March 16/04 Report
Meeting began at 9:34 am and ended at 1:19 pm

Attendance:

• Bill Kelly, chair
• Maria Pearson
• Murray Ferguson, left during item 7.1
• Dave Mitchell, out for items 6.2 and 6.3
• Andrea Horwath, out for item 7.2
• Terry Whitehead, out for item 7.1 and part of 7.2
• Brian McHattie, out for part of 7.2
• Sam Merulla, arrived at 11:12 near end of 6.1, left at 12:25 during item 7.1

Also present:

Dave Braden, out for 7.2 and 8.1

The consent items (5.1 to 5.13) were approved without debate.

5.1 Enterprise Zone Municipal Realty Tax Incentive Grant Program - Application EZ04/01, 80 King William Street (PD04072) (Ward 2). This provides a tax break for the conversion of the former Hamilton Spectator building to 35 residential condominiums, with 12 more units in a second phase. The applicant is Trinity Landing. The tax incentive grant is equal to the increase in taxes as a result of the redevelopment for the first 5 years and for a portion of the following four years.

5.2 Enterprise Zone Municipal Realty Tax Incentive Grant Program - Application EZ04/02 (52 James Street South) (PD04073) (Ward 2). This accepts that the conversion of the former Bank of Montreal on the corner of King and James to 10,000 square feet of office space is an eligible project under the downtown tax incentive program that refunds the increase in taxes as a result of re-development. It appears the proponent is Gowlings, the law firm engaged by the City to block the federal assessment of the Red Hill Expressway and for other expressway related matters.

5.3 Information Report: The City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Denial of Minor Variance Application HM/A-03:294 (Jose Farias, Owner), 294 East Avenue North, City of Hamilton - Supported by the Planning and Development Department (PD04074) (Ward 3). Council rules require a report to council when planning staff support a variance, but it is turned down by the Committee of Adjustment and subsequently appealed to the OMB. The property owner wants to add one storey to the current one-storey home.

5.4 Declaration of Surplus Lands, Pritchard Road, Hamilton (PD04076) (Ward 6). This 1.25 acre vacant lot is on Pritchard Road near Highland. A small clothing manufacturing company wishes to purchase it. It is unclear in the report why these lands are owned by the City. It is zoned industrial.

5.5 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-002) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of a Residence within the Durand-Markland Heritage Conservation District, 80 Markland

Avenue, in the City of Hamilton (PD04077) (Ward 2).

5.6 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-004) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and Section 1.1 of the Heritage Easement Agreement to Permit Alterations to the Designated Property at 286 Sanford Avenue North (Former Westinghouse Headquarters Building), in the City of Hamilton (PD04078) (Ward 2)

5.7 Dundas Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Appointment of the 2004-2006 Board of Management (PD04081) (Ward 13)

5.8 Dundas Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2004 (PD04082) (Ward 13)

5.9 Waterdown Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Appointment of the 2004-2006 Board of Management (PD04083) (Ward 15)

5.10 Waterdown Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2004 (PD04084) (Ward 15 )

5.11 Stoney Creek Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Appointment of the 2004-2006 Board of Management (PD04085) (Ward 9)

5.12 Stoney Creek Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2004 (PD04086) (Ward 9)

5.13 Town of Flamborough Official Plan Consolidation - Administrative Amendment (PD04079) (Wards 14 & 15)

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 Application for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, "ElizabethGardens" and for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located South of Binbrook Road and West of Regional Road No. 56, former Township of Glanbrook (PD02033) - (Affects Ward 11). The applicant is Losani Homes. This is a 25.5 hectare site which is scheduled to include 171 single-detached homes, and some lands set aside for medium and high-density residential, a park, a school and some commercial areas. A number of conditions have been imposed by the Niagara Region Conservation Authority.

This item generated nearly two hours of discussion. Four members of the public spoke and the committee eventually decided to amend one of the conditions. The first issue was the impact of the residential development on a neighbouring beef farm. The affected farmer addressed the committee. The central issue debated was flooding problems being experienced by long time residents of Binbrook Road which they felt would be exacerbated by the development of the new subdivision. Staff presentation notes that this subdivision had been approved in 2002 but did not proceed because of objections from the Niagara Region Conservation Authority which specifically required that the area set aside to accommodate a stream going through the subdivision be increased from 20 metres to 37 metres. This subsequently led to the narrowing of some street right-of-ways from 20 metres to 18 metres. Thirteen lots were also eliminated as a result.

Mitchell : "We've gone from 20 metres for the watercourse across there to 37 metres. That's a pretty significant increase, and it wasn't needed in the past, so my concern is why is it needed from the Conservation Authority now, and in doing that, they've gone from 20 metres to 18 metre roads. . What I'm finding in some of these subdivisions is parking is quite a problem. . Modern families today with university students . you end up with everybody living at home and four-car families instead of two-car families and then no parking at all. So I can understand narrowing the roads because of going from 20 to 37 metres but I don't want to give up parking so where's the compromise here with the Conservation Authority over that much width for drainage?" Staff Diane Biuk explains that 20 metres was proposed by the developer but never agreed to by the conservation authority. Also notes that the actual road width hasn't changed but only the width of the right-of-way.

Mitchell : . "To me in a lot of cases it looks like a government make-work program, what with the Fisheries having to have permits to go across there, and so on and so forth, that's been farm fields. That's a natural drainage furough, always has been. There's never been any fish running up and down across this farmer's field and now I see so many levels of government having to have a say here. I think we're getting to a point where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I just question why so many levels are having to come in here and make a profit off this when in reality there's never been any fish going across there ever." Kelly: "It's a rhetorical question. The left hand may know what the right hand is doing but they have to give them a permit to do it.".

McHattie : Raises concerns about impact of the subdivision on a livestock operation to the south of the proposed development. Staff responds that the development is within the urban boundary of the Binbrook Settlement Area and that the farm will be restricted from expanding its operations and "subject to the minimum separation guidelines".

Ferguson asks about requirements for sidewalks on the subdivision streets and what is lost in the narrowing of the right-of -ways to 18 metres. Sidewalks are still required. Ferguson also raises issue of restrictions on the existing livestock farm on the south edge of the development.

Mitchell : "This farm operation. has been there for many many years and it's my understanding that the size operations that they have there now will be allowed to continue, but expansion as far as adding on to the end of the barns, would not be allowed. Well to do a quick education in the beef industry - it can go up and down and depending on the time of the year and the market situation will depend on how many cattle are going to be in a given operation, but I don't believe there is any intent to expand onto the end of the barns to have more cattle capacity there. Just at different times, the maximum capacity of the operation there will occasionally happen, depending on the marketplace.

John Ariens speaking on behalf of the owners, Losani Homes: "We are fully in support of the staff report and the conditions of draft plan approval. . Just dealing with the barn issue first, it would be like this room has a certain capacity, and you can either fill it or it can be half empty or it can have 10 people in it. It would be the same with the Packham barn. It has a capacity based on its manure system and the land area and the size of the barn. He can fill it or he can have as few animals as he desires. He can't exceed that capacity so from that standpoint he is not being restricted further beyond the capacity of that barn. As far as conservation authority comments are concerned, the additional widths were required for buffers and setbacks and trails through that creek channel, councillor Mitchell . That was primarily the reason we went from 20 metres to 37 metres. In addition, there is also a stormwater management area proposed with this subdivision. There are people downstream who have concerns with flooding concerns and flooding issues and it's the development of this subdivision which is going to rectify and solve those problems. So from that standpoint we do require draft plan approval to move forward with this project. As staff indicated, it is not significantly different from what committee saw approximately one year ago. So having said that we would request your support and if there are any concerns I'd be pleased to come back." Kelly: "Are there any questions of the proponent? Hearing none, thank you very much. We may call on you again." Kelly then asks for public comments as required by law.

Ray Packham is the first public speaker: He is the farmer with the livestock operation to the south. "I've been in Binbrook all my life, farmed 37 years down on Golf Club Road. We've been kind of taken over by housing down in that area. I have to clean my barns at 2 in the morning to keep the smells down, but thank goodness the prevailing winds go the the other way. Binbrook's exactly the opposite. If we had to clean a barn, it would be straight into the survey. Some of the residents have already told me they are going to turn my cattle loose. Regardless, I don't think we should have to restrict our operations too much, just to work around the survey. I think we should work together. I am in favour of the subdivision 100%. I have no problems with that whatsoever. I just hope we can work around the things I can't help and I don't have to change everything to suit their needs or whatever. The other concern I have is the water. I'm just looking across the field. You may have one-third of that area toward the Binbrook Village road area there that drains that way. It looks to me like two thirds is coming my way which like Dave says is just a farm drain ditch. It's not really nothing now, but I'm concerned will it be something later. . I can't even go from the farm driveway down Binbrook Road without a big steelhauler truck giving me the air horn or something, because I usually haul two loads of bales down there maybe twice a month. And in the summer we've got cottagers giving us the finger everytime we go up and down the road. So I'm not excited about it. And the noise levels are really heavy there, but that's nothing to do with farming there. That's my concern. I just hope we don't have to regulated right out of the area basically." "One thing I might add. We have never never, I don't even have a map of the survey. We've never received a map of the survey. I've had lots of stuff from across the street in Robinson's survey. The only two pieces of reference I have are on the Losani survey are strictly zoning changes. We have nothing on what's going on there whatever."

Ferguson: "Ray do you anticipate growing the herd above 70-head?" Packham: "Well my plan was that I want to get some of my herd out of where I am." "I don't plan on increasing, but the increase is only because of markets. We can't really sell anything right now - it's a cow-calf operation - so we are naturally increasing by 70 foal a year." Ferguson: "How many acres are on your property there?" Packham : "70. We also rent a lot of land and bring in feed."

Mitchell : Question on drainage to staff because drainage historically has to run back through Mr. Packham's farm, what will happen when the subdivision's built, the water flow will speed up and will this affect Mr. Packham's farm, soil erosion there, etc. Staff responds that they haven't received a stormwater management plan yet from the developer. Mitchell also notes that "the planning act circulation doesn't go wide enough to reach Mr. Packham" so he will be holding a public meeting this spring. "Actual act itself only has to go 200 metres to property owners, so it doesn't really go wide enough." "One thing I am surprised about . is the speed that Binbrook is growing. It was never expected to take off and be quite as successful I don't think in such a hurray as what it has been. And some of that is speeded up because of the Greenbelt freeze, of course. There's only a certain amount of area now that is zoned urban, that can be developed on, and with that freeze, this is already zoned so more and more people are coming there quicker." Packham : "The water problem is probably going to be a bigger problem than the smell. But I am concerned. I think it is insane that you're building houses like 600 feet from a barn. That's only four city lots and a hydro line, so I think there should be some thought put into it. Whatever you do, I'm not sure. I don't want to be chased away later, that's all. I would like it noted that this is there, and it does exist." Kelly: "And staff are going to work with the proponent on that too."

McHattie: Expresses concerns about impact on agriculture and suggests that council needs to rethink proximity of farms to subdivisions so that setbacks are required to ensure that agriculture is not negatively impacted by residential development.

Horwath : "My concern is obtaining more and more of these kinds of pressures [for development] without having our GRIDS and new Official Plan in place."

Whitehead: "Although the urban planning is there with regards to this particular development, and I hear it with people living around the airport and their concerns about the noise from the planes, from the shunting yards when people live near shunting yards. My concern is when we're moving people into an area where there is farming activity, what can be done by the developer to educate the residents, the people purchasing the homes in those residences, that there was an ongoing operation in respect to farming? So is there something that can be done from the developers' perspective to ensure that when they're selling these homes, there's an understanding that there is a pre-existing farming activity in the area?" Coveyduck: "We could look at putting some kind of environmental warning as part of the conditions in the subdivision." Mitchell : . "the last few comments that I heard here that we have to put ENVIRONMENTAL WARNINGS out to the people because there's a farm in the area. I've never heard having a farm in the area as having to send out environmental warnings. That wording should be thought about just a little more because having a farm there is not an environmental warning. However there can be the occasional NATURAL smell waft across the field, but I wouldn't say that that's an environmental warning." Coveyduck: "Tim McCabe just mentioned to me that we do put billboard signs out on these properties now, and that sign would in fact show that there's an agricultural operation."

Jackie Williamson, 3153 Highway 56 in the village of Binbrook (second public speaker): Distributed photographs to the councillors. "Some of you may recall that I've stood before the Hearings sub-committee previously on March 13, 2001 and February 20, 2002 regarding the Binbrook Urban Settlement and flooding to our property. I stand before today once again concerning the same problems. On February 27, 2002 council approved the draft plan of subdivision for Elizabeth Gardens with conditions. Planning and Development report dated February 1, 2002, file #25T200111. Item 20 of the conditions was with regards to our property. 'That the owner agrees that no development of the land shall commence until such time as the downstream storm sewer outfalls across the lands of 3153 and 3137 Regional Road #56 is constructed to convey stormwater to the existing stormwater management ponds located on the east side of Highway #56 to the satisfaction of the City.' We have had to endure so much since the Binbrook Urban Settlement started in the spring of 2000, and it has only been since the summer of 2003 that we have not seen some sort of flooding coming from the east development, Southbrook on the Green, which abuts our property, and which we were originally assured would not impact us in any way. Well I think the records that I've asked be brought forward again tell a different story. We were also assured that the City would work with the property owners abutting the original storm channel to come to some agreement as to how the water west of Highway 56 would drain into the master storm ponds. Now I find myself once again trying to protect my interests based on a mis-representation. The new Planning and Development Department Report dated February 27, 2004, concerning file #25T-200111 rationale for change, item 18 revised: ' Revised - The previous condition did not address the phasing potential of the plan of subdivision and assumed that any development west of Regional Road No. 56 would affect the properties located at 3153 and 3137 Regional Road No. 56. The revised condition allows for development in advance of the construction of the downstream storm sewer outfall provided it can be demonstrated that no additional flows will be conveyed across the two residential properties.' This is just not true. When I attended the Hearings Sub-Committee meeting on February 20, 2002, the engineer from A.J. Clarke asked committee for approval of the southwest end of the property. Committee refused. I would also like to challenge where they claim the existing drainage divide is. Flooding is not the only problem we've had to face with the new urban development. Southbrook on the Green was approximately half way done when the sewage pumping station that is south of the drainage divide and directly across Highway 56 from the applicants property started malfunctioning and overflowing sewage. And because we were at the lowest point, this sewage was draining down underground and erupting out on our property. This problem was repeatedly reported to the City as well to our alderman by me and concerned neighbours. This problem we were told was a private property owner septic system malfunctioning and that an order to comply would be sent to the owners, but they would not tell us who the owner was. This was very confusing to us because anybody around us, has their septic system in back, and this sewage was in the front of our home. We received no satisfaction from a city staff member regarding this health and environment danger until we contacted the Ministry of the Environment. This problem we had to endure for months. If the drainage divide line is correct, and this pumping station is south of this drainage divide, and the applicant claims that anything south will not affect us, then how did this sewage reach us? The reality of the situation is that the creek that runs through our property accommodates the village of Binbrook's stormwater running from the north as well as some from the south and water running from the west to the east. Yet the city takes no responsibility to see that this water gets away. This little creek is already taking more water than is realistic and yet here I find myself again opposing this water, and a developer trying to get around the law. Water being moved illegally with no permits. City staff ignoring it. Phone call after phone call and nobody responding. Water backing up our septic system on the lawn because septic systems are not designed to have water sitting on them. The City consulting with the same engineers as the developer, which I must add is a conflict of interest. These things were not an isolated incident. People were living in homes in the subdivision known as Southbrook on the Green before the stormwater management was in place, and we were originally told that it would have to be in place before and development could occur. As primitive as the original Binbrook storm plan is, our property is, and always was, Binbrook's stormwater plan. And it just isn't adequate to accommodate the major development that is occurring. The Glanbrook Township was well aware there was flooding to the Binbrook village long before the first shovel even went into the ground. It is on public record that people were concerned with the flooding that was going on since they filled in what the villagers referred to as the fire pond which was done when the new fire hall was built. The reality of this whole situation is that you can make anything work on paper. And I'm not qualified to dispute the end result. But I do possess the common sense to know water will always find a way, and will always travel to the lowest place, which is our property. They cannot guarantee we will not take any water when they are building the pond, or where the water is going to go when they start moving earth that has been the same way for many years, and all the properties settled at the same rate. It is only common sense the water will travel down to the lowest place, which once again is our property. This application for a new subdivision is currently under appeal by me in regards to zoning change from agricultural to residential, due to stormwater management and the City of Hamilton using us as the rope in a tug of war between them and the developer as to whose responsibility it is to get rid of this water. The City of Hamilton has the authority to approve these developments, but takes no responsibility for when things go wrong and then they say it is a civil matter. If we are to take any blame in this situation, it is that we should have appealed the Binbrook Urban Settlement right from the beginning. But we were assured once again that nothing east would affect us, and that when development to the west occurred, it would address the culvert at the top of our property. The Glanbrook Township engineer and the engineer from A.J. Clarke visited our home on three different occasions with plans that they had no right to present without any conservation input. The plans are in the March 13, 2001 file. Where the blame on us comes in is that we trusted these men and took them at their word. Now we have this huge creek bed abutting our property with a public walkway, and I must add, no buffer, which was promised to the existing residences. And what I must also add, not even up to the city building codes. A septic bed must be 30 metres from open water. This is not the case with our property. I feel like I am back in 1999 and I am listening to planners and engineers telling us the very same things that got us into trouble in the first place, and once again the City of Hamilton staff supporting a developer. I don't think anybody in this room today would not be standing where I am now and not oppose this new change. Please review all the history surrounding our property and do what is moral and ethical and ensure that item 20 of the original staff report, dated February 1, 2002, stays in place. We have paid our dues to the Binbrook Urban Settlement and enough is enough. We reluctantly agreed to sell our property to Mr. Losani at a fair price to accommodate this water, but he was quite confident that he did not need it, and that Elizabeth Gardens would proceed without it. If item 18 of the rationale for change is applied to this application you will leave us with no choice, and I would like to be put on record, that we are putting the City of Hamilton as well as Mr. Losani on notice that we will exercise all and every one of our legal rights pertaining to this matter."

Braden asks about history of drainage in this location before urbanization. Response from Williamson that very brief flooding (15 to 30 minutes) occurred but problems began in 1998 because the township didn't clean out the channel or require other landowners to do so. Now the cleaning out of the channel didn't solve the problem.

Ferguson asks are problems from the east side, or do you anticipate problems on the west side. Response: east side problems for several years. "They illegally moved water." Circulates before and after pictures. "We've just stopped getting flooded after three years from the property to the east. We never previously took water from the east until they moved the water illegally. But we do take the water from the west. This is the stormwater plan for the Binbrook village, always has been. They say they plan on this, but they don't own the property. So they're basing this subdivision on my property and they don't own it." Also explains their well has been contaminated. They are not attached to city water.

Whitehead asks to speak but wants to address issues rather than ask questions. Kelly: "We're doing the public portion right now. Just hold off on that for a second if you could."

Mitchell : "Where are we Jackie with regards to sale of the property to the City or to try and get on it and manage it." Williamson: "I offered. They didn't want it. . Mr. Losani, I just spoke to him last week and he was quite confident that Elizabeth Gardens would move forward without us.." Mitchell says this isn't a municipal drain and that flooding can be for 2-3 days, not just half an hour.

Virginia Hammill , third public speaker, lives at 3137 Highway 56 for 37 years. Supports Mrs. Williamson. "She's exactly right." No flooding problems until 1998. Reiterates much of previous speaker's history of problems and failure to take action. And once again explains the situation and the causes as understood by the residents. "Once development begins there will be no control of this water and therefore we will be flooded. Therefore I feel no development should take place west of Highway 56 until there is a legal and binding agreement of your intentions towards my property." Also puts City and Losani on notice that she will take legal action. Also has photos. No questions asked by councillors.

Mike (name not audible), fourth public speaker . "My concerns are just like the past presentors, how the speed of the survey is going. I'm on the west side of Regional Road 56. My concern also, not only with the water, with the volume of traffic - like Mr. Packham said, the amount of steel trucks, the amount of garbage trucks, but if you look at the existing Binbrook community core, and I've been part of it for 22 years. I think we had originally 150 cars just in the village. With just the development that's on the Robinson side of development, we have over 460 cars. The volume of traffic that's coming now just from the one survey, I don't think that the councillors or the City of Hamilton had planned for the amount of traffic that's going to be brought up when the rest of the development that has been proposed, takes place. . Front of our property on Regional Road 56 is unuseable with the amount of traffic." Needs another traffic survey. Neighbours took months to sell their house because of the volume of traffic going by. No questions from councillors.

Kelly asks a final time for public speakers. "Seeing none, there are a couple of points raised about the proposal itself. And usually in a situation like this we ask the proponent to come back and to answer some of those if they so desire. Mr. Ariens, do you have any comments about some of the things that have been raised.? Then I'm going to bring it back to the committee."

Whitehead asks if the citizens are going to be "given an opportunity to respond to the proponent. Because this seems to be a." Kelly: "Councillor, the residents have had their say, they've raised somc questions about the development itself, and usually what we do in the protocol here is have the proponent come back to address." Whitehead: "My question though is, if something comes out of this discussion, will the residents have an opportunity to respond to that?" Kelly: "No councillor, because the residents are not partaking in the debate this morning. That's your job. They are here to make presentations and to express their concerns, which they've done. Which is why I wanted you to hold off on the questions because obviously there was a concurrent theme running through all of them. And when we get into the debate, you'll have an opportunity to debate, ask staff, and things of this nature. But we do not as a rule have the residents take part in the debate itself. This is a point of clarification. Mr. Ariens, go ahead."

John Ariens: Notes that main drainage stream flows through the proposed subdivision and that a stormwater management area off site "will create the bathtub that will hold the post-development and pre-development flows through this area. Condition 18 provides Ms. Williamson and Ms. Hammill the protection that they require." "I think it's the conditions of draft plan approval and the implementation of those that will provide the level of protection that's required and will ensure that the improvments are in fact implemented."

Ferguson: "You're saying from the conservation area north will drain to the east side of 56?" Asks for sketch of stormwater improvements associated with development of the north part of the subdivision. Ariens: "There will be rechannelization, culvert replacement, perhaps gabion baskets, some type of reinforcement of that creek." Ferguson asks when construction will take place that will address residents' problems. Ariens: "That will be in phase two of the development, because the southerly portion of the development, as I indicated, will drain to the south." Ferguson- Ariens back and forth establishes that southerly portion (which the applicant wants to proceed with now) Ariens: "Really the development is put on hold unless we can demonstrate to the staff and the conservation authority that the southerly half can go without any impediment to those two properties [Williamson and Hamill]. Those are the safeguards. It's through condition 18." Ferguson: "Will you push any dirt until that drainage ditch is constructed between Southbrook and 56?" Ariens says yes if they can show it won't cause a problem "without that missing link being fixed, yes we will push that dirt." Ferguson: asks if it will affect their project "if we insisted on that". Ariens: "Yes sir, if effectively delays the southerly half." Ferguson suggests it would give them more incentive to proceed with phase two. Ariens says there are lots of incentives already. Ferguson asks if Ariens is 100% certain that the missing link will solve the problems. Ariens: "Yes". Ferguson asks City staff if they agree: "Mr. Norman, would you agree that the construction precede between 56 and Southbrook would eliminate the problems we've seen this morning. Answer inaudible. Ferguson asks if Losani is willing to fund an independent third party opinion to represent the residents. (inaudible response).

Mitchell argues that the City buy the Williamson property and solve the problem because we'll eventually own it anyway. Tim McCabe , Director of Development responds that the City has done an appraisal of the property, but that it's the private developers responsibility, and the City has not moved to expropriate, and that it may not be appropriate to do that unless it was the city's responsibility to do the stormwater management rather than the developers. Mitchell says problem won't be corrected until the City owns it. Ariens notes that "acquisition is but one solution. Granting an easement or a right of way over that channel is another solution that Losani certainly is prepared to do. I think the process has to start with draft plan approval, and condition 18 requires that those storm drainage works have to be addressed to your satisfaction. And whether that includes acquisition, or an easement, or whatever, the door starts by granting draft plan approval. That's the incentive then for the developer to proceed with his design and his solving of the problem." Kelly: "and hopefully we can come up with some sort of a definition on that today."

Whitehead: "Well first of all I want to make it clear that this process has to be reviewed. Because I believe that we have an opportunity to debate what was presented by the developer and presented by the residents. At the conclusion of that presentation we have an opportunity to debate and ask clarification of staff. So when a developer representative can come up here and speak after residents, I feel that there's an imbalance in the process. So I just want to put that out there, and make that clear. Secondly I want to know if you're so sure in regards to the resolution of the grading problems with the water, then are you prepared to put up some kind of a bond to ensure that if there are problems, that bond would be given to the City?" Ariens: "The subdivision agreement typically requires letters of credit and a one or two year maintenance period after the subdivision is completed before any securities are released. That's the standard mechanism we use and we certainly are willing to follow that." Whitehead: "I think I'm talking something over and above what's currently in place because what I'm hearing is that we have residents that endured a problem with water since 1999. We have a leapfrog residential development that's taking place in Binbrook. There's concerns about all this pavement and the effect that it will have in regards to water, speed of water and drainage, and I want to know exactly how far the developer is prepared to go to address the problem, other than giving us some guarantees in the report or talking about moving towards the direction. I'm not comfortable because I've seen this before. I want to know how far is the developer prepared to go." Ariens: "If the municipality requires special securities or additional securities to implement storm drainage, that can be addressed through your subdivision agreement."

McHattie: The problem described to us by residents has been exacerbated by previous developments, doesn't involve you. Is it your [the developer's] responsibility to do the stormwater management downstream. Ariens: Its our problem and we have to address it under existing wording of section 18. "If we can demonstrate that the southerly portion can go without impacting that problem, that southerly portion can go. That doesn't mean that we're going to do the southerly portion and ignore the problem because we're designing the entire subdivision to make sure from a grading and drainage perspective that it will work. The second phase is perhaps six months behind that first phase, if that first phase is approved. The subdivision will automatically be staged south to north and that solution to that missing link as we call it will be addressed almost immediately after than first phase." McHattie : Still more than six months to a year before it is addressed. Can you consider a commitment to deal with this problem as soon as possible? Ariens: "All I can say, sir, is that we've heard that Binbrook Village is growing by leaps and bounds, and there's tremendous development potential in Binbrook Village. It is a very active market in Binbrook. Losani is quite anxious to complete this subdivision. In fact, he's looking at additional lands in Binbrook which also will ultimately drain through this area. All we're simply asking for is a balanced approach. If part of this development is not part of the problem, let it go ahead prior to completely solving that problem. It's all we're asking for. We're not trying to delay solving that problem. In my opinion that problem will be solved within that six months, perhaps maximum to a year. But certainly within that immediate time frame that problem will be addressed.."

Ferguson tries to determine steps to get to a building permit and how long that will take and suggests that problem be solved before the building permits (in November at the earliest) are issued. Ariens rejects this. Ferguson asks Tim McCabe: "We just need a club to make sure that link gets done as soon as possible. If we approve the southerly portion it could be five years, but if we say no building permits will be granted till the missing link is done, it will still allow them to proceed." Tim McCabe : "I think the big club is there. They're going to have a very small portion of the subdivision, being the south part, that can proceed without the channelization done. And with the shortage of residential and land supply that we have in this city, there's going to be huge pressure to bring on the balance of the subdivision along with other developers in the area to make this thing work." Ferguson: "The channelization was going to be done in 04 anyway, right?" Ariens: "Potentially not for the southerly portion." Ferguson: "When do you intend to the channelization from the Conservation pond on the west side and hook it to the stormwater retention pond on the east side?" Ariens: "The timing of that will coincide with the registration of phase two. So assuming that we sell phase one within that first year. Phase two would start the subsequent year." Ferguson: "So it could be 2-3 years?" Ariens: "It could be." Ferguson: "There's the rub." Ariens: "If I could add, sir. Let's say we needed a stoplight at Binbrook Road and Highway 56 and the magic number was a thousand homes. All we're asking for is the 200 at this point, rather than having to front end that stoplight from day one. Give us the 200 homes now and then we'll build the stoplight when we register that next 800 units." Ferguson: "We'll we don't solve a mess by making another mess." Ariens: "At the same time, we're not creating that drainage problem. There's been no development on the west side of Binbrook Road. That drainage channel is taking farm drainage. We're not creating the problem. The drainage flows that are there today have not been exacerbated by any development whatsoever." Kelly intervenes about the "Q and A". Ferguson: "I want it referred back. There's too many unanswered questions."

Whitehead: "How many homes in this development?" Ariens : "300 odd, sir." Whitehead: "And you're looking at other lands because currently as a result of the restrictions of the greenbelt there's a lot of opportunity in Binbrook for development within the urban boundary?" Ariens: "In fact the Binbrook Village secondary plan I believe has a population potential of over 15,000." Whitehead: "What was the average home price?" Ariens: "$250-280K" Whitehead: "We have two individuals with drainage problems. There's concerns about all the water flow that may come out of this development, that may contribute. I'm not disputing the fact that there's a pre-existing problem and I'm not sure who or how it's been caused. There's no question in my mind that when you add more pavement it's just going to make it worse. So we're talking about 300 homes plus, average $250,000, that the developer doesn't see a need to purchase the properties that are being mostly impacted by this drainage problem?" Ariens: "Acquisition in one option, easements are another option." Whitehead: "Which is obviously the preferred option for the developer - easement?" Ariens: "Not necessarily. That needs to be negotiated with the two property owners." Whitehead : "But we're talking a multi-multi-million dollar development here." Ariens: "Yes."

Kelly thanks Ariens and asks for committee debate. Whitehead: "I'd like to table it. Refer it back until we get more clarification. I want to understand exactly what is needed to resolve these drainage issues." Horwath seconds. Braden asks to comment [tabling motion is not debatable].

Braden: "Very general question, with Binbrook. It was going to be designed to be a bit of a model sort of village, and by that I mean a nice place to live and work. And there's this element of work. We were going to create some real long-term jobs. Have we any success so far in getting or attracting real long-term jobs in the Binbrook community? And I'm asking this question because this just looks like a dormitory town to me." Kelly intervenes: "Well were dealing with a planning issue here and you're talking about economic development and job growth. I don't necessarily know if there's anybody on staff here who's has the information available for that, councillor." Staff person agrees to respond: "Obviously construction creates jobs but I don't know about long-term up in Binbrook." Braden switches to stream and conservation buffer: "Do we understand how many acres this is and will the city actually own this land and have to hire more labourers to go and cut all the grass. What kind of responsibility is the city going to get into if all of this goes ahead and are we actually going to own all that land and how much is it? 37 metres wide plus three retention ponds - that's a lot of parkland to look after." Staff: "The intent is that all these areas are naturalized areas, low in maintenance, so as the channelization proceeds through the development area, in conjunction with the conservation authority, MNR, DFO, it's planted in such a way that we're not in there cutting grass. So there should be very minimal staff costs associated with that. Same with the ponds." Braden: "We talked about the concept of a drainage problem and what measures might have to be done. I think I heard that perhaps we need to lower the bed of the drainage ditch. Was there ever any consideration given to raising the banks, cause you gotta do one or the other. So I want to figure out if the bed of that drainage ditch underneath the road is at the right height." Staff : "Very good point. The bed has to be lowered approximately five feet. We've already completed the improvements on the lower portion of the channel so in order to get the proper catchment area into the channel as per the drainage area, that's the way we have to progress at this point. The culverts that currently exist on Highway 56 are drastically undersized and can't convey the flows that will be generated. This whole drainage area is part of a master servicing plan already approved by the conservation authorities, DFO and MNR and requires a series of ponds to be placed in order to control both water quality and quantity for the whole catchment area." Braden asks the grade for the stream. Answer is 0.5 to 2%. Braden: "You know when you hear the debate, it's awfully interesting, because right at the end you hear the consultant saying - and this is not a criticism of the person - that there is no more water coming down there with respect to development. So I don't challenge, but that means that this whole problem belongs to somebody else. And that's the reason we've got to understand as a group of lay people - so I'm a lay person - how this is arriving. Because otherwise we just want to blame somebody. And much as I not want to blame developers but make sure they always pay their way, I don't want to ever point the finger at them unfairly. So we really need to know. Is this drainage ditch anything to do with developers or is it to do with something else?"

Mitchell: "It's quite a learning experience for all of us. I would suggest that staff should have to prepare a presentation on the development of Binbrook to all of us so we can get a better understanding of it. Binbrook is growing into a town of 15,000 people over the next 30 to 50 years. Maybe it's going to be faster than that. It wasn't initially supposed to go this fast.The plans have all been done. All the whole drainage course goes back up towards Fletcher Road and each of the different property owners, as development hits, are going to have to pay a percentage of the construction of all of this as time goes on. So there's a lot of different issues here." Also notes stoplights will eventually be put in place to address traffic issues. Suggests that if it is tabled, in only be for a short period.

McHattie: Asks that the staff presentation proposed by Mitchell also address Braden's comments. "What is the vision for the town of Binbrook? Is it a bedroom community, or are we into mixed use style of development. And what steps are being taken to ensure that it doesn't become a bedroom community. How is it supported by HSR and the future. So not just dealing with the stormwater issues."

Tim McCabe [staff]: What we have before us is a lot more simplified than all of this discussion. I think it would be go for all of us to have a bigger presentation on Binbrook. What the original intent and objectives of the plan were and where the staging has progressed to. But this report, Mr. Chairman, that you have before you today. This plan has already been draft approved by Council. And this council has already approved the zoning. Mrs Williamson has appealed the zoning that was passed by council in the fall. The only question before you, and there's been a lot of discussion on it, is are you prepared to allow a part of the subdivision that drains in a different direction with all the professional engineering analysis done to ensure that, ahead of the acquisition of the properties and the completion of the channel. That's the only question really that's new and it was the main reason that we brought this report before you. We could have approved it as part of the delegated authority, but we knew it was a sensitive manner. So are you prepared to allow a partial phase of this to proceed without the acquisition of the properties and the completion of the channel, subject to the proper engineering analsyis to show there won't be any increase, or any direction of additional storm flow to the north. And that, Mr. Chairman if I can simplify it, is the only question that we'd asked you consider today."

Ferguson: "I would agree with Mr. McCabe but the residents are once bitten, twice shy, so in terms of direction, I would like to add to that motion that the proponent fund a peer review to the satisfaction of the residents. And we're not talking months here. We're talking weeks."

Whitehead: "I was going to table it originally. I think that we can give strong direction on the approval of this particular resolution. Some of the things that councillor Ferguson has raised, some of the things that councillor McHattie has raised, and certainly councillor Mitchell. I'd love to see a holistic presentation in respect to traffic flows, and vision, the whole development concept for Binbrook, because I'm a bit puzzled by it. I know that it's going to increase traffic dramatically. I know that we're also talking about, with the greenbelt being frozen, that there's going to be a lot more development happening at a much faster rate than first anticipated. How are we accommodating that growth, that fast-track growth? Are we ready for it? I don't know and those are the kinds of answers that I'd like to see come back to this committee. I'm actually prepared to consider this staff recommendation, but with strong direction." Withdraws tabling motion.

Pearson: "A lot has been said around the table today, and I certainly sympathize with the residents. I understand with development in Stoney Creek, and this isn't new, it happens all the time in dealing with drainage problems and it's not something that's going to be fixed overnight. But in light of this particular development - and these residents have been affected even before this development came in. That's one thing that I just want to be sure is on the table that everybody recognizes. And without this development, there problems is not going to be, I'm not going to say it will be completely solved, but it's not going to even be addressed unless we move ahead and allow some of this to go forward. And I certainly agree with councillor Ferguson's recommendation that they have a peer review, and I think the proponent is agreeable to that, and I hope there's some timelines to it. Because the longer we prolong this, the longer this problem is going to exist."

McHattie asks Whitehead why he's dropping the tabling motion. "If there is an opportunity for the developer to investigate an easement or purchase of the property in question that's flooded, and solve the problem earlier rather than later. I know the proponent wishes to save it to phase two. But if our interest was in actually solving the problem as soon as possible, and the developer may have to move quicker than they'd like to, but if there is a greater public interest in doing that, then I don't see why we don't consider tabling it today, allowing the two weeks for discussion" and may get an agreement to resolve this issue.

Kelly says Whitehead has withdrawn his motion and suggests McHattie can try his own tabling motion "if you so desire". McHattie: Just asking for clarification from Whitehead.

Whitehead : "Well I think that staff had made their presentation in response to councillor Fergusons's questioning, with clarification of what this report is and what it says, and some of our obligations. In that renewed light I felt comfortable moving forward with this particular recommendation, with conditions and directions. . I don't think what councillor McHattie's suggesting is precluded by the passing of this particular report. That would probably be one of my directions - is to ask the staff to work with the developer and work with the residents that are impacted to fast track a resolution on the first phase, as opposed to waiting for the second phase to completely resolve the issue. I would do it as a direction as opposed to tabling it."

Braden: "I have a suggestion - taking action today, but with one amendment, and that amendment would be that the drainage issues have to be dealt with first. . No development north or south until the issue's done. Institute councillor Ferguson's idea about the immediate peer review. So now we've got the draft subdivision down. Then we have the peer review done. So then we're smart about this and we understand what's going on. If in the peer review it looks like we have been too difficult with the developer, or we learn something from that, then we can amend it. So we are completely covered. We are covering the residents. We're not holding it up. And I think that we're going to be reasonable if in fact we find through the peer review that it's irrelevant to that flooding because of other development around it. What we really do need to know is what's causing the problem. And we do want to be party to fixing it. That sort of structure and timeline allows us to go forward. I simply don't know how hard it is to make that small amendment later if we felt it was appropriate to the draft conditions. We could do that and we'd be finished with this for now until the peer review. And I'm not a member of the committee, Mr. Chairman, so I just put that on the table as an idea."

Kelly asks for response from McCabe on feasibilty. McCabe: "If you look an engineering condition 18 if this Council wants to not allow any phasing, and force the developer to be expeditious in trying to resolve the property acquisition and the channel, then just delete everything after 'Highway 56'. If you want to support the phasing of this subdivision in a manner that the first phase directs all the water to the south, then the balance of that condition remains, but that's where you tack on your peer review. That the peer review is another engineering consultant analysing and making a recommendation and supporting the fact that the engineering design is such that it will not direct any increase of water to the north. That's what the peer review would be. And the demonstration of that additional flow would also have to be agreed to by a peer review. So that's where I see councillor Ferguson's idea of a peer review. That there would be another engineering consultant, hired by the city, paid for by the developer, to confirm the facts that the additional flows will not in any way go to the north. If you want to force the resolution of the channel and not allow this developer to phase it, then just delete everything after 'Highway 56'."

Ferguson back and forth with McCabe to clairify. Ferguson: "When will the channelization be done?" McCabe: "Before they can get one more building after phase one so they are going to be stuck with the majority of their plan having to resolve this issue." Ferguson: "That could be 2-3 years." McCabe: "Could be." Ferguson to Ariens : "Are you willing to commit to a time frame for that channelization on the east side of 56, short of three years. 1.5 would be nice." Ariens can't promise. Ferguson: "We're developing more and we've got an existing problem on the east side. That's the problem I have. A peer review is going to either prove that or disprove that. It's not going to help the existing situation. And the existing situation was perpetrated by development on the east, and this development isn't going to help it. I'd like to see a commitment to do that channelization soon and I don't hear it."

Whitehead asks staff to explain what they mean when they say "could be demonstrated". Mr. Norman : "If we're not clear on an issue, we ask - in this case the owner's engineer - to explain to us, to show us with engineering drawings, to explain it verbally. It's just a word that emcompasses to make us understand what they're coming for so that we can make a decision on that matter at hand." Whitehead : "I know that the Wright Brothers had a lot of nice designs and that on how a place could fly before they actually had one that could fly. And so demonstration in print and in practical terms are two different things so I have concern about that."

McHattie: Takes up McCabe suggestion. Motion to modify clause 18 to end at 'Highway 56', and drop the remaining part of the clause. Ferguson willing to second but wants peer review added. McHattie explains the motion precludes that because it is asking the developer to solve the problem. McCabe agrees that peer review not required, but clarifies this is not what staff are recommending.

Mitchell: "This issue going on for a long time and I really as the local councillor don't want to slow down the whole development process without some sort of plan in place, because this is an ongoing situation." Notes that Mr. Packham is concerned about the drainage going south toward his farm. Mitchell thinks this won't go across his farm at any different speed.

Motion carried. Amended motion carried.

6.2 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 120 Bay Street North (Hamilton) (PD04075) (Ward 2). This is to allow establishment of a take-out restaurant on the corner of Bay and Cannon, plus a residence on the second floor. The applicant is Guangwei Zhou. There was one letter of opposition received which argued that this site should be put to better uses, is located in a high traffic congestion area, and increased the danger for pedestrians and allows no parking area.

Staff report provided. Questions from Whitehead on traffic accidents at this corner. Staff indicate they don't have that information. Whitehead points out that this information is gathered and he would like to have it included in the staff reports when a citizen has raised this issue in a letter on the application. Horwath asks staff question about master planning for this area. They don't have the information with them. The proponent was present and through an interpreter said he agreed with the staff recommendations. No public speakers. Horwath moved an amendment to the motion to change the word "encouraged" to the word "required" to consult before making changes to the outside of this heritage building. Asks staff for an update on the status of the new zoning bylaw being developed for downtown. Tim McCabe : "We have split off the city's comprehensive zoning bylaw from the OP reform project this past August. With council's support, we had a staff compliment approved in the fall. Al Fletcher has been hired. We now have a team in place as of April 1 st . . The downtown zoning bylaw is the first stage of the city's new comprehensive bylaw so we are preparing new mapping, new general provisions, new parking." Outlines schedule of public consultation and says they will be able to complete it by the end of the year. Horwath moves the amendment and the motion. Carried.

6.3 Application to Amend the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law for Lands Located at 937 Upper Paradise Road (Hamilton) (PD04070) (Ward 8) The applicant is Frank Giordano, and the land is 0.38 hectares. It is located on Upper Paradise, just south of Stone Church Road. One home exists on the land and the applicant wants to add four more.

Staff report provided. Proponent supports staff report. Two gentlemen addressed the committee , one speaking on behalf of the owner of 939 Upper Paradise (Mr. Laporte, who was the second speaker). The owner is unhappy with the urbanization of the area, is having problems with litter (blamed on students) and high traffic and noise, including high speeds on Upper Paradise. The owner wanted to live in a quiet agricultural area and bought his home with the plan to use it for his retirement. Cited loss of privacy and loss of use of the front of his property. No questions and no discussion from councillors. Staff recommendation moved by Ferguson, seconded by Pearson. Carried.

6. 4 International Village BIA regarding the proposed development by Good Shepherd Non- Profit homes, at 260-280 King Street East. The BIA has requested an opportunity to speak to the committee regarding this development.

This item was postponed. The delegation has asked to appear at a future date. Kelly: "Staff are working with the proponents on that particular project and we may have some news on that in the not to distant future."

PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Hamilton's Sustainability Indicator Report (PD04044) (City Wide) The full report is available on the City's website at www.vision2020.hamilton.ca/about/indicators.asp . Parts of it are quite critical of current city practices, especially with regard to poor land use practices, failure to be holistic, and not paying attention to the crucial role of quality of life in economic development.

Presentation by staff - Linda Harvey . "Hamilton is the leader in sustainability reporting in every single venue that I attend. The national summit on municipal governance recruited us to come and talk about the indicators program because it is seen to be probably one of the most sophisticated indicator programs in the world." . "The Vision 2020 website had 475,000 hits last year. . It's one of the premier programs for the city internationally. . Sustainability is about interconnectivity. So its about understanding the relationships between society, economy and environment. It's not rocket science to figure out that if you act in one area you're going to have a reaction in the other areas. . Sustainability is about looking at the long-term, it's about open and participatory government, and it's about equity and fairness." Notes that sustainabilitiy is now "at the core of federal decision-making". "Because of Vision 2020 Hamilton is positioned very, very well when they start looking for places to do sustainability on a local scale. And in fact we've received some recognition and we're in the process of receiving about $125,000 in funding from the federal government to continue with the program. So it positions Hamilton very well in terms of federal recognition and federal funding. So to make a vision a reality we can't just hang around and have a vision of what we want to be. We have to have ways of actually making it come true. And one of the ways we do that is by keeping track of what's going on. If we don't measure, we don't learn, and we don't improve." . "We're required by the province to measure municipal performance indicators, but they measure something entirely different. They answer different questions. . They talk about what does it cost per kilometre of road to build. . The sustainability indicators program compliments this because it really looks a little deeper. In addition to those it looks at what are the outcomes of the interactions that are occurring? Are we working at cross purposes? That means do we have policies in one area, or decisions that are having a negative effect on some of the other goals that we're trying to achieve. And very specifically, are we moving positively towards our long term goals. That's what the sustainability indicators add to the mix. The indicators report card and report look at things like land use, air quality, health, shelter occupancy, arts and culture, all of the things that interact to make the city what we want it to be. And again, it alerts us to trends that are happening that are beginning to shape our community. We are really fortunate that we've had this report since 1995 and we're being able to view some of these trends to see what's really going on. . In terms of the economic impacts, they're huge. For the Ontario economy last year a billion dollars in air pollution costs were incurred, and that was specifically for hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeism from jobs." . "Land use decisions affect obesity and lifestyle which directly affects our health. There's social costs in terms of time that families spend driving around in cars and commuting. There's documentation in terms of creating a vehicle dependent society causes community participation, trust and social engagement to decline. . Mobility and accessibility are affected as well in terms of the way we construct our neighbourhoods to only be accessible by cars. It disenfranchises a whole lot of people who don't drive - young people, old people and people who simply don't choose to." Looks at specific indicators: "This trend on volunteerism is the single most substantive factor that will help us achieve a sustainable community in Hamilton. Volunteerism in Hamilton is up at a time when nationally it's on the decline and this is historical for Hamilton in that we've always valued giving back to our community. There's a big jump between 2001 and 2002 and part of the reason for that is that it became part of the high school curriculum." Evidence of successes: "water consumption is down 47% from where we started back in 1993." Increases in protected natural areas, visits to museums and cultural venues up, some improvements in air quality, downtown housing starts are way up, waste reduction improvements. "But lets look at the priorities for action identified in the indicators report this time. We need to look at land use differently. We need to take smart growth seriously and not only because of what's happening here with Vision 2020, but also because of what's happening provincially. We need to look at economic development differently and take some new approaches." . Notes loss of agricultural lands: "between 2000 and 2002 the rate of change is accelerating at an alarming rate, and this trend we have to be aware of. It's extremely important. It's having effects in other areas. We are building things far out that aren't transit-supportive. We're not building mixed use. So what have we got? We've got transit ridership that's actually declining slightly. It's no where near the target we set for ourselves. Individually, the number of cars per person is going up, so we're not offering enough choices in transportation. Look at hospitalization rates for respiratory illness. They were going down for a while, but really they're trending up. This only goes to 2000 which gives us some concern for what's happening between 2000 and 2004. These are only available every couple of years now. . Nitrogen dioxide is one of the air quality trends that's really of concern because this is directly related to vehicle emissions. And a third of non-traumatic deaths due to air pollution is related to NO2. And basically it hasn't changed in a decade. . Homelessness is a national issue, but in Hamilton 158% of the time the shelters are overcapacity. This is an extreme concern. But again it comes back to how conditions relate. The local economy here is not able to support the basic needs, the very basic needs, of more and more people. This is a national issue but there are some things we need to do in the spirit of Vision 2020 to deal with that. One of them is to partner with senior governments, like he have, or make a very direct approach like Mayor DiIanni has recently done. That's certainly part of the mix. But really, we have to do our own stuff a little smarter too and we have some opportunities to do that through GRIDS and through the OP. So when we are making land-use decisions, are we supporting economic development. We've got 15% of our assessment base in non-residential, 85% in residential. So when we're making land use change decisions, are we supporting economic development or are we supporting a kind of residential development that actually costs us money over time. So when you're looking at generating revenues, are your land use decisions generating revenues over a long time, or only in the short term? Are we finding ways to lower our servicing costs to free up more money to deal with the things that we need to deal with? . Economic development is an absolute priority. It's the third leg of the stool and it's falling apart. We have a number of ways that we're beginning to deal with that, but the way that I think that we have an opportunity that's untapped, is to look at quality of life, look at our arts, culture and rich diversity of residents in the city, and look at if we can leverage those to start meeting some of our economic development needs. So in the past we've relied on construction of industrial sites and that nature in terms of job creation. There's a whole new way of looking at things in terms of dealing with quality of life to generate economic development. . So what are we actually doing? . Hamilton's taking action in terms of, we know that social, economic and environment interact so we have to integrate our planning processes. And that's what we're doing under Building a Strong Foundation. We know we have to measure more than just the financial aspects, so we're evaluating things in terms of the triple bottom line. We're looking at social costs, environmental costs and economic costs together over the short and long term. We're also sharing knowledge across the community in a number of ways." Integrated strategic planning, interdepartmental collaboration, integrated policy, reference to master plans, OP, social development strategy, business plans, etc. "GRIDS in a simple statement is the physical form of the city that's going to allow us to achieve our Vision 2020 goals. It integrates land use, transportation and all these other things. Again it's about understanding that decisions relate. We're taking action also in terms of doing life cycle costing. What are the long term infrastructure costs of the different kinds of residential and non-residential development that we approve? What does it actually cost us for community services over time? We do open and participatory government. That helps us bring together the resources that we need. . And we need to consider all groups and future generations so that we deal in terms of equity and fairness. . So what's the actual purpose of the indicators report card? It's to generate debate and action." Meant to be a starting place for debate. "Conflict is important. If we don't conflict we don't learn." Recommendation: "We have to start using the information that's in the report and it's important to formalize this." . "Collecting indicators is an absolutely useless exercise unless you use what's in it. So we've gone to all the trouble. We're internationally known. I think we should start actually formally directing the information to certain processes. Now you may choose not to do a complete Strategic Plan review this year . but if you don't, other opportunities to come and talk to you about how you could use this information could certainly be arranged, and you know where to find me if you need me. The other thing I want to leave you with is that sustainability is about open and participatory government. But what that really means is we need to collaborate for success. And when we were out last spring doing Strong Foundation and community consultation, the overwhelming message was that residents, community organizations, citizens and government agencies are all commited to coming together to work towards this shared vision. So you've got an incredibly powerful document here that's got a lot of community buy-in and a lot of stakeholder buy-in and they want to work with you to create the future for the city and I think that's pretty special."

McHattie: "On the staff reports that we get, there's a section that speaks to Vision 2020 on particular reports and my concern is that decision by decision we need better evaluation in the staff reports, how this stuff relates to Vision 2020. We've just heard about the potential loss of agricultural function in one of the discussions this morning. Nothing about that in the staff report in terms of the Vision 2020 implications, loss of farmland and that sort of thing. So I'm wondering if there's any efforts underway to improve how staff fills out that Vision 2020 component. Because you're right, connectivity is critical and if we're not getting that it's not really being applied on a decision by decision basis." Harvey: "That's absolutely right. In order to answer that, we did do a corporate wide training program on Vision 2020, but the problem is from a social marketing perspective, and we get this time and time again in terms of response. The report template itself says Strategic Commitment. It hearkens back to the strategic plan. There's no prompt there to remind people to comment on the Vision 2020 portion. If you actually click on the little pull down menu, if you haven't turned them off, it says comment on the social, economic and environmental implications of your recommendations. But a lot of people apparently turn that off and aren't even aware it's there. So we've been advocating for awhile, for maybe a visual prompt on the template just to remind people of relating their issues back to the sustainability piece. That's work we still need to do." McHattie: "I would certainly reinforce that, and maybe up to general manager Peace's level, that needs to be examined - the way Vision 2020 is dealt with on a staff report basis because I think we're losing it. The comment is, and I certainly see it by reading through the report at all times. If you can somehow convey that to the higher level and the way the reports are designed. The second question is: for the budget that we're going through right now. Have you been asked to comment on the budget from a Vision 2020 sustainability perspective? And the reason I mention that is your emphasis on interconnections. Put HSR fare up by 5 cents. How does that affect social services? Those kinds of things - I just use that as an example - there's lots of interconnections and it's not immediately apparent. We get the presentations in a silo approach. Social services talks to us, HSR talks to us, Public Works talks to us. And you ask them questions about interconnections and you don't get the responses, other than 'oh yeah maybe there is an interconnection but we don't see it'. So we need some kind of Vision 2020 review of the budget and the way it's put together, and I'm just wondering if you've done that?" Harvey: "No, I haven't personally had the opportunity to do that. The very broad interconnectivity issues you're talking about really stem out of the indicators report and the trends that we're seeing. And so there needs to be a link between the indicators report and the budget process and I think we can work on that. But Mrs. Coveyduck and the other senior managers are aware so they're obligated to report on the sustainabilty piece, and I think they do when they have a chance. But in terms of an overall look at the whole budget, and if we're working at cross purposes, that's a piece of work that needs to happen." McHattie: "Mr. Chair, I would just identify that as another need that we need to get into. The rest of this budget we're hopefully finalizing the end of the month. We'll look to next year's budget to try and make that happen." Coveyduck: "I was just going to mention the report format. We do have a number of staff in the corporation that have expressed some concerns with the existing report format so we are going to be looking at opportunities to improve on that."

Braden: "This is about indicators. This is a great document, and I don't give compliments very often. There's a lot of good wisdom in this if we'd only pay attention to it, we'd be doing well. The indicators on jobs: I think that we need to do more work to understand, because the job market after we saw those 7000 figures. Those are just too scary for anybody to deal with. So I would encourage you to get job statistics that are relevant. What kinds of jobs? Are these hamburg-flipping jobs? Are these jobs that your and my children we want to encourage them to stay here and get those jobs? We need to know that and we need to know the direction. Agricultural statistics: you know if you take out certain farms, and I won't be too political, those are really good farms. We've got to keep those. And we're letting them go for things like golf courses, for God's sake. Then we're keeping some lands. You know the McCanns has a dog business. That land is absolutely useless, but for a city person it might look like it's agricultural land. So we need to be able to decipher between what's valuable productive land and what's agricultural land of very little value. Because then that figure has real value. For instance, I just did a little math here. It looks like if we build the mid-pen, we'll lose 4400 acres, probably of really good land. If that's true, somebody needs to look at that, cause this council with just a flip of the finger just said go. But if I'm right at 4400 acres, taking off some quarters on both sides, that's huge. So I hope that you can look at. I think we need to not to just be the academic and the compiler but we need you to have a bit of a whip, so that this is driven home. And I'm not going to ask you if the expressway is sustainable, because I'm not going to put you in that position. But what I'd really like to know is if you have any sense that middle and senior staff pay attention to this document at all? We really need to know that." Harvey: "My commentary in the past, and I maintain, is that that is the most under-utilized document in the city. And we're working to improve that, but we certainly need council support to indicate to everyone how important it is, and you must take it seriously. And then it follows that staff will follow your lead as always which is how it should be."

Horwath: "I think that some of the issues that councillor McHattie raised need to be formalized and I'll be prepared to put a motion in that regard, adding to the recommendation that's here. The one thing that's come up in regards to this Vision 2020 document - and I actually met recently with economic development staff - and that's the issue of cultural industries. I had asked economic development staff to please formalize in the review or the upgrade of the economic development strategy, formalize the cultural industries cluster, as a cluster for us to be spending some time and attention to in this city. And it took me some time, unfortunately, to get the concept across. I'm a little bit concerned about that. I don't know whether a formal motion is required, but in fact I'm going to put one, directly the economic development staff to include cultural industries as a cluster in our updated economic development strategy report. I believe it's under review right now. I've asked one-on-one with staff for that to happen, and now I'm prepared to put that motion . The other two things that I want to include in a motion is to specifically ask clerks to modify the report template that includes the prompt for Vision 2020 comments, and also formally ask this council for endorse a formal link between the indicators report and our budget process for 2005. Those will be my three motions." Coveyduck: "We are in the midst of that review right now, and it's probably going to be something that will require business development, tourism and downtown renewal to look at as well."

Horwath moves the staff recommendation and her motions, seconded by McHattie.

Mitchell : "The Vision 2020 information, that's fabulous information, but we used to have it for Regional Council. On every report, it was always there, the feelings of what Vision 2020 meant. My problem with that was depending on who wrote the report, Vision 2020 has your three parts - your social, economic and environment - and depending on the person that wrote the report, which slant it went to was what you got in your five or six statements in the report. Yes, this supports the Vision 2020 under this section of the book, da da da. But if you took a person that was more concerned about the economic structure of the city, or the social component of the city, or another avenue; they could go to another section of Vision 2020 and slant that document that we're getting to say that Vision 2020 supports what you're doing. And I looked at Vision 2020 - great - because it supports absolutely whatever we're doing, or whatever you're not doing, depending on which segment and which slant of the three sections you go to to pull out of it. So it's a great piece of information, but unless you're going to measure somehow, what's fair and what's not fair, it's very subjective to who actually pulled the information out of it and wrote the report, because of those three major components. So I'm not going to vote against this recommendation. I don't mind having it there, but we as councillors have to keep that in mind. Because whatever the mindset of the person that wrote that - was more social, that's where their comment's going; if it's more economic, that's where there comment's going; if it's more environmental, that's where their comment's going. And they're all there and can be made believeable in that document - fabulous document. It's all there. There's my concern. So there's no right and wrong to that."

Kelly: "Your point's well taken councillor. It's like the bible. You can take any phrase out of the bible to suit just about anything you want too. I think though, if I understand Councillor Horwath's motion, is what we're looking for here is some consistency. And for instance when there's a staff report that uses Vision 2020 as one of the barometers, that all three elements of Vision 2020 be indicated. You can't cover it off in one phrase and say this meets the requirements of Vision 2020. You want details. And I think that's what the councillor's asking for here. All three components all the time."

Braden: "I agree that before the problem was very much a silo approach or whatever the specialty was. But I actually have faith in staff, in particular in Ms. Coveyduck's department. Planners are trained in a multi-disciplinary approach. So if we adopt the word slant, and we know what that word means, now what we want is the slant of all three - not the economist, not the social worker, not the environmentalist, but the slant is that multi-disciplinary approach. That's the comment that I'd want. And I'll use the word slant because we tend to think in those categories. So I'm interested in having those comments and having the department head ensure that those comments are that balanced one rather than just . sometimes those comments in the past have been pretty silly."

Kelly: "What councillor McHattie was referring to . a more holistic application of the Vision."

McHattie: "I agree with councillor Mitchell and his comments, councillor Braden. . I was involved back in 1992 in the task force that wrote Vision 2020 and at that time perhaps it was a bit more nebulous and more general, but I can't believe how this document has evolved over the years. It's getting very concise. This consideration that we've got through Building a Strong Foundation - the public process that we've just been through - it's getting much more concise than it did in the past. And I have much confidence that we can actually take the key principles that are identified through the latest iteration of Vision 2020, and through the Building a Strong Foundation process. We can actually pull out some meaningful statements that have to be discussed in this section that we're talking about in staff reports. And I have confidence that Mrs. Coveyduck and her department will work with the Clerk's department to make sure that happens. I agree very much with Councillor Mitchell, but I think it's actually much better now than it was in the past. So we can be much more concise and we won't get these sorts of nebulous statements that we did in the past. If we do get those, we should be sending those reports back from these commitees that we sit on and say 'look, this is not what we've asked for and we need to get a proper report'."

Motion adopted.

7.2 GIS Update (No copy)

Staff powerpoint presentation by Norm Sheilan (ph). Accompanied by another staff person, James Rickard and by Bonnie Pryor, an agent with Royal Commercial Real Estate and past president of the Hamilton Commercial Council and incoming president of the national commercial council. Staff have developed a state-of-the-art economic development site selection system www.map.hamilton.ca. Uses GIS to produce a one-stop location for municipal information. Provides instant response to enquiries about economic development opportunities. This tool integrates real estate info from Hamilton's Commercial Real Estate Council and City's GIS information. Development funded by federal government - $40,000 from Industry Canada. Started in early 2002. Private real estate sector keen because it gave them easy access to municipal services such as bus routes, water and sewer pipes, etc. Formerly done by phone calls to multiple departments. Automatically connects with real estate database. Used powerpoint to take councillors through the basic features and some site selection features. This is available to the public, not just internal. It shows traffic volumes on the adjacent streets to the property, location of bus route. Companies looking for a property can search the system and get size, location and features, adjacent buildings. Includes all businesses in the city's business directory of 11,000. Can obtain bus route number and service times, size of water and sewer pipes, amount of traffic, aerial photo, etc. Can also look at the property listing, square footage, lot size, broker information, and list of other businesses within certain distances (to check competitors or suppliers nearby). System saves staff time and makes industrial and commercial properties 'available' 24-hours a day. Website has been up for a year, with the Economic Development aspect added this year. Comments from Bonnie Pryor - very supportive. Other departments becoming involved including Public Works, Downtown Renewal and others. Congratulations provided by Whitehead, Pearson, Kelly and Mitchell. Staff noted there is also an internal website that has a lot more information that is a lot more specific. Kelly: "When I started in this business seven years ago one of the common themes that I heard was that it's impossible to do business in Hamilon, too much red tape, no cooperation. Day by day we seem to be overcoming that hurdle and stories like this are a clear indication how staff are working hard to try and get the message out there that we are open for business and we are ready to help people too."

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Change of New Appraisal Co-ordinator Position from Temporary to Permanent Employee Status to Facilitate Moving Forward with Divesting in Surplus Properties (PD03133(a)) (City Wide). Staff report indicates that no qualified candidates were interested in a contract position.

The staff report was presented by Tim McCabe : Last spring temporary position authorized to sell surplus properties. Have spent a lot of time searching "and we have not been successful". The approach is to self-fund the position (just over $60,000) out of sales revenue. Can be used by other departments. "In order to attract the people that we need for this very very important position, we have to proceed forward based on permanent staff."

Whitehead: Had some reservations but okay because it's not going on the levy. Asks how many applicants and why they weren't taken. McCabe: 15-20 applicants with 3 qualified in three separate job postings. Offered the job to only one and he turned it down. Says some appraisers working in their own business are making over $100K per year. "In order to attract at a lower salary, it's a change in lifestyle for them, but they gotta have that security." Whitehead says he knows of an individual who made application and was qualified and didn't get to the short list. Person wanted a temporary position. McCabe: The candidate referred to was for a different position.

Horwath: "Is the idea to appraise properties on their highest and best use?" Bill Farkas [Staff]: Yes. Horwath: "I need to have some commitment from staff that where there exists council policy on some of these properties, that that cannot be overridden to get more money into the piggybank . It's already happened a couple of times in the ward that I represent" where new employee offering a property for sale which was "totally contrary to the downtown secondary plan which is calling for reducing heights, pedestrian scale development downtown, mixed use, that kind of thing whereas highest and best use is highrises. And I have real concerns about that. Also there are issues of neighbourhood plans that need to be respected, and quite frankly our heritage inventory, our stock of heritage properties, and also there are a number of properties in the downtown - one that I just stumbled upon recently that was historically deeded to the city with commitments by the city that they would in perpetuity own the property and provide it for social good in this community. And I suspect that that property is also on the list of potential for us putting some money in the piggybank." McCabe: "Integration of real estate with planning assures that it's a balance and it's not just the almighty buck. The appraisal coordinator that we're trying to hire has to go out an appraise properties that we're trying to acquire as well as ones we're trying to dispose of. And I think the onus is on us to be responsible as a real estate organization. When we sell properties on the basis that the council's policy is maintained, and we more than anyone have an advantage that we can put the proper zoning in place to implement the Official Plan, to implement the Neighbourhood Plan. And highest and best use studies take into account the OP more than anything. Not just willy nilly. It's a very responsible approach. So I think you're going to see all of this start to unfold when we bring the master real estate plan forward. We're working with consultants now. It goes through the steps, goes through the input that council has in terms of the declaration of surplus, has to be taken into account . I really endorse what councillor Horwath is saying."

McHattie: " A good initiative . I think the funding of this program through the sale of municipal assets makes some sense but I would throw up the caution that there not be a strong motivation to sell those properties because partially that person's job, and the ability to fund that person's job is dependent upon that." Notes other funding for the job from administrative actions within the city, hopes that will prevail. Asks about consultation with the Hamilton Conservation Authority who could possibly partner with them. McCabe: Thinks this is a possible partnership. Notes that position is also for acquisitions."I don't think it's going to be like the police guy trying to get tags to ensure there's enough revenue coming in to pay the salary."

Pearson: Notes ward councillor being consulted about property being declared surplus, and notes she was contacted. What happens after that? Staff explains initial contact with ward councillor then staff report to committee to have property declared surplus. McCabe suggests Pearson may not have heard because the idea of disposal was abandoned. Pearson said it involved the municipal offices in Stoney Creek.

Staff recommendation adopted.

MOTIONS

9.1 Industrial District Energy and Co-Generation (Councillor Powers). This is the third time this item has appeared on the agenda. For the first two, councillor Powers was not present so the item was tabled. Councillor Powers was also not at this meeting (he isn't a member of this committee) but a written resolution was put forward and adopted supporting Hamilton Community Energy in its pursuit of funding "to develop the Industrial District Energy & Cogeneration Project" and direct staff "wherever possible and deemed appropriate" assist in the applications process. The written motion was amended to insert the words "in principle" in the endorsement paragraph.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Councillor Braden asks for a report on the loss of 7000 jobs in Hamilton in February as reported by Statistics Canada. Councillor Whitehead asked for an update on the City's previous resolution to strike a committee to work with Stelco and its union. Who is the committee and what can we do to implement the resolution.

Adjournment.