Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-20ENV~2000-03-20-SPE SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 207 2000 CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date in special session, commencing at 1:30 p.m., under Councillor Jake Smola, Chair, with the following members present: Councillor J. Haalboom and Messrs. R. Dal Bello, J. Kay, B. Krafchek and H. Linseman. Mayor C. Zehr and Ms. B. Luckhardt were in attendance for part of the meeting. Officials Present: Ms. B. Steiner and Ms. J. Billett, and Messrs. B. Stanley, J. McBride, D. Daly, L. Masseo, G. Borovilos and P. Wetherup. This special meeting of the Environmental Committee commenced without a quorum present. The purpose of the meeting was to hear a presentation by the Ministry of Transportation and its consultants, McCormick Rankin, with respect to the Ministry's review of the Highway 7 Planning Study between Kitchener and Guelph. It was noted that members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee, several members of whom were in attendance for part of the meeting, had been invited to hear the presentation, together with other groups having expressed an interest in this matter. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION PRESENTATION KITCHENER TO GUELPH HIGHWAY 7 PLANNING STUDY - Mr. B. Stanley provided an overview of the positions taken to date by City Council and the Environmental Committee; noting that the Environmental Committee did not support the proposed alignment in favour of requesting the Ministry of Transportation to consider alternative transportation modes. He pointed out that a majority of City Council voted not to accept the Environmental Committee's recommendation and instead adopted a motion in support of the new alignment within the municipal boundary and asked that the Ministry consider alternative modes of transportation between Kitchener and Guelph. City Council further requested that a Tree Planting Program be implemented, parking lots be installed at either end to promote car pooling and reaffirmed their earlier request to have the location of the new alignment between Kitchener and Guelph reconsidered in favour of an alternative that would be less damaging to the natural environment and heritage systems. During this overview, Ms. B. Luckhardt entered the meeting and a quorum was now present. Mr. J. Kay advised that he wished to clarify that his motion not to support the alignment put forward at the Environmental Committee meeting was intended to refer to the entire alignment and not just that portion located within Kitchener as had been recorded. Councillor Jake Smola pointed out that the Environmental Committee's recommendation had not been accepted by City Council and a new recommendation of City Council was adopted. Mr. D. Wake, Ministry of Transportation, appeared before the Committee and introduced Mr. B. Goudeseune, Ministry of Transportation, together with Mr. M. Scott and Mr. J. Sutherns of McCormick Rankin and Mr. G. Gartshore, Ecoplans Ltd. Mr. B. Goudeseune provided the Committee with a brief history of the project to date, noting that as a result of a request for further review of the study numerous public consultation meetings with area municipalities and interested stakeholders were taking place during which invitation has been extended for written comments to be submitted to the Ministry by March 24th. Mr. G. Goudeseune stated that the Ministry is not looking for any resolutions at this time as the consultation process is still under way. Following a review of the comments received, which may result in further revisions to the proposal, he advised that the Ministry plans to make further presentations to affected area municipalities to seek endorsement of the Ministry's decision. He stressed that the Ministry has not yet made any final decision pending review of the comments being received during the consultation process. Mr. D. Wake advised that the Ministry anticipates that the Committee may not meet the March 24th deadline for written submissions and are agreeable to a short extension. He further advised that of the responses received to date approximately 90% support improvements to the corridor and 80% support roadway improvements. He further noted that of the 80% there is a 50/50 split between support for a new alignment versus widening of the existing highway. In addition, the question was posed as to how often transit would be used should it be provided and the majority of responses indicated only occasional usage, if any. Mr. Wake referred to various other surveys SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 20, 2000 -15- CITY OF KITCHENER and pointed out that the Ministry has undertaken to explore all issues. Mr. J. Sutherns advised that the Ministry's review focused on the need for a new highway based on traffic growth, the need for improved transportation modes and the ways and means of minimizing environmental impacts. Mr. Sutherns provided an overview of the 3 areas of review, utilizing various graphs and mapping, noting that since the study began in 1990, projected traffic growth for the year 2011 has already been exceeded. He pointed out that the Ministry looked at the ability of both the existing highway and proposed new alignment to satisfy traffic demands. In this regard, he stated that even if the existing highway was widened to 7 lanes, in order to meet the projected demand it would require a controlled highway access. Mr. Sutherns then referred to transit issues, pointing out