waterfront brownfield redevelopment study … · mission landing waterfront & brownfield...
TRANSCRIPT
MISSION LANDING
WATERFRONT & BROWNFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
for
DISTRICT OF MISSION
Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd.
Project No. 28544
September 24, 2009
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Aplin & Martin acknowledge the contributions and participation of
the following people and organizations in this technical study:
District of Mission
– Rick Bomhof, Director of Engineering & Public Works
– Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning
– Michael Younie, Manager Environmental Services
– Doug Riecken, Deputy Director of Engineering
– Dan Sommer, Senior Policy Planner
– Greg Giles, Superintendent of Utilities
– Matt Dunham, Superintendent of Roads and
Drainage
Without their vast local knowledge, this report could not
have been completed with the same depth.
Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd.
Key team members who contributed to this report include:
– Maggie Koka, Project Coordinator & Planner
– James Kay, Senior Project Engineer
– Andrew Baker, Vice President
– Sandi Drew, Planning Technologist
– Will Bodnar, Engineer‐in‐Training
Trow Associates Inc.
– Don Sargent and Team
Without your expertise in geotechnical, flood protection, site
contamination and aquatic and terrestrial environmental
areas, this report would not have been possible. The
technical expertise and working experience allowed Aplin &
Martin to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Mission
Waterfront.
Brown Strachan Associates
Andrew Fawcett and his team’s expertise in noise
attenuation were invaluable.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The District of Mission retained Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. from December 2008 to July 2009 to
study potential technical constraints within Mission’s waterfront area. The benefit of identifying
potential technical constraints prior to land use planning is the ability to incorporate guidelines as to
how technical constraints should be mitigated. Typically, redevelopment is accompanied by pressures to
amend a land use plan, since the plan does not identify the presence of technical constraints nor provide
direction. Mission’s insightful approach will increase the successful implementation of the land use plan
for this area.
Aplin & Martin assembled a team of professionals including geotechnical engineers with expertise in
dike, hydrogeological and seismic specialties, civil engineers with extensive knowledge in municipal
infrastructure and sustainable rainwater management, terrestrial and aquatic biologists, soil
contaminant specialists, noise attenuation engineers and planners. The team investigated nine (9)
separate areas of assessment: geotechnical, flood management, soil contamination, terrestrial and
aquatic environmental, water supply and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, rainwater
management, and noise attenuation. Based on the study’s objective: identify potential constraints to
redevelopment, five (5) potentially significant constraints are identified:
Geotechnical
i. Seismic: The riverbank characteristics (geology and topography) may result in a slide
response to a seismic event (earthquake).
ii. Groundwater: The study area’s subsurface characteristics indicate that appropriate
conditions for a groundwater table near the surface will create challenges to potential
ground disturbances.
Flood Management
iii. Dike: Mission’s dike lacks appropriate ownership, is discontinuous and is built to an
unknown standard. These factors create the potential for inadequate protection in a
significant flood event.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental
iv. Environmental Protection: The Fraser River and Lane Creek are important fisheries
watercourses and federal regulations require appropriate environmental protection.
Soil Contamination
v. Residential Redevelopment: The North and East Precincts (see Figure 1 within the
report) contain previous and current land uses involving contaminates that would
require high levels of site remediation, which typically are economically unviable for
residential redevelopment.
Three (3) of the five (5) potential significant constraints affect the same area: Fraser River’s edge. The
report, therefore, recommends three (3) future studies prior to the land use planning to either evaluate
the extent of the constraint or to determine the appropriate strategy to remediate the constraint. In
order of significance, the recommended future studies are:
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w
1. Comprehensive Study of the Fraser River’s edge – The study identifies several concerns which
affect the river’s edge: response to a seismic event, inadequacy of flood protection and
environmental protection requirements. All can be addressed independently through
appropriate technical design; however there are opportunities (overlaps) which can be shared.
Given these opportunities the report recommends a comprehensive study completed by a
multi‐facetted team, to develop an overall technical design which addresses the significant
constraints while incorporating urban design elements such as pedestrian access and amenity
space.
2. Groundwater Profile – The geotechnical assessment identifies characteristics which facilitate a
groundwater table near the surface. Furthermore, the geology of the area, very porous
subsurface materials, further complicates the effects of a high groundwater table. Development
of underground facilities, including parades, may prove cost prohibitive. Additionally, traditional
drainage systems might be ineffective for major storm event. The report recommends further
study to understand the groundwater profile thus allowing the evaluation of what facilities are
viable.
3. Residential Redevelopment – The historical review identifies the North and East Precincts as
potentially having contamination levels which may prove economically unviable for residential
redevelopment. Current regulations require residential redevelopment to have the highest level
of remediation. If residential redevelopment is desired for these precincts, further study is
required to determine the extent and level of contaminates.
The report further recommends that six (6) areas of assessment be incorporated within the land use
planning study and contribute to the base data for the land use plan. The identified items below do not
present potential constraints to redevelopment; however will increase the viability to implement the
future land use plan. In addition, these recommendations will contribute to the overall success of this
future neighbourhood.
Geotechnical
o Building stability – The sand strata may require high levels of mitigation to meet seismic
building protection requirements. Small parcel may find building stability mitigation
costly due to limited available area. A geotechnical analysis focused on building stability
requirements would provide recommendations as to minimum parcel size for
redevelopment.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental
o Lane Creek – The federal government (Fisheries Act) requires environmental setback
from important watercourses. Land Creek is a fish bearing watercourse, therefore
requires environmental setbacks. It is recommended that a study area wide setback
strategy be developed as a component to the land use plan.
o Woodlands – The woodlands in the western area of the study boundary is the last
forested area. The area may contain habitat for species protected by provincial / federal
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w
regulations. An environmental assessment of the area is recommended as part of the
land use planning process to determine if protection requirements are required.
Transportation
o Local Road Network – The provincial highways and railways that divide the study area
create barriers to connectivity between precincts. A transportation study to optimize
pedestrian, cyclist, transit and vehicular movement is recommended.
Rainwater
o Flood Protection – Existing Lane Creek Pump Station has finite capacity. Decisions
relating to diking, filling and commercial vs. individual pump station and catchment
must all be considered to determine the best strategy.
o Rainwater Management – Rainwater management for the study area needs to
incorporate flood protection, prioritize riparian area protection and water quality
measures. Sustainability and Best Management Practices is recommended within the
land use plan.
Noise Attenuation
o Existing Noise Sources (railway) – Wheel squeal from railway tracks exceeds CMHC
standards for residential and commercial development. Provide direction within land‐
use plan as to appropriate land uses and building orientation adjacent noise sources.
The Request for Proposal also included an evaluation of two underlying scenarios for flood proofing:
A. Scenario One Fill the site to the 200 year flood level plus freeboard; or
B. Scenario Two Upgrade the dike and not fill.
The dike is required to protect the area against the erosive forces of the Fraser River. Filling is a
technique used to raise habitable space above flood levels and is not used to protect against the erosive
forces of a river. Filling would improve streetscape potential by aligning habitable space with ground
elevations within commercial and multi‐family developments. The study area contains little existing
infrastructure (water supply and sanitary), with the exception of sanitary force mains and water supply
mains, which could be negatively affected by filling. Most of the existing infrastructure is aging and lacks
capacity for redevelopment; therefore, requires replacement as part of redevelopment and can be
designed to accommodate filling strategies. Therefore, flood management should be provided through
dike improved as recommended through a comprehensive study of the Fraser River’s edge.
A matrix that summarizes constraints, management options, recommendations and estimated study
costs for the nine identified areas of study is provided in Appendix D. While informative, the reader
should review each section of the report to understand the full significance of the recommendation
contained within the matrix.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 STUDY SCOPE ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 6 2.5 SITE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 7
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 9
3.1 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ...................................................... 9 3.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................. 9 3.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 12 3.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 17
4.0 FRASER RIVER ‐ FLOOD MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 18
4.1 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS FOR FLOOD MANAGEMENT .............................................................. 18 4.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 19 4.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 21 4.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 26
5.0 AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION EFFECTS .................................................................. 28
5.1 KEY FACTORS FOR INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION ................................................... 28 5.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................... 28 5.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 29 5.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 35
6.0 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 36
6.1 KEY FACTORS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................. 36 6.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 37 6.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 39 6.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 41
7.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................... 42
7.1 KEY FACTORS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................. 42 7.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................... 42 7.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 44 7.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 46
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page ii
8.0 WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................... 47
8.1 EXPECTATIONS OF REVIEWING WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION ................................................... 47 8.2 EXISTING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................... 48 8.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 48 8.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 50
9.0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT ........................................................................... 52
9.1 KEY CONSIDERATION IN REVIEWING WASTEWATER ..................................................................... 52 9.2 EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................ 53 9.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 55 9.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 57
10.0 RAINWATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 58
10.1 KEY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 58 10.2 EXISTING DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 59 10.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 61 10.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 63
11.0 NOISE ATTENUATION ............................................................................................................. 65
11.1 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS .................................................................................................... 65 11.2 24 HOUR MEASUREMENT ...................................................................................................... 65 11.3 POTENTIAL MITIGATION METHODS / RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 68 11.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 70
12.0 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES / STRATEGIES ...................................................................... 71
12.1 RIVER’S EDGE DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 71 12.2 PARCELIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 71 12.3 CONTAMINATION CONCERNS .................................................................................................. 72 12.4 GROUNDWATER PROFILE ........................................................................................................ 72 12.5 TRANSPORTATION STUDY ........................................................................................................ 72 12.6 INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING ..................................................................................................... 72
13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES .......................................................................... 75
13.1 STUDIES PRIOR TO LAND‐USE PLANNING ................................................................................... 75 13.2 CONCURRENT STUDIES TO LAND‐USE PLANNING ........................................................................ 76 13.3 SUBSEQUENT STUDY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 76
14.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................ 78
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Air Photo with Precinct Boundaries
Figure 2. Fill Areas
Figure 3. Geotechnical Test Hole Location
Figure 4. Fraser River Chart & River Model Data
Figure 5. Waterfront Development Scenario 1 – New Land
Figure 6. Waterfront Development Scenario 2 ‐ Dike
Figure 7. Commercial / Industrial APEC’s
Figure 8. Residential APEC’s
Figure 9. Terrestrial & Aquatic Environmental Areas of Interest
Figure 10. Transportation Infrastructure
Figure 11. Water System Overview
Figure 12. Wastewater System Overview
Figure 13. Sanitary Sewer System Profiles
Figure 14. Noise Testing Locations
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Geotechnical
Appendix B. Flood Protection
Appendix C. Glossary – Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
Appendix D. Report Matrix – Summary of Technical Assessment
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The District of Mission’s Council identified waterfront planning as a
strategic priority for Mission and recognized the need for the
planning process to occur under an integrated and comprehensive
approach for the entire study area. Redevelopment of land at the
core of the community is economically efficient since both hard and
soft services are available with employment opportunities within the
heart of the community. As part of the land‐use planning, Mission
will be able to expand the land base for employment opportunities in
an area that is well serviced with a range of transportation options.
Given the complexity of the tasks required, the diversity of
ownership and the reality that no development should occur until all
of the technical work has been completed for the entire area and a
plan adopted, Council initiated the development of a Preliminary
Concept Plan. The plan was to be used as a tool for discussion and a
mechanism for considering the potential for redevelopment of the
area. The result of the preliminary work was the 2006 Mission
Landing Waterfront Concept Plan.
It was determined through the Mission Landing Waterfront Concept
Plan process that to undertake the waterfront planning, including the
technical background study work, a precinct at a time was not a
viable approach. The technical information was needed across the
entire study area. Therefore, phasing of the technical background
work itself was identified as the best approach with each phase
focused on the entire 69.1 hectare site. The Constraints to
Waterfront & Brownfield Redevelopment Report represents the
findings of Phase I of a three‐phase technical review process and
focuses on significant constraints that could affect the viability of
redevelopment, building character and streetscapes throughout the
site.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 2
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 STUDY AREA
The study area is a 69.1 hectare area divided by Highway 11 and both
north‐south and east‐west rail lines for Canadian Pacific Rail. It is
bordered by the Lougheed Highway to the north, the Fraser River to
the south, the Mission Raceway to the west and where the CPR right‐
of‐way adjoins the Fraser River to the east. The entire 69.1 hectares
is situation within the floodplain and partially protected by the
Mission Dike. Historical land uses have included residential (Mission’s
main street prior to the 1894 flood), commercial and industrial uses,
such as gas stations, and more recently cedar shake mills and log
sorting operations. Figure 1 illustrates the five precincts that define
the study area.
2.2 STUDY SCOPE
Phase I of the technical work, Constraints to Waterfront &
Brownfield Redevelopment, has focused on the significant
constraints that could affect redevelopment, buildings, roads and
utilities throughout the site. The study has identified those significant
constraints which affect land‐use planning, with options to address
and resolve the constraints, including potential order of magnitude
cost. The primary purpose of the study was to:
Identify the significant constraints to waterfront
development; and,
Provide practical, innovative and cost‐effective options for
overcoming the identified constraints.
2.2.1 Study Phases / Scenarios
The Request for Proposal outlined two underlying scenarios, which
are to be evaluated and reported separately:
Scenario One involves filling the land to the south of and
including the proposed Lougheed Highway By‐pass to the
200 year flood level plus freeboard and slope the fill to the
north of this point down to existing grade at the southern
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 3
setback limits adjacent to Lane Creek. Figure 2 illustrates the
area involved within this scenario.
Scenario Two would be to upgrade the dike to the 200 year
flood elevation plus freeboard and not fill behind the dike.
As the report highlights, filling without appropriate flood
management strategies is not viable. See Section 4.0.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 6
2.3 METHODOLOGY
For the Phase I Study a consultant team was retained to work on the
District’s behalf and provide advisory consultant services as outlined
in the Project Agreement.
The Agreement includes project requirements including objective,
scope and responsibilities. Requirements generally involved
information gathered on the following subjects:
Geotechnical Assessment;
Flood Management;
Site Contaminants;
Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental;
Transportation Infrastructure;
Water Supply and Distribution;
Wastewater Collection and Treatment;
Rainwater Management; and
Noise Attenuation.
The team members included professional engineers, environmental
scientists, planners and technical staff. The professional services
included members with specific experience in the above‐noted areas
of practice.
The Team services generally involved a phased approach including:
Interviews with District of Mission staff;
Record reviews to understand general characterizations;
Site reconnaissance and surface assessments;
Working Group Meetings; and
Integrated report preparation.
2.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
For purposes of the technical analysis, the project was envisioned to
follow a phased transformation of the current land uses towards
those outlined in the Waterfront Concept Plan. It is anticipated the
transformation will involve the following stages:
Technical study;
Land‐use planning;
Policy development and approval;
Land‐use redesignation within a formal approval process;
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 7
Study area infrastructure upgrading;
Individual site preparation; and
Building construction.
2.5 SITE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
The 69.1 ha site is on the southern edge of Mission adjacent to the
Fraser River. The technical aspects of development are affected by:
Topography of the area;
Transportation corridors within the area;
Fraser River;
Historical land uses; and
Current urbanization.
2.5.1 Topography
The site is a lowland area with an average ground elevation of 6m
(slightly lower at the western portion). The slope of the study area is
generally flat. The site is situated below the upland area to the north
and above the Fraser River to the south. Available Fraser River Chart
indicates the river bottom about El. ‐5 to ‐8m geodetic. The overall
depth of the Fraser River is about 14 to 17m below the dike design
crest and 11 to 14m below the current lowlands area.
2.5.2 Transportation
The site is bordered and dissected by Highway 11 and the CPR rail
corridor. Highway 11 (including the bridge and embankments over
rail and the proposed grade separated roads) was designed in the
1970’s. The CPR rail bridge was originally built in the 1880’s.
2.5.3 Fraser River
The Fraser River is the longest river in British Columbia, traveling
almost 1,400 km and sustained by a drainage area covering 220,000
sq km. The Fraser flows southwest, draining into the Pacific Ocean
just south of Vancouver. It discharges 112 cubic kilometers of water
per year, dumping 20 million tons of sediment into the Pacific (a
sediment load of 0.179 kg per cubic metre).
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 8
A stretch of 2.3 kms forms the southern boundary to the study area.
The Fraser River presents a flood hazard. The highest recorded flood
(in 1894) occurred within the study area.
2.5.4 Historical Land‐uses and Current Urbanization
Historical uses have included residential (Mission’s main street prior
to the 1894 flood), commercial and industrial uses, such as gas
stations and, more recently, cedar‐shake mills and log sorting
operations. An understanding of the historical site land‐uses is
important to understand potential contamination concerns.
The majority of the area is currently zoned for industrial uses with
some commercial activities. Major transportation corridors, including
rail and vehicle, bi‐sect the area, with sections east and south of the
railway’s predominantly containing small parcel configurations.
Parcelization could present a constraint to redevelopment. West of
the railway is predominantly open area with past agricultural use.
Little infrastructure is currently available in this western area.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 9
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS OF GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
Geotechnical input prior to land‐use planning is useful to ensure
those constraints which are most appropriately mitigated through
area‐wide strategies, are identified. Understanding potential
geotechnical constraints contributes to the effectiveness of the land‐
use planning process and allows for a clear and well documented
redevelopment approval process.
Lowland characteristics and topographic features necessitate three
key areas of investigation (potential geotechnical constraints):
1. Seismic Response;
2. Building Settlement Controls; and
3. Groundwater Influences.
3.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The geotechnical review conducted as part of this study is based on
limited, previously conducted geotechnical field investigation,
supplemented with geological survey maps. This information was
then reviewed against the practices developed in other jurisdictions
dealing with similar situations.
Figure 3 illustrates the location of testholes from previous
geotechnical investigations reviewed as part of the report. Of the
testholes reviewed, only a few provide detailed information, as most
were not of a depth required to understand the subsurface
characteristics. The testhole data, along with information obtained
from the Ministry of Transportation, within the highway right‐of‐way,
provides the basis for the following discussion regarding the
expected subsurface characteristics.
Potential Land‐use Planning Considerations:
Seismic Response
Settlement Controls
Groundwater Influences
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 11
3.2.1 Geology
The data reviewed indicates the site is underlain by river overbank
and channel deposits, generally comprised of silts overlying loose to
compact sands and gravels. Some areas may be underlain by fills,
including wood waste associated with milling operations and
localized peaty soils. Figure 3 contains a typical section
demonstrating the subsoil profile.
Appendix A provides more details, including a glossary and a
geotechnical model for the site.
3.2.2 Topography of Riverfront
The riverbank fronting the study area is significant: 12 to 17 metres
high. The river naturally undercuts and steepens the slope above the
water line to grades between 1:1 or 2:1. While below the water, the
slope may flatten to approximately 4:1. The slope may vary locally
due to industrial activities such as log landing and marinas.
3.2.3 Seismicity
The ground at the site is subject to earthquakes or seismic events.
The intensity of most earthquakes is relatively small, although the
tremours may be felt locally from time to time.
The ground movement from seismic activity, or seismicity, varies
proportionately with earthquake magnitudes, (among other factors)
and severe earthquakes may cause movements and damages to
buildings and infrastructure. Both the ground motion and types of
seismic sources in the region are applied in the national seismic
hazard assessment. The national seismic hazard assessment is based
on a probablistic approach. Accordingly, the BC Building Code (BCBC
2006) defines the seismicity aspects for building seismic design
purposes. Appendix A1 shows the seismic hazard calculation
parameters for the subject site used in this report.
Buildings within the study area will need to meet seismic design
criteria. Appendix A2 provides a geotechnical glossary, including
some seismic design details for information proposes.
Seismicity provides information as to the likelihood of possible earthquake stability problems.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 12
3.2.4 Groundwater
The typical subsoil profile within the study area raises concerns
regarding groundwater levels. Normally when a sand stratum is
present, the groundwater levels match those of an adjacent river,
especially near the river. The Fraser River elevations, adjacent to the
site, are usually near 1 to 2 m geodetic, which correspond to a
groundwater level near the surface.
Away from the river, groundwater levels may be higher, due to the
hydrogeological system of the site. For example, water from
precipitation and overland flows (i.e. Lane Creek) may recharge
groundwater in the uplands. The groundwater discharge into the
Fraser River through the sand stratum may create a groundwater
profile which slopes gently from the uplands down to the Fraser
River, due to the rate of recharge exceeding the rate of discharge.
Further complicating the groundwater conditions is the seasonal
freshet event. The side bar provides a definition. Records indicate the
Fraser River levels will be much higher than usual in a freshet event.
The mean freshet (about EI 4.5m) and the highest freshet on record
(about EI 6.5m) are near the existing ground level. A freshet river
level signals a corresponding rise in the groundwater levels.
Therefore, this provides further evidence that the groundwater level
could be near the existing ground level.
3.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
As highlighted in Section 3.1, there are three potential geotechnical
constraints:
1. Seismic Response;
2. Building Settlement Controls; and
3. Groundwater Influences.
Two of the potential geotechnical constraints should be considered
further: seismic response and groundwater influences.
Building settlement control focuses on the ground response to the
building development process (building, filling, excavating, etc.) and
should not be considered as a constraint to redevelopment.
Technically, the ground movement under building areas must comply
Freshet event is the occurrence of sudden rain fall or due to increased water flows due to spring snow melt.
Potential Geotechnical
Constraints:
Seismic Response
‐ Riverfront stability
‐ Building seismic
hazard
Groundwater
Influences
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 13
with project specific criteria and thus are mitigated at the time of
development.
The characteristics of the study area (silt and localized peat) are similar
to those found in successfully developed areas including Richmond.
Characteristics arising from past uses (ie. organic rich fills) may
complicate redevelopment however are expected to be manageable.
Other waterfront development areas along lower reaches of the Fraser
River have successfully mitigated the geotechnical characteristics
present in the study area. Therefore, consideration specifically on post
construction settlement should not be considered a constraint for
redevelopment within the land‐use planning process, given past
success to mitigate concerns. Settlement considerations can normally
be addressed within the building permit process.
3.3.1 Seismic Response to Sand Stratum
The geological characteristics of the study area, particularly the sand
strata, raise concerns of liquefaction potential. The side bar provides a
definition. The potential of liquefaction raises two concerns which
should be considered within the land‐use planning process:
Riverfront slope stability; and
Building hazard conditions.
Riverfront Slope Stability
Riverfront slope stability has a greater potential to impact land‐use
decisions. The riverfront topography increases the hazard potential in a
seismic event given the slope response to liquefaction could result in a
slide event: the river’s edge sliding into the water. A slide event due to
liquefaction would include ground cracking and rapid displacement.
The area of concern is illustrated in Figure 3. Appropriate evaluation of
the sand layer’s susceptibility to slide due to liquefaction and possible
mitigation measures, requires additional exploration including: data
collection, analysis and interpretations. Discussion regarding further
study to understand the potential land area required to mitigate this
constraint follows in Section 3.3.2.
Building Hazard Conditions
Of lesser concern are those areas away from the river’s edge as the
slope changes to a flatter topography. Building seismic criteria will
likely require unusual design and construction consideration to address
Soil liquefaction describes the behavior of soils that, when loaded, suddenly go from a solid state to a liquefied state, or having the consistency of a heavy liquid. Liquefaction is more likely to occur in loose saturated granular soils with poor drainage, such as silty sands or sands and gravels capped or contained by impermeable sediments.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 14
liquefaction potential; however the terrain suggests the potential for a
slide response is not likely. The area required to meet the building
hazard requirements would benefit from a policy framework to reduce
the potential encroachment effects as individual properties prepare to
meet seismic requirements. Further discussion follows.
3.3.2 Mitigation of Seismic Response
Mitigating seismicity concerns generally focuses on development
footprints that contain habitable space. Recent discussion within
public policy and geotechnical forums include the responsibility of
protecting those areas which host a large public presence (equivalent
to building occupancy), such as waterfront areas and city squares.
Based on the notion that mitigation is appropriate not only within
building structures but also in those places that could attract a large
public presence, two discussions follow for consideration within the
land‐use planning process:
Riverfront slope stability; and
Building hazard conditions.
Riverfront Slope Stability
Recent experience indicates riverfront slope stability consisting of a
zone (berm) of densification for seismic protection, in front of the
building areas to be appropriate. Richmond and New Westminster
both provide examples of the values associated with ready access to
the waterfront.
The alternative to a zone of densification to address seismic
protection could involve individual site preparation strategies. A
parcel by parcel mitigation strategy is possible; however as land use
density increases, the costs involved to mitigate the building
footprint exponentially increases. Therefore, commonly used
measures to prevent liquefaction include, ground densification such
as vibro‐replacement to strengthen the ground (Appendix I,
Geotechnical Glossary of Terminology) in front of building areas
along the river’s edge becomes more approach than individual parcel
strategies. The area required to address seismic protection cannot be
determined through this study.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 15
Land‐use planning near the river’s edge would benefit from a multi‐
disciplinary approach incorporating: mitigation of seismic responses,
fisheries setbacks, flood management, dike maintenance and
pedestrian design components. It is recommended that future study
of the riverfront slope stability be incorporated with other
requirements to understand the full requirement to allow
development near the Fraser River, prior to land‐use planning.
A geotechnical study, including exploration activities to determine
the susceptibility of the sand layer to slide due to liquefaction, and
possible mitigation strategies, would require a budget between
$75,000 and $100,000.
Building Hazard Conditions
Meeting current regulatory requirements for building performance
within a seismic event is well documented and likely achievable
within the study area on a parcel by parcel basis. Further analysis
would be beneficial to understand the potential encroachment
effects due to site preparation requirements needed to overcome
the building hazard condition due to the sand strata. Further analysis
would reveal if redevelopment is best serviced through parcel
consolidation to create a minimum desirable parcel size to facilitate
redevelopment.
Building hazard conditions would likely not affect the potential land‐
use type within the study area, however there is a concern that those
precincts with existing small parcel configuration could prove
problematic for redevelopment given site preparation requirements.
As seismic concerns increase, land area required to mitigate
increases. A possible policy framework suggesting minimum parcel
sizes to achieve high density would prove useful in creating a clear
and well documented development approval process.
This study would likely occur after the initial land‐use planning
process as potential densities are required to understand area
required for mitigation. A budget of approximately $10,000 to
$25,000 would be necessary for such a study, if untaken in concert
with a riverfront slope stability study.
A Constraint to land‐use
planning could be the
area required to
mitigate riverfront slope
stability.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 16
3.3.3 Groundwater Influences
Anticipated inflows and pressures due to the groundwater profile
could overwhelm building and infrastructure drainages thus disrupt
building activities. Due to the above discussed hydraulic properties;
sand strata, hydrogeological system and freshet events, discharge of
the groundwater may be limited in some areas and significant in
others. In particular, areas underlain by thick surficial silts may have
the least discharges (practically none) but where the sand stratum is
exposed, large discharge water flow volumes may be encountered.
3.3.4 Mitigation of Groundwater Influences
Further study of hydrogeological characteristics within the study area
is recommended given the potential to affect the implementation of a
land‐use plan. Port Coquitlam provides an example where yields are
large and draw‐downs are small (north of Lougheed Highway in the
lowlands near the Coquitlam River). This combination makes it
impractical to work and build below the water table.
A primary component of a study would involve monitoring of
groundwater levels over a period of a few years. Such a study would
require a budget of approximately $10,000 to $20,000.
3.3.5 Other Consideration: Technical Library
The above studies would be expected to produce information and
guidance for the various development stakeholders. The roles and
responsibilities of the stakeholders may vary; however, there is
overwhelming agreement that access to the data and the
interpretations of the ground are paramount to a well documented
development process. Provision of a technical resource library is
therefore recommended. Information could be available through the
District’s office.
A Constraint to land‐use
planning is the potential
groundwater conditions.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 17
3.4 SUMMARY
In summary, Geotechnical constraints should be studied further
concurrently and / or prior to a land‐use study. The significant
impacts to a land‐use plan include:
Insufficient area along the riverfront to address slope
stability concerns.
Groundwater conditions which either make underground
facilities costly or overwhelm drainage systems.
Small parcel size which creates potential encroachment
issues as seismic building hazards are addressed.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 18
4.0 FRASER RIVER ‐ FLOOD MANAGEMENT
4.1 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS FOR FLOOD MANAGEMENT
The study area is a lowland site situated in the Fraser River floodplain
and thus is subject to flood hazards. Flood management discussions
are based on the notion of two (vertical and horizontal) setbacks.
Through the combination of these setbacks flood protection is
managed. The graphic below identifies the various components of
flood management.
Vertical Setback:
The vertical setback is to ensure habitable space is built at an
elevation above anticipated flood levels, thus ensures appropriate
separation from flood waters and is referred to as ‘Flood
Construction Level’ (FCL). The FCL can be at ground elevation, if the
ground level is above the FCL.
The regulatory structure provides a mean floor elevation for
habitable space. The study area’s prescribed mean flood elevation is:
Designated Flood Level: El. 8.8 m to 9.0 m plus
Freeboard 0.6m to equal
Flood Construction Level El. 9.4 m to 9.6 m
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 19
Horizontal Setback (or Equivalent):
Horizontal setback ensures structures are not exposed to the erosive
properties of a watercourse. Erosive concerns primarily are riverbank
stability and floodwater velocity. Erosion due to moving water can
destroy buildings and cause loss of life. The alternative to a setback
from a river’s edge is by means of a properly engineered protective
barrier (i.e. dike). Appendix B provides a glossary of flood protection
terms with additional supplemental information.
The horizontal setback can be decreased as strategies to manage the
river’s erosive properties are increased. The vertical setback ensures
habitable space is above floodwaters in a flood event. However,
vertical setback could be rendered ineffective if the horizontal
setback is not managed appropriately. Taking refuge on roofs may be
an appropriate flood response, but only if the building does not
succumb to the erosive properties of the floodwater.
4.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Mission City dike is the current principle means of providing
protection against the erosive forces of the Fraser River. The dike has
been studied by Golder Associates on an ongoing basis, on behalf of
the District of Mission and the key recommendations include:
Formalize ownership of the dike areas;
Provide a dike design standard; and
Develop an operation and maintenance program.
The existing dike lacks appropriate legal mechanisms to protect the
Diking Authority’s interest, is discontinuous and is constructed to an
unknown standard. Figure 4 illustrates the extent of the current dike
and highlights areas of potential weaknesses.
Hydrotechnical and Bathymetry data refers to characteristics of subsurface water bodies; in this case, the Fraser River.
Current dike features:
Discontinuous profile
Uncertain design and construction standard
Lack of sufficient ownership
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 21
Additionally, Figure 4 provides some relevant hydrotechnical and
bathymetry data used to understand the hydrological features of the
Fraser River. The information reveals this section of the Fraser River
to be very deep (10 to 15 metres) with a relatively narrow channel
width (500 metres). Figure 4 contains flood plain information
available on the Provincial Ministry’s website, updated in 2007.
4.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The major hydrologic feature of the Fraser River fronting the study
area is a very fast moving watercourse. It is likely this hydrologic
feature not only represents a highly erosive force but equally
important, creates the potential for devastating floodwaters.
4.3.1 Dike Design
Dikes are the fundamental mechanism for protecting development
from erosive hazards inherent in the lowland area watercourses. If
the Mission dike is to serve this purpose, then the dike must address
the key considerations highlighted in Golder’s study of Mission’s
dike. Dike design should occur prior to land‐use study.
Protection can be provided through a combination of strategies
including an increase in setback from the river’s edge or river bank
re‐enforcement dike design, including a clay core. Filling activities do
not represent an erosion mitigation method as material must be
engineered to withstand the erosive properties of the Fraser River.
Future studies of erosion protection along this reach of the Fraser
River would benefit from a comprehensive riverfront design
approach, including erosion protection, riverfront seismic stability
(see Section 3.3) and fisheries setback.
There are three important considerations when evaluating design
strategies for erosion protection management:
Extent of protection areas,
Design and construction standard of protection, and
Human activities along the riverfront.
Further to the need to provide protection, built to a recognized
standard, there is a need to understand the human activity along the
A Constraint to land‐use planning is the area required to protect against the Fraser River’s erosive properties.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 22
riverfront. Past activities including log landing, may undermine
protection strategies by allowing disruption(s) to the dike to allow
log passage from the river. Appropriate legal mechanisms in the
interest of the Diking Authority can mitigate existing / future
inappropriate activities.
A geotechnical study to understand the design standard
requirements for erosion protection will likely represent a budget of
approximately $20,000 to $30,000. Secondly, the annual budget for
technical support on operation and maintenance may be in the order
of $5,000 per annum.
4.3.2 Methods of Achieving Flood Construction Levels
The two principle means of achieving Flood Construction Levels are:
1. Structural (no filling); or
2. Filling.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate two potential cross‐sections of the
waterfront area based on either:
Filling to improve view and streetscape potential, or
No filling, thus leaving the area at the current elevation.
A filling scenario does not represent a geotechnical challenge with
the exception that any filling activity requires management of
settlement.
Structural:
One means of achieving FCL is through structural design. There are
multiple design options; however, all create a streetscape which is
disconnected with the habitable space due to the vertical separation.
Regulation requirements restrict areas below the FCL to containing
items or uses which are of low value, easily portable or not
damageable by water.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 25
Filling:
Generally it is preferable to fill potential development sites above the
200‐year flood level, plus freeboard. However, due to the current
elevations, this would require wide‐spread filling of several metres to
achieve the required 9.4 ‐ 9.6‐metre elevations, geodetic, with an
estimated total fill volume of 1.4 million cubic metres of material.
Filling processes considered:
Establishing the area as a permitted soil deposition site. This
has the potential to generate revenue; however, the
timeliness and quality of incoming material cannot be
predicted, so this operation could take years or decades.
Unless a reliable, large quantity of fill material becomes
available, this alternative is not recommended.
Pursuing approvals and permits required to dredge the river
for suitable material. While there are similar operations
down river, it is estimated that this still results in costs of
$7.50‐$10.00/cubic metre. By extension, this could result in a
total cost of up to $14 million.
Purchasing fill material from local suppliers at competitive
rates is ideal, though development would be held to market
rates. Should development on mountainsides in
neighbouring developments proceed at a similar time, rates
of $15/cubic metre may be realistic. Otherwise costs may
rise as high as $25/cubic metre, resulting in overall costs of
approximately $35 million.
It is noted that should filling be the preferred option, the logistics of
implementing such a program with fractured ownership will require
significant cooperation and front‐end costs. In addition, filling to such
extensive depths will impact the pre‐loading requirements and
would need to be considered closely by the future geotechnical
investigations. Finally, filling alone does not provide erosion
protection and thus cannot be considered appropriate without an
erosion protection strategy.
Partial Filling Strategy:
As discussed above, generally it is preferable to fill above the 200‐
year flood level, plus freeboard. However, given the size of the study
area, a partial filling strategy can be explored. In particular, partial
filling could be done along the riverfront to improve the relationship
Potential cost to fill the development area could be between $14 million to $35 million.
Potential cost of a partial filling strategy could be between $2.1 million to $5.3 million.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 26
between the habitable area, likely commercial space and the
streetscape. To allow further discussion an assumed area
representing approximately 25% of the study area has been utilized:
17.28 hectares. The fill required would therefore be approximately
0.35 million cubic metres of material. If underground building areas
are removed from the fill required the amount required might be
reduced to 0.21 million cubic metres of material if 40% site coverage
is utilized.
Potential filling processes considered:
Soil Deposition Site
Like the above, there is the potential to generate revenue;
however, the timeliness and quality of incoming material
cannot be predicted. Even with a reduced requirement this
operation could take years or decades. Unless a reliable,
large quantity of fill material becomes available, this
alternative is not recommended.
River Dredging
The cost might be reduced to $2.1 million; however,
obtaining approvals and permits required to dredge the river
for suitable material may prove problematic.
Purchasing Fill Material
If costs range between $15/cubic metre to $25/cubic metre
the result in overall costs would be approximately $3.2
million to $5.3 million.
4.4 SUMMARY
Flood management, and seismic (slope and building) stability, are
significant issues that should be studied further. Both of these
constraints have the potential to affect how the area adjacent the
Fraser River should be planned and the area required to address
these technical constraints to allow redevelopment.
Any filling scenario (full site vs. partial site) would be complicated by
existing parcelization. Therefore, the most suitable precincts to
undertake fill initiatives are the western and west central precincts.
An alternative to wide‐spread filling might include a strategy which
focused on the important roadways being filled to the FCL. This
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 27
would be a complicated approach; however the outcome would
dramatically increase the potential for a pedestrian focused
streetscape. This strategy could be highly beneficial in residential
areas (such as town houses) and those areas with a high pedestrian
focus, such as waterfront commercial.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 28
5.0 AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
EFFECTS
Appendix C contains a glossary of contaminated sites terminology for
reference purposes.
5.1 KEY FACTORS FOR INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL
CONTAMINATION
Many locations throughout the lower mainland have the potential for
soil and / or groundwater contamination. Sources of contamination
include industrial activities such as fuel storage or dispensing or
hazardous material spills. It is not uncommon to find soil and
groundwater contamination where fuel stations, fuel storage tanks,
heating oil tanks, emergency generators tanks, industrial activities
and landfills have been located. A site could be constrained as to the
type of redevelopment based on the level of contamination present.
For example residential land‐uses require higher standards of
remediation of contaminants than a commercial redevelopment.
Given the long history of commercial and industrial activity within the
study are, potential contamination should be evaluated.
5.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Prior to the development of Highway 11 in the 1960’s, the site was
used primarily for residential and agricultural purposes. Some light
commercial and industrial land‐use development occurred along the
Canadian Pacific Railway. Industrial land‐use for mills and lumber
yards was primarily concentrated in the North and East Precincts.
Commercial land‐use, including service stations and auto repair
facilities, were located in the Central precinct along Horne Avenue.
The West and West Central Precincts were primarily used for
agricultural purposes.
After the development of Highway 11 and the construction of the
Highway 11 bridge to Abbotsford, residential land‐use of the area
decreased. Light industrial and commercial development of
properties occurred in previously residential areas along Harbour
Avenue in the Central precinct. Mills and lumber yards continued to
Site contamination can affect redevelopment potential through requirements to remediate the site based on proposed redevelopment use.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 29
dominate the East and Northern precincts with some expansion to
lumber storage along the dike of the West Central Precinct. Auto
repair and service stations remained along Horne Street with an
increase in light industrial manufacturing properties throughout the
North Precinct.
Information was collected and reviewed in general conformance with
a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Based on a records review,
interviews and site reconnaissance, four general activities of
potential environmental concern have been identified for the site:
Mill and Lumber Yards: Predominantly located in the East
Precinct, with additional yards in the North and West Central
Precincts. Potential concerns include, but may not be limited
to, potential lumber treatment/preservation facilities, wood
waste, and fuel storage and use.
Light Industrial Operations: Operations including automotive
and boat repair, auto sales, bulk fuel storage and transfer
facilities, welding and machining shops. The operations are
predominantly located in the North, Central and East
Precincts.
Site Registry Properties: Five sites listed on the provincial Site
Registry have been identified within the Central, North and
East Precincts, including one remediated site, one site under
current assessment, and three sites considered inactive with
no further action required.
Site Fill of Uncertain Quality: As identified by public records
and as previously described in Section 3.0, a portion of the
site may be underlain by fill material of unknown
environmental quality, particularly in the East and West
Central Precincts. Fill materials will likely require
investigation to confirm the absence or presence of
contaminants to meet Ministry of Environment
requirements.
5.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The historical review identified Areas of Potential Environmental
Concern (APEC’s). These areas may pose potential constraints
depending on proposed land‐use. Of the information reviewed,
specific information regarding a significant source of contamination
Potential Activities of Environmental Concern:
Mill & Lumber Yards
Light Industrial Operations
Site Registry Properties
Site filling of uncertain quality
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 30
that would preclude current use(s) or a potential future use of
residential was not identified. Residential uses generally have higher
remediation requirements than commercial or industrial land uses.
The formal processes to manage sites containing APEC’s are well
established in the land development process, including provincial
legislation. The land owner(s) or developer(s) are legally required to
follow established processes.
The following discussion, therefore, is provided as illustration of how
site selection might be managed for different land development
proposals.
5.3.1 Commercial / Industrial Redevelopment
For commercial/industrial developments, areas potentially viable for
redevelopment may include those areas of equal or better than
commercial / industrial past use / activity. The APEC’s were
characterized based on past and current use; particularly those
activities described above. The site registry locations (readily
available to the public) may also identify locations of particular
concern. Figure 7 illustrates those APEC’s. The figure categorizes the
APEC’S into two general ratings, based on the likelihood, extent and
nature of contamination, as follows:
Moderate ‐ Defined as those areas where the potential for
impacts to soil, groundwater and soil vapour is considered to
be moderate and where Stage 2 Preliminary Site
Investigation (PSI) may be recommended. The Stage 2 PSI
would likely involve intrusive (subsurface) sampling of soil,
groundwater and soil vapour to confirm the absence or
presence of potential impacts at the sites. The Stage 2 PSI
may lead to further investigation (i.e. Detailed Site
Investigation) to obtain a better understanding of the extent
and nature of impacts.
Low ‐ Defined as those sites with limited potential for soil
contamination depending on the type of development
proposed and which would likely require a Stage 1 PSI but
which will not likely require intrusive investigations (i.e.
Stage 2 PSI, DSI, etc.). In some cases, a Stage 2 PSI may be
required based upon site specific information not currently
identified, however, impacts are likely not considered to be
widespread or a major concern for redevelopment.
North and East Precincts may contain contaminants, which require remediation to allow for commercial / industrial redevelopment.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 32
Detailed information of the data and records collected has been
submitted to the District under separate cover.
Figure 7 illustrates several areas which may require moderate levels
of remediation; however this is within an acceptable range for
potential commercial / industrial redevelopment. The same cannot
be said of potential residential redevelopment.
5.3.2 Residential Redevelopment
For residential development, APEC’s are shown on Figure 8. Similar to
Figure 7 the APEC’s have been categorized, based on the likelihood,
extent and nature of contamination, as follows:
Moderate to Significant ‐ Defined as those sites where the
potential for impacts to soil, groundwater and soil vapour is
considered to be moderate to significant and where Stage 2
PSI may be recommended. The Stage 2 PSI would likely
involve intrusive (subsurface) sampling of soil, groundwater
and soil vapour to confirm the absence or presence of
potential impacts at the sites. A Stage 2 PSI may lead to
further investigation (i.e. Detailed Site Investigations) to
obtain a better understanding of the extent and nature of
impacts. These investigations are intended to support the
decision making process for the appropriate management of
contaminated materials prior to or during construction (e.g.
remediation and/or risk assessments). This level of effort
would generally exceed that anticipated for a commercial /
industrial development.
Low ‐ Defined as those sites with limited potential for soil
contamination, depending on the type of development
proposed (commercial/industrial versus residential) and
which would likely require a Stage 1 PSI but which will not
likely require intrusive investigation (i.e. Stage 2 PSI, DSI,
etc.). In some cases, a Stage 2 PSI may be required based
upon site specific information not currently identified,
however, impacts are likely not considered to be widespread
or a major concern for development.
Detailed information of the data and records collected has been
submitted to the District under separate cover.
North and East Precincts may contain contaminants, which could prove problematic to residential redevelopment.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 34
Figure 8 highlights large portions of the North and East Precinct that
may require significant levels of remediation for residential
redevelopment.
5.3.3 Further Discussion / Recommendations
The following are suggestions which would generally be undertaken
by land owner(s) / developer(s) involved in property registration /
redevelopment. The District may want to consider some involvement
early in the planning process, prior to redevelopment, as it will
facilitate the approval process. The following suggestions are
submitted for discussion and consideration purposes only:
a. Ranking of specific sites (on a lot‐by‐lot basis) for
environmental risk – Ranking the environmental risk of
specific lots into a tier‐type system will support the District in
identifying which specific sites will require intrusive
(subsurface) investigations (i.e. test pitting, drilling, etc.) and
which sites are at highest risk for contamination. Classifying
specific lots into types of environmental risk will also assist
the District in developing strategies and procedures for
development and/or property acquisitions.
b. Re‐evaluating the development permit process in Mission as
it relates to contaminated sites. It is understood that the
District subscribes to the Site Profile system under the
provincial Environmental Management Act to screen
potentially contaminated sites, ensure clean‐up of a site is
conducted prior to re‐use or redevelopment, ensure offsite
migration of contaminants is dealt with in a timely fashion
and provide basic information to the public through the Site
Registry. To ensure a timely approval process the District
may want to evaluate the current development permit
application process to consider management procedures for
contaminated sites. For example, local governments may
issue permits or approvals for redevelopment prior to
issuance of a Ministry legal instrument under the following:
Land Title Act Section 85.1(2)(d);
Local Government Act Section 946.2(2)(d); and
Petroleum & Natural Gas Act Section 84.1(2)(d).
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 35
In such cases, the existence of local government
administrative controls from the District, which ensure that
contamination will be adequately addressed after the
application is released, but before the site is used, is through
the occupancy or reutilization permit.
5.4 SUMMARY
To fully understand the extent of remediation requirements and the
parcels requiring remediation, further study is required. This might
involve a Stage 2 PSI and possibly a Detailed Site Investigation. Both
types of studies require authorization by property ownership and full
site access, which might prove difficult given the current land‐use
activities. An alternative to a full investigation might include sample
locations to improve the level of analysis and thus assist with
determining appropriate future land‐use options. Prior to such a
study, an analysis of opportunities to strengthen the level of analysis
should be undertaken. The scope of work analysis would ensure the
District’s objectives could be met given current land uses and
ownership.
The District of Mission may wish to secure funding for a brownfield
redevelopment strategy. A brownfield site, lands on which industrial
or commercial activity took place and that may require remediation
before redevelopment, currently has provincial and federal funding
available through various grants, such as Building Canada Fund.
Eligibility and details of requirements for potential funding should be
planned early as part of the strategy for brownfield redevelopment
and as part of the overall, multi‐disciplined, development planning
process. This may present the means for further investigation and
ultimately meeting Missions redevelopment objectives for this area,
including residential land‐uses.
The cost to support technical requirements of brownfield funding
opportunities may require a budget between $20,000 to $40,000.
Current parcelization makes subsequent study within the North and East Precincts problematic.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 36
6.0 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
6.1 KEY FACTORS OF INVESTIGATION
Environmental impacts to wildlife and their habitat are protected in
Canada through legislation such as the Fisheries Act of Canada and
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Fisheries Act of
Canada legislates fish habitat to be protected as well as those areas
which contribute to fish habitat: either a nutrient source or a clean
fresh water source. Development activities can impact environmental
areas through habitat destruction or through degradation of habitat.
A review of the study area includes those areas likely protected by
existing legislation and potential sources / activities which could
degrade habitat. For example, poor water quality is a principle
concern for fish habitat.
Preliminary information on potential environmental impacts as a
result of the proposed development scenarios was considered in the
context of a preliminary environmental impact assessment (EIA). This
was conducted to address potential impacts from development in a
general, conceptual sense as it is understood that specific design
plans have not yet been prepared.
Trow has undertaken a preliminary environmental impact
assessment, based generally on a Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA) screening framework, in order to:
Identify potential sensitive species and habitat areas (fish,
wildlife, vegetation) and potential environmental effects of
the development;
Identify potential mitigation measures required to manage
impacts;
Outline future studies related to potential environmental
impacts and regulatory requirements based on the
information obtained.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 37
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The terrestrial and aquatic environmental areas of interest are
illustrated in Figure 9 and consist of:
Fraser River;
Lane Creek;
Woodlands (especially at the west portion of the site); and
Ditches.
6.2.1 Fraser River
The Fraser River is a 1,375 kilometer‐long watercourse with a
floodplain measuring 75,000 hectares between Hope and the
river’s mouth. The Fraser River system supports 41 species of
freshwater fish and nineteen species of migratory or marine fish
six of which are salmon species. The river produces more salmon
than any other river system in the world. The environmental
importance of the Fraser River has been thoroughly documented
and will require environmental setbacks approved by the Federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
6.2.2 Lane Creek
Lane Creek serves as the areas main surface water drainage, and
receives water flow from the region’s stormwater sewer system.
Downstream Lane Creek near the Fraser River is considered fish
habitat. Water quality and flow within Lane Creek directly affects fish
and fish habitat within the region. Environmental setback approval
by the Federal Department of Fisheries will be required prior to
redevelopment.
6.2.3 Woodlands
Wooded and vegetated areas may provide wildlife habitat for various
species (i.e. birds, small mammals, etc.) and require consideration
under legislation such as the federal Species at Risk Act or the
provincial Wildlife Act. Bird nests were identified within the study
areas; however, no species identification was made as it was outside
the scope of work of this report.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 39
6.2.4 Ditches
Ditches within the study area may potentially contain salmonids or
contribute food and nutrients to fish‐bearing water courses, thus
further assessment is required. Site design must protect fisheries
resources and incorporate best management practices during
construction and development. For instances where impacts cannot
be avoided, compensation projects elsewhere may achieve no net
loss of fish habitat.
6.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The study area contains several environmental areas which require
further study to determine the level of protection required.
Protection measures should minimize adverse effects of
development adjacent to environmental areas.
6.3.1 Protection Recommendations
It is recommended that the District of Mission consider all
reasonable measures to avoid or lessen effects of development /
redevelopment on areas of environmental value. Considerations
should include:
Fraser River – Definition and approval of the environmental
setback.
Lane Creek and other Watercourses ‐ There are a number of
potential adverse impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources:
– Watercourse crossings: loss of riparian and in‐stream
habitat at the crossing, and the associated
downstream effects such as increased water
temperature, decreased dissolved oxygen and
decreased nutrients;
– Loss of riparian area. Reduction in riparian width can
affect channel stability due to an increase in
impervious area and potential impacts on flow
regime;
Woodlands ‐ Potential adverse impacts on vegetation include
habitat loss, fragmentation and introduction of invasive
species. Potential adverse impacts on wildlife resources
include sensory (i.e., noise and visual) disturbance, loss or
Riparian area is the strip of land that border creeks, rivers and other watercourses. These areas contribute to:
Sediment filtration,
Bank stabilization,
Water storage and release, and
Aquifer recharge.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 40
alteration of habitat, nesting trees or changes in wildlife
movement patterns.
6.3.2 Habitat Degradation
In those cases where redevelopment will occur near critical habitat,
monitoring should be prescribed to ensure effects are understood
and if required further mitigation provided. All mitigation and
monitoring measures should be undertaken in a manner that is
consistent with current environmental standards.
The primary source of degradation within the study area will likely be
poor water quality entering critical habitat and increased volume of
runoff post redevelopment. This is an existing concern seen within
Lane Creek. The potential for increased degradation includes
increased downstream flooding, stream bank erosion and poor water
quality. Rainwater runoff and associated infrastructure may also
contain pollutants, such as suspended solids, hydrocarbons, heavy
metals, and other materials associated with motorized vehicles.
Without a defined program that includes mitigation strategies, it is
expected adjacent watercourses and downstream aquatic habitat for
fish and wildlife could be impacted.
A Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan is recommended
to be developed and implemented as a sub‐plan of the
Environmental Management Plan and will include:
Procedures for avoiding potential construction related
impacts on water quality;
A water sampling methodology; and,
Procedures for monitoring water quality during and post
construction and for reporting the results of water quality
monitoring.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 41
6.4 SUMMARY
Except for those areas noted on Figure 9, there are no significant
areas of environmental constraint to be highlighted prior to a land‐
use planning process. Further study should be completed in
conjunction with the land‐use planning process to ensure
environmental protection within the study area. There are several
opportunities for improving environmental areas which are not
governed by current legislation which may include:
Daylighting streams; and
Creation of wildlife corridors.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 42
7.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
7.1 KEY FACTORS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION
Increases in population within a specific area could overwhelm
existing transportation infrastructure which may result in increased
commuting times, increased operating costs for local businesses and
a reduction in air quality. It is therefore important to evaluate
transportation infrastructure to determine whether the
infrastructure is sufficient to support the potential increase in
population. If the analysis determines that the existing transportation
infrastructure could be insufficient, then land‐use planning should
indicate considerations to improve future infrastructure. Additionally,
transportation corridors could create barriers to connectivity. Land‐
use planning should ensure appropriate measures are taken to
minimize the effect of breaks in connectivity.
The analysis contained within this section was based upon the
“Highway 7 Mission Eastern Bypass Concept Planning and Design
Study” prepared by Urban Systems, dated February 21, 2008. The
report assumes a build‐out of 1,400 units and 90,000m2 of
neighbourhood and mixed‐use commercial and residential
development within Mission Landing. It is understood that this
concept is very preliminary, and subject to change based on the
detailed planning and site layout to be undertaken in future studies.
7.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
7.2.1 Highway 11
Highway 11 is a secondary highway. The highway bisects Mission
Landing both north / south and east / west. The north / south section
bisects the West and West Central Precinct and predominantly
contains the Mission/Abbotsford bridge footings. Currently there are
no existing local roadways connecting these two precincts. The east /
west section extends along Horne Street, across the CPR tracks, and
onto the Murray Street Overpass. Figure 10 illustrates the current
configuration of Highway 11 and highlights where the network is
disjointed, has steep grades, and is expected to be upgraded.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 44
The Ministry of Transportation controls an 80‐120m right‐of‐way
east of Horne Street, over the CPR corridor, to connect with Highway
7 east of Stave Lake Street. Though the construction of an eastern
bypass is not currently a priority for the Ministry, the existence of
this right‐of‐way is very valuable. Figure 10 illustrates the proposed
eastern bypass.
7.2.2 CPR Railway
The Canadian Pacific Rail bridge was built originally in the 1880’s. The
bridge connects the Canadian Pacific Railway on the north side of the
Fraser River to the Canadian National Railway on the south side.
Approximately, 20 trains utilize the bridge daily to junction with the
main line just west of Mission Station. The maximum speed over the
Mission railway bridge is 15 km/h, increasing to about 20 km/h on
the Mission Waterfront lands. The railway bisects the Mission
Waterfront, north / south, between the West Central and North &
Central Precincts. The North Precinct is heavily impacted by the
railway line as it forms the western and northern boundaries.
London Avenue is the only at grade crossing of the railway line within
the study area.
7.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
7.3.1 Infrastructure Capacity
Based on the population projections, it is anticipated that Mission
Landing could generate 3,700‐4,100 vehicle trips during the
afternoon peak period. Consequently, the current transportation
infrastructure is expected to accommodate these volumes. However,
access to and connections over, could see significant impacts to the
levels of service at intersections. Possible impacts may include:
Unacceptable delays
Extremely unstable flow and congestion
Traffic exceeding roadway capacity
Stop and go conditions.
Traffic studies are very sensitive to population assumptions; however
although the population forecasts may fluctuate, any significant
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 45
increase in population will put additional demand on the
transportation infrastructure.
7.3.2 Future Highway Overpass
As outlined in the Urban Systems report, “The preferred South Route
concept would be aligned along the northern edge of the existing
right‐of‐way with a four‐lane extension of the Highway 7 Eastern
Bypass to Horne Street. East of Horne Street, the 4‐lane bypass
would include right‐in/right‐out connections to the local street
system. The four‐lane bypass would transition to an overpass of the
CPR tracks through to a new signalized intersection at Stave Lake
Street. New signalized intersections along the bypass would be
located at Durieu Street and Horne Street.” It further recommends
that a 32‐39m cross‐section be utilized. This option has a preliminary
cost of $37 million and should be considered communal
infrastructure.
This expansion could benefit Mission’s waterfront lands in a number
of ways:
Provide opportunities to plan a transportation network that
integrates a local roadways network.
Improve current configuration of Highway 11 to remove the
problematic corner at Horne Street.
Improve grade separation between different roadway
networks (local & highway).
Provide opportunities to review streetscapes along Highway
11 corridor.
7.3.3 Connectivity
Currently there are limited connections between the five precincts
due to barriers created by the highway corridor and railway lines. A
transportation study may identify potential opportunities for
improving connectivity. The study should be conducted concurrently
with a review of utility servicing connections between the precincts
to ensure infrastructure can be accommodated within road right‐of‐
ways. In particular, the water distribution system to be discussed in
Section 8.0 should be considered.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 46
7.4 SUMMARY
Existing transportation corridors, BC Highways and railway tracks are
significant and should be incorporated in the land‐use planning study.
A preliminary transportation study could form part of the land‐use
study and highlight how and where connections between the
precincts could be achieved. These connections would then
contribute to the overall circulation within each precinct and assist
with determining appropriate land‐uses near main transportation
routes.
Additionally, a review of watermain looping, discussed in Section 8.0,
could ensure the water supply distribution can be accommodated
within right‐of‐ways.
Transportation infrastructure does not present a constraint to land‐
use planning; however, land‐use planning could be strengthened by
ensuring the precincts are adequately connected to each other and
the transportation systems, pedestrian, cyclist, transit and vehicular
movement was optimized.
A potential budget for a transportation study could be between
$35,000 to $50,000.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 47
8.0 WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION
8.1 EXPECTATIONS OF REVIEWING WATER SUPPLY &
DISTRIBUTION
Extensive redevelopment of the Mission Landing area creates an
opportunity to eliminate older, less reliable watermains, and ensure
new watermains are sized to support the future population of the
new neighbourhood. Additionally, filling scenarios could negativity
affect existing watermain infrastructure.
8.1.1 Standards, Bylaws & Background Material
The analysis contained within this section was calculated according
to the District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590‐2003, based on future
population projections of 4,400 persons and 9 hectares of industrial
land. These figures were based on the Mission Waterfront Workshop
Summary. It is understood that this information is very preliminary,
and subject to change based on the detailed planning and site layout
to be undertaken in future studies.
Based on Mission’s current bylaw, potential peak flows requirements
are calculated as following.
The peak hour demand was calculated using:
2,700 litres per capita per day residential demand;
67,400 litres per hectare per day industrial demand.
The peak day demand plus fire flow takes into account:
1,900 litres per capita per day residential demand;
45,000 litres per hectare per day industrial demand; and
25,000 litres per minute industrial fire flows.
Flows from the development site are anticipated to be:
144.5 litres per second peak hour demand; and
518.1 litres per second peak day demand plus fire flow.
Mission Building Bylaw 3590 – 2003
Future water demand may be 518 litres / sec plus fire flow requirements.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 48
8.2 EXISTING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The examination of the existing system was performed in
communication with the Joint Water Commission, the District of
Mission, and the City of Abbotsford. Water supply in the District of
Mission is sourced from a combination of Norrish Creek and Cannell
Lake. 600mm‐diameter high‐pressure steel supply mains extend
across the west and north boundary of the development area. See
Figure 11 for pipe location. The 600mm mains operate at 2,100 kPa
(300psi), with the pressure reduced through PRV stations at the tie‐
ins for the 300mm mains to 910 kPa (130psi). These connection
points are located at Horne St and Lougheed Hwy, and at the west
end of Mission Way. These PRVs supply 300mm‐diameter trunk
mains into the site.
The existing infrastructure located within the Central, North and East
precincts ranges in size from 150 to 200mm in diameter, and
includes ductile iron and asbestos cement piping. The asbestos
cement mains are being replaced by the District of Mission on an
ongoing basis. The West and West Central precincts do not contain
any existing water infrastructure. Figure 11 provides a current water
system overview.
Based on preliminary peak day demand plus fire flow, simple
calculations for sizing would be:
300mm mains would generate velocities of 3.66m/s;
350mm mains would generate velocities of 2.69m/s;
400mm mains would generate velocities of 2.06m/s; and
450mm mains would generate velocities of 1.63m/s.
8.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The redevelopment of the waterfront will increase the demand
placed on the existing system, and as a result will require increased
pipe sizing and looping of watermains throughout much of the area.
If a filling scenario was pursued within the study area all water supply
infrastructure in the area would require replacement to provide
service at a higher elevation. Currently, the average depth of the
Filling activities would negatively affect watermain infrastructure, however current system needs upgrading.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 50
watermain infrastructure is approximately two metres. Normal
serviceable depth is between one and two metres.
Alternatively, the aging asbestos cement piping will need to be
replaced as it is at the end of its service life. Undersized mains will
need to be replaced to accommodate the increase demand
associated with the change in land‐use.
The supply requirements to the study area, even with significant
large fire flow requirements, and possible fluctuations in population
sizes, are not of significant concern for this system.
Internal modeling should be undertaken during the detailed design
stage even though the supply infrastructure has adequate capacity
regardless of the ultimate population. Guidance from staff will be
required to determine acceptable velocities within the mains, hence
the required main sizing.
Before land‐use planning begins it would be appropriate to evaluate
the right‐of‐ways required to meet the anticipated looped
watermain infrastructure. The looped supply main would be required
in conjunction with any redevelopment within the area, and should
be considered as communal infrastructure.
A budget to evaluate possible right‐of‐way requirements for the
looped water supply system and create a model of the proposed
system should budget for between $18,000 and $25,000.
Additionally, the information should be compared with the
transportation plan (see Section 7.3.3 for discussion) to ensure
watermains can be accommodated within proposed roadway right‐
of‐ways.
8.4 SUMMARY
The water supply system will need upgrading as redevelopment
occurs within the study area due to current age of the system and
the lack of appropriate capacity within the existing distribution
mains. Therefore, filling scenarios have little impact on the water
supply system with the exception of appropriate infrastructure depth
and high pressure supply mains. Appropriate infrastructure depth
should be determined prior to filling activities to ensure the
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 51
infrastructure remains viable as redevelopment occurs. The high
pressure supply mains should remain outside of the boundary for
any filling scenarios. These mains have appropriate capacity and are
within their service life span. Identifying the supply mains on the
land‐use base plan is recommended to ensure their importance is
considered while evaluating redevelopment options.
Infrastructure corridors throughout the study main should be
considered concurrently with land‐use planning. Currently there are
few opportunities for the five precincts to connect infrastructure. A
transportation plan which addresses connectivity of transportation
modes should also review infrastructure connectivity to ensure
future corridors can accommodate both requirements.
The two items that should be considered in the land‐use study are
water supply mains and right‐of‐way corridors between the
precincts. Neither of these is a constraint to conducting a land‐use
study but consideration will improve the success of the
redevelopment objectives.
A study of the water supply system would require a budget of
approximately $18,000 to $25,000 for the study area.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 52
9.0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT
9.1 KEY CONSIDERATION IN REVIEWING WASTEWATER
Mission’s existing wastewater collection and treatment system is a
complex system. It will be necessary to carefully analyze the
proposed servicing alternatives in the context of the phased nature
of this project, the overall development of the District of Mission
wastewater upgrades and the Joint Abbotsford Mission
Environmental System (JAMES) Treatment Plant upgrades.
9.1.1 Standards, Bylaws & Background Material
The analysis contained within this section was calculated according
to the District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590‐2003, based on future
population projections of 4,400 persons and 9 hectares of industrial
land, and a total land area of 69.1 hectares, as outlined in the
Mission Waterfront Workshop Summary. It is understood that this
population is very preliminary, and subject to change based on the
detailed planning and site layout to be undertaken in future studies.
According to the specifications contained within the bylaw:
410 litres per capita per day residential requirement;
2.5 residential peaking factor; and
46.125 cubic metres per day per hectare industrial
requirement (this includes a peaking factor of 2.0) plus
0.1 litres per second per hectare of infiltration.
The total design flow was determined to be 59.5 L/s. This excludes
the carrying factor as the analysis is specific to the pump station and
trunk laterals, though this should be included at the detailed design
stage of local mains.
The following reports were reviewed in the process of examining the
existing system:
“Sanitary Sewer System River Crossing Study” by Associated
Engineering – dated December 2008; and
Sanitary Lift Station Evaluation Study, August 1998.
Total design flow will be approximately 59.5 litres per second
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 53
As part of the Sanitary Sewer System River Crossing Study, XPSWWM
and SANSYS were utilized for the purposes of calculating flows. A
flow of 20 L/s was determined as the current sanitary flow to the
river crossing from the Mission Landing site. In addition, it was
determined that the inflow and infiltration into the system are well
below the average set for Metro Vancouver municipalities, based on
observed flow rates.
The Sanitary Lift Station Evaluation Study describes the sanitary
pump station located at Harbour Avenue and Mershon Street. The
station was installed around 1960, with a $300,000 upgrade to the
electrical and mechanical systems in July 2000. It was estimated at
that time that the Harbour Avenue station had approximately 12
years of structural, useable life capacity remaining.
The current flows measured at the station are 6.6 L/s with forcemain
velocity of 1.4 m/s when one pump is active, and a theoretical
capacity of 35.0 L/s. The current capacities and conditions of the
forcemain system were determined to be acceptable to service some
of the additional development within this neighbourhood.
9.2 EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
A 600 mm diameter steel forcemain connects the District of Mission
sanitary system to the JAMES Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
via an inverted siphon system running underneath the Fraser River.
Flows are pumped in from one small pump station located at the
west end of Mission Way, a larger pump station located at Lougheed
Highway, the Cedar Valley Connector and the Harbour Avenue pump
station. An additional 450 mm diameter main contributes flows from
the area of Mission, north of North Railway Avenue.
The Harbour Avenue pump station contains one 50 hp and one 28 hp
pump, and currently transports flows from the Central, North and
East Precincts through a twinned forcemain system of 400 mm
diameter Sclairpipe installed in 1972. The flow travels to the old
treatment plant located on Dyke Road, south of Highway 11. From
there, flows are directed to the JAMES treatment plant. The existing
sanitary forcemain system can be seen in Figure 12. The West and
West‐Central Precincts do not presently contain any existing sanitary
infrastructure.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 55
The 600 mm main flowing to the JAMES WWTP has a capacity of
302 L/s at 8.6 m of head, and is anticipated to reach capacity in 2010
under peak flow conditions. Increased use of the bypass valve at the
treatment plant would discharge flows at 0.92 m of head, increasing
capacity to 402 L/s. This difference in pressure is illustrated by the
hydraulic grade line (HGL) across the system in profile on Figure 13.
Based on the pressures throughout the Mission Waterfront area, a
gravity system is not feasible even if the site were filled to above the
flood elevation, as the HGL will still be above the new ground
elevation.
9.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The redevelopment of the Mission Waterfront, along with the
Genstar and Silverdale developments, would exceed the capacity of
the existing river crossing, and will require additional infrastructure.
Additionally, should filling activities take place, relocation and / or
protection of the laterals may be required. The twin east laterals
should not be covered with several metres of fill.
Although not required initially, as redevelopment of the Waterfront
takes place, added pump capacity will be required. This capacity
would likely be in the form of construction of an additional pump
station connected to the east lateral. Funding discussions follow in
Section 12.0.
The sanitary flows in this area are very sensitive to variance in
population and land‐use. As such, it is highly recommended that a
further review, as part of a more detailed design, be conducted
based on the planning build‐out.
With an existing capacity of 35 L/s and potential development flows
of 60 L/s, some combination of upgrading and / or new pump
stations will be required. Fortunately, the existing system should be
sufficient to service the eastern three precincts in the interim
condition until the pump station either reaches capacity or the end of
its service life. When a new pump station is required, consideration
should be given to redundancies in pumps, allowing for the largest
pump‐out of service, storage of up to an hour of peak flows, backup
generator for power, etc. Costs for such an installation are likely to
range between $1.5 and $1.8 million, and including a building
surround, upwards of $2.3 million.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 57
9.4 SUMMARY
The wastewater collection system is not a significant constraint to future
land‐use studies. Allowances need to be made for future pump station(s)
locations within the various precincts. A pump station is typically
accommodated within a small area adjacent to a road or park.
Consideration should be given in any land‐use plan to the proximity of
residential development due to odor from pump stations.
Timing of development throughout Mission will drive the need for the
future twinned crossing of the Fraser River. The forcemain system to the
JAMES WWTP requires protection from filling activities. Filling scenarios
outside of the existing forcemain system can be pursed. Figure 12
identifies the location of the forcemain system to JAMES WWTP.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 58
10.0 RAINWATER MANAGEMENT
10.1 KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the investigations and discussions undertaken as part of
this process, the objectives of the Mission Landing redevelopment,
as they pertain to Rainwater Management, include:
Create a waterfront and park system that is accessible to and
useable by the public;
Control rainwater runoff in a manner that provides flood
protection for the site, is conducive to and compatible with
the mitigation of flooding problems upstream, while
ensuring that the rainwater release will meet quality
standards;
Re‐establish internal natural drainage channels and
watercourses, complete with riparian plantings and habitat
areas in order to provide a net benefit to aquatic habitat;
Provide significant open space, green space and contiguous
corridors that will allow the aerial, terrestrial and vegetative
ecosystems to re‐establish themselves; and
Implement an evaluation and monitoring program to track
growth and effectiveness.
Due to the degraded condition of the existing watershed, it is
expected that redevelopment should go beyond the “no‐net‐loss”
directive and establish a framework for improving and enhancing the
environmental attributes of this site. This framework may involve:
Establishing and enhancing riparian setbacks from existing
watercourses, as appropriate;
Daylighting and rehabilitating the historic alignment of
Catherwood Stream; and
Creating greenways and watercourses through the site,
providing access to the waterfront, refuge, habitat,
connectivity and water quality improvements.
10.1.1 Standards, Bylaws & Background Material
The analysis contained within this section was calculated according
to the District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590‐2003, and the total site
area of 69.1 hectares.
Key considerations includes strategies to manage rainwater in storm events, water quality and impacts to flood protection
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 59
The flow rates were calculated using:
Runoff coefficient of 0.85;
Manning’s n coefficient of 0.00278;
Time of concentration of 30 minutes;
10 year rainfall intensity of 29.75 millimeters per hour; and
25 year rainfall intensity of 34.45 millimeters per hour.
The individual precinct areas were:
13.43 hectares for the West Precinct;
17.61 hectares for the West‐Central Precinct;
7.64 hectares for the Central Precinct;
14.85 hectares for the North Precinct; and
15.57 hectares for the East Precinct.
The reports reviewed in the assessment of the waterways and
associated pump stations were as follows:
Associated Engineering – Lane Creek Pump Station,
September 25, 1979;
Scott Resources – Study of Flood Proofing Barriers in Lower
Mainland Fish Bearing Streams, May 1999;
Scott Resources – Analysis of Fish Passage Options at Pump
Stations on Chester and Lane Creeks, Mission, BC, January
2000;
Scott Resources – Synopsis of Environmental Mitigation
Procedures to Prevent Pump Related Fish Mortalities on
Chester and Lane Creeks, 1994 to 2004, January 2005; and
Northwest Hydraulics Fraser River Study.
10.2 EXISTING DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
The Associated Engineering report shows a pump capacity of 1,700
cubic metres per hour, or 472 L/s. The Scott Resources investigation
into issues relating to fish life in Lane Creek identified that there is a
70% mortality rate for fish passing through propeller pumps. During
the ten year period between 1994 and 2004, 13,900 Coho salmon
were salvaged from Lane Creek and manually transported at a cost of
$7,100 per year.
Current drainage system limited by capacity of Lane Creek Pump Station (472 L/s).
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 60
Currently, Lane Creek is considered to have poor water quality and
temperature. This is partially due to the environmental setbacks
being as little as 5 m. Some areas do have 15 m to 30 m setbacks;
however they have been categorized using the riparian area
regulation (RAR) simple assessment method, therefore did not
undergo a detailed assessment of the riparian area requirements.
Rainfall throughout the North, Central and East Precincts are
directed towards the Lane Creek pump station by a combination of
ditches, 900 mm diameter PVC, 750 mm diameter corrugated metal
and finally 2 – 1,500 mm diameter corrugated metal pipe. Within the
precincts, runoff is collected in pipes ranging in size from 200 mm to
350 mm diameter PVC and concrete. The flows from the North and
East Precincts are concentrated through pipes ranging in size from
600 mm to 900 mm diameter PVC. The Catherwood Stream is fully
enclosed with an outfall underneath the mill in the East Precinct. The
West and West Central Precincts do not contain any existing
drainage infrastructure.
10.2.1 Future Rainwater Management Requirements
In order to compare the capacity of the Lane Creek Pump Station to
the potential runoff from the developed site during the 10 year
storm event, utilizing the Rational Method, the site may have a peak
runoff rate of 4,957 L/s, with flow from each precinct as follows:
944 L/s from the West Precinct;
1,238 L/s from the West‐Central Precinct;
537 L/s from the Central Precinct;
1,044 L/s from the North Precinct; and
1,094 L/s from the East Precinct.
During a 25 year storm event on post development conditions,
5,624 L/s would flow from the study area, with the precincts
contributing flows as follows:
1,093 L/s from the West Precinct;
1,434 L/s from the West‐Central Precinct;
622 L/s from the Central Precinct;
1,208 L/s from the North Precinct; and
1,267 L/s from the East Precinct.
Peak storm event runoff might reach 4,957 L/s in a 10 year storm event and 5,624 L/s in a 25 year storm event.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 61
10.3 CONSTRAINTS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The storm sewer system throughout the Mission Landing site shall be
designed to convey the peak flows resulting from the 1:10‐year
design storm event. In the event of major storm, either piped or
overland flow routes must be created to effectively convey rainwater
runoff to an acceptable site outlet.
Planning for the redevelopment of Mission’s waterfront should
include an Integrated Watershed Management Plan. The Plan will
need to provide guidance for an overall rainwater management
strategy given the current system; Lane Creek Pump Station, does
not meet current requirements. The Plan should also specifically
address the primary objective for redevelopment as being the
management of water quality along with the quantity given the
above discussion. How quality is achieved in light of flood protection
concerns, will require innovation and creativity.
10.3.1 Lane Creek Pump Station
Associated Engineering assessed the pump’s capacity as 1,700 cubic
metres per hour, or 472 L/s. The anticipated 10 year and 25 year
storm events will exceed the pump’s capacity: 4,957 L/s and 5,624 L/s
respectively. Currently, in freshet events, municipal staff supplement
Lane Creek Pump Station with mobile pumps and generators.
Due to existing development in the North, Central and East precincts,
and the typical runoff volumes from post development lands, the
flow rates are unlikely to vary greatly from the existing conditions for
these areas. However, based on the range of hydraulic and
hydrologic options of each site, it is recommended that continuous
simulation hydraulic modeling be undertaken to assess the flows vs.
the capacity of the Lane Creek Pump station.
Drainage infrastructure will need to be installed to accommodate
development within the West and West‐Central Precincts. Similarly
to existing trunk mains found within the other three precincts, these
precincts will require piping ranging in size from 750 mm to 900 mm
diameter.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 62
Upgrades to the existing system will be dependent on how the area
is serviced. If the runoff from the North, Central and East precincts
continue to be directed to Lane Creek, as they do presently, few
upgrades will be required. However, should flows be redirected
directly into the Fraser River, piping will range in size from 600 mm
to 1,050 mm diameter.
The affects of potential filling scenarios, to improve streetscape
potential, will be dependent on the overall rainwater management
strategy. If the North, Central and East Precincts are directed away
from Lane Creek, then existing drainage infrastructure will require
upgrading. Filling will affect the current system as additional fill
would render the existing infrastructure too deep for maintenance
purposes.
10.3.2 Water Quality
The water quality currently released from the site is degraded, and
redevelopment might otherwise have additional detrimental impacts
to watercourses as a result of erosion and sediment released during
construction and rainwater runoff released from the site.
The primary objective of this analysis has become to ensure that all
rainwater released from the site is of a quality higher than currently
exists, and of a quality that sets a higher standard than typical land‐
development initiatives. As such, it is expected that each individual
site within Mission Landing will achieve this objective in a different
manner, through some combination of measures, including:
Stringent erosion and sediment controls;
Topsoil depth of up to 300 mm;
Vegetated buffer strips, swales and biofiltration channels;
Disconnecting impervious areas by directing runoff onto
grassed areas, where appropriate;
Reduced road widths or alternative ‘Green Street’ standards
with additional street trees;
Roof gardens/green roofs;
Reuse of rainwater through irrigation / cisterns;
Structural water quality systems (Stormceptor, Vortechs,
etc.);
Structural flood controls (flap gates, etc.);
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 63
BMP Maintenance;
Street Cleaning;
Sewer maintenance; and catchbasin cleaning.
10.3.3 Flood Protection Consideration
It is important to note that due to the location of this site,
immediately adjacent the Fraser River, rainwater detention and
infiltration should not automatically be required, even though
development may increase the imperviousness in localized areas;
hence, run off this site more quickly. Consideration of flood
protection and geotechnical conditions may determine detention /
infiltration are actually inappropriate for this site. That said, should
the hydraulic analysis of Lane Creek and the upstream watersheds
demonstrate opportunities to assist the flood mitigation of other
lands, all reasonable steps are to be taken to accommodate these
measures. These may include pumping of excess rainwater from
Lane Creek, or the provision of detention in the watercourse, storm
sewers, or other underground structures. Detention and infiltration
measures should be assessed by the hydrogeological and
geotechnical experts to determine what, if any, impact they may
have on subsurface conditions.
As development below the floodplain level may give rise to
additional water (inflow from groundwater as outlined in
geotechnical section), appropriate drainage capacity requirement
should be anticipated.
10.4 SUMMARY
An Integrated Watershed Management Plan will be required for this
area. The timing of the study can be done following the land‐use
planning process, however, prior to redevelopment.
The implementation of BMPs in this area should be designed in
accordance with:
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Land
Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic
Habitat;
Mission waterfront planning should include a Rainwater Management Plan
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 64
Ministry of the Environment Stormwater Planning: A
Guidebook for British Columbia; and Urban Runoff Quality
Control Guidelines for the Province of British Columbia;
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Stormwater
Source Controls: Preliminary Design Guidelines; Best
Management Practices Guide for Stormwater; and
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Guide; and
Master Municipal Construction Document (MMCD): Green
Design Guidelines Manual.
Innovation and creativity are highly encouraged with regard to
rainwater management. The measures outlined herein are
considered appropriate, yet additional measures are encouraged.
That said, minor and major flow conveyance, as well as
floodproofing, should be provided under the assumption that any
BMP’s are ineffective during design storm events to account for the
possibility they are surcharged during back‐to‐back or major storm
events.
The study to develop an Integrated Watershed Management Plan
would require a budget of approximately $50,000.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 65
11.0 NOISE ATTENUATION
11.1 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Potential noise impacts can affect land‐use plan implementation as
development proposals struggle to meet design noise levels required
for development. This report considers two potential impacts for
redevelopment consideration:
Train noise; and
Train vibration.
For housing, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
design noise level criteria from CMHC’s ‘Rail and Rail Noise: Effects on
Housing’ (NHA 5156 08/86) recommends no more than 55 decibels
(dB). The recommended maximum exterior design noise level is 70 dB.
While CMHC provides design recommendations for housing
constructed on sites up to 75 dB, it is recommended as 70 dB within
this report, to allow a 5 dB margin.
For offices, a short‐term speech intelligibility criterion of 55 dB during a
typical train movement, to permit conversations across a desk,
telephone use, etc. To maintain speech intelligibility criteria for offices,
a maximum exterior short term noise level of 80 dB during a typical
train movement.
11.2 24 HOUR MEASUREMENT
11.2.1 Train Noise
The evaluation of train noise is based on train movement data
provided by Mr. Doug Younger of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR,
403 319‐6416). The existing train volume is about 40 movements per
day along the main (east/west) line with 4 locomotives per train and
120 cars, with a posted maximum speed of 50 mph. Included in the
40 movements are approximately 20 movements per day along the
north/south line (crossing the Fraser River), which junctions with the
main line just west of Mission Station. The maximum speed over the
Mission railway bridge is 15 mph, increasing to about 20 mph on the
Mission waterfront lands.
Noise levels are measured in decibels (dB). The higher the decibel level, the louder the noise.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 66
Mr. Younger reports no train whistles are required at grade
crossings. However whistles may be sounded if train operators see
people or vehicles too close to the tracks. It was observed short
whistles on the north/south line at London Avenue crossing and our
analysis includes an equivalent 5 second train whistle per movement
at this crossing.
Train noise levels are derived from statistical tables developed by the
National Research Council from CMHC, in Road and Rail Noise:
Effects on Housing. A detailed study would allow for a future
increase in train activity. For example, 2.5% per year compounded
over a 10 year period (28% increase), or about 1 dB. This factor is not
significant for this preliminary study.
To check that calculations correlate with existing train movements
and to measure wheel squeal at the radius junction, measurements
were taken at three locations along the rail lines. See Figure 14 for
locations of measurement locations.
Location # 1 measured for a northbound train pass‐by was 73 dB,
which included short whistles at some distance north of the
measurement location (less than 5s). Based on 20 train movements
per day the estimated is 62 dB. Similar measurements were made at
Locations 2 and 3, both of which included significant wheel squeal:
64 dB at both locations.
The main line was not fully operational during our site assessment
due to maintenance work. However, it is expected a similar
correlation to a CMHC prediction for main line rail traffic.
The site measurements indicate lower noise levels than were
predicted based on CMHC’s analyses, attributed to possible ground
effect on site, track configuration, etc. In summary, the evaluation
indicated by CMHC’s analysis represents a valid assessment for
future housing at this site.
11.2.2 Train Vibration
The measured train vibration at 40 metres from the track is below
the threshold of perceptibility, which meets the referenced criteria
and is consistent with measured data on many similar projects.
Vibration in finished structures is primarily caused by acoustic
CMHC design noise level criteria: Bedroom – 35 dB Living, dining or recreation rooms – 40 dB Kitchen, bathrooms, or hallways – 45 dB Outdoor recreation areas – 55 dB
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 68
excitation of the structure rather than ground borne vibration (i.e.
similar to thunder clap).
11.3 POTENTIAL MITIGATION METHODS / RECOMMENDATIONS
11.3.1 Design Noise Levels
To meet the exterior noise criteria with design margin, and to reduce
construction costs for acoustic upgrades, housing should be shielded
from the rail tracks. Attempt to limit the spread of noise, once
generated, are often the most appropriate in rail noise mitigation.
These include:
Screens / Barriers
Land‐use planning
Tunnels
Screens / Barriers
A cost effective control method for railway line noise is to erect a
barrier or screen alongside the railway. The main requirement is that
the barrier should be sufficiently high and long enough to provide a
reasonable vertical and horizontal overlap with the line of sight of
the railway from the receiver. Barriers can reduce the noise level by
up to 15 dB. When the buildings to be screened are close to the
railway, the practically achievable noise reduction is usually of the
order of 5 – 10 dB. However, at greater distances the screening
potential may be substantially lower.
A wide range of materials have been used for barriers, including:
Earth mounds
Wood
Steel
Aluminum
Concrete
Masonry block
Acrylic sheeting
Rubber mats
Absorbing barriers of various constructions are widely used. Placing
noise absorbing barriers on the traffic side reduces reflected sound
and is claimed to improve screening.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 69
Land‐use Planning
Noise protection can be achieved through land‐use planning.
Commercial development obscuring the direct line of sight to the
tracks over as wide an angle of view as possible could be utilized.
Unshielded housing up to 20 metres from the tracks could be
designed to meet CMHC criteria, with acoustical treatment. A
setback of 60 metres is recommended, adjacent to the main line
when neither barriers nor acoustical treatment is provided. Elevation
does not affect these recommendations.
Commercial developments with office components should be
designed with warehouse, shipping, etc. on the rail track side and
offices facing away from the track. In the vicinity of the bridge on the
north/south line, offices facing the tracks may meet the 55 dBA
criterion, other than for short whistles.
Single buildings should be situated parallel to the railway, then at
least the windows on the backside are in the sound shadow, where
the sound level is much lower. It is not recommended to situate
buildings perpendicular to the noise source, because then both sides
are almost fully exposed. The higher the buildings alongside the
noise source, the better.
Tunnels
A tunnel is the most effective means of noise screening, but very
expensive and seldom possible because of noise abatement reasons.
Tunnels are built in urban centres where land is very expensive, and
especially when they can be covered with a building. Construction
costs and the costs for maintenance, illumination and ventilation of
tunnels are high.
11.3.2 Glazing / Walls / Doors
Based on the preliminary evaluation, typical residential construction
shielded from the rail track by commercial development may require
6‐13‐3 thermal glazing (6mm glass – 13mm airspace – 3mm glass).
Bedrooms with no shielding, and a significant angle of view to the rail
tracks, may require laminated glass or glazing with storm window
configuration. Walls may also require upgrading to stucco, resilient
furring or other appropriate material.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 70
The above recommendations are preliminary. A detailed analysis of
individual parcels at the building permit stage is recommended.
11.3.3 Alternate Ventilation
To permit residents the option of closed windows, alternate
ventilation will likely be required to meet the British Columbia
Building Code, particularly in higher noise level areas of the site: air‐
conditioning or continuously rated kitchen and/or bathroom exhaust
fans providing the necessary ventilation requirements in accordance
with BCBC 9.32. Silenced make‐up air may be necessary.
11.3.4 Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor recreation areas shielded from the tracks can be positioned
to meet CMHC criteria.
11.4 SUMMARY
Given the early stages of land‐use planning, the potential cost saving
through land‐use planning, and development on the Mission
Waterfront can be designed to meet the recommended CMHC
criteria, land‐use planning is the most appropriate means to migrate
the noise potential from the railway. This approach would avoid the
cost implication of creating a noise screen or upgrading building
materials to meet the CMHC criteria.
Noise attenuation is not a constraint that requires further study but
should be a consideration during the land‐use study.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 71
12.0 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES /
STRATEGIES
12.1 RIVER’S EDGE DESIGN Three technical requirements needed along the river’s edge present
significant constraints to the land‐use planning process. They are as
follows:
Riverbank stability in seismic event given topography;
Flood management requirements including protection from
the river’s erosive properties; and
Environmental setback requirements for riparian area
protection.
Additionally, rainwater conveyance to the Fraser River will be
required.
Based on discussions undertaken as part of this report, it is
understood the design expectations for Mission’s waterfront to
include:
Create a waterfront and park system that is accessible to,
and useable by, the public; and
Provide significant open space, green space and contiguous
corridors that will allow the aerial, terrestrial and vegetative
ecosystems to re‐establish themselves.
Given the multiple considerations to be incorporated into a
waterfront design, a comprehensive study of the area is
recommended. The area required to address the three constraints
should be determined prior to land‐use planning.
12.2 PARCELIZATION
The Central Precinct is heavily parcelized, which could potentially
make implementation of design strategies problematic. Design
strategies could represent technical requirements or land‐use
expectations. The technical requirements, which should consider
parcelization, include:
Seismic Building Hazards – mitigation of potential seismic
building hazards are generally based on a parcel‐by‐parcel
Mission’s waterfront should:
provide riverbank slope stability;
protect from the Fraser River’s erosive properties;
ensure environmental riparian area protection;
convey rainwater to the Fraser River;
be accessible to the public; and
be a significant amenity to the community.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 72
approach. However, given the density expectations for the
Central Precinct and the potential mitigation footprint
required, current parcel configurations may require
consolidation. As part of the land‐use planning framework,
minimum parcel recommendations should be explored.
Filling Scenarios – the potential to increase streetscape
potential by raising grades to minimum flood elevations
could be impacted by the current parcel configuration. Filling
activities are best achieved through precincts.
12.3 CONTAMINATION CONCERNS
As outlined in Section 5.0, residential redevelopment within the
North and East Precincts could require remediation of past land‐use
activities, which may prove cost prohibitive. There are grant
opportunities for the District to pursue which may aid in determining
if these precincts are appropriate for residential redevelopment.
12.4 GROUNDWATER PROFILE
The preliminary review of the study area raises concerns that the
groundwater table is likely near the surface. Underground facilities
can be cost prohibitive.
12.5 TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Current infrastructure, highway corridors and railway lines, create
barriers which limit connectivity between the precincts. A
preliminary transportation study, as part of the land‐use planning,
should be completed to address this concern.
12.6 INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING
There are multiple infrastructure items which could present funding
constraints: rainwater lift stations, wastewater pump stations,
roadway crossings and water supply looping, to name a few. The
intention of the Mission Landing redevelopment plan is to have all
costs for new infrastructure recovered through development
activities. There are various forms of funding mechanisms. The
following are examples taken from the City of Surrey.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 73
DCC Rebates
The cost of the specific works and services within the District’s
Capital Works Plan may be reimbursed from only the applicable
development cost charges (DCC) element only after being initially
paid by the developer. This would be cost prohibitive to the
developer as a large portion of the infrastructure would need to be
constructed before any development can be completed. Also, the fee
structure would place the cost of infrastructure upon all future
developments within Mission as opposed to those only the
waterfront area.
Development Coordinated Works (DCW)
The District may ask the developer to construct and agree to pay for
additional works to be repaid via levy on the other benefitting
properties. As there will be no single large development, and certain
infrastructure is required initially, this is not a feasible option as it
would be cost prohibitive for the District.
Upsizing
The District agrees to pay for the difference in cost to upsize and
construct a new sanitary sewer or watermain from the
development’s needs and the District’s needs. Again, this would be
cost prohibitive for the District.
Latecomer
The developer provides additional infrastructure that benefits other
properties, with costs recovered by future developments that will
utilize the facilities.
Frontage Latecomer
The District has required a developer to provide roadways or
water, sewer, or drainage facilities that serve lands other
than the land being serviced or developed. The developer
may submit a Latecomers Application to the District, where a
specific unit charge will be levied against the benefiting lands
for a 10 year term. The District shall collect a unit charge on
applicants who obtain physical access to, connect to or
benefit from the extension. Such a unit charge shall be paid
to the District who will, in turn, pay the front‐ender on an
annual basis.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 74
Area Latecomer
Where a sanitary pump station and / or gravity line and / or
forcemain can serve lands other than those being serviced or
developed. The developer may submit an Area Latecomers
Application to the District, where a specific unit charge will
be levied against the benefiting lands for a 10 year term. The
District shall collect a unit charge from applicants who obtain
physical access to, connect to or benefit from the works.
Such a unit charge shall be paid to the District, who will in
turn, pay the front‐ender on an annual basis.
Neither mechanism is recommended as the infrastructure cost would
be prohibitive to an individual developer. Further, works would be
required to be constructed by the first developer, lest some lands be
developed before the latecomer is implemented.
Development Works Agreement
For communal works in excess of the District DCC program,
developers may undertake improvements and apply for a
Development Works Agreement to implement a levy on all future
developments in the area to recover the shortfall. This method is
effective, targets repayment from other developments within
Mission Landing, though again requires all works upfront by the first
developer to ensure every site contributes their share.
Specified Area Charge
It is recommended that the District evaluate the cost of communal
infrastructure required by the entire Mission Landing area in advance
of any development commencing. Implementing a Specified Area
Charge, the District will collect appropriate portions of the cost of the
works from each development, and may choose to phase the
infrastructure as needed, or then undertake the works as DCC
Frontender or DCW. Because of the nature of the infrastructure
improvements, this is the preferable alternative as the infrastructure
can be built as required.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 75
13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES
13.1 STUDIES PRIOR TO LAND‐USE PLANNING
13.1.1 Comprehensive Study of Fraser River’s Edge
As the study material was gathered, it became apparent a
comprehensive study of the river’s edge should be completed prior
to any land‐use planning initiatives. Rationale for this approach is
based on information from Sections: 3 – Geotechnical, 4 – Flood
Management and 5 – Aquatic & Terrestrial Environmental.
Incorporation of rainwater management and amenities objective
would strengthen the overall design. However, they are not
necessary prior to the land‐use study.
13.1.2 Redevelopment of North and East Precinct as Residential
Past land‐use activities within these precincts may prove problematic
for residential use. Given the current land‐use expectations for the
waterfront area, future site contamination study is suggested to
determine the viability to redevelopment these precincts for
residential purposes.
13.1.3 Groundwater
If underground facilities are proposed as part of a redevelopment
strategy, further study of the groundwater profile is necessary. If, for
example, mid‐rise buildings with underground parking are
envisioned, then an understanding of the water table is
recommended to ensure the underground facilities can be achieved.
13.1.4 Transportation Study
A preliminary analysis of how and where connections between
precincts can be achieved should form part of the base data for the
land‐use study. This information will ensure negative effects of poor
transportation system will be minimized.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 76
13.2 CONCURRENT STUDIES TO LAND‐USE PLANNING
There are several studies which either should support the land‐use
planning process or will assist with creating a well‐documented
approval process. These studies include:
Rainwater Management Plan;
Environmental Protection Strategy;
Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements;
Seismic Building Hazard Framework; and
Ground Water Management Plan.
13.3 SUBSEQUENT STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
13.3.1 Electromagnetic Fields
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) of all kinds are becoming a common
and fast‐growing environmental concern. With advancing
technology, our exposure to EMF is rising. Electrical transmission and
use creates electromagnetic fields (EMF). Electric and magnetic fields
are everywhere that electricity flows, occurring naturally and
through appliance / equipment use. Common sources in urban areas
include computers, light bulbs, electric appliances, building wiring,
and electricity transmission lines. Visible light, ultra‐violet light and X‐
rays are also forms of electromagnetic energy. Background levels of
EMF in urban areas are usually less than 1milligauss (mG). Overall
levels of EMF in and right next to hydro corridors can be higher than
those usually found both indoors and outdoors elsewhere in an
urban center.
BC Hydro’s definition of electric and magnetic fields are:
“Two distinct forms of energy. Electric fields are created by the
presence of voltage in a conductor. They exist around
energized wires, even if equipment is turned off. Magnetic
fields are created by current (that is the flow of electrons)
through a conductor. They exist only when equipment is
turned on and current is flowing. In short, electric fields are
associated with voltage and magnetic fields are associated
with the amount of current being used.”
(BC Hydro ‐ Guidelines for Development near Overhead
Transmission Lines in BC, page 29).
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 77
According to BC Hydro’s Guidelines for Development near Overhead
Transmission lines in BC, to date, no building greater than two stories
has been constructed at the edge of a 500kV transmission right‐of‐
way in BC. Such structures though may experience electric fields
from its height, length, orientation and closeness to the transmission
line. BC Hydro recommends that a developer or land owner retain a
professional consultant with expertise in calculating electric and
magnetic fields, mitigation strategies and safety issues during
construction and after occupancy.
Based on this information, it is recommended that further study is
necessary to develop guidelines of the type of development and
siting of buildings near the transmission corridor within the study
area.
M i s s i o n L a n d i n g : T e c h n i c a l O v e r v i e w Page 78
14.0 CLOSURE
The above discussions, interpretations and opinions along with the
attachments of this report have been developed as outlined in the
report.
Also note that this report was prepared for the exclusive use of the
District of Mission and their designated agents, and may not be used
by other parties without the written consent of Aplin & Martin
Consultants Ltd.
We trust that the report will meet your present requirements. Please
contact the report author, Aplin Martin Consultants Ltd., if you have
any questions or require further assistance.
APPENDIX A
GEOTECHNICAL
Appendix A1 ‐ NBCC (2005) Seismic Hazard Calculation
Appendix A2 ‐ Seismic Hazard, Geotechnical Glossary
Geotechnical Glossary
Waterfront & Brownfield Redevelopment Study (Phase 1)
Artesian Refers to groundwater under sufficient hydrostatic head to rise
above the aquifer containing it.
Berm, Densification (Zone) A slope stabilization measure to resist soil liquefaction effects. In
the absence of detailed analyses, the Richmond Task Force
Report recommended that the width of building densification
zones should:
i. extend vertically the full depth of potential liquefaction, and,
ii. extend laterally under the full footprint of the building and a distance equal to the thickness of the liquefiable layers
(including nay non‐liquefiable layers between the liquefiable
layers) beyond the edge of the building footprint.
If lateral spreading deformations (slope stability issues) are
expected in the soil around the building, then the width of
densification should be sufficient that the passive capacity of the
densified “block” can resist the forces from the surrounding
moving soil mass, or the building should be designed such that it
can move with the soil mass without collapse.
Borrow Materials excavated on site for purposes of construction
materials.
Construction Monitoring Measurements and observations obtained to gather feedback on
the response of the ground. Measurements and observations
should be reliable, reveal the significant phenomenon, and be
reported to the geotechnical engineer in order to encourage
prompt actions. In short, measurements and observations should
be carried out under the review of the geotechnical engineer.
Densification Densification causes the soil to go into a tighter packing and
increases its cyclic resistance. Example methods include: vibro‐
compaction, vibro‐replacement, dynamic compaction, explosive
compaction, compaction piles, gravel compaction piles,
preloading, rapid impact compaction, compaction grouting, and
various top‐vibrated probes.
Drainage Drainage dissipates excess pore water pressure, thus, helps
maintain the effective strength of the soil. Example methods
include: vertical seismic drains, wick drains, sand compaction
soils and possibly stone columns in some soils.
Dewatering Dewatering removes the pore water and thus volumetric
compaction can occur without loss of soil strength. Dewatering is
conducted by temporary and/or permanent pumping or drainage
systems. Cut‐off walls may be part of the system to minimize the
volume of water pumped and effects on adjacent structures.
Hydraulic Head The sum of the pressure and elevation heads (total energy level)
demonstrated by the height to which a column of water in a
piezometer will rise.
Liquefaction, Seismic Seismic liquefaction refers to a sudden loss in shear stiffness and
strength of soil due to cyclic loading effects of an earthquake.
The loss arises from a tendency for soil to contract under cyclic
loading, and if such contraction is prevented or curtailed by the
presence of water in the pores, it lead to a rise in pore water
pressure and resulting drop in the effective stress. If the effective
stress drops to zero (100% pore water pressure rise), the shear
strength and stiffness also drop to zero and the soils behaves as
a heavy liquid. However, unless the soil is very loose, it will likely
dilate and regain some shear stiffness and strength as it strains.
The post‐liquefaction shear strength is commonly referred to as
the residual shear strength and may be 1 to 10 times lower than
the static shear strength.
Methane A colourless, odourless, inflammable gas. Associated with
marshes and peat bogs.
Observational Method Consists of data gathering during the field review and
construction monitoring. Generally, the feedback obtained
during the early stages of construction provides a very important
data gathering in assessment phase, i.e., review of the actual site
performance. A geotechnical review of feedback from
construction provides a basis for either confirming the design or
modifying the design, as appropriate. Settlement gauge readings
are an example of data gathering during construction which
provides relevant information for the geotechnical engineer to
assess the response of the ground.
Peat Unconsolidated soil material consisting largely of un‐
decomposed, or only slightly decomposed, organic matter.
Pore Pressure Monitoring The measurement of the hydraulic pressure in a pneumatic
piezometer or standpipe piezometer.
Preload, Building Standard Depth of granular material removed after completion of primary
settlements under a mound of mineral fill. The depth is typically
based on building design considerations.
Preload, Surcharge The depth of preload material in excessive of the proposed
building loads.
Preload, Yard Standard Depth of granular material removed after completion of primary
settlements under a mound of mineral fill. The depth is typically
based on buried facilities considerations.
Preloading, Typical
Outline
In this procedure, the soil is pre‐compressed by placing a
temporary load prior to placement of the actual foundation
(long‐term) loads. This is usually done by placing sand fill on and
slightly beyond the building footprint. The fill is left in place for a
period varying from a few weeks to many months. Just prior to
building construction, the sand fill is removed. Recent research
at the University of British Columbia (Sanin and Wijewickreme
2006) has shown that the benefits (increased liquefaction
resistance) of this in silty soils can be significant. In sandy soils,
the benefit is not as conclusive and the effects of preloading are
generally not considered in liquefaction triggering and ground
densification design.
Recharge Area An area in which there is a downward component of hydraulic
head. Infiltration moves downward into the deeper parts of an
aquifer in a recharge area.
Reinforcement and
Containment, Mitigation
Reinforcement and containment reduces ground deformation by
reinforcing or containing the liquefied soil layers with stiff
inclusion or wall elements. Reinforcement and containment may
also reduce the cyclic loading on the soil and thus reduce its
liquefaction susceptibility. Example methods include piles (acting
as dowels), jet grout columns, slurry walls, and sheet pile cells or
walls. Blocks of densified ground may also be used to contain
potentially liquefiable soil.
Replacement, Mitigation Liquefaction can be mitigated by removing the liquefiable soil
and replacing it with non‐liquefiable soil. This can be done at
shallow depths using normal construction excavation, backfill
and compaction equipment. Procedures such as jet grouting or
vibro‐replacement also cause a partial replacement to occur as
part of the process.
Runoff The portion of the total precipitation on an area that flows away
through stream channels or, in the case of urban areas, through
the sewer systems.
Settlement, Degradation Settlements arising due to degradation of materials below grade,
e.g., decomposition of organic‐rich material. Degradation
settlements may be very erratic and significant in short term as
well as long term depending on processes ongoing. Degradation
settlements may be relatively small where the rate of
decomposition or degradation in the subsoil is relatively slow.
Settlement, Primary Initial settlements, typically fairly rapid (less than three months
to two years duration) associated with placement of mineral fills
on soft ground.
Settlement, Secondary Long term typically post‐construction settlements associated
with superimposed pressures associated with subgrade fills,
building weight and land‐use, etc. Note that changes in the level
of the groundwater may also lead to stress changes and
associated post‐construction settlements.
Settlement Gauge Consists of metal pipe riser, securely fastened to a plywood base
plate usually .6 by .6m square. A sleeve should be provided
around the metal pipe riser to allow measurement of the plate
level with time. Alternatively, the inside of the metal pipe risers
may be sounded in order to determine the elevation of the plate.
The height of gauge and the level reading of the top of the
settlement gauge reference point and ground surface around the
metal gauge should be determined routinely by survey.
Arithmetic calculation may be used to determine the plate
elevation knowing the height of the settlement gauge.
Settlement Monitoring;
Deep
Deep gauges installed to significant depths in the order of 4 to
9m in order to measure the settlement below the surficial layers.
Stripping Excavation to remove unsuitable ground prior to placing
subgrade or structural fill (engineered fill).
Subgrade The pre‐existing ground surface.
Subgrade Fill Fill material placed to develop a subgrade with particular
characteristics.
Water Table Surface along which the fluid pressure is atmospheric, and below
which the fluid pressure is greater than atmospheric (i.e. top of
saturated zone).
Note: APEGBC Guidelines for Geotechnical Practice provide additional technical
information.
Reference: Richmond Task Force Report 2006
Appendix A3 ‐ Seismicity
Soil and Ground water Conditions
The site is underlain by some thin fills and organics over silt and sand layers, as outlined above. The
geotechnical characterizations, based on a review of the available records, provided input to the
geotechnical interpretations and related opinions as discussed below. The details of the characteristics
are provided in Appendix B and in data review memoranda provided under a separate cover.
Figure 3 shows the geotechnical test hole locations from previous investigations and a typical section.
The table below profiles a typical stratigraphic profile of the site based on the record types available for
this study.
Stratigraphic Profile
SOIL UNIT DESCRIPTION DATA AVAILABLE
FILL - Mineral soils, loose
- Wood materials, associated with
local timber milling
Pits and drills, soil descriptions
PEAT - Thin, localized, generally near
margin between lowlands &
uplands.
Pits and drills
SILT ‐ UPPER - Firm
- Channelled deposits
Pits and drills, CPT, soil
description, moisture contents
UPPER SAND - Loose to compact
- Trace silt
- Liquefiable
Drill, CPT, Shear wave velocity, soil
sieve on select samples
LOWER SAND - Loose to compact
- Trace silt
Drill, CPT, shear wave velocity, soil
sieve on select samples
LOWER SILT - Possibly Fort Langley Formation
glacio‐marine, marine deposits
- Some clay
Drill, CPT, shear wave velocity only
but thickness undetermined.
INTERGLACIAL DEPOSITS - Sand, minor gravel, possibly Pre‐
Vashon deposits
This table includes seismicity information and the seismic site classification per BCBC 2006. Appendix I
contains the NBCC (2005) Seismic Hazard Calculation.
The table below provides a summary of current geotechnical and land‐use conditions.
Summary of Geotechnical and Land‐use Conditions
COMPONENT EAST RAIL WEST
RAIL
SITE
OVERALL
Current/Past Land‐use
C/I Mostly
R/A
Local C/I
‐
Subsoil Profiles:
- Potential Fill, Wood waste √ Limited ‐
- Potential Peat Limited ‐ ‐
- SILT/SAND √ √ √
Groundwater/River Levels
- Mean Freshet: DTW ‐ ‐ 1‐2m
- Usual DTW ‐ ‐ 4‐5m
- 1:200 Fraser River, DTW √ √ Artesian
- 1:200 Lane Creek, DTW ‐ √ 0m
localized
Seismicity
Firm Ground , Peak
Horizontal Acceleration
- 1:475 Event ‐ ‐ 0.25
- 1:2475 Event 0.46
Site Amplification Factor,
Approximate
1.2 to 1.3
Site Classification BCBC 2006 F F Note (1) Note (1)
DTW ‐ Depth to regional groundwater (not including local seepage effects).
C/I ‐ Commercial/Industrial
R/A ‐ Residential/Agricultural
Note: (1) Site Classification F is based on liquefaction of the sand subsoil. In areas, near the lowland margin
of the site, site classification may change to Site Class D or E, subject to subsoil profile conditions.
Building Seismic
For building design, the design earthquake motion considered in NBCC 2005 and BCBC 2006 has a 2%
probability of exceeding in 50 years, or has a 1:2475 year return period (Appendix B). Also, in British
Columbia (BCBC 2006) the slope stability of the land at the building is evaluated based on 10%
probability of exceeding in 50 years, or 1:475 year return period.
“Outcropping Firm Ground” Design Motion
The code provides response spectrum for soil conditions referred to as “Outcropping Firm Ground”. The
firm ground, according to the code, is defined as very dense soil or soft bedrock with shear velocity in
the range of 360‐750 m/s. The section in Figure 2 illustrates depth to firm ground.
Amplification of Ground Motion
The ground motion would amplify or de‐amplify as earthquake waves travel upward from “firm ground”
through the soil underlying the subject site.
Liquefaction
As the soil within the top 30m of the ground at the site is considered to be susceptible to liquefaction,
the site would be classified as “Site Class F” and a site specific ground response analysis would be
required under NBCC 2005/BCBC 2006.
Based on subsoil density/strength information, the site is considered prone to liquefaction issues under
seismic design criteria. However, the technical aspects of liquefaction issues would be expected to differ
between land improvement, e.g., building projects and flood protection works.
Appendix A4 –
The following tables provide a matrix to illustrate interactions between the project phases/components
and some geotechnical components for Scenarios One and Two, respectively. In particular, Tables 3.2
and 3.3 Project – Geotechnical Interaction Matrix show the Project Phase and Core Project Components
on the left (2 columns) with the Geotechnical Building Implementation Features/Activities across the
top of the page (e.g., Site Preparation, Preload, etc.). The filled cells indicate an interaction between the
project and geotechnical aspects.
The building geotechnical components were identified based on consideration of project component
objectives, available data review and interpretations and experience with similar types of development
faced with the similar consequences as outlined above. Some details of geotechnical analyses are
provided under separate cover.
The key interactions may be taken as follows:
Riverfront/Building Interaction Area:
The existing sand subsoil, especially the upper sand unit, will need to be reviewed for stability
during the design seismic event.
The sand subsoil, prone to liquefaction, would undergo significant lateral and vertical
movements during the design seismic event. Building foundations would have to be designed to
accommodate movements without building collapse. Alternatively, ground densification may be
completed to limit ground movements to a range tolerable for the building and its foundation.
Ground densification (berm) along the waterfront could be recommended to address slope
stability concerns.
Typical Building Geotechnical (Seismic):
Away from the riverbank, seismic protection measures for buildings would be similar to the
above. However, other options may be considered on a site specific basis, depending on the
nature of the subsoil conditions.
Site Preparation and Preload Method:
See the following tables;
Note encroachment potentials may arise on site specific basis, as outlined below; and
Related considerations may include building setback and grading criteria.
Groundwater Controls / Aspects
Project‐Geotechnical Interaction Matrix ‐ Scenario One – New Land Prepared by TROW
PROJECT
PHASE
Geotechnical Building Implementation
Features/Activities →
Riverbank Geo
hazard
Flood Hazard
Site
Preparation Preload
Method
Seismic
Protection
Measures
Development/Building Setback
Building Grades
Shallow Bldg. Foundations
(low intensity)
Deep Bldg. Foundations (high
intensity)
Basem
ents, G
roundwater
Control/Im
pacts
Encroachment Potential
Comments
↓Core Project Components
Stripping /
Excavation
Filling
Low Intensity
High Intensity
Natural
Protections
Ground
Den
sification
Land Support
Issues
Construction
Methods
Dike
Maintenance
Etc.
Current Operation ● ● ●
Land‐use Change Property Transactions – Site Remediation X X
Concepts /
Objectives Residential, Mid‐Intensity, Basement X ● ●
Residential, High‐Intensity, Basement X X
Commercial, Low‐Intensity X ● ●
Light Industrial (as appropriate) X ● ●
Parks/Waterfront accesses ‐ Public ● ●
Land‐use Change
Processes Local Approving Authority X X X ● ●
Development Permits (DP) X ● X ● ● X
Subdivision Plan X ● X X X ● ● X
Land Preparation /
Raise Grades Excavation / Permits X X
Fill Placement, Preload & Monitoring X X ●
Building Construction Excavation / Fill / Building Permit (BP) ● ● X X ● ● ● ●
Site Preparation: Preload / Densification ● ● ● X X ● ● ● ●
Assembly of Building / Facilities / Occupancy
(OP) ●
Waterfront
Construction Excavation / Fill / Building Permit (BP) X X X X ● ● X
Site Preparation: Preload, Densification X ● ● ● X X ● X ● ● ●
Assembly of Facilities / Occupancy (OP) X ● ●
Future Operation Similar as Current Operations ● ● ●
Pedestrian Foot Traffic to the Building and to
surrounding Public Areas
Waterfront Facility Operations
X X
Legend: X Interaction
● Possible Interaction, Site Specific
Project‐Geotechnical Interaction Matrix ‐ Scenario Two – Dike Prepared by TROW
PROJECT
PHASE
Geotechnical Building Implementation
Features/Activities →
Riverbank Geo
hazard
Flood Hazard
Site
Preparation
Preload
Method
Seismic
Protection
Measures
Development/Building
Setback
Building Grades
Shallow Bldg. Foundations
(low intensity)
Deep Bldg. Foundations
(high intensity)
Basem
ents, G
roundwater
Control/Im
pacts
Encroachment Potential
Comments
↓Core Project Components
Stripping /
Excavation
Filling
Low Intensity
High Intensity
Natural
Protections
Ground
Den
sification
Land Support
Issues
Construction
Methods
Dike
Maintenance
Etc.
Current Operation ● ● ●
Land‐use Change Property Transactions – Site Remediation X X
Concepts /
Objectives Residential, Mid‐Intensity, Basement X ● ●
Residential, High‐Intensity, Basement X X
Commercial, Low‐Intensity X ● ●
Light Industrial (as appropriate) X ● ●
Parks/Waterfront accesses ‐ Public ●
Land‐use Change
Processes Local Approving Authority X X X ● ●
Development Permits (DP) X ● X ● ● X
Subdivision Plan X ● X X X ● ● X
Land Preparation /
Raise Grades Excavation / Permits – N/A
Fill Placement, Preload & Monitoring – N/A
Building
Construction Excavation / Fill / Building Permit (BP) X X ● X X ● X X ●
Site Preparation: Preload / Densification ● X X ● X X ● X ● X ● ●
Assembly of Building / Facilities / Occupancy (OP) ● ●
Waterfront
Construction Excavation / Fill / Building Permit (BP) X X X X X X X ● X
Site Preparation: Preload, Densification X ● X X ● X X ● ● X X ● ● ●
Assembly of Facilities / Occupancy (OP) X ● ● ●
Future
Operation Similar as Current Operations ● ● ●
Pedestrian Foot Traffic to the Building and to
surrounding Public Areas
Waterfront Facility Operations
X X
Legend: X Interaction
● Possible Interaction, Site Specific
The groundwater impacts, which may arise in response to high river levels, may generally consist of:
Uplift forces on buried facilities (e.g. basements, tanks, etc.);
Groundwater inflows (inflow rates depend on subsurface conditions).
The management strategies may involve some reaction to counteract uplift forces, and/or provisions to
handle water inflows. For example, basements may be allowed to flood during high river levels. Less
obvious impacts may include a need for additional storm water facilities to handle the disposal of
seepage waters.
In general, the geotechnical complexities generally involve a site specific design strategy; however,
potential encroachment issues may be anticipated. For example, the geotechnical conditions generally
give rise to some project interactions as outlined above, e.g., the riverbank building seismic protection
measures differ from that away from the riverbank area (Tables 3.1, 3.2). There are potential
encroachments due to construction of site preparation and seismic protection measures (Tables 3.1,
3.2). For example, the ground response to land improvement activity (e.g., building loads, construction,
etc.) may encroach on adjacent properties or rights. Specific examples may include lowering
groundwater table which could adversely affect adjacent property. Some ground densification methods
may produce unacceptable pathways (e.g., vibro‐replacement stone columns) for the escape of soil
contaminates into the environment. The strategies to counteract encroachments include:
Separation (e.g., setbacks, bypasses, etc.)
Mitigation (e.g., ground densifications, etc.)
Compensation (usually includes legal aspects)
Risk Management
The implementation will benefit strongly from the advance consideration of these geotechnical aspects
during the development planning.
APPENDIX B
FLOOD HAZARD
Appendix B1 ‐ Glossary – Flood Protections
GLOSSARY
FLOOD PROTECTIONS
Avulsion Material or sediment (clay, silt, sand, gravel, boulders, rock) moved,
carried or deposited by running water (streams and rivers).
Channel The physical confine of a river or other watercourse, consisting of a
bed and banks.
Cohesive Bank Material Fine material like clay or silt that has binding properties.
Covenant A legal document usually attached to a land title registration which
contains provisions restricting or otherwise respecting the use of
the land, or the use of a building on or to be erected on the land, for
reasons cited in the covenant.
Discharge The volume of water transported by a river or stream in a certain
amount of time.
Designated Flood A flood which may occur in any given year, of such magnitude as to
equal a flood having a 200‐year recurrence interval, based on a
frequency analysis of unregulated historic flood records or by
regional analysis where there is inadequate streamflow data
available. Where the flow of a large watercourse is controlled by a
major dam, the designated flood shall be set on a site specific basis.
Designated Flood Level The observed or calculated elevation for the Designated Flood and
is used in the calculation of the FCL.
Flood Construction Level The Designated Flood Level plus the allowance for freeboard and is
used to establish the elevation of the underside of a wooden floor
system or top of concrete slab for habitable building. In the case of
a manufactured home, the ground level or top of concrete or
asphalt pad, on which it is located shall be equal to or higher than
the above described elevation. It also established the minimum
crest level of a Standard Dike. Where the Designated Flood Level
cannot be determined or where there are overriding factors, an
assessed height above the natural boundary of the water‐body or
above the natural ground elevation may be used.
Flood Proofing The alteration of land or structures either physically or in use to
reduce flood damage and includes the use of building sketches from
water bodies to maintain a floodway and to allow for potential
erosion. Flood proofing may be achieved by all or a combination of
the following:
1. Building on fill, provided such fill does not interfere with flood
flows of the watercourse and is adequately protected against
floodwater erosion;
2. Building raised by structural means, such as, foundation wall,
columns, etc.;
3. A combination of fill and structural means.
Freeboard A vertical distance added to the Designated Flood Level. Used to
establish the FCL.
Non‐Cohesive Bank Material Typically unconsolidated cobble, gravel and sand susceptible to
erosion and displacement by a stream.
Protective Works May be a wall, rock riprap, dike, or other structural means which
confines a watercourse to its existing channel and thus limits
erosion.
Setback A withdrawal of a building or landfill from the natural boundary or other
reference line to maintain a floodway and too allow for potential land
erosion. Such requirements are often placed in covenants registered on
the title
Appendix B2 – Existing O&M Manual
The following table provides a summary of the Mission City Dike operations and maintenance
component details.
Typical Dike Operation & Maintenance Identification
PROJECT ELEMENT
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Dike Operation and
Maintenance Components
Ancillary Works
Other Projects and Activities
Operation Approvals and Controls
Utilities
Excavations
Marinas and docks
Landside encroachments
Bridges, creek crossings
Core Project Components
Inspections and Accesses
Maintenance Repair slopes, bank protections
Restore dike crest level
Floodbox – Chester Creek
Pump Station – Lane Creek
As above
Emergency Measures Maintenance equipment/Access
Local overtopping
Internal Drainage
Landside water control measures
Riverside erosion repair
As above
Emergency Notifications
Decommissioning /
Abandonment
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Appendix B3 – Interaction Analysis
The following tables provide a matrix to illustrate interactions between the project phases/components
and some flood protection components for Scenarios One and Two, respectively. In particular, Project –
Flood Protection Interaction Matrix show the Project Phase and Core Project Components on the left
(2 columns) with the Flood Protection Aspects (dike operation, construction, etc.) across the top of the
page. The filled cells indicate an interaction between the project and flood protection aspects.
The flood protection aspects were identified based on consideration of project component objectives,
available data review and interpretations and experience with similar types of development faced with
the similar consequences as outlined above. Some details of flood protection analyses are provided
under separate cover.
The tables outline the interaction between the project phasing and dike operation / maintenance, and
dike upgrading. Noted considerations include:
The flood protection measures may be largely independent of the project phasing; and
Encroachment Potential ‐ Planning/implementation issues.
Project Flood Protection Interaction Matrix ‐ Scenario One – New Land
CORE PROJECT
COMPONENTS
Flood Protection Project Components →
Operation
Maintenance Emergency Measures Dike Design / Construction
(Re‐Alignment)
Comments
Approvals and Controls
Inspections & Accesses
↓ Core Project Element
Utilities
Excavations
Marinas & Docks
Landside
Encroachments
Bridges, Creek
Crossings
Repair Slopes, B
ank
Protections
Restore Dike Crest
Level
Floodbox Chester
Creek
Pump Station Lane
Creek
Mntc. Equipmen
t /
Access
Local O
vertopping
Internal Drainage
Landslide W
ater
Control M
easures
Riverside Erosion
Repair
Right‐of‐Way
Perm
its
Site Preparation:
Excavation / Fill
Dike Assem
bly
Current Operation Highway 11 X X
Rail Corridors X X
Waterfront Timber Transfers X X X X X X ● ● ● ● ● ● X X X X
Streets
Utilities X X X X X X
Private Lands X X X
Residential Buildings ● ● ● Building Setbacks, Vertical,
Horizontal
Commercial Buildings ● ● ● As above
Timber Milling X ● ● ● ●
Land‐use Change Dike Maintenance Act / Inspector X X X X X
Local Approving Authority X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Development Permits (DP) ● ● ● ● ● ● X X X X X X X
Subdivision Plan
Parks/Waterfront Accesses ‐ Public X X X
Land Preparation
Raise Grades
Excavation / Permits X X X X X X X X
Excavation / Fill / Preload Monitoring X X X X
Waterfront
Construction
Excavation / Fill / Building Permit (BP) X X X X X X X X X ● X X X X
Site Preparation: Preload, Densification X X ● ● X
Assembly of Facilities & Occupancy Permit (OP) ● ● ● ● ● X
Future Operation Similar to Current Operation X
Pedestrian Foot Traffic ‐ Public X
Waterfront Facility Operations ● ● ● ● ● ● ● X X X X X
De‐Commissioning Not applicable.
Legend: X Interaction
● Possible Interaction, Site Specific
Project Flood Protection Interaction Matrix – Scenario Two – Dike
CORE PROJECT
COMPONENTS
Flood Protection Project Components →
Operation
Maintenance Emergency Measures Dike Design / Construction
(Re‐alignment)
Comments
Approvals and Controls
Inspections & Accesses
↓ Core Project Element
Utilities
Excavations
Marinas & Docks
Landside
Encroachments
Bridges, Creek
Crossings
Repair Slopes, B
ank
Protections
Restore Dike Crest
Level
Floodbox Chester
Creek
Pump Station Lane
Creek
Mntc. Equipmen
t /
Access
Local O
vertopping
Internal Drainage
Landslide W
ater
Control M
easures
Riverside Erosion
Repair
Right‐of‐Way
Perm
its
Site Preparation:
Excavation / Fill
Dike Assem
bly
Current Operation Highway 11 X X
Rail Corridors X X
Waterfront Timber Transfers X X X X X X ● ● ● ● ● ● X X X X
Streets
Utilities X X X X X X
Private Lands X X X
Residential Buildings ● ● ● Building Setbacks, Vertical, Horizontal
Commercial Buildings ● ● ● As above
Timber Milling X ● ● ● ●
Land‐use Change Dike Maintenance Act / Inspector X X X X X
Local Approving Authority X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Development Permits (DP) ● ● ● ● ● ● X X X X X X X
Subdivision Plan X
Parks/Waterfront Accesses ‐ Public X X X
Land Preparation
Raise Grades
Excavation / Permits – N/A
Excavation / Fill / Preload Monitoring ‐ N/A
Waterfront
Construction
Excavation / Fill / Building Permit (BP) X X X X X X X X X ● X X X X
Site Preparation: Preload, Densification X X ● ● X
Assembly of Facilities & Occupancy Permit (OP) ● ● ● ● ● X
Future Operation Similar to Current Operation X
Pedestrian Foot Traffic ‐ Public X
Waterfront Facility Operations
● ● ● ● ● ● ● X X X X X
De‐Commissioning Not applicable.
Legend: X Interaction
● Possible Interaction, Site Specific
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
GLOSSARY
AREAS OF POTENTAIL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
AEC area of environmental concern
AIP Approval in Principle
APEC area of potential environmental concern
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM America Society for Testing and Materials
AW aquatic life (water standard)
BCGS British Columbia Geologic Survey
BH borehole
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (components of MAH)
CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CL commercial land‐use (soil standard)
COC Chain of Custody
CofC Certificate of Compliance
CSA Canadian Standards Association
CSR Contaminated Sites Regulation
DCE cis‐ or trans‐1,2‐dichloroethylene (also known as cis‐ or trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene)
DNAPL dense non‐aqueous phase liquid (see also LNAPL)
DSI Detailed Site Investigation
DW drinking water (water standard)
EIA environmental impact assessment
EMA Environmental Management Act
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (includes LEPH and HEPH)
ERIS Environmental Risk Information Services Ltd.
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
GC/MS gas chromatograph mass spectroscopy
HEPH heavy extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (corrected for PAH, see EPH)
HWR Hazardous Waste Regulation
IL industrial land‐use (soil standard)
LEPH light extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (corrected for PAH, see EPH)
LNAPL light non‐aqueous phase liquid
MAH monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (see also BTEX)
Ministry BC Ministry of Environment
MOE BC Ministry of Environment
MOT BC Ministry of Transportation
MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MW monitoring well
NAPL non‐aqueous phase liquid
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (see also LEPH and HEPH)
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethene or tetrachloroethylene)
PCOC potential contaminant of concern
PID Parcel Identifier
PQL practical quantification limit (sediment standard)
PSI Preliminary Site Investigation
QA/QC quality assurance / quality control
RAR Riparian Areas Regulation
RL residential land‐use (soil standard)
ROW right‐of‐way
RPD relative percent difference
SSSs site‐specific numerical soil standards
TCE trichloroethylene (also known as trichloroethene)
TCS freshwater sediment typical site criteria
TDG Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
TP test pit location
UST underground storage tank
VH volatile hydrocarbons (includes VPH and BTEX)
VOC volatile organic compounds (PCE, TCE and DCE )
VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (corrected for BTEX, see VH)
APPENDIX D
REPORT MATRIX
Summary of Technical Assessment
REPORT MATRIX – SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
AREA OF ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT MANAGEMENT APPROACH RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE STUDY
COST ESTIMATE
ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE COST
OF CONSTRUCTION
Section 3.0: Geotechnical
Seismic (Earthquakes)
‐ Riverbank stability
The riverbank could become unstable in a seismic event and result
in a land slide.
The study area requires a seismic mitigation
method.
Prior to a land‐use study, an understanding of land area required
for seismic mitigation is highly recommended. Comprehensive
study approach, to understand all requirements of the riverbank’s
edge, is recommended; which includes geotechnical, flood
management, environmental.
$75,000 to 100,000
(riverbank stability
component).
Recommended prior to
land‐use study.
Approximately $2,000
per linear metre.
‐ Building stability The sand strata may require high levels of mitigation to meet
seismic building protection requirements.
Each development will require a building stability
strategy.
Small parcels could find building stability mitigation costly due to
the area required for mitigation being limited. Additional
geotechnical study focused on building stability requirements
would provide direction as to minimum parcel size requirement to
ensure redevelopment was economically viable. It is therefore
recommended, as part of the land‐use study process, to review
building stability requirements once building density expectations
are available.
$10,000 to 25,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Dependent on type of
building and parcel
size.
Ground Settlement There will be settlement associated with the geotechnical
preparation of the site; however, this is expected to be within the
range found at other riverfront developments. Riverfront
development within Metro Vancouver has been successful;
therefore it is expected the same will be true for the study area.
Managed by individual developments. Settlement methods, such as preloading, is expected to be within
those strategies regularly utilized in past riverfront developments.
Not applicable. Approximately $100
per buildable square
metre.
Groundwater Profile High water tables can create development constraints due to cost
efficient construction methods being rendered inappropriate. The
water table within the study area is believed to be near the surface
and likely connected to the effects of seasonal freshet events
within the Fraser River. Additionally, the ground stratigraphy,
containing a very porous sand layer, may further complicate
groundwater management techniques. Standard drainage designs
and construction methods may not be feasible within the study
area given a potentially complicated groundwater system.
Study area could benefit from additional
information as to the groundwater profile.
Groundwater levels may affect development by either
overwhelming drainage systems or construction methods. To
reduce potential amendments to land‐use plans, an understanding
of the study area’s groundwater profile is advised.
$10,000 to 20,000.
Advised prior to land‐
use study.
Unknown until future
study completed.
Section 4.0: Flood Management
Vertical Setback Vertical setback or flood construction level is set by regulatory
structure and prescribed as 9.4 m to 9.6 m for the study area. Any
new development requires habitable space to be constructed at or
above this level.
Each development will be required to meet the
flood construction level.
The existing ground elevation is several metres below the flood
construction level. All new construction of space intended for
continual human occupancy is required to meet the flood
construction level. A potential for poor streetscape design exists as
the street elevation and flood construction level could have
several metres of separation. A review of streetscape design is
advised as part of the land‐use study to minimize the negative
effects of vertical separation.
Not applicable. Not applicable.
AREA OF ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT MANAGEMENT APPROACH RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE STUDY
COST ESTIMATE
ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE COST
OF CONSTRUCTION
Horizontal Setback Dikes are the principle means of reducing horizontal setbacks to
allow buildings near a river’s edge. Mission’s dike lacks
appropriate ownership, is discontinuous and is built to an
unknown standard.
The study area requires a flood management
strategy.
If new buildings are to be within the Fraser River’s flood plain,
then the dike system must protect against the river’s erosive
properties. A comprehensive study of the Fraser River’s bank
adjacent the study area is highly recommended to understand the
implications of meeting the technical requirements. Technical
requirements include: geotechnical, flood management and
environmental protection.
$20,000 to 30,000
(flood management
component).
Recommended prior to
land‐use study.
Between $600 to $800
per linear metre.
Section 5.0: Site Contamination
Residential Land Uses Given historical land uses and provincial site registry information,
the north and east precincts likely contain contaminants which
may prove costly for residential redevelopment. Other types of
land uses (commercial, industrial, institutional) could be feasible
given remediation requirements are less stringent.
Typically, individual developments manage soil
contaminant remediation requirements.
However, further study of the north and east
precincts would increase the understanding as to
the potential for residential redevelopment.
Available information to assess soil contamination levels was
limited. Further study is recommended to improve the analysis
and determine the viability of residential redevelopment. Future
study should begin with a review of current ownerships to
determine whether sufficient opportunities for analysis exist prior
to commencing the study.
To be determined
depending on study’s
scope of work.
Unknown based on
existing information.
Section 6.0: Environmental
Fraser River The federal government (Fisheries Act) requires environmental
setback from important watercourses. Fraser River is an important
fisheries watercourse, therefore environmental setback is
required.
Setback required along Fraser River. Incorporate setback requirements with other riverbank technical
design requirements (geotechnical and flood management), as
part of the comprehensive study.
Nominal cost likely
managed within
comprehensive study
budget.
Not applicable.
Lane Creek The federal government (Fisheries Act) requires environmental
setback from important watercourses. Lane Creek is a fish bearing
watercourse, therefore setback is required.
Develop setback strategy for study area and
incorporate within land‐use plan.
Environmental assessment of Lane Creek and definition of habitat
protection area(s) should be completed as part of land‐use study
process.
$5,000 to $10,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Not applicable.
Woodlands Last forested area within study area. May present potential habitat
for species protected by provincial / federal regulations.
Assessment of area to determine significance. Environmental assessment to determine if area requires
protection and determine, if required, protection requirements.
$8,000 to $12,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Not applicable.
Section 7.0: Transportation
Provincial Highways &
Railways
Existing major transportation corridors bisect the study area and
could create barriers to connectivity between precincts.
Review of study area. Transportation study proposed arterial road network is
recommended to ensure sufficient connections between precincts
and surrounding community are available.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Not applicable.
Local Road Network Connectivity between precincts and opportunities for non‐
vehicular movement should be integrated into the land‐use plan.
The layout and design of the local streetscapes
determines the feel and movement of the area.
Time should be taken to ensure the road design is
optimized.
Road alignments and typical sections should be determined. A
transportation study to optimize pedestrian, cyclist, transit and
vehicular movement is recommended.
$5,000 to 10,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Recommend
completion
concurrently with land
use study.
Not applicable.
Sections 8.0 & 9.0: Infrastructure
AREA OF ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT MANAGEMENT APPROACH RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE STUDY
COST ESTIMATE
ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE COST
OF CONSTRUCTION
Water Supply & Distribution Existing system is aging and undersized to support development of
this density.
The proposed system throughout the study area
must be able to provide the required domestic
and fire flows. This should be demonstrated
through a dynamic model.
A conceptual layout of the proposed water system should be
prepared once the land uses and conceptual layout are available.
The proposed watermain network should be looped wherever
possible to improve fire flows and water quality.
$18,000 to 25,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Unknown until further
study completed.
Wastewater Collection &
Treatment
Existing system is undersized to support development of this
density.
Layout and model of wastewater system required
for the study area.
Mission will require a second crossing of the Fraser River. This
development will require a series of pump stations, potentially
including the upgrading of the existing Harbour Pump Station and
its force mains. New collection mains will be required throughout
the Study Area.
$18,000 to 25,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Unknown until further
study completed.
Section 10.0: Rainwater
Flood Protection Existing Lane Creek Pump Station has finite capacity.
Flood protection must be undertaken on a
coordinated and consistent basis for the study
area.
Decisions relating to diking, filling and commercial vs. individual
pump station and catchment must all be considered to determine
the best strategy.
$10,000 to 20,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Not applicable.
Rainwater Management Rainwater management for the study area needs to incorporate
flood protection, prioritize riparian area protection and water
quality measures.
An Integrated Watershed Management Plan,
which includes the study area, is desirable.
Sustainability and Best Management Practices should be a priority.
Detention / infiltration should be utilized only if / where
appropriate. Further study as part of the land‐use planning process
is recommended.
$50,000.
Not required prior to
land‐use study.
Unknown until further
study completed.
Section 11.0: Noise Attenuation
Existing Noise from Railway
Tracks
Wheel squeal from railway tracks exceeds CMHC standards for
residential and commercial development.
Review of study area. Provide direction within land‐use study for appropriate land‐uses
and building configuration adjacent to noise source (railway).
Not required. Not applicable.