Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-23ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 200$ CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date commencing at 4:13 p.m. Present: Mr. C. Schneider - Co-Chair Ms. N. Sonder, Ms. J. Young and Messrs. R. Dingman, B. McColl, M. Peterson and G. Zador Staff: J. Willmer, Director of Planning G. Murphy, Director of Engineering Services B. Steiner, Senior Environmental Planner C. Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner C. Goodeve, Committee Administrator 1. PRESENTATION -SUSTAINABLE WATERLOO The Committee considered the Sustainable Waterloo Executive Summary, dated September 2008, which provides an overview of the organization's goals and objectives. Mr. Mike Morrice, Sustainable Waterloo, advised that his group is anot-for-profit organization aimed at helping corporations in Waterloo Region to become more environmentally sustainable by facilitating collaborative action between business, government, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations. To achieve this, Sustainable Waterloo will initially focus on the development and corporate commitment to a measurable, verifiable and realistic regional carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction target. He stated that his organization would act as a facilitator by providing a forum for groups to share best practices for cost effective means of reducing CO2 emissions. He added that Sustainable Waterloo would like the City of Kitchener to become a "Founding Partner" by providing financial support in the amount of $10,000. He noted that "Founding Partners" receive a high profile on their website and would be recognized at their 2009 launch event. In response to questions, Mr. M. Morrice advised that he has had preliminary discussions with City staff regarding this initiative. He requested that the Environmental Committee refer this matter back to staff for review, with the intent of developing a report to Council in support of the City of Kitchener becoming a "Founding Partner". He stated that thus far, he has received an endorsement from staff at the City of Cambridge and is waiting for a response from the City of Waterloo and the Region. Ms. N. Sonder questioned the difference between Sustainable Waterloo and the Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP) and was advised that REEP focuses more on technical issues, while Sustainable Waterloo takes more of a collaborative approach. Mr. M. Morrice stated that his organization acts as a third party facilitator that recognizes achievements and offers a forum where groups can work together to reach a voluntary CO2 reduction target. He added that it is anticipated that companies would work toward reaching this reduction target as a means of staying ahead of the curve, estimating that legislation would eventually be enacted mandating a reduction in CO2 emissions. On motion by Mr. B. McColl - it was resolved: "That the Sustainable Waterloo initiative be endorsed, and referred to staff for review, with the intention of developing a report for Council's consideration." 2. 200$ AIR QUALITY IN KITCHENER REPORT BEST BETS UPDATE Ms. C. Musselman provided an update of the work undertaken to date on the 2008 Air Quality in Kitchener Best Bets. She advised that in accordance with Best Bet 1 a, subject to consideration during Council's 2009 budget deliberations, $25,000. will be allocated to the Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP). Concerning Best Bet 1 b, Kitchener Utilities is working with REEP and Natural Resources Canada to determine an appropriate link to include on their website to inform consumers about Energuide ratings and evaluations as well as available grants. With regard to Best Bet 1c, by 2010 every home in Ontario will have a Smart Meter and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro are in the process of determining a date for the full implementation of Smart Meters in this area. She stated that pursuant to Best Bet 1 d, staff will investigate purchasing "green energy" as part of the Energy Management Program and are seeking site-specific applications for the use of "green ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 23.200$ - 30 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. 200$ AIR QUALITY IN KITCHENER REPORT BEST BETS UPDATE tCONT'D) energy". She stated that Best Bets 2a and 2b are being worked on through the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) study and the Neighbourhood Design Guidelines, which are incorporating the 7 principles of good neighbourhood design for "complete communities" into current projects. She added that to implement Best Bet 3a, staff are investigating the feasibility of an economic incentive / education program to reduce emissions of non-manufacturing businesses (commercial and institutional uses). Best Bets 4a and 4b are being pursued through an investigation into current education programs, such as www.co2re.ca that encourage the reduction of greenhouse gases within a community. Finally, regarding Best Bet 5b, Council selected a greenhouse gas emission target of 20% for projects funded through the Local Environmental Action Fund (LEAF). In response to questions, Ms. B. Steiner advised that the 20% reduction target was selected as a means of evaluating the environmental successes of the LEAF program. She stated that when the Best Bets reporting milestones were established it was set out that an update would be provided annually in the fall; then a feasibility report would be provided in the new year upon completion of Council's budget deliberations; and, this would be followed by a final information report presented to the Committee in the spring of that year. 3. NATURAL LANDS ACQUISITION FUND UPDATE Ms. B. Steiner advised that in 2006 a report was presented to this Committee on the development of a Natural Lands Acquisition Fund. That Fund was created in 2007 and currently has a budget in excess of $100,000. She stated that thus far the City has not had a critical need to use these funds, noting that recently the City was conveyed a parcel of land free of charge, which would have otherwise been pursued through the Fund. She added that when the Natural Lands Acquisition Fund was approved in 2006, a provision was put in place to allow for rationale budgeting to the Fund through the staging of development process. She noted that the staging of development process was used to determine when certain lands would be coming forward for development at any given time. Knowing this, staff could also verify which natural lands would be coming forward that would be conveyed to the City and the parcels of land that would need to be acquired through the Natural Lands Acquisition Fund. Ms. Steiner outlined that the staging of development process is currently being replaced through the development of the Growth Management Strategy. She noted that until that Strategy is completed, it is unclear how the process of acquiring natural lands will be approached in the future. 4. 2009 ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS Mr. C. Goodeve advised that this item was included with the agenda as a reminder to those members interested in re-applying for the Committee. In response to questions regarding the eligibility requirements that are now in place as a result of the Advisory Committee Review, Mr. Goodeve agreed to circulate the staff reports considered by Council, which outline the Advisory Committee eligibility criteria. 5. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM UPDATE The Committee considered a memorandum from Ms. C. Musselman, dated October 6, 2008, which provides an update on the 2008 Community Environmental Improvement Grant (CEIG) program. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of the 2008 CEIG Promotional Brochure. Ms. C. Musselman provided an update on the work undertaken by staff to amend the CEIG application form and the 2008 advertising campaign, as outlined in the circulated memorandum. She advised that due to the nature of many environmental projects, community groups often do not begin to contemplate funding sources until such time that their projects are being planned; which is typically in early spring. Accordingly, the 2009 CEIG advertising campaign will commence in the spring, so that community groups are aware of the grant when planning their future projects. She added that 2008 applications are due on November 6th and it is anticipated that the Committee would consider those applications at its next meeting. In response to questions, Ms. C. Musselman advised that the 2008 advertising campaign was launched the second week of October. She added that in an attempt to reach as many people as ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 200$ - 31 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM UPDATE tCONT'D) possible, a notice was placed in the Waterloo Region Record and the Save & Sell. In addition, a media release was distributed to local media and approximately 150 brochures were printed and distributed directly to targeted neighbourhood groups, organizations and community groups. 6. PRESENTATION - GO TRANSIT SERVICE EXTENSION The Committee was in receipt of the GO Transit "Georgetown to Kitchener Rail Expansion - Environmental Assessment (EA)" presentation, dated October 2008. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-08-178, dated October 23, 2008 requesting the Committee's endorsement of the extension of GO Transit rail service from Georgetown to Kitchener. Messrs. Greg Ashbee, Manager of Infrastructure Planning, GO Transit and Leonard Rach, R.J. Burnside and Associate Ltd. advised that the purpose of the EA is to determine the demand for rail travel and identify station locations, train layover facilities and track improvements between Georgetown and Kitchener over a planning horizon of 2011 to 2031. Mr. Rach stated that the following are the concept alternatives considered as part of the Class EA process: 1. Do Nothing - no improvements or changes would be undertaken toward solving the problem; 2. Transportation Demand Management tTDM) -strategies to encourage travellers to use alternatives to driving alone (e.g. high occupancy (HOV) and reserved bus lanes (RBL), area traffic control /transit signal priority, parking management, congestion pricing, ridesharing, land use density increases and telecommuting); 3. New or Expanded Commuter Rail Service -expansion could include new stations, increasing line capacity by adding more rail cars, trains and tracks and a train layover / fuelling facility; 4. New or Expanded Bus Service -expansion of service on existing major roadways and highways; and, 5. Expand Road Capacity -expansion could include widening of existing roadways or new road facilities. Mr. L. Rach advised that `New or Expanded Commuter Rail Service' was identified as the recommended alternative, as it could accommodate trip demands with relatively little environmental impact. Further, it provides the best option for monies invested, would improve air quality in the corridor and is consistent with the province's smart growth policy. He stated that the opportunity exists to accommodate transit ridership demands by utilizing the existing CN / GEXR rail line. He added that the expansion of GO Transit service can be accomplished through track improvements to increase capacity and rail safety, the siting of potential GO Transit stations in the Halton Hills, Guelph and Kitchener area, and the siting of a train storage area in Kitchener. He then reviewed the various sites being examined as possible locations for those amenities. Mr. Rach stated that the net effects associated with the conceptual design alternatives (stations, layover and track improvement sites) would be evaluated based on the following four criteria: Natural Environment, Social /Cultural Environment, Technical, and Financial. He added that the comparative evaluation of the conceptual design alternatives would result in a recommendation of a preliminary preferred design for the project, which would be presented at the next public information centre (PIC). He added that comments received from the PIC would be considered along with those received from agencies and the public to confirm the preferred concept alternative, the conceptual design alternatives and the proposed evaluation criteria. It was noted that members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) and the Downtown Advisory Committee (DAC) were in attendance and have been invited to participate in the discussion regarding this matter. In response to questions, Mr. G. Ashbee advised that the Region of Waterloo is currently conducting a study into the feasibility of having a GO train station in the City of Cambridge. He stated that the concern with locating a station in Cambridge relates to the level of traffic currently on that area's rail lines. He added that the Cambridge train line is one of CP's busiest routes and it would be very expensive to add a service to a corridor which is already filled with trains. Mr. L. Rach noted that Cambridge residents could easily access the Kitchener GO service once the proposed Regional Light Rail Transit (LRT) has been constructed. He further advised that there ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 23.200$ - 32 - CITY OF KITCHENER 6. PRESENTATION-GO TRANSIT SERVICE EXTENSION tCONT'D) are four sites in the Kitchener area that are being considered for either GO train stations or as rail storage locations. These are identified in Appendix `A' of report DTS-08-178, as Figures 3, LA8, LA9, LA10 and LA11. He stated that by proceeding with the EA at this time, property requirements for GO Transit expansion would be identified at an early stage which would serve to protect lands adjacent to the corridor before they are developed. Mr. Ashbee commented that it is not uncommon to see property values increase in areas that have GO train services. He noted that what is being proposed differentiates from the standard GO service, which is focused on taking people from the suburbs into the City of Toronto. He added that over time it is projected that a certain degree of counter flow would exist, whereby people would use this service to commute to work in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. He outlined that while all of GO's operating budget is funded by the provincial government, areas that are serviced by GO pay up to one third of GO's expansion budget. He noted that capital costs would be subject to negotiations between this area's local governments and the GO Transit Board of Directors. Mr. G. Murphy advised that the comments put forward by the Committee during this discussion would be incorporated in to an Engineering staff report along with the comments from the members of DAC and EDAC. He added that staff are recommending that the Environment Committee endorse the extension of GO Transit rail service from Georgetown to Kitchener and request that Council direct staff to communicate to GO Transit that the City supports this initiative. On motion by Mr. M. Peterson - it was resolved: "That the proposed extension of GO Transit rail service from Georgetown to Kitchener be endorsed, with staff being directed to communicate to GO Transit that the City of Kitchener supports this initiative." 7. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Colin Goodeve Committee Administrator