Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-04ENVY1998-11-04 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date commencing at 4:00 p.m. under Councillor Jake Smola with the following members present: Councillor Tom Galloway, and Ms. A. Coffey and Messrs: K. Cenerelli and J. Kay. Officials present: Ms. D. Arnold and Messrs: B. Stanley, S. Gyorffy, C. Ford, T. Clancy, M. Mahaffey, D. Daly, R. Wyatt, Paul Sinnott and L. W. Neil. UPDATE RE: SMOG / AIR QUALITY PLAN Mr. C. Ford advised that work was progressing on the City's Smog / Air Quality Plan. He noted that a meeting to brainstorm this issue was being held on November 26th involving the Region, the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo and citizens from the Air Quality Advisory Committee. Mr. Ford indicated that between the work of staff and the outcome of the November 26th meeting, staff expected to have a substantial plan for review in the near future. He requested that the names of any new appointees to the 1999 Environmental Committee be given to him so that they could also be invited to the November 26th meeting. 2. FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY FORUM, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA- NOVEMBER 12, 1998 The Committee was advised of a Fuel Cell Technology Forum being held in Indianapolis on November 12, 1998 and that Mr. C. Ford had expressed an interest in attending, provided the Committee was supportive of funding his approximate $1,400 expenses from its budget. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Mr. C. Ford advised that a date for an in-house fuel cell forum hosted by the City would be about mid-1999. Councillor T. Galloway stated that it was important for the City to be aggressive respecting Fuel Cell Technology in consideration of our existing physical distribution system. Mr. J. Kay suggested that deregulation of the hydro electric function was also related to this issue. In reference to attendance at the technology forum, Mr. Ford commented that the true benefits were in meeting people knowledgeable in the technology. He then explained what he would be pursuing to the benefit of the City and would be discussing the purpose of his trip with Utilities Division Staff. On motion by Mr. J. Kay - It was resolved: That we approve Mr. Chris Ford, Environmental Engineer, attending a 'Fuel Cell Technology Forum' November 12, 1998 in Indianapolis, Indiana and authorize expenses in this regard to be charged to the Environmental Committee budget - account 120601 - 1638. DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SCHEDULE 'C' CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY HURON ROAD LOCATION STUDY (TRILLIUM DRIVE TO STRASBURG ROAD) For the information of the Committee, Mr. S. Gyorffy provided a copy of an Executive Summary of the above referenced document. He noted that the Environmental Assessment had been through two open houses and that the document was in the process of being finalized before it goes on to Council and the mandatory 30 day review. Mr. Gyorffy advised that the study was in the City's Capital Forecast for the year 2000 and that it was scheduled to be considered by the Public Works and Transportation Committee at its November 23rd meeting. In reference to an outstanding request of the Environmental Committee that such Environmental Assessments be brought to its attention early in the process he noted that this undertaking was underway and well into the cycle at the time the request was made. Accordingly he suggested that if any Committee members had a comment regarding the study that they be made to the Public Works and Transportation Committee. As to future involvement by the Environmental Committee in such studies, Mr. Gyorffy indicated that the Committee would be provided with a schedule of future open houses. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 - 37- CITY OF KITCHENER 4. PD 98/119 - REVIEW OF TREE PRODUCTION BY-LAWS AND APPROACHES The Committee was in receipt of Staff Report PD 98/119 dated September 28, 1998 dealing with a review of Tree Protection By-laws and Approaches. Mr. T. Boutilier advised that the report was actually a joint report of the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Business and Planning Services who have worked closely with Legal Staff in its preparation. He noted that there were 3 Appendices attached to the report and that other information had also been provided from Ottawa-Carlton and the City of Toronto. It was indicated that Mr. M. Mahaffey would also provide a presentation this date. Mr. Boutilier pointed out that last July the Committee had requested a review of alternative approaches to tree protection on private lands. He noted that the issue to be addressed this date was the question of whether or not the City wished to involve itself in the administrative function of undertaking to protect trees on private lands. Mr. Boutilier then referred to the attached Appendix 1 containing a number of By-laws and procedures for the Injury or Destruction of Trees. He pointed out that 4 of the by-laws were similar in what they provide for and authorize. Appendix 2 deals with 4 articles reviewing various aspects of Tree By-law Implementation and discussing what kinds of criteria should be considered. Appendix 3 provides examples of criteria for the designation of significant or landmark trees. Mr. Boultilier advised that staff, after having thoroughly investigated the material, have