The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-11-26 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA November 26, 2019 1:30p.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. November 26. 2019 Council Meeting 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES REMINDERS 7:00 p.m. 2.1 Minutes of the November 12, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Abernethy Way Extension Study (232 Street to 256 Street) Staff report dated November 26, 2019 recommending that the Abernethy Way Extension study be endorsed and that Option 7 as identified in Appendix A of the staff report be selected as the preferred route. 4.2 2020 Council Meeting Schedule Staff report dated November 26, 2019 recommending that the proposed 2020 Council meeting schedule as attached to the staff report titled "2020 Council Meeting Schedule" be adopted. -------~==~-Council Workshop Agenda November 26, 2019 Page 2 of 3 --.--. --4.3 Maple Ridge Festival Verbal Update • Y. Chui, Manager of Arts and Community 4.4 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Report Staff report dated November 26, 2019 providing information on the 2019 Town Centre Business Walk (no resolution required). 4.5 Financial Plan Incremental Request * to be distributed separately CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Upcoming Events By Invitation to Mayor and Council: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 7:30 -9:00 am Thursday, November 28, 2019 8:30 am -4:00 pm Thursday, November 28, 2019 5:00 -8:00 pm Friday, November 29, 2019 8:30 -9:30 am Open Houses: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 5:50 -8:30 pm Saturday, November 27, 2019 4:00 -8:00 pm Salvation Army -Dignity Breakfast South Bonson Community Centre, Pitt Meadows Host: Salvation Army CivX 2019: Civil Ideas for Less Civil Times Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue in Vancouver Host: LMLGA & Civiclnfo BC Golden Ears Gogo -African Dinner Fund raiser SRT, 10445 245 Street, Maple Ridge Host: Golden Ears Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign Operation Red Nose 23283 McKay Avenue, Maple Ridge Host: Operation Red Nose Sign Bylaw Update City Hall's west entrance, 11995 Haney Place 232 Street Improvements: Dewdney Trunk Road to 116 Avenue City Hall Foyer, 11995 Haney Place Council Workshop Agenda November 26, 2019 Page 3 of 3 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Appro~ Date:N~) Checked y:. Date: Checked by: C~ Date: r City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES November 12, 2019 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on November 12, 2019 at 1:32 p.m. in the Blaney Room at City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef ABSENT Councillor K. Duncan Appointed Staff A. Horsman, Chief Administrative Officer C. Carter, General Manager Planning & Development Services D. Pollock, General Manager Engineering Services D. Boag, Acting General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Other Staff as Required C. Goddard, Director of Planning L. Zosiak, Manager of Community Planning R. Stott, Environmental Planner 2 A. Bowden, Planner 1 Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca Video of the meeting is posted at media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA R/2019-637 It was moved and seconded That the agenda of the November 12, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the October 29, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting R/2019-638 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of October 29, 2019 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 2.1 Council Workshop Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 3 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Green Infrastructure Management Strategy Policy Review Process Report Staff report dated November 12, 2019 recommending that the Green Infrastructure Management policy review process be endorsed. R. Stott, Environmental Planner 2, gave a presentation and responded to questions from Council. R/2019-639 It was moved and seconded That the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy policy review process be endorsed. CARRIED 4.2 Albion Flats Concept Plan Staff report dated November 12, 2019 recommending that the Albion Flats concept plan be endorsed and that staff be directed to forward the plan to the Agricultural Land Commission. A. Bowden, Planner 1, gave a presentation and re R/2019-640 It was moved and seconded 1. That the Albion Flats concept plan, attached as Appendix A to the "Albion Flats Concept Plan“ staff report dated November 12, 2019 be endorsed. 2. That staff be directed to forward the Albion Flats Concept Plan to the Agricultural Land Commission in advance of a meeting. CARRIED 4.3 Policy No. 3.02 – 2019 Proclamations Review Staff report dated November 12, 2019 providing information on the City’s current practice of declining proclamation requests. The Director of Corporate Support introduced the report, and noted that the item was for information only. Council Workshop Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 3 of 3 5. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil 8. ADJOURNMENT – 2:32 p.m. _______________________________ M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ L. Benson, Corporate Officer • TO: FROM: MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: November 26, 2019 FILE NO: 11-5255-40-208 MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Abernethy Way Extension Study (232 Street to 256 Street) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City's 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) identifies that the City's highest traffic volumes are carried by three east west corridors: Lougheed Highway, Dewdney Trunk Road and Abernethy Way. The STP recommends improvements to the Abernethy Way Corridor in four phases. Phase 1 improvements (210 Street to 224 Street) have already been completed while Phase 2 improvements are currently in the design phase. This report presents the findings of the Abernethy Way Extension Study, from 232 Street to 256 Street. The Abernethy Way extension project is expected to advance the growth and development of the industrial and employment lands in the north-east area of Maple Ridge. The future extension of 240 Street north includes a bridge crossing into the Silver Valley area to connect with the extension of Abernethy Way. This connection will provide another alternative route for visitors and residents heading to Golden Ears Provincial Park. The study objectives were to assess the technical feasibility of various alignment options of the Abernethy Way extension, narrow these down to a select few and evaluate them relative to each other, while also seeking public feedback. Thirteen options were initially reviewed and were shortlisted to three preferred options for detailed comparison using a Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) framework as shown in Appendix A. The MAE framework includes various criteria which then allows each option to be compared relative to each other and captures public input as a criteria. The analysis then helps arrive at the recommended alignment option in an unbiased manner. Based on the MAE findings, Option 7 resulted in being the preferred alignment option and was also the preferred option identified at the public Open House. The Option 7 road alignment would connect to and widen 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road, as well as provide a new link on 124 Avenue between 244 Street and 246 Street to provide an alternative emergency access. RECOMMENDATION: That the Abernethy Way Extension Study (232 Street to 256 Street) be endorsed; and That Option 7 as identified in Appendix A of the staff report be selected as the preferred route. Doc#2331873 Page 1 of 4 4.1 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The existing Abernethy Way is an important east-west transportation corridor in the City of Maple Ridge, connecting to the Golden Ears Bridge to the west and 232 Street to the east, and forms part of Translink's Major Road Network (MRN). The primary objectives for the Abernethy Way Extension Study is to: • Improve access to the Industrial and Employment Lands in North East Maple Ridge, as per the City's Official Community Plan (OCP) • Provide a connection to the future 240 Street Bridge Crossing and access to the Silver Valley Area • Improve both local and regional traffic flow including access to Golden Ears Provincial Park • Provide redundancy in the road network and an alternative emergency route The City's 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) recommended road widening of Abernethy Way from 210 Street to 232 Street and also identified the potential extension of Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street. This report focuses on the contemplated extension of Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street (Phase 3 and 4 as identified in the STP). Phase 1 of the improvements has been completed and included four-laning Abernethy Way from 210 Street to 224 Street. Phase 2 will focus on improving intersection capacity at 210 Street and 232 Street and is currently in the design stage. The study reviewed a total of 13 road alignment options and segments to extend Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 240 Street (Phase 3), and from 240 Street intersection to 256 Street (Phase 4). The options were narrowed down to three using technical inputs such as: • Previous studies • Field reviews • Environmental Desktop Review • Drainage Desktop Review • Geotechnical Desktop Review • Archaeological Desktop Review • Property Impacts • Structural assessment (river and creek crossings) • Roadway geometry • Cost estimate Phase 3 (232 Street to 240 Street): The section of the Abernethy Way extension from 232 Street to 240 Street is the same for all three options. The alignment generally extends from the existing 124 Avenue Right-of-Way (ROW), then passes through rural properties to the southern part of Hackers Haven Golf Course before connecting to 240 Street. Doc#2331873 Page 2 of 4 Phase 4 (240 Street to 256 Street): The section of the Abernethy Way extension from 240 Street to 252 Street has three alignment options: 1. Upper Route: Abernethy Way extension to 248 Street, then to 130 Avenue 2. Lower Route: Abernethy Way extension to 240 Street, 240 Street, Dewdney Trunk Road (excl. bridge replacement) 3. Middle Route: Abernethy Way extension to 248 Street, then along 124 Avenue Traffic Forecasting Traffic forecasting was used to determine the future roadway capacity (i.e. number of lanes) of the corridor, taking into account regional and local land use planning and other road network upgrades. The recommended number of lanes is shown in Appendix B. Public Engagement An Open House was held on June 25, 2019 at the Public Library from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The event was advertised in the local newspaper, and all residents whose properties are located along all the three shortlisted alignments had invitations delivered to their homes. A series of project boards were presented which attendees were asked to review, and City staff and the project team were available to explain the project, answer questions and r.eceive feedback. City Staff also met with representatives from the Academy Park neighborhood and Meadowridge School to discuss their concerns. Attendees were encouraged to formally submit feedback and answer survey questions before leaving the Open House and had the option to return survey forms later. The survey was also made available online. Respondents were asked to rank which of the three options they preferred. A total of 242 participants submitted survey responses, of which 39% (96 respondents) preferred the Lower Route (Option 7), 28% (68 respondents) preferred the Middle Route (Option 10), and 9% (21 respondents) preferred the Upper Route (Option 2C). 24% (57 respondents) did not select a preferred option. Option Evaluation The findings of the MAE as shown in Appendix A consists of various criteria such as environmental and archaeological impacts, the road network, Property/ALR Impacts, Public Preference, Social/Community Impacts, Utility relocation and the Cost related to each option. Importantly, the criteria were applied by comparing options relative to each other. Applying the evaluation, the Lower Route, the Dewdney Trunk Route (Option 7), resulted in being the preferred route. This option was also the public's preferred option. b) Desired Outcome: To identify the preferred alignment option to extend Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street, advancing the development of industrial and employment lands in north-east Maple Ridge, as per the City's OCP and STP goals. c) Strategic Alignment: The Abernethy Way Extension Project (232 Street to 256 Street) will support Council's Strategic Plan alignment for "Growth". d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Option 7 identified as the preferred option through the technical evaluation process is also the preferred option identified by the public at the Open House. Doc#2331873 Page 3 of 4 e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Engineering Department will continue to work with the Planning and Operations Departments in the planning and design of the new roadway. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The current cost for the Abernethy Way Extension (Option 7) from 232 Street to 256 Street (Phase 3 & 4) is approximately $66 Million (2019 Dollars). This Class D estimate includes a 40% contingency amount based on level of engineering done and excludes environmental compensation.The project is anticipated to be funded through Regional (Translink) funding, the City's Capital Plan, and Federal Grant Opportunities. g) Alternatives: Council may elect to choose another route option possibly from the three shortlisted options. CONCLUSIONS: The Abernethy Way Extension Study (232 Street to 256 Street) has determined that an extension of Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street is technically feasible. The MAE process identifies the Lower Route (Option 7) as the most feasible option, extending Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 240 Street, down 240 Street, and east on Dewdney Trunk Road. Should Council endorse the selected option the next steps for this project is to proceed with a conceptual design to identify property requirements for the selected route (Option 7). Prepared by: Purvez Irani, PEng., PTOE Manager of Transportation mg, PEng. unicipal Engineer ~~ Approved by: David Pollock, PEng. General Manager Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: (A) Appendix A, Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) (B) Appendix B, Recommended Roadway Cross-Sections (C) Abernethy Way Extension Study Report (232 Street to 256 Street) prepared by McElhanney Doc#2331873 Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX A Multiple Account Evaluation De.wdne.y Tnmk Rd & Provides Netwmk R,edumiancy Provides Acee~ to NE Sedor of.tire. City Ci:m.siste.ncy with Strate-gic T ran.spo.rtaslioo Ran (STP)/OCP Utilization oif &isling Roads & Property 1lmpacl Env.irorrmentaJ ~act • Two n,ew lal!imer Creek crossini:is. PosS"sibi/.il'yof Amhaeologfual Impact ALRtmpa>ct Social I Communify Impact al.so irrcludirrg impad .to 3,cJwoJs and tirrough-ctifflng Signir'icarn! Utffify • Compensation .Area: -23.2!!19m2 • Includes constructing • the road segment Option 7C to provide network redundancy via 24B Sh3nd l3D Ave • • • • • • No major crea • crossirni:1s. • Compens.aoon Area: -14,402m2 • • • • Traffic safety b:arriers • • I • I • • • • • • • • Two ne't1 ILatimer C~'k crossini:is. Compe-.n:s.aoon Area: -35,427m2 • • • • • • • • • will !be reqllired to avoid • some BC Hydro pole .Re.locali'<m • relc,caoons Co:s.f E.stimate • $11.BM • $61HlM " $69.4M (Cla$3 D; $2019) • $37.3M (240 St Ext) • $37 .3M (240 St Ext) • $37 .3M (240• St Ext.} 14 18 15 Ovaall • APPENDIXB Recommended Roadway Cross-Sections ROADWAY SECTION Abernethy Way 232 Street to 240 Street (Phase 3) Extension 240 Street to 256 Street (Phase 4) Abernethy Way Extension North (240 Street Bridge Extension) 240Street Dewdney Trunk Road to Abernethy Way Extension (Phase 4) Dewdney Trunk 240 Street to east of 252 Street (Phase 4) Road East of 252 Street to 256 Street (Existing Conditions) RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION 2 Lanes (Interim), 4 lanes (Ultimate) 2 lanes 2 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes -' ' ' ' ,. l ~ McElhanney FINAL ~BEST MANAGED ~COMPANIES ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY 232 STREET TO 256 STREET November 18, 2019 I Project#: 2111-03980-00 I Submitted to: City of Maple Ridge McElhanney Ltd. Suite 2300 -13450 102 Avenue Surrey BC, V3T 5X3 Contact: Bernard Abelson, PEng, MEng, TOPS Project Manager 604-424-4935 I babelson@mcelhanney.com ' ' ,_ ,_ ' ' =J ~-~~--CONTENTS CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... Ill TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... IV FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. IV APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... V 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Corridor Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.4. Project Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.5. Study Area .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.6. Previous Studies and City References ............................................................................................................... 3 2. 240 STREET EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY .......................................................................... 4 2.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2. 240 Street Extension Concept design ............................................................................................................... .4 2.3. INFLUENCE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 7 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 9 3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.2. Site Context ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Archaeological Overview Assessment ............................................................................................................. 11 3.4. Environmental Review ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3.5. Geotechnical Desktop Review ......................................................................................................................... 13 3.6. Creek Crossings Review .................................................................................................................................. 13 4. OPTION REFINEMENT AND SHORTLISTING ............................................................................ 14 4.1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2. Alignment Options Considered ......................................................................................................................... 14 4.3. Option Shortlisting ............................................................................................................................................ 15 5. TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND LANING ........................................................................................ 19 5.1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.2. Analysis Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 19 5.3. Forecast Traffic Volumes Pre & POST OCP Amendment ............................................................................... 23 5.4. Laning Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 24 6. COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................................................... 27 6.1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 6.2. Cost Estimate Summary ................................................................................................................................... 29 7. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 30 7 .1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 7.2. Engagement Process ....................................................................................................................................... 30 7.3. Survey Results ................................................................................................................................................. 30 8. EVALUATION OF SHORTLISTED OPTIONS .............................................................................. 34 8.1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 8.2. MAE Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 34 9. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 36 9.1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 36 9.2. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 36 9.3. Recommendations and Next Steps .................................................................................................................. 36 TABLES . --1 I ,,,.-,,---.-.----::r;-:;c..----Table ES -1: Multiple Account Evaluation (comparison of options relative to each other) ............................................... vii Table 1: Compensation Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Change in Total Trips Due to OCP Amendments ............................................................................................... 22 Table 3: 2050 AM (PM) Peak Traffic Forecast... ............................................................................................................... 23 Table 4: Lane Capacities by Facility and Area Type (Highway Capacity Manual) ............................................................ 24 Table 5: Summary of Recommended Number of Lanes for each Roadway Segment ..................................................... 24 Table 5: Cost Estimate Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 6: Multiple Account Evaluation (comparison of options relative to each other) ....................................................... 35 FIGURES Figure ES -1: Alignment and Segment Options Considered .............................................................................................. v Figure ES -2: Three Shortlisted Options ........................................................................................................................... vi Figure ES -3: Shortlisted Option ...................................................................................................................................... viii Figure 1: Area Overview (from the 2014 STP) .................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Proposed 240 Street Extension Concept Cross Section ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Plan View of Proposed 240 Street Bridge Crossing ............................................................................................ 5 Figure 4: Typical 240 Street Superstructure Cross-Section ................................................................................................ 6 Figure 5: Proposed 240 Street Bridge Profile ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6 TransLink's Major Road Network .......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 7 Study Area Agricultural Land Reserve ................................................................................................................ 1 O Figure 8 Schools Located in and Around the Study Area ................................................................................................. 1 O Figure 9: Alignment Options Considered .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10: Shortlisted Option 2C ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Shortlisted Option 7 ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 12: Shortlisted Option 10 ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13: Three Shortlisted Options ................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 14: Population Growth by Traffic Analysis Zone 2016 to 2035 (from the RTM) .................................................... 20 Figure 15: Employment Growth by Traffic Analysis Zone 2016 to 2035 (from the RTM) ................................................. 20 Figure 16: OCP Amendments in the North-East of the Study Area .................................................................................. 21 Figure 23: Concept Abernethy Way Extension: 232 St to 240 St -Short Term (to 2035): All Options ............................. 25 Figure 24: Concept Abernethy Way Extension: 232 St to 240 St -Long Term (after 2035): All Options .......................... 25 Figure 25: Concept Abernethy Way Extension: 240 St to 256 St: Options 2C and 10 ..................................................... 26 Figure 26: Concept 240 St (Abernethy to Dewdney Trunk Rd) and Dewdney Trunk Road (240 St to 252 St): Option 7 .26 Figure 27: Demographics & Place of Residence or Business .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 28: Demographics and Interest in Active Transportation ....................................................................................... 31 Figure 29: Preferred Option Selection .............................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 30: Preferred Option by Place of Residence ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 31: Recommended Abernethy Way Extension and Parallel 124 Ave Connection ................................................. 37 APPENDICES Appendix A: 201 O Delcan Studies Appendix C: Abernethy Way Drawings Appendix E: Geotechnical Desk Study Report Appendix G: Property Summary Appendix B: 240 Street Extension Drawings Appendix D: Archaeological Overview Assessment Appendix F: Traffic Demand Forecast Appendix H: Class D Cost Estimate :· Abernethy Way is a key east-west arterial in the City of Maple Ridge and is part of Translink's Major Road Network (MRN) connecting the Golden Ears Bridge to the west and 232 Street to the east. It generally parallels two other major routes in Maple Ridge: Lougheed Highway and Dewdney Trunk Road. Extending Abernethy Way beyond 232 Street to 256 Street as an alternative to Dewdney Trunk Road was identified in the City's 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP). This would provide better access to future proposed industrial land development in the north east sector of the City. The City has in the past developed corridor alignment options for this extension, and through this study wished to determine the technical feasibility of the corridor and to provide a recommended alignment. This new extension would be Phase 3 (to 240 Street) and Phase 4 (to 256 Street) of the Abernethy Way extension as per the STP. The study objectives were to assess the feasibility of both the previously identified options as well as identify any new options, before shortlisting options for further assessment. The shortlisted options were then presented to the public for their input, before being compared to each other using a Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process. In addition, the study was to determine the technical feasibility of a possible new 240 Street extension over the Alouette River to Fern Crescent. Thirteen alignment options or segments were reviewed as shown in Figure ES - 1, as well as the 240 Street extension. Figure ES -1: Alignment and Segment Options Considered Based on criteria such as the number of significant river and creek crossings, road geometry, terrain, cost effectiveness, and community, environmental, geotechnical, and archaeological impacts, three options were shortlisted for more detailed analysis. The three options are described below and have a consistent segment from 232 Street to 240 Street as shown in Figure ES -2. 1. An alignment east of 240 Street to 124 Avenue that then continues along the existing 248 Street and 130 Avenue (Option 2C). Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page v ----~-------------· --------~--~~-=~=-~---~~------~ -2. An alignment that would connect to and widen 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road (Option 7), as well as provide a new link on 124 Avenue between 244 Street and 246 Street. 3. An alignment east of 240 Street that generally follows the 124 Avenue greenfield alignment with a deviation south at Latimer Creek (Option 10). Figure ES -2: Three Shortlisted Options The findings of the MAE are shown in Table ES -1. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page vi -~.,...,, --------------~ =-------Table ES -1: Multiple Account Evaluation (comparison of options relative to each other) • • • Option 7 Option 10 I • -• •... • • ... Dewdney (Lower Route)~ Ave. (Middle Route) Influencing Factors Influencing Factors Dewdney Trunk Rd & • the road segment • ~ Relieves Traffic on • • • 1·1 · lncl,des constructing Provides Network I Option 7C to provide ~ network redundancy via __ _ I p,o::::n::::, lo ··----------~ lie---~--+-r---~2 __ 4_~-~t and 130 Ave ---------<-·-· _ ----------4--.---1 ~-E_s_e_c_t_or __ o_f_th_e_c_ity-+-----___ _j_. ~--________ • _________ -----+----1 Consistency with 1 Strategic • Transportation Plan • • (STP)IOCP ·-·-------~ublic Preference I Dire--;;;;-;;;-R~ -Utilization of Existing Roads & Property Impact ·----_J_•------··-·-·--·---------·-• • • ------------• • • lEnvironmental Impact • Two new Latimer • No major creek • Two new Latimer Creek ~ Creek crossings. • crossings. • crossings. • • Compensation Area: • Compensation Area: • Compensation Area: -23,209m2 -14,402m2 -35,427m2 A-rc_h_:_:o-st-~i-:c-li:-~-~-;-p_a __ c_t ----------1-.--1----------------.-----·· I~ >----A~L~R~-l_m-~p~a~c-t:::~~,-::::_-:~========~:::_.-_-_---1~--------~---_-_-:::::====:==·==:=~-=-----------+ ~ Social I Community Impact, also including impact to schools and through-cutting • • • !---------+-------------l-----+-------------1-------------------+-----! Significant Utility Relocation • • Traffic safety barriers will be required to avoid some BC Hydro pole relocations • • c------------+---------------t-----------·-·------·-·---------1----+-----------------"-----Cost Estimate (Class D; $2019) • $71.8M • $37.3M (240 St Ext) • • $66.0M • $37 .3M (240 St Ext) • • $69.4M • $37.3M (240 St Ext) • !------------------+----------. ---·-+------------+-----+-----------+-------14 18 Overall • • Based on the technical analysis and desktop and assessments undertaken as part of this study, extensions of both Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street, and 240 Street to Fern Crescent appear to be technically feasible. 15 • Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page vii Option 7 (Dewdney Trunk Road), shown in Figure ES -3, is the preferred alignment option based on the MAE findings and was also the preferred option identified at the public Open House. Figure ES -3: Shortlisted Option Based on the findings of this study, Option 7 (Dewdney Trunk Road) is recommended as the preferred option to investigate further. The future extension of 240 Street over the Alouette River can proceed as a separate project in future or as preferred by the City. Advancing these two projects to the conceptual design stage will allow some of the remaining unknowns to be determined, including more accurate property acquisition costs, and thereby prepare more reliable cost estimates (Class C or better). Included as part of this preferred option in the widening to four lanes of the section of 240 Street from Dewdney Trunk Road to the new Abernethy Way extension in the vicinity of the Hackers Haven, just north of the existing Abernethy Way intersection. This is consistent with the future proposed extension of 240 Street north to Fern Crescent, and the eventual possible inclusion of 240 Street between Dewdney Trunk Road and Fern Crescent in Translink's Major Road Network. The 240 Street connection to the Abernethy Way extension will also help better balance traffic on the section of Dewdney Trunk Road west of 240 Street and on 232 Street between to Dewdney Trunk Road and Abernethy Way. In the next design stage where road upgrades are in close proximity to schools, mitigation measures should be considered in the design. To meet the objective of providing an alternative route to Dewdney Trunk Road, completing the link of 124 Avenue between 244 Street and 246 Street is recommended. This will then provide an alternative route for local and emergency vehicle traffic connecting 240 Street to 256 Street via 124 Avenue, 248 Street and 130 Avenue. It is proposed this route be heavy vehicle restricted. As part of the next design stages, further public engagement is also recommended. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page viii 1.1. OVERVIEW The 128 Avenue / Abernethy Way corridor is a key east-west arterial route in the City of Maple Ridge (the City) with a direct connection to the Golden Ears Bridge through Golden Ears Way at the west boundary and 232 Street at its current eastern boundary. Abernethy Way is a winding road that is currently part of Translink's Major Road Network (MRN) and generally parallels two other major east-west connectors to the south: Lougheed Highway and Dewdney Trunk Road. 1.2. CORRIDOR OBJECTIVES Extending Abernethy Way to 240 Street as a long-term improvement option and eventually to 256 Street as an alternative route to Dewdney Trunk Road were identified in the City's 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP). The primary objectives of the corridor are to: 1. Extend Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street to provide improved access to the industrial and employment lands in north east sector of Maple Ridge, as per the Citys Official Community Plan (OCP) and the STP. 2. Provide an improved connection to a possible future extension of 240 Street north to access the Silver Valley area. 3. Improve both local and regional traffic flow (which includes access to the Golden Ears Provincial Park). 4. Provide redundancy in the road network and an alternative emergency route. 1.3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are to: 1. Assess the technical feasibility of extending 240 Street north to Fern Crescent to access the Silver Valley area and Golden Ears Provincial Park. The study considers a preferred crossing option of the Alouette River taking into account hydrotechnical and environmental factors. 2. Assess the technical feasibility of various options of the Abernethy Way extension from 232 Street to 256 Street. The study considers alignments, road connections, construction costs, property impacts, structural, archaeological, environmental, drainage and social impacts using previously prepared alignment options as the starting point. 3. Evaluate each option and identify a preferred option. The study brings together quantitative and qualitative analysis in a structured Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) framework. 4. Provide information to support informed debate. The study provides information about how the various options to extend Abernethy Way would compare to each other, highlighting both the pros and cons of each. 1.4. PROJECT SCOPE To achieve the corridor and project objectives, the following tasks were performed: 1. Gather and review existing information and studies that might influence decision making 2. Conduct a field review Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 1 =~=--------------~~ 3. Evaluate previously prepared alignment options and identify any new options 4. Determine forecast traffic volumes to advise the corridor cross section 5. Conduct desktop studies and field assessments of archaeological, environmental, drainage, structural, geotechnical, and property impacts 6. Evaluate alternative options relative to each other 7. Conduct public engagement 8. Identify a preferred corridor alignment In addition, a feasibility study of the extension of 240 Street north across the Alouette River was also done. This report details the study findings. 1.5. STUDY AREA The study area is generally bounded by 232 Street to the west, Dewdney Trunk Road to the south, 256 Street to the east, and 124 Avenue / 130 Avenue to the north. The area overview is shown in Figure 1. Looking at the study area relative to the rest of the City, the need for a possible additional east-west connection is evident, as well as a north-south . N City of Pitt Meadows 11 ,---A ,---1 132 A•,e Major Road Network -Highway --Arterial Road --Collector Road Local Road ll Signalized Intersection D Pedestrian Signal Figure 1: Area Overview (from the 2014 STP) Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Di strict of Maple Ridge Study Area Dewdoey Trunk Rd Page 2 I t I I 1.6. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CITY REFERENCES Previous studies and references pertaining to the Abernethy Way extension are detailed below. 1.6.1. Previous Abernethy Way Extension Studies Previous Abernethy Way extension studies were undertaken by Delcan (now Parsons) between 2008 and 2010. These include: • A memo dated November 17, 2008 -This memo summarizes the original seven options which were used as the starting point of this study. • A memo dated August 25, 2009 -This memo provided a project update and summarized the extent of works completed. • A letter dated March 31, 2010 -This letter summarized a meeting that was held with Translink regarding possible funding for the extension. • A draft technical brief dated September 2010 -This brief provided a Multiple Account Evaluation which showed Option 3, Option 4a, and Option 6 as being the highest rated. • Draft plan and profile drawings of the alignment options dated November 14, 2008 -These alignments served as the starting point for this study. 1.6.2. Strategic Transportation Plan The Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) includes discussion on the existing 128 Avenue / Abernethy Way corridor and its extension. The STP proposes the upgrade of this corridor be split into four phases: • Phase 1: 21 O Street to 224 Street -This segment was not included in this study. Phase 1 was to widen this segment of 128 Avenue/ Abernethy Way from two lanes to four lanes as well as provide upgrades including traffic signals and left-turn lanes. This upgrade has since been constructed. • Phase 2: 224 Street to 232 Street -This segment was also not included in this study. The STP discusses widening this segment from two lanes to four lanes and provide intersection upgrades. A separate City led project to widen this portion is underway; however, the scope has since changed to intersection upgrades only after an evaluation determined the widening is not yet warranted. • Phase 3: 232 Street to 240 Street -This segment is also included in this study. The STP discusses this future connection as a four-lane roadway with a signalized intersection at 240 Street. The STP notes that this is considered a long-term improvement (approximately 10 to 20 years). • Phase 4: 240 Street to 256 Street-This segment is included in this study. The STP notes that Phase 4 was considered and is not identified as a part of the long-term strategy since the OCP did not anticipate redevelopment of the area. It also notes that if development were to occur, the City may revisit this option further. This segment has; however, been considered in this study since decisions regarding Phase 3 options can impact the availability and viability of Phase 4 alignments, and the City issued an OCP Amendment for the north east sector which is discussed further in the Traffic Forecasting section of this report. 1.6.3. Previous 240 Street Extension Studies In 2008, Associated Engineering (AE) prepared a bridge crossing concept of the Alouette River. A review of that report was done given the changing local context, and preliminary assessments and recommendations provided regarding environmental impacts, hydrology impacts, rationale for the previous bridge concept, and navigable waters regulation. An initial structural review of the bridge concept was also done, and an order of magnitude cost estimate prepared. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 3 '~ 2.1. OVERVIEW The City received a development application for a proposed new residential subdivision between the northern limit of 240 Street and the Alouette River. The developer had prepared several layout options, including two roadway alignment options extending 240 Street through the proposed subdivision and across the Alouette River connecting to 128 Avenue. All options include filling the south flood plain of the Alouette River with a bridge crossing of approximately 170m. Given these options and the previous work done, an independent study was done of the developer's design concept focused on the bridge concept design to determine a planning level cost estimate. For this, a report prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) in March 2018 was relied upon to assess the flooding impact from the proposed development to estimate the hydraulic design parameters for developing a bridge concept. It was assumed that the developer will be responsible for environmental impacts, permitting, and restoration habitat associated with the subdivision impact, and these were therefore excluded from the scope of the study. 2.2. 240 STREET EXTENSION CONCEPT DESIGN 2.2.1. Roadway Alignment A conceptual 240 Street alignment was prepared based on the developer's 2018 alignment and profile (Option 1 B) and is provided in Appendix B. South of the Alouette River, connections to 124 Avenue and 241 Street driveways will be maintained via a proposed access road between 240 Street and 241 Street. Properties west of 240 Street will have access via a new proposed access road from 240 to the former 240 Street alignment. On the north side of the Alouette River, the existing intersection of 240 Street and Fern Crescent is proposed to be closed due to both its skew with the proposed new roadway and the grade differential between the two roadways. Residences along Fern Crescent would access their properties via the intersection of 128 Avenue and Fern Crescent, with the western limit of Fern Crescent becoming a cul-de-sac. The proposed alignment has a maximum gradient of 8% and a two-lane local urban road cross section (Figure 2) with a multi-use pathway and sidewalk. More refinement will be required in subsequent design stages to review alternatives to this concept, cost estimate, its optimization and refinement, and to determine property impacts. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 4 F £,. L I I I I I I I I !P' .. /~~ ..,;;·t·~ ~ - -:t.u:ss DPICAL SEC]ON 1.;.!lQ Figure 2: Proposed 240 Street Extension Concept Cross Section 2.2.2. Bridge Concept I I I I I I ----~~ _, ..,..~. I I Based on the alignment and profile prepared, a new bridge will be required through the new subdivision and over the Alouette River. The location and alignment of the proposed bridge and 240 Street extension is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Plan View of Proposed 240 Street Bridge Crossing Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 5 .-------~ ----~ --~~--------~ The new bridge crosses the Alouette River immediately downstream from a natural widening where the river makes a sweeping 180-degree turn through a floodplain. Due to the topography at the north escarpment and the channel alignment, the bridge abutments and piers will be skewed. Although a skew of approximately 35-degrees is shown in the concept, the skew of the piers should match the river alignment to reduce the potential for scour immediately downstream of the piers. An appropriate skew should be determined during the next design stage and determined by a hydrotechnical assessment. The slope of the existing escarpment at the north abutment is very shallow (between 6H:1V and 7H:1V) and the bridge length could potentially be shortened by up to 15m through regrading this slope (reduced length based on a 3H:1V slope). Since a geotechnical assessment was not done as part of this scope to determine the maximum stable slope based on the soil profile, the bridge length was determine using the existing escarpment slope at the north side and a 3H:1V slope at the south side (assuming all new fill). The proposed bridge cross-section consists of a 10.2m wide roadway (two 3.6m lanes and two 1.Sm shoulders), a 4m clear-width multi-use pathway (MUP) on the east side, and a 1.Sm clear-width sidewalk on the west side, both separated from traffic by standard cast-in-place concrete parapets. The total bridge width including an allowance for fences is approximately 17m. Pedestrian and bicyclist height steel railings are assumed to be mounted on the parapets adjacent to the sidewalk and MUP and a fence of appropriate height installed at the outside edge of the deck. A typical superstructure cross-section is shown in Figure 4. 1o 980 0/ALL {t_ CO'IITROL LINE ;:,so 000 gn I bOO .5 600 j 500 L OOG /OC SIDEWALK SHOULDER T~AFFIC l..A\iE t T~AFFIC LJ.\lE SHOJLDER 1'-lUP sr.ti.NJAR.'.) 8RJDGE rAP..APET ---..... I ---~1~~0;\~g '~~~;i::~~-PET REF. OWG. l\.o. 2.781.-7 17r: .,.-c/w STEEL BICYCLE Ri\lLING c/w STEEL RAILING 1" I / bZ~RI~~1~HALT ~ ~ _rl!Ef. DWC. so 2/Bo-J sTAND.4Htl Ci:-•,1~TI STEEL-..... ...... ~ _ ~It wATEllPROOF "_EMOR.AJ,,E ~-sr . .i..r\_ o,:.Ro 8c wo11 sTEa PEDESTRI FE~;f ~ I ~ _'.'.t= 2 ;~:..._____ _ , ._J__ __ c?,~~ ___ -· I ~YCLE FE'ICE -1"-" r----..... ill --ffi -= F/ ~fJ,~s:Jll,,.~,:-~:J I o sPAcEs AT , eoo -1+ n,a I OR t.. S:>,w,CES Al 3 t..OU = I 3 60C Figure 4: Typical 240 Street Superstructure Cross-Section The concept bridge design is based on a five-span (28m-38m-38m-38m-28m) continuous bridge across the river with an overall span length of 170m. This is significantly shorter that the 440m in the previous 2008 report, primarily due to the proposed development infill which acts as a causeway and shortens the bridge length considerably. This reduction results in a significant reduction in the cost of the bridge structure. The proposed span configuration will allow the use of either steel girders or prestressed concrete girders which can be confirmed in the next design stage. A bridge profile is shown in Figure 5. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 6 iL so,1TH A.H.· TuO,'l {_ not.TH l.t!UT\·E:,f r-170 OCO SPrN ( L TO :t Ee:.:.;;,t!I.G) . ls_r>._6•-"--------------=-----''---------'--------------11 Sf;. 8+56 i ""'~ 3<000 "'"' I 350,0 ,..,.,o I i BRIDGE ['::J FIU. I STEEL """ ' C,,• 1' F'1EC;..sr rr>1lGRETE <i2CC Fu10) --c.5;; .,:;nnm ' t:L. ~: 14 u ~.-~:~ -------· -~--~~----·_:;--J---------_ . ~----------=-=· ~------~=---. -~ ------~ 6Hlo11.l:'lSTffil'ILE./ -, ... _.----~:·~·-5-~!<\;.1~:S.98TEELPILE ~: '-.... _~PP:.O:<. ·----~] ----------~:'t..: iOX. 'PE sr·:.cE) ;.T 3.( rn ::.Jc: ,.,1rE s,~A,\,EJ ,aJ 3.A IT' rj:. E'<l5TI\G :;RCJ!-.J AT ..:aur.~e.r. TYi'. .ar PlE~:i. r,·, AT CONT'(~L U'{E Figure 5.· Proposed 240 Street Bridge Profile 2.2.3. Additional Bridge Design Elements The recommended flood elevation for a 200-year return period event (Q200) is 31.14m based on the NHC report. The 0200 elevation incorporated the effects of the new subdivision infringing upon the floodplain area. As the water velocity through the floodplain is slow, the effect of the Q200 elevation in the primary channel of the river was not significant. Based on the recommendations from the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) S6-14, a minimum soffit clearance of 1 m between the underside of the bridge superstructure and the 0200 flood elevation is recommended. Based on the roadway profile, Q200 elevation, and minimum soffit clearance, the maximum superstructure depth is approximately 2150mm. Accounting for a 100mm thick asphalt wearing surface, a 225mm thick structural cast-in-place concrete deck, an allowance for haunch height, and a 2.5% cross-fall over the width of the deck; the maximum girder depth is approximately 1600mm. This depth enables multiple superstructure options, including the use of six lines of standard 'NU' precast I-girders or steel plate I-girders spaced at approximately 2.85m or five lines of steel plate I-girders spaced at approximately 3.4m center-to-center. As this concept design did not include supplemental geotechnical investigations or desktop studies, the conceptual substructure and foundations design is based on the conclusions of the previous 2008 study. This study relied upon the geotechnical investigations upstream of the proposed crossing and recommended the use of either 610mm diameter by 12. 7mm wall thickness piles driven to a depth of 40m or 914mm diameter by 15.9mm wall thickness piles driven to a depth of about 30m to 35m. Based on the larger reactions at the piers, the new bridge concept is assumed to be founded on 610mm diameter piles at the abutments and 914mm diameter piles at the piers. The required number of piles is based on the anticipated reactions; however, this will need to be confirmed during the next design stage. A general arrangement of the bridge concept is included in Appendix B. 2.3. INFLUENCE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Construction of the proposed subdivision development does not appear to have a detrimental impact on the City's ability to construct a 240 Street bridge crossing of the Alouette River. While the proposed development infills a sizeable area of the land area overtopped during a 0200 flood event and which has a minor impact on the flood elevation immediately at the proposed bridge location, the subdivision essentially acts as a causeway which serves to shorten the bridge length considerably. This is reflected in the change in anticipated elevated bridge length from 440m in the previous 2008 report to the approximately 170m crossing based on this study. This reduction results in a significant reduction in the cost of the bridge structure. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 7 -~-...,,,,..,..--~---------·~~-·-Because geotechnical investigations have not been conducted on site (with the intention to fill and construct a bridge crossing), there is inherent risk and unknowns with the design and construction requirements for the approach embankment fills leading up to the bridge crossing. For example, lightweight fill treatments and / or preload on 240 Street may be appropriate to limit settlement of the structure. It is therefore recommended to conduct a geotechnical investigation as part of the next design stage which will also allow refinement of the cost estimate. Similarly, an environmental assessment has not yet been completed. lnstream works proposed in this bridge concept will trigger various notifications and approvals with the regulators. Understanding the associated impacts and timelines will be an important next step in determining a schedule and budget for the project. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 8 3.1. OVERVIEW This section describes the existing conditions in the study area which require consideration in the evaluation of technically feasible options for the Abernethy Way extension. Data was gathered primarily through desktop study and field visits. 3.2. SITE CONTEXT A key issues and challenges map is included in the drawings in Appendix C. This map includes photos showing the existing conditions and site context. In addition, the existing section of Abernethy Way up to 232 Street is part of Translink's Major Road Network (MRN), as are Dewdney Trunk Road up to 240 Street, and 240 Street south to Lougheed Highway. Fern Crescent to the north is also on the MRN as it provides access to a provincial park. These corridors are shown in Figure 6. The MRN supports the safe and efficient movement of people and goods across the region, encompassing 675 kilomet.ers of major arterial roads that carry multi modal commuter, transit, and truck traffic. It connects the provincial highway system with the local road network, and some corridors also serve cyclists and pedestrians. Translink, in partnership with municipalities, plans the regions MRN and Translink contributes funding for its on-going operation, maintenance and rehabilitation, however ownership and operational responsibility for the MRN remains with the respective municipalities. Translink also shares the cost of road, cycling, and pedestrian improvement projects with municipal partners and other stakeholders to expand options for driving, cycling, and walking across the region. Given this context, it is feasible that the extension of Abernethy Way at least up to 240 Street could also become part of the M RN in future, as well 240 Street between Dewdney Trunk Road and its future extension northwards to Fern Crescent. Figure 6 TransLink's Major Road Network Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge 1:lOAVE ! 128AVE i l25AVE 12.ZAVE 1l6AVE FERGUSON S1'~ --Major Road Network --Provincial Road Page 9 '.· ' l" 1· r-1 I ~. --[ r -t •. r. r i I: : i. I -----~-----. ____ , -----~----------~--~.=~~~ The study area is also substantially made up of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as seen by the green shaded areas in Figure 7. The ALR is a collection of agricultural land in across BC in which agriculture is recognized as the priority. It is intended to permanently protect valuable agricultural land from being lost. To remove land from the ALR, an application is submitted to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) for review. Two recent applications in the study area were rejected. Given this context, it is unlikely that any sizeable portion of land in the study area would be redeveloped, therefore traffic generation from within the study area onto a future extension of Abernethy Way would be low. Figure 7 Study Area Agricultural Land Reserve There are several schools in the study area, the majority of which front onto Dewdney Trunk Road as seen in Figure 8. Other schools surrounding the study area are also shown. As a result, there is student pedestrian traffic on the road network that should have suitable facilities provided. Vennadon Elementary An ei: 128A~t QYennadon -Y Elementary School ... OHirryHooge Y Elementary School 9 Garden Gate I reschool Q Meadowrldge School 0 Blue Mountain Y Elemen1ary OeWdnq, Trunk Rd 9 9 Kids by Design Preschool ~ Arthur Peake Centre Thomas Haney Ill;;' 0 Alexander Robinson T Elementary ~ IC Figure 8 Schools Located in and Around the Study Area Abernethy Way Extension Study j 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge School District No rO 42 (Maple Ridge) V"' 0 Webster'r Corners Y Elementary School ..J I !O Page 10 3.3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT An Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) was prepared by Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. for the proposed Abernethy Way extension based on several desktop studies and field visits. A copy of the report and addendum can be found in Appendix D. Site potential notes have been added to the drawings in Appendix C. Using a low, medium, or high rating to reflect the likelihood of discovering items of archaeological significance, the assessment identified fifteen locations considered to have medium to high potential for archaeological impact. Two mitigation strategies are presented for these potential sites: • Option 1: Complete avoidance of areas with medium or greater site potential. This is generally the preferred method since it is the simplest and least costly choice, however is not always feasible. • Option 2: If a route falls within a medium or greater site potential, further investigations in the conceptual, preliminary and detailed design stages should be conducted through an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA). There are some areas where medium or greater site potentials cannot be avoided such as at Coho Creek just east of 232 Street on Abernethy Way. As a result, an AIA is recommended during the conceptual, preliminary and detailed design stage once a preferred option has been selected. 3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 3.4.1. Commitment to Sustainable Development The OCP identifies sustainability as a key objective and driver in decision-making. Regulatory considerations are critical in evaluating potential effects of proposed capital projects. Mitigation of effects through compensation is usually less preferred and often more costly, than can be achieved through alternate route planning and avoidance of impacts. 3.4.2. Desktop Review A desktop environmental review was completed to provide a high-level assessment of potential impacts to watercourses and associated riparian areas. The review was centered around work that is likely to be regulated by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, and Rural Development (FLNRORD) and / or Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and would therefore require regulatory approvals. The review focused on work that would be in and around new and existing stream crossing locations. The preferred alignment, when selected, will require detailed survey through established channel assessment procedures. This will provide the level of detail necessary to quantify impacts of the ultimate design and thus inform regulatory and compensatory requirements. Preliminary information was collected from various databases including the Province's Habitat Wizard, Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS), City's GIS data, and other information deemed to be important in Data BC, iMAPBC, Community Atlas, and City of Maple Ridge Open Data. Opinions on fish passage requirements at culvert locations (both new and existing) were based on several factors including but not limited to: • Upstream reach conditions (such as the presence of ditches and open watercourses). • Information related to historical fish presence/observation. • Evaluation of natural or man-made barriers to fish and whether such barriers could be overcome with intervention. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 11 '. ' ' ,-, __ ,. i ,_ ,_ ,-_ ,_ C-c. C-CC c. ' C ,-,- -~ -----------~~---• Location of a proposed crossing relative to stream order (i.e. lower order headwater location vs. higher order stream reaches such as those with a distinct channel). • Evidence of stream permanence, and habitat complexity. City-supplied Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data was also analyzed to supplement the review with detailed terrain data. This analysis provided a means to reasonably delineate watercourses such as ditches, natural streams, ravine and channel slopes and associated riparian areas. Supplied LiDAR was used in ArcGIS to create a digital elevation model along the proposed alignment corridors. A slope algorithm was applied to the model to generate a slope map in percent rise. A polygon representing a slope greater than 3:1 was extracted from the slope map; this served to effectively model the channel slopes and top of bank for streams and ditches. Mapped streams received a setback buffer of 5m, 15m, or 30m based on a relative measure of sensitivity. Ditches received a setback buffer of 5m. These setbacks should be confirmed with the City during future design stages. The road pavement edge was considered to be a permanent existing development and therefore any setback buffers extending onto a paved road surface were trimmed accordingly. Temporal boundaries for potential stream and riparian effects were limited to the full 24m extent of the proposed right-of-way. Terrestrial sensitivity data available within a 1 OOm buffer from the proposed alignment was reviewed. Importantly, characterizing effects associated with greenfield areas such as forested land or land that has otherwise not undergone development and left largely in a naturalized state, was not included as part of this desktop environmental scope. These undeveloped areas should be further investigated for the presence of sensitive flora and fauna, wetland areas, and other sensitivities that may be revealed in detailed site assessment and which are protected by applicable environmental statute. The following regulations were considered in the review: • City of Maple Ridge no net habitat loss and 2:1 offsetting/ compensation policy. • FLNRORD notification for road crossings provided for less than 2m fill condition, approvals for ditch infilling/ relocation, provincial environmental mitigation policy. • DFO self-assessment and / or project review required when greater details are available such as in detailed design. Based on the analysis outlined above, Table 1 provides an estimate of riparian and channel areas that may require mitigation through offsetting. Table 1: Compensation Areas TYPE OF HABITAT l Riparian Area Stream ______ _ Stream Channel (riparian area on channel slope + instream) 531 243 AREA (m2) 2,586 14,347 ---+-------· 2,259 3,390 l Ditch Riparian Area -------1----1-7,029 7,530 13,617 Ditch Channel 5,~~ ----_2:,0:2:7::_-_-_-_-_-..,__ ___ 4_,_07_3_ Total Area ~~--__ -14,4_0_2 ___ ....___ ___ -_35_,_42_1 ____ J Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 12 3.5. GEOTECHNICAL DESKTOP REVIEW Braun Geotechnical Ltd. conducted a geotechnical desktop study and site reconnaissance for the alignment options. The report is provided in Appendix E. Published surficial geology indicates the site is underlain by soils of the Fort Langley formation which comprises of gravel and sand & stony clayey silt to silty sand. Avoidance of the Latimer Creek ravine is desirable from a geotechnical perspective. Options which do cross the Latimer Creek ravine would require a bridge with a driven piled foundation and would require review for possible slope erosion. A preliminary minimum pavement structure would include 150mm of asphalt on 100mm of 19mm minus crushed granular base on 450mm of 75mm minus select granular subbase. Geotechnical work in future conceptual, preliminary and detailed design stages should include: • Geotechnical subsurface exploration and reporting. • Detailed stream crossing designs. • Structural assessment of the existing pavement areas and confirmation on pavement design section based on forecast traffic data. • Detailed Geotechnical Assessment of slopes. • Detailed slope stability analysis and development of retaining wall designs. 3.6. CREEK CROSSINGS REVIEW Upon field review and examining the profiles from previously prepared studies, it is evident that some options would require substantial bridge crossings at Latimer Creek. Latimer Creek is a deep ravine with challenging geotechnical and environmental issues. The ravine gets significantly deeper (-16m) and wider (-170m) on the 124 Avenue alignment. The cost of a bridge structure crossing was estimated to be greater than $20M. Options which deviate south of the ravine could avoid the need for a bridge which would be considerably more cost-effective and less impactful. Some of the initial option alignments have crossings of Latimer Creek on the east side of 240 Street. Preliminary review indicates a corrugated steel plate arch structure could be used for this crossing given the required span and depth; however, it should be confirmed in conceptual, preliminary and detailed design. There is an existing two-lane bridge on Dewdney Trunk Road just west of 256 Street. Widening this bridge to four lanes will require either widening, twinning or replacing of the bridge at significant cost. As a result, if widening Dewdney Trunk Road were a shortlisted option it would be reasonable to only extend the four-laning of to just west of this crossing. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 13 4.1. OVERVIEW This section describes all the options that were considered to connect Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street. It describes the process that was taken to develop the initial options as well as consideration for shortlisting options. 4.2. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS CONSIDERED Overall, 13 options were considered as shown in Figure 9. Of these, seven were from the previous Delcan prepared options, and six additional options were identified. Note that an end to end corridor alignment is made up of an amalgamation of option segments as seen in the figure. Further specifics of each option are provided the drawings in Appendix C. Figure 9: Alignment Options Considered Each option is described below: • Option 1: Option 1 follows a direct east-west alignment along 124 Avenue from 232 Street to 256 Street. This option crosses Latimer Creek which is a significant ravine at the crossing location. • Option 2A: Option 2A follows a similar alignment to Option 1; however, it deviates south at the Latimer Creek crossing to a narrower, but still significant, crossing location. • Option 28: Option 2B follows a similar alignment to Option 2A; however, includes improved horizontal curve geometry at 240 Street. • Option 2C: The key feature of Option 2C is that it makes use of the existing road along 248 Street north of 124 Avenue, the 130 Connector, and 130 Avenue to 256 Street. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 14 • Option 3A: Option 3A makes use of the existing section of Abernethy Way just west of 240 Street by deviating south of the Hacker's Haven Golf Course. East of 240 Street, the alignment deviates back up to the 124 Avenue alignment by crossing the narrower section of Latimer Creek north of Meadowridge School. • Option 38: Option 38 is similar to Option 3A; however, it makes use of the existing culvert crossing at Latimer Creek and follows the existing 240 / 241 Street geometry north of Abernethy Way. • Option 4: Option 4 makes use of 248 Street north of 124 Avenue and then 128 Avenue east to 256 Street. • Option 5: Option 5 extends 252 Street north of 124 Avenue and then heads east to 256 Street. • Option 6: Option 6 is similar to Option 3A; however, the transition back up to the 124 Avenue alignment was moved further east to reduce impact to the Academy Park / Ansell neighbourhoods. • Option 7: Option 7 widens both Dewdney Trunk Road to four lanes and 240 Street between Dewdney Trunk Road and Abernethy Way extension. It also includes a short connection of 124 Street between 244 Street and 246 Street. • Option 8: Option 8 makes use of the City-owned right-of-way along 241 Street north of 124 Avenue and continues east along 128 Avenue. Due to the extreme topography along this corridor with steep slopes, this option was determined not feasible. • Option 9: Option 9 is similar to Option 8; however, it makes use of Alouette Road and the corridor north of 130 Avenue to get east to 256 Street. Like Option 8, this alignment was eliminated early on due to extreme . topography with steep slopes. • Option 1 O: Option 10 is similar to Option 6; however, instead of using the existing Abernethy Way south of Hacker's Haven golf course, it would purchase the southern portion of Hacker's Haven golf course. This would improve the alignment east of 240 Street. 4.3. OPTION SHORTLISTING A review was completed to narrow down the 13 considered options up to three shortlisted for further detailed analysis. The criteria applied to evaluate the options were: • Number of significant river and creek crossings required • Suitable and safe road geometry • Terrain suitability • Cost effectiveness • Community impacts • Environmental, geotechnical, and archaeological impacts The following sections provide more specific reasoning why each option was shortlisted or not. 4.3.1. Options 1, 2A, and 28 Due to the topography at the Latimer Creek ravine, a bridge would be required. Although these options provide the most direct routes, the bridge required would add more than $20M to the total cost which could be avoided with a more southerly option such as Options 6 or 10. Avoidance of the Latimer Creek ravine is also favourable from an environmental, geotechnical, and archaeological standpoint. For these reasons, Options 1, 2A, and 28 were not shorllisted. 4.3.2. Option 2C Option 2C was shortlisted because it makes use of a large portion of existing roadway along 248 Street and 130 Avenue. This is beneficial from several reasons, including reduced cost, reduced geotechnical, archaeological, and environmental risks, and less property impacts. At the 248 Street/ 130 Avenue intersection, there would be a five-leg intersection which would need to be designed in the conceptual design stage, for which a roundabout is proposed. This Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 15 1":"";:}i~~--. -------~ route is however not direct, requiring 90° turns and intersections. The end to end corridor for this option is shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Shortlisted Option 2C · 4.3.3. Options 3A and 38 Option 3A would require several driveways in the Ansell neighbourhood to have direct access on the proposed roadway as well as require additional intersections to reestablish access to the neighbourhood. Option 38 is more circuitous and has challenging geometry both at the intersection of 240 Street and 241 Street and the horizontal curve where 241 Street turns into 124 Avenue. A hybrid of Option 38 was assessed to determine the feasibility of a new T-intersection at the 124 Avenue right-of-way and 240 Street, thereby avoiding the 241 Street deviation. At this intersection location the elevation of 240 Street is below that of 124 Street. To achieve the maximum preferred 8% gradient on 124 Street would require significant excavations, with retaining walls, and property impacts. This impact combined with the community impacts of Option 3A resulted in Options 3A and 38 not being shortlisted. 4.3.4. Options 4 and 5 Option 4 is preferable to Option 5 from a cost, geotechnical, environmental, and archaeological standpoint since Option 4 requires upgrading the existing section of 248 Street where Option 5 requires building a new roadway along 252 Street. However, Option 2C also makes use of the existing 248 Street but also makes use of the existing 130 Avenue where Options 4 and 5 require building a new roadway extending 128 Avenue to 256 Street. Because of this, Option 2C was preferred, and Options 4 and 5 were not shortlisted. 4.3.5. Option 6 Option 6 is located on the existing section of Abernethy Way west of 240 Street. Although it would be preferred to use this existing section of roadway from a cost perspective, this alignment would significantly impact local residents and require two intersections to access the neighbourhood within 250 m of the 240 Street intersection. This intersection density is inconsistent with the requirements of an arterial roadway, or they would have to be right-in, right-out intersections. It would be preferred to establish the existing Abernethy Way as a frontage road, parallel to the proposed new extension to better limit community impact. A frontage road scenario is included in Option 10, and as a result Option 6 was not shortlisted. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 16 4.3.6. Option 7 Option 7 was shortlisted since it makes use of existing established infrastructure along 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. Dewdney Trunk Road would be widened to four lanes to increase capacity versus providing an alternative route to Dewdney Trunk Road. Although Dewdney Trunk Road would remain the only major east-west connector in the study area with this option, local connections would be proposed in conjunction to complete the local network in the area. A connector along 124 Avenue between Ansell Street and 246 Street is proposed to provide a local, possibly truck restricted link between 232 Street and 256 Street along 240 Street, 124 Avenue, 248 Street, and 130 Avenue. The extents of this route would be from Abernethy Way at 232 Street to west of the bridge at 256 Street and is shown in Figure 11. Figure 11: Shortlisted Option 7 4.3.7. Options 8 and 9 Although there is a City-owned right-of-way along these alignments, Options 8 and 9 were not shortlisted due extreme topography, including significant corridor lengths of approximately 1 :1 side slopes through the full width of the corridor and 40 m elevation changes at 37% grades. 4.3.8. Option 10 Option 10 was shortlisted since it roughly follows the 124 Avenue alignment and is the most direct of all the options. It avoids Latimer Creek crossings west of 240 Street and avoids developments/ subdivisions as much as possible. The extents of this route would be from Abernethy Way at 232 Street to 124 Avenue at 256 Street and is shown in Figure 12. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 17 -----.-~ -=-·r--Figure 12: Shortlisted Option 10 4.3.9. Three Shortlisted Options In summary, the three options shortlisted for more detailed analysis have a consistent segment from 232 Street to 240 Street as shown in Figure 13, and are described as follows: 1. An alignment east of 240 Street to 124 Avenue that then continues along the existing 248 Street and 130 Avenue (Option 2C). 2. An alignment that would connect to and widen 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road (Option 7), and a local connection on 124 Avenue between 244 Street and 246 Street. 3. An alignment east of 240 Street that generally follows the 124 Avenue greenfield alignment with a deviation south at Latimer Creek (Option 10). Figure 13: Three Shortlisted Options Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 18 5.1. OVERVIEW This section presents the forecast of the traffic volumes that are anticipated to use the Abernethy Way extension. The forecast was developed using the Regional Transportation Model (RTM) version 3.2 received from Translink. The RTM is a four-step EMME transportation demand model which depicts travel on the roadway infrastructure and transit services in the entire Metro Vancouver area. In addition to replicating the multimodal transportation services, the RTM represents the region as 1,700 traffic analysis zones (TAZ), 44 of them within the City of Maple Ridge. Demographic information such as population, employment, households, school enrollment and auto ownership are contained in each zone and for each horizon year that is modelled. The RTM contains assumptions for the base years 2017, 2035 and 2050 consistent with land use assumptions provided by Metro Vancouver. Network infrastructure assumptions for major projects are provided by Translink and include Mo Tl projects. The assumptions provided in the RTM were applied. 5.2. ANALYSIS APPROACH 5.2.1. Base Case Travel Demand As the RTM is a regionally focused tool, a review of the 2017 road network assumptions contained in the base model was performed and generally found to be consistent with present conditions within Maple Ridge. An indicative travel time validation was done for the AM, MD (mid-day) and PM peak periods comparing the model travel times to travel times measured using the Google Maps API for Lougheed Highway, Dewdney Trunk Road, and Abernethy Way. The travel times for all corridors were within the observed travel times from Google Maps and considered suitable for an indicative evaluation of the future corridor demand. The level of network detail was deemed sufficient to represent user choice to access the Abernethy Way extension. 5.2.2. Projected Travel Demand Demographic Growth Assumptions Population and employment growth for the region was assumed from the information in the RTM. A review of these assumptions noted that the majority of the growth anticipated in the current regional plan within Maple Ridge is concentrated to the west of the 232 Street corridor and provides limited growth potential further east. This limits the amount of future travel demand expected to be drawn to the Abernethy Way extension. The population and employment growth heat maps are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15 respectively. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 19 r ' "' ...... .. Maple Ridge -Population Growth from 2016 to 2035 Traffic Zone [TZJ Population Difference • j .. ! Population Growth ~ ·.: < 0 ~-.: 0 t·.1, -100 • 101-500 • 501-1,000 11,001-5,000 > 5.000 -' ""' . Figure 14: Population Growth by Traffic Analysis Zone 2016 to 2035 (from the RTM) Maple Ridge -Employment Growth fro Traffic Zone [TZJ Employment Difference Employment Growth ~:: <O t,*..! 0 1-100 .101-500 • 501-1,000 • >1,000 ""' '" ·~l20 ·I .,, .. " '21111 ., Figure 15: Employment Growth by Traffic Analysis Zone 2016 to 2035 (from the RTM) Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge .,, .. . , UJSO ' 2035 2050 2017 21135 2050 """ .. 2140 2155 2140 2155 975 1040 1090 .......... Erl'I 975 1040 1090 4243/1 .,o ....... Page 20. Also highlighted in Figure 14 and Figure 15 are the significant areas to the north-east of the study corridor, in and around the Kanaka Business Park, that were rezoned by way of an OCP amendment to industrial uses. The rezoned areas are shown in Figure 16. The City advised the anticipated types of land use in these areas are likely to be as follows: • Gravel extraction • Industrial uses (which includes processing, fabricating, assembling, storage, transporting, servicing, etc.) • Waste transfer stations • Industrial repair • Industrial trade schools • Industrial vehicle sales • Heavy equipment sales • Indoor recreational facilities MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 7299-2016 Map No. 926 Purpose: To Amend Schedule B From: Institutional, Rural Resource, and Suburban Residential To: ~Industrial lml:IEstate Suburban Residential E::.::il Park ~Industrial Reserve mm suburban Residential l!!:l Conservation ~Rural Resource Figure 16: OCP Amendments in the North-East of the Study Area Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 21 I The small changes in population and employment growth in the affected traffic analysis zones between 2017 and 2050 (as seen in Figure 14 and Figure 15) suggest that this rezoning has not been incorporated into the current growth assumptions in the RTM model. As a result, a manual adjustment was done in addition to the regional demand forecast results. To translate these land use changes into trips Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Rates were applied comparing the previously assumed land uses versus the amended. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.2 was applied to the amended land use based on visual inspection of the current land use in the affected area, its semi-rural location, and taking into consideration the low probability of full buildout of the sites shown in Figure 16. Even a FAR of 0.1 seems reasonable, however in discussion with the City a FAR of 0.2 was agreed to and is a more conservative approach. The number of houses per 1000 sq.ft was estimated based on a visual count from Google Maps east of 248 Street, west of 256 Street and north of 130 Street. This resulted in 0.0157 houses per 1000 sq.ft, or 1.69 houses per Ha. The resultant additional number of trips in the AM and PM peak hours for the previous and revised land uses in shown in Table 2. These adjustments were then applied to the model's estimated traffic forecasts. As seen in the table, an additional 850 total trips are estimated to be generated by the OCP amendment. Table 2: Change in Total Trips Due to OCP Amendments Previous land Use Size Existing Land Use Land Use Code (Hectares) Unit Institutional 2.09 2.09 Suburban Housing (Partially 210 {Single-Family Detached Housing) 39.93 Dwelling Units Developed) 210 {Single-Family Detached Housing) 39.93 Dwelling Units Industrial 130 (Industrial Park) 30.85 1000 Sq.ft 130 (Industrial Park) 30.85 1000 Sq.ft Institutional 0.69 0.69 Institutional 34.75 34.75 Suburban Residential 15.42 15.42 I nsti tuti anal 9.41 9.41 Notes: FAR was applied m the size formula. Revised Land Use Size Future Land Use Land Use Code (Hectares) Unit Surburan Real Estate 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) 2.09 Dwelling Units 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) 2.09 Dwelling Units Industrial Reserve 130 (Industrial Park) 39.93 1000 Sq.ft 130 (Industrial Park) 39.93 1000 Sq.ft Industrial 130 (Industrial Park) 30.85 1000 Sq.ft 130(1ndustrial Park) 30.85 1000 Sq.ft Estate Suburban Residential 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) 0.69 Dwelling Units 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) 0.69 Dwelling Units Industrial Reserve 130(1ndustrial Park) 34.75 1000 Sq.ft 130(1ndustrial Park) 34.75 1000 Sq.ft Industrial Reserve 130(1ndustrial Park) 15.42 1000 Sq.ft 130 (Industrial Park) 15.42 1000 Sq.ft Rural Resource 130(1ndustrial Park) 9.41 1000 Sq.ft 130 (Industrial Park) 9.41 1000 Sq.ft Notes: This trip generation assumes all areas are developed. FAR was applied in the size formula. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Size sq. ft Period 7 AM 7 PM 664 AM 664 PM Size sq. ft Period 4 AM 4 PM 860 AM 860 PM 664 AM 664 PM 1 AM 1 PM 748 AM 748 PM 332 AM 332 PM 203 AM 203 PM Rate %In %Out Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Undeveloped 0.76 26 74 1 4 5 1 64 36 4 3 7 0.41 87 13 237 35 272 0.4 21 79 56 210 266 Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped TotalAM 238 39 277 Total PM 60 213 273 Rate %In %Out Trips In Trips Out Total Trips 0.76 26 74 1 2 3 1 64 36 3 1 4 0.41 87 13 307 46 353 0.4 21 79 72 272 344 0.41 87 13 237 35 272 0.4 21 79 56 210 266 0.76 26 74 0 1 1 1 64 36 1 0 1 0.41 87 13 267 40 307 0.4 21 79 63 236 299 0.41 87 13 118 18 136 0.4 21 79 28 105 133 0.41 87 13 72 11 83 0.4 21 79 17 64 81 Total AM 1002 153 1155 Total PM 240 888 1128 Change in Trips (Previous vs. Revised Land Use): Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Total AM 764 114 878 Total PM 180 675 855 Page 22 Travel Demand Assumptions The model was run with the current network assumptions in the RTM and with two network options for the 2035 and 2050 horizon years: 1. The extension of Abernethy Way east of 232 Street to 256 Street. Since the analysis model used is a regional model, the actual alignment of the extension will not affect the forecast travel demand. 2. Abernethy Way extension with the addition of the new connection on 240 Street north across the Alouette River linking to the Silver Valley neighbourhood. 5.3. FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES PRE & POST OCP AMENDMENT Traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours were extracted for 2017, 2035 and 2050 to evaluate the traffic growth from land use changes and the traffic diversion when the Abernethy Way extension is introduced into the network. The OCP Amendment generated traffic (from Table 2) was manually added to the 2050 forecast volumes, the assumed timeline for the build out of the planned land uses. The majority of these additional trips are industrial related and would be passing through primarily residential land uses along all of the Abernethy Way extension alignment options. Option 7 reroutes these industrial trips to Dewdney Trunk Road via 240 Street and provides for a local road connection from 240 Street to 256 Street. Since the RTM traffic volumes already include the trips generated by the initial land use assumptions, further adjustments were made to the forecast volumes to eliminate double counting. The resultant forecast traffic volumes on the various segments for the three shortlisted options are shown in Table 3 for the 2050 AM and PM peak hours. The total traffic volumes are shown in Appendix F. Table 3: 2050 AM (PM) Peak Traffic Forecast EXTENSION 2050 HORIZON SECTION YEAR (VPH) • Abernethy Way L-~-300 (730) ,_ ________ West of 232 St 1 WB 700 (450) Abernethy Way 232 EB 250 (350) St to 240St ----------------------WB 400 (200) --Options 2C & 1 O EB 100 (150) East of 240 St ~------I WB 200 (150) Option 7 (Dewdney EB 450 (600) Trunk Rd) East of -~· 240 St WB 700 (450) --240 St North of I NB 260 (140) Abernethy Way I SB 160 (140) ------I-------240 St South of L NB 440 (630) r --Abernethy Way SB 750 (420) Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge I I OCP ADJUSTMENT ' (2050) (VPH) I 500 (50) >----------70 (400) 550 (100) --------------80 (450) 600 (150) 90 (500) -600 (150) 90 (500) -----------------------2050 TOTAL TRAFFIC FORECAST (VPH) 800 (78 770 (85 800 (45 ----480 (65 700 (30 290 (65 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 1050 (75 0) 0) 0) -----790 (95 260 (14 -160 (14 ---440 (63 ---0) 0) 0) 0) -750 (42 Page 23 5.4. LANING ASSESSMENT Table 4 is an extract from the Highway Capacity Manual and shows estimated travel lane traffic volume capacities for various types of roadway facilities through different areas. The table suggests a maximum lane capacity of 700 vehicles per lane per 'direction on a Suburban Arterial with 10% Heavy Vehicles, which by 2050 likely best describes the corridor under investigation and assuming full build-out of the OCP Amendment. Based on this volume threshold, Table 5 shows the proposed number of travel lanes for each of the shortlisted options. The existing two-lane cross section east of 252 Street should be retained as widening this section of Dewdney Trunk Road to 256 Street would require the replacement or twinning of the bridge crossing the Alouette River, which expense would only be justified when there is greater certainly on the traffic volumes forecast in future years. Table 4: Lane Capacities by Facility and Area Type (Highway Capacity Manual) II Free.Plow I Area Type Speed G/C II Downtown Urban Suburban Rural Downtown Urban Suburban Rural Multi-Lane Rural 2-Lane Downtown Urban Suburban Rural Multi-Lane Rural 2-Lane (mph) 55 60 65 70 25 35 45 55 55 25 30 35 45 45 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.45 0.45 0.41 n/a n/a 0.41 0.41 0.37 n/a n/a HCMPC 90%PC Capacity Capacity (vehnn) (veh/ln) 2250 2300 2350 2400 860 860 · 780 2100 1600 780 780 700 1900 1600 2000 2100 2100 2200 800 800 700 1900 1400 700 700 600 1700 1400 Arterial/Collector assume 1900 ideal sat flow rate :,· .. 1800 1800 1900 1900 700 700 600 1700 1300 600 600 600 1500 1300 Table 5. Summary of Recommended Number of Lanes for each Roadway Segment ROADWAY SEGMENT Abernethy Way I 232 Street to 240 Street (Phase 3): All ! Options Extension i 240 Street to 256 Street (Phase 4): Options i 2C and 10 ! ---. -. -i .. .. -i North of Abernethy Way Extension (240 I Street Bridge Extension): All Options 240Street i ! South of Abernethy Way Extension to I Dewdney Trunk Road (Phase 4): Option 7 t40 Streetto;;st ~f 252 Street (Phase 4): Dewdney Trunk Road I Option 7 ~-! East of 252 Street to 256 Street (Existing i Conditions) ! Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge : .L -.L Suburban Arterial Suburban Arterial ··-· -Suburban Collector Suburban Arterial Suburban Arterial Suburban Arterial RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION 2 Lanes (Interim), 4 lanes (Ultimate) 21anes -21anes -----·-------41anes --41anes 21anes Page 24 5.4.3. Proposed Cross Sections for Each Shortlisted Option For all shortlisted options the proposed cross section from 232 Street to 240 Street is a 24m right-of-way with a rural two-lane roadway in the short term (prior to 2035) and a four-lane urban roadway in the long term (2035 to 2050). The right-of-way for the long-term condition should be secured in the short term to allow for the construction of the long-term cross section without requiring additional property acquisition. The concept short term cross section is shown in Figure 23 while the concept long term cross section is shown in Figure 24. J, <.-0 r. i L ____ _ Figure 17: Concept Abernethy Way Extension.-232 St to 240 St -Short Term (to 2035): All Options .::.,. _-_______ •. ~----:::::::;-_____ , ------'"!..''if;;.'"---i i Figure 18: Concept Abernethy Way Extension: 232 St to 240 St-Long Term (after 2035): All Options i For Options 2C and 10 the proposed cross section of Abernethy Way extension from 240 Street to 256 Street is a two-lane rural cross section within a 24m right-of-way as shown conceptually in Figure 25. Property acquisition is required to achieve this cross section, the specifics of which will be determined in the next design stages. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 25 --------~---------"-\'~ ll·~-;_··,--------~-----'"·!._t7}> ,-119 ..... ~1 1' Figure 19: Concept Abernethy Way Extension. 240 St to 256 St: Options 2C and 10 For Option 7 the proposed cross section of 240 Street between Abernethy Way and Dewdney Trunk Road, and Dewdney Trunk Road between 240 Street and 252 Street is a four-lane urban cross section within a 24m right-of-way as shown conceptually in Figure 26. Property acquisition is required to achieve this cross section, the specifics of which will be determined in the next design stages. ,.!! Pll.f'IC"° ··-·· .• ,. ~~-,y· 1' 1' .~. Figure 20: Concept 240 St (Abernethy to Dewdney Trunk Rd) and Dewdney Trunk Road (240 St to 252 St): Option 7 Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 26 ,. ' ' t-_-_ ~ i t c 6.1. OVERVIEW Cost estimates for the three shortlisted options are presented in this section. 6.1.1. Unit Rates Average unit rates were selected from recent projects including the 232 Street: 132 Avenue to Silver Valley Road Design and Construction Project in Maple Ridge as well as various projects in nearby Langley. These rates were used to create an average linear road rate for each proposed typical cross section which was then applied to each option. 6.1.1. Drainage Considerations Due to the number of creek crossings on each shortlisted option, to better prepare a corridor cost estimate a preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis was done using the rational method. This determined catchment areas and flows to advise preliminary culvert sizing for these creek crossings. Although the site areas are larger than recommended for the rational method, it is generally considered overly conservative and should be refined by modelling in more detailed design stages. The preliminary sizing is shown in the notes on the drawings found in Appendix C. A field review was also done to review the various crossings for topography to determine if a culvert or arch structure is more appropriate. Below is a summary of the preliminary culvert crossings. Note that these sizes are subject to change following a more detailed hydraulic analysis during the next design phases of the project: • Coho Creek Crossings: Coho creek is east of 232 Street and crosses Abernethy Way twice. The west 750mm0 culvert (Crossing 1) is proposed to be upgraded to a 1400mm0 CSP culvert and is fish sensitive (All Options). The east 600mm0 culvert (Crossing 2) is proposed to be upgraded to a 1200mm0 CSP culvert (All Options). • Latimer Creek Crossings: The west 600mm0 culvert near Hacker's Haven golf course (Crossing 40) is proposed to be upgraded to a 1000mm0 CSP culvert (All Options). The crossings east of 240 Street don't have existing culverts but are proposed to use a corrugated plate arch structure (Crossing 7) and a 1200mm0 CSP culvert (Crossing 8). Both of these crossings are fish sensitive (Option 2C and 10). • Webster's Creek: The culvert on 130 Avenue west of 256 Street at Webster's Creek (Crossing 17) is proposed to be upgraded from an 870x980 culvert to a 2440x1270 culvert (Option 2C). This crossing is fish sensitive. • Zirk Brook: The existing culvert crossing Zirk Brook is a 2500x1720 culvert (Crossing 9). This culvert is proposed to be upgraded to a 3500x1750 culvert (Option 10). This crossing is fish sensitive. 6.1.2. Property Impacts Based on average property value ranges for various zonings and lot characteristics, estimated property impact costs were determined and are included in the overall cost estimate. An average price of $85 per square meter was used for ALR lands and $560 per square meter for non-ALR lands. This price includes the negotiation fees and purchase of properties. A conservative approach was taken which assumed total buyouts in cases where the alignment bisected a property (especially ALR) or went through a building structure. There is a possibility that acquisition costs could be limited to just the road right-of-way area itself through negotiation with the impacted landowner. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 27 A summary of property costs (excluding the 240 Street Extension) is provided in Appendix G. A more detailed cost estimate of property impacts is recommended during subsequent design stages of the preferred route as ALR lands in particular can vary greatly in cost to acquire depending on the location and use. For the 240 Street extension, property estimates are based on BC Assessment, plus $1 OK per lot for acquisition costs; the City should confirm property acquisition costs. 6.1.3. Engineering and Supervision 15% of the construction cost was used to estimate engineering services throughout design and construction phases. This would include conceptual, preliminary and detailed design, legal and topographic survey, geotechnical investigation, pavement analysis, environmental impact assessment, site staff, contract administration, and environmental monitoring. 6.1.4. BC Hydro Pole Relocation Costs BC Hydro has transmission poles on both sides of Dewdney Trunk Road (Option 7). There is risk involved with this pricing since each pole is approximately $45K to relocate as advised by BC Hydro, however they also advised that this estimate can vary considerably (+100% / -35%). Based on initial review, allowance was made for eight pole relocations in this estimate, but any additional relocations identified during conceptual and preliminary design stages would increase the cost estimate. Initial review of the pole locations provided by Hydro indicates that the eight relocates included in the cost estimate is a reasonable assumption. 6.1.5. Contingencies Due to the high-level planning completed under this study, a contingency allowance of 40% was included to account for items and conditions unknown at this stage of the project. Additional items could include but are not limited to sub-excavation in soft soils, additional haul for embankment materials or gravels, environmental mitigation, archeological remediation, third-party utility costs, and market escalation. 6.1.6. Accuracy and Assumptions The cost estimate prepared is a Class D estimate based on high-level planning and should be considered as an order of magnitude cost only and likely within a ±40% accuracy range. The cost analysis was developed for the purposes of comparing alignment options to one another and it is therefore subject to change during subsequent design stages. The cost estimates were based on the following assumptions: • Property acquisition is for 24m right-of-way for all three shortlisted options. • For Option 7 (Phase 4), excludes possible road upgrade on 256 Street from Dewdney Trunk Road to 124 Street. This possible upgrade should be revisited in the concept design stage. • Assuming sufficient existing pavement structure for re-use and overlay along routes with existing asphalt. • Environmental compensation area pricing has not been included; however, approximate compensation areas have been determined in the MAE to assess relative environmental impact associated with each route. Costs associated with these areas will be determined during the next design stages and are dependent on adjacent available lands, right-of-way, and other site-specific opportunities. • Bridge structures upon initial assessments are not required for all three shortlisted options and therefore no cost has been allocated for bridge structures. Only culverts have been included. • Watermain and sanitary sewer improvements have not been included in the cost estimates. • Earthwork and road structure quantities are based on the geotechnical pavement recommendations. The pavement structure could change following geotechnical drilling investigations during preliminary and detailed design. • No inflation was assumed in the cost estimate to forecast a specific construction year, so all costs are in 2019 dollars. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 28 • Earthworks pricing is based on assumed granular sub surface conditions and no blasting and / or ground improvements have been included in pricing. • For the 240 Street Extension concept design geotechnical / environmental assessments have not been completed. • For the 240 Street Extension, utility costs (watermain, storm sewer, sanitary sewer/ forcemain, third-party utilities) are not included in the estimate as they are assumed to be paid for by the developer. 6.2. COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY The Class D cost estimates for the three shortlisted options are shown in Table 5. The detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix H. Table 6: Cost Estimate Summary Abernethy Way Extension (excludes environmental compensation and remediation) Upper Route: Abernethy Way 2C extension to 248 Street, 130 $24.3 $7.4M $40.1 Avenue to 256 Street --· ··-·· -····· ----·-· -·---·---... ·-----···-··-____ _. ____ --------· -· --------------Lower Route: Abernethy Way extension to 240 Street, 240 Street, 7 Dewdney Trunk Road (excl. bridge $24.3 $7.4M $34.3 replacement) to 256 Street, 124 Avenue between 244 Street and 246 Street Middle Route: Abernethy Way 10 extension to 248 Street, 124 $24.3 $7.4M $37.7 Avenue to 256 Street ----~--------------~---· 240 Street Extension 240 Street Extension: Abernethy J ----T~ Way to Fern Crescent ---~----Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge -----$71.8M -···--·-·· ------------------$66.0M $69.4M $37.3M Page 29 l 7.1. OVERVIEW Having identified three shortlisted options, a public open house was held in order to provide the public with information about the project and to ask attendees to identify their preferred option. The engagement process and survey findings are provided in this section. 7.2. ENGAGEMENT PROCESS A drop-in format open house event was held on June 25, 2019 at the City Library from 4 pm to 8 pm. The event was advertised in the local newspaper, on social media, and all residents whose properties are located along all the three shortlisted alignments had invitations delivered to their homes. A series of project boards were presented which attendees were asked to review, and City staff and the project team were available to explain the project, answer questions and receive feedback. Attendees were encouraged to formally submit feedback and answer survey questions before leaving the open house and had the option to return survey forms later at their leisure. The survey form was also made available online, together with the project boards to allow those unable to attend the open house to also provide input. Besides gathering demographic information of respondents, they were asked to rank which of Options 2C, 7, or 10 they preferred in order of preference, and to explain why they ranked them as they did. Their place of residence or business in relation to the option alignments was also asked for. In total, 237 participants submitted survey responses at the open house and five participants sent in their survey responses by the July 10, 2019 deadline. The surveys were then compiled into a single database and analyzed. The following section details the survey results. Based on request, separate meetings were also held with representatives of Academy Park and Meadowridge School. 7.3. SURVEY RESULTS 7.3.1. Demographics & Place of Residence or Business Survey responses indicate that 98% of respondents (227 respondents) live in Maple Ridge and 64% (148 respondents) live on the alignment of these options. Respondents indicated that 56% (129 respondents) have business on the alignment or would use the corridor to commute to work or school. These distributions are shown in Figure 27. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 30 LIVES IN MAPLE RIDGE No, 2, 1% No Response, 6,2% Yes, 229, 97% LIVES ON ROUTE No Response, BUSINESS/COMMUTE ON ROUTE No Response, 13,6% 18,8% No, 74, 31% No,89, 37% Yes, 130, 55% Yes, 150, 63% Figure 21: Demographics & Place of Residence or Business Respondents included representation across a broad range of age cohorts. Around 60% (138 respondents) were between the ages of 50 and 69 years old, while 19% (45 respondents) were under the age of 50 and 18% (42 respondents) were above the age of 70. As is typical of most open houses, the cohort younger than 50 years old was underrepresented, or only 20% (47 respondents), and of these, 10% (23 respondents) were younger than 40 years old. These demographics are shown in Figure 28. Also shown in the figure is that 70% (165 respondents) have an interest in active transportation, highlighting the .importance of providing these facilities along the proposed corridor. AGERANGE 60-69, 68, 29% 50-59, 71, 30% Figure 22: Demographics and Interest in Active Transportation Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge INTEREST IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION No Response, 18, 7% No, 54, 23% Yes, 165, 70% Page 31 7.3.2. Preferred Option Participants were asked to rank their preferred option of the three shortlisted with the responses shown in Figure 29. From the data received, 39% (96 respondents) preferred Option 7, 28% (68 respondents) preferred Option 10, and only 9% (21 respondents) preferred Option 2C. Of note, 24% (57 respondents) did not select a preferred option. Although selecting a preferred option, some participants indicated in their justification that they do not support moving forward with construction of the corridor. PREFERRED OPTION No Response, 19,8% None, 38, 16% Option 2C, 21, 9% Option 7, 96, 39% Option 10, 68, 28% Figure 23: Preferred Option Selection The preferred option results were then further analyzed on the basis of whether or not the participant lives on the route of the options or not. The results are shown in Figure 30. For respondents that live on the route of the options, Option 7 at 45% (67 respondents) was preferred, followed by 22% (32 respondents) for Option 10. However, of those who do not live on the corridor alignment, Option 10 at 40% (30 respondents) was preferred followed by Option 7 at 34% (25 respondents). See a distribution of the preferred shortlisted option broken out by those participants who do and do not live on the route. PREFERRED OPTION OF THOSE WHO LIVE ON ROUTE No Response, 9,6% None, 24, 16% Option 10, 32, 21% Option 2C, 16, 11% Figure 24: Preferred Option by Place of Residence Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge PREFERRED OPTION OF THOSE WHO DO NOT LIVE ON ROUTE No Response, 5, 30, 40% Option 2C, Option 7, 25, 34% Page 32 ~=~-------~ 7.3.3. Respondent Feedback 165 respondents provided comments on their survey forms. These responses were categorized as detailed below. • 28% (39 respondents) were concerned with the potential traffic increase and congestion • 15% (21 respondents) were concerned with the impacts to the surrounding environment • 15% (21 respondents) were concerned with the safety of students given the number of schools in the area • 12% (17 respondents) were concerned with the change to the neighbourhood that may happen due to construction of any of the options • 11 % (15 respondents) were concerned with the amount of additional traffic noise • 9% (13 respondents) were concerned with impacts to their properties and value • 6% (9 respondents) suggested an alignment option further to the north • 4% (5 respondents) wanted to ensure that equestrian routes were provided Verbal concern was also expressed by several attendees about traffic through-cutting on local roads which intersect the new corridor, thereby increasing the impact to the local community. Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 33 C -C 8.1. OVERVIEW A Multiple Accounts Evaluation (MAE) methodology was used to compare the shortlisted options. Due to the inherent bias of applying a scoring or ranking of the options, a simple coloured ball comparison was applied. In some instances, these indicate good, better, best comparisons, or improved, neutral, worse comparisons between the options, and does not undermine the impact of the criterion itself for each option. For example, for Environmental Impact, the green ball does not imply that there will be an improvement to the environment as a result of the project, but only the relative comparison between the options. In addition, since the alignment between 232 St and 240 St is consistent for all options, that segment has effectively been excluded from the evaluation. 8.2. MAE SUMMARY The resultant MAE is provided in Table 6, with evaluation criteria based on the project objectives, the technical review undertaken during this study, and public feedback. Since the cost estimate is.±. 40% and is in 2019 dollars, the estimates have been evaluated as equal. Applying the evaluation, Option 7, the Dewdney Trunk Route option, is the preferred option. Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 34 [-' ' r r ' f-i I r f ---. --~------~ ---~.~-~=--------------------------~---.~-~--·-Table 7: Multiple Account Evaluation (comparison of options relative to each other) l Option 2C ] Option 7 I Option 10 Criteria L--1-30 Ave: (-Upper-Ro~te) ---D;;d~~-~L~;e~-Rout;) -----i --124-A~~:-(M;ddle-R;~t;-) ---------~ ---------____ L ______________ _ Influencing Factors Influencing Factors I Influencing Factors ~ ReUeves Traffic o, Dewdney Trunk Rd & Provides Network --Redundancy ------• -:::._ -Provides Access to NE Sector of the City L~ Consistency with Strategic Transportation Plan • (STP)/OCP I Public Preference --·---·-··---·--·------·-Directness of Route _ _J_~ • Utilization of Existing Roads & Property Impact • -·---------Environmental Impact • Two new Latimer Creek crossings. • Compensation Ar • a: e -23,209m2 ---· -·-·--------Possibility of Archaeological Impact • -l ALR Impact • Social I Community Impact, also including impact to schools and • through-cutting ·--~-Significant Utility Relocation • --------------------------l Cost EsUmat, • $71.8M ___ (Class D; $2019) ___ • $37.3M (240 St E -----·----L .2pts; 1 pt;.Opts -I Overall • t) ---------14 • X Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge • Includes constructing ---·~ the road segment Option 7C to provide n-etwork redundancy via -------248 St and 130 Ave i-------------·--• • ~------------------------• • t~ --• ------·--------·---------------• • • --• No major creek • Two new Latimer Creek crossings . • crossings. • • Compensation Area: • Compensation Area: -14,402m2 -35,427m2 I • I • ---• • -·--· --------• • f-------------· --• Traffic safety barriers • --~-·· · __ l• will be required to avoid some BC Hydro pole relocations --------------------• $66.0M • • $69.4M • • $37.3M (240 St Ext) • $37.3M (240 St Ext) !------,,_ ---18 15 • -. Page 35 f f .-r I I 9.1. OVERVIEW This section provides a summary of this report and outlines considerations for future conversations related to the Abernethy Way extension. 9.2. SUMMARY The objectives of this report were to: • Assess the technical feasibility of various options of the Abernethy Way extension from 232 Street to 256 Street. • Evaluate each option and identify a preferred option. • Provide information to support informed debate. • Assess the technical feasibility of extending 240 Street north to Fern Crescent to access the Silver Valley area and Golden Ears Provincial Park Based on the high level engineering and desktop reviews undertaken in this study, both an extension of Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street appears to be technically feasible, as well as the extension of 240 Street over the Alouette River. Of the 13 alignment options initially considered for the Abernethy Way extension, three were shortlisted. The phasing, laning and preferred cross section was determined based on forecast traffic demand. The three shortlisted options were presented to the public at an Open House, at which attendees were asked to rank which of the options they preferred for implementation, as well as to provide any other comments and feedback for consideration. 39% of respondents preferred Option 7, with Option 10 being preferred by 28% of respondents. A Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) was used to compare the three shortlisted alignment options against each other, with the findings of the MAE provided in Table 6. The MAE resulted in Option 7, the Dewdney Trunk Route being the preferred option. 9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Based on the findings of this study, Option 7 (Dewdney Trunk Road) is recommended as the preferred option to investigate further. The future extension of 240 Street over the Alouette River can proceed as a separate project in future or as preferred by the City. Advancing these two projects to the conceptual design stage will allow some of the remaining unknowns to be determined, including more accurate property acquisition costs, and thereby prepare more reliable cost estimates (Class C or better). Included as part of this preferred option in the widening to four lanes of the section of 240 Street from Dewdney Trunk Road to the new Abernethy Way extension in the vicinity of the Hackers Haven, just north of the existing Abernethy Way intersection. This is consistent with the future proposed extension of 240 Street north to Fern Crescent, and the eventual possible inclusion of 240 Street between Dewdney Trunk Road and Fern Crescent in Translink's Major Road Abernethy Way Extension Study 12111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 36 Network. The 240 Street connection to the Abernethy Way extension will also help better balance traffic on the section of Dewdney Trunk Road west of 240 Street and on 232 Street between to Dewdney Trunk Road and Abernethy Way. In the next design stage where road upgrades are in close proximity to schools, mitigation measures should be considered in the design. To meet the objective of providing an alternative route to Dewdney Trunk Road, completing the link of 124 Avenue between 244 Street and 246 Street is recommended. This will then provide an alternative route for local and emergency vehicle traffic connecting 240 Street to 256 Street via 124 Avenue, 248 Street and 130 Avenue. It is proposed this route be heavy vehicle restricted. The end to end recommended corridor is shown in Figure 31. As part of the next design stages, further public engagement is also recommended. Figure 25: Recommended Abernethy Way Extension and Parallel 124 Ave Connection Abernethy Way Extension Study I 2111-03980-00 Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Page 37 i _: <·· ( ~elcan Memorandum To: Michael Eng (District of Maple Ridge) Date: November 17, 2008 Copy: Project: TV 1071 From: Colin Woollacott Re: Abernethy Way Extension (232 St To 256 St), Maple Ridge Mr. Eng, The following memorandum is a description of the altemative routes proposed for the Abernethy Way Extension in Maple Ridge. The accomp~H/ing drawings, TV-1071-TVAOl to 07, show the alternative routes herein described. Also· inch.i.ded is Exhibit 1 that compares a number of issues for each of the alternative routes, such as overall length and subsequent works required. · · Although it was our understanding from the District of Maple Ridge's Request for Proposal that two options be reviewed, in our search for a preferable solution we have produced 7 initial routes for you to review and comment upon. · · · n can be seen from the accompaR'vm§\1ayouts that b'pti6ns 1-s can be split into a separate route prior to the intersection of 124~fAv:er'iy,~ and 243th·street, and a separate route after the intersection. For this reason, it shoulc(bfhqted thatthe finalized route(s) could be an amalgamation of more thcin one of the pfpposed'qptions . • 7 '~ • ,. :.;.: ' It should also be nbt~d,:th'~'fk:the staraRg, lqcatil!W:'.foti;the proposed options is at the intersection of 124t,ttiyenue a~'.cth,232nd stf.i:e.fi.fwith the"'E/r\d being at the intersection of 123th Avenue and 25$J\Street:{Hj;This secoffr!.:: location is situated between the easterly residential and industriaF~h~as to.;\\i,IJJsh the floWJof traffic is required to be improved as part of this propo:;al of works. ";'!'.fft,;f;Y~fUt\\(f(Ht, ,.--;,:. There are a number ofco111m~\'¥}~slJes releiJ1:Rt;to all of the alignment options and these are discussed here, however, more S'pJ~c:jfic issues for each alignment are reviewed separately below. +):;; •·:: ~-"' > All exisbng Brook/ Creek cross'/~~s points will need to be widened from the current width to accqmmodat~:J:he proposed final width of a four lane road, multi-use sidewalk and soft lanc:lscaped areas. Environmental Impact Assessments to be carried out on a11·situatf9ns where works are required to existing watercourses. Although the rOaqfiayout will initially_ only be a two lane road, we suggest undertaking the necessary works to the crossings to accommodate the ultimate required width of road to avoid repeating the approval process. > While the majority of the alignments follow existing rights of way, these will need to be widened to accommodate the land take for the proposed final width of the road layout as noted above. The new right-of-way width has been taken to be 30.0m wide, based on the final road section. The purchase of lands for the new right-of-way could be achieved in one attempt similar to that noted above for creek crossings, however, the purchasing of lands at ( Page 2 of 4 a later date could be undertaken should funding issues dictate: Drawings TV-1071-TVAOl to 07 indicate the land designation either side of the proposed alignment to assist in the review process. ~ While it would be proposed to upgrade all major accesses and intersections for the final alignment option as requested in the original Request for Proposal, all works will be upgraded to suit the four lane road width to avoid revisiting the intersection details at a later stage. This would mean that, subsequent to that noted above, in some sections the full width of required right-of-way lands will need to be purchased to accommodate the proposed layout. ~ Each of the alignments result in a number of conflicts with existing structures, mainly residential, due to the alignment directly or from the right-of-way required. Although it is understood that there will be a requirement to acquire third party lands, and subsequently existing structures, as no alignment can totally avoid conflict areas, the conflicts of the preferred option will be minimized. The following sections detail the issues specific to each alignment option, although there will be a number that are repeated due to sections that overlap one another. Option 1 The first option, as suggested in the original Request for Proposal, is a straight alignment along 124th Avenue, with a final section running north along 255th Street to the end location as noted above. This option provides the most direct route and also follows for the most part existing rights-of-way along the 124th Avenue alignment, notwithstanding the fact that the existing right of way will need to be widened. It should be noted, however, that there are some short lengths of this alignment that require full land acquisition due to no right-of-way being present. Due to this alignment crossing Latimer Creek and the topography in the area, there would be a requirement to construct a crossing feature, most likely a bridge structure. Based on an upper figure of $5,000/m2 (our experience suggests a figure ranging from $3,000 to $5,000), the cost for such a structure, say, 20.0m wide to the extents noted on drawing TV-1071-TVAOl would be $25 million, (250.0m span) The remainder of this option is straight forward apart from where it is proposed to connect to 256th Street. The existing intersection with 255th Street is via 125th Avenue, although this is unlikely to be a suitable route due to the required radii being in the order of 250.0m for the proposed road category. A signalized intersection at 124th Avenue and 256th Street would negate the need for the above mentioned radii and therefore would be the preferred solution. Option 2 Similar to Option 1 above, this route follows the predominately straight route in an easterly direction. The orily difference being that this option deviates to the 123rd Avenue to reduce the extent of ravine crossing, again likely to be a bridge structure, for crossing the Latimer Creek. There also may be a requirement to provide a westerly culvert crossing point also, although this will need to be confirmed at the detailed design stage. ' ,. ,. , .. 1-_· ,. ' ! I ' Page 3 of 4 Using the same figures as above, a proposed bridge structure in this location would cost approximately $16.5 million, (165.0m span). Using the 123rd Avenue also raises issues of land take from the Golf Course in the vicinity and the requirement of an oblique intersection layout with 240th Street, unless the existing greenhouse/nursery is agreed to be removed to allow the continuation of the 123rd Avenue alignment. In any case, the proposal is to return to the 124th Avenue alignment and follow the route as Option 1 above, raising the same issues as noted. Option 3 The proposed alignment for this option avoids the need for a crossing to Latimer Creek to the west of 240th Street by diverting south from 124th Avenue to Abernethy Way to the south of the Golf Course. As with Option 2, this alignment impacts on Golf Course lands, but also has two south side residential access roads to accommodate in the vicinity. These accesses are too close to each other, and the intersection with 240th Street, to have individual signalized intersections such that a detailed solution will need to be provided for this residential area, (i.e. right-in, right-out). From the intersection with 240th Street this alignment crosses Latimer Creek to avoid the existing school to the south of the creek, at an approximate cost of between $5 -10 million before tying back into 124th Avenue. This option would, however, seriously affect the existing stables to the north of the creek. Further investigation of creek crossing options is also required to identify bridge and/ or culvert options. The alignment shown indicates a diagonal route although this could follow the existing property lines and head north to 124th, resulting in a right angled intersection. It is worth considering, although also not shown, that a route along the existing 240th Street alignment from Abernethy Way north-west to 124th Avenue would totally negate the need for a bridge structure altogether. Option 4 Drawing TV-1071-TVA04 shows the initial section of this alignment option to be that of Option 1, although as previously noted any of the above solutions could be used to get to the intersection of 124th Avenue and 243th Street. As opposed to continuing the 124th Avenue alignment across open lands, as with Option 1, it is proposed to follow an existing right-of-way northward along 243th Street before returning eastward along 128th Avenue. As with all options, there are a number of access roads and intersection improvements to accommodate on this route along with the continuation of 123th Avenue, including the construction of a new creek crossing, to a new signalled intersection with 256th Street. Option 5 Using the route for Option 1, and as such raising the same issues to the intersection of 124th Avenue and 252nd Street, this alignment is then proposed to turn along an existing narrow right-of-way, which will subsequently require further land acquisition, to a similarly proposed new route along 128th as noted above. Further to the issues raised in Options 1 & 4 above, the section along 252nd Street not only requires a brook/ creek crossing, likely to be a culvert solution, but this area is noted from Maple Ridge contoured plans as being prone to flooding. In addition to Environmental / I \ Page 4 of 4 Assessments for a crossing, a review of the implications to the flood plain area will also need to be considered. Option 6 Following the same alignment as Option 3 to 240th Street, the route for this option remains to the south of 124th Avenue following an alignment closer to Abernethy Way, meandering slightly to avoid the school and residential areas. The majority of land acquisition for _this option is for open areas as opposed to existing rights-of-way with notable conflicts with existing structures that front the north / south Streets that this alignment proposes to cross. It is unlikely, however, that the residential road, Hilland Avenue, would be suitable to upgrade to a four lane road as is the ultimate requirement for this scheme. Option 7 While it is understood that one requirement for the Abernethy Way Extension is to reduce the existing traffic along Dewdney Trunk Road, we have proposed this route on the basis that there is an existing route for the "initial phase" which would reduce initial construction costs, although notwithstanding the disruption to upgrade Dewdney Trunk Road to a four lane road at a later stage. There are also issues of passing the route past the frontage of the existing school on 240th Street, the existing Dewdney Trunk Road bridge structure that is likely to require upgrading between 252nd and 255th Streets, and also the fact that in basic travel terms the journey works somewhat further south of the proposed destination, 128th Avenue and 255th Street, than desired. We trust the above is satisfactory and look forward to your comments regarding our proposals, however, should you wish to raise any further issues please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, ~. Colin Woollacott ~elcan AB ERN ETHY WAY EXTENS I ON Alignment Option Compa r is on s -- Approx. Existing Road 1 (m} % New Road 2 (m} % Creek Crossings Existing3 New Intersection lmprovements4 -.. Length (m} Culvert , Bridge I 5700 1 3000 1 52.6 1 2700 1 47.4 1 S1gnalled 5 Option 1 5850 3200 54.7 2650 45 .3 3 1 1 5950 2700 45.4 3250 54.6 3 0 1 5750 3600 62.6 2150 37.4 2 4 1 5700 2600 45 .6 3100 54.4 2 5 1 6200 1700 27.4 4500 72.6 4 2 1 7100 6300 88.7 800 11.3 4 2 2* 1 -Length of existing road, notwithstanding the road structure being insufficient for proposed usage. 2 -Length of road _that is required to be constructed, including reconstruction of existing road too narrow for proposed usag e. 3 -Existing Brook/ Creek crossings assumed to be revised to suit Ultimate Phase Layout road width during Initial Pha se. 4 -Improvements herein relate to major road intersections and does not i nclude for individual residential access ro ads. 5 -Signalled Intersection Improvements to include rev isions to sequencing at existing signalled intersections. 6 -Based on a Right of Way of 30.0m for the Ultimate Phase layout. 5 5 3 4 5 8 7 -Ratio of Residential Lands (inc. school and commercial) over Agricultural Land Reserve , from approximate Land Acquisition tot al. • -Length of Option 7 includes approx imately 2250m ne w construction, 3250m of De w dney Trunk Road and 1600m of 25 6 St . * -New Creek Cro ssin gs including replacement of existing bridge structure on De w dney Trunk Road between 252 St and 256 St . c1= w ,.\l'~- ['"= fjl d Ifill For Dis cus s ion Purposes Only . Unsignalled 11 12 13 10 10 10 ,, Approx. Area of Land Acquisition6 (m2 ) Proj ect No.:TV 1071 Res/ALR7 1 11900/71950 1 83~50 1 86 600 104150 68100 82900 128350 70150 , :~1,1 ;1,, )I i1ii II 11500/75 100 415 0/100000 11900/56200 11900/71000 2700/125 650 13600/5 6550 EX HIBIT 1.1 Option compa ri sons .xlsx 11/18/2008 -- ...,........_. ,;) i I --------------------------.-~~~ { :,e/can ____., J az._!..,'/ ' F'(;J'' To: fvlj.~District Of Maple Ridge) Copy: File From: Colin Woollacott I{ ·( d. ~(J d-() ( (-03j Memorandum Date: August25;20Q9 .. ,, Project: TV1071 Re: Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge -Status Report The following memorandum summarises the current extent of works for the above mentioned project to the middle of summer 2009. Following the initial brief from the Engineering Department at The District of Maple Ridge, it was proposed that.the start and end nodes should be as follows: 1) Start node -Intersection of 232 Street and 124 Avenue at the western end 2) End node -Intersection of 256 Street and 128 Avenue<1l at the eastern end An evaluation matrix was compiled for a variety of route options with ratings from "good to fair to poor" based on the following criteria: • Overall Length of route • Approximate Travel TimeC2l .. Impacts to existing buildings / structures from required land takes to provide addition to the existing right-of-way • Impacts to existing Creeks and other Environmental aspects, including potential large culvert and bridge structures · • Impacts on Social / Community aspects, mainly taking into account the amount of land to be purchased for addition to the existing right-of-way • Constructa bi lity • Estimated Cost The list of routes. was presented to the Engineering Department at the District of Maple Ridge and after a _number of meetings and correspondence the list of preferred routes was reduced to two options. Option 1) 124 Avenue to 256 Street, and, Option 2) 123 Avenue to 256 Street<3l The Options were put to a· Corporate Management Team in January 2009 to review the proposed Public Open House information. Following this meeting it was suggested to reduce the presented information on the basis that the funding for such a large project had yet to be finalised. (ll The End node was revised from the originally stated Intersection of 256 Street and 124 Avenue to provide better access to a proposed Industrial area, as indicated on Maple Ridge OCP Plan, to the north east of the Intersection of 256 Street and 128 Avenue. · · <2> Travel times were based on findings during a Delcan field visit, 5 August, 2008. <3> As the starting node for both alignments is the same, the second alignment initially follows the route of the first alignment along 124 Avenue before switching to 123 Avenue at approximately 240 Street. l Page 2 of 2 The reduced information was then taken to a Council Workshop meeting in February 2009 with Steve Russell in attendance with Maple Ridge representatives to' put forward the proposal on the assumption of attaining funding. In late May 2009, Maple Ridge requested a more accurate number of properties affected by the two preferred route options for further consideration. During the late spring months Areas finalized a literature search for the alignment areas to assess potential sites of archaeological significance that could potentially be impacted by. the proposed roadworks. This review was forwarded with Delcan's additional comments to the District of Maple Ridge for information. As of the end of July 2009, Maple Ridge confirmed that upon the return Andrew Wood from vacation in early September, there will be a Public House Presentation organised internally by Maple Ridge. A meeting may be required between the District of Maple Ridge and Delcan to review the proposed information to be presented and any new information that may be available, i.e. proposed agreed sanitary sewer alignment. l l-1 I :,e/can . . ,...TRANSPORTATION• JNFORMATIO!I TECHNgLOGY • WAT~R-Mc3rch 3-l,'2010 · Andrew Wood Municipal Engineer District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 Dear Sir: Re: Abernethy Way Extension Suite 2300, Metrotower I, 4710 Kingsway Burnaby, British Columbia V5H 4M2 Tel: 604.438.5300 o Fax: 604.438.5350 www.delcan.com OUR REF: TV1071 This is further to a meeting held in February 2010 between the District of Maple Ridge and TransLink, and attended by Delcan Corporation staff. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible future funding for the planned extension of Abernethy Way in the District of Maple Ridge. At that meeting Delcan was requested to gather and summarize previous transportation planning studies relevant to this area of Maple Ridge, and prepare a Strategic Objectives document for the Abernethy Way Extension project based on the technical merits highlighted in the previous studies, so that further participation in the project could be considered by Translink. This letter presents a summary of the technical merits and strategic objectives of this project. Background The District of Maple Ridge has established the goal of extending the Abernethy Way Corridor beyond 232"d Street to 256.th Street to ease the east/west traffic flows on the existing road infrastructure and provide sufficient travel capacity to service a planned area of industrial lands located east of 249th Street and north of 128th Avenue. The Official Community Plan designates about 300 acres of land in this loc:;ation to be for industrial use. The land is identified as employment lands in the Northeast Sector of Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Management Strategy. Improved connection to the major road network of the region would provide the convenient access to goods movement corridors, international trade gateways, and ports. Currently about two thirds of the land has a zoning of Rural Resource and mining of a gravel resource is occurring on these lands. The gravel resource needs to be extracted from these lands prior to further development of the lands as an industrial business park and employment centre. To this end, the municipality desires to accelerate the extraction of the gravel resource to develop the industrial lands as soon as possible. However, the Official. Community Plan requires that gravel extraction from these lands remain at historic levels until such time as an alternative access route can be provided to mitigate the negative impacts of additional truck traffic through residential areas and the Regional City Centre of Maple Ridge . . -I n t e -g-r a t e d S y s t ~ ~ s _ .:il n d , ) .n' J 'I' a· s· 1 T ,u C t U ~r -e -'-.5 O I ·u t i O n s·.. . ~ , Page 2 March 31, 2010 Abernethy Way Extension To provide regional access to the planned industrial lands, a major roadway needs to be extended from the Golden Ears Bridge and the Abernethy Way regional road to the intersection of 255th Street and 128th Avenue. GivenJ:he northeast location of the lands and their regional significance, it is likely that trips to and from the lands will be oriented to tne west. There are three regional corridors traversing east-west across Maple Ridge, Lougheed Highway, Dewdney Trunk Road, and the Abernethy/124th Avenue Corridor, as shown on FIGURE 1. Lougheed Highway is located quite far to the south in relation to the lands and would be a very circuitous route to and from the lands. Dewdney Trunk Road travels through the core of the Regional City Centre which has short block lengths, many signalized intersections, and high volumes of pedestrian traffic that can conflict with industrial traffic, cause undue delay, and increase travel time for goods movement. P..,..,,.T-==.~ e...-&:r~ f'n.ll.d..-d~~...J .,. . ...., . , Source: Transport 2040 FIGURE 1 -TRANSLINK MAJOR ROAD NETWORK The Abernethy/124th Avenue Corridor bypasses the Regional City Centre on its northern edge and connects onto the Golden Ears Bridge, as shown on FIGURE 2. For these reasons, the Abernethy/124th Avenue Corridor was selected by the District of Maple Ridge as the preferred route to be extended eastward to the industrial lands. The current major roadway would be extended from the intersection of 124th Avenue and 232nd Street to the intersection of 123th Avenue and 256th Street. The alignment for this roadway is currently being studied by the District of Maple Ridge and is to include consultation with appropriate stakeholders. I n 1 e g r a t e d S y s t e m s a n d. I n f _r a s 1 f ~ c ! u r e . S o j-_u t .i o ··11 ·s··--~: -~~--• r_ • ~ r f f Page 3 March 31, 2010 · Source: The Golden Ears Bridge Study, Bunt & Associates, Nov. 2004 FIGURE 2 -ABERNETHY CONNECTOR TO THE GOLDEN EARS BRIDGE The conceptual cross-section design for this roadway includes four travel lanes, two bike lanes, one sidewalk, one multi-use pathway, auxiliary turning lanes at key intersections, and roadway lighting. To facilitate Increased truck traffic needed to accelerate extraction of the gravel resource from the lands, an interim cross-section of two travel lanes and a multi-use pathway is proposed. These conceptual cross-sections are shown on FIGURE 3. --,-n t ~ g r a t e d _S y s t e m s a n d I n f _r a s t r u c t ii r e :S o -I u t ·i o .n · s · _ _0~ .-: Page 4 March 31, 2010 TY'::i!CAL CRCS'~. SECT:ClN (ULTIMATF) FIGURE 3 -CONCEPTUAL ROAD CROSS SECTIONS Translink Participation in the Project Under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, Translink is not responsible for construction, maintenance, or regulations of any part of any highway that is not part of the Major Road Network. Although the Abernethy/124th Avenue Corridor between the Golden Ears Bridge and 232nd Street is an MRN Road, the planned segment of roadway east of 232nd Street to 255th Street is not. For Translink to continue to participate in this project beyond the planning stages, the Abernethy/124th Avenue Corridor between 232nd Street and 255th Street would need to be considered for potential inclusion in Translink's Major Road Network. i---=--= ----Page 5 March 31, 2010 Translink's inclusion criteria for the Major Road Network are: a Provides intra-regional access to a predefined regional activity centre; m Carries a minimum of; o 70% of trips longer than 10 kilometres in peak hour & peak direction; o Total peak hour peak direction volume of traffic is greater than 800 vph; o 10 through buses in peak or peak direction; OR o 800 trucks per day; AND • Meets an overall check for reasonableness and completeness. The Abernethy/124th Avenue corridor does not currently meet any of these criteria as it is a planned roadway to a planned development, as it stands in its pre-employment lands status. However, Translink · has previously participated in the construction on new segments of the Major Road Network to service planned regional activity centres. The David Avenue Bridge and approaches within the City of Coquitlam, and the Coast Meridian Overpass in Port Coquitlam, are examples of this participation. Large Industrial/Business Parks are considered to be regional activity centres by Translink and as such, all existing large industrial parks within Metro Vancouver are serviced by the Major Road Network. When the planned 300 acres of industrial lands are fully developed, _ the lands would generate about 15,000 trips per day and about 2,000 trips during the afternoon peak hour, of which about 1,600 trips would be In the peak direction. These travel demand forecasts are based on average trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for general light industrial lands. Therefore, when the industrial lands are fully developed, the Abernethy/124th Avenue corridor would meet the inclusion criteria to be part of Translink's Major Road Network. Further discussions with Translink are needed to confirm the acceptance of Major Road Network additions to service planned regional activity centres and the requirements of Translink for an application to extend the Major Road Network. Should you have any questions regarding this summary of the technical merits and strategic objectives of this project in relation to the Major Road Network and Translink, please contact us. Yours truly, Steve Russell, P.Eng. Tim Murphy Vice President, Transportation Senior Project Manager Enclosures: 1. Chief Administrative Officer Report, dated November 15, 2007 2. MRN Minor Capital Program Description and Guidelines, December 20, 2001 3. MRN Inclusion Criteria, Translink, undated c: Sany Zein, Translink --r-----. r --. £' ,=,J) _-0:_fJ ~o :? ,,--\ ( ·-_ ;. •.. -i;., ~&.-· . . ;,;;;,u -L . 11!1 \t~r-0 . .. .. -------'' TECHNICAL BRIEF · ABERNETHY WAY ExTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY :,e/can itt i iWt#U& Pl ikY :z SEPTEMBER 2010 TV1071 ( . TECHNICAL BRIEF ABERNETHY WAY b·dNSION FEASIBILITY PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND OF PROJECTS ............................................... , .................................. 1 2.1 Corridor Options .............................................................................................. 1 2.2 Multiple Account Evaluations .......................................................................... 2 2.3 Preferred Route Options ................................................................................. 2 2.4 Funding ........................................................................................................... 2 2.5 Additional lnformation ...................................................................................... 3 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Delcan Funding Opportunity Letter Report (March 2010) Archaeological Overview Assessment Report (July 2009) Delcan Memorandum -Abernethy Way Extension Status Report (August 2009) Appendix D Presentation to Closed Council Group (February 2009) TV1071 -September 2010 ( ( ... ,) i /'· [~~ 1111.1~-I 1.0 INTRODUCTION This technical brief provides a high level assessment of the review process undertaken for the proposed Abernethy Way Extension for the District of Maple Ridge. The original feasibility study was started in the Spring of 2008. The assessment will focus on the selection of preferred route options through a number of means from Multiple Account Evaluation reviews, and Presentations to Council Design Groups, but falling short of Public Open House events. 2.0 BACKGROUND OF PROJECTS Delcan was appointed by the District to carry out a Feasibility Study for the Proposed Abernethy Way Extension,. required to advance development of employment lands in the northeast area of the District as identified by Metro Van~ouver, and in light of the recently opened Golden Ears Bridge to the west. The road extension project was originally to be paired with a sanitary sewer trunk line extension project that was also proposed for the area, which may have allowed for an amount of cost sharing between the two projects. However, due to the timing between the projects, along with the difficulties in accommodating similar alignments, the two were kept separate. A brief description of the base project procedures and incremental scope elements considered are provided below. 2.1 Corridor Options It was agreed that while the we~terly starting node would be at 124 Avenue and 232 Street, the current easterly end node of Abernethy Way would be relocated from 124 Avenue and 256 Street to 128 Avenue and 256 Street, which is the southwest corner of the proposed Industrial Zone. TV1071 -September 201 O ( I . __ j;_ TECHNICAL BRIEF ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION fEASIBIUTY PROJECT With the proposed corridor options limited by the proximity of Dewdney Trunk Road to the south, and the steep topography to the north towards the South Alouette River, the main emphasis for the proposed route was along 124 Avenue (Exhibit 1). To reduce the impact to the existing Coho Creek, and a possible future north-south bridge structure, both at 240 Street in the vicinity of 124 Avenue, Options 2 and 3 (Exhibits 2 and 3) allowed for sections that diverge to the south of 124 Avenue, to 123 Avenue and a section of road also named Abernethy Way, respectively. In connection with early sewer alignment designs, Options 4 and 5 (Exhibits 4 and 5) provided alternative routes for the east-west alignment to the north of 124 Avenue, being in line with the relocated end node, as noted above. A further proposal to Option 4, Option 4a, was reviewed that utilized the existing 130 Avenue Connector corridor to the north of 128 Avenue. It can be seen that each of the above options can be split east of 248 Street and west of 248 Street, and as such can produce a multitude of differing alignments than those noted herein. However, for presentation of alignment data, the above options were produced. A final alignment, Option 6 (Exhibit 6), was· proposed to reduce impact on existing residences fronting 124 Avenue, by providing a new corridor through open fields along an alignment at 123 Avenue. Upon agreement from the District as to the acceptance of the above mentioned options, Delcan proceeded with a preliminary Multiple Account Evaluation of each of the proposals to present to the District, and upon approval, further presentation to Council Groups. The proposed cross section of th·e Abernethy Way Extension was based on the existing Abernethy Way west of 232 Street, that being a four lane divided roadway, Exhibit 7. It was also required to include bicycle fanes for each direction and a 4.0 m wide multi-purpose trail that could be incorporated into the District's Equestrian Trail Network. 2.2 Multiple Account Evaluations A simplified Multiple Account Evaluation was adopted to aid in the selection of the preferred options for the Abernethy Way Extension alignment. The selection criteria for the MAE included the following accounts: e Length of alignment. o Travel time, based on findings during Delcan field visits. • Building impacts, including residences, garages, sheds, walls, etc. • Creek I Environmental, with regards to either structural or culvert crossings to existing creeks. • Social / Community, based on impact of public usage along the proposed alignment. • Constructability, taking into account size and structure of creek crossings and proximity to residential areas. • Estimated Costs, Class D construction cost estimates based on 2008 figures and best available data for land values, etc. • Overall rating, ranking each of the above criteria. Table 1 highlights the conclusions for the Multiple Account Evaluation as presented by Delcan and the District to Council Steering Groups and an In-Camera Council Information Session. TV1071 -September 2010 ( ·: TECHNICAL BRIEF . ABERNETHY WAY1EXTENSION FEASIBILITY PROJECT 2.3 Preferred Route Options Following the meetings and presentations mentioned above, and the unfeasibility to keep the road and sewer extension projects together, it was indicated that the two 'preferred 'route alignments were Options 1 and 6, those being, the original 124 Avenue alignment and that of an alignment corridor along 123 Avenue, respectively. The remaining options, while being indicated as good on the MAE, became less attractive once the sewer extension works were removed, and were deemed to be too disruptive to the areas north of 124 Avenue. With the two preferred options confirmed, the Design Team was to finalize Public Open House presentation information, however, as funding for the project became an issue this was put on hold as of the middle of the Summer at 2009. The project has not progressed since that time, apart from the District's request to produce this report to summarize the works to date. 2.4 Funding Delcan was requested to produce a letter report, Appendix A, to outline the possibility of Translink's participation in the Abernethy Way Extension project with the District. It was concluded in the letter report that as the proposed section was not part of the Major Road Network, further discussions with Translink would be required to confirm that the Abernethy Way project would be acceptable as an extension to the current Major Road Network. 2 (. 2.5 Additional Information AMEC Earth and Environmental (previously Areas Consulting Archeologlsts Ltd) provided an Archaeological Overview Assessment Report on the proposed alignment options, Appendix B, indicating that there· were no known archaeological sites recorded within the project area. However, as possible evidence of settlement may be found along the creeks, it was suggested that these areas be monitored during construction for any evidence of . archaeological findings which could then be reported back to the archaeologists for further investigation as required. \ ~. --~1 TECHNICAL BRIEF ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION FEASIBILITY PROJECT ---------------:Je/can TV1071 -September 2010 3 1 (-. TECHNICAL BRIEF ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION FEASIBILITY PROJECT Table 1 -Multiple Account Evaluation rii ~ .... :5 a, C: > a, .... ftl E E ·c tl "C a, i= QI) 1/1 -C: -::, ::, ..... ..c: .!: ti 0 E ... ftl ..... "iii ~ "iii ... E QI) > ~ ftl a, .... E "' _....,_.:.. C ftl C. QJ ·;;; 'iJ C ;:; "' ~ ... ::, E ... C 0 0 O'· > '"' -o,, I-m u w tn u u, UJ -.u,; -r-:-c:-Option 1 • • 0 0 0 0 Q ~ (124) $61M Option 2 • 0 0 ~ (124-123-124) $SOM Option 3 g (ii) • Q e • (124-Abernethy Way-124) $44M Option 4 • ~ 0 0 0 Q (124-248-128) $59M Option 4a (124-Abernethy Way-124-Q • ~ • 248-128) $43M Option 5 • • 0 0 0 Q (124-252-128) $61M Option 6 Q • G Q • (124-Abernethy Way-123) $68M Rating • -Good '--Fair O -Poor ---------------~el can TV1071 -September 201 O 4 B..8tl=:1:10000 MAPLE RIDGE I ---~--. --,..,--, :Je/car, --·--·--· ------$ NORTH 1,@ur....:UOO,,...~ •AVO,o}lT $111'.Xl\lll' <OR II07111'1'.Ar.; r,l'ltCl'C!,EO lfCIU(a, k!~~;t;r~\WJH~'=;:i~'~:.X~~~~~ltl\> =~l~~j:~~l~!Jf~J.dc~~ ~;t:O~~ :o~ . ._,Do,s-11'1; "AAll:M FAl'(M(HIS-,C11'1'(f!U'\ACC:~ •I'll .... Cf'OXD ?.Jo,, 'IICC. 5MU .l!OW.l!J. ,,,om<r TOIi o.-n>:. """5E c,r -.s. N'Jt'Ooi; ,., ,mu ,;,ct or-TH(~°"' It' ~ .. ,;ro!UI ,.__ .. o(. ''"'""'I'>,,._,., t!IR 1.0.'UMlt .... ..UC OF" PMXCT. '-""""<"ma.tUa,l<(HTP'_.,,,.ll..!'1Al,oo.o;(TA11.$8>:;n)Cl<Ul•nta<TO,:IIOUAPP<Nc.E:IIY 111!:0l511tl:TOF"IIJ.'l!li(}C(.M,<(l:f7<a<l1<!;l!l:o.:,lh,Cl'CSIIS~OIIYEJ'lnc<1L ~:.mw~~~10e!:rtt:'11£110fl,;,:t<,Tll\lCIDTOl!(QJV'(tl(X10(1'Sf,fl J. ""Ol'OW:: JIO<ICl!/Q<W< O:,,QO,..~$ ....0 <t<;,O Ol'lAN,a; fO .'( Sl?LII n:,11 A>-· 10(> ,-->II S"lt<l>.lt\'Zl<Tl!,SClllt<\JOYDl/Til>lllfllt•IEP>+ASl:Cf"GflMCf II. l ... ~ •c:>.r~"t'II ~[QliJIEl) B.:::£0 (f, P!O<T Cl' w,, r:s JC.-FlJI Ul."llUATl: l"t.0.S.: 1¥ P!IO..ECI. PLAN LEGEND .Alal4. '"""osm !11100<:/CR:C< ,;11'1;n•e-a~LO<;t ~1;1\11( + l'l!Q'O-ITl;P"*"""'t!ll,!l;CllW a ~--_, .. ~ •. -~ .. ~~ .. .... PRQFlLE LEGEND. = = = ..... -= 1HE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE: ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION ALIGNMENT OPllON 1 " • 07 TV-1071-TVAOl l l t l I T ,.__...,.• -·------.. ~-."'~".°'S=~~ ="= :,e/can -$ NORTH '.~\111.~~i.,,; .•A~l ~~ 111! "°'"' ~ '11 l'fl<>'O!UI -.C1 f~~,.,.t'~r .. ~~~~~t.:~"t.~~~"'"m···~.M~fic.."~fit"" ~!.~t~~J:!l~:~ti~:~s~;~~~".1o~ ~ ~1:c,.~{~:JilcaS1:5fY:~~1\\~~~r!c ro '-OR0F<)$(l).OUQ<>it><TPI.N<flEl.!V•~V£1Nl58.<SU>0.1.ltn'.Cl)rTWl'0'1•1'ftC=n !!t!:Dls:i..<:t<,,UPr.(l!ll)Q'., .. Xl:t1ra.N""lalTAl.."-""17Cl,'<:lf<;ft>l;llt,C,;.. o.,u.,.;o:/~a,ou,11~rosc11u,scoO'lro<:;TTWClCIIIOA[<l'Jil!EllEX!t><T"Sr,;,> "-""AIC-!:CiJrl"IOJr.CT. 7.Pl'000~;1110<lKfl"rol(>l.~551hC'<»<OOCACDll.,.}Cl:10.!IE'l'ZEl)rC!lAl"'100lOII 5T'IJN ':1(.111 SA~P OH Um.JT /";II" Ulll~ATE ,.~.&Sc Cf ~~r. e. ...... ~ Atllll!lUOII ,.i:WR£Q e.,,sro 0,, '-'Olf DI ..... , 0,. 011.l>T'I fQII .......... ,r ""'3: DI PLAN LEGEND Plla>osm l!IKlOl<ft:lltOC t:11ossr<,-CJl\flll cm:~c .,,,., l'IIOl'OS<D°""'OM/cll!V<e.101SN<:-IOCC!'..,.._,C'1J~( + ~~-----~~ a f'lllll'Q5WTl!,\ffll;llU.:_.,,1jJl(01N~UCll(l< • .... PROFP E LEGEND = = = --= lHE OlS1RICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 02 • 07 TV-1071-TVA02 I +--1 r .e.EQEJJ.E.=.ffl:ICOCO;Vl,!000 :Jelcan $ NORTH l.®u'IU"OCUl5!1NG PAY£1J£Hl ,1NC= n:;11 ll(llJI l"'_,.oct Of .O,:.~ "'ll!l<l 2.ou•l•ll: co,:;,v.c PA\'tW!'.><! s~ ro,, 11<1w~ FH,,sc"' ~-o= Ol(;O)CS. -,; 10 ~s:s~£';'f 11:)X) "rO "°'1-'t M:G'OS(l) 1'.ii,,. ~ .;l!OW<Ul PA',Ottl,T F(lll u.rNi,,t ~~~ .. ,~~'j!·~!oc~~~k~~~%:,I~o~~ ~ <.01:11S1",CHMIIO"r~l'[W(lll"1!11:CJIJ"C~crv.ttt!Wf>!Pfll:P0207.J,,,IIIOC,,0Ga.£ i"~~~'r.'.,r',~~:t'c..~~ i: ... :,s, ~~ .... '!h:":..a.tsi:~ r.~ .... ,o ~ ~ Pi:.»au .iu.i1won FV,1o t D.U~!IO!< cn/.llS lil.S(O a-1.1),, ,;Q,10.JI! o•i, o,;~ n l>ofllffl<C,(7,a/,PU:,.DOl.,H'<>:UFO'lffat!l{)fHl'.,-it'S>l!ifO'l'/VlfS:Ai.. ~~:'~""'~IO!Ellt'\07.DO'l'Xl'ISTIIUCfll)fl)ft(~C(>;ro<l~,QII; '·"'""=!iilOIJ</t'l{DC.,..,,Sfltl;;ANQ•o,01)1!1,JO.,XTOIESUlO,GlA• .. ,ool(C.i, ST~ tw,ll 8A$ (111,..ll'WI Of" UI.TIWU( P~ r:F P<IG£ct. I. l.N<ll ~:HOM ~<1.m,:o 8•!0l o,, IIU!l C' ·~y Cf 30.0,, FCR UI.T>U.!'I'. PM'5£ r,; Pl AN I ECENO oinmeA-fC'l!:£,<C!'O$~C P!IOF05ED9!0Cl<,'C,1rn<CJ!Dfllf<G-CIL\Of\'C0.055>..: ~ l'IIQPOSCDllflOOl<jOt!.lJICl>~l!P.L't!:SlNUC1\ll!( + ~~ •= --~""~ a ·~-·-,--·-~ • .... = -... = PROP05f.C""°"'()H0.CS(Ttl,<J'l .. 00'4\•tT'Ollll. OOSRH~!Tf:\Fe= -~~,U-CHi!< ..... E..oOf"f'.O'JOI!(. !HE OtSTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION ALIGNMENT OPTION 3 r I :,e/can $ NORTH ~@ 11,uZE ~-~•=rnT S'!IVC"l.'U rQf< 801l< ~~= Ct PR-:.OOSW _,_ t?st~~;~;~~oOl•'J~t=-~ r:~ ::t\:~~~~~~;:z:t'° :r:.~~!)Hf~t~:sr,~~~~=r::.:~~~ ~-=i1=N!~~~S1:tit-!£c~%~;~ ~~ ro ~ fotOIPOK~ "-"""CST Pl.AN • ruv•ngi O(!AU a•= O>< ,_ ""''"""' o•:• POO'-,(£[) a, "ICl:!!iT<JC10f11....UMl>cE,NoD:l?f<ll1'1Cll<<t<li'<l"-N"""1C'SIS>f°a'.Vl'.l'OT'~ B. .._.. .. Q.:O<,=> arc~••••<:$ 10 sr11t,..SF.D ~ o:r,smutm> ,o l'ICll.ll>lO C>TC<i,a •tfl Ull'ILtlltFt!AQ:rYPll~C'I 1 F~OPcSi.~ i!il(.'(Jl</(1;UJI C>ICS~ Ale RO,,O -A~£ TO GE SIW ~ A 1 I~ 100 Y!:/Jl STCl'll,/(VDITS•S(OOl,..YCUTIJ'Ulr,11All:f'>V.!"trTPR().£CI il.lMC ... "V•U<lJl'-..lll!C-Jm!Oa,.n,c,,,..,<rgf"Yr•Y,;,-lCl.""''eotUln",1t"".=°' I~ '1lOFOSE!ltMOO</tR!.f.<OIOSliMC·liollllX.l:STP!l!C11111£ + _,Q ·-•~ ·~w.~ a .. ~,~ ,.-, =••= -~rn~ PROFILE LEGEND = = = """" -= iHE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION ALIGNMENT OPnON 4 " 07 TV-1071-TVA04 --~~.------~------~ ·-------------------E.RQ.E.!LEsc,.i,t,H•:10000:Yl:IOOO :,e/can I L __ _ $ NORTH , q;>..n,:1: o,s:i,,au-, tri>JC"-"C ro:t l!lt* -SE:I /Jf •~,:,,,= -.is ~:~:£.HrJt;~~~~~':'!l't; '.i£\t~~;t~~a,~~r10 =~~~~l·~~~;~,~~~~~·~~~~=r~~!~':!l~i:i=-r.i':!1:~sS~~ 10 ~~~T-••a.cv•'?let•OCTAIUB,$W_..1.0,,, rot1•lMl~lfA~Dro,Y J\I! f.<!':,::,Cf Q< .UP'..£ MK:(, ~/,Dj1 fl>! ~Qll>Illf<l')L. M..0.7 <:511:; fal 11:•Tr:>I.. ....... -~~;,o&el<t'\\lUl(ll!CMlll'JCIUllCFlf:-[)CID<tSr<lfl \11.IISU,l'i:PKlS( Qf"P/IW(eT, ~:~=~.:~tt.:".frt~•~ul°c;"flltlf<Jt.,,. 100 >t"" l.'-"ID~!\Dl<l:tOWl.!la..::.:oer< .. ,,.TIJ(WAYrfm"'"n,,..._,..,.'t .... l!lcllf PL.~N I EGEND -~~~=-----•==• + "~=--·-"'~ a ~~-·= -~= ·~" .. "'IQPOSPllJCMl!NTCI-CS£ftl,Mr,Ca,r-<,1C:10,:1<. tll=S1'11J.'CTUI![ P~Ol'O!EI ..,,_..NT IN All{A o< rux:JO:!IC PROFILE LEGEND = = = = .... = THE OISTI<ICT Of' MAPLE RIDGE ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION ALIGNMENT OPTION 5 05 • 07 TV-1071-TVA05 :,e1can $ NORTH 1.@~1'/ltD,'ST.,CfAOaa;!IISli:uc-:\11£fl.'<IY,ll<,,..•!l!:SDF~,!!lll[)lll(S. ~~£}fr~~'W"Jc:.t=.,~o:~~~~~n,~''k.,~.r =~~£::r~f,.~~~=-l~~~. =~1-=r.~~~s1:=.-:e-~~-?:~~ w $. l'i;,:pasr(l ,:Jf,HIIOlT l'l.»I. r..r:~A'!IQH !Vol.$= (II\.,,,, CO<TOJII PH•~ rr lllt0,=1DFIIN'l!ill'.C,C{.H<*,)J1fr,.-b71'f.U.,.IIA0111C$1S'O'l""...Rne.... I....,_ -Jt>On< at~SI.CS 10 at 11(1<$(0"" ea,JJ'ot,JCIU) 10~0,o,IED ~T!."I' 1L""-'lt"""!l:0Tnt!.(CI. 1. ""<:l'O'.C., f.'l,;o(/atW< t°'OU;ifC:$ """ 11:1,0 GAA<~J.Qt 10 at s= <00 ~ I "' 1QI -CU, S1')11Mllol!<ll.\SIJ)<'/UY'JIJl(>FU1.1IWAIEPIIASEIY"PRQJ:CT. e. ~.,;G ~T·e<i ~t~lll U~ COi RO.I DF ••Y CE J.0.0,, fOII Ull'IIAIE ~.<SE r$ 1'1,a,c:f PLAN LEGEND ... .......:;l!.1;0 ... ...,./t:R;.~~--,flUl:T"•U: + -ITCll'-..-a:,11lC'IICII< a PIIOPOStD?RNTIC~IIHtJl!E'10' -~n<T0.115C'lQ.O<l!O~IITI<, [XS1ll<GSTII\ICT!,ll!t PROPCS(;)M,J-0,,ll<~C,,ux:c,,.;:; PRQFil E l EGj:'ND = = = = --= Tl-IE DISTRICT OF MAPLE R!OCE ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION 06 ' 07 AUGNMENT OPTION 6 TV-1071-TVA06 I 1~-1 I L MM= 1.,0000 = :,e/can $-NORTH , (&,run: u,1noc PA\oOQll Sl'RlKn,,u; f;)O. eor~ ~ ts-,a.o.a,om: ...:,,tJ<l; ~~~°:if.\~~.b~~o~~~i:! ~~~~~~fui~flf~ ~=l1~::Hc~""~;sr,,;.,':~~:J'sto"::~:CI'.. =~=.!~:FJ=:t::~;~~~~~~~ IO S.""'-"'= '<J~TP\J>/. tl.t:VA'l!C,lj CE'T ... $ 1,= a, 1.0,,n <:O',r.;u!Q>TA""'1'AIIO> 11> MOISl'Ol:><.'U>-l'lf.lal)(;(.W....,l7rnR!<GITTCHT&l......C,1.:!1'Sf00Y(l!U"-~:.t.m~orll"t~ 10 M ~(>!SE~ OIi CO"•S!R"JClill fO ll[O..'IFJ:D cm1n:; fOlll 7.Plltl'=!ill['O(/QIID."'CISSIM.S•'<C'IIOICOll .... ...:Cl""Q!tS'm,f:Jl•lr!l:)QIOlt 11-{mt! 11','ll) et<"""''" a Ul11>1Afli P•ASic a ~W[CI. l.'-"'C~l>tOOO~R•Sf.!><»<1t:t1rts-1Mr/11":Ja.<1,,fa;,1A.~l<•it:"'"~rs PLAN LEGEND "M~eFoGCl'/O'l[El<CJl~iis,,«;-e.t.lCRfCROSStt<C ...i)ltl... ""~~'XIC/C!IW<Cll~~$ll!l/C,VII!: .. >~M.JCMIIOIIO.OSl:10,0flf'co;nJC'•l>I. OS1-'C-THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGt: ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION • 07 ALIGNMENT OPTION 7 TV-1071-TVA07 -. -------~ __,,....---~ ' ' ' t .. -!\), i >-\_t ~ z e5 a, <t C> " : I I -\ I i's·_-2 t :r: ::r 1---------+1-'\--r----------1-----••••• t Jt:r : :r··--------,~-~-----( ................ ·------------[___ -, I l•n \ I '"' \ ' ' ; \ -----------· ················+·········-·----1-···--·----······ ', \ ; :_: __ ::c,c:_::_,.,:~1~9 ___ -__ ··,-:.:-r --,,_/ I I ,-.... _____ Q I~ -----!----, I, ,~ ' '·---~-··· .. 32 lt --------40 .38 ~--36 -~~, -____ 3_. ,: ___ 32 -I ,• JO : \ h/ '--:: ::: .. ...211 ; ,. ~ 'ia ~a 'OI ' ! ! t, : (> ' ---:=-::::..~-.,/'_: _______ _ ! I ~-, . J ~ i ·------." --------' ---;~-----) 1""-J I t i i I ! --~,-;~--! .:uort I ! ' / i ~H•----!1--:~-~-----------~~-------,-----------,------------=------r.c=-----cc---;;,.,---~-------,C,-IT=Y-c'"--cpcc1JEE.Rcc-c,~cc/-=,r:,,cc~-=f,,,,-,,-=R-=)DccGccEc-----, !1----+--+-------------+--i~=~.J't::"J:'f ... ......,..lD •II' LD"Tl.em<rT ..2._ ,1--,--,, t-,,~-,-1"'+=--,~-,~-=-,.-™-~-------t-~-i '2.:W::-ra:.= ~ : No. DAlE .............. ..._"' PLAN AND PROFILE STA. 6+40 TO STA. 9+80 -.-- I ~-I A WAY I l i I I 2.00'-f ------iP,,, ___ _ D'PICAl SFCDON = I / I /j 1-· / \~) -/ \, ~) :// /"'--) ( / '-l~.' ./'J?_····---~----__ ·~ __ ~i_-:, .'-" ___ "_',.,, \:;.= ! =i/j / ---+:-~ ~ ' --/--/-, f--------,-'~=-----. . ' ... (.SOOTHAlllJIM(NT (.NOIIIMAl3U1\!Dl1 f-! s_«_•_~7:-,-=---------~·ro~=="m=(<~m~•~·~-='"~''-----------~I STA. hSB I I I L M•~ ' i '~ . i ~=~~re.! i ' • ~ r0\~0m ' , ____ f.E!;,~LINE ··-----------"'--------------------------------------~-S~~,:-~-,:.:~=--=--,-----'C~~=~-----I------------------STN(WIO BRIO(;[ PNW'Ef REF.DWC.No,2784-7 c/" SIUL IWUNC ST»IDARO BC UoTI S1UL PEtlE'STllWIFOIC( =. PIP£ SPH;(O .U J.4 m c/c OnSlll,fC GROl.1'10 A,IPIERS,TYP. ATCO>ITllOLUNE McElhanney llkE!hlnnl)' ConluJUnsl s.ntc. Lid. ! Sl/oH().O,li()9IWICEPIJV,PCT REF.OWC.No.27U-7 ~f:. ~~ !~~~~G STNIONlOBCt.lOnSl[[l Bta'CU:FDICE =· 1 600DE£PSTEnPlATEGIROOl0l PR(STRE'SSEtlCONCIIO[NUCIROE!I =· CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE 240 STREET BRIDGE ALIGNMENT1 CENTRELINE 1 101 H------i----------+-i~.w~~ >-+---i------------+-i1 =:.rc,,,=~·,:.-1-t------,----------+-i! l.o<o<..,At:J:h,tSIOMl~A,.. ~= HOIU.1:500 'ftRT.1:50 Cl TY OF MAPLE RIDGE 240TH STREET OPTION 18 ,1-,-+-,,/-,,-M+,,-'"-"-,~-,~-~-,---------t-,--,, :.:.~·:.::~°";,.~. ,1-,.-+--,,.-+------------1---, . w, l "'"'' T -.--CONCEPT NOT FOR o,:c"""-'• ~ '""""''" ~.=c~,-:_-~;--_,CONSTRUCTION 6 CONCEPT ~ McElhanney CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING OEP~RNENT OPTION 7 CONCEPT ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY -~-----a PHASE 3 -232 STREET TO 240 STREET EN17-66 . >-+--+--------------<-----, ~: .. ·am::,}"~:, ,'l«x,•.cnltS ...--r .1. ~.,.., T CONCEPT NOT FOR O<a:>n» o@<U<Ot>oo• b.:~~"c~,":~~---ICONSTRUCTION = :c:, CONCEPT ~ McElhanney CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING D(PARU,ENT OPTION 7 CONCEPT ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY -~-----< PHASE 3 -240 STREET TO 248 STREET EN17-66 r=-' C ' r---,. ' ' -,_ ' ' ' -+ i ! ! ,>-,-+-,,/-,,-,4,,-,,-.,.-,-~-.~-ffi-,---------+-,--<. ~T ;No. D»t -eo ·~"' ~'"'"'' .. '"' ~ . w, .l ~.:,., T CONCEPT NOT FOR o<c"""' O® 00,,-""'' cc:=~=~·=-----, CONSTRUCTION = =· CONCEPT .i41. McElhanney CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINE(P.INGOEFARWrnT OPTION 7 CONCEPT ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY PHASE 3 -248 STREET TO 256 STREET EN17-66 i,ndon~ /1.>~ ...... • ·' LOCATION PLAN Webster Come-, 6 /1 PROJECT LOCATION I ,/ ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY 232 STREET TO 256 STREET t i i ; ' l I~ I McElhanney McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. ! Suite 2300 Central City Tower 6 13450-102 Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3T 5X3 Tel. 604-596-0391 I 'f----r~-----------,-,----------.----------------=------,------,-;;.-----------,-----c=----cc,----,-~~~-------, f = -I-~P<U1"'""' 0 D = ~ CIT"::NPJ:"ERl~G~~~fru~JDGE l1-:-+--:-+-::-----------+--i:.lft"' .. "<n1<E>};J:"J.-.,,,,, ~o ur1J."-:><<T _9... l~,~· ; .. ,;ea:;_m~"::~,;:,::,~::•:;:,ru::,::,~:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~"• ~ .....,... -.--""" .......,. O®°"'"''"" r.c;:"'==~·-------1 : r<o. ,.It I ••V"'<"•""' [:::J ~f COVER DRA'MNG INDEX AND LOCATION MAP I"'" I''"'" O Ofl\ 1-EN17-66 + U:~GT>< Of ROA!) (NH') LE:NGTH OF ROAO (t~ISTI~G) "AX.E)(ISllNGGRA!lC(NE\1/RO>O) .• .,. .. ~ . L<n .l ~.::,., T -.--~o@~~= 1-c-::::~:~---, = ~· CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEER<NG DEP~RruENT KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY 2.32 STREET TO 256 STREET EN17-66 -=-,_ '" ' ,- J1---+--+--------------\-----j~: .. ·~J"f.''~'] <O<>'ON>TU -•o ·~ >A W•Tt><ll'O"S"-IC . ...,-t.l1t<1<1T = PR. GROU~O ELEVATIOO EX.GRoutlD El.£VATICl'l CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGIN~ERING OEPARTI..IENT OPTION 1 KEY PLAN ABERNETI-IY WAY EN17-66 I I ; t.tNGIHOfAO.t.ll(N[w) l[H(;T>,OfROMJ((,OSTING) I.CHGT!s OfAOAll (TOT.U.) ! ~--•>-----,---~---~~-~-------~-~-~--------; j -CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ' -0 ""' =--tat ENG!N£[1ilNG OEFAJHJJ[NT jt-_-+--+--------------t-----1""',U"~=J~•:\ox,.,.,,.,., ·~ 1,D"T.l.ftG>,T ...'9._ •t,::;, ::; .. /0::;,:::n!":::,sc::::·eo:::,:::oo::::,:::,ru:::~::::~================t•::A •,:,.:,.":,·.:"' « -rn:r ---i ><o D•III: ~.,.,,"' o•• "''"" ,1111:u~·ou -o®--""'"=.-·=-----< = :;:, 1:IQ,OCQ 1:1.000 OPTION 2 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 I I i ' ' I l i I I ; 12-4 AVE. TRANS. ABERNETHY WAY TRANSITION 12-4 AVE. 256 ST. 6 l.ENGrHOf"R04D(NCW) l.ENGrHOf"R04D(UISIINC) l.ENC1'k0f"R04D(TOUL) '>----,-~-----------~~-----~------------------~----~~--~---------"'---------_-_·____, i = -.. o """'..u'~'""" ~ ,.,. = "" CITYEN~!ERl~c1~~fn,~JDGE !1---+-+-------------+---,~.\;,.{--}".a:''--~ -~ ~i<>" -'"-·~·~· ~""':::,::n1a,:::,~:::·rn:::,::~:::,:::,w:::~::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t,:::j~ ::,.;::,:,,. ...... ram -.....:::: ==.=== --o@....-...... >-';-'~..:~---,.-,,_---' : Mo O•~ ••"'"'"""''"' Ci' '°'' 1,1.000 OPTION 3A KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 t i i ! ' I I i t ! : ' ~ ;.. __ J. 8 • . ' TRANS. ABERNETliY WAY ~~~ ~f~ 124 AVE. 256 ST. lO<Gll<OfROl,()(NEW) lO<GtliO.RG,l()(TOTAL) UAX-01Sll~GGRM:l!: (EXIS1lt1GIIOA0) if----r~---------.-.---------,------------------=----c------,;;.----------,---~~~-~--Mcl!lhannay~---i f1--'.-+--+--------------+----<~"F""'\~,;:'' -·» ·~~ ~: ... , -~ ~ CIT";,i?!ER.~,~~p~fn.,e~)DGE ,1--,-i, r,.,-.,-,,+,,,-~-'"-,~-,,-ru-,,-00--------+-,----<A ::.=-:.:'N«!rf!'Y -.: ~ o@~ tc:"=~~:~----1 OPKJ~OP~AN3B ;I-~-+--,.,-+------------+---< ••110"'"""'"' ..,,....., C::J '°''· ::J'.li:° ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 I l ! i r : ! ------t-i : i i I I l>-:-+--+---------------+---;~•"'-",'C• }'.'S:'~''-,.,, <~•=• ~,.::_M:::/•~• :;.,,::_,w:::,:::c.::::,:::,ru::,s::oo:::· :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;,~~ ..:;;_::-;,:",... =m }No. O•Tt -•O ., W•<f'0""'"" -~ . un.l.•cc>,rT ·-· O®·=·· <=:".'~=·-~--------' = ::, 1:10.000 1:1.000 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENCIN~ERING DEPARnJENT OPTION 4 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 t I ; " I • ~ " i ' ",., It ~!'." ;;;; "µ: ..... c.-7 , ~ d t; ~. a , ... ~"' ..( L ~ I ~ 1,--, 124 AVE. ti a ~ n . -t-,--f---I--~---J.•, . ...;:·· i :i " ' II -H-1·++++~1-;--++++,+--H:-1:-s!-+f~--+H-~-++H·+·-•-:H+-H·-++I-H+., -1=1 ·-r-1 .. , .. ,., .... ,. -->--··+++H·f··-t-+!:1:1-t· i ~' :::; ~ PR. GROIMO • • ! ,,,,.,.. I ·······~'"""'""' _:;;,: i_ : =: =: : 0 §_ El£VAllON ___ j '!'!~f~f!f STATIONWC I ~ ... ~-"' ., .I ., "' " ~ '·-----'~ '--------------1 I 128 AVE. 252ST. l£HClt10fROA(l((l(:slNC) l(NCf,< 0: ROAD (10P,L) ! ~--,i--,---~---~~-~-------~-~-~--------1 L !>---+--+-------------+-<~"';'.:,"',..·ooi.<:t:i 1-.:1::·~1 "°""""'"' f-l---+------------f--< l'CM renet?' N.,.......JT '>-'-+' ~""-'~/'+'-'~-·ro_,_.,_,._ru_,._~--------1-'-,A ,..,,....,... .. ,, ; ""-0•'1'. . "".J. "'"'' T *=O®~-e--::,~·---_ _, = :;;, 1,10.000 i.1.000 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEEF.INGDEPARTIJENT OPTION 5 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 t I ---:,_ 6 U:NGTHCFAOMl(NEw) l.(NGJHOiAOMl(cXlSTNG) lENGTHCFAO•O(TOT/.L) • lf----r-~-------,----,----,----------------,-;;;;;c;---;,--------r,;:.-------.---------::=-:-=~=~--=--=c-::-:----=--------1 i = ~~~·-U"llT<""1/«C>O, 0 CIT~N£~ERl~G~fp~fmE~;ocE J>-;--+---------------,----,a':O~.;;,;..J'C:',~" -"" ·~ ~,,.,,, ~ ~ ~ ,r,--t.,-,~-,-/>S+"-s"-''"-,~-rns_ru_ss-~-----------,r,--,, '..!:?:,:r,«,.,....m ~ -.--'""'"""'O@o:NrV'OO" r:;"~."~:=-----a ;l-.. -l"',"",.cc+====--------ji-"1 "'"'"'<"""" C] 1:10.0CO ,,,,, 1:1.ooc OPTION 6 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 er ,_-r I I ; ,}!_ • a --· . ' ' ~ -~ ~ i i i ~ ; ~n ;H; i ~ ! ~-'---~--! 124 AVE. • • ,. ~ ; ! ! ; ' ·······i -··"·-•·--'-j--1:,··I , __ I I' ' -1--i.;;>"' , ___ .. ·-r P-, -~ ~ i a i ~ • • ~ ; ; I i ~ ~ ; ~ ; ! ~ i a ; ; n n I;; ~ ~H H ! n~ : H ~ ~ : IHI ! ! TRANSITION 1 ABERNETHY I WAY 240 ST. ! r a a : ' .:.--' :: •-H--1--,--~"-++ I --1 i ~ • . ~ ~· i • ! a • ' . : ! u ~ nn: a ~ i ~ i • -,-',-,~ • ,-,----I ..... ' ~ u ~ l ~ a : : 1 • . • ~. : a i ~ I • ~ • • ~ • ~ l ~ g i I DE\lrONE'r' TRUNK RD. ta ~ ,---,-, r-:r ,-, -' ~ ' ,:!, -i t-, ; I ; ; 1 1 I ~ i : ~. • ~ I i • -,---8 ' iu : 8 . ; • I 6 ltNCTI-1 OF PROPOSED B~IOC[ LlNClH OF !<(Ill ~ettr-or-\1/AY 1.£.NClHOl'RO...O{N[w) l£NGIH Of' ~O,'O (£l1lS~f<C) LL~Cfli Of ROAO (TOT41.) " ; ; "' _i,e'.;;:. "' " ., ' t, LJ,_, " ·-··· ., " 1,1 ~ ~ ! ; " ' ~· § : ~ ; ; i I i PR.GROUNO """"" : n, ~ 0 3 ' i, : ""'""" • § =·"" ii,i!il 8 • I i : S'TAllQ,/NC 256ST. ROAD NAME 'e--.----------------------------~~-~------.,..---_-----1 J : _ -,.-.,_ _,, CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE l>-_+---+----------1--i,, ::::_ .. :~~ .. ~-:=··--~ ~.·~ ... r_-c;,-.~.... ·~ ~ PA l~/03/29 ISS~to rOR DISOJS90H • ""' -· • ~-~-~ """""'"'I~"""' . • ,...._-,er,_ urr .I.""'' T """'"'"'..,...' --ENG!NEERING OEPARTIJENT OPTION 7 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 ! ' I t i i ' ' l l i I I ; ;·-..,··· -· f-+--•.• ~L.-. -, .... --,--,-,-' _.µ._,r I h 11 '·! +,..;.. ' " • ,,.., ,,, , ... , -:-... L .... '! ' I i i ""' I IRi ·',1 . ' ! ,, •.... , I WICTH Ofl'!0,1,(1 (N(W) l.[.~CfH or ROAi.i ((Xl$TINC) l.E.~Cn, Of ~OAO (TOUL) MAX. [>IS-.C C~40E (NEW ~OAD) I ~--·t-r--~---~~-~-------~-~-~---------1 I ~ -11-----J---+.---------------l---ll;J;','" °'~ I~ l """"'*'""' i~,~• =""='=;,~or==="=,~==,s=ru=ss=~================~,::;,. :..,._;:;;:::}• oc "l'.ff!rY i Mo O•Jt . ...--,J_o,:,.1T -o@-e-.-::,~·-__ _, = !:10.000 '°''· 1:1.000 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE [NG:NEERINGDEPARThlENT OPTION 8 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY EN17-66 . "'' J. ~°"' T -.--~o@~~-..,,_::,~·~ __ _, 1:10.000 "-"'· 1:1,000 = 6 LCHGIM OF ~0..0 (EXISTING) l.(><Cf,< O'" R0..0 (TOT~L) CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEUilNG OEPAJ.TIJENT OPTION 9 KEY PLAN ABERNETHY WAY r EN17-66 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA) CONDUCTED FOR PROPOSED POTENTIAL R-0-W ROUTE OPTIONS RELATED TO EASTWARD EXTENSION OF ABERNETHY WAY FROM 232nd STREET TO 256th STREET IN MAPLE RIDGE, B.C.; A NON-PERMIT AOA REPORT Mike K. Rousseau (MA; RPCA) and Geoffrey Homel (BA) Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Maple Ridge, B.C. October 20, 2018 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA) CONDUCTED FOR PROPOSED POTENTIAL R-0-W ROUTE OPTIONS RELATED TO EASTWARD EXTENSION OF ABERNETHY WAY FROM 232nd STREET TO 256th STREET IN MAPLE RIDGE, B.C.; A NON-PERMIT REPORT Prepared for: Ms. Selena Wilson Division Manager, Infrastructure McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. Suite 2300 Central City Tower, 13450 -102 A venue, Surrey, B.C., V3T 5X3 Prepared by: Mike K. Rousseau (MA; RPCA) and Geoffrey Homel (BA) Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., 23021 -132 Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R OA8; Email: antiquus@shaw.ca October 20, 2018 Grant o(License I, Jlfike Rousseau, confirm that I am the copyright owner (or ti copyright owne1) o.f this non-permit report, and for good and valut1ble consideration I irremcably grant a non-exclusive license to the Province ofBritish Columbia,for a term equal to the l(fe of the copyright commencing on the date of execution below, to make copies of the reports, including all appendices anti photos, anti to provide such copies to anyone, at the discretion of the Province, either at no charge or at the cost incurred by the Province in making and distributing the copies. All parties, except the party.for whom the report was prepared, acknowledge that any use or interpretation of this report is at the sole risk and littbility of the subsequent user(:,). Executed this 20th day of October, 2018, by Mike K. Rousseau Signature of Copyright Owner--------~~ J, Affiliation: Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. = ~ ,_ r. ~:=·· ,_-. c. Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. AOA PROJECT CREDITS Project Coordinators Ms. Selena Wilson (Manager, McElhanney) Mike Rousseau (Senior Archaeologist, Antiquus) AOA Project Field Director Mike K. Rousseau Antiguus Field Technicians Kirsten Boettger, Lauren Hearty, and Geoffrey Homel (Archaeologists, Antiquus) First Nation Field Technician Representatives Cmiis Chapman (Katzie First Nation) Jonathan Brignell (Kwantlen First Nation) Photography and Mapping Kirsten Boettger, Lauren Hearty, Geoffrey Homel, and Mike K. Rousseau Report Authors Mike K. Rousseau and Geoffrey Homel Report Production and Distribution Mike K. Rousseau Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 11 - Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would first like to thank McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. for partnering and retaining Antiquus to conduct this AOA study. Special thanks go to Ms. Selena Wilson (Division Manager of Infrastructure) who oversaw this study on behalf of McElhanney, provided us with information and maps related to the proposed ROW routes, and reviewed a draft of this AOA rep01i prior to finalizing. Thanks also go to James Anderson of McElhanney for his involvement, and for his map consultation services prior to our field inspection. We would also like to thank Ms. Cara Brendzy of the St6:16 Nation, and Ms. Ashley Doyle from the Kwantlen First Nation for granted us permits relating to this AOA study. Ms. Chantelle Wegwitz of Kwantlen First Nation, and Ms. Denise Heron of Katzie First Nation are thanked for arranging for their field technician representatives to assist us during fieldwork. We are also grateful to Mr. Curtis Chapman from Katzie First Nation and Mr. Jonathan Brignall from Kwantlen First Nation for their involvement and help during the in-field visual inspection. We also thank Ms. Shea Hemy of the Maple Ridge Museum and Community Archives for providing us with a map of early Euro-Canadian settler land holdings in Maple Ridge, for conducting a brief historic background information search of their archives on our behalf, and for answering our question about why the Alouette Rivers were mistakenly known as the "Lillooet" Rivers prior to 1910. Antiquus archaeologist Mike Rousseau directed the AOA fieldwork, and Antiquus staff archaeologists Ms. Kirsten Boettger (MA), Ms. Lauren Hearty (BA), and Mr. Geoffrey Homel (BA) assisted in the fieldwork and took the photos that appear in this report. This AOA rep01i text and maps were prepared by Mike Rousseau and Geoffrey Homel. 11 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. SYNOPSIS On September Pt, 2018, Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. conducted an in-field preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) visual inspection of the majority of the proposed ROW routes relating to the eastward extension of Abernethy Way from 232°d Street to 256111 Street in Maple Ridge. Several sections of route options are being considered, and the length of the proposed new road ROW is about 5.5 km. This inspection was conducted on behalf of McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. for the City of Maple Ridge. The primary objectives of this AOA study were: (1) to consult the BC Archaeology Branch's "Remote Access Archaeological Database" (RAAD) to identify and revisit any previously identified sites, to seek and present general background information for this locality, and provide a summary account of background information on the study area; (2) to identify (locate and map) areas deemed to have medium or high archaeological or heritage site potential within the proposed route option impact zones for future management, and for consideration during selection of the final road ROW routing; (3) to consider the general nature, extent, intensity and duration of proposed future potential land-altering activities relating to the road ROW development project, and assess how they might affect any intact cultural deposits lying within the impact zones; ( 4) to formulate and present recommendations that will ensure effective management, assessment, protection, and/or mitigation of any significant archaeological deposits within proposed impact zones; and (5) to prepare and submit this AOA report to all stakeholders for future permitting and archaeological resource management purposes. Our PFR inspection conducted on September 1, 2018, identified 13 specific locations designated as "A " to "M" that are associated with streams and creeks and deemed to have medium or high archaeological site potential for pre-contact period buried "lithic scatters". These 13 locations are described in general terms, their potential impact status with regard to the proposed road constrnction is assessed and discussed, and future investigation and management recommendations are provided for each site potential location to assist in the eventual formulation and implementation of an effective archaeological site discovery and impact management plan. The remaining intervening sections of proposed road constrnction impact zone route options are deemed to lie within areas considered to have low archaeological site potential due to the lack of associated aquatic features and topographic landforms conducive to human occupation and use. In our opinion, these low site potential areas do not deserve any additional pre-development archaeological resource management attention. Comments, suggestions, potential impact status, and recommendations presented for each of the 13 site potential areas discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this AOA report should be considered along with comments and recommendations provided. This information will be useful for eventual selection of the final road ROW route, and will ensure proper identification, assessment and management of any buried archaeological deposits that may be threatened with adverse impacts relating to road constrnction activities. 111 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AOA Project Credits .......................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii Synopsis ............................................................................................................................ iii List ofFigures .................................................................................................................. v 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 1 1.1 Natural Setting .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Cultural Setting and First Nation Consultation ......................................................... 8 1.3 Previous Archaeological Investigations .................................................................... 8 1.4 Local Early Post-Contact Period Settlement... .......................................................... 8 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SCHEDULE. ......................................... I 0 3.0 AOA OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ................................................. 11 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT RES UL TS ................... 13 4.1 Archaeological Site Potential Area "A" ................................................................. 13 4.2 Archaeological Site Potential Area "B" ........... , ...................................................... 15 4.3 Archaeological Site Potential Area "C" .................................................................. 16 4.4 Archaeological Site Potential Area "D" ................................................................. 19 4.5 Archaeological Site Potential Area "E" .................................................................. 20 4.6 Archaeological Site Potential Area "F" .................................................................. 21 4. 7 Archaeological Site Potential Area "G" ................................................................. 24 4.8 Archaeological Site Potential Area "H" ................................................................. 25 4.9 Archaeological Site Potential Area "I" ................................................................... 26 4.10 Archaeological Site Potential Area "J" ................................................................. 28 4.11 Archaeological Site Potential Area "K" ............................................................... 32 4.12 Archaeological Site Potential Area "L" ................................................................ 34 4.13 Archaeological Site Potential Area "M" ............................................................... 3 7 4.14 Possible Early Post-Contact Period Residential Structures ................................. .40 5.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS AND COMMENTS .. .41 5.1 Future Management Considerations and Options for Areas "A" to "M" ............. ..41 5.1.1 Option 1: Complete Avoidance of Areas with Medium or Greater Potential... .. .41 5.1.2 Conducting an Archaeological Impact Assessment for Areas of Medium or Greater Site Potential Conflicting with the Final Road ROW Impact Zone . .42 5.2 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................... 42 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................ 43 IV Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 l I ' _J I I Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. General location of the study area in southwestern B.C .................................. 2 Figure 2. Map showing location of proposed Route Options being considered for the Abernethy Way eastern extension from 232nd Street to 2561h Street in Maple Ridge ................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Aerial image map showing proposed west end ROW route options and identified areas of medium and high archaeological site potential between 232nd Street and 240111 Street ............................................................. 4 Figure 4. Aerial image map showing proposed ROW route options and areas considered to have medium and high archaeological site potential between 2401h Street and 244th Street... ............................................................................. 5 Figure 5. Aerial image map showing the proposed ROW route on 124111 Avenue, and areas considered to have medium site potential. ....................................... 6 Figure 6. Aerial image map showing identified areas considered to have medium site potential in the east route section on 124111 Avenue and 256th Street.. ....... 7 Figure 7. Map showing early post-contact period (mid to late 1800s) land holdings by families and individuals within the city of Maple Ridge ............ 9 Figure 8. Map showing location of archaeological site potential areas "A" and "B" on tributaries of Coho Creek .................................................................... 14 Figure 9. General view of Site Potential Area "A" on 124111 A venue associated with the west tributary channel of Coho Creek ..................................... , ........ 15 Figure 10. General view of site potential area "B" on 124th Avenue on the east tributary channel of Coho Creek ................................................................... 16 Figure 11. A general view of the northeastern terrace edge in the northeastern aspect of site potential area "C" on the south side of Latimer Creek ............ 17 Figure 12. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential areas "C" and "D" on the south side of Latimer Creek. .......................................... 18 Figure 13. General view of site potential area "D" on a small tributary stream channel located immediately north of "Hacker's Haven" golf course south of Latimer Creek ................................................................................ 19 Figure 14. General view of site potential area "E" on a flat-top promontory on the south side of Latimer Creek in the northeast aspect of "Hacker's Haven" Golf Course ..................................................................... 20 Continued ... V Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 r -----------Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. List of Figures (Continued). Page Figure 15. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential areas "E", "F", "G" "H" and "I" on the south and north sides of Latimer Creek and west and east sides of 240th Street.. .............................................. 22 Figure 16. Slightly oblique aerial view of site potential area "F" on the west side of 240111 Street and north side of Latimer Creek .................................... 23 Figure 17. A general view of the terrace top on the north side of Latimer Creek at large site potential area "F" ....................................................................... 24 · Figure 18. A general view of small site potential area "G" within the residential yard on the east side of 2401h Street and north side of Latimer Creek .......... 25 Figure 19. A view of site potential area ''H" on the east and west side of 240th Street and south side of Latimer Creek ......................................................... 26 Figure 20. A view of the majority of site potential area "I" about 100 m east of 240th Street on the south side of Latimer Creek ........................................ 27 Figure 21. An oblique aerial view of site potential area "J" along both sides of Latimer Creek ........................................................................................... 28 Figure 22. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "J" on the south and north sides of Latimer Creek between 240111 Street and 244111 Street ............................................................................................. 29 Figure 23. General view of the west aspect of site potential area "J" immediately east of the northeast corner of the school property on the north side of Latimer Creek ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 24. Another general view of the west aspect of site potential area "J" about 75 m east of the northeast corner of the school property on the north side of Latimer Creek .......................................................................... 31 Figure 25. View of high site potential locus in the northeastern aspect of site potential area "J" on the north side of Latimer Creek .................................. 32 Figure 26. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "K" at the western end of a section of 124th Avenue ............................................ 33 Figure 27. View of the central aspect of site potential area "K" at the west end of 124th Avenue ............................................................................................. 34 Figure 28. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "L" at Zirk Brook on 124th Avenue ..................................................................... 35 Figure 29. Oblique aerial image of site potential area "L" on 1241h Avenue ................. 36 Continued ... Vl Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. List of Figures (Continued). Page Figure 30. View of the northwest aspect of site potential area "L" on north side of 124 th A venue showing northwest tributary channel of Zirk Brook .......... 36 Figure 31. View of the northeast aspect of site potential area "L" on the north side of 1241h Avenue showing the northeast channel of Zirk Brook on 1241h Avenue ........................................................................................... 37 Figure 32. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "M" at the intersection of 124th Avenue and 2561h Street ..................................... 38 Figure 33. Oblique aerial image view of site potential area "M" at the intersection of 1241h Avenue and 2561h Street .................................................................. 39 Figure 34. View of the northwest aspect of site potential area "M" at the intersection of2561h Street (lower photo) and 1241h Avenue ................................................... 39 Vll Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 -~ ---.-. ' ' ' -f Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA) CONDUCTED FOR PROPOSED POTENTIAL R-0-W ROUTE OPTIONS RELATED TO EASTWARD EXTENSION OF ABERNETHY WAY FROM 232nd STREET TO 256th STREET IN MAPLE RIDGE, B.C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On September Pt, 2018, Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. conducted an in-field preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) visual inspection as part of an archaeological overview assessment (AOA) for the majority of the proposed ROW routes relating to the eastward extension of Abernethy Way from 232nd Street in the west, to 256111 Street in the east, following many E-W trending existing sections of 124th Avenue in the city of Maple Ridge (Figures 1 to 6). While several sections of route options are being considered in the central sections of the ROW, the approximate length of the proposed new road ROW is about 5.5 km. This inspection was conducted by Antiquus on behalf of McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. who has been contracted by the City of Maple Ridge. Ms. Selena Wilson oversaw this AOA study on behalf of McElhanney. This archaeological overview assessment (AOA) included a background information search, and a PFR visual inspection of the maj01ity of the proposed ROW route options (Figures 3 to 6). The fieldwork component of this AOA was directed by Antiquus senior archaeologist Mike Rousseau, who was assisted by staff members Kirsten Boettger, Lauren Hearty and Geoff Hamel. Katzie First Nation community representative Curtis Chapman, and Kwantlen First Nation representative Jonathan Brignall also participated in the field inspection. The primary objectives of this AOA study were: (1) to consult the BC Archaeology Branch's "Remote Access Archaeological Database" (RAAD) to identify and revisit any previously identified sites, to seek and present general background information for this locality, and provide a summary account of background information on the study area; (2) to identify (locate and map) areas deemed to have medium or high archaeological or heritage site potential within the proposed route option impact zones for future management, and for consideration during selection of the final road ROW routing; (3) to consider the general nature, extent, intensity and duration of proposed future potential land-altering activities relating to the road ROW development project, and assess how they might affect any intact cultural deposits lying within the impact zones; ( 4) to fommlate and present recommendations that will ensure effective management, assessment, protection, and/or mitigation of any significant archaeological deposits within proposed impact zones; and (5) to prepare and submit this AOA report to all stakeholders for future permitting and archaeological resource management purposes. 1.1 Natural Setting The proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension proposed ROW option impact zones lie within the Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone (Ministry of Forests 1992). Overall, the study area experiences a typical range of mild, wet, mid-latitude, coastal climate and an average annual precipitation of between 100 and 250 cm. Mean daily temperatures range approximately between 6. 7 and 17 .6 C (Environment Canada 2008). Dominant flora includes western hemlock, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and Sitka spruce. Major fauna include black bear, black tailed deer, bull trout, rainbow trout and various species of salmon. 1 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 l Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Natural topography is characterized by relatively flat and occasionally undulating glacial ablation terrain that has been capped with Holocene age aeolian sediments and moderately to deeply incised by numerous stream and creek channels. Noteworthy year-round drainages associated with the AOA inspection study areas include two tributary arms of Coho Creek near the west end of the study area that cross 224 th Street (Figures 3 and 8 to 10), prominent Latimer Creek in the central aspect of the study area at 240th Street which is associated with several prnposed ROW route options-(F-igures-4, 5 and 11 to 2-§), and Z.iFk Brook near the-eastern end ef the ROW on 124111 Avenue (Figures 5, 6 and 28 to 31). These aquatic features are directly associated with numerous flat habitable landforms that could have been visited and occupied by people in the pre-contact period (prehistoric) past, and several specific areas with medium or greater pre-contact period site potential were observed and identified during the field inspection relating to this AOA study. Undeveloped areas with natural vegetation contain moderate to thick stands of cedar, maple, alder, fir and other deciduous trees and shrnbs, and dense understory species (see Figures 3 to 6). / I http://atlas.gc.ca Figure 1. General location of the study area in southwestern B.C. Base Map Source: Atlas of Canada 2002. 2 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernelhy Easl Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 6 DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. Figure 2. · Map showing location of proposed Route Options being considered for the Abernethy Way eastern extension from 232"d Street to 256'" Street in Maple Ridge, B.C. See also Figures 3 to 6. The majority of these route ROW options were visually inspected to assess archaeological site potential during the PFR fieldwork component of this AOA. Map adapted from McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. and City of Maple Ridge Key Plan Map Sheet 0-2, March 2018. 3 A11tiquus Archaeological Co11s11lla111s Ltd.. October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 3. Aerial image map showing proposed west end ROW route options and identified areas of medium and high archaeological site potential between 232"d Street and 240'11 Street in Maple Ridge. Adapted from Google Earth imagery. 4 Antiquus Archaeological Consullants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 4. Ae1ial image map showing proposed ROW route options and areas considered to have medium and high archaeological site potential between 2401h Street and 244th Street in west-central section of the route option c01Tidor. Adapted from Google Earth image,y. 5 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes/or Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 5. Aerial image map showing the proposed ROW route on 1241h Avenue, and areas considered to have medium site potential in the east-central route section. Adaptedfi'om Google Earth imagery. 6 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes/or Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 6. Aerial image map showing identified areas considered to have medium site potential in the east route section on 124111 Avenue and 256111 Street (Note that site potential area "L" is also shown on Figure 5). Adapted from Google Earth image,y. 7 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 1.2 Cultural Setting and First Nation Consultation The proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW route options study area lies within the traditional territories of the Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, and St6:16 Nation, who speak dialects of the Halq'emeylem linguistic family. Heritage inspection permits were obtained from the Kwantlen First Nation (Seyem' Qwantlen Business Group Permit No. SQ 2018-88), and from St6:16 Nation's St6:16 Research and Resource Management Centre (St6:16 Heritage Investigation Permit No. 2018-060). A permit was not required from Katzie First Nation. Ms. Ashley Doyle reviewed and issued the permit on behalf of Kwantlen First Nation, and Ms. Cara Brendzy did the same for St6:16 Nation. Electronic and hard (paper) copies of this AOA final report have been submitted to the above First Nation agencies for their review, archives, and future management purposes. We will be available to address any questions or concerns these First Nation agencies may have regarding the content of this report, or recommendations presented. 1.3 Previous Archaeological Investigations The Remote Access Archaeological Database (RAAD) registry maintained by the Archaeology Branch in Victoria indicates there are no previously recorded sites lying within 1.5 km of the proposed ROW route option impact zones. This does not mean that archaeological sites do not exist or are not expected within or near the study area, it is merely a reflection of the fact that this northeastern part of Maple Ridge has not been subjected to any previous intensive in-field archaeological site inventory surveys. 1.4 Local Early Post-Contact Period Settlement The earliest non-First Nation people to settle in the Maple Ridge locality in the mid-l 950s were of Hawaiian decent, and they were referred to as "Kanakas". The Hudson Bay Company's Samuel Robertson from Scotland was reportedly the first Euro-Canadian landowner and settler in the area around 185 8 (http ://mapleridgemuseum.org/ discover-our-stories/ our-neighbourhoods/ albion/sam-robertson-family/), and John Mclver settled in the area around the same time. In September 1874, a group of local landowners and farmers met at Mclver's farm and decided to incorporate as a municipality under the name "Maple Ridge" (www.mapleridge.ca/324/History-Heritage ). Figure 7 shows the locations of these early farming properties and names of the persons and families who purchased and occupied them in the mid-to late1800s and early 1900s. The proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension will pass along and through properties initially owned by the Baillie, Carlson, Cook, Czar, Docksteader, Gustav, Hinch, McKechnie, Smedly, Smith, Trethewey, Wilson, and York families. Structures relating to some of these early Euro-Canadian occupations of the study area may still exist (see Section 4.13), but none were observed in directly within the proposed Abernethy Way ROW route option impact zones. Several small distinct autonomous local communities emerged within the Maple Ridge municipality, with "Yennadon" and "Webster's Corner" being of relevance to this study. Yennadon lies near the west end of the proposed Abernethy Way extension ROW routes, and was so-named in 1911, encompassing localities associated with the Upper and Lower Alouette Rivers. The earliest Euro-Canadian settler was Samuel Edge Jr. in 1876 (www.mapleridge.ca /1632/Yennadon). Webster's Corner near the east end of the proposed ROW was first settled by Euro-Canadian James Murray in 1888, who established a post office there in 1891. In 1905, Finnish families began settling the Webster's Corner locality following the awarding of a large single-bolt contract (producing large thick cedar board/beams that were split into shakes and 8 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 i ' ' ! ----+ i I i Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. shingles elsewhere). Following expiration of the contract, many of these Finnish families and individuals remained in the Yennadon and Webster's Corner localities, and they remain as a significant part of the community today (www.mapleridge.ca/l 642/Websters-Corners ). During the late 1800s and early 1900s the main economic activities in these two communities involved removal of marketable timber and understory to create fields suitable for various kinds of cro2 farming and raising livestock. Over the last 100 years, many cleared sections along and surrounding the proposed ROW options have been used continuously to raise and support various domestic animal species (e.g., cattle, horses, sheep, goats, chickens, etc.), and to grow grass-crops to feed them through the winter. These activities declined markedly after the mid-l 900s, although are still practiced on some properties. Low to medium density road construction, erection of houses and farm structures, and relatively recent construction of several small high density residential subdivisions have all contributed to disturbance of natural deposits in the study areas inspected during this AOA. Despite these past land-altering activities, many sections of the proposed ROW route options pass through moderately to densely treed terrain, and remain as they were during the pre-contact period, especially adjacent to Latimer Creek (Figures 3 and 4). ! i ·--32----® , I i --28-1 , WHETHAM MAPLE RIDGE ------..... --.. _ _..----------•--•-o_"'_'_so_•_ ..... _~m FIRST REGISTERED LOT-HOLDERS Figure 7. Map showing early post-contact period (mid to late 1800s) land holdings by families and individuals within the city of Maple Ridge. Map courtesy of Maple Ridge Museum and Archives. 9 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SCHEDULE The proposed further eastward extension of Abernethy Way from 232°d Street to 256th Street in northeast Maple Ridge will run east-west, providing and improving access to numerous residential and farming properties in the communities of Yennadon in the west, and Webster's Comer in the East (Figures 2 to 6). While the western and eastern aspects of the proposed ROW route corresponds with many existing sections of 124th Avenue, it will also pass through several farm fields and natural forested areas between these sections where previous land-altering disturbance has been moderate to none (Figures 3 and 4 ). Some sections will pass along or through more recent high-density residential subdivisions. The proposed central aspect of the route has several possible routing options that are being proposed and assessed for feasibility (Figures 2 to 6) and they include route options "2" "2A" "2B" "3" "3A" "3B" and "6" A number of ' ' ' ' ' ' . considerations need to be addressed for each of these options before a final route design will be decided and adopted for road construction. The potential for adversely impacting archaeological resources is one of those considerations, and the results of our preliminary field reconnaissance presented in this AOA report (Section 4.0) will be useful for selecting a final ROW route and for providing recommendations for future archaeological investigations. Depending on which road ROW routing option is finally chosen in the central aspect of the proposed study area, the total length of the road construction project will be between 5.5 and 6.0 km. Most of the proposed new road ROW impact zone will be approximately 30 m wide, especially on flat open terrain, and along and within existing high density residential subdivisions, or institutions (i.e., Hacker's Haven golf course and Meadowridge School). In some sections passing through sloped terrain that will require cut-and-fill to create the roadbed, or in locations where large unsafe timber removal may be required, or where materials are being stockpiled, the maximum width of the impact zone may be a few metres more. Impacts to most adjacent prope1iy will be avoided. The proposed routes pass along and through several stream and creek channels (e.g., Coho Creek, Latimer Creek, and Zirk Brook) that have immediately adjacent undisturbed and recently disturbed landforms that may have attracted people in the past, and it is these areas that deserve the most attention from an archaeological perspective. Of primary concern to archaeologists are the uppermost Holocene age (post-glaciation) aeolian (wind-blown) sediments that have accumulated over the last 11,000 years or so. The greatest potential adverse impacts to the upper ground deposits will be caused by heavy equipment activity during timber felling and removal in some forested sections, widening of existing road ROWs, removal of existing houses and structures lying within the ROW, construction of new road sections, excavation of drainage ditches and utility service trenches along the road bed, installation of culverts at stream crossings, and creating new stream channels in some locations. Results of the various pre-construction feasibility studies being commissioned for the proposed ROW options, and detailed engineering assessments and recommendations will be presented to the City of Maple Ridge in December, 2018. Once a final routing is decided, private and public land acquisition within the selected ROW will proceed. Initial land-altering construction activities along some sections of the final route could begin in late 2019, with the majority of the new road construction occurring in 2020. 10 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ' -1-~ ------------Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 3.0 AOA OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The primary objectives of this desktop archaeological overview assessment (AOA) and preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) were to gather background information and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites associated with the proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW route options, and to identify and assess areas considered to have medium or greater archaeological site potentiaLalong the proposed routes (Eigures 2 to 6, 8, 12,__15, l6, 2J_, 22, 26, 28, 29, 32 and 33). This involved searches through existing literary and online resources, consultation with the Maple Ridge Museum and Community Archives, the Archaeology Branch's archaeological site registry (RAAD), consideration of environmental information provided by satellite and topographic imagery, and a one-day preliminary field reconnaissance visual inspection. The remote access archaeological database (RAAD) is a registry managed by the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resources. It is based on collective input from various government agencies, First Nation groups, consulting archaeologists, academic and amateur sources to provide information of previously recorded archaeological sites, and for predicative modeling of archaeological site potential. RAAD was consulted to determine if any previously recorded sites exist along or in proximity (within 1.5 km) to the proposed road ROW route options. No previously recorded archaeological sites exist within 1.5 km of the proposed ROW route options. The preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) for this AOA was conducted in a day, and involved a crew of six persons split into two groups working towards the center of the study area from the west and east ends. These crews focused on identifying any obvious heritage concerns, and areas considered to have medium or high pre-contact period archaeological site potential lying within or beside the proposed road ROW route options. It included inspection of areas that have already been impacted by roads, structures, yards, agriculture, and public facilities (school yard and golf course). In order to ensure ample ground coverage for the proposed ROW options, we made every effort to inspect a 50 m-wide corridor (25 m on each side of proposed center line) along the entire lengths of the various proposed routes. Heritage and archaeological site potential assessments are based on a collective consideration of the nature and location of landforms suitable for human occupation or use, their immediate environmental and geological contexts, vantage over creek gullies, and location of nearby natural resources (see ranking categories below). Our archaeological site potential rating scheme and criteria are swnmarized as follows: Nil/Low archaeological site potential (e.g., areas on extreme slopes, areas within mashes/swamps, physically inaccessible areas, areas within active stream or river channel beds; areas distant from food and natural resources; areas containing exposed "sterile" glacially generated sediments; areas capped with several metres of imported fill, areas stripped of Holocene age topsoil, etc.). These areas were ignored during our inspection, as they do not deserve any future site inventory or management attention. Medium archaeological site potential ( e.g., flat to moderately sloping areas adjacent or near extinct and extant aquatic features such as springs, marshes, ponds, lakes, oceans, streams, creeks and rivers; areas adjacent to observed or suspected natural food, textile and lithic resources; 11 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 = = ~ --------------------. ~ --~-~~~ Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. areas with habitable topographic landforms such as terrace edges and promontories, flat-top ridges, mounds, large depressions and swales, fluvial channel margins and shorelines; areas along known or suspected travel corridors [trails], areas that provide good vantage over an important locality, areas where early historic settlement or activities are known to have transpired, etc.). These areas have been indicated in Figures 3 to 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 32 and 33, and if threatened with any adverse impacts, they deserve and should receive future management attention. High archaeological site potential ( e.g., same considerations listed above but also includes areas where pre-contact period and early post-contact period sites have already been recorded and/or have been observed and confirmed; slightly inclined to flat areas immediately adjacent to major attractive aquatic features where prime habitable landforms exist and local resources are varied and/or abundant [fishing stations, game migration trails]; areas with optimal exposure to the sun; areas where human remains are known to exist or are suspected; areas where early pre-contact period sites are suspected; areas with well-drained silty/sandy sediments and are protected from the elements; natural rock features [large boulders and overhangs] that would have attracted human occupation or use; major trail/travel routes, etc.). These areas have been indicated in Figures 3, 4, 12, 15 to 17, 21 and 22, and if threatened with any adverse impacts they deserve, and should receive, future management attention. The study area experienced Euro-Canadian settlement beginning in the mid-1800s, and our crews were vigilant for any standing or ruined early post-contact period (historic) structures or earthworks, but none were observed within the proposed impact zones associated with the ROW route options. However, we did observe two rather old-looking standing buildings near the west end of the study area near 233th Street that may have local heritage significance and importance (see Section 4.14). The most expected pre-contact period (prehistoric) site types within the study area are buried scatters of stone tools and waste (lithics) and faunal remains that were deposited during the occupation of small field camps and resource extraction and processing locations established directly beside or near important aquatic features. The study area contains many such areas located immediately beside small streams and creeks along the proposed road ROW route options, and these specific locations are shown in Figures 3 to 6. A few small circular and oval depressions were observed at several locations considered to have medium or greater site potential, and some of these may have cultural origins that relate to use as small dwelling foundations, or food processing pits, The information and recommendations presented in this AOA report will be useful for helping to decide which final ROW routing is eventually chosen in the central aspect of the study area, and as a basis for planning and implementing further field investigations required within areas of medium or greater archaeological site potential that are potentially threatened with partial or complete adverse impacts relating to eventual road construction land-altering activities. 12 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ' i Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT RESULTS Our PFR inspection conducted on September 1, 2018, identified 13 specific locations (designated as "A" to "M") associated with streams and creeks that are deemed to have medium or high archaeological site potential for pre-contact period buried "lithic scatters" within or adjacent to the proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW route options (Sections 4.1 to 4.13; Figures 3 to 6). These 13 locations are described below in general terms, their potential impact status with regard to the proposed road construction is assessed and discussed, and future investigation and management recommendations are provided for each site potential location to assist in the eventual formulation and implementation of an effective archaeological site discovery and impact management plan. We succeeded in undertaking a close visual inspection of the majority (90%) of the proposed road ROW route options, the exceptions being a few densely vegetated (impenetrable) short sections near the east-central section of the proposed route/study area. For the greater part, the proposed routes correspond with existing roadways, which allowed easy access and quick effective assessments. Permission to access the route via property associated with "Hacker's Haven" golf course, Meadowridge School, and private residential property was granted by persons we approached during our field inspection. 4.1 Archaeological Site Potential Area "A" Site potential area "A" is located near the west end of the proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW at the intersection of 1241h Avenue and the western tributary of Coho Creek (Figures 3, 8 and 9). The existing road (1241h Street) and adjacent yard development have already impacted this location, but there are small isolated remaining sections of habitable natural landforms on both sides of the road within the bottom of the creek gully, and on the adjacent creek channel bank in four residential yards, that may have retained most of their stratigraphic integrity (Figures 8 and 9). These isolated smaller locations are considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters, as they occupy slightly sloping to flat terrain immediately beside the creek, and are well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci. That this permanent stream is a main tributary of "Coho Creek" suggests the possibility that salmon may have been easily accessible and processed in this immediate locality. It is presumed that both sides of 124111 Street will be impacted during construction of the Abernethy Way eastward extension. Consequently adverse machine impacts are expected to impact and detrimentally affect several specific small areas that could contain archaeological deposits within the existing road ROW and immediately adjacent residential yards. Once the exact maximum impact footprint is identified for this location, the potential impact status can be refined and more accurately predicted. Any of the small relatively intact "natural" areas within area "A" that are considered to have medium or greater site potential that may be threatened with direct adverse impacts should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural materials are buried in these selected specific locations. Consultation with the Archaeology Branch and local First Nation agencies, and ensuing necessary permitting will be required in order to initiate a subsurface testing program that would be part of an intensive "archaeological impact assessment" (AIA) inspection. This inspection would be conducted under a Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) Section 14 Site Inspection Permit issued from the Archaeology Branch. See Section 5 .1.2 for more details. 13 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ---t Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 1:2000 :i: Antiquus Archaeologlcal Consultants Ltd. 2018 Figure 8. Map showing location of archaeological site potential areas "A" and "B" on tributaries of Coho Creek. Adapted from City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 14 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 I - Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 9. General view of Site Potential Area "A" (at IOU, 0530890 E; 5452854 N) (center photo) on 124th Avenue associated with the west tributary channel of Coho Creek near the western end of the proposed Abernethy Way expansion ROW route, looking west toward 232nd Street. This location has several small areas of natural "intact" ground that are considered to have medium potential for pre-contact period lithic scatter sites, since Coho Creek passes through it (from left to right in center photo). 4.2 Archaeological Site Potential Area "B" Site potential area "B" is also located near the west end of the proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW at the intersection of 124111 Avenue and eastern main tributary of Coho Creek (Figures 3, 8 and 10). The existing road (124111 Street) and adjacent yard development have already impacted this location, but there are small isolated remaining sections of habitable natural landforms on both sides of the road immediately beside the creek gully within adjacent residential yards (Figures 8 and 10). These specific slightly disturbed and relatively intact locations are considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters, as they occupy slightly sloping to flat terrain immediately beside the creek, and are well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci. Since it lies on a main tributary of "Coho Creek", salmon may have been easily accessible and processed in this immediate locality. It is presumed that both sides of 124 th Street will be impacted during construction of the Abernethy Way eastward extension. Consequently adverse machine impacts are expected to impact and detrimentally affect the observed specific small areas that could contain archaeological deposits within the existing road ROW, and also in immediately adjacent residential yards. Once the exact maximum impact footprint is identified for this location, the potential impact status can be refined and more accurately predicted. 15 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Any of the small relatively intact "natural" areas within area "B" that are considered to have medium or greater site potential that may be threatened with direct adverse impacts should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural materials are buried in these selected specific locations. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit for a detailed AIA inspection. See Section 5.1.2 for more details. Figure 10. General view of site potential area "B" (at IOU, 053 l 139E; 5452848N) (lower half of photo) on 124th Avenue on the east tributary channel of Coho Creek, looking west. This area is considered to have medium site potential for buried lithic scatters because it occupies flat terrain on both sides of the eastern tributary channel of Coho Creek, and is a good setting for a small field camp. 4.3 Archaeological Site Potential Area "C" Site potential area "C" is located immediately north of "Hacker's Haven" golf course on the south side of Latimer Creek about 300 m west of 2401h Street (Figures 3, 11, 12 and 15). This is a fairly prominent, large, flat, moderately treed terrace beside and overlooking Latimer Creek, and an unnamed tributary lies along its eastern edge. There are no readily obvious past land-altering impacts to this specific area, and most of it is in a natural state. This location is considered to have high archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters since it is beside the creek, it is well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and it may relate to a pedestrian travel corridor (trail). Salmon and/or other species of freshwater fish, various game, and freshwater mussels could have been exploited and processed in this immediate locality. This site potential area lies directly within the location where proposed road ROW Route Options "2A" and "2B" diverge on the south side of Latimer Creek (Figures 3 and 12), and if either of these routes are eventually selected, direct adverse machine impacts will threaten natural Holocene age deposits in this location. It is assumed that extensive land-alteration and infilling of the gully in this general locality will be required to create a crossing of Latimer Creek. Once an exact proposed routing and maximum impact footprint are identified in this locality (should the 16 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 c: r_-:.: c· Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. final ROW pass through it), the potential impact status to this high site potential area can be more accurately assessed. Complete avoidance of this specific locality could perhaps be accomplished by relocation of the road ROW to another feasible location option further to the north, but it should be kept in mind that all habitable landforms immediately adjacent to Latimer Creek will likely have medium or greater archaeological site potential, and any new pro2osed ROW routings in this general locality should be identified and subjected to another visual reconnaissance inspection to assess archaeological site potential. If the final ROW route will pass through site potential area "C", and all or portions of it will be threatened with direct adverse impacts, it is strongly recommended that the proposed impact zone should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural material deposits are buried there. Since this site potential area is fairly large, and anticipated impacts will be intensive and extensive in this locality, a fair number of subsurface tests would be required to adequately investigate the proposed impact zone. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA inspection. See Section 5.1.2 for details. Figure 11. A general view of the northeastern terrace edge (upper left) in the northeastern aspect of site potential area "C" (at IOU, 0532104 E; 5452765 N), on the south side of Latimer Creek (lower right), looking northwest. This area is considered to have high pre-contact period site potential for buried lithic scatters, as it is an ideal setting for a small field camp. 17 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 tJ ' -r ~--' ~ ,_ r.·.· , .. ,_ r ~-' -r·--r·_-r---,--' -' -, .• ' -C ' ~-P.. I·= Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. ~ Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. 2018 Figure 12. Ae1ial map showing location of archaeological site potential areas "C" and "D" on the south side of Latimer Creek. Adapted from City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 18 Antiquus Archaeological Co11s11/ta11ts Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 4.4 Archaeological Site Potential Area "D" Site potential area "D" is located immediately north of "Hacker's Haven" golf course on the south side of Latimer Creek about 375 m west of 2401h Street (Figures 3, 12, 13 and 15). This is a small area occupying relatively flat treed terrain on both sides of a small intermittent stream that flows into Latimer Creek. It lies directly within a proposed ROW route option. There are no readily obvious pastJand::.altering_impacts to this specific area, anclmosLofit ap_p_ears to be_in_a natural state. Fresh water is available in the stream channel during the wetter months of the year. This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters since it is beside a small stream channel, it is well-suited for establishing a small field camp and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and it is relatively close to high site potential area "C" to the immediate east (Figures 12 and 15). Figure 13. General view of site potential area "D" (at IOU, 0532008 E; 5452735 N) on a small tributary stream channel (center photo) located immediately north of "Hacker's Haven" golf course south of Latimer Creek, looking west. Both sides of the stream channel in this location are considered to have medium site potential for buried pre-contact period lithic scatters. Site potential area "D" lies directly within the location where proposed road ROW route options "2A" and "2B" (same shared ROW) pass along the northern boundary of the golf course (Figures 3, 12 and 15). If this proposed ROW route is selected for road construction, it will impose direct adverse machine impacts will threaten the uppermost Holocene age natural deposits in this location. Once an exact proposed routing and maximum impact footprint are identified in this locality (should the final ROW pass through it), its potential impact status can be more accurately assessed. While complete avoidance of this specific location could be accomplished by relocation 19 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. of the road ROW further to the north, it should be kept in mind that new proposed ROW routing in this general locality should be identified and subjected to another visual reconnaissance inspection to assess archaeological site potential. If the final road ROW route will pass through site potential area "D", and it will be threatened with direct adverse impacts, it is strongly recommended that the proposed impact zone should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural material deposits are buried there. This area is not very large, and only a few subsurface tests would be required. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA inspection. See Section 5.1.2 for details. 4.5 Archaeological Site Potential Area "E" Site potential area "E" is located within the northeast aspect of "Hacker's Haven" golf course property on the south side of Latimer Creek about 100 m west of 2401h Street (Figures 3, 14 and 15). This is a small area occupying a flat-top treed promontory flanked on the east and west by two small intermittent steep-sided stream channels that contribute to Latimer Creek. There has been some past land-altering impacts to this specific area, including tree removal and machine levelling, but the upper Holocene age soils appear to still remain in their original context, but may be moderately disturbed. Fresh water is available in the two adjacent stream channels during the wetter months of the year, and it is a short steep walk down to Latimer Creek. This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters as it has ready access to water, it is very well-suited for establishing a small field camp and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and a well-used pedestrian trail may have once passed very close to the south of this location. Figure 14. General view of site potential area "E" (at IOU, 0532141 E; 5452705 N) on a flat-top promontory on the south side of Latimer Creek in the northeast aspect of "Hacker's Haven" Golf Course, looking north. This location has medium archaeological site potential for buried lithic scatters as it overlooks Latimer Creek and is flanked by two tributary stream/spring channels. 20 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Site potential area "E" does not lie directly within the proposed impact zone associated with route option "2A". However, we have included this prominence in this AOA report because it is only about 25 m south of the route option centerline (Figure 15), and we surmised it could be impacted during construction if this route is eventually chosen. Land-altering machine impacts to this location would impose direct adverse threat to the remaining moderately dish1rbed uppermost Holocene-age natural deposits. Since it is very close to the proposed crossing of Latimer Creek, we assumed that creation of the Grossing by infilling of the creek gully will involve a larger than usual impact zone (e.g., bridge construction). This promontory has a potential to be used as fill, or perhaps it could be subjected to some slope modification in order to address land stability concerns. Regardless, it is our opinion complete avoidance of this specific location should be fairly easy to accomplish. Once an exact final routing and maximum impact footprint is identified and adopted, the potential impact status of this specific locus can be more accurately assessed. If the final road ROW route development plans will threaten to detrimentally affect site potential area "E", and the top of this promontory will be disturbed, it is strongly recommended that the proposed impact zone be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural material deposits are buried there. This area is not very large, and only a few subsurface tests would be required. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA. See Section 5 .1.2 for details. 4.6 Archaeological Site Potential Area "F" Site potential area "F" is located north of "Hacker's Haven" golf course on the north side of Latimer Creek and a few metres west of 2401h Street (Figures 3 and 15 to 17). It is fairly large, and occupies the southwestern edge and adjacent top of a fairly extensive, flat, mostly open terrace overlooking Latimer Creek. The majority of this area has been impacted by timber removal, machine levelling, construction of several residential and related structures, yard enhancement, gardening, and driveway construction. Nevertheless, it appears that the original natural Holocene age deposits remain, with some areas that remain relatively intact, and other having only been slightly to moderately disturbed. This location is considered to have high archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters because it is beside the creek, it is very well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and it may relate to a well-used pedestrian travel corridor (trail). Salmon and/or other species of freshwater fish, various game, and freshwater mussels could have been exploited and processed in this location. Site potential area "F" contains proposed road ROW Route Options "2A" (south), "2B" (north) and a small southern edge is associated with option "3B" (Figures 15 and 16). If any of these routes are eventually selected, direct adverse machine impacts will threaten to adversely disturb intact and disturbed natural Holocene age deposits that could contain archaeological cultural materials and features. This is especially true of options "2A and "2B". Moreover, if either of these routes are selected, we suspect that impacts related to creating the crossing of Latimer Creek may be more extensive than elsewhere on the proposed routes. If the final ROW route will pass through this area of site potential, and an exact proposed routing and maximum impact footprint are identified, a potential impact status for this high site potential area can be more accurately assessed. 21 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes/or Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. FbuT4 ~ N ::~ 0 25 50 75 100 m 1:2000 :i; AntiquusArchaeological Consultants ltd. 2018 Figure 15. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential areas "E", "F", "G", "H" and "I'' on the south and north sides of Latimer Creek and west and east sides of 240'h Street. Adapted from City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 22 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Complete avoidance of this high site potential area is recommended from an archaeological perspective, and this would mean adopting either route option "3A", "3B" or "6" as the final route, or perhaps choosing another suitable location for crossing Latimer Creek further to the north. Any alternate proposed routes passing through habitable terraces or promontories adjacent to Latimer Creek will likely be considered to have medium or greater archaeological site potential, especially at confluences with tributary streams. It should be kept in mind that any new proposed ROW routing(s) to the north of this area should be identified and subjected to another visual reconnaissance inspection to assess archaeological site potential. If the final ROW route will pass through high site potential area "F", it is strongly recommended that the impact zone(s) should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any archaeological material deposits are buried there. Since this high site potential area is fairly large, and anticipated impacts could be intensive and extensive in this locality, a large number of subsurface shovel tests will be required to adequately investigate the proposed impact zone ( especially if both proposed routes are examined). This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA inspection. See Section 5 .1.2 for details. Figure 16. Slightly oblique aerial view of site potential area "F" on the west side of 240th Street and north side of Latimer Creek (upper left), looking west. This large area is considered to have high site potential and three proposed route options ("2A", "2B" and "3B") all have potential to impact any archaeological deposits that may lie within this area. 23 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ---------_--c--T": ____ --. --,,-,~-----~ ~~----Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 17. A general view of the terrace top on the north side of Latimer Creek at large site potential area "F", which extends along the southwestern edge of the terrace, looking west towards Latimer Creek gully (behind the house) from 2401h Street. Two proposed route options are proposed for this property. It is considered to have high potential for buried lithic scatters, especially along the terrace edge overlooking the creek. 4. 7 Archaeological Site Potential Area "G" Site potential area "G" is located northeast of "Hacker's Haven" golf course on the immediate west of 2401h Street on the north side of Latimer Creek gully (Figures 4, 15 and 18). This is a small area occupying a residential yard, that has experienced tree removal and machine levelling, yard enhancement, and residence construction, but the upper Holocene-age deposits appear to remain in their approximate original context, and they have been moderately disturbed (Figure 18). It is essentially a southeastern extension of site potential area "F" that lies on the west side of 240111 Street. This area is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters as it has easy access to water (Latimer Creek), it is very well-suited for establishing a small field camp and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and a well-used pedestrian trail may have once passed through this location. Site potential area "G" lies on the east side of route option "3B", which is the existing 2401h Street ROW. Land-altering machine activity in this site potential area would impose further direct adverse impacts to moderately disturbed uppermost Holocene-age natural deposits. If this route option is selected for construction, once an exact final routing and maximum impact footprint is identified and adopted, the potential impact status of this specific locus can be more accurately assessed. If the final road ROW route development plans will threaten to detrimentally affect site potential area "G", it is strongly recommended that the proposed impact zone be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural material deposits are buried there. This area is not very large, and only a few subsurface tests would be required. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA. See Section 5.1.2 for details. 24 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ~=~-----Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 18. A general view of small site potential area "G" (at 10 U, 532255 E; 5452665 N) within the residential yard on the east side of 2401h Street and north side of Latimer Creek, looking northeast. This location is considered to have medium potential for buried lithic scatters, as it is a flat area overlooking Latimer Creek. 4.8 Archaeological Site Potential Area "H" Site potential area "H" is located east of "Hacker's Haven" golf course on both the west and east sides of 2401h Street, and on the south side of Latimer Creek gully (Figures 4, 15 and 19). This is a small area whose western aspect lies within the golf course, and eastern aspect occupies the western edge of a residential yard. Both sides of the road have experienced tree removal and machine levelling, road and driveway construction, and yard enhancement. Upper Holocene-age deposits appear to remain in their approximate original context, but they have been slightly to moderately disturbed. This area is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters as there is easy access to water (Latimer Creek), it is very well-suited for establishing a small field camp and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and a well-used pedestrian trail may have once passed through this location. 25 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ! t Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 19. A view of site potential area "H" (at 10 U 532248 E; 5452596 N) on the east (right) and west (upper left) side of 240111 Street and south side of Latimer Creek, looking northwest. This area is considered to have medium site potential for buried lithic/bone scatters. Site potential area "H" is bisected by route option "3B", which is the existing 240111 Street ROW (Figures 15 and 19). Any land-altering machine impacts to this site potential area would impose further direct adverse damage to the uppermost Holocene-age natural deposits. If the final road ROW route development plans will threaten to detrimentally affect site potential area "H", it is strongly recommended that the proposed impact zones on both sides of 240'11 Street be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural material deposits are buried there. This area is not very large, and only a few subsurface tests would be required. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA. See Section 5.1.2 for details. 4.9 Archaeological Site Potential Area "I" Site potential area "I" is located within the west-central aspect of property owned by Meadowridge School on the east side of240111 Street and immediately south of Latimer Creek gully (Figures 4, 15 and 20). This is a small flat-topped terrace area that is presently being used as a garden. Past tree removal, machine levelling, driveway construction, and yard enhancement have all occurred there. Upper Holocene age deposits appear to remain in their approximate original context, but have been slightly to moderately disturbed. This area is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters as there is easy access to water (Latimer Creek), it is very well-suited for establishing a small field camp and/or resource extraction and processing foci, and a well-used pedestrian trail may have once passed through or near this location. 26 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 20. A view of the majority of site potential area "I'' (at lOU, 0532335 E; 5452593 N) about 100 m east of 2401h Street on the south side of Latimer Creek (left), looking northeast. This area is considered to have medium site potential for buried lithic scatters. Site potential area "I" lies is in direct potential conflict with route options "3A" and "6" (shared ROW route in this location), and the proposed center line passes directly through the middle of it (Figures 15 and 20). Any land-altering machine impacts to this site potential area would impose further direct adverse damage and disturbance to the uppermost Holocene age natural deposits. If the final road ROW route development plans threaten to detrimentally affect site potential area "I", it is strongly recommended that this locus be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program to determine whether or not any cultural material deposits are buried there. A subsurface testing program involving a moderate number of tests would be required for this area under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AJA. See Section 5 .1.2 for details. 27 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. 4.10 Archaeological Site Potential Area "J" Site potential area "J" is located east of the northeastern comer of Meadowridge School property on the north and south sides of Latimer Creek between 2401h Street in the west, and 244th Street in the east (Figures 4 and 21 to 25). It is a very large area, and it is characterized by moderate to dense forests on the north side of Latimer Creek, with mixed forest and open cleared fields on the south side of the creek. Terrain varies from slightly hummocky to relatively flat throughout most of this area, and the creek is readily accessed because the channel has not been deeply incised as it has been in the canyon-like creek gully to the immediate west. The majority of the southern half of this site potential area has been impacted by timber removal, machine levelling, construction of several residential and related structures, small-scale agriculture and grass crop cultivation, gardening, yard enhancement, and driveway construction. Most of the northern half of this site potential area remains in its natural forested state, with the eastern end at 244th Street having residential development with similar prior impacts to those listed above. During our visual reconnaissance we considered a fairly wide inspection corridor for this section, since it was reasoned that the exact proposed road ROWs adjacent to the creek (route options "3A" and "6") could easily be relocated during future planning ( e.g., route option "6" being moved to the immediate north side of Latimer Creek). We wanted to ensure that this potential alternative routing would be covered. Figure 21. An oblique aerial view of site potential area "J" along both (nmih and south) sides of Latimer Creek, looking west. This is the largest area of high archaeological site potential identified during the AOA field inspection. 28 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes/or Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 1:2000 :;I: Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. 2018 Figure 22. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "J" on the south and north sides of Latimer Creek between 2401h Street and 244th Street. This is the largest area of site potential identified during this AOA study, and the chance of potential conflict(s) with sites is considered to be high. Adapted fi'om City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 29 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 I I I l r Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. This area is considered to have high archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters. This is because Latimer Creek runs through its entire length and it is easily accessed, it has numerous closely-spaced locations within it that are well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci, it surely had a well-used pedestrian travel corridor (trail) on one or both sides of the creek, there is an abundance of natural plant species, and salmon and/or other species of freshwater fish, various game, an-d freshwatennussels could have been exploited and processed-in-numerous locations along both sides of Latimer Creek. We also observed several randomly-spaced small circular and oval depressions averaging about 5 min diameter by 0.5 to 1.0 m deep in several locations in the western aspect of this site potential area that may have a cultural origin ( e.g., small dwellings or food processing pits), but they are also consistent with similar features created by large rotted-out tree stumps. Site potential area "J" contains proposed road ROW route options "3A" and "6", with option "6" occupying most of it and posing the greatest threat of potential impacts to any archaeological sites that may be present along the creek channel banks (Figures 21 and 22). If either of these routes are eventually selected for road construction, direct machine impacts may threaten to adversely disturb intact and disturbed natural Holocene age deposits that could contain archaeological cultural materials and features. This possibility of impacts is much greater along route option "6", which closely parallels the creek for several hundred metres. If this latter routing option is chosen, a detailed plan showing proposed routing and maximum impact footprint should be generated to allow the detailed impact status for this high site potential area to be more accurately assessed. Figure 23. General view of the west aspect of site potential area "J" immediately east of the northeast comer of the school property on the north side of Latimer Creek (upper right), looking east. This flat area is considered to have high site potential for buried lithic scatters. Several circular depressions that may have cultural origins were also observed in this locality. 30 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 24. Another general view of the west aspect of site potential area "J" (at 1 OU, 0532727 E; 5452659 N) about 75 m east of the northeast comer of the school property on the north side of Latimer Creek (upper left), looking southwest. This relatively flat area is considered to have high site potential for buried lithic scatters, as it is well-suited for habitation and has direct creek access. If the final ROW route will pass through the western end or along the entirety of high site potential area "J", it is strongly recommended that the impact zone should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program prior to any land-alteration to determine whether or not any archaeological material deposits are buried along Latimer Creek. Since this high site potential area is very large, it is likely that a substantial number of subsurface shovel tests will be required to adequately investigate the proposed impact zone. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit during an AIA inspection. See Section 5.1.2 for details. Since currently proposed route option "6" passes through the entire length of this very large high archaeological site potential area, it would be very costly to determine the presence, nature and extent of any archaeological sites potentially threatened by this route. Since route option "3A" only passes through the western end of site potential area "J" and most of it is far-removed from Latimer Creek, significantly less subsurface testing would be required, and thus it is a better choice from an archaeological perspective. If the section of ROW route option "6" passing through site potential area "J" was relocated more than 100 m south of Latimer Creek, the probability of impacting archaeological deposits would be significantly reduced. However, note that any proposed alternate routing of the ROW through this gently sloping locality could possibly conflict with small peripheral lithic scatters relating to larger sites existing by the creek, and any new ROW location options should be properly assessed for site potential. 31 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 25. View of high site potential locus in the northeastern aspect of site potential area "J" (at 1 OU, 053304 7 E; 5452686 N) on the north side of Latimer Creek, looking southwest. This location does not conflict with the currently proposed impact zone associated with route option "6", but it is nearby. 4.11 Archaeological Site Potential Area "K" . Site potential area "K" is located along the east-central aspect of the study area at the western end of an existing section of 1241h Avenue between 2481h Street and 252°d Street (Figures 5, 26 and 27). This area is associated with a small intermittent stream channel that flows a few metres west of the west end of 124th Avenue. It is moderately forested, and the majority appears to still be in a natural state. Habitable flat areas exist on both sides of the stream channel (Figure 27). This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters, as it occupies relatively flat well-drained terrain immediately beside the stream channel, and it is well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci. It is presumed that future construction of the proposed road ROW in this location will align with existing 124111 Street, thus the central aspect of site potential area "K" will be directly and adversely impacted. Complete avoidance of this location will not be practical from an engineering perspective. We recommend that site potential area "K" should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program prior to any land-alteration to determine whether or not any cultural materials are buried in this specific location. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit for a detailed AIA inspection. Since this area is relatively small, a low number of shovel tests would be sufficient to determine if any archaeological concerns lie there. See Section 5.1.2 for more details. 32 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. -Area of Archaeological --Proposed Route ROW Site Potential 0 25 50 75 100 m 1:2000 :i:: Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. 2018 Figure 26. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "K" at the western end of a section of 124t1, A venue associated with a small unnamed stream. Adapted fi·om City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 33 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ,. 1---c· ;_-t f-- Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 27. View of the central aspect of site potential area "K" (at IOU, 0534279 E; 5452896 N) at the west end of 124th Avenue, looking southwest. This area is associated with a small unnamed stream (lower half of photo) and relatively flat areas on both sides of the stream, and it is considered to have medium site potential for small buried lithic scatters. 4.12 Archaeological Site Potential Area "L" (Zirk Brook) Site potential area "L" is located along the eastern aspect of the study area on an existing section of 124th Avenue about 150 m east of 252nd Street and it is associated with the confluence of two south-flowing tributary channels of Zirk Brook (Figures 5, 6, and 28 to 31 ). This area has been subjected to previous road constrnction, and disturbances related to residential development and small-scale farming. Some small loci immediately beside the stream channel appear to still be in a natural undisturbed state, and they are habitable (Figures 29 to 31 ). This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters, as it occupies relatively flat well-drained terrain immediately beside the stream channels, and it is very well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci. A pedestrian trail may have passed through this area in pre-contact period times. Complete avoidance of this specific location will not be practical from an engineering perspective. It is presumed that future construction of the proposed road ROW in this location will involve widening that will impact both sides of 124 th Street, thus the portions of site potential area "L" that lie immediately beside the existing roadway will be directly and adversely impacted (see Figures 30 and 31 ). There are a few small loci immediately beside the existing road that should be shovel tested should they be threatened with direct impacts. Consideration of the final road constrnction plans would allow a more accurate assessment of impact potential to these areas, and help to identify and select specific locations that may require subsurface shovel testing. 34 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Roules for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. __:] Area of Archaeological --Proposed Route ROW Site Potential 0 25 50 75 100m 1:2000 :I;-Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. 2018 Figure 28. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "L" at Zirk Brook on 124th A venue. Adapted ft·om City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 35 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 L l Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. ?:/ Figure 29. Oblique aerial image of site potential area "L" on 124th Avenue, looking northeast. This locality contains several habitable flat landforms adjacent to the confluence of two tributaries of Zirk Brook (left half of photo). Figure 30. View of the northwest aspect of site potential area "L" ( at IOU, 0534840 E; 5452904 N) on north side of 124th Avenue showing the northwest tributary channel of Zirk Brook (right), looking northwest from 124th Avenue. The eastern edge of the fenced yard in the upper half of the photo is considered to have medium potential for buried lithic scatters. 36 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 1 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 31. View of the northeast aspect of site potential area "L" on the north side of 124111 Avenue showing the northeast channel of Zirk Brook (upper left), looking east along 124111 Avenue. The area in the upper left and center of the photo is considered to have medium site potential for lithic scatters. We recommend that once exact impact details are known for 124t1, Avenue within site potential area "L ", selected loci should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program within the proposed ROW impact zone prior to any land-alteration to determine whether or not any cultural materials are buried there. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit for a detailed AIA inspection. See Section 5.1.2 for more details. Since this impact zone is relatively small, and only a few selected areas within the proposed ROW may require subsurface testing, a relatively low number of shovel tests should be sufficient to determine if any archaeological concerns lie there. 4.13 Archaeological Site Potential Area "M" Site potential area "M" is located near the eastern aspect of the study area at the intersection of 124111 Avenue and 256nd Street, and it is directly associated with a permanent unnamed stream channel and flat terrain on-the west side of the channel (Figures 6 and 32 to 34). The existing roadway on 2561h Street and immediately adjacent sections ofresidential yards have been subjected to previous road construction, occasional disturbances related to residential development and yard enhancement, and activities related to small-scale farming. Construction of 256111 Street has imposed the greatest damage to natural deposits in this location, but there are still a few small relatively intact places at this intersection that could be subjected to shovel testing. This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters, as it occupies relatively flat well-drained terrain immediately beside the stream channel, and it is well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci. A pedestrian trail may have passed through this area in pre-contact period times. 37 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 I - Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abemethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. c::.i Area of Archaeological --Proposed Route ROW Site Potential 0 25 50 75 100 m 1:2000 :i; Antiquus Arch~eological Consultants Ltd. 2018 Figure 32. Aerial map showing location of archaeological site potential area "M" at the intersection of 1241h A venue and 2561h Street. Adapted from City of Maple Ridge's "Ridgeview" aerial imagery archives. 38 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Figure 33. Oblique aerial image view of site potential area "M" at the intersection of 124 th A venue and 256th Street, looking west. It lies immediately west of a small stream channel, and is considered to have medium site potential for buried lithic scatters. Figure 34. View of the northwest aspect of site potential area "M" (at 1 OU, 0535508E; 5452879 N) at the intersection of 2561h Street (lower photo) and 1241h Avenue, looking west. The existing road ROW and eastern edge of the residential yard (upper half of photo) lie immediately west of a small stream, and this area is considered to have medium site potential for buried lithic scatters. 39 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 ' -' ' 1--:...--. 1..---. Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. Complete avoidance of site potential area "M" may not be practical from an engineering perspective, as it is most logical and practical to maintain the new Abernethy Way ROW so that it aligns with existing sections of 124°1 Avenue. It is presumed that future construction at this intersection will involve an impact for the new ROW as well as widening that will impact both sides of 2561h Street (see Figures 32 to 34). There are a few small loci immediately beside the existing road and adjacent to the road in residential yards that should be shovel tested if they are threatened with dii:ect impacts.-Consideration of the-final road and intersection construction plans would allow a more accurate assessment of impact potential to these areas, and help to identify specific locations that may require subsurface shovel testing. We recommend that once exact impact details are known for the intersection at 1241" Avenue and 2561" Street within site potential area "M", selected loci should be subjected to an appropriate subsurface shovel testing program within the proposed ROW impact zone prior to any land-alteration to determine whether or not any cultural materials are buried there. This subsurface testing would be conducted under a HCA Section 14 permit for a detailed AIA inspection. See Section 5.1.2 for more details. Since this site potential area is relatively small, and only a few selected areas within the proposed ROW may require subsurface testing, a relatively low number of shovel tests should be sufficient to determine if any archaeological concerns lie there. 4.14 Possible Early Post-Contact Period (Historic) Residential Structures During our visual inspection of the west-central aspect of the proposed ROW route option "2A/2B" at the intersection of 123rd Avenue and 23th Street we glimpsed two older structures about 50 to 75 m south of 123rd Avenue in the back yard of a residence (Figures 3 and 12). While these structures, which appear to be a house and barn, are not within the proposed new road ROW impact zone they may be of potential local historic interest. Admittedly, we did not get a close look at them, but from a distance they had general structural features that suggest they might date to the early 1900s. Consultation of the early first lot-holder map for the late 1800s and early 1900s (Figure 7) suggests that this property was previously owned by F. Czar "et al." (family?), and the Baillie family. It is possible that these strnctures could relate to either of these early settler families, or perhaps another more recent occupation dating to the mid-1900s. Since there is no potential conflict between these possible early fanning structures and the proposed new road ROW impact zone, no further management actions or recommendations are necessary. Nevertheless, since the structures are near the proposed ROW, the current occupants of the property may be able to provide some general oral information about the age of the buildings and the people who constructed and used them. If they predate 1950, a brief accounting of their age and purpose, and photographs of the structures, may be considered prudent and included in a subsequent AIA report. 40 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. 5.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS AND COMMENTS Antiquus' 2018 AOA field inspection identified 13 specific locations ("A" to "M") considered to have either medium or high archaeological site potential that lie within and/or immediately adjacent to the cunently proposed ROW route options related to the eastward extension of Abernethy Way between 232nd Street and 256th Street in Maple Ridge (Sections 2.0 and 4.0; Figures 2 to (i). The remaining intervening sections of proposed road construction impact zone route options are deemed to lie within areas considered to have low archaeological site potential due to the lack of associated aquatic features and topographic landforms conducive to human occupation and use. In our opinion, these latter low site potential areas do not deserve any additional pre-development archaeological resource management attention. This section of the AOA report presents several future management recommendation options for medium and high archaeological site potential areas "A" to "M". Comments, suggestions, potential impact status, and recommendations presented for each site potential area in Section 4.0 should be considered along with comments and recommendations provided below. This will ensure proper identification, assessment and management of any buried archaeological deposits that may be threatened with adverse impacts relating to road construction activities. 5.1 Future Management Considerations and Options for Site Potential Areas "A" to "M" Archaeological site potential areas "A" to "M" have all been assessed as having either medium or high archaeological site potential for pre-contact period lithic/faunal scatters. Most of these are in potential direct conflict with the currently proposed ROW option routes (Sections 2.0 and 4.0; Figures 3 to 6). Future land-altering machine activities related to tree removal and road bed excavation and construction could pose a threat of direct adverse impacts to any buried cultural deposits that may be located within these specific areas. The general management options presented below are aimed at eliminating or mitigating identified potential adverse impact conflicts. 5.1.1 Option 1: Complete Avoidance of Areas with Medium or Greater Site Potential The most preferred management option for conflicts identified between a proposed impact zone and an area of identified archaeological potential is complete avoidance. This option is the simplest and least costly management choice from an archaeological management perspective, and it would ensure continued protection and integrity of any buried cultural deposits. However, complete relocation of the proposed route to avoid these 13 site potential areas is simply not practical or feasible in some cases, especially along existing sections of 124th Avenue (i.e., site potential areas "A", "B", "K", "L" and "M"). Sections of these latter areas lying within the proposed new road ROW that cannot be avoided, or are being considered as a possible final route option, should be subjected to some subsurface testing during an AIA inspection (Option 2 below). The central aspect of the ROW corridor study area has several proposed route options that are currently being considered for the eventual final location (Figures 2 to 4). Route options located along or near Latimer Creek are in potential conflict with archaeological site potential areas "C" to "J" (Figures 3, 4, 12, 15, 21 and 22). High site potential areas "C", "F" and "J" are the largest, and potentially the most problematic and expensive from archaeological site identification and management perspectives. If possible, these three high site potential areas should be completely avoided to reduce costs associated with intensive subsurface testing to 41 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. determine whether or not any sites exist within them during and AJA (see below), and to avoid the possibility of needing to engage in expensive detailed archaeological hand-excavations to mitigate direct adverse impact conflict situations prior to any land-altering construction activities. When considering and assessing each of the road ROW route options vis-a-vis potential conflicts with archaeological sites, proposed route options "3A" and "3B" would require the least amount of further site discovery and attention during an AJA (and any future follow-up management) compared-to other proposed-,.outes. It is important to keep in mind that some of these medium and high site potential areas may actually not contain any buried archaeological deposits, but it remains that actual presence or absence of archaeological sites can only be properly determined by conducting a systematic and judgmental subsurface shovel testing program during an archaeological impact assessment (AJA) as outlined in Option 2 below. 5.1.2 Option 2: Conducting an Archaeological Impact Assessment for Areas of Medium or Greater Site Potential Conflicting With the Final Road ROW Impact Zone When a final road ROW route is determined, portions of the identified site potential areas that lie within the proposed final road construction impact zone should be subjected to further field investigations to determine whether or not any buried archaeological deposits are present. It is our opinion that an "archaeological impact assessment" (AJA) study involving systematic and judgemental shovel testing programs should be conducted in order to identify and adequately assess any buried archaeological concerns lying within the proposed impact zones at threatened site potential areas prior to initiation of any land-altering construction activities. An AIA inspection will identify and determine the nature, spatial extent and overall significance ranking of any archaeological deposits in direct conflict with the proposed road ROW impact zones, and will also provide data necessary to develop an appropriate management plan for avoiding and/or mitigating conflicts. Keep in mind that the AIA shovel testing program may yield negative results in most or all of the 13 locations that we have identified as having medium or greater site potential, thus intentional avoidance by relocation and/or the need for any additional mitigation measures could be negated, or significantly minimized. The size and scope of an AIA inspection to be conducted for the final road ROW route will depend on which route option is eventually adopted. An AJA study must be carried out under a "Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) Section 14 Heritage Inspection Permit" that is applied for by the archaeological consultant on behalf of the proponent, and obtained from the Archaeology Branch in Victoria. This detailed pennit application is prepared by the consulting archaeologist with assistance from the proponent, and the review process includes a 30-day First Nation review period. Time required for the Archaeology Branch to review and issue an AIA permit can vary, but the current standard issuing time is about 90 days. Relevant First Nation permits are also required, and they are usually issued within two or three weeks following application submission. 5.2 Concluding Remarks The results and recommendations presented in this AOA report are those of Antiquus and we alone are responsible for the content of this report and any errors and/or shortcomings. It should also be noted that some of the findings and recommendations may, or may not, be supported by the Archaeology Branch in Victoria or local First Nations communities and governing agencies involved. Lastly, this AOA report was prepared without prejudice to Aboriginal rights and title. 42 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., October, 2018 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed ROW Routes for Abernethy East Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Archaeology Branch, 1998 British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines. Archaeology Branch, Victoria, B.C. Environment Canada 2008 Natural Weather Data Information. weather.gc.ca Ministry of Forests 1992 Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia. 43 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd, October, 2018 ' ~ I ADDENDUM FOR ADDITIONAL ROUTES FOR AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA) CONDUCTED FOR PROPOSED POTENTIAL R-0-W ROUTE OPTIONS RELATED TO EASTWARD EXTENSION OF ABERNETHY WAY FROM 232ND STREET TO 256TH STREET IN MAPLE RIDGE, B.C. A NON-PERMIT REPORT Kirsten Boettger (MSc.) Lauren Hearty (BA) Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Maple Ridge, B.C. April 18, 2019 ADDENDUM FOR ADDITIONAL ROUTES FOR AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA) CONDUCTED FOR PROPOSED POTENTIAL R-0-W ROUTE OPTIONS RELATED TO EASTWARD EXTENSION OF ABERNETHY WAY FROM 232ND STREET TO 256™ STREET IN MAPLE RIDGE, B.C. A NON-PERMIT REPORT Prepared for: Ms. Selena Wilson Division Manager, Infrastructure McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. Suite 2300 Central City Tower, 13450-102 Avenue, Surrey B.C. V3T 5X3 Prepared by: Kirsten Boettger (MSc.) Lauren Hearty (BA) Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd., 23021 -132 Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R OAS; Email: antiquus@shaw.ca April 18, 2019 Grant of License I, 1lfike Rousseau, confirm that I am the copyright owner (or a copyright ow11er) of this 11011-permit report, and for good anti valuable consideration l irrevocably grant a 11011-exclusive lice11se to the Province of British Columhia,fm· a term equal to the lffe of the copyright commencing 011 the date of execution below, to make copies of the reports, including all appendices and photos, and to provide such copies to anyone, at the discretio11 t~f the Province, either at no charge or at the cost incurred by the Province in making a11d distributing the copies. All parties, except the party.for whom the report was prepared, acknowledge that any use or interpretation of this report is at the sole risk and liability of the subsequent user(s). Executed this 301h day of December, 2018, by Mike K. Rousseau Signature of Copyright Owner~~ Affiliation: Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. '. f. ADDENDUM FOR ADDITIONAL ROUTES FOR AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT (AOA) CONDUCTED FOR PROPOSED POTENTIAL R-0-W ROUTE OPTIONS RELATED TO EASTWARD EXTENSION OF ABERNETHY WAY FROM 232ND STREET TO 256TH STREET IN MAPLE RIDGE, B.C. 1.0 INDRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On April 171h, 2019 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants conducted an in-field preliminary field reconnaissance (PPR) visual inspection as part of an archaeological overview assessment (AOA) for two additional ROW routes relating to the eastward extension of Abernethy Way from 2401h Street to 256th Street. Antiquus previously conducted an AOA for 5 ROW routes proposed for the Abernethy Way extension project (232nd Street to 2561h Street) on behalf of McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. who has been contracted by the City of Maple Ridge. Ms. Selena Wilson oversaw this AOA study on behalf of McElhanney. This archaeological overview assessment (AOA) included a background information search, and a PPR visual inspection of the proposed ROW route options (Figure 1 ). The fieldwork component of this AOA was directed by Antiquus senior archaeologist Mike Rousseau, who was assisted by staff members Kirsten Boettger and Lauren Hearty. Dale Wadsworth from Seyem Qwantlen and Shane Leboeuf from Katzie First Nation This report is to be considered as an addendum to the AOA report 'An Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) Conducted for Proposed Potential R-0-W Route Options Related to Eastward Extension of Abernethy Way From 232nd Street to 2561h Street in Maple Ridge, B.C.' due to the addition of two new proposed routes. The primary objectives of this AOA study were: (1) to consult the BC Archaeology Branch's "Remote Access Archaeological Database" (RAAD) to identify and revisit any previously identified sites, to seek and present general background information for this locality, and provide a summary account of background information on the study area; (2) to identify (locate and map) areas deemed to have medium or high archaeological or heritage site potential within the proposed route option impact zones for future management, and for consideration during selection of the final road ROW routing; (3) to consider the general nature, extent, intensity and duration of proposed future potential land-altering activities relating to the road ROW development project, and assess how they might affect any intact cultural deposits lying within the impact zones; (4) to formulate and present recommendations that will ensure effective management, assessment, protection, and/or mitigation of any significant archaeological deposits within proposed impact zones; and (5) to prepare and submit this AOA report to all stakeholders for future permitting and archaeological resource management purposes. ,. ' ' ,. ' i. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 1.2 Cultural Setting and First Nation Consultation The proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW route options study area lies within the traditional territories of the Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, and St6:16 Nation, who speak dialects of the Halq'emeylem linguistic family. Heritage inspection permits were obtained from the Kwantlen First Nation {Seyem' Qwantlen Business Graue Permit No. SQ 2019-69), and from St6:l6 Nation's St6:l6 Research and Resource Management Centre (St6:16 Heritage Investigation Permit No. 2019-067). Ms. Ashley Doyle reviewed and issued the permit on behalf of Kwantlen First Nation, and Ms. Cara Brendzy did the same for St6:16 Nation. Electronic and hard (paper) copies of this AOA final report have been submitted to the above First Nation agencies for their review, archives, and future management purposes. We will be available to address any questions or concerns these First Nation agencies may have regarding the content of this report, or recommendations presented. 1.3 Previous Archaeological Investigations The Remote Access Archaeological Database (RAAD) registry maintained by the Archaeology Branch in Victoria indicates there are no previously recorded sites lying within 1.5 km of the proposed ROW route option impact zones. This does not mean that archaeological sites do not exist or are not expected within or near the study area, it is merely a reflection of the fact that this northeastern part of Maple Ridge has not been subjected to any previous intensive in-field archaeological site inventory surveys. 2 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. I I Adde11dumfor Additio11a/ Routes for Abemethy Way Exte11sion, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 1. Map showing the location of the two new additional routes from 240'" Street to 256'" Street and 248'" Street to 130'" Ave in Maple Ridge, B.C. The route options were visually inspected to assess archaeological site potential during the PFR fieldwork component of this AOA. Map, Google Satellite Map, 2019. 3 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. c;J1·~---1 . l D Medium Archaeological Site Potential Proposed Abernethy Way Impact Zone 1:2000 ANTIQUUS Archaoological Consultants Ltd. Figure 2. Aerial image showing the proposed route ROW 'Option 7' and identified areas of medium archaeological site potential. Ridgeview Maps, 2019. 4 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants ltd. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B. C. D Medium Archaeological Site Potential Proposed Abernethy Way Impact Zone ANTIQUUS Archaeologic.il Consultants Ltd. Figure 3. Aerial image showing the proposed route ROW 'Option 2C'and identified medium archaeological site potential. Ridgeview Maps, 2019. 5 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. t: ! I ,-' -1 I, r -' ' ' r-.:-' Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT RESULTS The PFR inspection conducted on April 17, 2019, identified 2 specific locations ( designated as "N" and "O"; previous locations were designated "A" through "M" ) associated with streams and creeks that are deemed to have medium or high archaeological site potential for pre-contact period buried "lithic scatters" within or adjacent to the proposed Abernethy Way eastward extension ROW route. These 2 locations are described below in general terms, their potential impact status with regard to the proposed road construction is assessed and discussed, and future investigation and management recommendations are provided for each site potential location to assist in the eventual formulation and implementation of an effective archaeological site discovery and impact management plan. We succeeded in undertaking a close visual inspection of the proposed road ROW route options. The proposed routes generally correspond with existing roadways, which allowed easy access and quick effective assessments. 2.1 Area of Archaeological Site Potential "N" Figure 4. View of Zirk Brook from the bridge crossing looking southwest. The areas adjacent to the brook are flat and well drained and relatively undisturbed from the previous bridge development. 6 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. ' ' ,-,-' ' ' ' ~ -+ t ; r- Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. Figure 5. Another view of Zirk Brook looking south, flat areas can be observed in close proximity to bridge. Areas immediately adjacent to the bridge should be tested if Option 7 is chosen. Site potential area "N' is located approximately 300 m west of the intersection of Dewdney Truck Road and 256th Street overlooking the bridge crossing of Zirk Brook. The existing road (Dewdney Truck Road), bridge crossing and adjacent residential developments have already subjected to severe disturbances due to the urbanization of the area. The Dewdney Truck Road bridge crossing would have required the deposition of fill to narrow the channel to allow for the construction of the bridge. Despite the fill being deposited on the banks of Zirk Brook there are still low-laying flat areas immediately adjacent to the Brook on the north and south sides of the bridge. Some small flat loci immediately beside the brook appear to still be in a natural undisturbed state. This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters, as it occupies relatively flat well-drained terrain immediately side the brook channel. Specific development recommendations for this AOP can be found in Section 3.1 7 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 2.2 Area of Archaeological Site Potential "0" Figure 6. View looking south from 130111 Ave looking onto the unnamed creek. A flat area can be observed in the background which would be a loci for shovel testing should Option 2C be chosen as the final route. Site potential area "O" is located approximately 100 m west of the intersection of 256111 Street and 1301" A venue. Area "O" is located on 1301" Ave crossing an unnamed creek. On both north and south side of 1301h Ave there are small flat loci immediately beside the creek which appear to be undisturbed and well-drained (Figure 3). This location is considered to have medium archaeological site potential for the presence of pre-contact period buried lithic and bone scatters. It occupies relatively flat well-drained terrain immediately beside the stream channel, and it is well-suited for establishing field camps and/or resource extraction and processing foci. Specific development recommendations for this AOP can be found in Section 3.1. 8 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. · 3.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS AND COMMENTS Antiquus' 2019 AOA field inspection identified 2 specific locations ("N" to "O") considered to have medium archaeological site potential that lie within and/or immediately adjacent to the currently proposed ROW route options related to the eastward extension of Abernethy Way between 240111 Street and 256111 Street in Maple Ridge. The remaining intervening sections of proposed roa construcfion impact zone route opfions areaeemed 1olie within areas considered to have low archaeological site potential due to the lack of associated aquatic features and topographic landforms conducive to human occupation and use. In our opinion, these latter low site potential areas do not deserve any additional pre-development archaeological resource management attention. 3.1 Future Management Considerations and Options for Site Potential Areas "N" to "0" Archaeological site potential areas "N" to "O" have all been assessed as having either medium or high archaeological site potential for pre-contact period lithic/faunal scatters. Most of these are in potential direct conflict with the currently proposed ROW option routes. Future land-altering machine activities related to tree removal and road bed excavation and construction could pose a threat of direct adverse impacts to any buried cultural deposits that may be located within these specific areas. The general management options presented below are aimed at eliminating or mitigating identified potential adverse impact conflicts. 3.1.1 Option 1: Complete Avoidance of Areas with Medium or Greater Site Potential The most preferred management option for conflicts identified between a proposed impact zone and an area of identified archaeological potential is complete avoidance. This option is the simplest and least costly management choice from an archaeological management perspective, and it would ensure continued protection and integrity of any buried cultural deposits. However, complete relocation of the proposed route to avoid these 2 site potential areas is simply not practical or feasible in some cases, especially along existing sections of Dewdney Truck Road. Sections within the proposed new road ROW that cannot be avoided, or are being considered as a possible final route option, should be subjected to some subsurface testing during an AIA inspection (Option 2 below). It is important to keep in mind that these medium site potential areas may actually not contain any buried archaeological deposits, but it remains that actual presence or absence of archaeological sites can only be properly determined by conducting a systematic and judgmental subsurface shovel testing program during an archaeological impact assessment (AJA) as outlined in Option 2 below. 9 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, MapleRidge, B.C. 3.1.2 Option 2: Conducting an Archaeological Impact Assessment for Areas of Medium or Greater Site Potential Conflicting With the Final Road ROW Impact Zone When a final road ROW route is determined, portions of the identified site potential areas that lie within the proposed final road construction impact zone should be subjected to further field investigations to determine whether or not any buried archaeological deposits are present. It is our opinion that an "archaeological impact assessment" (AJA) study involving systematic and judgemental shovel testing programs should be conducted in order to identify and adequately assess any buried archaeological concerns lying within the proposed impact zones at threatened site potential areas prior to initiation of any land-altering construction activities. An AIA inspection will identify and determine the nature, spatial extent and overall significance ranking of any archaeological deposits in direct conflict with the proposed road ROW impact zones, and will also provide data necessary to develop an appropriate management plan for avoiding and/or mitigating conflicts. Keep in mind that the AIA shovel testing program may yield negative results in most or all of the 2 locations that we have identified as having medium or greater site potential, thus intentional avoidance by relocation and/or the need for any additional mitigation measures could be negated, or significantly minimized. The size and scope of an AIA inspection to be conducted for the final road ROW route will depend on which route option is eventually adopted. An AJA study must be carried out under a "Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) Section 14 Heritage Inspection Permit" that is applied for by the archaeological consultant on behalf of the proponent, and obtained from the Archaeology Branch in Victoria. This detailed permit application is prepared by the consulting archaeologist with assistance from the proponent, and the review process includes a 30-day First Nation review period. Time required for the Archaeology Branch to review and issue an AIA permit can vary, but the current standard issuing time is about 90 days. Relevant First Nation permits are also required, and they are usually issued within two or three weeks following application submission. 3.2 Concluding Remarks The results and recommendations presented in this AOA report are those of Antiquus and we alone are responsible for the content of this report and any errors and/or shortcomings. It should also be noted that some of the findings and recommendations may, or may not, be supported by the Archaeology Branch in Victoria or local First Nations communities and governing agencies involved. Lastly, this AOA report was prepared without prejudice to Aboriginal rights and title. 