that within the Region of Waterloo only 5% use existing transit services versus 84% usage of motor vehicles. Mr. Sutherns referred to the Regional Transportation Master Plan and the objective of transportation demand management which, if applied, could reduce the use of the automobile by approximately 7%; however, the number of automobile trips resulting from growth is expected to rise approximately 30%. He stated that in large urban areas, such as Greater Toronto, public transit is more effective than in rural areas such as the Region of Waterloo. He stated that promoting and implementing alternative transit is good practice; however, in this Region it would need to be applied in conjunction with auto use to be of benefit. With respect to minimizing environmental impacts, Mr. Sutherns reviewed several alternatives including using part of the existing highway and the proposal known as the "Vogel/Halt 7" route. In looking at the alternatives, Mr. Sutherns stated that in revisiting the existing Highway 7, right in/right out and total elimination of all turning lanes were explored; however, the conditions along the existing highway remain the same and the need to re-assess is felt not to be warranted. Mr. Sutherns also provided an overview of the "Vogel" route, noting that the Ministry has not completed its evaluation of this proposal. At this time, issues of concern relative to this proposal have been raised respecting insufficient capacity, access to industrial lands and the effects to neighbouring properties in providing a by-pass necessary for access into Breslau. Mr. Sutherns further pointed out that the interchange at Wellington Street with the K-W Expressway may be revisited as a result of discussions and comments from neighbouring property owners with respect to access concerns. Mr. G. Gartshore then provided an overview of environmental impacts along the corridor. He advised that through discussion with the Grand River Conservation Authority a list of suggestions identifying possible shifts in the alignment to lessen environmental impacts was developed. He stated that this list was prioritized into Provincially and locally significant natural areas. He noted that the natural areas were revisited and additional information respecting natural habitats was documented, resulting in proposed shifts in the alignment. Mr. Gartshore identified, through the mapping provided, areas where the alignment has shifted to lessen environmental impacts. He stated that the shifts will benefit wetlands; however, it is recognized that there will be trade-offs with respect to agricultural lands. Councillor J. Haalboom questioned if the alignment could be extended to connect with Highway 407 rather than the Hanlon Expressway. Mr. Sutherns responded that, while it may be possible, it was too far distance to be a likely possibility. Councillor Haalboom further questioned what, if any, regulations were in place that would ensure the highway remained a controlled access. Mr. Sutherns advised that it would be regulated under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act which allows the Province to designate certain roadways as controlled access. In this regard, the control is then applied to the lands by registration at the Registry Office and access is only then permitted under authority by the Province. Councillor J. Haalboom enquired if the new highway would remain Provincially owned and Mr. Sutherns responded that there was no indication otherwise. He stated that the highway was Provincially owned and was to be maintained by the Province; however, funding for the highway may come from other sources outside the Provincial Government. Mr. J. Kay questioned where interchanges were planned along the corridor and Mr. Sutherns provided a list of sites including the K-W Expressway, Bridge Street, Regional Road 17 & 30, County Road 86 and a combination at Silvercreek, Woodlawn Road and the Hanlon Expressway. Mr. Kay enquired if the proposed interchanges were sufficient to handle future growth without further environmental impacts. Mr. Sutherns advised that the interchanges were located at certain SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 20, 2000 -16- CITY OF KITCHENER intervals of distance and are expected to provide reasonable access. He further stated that it was highly unlikely that additional interchanges would be required. Mr. D. Wake also pointed out that should another interchange be required in future it would also be subject to the environmental assessment process and, in addition, preparations for the potential expansion of the Hanlon Expressway makes provision for this possibility. Ms. B. Luckhardt enquired if any change has occurred with respect to the original plans for the bridge crossing over the Grand River. Mr. Gartshore advised that no change has been proposed. Ms. Luckhardt questioned if the new alignment would address congestion problems in the Bridgeport area and Mr. Sutherns responded that the Ministry believed it would. Ms. Luckhardt then referred to groundwater supply and questioned if consideration has been given to its impact in respect to contamination or disruption. Mr. Gartshore advised that, as a result of the proposed shifting in the alignment, there will be benefit in this regard as it has put the highway further away from the wetlands. In addition, he noted that drainage design of the roadway will direct run-off through appropriate channels. Ms. B. Steiner requested an overview of the impacts to natural and aquatic resources within the municipality such as the crossing of the Grand River and features along the proposed, "Vogel" route and Mr. Gartshore reviewed the areas of concerns utilizing the mapping provided. Mr. J. Kay questioned the extent of constraint with respect to properties along the existing highway and Mr. Gartshore pointed out that the proposed alignment stays along farm lines for the most part; however, where impacted the lands remaining will still be viable for farm operations. He stated that the farming community wants security of long term tenure. He pointed out that with any shift to the south of the existing highway there will be a reduction in the spread incrementally resulting in less viable lands remaining. Mayor C. Zehr entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Gartshore further pointed out that the proposed alignment to the north has ~mpacted farmlands in some locations but to a lesser degree. Mr. Kay questioned what was to happen in terms of process and Mr. Sutherns responded that, at this time, the Ministry is gathering input through the consultation process which will be reviewed. Following the review, the Ministry will decide on a course of action and make further presentation to area municipal Councils. Ms. J. Greenwood-Speers, member of the Halt 7 Group, appeared before the Committee and relayed concerns respecting the cost of building a new highway; alternative transportation modes; and, environmental and health issues relating to air quality and water supply. She further noted that Provincial MP Elizabeth Witmer has indicated her preference for a rail option. Ms. Greenwood-Speers urged the Committee to view the project in its entirety with regard to adverse environmental impacts. Mr. M. Parkinson, representing the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group, urged the Committee to use a common sense approach with respect to the environmental impacts on wetlands and agricultural lands. He stated that he believed the Ministry's intent from the outset was to build a new road in view of the fact that they have already bought land in the area. He referred to safety being promoted as a reason for building the new highway; however, under the latest review this appears to have been eliminated as a concern. Mr. Parkinson also referred to concerns respecting air quality and cumulative effects to wetlands and aquatic life. He stated that it was his opinion this was not a balanced plan and urged the Committee to take a stand for the environment. Mr. Parkinson also provided a copy of a pamphlet detailing concerns regarding air quality. Mr. J. Kay referred to Mr. Parkinson's statement that safety was no longer a basis for requiring the new highway and Mr. Parkinson advised that data received under the Freedom of Information Act indicates collisions are decreasing. Mr. D. Wake advised that the primary justification for the new highway was never safety but rather was based on capacity needs. He further pointed out that in terms of safety the best alternative is a controlled access highway as is being proposed. In response to an inquiry from Councillor Jake Smola it was indicated that the accident data was SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 20, 2000 -17- CITY OF KITCHENER based on the number of collisions rather than fatalities. Councillor Jake Smola enquired of Mr. Parkinson if he would consider vehicles travelling straight through a controlled access route, as opposed to stopping and starting, to be less detrimental in terms of air quality impact. Mr. Parkinson agreed this would be better; however, pointed out that the new highway will have greater capacity allowing more vehicles to travel through the corridor. Councillor Jake Smola stated that, as much as it is desirable to reduce the use of vehicles, this is difficult to achieve given that it is ultimately the choice of the people to use their vehicles. Mr. Parkinson stated that he believed this is because the existing transit service is poor, leaving little choice and that there is an opportunity to improve upon transit services by involving the private sector. Mr. G. Bechtel appeared and provided the Committee with a written submission, together with photographs taken in the area of Highway 7. Mr. Bechtel provided an example of a proposed highway expansion between St. Jacob's and Elmira which ultimately was abandoned. He stated that similarities exist in respect to the new Highway 7 and felt the proposal should not have been introduced. Mr. Bechtel expressed the view that improving alternative transportation modes, such as transit and rail systems, would be a better alternative. He also suggested that development planning should take place prior to road planning and the commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions be continued. In response to a question raised by Mr. Bechtel relating to agricultural lands in the area of Route 7 to Guelph Road 3, Mr. D. Wake advised that impacts to agricultural lands are one of the key issues to be considered; however, within the area referred to there is no Class 10 lands. Mr. D. Bennett appeared and also expressed concerns relating to the cost of the proposed new highway. He referred to the fact that the highway would not be constructed immediately which could result in escalated costs and urged the Committee to look at what could be done as an immediate solution. Mr. Bennett also provided a written submission outlining his concerns and ideas to assist in developing a plan of action. Mr. Bennett stated that he believed the community should be permitted an opportunity to develop a program to address the concerns related to traffic congestion. Mr. L. D'Agnillo appeared as a representative of the Halt 7 Group and provided a pamphlet outlining issues of concerns as presented by the Halt 7 Group. Mr. D'Agnillo referred to concerns relating to traffic growth predictions, suggesting that growth should occur prior to road construction; the need for alternative transportation; and, regard for environmental impacts. He further suggested that the Ministry should go beyond the building of roads and become involved in mediating and promoting alternative modes of transportation. Ms. J. Niece, University of Waterloo student, referred to the need to reduce carbon emissions. She pointed out that programs, such as Drive-Clean and new car products using hydrogen fuel cells, will not be effective if vehicle usage is encouraged to increase. Ms. Niece stated that alternative transportation options should be explored and provided an example of a shuttle bus service. She pointed out that the Ministry has done a good job in designing a new highway; however, felt a new solution was needed as realignment of the new highway does not resolve the concerns raised. Dr. E. Geissler appeared and provided a written submission outlining his concerns with respect to the proposed new highway. Dr. Geissler pointed out that he has worked in the engineering field for a number of years and is in agreement with concerns raised by other delegates. He noted that he believed that the environmental impacts are still significant and offered another approach for consideration. His approach would involve developing the existing Highway 7 to its maximum capacity and developing an educational center to promote awareness of the functionality of natural areas. Ms. B. Keep stated her support for the concerns raised by the Halt 7 and Waterloo Public Research Interest Groups. She related concerns respecting the impact to the environment, future expansion and irreversible damage to natural areas. She urged the Committee to weigh carefully all options before making a decision. SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 20, 2000 -18- CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor Jake Smola pointed out that, while the Ministry has indicated it is not looking for a solution at this time, the intent was to have the Environmental Committee develop a recommendation to be forwarded to the Council meeting of April 3rd for consideration. The recommendation as approved by Council would then be forwarded on to the Ministry. In this regard, Councillor Smola enquired if the Committee wished to put forward a recommendation. Mr. J. Kay stated that he would not feel comfortable in attempting to develop a recommendation without time to digest the additional information provided this date. Councillor Jake Smola enquired if there was any leeway to extend the April 3rd deadline and Mr. D. Wake responded that the Ministry is encouraging comments to be submitted in a timely manner; however, acknowledged that the Committee may need additional time to absorb the information provided. Councillor Jake Smola advised that the Committee's next regular meeting would be held on April 6th and requested if it would be possible to delay consideration of a recommendation to that date. He further suggested that any recommendation forthcoming on April 6th could then be dealt with at the Special Council meeting to be held on April 10th. Councillor J. Haalboom indicated her support for this course of action and also suggested that members of the Committee prepare their comments in advance for inclusion with the agenda package for the April 6th meeting. Councillor Jake Smola enquired if the Ministry would agree to this course of action and Mr. D. Wake concurred. Councillor J. Haalboom further commented that she was concerned with the lack of representation by Kitchener residents, as most of the delegates this date lived outside the municipality. She questioned if Kitchener residents who use the highway had any concerns with respect to the proposal. In addition, she stated that she felt the interests groups represented were sending a mixed message regarding environmental concerns as they have stated support for widening of the existing highway. She stated that she did not understand how this would resolve their concerns respecting environmental issues and felt a clearer message should be provided. Ms. B. Luckhardt enquired if the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority should be included for consideration and it was pointed out that discussions between the Ministry and the Grand River Conservation Authority have already taken place and their comments have been taken into consideration by the Ministry. In addition, Mr. Wake advised that the Grand River Conservation Authority has submitted additional comments which will be considered by the Ministry. By general consent, it was agreed that this matter would be deferred to the Committee's next meeting to be held on Thursday, April 6, 2000 and members were requested to provide their written comments to the Secretary by Tuesday, March 28th so they may be included in the agenda package. Councillor Jake Smola thanked the representatives from the Ministry and McCormick Rankin, together with the delegations present, for the respective presentations. 2. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the Committee adjourned at 4:20 p.m. J. Billett, AMCT Committee Administrator