (6 lanes) to a midway point between Kerns Road and Brant Street. The preferred road improvements are shown on Map1. The North-South options are shown on Map 2. The East-West options are shown on Map 3. Maps 4 and 5 provide a more detailed view of the King Road and Waterdown Road options in relation to Niagara Escarpment Plan designations and natural areas. 8

9 NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLAN: NEP Transportation Related Development Criteria The following Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) development criteria are relevant to the Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master plan: 2.2 General Development Criteria 5. Where development involves new roads, road improvements or service corridors, their designation and alignment should be in harmony with the Escarpment landscape Transportation and Utilities The objective is to design and locate new and expanded transportation and utility facilities so the least possible change occurs in the environment and the natural and cultural landscape. 1. All new and reconstructed transportation and utility facilities shall be designed and located to minimize the impact on the Escarpment environment and be consistent with the objectives of this Plan. Examples of such site and design guidelines include the following: e) Transportation and utility structures should be sited and designed to minimize visual impact. i) Transportation and utility facilities should be sited and designed to avoid or minimize the impacts on parks, open space and the Bruce Trail. Where Trail impacts cannot be avoided the objective will be to provide for an acceptable, safe alternative. 2. New transportation and utility facilities should avoid Escarpment Natural Areas. 2.5 New Development Affecting Steep Slopes and Ravines The objective is to ensure that new development affecting steep slopes (e.g. Escarpment slopes, rock faces, and talus slopes) and ravines does not result in environmental damage or in unsafe conditions. 2.6 New Development Affecting Water Resources The objective is to ensure that new development affecting streams, watercourses, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater systems will have minimum individual and cumulative effect on water quality and quantity, and on the Escarpment Environment 10. Development shall locate outside wetlands. 9

10 2.7 New Development Within Wooded Areas The objective is to ensure that new development should preserve as much as possible of wooded areas. 1. Disturbance of treed areas should be minimized, and proposed developments in heavily treed areas shall have site plan agreements containing specific management details regarding the protection of existing trees. 2.8 Wildlife Habitat The objective is to protect the habitat of endangered (regulated) as prescribed by the Endangered Species Act, endangered (not regulated), rare, special concern and threatened, plant and animal species, and minimize the impact of new development on wildlife habitat. 1. New development will not be permitted in identified habitat of endangered (regulated) plant or animal species. 2. Development shall be designed so as to: a) Minimize the impacts upon wildlife habitat, in particular, habitats of endangered (not regulated), rare, special concern, and threatened plant or animal species, as identified by on-site evaluation; b) Maintain wildlife corridors and linkages with adjacent areas; and c) Enhance wildlife habitat wherever possible Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) The objective is to protect provincially and regionally significant elements of the natural landscapes of Ontario. 1. Development shall be directed to locate outside of Provincially Significant and Regionally Significant Life Science ANSIs. Minor encroachments will be considered in relation to: a) Specific features for which the ANSIs have been identified; b) Protection, natural heritage appreciation, scientific study or educational values and their maintenance; and c) Whether appropriate mitigative measures can be applied to protect ANSI values. NEP Transportation Related Land Use Policies The three North-South Route options evaluated in the Phase 2 Report potentially impact on lands designated as Escarpment Natural Area, 10

11 Escarpment Protection Area, and Urban Area (see Map2). The following land use policies are applicable: 1.3 Escarpment Natural Area Escarpment features which are in a relatively natural state and associated stream valleys, wetlands and forests which are relatively undisturbed are included within this designation. These contain important plant and animal habitats and geological features and cultural heritage features and are the most significant natural and scenic areas of the Escarpment. The policy aims to maintain these natural areas. Objectives 1. To maintain the most natural Escarpment features, stream valleys, wetlands and related significant natural areas and associated cultural heritage features. 2. To encourage compatible recreation, conservation and educational activities. 3. To maintain and enhance the landscape quality of Escarpment features. Permitted Uses Subject to Part 2, Development Criteria, the following uses may be permitted: 7. Essential* transportation and utility facilities. *Essential - that which is deemed necessary to the public interest after all alternatives have been considered. (From NEP APPENDIX 2 Definitions) 1.4 Escarpment Protection Area Escarpment Protection Areas are important because of their visual prominence and their environmental significance. They are often more visually prominent than Escarpment Natural Areas. Included in this designation are Escarpment features that have been significantly modified by land use activities such as agriculture or residential development, land needed to buffer prominent Escarpment Natural Areas, and natural areas of regional significance. The policy aims to maintain the remaining natural features and the open, rural landscape character of the Escarpment and lands in its vicinity. Objectives 1. To maintain and enhance the open landscape character of Escarpment features. 11