concluded that what the City is after is a quality urban forest; which is made up of trees on public lands and trees on private lands. In this regard, a Permit System for removal of trees was looked at and it was concluded that it was not a good idea for the reasons set out on pages 2 and 3 of PD 98/119. Further, he pointed out that related indirect additional expenses of a Permit System would impact several departments of the City. He suggested that the real question to be asked should be what the relative effectiveness of a Permit System would be on the goal of encouraging growth of the urban forest. In this regard, he referred the Committee to a memo from the City of Toronto on the impact and results experienced by Toronto in terms of a huge expenditure of staff resources to achieve insignificant results in terms of tree saving. Accordingly, staff recommend not to pursue a Permit System. Mr. Boutilier indicated that staff then considered methods to protect Heritage or significant trees. Currently this is achieved through tree management policies set out in Development Agreements and through the Ontario Heritage Act by means of specific policies set out in Heritage Conservation District Plans. Again, staff considered the possibilities of getting into a Permit System but strongly feel that such a system would not achieve the results desired. Accordingly, the alternate approach set out on pages 4 & 5 of PD 98/119 is recommended, being a concentration on planting of additional trees on public and private lands. A program to plant 5,000 trees annually is suggested, funded one third by each of the City, property owner and program sponsor. He stressed that none of the garden nurseries have been approached. Trees priced at $30.00 would require up to $50,000 out of the City's Annual Capital Budget. Further, trees acquired under the program would be tracked on the City's G.I.S. program. The net effect of the undertaking would be a partnership wherein the City could influence the kinds of trees and species being planted. It is felt that planting 5,000 trees annually was a much better approach than getting into a program that attempts to preserve old trees that are near the end of their life cycle and avoids both the City getting into an ineffective permitting system as well as increases in annual operating costs. It was Staff's view that residents will embrace the program. Finally, Mr. Boultilier requested that recommendation 2.1 of Staff Report PD 98/119 be revised to provide: "That up to $50,000 per year for 5 years be allocated in the Capital Budget, commencing in 1999 for this program". Mr. Mike Mahaffey stated that Forestry Staff feel the approach described by Mr. Boutilier is the best way to proceed. In reference to a permitting system of tree protection, he submitted a memo dated October 5, 1998 detailing a $200,000 annual operating cost to establish tree protection on ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 - 38- CITY OF KITCHENER private property. He commented that a co-operative approach was preferred rather than a confrontational one under a Permitting System. He referred the Committee to page 2 of his report in which "Protected Trees, Landmark Trees and Heritage Trees" are defined and to the detailed information on the City of Toronto experience. He also commented PD 98/119 - REVIEW OF TREE PRODUCTION BY-LAWS AND APPROACHES (CONT'D) on the necessity and importance of removing hazardous trees. Mr. B. Stanley noted that the Environmental Committee had earlier expressed a wish to consider some form of public input on this issue and questioned what extent of public input was desired. Mr. T. Clancy stated that over the last 15 years, staff have tried to emphasize saving trees that could be saved. He also suggested that another tree definition might be trees of distinction. Mr. K. Cenerelli raised a question under Clause 4.2 of PD 98/119. Mr. B. Stanley commented on Heritage District Plans and areas under consideration. Mr. T. Boutilier stated that staff have considered ideas on how to deal with neighbours who have concerns about the necessity to remove trees and ideas on how residents could obtain impartial advice about tree removal. A video 'All About Trees', including removal was mentioned. Mr. J. Kay commented on the excellence of material presented by staff but stated that he was still concerned about the specific issue of concern for large old trees in downtown neighbourhoods, particularly with regard to a herd mentality to remove such trees because of possible liability. He questioned if there was some way of dealing with frivolous removal of trees and if a by-law could provide a replacement requirement of similar specie for any tree removed in order to assist in discouraging frivolous removal. Mr. Paul Sinnott, Director of Communications, suggested that the objective might be better achieved if the suggestions by staff were just put into practice. Ms. D. Arnold stated that it was likely possible to incorporate a tree replacement requirement. Councillor T. Galloway supported the concept of a tree replacement requirement, enforced only on complaint. Ms. D. Arnold commented that education, enticement and a motivational approach was the best way to achieve results. Further, she noted how costly it is to remove large trees and that people do not treat removal lightly. Further discussion took place and various comments were made including: the fact that only 12 charges have been laid over