Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-16ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date commencing at 4:03 p.m. Present: Mr. S. Crossman - Chair Councillor Y. Fernandes, Ms. S. Danckert, Ms. C. Huxted and Messrs. P. Dowling, D. Hoshowsky, M. Peterson and R. Younis. Staff: B. Korah, Manager of Engineering S. Allen, Manager of Engineering Design & Approvals N. Gollan, Manager, Stormwater Utility D. Lupsa, Design & Construction Project Manager C. Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator PRESENTATION - ADDENDUM TO THE 1995 SCHNEIDER CREEK REMEDIATION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Committee considered correspondence entitled “Schneider Creek Remediation – Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Addendum (Hayward Avenue to Manitou Drive), dated February 16, 2012. Mr. Jeff Prince and Mr. David Arseneau, AECOM, Ms. D. Lupsa and Mr. S. Allen presented the EA. Ms. Lupsa advised the members that this is an opportunity for the Committee to provide comments / feedback, which will be considered as the EA process moves forward. Mr. Prince stated that, in 1995, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), in consultation with the City of Kitchener, undertook a Class EA for the portion of Schneider Creek between Hayward Avenue and Manitou Drive. He noted that since the original EA, the preferred alternatives were never implemented. He further advised that due to the time between the EA completion and the implementation of the alternatives exceeded three years, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario Class EA for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (1993), requires an Addendum to be completed. Mr. Prince advised that the goal of the initial 1995 EA was to recommend remedial flood control measures to mitigate flooding and erosion concerns in this section of Schneider Creek. He stated that the Addendum Study was intended to characterize the existing conditions; determine if the original alternatives are still the preferred alternatives; and, recommends any new alternatives as required. He indicated that the Study Area has been divided into three reaches: Reach 1, being the portion of the Creek between Hayward Avenue and Budd Spurline; Reach 2, is identified as the portion between culverts 1 and 3; and, Reach 3, being the Spurline to Manitou Drive. He reviewed the recommended 1995 alternatives and presented the preferred alternatives identified through the EA Addendum Study. Mr. Prince stated that for Reach 1, Alternative 3 for a Natural Channel Design remained the preferred alternative. For Reach 2, the 1995 EA proposed Alternative 3, constructing a northeast bypass channel (to convey design flows to the north side Spurline) and improve Culvert No.1 and 3. He advised that the conditions in the area of Reach 2 have changed since the 1995 EA and based upon the re-evaluation of alternatives, the Addendum recommends proposed Alternative 4, the improvement of all three culverts. For Reach 3, he advised that there have been no significant changes in the existing conditions and therefore Alternative 2 is still the recommended alternative for the downstream portion, with Alternative 3 still being proposed for the upstream portion. Mr. Prince stated that the EA Addendum still needs to be presented to the Grand River Conservation Authority Committee and to Council for final approval. He advised that pending their approval, the EA will be filed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for the mandatory 30 day review period; and, following the review, the project may proceed to detailed design for Reach 1 and preliminary design of Reaches 2 & 3. He indicated that staff anticipate the remediation work for Reach 1 to begin in the fall 2012. In response to questions raised regarding whether a Four Season Impact Study was conducted as part of the EA Addendum, Mr. Prince advised that a complete Study was not required as part of the Addendum process. He noted that aspects of this study were completed through other projects associated with the Creek. He further advised that the only portion of a Four Season Study that had not been fully conducted within the study area ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 - 6 - CITY OF KITCHENER PRESENTATION - ADDENDUM TO THE 1995 SCHNEIDER CREEK REMEDIATION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CONT’D) was a flow monitoring assessment. He indicated that there is flow monitoring that occurs outside of the study area near Sydney Street which has provided enough relevant information to confirm the proposed alternatives. Councillor Y. Fernandes expressed concerns that the flow monitoring occurring closer to Sydney Street was, in her opinion, too far to provide accurate results to confirm any of the proposed alternatives. She stated that there are several industrial properties within the study area that may have adverse impacts on the Creek through their stormwater runoff. Mr. Prince advised the industrial properties within the Study area are managing their own runoffs through stormwater ponds or connections with the sanitary sewer systems; therefore, the Creek is not being adversely affected. Councillor Fernandes questioned whether the rehabilitation being proposed would provide long-term benefits or whether additional maintenance work would be required in a short period of time. In response, Mr. Prince advised that the