12 2. To provide a buffer to prominent Escarpment features. 3. To maintain natural areas of regional significance and cultural heritage features. 4. To encourage agriculture, forestry and recreation. Permitted Uses Subject to Part 2, Development Criteria, the following uses may be permitted: 8. Transportation and utility facilities. 1.7 Urban Area This designation identifies Urban Areas in which the Escarpment and closely related lands are located. In some areas the Escarpment is still largely undeveloped although surrounded by existing development (e.g. Hamilton). In other areas urban growth already has encroached substantially on the Escarpment (e.g. former Town of Wiarton). Objective To minimize the impact and further encroachment of urban growth on the Escarpment environment. Permitted Uses and New Lots Proposed uses and the creation of new lots may be permitted subject to conformity with Part 2, Development Criteria, the following Development Objectives as incorporated into official plans and/or secondary plans and, where applicable, zoning by-laws that are not in conflict with the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Changes to permitted uses, expansions and alterations of existing uses or the creation of new lots within the Urban Area designation will not require an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Development Objectives 1. All development should be of an urban design compatible with the visual and natural environment of the Escarpment. Where appropriate, provision for adequate setbacks and screening should be required to minimize the visual impact of urban development on the Escarpment landscape. 6. Growth should be compatible with and provide for the protection of unique ecologic areas, wildlife habitats, streams and water supplies and other environmentally sensitive areas both inside and adjacent to Urban Areas. 12

13 Previous NEC Staff Involvement and Comments The Consultants established a Technical Steering Committee for the Study, consisting of representatives from the City of Burlington, City of Hamilton, Conservation Halton, Conservation Hamilton, MTO, Region of Halton, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. NEC staff have attended these meetings where the Consultants have explained how they chose and evaluated the relative merits of the alternatives. Through these Committee meetings and correspondence with the Consultants, NEC staff has previously expressed concerns with the potential for any new north/south Escarpment crossing or significant improvements to an existing Escarpment crossing with resulting environmental and/or visual impacts. NEC staff provided comments in December 2004, stating that the NEC staff opposes a new or expanded north/south route up the Escarpment along King Road (See attached December 14, 2004 letter). The NEC staff stated that several alternatives along other roads should be added to the study to alleviate the consideration of an expanded King Road. After a February 4, 2005 Steering Committee meeting, NEC staff wrote a letter (February 8, 2005,) reconfirming staff concerns about King Road, the environmental criteria and indicators, and to inform the consultants that the lands were proposed to be included in the NEP as part of the Greenbelt initiative (See attached February 8, 2005 letter). Staff commented to Dillon Consulting Ltd. on April 18, 2005, and to the City of Hamilton on September 22, 2005, stating that the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) staff concurs with the conclusion of the Phase 2 Report on the N-S and E-W preferred routes, and that the NEC would comment when the EA process reaches its next stage (Stage 3). The City of Burlington invited NEC staff to present the NEC s position on the Phase 2 Report at the City s Community Development Committee Meeting on April 18 th, Not having a formal NEC position at that time, staff declined the invitation, but committed to seek a position from the NEC on the Phase 2 Study Report. (See attached letters). TSH consulted NEC staff in July 2006, during the development of the improved 2- lane King Road options by TSH. Staff expressed serious concerns with a reconstruction of King Road and the potential for significant environmental and visual impact resulting to the Escarpment landform and associated environmental features. (See attached letter dated August 21, 2006). Next Steps in the EA Process Some initiatives in the Master Plan may not require Class EA approval (such as TDM strategies). However, Class EA approval will be required for the majority of the proposed roadway improvements. There are 3 different levels: 13

14 Schedule A projects - minor modifications to existing facilities where environmental effects are minimal and the projects are, therefore, considered pre-approved; Schedule B projects minor expansions to existing facilities. With some potential for environmental effects, these projects are required to proceed through a screening process including public consultation; and Schedule C projects projects that involve the construction of new facilities and/or major expansions to existing facilities. These projects must pass through the entire EA planning process outlined in the Class EA. The road improvements recommended in the Phase 2 Report include a mixture of the above project types. Final Public Notice for the Master Plan will become the Notice of Completion of the recommended Schedule B projects. Schedule C projects will still need to fulfill phases 3 and 4, prior to filing an environmental Study report for Public review. Phases 3, 4, and 5 Phase 4 (Implementation) of the Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process will need to be completed for the preferred north-south option (the widening of Waterdown Road/Mountain Brow Road Corridor between Hwy.403 and Dundas Street; and for the preferred east-west option (the alignment between Highway No. 6 and Dundas Street). In Phase 3, alternative design concepts will be identified and assessed. This will include more detailed design work and more detailed inventory and assessment of the natural, social and economic environment. This includes the identification of the impacts of alternative designs and mitigating measures. Agencies (including the NEC) will be consulted. This work will be useful for the eventual NE Development Permit approval process. If NEC concerns are not addressed, it may be necessary to take further action in the later stages of the Municipal Class EA process, based on direct consideration by the NEC (e.g., formal opposition). In Phase 4, the Consultants will complete an ESR (Environmental Study Report). This report will be placed on the Public record. A notice of completion will be sent to review agencies and the public. At that time, there will be an opportunity within 30 days of notification, to request an order from the Minister of the Environment regarding project implementation. It is anticipated that the OPA 28 lands will be built out by Therefore, it is important to note that the transportation infrastructure must be in place before development is allowed within the OPA 28 lands. Should the City Councils not approve the funding and completion of the Waterdown/Aldershot transportation Master Plan, it is likely that the Cities (Hamilton and Burlington) will be subject to Planning Act appeals and possible litigation from landowners that have current investment in the municipal infrastructure required to service the lands in the OPA 28 area. 14

15 COMMENTS: As noted above, NEC staff has previously commented in favour of the Consultants preferred alternatives. Staff intended to seek a NEC position at the end of Phase 4, or if NEC staff concerns were not being addressed. However, after being requested by the City of Burlington to present a NEC position on the Phase 2 Report, NEC staff has committed to submit a Staff Report and recommendation(s) on Phase 2 to the Commission. North - South Alternatives The North-South study area contains a number of highly significant Escarpment features. These natural features, combined with existing development in Waterdown, greatly restrict the options for new north-south corridors. The natural features include: The Escarpment brow, slope and toe. Sassafras Woods (ESA, ANSI). NEPOSS (Niagara Escarpment Parks and Open Space System) lands owned and managed by Conservation Halton, within Waterdown Escarpment Woods ESA, adjacent to King Road and Mountain Brow Road. The Bruce Trail Corridor. Significant woodlands and wildlife habitat. Options 1 and 3 (which include geometric improvements to King Road and realignment through Waterdown Woods ESA/ANSI) would result in fragmentation of the forest in an area known to provide interior forest conditions. They would also bisect a NEPOSS Nature Reserve (Waterdown Woods). NEC staff (and Conservation Halton staff) has consistently expressed major concerns with improvements to King Road, as these would have negative environmental effects on the above noted features. All three options include improvements to Waterdown Road. Along one section of the east side of the road, there is a deeply incised valley designated as Escarpment Natural Area. This area coincides with the Sassafras Woods ESA/ANSI and a tributary of Grindstone Creek. The Consultants have indicated that changes to the Alignment of Waterdown Road, in this area, could avoid this area by shifting the centre line of the road westward. NEC staff concurs with the Consultants preferred corridor, Option 2, which involves widening of Waterdown Road and Mountain Brow Road, with King Road remaining as a 2-lane road, or possibly as a single lane road controlled by traffic lights at the Escarpment crossing, as suggested by Burlington Engineering staff, subject to further evaluation in Phase 3. This option has the least overall impact on the natural 15