the years and fines have not exceeded $100.00 a glitzy name should be developed to identify the proposed program the importance of the symbolic aspect of tree preservation initiatives providing information in the Environmental Handbook advising residents that they do not have a right to touch trees on public property under Bill 163, a class of trees could be designated for protection, ie, over 24". Mr. T. Boutilier commented that he originally thought that the City would be moving to a permitting system, however, the merits of a pro-active approach outweigh those of a permitting system. Accordingly, he recommended that staff work on the education and stewardship issue and work to address the problem of indiscriminate cutting. He acknowledged that there was a certain logic in a by-law replacement requirement and suggested that staff could develop pros and cons. He stated that there are still down sides to a partial tree removal by-law system in terms of the cost of dealing with the by-law. Mr. D. Daly commented that on the issue of tree removal there was a danger in focusing only on the biggest trees since there was a need to renew old trees in older areas of the City. The recommendation in PD 98/119 was then dealt with and Councillor T. Galloway suggested Clause 2.2 be deferred. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 - 39- CITY OF KITCHENER It was resolved: 4. PD APPROACHES(CONT'D) 98/119 - REVIEW OF TREE PRODUCTION BY-LAWS AND "That the City of Kitchener Environmental Committee concur with the concept of implementing a 5 year program of annual tree planting in co-operation with sponsors and private land owners; and that Staff be directed to develop the details of the program for further consideration by the Environmental Committee and City Council; and further, That up to $50,000 per year for 5 years be allocated in the Capital Budget, commencing in 1999, for this Program. That consideration of the following Staff recommendation be deferred: "2.2 T hat the City of Kitchener not proceed to develop a By-law and procedures, as provided for by Section 223.3 of the Municipal Act, for the Destruction or Injury of Trees for individual trees on private land." And further that the Legal and Planning Staff be requested to prepare a report on the merits of a By-law providing for a tree replacement requirement to offset tree removal. That Staff of Business and Planning Services, Parks & Recreation, and Legal Departments continue to prepare measures to protect the quality of valuable woodlots situated in rural areas which are nearing entry into the development approval process, in accordance with the Resolution of City Council, dated February 17, 1997." UPDATE RE: 1999 EARTH DAY SUB-COMMITTEE Mr. K. Cenerelli advised that the Committee working group has met three times and that in 1999 Earth Day would fall on April 22. Accordingly he suggested that the week of April 17 - 24 be promoted around Earth Day. He advised that consideration is being given to the following areas in promotion of Earth Day: a clean up campaign, a fish painting program promoted through the schools, an Earth Day Fair within City Hall, a tree planting promotion with involvement by the Friends of the Environment and obtaining Regional involvement. As well, plans were being made to promote Earth Day / Week activities by advertisement and on the internet. Mr. J. Kay suggested that the City showcase the Huron Natural Area project as part of the activities. ENVIRONMENTAL HANDBOOK Mr. B. Stanley advised that the sub-committee was working on the Environmental Handbook and that a brief report was scheduled to be made on November 10th to the Environmental Study Group to obtain their input before moving forward with the Handbook. It was suggested that the Environmental Handbook be a highlight of Earth Day material. STANDARDS FOR SULPHUR IN GASOLINE The Committee was in receipt of a letter from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario commenting on the action of the Federal Government to reduce the levels of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 - 40- CITY OF KITCHENER sulphur in gasoline. On motion by Mr. K. Cenerelli- It was resolved: "That the City of Kitchener extend support and congratulations to the Honourable Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment with respect to the recent Federal STANDARDS FOR SULPHUR IN GASOLINE (CONT'D) Government decision requiring the petroleum industry to reduce the level of sulphur in gasoline to achieve the following standards: average level of 150 parts per million (ppm) by the year 2002 average level of 30 ppm by the year 2005; and further, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 - 41- CITY OF KITCHENER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1998 - 42- CITY OF KITCHENER Karen Redman, MP, Kitchener Centre Andrew Telegdi, MP, Kitchener-Waterloo Janko Peric, MP, Cambridge Lynn Myers, MP, Waterloo-Wellington, and The Association of Municipalities of Ontario. BLUE BOX PROGRAM Mr. J. Kay referred to material attached as information to the agenda concerning Blue Box Recycling and questioned if the Committee should address it. It was agreed that the matter be placed on a future agenda of the Committee. MEETING SCHEDULE DATES FOR 1999 It was agreed that Committee meeting dates and times be the subject of discussion on the next agenda. 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. L. W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk