Present:
Bill Kelly ( 9:38 to 9:41 only), Maria Pearson, Sam Merulla (out 2x for 11 min; left at 11:29 ), Brian McHattie (out 1x for 2 min), Murray Ferguson (arrived 9:38 , out 2x for 34 min), Bob Bratina (out 3x for 8 min), Dave Mitchell (out 1x for 13 min), Terry Whitehead (out 1x for 4 min)

Also present:
Art Sampson (until 9:45 ), Phil Bruckler (arrived 9:38 , out 1x for 10 min), Mayor Di Ianni ( 10:40 - 10:45 , 10:50 - 11:42 ), Margaret McCarthy (briefly)

Media:
Eric McGuinness (Spectator), Kevin Werner ( Brabant - arrived 10:05 ), Brent Sleightholm (K-Lite ( 9:30 to 10:30 ), CHML,

CATCH: Linda Hall and Don McLean

About 52 citizens were present at or near the beginning of the meeting. About 30 of these citizens left after the motion was adopted at the beginning of the meeting to hear citizen delegations on the Couldrey Park issue at a future public meeting.

Changes to the Agenda

•  There will be no staff report considered at this meeting of Committee regarding the Couldrey Park/proposed new school in Dundas . (Item 8.4)

•  Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault, Item 8.3, has withdrawn his delegation request to speak on storm water issues in the Regional Road Secondary Plan, as the matter has been resolved.

•  There is an added item regarding the sale of City lands, Ancaster Industrial Park, Tradewind Drive, to be considered as Item 8.5. Clerk: "This is a last minute report. Copies were emailed to members of committee on Friday, hard copies on members' desks this morning."

Proposed New Public School in Dundas (Item 8.4)

Samson explained the results of a council and board of education meeting held the day before and a decision from that to hold a public meeting on this issue. "I can't think of another area in which I've received more calls, emails and everything else. And I think this is the only way in which it can be dealt with is if we have a full airing. The feeling at yesterday's meeting was that if it was declared surplus ahead of this particular process, it really hasn't given the public an opportunity to express their concerns with regards to the matter. And that's the reason for asking the two things to be done concurrently." Moved by Bratina, seconded by Pearson and carried, that:

"1) That City Council not consider any decision regarding the declaration of Couldrey Park, Dundas as being surplus to the City`s requirements, until such time as the required development applications under The Planning Act for the proposed school are heard at the required public meeting(s), in order that the entire matter of the school and its location can be considered at the same time;

"2) That when the Hamilton-Wentworth School Board submits their development applications for the proposed new school in Dundas, that the background information include details regarding, but not limited to, the following issues;

(i) the justification for not building the school on the existing School Board property of the Highland annex site;

(ii) the environmental issues surrounding the use of the park site, including but not limited to, the treatment of the ravine;

(iii) the overall costs of construction to the taxpayer

(iv) Details of the replication of the City`s park, should the land exchange proceed.

(v) the traffic issues involved.

"3) That the requests for delegation status regarding the proposed new school in Dundas be referred to the future Public Meeting on the matter." CARRIED without debate.

4. DELEGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Carol Lazich, President of Strathcona Community Council, respecting pre-construction conditions for Good Shepherd development, King Street West.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/Item%204.1.pdf Approved.

Delegation requests related to Couldrey Park all referred to a future public meeting.

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Dundas Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) - Revised Board of Management (PD05016) (Ward 13) Appointment of Councillor Samson.

5.2 Barton Village , Downtown Hamilton , International Village and King Street West Business Improvement Areas (B.I.A.s) - Revised Boards of Management (PD05015) (Ward 2) Appointment of Councillor Bratina.

5.3 Ottawa Street Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2005 (PD05006)(Wards 3 &4)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05006.pdf
"The $125,000 budget is totally levied by the B.I.A. through its members"

5.4 Downtown Hamilton Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2005) (PD05005) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05005.pdf
"The $203,400 is derived from the following: $161,000 through levying the members of the B.I.A; $1,000 from interest, $19,000 from other income and grants, $3,000 from wage subsidies and $19,400 from the B.I.A.'s reserves."

5.5 Barton Village Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2005 (PD05002)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05002.pdf
"The $34,305 is derived from the following: $30,000 through levying the members of the B.I.A; $1,655 through advertising and bank interest; and, $2,650 through grants."

5.6 Demolition Permit - 50 Fraser Avenue (PD050004) (Ward 4)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05004.pdf
"The owner is proposing to demolish the existing single family dwelling and leave the lands vacant at this time..Owner is 1146620 Ontario Limited, 1162 Barton Street East,Hamilton, ON L8H 2V6." McHattie : ".regular undertaking for me. . concentrate on demolitions of single family homes with no indication of what's coming next. It may sit vacant . I would tend to want to have a building permit in place as a condition for the demoltion permit." Whitehead : "It's my understanding that we did have a lengthy discussion after agenda review about the principle and that it be put forward by this committee in the past with respect to demolition of residential properties. And I've instructed that, although staff are currently reviewing the overall applications of the principles in the downtown area to broaden across the city, that it doesn't prevent the committee or council to put conditions on a demolition permit.." McHattie moves motion to require building permit, seconded by Merulla. No further discussion. Carried.

5.7 Demolition Permit - 78 Cannon Street East (PD05003) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05003.pdf
"These lands are zoned commercial. There are currently two single family dwellings located on the same parcel of land as an existing commercial building known as Hamilton Radiator. Two principal buildings cannot be located on one parcel of land if one of the buildings contains residential which is contrary to Section 4.(3)(a) of the Zoning By-law. The demolition of the two single family dwellings will bring the lands into compliance with Section 4.(3)(a) of the Zoning By-law. The proposal, upon demolition, is to pave the areas for additional parking". Owner is Bill Wilson, 256 Concession #2, RR#1 York , ON N0A 1R0

5.8 Demolition Permit - 373 Ferguson Avenue North (PD05012) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05012.pdf
"The existing single family dwelling is owned by the City of Hamilton . The Fleet & Facilities, Public Works Department has advised this Division that the demolition of the dwelling is necessary to complete the construction of a new bridge on Ferguson Avenue North to replace the bridge at Mary Street spanning the CN tracks."

5.9 Demolition Permit - 369 Ferguson Avenue North (PD05011) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05011.pdf
The existing single family dwelling is owned by the City of Hamilton. The Fleet & Facilities, Public Works Department has advised this Division that the demolition of the dwelling is necessary to complete the construction of a new bridge on Ferguson Avenue North to replace the bridge at Mary Street spanning the CN tracks."

5.10 Demolition Permit - 367 Ferguson Avenue North (PD05010) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05010.pdf
Same as 5.8 and 5.9.

5.11 Demolition Permit - 375 Ferguson Avenue North (PD05013) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05013.pdf
Same as 5.8 and 5.9.

5.12 Demolition Permit - 377 Ferguson Avenue North (PD05014) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05014.pdf
Same as 5.8 and 5.9.

5.13 Sale of City Lands Adjacent to Lime Ridge mall to CF Realty Holdings Inc. and Purchase of an Easement (PD05022)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05022.pdf
"The subject property consists of .319 hectares (.787acres) and is a remnant parcel from the construction of the Lincoln Alexander Parkway by the Region. In the early 1980s, the subject parcel was paved, curbed and striped for parking by the Genstar Corporation, the original developer of Lime Ridge Mall. The subject has been maintained by various corporate entities of CF/Realty Holdings Inc., the current owners of Lime Ridge Mall. . The resultant land-locked nature of this parcel and the comment from Traffic Engineering and Operations that access is restricted to the "Lime Ridge Mall ring road only" created the situation where CF/Realty Holdings Inc. was the only possible purchaser of the subject site." Lands were re-zoned last year by the city to facilitate the sale.

5.14 Surplus School Lands, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 1310 Upper Wellington Street, Hamilton (PD05020) (Ward 7)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05020.pdf
This is 0.35 ha including some wooded area that the school board has declared surplus. Staff see no purpose in the city acquiring it.

All consent items were approved without discussion (except 5.6 as noted).

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 Applications for an Amendment to the Stoney Creek Official Plan, Change in Zoning and Draft Plan of Subdivision, "Bridgeport", for Lands Located within the Trillium Secondary Plan Area, in the Former City of Stoney Creek (PD05017) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05017.pdf
Owner 1573209 Ontario Inc. (Homes by DeSantis) and Pomparan Developments Ltd. (Marz Homes Ltd.) Agent: Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (Planning) A. J. Clarke and Associates Ltd. (Engineering) " The plan of subdivision proposes the development of one hundred and fifty-seven single detached dwellings, approximately forty-four street townhouse units, approximately sixty condominium townhouse units, one commercial block, one stormwater management pond, and five creek channel blocks on 16.06 hectares (39.69 acres) of land." Area: 16.06ha (39.69 acres) " eleven written comments/e-mails from the public." The proposed densities in this subdivision are 26.17 units/hectare for "Low Density", 45 units/hectare for "Medium Density" and 40 units/hectare for "Medium-High Density" since only townhouses are proposed, whereas, the designation permits apartment buildings up to nine storeys. The overall density for the subdivision is approximately 31 units/hectare, which is at the low end of the "Medium Density" range (30 to 49 units)."

Additional written submissions received from Abe and Bev Klein, 833 North Service Road and DiCenzo Construction Company Limited.

Staff presentation by Peter De Iulio : Development north of the QEW. Major changes required re-circulation to nearby property owners. Applicants also had an open house in 2002. Major issues: Lakeshore Drive ".to avoid having to acquire the lands of the existing Lakeshore Drive, . the new road is bring proposed directly south of the private lane so that the lane is not required for an actual public road allowance. What eventually will happen here, or tends to happen, is that this right of way, private laneway, would be abandoned, and then the residents would get an access to the new Lakeshore Drive .." Existing lane 4.5 metres wide. Issue of two watercourses. "When the original draft plan was submitted, the intent was to bury these watercourses and have this stormwater in underground pipes. Due to concerns of the Conservation Authority and the Ministy of Natural Resources with potential fish habitat in the watercourses, they had to be maintained as open channels, so the draft plan was revised." Also changes in density on various blocks. Proposed zoning "promotes a compact form of development of houses closer to the street." Staff support the applications. ( 17:00 )

McHattie : Notes comments from HSR about densities and their recommendation that "situating higher density blocks closer to Glover Road would better support a potential fixed route transit service". Asks if these issues were taken into account, and "how far away are we from transit service here?...". DeIulio : "There was no follow up discussions with HSR on their comments" but notes that "overall density in this subdivision is approximately 31 units per hectare. So HSR is talking about 17." Notes other blocks still to be developed. "With this medium high density block there's potential for higher density here. I know it's not close to Glover but we do have this whole medium density block here which would increase the density overall . we still have some more medium density in draft approved stage . So I think the overall density in the subdivision would certainly support transit. Whereafter transit service would be provided I guess would be up to HSR, when the houses are built, when the timing is the service will be provided." McHattie asks if there's anyone from HSR that could confirm DeIulio's comments. Whitehead notes that no HSR staff are present and asks if they can come back to that. "I'm going to ask if we can get somebody here while we're still having the discussion on this particular issue."

Pearson : ".with regards to councillor McHattie's comment on HSR, I can just contribute some information in addressing this in the westerly ward 10 that I represent. And we have two tower complexes on the North Service Road. I have been trying to deal with issues of getting HSR down there. Currently it is serviced by Trans-Cab and what I've recently been given as far as the process that HSR follows is depending on whether or not Trans-Cab is cost efficient, as opposed to putting in HSR. That's the comparison. So if they know they're getting so many Trans-Cab users that warrant a bus now going down that road, that's when the HSR will decide whether or not it is cost efficient to put a bus on the road. But as I understand it, even from the report that Trans-Cab should be available to this particular area. . the service of the HSR is predicated on the use in that area, and I know they keep monitoring because they are monitoring in ward 10 currently." Also asks questions about connections to water and sewer lines, hydro etc to existing homeowners on Lakeshore Road . DeIulio notes extra costs because of depth of properties. Tony Sergei : ".the developer is going to construct the entire Lakeshore Road and basically he's taking benefit of 50% of the road . should they wish to connect then they would be responsible for paying their proportionate share of the infrastructure. So the issue of the road is complicated because there's a existing laneway .so you can't grant access to one unless you grant access to everybody because of the operational problem. But in terms of infrastructure cost, should they wish to take direct benefit of the existing infrastructure that's constructed by the developer, they'd be responsible for paying for their share." Pearson asks about residents' concerns about storm water management. Sergei unsure of question of resident. Pearson asks if residnets are aware of changes to the plan. DeIulio says they circulated the latest plan except for "some slight modification . other significant change was with the commercial block from the first plan to the second plan. The commercial block was smaller and there were some townhouses proposed."

Mitchell follows up on the storm water issues. "I am not one to support higher densities . because that's not the character of what is there already. So it is very much a concern and there has been negotiations take place and some of the frontages along the new proposed road have been increased in size to try to accommodate that. Not really far enough in my mind, but the planning of today is what we have to deal with and then the measurement of whether we have to go to OMB hearings over this or not." Asks for staff to explain the density issue. DeIulio: "We have an increasing in the size of lots. Start closer to the QEW . slowly increasing in size as we get closer to the existing residents on Lakeshore. . 30 foot singles, and then some 40 foot singles . 45 and 50 . and then over here you'd probably have 60 foot lots to blend in with the existing larger lots on Lakeshore." Notes potential of subdividing some existing lots. "But with the loss of some lands for development as a result of preserving the creek, the density from the original subdivision they submitted wasn't much greater. I think it was only about 14 units total. . So it's a slow transition. I think that it's supportable in terms of current policy framework, especially at the provincial level where they're promoting more compact urban development and its truly to promote what councillor McHattie was getting at. It's trying to promote transit service as well. So I think it's an appropriate form of development.." Notes other street townhouses planned for the area.

Mitchell also advocated changes to storm drainage so storm water is discharged to the stormdrain system rather than having each home have to use a sump pump much of the time. Sergei responds that it's complicated by difficulties in using gravity feed and some drainage being above home foundations so pumps are required. Mitchell emphasizes problem is discharge of sump pumps onto the ground and causing more problems to other houses "and it's one vicious round and round circle with those sump pumps going off every five minutes, and wet yards, and so on and so forth. . that change has to be made because I have a lot of development throughout ward eleven. I've been in swampy back yards from Mt. Hope to Winona . That correction has to take place. We don't need more of that grief." Sergei responds regarding technical difficulties in doing this. Staff takes direction to look into this further. Mitchell concludes: "In a perfect world, the drainage at the start before people move in may work. Two years after the people move in, it doesn't work any more, because the people living there don't want this V-ditch swale between their houses, cause they can't walk from the front yard to the backyard, and they put a sidewalk in. And then in two years time we as a city claim that it's civil . we ask everybody to sue everybody and to me, that's wrong. We can make that correction factor now, and save everybody a whole lot of money on electricity for their sump pumps . so I'm living this complaint and we have to get it corrected. 2005 is the time."
DeIulio notes several changes to the report before councillors including "condition 22 is to be revised in terms of where the streets and sidewalks are going to go. And also delete condition 43 with respect to the class environmental assessment, and also this has come to our attention in terms of recommendation A2 with regards to parkland dedication. That should be deleted because the new parkland dedication bylaw. This application was in before the new bylaw so we'll have to add one of our standard planning conditions." Whitehead asks if there are further questions "in light of the new information". Ferguson says not because of that but asks how many people were circulated and how many responded for and against. DeIulio ".numbers of people circulated, I think it was upwards of about 50 and we got 11 letters overall between the two circulations, so it was 5 or 6 for each circulation. And whether there was really opposition - they raised concerns but ."

Mitchell asks about parkland dedication. "This application's been changed significantly overtime and yet the essence of the original one was prior to the date in 2003 that we as a council changed parkland dedication policy . because it came in before that, they're getting to pay the old rates, that's what I'm hearing? My concern with that is yes the original application came in before that point, but this has been changed significantly since then and almost to the point that it's a brand new application . where do we cut off this backdating everything or are we close to be being done those? Because I've got an issue of backdating later [item 8.3] and staff have told me 'no you can't go back and change the date from September 1 to May 1, and yet we're continuing to do that for the big developers. So if it's right on one hand, it better be right for the grassroots on the other side as well." McCabe : "It's not a case of backdating here. Often a subdivision goes through a number of iterations before we find a balance and resolution of issues between both the neighbourhood and technical issues. So it's really the same subdivision application and was submitted prior to June 03, 8 of the new parkland dedication policy. And as part of the transition - the policies that we worked out as a consensus with the home building industry - it was very clear that any applications that have started and had applied for prior to the approval of the new bylaw would pay the old rate in effect from the former bylaw. And in this case it's a former City of Stoney Creek bylaw that used the one hectare for 300 units so that's council's policy on it. The situation that comes up later in the agenda, Mr. Chairman, relates to the date of payment of building permit stage. It's not a planning application, but it's a date of building permit stage."

Bruckler asks what is the implication of this. McCabe : "The city will be receiving less cash as a result of this change because the value as determined as of the day before draft approval rather than the value of the day before each building permit." No further questions from councillors. [40:15]

Excerpt from the meeting minutes: Chris Heinrich, 34 Lakeside Drive , expressed his concerns about the new road being proposed south of Lakeshore, under what conditions the existing residents could connect to the new road and the details and cost of future service hook-ups.

Staff explained that there was a cost involved for service hook-ups and that individual residents could choose to hook-up or not, as they preferred. He noted that if all residents agreed to connect to the new road, their existing private road would be closed.

Mr. Klein, 833 North Service Road , addressed Committee and explained his concerns about additional noise form the proposed commercial development, and the issue of drainage from the new development.

Staff responded that drainage would be addressed in the subdivision conditions, and the developer would be required to provide buffering and screening of the commercial uses at the site plan stage.

Councillor Mitchell requested that Mr. Klein submit his questions in writing.

Greg Poole, a planning consultant, addressed Committee on behalf of Dr. Robert Kosnick, an area landowner, who intended to develop his property in the future. He asked a number of questions regarding future connections to the storm and sanitary sewers.

Staff responded that they would discuss these issues later with Mr. Poole.

John Ariens, Planning and Engineering Initiatives, addressed Committee on behalf of the developers and provided an overview of the proposed development, assisted by Adi Irani, an engineer from A.J. Clarke and Associates. They explained that approximately 260 residential units would be constructed on the site, together with a commercial component. He confirmed that the existing residents could choose to hook-up to the new services, and that the intent of the Neighbourhood Plan was to have all residents connect to the new road, thereby eliminating the private laneway. He explained the arrangements for both these processes.

Councillor Mitchell explained his ongoing concerns that engineering arrangements should actually work and be acceptable to the residents, before being adopted by the City.

Staff responded that appropriate protocols and conditions were in place but that homeowners sometimes made alterations to swales after their construction, causing drainage problems.

Councillor Mitchell noted that he would continue to work with staff and representatives of the development industry on this matter.

Staff explained that HSR service could be provided to the site in future, once the development was completed. The service would initially be a pilot project, to assess demand and actual usage and could be connected to a fulltime, half hourly service, between 6 am and 12 am , if the residents wished.

Councillor Mitchell concurred with these details and noted that if the residents were in favour, the HSR service could be provided and would be paid through area rating.

Committee approved the staff recommendation.

[Time taken for this item : 64 minutes.]

6.2 Application for a Modification in Zoning for Lands Located at 1940 Main Street West, Hamilton (PD05009) (Ward 1)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05009.pdf
"to permit a physiotherapy, acupuncture and osteopathy clinic within the existing single family dwelling . It will replace a previous day care use within the building. The remainder of the building will be used for single family residential purposes. A total of 4 parking spaces have been provided on site, including 2 for the clinic and 2 for the residential component."

Staff report, no members of the public. Approved with no discussion. [Time taken was 4 minutes.]

6.3 Mr. Stephen Diamond, McCarthy, Tetrault, representing 100 Main Street East Limited, respecting stormwater servicing issues within the Rymal Road Secondary Plan
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/Item%206.3.pdf
No staff report.

Presentation cancelled because Diamond has achieved a settlement.

7. PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Proposed 10 Year Capital Budget Plan for Downtown Hamilton, the West Harbourfront and Downtown Renewal Division's 2005 Proposed Capital Budget Projects (PD05008) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05008.pdf
Approximately $2 million for three downtown projections - Ferguson Street, Bay Street and Hunter Street; plus a half million for a waterfront study and a half million for projects in Ottawa Street, Waterdown and other BIAs; and $600,000 for convention centre parking garage.

This item was referred to the 2005 budget process.

7.2 2003/2004 Clean Air Hamilton Progress Report & Green Venture Base Funding (PD05001) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05001.pdf

Staff report: " That the City renew its agreement to provide base funding for Hamilton-Wentworth Green Venture Incorporated (Green Venture) in the amount of $40,000 per year, for the 2005 and 2006 budget years. . "The updated air pollution health assessment report released by Clean Air Hamilton in 2002 estimated that five key air pollutants - nitrogen dioxide, ground level ozone, fine particulate matter, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide -- contribute to approximately 100 premature deaths and 620 hospital admissions in Hamilton each year. While new research suggests that these air pollutants affect health in a synergistic way, it also suggests that nitrogen dioxide and ozone may be responsible for a greater share of those impacts. The health estimates demonstrate that air pollution continues to present a substantial risk to the respiratory and cardiovascular health of Hamilton residents.

The trends in levels of air pollutants in the City demonstrate that significant progress has been made on some pollutants. Air levels of benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, total reduced sulphur and sulphur dioxide have been substantially reduced over the last decade in response to actions taken by both the industrial and transportation sectors. These improvements have been particularly evident in the communities located near the industrial core of the City.

However, the trends also demonstrate that little progress has been made on air levels of nitrogen dioxide, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone. These trends suggest the need for greater reductions from both the industrial and transportation sectors.

The transportation sector continues to be a major source of nitrogen dioxide and ozone despite significant improvement in emission standards. This suggests the need to examine how land use and transportation planning decisions impact on air quality and human health. It also suggests the need to examine how alternative fuels and technologies can be used to reduce emissions associated with both on-road vehicles and off-road equipment (e.g. construction equipment and lawn mowers).

Clean Air Hamilton received $88,000 a year in funding from the City of Hamilton in 2003 and 2004. Funding for Clean Air Hamilton was committed to the following programs: Homeowner Tree Subsidy, Tree Plantings for Award Winners, Heritage Trees, Upwind/Downwind Conference, Commuter Challenge, Anti-idling Campaign, Smog Plan and the Residential Energy Efficiency Project.

The third bi-annual Upwind/Downwind Conference on air quality was convened by Clean Air Hamilton in March 2004. The two-day conference, which aimed to cultivate an understanding of the links between air quality, human health and urban sprawl, was attended by approximately 115 planners, public health professionals, environmental professionals and citizens. The conference was funded entirely from sponsorships and registration revenue.

Under the Homeowner Tree Subsidy Program run by Green Venture with funding provided through Clean Air Hamilton, Hamilton homeowners are given subsidies of $29.99 per tree to have up to two native trees planted on their properties. In 2003, approximately 320 trees were planted in the community under this program, while 400 were planted in the first six months of 2004.

Green Venture partners with a number of City departments and with organizations such as Hamilton Industrial Environmental Association (HIEA), Connon Nurseries, Hamilton Utilities Corporation, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and Clean Air Hamilton on programs such as Native Species Tree Planting (1999-2004), Composting Promotion (1995-2004), Commuter Challenge (2000-2004), Wise Water Use (2000-2004), and EcoHouse (2002-2004)."

..

McHattie question to McCarry [1:55] ".as you know, Environment Hamilton has the Trees Count project where they're identifying the state of trees and actually identifying tree planting locations in backyards, working very closely with citizens . work closer with Environment Hamilton to try and deliver the backyard tree program in conjunction with the Trees Count project. Tonight we've got the Strathcona report being presented." McCarry suggests this be addressed to Heather Donison of Green Venture. "We're also funding a pilot project to look at heritage trees. We think that's a very useful thing to do where you're actually looking at the genetic stock of the tree as opposed to non-native stock." McHattie : "The anti-idling bylaw, we're simply taking an educational approach to that. Is it your view that we should be leaning more towards a bylaw that can be enforced on that? What's been the experience of other communities, for instance?" McCarry : ".my opinion is that anti-idling bylaws are very difficult to enforce and most places that have enacted them have found that there's a lot of thumb-nosing by citizens. The education process seems to be the one that works the best, so that's what we've advocated. unless there's some particular areas - around schools . downtown around hotels ."

McHattie : ".we were given the challenge to correspond with some of the U.S. cities . with respect to the ozone problems we are having here, which are clearly affecting the residents in terms of the numbers of deaths, hospital admissions, etc. . like to ask staff to investigate the issue in terms of providing direction for us as to who we need to talk to in the U.S. and perhaps eventually I'd like to work on a motion, perhaps over the mayor's signature, that we correspond with some of those other communities, sharing information that we have about the health of our residents, and the suspected source of the contaminant, and see whether we can work together on that." Whitehead advises staff develop a motion and have it presented to council.

DiIanni "And I'd be pleased to assist in whatever way with the initiative that councillor McHattie just talked about. Dr McCarry welcome and thank you for your report. I was interested in the evolution of this group and I think your responses to councillor McHattie captured where you want to go. I take it you're not that long in the tooth, and I take it you're still interested" McCarry : "Absolutely". DiIanni : "That's good news. I'm interested in the kind of leveraging that we're able to do with other levels of government as well as with other communities because let's face it were all in this, certainly in the bay area, we're all dealing with the same issues. They may manifest themselves slightly differently, but as you pointed out, this is an issue that's a southern Ontario issue, not just a Hamilton issue. So I'd like to be able to help in that way if we possibly can. And I just want to thank you, Dr McCarry, not only for the work that you do and your group does, but the kind of practical, down-to-earth recommendations that you provide as well as the science-based research that you do."

Mitchell also thanks McCarry and says he appreciates his honest answers so he has a big picture question ".transportation's going to need to continue and I think the car's going to need to continue, but here in the marketplace they're marketing big big heavy motors, big V8s and all this kind of thing, and they seem to be selling like crazy, when what we need is electric cars and battery motors . to help with this issue" Asks what's on the horizon in terms of federal regulation "We have to go in that direction, rather than let the marketplace keep buying big big heavy V8s". McCarry notes that only California has "taken the bull by the horns on that issue" . it's a big problem . it's a lifestyle issue, it's urban development. We found that in the previous report over a ten year period when the province of Ontario population increased by 8% the number of miles driven had gone up by 75%. Out in Westdale, a neighbour of mine is leaving. The first thing they did within a week was bought a second car. So you're facing that problem or a third car. It's a societal issue. I think that groups like this have to start to set a tone of how you do urban development in a different way. And then they say 'well I don't need that second car or that third car, I'll do that'. Every jurisdiction in Europe and North America is facing exactly the same problem. People want to have cars. But the encouragement of more fuel-efficient vehicles is what we're encouraging. . buying these SUVs and 6 litre vehicles is not the kind of trend we'd like to see.

[Time taken: 50 minutes]

8. DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Request for the Payment of Cash-in-Lieu of Parking for the Property Known as Block 1, Registered Plan No. 62M-963, 50 Hatt Street, Dundas (PD05019) (Ward 13)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD05019.pdf
"That the owner pays the Cash-in-Lieu sum of $22,269.00 for seven parking spaces.."

Carried with no discussion.

8.2 City of Hamilton Support for the Hamilton International Tattoo (ECO5001) (Ward 2 and City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/ECO05001%20
Hamilton%20Tattoo.pdf
"That Council extend the City's current agreement with the Hamilton International Tattoo for one additional year, and provide funding in the amount of $35,000 for the 2006 event".

Resolution adopted: a) That Council receive the Hamilton International Tattoo Business Plan and correspondence, dated October 19, 2004; b) That Council extend the City's current agreement with the Hamilton International Tattoo for one additional year, and provide funding in the amount of $35,000 for the 2006 event, to be funded from 58201-362320; c) That staff be directed to advise the organizers of the Hamilton International Tattoo that this is a one time extension and that following the 2006 event, the Tattoo will be required to go through the annual grants review process; d) That staff be directed to work with the Tattoo organizers to develop further the business and marketing plans for the event as well as provide a briefing on the city grants process; and e) That staff be directed to complete the funding agreement with the Tattoo, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement.

8.3 Application of the Parkland Dedication Cash-in-Lieu Policy for a Single Family Residential Development in the Rural Area (PD04318) (City Wide) (Referred from Council on December 15, 2004 )
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jan18/PD04318.pdf
Returned to committee by decision of city council. Proposes a 50% discount for rural properties. Issue of making it retroactive to May 1.

8.4 Declaration of Surplus Property, Couldrey Park , Dundas (PD05035)(Ward 13) (TO BE DISTRIBUTED)

Cancelled [see beginning of this report]

8.5 Sale of City Lands, Ancaster Industrial Park, Tradewind Drive to 2058949 Ontario Inc. (Gary Sohal) (PD05027/ECO05003) (Ward 12) Addition to the agenda. Neil Everson provided an overview of the staff report

Resolution (Ferguson/Pearson) (a) That an Offer to Purchase, executed by 2058949 Ontario Inc. on December 8, 2004, and scheduled to close on or before March 15, 2005, for the purchase of the City owned vacant industrial lands known as Part of Lot 33, Concession 4, in the former Township of Ancaster, (as shown on Appendix "A" to Report PD05027/ECO05003) being part of PIN #17411-0110(LT), described as Part 1 on Plan 62R-16984, having a frontage of 147.15 metres (482.78 feet), comprising an area of 0.947 hectares (2.34 acres), be approved and completed; and that the funds from this sale of $245,700 be credited to Account No. 47702-3629007002 (Ancaster Industrial Park Phase III). As the sale price does not include the Goods and Service Tax, should the GST be applicable and collected by the City, the GST amount is to be credited to Account No. 22835 009000 (GST Payable). (b) That the required deposit cheque, in the amount of $24,570, be held by the General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services pending approval of this transaction. (c) That as a condition of the Offer, the Purchaser is allowed 60 days following the acceptance of this Offer to undertake a Phase I and Phase II environmental audit of the subject property. Should the environmental condition results not be satisfactory to the Purchaser, the Offer shall become null and void. (d) That as a condition of the Offer, the Purchaser is allowed 60 days following the acceptance of this Offer to determine the suitability of the construction of a minimum 40,000 square feet, two storey office and warehouse building on the subject property. Should the results from the permissible building investigation not be satisfactory to the Purchaser, the Offer shall become null and void. (e) That the Mayor and Municipal Clerk be authorized to execute and issue a Certificate of Compliance in the form prescribed pursuant to Section 268 of the Municipal Act, incorporating the following: (i) That on May 16, 1995, Regional Council approved Item 4 of Report 6-95 of the Finance Committee declaring the subject lands in the Ancaster Industrial Park surplus to the requirements of the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth. (ii) That in accordance with the approved method of providing notice in the City of Hamilton By-law No. 04-029 "Procedural By-Law for the Sale of Land", notice has been given to the Public with a City of Hamilton "For Sale" sign on the subject lands for at least the minimum 7 day period starting on October 28, 2004. (iii) That the sale of the subject industrial lands fall within the class of properties that is exempt for the requirement for an Appraisal under Section 8 of the City of Hamilton By-law No. 04-029 "Procedural By-law for the Sale of Land".

Motions

9.1 Task force on VIA Rail issues (Motion) (Bratina/Ferguson)
WHEREAS the Federal Government announced in March 2003 that funding in the amount of $423M was earmarked for an urban transportation strategy that would include new VIA Rail services to Hamilton, as well as a new VIA Rail station in Hamilton Now therefore be it resolved: (a) That a VIA Rail Task Force be established with membership comprising: Councillor B. Bratina, Councillor B. McHattie, Mayor L. Di Ianni, ex-officio, Councillor T. Whitehead, ex-officio, and one representative from each of the following: The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Hamilton Board, civilian transit advisory group, and two (2) citizens at large; (b) That the Task Force undertake the selection of a Downtown location for the erection of a rail passenger facility and report its recommendation to Council for consideration; (c) That the Task Force report as soon as possible on the current status of the proposal; (d) That the City Clerk's Department provide administrative staff support for the Task Force; (e) That staff from City Departments support the Task Force as required; (f) That the Federal Government be requested to ensure the re-establishment of VIA service to Hamilton and the construction of a new station be substantially underway within one (1) year.

9.2 Committee then approved a Motion to add Councillor Mitchell as Second Vice-Chair on the Planning and Economic Development Committee.

12. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

12.1 Update regarding various OMB matters (No copy) This item was debated in-camera. The motion below is reported in the official minutes of the meeting.

Lowndes Quarry Proposal, East Flamborough (Motion) (Ferguson/McHattie)

1) That the Director of Development and Real Estate, in the Planning ad Development Department, in conjunction with Legal Counsel from the Legal Services Department, be authorized to retain, outside of the regular roster process, appropriate experts to provide the City with peer review services and advice respecting the Lowndes Holdings Corp. proposal (Dolostone Quarry) for the lands described as Part of Lot 1 and Lots 2 and 3, Concession 11, Township of East Flamborough, now City of Hamilton - municipally known as 475-515 11th Concession Road East, Flamborough.

2) That all the associated costs of the peer review will be paid for by Lowndes Holdings Corp.