16 environment of the Niagara Escarpment, including Escarpment parks (Waterdown Woods) and the Bruce Trail. This Option is preferred because it: Minimizes disturbance of heavily treed areas; Protects ANSI values; Avoids Escarpment Natural Areas; Minimizes the impacts on Escarpment parks and the Bruce Trail; Minimizes development affecting steep slopes (e.g., Escarpment slopes, rock faces, and talus slopes); and Minimizes the impact of new development on wildlife habitat, corridors and linkages. East-West Alternatives The East-West study area contains less Escarpment natural features than the North- South study area. Most of the NEP Area affected is designated as Urban or Escarpment Rural. With the exception of Option 1, most of the options generally avoid key Escarpment related natural features. Option 1 potentially impacts on a Provincially Significant Wetland (Lake Medad Valley Swamp). NEC staff support the preferred Option 4, which involves a hybrid of Parkside Drive widening in the east and a new north road to the west. This option is preferred because it: Minimizes impacts on the Provincially Significant Wetland; and Minimizes impacts of new road development within the NEP Area (least possible change on the Escarpment environment within the Plan Area), consistent with the objectives of the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Niagara Escarpment Commission advise the City of Burlington, the City of Hamilton and Dillon Consulting Ltd. that the Commission supports the findings of the Phase 2 Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Study Report from Dillon Consulting Ltd. and that the Commission recommends proceeding with Phase 3 and 4 of the EA Study. Prepared By: Approved By: Neil Hester Senior Strategic Advisor Ken Whitbread Manager ER HW

17 TABLE 1 City of Hamilton Development of the Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Draft Report August 2005 Page 50 Table 7 Alternative Road Improvement Options Option Road Options Description ROW Needs Option 1 King/Waterdown Road Geometric Improvements (Both 2 lane roads) Geometric improvements to Waterdown Road from Highway 403 to Dundas Street (maintain as 2 lanes) New Waterdown Road ROW north of Mountain Brow Road King Road requires two sections of new ROW (2 lanes) with geometric improvements to sections of the existing King Road Widening of North Service Road between King Road and m (for both King & Waterdown) Option 2 Waterdown Road Widening & Geometric Improvements Waterdown to 4 lanes Geometric improvements and widen Waterdown Road to 4 lanes from Highway 403 to Dundas Street New Waterdown Road ROW north of Mountain Brow Road King Road remains as is m Option 3 King Road Geometric Improvement & Waterdown Road Widening East-West Alternatives Option 1 New North Road Option 2 Parkside Drive Widening Option 3 Dundas Street Widening Option 4 - Parkside Drive Widening & New North Road Widen Waterdown Road to 4 lanes (no geometric Improvements) New Waterdown Road ROW north of Mountain Brow Road, King Road requires two sections of new ROW Geometric improvements to King Road from Highway 403 to Dundas Street Widening of North Service Road between King Road and Waterdown New north road with 2 lanes New North Link By-pass from Dundas Street West at Rock Chapel Road to Dundas Street East, east of Evans Widen Parkside Drive to 4 lanes Parkside Drive from Dundas Street West at Rock Chapel Road to Dundas Street East, east of Evans Widening of Dundas Street to 4 lanes from Rock Chapel Road to Highway 6 at 30 m ROW, to 6 lanes from Highway 6 to Berry Hill Avenue at 43 m ROW, to 4 lanes from Berry Hill Avenue to a point just east of Pamela Street at 30 m ROW, and to 6 lanes from just east of Pamela Street to Dundas Street, east of Evans Road at 36 m ROW Starting at the west, new 2-lane North Link By-pass ROW from Dundas Street West at Rock Chapel Road continuing as a new northern by-pass ROW, then swinging south past Centre Street to connect with Parkside Dirve east of Churchill Avenue. Widening Parkside Drive to 4 lanes to Evans Road. Then a new connecting link from a point east of Evans Road heading south to connect with Dundas Street m (for both King & Waterdown) m m m (urban cross section) m 17

18 August 21, 2006 Tom Eichenbaum Director of Engineering City of Burlington 426 Brant Street P.O. Box 5013 Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 Dear Mr. Eichenbaum RE: PROPOSED CONCEPTS FOR KING ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 EA PROCESS /WATERDOWN - HAMILTON NEC File: City of Burlington Halton Region Further to our meeting of July 28, 2006 with you, your consultants from Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH), Ms. Tanner from the City of Hamilton, and Ms. Axon from Conservation Halton (CH), we wish to provide you with a written account of our initial comments concerning the three options presented for the proposed reconstruction of King Road. It is our understanding that City staff have been directed by Council to investigate options for the reconstruction of King Road. Further, the preferred option(s) would be evaluated against the same criteria as was developed for the Waterdown Road Environmental Assessment process since Council believes there to be a direct relationship between the final configuration of Waterdown Road and a final proposal for reconstruction of King Road. TSH, on your behalf, presented three (3) preliminary concepts/options for the reconstruction of King Road between Mountain Brow Road and the North Service Road. TSH advised that copies of all the options would be provided to those who were in attendance at the meeting. In the absence of those drawings, we would note the following regarding the options presented: A 50 kph design concept and two (2) 60 kph design concepts were presented. We understood that it was the City s preference to carry through with one of the 60 kph design concepts that limited environmental impacts through a redesign/reconstruction keeping, as best as possible, to the original road allowance. 18

