Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-01ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MNUTES MARCH 1, 2001 CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date, commencing at 4:15 p.m., under Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair, with the following members present: Councillor M. Galloway and Messrs. F. Wende and B. Krafcheck. Mayor C. Zehr and Mr. H. Alsafouti were in attendance for part of the meeting. Officials Present: Ms. B. Steiner, Ms. J. Billett and Messrs. B. Stanley, D. Daly, J. McBride, T. Boutilier and L. Neil. 1. EARTH DAY 2001 PROGRAM - UPDATE Mr. T. Boutilier appeared as a delegation to provide an update on Earth Day 2001 preparations and circulated a written submission this date outlining plans for this event. Mr. Boutilier advised that the Working Group is continuing to refine and improve upon events planned for Earth Day 2001. He reiterated that it is intended to hold an outdoor festival that will include work projects in each of the City's 6 Wards, a Community Wide Clean-up Campaign, launching of environmental programs and tours. New to planned events will be a travelling Community Environmental Fair. The fair will be held in 3 community areas on Saturday and Sunday and will consist of local government displays, community group displays, nature exhibitions and community barbeques. The opening ceremonies are planned for Tuesday, April 17 at the Ironhorse Trail on Cherry Street and will be officiated by Mayor Carl Zehr, Regional Chairman Ken Seiling and the newly appointed Minister of Environment, the Honorable Elizabeth Witmer. Mr. Boutilier advised that the Working Group will continue to update the Committee with plans for Earth Day and more details will be provided at the April 5th meeting. Mayor C. Zehr entered the meeting at this time. Councillor B. Vrbanovic thanked Mr. Boutilier for his presentation. 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE - REVISIONS Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that this item had been removed from the agenda. He further advised that a working group consisting of staff and members of Council had been formed to review various Committee structures and the outcome may have some impact to the Environmental Committee. Accordingly, in the interim discussions relative to the Committee's Terms of Reference will be set aside. 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE - COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STEWARDSHIP FUND The Committee was in receipt of Business & Planning Services Report BPS-01-034 from Mr. B. Stanley distributed this date, recommending establishment of an Environmental Stewardship Grant Program based on the Terms of Reference outlined in Schedule 'A' of the report, to be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account. Mr. B. Stanley advised that following request for grant funding from WPIRG for their Kitchener- Guelph Traffic Reduction Initiative, staff agreed to review the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Stewardship Fund Capital Account. The objective of this review was to determine a means to provide for community and group environmental initiatives. As a result of this review staff are recommending establishment of an Environmental Stewardship Grant Program that would utilize up to 50% of the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account to a total of $5,000. for this purpose. Mr. Stanley reviewed the draft Terms of Reference emphasizing the program is not intended for individuals but rather geared toward groups who have specific initiatives in keeping with the objectives set out in the Terms of Reference. Groups must also have an organizational structure in place to lead and manage activities of their initiative and to account for finances. He then referred to the statement under Eligibility regarding capital projects and requested the statement be amended to include the word "generally" so it would read "Capital projects are not generally eligible for direct funding...". Mr. Stanley further noted that grant funding for consultants or professional salaries would only be eligible in the context of a partnership. He suggested that this directive could be accomplished by limiting the scope to larger initiatives such as WPIRG's; require groups to demonstrate in writing why the initiative could not be implemented without a consultant; or perhaps by setting a cap. He then outlined the funding requirements, noting that the maximum funding available will be $5,000. in any one year with a maximum allocation of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 11 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE - COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STEWARDSHIP FUND (Cont'd) $3,000. to any one project within the given year on a one time basis only. Mr. Stanley concluded that the program will be administered through the Environmental Study Group, with the Finance Department to monitor the budget and provide accounting services. Mayor C. Zehr commented that on the second line under Eligibility the word "voluntary" should read "voluntarily". Mayor C. Zehr then suggested that for clarification the word "non-profit" should be included under Eligibility to provide that groups applying for the grant be a non-profit organization. Mr. Stanley agreed with this suggestion. On motion by Councillor M. Galloway - it was resolved: "That Council approve the establishment of an Environmental Stewardship Grant Program to be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account; and further, That Terms of Reference for the Environmental Stewardship Grant Program be approved as follows: Objectives: To increase people's awareness of how they view and treat air, water and land resources and encourage them to be involved in solutions to improve the quality of those resources. 2. To promote healthy lifestyle practices. 3. To foster a sense of environmental stewardship. 4. To promote community environmental awareness. To promote and initiate the development of short term, intermediate and long term community based environmental programs. 6. To support environmental research. Eli,qibility: Applications will be accepted from non-profit environmental groups, neighbourhood associations and communities of interest. A "community of interest" is a group of individuals who voluntarily associate with each other because they have identified common environmental concerns that impact on the City. Groups must demonstrate an ability to initiate and follow through on projects by having an organizational structure in place to lead and manage the activities and to account for finances. Capital projects are not generally eligible for direct funding from the Environmental Stewardship Grant Program. Grant funding for consultants or professional salaries will only be eligible if provided within the context of a partnership with other funders. Fundin,q Source: To be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account. Funding: The maximum funding available in any one year for all projects is $5,000. with the ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 12 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE - COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STEWARDSHIP FUND (Cont'd) maximum funding allocation (grant) to any one project in a given year being $3,000. on a one time basis only. Equity contributions and partnerships with other funders will be encouraged. Applications: Proposals shall include the following information: · Issue or problem identification · Organizational structure of the group, association or community of interest · Key contact names · Program or project description · Outline of benefits from the program or project · Implementation plan and schedule · Budget outline · Other partnership or funding contributors Administration: The Environmental Stewardship Grant Program shall be administered through the City's Environmental Study Group. The Environmental Study Group shall receive proposals, evaluate them and make a recommendation to the Environmental Committee for funding. The Finance Department will monitor the budget and provide accounting services where required. Upon approval for funding, the project organization will be required to submit appropriate receipts and invoices to document use of the funds. A final report documenting the project, including project evaluation, is required. The report shall be presented to the Environmental Committee." Discussion was with then entered into with regard to the grant request received from WPIRG for the Kitchener-Guelph Traffic Reduction Initiative. Ms. J. Niece, representing WPIRG appeared as a delegation and provided a brief overview of the initiative. In response to Mayor Zehr, she advised that the City of Guelph has provided a $3,000. cash grant and the City of Waterloo has agreed to provide a similar grant subject to final budget approval. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - it was resolved: "That in accordance with Clause #1 of the Environmental Committee report approved February 12, 2001 by Council and subject to similar funding being provided by the Cities of Guelph, Waterloo and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Council approve a cash grant under the Environmental Stewardship Grant Program in the amount of $3,000. to the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group (WPIRG) for the Kitchener-Guelph Traffic Reduction Initiative, to be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account." Mr. H. Alsafouti entered the meeting at this time. 4. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - PREFERRED ALIGNMENT FOR HIGHWAY 7 PROJECT Prior to the Ministry of Transportation's presentation, Councillor B. Vrbanovic requested Mayor C. Zehr to provide an overview of the Region of Waterloo's discussions relative to this issue. Mayor Zehr advised that the Ministry had made a presentation to the Region and a number of delegations from the business sector and special interest groups had been heard. He commented that a number of Regional Councillors had expressed concern with the present proposal relative to its impact to businesses and the proposed service road connector lanes. He advised that the Region has not yet made a final decision and had requested additional ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 13 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - PREFERRED ALIGNMENT FOR HIGHWAY 7 PROJECT (Cont'd) information from Regional staff. He further stated that while the Region is aware of the Ministry's deadline to submit comments, it is likely the Region will require additional time. Mayor C. Zehr then left the meeting. Mr. B. Goudeseune, Ministry of Transportation and Mr. M. Scott, McCormick Rankin, appeared as a delegation to provide an overview of revised plans for the Highway 7 project. Mr. Goudeseune provided a brief review of the history of the project, noting that over the past 2 years an extensive review of the project was undertaken taking into account traffic forecast, transit options, environmental concerns and opportunities to expand existing Highway 7. The public consultation process was undertaken between January and March 2000, following which a new set of alternatives and an evaluation process was developed. Mr. M. Scott provided an overview of the technical aspects of the new set of alternatives and evaluation process. He pointed out that an independent review of traffic issues had been conducted which reconfirmed earlier demand forecasts of approximately 2000 vehicles per hour in each direction by 2028. Highway capacity was measured utilizing three types of roadways: a four lane undivided highway; a four lane highway with median barrier and right/in - right/out controlled access; and, a four lane divided highway with controlled access at interchanges. The latter 2 were found to provide reasonable levels of service to 2028. Mr. Scott then provided an overview of the alternatives within the west (Kitchener) and east (Guelph) ends, together with the interior corridor. The evaluation of the alternatives was based on factors relative to the socio-economic environment, natural environment, agriculture, transportation and costs. Mr. Scott noted that in the west end the preferred alternative will avoid the Bloomingdale - Rosendale wetlands and the Hindu Temple. In addition, a freeway to freeway interchange in the area of Wellington Street would be provided while maintaining local road connections. A partial interchange access to the Bridgeport area is also planned. In summary, Mr. Scott advised that the preferred alternative, identified as RW3-RE2 shown as Exhibit P2 in the documentation provided by the Ministry, would consist of the following: · freeway to freeway interchange with Kitchener-Waterloo Expressway · direct connection to the Hanlon Expressway in Guelph · full interchange provided at Regional Road 17, Regional Road 30, and County Road 86 · high level crossing of the Grand River to be constructed in a manner that will address environmental concerns · partial interchange access to Bridgeport · avoids Hindu Temple and most wetlands · single crossing of Hopewell Creek · limited disruption to agricultural community · some disruption to properties along existing Highway 7 · service life beyond 2028. Mr. Martin further advised that public information meetings had recently been held during which input was received from the business sector and, as a result, the Ministry is continuing to make improvements and refine the technically preferred alignment. Mr. Goudeseune advised that the Ministry had requested comments by March 2nd; however, in response to the remarks of Mayor C. Zehr, the Ministry recognizes that the timeframe may not be suitable and will consider comments as they become available. He pointed out that the public information meetings held in February were well attended and based on concerns raised, the Ministry will undertake further consultation with directly affected parties and municipalities to discuss issues related to service roads and interchanges. In conclusion, Mr. Goudeseune pointed out that this is not the final proposal and the Ministry continues to improve and refine alternatives for this project. In response to questioning from Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Goudeseune advised that the Ministry would like to see comments returned within the next 4 to 6 weeks and pointed out that in the interim the Ministry would be undertaking discussions with affected parties in the business ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 14 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - PREFERRED ALIGNMENT FOR HIGHWAY 7 PROJECT (Cont'd) sector. Councillor Vrbanovic enquired if consideration had been given to potential impact to businesses and Mr. Goudeseune stated that the Ministry had undertaken its review based on a number of factors relative to an environmental assessment and while the impact to businesses was not necessarily considered, the Ministry undertook to identify corridors that would meet their needs. He also advised that the Environmental Assessment process requires the Ministry to undertake a balanced review of issues and examine all aspects relating to the project, not just traffic issues. In response to further questioning from Councillor Vrbanovic, Mr. Goudeseune advised that once a final plan has been established it must be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval prior to any approach being made to the Province for capital funding. In this regard, Mr. Goudeseune stated that it is difficult to determine when construction would begin and suggested a significant timeframe still remains. The Committee then briefly recessed the meeting at 5:10 p.m. and reconvened at 5:30 p.m. under Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair, with the following members present: Councillor M. Galloway and Messrs. H. Alsafouti, F. Wende and B. Krafcheck. Mr. Garth Nelson, Nelson Stone Center, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the Highway 7 Home and Property Owners Group to present a submission dated February 28, 2001 along with a dozen photographs which he circulated. The photographs depict road alignment impact on the Nelson properties, Rosendale Wetland and sensitive areas on the Steed & Evans property. Mr. Nelson asked that all alignment proposals be fully compared and indicated that the RW4 alignment was best for him but stressed that a fair Environmental Assessment be done. Mr. Luke Lombaert, Belgian Nursery, distributed a submission dated February 28, 2001 on behalf of his company and the Highway 7 Home and Property Owners Group. He noted that several nurseries make up the Golden Triangle Garden Mall. Photographs were attached to a submission illustrating that the service road approach would isolate the Garden Mall businesses. His submission outlined impacts of the current proposal from an environmental, agricultural and transportation viewpoint. The Owners Group does not approve or support the current Technically Preferred Alternative route proposal because of the serious impacts it will have. Mr. Lombaert indicated that the Group has received more than 1500 comment sheets with 99% of respondents favouring an alignment north of the existing highway. Mr. Peter Tillich, Tillich Nursery, distributed a submission dated March 1, 2001 on behalf of the Highway 7 Home and Property Owners Group with attached aerial and ground photographs of environmentally sensitive wetland and woodlot areas. Concerns were expressed with respect to socio-economic and environmental impacts of the Technically Preferred Alternative which they consider to be as detrimental to the environment as the previous New Route Alternative north of existing Highway 7. Mr. Tillich indicated that they believe a modified northern route would eliminate negative socio-economic impacts of the Technically Preferred Alternative and have no greater environmental impact. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, he commented on the clientele who visited the nurseries suggesting that seniors were less likely to use an expressway system to reach the businesses. Mr. Kees Kennema, Greenway Blooming Centres, appeared as a delegation to oppose the Ministry proposal to convert part of existing Highway 7 to a controlled access highway. He remarked that the proposal was only a short-term solution with a negative outcome as a result of a confusing road pattern. Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that Mayor C. Zehr had received a large box of comment sheets collected from customers of business owners affected by the route proposal. Mr. Ernest Geissler conveyed his views about the Ministry's proposal as a professional engineer. He was in general agreement with the Technically Preferred Alternative because it addressed the access problem. However, he expressed concerns over the increasing number of vehicles, suburban sprawl and Land Use Policies. Mr. Geissler recommended that a greenbelt area be dedicated as a buffer between Kitchener and Guelph and that Land Use Policies be utilized to improve transportation between the two cities. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 15 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - PREFERRED ALIGNMENT FOR HIGHWAY 7 PROJECT (Cont'd) Ms. Judy Greenwood-Speers commented that the road proposal was really an air quality health issue and that building a new road was not the only transportation option. She noted that most residents support widening existing Highway 7. Further, she recommended that all levels of government start working together on transportation solutions; particularly, financially supporting rail solutions to reduce the volume of commuter vehicles. She asked additional train service be promoted and questioned who was not asking to improve this form of transportation. She suggested communities along the rail system consider running commuter trains. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic Mr. Goudeseune explained Federal Rail Service Policy regarding track usage for commuter service and suggested there were less expensive rubber tire solutions. Mr. George Bechtel distributed a submission dated March 1, 2001 opposing a new four lane highway in favour of widening existing Highway 7 and illustrating the financial savings that would be achieved. He strongly supported additional rail and bus service to avoid over building the road system and remarked on the Provincial Government's lack of funding of public transit and dismantling of environmental regulations. Mr. Perry Grobe, Grobe Nursery, distributed a submission commenting on criteria to evaluate socio-economic impacts of the Ministry proposal and stated that no one gathered data on economic impacts. He suggested that the Ministry believed there were no economic impacts which subsequently lead to their current recommended Alternative involving a service road network which he asked be discarded. Mr. Grobe also asked that a thorough investigation of the central portion of the project be undertaken after which trade-offs could be considered with objectivity and purpose. Mr. Richard Brown, Business Agent for the Canadian Association of Retired Persons - Golden Triangle Chapter, presented concerns respecting the Technically Preferred Alternative. He noted that seniors require an easy uncomplicated access to the nurseries and asked that mixing local traffic with high-speed traffic of a 400 series type of highway be avoided. Mr. Brown requested that a roadway be constructed with monies spent wisely on a long-term solution that would have minimal impact on wetlands, woodlands, farms and socio-economic issues. Mr. Adolf Gubler, Barrister & Solicitor, representing the Hwy. 7 Home & Property Owners Association advised that his clients had organized their Association in reaction to the shock and dismay they experienced with the Ministry's Technically Preferred Alternative to which they were completely opposed. He asked for Kitchener's support for a new highway north of Hwy. 7. Mr. Gubler listed advantages of a northern route and disadvantages of the Technically Preferred Alternative and remarked that Kitchener Council owes a duty of care to everyone travelling between Kitchener and Guelph to support construction of a safe highway. He noted that Wellington County supports the northern route and accordingly asked that Kitchener take the lead on the western end and support a northern route as the only viable solution. Mr. Craig Hawthorne, representing the HALT 7 Group, acknowledged how complicated this issue was, particularly given environmental impacts on water, land and air of the possible route locations. He recommended that existing Hwy. 7 be widened to four lanes which would provide some 10 years to invest in other transportation alternatives such as carpooling, a shuttle service, rail and the Region's Transportation Demand Management Plan to take effect. Mr. Hawthorne commented that the transportation alternatives just need to curb capacity. Councillor M. Galloway expressed concern over the safety of a center turning lane proposal and Mr. Hawthorne suggested it be designed similar to Hwy. 6 within Guelph. Further, he noted that the turning lane would not be utilized much in rush hour. Mr. Michael Parkinson, representing the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group (WPIRG), noted his organization had been working on this issue since 1992 and making comment to the Ministry since that time. He indicated that businesses on Victoria Street prefer a widening alternative as well as 80% of regular commuters that WPIRG has approached. Accordingly, Mr. Parkinson asked that the widening alternative be chosen on environmental, cost and transportation demand management grounds. Councillor M. Galloway remarked that he had not seen any visible evidence of support for WPIRG's position as compared to questionnaires ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 16 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - PREFERRED ALIGNMENT FOR HIGHWAY 7 PROJECT (Cont'd) received from the Hwy. 7 Business Owners. Mr. Parkinson indicated that information in this regard was available on the HALT 7 website. No further delegations responded to an invitation from the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. At this point, Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair reviewed past actions and motions of Kitchener Committees and Council with regard to this matter that were dealt with in 1999 and 2000. Mr. B. Stanley advised of resolutions with respect to the Hwy. 7 Project adopted by the Economic Development Advisory Committee on February 28, 2001 calling for support of a controlled access highway alternative as well as support for the Technically Preferred Alternative alignment proposed within the City of Kitchener and urging the Province to move forward on the highway project. Some discussion took place following the delegation presentation with regard to the Service Road Alternative and the Northern Route Alternative. Ministry representatives indicated that at this time the Alternative presented by the business owners has not undergone any level of analysis. It was indicated that they would look at this issue to make improvements within the 5 km central section of the Technically Preferred Alternative. Mr. F. Wende indicated that he wished to propose a motion not supporting the Technically Preferred Alternative and that the Ministry be asked to re-evaluate other options. Mr. H. Alsafouti commented that he would like to see more data from the Ministry of Transportation on matters relating to noise, air quality and impacts of road alternatives. Councillor M. Galloway indicated that he would not support the Alternative presented by the Ministry on the basis that there must be other options. He indicated support for the Ministry initiative to work with the Hwy. 7 Business Owners to find a constructive solution. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, it was indicated that the Ministry would return to Council with a recommended plan that would not have passed the test of public opinion. On motion by Mr. F. Wende - it was resolved: "That the City of Kitchener Environmental Committee not support the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario 'Technically Preferred Alternative' route for the Highway #7 Planning Study from Kitchener to Guelph, subject to reconsideration which may result from any future revision of the Study by the Ministry as a result of its public consultation process; and further, That the Ministry of Transportation be requested to re-evaluate other options to address traffic volume on Highway #7, including but not limited to: - widening existing Highway #7 - alternative transportation forms." ONTARIO CLEAN AIR ALLIANCE - RESOLUTION The Committee considered correspondence dated March 5, 2001 from the Chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance asking that the City pass a resolution requesting Canada's and Ontario's Ministers of the Environment to subject Ontario Power Generation's proposal to install selective catalytic reduction units at its Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants to a full public environmental assessment. Mr. B. Stanley briefly summarized the nature of the request. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 - 17 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. ONTARIO CLEAN AIR ALLIANCE - RESOLUTION (Cont'd) On motion by Councillor M. Galloway - it was resolved: "That the City of Kitchener requests Canada's Minister of the Environment to exercise his authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to refer to an environmental assessment review panel Ontario Power Generation's proposal to install selective catalytic reduction units on its Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants. The City of Kitchener further requests that the environmental assessment include full consideration of the alternative of conversion to natural gas; and, That the City of Kitchener requests Ontario's Minister of the Environment to require Ontario Power Generation to prepare an environmental assessment, in accordance with section 6.1(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act, of its proposal to install selective catalytic reduction units on its Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants. In particular, the City of Kitchener requests that the environmental assessment include full consideration of the alternative of conversion to natural gas. Furthermore, the City of Kitchener requests that the completed assessment be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a full public hearing; and further, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the 4 local area MP's, 3 local area MPP's, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario." 6. GRAND ACTIONS REGISTRY Ms. B. Steiner advised that a copy of information related to the 'Grand Actions Registry: Millennium Edition, 2000' had been distributed this date. She noted that it represented a registry of projects within the Grand River Watershed so as to enable everything taking place within the watershed to be tracked. 7. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. J. Billett, AMCT Committee Administrator L. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk