Present: Whitehead (out 2x for 18 min); Kelly (out 7x for 114 min); Ferguson (out 5x for 48 min); McHattie (out 2x for 12 min); Merulla (out 5x for 44 min); Mitchell (out 4x for 89 min); Pearson (out 1x for 9 min); Bratina (out 3x for 30 min); Di Ianni (arrived 9:48, out 5x for 46 min).

Also present: Braden (arrived 9:54 , out 2x for 9 min); Bruckler (arr 10:25 , out 1x for 26 min); Jackson (arr 1:22 , out 1x for 5 min); Samson (arr 2:05 )

Media: McGuinness (Spectator), Mann (CHML) 10 am on, Werner ( Brabant ) (arr11:26), CH (arr: 10:45 )

CATCH: Don and others

4. DELEGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Mark Volterman, respecting activity at the Good Shepherd site, 398 King Street West .
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/Item%204.1.pdf

Delegation accepted.

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Removal of "H" Holding Symbol from Lands Located at 129 Cloverleaf Drive (Ancaster); Owner - Landmart Realty Corporation (PED05004) (Ward 12)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05004.pdf "to permit the construction of 13 single detached dwellings on a condominium road located at 129 Cloverleaf Drive (former Town of Ancaster) . Owner: Landmart Realty Corporation Agent: Steve Fraser, A. J. Clarke and Associates Ltd. . Area: Area: 1.29 hectares (approx.) . The requisite condition for removal of the Holding symbol is as follows: (a) The owner shall register a Condominium Agreement for a condominium road and submit the required fee. . The proposed residential development would consist of 13 single detached dwellings on freehold lots and would have a gated entrance at Cloverleaf Drive .

5.2 Heritage Permit Application (HP2005-006) Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction on the Designated Property at 32 Cross Street (Cross-Melville Heritage Conservation District), Dundas, in the City of Hamilton (PED05008) (Ward 13)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05008.pdf "the construction of an in-ground swimming pool and auxiliary filtration structure, maintenance to the existing boundary fence and the installation of privacy landscaping for the pool on the designated property at 32 Cross Street"

5.3 Heritage Permit Application (HP2005-009) Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Alterations to the Designated Property at 43 Cross Street (Cross-Melville Heritage Conservation District), Dundas, in the City of Hamilton (PED05009) (Ward 13)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05009.pdf "The applicant proposes the following alterations:

1. To replace the current asphalt shingles with the simulated-slate material.

2. To replace the current aluminum shutters with period shutters and hardware."

5.4 Contract C2-24-04 for Provision of Veterinary Services As and When Required (PED05010) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05010.pdf "In December 2004, a Request for Tender Contract C2-24-04 was issued by the Purchasing Section to provide non-emergency veterinary care to the animals in the care of the City's Animal Control shelter for a four-year term. There were three bid responses.

Clappison's Veterinary Clinic was the lowest total contract bid response for the four-year term at $520,000. Mohawk Animal Clinic submitted the second lowest total contract bid at $550,000 and Ancaster Animal Hospital was the highest bidder at $614,000. After additional in-depth analysis, based on staff time and transportation of animals from Jones Road and from Dartnall Road to the location of Clappison's Veterinary Hospital , City staff is recommending that Mohawk Animal Clinic be the successful bidder of this contract."

5.5 Amendment to By-law No. 01-169 to Appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers (MLEO) to Hear Appeals (PED05011) (City Wide) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05011.pdf

5.6 Minutes of Hamilton LACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee) from March 24, 2005 For Receipt Only;
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/Minutes
%20LACAC%20-%20March%2024th.pdf .

Consent items 5.1 to 5.6 approved without debate.

5.7 (added item) Report from Via Rail Task Force. Bratina read from the resolution adopted. "We had our first meeting of VIA rail Task Force, an enthusiastic group including our citizen volunteers . the Via Rail Task Force recommends that the site for the VIA rail station be located downtown and that the mayor be requested to communicate this recommendation to the federal government. I think if things work out it will be a good news story for the city of Hamilton and the downtown core."

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 City Initiative - Consolidated Lot Development Regulations (PED05014) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05014.pdf " The purpose of this regulation is to permit the ability for development to occur on more than one lot where the titles of the lots are in the same ownership. As an example, this regulation creates opportunities for larger uses to be built on more than one lot without the issue of setbacks from lot lines being an obstacle to development."

Whitehead (chair) asks if anyone from the public would like to speak. No verbal staff report provided. Ferguson asks staff: "in 20 words or less, what are you trying to do here?" Staff (Al Fletcher ?) provides example of a large industrial user wanting to build on more than one lot "this allows it to cross property lines without having to deal with variances for the side yard." Carried with no further discussion.

2 minutes for this item

6.2 Application for a Change in Zoning for the Property Located at 500 Glover Road (Stoney Creek) (PD05139) (Ward 11) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PD05139.pdf " The applicant is requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the subject lands to be developed for four single detached residential dwelling lots, and to recognize one existing lot and dwelling. Owner/Applicant: Simnat Consulting - c/o Terry Giangregorio (Solicitor)... Lot Area: 2,169.92 square metres." No circulation to public, but a sign was erected on the property

Whitehead asks if anyone here from the public to speak to it, and finding someone, he then asks the committee if they want to hear the presentation from staff. There is no vote but chair concludes they can forego the presentation. A representative of the owner of the property to the south and east of the subject propety speaks about block 5 of the subject property. His client supports the recommendation except for disposition of that part of the property which is intended to be assembled with his client's property. But nothing in the report that prevents leaving this land unused. Suggests a change in wording of conditions which is adopted by committee to allow block 5 to be severed and sold to his client. Staff (Joe Muto ) says this is an issue of private interest and suggests applicant can speak to the issue. Ferguson suggests item be tabled. "I'm just concerned about making a decision on the fly, here." Agent of applicant, Terry Giangregorio agrees with staff report. Says agreement has been made to sort this out. Concerned that application would be handcuffed by change proposed. Mitchell : doesn't want to see the land left "to grow weeds". Wants to see resolution if possible. Pearson asks for staff response to info from applicant. Muto uncertain of status. Mallard : [ 15:47 ] suggests deleting reference to severing the portion. DiIanni says he can't hear and asks for Mallard to speak into the microphone. Change made as recommended by Mallard. Carried.

13 minutes for this item

6.3 Application for a Change and Further Modifications in Zoning for Lands Located at 75 and 79 Rymal Road West (Hamilton) (PED05001) (Ward 8) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05001.pdf " The purpose of the application is to rezone the properties to permit a full range of office uses, including medical, dental and chiropractic offices. The applicant intends to develop a one storey medical office building. . Owner/Applicant: 6326471 Canada Inc. (K. Coolee) Agent: Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd., c/o Sergio Manchia . Area: 1,295.04 square metres."

Whitehead says this is a "non-issue". Foregoes presentation. No public. Manchia supports staff report. Agreement with adjacent owner to change planned fencing. Whitehead asks about an order to comply on the property. No one knows. Profusely thanks staff. No further discussion. Carried.

4 minutes for this item

6.4 Application for a Change in Zoning for a Portion of the Lands Located at 162 Ward Avenue (Hamilton) (PED05002) (Ward 1) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05002.pdf " The purpose of the application is to permit the expansion of the existing parking lot, operated by McMaster University at 162 Ward Avenue, with an additional 73 parking spaces." Owner is Henkel Canada Corporation.

No staff report. Whitehead asks for McHattie's comments. Says he wasn't notified this was coming onto today's agenda. "There are a number of outstanding issues here particularly in regard to traffic issues. This is in the middle of a residential neighbourhood with cars going into . a 200-300 car parking lot right along a residential road. . spoke to McMaster yesterday and indicated he would like to table this for two weeks. to consult with the community. . public meeting was held September 1st and there weren't too many people around at that time". Whitehead moves to forego the presentation and passes the decision. Then gets informed by staff that he has to ask to hear from the applicant. Mallard says "it would also be appropriate at least to have a short presentation on this so at least we have held our statutory public meeting and the result is we don't have to give another notification for a future public meeting. That way it's just tabled." Whitehead says nobody from the public wants to address this, and Mallard tells him to at least read the formal notice requesting public delegations. Whitehead reads statement. McMaster agent says "this matter has been ongoing for some 18 months. There has been a traffic report . there already is a permitted use with respect to this property, and in fact phase one of the property has been the subject of site development and construction has completed and there are presently 407 permitted parking spaces on this plan. So what we're actually discussing is the incremental impact of an additional 67 spaces. It is not the issue of whether the parking lot is lawfully permitted. . parking lot there presently . and given the present zoning of the property which is J zone" which permits present use "which is a fairly benign use . the parcel has been developed in two phases . will be developed during this summer so there is some time constraint . no members of the public here and the meeting was properly advertised, I think you probably have your answer in terms of the . public advisory committee, and I'd like to deal with it today if at all possible." Whitehead says motion aleady passed and would need two-thirds to reverse it. Mitchell asks if this means there would have to be another public meeting. McHattie says no need for another public meeting. "There are outstanding traffic issues with respect to the current operation of the facility. We need to get those dealt with. They aren't dealt with anywhere in this report, the staff report, so clearly they haven't been identified. I was talking to traffic yesterday and they haven't acted on it. So I think there are some possible solutions. . would vote against it today . important to have a little more discussion and try to make this thing work . initial parking lot is in place, and it didn't require any zoning change, so we need to try and make it work somehow. But I'm prepared to do that." Whitehead moves to the next item.

8 minutes for this item

6.5 City Initiative 05-F to Amend the Official Plans for the Former Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Former Town of Ancaster and the Former Township of Glanbrook to Recognize and Expand the Existing Airport Influence Area and to Create a Special Policy Area for Employment Purposes (PED05015) (City Wide) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05015.pdf " help implement the creation of the City Council endorsed "Aerotropolis Cluster" in the City's Economic Development Strategy. The effect of these Amendments is, firstly, to protect the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport's 24 hour/7days a week operation by restricting incompatible and noise sensitive land uses from encroachment into the operations of the airport; and, secondly, to provide for the development of employment lands surrounding the airport helping to ensure it is an integral part of the City's future growth."

[At this point, it is 10:07 and both galleries are packed with people standing at the back of each. There are about 200 people present of whom at least 160 appear to be citizens. The majority appear to be over 50 years of age.] Mitchell speaks first: ".we've got a full gallery here and I think it's the first time in five years on a planning agenda item that it's important as this to all of us to see the full gallery here." Notes that there are two items on the agenda that people should stay for after 6.5. Requests that people please stay "to hear the annual report from Tradeport at the airport and to hear the status of the new official plan for Hamilton for the rural part of our city, because I think that affects everybody here.." Whitehead suggests he was thinking about how to have 6.5 after the Tradeport presentation. Notes people have asked to speak and says others will be able to speak too [required by law]. Reads list of additional submissions that have been received. Then asks Guy Paparella to give the staff report. [33:20]

Paparella : .the purpose of this report today is to formulate a series of official plan amendments to the former regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan , the former Town of Ancaster Official Plan and the former Township of Glanbrook Official Plan . The purpose of all will be implement the creation of a city council endorsed aerotropolis cluster in the city's economic development strategy. The effect of these amendments is firstly to protect the John C Munro Hamilton Airport 24-7 operation by restricting incompatible and noise sensitive land uses from encroachment into the operations of the airport. Secondly, to provide for the development of employment lands surrounding the airport helping to ensure they are an integral part of the city's future growth. The direction came from council, by motion and yourself, Mr. Chair [Whitehead] on April 27th and essentially it is the purpose of this meeting to conduct that public meeting which was directed by council. The John C Munro Hamilton International Airport is an important economic engine for the city. Currently there's over 3500 jobs, over $120 million in employment income, over $170 million contribution to GDP. In total, we're looking at over $400 million in economic output. That's not including the city's investment in infrastructure and the important thing to mention here is that all the development on the property is vested in the city. It is our asset. The John C. Munro Airport has the potential to become one of the major airports in Ontario, distributing people and products in Ontario and Canada, distributing people and products throughout North America and overseas. One day's drive from 150 million consumers in North America . We have a private sector arrangement forty-year triple P agreement with Tradeport that goes until 2036. We have a 10,000 foot runway for intercontinental travel and that's being used. We have 24/7 365 day a year operations which is unusual for an airport of our size and that uniqueness gives us a competitive advantage. There's no congestion, low cost air services, and there's a dedicated apron which is going to be expanded. We have access to road, rail and port, and more recently the new highway six gives us a very competitive advantage to attract industrial and employment type services in this area. Also the future mid-pen corridor mentions the airport in their terms of reference as an important cog for creating an economic trade corridor to the United States . From a global perspective, air cargo, courier and passengers services are increasing. Rates are decreasing. Airplane fuel use has decreased over the last 50 years according to Transport Canada by almost 70% improvement. As volume and use increases, so will the viability of the airport. Focus in most airports in North America and around the world has been on long-term strategy, and they're focusing around the airport. You see lots of examples of that around the world. Dallas-Fort Worth is a really good example that you identified in our aerotropolis cluster strategy. The other items from a global perspective, the Free Trade Area for the Americas, NAFTA, European Economic Community, Asian Economic Community that's developing, all means that the aerotropolis is an important future cog and hub for that kind of activity. What is an aerotropolis? Aerotropolis is a master planned community emerging around an airport. It can include a variety of services, including the airport itself, highways to the airport, rail connections, port connections, mass transit services are important, industrial development of all kinds, commercial spinoff development from the kinds of activities that occur around an airport, and also residential areas with schools and neighbourhoods and things of that nature, that already exist. And that's an important cog in this perspective. Retail, food services as well. But the main thing for employment in these areas is the just-in-time delivery to gain a competitive advantage. That trend in industry has really changed the way business operates. And it's really important to save time and money and be cost effective in that manner. Also, we should be targetting time-sensitive companies. Things like auto parts, computer hardware and software, light assembly, electronics, distribution and logistics. These are all important airport related functions that need to be included in our aerotropolis. Council has indicated in numerous documents for over 15 to 20 years now - since I've been here anyway - about how important an airport is. They've also indicated from a strategic standpoint that economic development is the number one priority. The need to increase employment, the need to increase non-residential assessment growth, the need to create a balanced community based on the principles of Vision 2020 and building a strong foundation. Directions within that will include the attraction and retention of jobs as being a key and very important and significant element for our community. The Hamilton Airport Gateway Opportunities study further elaborated on what kinds of opportunities, economic and otherwise, the airport can give us, and the need to take advantage of that. That led to the aerotropolis cluster being created. The idea, the opportunity for employment and industrial development around the airport was further germinated during the mayor's airport summit and in a number of other documents. The airport itself, Tradeport reports today, they report annually to us. They also created an airport master plan which council has endorsed. And that's extremely important because there are key factors in there that council has accepted and are part of this proposal. We ourselves have also indicated that we're committed to GRIDS and making sure that there's an integrated planning process. GRIDS is the mechanism that helps us implement council's strategic direction and aerotropolis is part and parcel of that process. From a planning context, there's many documents out there - I've got a box full here - of things that we've put in place and we've had to deal with from the provincial level and the local level. Places to Grow has numerous references that promote node and corridors type development including airports, the need to take advantage of our existing infrastructure, and it specifically identifies the Hamilton airport and the importance of it for their ten-year infrastructure strategy for investment in the future. The province has already done that through the investment of 36, uh $34 million in new highway 6, and we're looking forward for further investments in their terms of reference at this point in the mid-peninsula corridor. The Greenbelt plan has also identified natural heritage systems, and indicated how important infrastructure is to the viability of airports and economic sustainability of communities. It has not included the airport specifically. It was left out of the Greenbelt . This signals that the province wants also to support growth around our airport. The Provincial Policy Statement also identifies how important employment areas are. We're trying to create that around our airport. Airports are a vital part of that economic fabric. From a regional official plan and local official plan standpoint, the airport is mentioned numerous times as an important and significant economic growth centre. It is important for us to have that implemented as council wished when it was created back in 1995 and beyond. From the standpoint of employment growth, Places to Grow is very clear. We need to reduce, as a principle, outcommuting. It's important for Hamilton to not become a bedroom community. We need to create a better live-work balance. In other words, we should be able to live and work in the community we live in. This promotes so many other principles including all the Vision 2020 aspects that we so dearly hold. We need to promote transit-supportive development. We need to create nodes and corridors that bring together both our neighbourhoods and our employment centres. Through Places to Grow and the background documents it's indicated that over 52,000 new jobs will be created or should be created in the Hamilton community by the year 2031. Using the principle of 15 workers per acre which is indicated in those documents. That equates to about 3100 acres. I apologize for not using hectares. I grew up in . acres. 3100 acres of new employment land is required for the city of Hamilton . Projected population growth, however must link to employment growth. The important thing here is we need a 2:1 ratio, that's two jobs for every person in our population growth. I think that it's important that we focus on that, understand why that's an important principle. Overall, these principles are an imput to our GRIDS process and then eventually to the sub-area growth strategy that the province is intending to generate for our area and surrounding communities. Moving on. Will this amendment undermine GRIDS? In a word, No. In discussions with staff, Steve Robichaud in particular, it's very clear all the six growth concepts which he has formulated and put forward and are before the public now, include and accommodate employment growth. All concepts include the aerotropolis cluster. All of them. We're not streaming. We're not scoping. They all include an aerotropolis cluster. Whichever growth concept council chooses from that process, will include an aerotropolis cluster. Also in the servicing scenarios for employment land around the airport is focused by creating this aerotropolis cluster. By putting more defined boundaries around what we mean by aerotropolis cluster, it focuses the effort or our master servicing exercise to ensure that we have appropriate and comprehensive reviews of all the master servicing that's required to deliver and implement the aerotropolis cluster. So in a word, it provides certainty. It provides long-term protection of airport and employment land which is a key cog in this whole exercise of community building, the need to improve our economic and sustainable job profile. Does it impact the EA process? These amendments today are under the Planning Act. They're not under the Environmental Assessment Act. They do focus efforts in both documents, and they do move us to a situation where we can focus more directly on what this community really wants. Moving now prevents land speculation. Council sends a clear message that these lands are for employment purposes and that's it. The official plan amendments themselves are very straightforward. When they speak of airport influence area, we've gotten lots of calls, both Steve Robichaud and I, regarding what is this going to mean. An airport influence area is just that. It's the area that we feel is influenced by the airport because primarily of noise, which is not a new concept. One thing I want to make very clear, this is not new. It was in the regional official plan since 1995. Most of it, almost 80% of it, is already identified in the documents. What's happening today is that we're expanding that to include essentially a tail of noise going in an easterly direction past Miles Road to incorporate a small area that is also subject to noise. What does an airport influence area really mean? The zoning that you have right now is in place. What it is is a red flag to landowners, prospective landowners, and to staff here to make sure that anything that's proposed within that area is looked at carefully to ensure that it does not restrict our airport operations. In other words, if uses that will at some point affect the airport, or affect the well-being of the people who presumably would reside in that development, then we should, as a public agent, make sure that all parties are aware, and that we protect the public from that kind of situation. And noise is a very difficult thing to classify. It's a very difficult thing because it's a very subjective thing. It's basically unwanted sound. Some people can live with it. Some people can't. Some people can live beside an airport, or a railway or a highway, and it doesn't really affect them that much. Other people can't stand noise at a very low decibel level because it bothers them. And it can affect people in different ways. Health and safety is a very important factor here. So it's not just about the airport. It's about protecting the people in the area as well. And what it is is just a notice. It says to people 'when you propose something in here, you're going to have to go through some hoops, you are going to have to show that the use you're proposing here is not going to be impacted by the airport and vice-versa. The airport is not going to be influenced by having this use built in that particular area. But that's what that means. In principle we've done, besides the smaller . I'll get the study in a second, we've created a visual map of what that area looks like that was missing in the regional official plan. It was missing in the local documents in Glanbrook and Ancaster because amalgamation occurred and they didn't get a chance to amend the local official plans as was directed in the regional official plan in 1995. So what we're trying to do now is put that in place, implement what was always intended. On top of that, through the airport master plan it was indicated that the noise exposure forecast - and that's a complicated formula that Transport Canada has generated that identifies, based on the type of aircraft, the volume of aircraft, wind direction - what kind of noise levels could be around an airport. And it is a forecast. It's a projection, if you will. It's an identification of the potential air mass affected by noise. And there's different levels of noise forecast. Right now anything between NEF 25 - noise exposure forecasting of 25 - to 30 you can have development as long as it's protected through noise attenuation measures. What we have for areas 25 and under is a prohibition. Essentially, as you get closer to the airport, you shouldn't be able to develop uses that are sensitive to noise and uses that affect the airport operation. That's in provincial guidelines. It's in Transport Canada guidelines and in place as a policy for quite a long time. However, airport people who did the airport master plan, have requested council to consider creating a harder line around the NEF 25 as opposed to 30, so that there wouldn't be that flexibility between 25 and 30. The reason for this is one of our major competitors that's emerging - it's been proposed anyway - is the Pickering airport has gone to NEF 25. And I think as a competitive advantage to 24/7 operation is better served, and they would prefer, that we go to the NEF 25. It's very important to protect that 24/7, 365 operation because that's our hugest competitive advantage in North America and we have to try and maintain that. I'll be speaking more about that when I get further into the presentation. This essentially is the area that we're talking about in terms of .point area. We put it on a schedule because [53:37] frankly I like pictures better than words. .make sure that we understand . The airport influence area within the existing regional official plan goes to Miles Road . and includes all this area. It's already in the Regional Official Plan. What we've done is we've added this component, because from this runway there's a bit of a tail that goes out farther over there and what we want to do is make sure that people in that area - and if you live there already you've probably already experienced it - but what we want to do is we want to show graphically that there is an area in here that's affected by the airport. We've already experienced it. We're adding it in. It's a notice. It's a red flag. We're saying to people: 'keep cognisant of that'. That's what we're trying to achieve here - getting people's awareness, making them understand that if you're proposing something here there may be an issue with the airport. . The next graphic shows why we did it that way. And you can noise exposure contours overlayed with the area that we've asked to be included as an airport influence area. And you can see that it's kind of a globular thing when it comes to the noise exposure forecast. This is based on, you know, so many different things, and there's different layers of it. You can see the different lines. The red line is the end of the contour that is, uh, 25, as you, sorry 30. As you go farther out you'll see a purple line and then a light blue line. So those basically from 25 to 28 and then 30. So those are the designations of the various lines in that area. So what we've done in the airport influence area, is we've basically gone to the closest physical feature which is, in the rural area, roads. So you can that we've gone a little bit over, but I think it doesn't prohibit development in those areas. What we're saying is just be on notice that you could get affected by noise. You can see the area that was excluded from the Regional Official Plan, and even though I was around in those days, I don't understand why that tail wasn't included because that runway and this noise contour existed back then. But again you can see that it tails off and then gets very narrow in this area here. So the noise impacts aren't as great. But we still think that it's important that people are aware in this area that there is an airport nearby. Now, that was the 1996 contours. I like to look forward, rather than backward, and you can see that based on future projected airline traffic, because the technology advances in aircraft - and you'll hear about this in the airport, Tradeport's presentation - 2006 aircraft will be quieter. Even though the volumes might go up, the technologies advance to such an extent that the noise contours begin to shrink. And you see by 2017 that area gets quite tight, so that tail if you will, that goes from Miles Road out this way, now, seems less significant. So if council wants to consider looking at leaving this tail part out, this is what you're going to be looking at in about 10 years time, so there may be a consideration for that. There's still exposure to noise but it's not a a level that's high enough that really it requires a major impact on the type of development that can occur there. The fact that most of it's in Greenbelt and rural probably will not negate a lot of uses that may be permitted there anyway. So, that's essentially where we're at. The next part of the amendment that we're putting forward is for the employment lands, and I think this is where the aerotropolis cluster concept takes flight. It's the beginning of it. We're drawing a line in the sand saying basically we want to look at this are, and that's why we call it a special policy area. We want to look at this area for employment purposes. We want to make sure that we design the area to allow for comprehensive servicing, for comprehensive planning, and therefore we made that special policy area subject to secondary planning provisions which will allow us to look at all of this - where the roads should go, where the uses should go, servicing roads, things of that nature - and also to look at the master servicing for the area. Those are all critical components that can be focused through the GRIDS process. What we're saying is that we want this area to be for employment, and we want a planning process from GRIDS, the secondary plan for this area, and the master servicing to orient themselves to this 3000 acre mass. Now it doesn't mean all will end up in employment, because as you can see, an aerotropolis requires flexibility. It requires variety. There are mixed uses on the edges that aren't impacted by noise that might be suitable for residential enclaves. So I think it's important to understand that it's not totally for that purpose, because there may be areas that are inappropriate. But what we're saying is we want to look at this area more comprehensively, and we want that opportunity. We've done that through this exercise, through this special policy area and we're doing it because we have a number of official plans. We have to do the same thing in Ancaster, the same thing in Glanbrook. And as councillor Mitchell has indicated, that's where the rubber hits the road in terms of public participation. That's when we want everyone's input, to come out, as you have today and tell us what your thoughts are. And I think it's important, he's mentioned, that we go out to the community. That's really key here. We want your opinions. We want you to understand what's going on and we want you to see what the vision is that council has for this particular area. Before they endorse that, there'll be a lot of public input, and we encourage that. We think it's important to make sure you understand the part of the community we want to come out and participate in those processes. There is an area that's a third part of this public meeting today. It's called Deferral Area #11. That sounds very technical, and it's a planning term, but essentially it's an area that's bounded by Twenty Road , Dickenson Road and Glancaster Road . It's in the former municipality of Glanbrook . It was deferred back in the 1995 in the Regional Official Plan. What a deferral means is that no decision was made. When something that referred, it goes to the Ontario Municipal Board. When something is deferred, essentially landowners in that area were not satisifed with what was being proposed for their land, so the Minister deferred this particular area. A deferral allows for negotiation. It allows for us to look at that particular area, talk and consult with the landowners, and that's why I mentioned the proper name is cooperation, because it's critical that that deferral, because it was placed on by the property owners, be removed with their support. You can't do it unilaterally. You can, but ultimately it would be referred or dealt with in another situation. So in that situation, what I'm proposing is that we consult with the landowners, and we've done that. Not all of them, but some major landowners have obviously gotten notice of this and indicated to me that they're concerned about what's happening. The thought from a number of people, and we'll hear today, I think, from some of them - their agents at least if not the owners themselves - about what their concerns is with respect to the noise restrictive NEF 25 versus 30 which is in the existing official plan. And I think what we've done is realizing that the airport preferred 25, we had a meeting. The principles of the airport and principles of the stakeholders in that area, Deferral Area 11, met and a compromise position was put forward, and I'm sure you'll hear a proposal to that effect today. It's obviously for council's consideration. The airport principles agreed that if the uses between 25 and 28, which was the compromise position put forward, which is inbetween, obviously, the 25 and 30 NEF, can be utilized for mixed uses that aren't conventional residential for example in the future. Maybe schools and things of that nature that aren't occuped, commercial uses, some higher density uses that use architechtural mitigation measures for noise attentuation. Those are the kinds of uses that would fit in that area. So 25 is still an important identifier of the area that we want to protect around the airport, but the area between 25 and 28 would be an area that we could look at some mixed uses. And that's something that obviously we would negotiate, if council wishes, with the landowners, and forward it as an amendment to this particular amendment that we've proposed today. And the . to approve the package for Deferral area 11. So, in essence, what will happen is the Special Policy Area for employment lands, and the Deferral Area and the existing Airport Industrial lands will essentially have surrounded the existing airport with developable employment lands. That is the beginning of the aerotropolis cluster. That is the beginning of where we need to go. "

Whitehead intervenes with question from Merulla who begins and is interrupted by people in the gallery who can't hear him. Merulla : .with respect to the actual contour issues, the 25 to 30 is presently a range, you're telling me, is acceptable or has been accepted, or is just a range that has been discussed as a potential goal?" Paparella : "The 25 to 30 is an area that we can consider based on provincial guidelines and Transport Canada for certain types of developments that are noise sensitive, but they have to be noise attenuated. In other words a study has to be brought forward, they have to identify how they're going to protect that particular use from noise influence from the airport." Merulla asks what 28 compromise would mean "as a positive contribution to our assessment base". Paparella : "It really doesn't have that much impact, because the uses that are worth considering from an employment standpoint can occur throughout that whole area. In Downsview, 40 or 45, some of the existing uses around the airport have lands in the 40 or 45 NEF right now. So the employment would not be affected." Merulla : "And why would the airport be so adamant on their position with reference to this issue?" Paparella : "I think they're going to presenting in a few minutes, after this presentation, and what you've got is a situation where they've put it forward as their preference. They see the 24/7 operation as something that they need to protect. I think it's important that the city, that we concur with the people that are managing the airport for us. The compromise position was put forward because there are some uses that are acceptable in the 25 to 28 or even 30 arrangements. So what they've decided is the hardline will be 28, and anything between 25 and 28 is acceptable to have some mixed use type of usages in there. The key here is they don't want to impact - and what I mean by impact is people getting together and complaining that you shouldn't have any more night flights; therefore we have to change the operation. I think that's the problem. The more people that you introduce to that area, the higher the potential for people to say 'hey, you know we don't want that 24/7 operation. We invested in a home'. Now those people that are existing, there's a complaint process. That right still exists. This doesn't diminish and of that. They still have to go through the process that exists today. What we're trying to do is mitigate other uses that are coming in here that are noise sensitive." Merulla : "But how many existing homes would be impacted in that range? Absolutely none, I expect." Paparella : "The noise that they're experiencing now is still going to be the noise that they're experiencing in the future. These are the contours that will be reduced over time so if you're in that area, then you're impacted by noise. At what level is a subjective thing. It's a matter of how. I've handled calls from people who live very close to the runways and have indicated that it's not that much of a bother, how the planes are gliding at that point. It's kind of a thing that they can live with. Other people who live farther afield, who live out in the countryside, have indicated that the noise really bothers them. So it's really a subjective thing. So from our standpoint, from a public safety perspective, this is the best we have in terms of implementating safety precautions for residents, and for protecting the airport." Merulla : "You've mentioned that a proposal would be forthcoming. Are you officially bringing that proposal forward, or do you require a committee?" Paparella : "Well eventually we'll require council's support. I believe that there are agents here who will request that. From our standpoint I just wanted to make sure that you are aware that those meetings had occurred, and that the airport and staff are supportive of that if council wishes to do." Merulla : "At this time I'd like to take on that direction. I'd also like to speak on the overall proposal itself." Whitehead asks Paparella how much longer his presentation will be. Paparella : "That's enough." [applause from galleries]. Whitehead : "I'm glad to hear it. Can I have Mayor DiIanni and then councillor Ferguson ."

DiIanni asks about secondary plan. "You listed a number of issues there that have to be attended to and targets and figures and so on. And you talk about the secondary plan of course . decisions that have to be made . servicing for that plan. I don't see anything there that talks about the financing for this and I just wondered if you might spend a couple of minutes talking about that." Paparella : "One of the issues that were dealt with through the industrial park analysis was a report came forward and was adopted by council dealing with the various forms of financing expansion. And in every case, the private sector was a key and very important cog in providing that direction. As a public agent, we obviously have to have a stake in that, we obviously have to plan for that. And depending on the volume of land that you have will affect the amount of interest you have from the private sector. Just in the last couple of months I've gotten indications from many industrial developer that if there's a vision, if there's something we can identify as an area that you wish to develop, let us know, and then we'll be there. So it's almost a chicken and egg type of situation. So reliant on public sector, whether its municipal, provincial, federal is obviously a very difficult thing, especially if we have to finance the whole thing. So my sense is this will be done through partnerships. This will be done through both municipal and private sector, provincial and federal government, trying to come to terms with the value of services that have to be put in here. And as you get past things like major trunks and arterials, you have to look at the private sector to take on that particular role of implementing development in that particular area. Now to say, it's going to be 50-50 or 60-40 clearly its our intention to make sure that the private sector drives as much of the cost as possible. Obviously there's a profit motive and there's some indication from many landowners that are pursuing purchasing more property there, that the value is there for them to invest in the servicing. They need some help, here and there, in terms of seed money, in terms of us initiating some strategies that will help and create some incentives. But the most important thing is that needed to see the vision so they could buy into the concept. The concept that I've been talking to most of them about is based very similarly to the ones we've utilized as a municipality for Waterdown and Binbrook, a concept where front ending is done through a partnership with the private sector individual. There's a long-term arrangement made for payback through either development charges or through the Municipal Act, and these are all aspects that we'll have to bring forward as part of and as an extension of the secondary plan and the master servicing plan for this area. So clearly the intention is not that the municipality would foot the bill or buy all this land or service it all. We're not going to be doing that. It would have to be driven by the private sector. This is about promoting and encouraging them to see the opportunity, to understand the vision, and participate actively in developing this area for a community." Whitehead interjects: "Thank you Guy. I'd just ask because we have a lot of people waiting. I might suggest that Guy could be available through the presentations and the public questions and there might be some good questions answered and responded to with respect to the public delegations. Could I suggest, just to move things along, that we invite the public now to provide deputations, and then we can ask staff to respond to those deputations accordingly and then we can come back to the committee to ask any further questions."

Mitchell : ".we've got the president of the airport here with a presentation and I think the public should get to see the information that's in this as well, because it may add in the debate or conversation that takes place afterwards. Good information that I think with this many people here they should see. Whitehead says he's at the mandated section of the meeting where the "public are invited to respond to the city's initiative, so we can deal with that, councillor Mitchell, when we get to it, but right now I'm obligated to invite the public down to make deputations" but asking councillors to hold off on their questions.

Ferguson : "the contour to the southwest, the bulge, I would suspect that's driven by the east west runway, by order of Transport Canada to veer sharply left after takeoff?" Paparella : "That's correct." Ferguson : "How bullet proof is that Transport Canada edict? What's to say that from now on we want you to go straight out? I would suggest banking creates more noise, and if they go straight out, would that change the influence area?" Paparella : "That might be a question that Richard Koroscil [president of Tradeport] could answer more appropriately, but my understanding is Transport Canada regulations prohibit them from moving that direction, and they would have to veer off in all cases and that's why the noise contours are generated in that fashion." Ferguson : "That banking hard left isn't very old - five, six years?". Paparella : "Correct." Ferguson : "So how bullet proof is that Transport Canada direction to ." Paparella : "My understanding is that behind the science behind it that it is also a regulation that they enforce through the airport authority in that area. So, that's all I have to say on that point." Ferguson : "I think this is important and could influence the influence area." Asks Koroscil to provide a comment. Richard Koroscil [moves into the seat normally occupied by the city's director of economic development and remains there for nearly all of the public delegations - until he becomes the second last public delegation]: "The contour is actually new a few years ago to facilitate less noise for the community that sits out off the end of the runway. So it's a common practice that we use all the time now and I don't see any reason to change." Ferguson asks if the banking 'hard left' is creating more noise. Koroscil says "not necessarily, no".

Whitehead asks for public delegations and asks them to line up along the stairs on one side of the gallery. "And because we have so many people, I want to limit the time. So we're looking at no more than five minutes for each deputation. If you're looking for a response to your deputation, I suggest you keep your deputation shorter because that five minutes is going to include the response from staff." [this interpretation of the five-minute rule appears to be entirely new]. Whitehead also asks for people to sign in, in advance, to further reduce delays [at a 'public meeting' each citizen needs to sign in so they can be recorded as having spoken and therefore preserving their right to challenge the decision later at the Ontario Municipal Board.]

Part 2
Continues with:
PUBLIC: Jack Santa-Barbara , Lynden [ 1:21:40 ]