19 All options involve a 13 metre right-of-way comprised of two 3.5 metre lanes, roll curbs, two 1.5 metre bike lanes and a shoulder or sidewalk of 1.0 metres; All options involve a cut into the Escarpment landform and an alteration of the existing vertical profile to achieve a maximum slope/gradient of 8%. The worst case scenario resulted in a 12 metre deep trench through the Escarpment with an alternate option proposing a 6 metre deep trench; All options involve fill placement along the section immediately beneath the Escarpment trench. One option would result in a slope extending upwards of 26 metres onto adjacent properties; All options involve alterations in the alignment to reduce the curvature of the road. These alterations had significant impact on both adjacent private and public lands; Capacity or volume of traffic to be accommodated was to be between 750 to 1000 vehicles per hour. This exceeds the capacity projected, by Dillon Consulting, within the Phase 2 Waterdown Road EA; The reconstructed King Road would not serve as a truck route. TSH indicated that the current road characteristics include the following: A 4.5 to 6.0 metre right of way; The Escarpment crossing basically functions as a one way road. The lane width and pavement are quite narrow and below acceptable standards; A vertical slope of road ± 12%; and, There is no space within the corridor to safely accommodate bicycles or pedestrians. CH and NEC staff advised of the following: There is a Bruce Trail crossing of King Road above the Escarpment; Approximately half of the area proposed for reconstruction is proposed within significant forested lands that are designated Escarpment Natural Area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) with a small section of Escarpment Protection Area at the south end; The site contains both provincially and regionally rare and endangered species; The site is also located within the Waterdown Escarpment Woods Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). It lies immediately adjacent to the Sassafras Woods ANSI to the south; 19

20 The current vertical profile and the relatively short, level cross section allows for a terrestrial movement. A reconstruction of the scale proposed will significantly disrupt wildlife movement; This is augmented by a closed canopy effect over the road. These features, taken together with other terrestrial features in the area, function as fundamental components of the linkage within the natural areas along the Escarpment. In addition to the comments made at the meeting, we include for your information the following references from the Waterdown Escarpment Woods description within Volume 1 of the Ecological Survey of the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve 1996 : It is connected with minor breaks to other forested lands along the Niagara Escarpment, part of a significant corridor extending 23 km from Spencer Gorge to Mount Nemo. It is also connected along Falcon Creek to the escarpment shale slope forests of Sassafras Woods. The Waterdown Escarpment Woods is the headwater source for the Falcon Creek, Hagar Creek, Rambro Creek and several tributaries of the Grindstone Creek. Most of the site is in older forests of Red Oak, White Oak and Sugar Maple, with a number of the trees in excess of 100 years old. The stunted White Cedars along the cliff-rim ecotone may be old growth stands, with trees in excess of several hundred years old. Comments: We advise that the options presented at the meeting pose serious concern for NEC staff. The following summary of the key issues regarding a proposed reconstruction of King Road is provided for your information. Also, please note that this has not been presented to the NEC for consideration: 1. Within the NEP Escarpment Natural Area designation, only essential transportation facilities may be considered when in the public interest and only after all other alternative routes have been considered and eliminated. The public interest may be best served by retaining the road in its current state. In this manner, the Escarpment continues to be maintained and enhanced as a continuous natural environment. 2. The do nothing option is apparently not an option as we understood that your Council would consider this inappropriate given its direction to City staff. However; we continue to be of the opinion that it should be a consideration. 3. NEC staff is on record in support of the Consultant s preferred alternative identified in the Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Report (widening of 20

21 Waterdown Road). Please see a copy of the Staff letter of September 22, 2005, attached. 4. The proposed widening, increased vehicle speeds and road cuts will likely have an adverse effect on the Bruce Trail crossing and pedestrian safety. 5. The cut required to create the trench through the Escarpment landform for the right of way will significantly alter the character and appearance of the Escarpment feature and NEC staff has serious concerns with the resultant cumulative environmental impacts. We note the following preliminary matters though these are not comprehensive or in order of importance: 5.1 The current road grade has very little variance with that of the abutting forest at the north end allowing both terrestrial crossings and public crossings associated with the Bruce Trail. The proposed road cut or trench would need to commence quite a distance back from the present Escarpment edge and would cause a substantial break both in potential terrestrial and human connection. 5.2 The depth of cut represents only a cut into the Escarpment rock but does include the depth of the soils above the rock with rooting zone for the existing vegetation. At the top of the cut abutting forested or treed areas, the impact could extend an additional 6.0 metres beyond the 13 metre right-of-way to provide a slope back to the existing surface grade (3 metres to either side). 5.3 Further south, the steep sides associated with a 6 to a 12 metre trench would block access and break the existing terrestrial connection. 5.4 Where fill is proposed, the side slopes to meet existing grade will extend into forested lands with impact not only to the forest but to the terrestrial conditions. 5.5 Surface drainage is to be directed to catch basins with storm sewer connection to the existing services at the Industrial/Business Park below Bayview Park. Impact to the water regime/hydrology in the immediate area could not be quantified. 5.6 The degree of light penetration in the trench, particularly in the winter, could be very little resulting in the potential for a continual maintenance issue. 6. The environmental features along with the current road elevation and alignment provide a visual experience demonstrating the scenic attributes of the Escarpment and views to the surrounding landscape. 21

22 These visual qualities would be lost within a trench surrounded by 6m/20 foot or 12m/40 foot walls on either side of the vehicle or bike lanes. In closing, there are significant issues associated with a re-construction of King Road and the potential for significant environmental impact resulting to the Escarpment landform and associated environmental features. NEC staff may not be supportive of any reconstruction option. A report on the Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation EA to the Niagara Escarpment Commission is anticipated to be placed before the Commission at its September 21, 2006 meeting in Jordan (Town of Lincoln). If you have any questions, you may contact Neil Hester at (905) or me at (905) Yours truly, Ken Whitbread Manager c: Brenda Axton, Conservation Halton Mary Lou Tanner, City of Hamilton John McGill, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Neil Hestor, NEC Linda Laflamme, NEC Enc. 22

23 BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL April 18, 2006 Paul Allen, P. Eng. Senior Transportation Engineer Engineering Department City of Burlington P.O. Box Brant Street Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 Dear Mr. Allen RE: Phase II Master Transportation Plan - Community Development Committee Meeting Thank you for inviting the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) to attend the City s Community Development Committee meeting as a delegation on April 18 th, Please be advised that the NEC will not be sending a staff representative to the meeting. The reason is that the NEC has not taken a position on the Phase 2 Waterdown/Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Study Report prepared by Dillion Consulting Ltd. We feel that it would be inappropriate to put forward a staff position on the Study Report, at this time. Staff intends to present a report to the Commission at the next meeting which is scheduled for May 18, A formal NEC position will then be taken, after hearing from the staff, agencies and the public. As you are aware, NEC staff has previously expressed concerns with the potential for a new north/south Escarpment crossing or significant improvements to an existing Escarpment crossing with resulting environmental and / or visual impacts. We provided staff comments in December 2004, stating that the NEC opposes a new or expanded north/south route up the Escarpment along King Road. In September, 2005 NEC staff wrote to the City of Hamilton, indicating that staff concurs with the Consultant s preferred north -south road improvement solution ( geometric improvements and widening of Waterdown Road, widening of Mountain Brow Road, and King Road to remain at 2 lanes). 23

24 The objective of the Niagara Escarpment Plan is to minimize the impact of new and expanded transportation facilities on the Escarpment environment and the natural and cultural landscape associated with that environment. The NEC continues to have an interest in the Master Plan EA. Staff will continue to attend technical committee meetings associated with Phases 3, 4 and 5 of the Master Plan Study. Should you have any questions, please contact me at Yours truly, Ken Whitbread Manager c. Bob Edmondson, Conservation Halton KW:nh:\C:\Documents\Letters\Ken Whitbread\April 18, 2006 Letter to Paul Allen Burlington re: Waterdown/Aldershot Phase II Transportation Committee Meeting ER HW