10 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. Addendum for Additional Routes for Abernethy Way Extension, Maple Ridge, B.C. 4.0 REFERENCES CITED Archaeology Branch, 1998 British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines. Archaeology Branch, Victoria, B.C. EnvironmenCCanada 2008 Natural Weather Data Information. weather.gc.ca Ministry of Forests 1992 Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia. Rousseau, Mike and GeoffHomel 2018 An Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) Conducted for Proposed Potential ROW Route Option Related to Eastward Extension of Abernethy Way from 232nd Street to 2561h Street in Maple Ridge, B.C. Non-Permit Report. Report on File at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria B.C. 11 Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. I ! Foundations, Excavation & Shoring Specialists April 24, 2019 Reference: 18-7850 McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. Suite 2300 -Central City Tower Surrey, BC V3T 5X3 [liaRAUN G E C T E C H N I C A L LT 0. Via email: swilson@mcelhanney.com Braun Geotechnical Attn: Selena Wilson, P.Eng. 102 -19049 95a Ave SutTey, BC V4N 4P3 Tel: 604-513-4190 Fax: 604-513-4195 info@braungeo.com www.braungeo.com Foundations Excavation & Shoring Slope Stability Natural Hazards Pavement Design and Management Reinforced Soil Walls and Slopes Rev. Sept 15, 2006 Re: Geotechnical Desk Study Report City of Maple Ridge -Abernethy Way Extension Abernethy Way, 232 to 256 Street, Maple Ridge, BC 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides preliminary geotechnical comments and discussion of relating to route selection for the Abernethy Way Extension between 232 and 256 Street, in the City of Maple Ridge, BC. It is understood that the proposed roadway extension may comprise four travel lanes (ultimate) to link with the widened 128 Avenue/Abernethy Way. The geotechnical work was limited to a desk study review and site reconnaissance completed in general accordance with the Braun Geotechnical proposal dated September 8, 2017 (our ref. Pl 7-5608). 2018 Alignments -Selected Options: Initial work during the study considered five roadway alignment options as shown on the enclosed McElhanney Key Plan -Selected Options (PB 18/07 /05 Issued for discussion) and generalized as follows. Options 2A & 2B followed 124 Avenue east to 236 Street, then southeast to 237 Street, and east along 123 Street and traversed the north side of Hackers Haven golf course. The options then headed northeast to 124 Avenue, with options 2A and 2B crossing Latimer Creek at different locations. The proposed options then head east to 256 Street, predominantly on existing roadway, with some greenfield rural land. Options 3A, 3B & 6 followed 124 Avenue east to 236 Street alignment, then southeast to 23 7 Street and east along the south side of Hackers Haven golf course. From 240 Street the various options tend northeast to rejoin with 124 Avenue alignment. The five proposed options merge by 248 Street and follow 124 Avenue east to 256 Street, then north along 256 Street to 128 Avenue, where the study area is complete. 2019 Alignments -3 Options: Initial work was used to develop three preferred alignments as shown on the enclosed McElhanney Key Plan -3 Options (PB 19/03/29 Issued for discussion) and generalized as follows: / -----:-,,_------------' ------~--'......--------~~~ Geotechnical Desk Study Report Abernethy Way: 232 to 256 Street, Maple Ridge, BC The 3 route options were designated as 2C, 7 & 10. April 24, 2019 Project: 18-7850 Route options were consistent between 232 Street and 240 Street following the existing 124 Avenue east to 236 Street, then southeast to 237 Street and east to 240 Street. The alignment approaching 240 Street was located within the south side of the Hackers Haven golf course, slightly north of earlier alignments at this section while still avoiding some of the deep Latimer Creek gullies that exist to the north. Alignment options 2C & 10 continue east at 240 Street crossing Latimer Creek twice before rejoining 124 Avenue west of 248 Street. Option 2C heads north on 248 Street to 128 Ave, then heads northeast to join with 130 Ave, which it follows to the limit of the study at 256 Street. Option 10 continues east along 124 Ave to the limit of the study at 256 Street, crossing Zirk Brook east of 252 Street. Alignment option 7 proceeds south along 240 Street to Dewdney Trunk Road (DTR) and follows the DTR alignment east to the limit of the study at 256 Street. 2.0 DESK STUDY Historical air photos available for all decades dating from 2004 back to l 940's were reviewed. Obvious visible features and/or tones to indicate past or incipient slope movements on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Abernethy extension were not observed on the air photographs. However, the slope areas along the proposed alignment are typically tree covered and may have obscured slope movements especially within the deep gullies of Latimer Creek. Based on published surficial geology it is anticipated that the study site is underlain by natural soils of the Fort Langley Formation (FL) comprised of gravel and sand & stony clayey silt to silty sand, as shown on Figure 1. Figure 1 -Surficial Geology-New Westminster (Geological Survey of Canada, 1976) 3.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION Geotechnical site reconnaissance walkover reviews along the Abernethy Way extension options were carried out on October 4, 2018 and April 8, 2019. The geotechnical work was carried out to observe existing site conditions in order to provide geotechnical related comments pertaining to the roadway alignments for route selection. Avoidance of the deep Latimer Creek Gully within the north area of Hackers Haven golf course (immediately west of 240 Street) as shown on some of the 2018 routes would be desirable for 2 [EIRAUN G E O T E C H N I C A L LT 0, Geotechnical Desk Study Report Abernethy Way: 232 to 256 Street, Maple Ridge, BC April 24, 2019 Project: 18-7850 geotechnical considerations. The 2019 alignment options are considered favourable with respect to geotechnical aspects. The roadway extension is generally aligned along Fort Langley Formation soils, with the soil condition expected to be reasonably consistent. Soils are expected to be suitable for direct subgrade support of embankments and road pavements using conventional municipal roadway construction methods. Permanent cuts and fills should be sloped at gradients of 2H: 1 V or flatter. It is noted that soil variations can be expected through the different types of the Fort Langley Formation and where topographic changes occur along the alignment. Intrusive geotechnical exploration along the roadway alignment/s is should be used to evaluate actual subsurface conditions in order to provide specific geotechnical roadway and crossing recommendations. The following sections discuss some specific route aspects by segment: 232 to 240 Street (Options 2C, 7, 10) Crossing of Coho Creek would likely be achieved using a culvert which is satisfactory for geotechnical considerations. Mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) type headwalls are appropriate if selected for this crossing. 240 to 248 Street Options 2C & 10 West Crossing of Latimer Creek • If required a Bridge crossing should likely be founded on driven steel pipe piles (-0.6m diameter steel pile). Culvert crossing with substantial fills would also be feasible for geotechnical aspects. • Erosion of Latimer Creek slopes in the vicinity of proposed crossings should be evaluated during advancement of project designs. East Crossing of Latimer Creek • Crossing likely achieved using culvert, which is satisfactory for geotechnical considerations. • Mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) headwalls are appropriate if selected for the crossing. Option 7 • Alignment is on existing roads which would be desirable for geotechnical/pavement aspects (ie construction cost pavement rehabilitation vs full road construction). 248 to 256 Street Option 2C • Zirk Brook crossing likely achieved using culvert, which is satisfactory for geotechnical considerations. Mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) headwalls are appropriate. Option 7 • For stream east of 252 Street and west of 256 Street, bridge founded on driven steel pipe piles (-0.6m diameter steel pile) or potentially gully fill with culvert would be feasible. Option 10 • Zirk Brook crossing likely achieved using culvert, which is satisfactory for geotechnical considerations. Mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) headwalls are appropriate. 3 [lilRAUN G E C T E C H N I C A L LT C. ,~ ' Geotechnical Desk Study Report Abernethy Way: 232 to 256 Street, Maple Ridge, BC 4.0 ASPHALT PAVEMENT-DESIGN SECTION April 24, 2019 Project: 18-7850 Preliminary recommended minimum design pavement structure for the Abernethy Connector extension is provided below. Preliminary Pavement Design -Abernethy Way Extension Thickness Materials 150mm' Hot Mix Asphalt Surface 100mm I 9mm minus Crushed Granular Base (CGB) 450mm 75mm minus Select Granular Subbase (SGSB) Notes: 'Asphalt surfacing should be placed in two lifts of 100mm and 50mm for the base and surface course may comprise MMCD compliant Lower Course #1 and Upper Course #1, respectively. 5.0 FUTURE GEOTECHNICAL WORK Future Geotechnical work would include, but not be limited to the following: • Geotechnical subsurface exploration & reporting; • Detailed stream crossing designs; • Structural assessment of the existing pavement areas and confirmation on pavement design section based on forecast traffic data; • Detailed Geotechnical Assessment of slopes; • Detailed slope stability analysis and development of retaining wall designs. 6.0 CLOSURE The work was completed to assist with identifying a preferred route selection for development of a conceptual design. This preliminary report is prepared for the exclusive use of McElhanney Consulting Ltd and their designated representatives and may not be used by other parties without the written permission of Braun Geotechnical Ltd. The City of Maple Ridge may also rely on the findings of this geotechnical report. We hope the above meets with your requirements. Should any questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Braun Geotechnical Ltd. DRAFT Hugh MacMurray, EIT. Geotechnical Engineer Encl: McElhanney Key Plans (2018, 2019) 4 Braun Geotechnical Ltd. DRAFT Stuart Hrysio, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer [EIRAUN G E O T E C H N I C A L L T D. I ' ' ,. L: ~-. r I ~ ' ,_ ~ ' ,. ' ,-,. ,. i:. \: t P.: c. ~ c.· AM Traffie,Zone Growth 2017 -2035 ·I -...£• -f...,' •""-; l, (:@w!.>v! ... g~o...t+@'g-..ol'LS~hg~2.S)•hasP::e"P::ot->(@w,;:,\~+$who-,,l+.$l;•l>ll1.S+g-h!.••oll2.S} .., ""' ~ S:a!.e, 4) \ J. . ' : / ! ·---\.' ! _a · 13 ' -.......b ,---....., 21 ,. i. I PM Traffic Zone Growth 2017 -2035 ·il ~ ' X I ti~ I 1' , + ";?-~J(),, ... • .r-i .. D ~11,j (@>v..0·11+-~who,A+;.,i;..-o:1,/l.5+-~hg.-..ol,'2.S)•ha:R:t:'"A:e-::,{,~wi:,vl+:,·.-.l-.ovl+~9•<:1!/15-t?h;,,:,V25) silOO~ I 19'8 ~1 I l ,:I -q ~ \11 $ .:. $ I ~ 62 A 16 ' ' ,,-~ ~. ~,---_ • . I 15 ·2 l Difference Plot: A Traffic Growth 2017 -2035 ,1 111 115 87 17 1 Difference, Plot: P[ T raffle Growth 2017 -2035 I 31 -• 11 12 -----.il_ 0 L Difference Plot: A 2035 with Abernethy Extension "' (@wS)•Jl+~who·.A+;,i;-..o,VI.S+tli;\"°V2.;)-hasP::e"-P.:e-:.{,:.·...s:,vl~ .... hovl·+@gwV1S~hgvoV2.5) 9J ~uo12m0 i ,!. 53 I l f / ) ~01 \ Difference Plot: P 2035 with Abernethy Extension ) / -7 -7 J 32 32 23 30 30 ·• ,__ cr,6" r ····-· -9 !. 0 (@v.so ... l+i:...ho...!+~\;-..o¥LS+g.t,q~2.~-MSP:t'"Aa,-:.,{~l'>S:)vl~wh:)v1+@1;,~ll1.5+;:h;1.'0V25) 50 100 C 150 j 200 A Scale,20 ' I r AM 2035 Base Vo umes (excl. Abernethy Way Extension) 1 = ' ,. ,. ,. ' ' ' ' ' AM 2035 Volume with Abernethy Extension / l m ' r -------t ! C r. ,. ,-,. C ,--,--,-~~ f: ~ r p f~ I l l ! i PM 2035 Base Vo umes (excl. Abernethy Way Extension) I r U8 1 PM 2035 Volume with Abernethy Extension 1 r-----1J--~ 1!"9"'-'l>\11!1--;J_, __ / AM 2035 Volume with Abernethy Extension & 240 St ,cornection '°' 5ll "' '" 115 . . . . o. 0 -lO " PM 2035 Volume with Abernethy Extension & 240 St Connection m 210 "' "" 404 "' S2S 470 ,., 1353 919 m ,.. ~ ;,: l 175 ~:;54 324 ...... . . . . . ••• "'!!I!. "' 407 "' 17 11 .. "'' AM 2050 Volumes wit Abernethy Extension & 240 St Connection: Post-OCP Amend men & Rerouting Scenario -g N M IN '" :m ,,. 110 mo 1413 lOl 19S n S2S '" "' "' 411 307 --·319 ,., ..c ..... 0 ""' 'N Forecasts assume FULL build out _. 200+90 = 90 l':lf' ,., 100+600 700 "' dney 10 74 Zll PM 2050 Volumes with Abernethy Extension & 240 St Connection: Post-OCP Amendment Rerouting Scenario ] 467 ,is N " 242 "' "' m c:-J ..c ...... ·~ ;N Forecasts assume FULL build out dney 18 11 Option2C{Phase3) ALR Non-ALR Total Widening Area (m') 23422.98 367.81 23790.79 Option2C(Phase4) ALR Non-ALR Total Widening Area (m'J 45433.68 3117.41 48551.09 Option 7 (Phase 3) ALR Total Widening Area (m1J 23422.98 367.81 23790.79 Option 7 (Phase 4) Total WldeningArea (m'J 6750.93 1953.69 8704.63 Option 10 (Phase 3) Total WldeningArea (m') 23422.98 367.81 23790.79 Option 10 (Phase 4) ALR Non-AlR Total Widenini:Area (ml) 58589.65 0.00 58589.65 LandCost 1,970,107.26 206,317.10 2,176,424.36 LandCost 3,821,427.03 1,748,679.52 5,570,106.54 LandCost 1,970,107.26 206,317.10 2,176,424.36 LandCost 567,820.96 1,095,905.00 S 1,663,725.96 Cost 1,970,107.26 206,317.10 2,176,424.36 Cost 4,927,975.13 0.00 4,927,975.13 #TotalBuyouu (Improvements) #Total Buyouts (Improvements) Improvement AdditionalLand Area(m1) Add.Land Cost Total $ 444,824.44 70246.03 S 5.908,393.35 8,323,325.05 $ $ 206,317.10 $ 444,824.44 70246.03 $ 5,908,393.35 8,529,642.15 Improvement Additionalland cost Area(m1) Add.land Cost Total $ 667,236.66 79450.01 $ 6,682,540.42 $ 11,171,204.10 $ $ $1,748,679.52 $ 667,236.66 79450.01 S 6,682,540.42 S 12,919,883.62 # Total euvouts Improvement Additional Land Additional Land Total (Improvements) cost Area(m1) Cost #Total Buyouts (Improvements) S 444,824.44 70246.03 S 5,908,393.35 8,323,325.05 S $ 206,317.10 $ 444,824.44 70246.03 $ 5,908,393.35 8,529,642.15 Improvement ,ott AddiUonalland Additionalland 0.00 0.00 Tot.ii 567,820.96 1,095,905.00 1,663,725.96 # Total Buvouts Improvement Additional Land Additional Land Total (Improvements) cost Area (m1) Cost $ 444,824.44 70246.03 S 5,908,393.35 8,323,325.05 S $ 206,317.10 $ 444,824.44 70246.03 $5,908,393.35 8,529,642.15 # Total Buyouts Improvement Additional Land Additional Land (Improvements) cost Area (m1) Cost Total $ 1,112,061.10 98051.71 $ 8,247,129.29 $ 14,287,165.52 S $ $ 0.00 $ 1,112,061.10 98051.71 $ 8,247,129.29 S 14,287,165.52 Addrenlmpacted (ordered from west C2C C7 C10 Additional Land (m')• TotalBuvout toeast) 1225023751 V V V 35317.36 1230924051 V V 34928.67 1226624051 V ' 29231.85 1228324451 V V 29684.67 1231224451 V V 20533.49 12410254Stu 729.34 1242125651 0 0 V 17872.36 0Additionallandislandbevandthewidenlngarea. Ex.fortotalbuvauts,additionalareaislotarea minus road widenlngareaforthatlot. v·• •' Aerial in CAD does not show building on lot. However, BC Assessmentlndicatesthereisbuildingonsite,asdoaerialimage · 1 ·= --~--' "·-I ,_ c. r::: i I~ i I E~tlmalor. SH RevieW<ldBy. JAIBA filEITT: CITYOFMAPt.ERIOGE @ 15'/, CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 40'1, TOTA!. CONSTRUCTION COST($ 2019) 201s.11.1SOJ!oeO-OOC<l$tlo>tlm,1t2C-7·10 201£1.11,18 OPTION2C (2LANE) OPTION2C (4-LANE) J\. McElhanney SUMMARY SHEET ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS CLASS 'O' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PHASE4 PHASEJ&4 •.m C.ll50 OPTION7 (z.t.-'NEJ OPTION7 (4-LANE) ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 ---' ---' ~---'---0~ ~ 0 ~ ___ o 66.ooo ~ ~ o o o o o o ___ o ~ o~~~---' ~ o~~~ o 15,687,640 4,748,655 25,878,080 46,31'1,375 15,687,640 4,748,655 2,353,146 712,298 3,881,712 6,947,156 2,353,146 712,298 6,275,056 1,899,462 ~ ~ 22,130,260 3,319,539 8,852,104 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 42,566,555 6,384,983 17,026,622 24,ltl,e,8',.,, _ _,,,.,.,.,,~""-'---"'3,4,.lli,,,,,.,,_, --""""'-'"',,a16,.,1 OPTION10 OPTJONlO (HANE) (4-LANE) ~~ ~~ ---' 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 -------1:!,QQQ, ___ o 15,687,6'«1 4,7411,655 2,353,146 712,298 6,275,056 " .. ---' ~ 0 24,327,710 3,649,157 PHASE3&4 •= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 44,764,005 6,714,601 240STREET EXTENSION 1,000,000 ~ 5,000,000 24,055,000 3,608,250 9,622,000 ITEM 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 2019-10-23 03980-00 Cost Estimate 2C-7-10 2019-10-31 -------------..,,--------~-~·--. -~ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS OPTION 2C • Phase 3 CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE INFLATION UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 0% PRICE AMOUNT ROAD & SITE WORKS 1,715 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 3.42 $30.000 $30.000 102,480 Common Excavation and Removal m' 16,780.00 $45 $45 755,100 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 26,616.00 $22 $22 585 550 232 STREET TO 240 STREET (2 LANE INTERIM -24m ROW) 1,715.00 $1.626 $1.626 2,788,800 INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and 232 Street l.s. 1.00 $50.000 $50,000 50,000 Abernethy Way and 240 Street l.s. 1.00 $100.000 $100.000 100 000 WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Right Side-STA 0+250 to 0+280 m' 135.00 $670 $670 90,450 left Side -STA 0+230 to 0+315 m' 382.50 $670 $670 256,280 Left Side -ST A 0+630 to 0+800 m' 510.00 $670 $670 341,700 left Side· STA 1+050 to 1+160 m' 330.00 $670 $670 221,100 left Side -ST A 1 +290 to 1 +670 m' 1,140.00 $670 $670 763,800 EX. AsQhalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Over1ay 0+000 to O+ 700 -6.0m m 700.00 m 700.00 ($310) ($310) $ (217,000) SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS $ 5,838,260 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 1 • Coho Creek (0+255) 1400mm ID 30.00 $2,125 $2.125 63,750 Crossing 2 -Coho Creek (0+498) 1200mm ID m 35.00 $1,625 $1,625 56.880 Crossing 40 • Latimer Creek (1+568) 1000mmlD m 30.00 $1.250 $1.250 37,500 Headwalls <1800mm ID ea. 6.00 $27.625 $27,625 165 750 SUB-TOTAL STORM SEWER $ 323,880 SANITARY SEWERS $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ WATERMAIN $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN $ BC HYDRO/TEL/GAS BCH Pole Relcoation ea. 2.00 $30,000 $30.000 60,000 $0 SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL $ 60,000 STREET LIGHTING J SIGNALS LIGHTING Streetlighting ea. 49.00 $9,000 $9.000 441,000 INTERSECTION SIGNALS Abernethy Way and 232 Street Ls. 1.00 $20.000 $20,000 20000 Abernethy Way and 240 Street 1.s. 1.00 $100,000 $100.000 100,000 Abernethy Way and 244 Street Ls. 1.00 $0 248 Street and 124 Avenue Ls. 1.00 $0 248 Street and 128 Avenue Ls. 1.00 $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING $ 561,000 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings Ls. 1.00 $34.000 34 000 $0 SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS $ 34,000 ' 'I MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs or Items 1 through 8 Ls. 1 $6.817.140 5% $ 340 860 SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL $ 340,860 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR m' 23,422.98 $84.11 $84.11 1,970,110 Land -NON-ALR m' 367.81 $560.94 $560.94 $ 206,320 Additional Land -ALR m' 70,246.03 $84.11 $84.11 $ 5,908,390 Additional Land -NON-ALR m' 0.00 $560.94 $560.94 $ Improvements -ALR ea. 2 $222,412.22 $222,412.22 $ 444 820 Improvements -NON-ALR ea. 0 $248,278.95 $248.278.95 $ SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS $ 8,529,640 TOTAL $ 15,687,640 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST 1ol1 ITEM 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 2019-10-23 03980-00 Cost EsLimate 2C-7-10 2019-10-31 ~ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS OPTION 2C • Phase 4 CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE INFLATION DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 0% ROAD & SITE WORKS 4,335 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 7.82 $30,000 Common Excavation and Removal m' 39,820.00 $45 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 43,188.00 $22 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE - 24m ROW) m 4,335.00 $1,596 INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and 244 Street l.s. 1.00 ~.ooo 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 $50,000 248 Street and 128 Avenue -Roundabout J.s. 1.00 $1,000,000 WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCO-C14 Handrail) Left Side -ST A 1 +820 to 1 +870 m' 412.50 $670 Right Side -ST A 1 +820 to 1 +870 m' 412.50 $670 Left Side -ST A 5+920 to 5+950 m' 112.50 $670 Right Side - ST A 5+910 to 5+940 m' 90.00 $670 EX. ASEJ:halt and Base Structure Re-!Jse and Overlay 3+270 to 3+415 -6.0m m 145.00 3+420 to 4+230 - 6.0m m 810.00 4+420 to 6+050 -6.0m m 1,630.00 m 2,585.00 ($310) SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 7-Latimer Creek (1+850) 1600mm ID m 30.00 $3,375 Crossing 8 -Latimer Creek (2+227) 1200mm ID 60.00 $1,625 Crossing 15-Unknown (4+805) 600mm ID m 20.00 $625 Crossing 15- Kanaka Creek (5+928) 2.44 x 1.27 Arch m 30.00 $5,000 Headwalls <1800mm ID ea. 8.00 $27,625 SUB-TOTAL STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWERS SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN BC HYDRO/TEL/GAS BCH Pole Relcoation ea. 27.00 $30,000 SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS LIGHTING Streellighling ea. $9,000 INTERSECTION SIGNALS Abernethy Way and 244 Street 1.s. 1.00 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 248 Street and 128 Avenue Ls. 1.00 SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings Ls. 1.00 SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS MISCELLANEOUS SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 Ls. 1 $12,341,130 SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR m' 45,433.68 $84.11 Land -NON-ALR m' 3,117.41 $560.94 Additional Land -ALR m' 79,450.01 $84.11 Additional Land -NON-ALR m' 0.00 $560.94 Improvements -ALR ea. 3 $222,412.22 Improvements -NON-ALR ea. $248,278.95 SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TOTAL DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST --------,~-====-==.--UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $30,000 234 570 $45 1,791,900 $22 950,140 $1,596 6,919.180 $50,000 50 000 $50,000 50.000 $1.000.000 1.000.000 $670 276,380 $670 276,380 $670 75,380 $670 60,300 ($310) $ (801,350) $ 10,882,880 $3,375 101 250 $1,625 97,500 $625 12,500 $5,000 150,000 $27,625 221,000 $ 582,250 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $ $30,000 810,000 $0 $ 810,000 $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $66,000 66000 $0 $ 66,000 $0 $0 $ 5% $ 617 060 $ 617,060 $84.11 3,821 430 $560.94 $ 1 748,680 $84.11 $ 6,682,540 $560.94 $ $222,412.22 $ 667 240 $248,278.95 $ $ 12,919,sgo \ $ 25,878,080 j 1of1 2019-10-230l980-00CostEstimate2C-7-10 2019-10-31 ~ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS OPTION 7 • Phase 3 CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE INFLATION UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 0% PRICE 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 1,715 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 3.42 530,000 $30,000 s Common Excavation and Removal m' 16,780.00 $45 $45 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 26,616.00 $22 $22 232 STREET TO 240 STREET (2 LANE INTERIM 24mROW) 1,715.00 $1,626 51,626 INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and-232 Street .,. -:-oo-sso~oM--$50~000 s Abernethy Way and 240 Street l.s. 1.00 $100,000 $100,000 s WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Right Side -STA 0+250 to 0+280 m' 135.00 $670 $670 Left Side -STA 0+230 to 0+315 m' 382.50 $670 $670 Left Side -ST A 0+630 to 0+800 m' 510.00 $670 $670 Left Side -STA 1+050 to 1 +160 m' 330.00 $670 $670 left Side -STA 1+290 to 1 +670 m' 1,140.00 S670 $670 s EX. As~halt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overlay 0+000 to O+ 700 -6.0m 700.00 700.00 ($310) ($310) S SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 1 -Coho Creek (0+255) 1400mm!D 30.00 $2,125 $2,125 Crossing 2 -Coho Creek (0+498) 1200mm!D 35.00 $1,625 $1,625 Crossirig 40-Latimer Creek (1+568) 1000mm!D 30.00 $1,250 $1,250 Headwalls <1800mm ID 6.00 527,625 $27,625 Headwalls -Arch Culvert 0.00 $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL STORM SEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SEWER 4.0 WATERMAIN $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN 5.0 BC HYDROfTELIGAS BCH Pole Relcoation 2.00 530,000 $30,000 BCH Pole Relcoation -Distribution & Transmission (Southside) 0.00 $250,000 $250,000 SCH Pole Relcoation -Transmission (Northside) 0.00 $100,000 $100,000 $0 SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL $ 6.0 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS LIGHTING Streetlighting 49.00 $9,000 59,000 s INTERSECTION SIGNALS Abernethy Way and 232 Street Ls. 1.00 $20,000 $20,000 Abernethy Way and 240 Street Ls. 1.00 $100,000 $100,000 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road Ls. 1.00 $0 Dewdney Trunk Road and 248 Street l.s. 1.00 $0 Dewdney Trunk Road and 252 Street l.s. 1.00 $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings l.s. 1.00 $34,000 s $0 s SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 s SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $ 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costsofltems1 through8 Ls. 1 $6,817,140 5% S SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL $ 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS land-ALR m' 23,422.98 $84.11 $84.11 Land -NON-ALR m' 367.81 $560.94 $560.94 Addilionalland-ALR m' 70,246.03 $84.11 $84.11 Additional land • NON-ALR m' 0.00 $560.94 $560.94 Improvements -ALR ea. 2 $222,412.22 $222,412.22 Improvements -NON-ALR 0 $248,278.95 $248,278.95 SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TOTAL NOTES: 1 Widening of Dewney Trunk Road to 4 Lanes ends at 5+100 prior to the Bridge at Kanaka Creek as requested by the City of Maple Ridge. DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST AMOUNT 102,480 755,100 585,550 2,788,800 50~000 100,000 90.450 256,280 341,700 221,100 763,800 (217.000) 5,838,260 63,750 56,880 37,500 165,750 323,880 60,000 60,000 441,000 20,000 100,000 561,000 34,000 34,000 340,860 340,860 1,970.110 206,320 5.908.390 444,820 8,529,640 15,687,640 1of1 2019-10-23 03980-00 Cost Estimate 2C-7-10 2019-10-31 ~ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS OPTION 7 -Phase 4 (DTR 4 Laning ends prior to Kanaka Creek Bridge; Includes 240 Street widening) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE INFLATION UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 0% PRICE 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 3,385 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 5.39 $30,000 $30,000 Common Excavation and Removal m' 36,525.00 $45 $45 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel} tonne 22,210.00 $22 $22 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (4 LANE DEWDNEY -24m ROW) 3,385.00 $3,535 53,535 124 AVENUE EXTENSION (2 LANE 7.1) 200.00 $957 $957 INTERSECTIONS 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road l.s. 1.00 550,000 $50,000 Dewdney Trunk Road and 248 Street l.s. 1.00 $50,000 $50,000 Dewdney Trunk Road and 252 Street Ls. 1.00 550,000 $50,000 s WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail} Left Side -STA 3+340 to 3+730 m' 877.50 S670 $670 Left Side -STA 3+760 to 3+870 m' 247.50 $670 $670 Left Side -ST A 4+920 to 5+090 m' 510.00 S670 $670 Right Side - STA 5+000 to 5+090 m' 270.00 $670 $670 EX. Asi;ihalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overlay 2+360 to 5+090 -6.0m 2,730.00 2,730.00 ($310) ($310) S SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (4 LANE DEWDNEY -24m ROW) 1,910.00 $988 $988 s Catch Basins and Catch Basin Leads 3,385.00 $111 $111 s CULVERTS Crossing 11 -Unknown Creek (3+685) 1000mm ID 25.00 $1,250 $1,250 Crossing 12-Unknown Creek (4+246) 1400mm ID 35.00 $2,125 $2,125 Headwalls <1800mm ID "· 4.00 527,625 $27,625 $0 SUB-TOTAL STORM SEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ 4.0 WATERMAIN $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN s.o BC HYDROfTEL/GAS BCH Pole Relcoation -Distribution (240 Street) 8.00 $30,000 $30,000 s BCH Pole Relcoation -Distribution & Transmission (Southside) "· 0.00 $250,000 $250,000 BCH Pole Relcoation -Transmission {Northside) 8.00 $100,000 $100,000 $0 s SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL $ 6.0 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS LIGHTING StreeUighting 97.00 $9,000 $9,000 s INTERSECTION SIGNALS 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road l.s. 1.00 $0 s Dewdney Trunk Road and 248 Street l.s. 1.00 $0 Dewdney Trunk Road and 252 Street l.s. 1.00 $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING $ 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings 1.s. 1.00 $66,000 s $0 s SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $ 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 l.s. 1 $19,-491,940 5% S SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land-ALR m' 6,750.93 $84.11 $84.11 s Land -NON-ALR m' 1,953.69 $560.94 $560.94 S Additional Land -ALR m' 0.00 $84.11 $84.11 s Additional Land -NON-ALR m' 0.00 $560.94 $560.94 S Improvements -ALR ea. 0 $222,412.22 $222,412.22 S lmpmvements -NON-ALR 0 $248,278.95 $248,278.95 S SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS $ TOTAL $ NOTES: 1 Widening of Dewney Trunk Road to 4 Lanes ends at 5+100 prior to the Bridge at Kanaka Creek as requested by the City of Maple Ridge. DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST AMOUNT 161,820 , .. L--.: 1,643,630 488,620 11,966,990 191.-420 50000 50,000 50,000 587,930 165,830 341,700 180900 (846,300) 15,032,540 1,887,080 377,190 31 250 74,380 110,500 2,480,400 240,000 800,000 1,040,000 873,000 873,000 66,000 66,000 974,600 974,600 567,820 1.095.900 1,663,720 22,130,260 1of1 2019-10-23 03980-00 Cost Estimate 2C-7-10 2019-10-31 ITEM 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 ------------~~=-~a--~ ~ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS OPTION 10 • Phase 3 CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE INFLATION DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 0% ROAD & SITE WORKS 1,715 m Clearing and Grubbing ,a 3.42 $30,000 Common f)(cavation and Removal m' 16,780.00 $45 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 26,616.00 $22 232 STREET TO 240 STREET (2 LANE INTERIM • 24m ROW) 1,715.00 $1,626 INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and 232 Street l.s. 1.00 $50,000 Abernethy Way and 240 Street l.s. 1.00 $100,000 WALLS !Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Right Side -STA 0+250 to 0+280 m' 135.00 $670 Left Side - STA 0+230 to 0+315 m' 382.50 $670 Left Side -ST A 0+630 to 0+800 m' 510.00 $670 Left Side-STA 1+050to 1+160 m' 330.00 $670 Left Side -STA 1+290to 1+670 m' 1,140.00 $670 EX. Asghalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overla~ 0+000 to O+ 700 -6.0m 700.00 700.00 ($310) SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 1 • Coho Creek (0+255) 1400mm ID 30.00 $2,125 Crossing 2. Coho Creek (0+498) 1200mm ID 35.00 $1,625 Crossing 40 • Latimer Creek (1+568) 1000mm ID 30.00 $1,250 Headwalls <1800mm ID ea. 6.00 $27,625 Headwalls • Arch Cu!vert 0.00 SUB-TOTAL STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWERS SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN BC HYDROfTEL/GAS BCH Pole Relcoation ea. 2.00 $30,000 SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL STREET LIGHTING I SIGNALS LIGHTING Streetlighting 49.00 59,000 INTERSECTION SIGNALS Abernethy Way and 232 Street l.s. 1.00 $20,000 Abernethy Way and 240 Street l.s. 1.00 $100,000 Abernethy Way and 244 Street l.s. 1.00 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 252 Street and 124 Avenue r.s. 1.00 256 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings l.s. 1.00 SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS MISCELLANEOUS SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 l.s. 1 $6,817,140 SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROPERTY ACgUISITIONS Land-ALR m' 23,422.98 $84.11 Land -NON-ALR m' 367.81 $560.94 Additional land -ALR m' 70,246.03 S84.11 Additional Land -NON-ALR m' $560.94 Improvements -ALR 2 $222,412.22 Improvements • NON-ALR ea. 0 $248,278.95 SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TOTAL DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST UNIT ~ PRICE AMOUNT ~ , $30,000 102,480 $45 755,100 $22 585,550 $1,626 2,788,800 r r $50,000 50,000 --f 5100,000 100,000 l: $670 90.450 $670 256,280 I $670 341,700 r. $670 221,100 ~ $670 763,800 f ($310) $ (217.000) 5,838,260 $2,125 63.750 $1,625 56,880 $1,250 37,500 $27,625 165,750 $0 $ 323,880 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $30,000 60,000 $0 60,000 $9,000 441,000 $20,000 20000 S100,000 100000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 561,000 $34,000 34,000 $0 34,000 $0 $0 5% $ 340 860 340,860 i::-~ $84.11 $ 1,970,110 r $560.94 $ 206,320 r $84.11 $ 5,908 390 $560.94 $ $222,412.22 $ 444 820 $248,278.95 $ 8,529,640 15,687,640 1of1 2019-10-23039B0-00CostEstimate2C·7-10 2019-10-31 ITEM 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 I\ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS OPTION 10 -Phase 4 CLASS 'O' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE INFLATION DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 0% ROAD & SITE WORKS 3,350 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 7.14 $30.000 Common Excavation and Removal m' 37,435.00 $45 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 43,068.00 $22 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE -24m ROW) 3,350.00 $1,596 INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and 244 Street l.s 1.00 $50,000 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 $50,000 252 Street and 124 Avenue Ls. 1.00 $50,000 256 Street and 124 Avenue Ls. 1.00 $50,000 WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Left Side -STA 1+820 to 1+870 m' 412.50 $670 Right Side -STA 1+820 to 1+870 m' 412.50 $670 Left Side -ST A 3+550 to 3+640 m' 202.50 $670 Right Side -STA 3+550 to 3+640 m' 270.00 $670 EX. AsQhalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overlay 3+270 to 3+415 -6.0m 145.00 3+860 to 4+620 -6.0m 760.00 905.00 ($310) SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 7 -Latimer Creek (1 +850) 1600mml0 30.00 $3,375 Crossing 8 -Latimer Creek (2+227) 1000mm ID 60.00 $1,250 Crossing 9 -Kanaka Creek (4+380) 3.35 X 1.75 Arch m 30.00 $5,750 Headwalls <1800mm ID 6.00 $27,625 Headwalls -Arch Culvert ea. 2.00 SUB-TOT AL STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWERS SUB-TOT AL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN BC HYDRO/TEL/GAS SCH Pole Relcoation 0.00 $30,000 SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS LIGHTING Streetlighting 0.00 $9,000 INTERSECTION SIGNALS Abernethy Way and 244 Street Ls. 1.00 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s 1.00 252 Street and 124 Avenue Ls. 1.00 256 Street and 124 Avenue Ls. 1.00 SUB-TOT AL STREET LIGHTING SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavemenl Markings l.s. 1.00 SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS MISCELLANEOUS SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 l..s 1 $9,562,420 SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land-ALR m' 58,589.65 $84.11 Land -NON-ALR m' 0.00 $560.94 Additional Land -ALR m' 98,051.71 $84.11 Additional Land -NON-ALR m' 0.00 $560.94 Improvements -ALR ea. 5 $222,412.22 Improvements -NON-ALR $248,278.95 SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TOTAL DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ) [ UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $30,000 214,050 $45 1.684.580 $22 947,500 $1,596 5,347,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $670 276,380 $670 276,380 $670 135,680 $670 180,900 ($310) $ (280,550) 8,981,920 $3,375 101,250 $1,250 75,000 $5,750 172,500 $27,625 165,750 $0 514,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $30,000 $0 $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $66,000 66,000 $0 66,000 $0 $0 5% $ 478,120 478,120 $84.11 4,927,980 $560.94 $ $84.11 $ 8,247.130 $560.94 $ $222,412.22 $ 1,112,060 $248,278.95 $ 14,287,170 24,327,710 1of1 ~ McElhanney DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS 240 STREET EXTENSION CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS ROADWORKS 2.0 Clearing and Grubbing Common Excavation Embankment Fill Relaining Walls Roadworks BRIDGE WORKS Riprap Bridge End Fill Piling Substructure Concrete Supply and Install Girders Superstructure Concrete Bearings and Deck Joints Parapet Mounted Railings Fences Waterproof Membrane Asphalt Overlay SUB-TOTAL ROAD & SITE WORKS STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS Culvert Replacement at Abernethy/ 240 Street SUB-TOTAL STORM SEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SEWER 4.0 WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN 5.0 BC HYDRO/TEL/GAS SUBTOTAL BC HYDRO/TEL 6.0 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS Streetlighting SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS Mobilization Traffic Management Quality Management SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Erosion and Sediment Control SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Property Acquisitions SUB-TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TOTAL 2019-11-18 03980-00 Cost Estimate 2C-7-10 2019-11-18 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST AMOUNT $ 300,000 $ --2;500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 125,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 680,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 250,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 300,000 ' $ 16,955,000 r l $ 350,000 f $ 350,000 t $ $ $ $ l:." $ 400,000 r-" $ 400,000 t~ $ $ $ 500,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 ' ' $ 1,000,000 ~ l 350,000 I $ 350,000 I $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 ' ~ $ 24,055,000 ~ ~ i L:.,_ 1 of 1 t McELHANNEY LTD. PROJECT No.: REVISION: DATE: 2111-03980-00 PA 2019-04-03 ROAD: 232 STREET TO 240 STREET (4 LANE ULTIMATE -24m ROWJ ROAD TYPE: Subbase Base Curb and Gutter Base AC _Tack Coal Surface AC Sidewalk Base Concrete MUP Base Asphalt Boulevard Topsoil Boulevard Sodding HydroSeeding Boulevard Tree SUB-TOTAL STORM 450mm 100mm MMCD-C4 Type 'B' 100mm 50mm 100mm 100mm 100mm 50mm 300mm Description Concrete Pipe O -2.0m Depth Manhole Base, Frame, Lid and Cover -150m Spacini; Manhole Rings Catch Basins -500m2 Spacing (?Om) Catch Basin Leads (+/-7.5m each side) SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING BC HYDRO/TELUS/SHAW/BELL SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PER LIN.M Sides 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 Width 7.25 7.25 Depth 0.45 0.10 6.50 0.10 6 . .50 __ 6.50 0.05 1.50 0.10 1.50 3.00 0.10 3.00 0.05 1.80 0.30 1.80 2.00 1.00 Size 600 mm 1200 mm 1.5 m 600 mm 200 mm AreaNolume 15.66 3.48 3.12 13 . .00 1.56 0.36 1.50 0.72 0.36 1.08 1.80 4.00 2.00 Unit tonne tonne lin. m tonne m' tonne tonne m' tonne tonne m' m' m' ea. lin. m ea. m ea. lin. m Unit Rate $30.00 $35.00 $85.00 $120.00 _$1.0.0_ $120.00 $35.00 $50.00 $35.00 $120.00 $70.00 $15.00 $2.00 $33.33 $950.00 $4,500.00 $800.00 $1,650.00 $300.00 FULL ROAD i ARTERIAL 1· Cost/m i $469.80 I $121.80 $170.00 I $374.40 ~ Jj3_00 $187.20 f $12.60 $75.00 $25.20 $43.20 $75.60 $27.00 $8.00 $66.67 $1,669.47 Cost/m $950.00 $30.00 $8.00 $47.14 $64.29 $1,099.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,768.90 McELHANNEY LTD. PROJECT No.: 2111-03980-00 REVISION: PA DATE: 2019-04-03 ROAD: 232 STREET TO 240 STREET (2 LANE INTERIM -24m ROW) ROAD TYPE: Subbase 450mm Base 100mm Curb and Gutter MMCD-C4 Type 'B' No Post Barrier -CRB Base AC 100mm Tack Coat Surface AC 50mm Sidewalk Base 100mm Concrete 100mm MUP Base 100mm Asphalt 50mm Boulevard Topsoil 300mm Boulevard Sodding HydroSeeding Boulevard Tree SUB-TOTAL Description STORM Ditch Perforated Subdrain Manhole Base, Frame, Lid and Cover -150m Spacin, Manhole Rings SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING SUB-TOTAL BC HYDRO/TELUS/SHAW/BELL Sides 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Width Depth 6.15 5.70 5.10 5.10 5.10 3.00 3.00 0.30 0.30 10.50 Size 300 mm 1050 mm 1.0 m 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.30 1.00 1.00 FULL ROAD ARTERIAL AreaNolume Unit Unit Rate Cost/m 13.28 tonne $30.00 $398.52 2.74 tonne $35.00 $95.76 lin. m $85.00 $0.00 lin. m 285.00 $570.00 2.45 tonne $120.00 $293.76 10.20 m2 $1.00 $10.20 1.22 tonne $120.00 $146.88 0.00 tonne $35.00 $0.00 0.00 m2 $50.00 $0.00 0.72 tonne $35.00 $25.20 0.36 tonne $120.00 $43.20 0.18 m' $70.00 $12.60 0.60 m2 $15.00 $9.00 10.50 m2 $2.00 $21.00 0.00 ea. $1,000.00 $0.00 Cost/m $405.00 ea. $3,500.00 $23.33 m $650.00 $4.33 $432.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 McELHANNEY LTD. PROJECT No.: REVISION: DATE: ROAD: ROAD TYPE: Subbase Base Curb and Gutter No Post Barrier -CRB Base AC Tack Coat Surface AC Sidewalk Base Concrete MUP Base Asphalt Boulevard Topsoil Boulevard Sodding HydroSeeding Boulevard Tree SUB-TOTAL STORM SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING SUB-TOTAL 2111-03980-00 PA 2019-04-03 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE -24m ROW] Sides Width 450mm 2 6.15 100mm 2 5.70 MMCD-C4 Type 'B' 2 100mm 2 5.10 2 5.10 50mm 2 5.10 100mm 100mm 100mm 1 3.00 50mm 1 3.00 300mm 2 0.30 2 0.30 1 10.20 Description Size BC HYDRO/TELUS/SHAW/BELL SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PER LIN.M FULL ROAD ARTERIAL Depth AreaNolume Unit Unit Rate Cost/m 0.45 13.28 tonne $30.00 $398.52 0.10 2.74 tonne $35.00 $95.76 lin. m $85.00 $0.00 lin. m 285.00 $570.00 0.10 2.45 tonne $120.00 $293.76 10.20 m2 $1.00 $10.20 0.05 1.22 tonne $120.00 $146.88 0.10 0.00 tonne $35.00 $0.00 0.10 0.00 m2 $50.00 $0.00 0.10 0.72 tonne $35.00 $25.20 0.05 0.36 tonne $120.00 $43.20 0.30 0.18 m3 $70.00 $12.60 0.00 m2 $15.00 $0.00 0.00 m2 $2.00 $0.00 0.00 ea. $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,596.12 Cost/m $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,596.12 L. t I I- McELHANNEY LTD. PROJECT No.: REVISION: DATE: 2111-03980-00 PA 2019-04-03 ROAD: 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE -24m ROW) -LOCAL CONNECTION (7.1: ROAD TYPE: Subbase Base Curb and Gutter Base AC Tack Coat Surface AC HydroSeeding Boulevard Tree SUB-TOTAL STORM SUB-TOTAL SANITARY SUB-TOTAL WATERMAIN SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING SUB-TOTAL 450mm 100mm MMCD-C4 Type 'B' 100mm 50mm Description BC HYDROfTELUS/SHAW/BELL Sides 2 2 2 2 2 2 Width Depth AreaNolume 6.15 0.45 13.28 5.70 0.10 2.74 5.10 0.10 2.45 5.10 J_._QQ_ 10.20 5.10 0.05 1.22 3.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 Size FULL ROAD ARTERIAL Unit Unit Rate Cost/m tonne $30.00 $398.52 tonne $35.00 $95.76 lin. m $85.00 $0.00 tonne $120.00 $293.76 m2 $1.00 $10.20 tonne $120.00 $146.88 m2 $2.00 $12.00 ea. $1,000.00 $0.00 $957.12 Cost/m $0.00 $0.00' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $957.12 =-=-McELHANNEY LTD. PROJECT No.: 2111-03980-00 REVISION: PA DATE: 2019-04-03 ROAD: 240 STREET TO 256 STREET (4 LANE DEWDNEY -24m ROW) ROAD TYPE: Subbase 450mm Base 100mm Curb and Gutter MMCD-C4 Type 'B' Base AC 100mm Tack Coat Surface AC 50mm Sidewalk Base 100mm Concrete 100mm MUP Base 100mm Asphalt 50mm Boulevard Topsoil 300mm Boulevard Sodding HydroSeeding Boulevard Tree SUB-TOTAL Description STORM Concrete Pipe 0 -2.0m Depth Manhole Base, Frame, Lid and Cover -150m Spacin, Manhole Rings Catch Basins -500m2 Spacing (70m) Catch Basin Leads (+/-7.5m each side) SUB-TOTAL SANITARY WATERMAIN .SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING BC HYDRO/TELUS/SHAW/BELL SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PER LIN.M Sides Width Depth 2 7.25 0.45 2 7.25 0.10 2 2 6.50 0.10 2 6.50 2 6.50 0.05 1.50 0.10 1.50 0.10 3.00 0.10 3.00 0.05 2 1.80 0.30 1 1.80 1.00 2 2.00 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 Size 600 mm 1200 mm 1.5 m 600 mm 200 mm FULL ROAD ARTERIAL AreaNolume Unit Unit Rate CosUm 15.66 tonne $30.00 $469.80 3.48 tonne $35.00 $121.80 lin. m $85.00 $170.00 3.12 tonne $120.00 $374.40 13.00 m2 $1.00 $13.00 1.56 tonne $120.00 $187.20 0.36 tonne $35.00 $12.60 0.15 m2 $50.00 $7.50 0.72 tonne $35.00 $25.20 0.36 tonne $120.00 $43.20 1.08 m' $70.00 $7560 1.80 m2 $15.00 $27.00 4.00 m2 $2.00 $8.00 2.00 ea. $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,535.30 CosUm lin. m $950.00 $950.00 ea. $4,500.00 $30.00 m $800.00 $8.00 ea. $1,650.00 $47.14 lin. m $300.00 $64.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00_ $0.00 $4,634.73 McELHANNEY LTD. PROJECT No.: REVISION: DATE: ROAD: ROAD TYPE: Subbase Base Base AC Tack Coat _Mill __ Overlay SUB-TOTAL 2111-03980-00 PA 2019-04-03 6.0m Re-Use of Existing Road Asphalt and Structure with 35m OverlaJ Sides Width Depth AreaNolume 300mm 2 3.00 0.30 4.32 100mm 2 3.00 0.10 1.44 50mm 2 3.00 0.05 0.72 2 3.00 6.00 501l]ffi__ 2 _JJ)O 6.00 50mm 2 3.00 0.05 0.72 Unit Unit Rate Cost/m tonne -$30.00 -$129.60 tonne -$35.00 -$50.40 tonne -$120.00 -$86.40 m2 -$1.00 -$6.00 m' -$20.00 -$120.00 tonne $120.00 $86.40 -$310.00 l • TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer 2020 Council Meeting Schedule EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: November 26, 2019 FILE NO: 01-0530-04/2020 MEETING: Workshop The attached calendar of council meetings for 2020 recommends a schedule based on the following general outline: • Committee of the Whole on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month • Council Workshop on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month • Public Hearing on the 3rd Tuesday of the month • Closed Council scheduled weekly on Tuesdays, to be utilized as necessary • Adjustments to accommodate Spring, Summer and Winter breaks, a September convention, and 2020 business planning sessions. With appropriate public notification, the schedule may be altered as needed to either add or remove meetings to accommodate Council's workplan. RECOMMENDATION: That the 2020 Council Meeting Schedule attached to the staff report dated November 26, 2019 be adopted. DISCUSSION: The 2020 calendar generally follows the previous schedule of meetings. Variations are noted below: 1. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities Convention (UBCM) will be held in Victoria from September 21 through to September 25. September 22 is the 4th Tuesday. It is suggested that for the month of September the Council and Workshop Meetings be rescheduled to September 29, 2020. 2. The summer break is scheduled for the first four weeks of August with meetings beginning again on the 1st day of September. It is noted that in some past years, meetings were scheduled for the last week in August to deal with Public Hearing and Committee of the Whole items, however due to scheduling in July, items from these meetings can be dealt with at a regularly scheduled Council Meeting on July 28. Should Council wish to pursue an option of returning on September 8, Committee of the Whole can be added to that date, with items moving forward to the scheduled evening Council meeting. This option will extend Council break for a week. 3. The winter break is scheduled between December 14, 2020 and December 31, 2020. The Public Hearing for this month has been advanced to the first Tuesday. 4.2 Doc # 233107 4 Page 1of2 Staff are proposing a Council media session and a joint Closed Council meeting with the Council of the City of Pitt Meadows to be held on Tuesday, February 4, 2020. These two events are not reflected in the calendar. It is suggested that the media session be held at 11:00 a.m. prior to Committee of the Whole, and the joint Closed Council meeting be held at 7:00 p.m. Director of Corporate Support Approv~IHti~ Chief Aaministration Officer Attachments: Proposed 2020 Council Meeting Calendar Doc # 233107 4 Page 2 of 2 -MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 2020 Council Meeting Calendar PROPOSED Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th F Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 --19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -... 26 27 28 29 30 31 ,__ -s Tu e Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 lr•u t • Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 18 25 12 13 14 15 16 '----19 20 21 22 23 ---26 27 28 29 30 ---Meeting Types: Closed Council (not public) Committee of the Whole Council Meeting -Workshop Council Meeting -Regular Public Hearing 17 24 31 Su Mo Tu 1 2 3 --8 9 10 ........ -15 16 17 ~ 22 23 24 --29 30 Meeting Times: Times vary 1:30 pm -3:30 pm 10:00 am -4:00 pm 7pm 7pm . . We 4 11 18 25 , . Th Fr Sa 5 6 7 12 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 28 Location: Blaney Room Council Chambers Blaney Room Council Chambers Council Chambers 1 8 15 22 29 2 3 4 5 --9 10 11 12 ---16 17 18 19 L-,!J!.lh~n:·H: !j!l"Al~C ·"'' ., .• 23 24 25 26 ---30 31 ---Other: Council Conference Statutory Holiday 6 13 20 ' '>< 27 Council Break -No Meetings Business Planning Doc#2337337 Sa 7 14 21 28 TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: November 26, 2019 FILE NO: 2320522 MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Economic Development and Civic Property Department (EDCP) partnered with the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and the Downtown Maple Ridge Business Improvement Association (DMRBIA) to complete a Business Walk in the Town Centre over an 11-day period from September 3 to 17, 2019. During the Business Walk, 560 questionnaires were distributed to businesses in the Town Centre of which 254 completed questionnaires were returned for a 45.4% return rate. Based on this overall response rate, the data collected should have an overall margin of error of +/-5% with a 95% confidence level. Businesses generally rated the Town Centre as a good place to do business; the most common positive responses were that the Town Centre is walkable, has a good mix of businesses, has available parking and there is a good amount of customer traffic. Sixty-eight percent of respondents have been in business at their current location for 10 or more years and 93% of respondents rated their business as either "Fair/Steady" or "Good/Increasing." While a majority of respondents gave good marks to the Town Centre overall, a significant number of respondents expressed their concerns that crime, safety, security and social issues in the Town Centre are negatively impacting their businesses. Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe that "Improving public safety" should be a high priority for the City. There was strong interest in having the City, Chamber and DMRBIA develop programs, courses and/or workshops to help businesses with crime and security issues as well to help them improve their marketing and social media strategies. Forty two businesses requested follow-up visits. RECOMMENDATION: Receive for information only. No Council resolution required. 2320522 Page 1 of 29 4.4 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Business Walks are a widely used business retention and expansion tool designed to quickly gauge the economic climate of businesses in a specified area. Research from the Provincial government indicates that about 80% of employment and investment growth in urban and suburban markets comes from existing businesses, pointing to the importance business retention and expansion activities in driving economic growth. Business Walks focus on creating face-to-face engagement opportunities with the business community, allowing businesses the opportunity to share their ideas, opinions and concerns on how to make the community a better place to locate a business. They are a flexible tool that can be used to collect initial baseline data from businesses, and can be used as the basis for developing a longitudinal study that compares and contrasts changes in the market over time. The overarching goal of the 2019 Town Centre Business Walk was to gain a baseline understanding of the business climate in the Town Centre. To do this, City staff worked with the Chamber and DMRBIA to develop and administer a questionnaire to collect information from business on the general business environment in the Town Centre, the opportunities and challenges they are facing, and on how safety and security concerns are impacting their businesses. The Business Walk was conducted in two distinct phases. During the first phase from September 2 to 10, City staff delivered the Business Walk questionnaires to approximately 560 business addresses in the Town Centre. Businesses were informed that a Business Walk team would return in a few days to collect the completed questionnaires. During the second phase from September 11 to 17, Business Walk teams from the City, Chamber and DMRBIA returned to pick-up the completed questionnaires from one of 12 pre-assigned zones within the Town Centre. In total, the Business Walk resulted in approximately 1,170 visits to business (560 initial visits + 560 Business Walk visits + 150 return visits = 1,170 total business visits.) There were 254 questionnaires returned (240 paper-based and 14 on line) for a 45.4% return rate giving this survey a high level of statistical validity. 2320522 Page 2 of 29 Summary of results Retail business was the single largest single category of respondents accounting for 1/3 of total responses (Figure 1) with the various types of service businesses accounting for the remaining 2/3 of respondents. Some business categories such a "Personal Service", "Auto Service", and "Food/Beverage Service" may also have a retail component to their business. It should also be noted that two "non-market" categories-"GovernmenVSocial Service" and "MedicaVDental Service" together accounted for 18% of the total respondents. Figure 1: Respondents' Types of Business V') a., 90 a,,,,-cc,~,--,-, 80 70 ~ 60 0 Q.. ~ 50 ~ 40 a., _Q E 30 :, z 20 10 Retail Business Service Medical/ Dental Food/ Beverage Personal Service Auto Service Service The vast majority of respondents (93%) rated their current state of business as either "Fair/Steady" or "Good/Increasing" (Figure 2), a very positive sign for the overall economic climate in the Town Centre, and most (83%) have been in business at their current location for more than six years (Figure 3.) Figure 2: State of Business 2320522 Page 3 of 29 II Slow/Poor Iii Fair/Steady Iii! Good/Increasing : I I I Figure 3: Time in business at current location ~=----I 3-5 years! 9% 6-10 years 15% Respondents generally rated the Town Centre as a good place to do business. The average respondent score was 3.4 with almost half of the total respondents (4 7%) giving the Town Centre a score of 4 or 5 (Figure 4). Conversely, only 16% of respondents gave the Town Centre an overall poor grade (1 or 2) as a place to locate a business (Figure 4.) Figure 4: What overall grade would you give the Town Centre as a place to locate a business? 5 (Excellent) Iii 1 (Poor) lil2 3 lil4 5 (Excellent) The most common positive responses about locating a business in the Town Centre were that the Town Centre is walkable, has a good mix of businesses, there is available parking and there is a good amount of customer traffic in the area (Figure 5.) 2320522 Page 4 of 29 Figure 5: What do you like most about doing business in the Town Centre? 140 120 V) 100 QJ V) C 0 Q_ 80 V) ~ -0 ~ 60 QJ ..0 E ::, z 40 20 0 Walkability of Mix of Amount of Availability of Access to Affordable Availability of area businesses in customer parking transit leases/real qualified area traffic estate labour While "walkability" does not have a standard definition, it can be thought of as a combination of factors that encourage pedestrian activity in shops, restaurants, sidewalks and other public spaces. This can include an environment with a good mix of shopping and entertainment options that are close together and easily accessible, active and animated public spaces, and a general sense of safety for pedestrians. When respondents were asked about the biggest challenges they face doing business in the Town Centre, 67% cited "Crime/Security/Social Issues" as one of their biggest challenges, almost twice as many who cited "Lack of customer parking as a major challenge (Figure 6.) Figure 6: What are the biggest challenges facing your business in the Town Centre? 180 V) 160 QJ V) C 140 0 Q_ 120 V) ~ 100 -80 0 ~ 60 QJ ..0 E 40 ::, 20 z 0 2320522 Page 5 of 29 Respondents were then further asked a series of questions to rank what they felt the City's priorities should be in making the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business using a five-point scale, with 1 as a "Low Priority" and 5 as a "High Priority". The potential priorities included: • Hosting more events and festivals • Improving the overall cleanliness • Improving public safety • Improving the variety of businesses • Increasing the amount of customer parking • Increasing the amount of employee parking For the purpose of this report, responses to these questions have been further grouped into "Low priority" (1 and 2), "Medium Priority" (3), and "High Priority" (4 and 5.) Using this newly compressed scale, 89% (Figure 7) of respondents identified "Improving public safety" as a High Priority for the City with an average score of 4.78 out of 5 (Figure 8.) In both conversations with businesses and in their comments on the questionnaires, respondents expressed concerns that criminal activity and related "social issues" are negatively impacting their businesses and customers. The issues cited included theft, shoplifting, open drug use and drug sales, discarded drug paraphernalia, loitering and disruptive behaviours that were negatively impacting their businesses, staff and customers on a regular basis. The Business Walk questionnaire was meant to gather an initial reading of the impact that crime, security and social issues are having on businesses. The questionnaire did not ask in-depth questions on the severity, frequency and recency of these issues and should be followed up with more in-depth research and analysis on the impact of crime and related social issues. Figure 7: What should the City's priorities be to make the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business? (Percent of respondents choosing 4 or 5) 100.0% ·-··----·----···----89.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 595% -----60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Improving Improving Improving the Increasing the Increasing the Improving Hosting more public safety overall variety of amount of amount of street I ighti ng festivals and cleanliness businesses customer employee events parking parking 2320522 Page 6 of 29 ' ' C ' ,_ C-C. C ,-r:. ~ A grouping of three items-"lncreasing the amount of customer parking", "Improving overall cleanliness" and "Improving the variety of business" -were all given a similar but lower High Priority rating, while "Increasing the amount of employee parking", "Improving street lighting" and "Hosting more events and festivals" were given a Medium Priority rating by respondents (Figure 8.) Parking concerns, both with the respect to the amount of parking available and time limits, were a recurrent issue with respondents and should be explored in more depth with a dedicated parking study. Concerns with parking time limits included both those looking for longer time limits as well as those looking for a limited number of short term (e.g. 15-minute) on-street parking spots. Interestingly, a number of respondents in locations with off-street parking also expressed concerns about both the amount of customer and employee parking available and time limits. Figure 8: City's priorities to make the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business? (Average score) e:' 4 0 u <./') gp ~ <JJ ~ 2 1 0 Hosting more events and festivals Improving Improving overall street lighting cleanliness 4.78 3.5 Improving Improving Increasing the Increasing the public safety variety of amount of amount of business customer employee parking parking Respondents were also asked a series of questions about the impact that safety and security issues in the Town Centre have on their ability to attract and retain staff, their costs to do business, and on their ability to attract customers. While the aggregate data indicates that safety and security issues have a "medium impact" (Figure 9), further analysis indicates that respondents believe that these issues have a greater impact on their costs to do business and their ability to attract customers, than on their ability to attract and retain staff (Figure 10.) 2320522 Page 7 of 29 Figure 9: How do safety and security issues in the Town Centre impact your business? (Average scores) 3.5 3 ~ 2.5 u V1 ~ 2 -~ QJ ~ 1.5 1 0.5 0 Ability to attract and retain staff Impact your costs to do business Ability to attract customers Figure 10: How do safety and security issues in the Town Centre impact your business 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Ability to attract and retain staff Impact your costs to do business Ability to attract customers • Low Impact (1 or 2) • Medium Impact (3) • High Impact (4 or 5) 2320522 Page 8 of 29 Respondents were also asked which types of business support programs, courses and workshops they would be most interested in if offered by the City, Chamber and/or DMRBIA. The most popular choice was "Crime prevention/security" closely followed by "Marketing" and "Social media", with the remaining choices having significantly lower levels of interest (Figure 11.) The City, Chamber and DMRBIA can work together to develop information and workshops to help address respondents' interest in addressing crime/security issues; the Chamber and DMRBIA can also look at options to host workshops and presentations focusing on marketing and social media for local businesses. Finally, staff in the Economic Development and Civic Property Department have begun contacting the 42 businesses that requested follow-up visits and will work with City staff, the Chamber and DMRBIA to address any concerns raised by businesses during these follow-up visits. Figure 11: Respondents' interest level in business support programs, courses and workshops 120 2320522 100 80 60 40 20 0 Page 9 of 29 b) Desired Outcomes: The City, Chamber and DMRBIA share a common goal of creating and maintaining an active, attractive and vibrant Town Centre that attracts new businesses, encourages existing businesses to grow and thrive, and is a welcoming destination for residents and visitors. Over the past few years, the City has undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at improving public safety and increasing visitation to the Town Centre that should be continued and built on. Staff recommend the City continues to focus on the activation of public spaces and enhanced safety patrols in the Town Centre, support the Chamber and DMRBIA to offer safety and security programs and marketing workshops, and undertake a comprehensive parking study of the Town Centre. 1. Continue coordinated safety and security activities Safety and security issues were identified as a significant, ongoing issue for businesses during the Business Walk. The City, RCMP, Westridge Security and DMRBIA are continuing to work together on enhancing safety and security in the Town Centre through the DMRBIA Safety and Security Committee. The addition of two Community Safety Officers in the Town Centre has helped address safety and security concerns, and respondents commented favourably on the recent heightened police/security presence in the Town Centre. The RCMP are continuing to offer Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), a free crime prevention evaluation for businesses, as part of their overall crime prevention strategy. 2. Continue Town Centre activation strategies The City, Chamber and DMRBIA continue to collaborate on a number of new initiatives designed to support local businesses by attracting residents and visitors to the Town Centre. Car Free Day, Celebrate the Night, and Glow Maple Ridge are excellent examples of family-friendly events that create a safe, welcoming environment and showcase the variety and vibrancy of businesses in the Town Centre. These events also demonstrate that when the Town Centre is filled with people and family-friendly events, there is a natural and positive reduction in negative behaviours. 3. Support the development and implementation of the Community Safety Plan The EDCP, Chamber and DMRBIA will play an important role in supporting the development of the Community Safety Plan and acting as a liaison to the business community. 4. Support the Chamber and DMRBIA with specific workshop and training options The City will continue to support the Chamber and DM BIA in the development and planning of a series of workshops for businesses on crime prevention, marketing and social media. The City will support these efforts by offering training space, access to subject matter experts, and marketing and promotional assistance. 5. Undertake a comprehensive parking study 2320522 A large number of businesses raised concerns about the availability of both customer and employee parking, and with the current parking time limits in the Town Centre. This will be further explored through the implementation of a comprehensive parking study that explores the current parking inventory in the Town Centre, trends and future needs in parking, and best practices for managing the parking supply. Page 10 of 29 6. Ongoing meetings with Town Centre property owners and developers City staff continue to engage in ongoing dialogue with a number of Town Centre property and business owners about potential commercial and mixed-use development and re-development projects in the Town Centre. These efforts include providing information to developers and property owners on the types and nature of commercial space inquiries the City is receiving. Staff will also schedule a series of meetings with property and business owners where the Business Walk identified specific concerns. 7. 2020 Business Walk The 2019 Town Centre Business Walk was a successful collaboration between the City, Chamber and DMRBIA that can repeated on a regular basis to track changes in the business environment in the Town Centre. The partners will schedule a meeting in early 2020 to review the 2019 Business Walk processes and begin planning for 2020. c) Strategic Alignment: The goals of the Business Walk align with a number of Council's Strategic Priorities, specifically related to Growth, Community Safety, and Community Pride and Spirit. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The recommended actions contained in this report will help the City, Chamber and DMRBIA achieve their shared goal of creating a safe, vibrant Town Centre that benefits businesses and residents alike. e) Inter-departmental Implications: The Economic Development and Civic Property Department will coordinate with Planning, Engineering, Bylaws and Licences, and RCMP to implement the recommendations in this report. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The 2019 Town Centre Business Walk is a good example of how the City, Chamber and DMRBIA can work together on their common goal of supporting businesses in the Town Centre. Staff recommend that Business Walks become a regular element of the EDCP's annual business retention and expansion activities. 2320522 Page 11 of 29 ,_ ,_ r-.. ,_ ' ' i CONCLUSION: The 2019 Town Centre Business Walk was a successful collaboration between the City, Chamber and DMRBIA. Businesses were generally very receptive to the Business Walk process and were pleased that the City, Chamber and DMRBIA reached out to hear their concerns and suggestions on how to make the Town Centre a more safe, vibrant and attractive place to locate a business. The responses revealed that a majority of businesses in the Town Centre are successful and see the area as a good place to locate a business. They believe the Town Centre's strengths are its walkability, the mix of businesses in the area, and the amount of customer traffic present. Respondents also expressed serious concerns about the impact that crime and related social issues are having on their ability to attract customers and on their costs to do business in the Town Centre. Information gathered from businesses during the Business Walk will be useful to inform the development of new Community Safety Plan and to help the City, Chamber and DMRBIA design information and presentations that help businesses address these issues. The Business Walk also revealed the need to conduct a comprehensive parking study on the availability of customer and employee parking and to address parking time limits in the Town Centre. Prepare Reviewed by: Darrell Dent , MBA Acting Director, Economic Development and Civic P.,o! rwa« Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP cJil~SeNices Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: (A) 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Questionnaire (B) Summary of Questionnaire Responses (C) Comments from 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Questionnaire 2320522 Page 12 of 29 Attachment A: 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Questionnaire 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Questionnaire 1. Type of business Please select the option that best describes the business 0 Auto Service 0 Government Agency 0 Retail 0 Business Service 0 Medical/ Dental 0 Social Service 0 Food / Beverage Service 0 Personal Service Other (please specify): 2. Please rate the current state of your business: 0 Slow/Poor 0 Fair/Steady 0 Good/Increasing 3. How long have you been in business? 0 Less than one year 0 1-3 Years 0 3 -5 years 0 6 -10 years 0 10 or more years 4. How many years at this location? 0 Less than one year 0 1-3 Years 0 3 -5 years 0 6 -10 years 0 10 or more years 5. Total number of employees including yourself (or owner)? F/T Employees: P/T Employees: Temporary/Seasonal: 6. Do you plan on hiring additional employees due to business growth in the next 6 to 12 months? F/T Employees: ___ _ P/T Employees: ___ _ Temporary/Seasonal: ___ _ 2320522 Page 13 of 29 ' ' ' -f C C ,-t-~ ~ ~= 7. What do you like MOST about doing business in the Town Centre? Please select all that apply 0 Access to transit 0 Availability of qualified labour O Mix of businesses in area 0 Amount of customer traffic 0 Affordable leases/real estate 0 Availability of parking O Walkability of area Other: _________________ _ 8. What overall grade would you give the Town Centre as a place to locate a business? Circle the number that best describes your opinion of the Town centre as a place to locate a business A poor location 1 2 3 4 5 An excellent location 9. What are the biggest challenges facing your business in the Town Centre? Please select all that apply: 0 Lack of customer parking 0 Lease/real estate costs 0 Lack of employee parking 0 Parking time limits 0 Crime/security/social issues 0 Finding qualified employees 0 Lack of customer traffic in 0 Lack of available commercial O Zoning/business licencing area real estate regulations Other: _________________ _ 10. What do you think the City's priorities should be to make the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business? Circle the number that best describes what you believe should be the priority level for each item Hosting more events and festivals Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Improving the overall cleanliness Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Improving the street lighting Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Improving public safety Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Improving the variety of businesses Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Increasing the amount of customer parking Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Increasing the amount of employee parking Not a priority 1 2 3 4 5 High Priority Other (please specify: 2320522 Page 14 of 29 11. How do safety and security issues in the Town Centre impact your business? Circle the number that best describes the impact on your business Impact your ability to attract customers Impact your ability to attract and retain staff Impact your costs to do business No impact No impact No impact 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Impact 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Impact 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Impact 12. If offered, what business support programs, courses and workshops would best support your business growth? 0 Crime prevention/security 0 Customer service 0 Finance/cash flow management 0 Human resources 0 Marketing 0 Sales Other (please specify): _________ _ 0 Social media 0 Succession planning 13. What can the City, Chamber and BIA do to help your business succeed? 14. Would this business like a follow-up visit? 0 Yes O No Business Name: _________________ _ Contact Name: _________________ _ Contact Information: ________________ _ For Office Use Only Questionnaire#: Zone: 2320522 Page 15 of 29 ~ - - Attachment B: Summary of Questionnaire Responses Q1. Type of Business Vl QJ 90 80 70 ~ 60 0 0. ~ 50 .... ~ 40 QJ .D E 30 :::, z 20 10 0 Retail Business Service Medical/ Dental Food/ Beverage Personal Service Q2. Please rate the state of your business. Slow/Poor]-------7% 40% 2320522 Page 16 of 29 Service Iii Slow/Poor Iii Fair/Steady e Good/Increasing Auto Service r:..·_ ,_ ' ,_ ,_ ,_-,_ ' ,_ ,_-~ t Q3. How long have you been in business? years 68% 3-5 years 9% 15% 111-3 years Iii 3-5 years Iii 6-10 years Iii 10 or more years Q4. How long have you been in business at this location? years 68% 2320522 6-10 years 15% Page 17 of 29 liil 1-3 years 6-10 years liil 10 or more years Q5. Total number of employees including yourself (or Owner)? Number of Employees Full-time Part-time 1-5 137 54% 95 37% 6-10 35 14% 18 7% 11-25 26 10% 12 5% 26 -100 10 4% 3 1% 100+ 1 0% 0 0% No Response 45 18% 126 50% Total 254 100% 254 100% Q6. Do you plan on hiring additional employees due to business growth in the next 6 to 12 months? Insufficient data was collected for analysis of this question. Q7. What do you like most about doing business in the Town Centre? 140 120 "' <lJ 100 "' C 0 Q. "' 80 ~ '+-0 ,._ 60 <lJ ..0 E 40 :, z 20 0 I I Walkability of Mix of Amount of Availability of Access to area businesses in customer parking transit area traffic Affordable Availability of leases/real qualified estate labour 2320522 Page 18 of 29 QB. What overall grade would you give the Town Centre as a place to locate a business? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 -30 20 10 0 1 {Poor) 2 3 4 5 {Excellent) Q9. What are the biggest challenges facing your business in the Town Centre? 180 Vl 160 (lJ Vl C 140 0 Q_ 120 Vl ~ 100 4-80 0 L 60 (lJ .D E 40 :, 20 z 0 2320522 Page 19 of 29 ' ,-- Q10. What do you think the City's priorities should be to make the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business? 100 80 60 40 20 80 60 40 20 0 0 80 60 Hosting more events and festivals 1 (Low Priority) 2 3 4 5 (High Priority) Improving the variety of businesses 1 (Low 2 3 Priority) 1-------·----4 5 (High Priority) Improving overall cleanliness 1 (Low Priority) 2 3 4 5 (High Priority) Increasing the amount of employee parking 40 -····--··--------·····-··--········-20 0 -1 (Low 2 Priority) 3 4 5 (High Priority) 80 60 40 20 Improving street lighting 0 --200 1 (Low 2 Priority) 3 4 5 (High Priority) Improving public safety 150 -----··-··-·----------··--··--···-··--· I 100 50 0 ---------------100 80 60 40 20 0 1 (Low 2 Priority) 3 4 5 (High Priority) Increasing the amount of customer parking 1 (Low 2 Priority) 3 4 5 (High Priority) 2320522 Page 20 of 29 Q10 -Average Respondent Scores for City Priorities 6 5 4 3 1 0 Hosting more events and festivals 3.96 Improving overall cleanliness 4.78 3.41 Improving Improving street lighting public safety 3.98 Improving Increasing the Increasing the variety of amount of amount of business customer employee parking parking Q10. What should the City's priorities be to make the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business? (Percent of respondents choosing 4 or 5) 100.0% -90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% -0.0% 2320522 89.0% ---·------------------------·------··---·-··------·---·---·· -----·-·-·----------------·-··-------------· Improving public safety Improving overall cleanliness Improving the Increasing the variety of amount of businesses customer parking Page 21 of 29 47.2% Increasing the Improving hosting more amount of street lighting festivals and employee events parking Q11. How do safety and security issues in the Town Centre impact your business? Ability to attract and retain staff 70 ---------------------·-----·-· ----------------60 50 40 30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 70 1 (No Impact) 1 (No Impact) 1 (No Impact) 2320522 2 3 Impact your costs to do business 2 3 Ability to attract customers 2 3 Page 22 of 29 4 5 (Strongly Impact) -· --··-··· -·· 4 5 (Strongly Impact) 4 5 (Strongly Impact) I 1----"-Q11. How do safety and security issues in the Town Centre impact your business? 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Ability to attract customers Ability to attract and retain staff Impact your costs to do business • 1 + 2 (Low Impact) • 3 • 4 + 5 (Strongly Impact) Q12. If offered, what business support programs, courses and workshops would best support your business growth? 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2320522 Page 23 of 29 Attachment C: Comments from 2019 Town Centre Business Walk Questionnaire Please note that all comments are reported verbatim. Q7. What do you like MOST about doing business in the Town Centre? • many excellent events • 224 is very pretty. downtown lovely in the winter • A lot of one story buildings: you can see the sky • Central location for clients • Close to home • Growing area • Known location to customers • membership driven association geographical area 222-230th St • near RCMP • Nice Community • Not happy w/ recent addition of Garibaldi Ridge Shelter • Our location -drive by traffic Q9. What are the biggest challenges facing your business in the Town Centre? • homeless people • no moving violation police in area. Events /festivals ineffective in long term • poor cleaning of pathways -condoms and needles every day • too many vape shops and dispensaries • Being unable to put up signs for advertising • Easy for customers to find us • Gridlock on 224th St -need four way stops between Lougheed and DTR (also on 227 and 228) or close 224th to pedestrian traffic only. • Haney Mall has a lot of empty spaces • homeless people • Homeless people + theft • Junky man 4 pm • needs few signs with 15 minute parking • New developments without adequate parking • No fibre internet -customers don't want to come in due to parking limits. This is ridiculous the way the metre lady sits on everyone's tires and constantly tickets. • One way street • parking when movie crew is in town • People don't feel safe walking the streets. • Poor parking • Rental costs increasing • Side street businesses on 224th need directional signs on 224th. • Signage not allowed on street front (Dewdney). Extremely difficult to find entrance (on Fraser Street) even though our address says Dewdney Trunk Road. Location is not easily visible to access from Dewdney Trunk. • The city has changed very much in the downtown core. Many people with heavy addictions making it a sometimes dangerous place to be. • Transportation routes 2320522 Page 24 of 29 • Very Concerned Re Crime • We now have prostitutes around the corner& lack of parking is a big issue Q10. What do you think the City's priorities should be to make the Town Centre a more inviting place to locate a business? • Affordable housing • bike infrastructure and safe in-city routes • Bring Big box like best buy • Centralization of businesses • City should keep sidewalks in better condition • Clean up addictions • Cleaning up after the homeless/drug addicts • Create a setting for business that attract locals to stay local • Fewer pawn shops and weed stores. • Flashing pedestrian light on 119th Ave & 227th Street • Get rid of (not creating free homes) for the homeless people • I like the mall • Improving signage (parking, where to find it) Downtown map to find way around. Public Washrooms • increase allotments for customer parking • increase signage usage for businesses to be able to promote services/customer incentives • lots of drug and bad womens around • lowering taxes for small business to keep them in the city • more small town shops (gifts/vintage etc. high priority) • Need to get mall (Haney) to get more tenants • Remove the drug addicts • We should not have to deal with the crime/opioid epidemic brought in to our town from other cities. • with no one hour limits Q13. What can the City, Chamber and BIA do to help your business succeed? • 119th Ave 224, 223 1hr parking south side -north side 2hr parking should be the same • Advertise, Coop events (Bring businesses together for events and increase customer bases • However since the Big Box has closed the city has not implement what was supposed to ... proper sign to show we are open garbage clean up removal of graffiti Parking spots for complex only not all surrounding businesses-parking on sidewalks • All internal programs for us. • Allow a sign on the front of the building to direct customers to Fraser Street entrance. • Assist w/ store front visibility • Attract or Bring Big Retail and Restaurants to the City • Better Online presence. Tax rebates for updated signage. 2320522 Page 25 of 29 • Better rules to be implemented to control the issues above+ police need to take calls more seriously from business owners. • Bring more business • Build more and approve more housing and businesses • Clean town/ lot of drugs and steeling (sic) -no support from RCMP • Clean up d/t core re cash loans, tattoo parlours etc. • Clean up the downtown area. I have had to pick up needles, garbage, human feces in my parking stall. Remove homeless people from my parking lot. They are coming into my store high, and can't walk straight, stealing right in front of me. Asking my customers for change. Dropping drug bags in my store. • Clean up the drug addicts smoking and shooting up everywhere!!!!!!!!Homelessness!!! • Clean up the homeless problem. Many of our customers choose other locations because they do not feel safe in this area. • Clean up the streets • Clean up the streets! Make it a safe environment for families to walk around & shop local. • Communicate better with businesses. Make easier process for permits/licences too Long • Continue including us in community events • Continue the path you have been taking for the past couple years building the BIA and support for Town Centre businesses and continue to have Westridge Security conduct their walks/drives for security. • It's really nice to do business in the downtown Maple Ridge :) Thank you for everything!! • Continue with downtown revitalization and address crime/homelessness. • Cost • Crime prevention • Deal with safety, security, crime. Our patients advise us they don't feel safe. They don't want children coming into this area with people doing drugs deals outside our sidewalk, people walking, yelling to themselves. People destroying property on your business, falling asleep outside your doors. Being aggressive. Attacking people just walking down the street. • Develop a strategy to make locals shop local!!! • Directional signs (like Whistler) on 224th My business is on a one way street going the wrong way • Ensure new developments have adequate parking • Facelift some of the stores • Faster approvals for businesses trying to upgrade their premises. • Finding employees • Focus on crime reduction -homeless issue. Continued residential development & densification (carry out OCP) Continued upgrades to infrastructure to support new growth (roadways, etc.) I am very pleased and satisfied with the effects our city is putting forth to address these items, and appreciate the time & contribution of staff & volunteers. Life & business in Maple Ridge downtown is only getting better. Thank you. • Get high speed fibre to downtown and commercial properties for small business to purchase. • Get patrols out more regularly • Get rid of homeless people, mental health care • Get rid of tent city • Get tattoos! 2320522 Page 26 of 29 • Get the RCMP to actually enforce the law. Drug addicts are stopping people from shopping local. Town Core needs to have police force remove the drug addicts & problem homeless. Period! • Group advertising on City billboards. City owns it and affordably lets Maple Ridge businesses use it! ~ I • Have the City stand up to the Province and not allow our city to be destroyed by taking in surrounding cities problems. If someone is in need of housing or treatment and they are from Surrey, PoCo, Vancouver, etc. that is where they should be. There wasn't this issue until people were brought here by professional protesters. • Help in ensuring safety and security • Help the homeless crisis • Help to clean up after homeless. Daily I must pick up garbage, needles, even feces. Not sure how to help this problem but I re-plant my office gardens 2-3 times due to theft. • Help with promotion, awareness of programs & services • High rise proposed behind us (noise) • House homeless people-stop chasing them around. Encourage larger builders to build commercial for larger businesses so a growth company doesn't have to leave town. Density the downtown and not the periphery. Continue with BIA initiatives. • I have heard countless local residents say "I don't shop in Maple Ridge anymore because I don't feel safe downtown" Too many local people would rather go to neighbouring cities than spend money in our own economy. I realize this is a fight with provincial and federal governments, however the street people are having an enormous impact on local business. Anything at all to help with this situation will help businesses • I need my own parking spot in front of my restaurant for food delivery • Improve curb appeal from 222 to 224 on Dewdney. • Improve employee safety -night time. What is happening to the mall? • Improve homelessness -bring more businesses in to the Mall • Improve sustainable social programs to reduce crime and educate the homeless. • Follow up visit is only necessary if there is new progress made to address concerns. Thank you • Improve the look of the downtown core. Think Fort Langley. Yeah, I know, easier said than done. • Improve traffic on Dewdney and Lougheed. • Increase public safety & security. Increase police presence in problem areas (south side Lougheed, downtown core at night). • Increase security in the downtown core and host more family events • Increase the amount of time for customer parking • Increase traffic to my store. Unfortunately residents still have mindset to leave Maple Ridge to shop • Keep doing what you are doing. MR is thriving, regardless of what the whiners are complaining about. No town is perfect, I think we are lucky to call MR home. • Keep the streets clean. Surveillance cameras on the street. Patrol cars often go down street. • Keep trees, sidewalks & roads in good condition. Better control of vandalism and vagrancy issues. More police patrol. Better garbage & litter p/u on streets • Less tax (property tax) • Let businesses use signage to promote or offer incentive to customers. • Lower crime, theft, and make downtown Maple Ridge more inviting. 2320522 Page 27 of 29 • Lower prop taxes • Lower rent and lease costs-property tax • Lower the home tax to bring more people to Maple Ridge • Make Maple Ridge safe again. Police on bikes or walking and enforcing laws to all. • Make sure the movie crew isn't taking up our front parking to parents as well as more frequent security checks through out the day. We find we have people linger outside sometimes and parents of the children bring it to our attention. West Gate security will be called and they do come right away. • Make the area more comfortable and attractive (make benches, parking spaces, street decorations, etc.) • Maybe help to provide marketing and social media program. Also, a way to give incentives for new employees and/or apprentices to help with the business cost. • More customer and employee parking • More parking • More parking and monthly parking permits. • More security in daytime, accessible parking to the area esp for seniors • Move the homeless shelters and halfway houses out of the downtown area. • My business will probably succeed regardless of what the City does as long as it does not start impeding my business in ways it hasn't to date. The down town core as a whole could be vastly improved as a place to do business if rampant crime/poverty/social issues in the downtown core could be cleaned up and dealt with. Further the City need to attract and prioritize commercial and industrial development. As it is, there is too little commercial and industrial services in the area. This results in many residents, including myself, often visiting neighbouring communities to use businesses not available here, such as Poco and Langley. This hurts our municipality in terms of keeping spending local as well as the City's tax base. • No more homeless • Not sure • Parking issues • Permits/licencing, new business access • Please ask Smart Leasing Company & Haney Mall landlord & staff to please think of the children & make sure they set up a fabulous Santa Claus Village attraction for the children. Make it first class • Please! We need longer time limits on parking! and safer streets for our staff and customers • Protect the elderly from beggar and I don't mean locking them at home and deliver their med & food. • Provide more parking in a "suitable area" for employees and patrons • Reduce crime -we've had 5 attempted break ins in two years that has cost us several thousand dollars in repairs. We're located in the Selkirk Town Plaza and the place looks old, worn down and in need of revitalization. The drug population nearby is off-putting to customers. Garbage on the sidewalks in our plaza needs to be removed regularly. More lighting at night to deter criminals. • reduce homelessness/ crime • Reduce the homeless and have more police presents in the Mall and around the down town core; theft is very high! Pan handling is also very high and needs to be addressed. • Remove parking limits. Clean alleys and walkways. Remove prostitute and Johns. Better security. Remove panhandlers. Better lighting. Develop waterfront, stop worrying about (224th) downtown and utilize waterfront -like Fort Langley. Stop building residential and prioritize about businesses. 2320522 Page 28 of 29 • Re-organize business locations into centralized areas and help rebuild older areas Dewdney 222-226 (not just that development One large development will be fabulous for all of those who get in, and can afford the huge rental costs, but it will further hurt smaller businesses not located there. • Service businesses all over Maple Ridge • Somehow reduce the number of sketchy people in the area. Help with camera placement. • Stop Homeless shelters • Street appeal • Street Lighting • Take out the sidewalks that took away customer parking. Tried to make it look good but went backwards and rather than spending money cleaning up. • The City is a huge impediment to new businesses • The have been a great support. Thank you. • The homeless issue is our main concern at this time • The theft in our store and community is immensely increasing. • They are extremely specific with which side the parking cement block is and would refuse if not on pedestrian side be nice if they can community kindness and straighten it up • They can give business owner like salon owner extra parking time (+cost) parking permit for client extra • This building is in shady location so if people get to know more about this place and business can grow more. • Too many homeless people • Unsure at this point • We are experiencing intrusion of the private space by the drug addicts from time to time. • We expect 222/223 streets be patrolled more frequently, • Please make the street brighter/cleaner, especially during fall/winter, • Please respond to calls regarding needle-cleaning/intruders -whether it is strata or detached. Thank you for your attention. • We are very grateful to the BIA and the support, creativity and networking they offer. Love all their ideas, events and promotions. • We believe the Chamber and DMRBIA are doing a strong job. Continued initiatives to raise public awareness of businesses and showing people we have that in Maple Ridge will translate to renewed support of shopping locally. • We face a problem in customer parking and the parking hours should be increased. Whenever someone shoots a movie in the street, our business gets affected and the parking is blocked by shooting crew. • Without prejudice: remove all of the undesirables from downtown core. This will keep the city clean & safe & customers can shop w/o fear of being harassed or accosted and not come across needles • Work on crime prevention and cleaning streets • Work with the City to reduce the amount of homeless + prostitutes +thieves+ drug dealers/users. Provide ongoing support programs, courses and workshops. 2320522 Page 29 of 29