Present: Kelly, Merulla, Pearson, Mitchell, Whitehead, McHattie, Ferguson

Also present: Braden, McCarthy, Collins (Morelli was there for five minutes before the start of the meeting)

Media: Eric McGuinness (Spectator) until beginning of section 8, Kevin Werner (Brabant) arrived most of the way through 6.1 and left after 7.5, Ken Mann (CHML) for part of 6.1 only

CATCH (Don).

NOTE: Council chambers sound system was malfunctioning so that direct taping from the microphones was not possible. This situation has prevailed for more than two weeks now. Raised with clerk and with two councillors.

Changes to the Agenda:

A number of submissions were approved to be added to the agenda and circulated. They included:

6.1 - Written submission from FORCE (Friends of Rural Communities and the Environment)

7.4 - Two form letters opposing conversion of St. Bernard school into seniors residence.

7.5 - Petition (apparently signed by 130 names) opposing Valeri application for zoning change on Green Road in Stoney Creek. Person who collected these also spoke to the item.

7.6 - Three letters opposing Upcountry Estates application. From Scott Snider representing Paletta; from residents regarding tree loss (accompanied by pictures); and from Salem Christian Mental Health Association

7.11 - Daniel Page added to public delegations. He was scheduled at the previous meeting but was unable to attend. He is present today.

McHattie moved that items 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10 be moved to the beginning of the delegations/public meetings list. Seconded by Whitehead. Carried.

DELEGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Ms Nancy McKibbin Gray, on behalf of the Board of the Dundas Art and Craft Association respecting the Carnegie Gallery.

Accepted without discussion.

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-010) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Alterations to the Building at 130 Mill Street North, Waterdown (PD04150) (Ward 15)

5.2 Removal of the Holding (H) Provision - Lands Located at 902 Mohawk Road East (PD04151) (Ward 6) To allow development of 4-storey, 36-unit condominum apartment building at Mohawk and Upper Ottawa by 1536459 Ontario Ltd. (Frank Bragagnolo).

5.3 Demolition Permit - 32 Brookside Avenue (Ancaster) (PD04152) (Ward 12) Replace a house with a new house. Dollox and Sons Construction is the proponent.

5.4 Demolition Permit - 303 Fennell Avenue West (PD04153) (Ward 8) Replace two 2-family semi-detached homes with parking lot expansion for Hillfield Strathallan College.

5.5 Demolition Permit - 3 Cherry Road (PD04154) (Ward 5) House being demolished for expressway noise wall.

5.6 Enterprise Zone Municipal Realty Tax Incentive Grant Program Application EZ04/04, 47 Caroline Street North (PD04155) (Ward 2) To allow six-storey 40-unit condo to be built on vacant lot at Caroline and Napier. Tax subsidy provided by City is 100% of increased taxes for first five years, 80% in year six, down to 20% in year nine. Building will cost $6.7 million. Proponent is not revealed.

5.7 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-006) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of a Residence within the Hamilton Beach Heritage Conservation District, 1064 Beach Boulevard, in the City of Hamilton (PD04161) (Ward 4) Heritage permit required to build in Beach area. Builder is K.G. Baird Contracting, but proponent is not named. Next three items are same development.

5.8 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-007) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of a Residence within the Hamilton Beach Heritage Conservation District, 1060 Beach Boulevard, in the City of Hamilton (PD04162) (Ward 4)

5.9 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-008) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of a Residence within the Hamilton Beach Heritage Conservation District, 1056 Beach Boulevard, in the City of Hamilton (PD04163) (Ward 4)

5.10 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-009) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of a Residence within the Hamilton Beach Heritage Conservation District, 1052 Beach Boulevard, in the City of Hamilton (PD04164) (Ward 4)

5.11 Declaration of Surplus Property/Sale of the Alleyway Abutting 430 Woodward Avenue, Hamilton, Parts 1- 9, Plan 62R-16576, to the Participating Abutting Owner (PD04167) (Ward 4) Selling alleyway to abutting owners for $6,288 - loss of public space.

5.12 Enterprise Zone Municipal Realty Tax Incentive Grant Program - Application EZ04/03, 100-110 James Street South (PD04169) (Ward 2) One-storey retail/office building to be renovated at a cost of $350,000. Same tax deal as described for 5.6. Proponent is J Beume Real Estate Limited. Property is 25,000 square feet.

All consent items were approved without discussion. Exception was Whitehead spoke on 5.4 to praise Hillfield Strathallan. Merulla noted Beach Boulevard is in Ward 5 not Ward 4.

6.1 Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt - City of Hamilton Comments - Referred from Planning and Economic Development Committee on February 17, 2004 (City Wide) (PD04172)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Jun22/PD04172.pdf
Report presented by Paul Mason. Implications for Mid-Pen, quarries, Stoney Creek urban boundary expansion, and other land use changes. Kelly announced written submission from FORCE that had been circulated.

Mason provides update on provincial policy changes going. Greenbelt "is only a component of that process". "There's a fairly comprehensive program of planning reform being initiated as a result of election platform promises of the Liberal government. You'll recall that in the mid-1990s the Conservative government did exactly the same thing as their first item of business to implement some fairly radical planning reforms at that time which were a reaction to planning reforms that were initiated in the early 1990s by the NDP and Liberals through Bill 163. Essentially the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and the image you should have in your mind is that the pendulum is swinging back to the early 1990s again.

Basically what we've seen so far are announcements for changes to the Planning Act that if adopted will be imposed retroactive changes primarily addressing things like the complete application, the amount of time municipalities have to process applications, the "shall be consistent with" standard for muncipal adherence to provincial policy in your decision making processes. The other part of the December announcement was the Greenbelt study/legislationon which came along with a Minister's zoning order regulation which we now know as the freeze. And out of that a Task Force was appointed, chaired by Mayor McIssac in Burlington, and the report you're dealing with today is our response to the proposals of that Task Force group. Essentially, as you know, the Minister's order imposed a fairly comprehensive development freeze outside of all designated settlement areas in Durham, York, Peel, Halton, Hamilton rural areas, and in the Oak Ridge Moraine and Niagara Escarpment planning areas, as well as the fruitbelt lands of Niagara Region. So it's a fairly comprehensive development impact.

In early May, the report that you're responding to today was issued and we've undertaken a review of that. Just a few weeks ago the province issued another set of discussion papers, a draft Provincial Policy Statement - this is a very specific proposal on changes to the provincial planning regime. That was initiated in mid-2001 by the Conservative government and it has been brought back as a final proposal, as opposed to a matter for discussion, by this government. There is a discussion paper on the reform of the powers and the procedures and membership of the Ontario Municipal Board and how they relate to Planning Act matters, which is now circulating. It's a fairly high-level general discussion paper without much substance, in my opinion. And there's another discussion paper being initiated on another round of Planning Act reform, more detailed reforms to improve or diversify the tools that municipalities have for planning. For example, perhaps introducing conditional zoning, expanding the development permit system beyond a few locations, changing a variety of technical powers and tools that municipalities could use to be more smart growth oriented in our decision-making process. So that's an interesting piece.

At the end of this month, the other major shoe will drop, to put it bluntly. The provincial staff are promising that the discussion paper on the overall growth strategy for the golden horseshoe will be issued. We'll have to wait to see the substance of that paper, because it has a very major impact on our comprehensive response on all these matters.

In October, the intention is, following a process of public input over the course of the summer, the provincial staff will issue an actual draft Greenbelt plan with a map showing where it is and specific boundaries; a draft golden horseshoe growth strategy which will determine the structure of urban growth in the Hamilton to Oshawa area generally; and more specific proposals for the reform of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Planning Act.

So the fall is going to be a very busy period. Basically the period of October/November will be our window in order to get our comments in and understand these changes. In December there will be final legislative and plan approvals by cabinet, and the matter will be done as far as their program is concerned.

Why are they doing this? What is it all leading up to? Well what it's leading up to is the formation of something the province has never had - and that's a three to five year capital budget which identifies not merely for individual ministries, but for all ministries, where they're going to be spending their money, and establishing strategic programs for those expenditures that links the activities of individual ministries in a planned context.

So the greenbelt discussion paper is the first out of the starting gate. Because it is the first out of the starting gate, it has a number of obvious questions that are left hanging, and the most important of them is where are the greenbelt boundaries. We will probably only get that clarity as a result of the growth strategy paper which is coming out soon. Again to put this in context, the Greenbelt Task Force is recommending to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the document you are responding to is very much a product of the Greenbelt Task Force. Although provincial staff have been assisting the Greenbelt Task Force members in formulating this document, it is their. It is more a flavour of Task Force ownership than government ownership. I guess that is what I would convey to you here.

The urban containment - a greenbelt does two things. It contains an urban area and for the area that is greenbelt it deals with special land management, rural land management issues within the greenbelt. And the Task Force recommendations simply deals with the latter. . The Greenbelt Task Force has tried to be as specific as possible on its policy objectives for rural land management, but because of these other issues and the uncertainty even for them relating to the implementation framework for the overall planning reforms, they simply outlined some options for implementation without getting into any detail.

The report gives recommendations on five issues, or five categories or five layers of issues. Natural resource planning, natural environment planning, and what should be our objectives there; agricultural land protection and planning issues; transportation and utilities, which of course if you have a greenbelt, transportation and utilities now cross the greenbelt and will have to cross the greenbelt in future because the greenbelt surrounds the fastest growing urban area in Canada. So it's an important issue to be clear about, in my view anyway. Mineral aggregate planning objectives: the greenbelt is THE prime source of aggregates for the entire golden horseshoe, has been for many decades, and will remain so in future, so it's important to get your policies sorted out there, and culture, recreation and tourism objectives.

I'm just going to go through at a fairly high level and talk about what the objectives are for these categories and what the substance of the response is before you today. Basically, the natural environment planning objectives which the Task Force are suggesting for the greenbelt area are very similar to Hamilton's existing greenlands policy and modelled, in my view anyway, very closely to the process that was followed in the Oak Ridges Moraine plan. Essentially the concept is for the province to develop a natural environment plan in the relatively near future which would identify priority natural environment areas and linkages throughout the entire greenbelt zone. And that essentially reinforces the existing system of natural environment planning which most municipalities have already implemented. That certainly was the experience in Durham, Peel and York with the Oak Ridges Moraine plan, and they found that the process of plan formulation very closely aligned to their existing policies and documents. And although there were a few new issues to sort out, it was not a big deal, I guess to put it bluntly. So on that basis, because of that compatability in terms of the direction that we're already following, the recommendation before you is to simply support that component of the Task Force recommendation.

Moving on to agriculture. This has probably been one of the more controversial aspects of the greenbelt Task Force consultation process, because as you know it's coincided with some very severe challenges in the agricultural community. And it appears as though the greenbelt proposal has been attracting a larger range of dissatisfaction from the agricultural sector about the economic circumstances which the industry is in generally. Essentially, the Task Force is reinforcing existing prime agricultural land protection policies which are already in the Provincial Policy Statement and will be reinforced, at least as currently proposed, by the new one. The most significant issue that they're bringing forward, which I would regard to be new, is a suggestion that ALL urban expansion, regardless of justification, simply be prohibited on all tenderfruit land and all specialty crop land. The Task Force report does not specifically refer to speciality crop or tenderfruit land in Hamilton. Its references are strictly to the Holland Marsh and to the Niagara fruitbelt area - the regional Niagara fruitbelt area as defined in the Region of Niagara plan. The comments which is contained in the report, again because the general agricultural planning direction is fairly straightforward, is to support that component of it, but essentially indicate that council does not support the tenderfruit or specialty crop component of the recommendations until we see what this designation would look like in Hamilton. It would have a fairly significant influence on the Stoney Creek area, as we all know [Hamilton has approved a major urban boundary expansion in Stoney Creek - Winona area on lands identified as tenderfruit and specialty crop. The provincial government is opposing this and an OMB hearing is pending]. And we're in fairly extensive discussions with other elements of the provincial staff on that matter, and continue to do our own work to advance the proposal we've made in the past. And this is a major issue. And essentially the recommendation is for the province to clarify the technical basis of their tenderfruit justification, because it's very different from ours.

Moving on to the transportation and utilities component of it. Essentially what the Task Force is suggesting is that the greenbelt not revert to become like the Parkway Belt was in the early 1970s, which although it's not as evident here in Hamilton, in much of Peel and York the Parkway Belt is little more than a utility corridor. And the Task Force I think is trying to make the point that the Parkway Belt [probably means greenbelt] has to be much more than a place for utilities to go. It has to be very much a rural environment surrounding the cities.

. The Task Force, I think, is trying to make the point that the Parkway Belt has to be much more than a place for utilities to go. It has to be very much a rural environment surrounding the cities. And that's fine, but unfortunately in my view, and the recommendation before you today, is that the Task Force recommendation on how new utilities and transportation would be established in this greenbelt zone is very fuzzy. They say that the process should adapt to the greenbelt concept, but it really doesn't say how, and it simply relies on existing environmental assessment act processes. And as a result of the experience which Hamilton has encountered with the expressway planning process generally, when you have the practical problem of addressing a utility or transportation facility through a very broadly defined environmental zone, it's very difficult to find compromises in the current environmental assessment process. It's very difficult to find win-win situations. And I think our experience in trying to deliver a project which emphasizes environmental remediation and landscape compensation perhaps is instructive for the rest of the greenbelt area to consider and for the province to consider to deal with these issues proactively similar to the way they're dealt with in other jurisdictions in the world. And essentially the recommendation is that the province instead of simply relying on the single-purpose utility or road approval system that we have today in Ontario, advance a process where we're dealing with multi-use facilities and we're establishing comprehensive policies for integrating all utility and transportation decisions, not just one at a time.

The mineral aggregate or the natural resource recommendations of the Task Force are totally oriented to mineral aggregates. As I indicated before, the greenbelt is and will remain the major supplier of mineral aggregates for all of the golden horseshoe. That's simply a reality. We have to find a way of living with that reality. And the Task Force has advanced some very useful concepts which assist that improving the way we deal with mineral aggregates, but my suggestion in the recommendation before you today is that they really don't go far enough in putting more onus on the provincial government to develop a more coherent information base, a more coherent set of directions for operating conditions and remediation requirements for aggregate operations within the greenbelt zone. The situation we have in Ontario is that the Mineral Aggregate Act deems aggregates as a provincial resource, not a local resource. The policy statement in the Planning Act requires municipalities to provide access to this resource, but give very little assistance to us in sorting out all the conflicting interests that go into providing for the resource and how it's managed. Ultimately the decision is made as to whether a license is issued or not by the province, not by a municipal council. So we have a very ambiguous relationship in terms of our planning process and the mineral aggregate process, which could be clarified significantly by the province. And they should do more in that area.

In terms of the last technical element of culture, tourism and recreation, the Task Force is basically saying that we should encourage recreation and tourism in the greenbelt to engage the people of the cities with the country in a way . with new facilities, trails and other facilities which are compatible with the rural concept or rural vision that they have for the greenbelt. It's very nice stuff. Good theory. But there's really nothing in terms of specific substance as to how that would occur. Particularly on how to finance what appears to be a significantly enhanced open space and trail system.

When it comes to implementation, the Task Force basically describes options, it doesn't make recommendations. And here we're basically dealing with the issue of WHO is in the driver's seat for developing the details of the greenbelt plan, and what's their role going to be in relation to the other agencies, and there are many, who have an interest in rural or resource management of all types. What the Task Force outlines is an option of creating a special agency like a Niagara Escarpment Commission for just the greenbelt, or alternatively expanding the jurisdication of the NEC to include the greenbelt. And the alternative to that - and we've seen how that system works over many years in Ontario. The Oak Ridges Moraine and legislation and plan provides another model which I think is a little more practical in marshalling all the various conflicting interests that exist in making decisions on rural land. That model is, at least from my understanding of York, Durham and Peel, is operating reasonably well. . Quite frankly, they don't see any reason for a greenbelt because they have the Oak Ridges Moraine - that's what it boils down to. Or the alternative is to identify a greenbelt as sort of a special policy zone in the Provincial Policy Statement., just like the fruitbelt lands are identifed today. The recommendation before you today, is that if the province is going to pick any objectives, only the last is most feasible. There are simply too many jurisdictions - municipal, provincial, federal, special agency - to expect a single purpose agency like the NEC to be able to find a common direction efficiently that covers all the radically different conditions that exist across the greenbelt landscape.

The final recommendation in your report deals with financial issues and this is the thing that the Task Force basically did not deal with. When it came to agriculture, they suggested basically that a special task force be created to deal with the agricultural financing issues, but there are many other financial implicaitons associated with their recommendations, which is where the report is completely silent. If we as municipalities are going to be able to move the marker, and the people who live in the greenbelt are going to be able to achieve the vision that the Task Force is proposing, there must be a new system of financial rewards or incentives for the kind of rural land stewardship which their vision intends. I think everyone would like that stewardship to occur, but if we're going to expect a significant improvement on current conditions, goodwill alone is not going to do it, and regulation and policy alone is not going to do it. We must start moving beyond that. So the final recommendation in the report is basically to suggest the province consider some meaningful financial incentives.

So the final issue I want to cover today is what are the implication of all this, at least in what we see so far, in terms of the current work that we're engaged in with the GRIDS and Official Plan reform program. Well I'm happy to say that the more we see, the more I become convinced and other staff become convinced, that we are on the right path. We are obviously going to have to adapt to some of the issues and details and changes of emphasis that are being proposed in the Provincial work, but many of the strategies and planning activities that we are involved with right now fit very neatly into the directions that are being pursued. And I think the thing that Council has to appreciate, is that if we are going to deliver the GRIDS and Official Plan reform program on time, Hamilton will be the first municipal jurisdiction out of the starting gate when it comes to this new planning regime which is being created. So it's very important for us to maintain our alignment, if we expect that our plan is going to be received and approved in an expeditious manner. And it's also very important that when we see elements of proposals coming forward in this overall scheme that we be relatively aggressive in indicating that our interests are not being properly served, and that's essentially what staff are trying to do with a variety of reforms that we're engaged with. And that is my presentation."

Kelly: Very thorough, and a good read. Hate to do a book review on it. A fairly onerous task to go through some of the Provincial Policy Statement and things that are out there and try to integrate those. . And more importantly to apply this to Hamilton. And it was kind of gratifying to see that a lot of the policies . are along this line. It's kinda of nice to know that we're getting it right.

McHattie: . just clarifying recommendation 4 having to do with the aggregate issue. You've got wording in there, Paul, which says through updated resource mapping which specifically considers incompatible uses. . I just wonder if we could be more explicit in that statement. I've interpreted that to mean provincially significant wetlands, and ANSIs and other provincially significant items rather than just aggregates. If that's the case, I'd like us to actually say that." Mason: "I think that would be an appropriate amendment. The Provincial Policy Statement already provides for . a different approach to Official Plan policies for mineral aggregagtes in enviromentally sensitive areas. What we need though is for the province, the Ministry of Natural Reources (I' almost said the Ministry of Aggregate) to recognize that too." McHattie: I would put forward a motion to modify that. . Where it says incompatible uses, I would add 'such as provincially significant wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest' . in addition to the aggregate issue." Whitehead (now in Chair position) says they will enterain amendment motion at the appropriate time.

McHattie: Recommendation 3: "I have a bit of a concern with this one . familiar with Parkway Belt West plan, I'm familiar with how that one evolved and how it didn't evolve . utility corridors and actually a lot of housing developments occurred in there as well. That didn't necessarily happen in Hamilton. That's probably a good thing from my perspective, that areas like Pleasantview in Dundas, through citizen action in an OMB case, to leave that as truly open space, truly a greenbelt between the developed area and the rural area. I would suggest that we still at this point want to achieve a true greenbelt. We don't want to follow the same route as the Parkway Belt West plan followed, and we want to have a second chance at putting that proper greenbelt in place. And although transportation and utility corridors will still be proposed now and in the future, that we need to protect that greenbelt for other uses. . we deal with utlity corridors and we deal with housing. We also need to consider other land uses that provide important ecosystem services. I'm talking about water protection areas, source protection, groundwater issues. We need areas that are forested, that have wetlands, that have fish and wildlife habitat. Those are important land uses as well, in addition to housing, in addition to utility corridors. So to me the essence of what the province is talking about - and I think Paul spoke about the importance of us keeping as best we can our GRIDS thinking aligned with what the province is doing, in the direction the province is going in - here I think the province is going in the direction of a protected greenbelt and they mean greenbelt, at least that's what it looks like so far. So I have a problem with this particular recommendation, and the rationale that was provided further on in the document on page 9 where it talks about the expressway project and maybe that's a good model for the greenbelt, the environmental remediation and open space compensation that we've done, following the decision to actually build the road. But taking a step back, we don't have development in that envisioned greenbelt that the province is talking about at this point. So I think we need to say that we need to protect that as a true greenbelt. I think that the problem here is that we're falling into what perhaps can be considered the reality that we're going to need transportation and utility corridors, but I would certainly not support this particular recommendation. Perhaps when the greenbelt's in place and there's all sorts of more discussion and more policy on this, but I'd like to avoid the Parkway Belt West plan experience and achieve a true greenbelt this time. So I won't be supporting this recommendation number three."

Kelly (chair) says they will vote on each recommendation separately.

Mitchell: ".where does the GRIDS study and the LEAR study fit into some of this work? The province is doing this, but the work we're doing ourselves has to have a big bearing on all of this.." Mason: "The GRIDS study will be a very important component of our response to the growth management policy that the province is evolving. And because it will define our capacity for urban renewal, urban expansion, is and raise to the public what the challenges . will be and the benefits will be in accommodating additional growth in future. So I see GRIDS as very much a response to the smart growth strategy. The LEAR project . that is the project with the University of Guelph and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food right now is intended to refine the definition of what is prime agricultural land in Hamilton and is fully compatible to the greenbelt planning objectives as well as what appear to be the emerging objectives of the provincial government. It will, I think, assist us in responding to where the greenbelt boundaries should be, how wide it should be, when those matters come up later in the year. We'll have that information available, at least in draft form, by that time, so I'm quite happy that we'll be able to use it effectively in this process."

Mitchell: supports recommendations. lot of work this fall "I can't not express my displeasure, when you look at the map of the greenbelt study area, and how big and important a part Hamilton is, Hamilton has 65% rural agriculture, that we actually never got a person appointed to the Task Force. That was absolutely wrong. It's an embarassment to this government. It's an embarrassment to the fact that we have four MPPs here and we still didn't get a person on that. And I just heard Paul say that this is really about a Task Force report. It's their work that they're doing and in actuallity we didn't have a say on it, which is wrong. Now I know we're going to get a say this fall, and we'll be heard, guaranteed, but it's a shame that we didn't have somebody during this process. . I can't help but feel it's somebody else's way of trying to hold Hamilton back, but we won't be held back."

Whitehead : ". I only have two checkmarks where council actually supports the Task Force recommendations and the rest of it . this is obviously put forward by staff. . there's problems with the rest of it. Council. In two Council does not support Task Force recommendation especially on tenderfruit and specialty crop; on three we're saying it needs some improvement; number four we're saying that it needs some improvement; number five that we support the recommendation; ." Six and seven council makes further recommendations. "So obviously there's a lot of work that needs to do done yet. . we can respond . what other avenues, if any, should we pursue to drive these points forward to the province of Ontario?." Kelly : "Paul, how do we change their minds? And if you have the answer by the way you could make a lot of money." Whitehead : ".all I'm seeing is that we're going to respond to the discussion paper." Mason: "I think council's big opportunity, political opportunity, will be in the fall in response to the actual draft, the whole package. In the meantime, I and other members of staff. - the province has been fairly open and consultative, much more so than the previous government was in Bill 20, in terms of engaging stakeholders and having special discussion groups. We're trying to get ourselves, as many of us, invited to those activities as possible. In fact, I'm due to go to one right today, as soon as I leave this meeting, which will last the rest of the day, on the Provincial Policy Statement and the other reforms. I understand the sentiment of the councillors, perhaps unease about the recommendations, in that we don't seem to be taking a specific stand on the whole concept, and I guess my suggestion, that's my bias I guess I have to admit - my feeling is that we should keep our powder dry until we see what the target is. Obviously we want to be registered as making helpful suggestions and seeing improvements if this is the way it's going to turn out, but I don't know personally whether until we've really had a chance to study the other reforms that are coming forward, whether the greenbelt per se makes all the sense that the program suggests it makes. We may, as a result of the Provincial Policy Statement, have more than enough to achieve the same kind of end. But that's just a suspicion at this time, and I really couldn't advice council on it in confidence until at least I have more information and I think you do to."

Whitehead : concern .. "I've been on the other side and once you get into the final draft stages of any provincial policy, it's really hard to change. I'd rather have as much influence and pressure while it's being developed. . We need to be very forceful on some of the things that you've identified.. My concern is that if we wait until September, when they're going to come out with the final draft, that we might be too late to impose some of the changes that we've identified. . looking for a mid-strategy to identify the areas that are most important to us and what other ways, maybe politically, that we need to be addressing through our MPPs and cabinet minister. . you can never drive the message enough when it comes to policy development, and I don't want to get off the mark too late on this front because I think these are very important issues, and again I don't think we're going to change too many minds ."

Kelly : "I can tell you that Ms. Coveyduck and those of us on the committee are having discussions about this, so maybe what we might suggest that as Paul goes through this discussion on the Provincial Policy Statement, if there's any red flags that he can let us know right away so we can react on the political level too. ... good idea, great suggestion."

Mitchell: ". I could see us having a specific half day or day-long workshop on this issue and getting our comments in there. I know we've got an Agricultural and Rural Affairs committee now. I know . (tape break) ." suggests that farm retirement lots should be granted after twenty years instead of ten years "because that's more of a lifetime . good solid recommendations that this council might want to support for the protection of agricultural land. Where is that? Where is all that hard work that was done? And maybe this council should be taking a stand on some of the work that's been done here already and send in our own feelings. Because not having a person on that Task Force means we're coming to it be invitation or . I agree with Councillor Whitehead. We should be sending our comments in sooner rather than later and there's a whole lot inside of this that we could improve on with local people and local groups that we've already got working for us here now. . in favour of a day-long workshop with our staff to send in there before they get the document finalized." Kelly notes that Mason is representative of Hamilton and raising issues on our behalf. "The politicial level is where we have to take it, and your suggesting maybe doing something toward the end of this summer. Bringing in the sitting members from this area wouldn't be a bad idea either, letting them know some of the concerns."

Whitehead : ".motion that we ask the government representatives in this area that they come to a meeting a presentation on these positions relative to the greenbelt legislation and Policy Statement so that we can educate THEM on what the positions of the city are in advance of the fall policy draft." Kelly agrees . "probably not a bad suggestion". "Moved by Whitehead, seconded by Mitchell that we invite the local MPPs to attend a special session with staff. Have to invite the mayor as well since obviously he's very involved with this as well."

McHattie: "I guess my concern is that we're politically meddling perhaps too much in this issue. The issue here is largely technical from a planning perspective and I think the province is identifying some of these important issues - the greenbelt itself being an open space concept. The only concern I would have is that the development industry would have an undue influence on the direction that the city is going on. So I'd certainly be concerned that the political involvement might be sort of pushing this one way or another. Whereas I'm quite confident that we're represented well by Paul Mason at this level. So I'd certainly have a concern with this kind of workshop, especially if it's open-ended. At this point our motion is fairly open-ended as to what that workshop would consist of, so I would not support this today."

Kelly: "I don't think the intention was to invite anyone else from the public to that, but I'll ask the mover of the motion for clarification." Whitehead: "I was thinking of just the staff, the committee members and any other council members who would want to attend and the MPPs. And it's not about meddling. It's about educating our local MPPs about what the concerns of the city are, so at least have some context when they go in and have a debate about the final policy to the legislature. I think it's incumbent upon us to ensure that they have an understanding of what some of the issues are from the city perspective. I don't think that's meddling. I think it's incumbent upon us to do." McHattie : "I don't want to get into a debate here, but the word education is a tricky word in the sense that it educates/directs someone in the direction that you'd like to go in kind of thing. I'm seeing here that we're anticipating that this greenbelt may well be full of utility and transportation corridors, so I personally don't want to educate the province or the MPPs if that's the city's position. So I'd be worried about the term education as to what that really means. I think this needs to be handled at a staff level and the education part could be educating in a direction that helps one side more than the other which takes away the objective planning aspect of this brought forward by Mr. Mason and his staff.."

Merulla: asks what other municipalities are doing with respect to this issue. Mason: "Other municipalities are basically in the same position that you are in today. They're responding to this paper as a first component in a larger strategy. I can tell you of the major municipalities who are impacted, Durham and York in particular basically are responding that they don't need a greenbelt. They already have the Oak Ridges Moraine and it does everything a greenbelt does so go away. They have a circumstance where their issues have essentially been resolved and this doesn't help them. Other municipalities are struggling with trying to formulate their response they way you are." Merulla. Asks if province considering a forum to receive input. Mason : "The ministry is conducting a series of stakeholder input sessions.. One today, here in Hamilton. These are invitation only events and I think it would be important for members of council, at least those who are willing to commit a day, to participate in them. The sessions that have been held so far deal with the draft proposals and the preliminary concepts, but as we get closer to the actual substance of it, I suspect that the province will be holding similar stakeholder sessions. They've been very proactive in that regard and that maybe another form for councillors to get directly involved." Merulla: "So there is a mechanism in place to deal with this, so this is a duplication in many ways so I won't be supporting that today. And we'll let the process move forward with its plan without trying to interfere with the process."

Pearson: ".on the issue of getting information out ithere is there the possibility that we just provide a copy of this report to our representatives so that they can read it over to see where the municipality stands that will assist them as they go through the process?" Kelly: "Well, I'll go to the mover of the motion to see if that's a friendly amendment. It's quite a bit different direction from the way that he wanted to move." Whitehead: "..we have responsibility to represent the city .and I want to make it clear that I've been there. Having worked at the provincial level and the federal level I understand consultation, I understand how this whole process works very clearly. And my concern, quite frankly, is it's like cement hardening. Once it hardens, you're not going to change anything. So I want to make sure where we have opportunity to create an understanding of what the city's positions are, we take advantage of it." Will stick to original motion. . "and just to make them a presentation without asking them to do anything. This is the city's position and why."

Kelly steps down from chair so he can speak to the motion: "And I understand councillor McHattie's concern about this, about getting involved in this. As Paul's already told us there is a consultative process in place, but part of our job as elected representatives is to let senior levels of government know how their potential policies are going to have an effect on the POLITICAL landscape in this community as well. And this policy, this greenbelt Task Force has already had an effect on the political landscape here with the Stoney Creek urban boundary expansion which was approved by Council and challenged by the provincial government. And they just laid the hammer down as they have the ability to do. So one of our policies is already affected. There's the formulation of GRIDS which staff are working on at breakneck speed right now, could well be affected by the policies that come forward on this. As does, of course, our economic development cluster policy which is going to be closely tied in with the GRIDS policy as well. So there are elements of this that are very very political and on the political level I think that we have a responsibility to inform the senior political representatives, both provincial and federal, how this may happen. Just to put it in context and try to give you a bit of a barometer, we did this - Terry, you were on the other side of the fence then - we did this about six years ago and had the federal members in here to talk about brownfields. And I'll be quite honest about it, two of them didn't even know what a brownfield was at the time. So it was an extremely informative meeting to let them know exactly what they were, why we wanted to do what we did with the formulation of the ERASE program and things of this nature, and now of course we've seen at least the introduction of some federal legislation and provincial legislation along that line. And that very much politicial, and I think we have a responsibility to do that. So having said this, I don't understand how it's actually going to be detrimental. We can do this on a parallel path to what the province is doing at the same time, but rather do this, and even to the point of being redundant, rather than have them suggest 'well we didn't know exactly how that was going to impact on us, nobody told us.' I don't think it hurts to get too much information out there where the economic future and the growth future of this community is involved as well. One point of clarification I want to make, I do understand the intent of the motion, but it would have to be a public meeting of course. That doesn't necessarily mean that the public would have delegation status but they're invited to any public meeting, as we always do here too."

Merulla: "Just to clarify, I did hear correctly that there are sessions that we can attend presently, that anyone interested in this issue can attend and become aware of whatever." Kelly: "Yes, I believe that was what Paul said, . although he also said there wasn't going to be any guarantee that there would be political representation there either. But that was at the administrative level." Merulla : "This was to create awareness surrounding this particular initiative. How does this initiative differ from that and how that duplication help us from becoming redundant?" Kelly: Laughs. "Point made." Whitehead: "I sort of have a bit of an advantage over most of my colleagues here because I have worked at the other level. And if you think that the area MPPs are engaged in this process, then you got another think coming. When they find out about this process and learn about its impact on the city, it might be too late for them to have any input on that process. So I just want to take an opportunity - it's not about us, it's about educating the MPPs." Mitchell: "This really affects the City of Hamilton. We didn't have a member on the Greenbelt Task Force. Stoney Creek and the rest of Ward 11 has a huge impact this issue and I would respectfully request a standing recorded vote on this. I would hope it would be unanimous."

Kelly: Repeats motion: "ask sitting MPPs to attend a meeting with our staff and this committee to talk about the implications of the Provincial Policy paper and the Greenbelt Task Force"

Standing Recorded Vote: In Favour: Whitehead, Mitchell, Kelly, Pearson. Opposed were Merulla and McHattie. Carried.

Braden: [not a member of this committee] "We've been struggling with this forever. This is my academic subject of 25 years ago. And the first problem is there are just too few of us that are rural left. So from a society point of view it's great to say we want a greenbelt. But we feel a little bit penalized that we're being asked to provide and finance and live within the restriction of a greenbelt for the benefit of everyone. I'm not saying that I necessarily feel that way, but it's very common to feel that for the benefit of urban Ontario, or Canada, or Hamilton, we're going to have this greenbelt because we all want it. And until we deal with that, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. If you look at Europe, there's lots of examples of how you do this and you make it work. One of the issues that I think we need to deal with and make this work is there needs to be opportunities in the rural area. Agriculture is not enough to sustain the rural area, even if prices were good, and prices are terrible. So agriculture can't hold us up, and we need opportunities, like jobs for my kids, for your kids. If the thinking is that jobs all belong in the city and that we are restricted to working in agriculture, they have no future. Imagine telling people in Hamilton: 'you can work at any job that you want as long as you work for Stelco'. And when you really get down to it, we're talking about long term. So somewhere along the line, and we are in touch, we are the closest level of government to the issue, I think we need to tell the province if we're going to promote the concept of a greenbelt, that we need to promote an idea about equity. And if we don't, you're going to get the people like me that want a greenbelt, fighting against it. Because we really see it as completely unfair, although it's necessary. I think when we go through an exercise like this, we want to be really careful about our integrity, what it is that we stand for. If we stand for preserving the agricultural resources, right?, and if that's motherhood, then let's do it. But let's be careful about saying: 'well were not going to back it in Stoney Creek. Or, and we've heard this before, without any information we're going to approve the mid-pen. I can't think of anything more in conflict with this than the mid-pen. Not the mid-pen by itself, but the impacts of it. You build the mid-pen here, it's been through this council, it will wipe out so much of agriculture, that it will send a real clear signal that agriculture is just meaningless. And also that people like me that are involved in it, that our sort of sense of life is also useless or meaningless. I don't think that's what we want to do. So the idea of where we stand, and I would like us to provide not a responding role, but a leadership role. If you just listen to the words of the presentor here, we can play a presenting role because I think we've got a grasp of this. So I don't want be a reactionary. I'd much prefer to be a leader. Again this is motherhood - wanting to preserve all the land is like wanting to preserve fresh air and fresh water. But, in fact, there's a cost to it. NDP started doing it in the Niagara area, whether or not they're buying development rights or what it is, something needs to be done. In our society you exchange with money. You gotta pay for what you want. And lastly, and I need to say this, if we're really in favour of greenfields, we need to change our culture when we deal with land developers. Land developers are going to be here in half an hour or an hour, because their bread and butter is taking greenfields out of production. And I don't know if we're ready for that, because it's a very, very lucrative industry. Politically it's very persuasive. So my personal view is: let's get a real greenbelt, if we understand what a greenbelt is, for all of the right reasons, but please let us not take the majority's view and foist it on my neighbours. My neighbours are in livestock production and feathers. And they work harder than anybody I know for very little. One of the things that we could do, and I'm not being political here, is to ensure that the tax structure for people who live in the greenbelt is not harmonious with the same tax structure we have in the city. We can't handle that. I can, but my constituents can't. So unless we're going to give a picture, and we're thinking about equity and fairness, this is a rather selfish direction. And that's not the way to do business. I'm only dealing with the holistic here and I'm impressed with the presentation in the report, but if we're going to provide leadership, we gotta see the big picture here. Otherwise, we're strictly reactionaries, and we're like little kids: this is what we want, this is what we want, somebody else pay. That doesn't cut it. I suggest you think about those things. I'd certainly appreciate it if you did."

McHattie moves his amendment to recommendation 4 to add reference to "provincially significant wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest" to list of incompatible uses. Merulla seconds. Carried.

Vote on part 3: McHattie recorded as opposed. Balance of report. Carried. (65 minutes for this item).

7.9 Sandra Kovacs , citizen presentation. She lives on Napier and is concerned about the removal of a fence along the old Barn market property. Presentation provided.

McHattie offers solution. Has spoken to consultant for Premiere Fitness and also to staff person Paul Mallard. Motion "to allow Manager of Development Planning to consider inclusion of a fence along Napier Street as part of the landscape plan." Mallard : Satisfied with the resolution. Will do it as part of the landscape plan. Can address headlight glare without a solid fence. Whitehead: Suggests that the police department be involved in the design work. Solid fences don't always work as expected and may create other safety issues. "Where crimes takes place is where there are no witnesses and fences provide some of that cover." McHattie motion seconded by Merulla and carried. (10 minutes for this item).

7.8 Janice Brown presentation asking for free parking for Durand house tour. Initially offers advice on "crime prevention through environmental design". Officer is Paul Downey. She is co-chair of "Durand Tour of Homes". Wants to waive parking fees at City Hall for day of event and that bylaw officers not ticket visitors. Presentation requested.

Merulla: How many people? Brown: 1000. 500 cars. Notes that in Toronto tours, they pay for parking "but that's the Toronto mentality. Here, we know, that people are always annoyed in coming downtown that we have no parking." "So let's take that annoyance away, and let's keep people coming downtown." Merulla asks staff what it would cost. Staff says revenue loss on a Saturday would be "in the neighbourhood of 300 to 900 dollars". Merulla offers to move motion to support initiative.

Whitehead: Supportive, but would like to see policy for addressing these types of requests. Asks staff who says "we literally turn down hundreds of requests for free municipal parking every year. We have no budget to grant free parking. We actually don't provide for free parking at this time. The best case scenario for us would be to negotiate the least possible price to the applicant". Whitehead notes that First Nations people had an event (today) and asked for free parking and were turned down. Staff confirms. Whitehead: "My only concern is that we've said no to others and I don't know how you can discriminate." Wants to see a policy, perhaps through the grants process. Suggests staff come back with policy. Pearson: concern about setting precedents. Notes example of another request that was turned down although a discounted price was arranged. Lack of policy "puts this council in a very precarious situation". Supports sending it back to staff. Mitchell: "Janice I love your enthusiasm. I wish we had more people like you going to bat like that. I will support this. I do want to see a policy brought back." Wants Trillium category for rural farms. "If the proceeds are going to [things] such as the Trillium program, we have to support these, no question." Merulla : Motion seconded by McHattie that staff work with proponent for solution and that a policy be developed and brought back to committee. Says we should reward this initiative because they had the courage to bring it forward. Motion carried. (13 minutes for this item)

7.10 Mr. Minns not at the meeting. Collins: Has met with Minns, supportive of request. Last building lot on the lake side of Beach Boulevard to be developed. Tony Sergi : Minns has been talking to staff and one of contentious issues is reverse grade drive which is not compliant with zoning, and also not a standard practice. Tim McCabe : Zoning bylaw. Needs to apply to committee of adjustment.

7.11 Daniel Page , citizen delegation: Left of the agenda because of a "printing error". Presents ideas for low-income housing. Suggests old By-Way store on King Street be converted to low income housing. Mural on corner of King and Wellington. Notes other older buildings for conversion to low-income housing. Advocates parking areas to have offices on top of them. Notes that he isn't seeing any advertising about the city on channel 11 to draw tourists to Hamilton. Asks if buses are going to the Rock Gardens and Confederation Park during the week. Only on weekends. Not convenient to visitors and others. McHattie: Thanks Mr. Page for presentation. Suggests he talk to Hamilton Non-Profit Housing Corporation which McHattie chairs.

Continue to Part 2 of CATCH report