Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-11ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 200$ CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date commencing at 4:09 p.m. Present: Councillor B. Vrbanovic -Chair Ms. Y. Fernandes, Ms. N. Sonder, Ms. J. Young and Messrs. R. Dingman, B. McColl, M. Peterson, C. Schneider and G. Zador Staff: J. Willmer, Director of Planning G. Murphy, Director of Engineering Services A. Pinard, Manager of Long Range Policy Planning B. Page, Supervisor of Site Development B. Steiner, Senior Environmental Planner C. Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner C. Goodeve, Committee Administrator 1. INTRODUCTION -NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER On behalf of the Committee, Councillor B. Vrbanovic welcomed Ms. C. Musselman who was recently hired as the City's new Senior Environmental Planner. PRESENTATION -RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT (REEP) FUNDING REQUEST The Committee considered a report from Waterloo Region Green Solutions (WRGS), Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP), dated August 2008, regarding a request for a grant in the amount of $25,000., which would represent the City of Kitchener's contribution to their 2009 budget. Ms. Mary Jane Patterson, Executive Director, WRGS, gave a presentation reviewing her group's achievements in 2007/2008 and their goals for 2009. She advised that in the first few months of 2007, REEP completed the outgoing EnerGuide for Houses program, documenting home energy retrofits that netted participating homeowners $1,031,808. in federal grants since that program began in 1999. She outlined that in April 2007, the federal government returned support to its home energy evaluation service through the introduction of the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes program. She advised that as of the end of July 2008, REEP conducted 468 ecoENERGY initial evaluations in Kitchener, representing half of the overall evaluations conducted in Waterloo Region; and, exceeds the 393 initial evaluations they conducted in Kitchener in all of 2007. In addition, REEP has undertaken 150 follow-up evaluations in Kitchener in 2008, which is up from the 52 follow-up evaluations conducted in 2007 when the program was first introduced. Ms. Patterson stated that as she informed the Committee at its May 15, 2008 meeting, commencing in 2008 and continuing through 2009 REEP has been working to transform two historic homes into models of energy and water conservation, and renewable energy technology. She pointed out that last year the provincial government announced that they would not only match the federal incentive for home energy retro-fits, but would also cover half of the cost for each evaluation. She outlined that Kitchener's support is vital to her group's continued operation and serves to leverage funding from other municipalities, utilities, as well as the provincial and federal governments. In response to questions, Ms. M. J. Patterson advised that as indicated in their projected budget, WRGS estimates that it should have just enough funds to cover their operations in 2009. She noted that they are continuously seeking out other groups as possible funding sources. She stated that while WRGS also receives funding from the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge, the City of Waterloo views the grant given to REEP from Waterloo North Hydro as constituting their City's annual contribution to this project. On motion by Mr. C. Schneider - it was resolved: "That subject to consideration during the 2009 budget deliberations, $25,000. be allocated to the Waterloo Region Green Solutions, Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP), as part of the Environmental Committee's 2009 operating budget. " ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11.200$ - 25 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. PRESENTATION -AIR QUALITY & EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES The Committee was in receipt of a summary of the `Air Quality Assessment of Tim Hortons Restaurants', prepared by RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, dated May 2008. Mr. J. Wilmer advised that in January 2008 staff presented a report proposing alternatives to update the design guidelines for drive-throughs, particularly as they relate to pedestrian safety and air quality. He added that at that time, Council was informed of a study completed by RWDI offering scientific data on the impact of drive-throughs that was being peer reviewed by the University of Ottawa Science and Engineering Faculty. He noted that consideration of this matter was subsequently deferred pending receipt of the peer review, together with the RWDI study. He added that in May 2008 the Region of Waterloo put forward a report on the RWDI study, noting that Regional staff examined this issue from a public health perspective; while the City's focus relates to the design guidelines for drive-throughs. Ms. Michelle Saunders, Manager of Communications and Government Relations, Ontario Restaurant, Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) addressed the Committee and expressed support for the findings of the RWDI study. She stated that ORHMA's position is that drive- through facilities are a small source of auto emissions compared to other sources; that drive- through facilities generate few car trips on their own; and, that community members support drive-through facilities. She noted that the RWDI study was developed based on scientific facts and was peer reviewed by a scientific engineer. Mr. Mike Lepage, RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, advised that his company was retained by the TDL Group Corp. (Tim Hortons Restaurants) to conduct an air quality study of vehicles using their facilities. To do this his company worked with Tedesco Engineering to undertake surveys of 4 separate Tim Hortons facilities located throughout Ontario. He advised that 3 were conventional sites, located in Hamilton, Mississauga and Ottawa, having both drive- through and in-store service. The fourth site, on Bank Street in Ottawa, had only in-store service, even though it was originally designed to have adrive-through as well. Mr. Lepage stated that their research showed that the total number of vehicles that use a conventional Tim Hortons facility during the morning peak hour was averaged to be 224, of which 137 use the drive-through and 87 use the parking lot. He added that for customers using in-store service, one relevant piece of information is the length of time the vehicle sits in the parking space with the engine off while the customer is inside, which is referred to as vehicle soak time. He stated that the longer the vehicle sits with the engine off, the more the engine and the catalytic converter cool down before being restarted; thus causing the vehicle to operate less efficiently and produce more emissions. Mr. Lepage outlined that the study found that for vehicles using the drive-through, the average time onsite ranges from 3 to 4.5 minutes. For vehicles using the parking lot, the average time on site is almost double, ranging from 7 to 8 minutes. He noted that video surveillance was used to record the arrival and departure time of each vehicle. He stated that for the Bank Street store, the average time spent at this facility during the morning peak hour is 1 to 2 minutes longer than in parking lots of stores that have drive-through components. He added that, based on observations by Tedesco, most of the additional time was a result of vehicles idling while waiting for a parking space because the lot was congested. He further advised that the combined emissions generated from all vehicles using adrive-through facility during apeak-hour of operation are relatively small in relation to other common emission sources; for example, the smog pollutant emissions are comparable to a single chainsaw operating for one hour. Mr. Lepage stated that a comparison of Year 2006 and Year 2016 modeling indicates that predicted trends in fleet-wide emissions will result in reduced impacts from smog pollutants and carbon monoxide in the future. He noted that, based on their research, it was determined that for a Tim Hortons store with no drive-through, the congestion that occurs in the parking lot, together with the start-up emissions and emissions from the extra travel distance to get to and from a space, all contribute to produce somewhat higher emissions per vehicle compared to a store that has a drive-through. He concluded that overall, the findings for the Tim Hortons stores examined indicate no air quality benefit to the public from eliminating drive-throughs. Concerns raised by Committee members included: whether the stores used in the study could truly be considered a reflection of all Tim Hortons facilities; the small sample size used for the study; the overall message of the study; the comparison between drive-throughs and common ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11.200$ - 26 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. PRESENTATION -AIR QUALITY & EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES tCONT'D) emission sources; and, that by only examining Tim Hortons, the findings of the study are not representative of the overall drive-through industry. In response to questions, Mr. M. Lepage advised that the results of the RWDI study are considered to be representative for Tim Hortons stores, but cannot be generalized to other types of drive-through facilities. He stated that emission models produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other accepted methodologies were used to estimate emissions. He noted that a distinction was made between eat-in and take-out patrons, adding that only the take-out patrons were included in the calculations for the average time on site. He stated that it was observed that 10-20% of vehicles were left running in the parking lot of stores that did not have adrive-through. He further advised that the reason for the small sample size was due to the intensity and level of technology required to undertake a study of this nature. He stated that to account for the relatively small sample size, a number of sensitivity analyses were conducted based on the size of the parking lot, time of day, and season. Mr. Lepage stated that the message being sent by the study is that the combination of drive-through and parking facilities is an efficient means of moving vehicles compared to the increased foot print that would be required to move the same number of vehicles at anon-drive-through facility. He advised that the reason for undertaking the comparisons with other common emission sources, such as chainsaws and snow blowers, was to demonstrate that drive-throughs are not the only source of pollution. He noted that the emissions produced at drive-throughs account for 0.21 % of the greenhouse gases generated by all light duty vehicles in Canada. Committee members inquired as to the profitability comparisons of restaurants with and without drive-through facilities. In addition, concerns were expressed that the results of the RWDI study could be considered to be potentially bias toward drive-throughs, given that the study was paid for by Tim Hortons. Mr. M. Lepage advised that it is natural for a person to assume that there would be some degree of bias in a study of this nature; which is why the RWDI study was peer reviewed by the University of Ottawa Faculty of Science and Engineering. In addition, it has been submitted for publication in a technical journal where it will be further scrutinized. He noted that the peer review found that RWDI applied appropriate methodologies for quantifying the emissions for different vehicle patterns around Tim Hortons facilities with and without drive-throughs. He commented that the peer review further concluded that the study provided a sound basis for estimating the effect of the 2 types of Tim Hortons facilities. Mr. Nick Javor, Senior Vice-president, TDL Group Ltd., advised that Tim Hortons operates over 1,700 stores, with drive-throughs accounting for over half of their business. He added that this is why his company retained RWDI, to conduct a study to get a clearer understanding of the impact of drive-throughs on the environment. He stated that drive-throughs provide a service for all customers, in particular those with accessibility issues, parents with babies and small children, and for customers who feel safer remaining in their vehicles. He commented that care needs to be taken to ensure that proposed solutions do not cause larger problems. He noted that as demonstrated by the RWDI study, prohibiting drive-throughs and putting more cars in parking facilities would result in increased emissions and the need for larger parking lots. Mr. Javor advised that Tim Hortons reviews their corporate policies on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are integrating environmental considerations into their programs and practices. He added that they lead the industry in service time by establishing a goal of servicing drive-through customers within 2 minutes, thereby minimizing its impact on the environment. Mr. Matthias Sonder addressed the Committee regarding his concerns with how the information was presented in the RWDI study. He stated that in his opinion, the RWDI study endorsed acar- based society given its favourable presentation of drive-throughs. Mr. Sonder questioned the findings of the RWDI study and suggested that more emphasis should be placed on reducing society's automotive dependency. Following further discussion regarding the overall tenets of the RWDI study, the Committee agreed to refer this matter to Planning staff, who were asked to study this issue and report back to a future Environmental Committee meeting with options for moving forward. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11.200$ - 27 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. PRESENTATION -VICTORIA PARK LAKE CLASS EA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Committee was in receipt of a presentation entitled `Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Victoria Park Lake Improvements', dated July 23, 2008. Mr. M. Peterson, as the Committee's representative to the Victoria Park Lake Public Advisory Committee, reviewed the presentation. He advised that water quality in the lake continues to be a concern, and the City is now exploring alternatives to address both the accumulation of sediment and the quality of water. He outlined that improving conditions in the lake will depend on both upstream and in-lake factors and the technical approach to the study will consist of both watershed and in-lake analysis. From a watershed basis, if any improvements are to be made to the lake, the Study Team must have an understanding not only of the lake itself, but also an appreciation of the conditions external to the lake. He then reviewed the following alternatives that will be considered for Victoria Park Lake and the upstream watershed: Victoria Lake 1. Do Nothing; 2. Remove Sediment 3. Reconfigure Lake and Improve Function; 4. Take Lake Offline and Build Bypass; and, 5. Remove Lake and Reconfigure channel. Upstream Watershed 1. Do Nothing; 2. Source Control Options; 3. Conveyance Control Options; 4. End-of Pipe Options; and, 5. Stream Restoration Options. In response to questions, Mr. M. Peterson advised that if the lake were to be removed, its stormwater management catchment area would need to be compensated for elsewhere in the watershed. He invited members to attend the second Public Information Session, scheduled for September 25, 2008 and noted that additional project information is available on the City`s website: www.kitchener.ca Mr. G. Murphy advised that staff have a good understanding of the significance of Victoria Park Lake. He added that discussions have been held with the Communication Division as to the best possible means of informing all of the City's residents about this project. PRESENTATION -COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM SUB-COMMITTEE - REVISED GRANT CRITERIA & SUBMISSION PROCESS The Committee considered the Community Environmental Improvement Grant (CEIG) Program Sub-committee report, dated August 19, 2008 regarding revised grant criteria and submission process. Mr. C. Schneider advised that at the June 19, 2008 Environmental Committee meeting, a discussion took place regarding the tenets of the CEIG program, with several members indicating a desire to retain the CEIG, but in a revised form. It was noted that the Sub-committee had identified several aspects of the grant program's criteria where it believed changes should occur and they agreed to circulate the proposed changes for the Committee's consideration. He stated that members were requested to provide feedback to the Sub-committee, who would subsequently present the revised grant criteria at the September 11, 2008 Environmental Committee meeting; thereby allowing this year's CEIG promotional campaign to move forward in early Fall 2008. He then reviewed the changes that were made to the grant criteria and submission process based on the members' feedback. He added that the Sub-committee is also proposing that staff be requested to undertake a review of the CEIG program to determine if the program continues to effectively meet its overall objectives and to identify options for moving forward. The Committee reviewed the CEIG Program Sub-committee report and agreed to amend the revised criteria and submission process as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 200$ - 2$ - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. PRESENTATION -COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM SUB-COMMITTEE - REVISED GRANT CRITERIA & SUBMISSION PROCESS tCONT'D) • group points a), c), e), and f) of Section 3 together under the heading of `Eligibility Criteria'; • remove the word `only' from point d) of Section 3; • remove the word `Educational' from point e) of Section 3; and, • replace the last sentence of point a) in Section 3 with the following: `a limit may be placed on the number of grant applications considered from schools or school related entities in a given year.' On motion by Mr. C. Schneider - it was resolved: "That Council Policy I-590 (Grant Program -Community Environmental Improvement) be amended to repeal and replace Section 3 (Grant Criteria) and Section 4 (Grant Submission Process) with the revised criteria and submission process outlined in the Community Environmental Improvement Grant program Sub-committee report, as amended at the September 11, 2008 Environmental Committee meeting; and further, That staff be directed to undertake a review of the Community Environmental Improvement Grant program to determine if the program continues to effectively meet its overall objectives and to identify options for moving forward." 6. NOTICE OF MOTION -COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY WATERLOO tCREW) The Committee considered the following Notice of Motion given by Ms. N. Sonder at the June 19, 2008 Environmental Committee meeting, regarding the CREW Power Saving Network: "That Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro be encouraged fo support Community Renewable Energy Waterloo (CREW) Power Saving Network as a means of promoting energy conservation." In response to questions, Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that while the City cannot direct the actions of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, it could encourage them to support CREW. Several members then expressed support for the Power Saving Network initiative. On motion by Ms. N. Sonder - it was resolved: "That Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro be encouraged to support Community Renewable Energy Waterloo (CREW) Power Saving Network as a means of promoting energy conservation." 7. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Colin Goodeve Committee Administrator