City is a co-proponent with the GRCA on the EA Addendum. He stated that they are both in agreement with the proposed alternatives, and the GRCA Committee will also need to approve the proposed Addendum prior to the GRCA issuing any construction permits. He noted that there is a significant approval process to ensure that the mediation work will have positive impacts on the Creek. Mr. G. Zador requested clarification on the requirement for staging the construction over a three year period. Mr. S. Allen advised that the construction is being funded through the City’s Development Charges and there have been other projects identified with a greater priority. He commented that the creek project has been extended over a three year term to accommodate those budget constraints. In response to questions, Mr. Allen advised that the 1995 EA and EA Addendum, specifically addresses a portion of Schneider Creek that has been identified to have problems regarding flooding and erosion within a greater watercourse extending throughout the City. He stated that these identified sections and concerns have been considered in isolation to the greater watercourse area and there is no intention at this time to complete a comprehensive plan regarding the Creek in its entirety. Ms. C. Huxted questioned whether the problems identified in the study area would be mitigated through the construction of the proposed alternatives or whether the water flow will create further erosion and flooding issues following the implementation of the proposed alternatives. Mr. Prince advised that municipal water systems naturally evolve and adapt to stream rehabilitation, with the construction of the proposed alternatives it will provide a more stable long-term solution for the erosion and flooding concerns. Mr. Peterson questioned what type of wall design would be used for the construction of Reach 3. Mr. Prince stated that one of the existing walls has been identified for repair, but the remaining walls to be constructed will be a natural design. In response to questions, Ms. Lupsa advised that if members wished to see the EA Addendum in its entirety it can be made available to anyone wishing to provide additional feedback / comments. PRESENTATION - REGION OF WATERLOO SHADE POLICY INITIATIVE 2. The Committee considered correspondence from the Shade Working Group of Waterloo Region, dated February 16, 2012, regarding the historical background of the Shade Initiative in Waterloo Region. In addition, the Committee was in receipt of a presentation entitled “Moving Towards Shade Policy”, dated February 16, 2012; as well as, information material entitled “Making a Case for Shade Policy.” Ms. Stephanie Ellens-Clark and Mr. Chris Gosselin, Region of Waterloo gave a presentation on increasing shade coverage in Waterloo Region. Ms. Ellens-Clark advised that the Region of Waterloo has recently approved their 2011-2014 Strategic Plan with a commitment to encourage and support school boards and municipalities to adapt and implement shade policies; and, to maintain and increase shade coverage. She stated that the Working Group is ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 - 7 - CITY OF KITCHENER PRESENTATION - REGION OF WATERLOO SHADE POLICY INITIATIVE (CONT’D) 2. striving to increase the awareness of the importance of shade policies, with an aim on improving health, environmental quality, and social outcomes. She indicated that the Working Group has hosted a number of Shade Forums to facilitate discussions on the obstacles for developing shade policies; as well as, ways in which the Group can assist in the creation of shade policies throughout the Region. Mr. Gosselin advised that the Working Group, following the June 2011 forum, has determined that a four-pronged approach is required in moving forward with the implementation of a Shade Policy Initiative. He stated that the working group anticipates: working with area municipal planning staff to include shade-related policies in their new Official Plans; continuing to provide support to external organizations to develop their own shade policies; initiate the Urban Greenland Strategy identified in the Regional Official Plan, in collaboration with area municipalities, to promote greening our urban areas; and, helping to facilitate shade audits at targeted sites to familiarize Regional, Area Municipal and school board staff with practical aspects of implementing shade on their properties. Ms. C. Musselman advised that the City, through their Urban Design Guidelines, has several requirements contained within the document dealing with site development and the implementation of landscaping that would help to facilitate some of the shade initiatives that the Working Group is trying to achieve. She advised that another shade policy facilitator is the City’s new Official Plan, where a section has been included to consider the urban woodland and its contribution to the City. In response to questions regarding the effectiveness of the City of Toronto’s Shade Policy, Ms. Ellens-Clark advised that Toronto only adopted their shade guidelines in July 2010. She stated that the Working Committee does not require any specific data on the success of their policy as there is significant information substantiating that shade is effective. She noted that the Group is seeking information on ways to bring similar policies to the area. Mr. Crossman thanked the Working Group for attending. Ms. Musselman advised that the City has already undertaken several shade initiatives at this time. She noted that, pending further discussion with the Shade Working Group, there may be additional opportunities to provide feedback and participate in shade initiatives. REVIEW OF THE STORMWATER CREDIT AND REBATE POLICY 3. The Committee considered information material including the Environmental Committee’s comments / feedback regarding the Storm Water Credit Program, dated February 1, 2012; Infrastructure Services Department report INS-12-020, dated January 23, 2012; Infrastructure Services Department report INS-12-001, dated January 9, 2012; and, Public Information Centre materials outlining the proposed alternative for the Storm Water Credit program. Mr. N. Gollan gave a follow-up presentation containing background information regarding the proposed Storm Water Credit Policy and staffs rationale as to the proposed alternatives. He stated that in June 2010, both the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo approved the implementation of a storm water utility rate and since then staff have: provided Council a detailed Work Plan; hosted two public open houses; and, provided progress reports on the status of the project. He commented that the attendance at the public open houses was approximately 100 residents, of which 80% of the attendees comments favoured a Credit Policy for all property owners. Mr. Gollan advised that the overall objective of the Storm Water Rate Credit Policy is to encourage homeowners to adopt storm water management options on their properties to reduce their runoff volumes and pollutants on the City’s Storm water Management System. He indicated that staff is aware of properties that already have systems in place to mitigate their impacts on the storm water system and stated that those initiatives will qualify them for storm water credits. He further advised that staff have proposed two policy options: the first dealing with non-residential properties and multi-residential (greater than 5 dwelling units); and, other residential (5 or less dwelling units). He stated that each of the credit policies have been tailored to address specific issues. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 - 8 - CITY OF KITCHENER REVIEW OF THE STORMWATER CREDIT AND REBATE POLICY (CONT’D) 3. Mr. Gollan noted that the credit policy percentages are based on a 2 year storm with any larger or less frequent event resulting in runoff coming from all properties and entering the municipal storm water system. These larger events will still have impact from residential property owners even though there may be the presence of a SWM facility because the ground may become saturated and no longer be able to absorb all of the property’s runoff. He further advised that the City has spent the majority of 2011 completing research; analyzing; consulting with the public; and, reporting to committees. Mr. Gollan indicated that staff realizes that there has been some dissatisfaction with the policy as it stands; however, there are several residents that have identified value in the policy and the approach that is being proposed. He stated that staff is prepared to implement the program in its current form, recognizing that adjustments will need to be made to the policies as we learn more about the uptake of the program and its effects on the community. Mr. Gollan further advised that on April 29, 2011, the Province announced a new funding program called Showcasing Water Innovations. It is a program meant to fund leading-edge, innovative and cost-effective solutions to managing drinking water, wastewater and storm water systems in Ontario communities. He advised that municipalities are eligible to receive up to 50% funding for qualifying programs, to a maximum of $1M. He stated that the City has been awarded funding through this program to help facilitate the RAIN program: An Ecological Approach to Storm water Management in Kitchener and Waterloo, which will complement the recommended storm water credit policy in developing a community outreach and educational program for residential and non-residential properties. He further advised that the approval of a Stormwater Credit Program is a key component to receiving the Provincial grant funding. Ms. S. Dankert questioned whether the maximum credit of 45% was a firm percentage at this time. Mr. Gollan advised that staff have worked to identify a figure that would not cause any negative impacts on the overall stormwater program. He stated that for the initial implementation, 45% is the maximum credit that is being considered for residential property owners who initiate stormwater management best practises. He further advised that staff intend on reviewing the program once it has been implemented to determine its effectiveness and whether the 45% credit should be maintained. He reiterated that the average homeowner would pay approximately $100 per year, which is considerably lower than their sewage, water and sanitary fees. He advised that homeowners would be eligible for almost half of that money back if they met the eligibility criteria for a credit. Ms. Dankert requested further clarification on what impacts the City is hoping to achieve through the stormwater run-off reductions. Mr. Gollan stated staff will continue to conduct annual stormwater audits; however, a significant number of years will be required to demonstrate accurate results on the total impact to the City’s stormwater system. In response to questions, Mr. Gollan advised that there would be eligible stormwater credits for the use of stormwater interceptors on commercial properties. He stated that in the past stormwater best management practises for commercial properties were a requirement of the development approval process; however, there was no enforcement tool to ensure they were being properly maintained.He commented that as a requirement of the credit policy and annual credit eligibility, property owners would need to demonstrate that their stormwater management device is in good working order. Mr. G. Zador questioned whether Waterloo Green Solutions (REEP) would be assisting in the stormwater audits to assess the eligibility for the credit program. Mr. Gollan advised that currently the home audits and implementation has not been completely established. He indicated that the City is hoping that the stormwater credit program will encourage residential homeowners to learn more about their impacts on the stormwater management system. He further advised that REEP has not yet established a stormwater audit program that is similar to home energy evaluations, but indicated that the City would be supportive if they chose to implement a program similar to the home energy retrofits. Several members spoke in support of the education component for the stormwater credit program, noting that there are a number of initiatives that homeowners could implement to improve the efficiencies of their properties, which can add significant impacts but cost very little. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 - 9 - CITY OF KITCHENER REVIEW OF THE STORMWATER CREDIT AND REBATE POLICY (CONT’D) 3. Councillor Y. Fernandes expressed her concerns that the current credit policy being proposed may not be a large enough incentive for homeowners to implement best management practises. She further advised that the approval of the stormwater credit policy as a condition of receiving the Provincial grant funding has created a greater sense of urgency to adopt a credit program; and, in her opinion the proposed program in its current form is not adequate enough to compensate the residential homeowners. In response, Mr. Gollan advised that increasing the maximum credit policy could potentially threaten the City’s ability to perform all the required maintenance and retrofits throughout the City. Mr. Gollan reiterated that staff realizes that the credit program will require revisions once implementation is underway, but cannot anticipate the full effects of the program until it has been implemented. He stated that staff will be reporting back to Council at the February 27, 2012, Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting and staffs report will contain the Committee’s feedback on the recommended policy.Mr. Gollan indicated that if Council endorses the Credit Program, staff anticipates an October 1, 2012 implementation date. He further advised that following the initial implementation, staff will periodically update the Committee on the success of the program and the areas which require improvements. He noted that there may be future opportunities for the Committee to assist in the review. He indicated that staff would likely report back to the committee on the stormwater credit program, in spring 2013. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT - STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Committee was in receipt this date of the Strasburg Road Extension Environmental Assessment (EA) Sub-Committee report, dated January 20, 2012, providing comments on the EA. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of correspondence entitled, “Response to the City of Kitchener Environment Sub-Committee Report”, containing follow-up responses to the concerns addressed by the Sub-Committee. Mr. B. Korah was in attendance to provide clarification to the concerns addressed by the Sub- Committee. He advised that of the comments received, he noted that one of the major concerns identified was the type of weighting system used and whether it was an effective way of identifying the proposed alternative. He stated for additional clarification that the use of the pie charts were a combination of a number of studies conducted within the study areas. He noted that the draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) contains a more comprehensive analysis on the evaluation criteria and would likely provide a greater understanding on the weighted criteria. Mr. Korah further advised that the draft ESR has been provided to all the required ministries, the Grand River Conservation Authority, and, all members of the project team. He commented that staff anticipate presenting Council with the full ESR at a Standing Committee meeting on May 7, 2012, to request that the document in its entirety be available for a public review period. He noted that, due to the public interest in this matter, staff have amended their timeline to include an additional 2 month review period. He advised that following the review, it is likely that the final ESR will be presented to Council in September 2012 and, pending their approval, the EA will be filed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for the mandatory 30 day review period. He stated that pending Council’s approval to release the document for public viewing, he invited the Committee to conduct a second review on the EA and provide any additional comments / suggestions on the proposed alternative. Mr. M. Peterson stated that he had concerns with the weighting criteria and how it was reflected in the initial documents provided to the Sub-Committee. He advised that the pie charts did not adequately represent the evaluation criteria. Mr. Korah reiterated that the use of the pie charts were a combination of a number of studies conducted within the study areas. He noted that without the full study reports contained within the ESR the data contained in the pie charts can be interpreted subjectively. He requested that if members were willing to review the entire document that may clarify their concerns regarding the evaluation methods used to identify the proposed alternative. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 - 10 - CITY OF KITCHENER SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT - STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CONT’D) In response to questions regarding development in the study area, Mr. Korah advised that within the Kitchener Growth Management Plan, there have been a number of areas identified by priority regarding the future growth of the City. He stated that a number of the approved development areas were established through the planning process in the 1970’s, including the extension of Strasburg Road. He noted that with the development of Doon South, which was approved through an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing, there have been greater pressures to construct a second arterial road to provide access to these new developments. Mr. Korah indicated that the Project Team needs to select a proposed alignment that considers the pressures of new development in the study area and the Regions’ requirement to protect the Countryside Line. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned whether the project team has an accurate location map for the habitat of the Jefferson Salamanders. Mr. Korah advised that the Project Team has received a map from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) regarding the Jefferson Salamanders, and has also had several meetings with the MNR regarding the Strasburg Road Extension. Ms. C. Musselman advised for clarification that maps identifying endangered or protected species are typically not released to the public for fear that it will entice people to seek them out and negatively impact their habitats. Mr. Korah further advised that the City will be required to receive approval from the MNR on the proposed alignment prior to construction. Ms. C. Huxted requested clarification on what type of crossing would be used to cross the Blair Creek. Ms. Korah advised that currently staff are proposing to construct a culvert and a bridge to ensure that the road crossing does not hinder the movement of any species in the study area. Further discussions need to be had in the detailed design phase to confirm the complete details on the proposed structure. Mr. R. Younis questioned whether the project team had considered doing a peer review in the beginning stages of the EA. He stated that the initial review of the EA, in his opinion, seems subjective in nature and there could be additional quantitative work completed to confirm the proposed alternative. Mr. Korah advised that there have been several technical studies conducted, that have gone through a significant number of professional reviews. In addition, the study will also be reviewed for approval from the Ministry of the Environment, and without their approval, the ESR cannot be deemed complete. Mr. Korah reiterated that staff will be presenting the ESR in its entirety to Council in May 2012, to request that the document in its entirety be available for a public review period. He suggested that pending Council’s approval to release the document for public viewing, the Committee conduct a second review on the EA and provide any additional comments / suggestions on the proposed alternative. GENERAL DISCUSSION - EARTH DAY - ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM 5. Ms. C. Musselman advised that since the Committee’s February meeting, she has had some initial discussions with last year’s Community Environmental Improvement Grant (CEIG) recipients as well as previous years’ CEIG recipients, regarding their participation in an Earth Day Environmental Forum. In addition, she advised that Mr. El-Kahem, Earth Day Sub- Committee member, has contacted several of his faculty members from the University of Waterloo to gage their interest in participating in the Earth Day Environmental Forum, with a positive response. Ms. Musselman commented that there seemed to be a great deal of interest; however, prior to going ahead with further discussions with potential participants and the Earth Day Forum meet and greet event, she requested consensus from the members to cancel the regular meeting agenda to host the event in its place. The members expressed their support for cancelling the regular meeting agenda for their April 19, 2012 Committee meeting to host an Environmental Forum event in conjunction with Earth Day. Ms. Musselman further advised that time would be set aside on the March 15, 2012 Committee agenda to discuss further event details. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2012 - 11 - CITY OF KITCHENER ADJOURNMENT 6. On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator