►
From YouTube: Standing Committee on Environmental Protection, Water and Waste Management - 17 Dec 2019 (2/2)
Description
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
I'm
gonna
start
with
will
McDonald.
So
he
was
I
mentioned
him
before
we
took
a
break
and
councilor
Menard
had
a
question
regarding
the
procurements
policies,
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
the
climate
lands
aspect.
So
we'll
would
you
be
able
to
comment
on
that?
Sir
Sean
joint
ask
your
question
again.
To
will
I
spoke.
B
A
C
C
And
mr.
chair
were
procurement.
Staff
are
happy
to
work
with
the
various
departments
to
develop
procurement
strategies
to
meet
these
objectives.
The
city
has
a
sustainable
procurement
guideline
right
right
now,
which
is
developed
in
order
to
prompt
the
departmental
spec
writers
to
consider
the
four
factors
of
sustainability
in
their
procurement
decisions
and
staff.
When
procurement
will
work
to
incorporate
that
criteria
into
their
procurement
strategies,.
B
C
So
mr.
chair,
we
have
to
work
with
the
departments
in
that
procurement
is
responsible
for
how
the
procurement
process
is
actually
administered.
It's
the
it's
the
department
as
the
technical
experts
that
are
responsible
for
what
it
is
that
we
purchase,
and
so
we
would
work
with
them
to
make
sure
that
that
that
direction
is
incorporated
into
their
specifications
and
ultimately
procurement
strategies
say.
Thank
you
so
much
appreciate
that.
Oh.
A
Thank
you,
I
know.
Our
next
question
from
counselor
was
from
councillor
flurry.
He
couldn't
come
back,
but
I
know
that
it
was
with
respect
to
other
departments.
So
mr.
Willis
I
know
that
through
the
energy
evolution
and
the
phase
two
and
the
report
that
you
coming
back
to
I
know
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
you're
working
on
is
interdepartmental.
A
C
Excuse
me,
mr.
chair,
yes,
certainly,
first
of
all
to
develop
this
plan
in
the
first
place,
we've
had
an
interdepartmental
working
group
and
at
many
points
during
the
group,
the
general
managers
who
have
the
most
involved,
such
as
mr.
Wylie
and
I,
have
met
directly
to
discuss
bigger
issues
of
that
nature.
We
also
have
that's
been
brewing,
is
a
an
energy
group
within
mr.
McDonald's
group?
C
Actually,
it's
looking
at
how
Ottawa
actually
procures
its
energy
right
now
and
it's
over
time
as
a
corporate
group,
we'll
have
a
bigger
role
in
providing
feedback
in
terms
of
the
nature
of
what
we're
buying
and
its
carbon
emissions
in
time,
but
where
it's
in
its
infant
stages,
and
it's
primarily
looking
right
now
at
a
more
effective
purchasing
for
power,
it's
an
ongoing
effort.
It's
certainly
every
departments
involved
in
every
department
will
have
a
role
as
we
move
forward
and
my
column.
Several
of
my
colleagues
are
at
the
table.
A
E
E
E
Could
never
remember,
listen,
I'm,
not
going
to
take
much
time.
A
lot
was
asked
that
concerns
me
as
well,
but
I
do
I
do
want
to
I
did
want
to
ensure
that
I
thank
staff
and
this
committee,
and
certainly
the
the
sponsors
group
that
that
worked
on
this.
We
we've
we've
just
taken
a
one
of
those
big
giant
steps.
I
believe
that
is
there's
going
to
move
us
to
a
place
where
we
have
the
opportunity.
E
Some
of
my
colleagues
have
already
brought
up
the
issue
around
procurement
and
our
waste
management
plan
and
to
ensure
that
you
know
that
when
we're
looking
at
how
we
do
things
at
the
city
and
how
we
manage
and
how
we
build
our
policy
that
we're
putting
that
climate
lens
on
it
and
that's
always
been
a
frustration,
because
you
leave
here
and
you
maybe
go
to
a
Transit
Commission,
and
you
start
talking
about
electric
buses
and
you're,
told
okay.
Well,
you
know
good
for
us
we're
gonna
get
four.
You
know
in
a
pilot
project.
E
Well,
it's
just
not
enough
anymore.
We
have
to
be
able
to
leave
here.
We
have
to
be
able
to
leave
this
committee
and
go
into
any
other
committee
and
know
that
this
same
lens
is
going
to
apply
wherever
we
are
whatever
table
were
sitting
at
at
in
in
the
city.
So
it's
for
that
I
I!
Thank
you.
I!
Think
that
that
it's
you
know
it
will
make
our
jobs
easier.
Certainly
I
just
wanted
to
say
also
around
the
building
codes.
E
You
know,
I
sit
on
the
board
of
Ottawa,
community
housing
and
and
we're
redeveloping
the
chair.
Does
as
well
and
we're
redeveloping
a
neighborhood
in
Rochester,
Rochester
Heights,
and
it's
going
to
be
zero
building,
and
you
know
it's
the
second
multi-residential
and
both
of
them
both
of
our
Net
Zero
buildings.
Today,
our
community
housing,
if
you
will
one,
is
Salas
Ottawa,
which
built
the
first
and
they
house
people
you
know
with
mental
illness
and
and
the
och
we
house,
people
on
lower
incomes
and
and
it's
good
for
two
reasons.
E
One
is
it's
it's
good
for
the
environment,
it's
good
that
we're
we're
building
a
new
stock
that
won't
have
that
imprint
on
the
on
the
climate,
but
it's
also
good
for
the
people
that
were
housing.
It
saves
money,
it
saves
them
money.
So
I
really
am
encouraged
by
what
the
general
manager
said
that
we
are
talking
to
the
province.
We
are
appealing
them
to
them
for
stricter
building
codes,
because
in
50
60
years
from
now,
which
we
expect
these
buildings
to
last
Net
Zero
will
probably
be
a
bit
passe.
So
we
have
to
think
about.
E
You
know
what
we're
doing
today
that
that's
going
to
to
apply
in
50
60
years
from
now
so
I
guess
maybe
just
one
question:
if
I,
if
I
may,
is
there
anything
that
we're
not
doing
I'm
putting
this
to
staff?
Is
there
anything
that
you
see
that
that
you've
discussed
that
you
see
that
you
see
others
are
doing
that
we're
not
doing
here
because
of
funding?
Is
there
if
you,
if
you
have
a
bit
more
money,
is
there
something
you
could
add
on
to
the
listing
and
what
would
it
be
Jerry.
C
I'm
gonna
answer
that
question,
because
it's
really
not
fair
for
other
stuff.
What
chance
that,
because
you
know
in
all
fairness,
we
every
single
day
goes
by
and
we
have
lots
of
great
ideas,
because
that's
just
what
we
do
I
think
we
have
reflected
very
carefully
in
the
last
three
years
worth
of
work
of
where
the
biggest
bang
for
our
buck
is,
and
the
advice
we're
giving
to
Council
is
focused
on
our
biggest
bang
for
a
buck.
C
That
doesn't
mean
that
there
aren't
other
ideas
that
are
going
to
come
up
and
councillor
Minard
made
some
points
about
continuing
community
engagement
and
I.
Think
we
intend
to
because
there
may
be
better
ideas
that
do
pop
up
over
and
I'd
like
to
that.
We
could
actually
integrate
them
in.
There
will
be
other
programs
from
other
governments.
There
will
be
other
technological
changes
that
present
us
new
opportunities
that
don't
exist
today,
but
in
all
fairness,
we
have
given
you
recommendations
of
where
we
think
you're
gonna
have
the
highest
impact
for
investment.
A
F
You
mr.
chair,
but
feeling
in
better
spirits
now
that
I
have
food
in
me
and
so
on.
Yes,
yes,
does
staff
have
a
list
of
all
the
projects
that
they
would
like
to
see.
You
say
that
this
committee
sees
the
projects
that
we
can
advance
as
soon
as
possible
that
are
affordable.
You
probably
have
a
longer
list
may
get
shot
down.
F
C
So
chary
as
part
of
the
next
report,
which
is
coming
in
q2,
where
we
take
the
20
different
action
areas,
we
will
give
you
specific
references
to
specific
projects
and
will
indicate
the
degree
of
affordability
of
each
of
those
projects.
Some
of
them
are
easy
ones.
We
can
move
ahead
with
some
of
which
we
will
not
have
a
strategy
for
financing
because
it'll,
it's
a
longer
term
investment,
but
all
that
information
will
be
provided
to
you
and
I.
It
will
be
available
for
a
fulsome
discussion
when
we're
back.
F
F
G
F
Not
here
at
arm-wrestle
what
the
causes
of
climate
change
are,
there's
a
very
strong
agreement
among
folks
in
the
academic
world
that
it
is
real,
there's,
certainly
no
debt
for
myself,
but
climate
is
changing
and
we
have
to
react
to
that
and
when
you
look
at
what
the
cost
of
one
Constance
Bay
flooding
is
to
the
homeowners,
the
psychological
trauma,
the
army,
our
resources,
all
the
projects
that
get
delayed
within
the
auto,
because
we
have
staff
out
there.
Whatever
that
price
tag
is
the
cost
of
one
tornado,
September,
tornado
and
on
and
on
and
on.
F
We
have
a
record
number
of
just
last
week,
Friday
legal
department
released
pothole
car
and
injury,
personal
injury
damage,
probably
a
record
number
that
we
saw
in
2018
record,
freeze
them
throughout
the
freeze
and
thaw
cycles
all
weather-related,
regardless
of
what
the
causes.
The
reality
is.
This
is
happening,
and
so
the
cost
of
doing
nothing
is
far
greater
than
any
investment
we
can
make
as
a
city,
and
we
should
be
doing
more,
but
I
just
want
to
say
the
cost
of
doing.
F
F
Financial,
but
also
to
have,
as
I
said,
the
provincial
and
federal
governments
to
make
certain
statements
or
goals
or
objectives
lots
of
good
suggestions
about
you
know
amending
building
codes,
renovation
credits,
a
woman
at
the
beginnings
of
the
mandatory
GHG
analysis
for
projects
I,
really
like
that
one.
The
whole
talk
about
the
green
economy
and
really
is
a
net
benefit
for
jobs
in
this
country.
F
F
Just
a
few
questions
that
had
come
in
prior
to
today,
one
was
regarding
GHG
emission
data
for
solid
waste
and
the
report.
You,
the
staff
report,
talked
about
data
between
2017
and
2018,
a
drop
from
forty
six
point.
Eight
kilo
tons
of
co2
to
twenty
one
point
two:
is
that
a
correct?
Is
that
correct
data?
Can
you
just
comment
on
that.
C
F
H
H
My
concern
is
is
in
terms
of
the
involvement
with
public
health
is,
is
something
that's
something
they're
very
good
at,
unfortunately,
public
health
has
been,
you
know,
is
getting
a
bit
of
a
squeeze
right
now
and
they
don't
have
as
much
funding
as
they
used
to
and
have.
The
future
is
not
certain.
So
I
am
concerned
about
that,
and
and
I
see
it's
listed
as
one
of
the
partners,
of
course,
because
that's
really
important
moving
forward,
because
this
is
a
big
part
of
why
we're
doing
this
in
the
first
place.
G
On
the
first
point
related
to
the
education
and
outreach
piece,
certainly
what
our
goal
will
be
is
to
amplify
the
messages
that
we
have
so
first
alignment
with
organisations,
many
whom
spoke
today
and
have
robust
networks
themselves.
Although
we
may
only
be
hiring
one
person,
our
goal
would
be
to
leverage
the
networks
and
communication
channels
which
exist
in
other
places
of
the
city
and
where
we
have
ambassadors
or
champions
that
could
amplify
those
messages.
H
They
were
here
earlier
and
I've
had
the
pleasure
of
working
with
them.
They
even
took
a
bike.
Tour
of
my
of
my
ward
with
me
so
I
know
they're
very
dedicated,
which
kind
of
leads
me
to
my
next
question
is
in
terms
of
Ward
initiatives
and
plans
that
we
can
do
with
the
community,
something
that
they
can
see
themselves
in
front
of
them.
H
Is
there
been
any
thought
to
that
idea,
because
I
saw
some
of
the
initiatives
that
have
gone
and
you
put
down
which
Ward
they're
in
there's
nothing
yet
in
a
ward,
but
I
would
love
to
see
stuff
and
and
have
some
analysis
of
where
we
can
work
with
the
community
on
on
moving
forward
on
initiatives
that
they
can
see
right
in
their
community.
Is
that
possible
to
do
maybe
have
climate
change
meeting
with
them?
Certainly,.
G
So,
although
we
haven't
identified
anything
out
of
Ward
specific
level,
we've
had
questions
from
councillors,
a
request
from
councillors
to
provide
information,
answer
questions
they
receive
and
we
have
partners
who
are
coming
forward
in
a
range
of
words,
either
rap
presenting
cross
community
organizations
or
word
specific
initiatives
that
they
may
be
interested.
So
it's
something
we
can
consider
as
the
20
projects
are
being
more
fully
developed.
I
know.
H
That
ecology,
Ottawa,
has
already
done
door-to-door
work,
am
I
in
my
word
on
these
issue
on
this
idea,
but
I
think
we
need
a
city
involvement
to
push
that
forward
even
more.
They
did
a
lot
of
excellent
work
and
I
want
to
thank
them
for
it,
but
I
think
that
it
would
help
if
the
city
was
doing
that
work
as
well
and
helping
us
in
our
wards
so
that
we
can
reach
out
to
people
and
give
them
ideas.
One
of
the
suggestions
I
have
is
with
New
Year's
coming
up.
H
Is
everybody
have
a
climate
change
resolution
and
maybe
do
some
small
initiatives
of
their
own
that
they
can
promise
to
do,
but
in
the
meantime,
I'd
like
to
see
something
at
the
word
levels
so
that
we
can
take
the
message
to
the
to
them
of
how
they
can
change,
because,
clearly
that's
the
biggest
part
of
what
we
have
to
do
is
education,
and
that
would
be
a
good
way
to
do
it.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Any
other
questions
for
staff
on
the
climate
change
master
plan
see
none
just
want
to
thank
before
I
read
the
report,
recommendations
which
is
going
to
take
me
like
20
minutes
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
Steve
Willis
for
your
leadership,
Jen
Brown
and
your
flowers,
Mike
Fletcher
darn,
her
wire
for
being
here
be
right.
There
good
to
see
you
just
for
the
work
you've
done
over
the
years.
A
The
final
report
attached
this
documents-
five,
six
and
seven,
and
as
outline
of
the
support
five
direct
staff
to
bring
forward
the
final
energy
evolution,
Ottawa's
community
energy
transition
strategy
in
q2
2020.
That
includes
a
finalized
energy
evolution
and
energy
and
emissions
model,
be
a
financial
and
affordability
analysis
of
the
model
to
identify
the
investment
required.
A
Once
the
value
of
the
develop
surplus
is
known,
six
delegate
authority
to
cancel
sponsors
group
on
climate
change
to
provide
the
mayor
with
a
list
of
priority
areas
and
activities
which
are
consistent
with
the
council,
approved
climate
change
master
plan
to
allow
the
mayor
to
advocate,
with
the
federal
and
provincial
governments
on
program
funding,
Co
delivery
opportunities
and
related
policy
and
regulatory
supports
necessary
to
implement
the
climate
change
master
plan.
Priority
projects
as
appropriate
and
seven
approved
the
spending
plan.
I
A
A
J
Thanks
so
much,
my
name
is
Martha
copes,
take
I'm
a
forester
and
the
natural
systems
and
Rural
Affairs
group
of
pied
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
the
staff
recommendation
stemming
from
the
tree
bylaw
review
project.
So
this
is
a
joint
project
between
pied
and
Public.
Works
I've
been
working
closely
with
the
forestry
staff
and
Public
Works
on
the
proposed
solutions
that
I'm
presenting
today,
and
we
think
we've
developed
a
sound
solution
to
a
challenging
kind
of
surprisingly
challenging
problem.
J
The
new
tree
protection
bylaw,
proposed
today,
along
with
the
proposed
changes
to
the
implementation
processes,
will
bring
Ottawa's
approach
to
tree
protection
in
line
with
other
major
municipalities
in
Ontario.
The
project
was
based
on
consultation
with
both
internal
and
external
stakeholder
groups
and
were
able
to
come
forward
today
with
this
fulsome
solution
because
of
the
detailed
feedback
that
we've
gotten
from
a
very
from
very
dedicated
stakeholders
representing
urban
communities,
environmental
groups
and
the
development
community.
J
So
we'll
start
with
a
little
bit
of
background.
The
Ontario
Municipal
Act
gives
us
gives
the
city
the
ability
to
enact
tree
bylaws.
The
City
of
Ottawa
currently
has
two
tree
bylaws
in
place.
The
municipal
trees
and
natural
areas,
protection
bylaw,
which
was
enacted
in
2006,
and
it
requires
permission
to
remove
any
tree
on
city
property.
Citywide.
We've
also
got
the
urban
tree
conservation
bylaw,
which
was
enacted
in
2009,
and
it
covers
trees
on
private
property
within
the
urban
area
of
Ottawa.
J
It
supplies
it
supplied
based
on
property
size
and
on
private
properties,
greater
than
one
hectare
in
size,
a
permits
required
to
remove
any
tree,
ten
centimetres
in
diameter
or
larger
so
smaller
than
both
of
those
for
smaller
properties.
So
one
hectare
or
less
in
size
a
permits
required
to
remove
trees,
50,
centimetres
or
more
in
diameter,
and
these
are
what
we
call
distinctive
trees
and
that's
the
big
tree
cookie
that
we
have
over
there.
So
neither
of
these
bylaws
have
had
a
fulsome
review
since
their
inception.
J
J
I'm,
just
gonna
take
the
sweater
off
because
I'm
very
hot,
all
of
a
sudden,
okay,
a
review
of
the
city's
tree
bylaws
was
a
key
recommendation
of
the
council,
approved
urban
forest
management
plan
and
staff
have
been
observing
problems
as
and
our
stakeholders
are
seen
clearly
many
ways
in
which
the
urban
tree
conservation
bylaw
has
not
been
meeting
the
objectives
that
it
set
out
to
meet.
In
addition
to
improving
the
effectiveness
of
the
existing
bylaws,
the
project
had
a
specific
focus
on
redesigning
the
processes
to
implement
the
tree.
J
Bylaws
a
strong
and
effective
tree
bylaw
will
help
the
city
help
will
help
to
ensure
that
the
city
continues
to
meet
the
goals
identified
in
the
u
FMP.
So
today
the
value
of
trees
is
well
understood.
However,
it
must
be
better
recognized.
There
needs
to
be
a
broader
understanding
around
the
impacts
of
the
it's
just
one
tree
style
of
decision
making.
The
cumulative
cumulative
impact
of
single
tree
loss
over
time
has
now
become
apparent.
J
This
was
confirmed
to
be
a
loss
of
just
over
40%
of
the
canopy
cover.
These
results
indicate
a
high
level
of
tree
loss
despite
the
enactment
of
the
urban
tree
conservation
bylaw.
This
sustained
tree
loss
and
lack
of
replacement
are
not
considered
with
the
Official
Plan
objectives
or
the
vision
and
visions
and
principles
of
the
urban
forest
management
plan.
J
Through
the
approval
of
the
UF
MP,
the
council
has
recognized
the
central
role
that
the
urban
forest
plays
in
public
health,
urban
design
and
climate
resiliency
resiliency
is
one
of
the
five
big
moves
for
the
new
Official
Plan,
which
is
now
which
have
now
been
council,
approved.
Their
retention
and
protection
of
existing
trees
is
a
core
means
of
building
resilient
climate
resiliency
to
adapt
to
future
climate
conditions.
So,
in
the
context
of
a
climate,
emergency
trees
play
a
vital
role
in
the
urban
area
by
mitigating
heat
island
effects,
helping
to
manage
stormwater
runoff.
J
J
There
are
resource
implications
to
address
the
issues
that
have
been
identified
and
given
the
resource
requirements,
we've
proposed
a
phased
approach,
so
I'm
gonna
go
through
that
staff
recommend
that
the
first
phase
be
approved
now
for
implementation
in
May
2020.
The
first
phase
includes
several
important
changes
to
the
tree,
bylaw,
which
I'll
go
over
in
just
a
second,
and
it
keeps
the
distinctive
tree
diameter
at
50,
centimeters
Phase
one
requires
three
new
full-time
positions
for
implementation,
so
one
of
these
positions
has
been
found
through
temporary
internal
vacancies
and
the
other
two
positions
will
be
well.
J
We
will
be
able
to
offset
those
other
two
positions
by
the
increased
revenue
from
the
new
application
fees
that
we're
proposing
today.
So
there
will
be
a
net
zero
impact
on
the
2020
budget.
For
those
three
positions,
one
of
the
recommendations
of
the
staff
report
is
to
create
these
two
new
positions,
so
staff
proposed
to
report
back
in
September
with
Phase
two
recommendations
and
that's
where
we'll
include
a
decrease
of
the
distinctive
tree
diameter
from
50
centimeters
to
30
centimeters.
J
This
decrease
will
require
more
resources,
the
smaller
the
tree,
the
more
trees
there
are,
so
this
change
will
result
in
more
calls
and
more
permit
requests.
Phase
two
would
be
implemented
in
2021
and
it
requires
up
to
five
additional
new
positions,
as
well
as
making
the
phase
1
temporary
position
permanent.
So
it's
six
in
total,
so
these
resource
requirements
for
Phase
two
would
need
to
be
included
as
a
budget
pressure
for
2021
and
staff
will
be
working
with
finance
on
cost
recovery
options
to
reduce
that
budget
pressure
and
will
report
back
on
this
in
September.
J
So
let's
get
into
the
phase
1
bylaw
changes
so
for
phase
1
we've
developed
a
new,
harmonized
tree
protection
bylaw.
It
brings
the
two
existing
bylaws
into
one
for
a
more
consistent
and
streamlined
by
law.
Fundamentally,
the
new
bylaw
will
function
the
same
way
in
that
it
has
specific
parts
related
to
municipal
trees,
munition
municipal
natural
areas,
private
distinctive
trees
and
trees
on
private
property,
greater
than
one
hectare.
J
J
The
new
tree
bylaw
has
improved
tree
protection
requirements,
so
in
the
current
bylaws
it
was
clear
that
protecting
trees
was
required,
but
they
were
short
on
details
of
exactly
what
that
meant.
So
this
new
bylaw
has
a
full
part
dedicated
to
how
trees
must
be
protected.
This
clearly
lays
out
the
requirements
for
everyone,
but
it
also
means
that
failure
to
protect
a
tree
adequately
would
be
a
clear
violation
of
the
new
bylaw.
J
The
compensation
requirements
for
city-owned
trees
for
the
removal
of
city-owned
trees
have
been
formalized
in
the
new
tree
bylaw
and
the
new
compensation
requirements
for
the
removal
of
private
trees
have
been
added
tree.
Compensation
would
be
required
when
a
permit
is
issued
for
a
tree
to
be
removed
to
compensate
for
the
loss
value
of
that
tree
for
city
trees.
A
widely
used
tree
valuation
formula
will
continue
to
be
used
to
calculate
the
compensation
value
and
for
the
removal
of
distinctive
trees,
and
this
is
new.
J
We
haven't
required
compensation
before
a
ratio
for
replacement
trees
will
be
used,
so
the
ratio
that
ratio
is
proposed
to
be
different
for
the
removal
of
trees
in
an
infill
development
scenario
versus
in
a
non
development
scenario.
So
for
infill
development,
when
a
tree
a
distinctive
tree
is
removed,
it
will
be
its
proposed
that
three
trees
must
be
planted
in
its
place
and
if
the
three
trees
can't
be
planted
on
the
site,
a
monetary
value
would
be
accepted
in
place,
and
that
would
go
into
the
city's
tree
planting
accounts
and
for
Donne
development
scenarios.
J
The
replacement
ratio
would
be
one
to
one.
So
one
tree
planted
for
tree
removed
staff
is
also
proposing
to
introduce
new
application
fees
for
cost
recovery.
In
the
current
bylaws,
the
only
fee
is
to
remove
a
distinctive
tree.
It's
$100
it's
been
in
place
for
about
the
last
four
or
five
years
and
it's
often
charged
on
a
site
basis
rather
than
on
a
three
basis.
J
So
this
slide
shows
what
the
new
application
fees
for
the
removal
would
be
for.
The
removal
of
municipal
trees.
Specifically
so
again,
the
application
fee
will
depend
if
it's
an
infill
development
scenario
or
not,
and
if
it's
unrelated
to
in
so
if
it's
unrelated
to
infill
development,
a
homeowner
you
know
needs
to
remove
a
tree
in
the
right-of-way
in
front
of
their
house
for
may
be
servicing
work
fixing
their
driveway,
something
like
that.
J
It
would
be
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
tree
up
to
a
max
of
750
and,
of
course,
and
that
kind
of
work
work
with
a
municipal
tree.
We
wouldn't
imagine
that
there
would
be
more
than
one
tree
to
remove
in
an
infill
development
scenario.
It
would
be
five
hundred
dollars
per
tree,
so
this
reflects
the
increasingly
complex
nature
of
the
infill
development
files
and
the
associated
staff.
Time
required
for
review
and
oversight
of
those
files,
and
this
slide
here
shows
a
similar
table,
but
for
private
urban
trees.
J
So
the
cost
structure
is
similar
to
the
municipal
tree
fees.
If
the
removal
of
a
distinctive
tree
is
for
infill
development,
the
application
fee
is
proposed
to
be
five
hundred
dollars
per
tree.
If
the
removal
is
being
done
for
some
reason
by
an
average
resident,
so
a
non
development
scenario,
the
application
fee
is
proposed
to
also
be
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
tree
up
to
a
maximum
of
750,
any
removals
that
are
done
as
a
result
of
a
Planning
Act
application.
J
So
two
more
important
bylaw
changes
in
the
mayor's
state
of
the
city
address
at
the
start
of
this
year.
He
put
a
clear
lens
on
the
need
for
stronger
tree
bylaws
in
Ottawa,
in
recognition
of
the
fact
that
trees
are
clearly
a
priority
for
all
members
of
council.
He
talked
about
increasing
fines
and
eliminating
those
oops
moments.
That
may
have
happened
that
happen
that
result
in
trees
coming
down.
So
in
response,
we've
been
able
to
introduce
new
special
fine
into
the
enforcement
section
of
the
new
bylaw.
J
The
special
fine
can
be
charged
in
addition
to
regular
fines
and
it's
intended
to
eliminate
or
reduce
any
economic
or
financial
gain
from
contravening
the
bylaw.
The
regular
fines
can
range
from
five
hundred
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
the
special
fines
are
not
limited
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
And
finally,
we've
made
improvements
to
the
submission
requirements
to
obtain
distinctive
tree
permits.
The
requirements
are
more
clear
now
and
should
result
in
better
reports
being
submitted
overall
and
a
better
understanding
of
how
to
protect
trees.
J
So
now,
I'm
gonna
go
through
some
of
the
process.
Important
process
changes
that
we're
making
in
phase
one
to
address
the
issues
that
we've
been
seeing
and,
as
I've
said,
this
is,
we
feel
probably
the
most
important
part
is
to
fix.
Some
of
the
problems
that
we've
been
seeing
so
first
will
work
to
ensure
that
trees
are
considered
much
earlier
in
the
development
process.
So
this
applies
to
both
private
developments
and
city
infrastructure
projects.
J
We're
going
to
make
make
make
a
change
that
requires
that
tree
information
is
submitted
with
committee
of
adjustment
applications
so
that
the
committee
can
take
trees
into
account
in
their
decision
making.
Well,
the
one
new
staff
position
that
we'll
have
in
pide
for
phase
one
will
be
what
we're
calling
an
infill
forester.
This
person
will
be
responsible
for
the
review
of
all
those
committee
of
adjustment,
application
files
for
building
permit
applications
for
infill
development
and
making
comments
on
tree
retention
and
protection
for
those
sites.
J
So
we're
going
to
have
that
direct
line
of
contact
in
the
planning
department
to
go
to
go
through
those
applications
working
with
the
forestry
inspectors
in
forestry
who
are
on
the
ground,
we're
going
to
improve
access
to
treat
protection
information.
So
that
it's
more
clear
and
as
a
part
of
the
develop
the
development
of
the
new
Official
Plan
staff
is
working
to
develop
stronger
policies
around
trees.
So
the
policy
directions
for
the
new
opie
have
been
improved
by
council,
as
I
mentioned,
and
the
specific
policy
directions
around
urban
trees
will
guide.
J
The
new
policies
that
will
be
developing
staff
will
use
the
winter
to
reach
out
to
all
interest
groups
on
the
new
bylaw
and
develop
web
materials
abroad.
Education
and
training
campaign
will
be
rolled
out
before
the
new
bylaw
comes
into
effect.
In
May,
staff
have
already
begun
work
on
what
a
robust
monitoring
program
will
look
like
for
the
Newport
tree
protection
bylaw.
J
Those
who
have
seen
my
old
diagram
can
see
that
this
new
diagram
is
much
better-looking,
so
this
diagram
shows
a
building
lot
and
we
plan
to
use
something
like
this.
For
a
kind
of
a
starting
point
for
when
we
will
or
will
not
issue
tree
permits,
so
I
have
to
make
an
important
disclaimer
for
something
like
this,
because
since
trees
are
living,
these
kind
of
decisions
really
are
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
J
So
it's
always
going
to
depend
on
the
condition
of
the
tree
as
well
as
the
species,
the
size,
the
location,
but
also
the
site
conditions
as
well.
So
there's
there's
lots
of
there's
lots
of
aspects
coming
into
this,
but
we
think
that
having
something
like
this
as
a
can
really
be
a
transparent
starting
point
to
show
that
the
city
is
getting
tough
about
tree
removals
and
so
the
kind
of
expectations
that
that
we
have
around
around
tree
protection.
So
I'll
just
go
over
the
diagram
really
quickly.
I'm
gonna
use
this
laser
pointer.
J
At
the
bottom,
you
can
see
where
the
street
is
in
the
sidewalk,
and
you
can
see
there's
a
tree
right
there
in
the
right-of-way.
Then
you
see
the
site
and
you
can
see
the
as
of
right
building
envelope
for
those
trees
that
are
within
the
as
of
right,
building
envelope,
it's
okay
for
the
trees
that
are
in
the
as
of
right,
building
envelope.
That's
where
that's,
where
we're
seeing
the
city
has
has
decided
that
that's
where
the
building
can
be
so
that's
where
we
see
the
place
where
we're
going
to
issue
tree
permits.
J
If
that's
where
the
tree
is
located,
that's
a
reasonable
place
to
say:
we've
already
decided
development
can
happen
there
and
that's
where
the
the
we
would
issue
a
tree
permit.
If
you
look
back
to
the
right-of-way
and
you
see
that
city
tree
in
the
right-of-way,
that's
a
city-owned
tree,
the
city's
been
paying
for
the
maintenance
of
that
tree
and
it
provides
a
really
important
benefit
to
the
whole
community,
because
it's
right
on
the
on
the
street.
There
that's
a
place
where
we're
going
to
be
getting
tougher
and
saying.
J
No,
you
need
to
work
to
protect
that
tree.
I
know
that
there's
there
people
would
say
that
there's
difficulties
in
doing
that
kind
of
thing,
but
that's
where
we're
going
to
be
looking
for
changes
in
terms
of
how
we
do
development
and
protecting
that
tree
adequately,
similar
with
the
trees
sort
of
at
the
back
top
right
there,
which
is
you
know
in
the
required
amenity
space
in
the
backyard.
That's
another
place
where
we're
going
to
be
looking
for
those
trees
to
be
protected
back
there.
It
is
also
providing
a
benefit
to
multiple
homeowners.
J
It
probably
it
easily
could
be
providing
a
benefit
to
you
know
three
or
four
properties
behind
that
house,
as
well
as
the
property
that
it's
on
and
so
we're
looking
for
those
trees
to
be
protected,
the
ones
that
you
see
sort
of
hugging
that
to
be
determined
one's
hugging
up
against
the
building
envelope.
Those
are
sort
of
more
difficult
because
we
know
that
when
somebody's
building
they
there's
a
where
the
foundation
will
be,
there
has
to
be
an
excavation
limit.
J
J
J
Okay,
so
now
on
to
Phase
two,
as
I
said,
staff
proposed
to
report
back
to
this
committee
in
September
with
revisions
to
the
tree
protection
bylaw
to
reflect
the
rest
of
the
proposed
solution.
So
this
will
include
reducing
the
diameter
of
distinctive
trees
to
30
centimeters.
The
current
50
centimeters
is
is
large.
Most
private
land
tree
bylaws
in
Ontario,
apply
to
a
smaller
tree
size.
Part
of
the
objective
of
the
project
was
to
maintain
and
increase
the
diversity
of
the
urban
forests
over
time
and
in
Portland.
J
An
important
part
of
that
is
to
maintain
an
uneven
age
or
size
structure
in
our
urban
forest,
and
that
means
that
there
needs
to
be
a
focus
on
not
just
protecting
very
large
sized
trees,
but
also
on
protecting
smaller
trees.
And
so
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
brought
these
tree
cookies
here
is
that
you
can
see.
The
smaller
one
closer
to
me
is
what
a
30
centimeter
tree
is,
and
the
one
Beyond
is
what
a
50
centimeter
tree
looks
like.
J
So
the
second
change
in
phase
two
would
be
to
introduce
a
permit
to
work
around
trees
for
infill
developments,
so
this
would
enable
city
staff
to
have
more
oversight
on
all
infill
sites,
so
whether
a
tree
permit
is
requested
or
not
to
ensure
that
adequate
tree
protection
measures
are
in
place
and
we
aren't
inadvertently
losing
trees
to
construction
damage.
Things
like
you
can
see
in
this
picture
here,
so
both
of
these
changes
proposed
for
Phase
two
are
proposed
to
be
implemented
only
for
the
inner
urban
area.
J
So
that's
the
urban
area
within
the
Greenbelt,
because
we
see
that
as
the
place
where
we're
having
the
the
biggest
challenges.
Obviously
so,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
up
to
five
additional
positions
are
required
to
implement
Phase
two
and
we're
going
to
be
working
with
finance
on
cost
recovery
options
and
pending
the
required
resources
being
funded
for
2021
staff.
Will
report
back
in
September
with
these
revisions
to
the
tree
protection
bylaw.
J
So
it's
important
to
note
that
phase
two
cannot
be
implemented
within
existing
resources,
so
those
those
new
resources
will
be
fundamental
to
the
success
of
Phase
two
when
staff
reports
back
in
September.
The
intention
is
to
also
propose
a
heritage
tree
strategy
at
that
time
and
an
approach
to
protecting
peri-urban
woodlands.
So
we've
not
yet
talked
tackled
these
two
important
elements
they
are
part
of
this
project.
We've
been
putting
a
strong
focus
on
fixing.
What
fixing
what
we've
got.
J
J
So
to
summarize,
a
shift
in
thinking
is
required
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
new
bylaw.
The
proposed
tree
protection
bylaw
in
the
process
to
implement
it
will
be
key
to
protecting
ottawa's
urban
canopy.
The
proposed
approaches
phase
to
ensure
that
adequate
resources
are
secured
for
implementation
without
adequate,
adequate
resources.
The
diameter
decrease
for
Phase
two
cannot
be
realized.
Trees
are
key
to
building
Ottawa's
climate
resiliency.
J
The
value
of
trees
must
be
better
recognized
as
Ottawa
continues
to
grow
and
as
I
wrap
up
I'd
like
to
thank
all
of
my
colleagues
from
forestry
planning,
legal
bylaw
and
beyond,
who
have
been
so
key
to
the
development
of
this
approach
and
I'd
also
like
to
thank
all
the
stakeholders
who
have
been
so
committed
to
this
project
through
really
starting
with
the
development
of
the
urban
forest
management
plan
and
ongoing.
Until
now
and
I'd
like
to
recognize
their
important
contribution
to
this
work.
Thanks.
A
Thanks
I
was
anticipating
any
more
I
was
like
wait.
Are
we
done?
No
I'm
done
cuz
I'm
like
looking
at
it
I'm
like
there's
a
lot
more
stuff
here.
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
go
first
of
all,
there's
just
I
know
that
you
mentioned
the
collaboration,
the
working
together
with
certain
groups
through
that
from
understand,
there's
a
motion
that
was
crafted
as
a
as
a
further
refinement
to
the
plan
to
better
align
the
two
different
groups
being
represented.
A
G
You
chair,
whereas
the
report,
as
stated
provoked,
proposes
a
new
tree
protection
by
law
to
support
the
protection
and
enhancement
of
the
city's
urban
tree
canopy
canopy
and
whereas
the
proposed
bylaw
includes
a
permit
fee
on
a
per
tree
basis
for
the
removal
of
distinctive
trees
and
whereas
the
permit
fee
for
removing
a
tree
that
is
not
associated
with
infill
development
is
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
tree
up
to
a
maximum
of
750
or
five
trees.
And
whereas
the
permit
fee
for
removing
a
tree
that
is
associated
with
infill
development
is
five
hundred
dollars.
G
But
with
no
maximum
indicated
and
whereas
staff
recommend
implement
in
a
maximum
permit
fee
for
infill
development.
For
consistency,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
at
the
Standing
Committee
on
Environmental
Protection,
water
and
waste
management
recommend
to
council
that
the
bylaw
to
be
amended
to
set
the
maximum
permit
fee
for
infill
developments
at
$2,500
or
five
trees
to
correspond
with
the
limit
set
for
non
infill
tree
removals.
G
J
We,
when
we
did
our
consultations
with
our
stakeholders,
we
indicated
that
we
would
be
increasing
tree
permit
or
application
fees.
We
didn't
have
the
fee
structure
in
place
when
we
did
our
consultations
and,
in
speaking
with
the
developer
group,
of
which,
of
course,
this
infill
development
component.
Implicates
last
week,
we
had
discussion
around
the
fact
that
these
are
higher
fees
for
their
work
and
that
we
were
focused
on
a
cost
recovery
approach.
For
this
and
from
a
perm.
J
A
A
J
So
the
compensation
still
stands
and
there's
no
sort
of
maximum
on
the
compensation
it
would
it's
still
on
a
per
tree
basis,
so
for
the
in
on
a
private
property
for
the
infill
development
scenario,
compensation
is
three
to
one
and
and
that
requirement
would
apply
for
each
tree.
So
each
tree
that
has
to
be
removed
has
to
be
compensated
three
to
one
okay,
our
paid
right.
A
K
Chairman
Moffitt
councillors,
my
name
is
Brian
Bevin
and,
as
chairman
often
just
said,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
trees
and
green
space
Committee
of
the
Senate
on
Community
Association
throughout
the
bylaw
review,
the
center
town,
Community
Association,
has
taken
part
in
the
process
organized
by
cafes,
the
community
associations
forum
for
environmental
sustainability.
We
fully
endorsed
the
consensus
of
22
community
associations
that
participated
in
cafe's
process
over
the
past
two
years.
We
endorsed
also
the
reservations
that
cafes
spokesperson
are
presenting
later.
Today,
however,
Center
town
has
its
own
unique
situation.
K
Center
town
is
on
the
leading
edge
of
modern
urban
land
development
at
the
center
core.
We
know
that
this
intense
development
is
eroding
the
urban
tree
canopy
to
a
tipping
point
where,
under
our
watch,
large
parts
of
it
may
be
irretrievably
lost.
The
staff
report
provides
the
unequivocal
statistics
we
endorse
in
general,
the
draft
tree
protection
bylaw
presented
by
staff.
However,
we
wish
to
raise
for
limited
and
specific
concerns.
K
The
first
concern
relates
to
bullet
2
on
page
18
of
the
report
in
the
section
entitled
developed,
clear
rules
around
tree
permitting
the
report
says,
and
I
quote
in
summary-
quote:
specific
rules
for
intensification
versus
infill
developments.
There
could
be
a
more
flexible,
more
flexibility
on
tree
removals
for
developments
that
are
creating
more
units.
In
quote,
this
wording
suggests
that
intensification,
meaning
replacement
of
residence
residences
with
multiple
unit
residential
structures
on
small
city
Lots,
should
receive
reduced
requirements
to
retain,
replace
and
renew
that
canapé,
since
almost
all
infill
projects
involve
an
increase
in
units
on-site.
K
This
attempt
to
allow
flexibility
is
a
fatal
flaw.
It
is
a
continuation
of
the
status
quo,
the
stood
that
the
truth
is
that
this
formulation
of
the
issue
will
guarantee
that
the
urban
tree
canopy
will
continue
to
deteriorate
in
center
town
and
the
communities
bordering
cinder
town.
The
solution
is
simple:
some
sort
of
design
with
trees
approach
should
apply,
irrespective
of
the
kind
of
infill
involved,
either
delete
the
offending
bullet
to
on
page
18
or
adjust
it
to
explain
that
development
will
require
an
effort
to
design
with
trees.
K
Irrespective
of
whether
the
infill
involves
intensification
or
not,
second,
in
Schedule
B
outlining
tree
compensation,
there
is
a
formula
whereby
a
developer
must
provide
money
compensation
when
he
or
she
will
not
be
replacing
trees.
On-Site
inadvertently,
I
think
this
schedule
sets
a
ridiculously
low
figure
of
less
than
$2,000
on
the
intrinsic
value
of
a
mature
tree,
50,
centimeters
or
more
in
diameter.
This
sets
up
an
economic
calculation
that
will
work
against
the
mature
distinctive
trees
in
the
downtown
core
and
almost
guarantee
their
continued
willy-nilly
destruction.
K
The
solution
is
to
make
the
value
of
mature
distinctive
trees
non
trivial,
make
the
value
of
a
tree
that
is
removed.
Ten
thousand
dollars.
This
intrinsic
value
of
the
the
intrinsic
value
of
a
live
50
centimeter
tree
in
situ,
is
priceless
in
the
sense
that
once
gone,
its
equivalents
will
not
be
achieved
before
all
of
us
here
today
are
not
just
me
all
you
youngsters.
K
We
need
more
realistic
figures
than
those
currently
in
Schedule
B.
Third,
the
report
proposed.
Excuse
me.
The
report
proposes
that
the
reduction
in
the
diameter
of
mature
tree
is
subject
to
protection
from
50
centimeters
to
30
centimeters,
we'll
wait
until
phase
two
in
2021.
This
leaves
a
huge
portion
of
the
downtown
urban
forests
vulnerable
and
unprotected.
In
the
meantime,
the
trees
in
this
category
over
30
under
50
centimeters,
are
the
future
mr.
maturity
trees
of
the
next
30
years.
K
K
Declare
the
30
centimeter
formulation
enforce
immediately
on
an
interim
trial
basis
for
the
next
two
years,
then
over
those
two
years
evaluate
the
effects
that
way
the
Phase
two
formulations
can
be
based
on
the
actual
experiment
that
will
the
actual
experiment
that
will
provide
concrete
data.
So
can
you
wrap
up
please,
sir?
Yes,
finally,
we
are
proposed.
We
are
concerned
about
the
postponement
of
a
designation
process
to
protect
heritage
trees
until
some
unspecified
third
phase.
K
E
E
I
always
wondered
why
she
had
hired
me,
but
she
did,
and
everything
was
an
acronym
and
I
didn't
understand
any
of
the
acronyms
and
I
remember
one
day,
I
had
this
file
folder
and
it
said
in
capital,
good
capital,
bold
letters,
TR,
EE,
committee
and
I
said:
what's
a
TR
and
she
said:
well,
it's
a
little
bigger
than
a
bush.
She
didn't
have
a
lot
of
patience
for
me
either
at
the
time
say:
well,
Katherine's
a
little
bigger
than
a
bush.
It
said
it's
called
a
tree,
so
back
in
ninety
point
am
I.
E
At
the
point
of
my
comment:
it's
not
to
show
how
much
I've
advanced
but
that
in
1998
we
actually
had
a
tree
committee
similar
to
what
you
have
today
the
trees
in
green
space
back
in
1998.
We
knew
in
the
downtown
that
we
were
losing
trees
at
an
alarming
rate.
You
can
imagine
the
difference
between
1998
and
today,
if
only
we
could
go
back.
I.
E
Know
I
know
I.
Do
too
I
almost
did
almost
don't
like
looking
at
old
pictures,
I
remember
another
time
seeing
a
picture
again.
It
wasn't
councillor
Holmes's
I'm
sure
it
was
in
that
folder
of
King
Edward
and
it
was
an
old
picture
of
King
Edward
up
against
a
more
recent
one,
and
you
know
what
I
realized
you
could
not
tell
in
the
more
recent
one
that
it
was
winter,
because
there
were
no
trees.
You
couldn't
tell
what
season
it
was
on
King
Edward,
because
there
were
no
trees
on
King
Edward.
E
It
used
to
be
this
beautiful,
leafy
Boulevard
and
that's
where
we've
come
to
so
I
think
it's
important
I'm
going
to
be
asking
questions
that
you've
raised
a
staff,
but
I
think
it
is
really
important.
It's
important
to
remember
that
you
know
downtown
infill.
There
are
you
know
we
have
the
least
number
of
trees
in
in
our
Ward,
but
we're
not
being
alarmist
to
lose.
Another
50%
of
our
trees
in
the
next
few
years
would
be
beyond
devastating.
E
It
would
mean
that
we
would
not
meet
any
of
our
climate
resiliency
targets
and
we
would
have
an
unlivable
downtown.
So
I
thank
you
for
coming
out
I.
Thank
you
for
continuing
the
work
of
the
old
tree
committee,
which
is
now
the
tree
is
in
green
space
committee
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
working
with
you.
Thank
you.
A
L
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
having
me
I'm
Rob
burns
back
again
around
2:00
now
about
trees.
I
just
wanted
to
start
by.
You
know
providing
some
of
the
context
that
this
is
already
in
the
in
the
documents
presented,
but
just
this
the
scope
and
scale
of
transformation
and
I
think
councillor
McKenney
touched
on
that
too
I
mean
ecology.
L
So
what
do
we
like
about
about
what
we're
seeing
here
in
terms
of
the
tree,
a
tree
protection
by
law?
There's
earlier
consideration
of
trees
and
development
process?
We've
heard
this
has
been
a
concern
for
a
long
time
requirement
of
a
permit
to
work
around
trees,
special
rules
for
infill
developments,
that
don't
create
new
units
and,
of
course,
protections.
The
distinctive
tree
size
is
being
lowered.
L
That's
great
I
think
that's
something
the
community
has
been
asking
for
for
a
while
now
other
other
positive
elements
with
the
bylaw
today
is
just
the
had
the
higher
fees
in
general
and
the
new
special
fine,
of
course,
to
eliminate
financial
gain
from
contravention
of
the
bylaw.
So
so
a
lot
of
really
important
elements
here,
but
we
know
that
it'll
take
resources
right.
This
is
the
the
perennial
challenge
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
staffing
at
a
level
that
is
able
to
implement
some
of
these.
L
These
changes-
and
so
you
know,
draw
the
attention
of
the
committee
to
the
fact
that
3/3
FTEs
and
then
five
FTEs
will
be
needed
to
implement
the
two
phases
of
this
project
and
it's
something
that
we
hope
that
council
will
move
forward
on
and
that
we
will
be
watching
to
make
sure
that
there's
that
emphasis
placed
on
resources
so
that
we
can
actually
follow
through
on
some
of
the
good
ideas
here
in
this
plan.
In
terms
of
challenges,
I
mean
we're
reflecting
I
think
what
some
of
the
community
voices
are
saying
here.
L
Obviously,
the
phased
approach
does
mean
delays
to
distinctive
tree
protection,
and
so
there
was
an
idea
offered.
I
saw
from
paul
johannes
of
green
space
alliance,
maybe
something
like
a
moratorium
on
tree
cutting
I,
don't
know
what
powers
we
have
as
a
committee
or
council
to
move
forward
on
some
of
these
these
early
protections.
L
But
we
know
that,
with
these
bylaws
coming
down
the
pipe
that
you
might
see
a
lot
of
early
motions
to
get
rid
of
a
lot
of
trees
sooner
rather
than
later,
and
so
we
urge
the
committee
to
consider
its
options
in
terms
of
protecting
trees.
That
might
might
be
at
risk
with
the
passage
of
this
new
bylaw
and
obviously
I
think
as
Brian
mentioned,
there's
urgency
to
creating
heritage,
tree
bylaw
and
peri-urban
woodlands,
tree
bylaw
and,
of
course,
resources
to
move
these
along
other
challenges.
L
I
know
the
community
was
asking
for
even
stronger
protections
in
terms
of
reducing
the
the
diameter
breast
height
to
20,
centimeters
I
know:
we've
got
we
got
it
down
to
30,
but
but
you
know,
I
think
the
community
is
asking
for
even
more
protections
in
the
future
and
of
course
there
is
the
the
risk
of
arbitrariness
and
and
unpredictability
I
think
the
bylaw
adds
a
lot
of
clarity,
but
there's
still
a
lot
of
discretion
and
I.
Think
some
of
it
is
inevitable.
L
I
think,
as
Martha
said,
you
know
dealing
with
with
living
living
things
like
trees.
All
this
is
negotiated
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
but,
of
course,
the
more
clarity
and
the
more
protection
the
better
and,
of
course,
monitoring
and
enforcement
will
remain
a
challenge.
Again.
It's
it's
down
to
resources.
L
We
know
that
there's
this
really
important
policy
document
coming
up
and
one
of
the
ideas
we've
heard
floated
and
that
we
really
liked
was
the
idea
of
tying
tree
removal
decisions
to
neighborhood
level
tree
canopy
targets,
something
that
sounds
exciting
and
the
idea
of
there
being
kind
of
maybe
a
sliding
scale
for
the
degree
to
which
we're
protecting
trees,
based
on
some
of
these
especially
vulnerable
neighborhoods,
Wellington,
West,
Center,
town
and
many
of
many
of
the
communities
in
the
urban
area.
So
wave
forward
again,
just
with
my
remaining
seconds,
we
urge
consistent
resource
prioritization.
L
Let's
get
that
strong
language
in
the
parks
and
green
space
master
plan
and
in
the
official
plan,
and
obviously
you
know,
I
think
this
is
a
theme
coming
up
today.
We've
identified
a
need
for
education.
Community
partners
like
ecology,
Ottawa,
are
there
to
help
help
get
the
word
out,
knock
on
more
doors
and
so
happy
to
work
with
the
city
in
terms
of
the
types
of
things
that
were
saying
to
the
community
in
order
to
get
the
broadest
amount
of
buy-in
for
tree
protection
in
our
city.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
B
M
Good
afternoon
counselors,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
We
you
have
before
you
are
written
submission
on
behalf
of
cafe's
community
associations,
for
environmental
sustainability,
the
green
space
Alliance
and
the
Federation
of
citizens,
associations,
which
covers
three
main
points,
each
of
which
will
be
addressed
separately
in
verbal
presentations.
We
respect
your
time,
so
we
won't
be
repeating
points
from
one
to
the
other.
M
The
staff
report
makes
several
references
to
participation
by
community
associations
in
the
be
in
the
entry
by
law
review
project,
including
our
own
combined
recommendations,
endorsed
by
by
many
neighborhood
associations
from
different
parts
of
the
city
and
many
local
environmental
organizations
and
university
groups
as
well,
there's
much
to
be
happy
about
in
both
the
report
and
the
revised
bylaw,
and
we
want
to
be
clear
that
we
support
approval
of
both.
Today,
however,
we've
been
surprised,
we've
been
surprised
by
some
of
the
staff
recommendations
and
are
deeply
concerned
about
the
timing
of
implementation.
M
The
narrow
focus
of
the
bylaw
on
site-specific
considerations,
not
taking
into
account
broader
objectives
and
a
lack
of
commitment
to
funding
what
staff
in
the
community
have
been
asking
for
for
over.
10
years
now,
with
my
remarks,
I
want
to
give
you
a
sense
of
why
people
in
the
urban
area
are
so
angry.
If
you
will
about
what
has
happened
to
the
tree,
canopy
canopy
over
the
last
10
years
and
the
future
that
we
fear
some
councillors
around
the
table
already
know
this
from
their
constituents.
M
M
The
first
first,
the
pass
this
tree
on
Patricia
Avenue
in
kitchen
city,
is
known
as
the
party
tree,
because
the
neighborhood
street
party
takes
place
under
this
tree
every
year.
It's
a
bur
oak
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
a
hundred
and
sixty
years
old
and
a
remnant
of
the
original
ancient
oak
forest
that
lined
this
part
of
the
Ottawa
River.
M
M
Now
the
present,
as
the
staff
report
notes,
five
urban
neighborhoods
lost
and
did
not
replace
between
thirty
and
fifty
eight
percent
of
the
trees,
sampled,
new
construction
accounted
for
between
22%
and
46%
of
tree
removals
across
the
study.
Neighborhoods
emerald
ash
borer
was
not
the
primary
cause.
M
The
loss
is
already
palpable
in
retool
Vanier
in
Somerset
Ward's
in
kitschy,
Sippy
and
capital
Ward's.
This
map,
which
was
developed
by
big
trees
of
Kitsch
asipi,
is
a
nap
where
residents
are
posting
trees,
stories
and
memories
of
trees
lost
in
Ottawa
for
natural
and
human
causes
for
councillors
elsewhere.
M
M
M
These
teenage
trees
are
the
future
of
our
urban
forest
canopy
and
will
provide
the
most
benefits
in
the
face
of
climate
change.
Given
this
consider
the
considerable
risk
of
delaying
the
protection
of
these
trees,
we
call
on
council
to
expedite
the
implementation
and
funding
needed
for
additional
forestry
inspectors
and
to
find
a
way
to
address
what
is
an
effect
open
season
on
young
trees
during
what
is
or
not
an
was
an
avoidable
and
unfortunate
transition
period.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
N
First
I'd
like
to
straight
off
just
say:
I,
hope
and
we
hope
and
expect
that
you'll
receive
and
approve.
The
report
that's
been
presented
to
you
today,
but
I'm
here
to
talk
about
a
particular
issue,
one
issue
and
it's
an
omission:
it's
something
that
could
have
been
should
have
been
we're,
hoping
will
be
in
the
bylaw
eventually,
and
it's
this
issue
of
tying
tree
removals
tree
removal
decisions
to
the
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
targets
for
canopy
cover
that
could
be
a
link
between
those
two
things.
N
So
maintaining
a
healthy
tree
canopy
in
all
parts
of
the
urban
area,
is
a
critical
climate
mitigation
measure
and
at
an
end,
app
tation
measure.
It's
also
a
matter
of
public
health.
So
to
maintain
the
tree,
canopy
had
a
certain
minimum
threshold,
and
some
public
health
research
suggests
that
maybe
forty
percent
is
kind
of
that
level
at
which
public
health
benefits
really
kick
in,
and
this
had
a
very
small
scale,
like
sort
of
like
three
city
blocks
kind
of
thing
now
to
attain
to
attain
and
maintain
the
local
tree
canopy.
N
At
that
threshold
level,
you
need
an
integrated
approach.
You
need
to
deal
with
plantings.
You
need
to
deal
with
care
and
nurture.
You
need
to
deal
with
retention.
You
have
to
deal
with
end
of
life,
removal
as
well.
It's
a
cycle!
That's
what
the
urban
forest
management
plan
is
about.
The
BioLab
and
we're
looking
at
today
is
about
the
retention
piece,
mostly
it's
about
all
about
the
retention
piece.
N
So
how
are
trees
being
retained
under
the
bylaw
and
I'd
focus
your
attention
to
part
five
of
the
bylaw,
the
one
that
deals
with
trees
on
private
property
less
than
one
hectare,
because
that's
really
where
the
conflict
between
intensification
and
densification
and
tree
retention
is
most
acute.
That's
where
the
that's
where
the
real
action
is
happening
in
Section
65
or
that
of
the
draft
bylaw.
It
gives
the
general
manager
the
authority
to
either
approve
approved
with
conditions
or
deny
in
applications.
N
N
If
the
tree
is
damaged
ill,
if
the
trees
pose
a
risk
to
roof
or
load-bearing
structure,
if
the
tree
needs
to
be
removed
because
of
some
sort
of
remediation,
if
the
tree,
if
the
decisions
already
be
in
subject
to
council
or
committee
of
adjustment
or
other
committee
decision,
if
the
facts
on
the
ground
are
as
stated,
but
then
the
permit
will
be
issued,
there's
no
real
retention
opportunity
there.
In
the
other
three
cases,
though,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
discretion
for
the
general
manager
delegated
down
about
whether
to
issue
the
permit
or
not.
N
If
satisfactory,
Lansing
landscaping
plant
exists,
the
permanent
may
be
issued
if
there's
no
reasonable
alternative
a
permit
may
be
issued,
or
in
the
last
case,
under
any
other
circumstance
deemed
appropriate
by
the
general
manager
our
permanent
may
be
issued.
So
this
is
very
broad
discretion
to
exercise
and-
and
it's
not
about
about
retention
necessarily
it's
always.
The
retention
is
kind
of
the
fallback.
N
The
first
thing
is:
there's
broad
discretion
to
issue
a
permit,
but
there's
no
explicit
basis
really
stated
in
the
bylaw
for
a
permit
to
remove
a
healthy,
mature
tree
to
be
denied
beyond
this
type
of
blanket
authority.
That's
provided
it's
all
sort
of
in
the
blanks
of
each
condition.
It's
an
exercise
of
discretion
that
is
very
open
and
which
can
be
subject
to
undue
pressure
or
otherwise
be
accused
of
arbitrariness
and
unpredictability.
N
And
it
sets
up
this
tree
by
tree
kind
of
war
of
attrition,
which
is
really
what
we
have
now
in,
which
is
led
really
to
the
observed
canopy
loss.
So
there
is
a
difference
and
when
we
saw
not
in
the
information
but
in
the
staff
presentation
that
there
is
guidance
being
provided
regarding
tree
removals,
that
might
be
supported
or
not
in
review,
and
that's
whether
or
not
the
trees
inside
the
building
envelope
of
in
terms
on
a
specific
development
application
under
review.
N
But
but
it's
not
in
the
bylaw
and
not
clear
that
it's
enforceable
in
that
way
and
it
may
even
set
in
place
an
incentive
for
builders
to
expand
the
building
envelope
to
cover
the
entire
lot.
So
as
to
remove
any
possibility
of
tree
retention,
so
we
believe
that
an
external
objective
test
outside
these
site-specific
considerations
should
be
added
to
the
bylaw
and
that
and
that
this
test
should
be
tying
permitting
decisions
regarding
distinctive
trees
to
the
achievement
or
maintenance
of
local
canopy
targets.
We've
made
this
point
through
consultations,
and
so
it's
not
a
new
thing.
N
It's
not
being
sprung
here
on
the
process.
We've
talked
about
it
before
now.
How
would
this
work?
Well,
once
local
canopy
targets
were
set,
distinctive
tree
removals
would
be
permitted
where
the
current
measurement
of
canopy
cover
exceeds
the
target.
If
you're
above
the
target,
no
problem
in
cases
where
the
measured
canopy
equals
or
falls
short
of
the
threshold,
the
application
would
be
denied.
Now
this
isn't
the
final
thing,
because
the
urban
forest
evolves
all
the
time.
Intensification
potential
evolves
all
the
time.
So
this
in
fact
could
set
up
a
planning
cycle.
We
can
realize.
N
Maybe
in
five
years
we'll
be
hitting,
will
be
above
the
canopy
target
here.
Maybe
then
it
becomes
an
intensification
target,
that's
worth
looking
at
and
so
on.
So
as
the
bylaw
is
the
city's
only
instrument
for
retaining
distinctive
trees,
and
given
that
the
documented
loss
of
distinctive
trees
is
a
major
cause
of
the
observed
reduction,
local
canopy
cover,
it
seems
to
us
inescapable
that
the
two
must
be
linked.
So
we
had
kind
of
a
draft
motion
to
put
forwards
with
some
nonspecific
language.
N
But
we
understand
at
this
point
that
it,
you
know
it's
kind
of
premature
and
that
staff
wouldn't
support
that
kind
of
position,
because
the
work
hasn't
been
done
hasn't
been
thought
through.
So
what
we
would
ask
is
that
for
committee
to
instruct
staff
to
work
with
stakeholders
in
the
coming
months
on
ways
to
tie
decisions
regarding
the
removal
and
retention
of
trees
under
the
tree,
bylaw
to
the
achievement
and
maintenance
of
local
canopy
targets
and
to
report
back
to
Committee
on
how
this
could
be
done.
A
G
Our
concern
is
that
we
really
can't
afford
to
delay
any
longer
in
implementing
appropriate
tree
protections.
I
note
in
the
mayor's
state
of
the
city
address
he's
dealt
with
tree
planting,
greening
of
parks
putting
in
a
tougher
tree
by
law
to
make
it
expensive
for
all
those
those
all
too
common
oopsies
to
happen.
The
FCA
says
that
we
see
this
recognition
that
tree
preservation
and
planting
is
a
key
climate
change
mitigation
measure.
G
So
we
recommend
that
place
design
with
nature
front
and
center
in
all
cases
and
expeditiously
fund
and
implement
the
new
urban
tree
conservation
bylaw,
and
the
reason
that
we're
we
think
this
is
really
important
is
because
we've
been
here
many
times
before.
I
go
back
to
I,
have
data
going
back
to
96
97,
where
we
had
FCA
participating
on
a
stakeholder
committee
to
develop
recommendations
for
the
tree
protection
and
conservation
policies
project.
So
there
was
a
public
workshop.
Adele
can
report
a
stake.
Stakeholder
committee
meetings.
G
Documents
were
produced
that
were
eerily
familiar
ones
I've
seen
today,
and
then
there
was
silence
in
2004
City
Council
direct
made
a
direction
to
staff
to
undertake
more
consultation
regarding
tree
conservation
in
Ottawa
four
years
later,
that
resulted
in
2008
2009
tree
conservation,
bylaw
urban
tree
conservation
by
law,
development,
2009
council,
approved
by
law,
provided
a
one-year
lead
into
implementation
to
educate
the
public.
The
education
stretched
for
ten
years
no
necessary
that
the
necessary
resources
were
never
provided
to
properly
implement
this
bylaw.
G
Further
in
may,
9
2012
as
part
of
the
low-rise
infill
housing
study
council,
approved,
proposed
changes
to
the
city's
submission
requirements
and
procedures,
including
procedures
and
fees
for
new
planting
the
urban
tree
conservation
bylaw,
as
detailed
in
document
four
and
direct
the
appropriate
branches
to
implement
these
changes
within
eight
months
of
council
approval
of
this
report.
So
basically
they
were
to
provide
three
disclosure
information
to
building
permits
and
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
again
there
was
silence
the
infill
one
and
two
bylaws
make
room
for
tree
preservation.
G
G
It's
there
in
that
bylaw
in
April,
19-20,
16th
I
did
a
statistical
analysis
or
an
analysis
of
the
city
to
statistical
summary
of
activity,
distinctive
tree
permits
from
2010
to
2015,
and
it
was
evident
that
severe
cumulative
losses
showed
that
deforestation
was
the
status
quo
in
Ottawa
in
June
20th
2017,
the
urban
forest
management
plan
was
passed
by
the
Environment
Committee.
We
were
part
of
the
stakeholder
group
best
consultation
process
ever
this
was
an
awesome
thing.
Hundreds
of
Ottawa's
participated
to
help
create
this
fine
policy.
G
One
of
the
key
directions
was
to
review
revised
and
fully
implement
a
stronger
urban
tree
conservation
bylaw.
We
noted
as
part
of
our
submission
that
we
still
needed
to
adopt
the
May
2012
process
changes
that
would
help
us
do
that
in
spring.
2018
building
permits
received
a
new
requirement
for
the
tree
disclosure
report,
but
nothing
went
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
they
want
it.
G
So
we
we've
had
cumulative
ongoing
losses
to
our
ecosystem
surface
services,
implementing
the
bylaw
in
two
phases:
history
going
to
repeat
itself:
we
can't
afford
to
delay
further.
This
is
such
a
small
amount
of
money
to
actually
fund
this
program.
Eight
full-time
FTEs.
Let's,
let's
do
this
in
March
3rd
2011
I
wrote
an
article
for
the
kitchen
CP.
It
was
absolute
news
west
then,
and
I
ended
the
article
with
if
intensity
intensification
continues
to
be
implemented,
as
it
is
now,
the
day
will
come.
A
G
Each
new
bill:
more
than
50%
of
permeable,
surface
loss,
storm
and
sanitary
sewer,
increasingly
affected
streets,
growing,
potholes,
River
and
rain
storm
Overland
flooding,
the
and
I
haven't
been
pressing.
My
buttons
siren
all
right.
Sorry
yeah!
Thank
you.
So
we
remember
what
we've
lost:
pre
Confederation,
healthy
Burr,
Oak,
1.2
mm
meters,
DBH
19
meters,
high
only
halfway
through
its
expected
lifespan,
as
we
had
hired
a
forest
or
to
do
an
assessment
as
a
tree
with
origins
which
predate
settlement,
it
can
be
safely
assumed.
G
G
We
know
that
tree
cover
is
is
linked
to
health
outcomes.
A
recent
meta-analysis
published
in
The
Lancet,
funded
by
the
who
talks
about
the
inverse
relation
association
between
four
surrounding
greenness
and
all
cause
mortality.
We
just
really
cannot
afford
to
wait
any
longer,
so
please
we
need
those
FTEs.
We
need
the
bylaw
working
action
and
we
need
these
great
people
in
forestry
to
get
the
resources
they
deserve.
All.
A
D
D
D
We
think
that
would
be
an
unfair
imposition
on
the
owner
of
the
lot,
where
conditions
completely
extraneous
to
him
or
her
unrelated
to
the
law
unrelated
to
the
development
rights
on
the
lawn
would
then
effectively
prevent
could
effectively
prevent
the
development
of
that
land.
There
are
replacement
conditions
to
be
they
can
be
imposed.
There
are
two
to
remediate
the
canopy
to
and
improve
the
canopy.
That
would
be
the
three
to
one
replacement,
so
we
would
respectfully
submit
that
that
three
to
one
replacement
should
be
sufficient.
D
They
may
really
have
little
or
no
choice
but
to
remove
a
tree
in
order
to
repair
a
utility
line,
so
you
can
have
a
building
with
a
significant
number
of
tenants
and
the
water
line
breaks.
So
there
you
have
50
100
200
tenants
in
a
building
and
they
need
that
water
back
without
the
water
they
haven't
got
drinking
water.
D
They
can
look,
they
can't
wash,
they
can
use
their
toilets,
they
don't
have
any
sewer
service,
and
so
we
need
to
be
able
to
be
assured
that
we
can
get
in
and
do
that
repair
and
we
can
do
it
quickly.
I
have
had
this
discussion
with
MS
Cobb
steak
and
she
assures
me
originally
I
had
wanted
and
suggested
that
we
should
have
an
exemption
for
that
situation.
But
mrs.
D
There
is
a
reference.
There
are
two
kind
of
catch-all
clauses.
There
is
no
reasonable
alternative
to
the
injury
or
destruction
or
other
circumstances
deemed
appropriate
by
the
general
manager.
So,
frankly,
reading
that
front
with
a
legal
eye,
it
seems
strange
that
where
something
is
sensible
to
be
done
is
reasonable
to
be
done,
it
is
not
listed
and
yet
somewhere
else
it
is
listed.
You
come
at
that
from
a
legal
interpretation
point
of
view,
and
you
would
think
that
the
situation
I've
described
is
not
in.
D
In
the
section
66
again
I
think
I've
been
given
some
assurance
that
that
will
be
treated
as
a
situation
where
there's
no
reasonable
alternative.
But
I
didn't
want
to
raise
that
for
the
committee
and
request
any
assistance
you
can
provide
our
members
in
knowing
that
they
can
look
after
their
tenants
and
that
count
of
corporations
can
look
after
their
residents.
A
I
Of
efforts
to
modernize
the
bylaw
and
enhance
the
urban
tree
canopy,
we
support
most
of
the
proposals,
including
the
three-to-one
replacement
ratio
and
considering
trees
earlier
in
the
planning
process.
As
you
will
see
in
our
submission,
there
are
a
few
issues
that
we've
highlighted
that
require
continued
dialogue
between
city
staff
and
industry
to
resolve.
However,
we
believe
that
the
majority
of
these
are
process
and
implementation
issues
that
can
be
worked
on
moving
forward
as
an
example,
it
was
the
cap
on
the
five
trees.
I
That
was
something
that
came
out
of
discussions
just
last
week
throughout
the
consultation
process.
Home
builders
have
endorsed
the
principle
of
maintaining
and
enhancing
the
urban
forest,
but
we're
retention
is
incompatible
with
intensification
that
a
proactive
agenda
of
replacement
and
renewal
is
needed.
Home
builders
support
robust
management
of
the
urban
tree
canopy
to
ensure
that
the
tree
bylaw
is
effective.
This
must
include
assurance
that
the
urban
canopy
feature
a
variety
of
Ages
and
species.
This
monitoring
function
and
reporting
to
the
public
on
results
is
essential
to
inform
decision
making
moving
forward.
I
The
development
of
multi
housing
units
in
an
existing
neighborhood
supports
the
city's
intensification
goals
and,
in
fact,
are
critical
to
their
achievement.
Impediments
to
creating
more
infill
homes
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
development
of
a
variety
of
housing,
types
and
affordability
across
the
city,
two
more
goals
of
the
Official
Plan
critical
to
maintaining
and
enhancing
the
livability
in
Ottawa.
I
A
A
H
Thank
you
very
much,
I'm
very,
very
happy
that
we're
moving
forward
on
this
one
of
the
first
things
I
saw
when
I
became
a
counselor
was,
was
trees
being
taken
down
on
infill
properties
and
having
that
horrible
helps
us
feeling
of
not
knowing
what
to
do,
because
it
already
happened,
and
it
was
clear
that
something
needed
to
be
done
like
ten
steps
back
and
what
this
bylaw
is
doing
is
providing
that
opportunity
to
go
those
ten
steps
back
on
future
developments.
We
really
really
need
this.
H
Queens
Bay
Terrace
north,
for
example,
was
very
hard
hit
in
terms
of
promises
made,
because
that
was
the
other
thing
is
that
developers
could
say
they
were
saving
a
tree,
but
there
was
no
teeth
to
it,
because
their
plans
did
not
match
what
could
be
done
and
having
the
intervention
of
a
forester
with
working
with
planning
is
absolutely
essential.
I
am
concerned
about
the
in
in
terms
of
the
the
steps
that
we're
going
to
do
and
why
we
can't
do
the
30
centimetres
right
away.
I
think
it's.
There
is
concern
there.
It's
already
been
expressed.
J
I'm
through
you
chair,
so
the
calculations
that
we've
done
so
far
are
for
the
full,
like
the
full
eight
and
it's
it's
about
just
under
a
million
dollars
so
like
the
the
upper
eight
hundred
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars.
But
of
course,
we've
figured
out
three
of
those
and
we
still
have
through
this
between
now
and
Phase,
two
we'd
like
to
look
at
other
cost
recovery
options,
so
once
we
decrease
the
diameter
will
have
more
application
fees
coming
in.
J
H
Was
comments
that
the
fines
are
not
really
a
problem
like
somebody
could
just
look
at
it
as
the
cost
of
doing
business
if
they
felt
that
they
just
wanted
that
tree
out
of
the,
and
it
wouldn't
be
that
expensive
would
raising
the
fees
help
if
we
could.
If
we
did
do
that
in
terms
of
hiring
more
staff,
because
we
could
use
that
money
towards
more
foresters.
J
H
C
Sure
sure
I
just
want
to
just
offer
councils
or
committees
some
advice
on
this.
We
can
never
rely
on
fines
as
a
source
to
pay
for
programs
anywhere
within
the
city.
Those
are
not
guaranteed,
no
guarantees
the
courts
want
to
do
it.
We
we
typically
apply
the
application
fees,
user
fees
in
order
to
do
that
cost
recovery
and
any
fines
that
are
received
by
the
city
go
into
general
revenues
of
the
city.
It's
a
general
line
item
and
that's
true
in
every
type
of
fine
we're
dealing
with
okay.
H
J
Well
for
infrastructure
projects,
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
looking
at
through
this
prop
this
project
that
we've
been
doing
is
that
whole
bit
of
considering
trees
as
early
in
the
process
as
possible.
So
we've
been
working
with
our
infrastructure
colleagues
to
ensure
that
forestry
staff
is
included
right
when
the
rate
at
the
very
beginning,
almost
when
the
project
charter
as
being
is
being
made
for
the
for
the
new
prop
like
whatever
infrastructure
project.
J
It
is
so
that
forestry
and
forestry
staff
are
included
right,
then
so
that
they're
incorporated
they're
involved
in
the
design
of
the
project.
So
it's
not
like
there.
Sometimes
at
this
point,
we've
been
brought
and
I'm
not
referring
to
LRT
specifically,
but
brought
in
sort
of
once
the
designs
been
done
and
we're
going
to
bring
that
early
so
that
we
can
have
impact
on
on
the
tree
aspect
of
things.
J
So
that
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
say
you
know
if
you
move
this
slightly
like
this,
we
could,
you
know
possibly
retain
these
five
more
trees
or
something
like
that.
You
know
so
so
that's
what
we've
been
working
on
through
this
and
as
we
move
into
our
processes
in
the
winter,
that's
going
to
be
a
really
key
focus
of
our
of
our
efforts
is
working
with
our
infrastructure
staff.
Also,
we
will
be
required.
J
Then
this
is
one
of
the
things
we're
going
to
be
working
with
them
on
is
requiring
the
tree
conservation
report
that
we
require
for
site
plans
and
plans
of
subdivision
to
be
submitted
for
those
infrastructure
projects
as
well,
and
so
we're
going
to
be
working
with,
like
I,
said,
infrastructure
staff
on
how
that
happens,
and
in
a
lot
of
those
projects,
it's
done
already.
It's
just
a
matter
of
making
it
more
more
widespread.
H
C
Chair
I'll
take
this
question.
In
these
instances
there
are
separate
project,
specific
environmental
assessment
processes
that
address
all
of
this.
The
best
practices
that
we're
establishing
through
this
by
lava,
get
translated
into
that,
but
the
environmental
assessment
is
ultimately
the
final
document
that
dictates
that,
and
both
the
impact
avoidance
and
the
mitigation
strategies
are
that
come
through
those
processes
and
what
govern
them.
C
H
So
that's
still
possible,
that's
good
to
know.
My
other
question
is
is
and
I
hope
the
general
manager
will.
Forgive
me
for
asking
this
is
the
power
of
the
general
manager,
because
there's
lots
of
times
he's
mentioned
and
throughout
the
document
of
having
exemptions
and
I
just
wanted
to
know
what
that
looks
like,
because
I
know
that
that
question
will
come
up
to
me.
C
So
chair,
under
the
existing
bylaw
and
the
new
bylaw,
both
myself
and
mr.
Wylie
have
different
where
the
general
manager,
which
refers
to
both
of
us
under
different
circumstances,
are
our
positions
not
awesome
personally
and
the
staff
when
an
application
comes
through.
In
my
case,
it's
further
delegated
to
mr.
her
wire
and
I.
Believe
mr.
Wylie
does
the
same
thing
it's
delegated
to
another
staff
person.
C
C
Perhaps
a
misinterpretation
and
in
one
of
the
comments
the
the
diagram
is
copes
take
showed,
was
not
the
building
envelope
and
you
could
just
enlarge
the
building
envelope
and
swallow
more
trees.
It's
it's
the
zoning
envelope
of
where
your
buildable
area
is
it's
applied
for
in
this
situation,
so
that
is
fixed.
That
is,
council
sets
and
approve
the
zoning
bylaws.
There's
no
discretion
in
that.
Okay,.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
Trees
are
a
very
emotional
issue.
As
I've
seen,
people
have
been
having
memorials
for
trees
along
that
the
byron
route,
and
we
just
saw
the
the
cherry
trees
just
went
down
today.
I
don't
even
want
to
go
home.
It's
it's
going
to
be
very
sad,
so
I.
Thank
you
for
all
your
work,
because
you're
looking
at
the
future
and
I
really
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
mr.
chair
and
so
first
off
yeah.
Thank
you
very
much.
We've
had
many
many
discussions
about
this
about
this
proposed
bylaw,
both
because
of
the
the
impact
of
the
tornado
and
also
the
high
level
of
infill
develop
in
my
area
and
the
and
the
the
trees
to
come
down
that
that
shouldn't
necessarily
come
down.
O
O
Can
you
run
me
through
so
so?
Let's
assume,
we
had
two
applications
that
came
forward,
one
for
an
infill
development,
one
for
just
mr.
her
wire
puts
an
application
and
because
the
trees
are
dying
in
his
backyard
or
they're
interfering
with
his
foundation
or
whatever
in
both
cases.
So
the
request
exceeds
five
trees.
So
explain
to
me
what
happens
in
both
of
those
scenarios
once
that
application
arrives.
J
Question
but
I
mean
I,
guess
yeah
in
the
case
in,
in
those
cases,
I
mean
it's
going
to
be
very
similar,
I
mean
if
it's
a
situation
where
we're
talking
about
foundation
damage,
then
that
sort
of
would
have
to
be
concerned
confirmed
and
so
that
kind
of
an
application
for
a
private
landowner
with
five
trees
and
foundation
damage
would
would
have
you
know,
a
fair
amount
of
staff
time
to
go
through
the
process.
Those
kind
of
applications
for
that
many
trees
for
private
landowners
are
extremely
rare.
J
Most
of
the
applications
that
we're
receiving
where
there
are-
and
this
happens
in
your
ward,
where
there
are
more
than
you
know,
one
or
one
tree
or
two
trees
are
for
our
for
development
scenarios
right.
So
so
it's
it's
not
something
that
we're
normally
dealing
with.
So
in
the
development
scenario,
basically,
the
the
way
that
would
work
is
that,
if
it's
say
a
building
permit,
then
the
building
permit
gets
submitted.
There's
a
requirement
to
submit
tree
information
with
that
building.
Permit
it
gets
circulated
to
staff.
J
Now,
assuming
this
all
gets
approved,
will
have
an
infill
Forester
in
Planning
Department.
That
will
receive
that.
Will
also
provide
it
to
the
forestry
inspectors
and
they'll
work
together
on
looking
at
what's
proposed
and
looking
at
what
changes
they
might
like
to
see
to
that
in
terms
of
protecting
more
trees
and
how
to
protect
any
other
trees
that
aren't,
they
aren't
applying
to
remove
and
that's
kind
of
that
increased
staff
time
and
that
that's
required.
It's
also
a
very
quick
turnaround
for
these
infill
files
in
a
building
permit
situation
and
I.
J
Think
it's
about
nine
days
or
something
like
that.
So
so
we've
got
several
departments
working
on
looking
at
these
applications
at
once.
So
that's
why
we
have
a
higher
fee
for
that
$500
fee
for
the
infill
application,
so
just
to
be
clear
right
now.
It's
for
the
private
like
the
for
Dawn.
If
he's
not
developing
his
property,
it's
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
up
to
a
max
of
750
and
what
was
proposed
initially
was
for
developers.
J
O
O
To
a
sorry,
yes,
one
to
one
and
in
in
the
in
the
development,
it's
a
three
to
one
ratio
correct.
So
how
did
we?
How
do
we
decide
on
on
five
as
being
the
appropriate
maximum,
because
in
they're
being
done
for
different
purposes
right
again
in
in
mr.
her
wires,
circumstance
he's
not
he's
not
doing
it
to
to
knock
down
a
house
and
and
rebuild,
and
so
how
do
we
decide
that
five
five
was
the
right
number
I.
Think,
for
example,
file
you
were
involved
in
before
the
tornado.
O
There
was
a
request,
take
out
a
whole
lot
more
than
five
trees
on
a
particular
a
lot
in
order
to
put
up
three
homes.
So
how
do
we
know
that
five
is
the
right
number
I
get
it's
consistent,
it
would
the
their
seconds
a,
but
is
it
consistency
with
a
rationale?
Is
your
consistency
for
consistency,
sake,
I
guess
is
what
I'm,
what
I'm
getting
here?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
get
to
that
five?
So.
J
The
five
was
developed
for
the
average
homeowner
situation
and
developed,
based
on
what
we
see
as
a
reasonable
charge
for
the
average
homeowner.
That
may
be
removing
a
tree
for
some
problem.
You
know
and
that's
how
we
develop
that
and
that's
why
we
fell
at
at
five.
So
that's
how
the
five
was
developed.
The
motion
to
bring
forward
the
max
for
the
development
scenario
that
was
just
putting
it
in
line
with
that,
one
that
we
developed.
O
A
O
O
A
Don't
know
the
know
the
amount
of
work
that
goes
into
whether
you
want
to
take
five
trees
down
or
fifteen
trees
down
is
the
exact
same
cost.
So
when
you're
making
a
permit
for
you
on
a
cost
recovery,
if
all
of
a
sudden
you
charge
whatever
it
is
five
hundred
dollars
times.
Fifteen
now
Allison
you're,
making
a
profit
off
of
your
permit
fees,
which
is
not
permitted
out
of
Miss
blacked
I'm.
O
J
So
we
don't
have
that
number,
but
you
know
anecdotally.
We
can
say
that
it's
much
less,
especially
when
we're
dealing
with
distinctive
trees
at
50
centimeters.
So
when
you're
in
the
average
situation,
it
is
it's
much
less,
it's
often
I
would
say
one
or
two,
maybe
three
that
kind
of
thing.
But
the
chair
says
this
is
it
is
a
cost
recovery.
Consider.
O
Going
and
I
get
that,
and
it's
just
one
final
question:
so
are
you
comfortable
with
the
five
keeping
in
mind
the
comment
that
you
made
early?
You
have
a
very
quick
turnaround
on
the
Delta
applications.
You
have
two
more
staff
on
it
more
quickly.
So
are
you
keeping
all
that
in
mind
which
suggests
the
different
resources
or
where
the
same
resources
are
being
utilized
more
quickly?
Are
you
satisfied
that
the
five
will
provide
you
that
cost
recovery
that
you
require
yester?
We
felt
in
terms
of
the
level
of.
O
E
E
What
that
means
and
I
do
want
to
I
mean
I
agree
with
with
the
assessment
that
was
made
by
the
speaker,
that
you
know
pretty
much
everything
we're
doing
hopefully,
and
it's
what
we're
encouraging
is
intensification,
so
anytime
we're
you
know,
removing
you
know
we're
we're
looking
at
our
new,
our
four
zones,
so
you
know
in
the
urban
core,
especially
around
transit,
where
we
want
people
to
to
to
live.
We
are
intensifying
even
on
small
lots
and
we're
looking
at
even
smaller
Lots.
So
how
does
that?
L
J
J
No
I
mean
I
I
feel
the
same
way
as
you
and
I
mean
that's
sort
of
the
biggest
challenge
with
this
with
this
effort
and
this
initiative
that
we're
talking
about
today
is
that
is
that
thing
where
we
have
these
two
important
goals
at
the
city
and
one
is
to
maintain
an
increase.
Our
urban
canopy
to
keep
you
know,
maintain
our
resiliency
into
the
future,
and
the
other
is
to
intensify
for
a
lot
of
the
other
same
reasons.
J
There's
been
a
discussion
about
the
tying
decision-making
to
the
canopy
cover
targets,
and
that
is
something
that
staff
intend
to
do
over
time
once
those
canopy
cover
targets
are
set,
and
now
that
we
have
our
canopy
cover
analysis
done
at
a
at
a
neighborhood
level.
We're
going
to
be
able
to
be
looking
at
that
moving
forward
when
we
set
the
targets,
and
so
that's
to
come
next
year,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
ways
that
we
will
work
to
balance.
Those
two
you
know
somewhat
competing
objectives
of
the
city
is
by
looking
at
that
directly.
E
But
it's
you
know
it
when
we
think
when
we,
when
we
consider
everything
else
that
we're
doing
trees
are
often
you
know
again,
they
get
that
last
priority
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
language
is
not
setting
up
trees.
As
that
last
priority,
because
we
can,
we
do
want
intensification,
we
do
need
more
units,
it's
it's.
The
whole
I
mean
it's
part
of
housing
and
affordability
I
get
that,
but
it
can
happen
in
a
lot
of
places,
but
you
know
so
I
guess
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
eventually
soon.
E
J
And
that
will
be
one
of
the
ways.
Another
thing
is
that
we,
with
sort
of
this
education
piece
this
continued
education
on
the
value
of
trees.
In
it
you
know,
we've
been
laughing
because
it
keeps
morphing
over
my
career,
how
we've
educated
and
what
values
we
think
people
are
going
to
grab
on
to
you
know.
J
But,
but
you
know,
trees
can
be
a
great
benefit
to
infrastructure
projects
to
development
projects,
and
we
want
to
keep
pushing
that
forward
so
that
we
can
see
how,
especially
in
these
like,
dense-
and
you
know,
I
I
live
right
downtown.
You
know
often
harsh
environments,
how
we
can
incorporate
trees
into
these
developments
and
unique
ways.
So
I
think
that
education
piece
is
really
important,
too,
and
and-
and
you
know,
look
to
see
a
change
over
time.
E
We
are
changing
that
roadway,
Albertan
slater
where
you
know
taking
outs
later
we're
making
Albertans
later
two
ways
the
library
is
going
in
just
below
the
escarpment
and
there's
right
now,
a
multi-use
pathway-
and
there
are
many
wonderful
they're
about
10
15
year
old
trees
running
along
the
multi-use
pathway.
I
think
you
probably
know
where
I'm
going
so
because
I'm
gonna
fight
for
those
trees
forever
I
will
eventually
chain
myself
to
them.
If
need
be.
E
So
you've
got
all
that
those
wonderful
trees
that
have
been
there
10
15
years,
they're
just
giving
us
some
nice
canopy,
because
new
trees
give
us
nothing
for
15
years
right
like
nothing
make
it
3d
make
it
101.
Actually
I
did
have
the
federal
government
once
give
me
a
hundred
to
one
trees
for
taking
down.
For
so
those
trees
are
slated
to
come
down.
E
Are
the
our
functional
design
had
them
all
coming
down,
and
we
said
yes
to
that
I
said
no,
but
well
with
this
wood,
this
bylaw
protect
those
30
trees
that
are
10
to
15
years
old.
Would
we
find
a
way
when
we
say
yes
to
this
today
in
that
council
to
protect
those
trees,
because
if
we
don't,
we
have
not
gone
nearly
far
enough
I.
J
Guess
one
part
of
this:
what
Tracy
just
mentioned
to
me
is
that
aspect
of
getting
in
early
on
the
functional
design,
and
obviously
this
is
a
it's
a
difficult
one.
It's
an
area
that's
been
in
such
massive
flux
over
the
last
10
15
years
and
and
and
those
trees
got
put
in
when
they
got
put
in
it.
I
haven't
been
a
part
of
the
project,
so
I'm
not
totally.
J
J
E
Well,
that
was
only
a
few
months
ago,
so
lots
of
work
like
to
educate
our
own
staff
I'll
leave
it
at
that
phase.
Two,
the
52
to
30
centimeter
I,
get
that
take
a
few
extra
months
to
come
up
with
the
funding
that
we
need.
But
what's
stopping
us
from
putting
that
in
place
today
and
just
saying
like
that's
the
rule,
don't
cut
them
down
so.
C
E
And
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
that.
I
just
want
to
just
ask
about
the
example
that
mr.
Dickey
had
brought
up
about
the
utility
repairs
and
a
schedule
66,
and
just
the
the
difference
in
wording.
Can
you
just
respond
to
that
in
terms
of
what
the
intent
would
be
if
there
was
an
emergency
repair,
so.
J
The
concern
was
that
if
there
was
need
to
you
know,
restore
water
service
or
some
such
thing,
and
there
happened
to
be
a
tree
in
the
way
of
the
the
place
where
the
work
had
to
be
done
on
that
water.
Sir
service,
how
do
we
have
sort
of
a
guarantee
that
that
a
permit
would
be
issued
to
remove
that
tree?
And
you
know
we
are
and
we're
not
here
to
be
unreasonable
about
anything
and-
and
there
are
in
that
section
66.
That
indicates
why
a
tree
permit
may
be
issued.
It's
clear
that
well
number
one.
J
It
says
to
the
discretion
of
the
general
manager,
but
it's
also
clear
that
there,
if
there's
no
reasonable
alternative
to
the
destruction
or
injury
of
the
tree
a
tree
permit,
may
be
issued.
So
it's
clear
in
a
situation
like
that
that
that
that
a
tree
permit
would
be
issued
for
that,
and
I
will
also
add
that
one
could
argue
that
if
a
tree
is
posing
a
threat
to
public
health
and
safety,
its
exempt
from
the
bylaw
and
there
isn't
a
requirement
to
get
a
permit.
B
B
Direct
staff
to
determine,
in
consultation
with
community
stakeholders,
reporting
back
to
committee
in
the
phase
to
report
on
how
best
to
consider
canopy
cover
targets
at
the
neighborhood
level
as
part
of
the
tree
permitting
process
under
the
new
tree
protection
bylaw.
Once
the
targets
have
been
identified
and
included
in
the
city's
new
official
plan.
B
B
J
J
B
That's
that's
good
to
know
the
majority
of
them
that
you
looked
at.
There
was
no
maximum.
Why?
Why
do
we
have
a
difference
between
and
councillor
I
was
kind
of
getting
at
this,
but
why
do
we
have
a
difference
between
the
private
home
owners
cost
and
the
infill
development
cost
for
free
folks?
What
is
the
difference
there
in
terms
of
tree
removal
for
distinctive
trees,
the.
J
J
We
have
all
of
the
all
the
plans
that
are
submitted
and
we
have
to
look
at
all
of
those
plans
and
review
all
those
plans
and
understand
the
implications
of
all
those
plans,
as
well
as
the
tree
aspects,
and
then,
of
course,
you
know,
we
also
have
a
big
role
to
play
in
convincing
to
retain
trees
and
that
you
know
that's
that's
time
and
that's
that's
effort
as
well
in
the
scenario
where
it's
a
the
average
homeowner
removing
a
distinctive
tree
for
some
reason.
Whatever
it
may
be.
J
The
report
that's
required
to
be
submitted,
sin
arborist
report,
and
it
often
has
it
it
doesn't
have
to
have
as
much
information,
because
the
the
complexities
of
the
proposal
are
so
much
smaller.
You
know,
and
so
so,
basically
that
those
are
implemented
by
our
forestry
inspectors.
They
receive
the
arborist
report,
which
is
usually
you
know,
a
page
less
than
a
page,
just
indicating
why
the
trees
proposed
for
removal
and
and
that's
a
visit
to
the
site
and
and
there
you
go
so
it's
just
it's
basically
that
staff
time
cost
recovery
for
that
staff.
Time.
B
Okay,
so
there's
more
there's
more
staff
time
required
to
review
the
infill
applications
and
there
is
say
a
private
homeowner
that
may
want
to
put
in
a
pool
or
something
else
like
that.
Okay,
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
in
terms
of
this
sort
of
permitting
under
the
Municipal
Act
piece
of
it.
For
a
long
time,
we've
been
under
charging
for
removals
of
trees.
What
was
a
hundred
dollars,
I
guess
for
justing
to
treat
for
removal,
so
we're
kind
of
we're
way
behind
the
card.
B
I
guess
on
this
one
we've
been
really
under
charging,
but
seeing
the
removal
and
our
in
our
within
the
Greenbelt
area,
an
urban
core
of
up
to
upwards
of
fifty
percent
or
fifty
eight
percent
of
our
of
our
canopy.
There
was
something
you
wrote
in
the
staff
report
again
related
to
the
the
the
motion
that's
on
the
table,
and
it
says
that
related
to
London,
Toronto,
Oakville
and
Kingston.
The
increase
in
the
application
fees
is
also
can
act
as
a
disincentive
for
removing
trees.
J
F
D
B
Great
I'm
glad
to
hear
see
that,
and
we
may
need
that
I
guess
in
this
instance
I'm
just
speaking
to
the
cap
total
as
the
as
a
disincentive
and
it's
clear
that
it'll
lock
didn't
act
in
the
opposite
way
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
this
in
this
sense,
so
I
think
I'd
encourage
my
colleagues
to
vote
against
that
motion
for
that.
For
that
very
reason,
it
wasn't
in
the
original
staff
report.
B
I
think
this
would
be
doing
something
that
we
we
shouldn't
do
and
that
the
majority
of
cities
in
Ontario,
in
fact,
don't
do
now.
Only
one
does
it
that
we
that
we
looked
at
so
I
recommend
voting
against
it
chairs
there.
Anyone
else
in
the
speaker's
list
to
the
Senate,
more
okay,
so
I
just
was
just
that.
You
know
I,
think
it's
important
Environment
Committee
does
vote
on
this
item.
I
do
think
that
it
should
be
voted
on
here.
A
So
I'm,
actually
gonna
suggest
that
we
referred
I
spoke
to
mr.
Willis
and
he
said
that
clearly,
there's
not
enough
information
that
we
have
at
committee.
Given
the
absence
of
information
to
decide
on
that
peep,
there
seems
to
be
a
discomfort
level
with
the
motion
at
this
point.
I
would
suggest
that
we
refer
it
to
Council
with
non
decision
and
have
staff
provide
us
more
information
between
now
and
then
okay,
I
think
I.
B
G
Mr.
share
appreciating
I
haven't
been
here
all
afternoon.
If
emotions
brought
forward
to
refer
this
motion
to
counsel
without
a
recommendation,
it
would
be
before
Council
at
its
January
meeting,
with
a
recommendation
that
council
consider
it
so
moved
and
seconded.
It
could
be
put
on
the
floor
for
approval
at
that
time,
and
between
now
and
January
29th.
There
would
not
be
an
opportunity
to
get
additional
information
from
staff
if
needed.
B
Okay,
so
yeah
in
this
scenario,
I've
said
I'd
like
to
call
the
question
and
we've
said
we
want
a
motion
to
refer
after
after
that
point
of
time.
So
if
someone
has
to
put
our
motion
on
the
floor
to
refer
it,
and
we
have
to
vote
on
that
first,
are
you
saying
that
we
would
call
the
question
and
vote
on
the
actual
motion
first
and
then
come
back
to
her
well
I?
Guess
we
wouldn't
refer
at
that
point.
A
It's
just
I
didn't,
say:
I
didn't
confirm
it.
It
was.
He
just
said:
I
would
just
suggest
that
we
just
pulled
a
motion.
Then
it's
not
my
motion.
It
was
a
motion
brought
forward
from
staff
just
pulled
the
motion
will
talk
more
staff
and
then,
if
there's
a
desperate
desire
to
revisit,
we
can
do
so
at
Council.
Mr.
chair,
if.
G
G
A
Accept
that
I
don't
want
today
to
be
about
some
random
motion
about
some
cap
that
isn't
going
to
be
hardly
impactful
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
So,
let's
yeah
know
that
the
the
report
in
front
of
us
a
positive
step
in
the
right
direction.
Let's
not
get
bogged
down
with
a
with
a
minor
technical
motion.
B
F
Thank
you.
No
questions.
Just
a
brief
comment.
I
don't
want
my
lack
of
discourse
to
signal
that
I'm
not
interested
I
think
this
is
a
very
good
report
and
certainly
staff
came
and
briefed
me
and
we
had
a
good
chat,
I
believe
last
week,
I
think,
there's
you
know
the
macro-level
side.
That
can
be
argue
the
importance
of,
of
course,
urban
canopy
and
all
the
environmental
benefits
which
I
won't
repeat.
F
Certainly,
when
I
go
door-to-door
campaigning
and
you
meet
thousands
of
people
at
once,
there
were
horror
stories,
especially
in
2014,
about
trees,
prominent
trees
that
have
been
lost
in
the
community
and
I
get
to
benefit
because
I'm
starting
to
get
the
infill
that
we've
seen
in
other
words
and
so
I'm
gonna,
have
the
protection
that
other
Ward's
have
not
benefited
from
and
so
I'm
very
grateful.
It
may
be
too
late
for
some,
but
that
we're
going
forward
with
much
stronger
protection
bylaw,
which
I
firmly
support,
may
not
be
perfect
in
everyone's
eyes.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
those
Americans
Rakatan.
So
the
report
in
front
of
us
is
that
the
Stan
Committee
on
Environment
action,
water
and
waste
management
recommend
the
council.
One
approved
the
proposed
tree
by
law,
protection
by
law
in
the
form
attached
as
documents,
one
and
two
and
that's
described
in
this
reports-
to
approve
the
proposed
application
fees
attached
in
document
to
a
Schedule
D
of
the
post
reproduction
bylaw
and
summarized
in
document
five
fee
schedule.
Three
approved
the
phased
approached.
A
The
implementation
of
the
tree
bylaw
review,
as
described
in
this
report
for
direct
staff
to
report
back
with
Phase
two
amendments
to
the
tree.
Protection
bylaw,
as
described
in
this
report
in
q3
of
2025,
approve
the
establishment
of
two
new
permanent
full-time
forestry
inspector
positions
in
public
works,
environmental
services
in
2020
for
the
implementation
of
phase
one
of
the
tree
production
bylaw,
the
cost
of
which
will
be
offset
by
increased
revenues
from
the
new
fees
for
a
net.
Zero
impact
on
the
2020
budget
and
six
delegate.
A
The
authority
to
general
manager,
planning
obstruction,
economic
development
and
the
city
solicitor
to
finalize
and
make
necessary
adjustments
to
the
proposed
tree
production
by
law
to
give
effect
to
the
intent
of
Council
on
that
report
carried.
Thank
you.
So
that's
it
for
the
regular
agenda
items
in-camera
items
there
are
none
notices,
a
motion.
I
know,
councilman
art
has
one
for
our
January
29th
committee
meeting.
Read
it
again.
Sorry,
that's
council!
It's
for
our
February
Environment
Committee
meeting
go
ahead.
Okay,
thanks
very
much
sure
I'm,
just
gonna
read
the.
B
B
Yeah,
it
just
has
to
do
with
our
investment
around
fossil
fuels,
and
so
the
therefore
be
resolved.
The
Standing
Committee
on
Environment
recommend
a
fedko
that
city
of
ottawa
commits
to
no
new
purchases
of
stocks
or
mutual
funds
with
coal,
oil
and
gas
companies,
specifically
excluding
any
new
investment
in
the
200
largest
publicly
traded.
Fossil
fuel
companies
sell
off
of
all
fossil
fuel
holdings
from
these
companies
over
the
next
five
years,
which
is
a
very
low
amount
in
Ottawa
and
reinvest
the
proceeds
into
clean
energy
and
sustainable
companies
max.
A
Thank
you.
So
just
you
want
to
notice
in
a
notice
of
motion.
It
speaks
to
recommending
that
environment
committee
recommend
to
fedko
it's
something
that
really
fits
under
the
under
the
purview
of
this
committee
in
terms
of
its
genesis
as
to
what
the
the
nature
of
the
motion
is,
but
it's
something
we
don't
have
the
authority
to
do
so.
We
have
to
recommend
a
fedko
to
do
that
before
it
goes
to
council.