"I know that there are many issues of concern around the idea of an aerotropolis. Some of them are environmental, some are economic. There's one in my opinion that's been sorely lacking in the entire planning process. I attended last week the public workshop provided by GRIDS and I was taken aback that this particular issue that I'd like to address has apparently not been considered at all in the planning process for the idea of Hamilton as a transportation hub focusing around the airport in particular. And the issue is that of peak oil. . It's not a new issue but it's more recently been coming to the fore, not only within environmental groups but also within the business sectors and planning sectors and financial sectors. But apparently it has not entered the thinking of the GRIDS process and council with regards to planning for our future economic development. Peak oil in essence means that at some point in time, the development of this finite resource, this limited resource on which our entire economy is driven is going to reach it's half way point. Now that may sound a bit encouraging that we have half left. The fact is that we use so much of it, that even though it has taken us 150 years to use the first half, it will only take a couple of decades at most to use the second half. This is a fact. Peak oil is not a hypothesis or theory, This is a fact that any geologist or scientist will attest to. The great uncertainty is precisely when this peak, this half way point, will occur. It's fairly easy to calculate. The difficulty is that the information we need is in the hands of a few major oil companies and sheikdoms, so we don't have the basic data. However, geologists and scientists have made various kinds of sensitivity analyses using the best available data to generate when peak oil will occur. The majority of those estimates put the peak within the next five to ten years. That is, within the next five to ten years we're going to reach the half way point in the availability of petroleum, the liquid fuel required to drive the global economy and every mode of transportation. When peak oil occurs, everything changes. It's not just a matter of prices increasing, and financial institutions such as CIBC has projected oil up to and over $100 a barrel. French financial institutions have projected oil up to $300 a barrel US within the next decade or so." Whitehead: "One minute". Santa-Barbara: "The main point is that everything changes with regards to not just the pricing but the actual availability of liquid fuel to drive the transportation system. This is going to affect land use planning, modes of transportation. More importantly it's going to affect economic development of almost every kind. Yet this very important issue has not been considered within the GRIDS process or by council, to my knowledge, with regard to Hamilton 's future economic development. I would like to formally request, and I have a written submission with two suggestions. One is that the planning committee request the GRIDS process to formally examine the issue of peak oil with respect to the GRIDS process. And secondly, that the idea of expanding the urban boundary around the airport as part of that process be deferred until such time as that report is made available to the public." [Applause]. No questions from the committee.

PUBLIC: Len Falco , President, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce: [1:26:30] "I'm here representing the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and really in support of the official amendment to rezone the lands for employment use around the airport. Economic development has been the city's number one priority since at least 2001. Also since then the city has consistently said that the airport is one of the primary thrusters of future job growth and economic development in the city. With this premise, it is completely inconsistent to not have the lands around the airport zoned for employment use. Until this happens, the investment community will continue to view Hamilton with a certain degree of skepticism and a lack of confidence on economic development matters. One of our key weaknesses from an economic development viewpoint is that we have a lack of inventory of employment lands near transportation corridors. This is absolutely essential if we are to attract and retain business today. Hamilton International Airport specializes in handling air freight and is Canada 's largest air freight airport, perhaps North America 's third largest. It is the only airport in the world that specializes in air freight that does not have significant plots of employment land adjacent to it or at least reasonably near the airport. It is important to realize that creating employment lands around the airport does not really overstep the GRIDS process. All along, and this is key, the province has identified the Hamilton International airport as a growth node. The lands around the airport are not prime agricultural lands and are not currently in use as such. [calls of No from the galleries]. No one is recommending that" Whitehead interrupts: "Hold for a second. I just want to ask the audience to show respect and proper decorum because there is at least an hour, almost two hours of presentations, and if that kind of attitude is going to present itself in these chambers, then I'll have to ask you to leave. So let's have some decorum. Thank you." Falco : "The best possible use for these lands is for industrial purposes. The only alternative, sorry. So in summary there we need to move on with this, not only for our own communities discernible economic health, but also in order to combat the competition from Pickering that was mentioned earlier. Hamilton has a successful freight airport, but no employment lands. Pickering has no airport, yet, but a full supply of shovel ready lands, employment lands. If the investment community feels that Hamilton is not serious about using our potential employment lands, and they perceive Pickering has a reasonable chance of proceeding, they will locate their employment investment there. Therefore we have a very narrow window of opportunity to leverage the competitive advantage of our airport before either opportunity is lost. If that opportunity is lost, it's lost forever. What we will be seeing is Hamiltonians commuting to Brantford for what should be their jobs there, and not assessment growth. Brantford has been growing, and with relative ease of access to our airport they can expand their assessible tax base at the expense of Hamilton . One other issue that we do want to bring forth to is that we also agree that we need to enhance public transit service to the airport. The Hamilton Chamber has been asking for this consistently for the last four years. There are currently 3500 jobs at the airport. A lot of them are entry level jobs, and unfortunately many people in need of these jobs, cannot reasonably access them because there's no HSR service. We fully agree that we also need full HSR service to the airport, not only for the potential job growth that we would expect, but for the existing jobs that are there right now. In short, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by rezoning the surrounding airport lands for employment use. We are not asking for a nickel of infrastructure investment at this time, except perhaps for some enhanced HSR service which we feel will create a return on investment and reduce social service costs. We need a strong message to the investment and employment community that Hamilton is indeed open for business. When all is said and done the bottom line is that we need employment lands around the airport as soon as possible."

McHattie : "The comments about peak oil I find intriguing from the previous speaker. I've read lots about it, heard lots about it. From the Chamber's perspective - and the way I think about is sort of a risk analysis. We do risk analysis for all sorts of things in economic development and business, and I know that the Chamber understands that concept. What does that mean to you when we hear that it may be a reality in five years? It sounds like more and more geologists are going in that direction." Falco : "I think we have to look at the big picture, and I think that what we're seeing is that there's a lot of investment and investigation going on and research looking at alternative type fuels. You know when you look at biodiesel and products that are coming from other types of sources, energy sun, solar type energy. I think there's a lot being developed at the current time. It's probably too soon for us to speculate, and who knows what those numbers are. It's a valid point, however, there will always be travel. There will always be air travel, and if the fuel that we're using today runs out there will be some other alternative source developed some time in the future. And I have every confidence in that." McHattie : "I know Len's been involved in the training world here in Hamilton as well. . I sit on the poverty round table for Hamilton and as you know 25% of Hamiltonians are below the poverty line. The focus of that group, amongst others, is jobs for those people . appreciate your thoughts on whether we need to do a thorough analysis of the needs of those particular people and the jobs that will pop up at the airport, trying to match the two a little bit closer. Generally, right now we get kind of broad statements, and maybe at this point in the process that's all we can have, but just that there are jobs available, jobs are going to be available, but we need to match them, in my mind, as I sit around the poverty round table with that hat on, as John Dolbec does, from the Chamber, do you think we need to look at a little finer level I guess as to the kinds of jobs, the kinds of training that's needed, and apply to HRSDC, whereever the sources might be, to get the right match. . I'm just concerned that it's sort of a general jobs, we may not get that match that we need, and we may still be in the position that we've got 25%, 20%, whatever the number might be, poverty. . I know with the background, Len, you'll be able to help with that." Falco : "Very quickly then, I think what we're seeing is a lot of the manufacturing jobs are moving to third world countries. I think what we are going to be seeing is a much higher level of service oriented jobs and that kind of suits the application for the airport lands. Service jobs, really, whether it's warehousing, whether it's freight distribution, computer equipment. If you look at the area around Pearson for example, it's become a very high level corporate centre so you've got a very mixed bag of, of, from, from executive type positions to warehousing and distribution. So I envision long term something like that for Hamilton . I think that you know it may not be to the same extent as Pearson, but it certainly would have that quite a broad spectrum of jobs available for people in our community, so we can keep them in our community, and not have them commuting outside of Hamilton, and avoiding the gridlock and all of that that's there. I hope that answers it."

Whitehead notes that Braden and Mitchell have also indicated they want to ask questions. "I just want to caution you to the fact that there's a list of over 90 minutes of presentations - and that's without answering questions. Just be cognizant of that." Br aden : "I understand that we need shovel-ready land right away. We've got to get going .. If in fact Hamilton has to put in $100 million to service this, to make it happen and to make it happen quickly because speed is of the essence here, would it be the Chamber's view that we should be putting in $100 million?" Falco : "From the Chamber's point of view?" Braden : "$100 million from the point of view of the city supporting the servicing of the land." Falco : "I think first of all we have to look at where the funding will come from, and I think that Mr. Paparella had indicated earlier that there were four different sources of funding. Certainly the private sector, business, which supports the Chamber, and the Chamber is a not-for-profit organization, made up of business community. However, those folks are willing, if the land is available, those folks will come. There's no question about it. There's already been inquiries and people have indicated that, and I think Mr. Paparella and his comments made those points. The other point of where some of the funding would come from, when it's needed, at that time, would be from some of the provincial and federal government. And I think there's already been some moves afoot to provide some funding, or at least earmark some of that funding. I'm not 100% positive aware of it all but hopefully that answers that." Braden : "That doesn't answer the question. Let me be more specific. You know that it is uneconomical to develop. You know that approximately $100 million is required. We have our hand out hoping to the province and the feds. If they don't come through, the question is: 'do you feel this corporation should undertake to support this project to the tune of $100 million in order to make it happen?" Falco : "Absolutely." Braden : "Absolutely?" Falco : "Yes." Braden : "That's the Chamber's view?" Falco : "Yes." Braden : "Thank you."

Mitchell : "Mine's not a question, just a comment for Len, and I always appreciate hearing from the Chamber and the majority of the time support what they're after in economic local development. One of the concerns I had though, Len, was your comment about agriculture. I just wanted to jump in and say there may be some marginal areas there, in your presentation, but those contour lines there - and I farmed some of the land in that area - and agriculture's a billion dollar business in this city. And I think through this process some of that excellent agricultural land - this process will protect it from becoming homes. I don't believe in our lifetimes we'll ever see that much business locate that far out . and agriculture will be a viable business for Hamilton to prosper in the future. So just next time he makes those comments, tone em down just a little, or we'll help remember that agriculture's pretty important to the Chamber of Commerce as well." [applause]. Falco : "Absolutely, and if I could just qualify that statement, councillor Mitchell. Yes, as a matter of fact I grew up on a farm. Our family farm is located right at the end of that new section that's being designated. So I certainly sympathize and understand it fully, and maybe my comment was a little bit harsh. It was taken in the wrong text."

Whitehead vacates chair to comment: "I don't accept the premise that councillor Braden about the $100 million cost, because I think it was pretty clear in Guy's presentation that this is not a unilateral investment made by the municipality. This is a combination of sources of funds, through the private sector, through provincial and federal partners. But to put it forward the way you did, I don't accept that." Braden : "I hope that in the rest of the debate that we'll actually get the real hard numbers. Those numbers are the city's numbers, not mine." Whitehead : "Well I haven't heard that."

PUBLIC: [ 1:40:40 ] Kimberly Piper: ".and I'm on the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, and also past president of Flamborough Chamber of Commerce. First of all I just wanted to make a comment just a little further to what Len had said about the $100 million that it might need for services. I've done a lot of work in sort of investigating this myself and my understanding is that Woodward [sewage treatment plant] is at theoretical capacity so we do need to do some upgrades. So I'm very interested to see as well sort of what the whole gamut is in what the servicing costs are going to be and exactly how much of that is specific to certain areas, and how much is that just overall, the city needs to get their act together and get servicing up to date. So I just wanted to make that comment. Also I'd just like to give you a bit of my background. I work with (CB Richard Ellis?) commercial real estate firm. It's a worldwide firm and we represent clients such as Ford, GM, UPS and the list goes on. I'm also a taxpayer, originally from Flamborough and now residing in the west end of the city. I work tirelessly at promoting the city of Hamilton to my clients, and it's been a difficult task. We don't have what we and they want - serviced land on a major highway corridor. Highway 403 and the Linc are two missed opportunities. We can't afford to miss another one. I've been involved with the Chamber and with the city's GRIDS process and heard from some that we are premature in requesting the zoning and there is no justification. I can clear that up for you right now. Ferraro is not here. P&G is not here. UPS is not here. Camco is not here, and Pickering is a real threat. We must be able to compete, to be able to provide options that meet the needs of those who could invest in our community. Not one option tucked away with full access to major highways. We need multiple viable options. The market has passed us by on numerous occasions because we do not have what companies want in the marketplace and what they're looking for. Unfortunately this has been the scene in the Hamilton area for such a long time, it's assumed that Hamilton is not a good place to do business, therefore sometimes opportunities pass us by without even a glance in our direction. In our business it is imperative that we have many irons in the fire. In other words we need to be working on multiple deals at one time to ensure success because inevitably you can't win them all. We must remember the old saying, location, location, location. The airport is an incredible asset to build on. Not only are their logical users such as couriers and logistics, there are also the spinoffs from companies that want to be close to airports as their executives fly in and out on a regular basis. I have leased properties in the aiport . and areas surrounding the Toronto Pearson airport, and I would be happy to share with any of you on the information that I have on why this is possible and successful. I've also heard the argument that we might have an oil crisis looming, and therefore investing in the airport is short-sighted. I disagree. Although I'm not an industry expert, I can't imagine that air travel will cease. There will always be the need for time-sensitive materials to be moved in and out of our community. Industry will find a way to make it happen. Given the anticipated population growth, I expect that the need will be even greater. In fact, I believe that an oil crisis could strengthen our argument for the need to develop airport lands if the other alternative is to develop new lands around the Pickering airport. I don't like urban sprawl. I grew up in the country and I love greenspace. I also don't like the gridlock and the commuter deficit that we've been having in this community. I would much rather a large development in the greenspace surrounding the airport to create employment lands. I believe reducing the commuter deficit by employing more of our citizens in our city will help environmentally by significantly reducing gridlock leaving the city and will strength the social fabric of our society by allowing families to spend more time together. I'd also like to mention something that is not a new issue for Hamilton , but I'm pleased to see that the McMaster innovation park is now beginning to address its problems, and that's brain-drain. And I graduated from McMaster and most of my friends have vacated the community because there are no jobs here. And I'd just like to mention that I think that any kind of prosperity is going to be good and helpful to keep those people closer to home."

PUBLIC: Carol Desnoyers : Resides "within the proposed Airport Influence Area . First and foremost I would like the record to show that as a citizen of the City of Hamilton I am deeply troubled by the process used by city council to fast track the proposed changes outlined in this report. [applause] These changes are far-reaching in nature, directly affect a large number of property owners and are highly sensitive. Despite thse important factors we were officially notified on Wednesday June 1 of this "public" meeting and that this 28-page report would be available on or after June 6, only one day prior. This has left us very little time to prepare a thorough and detailed response. I would like to point out the following regarding the proposed amendments: (1) No substantive public input has been sought from property owners directly impacted by these proposed changes. This meeting may qualify technically to fulfill the requirements under the Municipal Act but given the magnitude of the proposed changes it is the responsibility of this committee and that of the council for the City of Hamilton to seek out proper public input via extensive dedicated public meetings [applause]. (2) The report supporting these amendments does not address the costs related to the proposed boundary expansion for water, sewer, storm sewer and other services. Estimates for these services range from $50 million to $100 million. These estimates do not include the costs related to upgrading or augmenting an already strained infrastructure within the city. The report also does not address the source for this funding. (3) The proposed changes to support council's vision of an aerotropolis arguably contradict at least 7 of the 9 directions adopted by the same council in September of 2003 and guide Hamilton's 30-year growth strategy, namely GRIDS. (4) The proposed changes and the actions of council clearly are designed to circumvent the spirit of Bill 136 Places to Grow Act currently before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The message we are sending to Queen's Park is that the vision of Hamilton city council is more important than the vision for the entire province and we are above the law. (5) The report does not address the environmental and economic impact of the loss of valuable agricultural lands or dramatic changes to the community. Poorly planned urban sprawl and the reduction of greenspace is contrary to a vibrant and pleasing community in which to live. For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully request this committee recommend to council for the city of Hamilton to defer a decision on the proposed changes until proper economic and environmental studies can be completed to support the proposed growth plan. Further, that council directs this committee to seek substantive public input into the proposed changes via dedicated public information meetings. I believe that it is very apparent from the number of people here today that there is significant concern. Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit my comments today, for the public record." [applause].

Merulla : "Just with respect to the comments surrounding the infrastructure costs of $50 to $100 million. It's been brought to my attention that there's some very innovative measures that can be pursued to mitigate those costs. I'm just wondering, it's probably an appropriate time, through you Mr. Chairman, to someone from Tradeport or anyone who can answer it with respect to those innovative measures." Whitehead : "Richard, do you want to say something?" [Richard Koroscil, president of Tradeport moves to the seat normally occupied by the city's director of economic development]. Koroscil : "Yes, we've had actually a lot of discussion around the potential use of package plants - Zeeon [Zenon?] which is a world class manufacturer of these types of facilities in Oakville . We've talked to them about the opportunity of bringing that type of facility, and certainly in our discussions with the development community, they see that as a specific option that could be used, certainly in the short term and mid-term. In fact, I think there are opportunities for us to be a little creative in the community to find other options than sort of standard pipe-in-the-ground alternative, that have been through, uh, different types of treatment facilities or operations that could take place and reuse and recycle wastewater." Merulla : "So would it be fair to say that that $50 million to $100 million figure would be substantially decreased in endeavouring to pursue these innovative measures?" Koroscil : "Absolutely, and following Mr. Paparella's comments, I believe that the private sector will come in a very big way to the party here. We produce community, we pay taxes, we understand the city's position in terms of its funding. And we would want to find ways to keep the city's . and participation very very low and we believe there are ways to do that. I'm absolutely confident about that." Merulla : "And also one other question to Mr. Paparalla, with respect to comments about not following protocol under the Municipal Act, can you just elaborate on our position and whether or not we did follow the protocol?" Paparella : "In fact the At Your Service page had a notice of this public meeting with numerous references to the amendments on May 13 in accordance with the Planning Act, what is required when we do an amendment of any kind. And subsequent to that there was a, the councillors for the area sent out a letter to over 2500 homes. Unfortunately it went out last week [laughter]. The councillor's indicated that but the At Your Service notice is what we usually do and what is required for all Planning Act amendments." Merulla : "With respect to future consultations, will there be any future consultations related to this issue?" Paparella : "Yes as I've indicated this is essentially the beginning of the process. What we're going to be doing beyond this, in terms of the secondary plan and the master servicing plan, there'll be ample opportunity for public participation. That's the intent, and surely if that's council direction we will proceed accordingly." Whitehead : "I think this is sort of setting of the template but there'll be a lot more consultation as we move forward." [ 1:53:50 ]

Bratina : "We're being asked at the end of this meeting to approve this, and I'm very uncomfortable with this. And I agree with this speaker that this is a very, although technically may be a properly conducted public meeting, it's really not going to fulfill the public's expectation about what this meeting should be. And I'm kind of disappointed that I voted for a public meeting to be held, that it would be held in this format with the expectation that at the end of the meeting, we would listen to these presentations, and then make our decision. There's a lot of material here. There's new material being presented by the speakers, and I would be willing to move that we defer this and organize a proper public meeting with perhaps cable television coverage on it, so that the whole community can be involved [applause] in one of the greatest political decisions that we have to make. [prolonged applause].

Whitehead : "Right now we are in the mandated meeting. It's not part of debate. You could certainly put that forward at the appropriate time. At this point, we're just asking questions of the people providing deputations or in fact staff." Bratina : "Well we're going to go through a long process here and we may have to do it all over again. I'm really concerned about the way that this has all come about. And you've heard the complaints about the timelines and so on, and I don't it's proper for us, even though it may be technically correct, to conduct this public meeting in this manner. [applause] And I would be willing to move [drowned out by applause]." Whitehead : "That would be inappropriate at this point in time, but if you want to come back to that you can get there to that place in the road." Recognizes councillor Merulla : ".We're not doing anything different today than we've done in the past, so I'm a little confused as to why it's being criticized. [laughter]" Whitehead : "Again it's a characterization but this process is not different than any other publicly mandated process that we've embarked on to date." Bratina : "I understand that, but look what we have here today." Whitehead : "That's part of the process". Bratina : "I understand that as well, but we have to listen to all these presentations and then weigh the material that we've been presented and then make a decision, and we're expected to do that today. And I don't want to do that today." Whitehead : "What I'm suggesting councillor Bratina is after the deputations we can come back to committee and there'll be an opportunity for you to put your position and test the will of this committee either to have it tabled or to have further broader consultation. So that would be appropriate at that time." Bratina : "I understand that Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that comment. I'm just saying that we've got a lot of people here who have interesting things to say, and I'm not sure that this forum will be able to properly handle that. However, I'll wait for the appropriate moment." [ 1:57:13 ]

[CATCH is continuing to transcribe this meeting and more will be posted in the future. In the interim, we have copied the description of public delegations provided in the official minutes of the meeting.]

John Shymko , Council of Canadians, 75 Kenilworth South, addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - lack of public input - lack of adequate time for the public to consider changes and respond - need for proposal to be discussed through GRIDS process.

Syd Hamber , J.J. Barnicke, 667 Highvalley Road , addressed Committee in support of the proposed amendments. His points included but were not limited to: - significant revenue from development around Airport - need to have Airport industrial area or will continue to lose industrial growth to Brantford and other places.

Len Stupak , 7299 Dickenson Road , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - concerns about 24/7 operation - increase in recorded noise and "noise incidents" which interfered with normal conversation - proposed a curfew 11:00 pm - 7:00 am to benefit residents - concern about lack of action from Airport Complaint Line.

Susan Kaystym , 411 Book Road , Ancaster, addressed Committee with her concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - lack of road infrastructure for trucks - ending of country atmosphere and life - increase in industrial areas in rural Ancaster - concern about future highways.

Stewart Gibson , 555 Glancaster Road , Mount Hope , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - lack of certainty of timing in report, date of 2031 too far in future and uncertain.

Carlo Silvestri , 445 Crerar Drive , Hamilton , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - need for deferral to allow proper public input - too many restrictions on development already.

Albert Heensherk , 1370 Glancaster Road , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - noise concerns - promises that previous runway expansion would lead to new/upgraded windows have not materialized.

Jim Quinn , 20 Blackwood Crescent , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - quality of life issues - increase in damaging air pollution which adversely affects human health - environmental degradation - should do Downtown as priority, not enough money to do Downtown and Airport - peak-oil issues.

Diane Fields , 20 Blackwood Crescent , Hamilton , addressed Committee with her concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - concern about boundary expansion, taxpayers' ability to pay for development - peak-oil - loss of agricultural land - air pollution will lead to increase in preventable deaths.

Maurice Desnoyer , 251 Carluke Road West , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposed amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - lack of public notice and meeting should have been in agricultural area - size of employment area not justified - offended by bureaucratic language in report and presentation.

Janet Chafe , 111 Claremont Drive , addressed Committee with her concerns about the proposal amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - affected by airport noise, especially 24/7 operations - high cost will be borne by taxpayers - decision already made - lack of need for airport - projections of employment growth are unrealistic.

Molly Cramer , 495 Aberdeen , addressed Committee with her concerns about the proposal amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - job projections are only a guess - worried about increase in noise and its adverse impact on enjoying being outdoors.

Lorraine Booker , 230 East 12th Street , addressed Committee with her concerns about the proposal amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - existing airport noise an issue - Alliance Airport at Dallas-Forth Worth now has a rail link as this is cheaper than trucking goods - Forecasts of jobs vary - report says 52,000 but HSR says 9,000.

Roy Salisbury , 12 Sinclair Court , addressed Committee with his concerns about the proposal amendments. These included, but were not limited to, the following: - concern that amendments may be contrary to Provincial guidelines, leading to potential expensive litigation for City - amendments based on out-dated planning theory from 1950's - "build it and they will come" - concern that changing and emerging technologies will make these plans obsolete - need to consider all trends in planning and decision making.

Sergio Manchia , PEIL, agent for Twenty Road , Spallacci and others, addressed Committee and expressed his views on the matter. These included, but were not limited to: - in general accord with proposals - asked Council to move forward - content with change in boundary from 25 to 28 NEF.

Craig Smith , 1224 Smith Road , Ancaster, addressed Committee and expressed his views on the matter. These included, but were not limited to: - this area includes good agricultural land - concern about impact on existing farmers of development charges - more time and public meetings needed - noise an issue but people get used to it.

Ray Wilson , 927 Garner Road East , addressed Committee on behalf of his church, and requested information on - the status of the land between the hydro lines and Garner Road - the impact of the Green Belt adjacent to his land. Jeff Springstead, 1231 Glancaster Road , Mount Hope , addressed Committee and expressed his views on the matter. These included, but were not limited to: - opposition to amendments and the large area affected - can the area be reduced?

Peggy Guimond , 689 Glancaster Road , addressed Committee and expressed her views on the matter. These included, but were not limited to: - wants an evening Public Meeting - concern about major loss of agricultural land - quality of life affected by noise, people need peace.

Don McLean , CATCH, addressed Committee and expressed his views on the matter. These included, but were not limited to: - concern about staff presentation, lack of alternatives being put forward, lack of solid information - concern about timing and arrangements for meeting - lack of trust in politicians and process - huge decision being made, but whole format is wrong.

Peter Fletcher , Box 175 , Mount Hope , addressed Committee and asked questions related to the wisdom of the approval of a new subdivision for 800 people within the airport noise area. Staff advised that the Glanbrook Hills subdivision is not within the noise contours for the proposed amendments.

Murray Cranston , 153 Carluke Road , addressed Committee and expressed his views on the matter. These included, but were not limited to: - concern about irreversible loss of agricultural land - requested Committee to think about the importance of agriculture.

Stewart Steeves , Tradeport, addressed Committee and expressed his views in support of the amendments, including, but not limited to the following: - need for airport to expand - need to balance live/work/play within our community and airport development will assist with this in many ways - local airport means convenience to the 4.5 million local people who fly each year - existing infrastructure is under-used, development will use it more efficiently - Dillon Report should have included the airport.

Richard Koroscil , Tradeport, addressed Committee and expressed his views in support of the amendments, including, but not limited to, the following: - job creation positive - airport jobs have higher salaries than provincial average - options available for funding - water and road structure in place, still need sewer - noise definitely an issue to be addressed, 28 NEF is a hard line, 25-28 NEF is do-able - not a competition between Airport and City Core as jobs will support City Core, jobs at airport are of different kind - peak oil is an issue being looked at - thousands of jobs have left Hamilton, need to get going on positive ways to keep and attract jobs, get Hamilton "Open for Business".

Chair Whitehead thanked the public and the speakers for their attendance, participation and patience. He advised that the Public Meeting was now concluded. Mayor Di Ianni congratulated Chair Whitehead and the public for an excellent public meeting. A Motion by Councillor Bratina , seconded by Councillor McHattie , to table the matter pending three additional public meetings in the community was lost.

Committee discussed the proposed amendments in detail and had additional information supplied by staff. Mayor Di Ianni explained that the City had three big ticket items, clean-up of the harbour, rehabilitation and revitalization of the Downtown and employment. He said that the Airport proposal supported the increase in employment the City needed, and that Provincial legislation supports the growth around the airport. Committee discussed the issues of growth in jobs and assessment, the need to move forward, costs and funding sources and the need to provide local employment for young people so that they stay in Hamilton . Concerns were raised regarding the lack of information, particularly alternatives to the proposal, the format of the meeting, costs of the proposal, loss of farmland, the need to balance the economic/social/environmental aspects, the impact on existing poverty in Hamilton and the need to obtain details of the impact of peak oil before final decisions are made. On a Motion by Councillor Merullla , seconded by Mayor Di Ianni , Committee approved an amendment regarding the increase in NEF from 25 to 28.

On a Motion by Councillor McHattie , seconded by Councillor Merulla , Committee passed an amendment for staff to report back on the impacts of the airport on poverty and employment.

Committee approved the Recommendation, as amended.

4 hours and 43 minutes for this item

BREAK IN MEETING from 2:50 pm to 3:10 pm

7. PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Annual Report from Tradeport, respecting John C. Munro International Airport-verbal presentation, no copy.

17 minutes for this item

7.2 Status of Official Plan Work programme-Rural Area-verbal presentation by staff.

3 minutes for this item

7.3 Commercial Market Analyses and Action Plans for Downtown Hamilton BIA, International Village BIA, Barton Street Village BIA, Main West Esplanade BIA and Stoney Creek Downtown BIA (PED05003) (Wards 1, 2, 3 & 9)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05003.pdf "The City, in co-operation with the Business Improvement Area community, retained Urban Marketing Collaborative to undertake Commercial Market Analyses and Action Plans for the five (5) Business Improvement Areas.."

14 minutes for this item

8. DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Store Hour Policies and Practices (PED05007) (City Wide) - Referred from Planning and Economic Development Committee on November 2, 2004
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PED05007.pdf Information report. Recommended to have public consultation on possible changes.

6 minutes for this item

8.2 Population density needed to justify extension of HSR service (From Outstanding Business List, verbal presentation by staff)

8 minutes for this item

CATCH monitor left after this item.

9. ITEMS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL/COMMITTEE

9.1 Application for a Modification in Zoning for Lands Located on Annabelle Street, Lot 23, Registered Plan 62M-1024 (Hamilton) (PD05120) (Ward 8) (Tabled by Committee on May 17, 2005)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/PD05120.pdf " The purpose of the application is to permit the development of a semi-detached dwelling.. Owner/Applicant: Angros Enterprises Limited. Agent: A. J. Clarke and Associates Ltd."

10. MOTIONS

10.1 Motion respecting a "Business Ambassador" Programme http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun07/Ambassador%20Motion.pdf

13. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL (motions taken from the official minutes)

13.1 Tradeport International Corporation Lease Update (City Wide) (PED05027/FCS05070) (Item 13.1) (Ferguson/Mitchell) (a) That the Lease Co-ordinator role be assumed by staff in the Economic Development Division of the City's Planning and Economic Development Department. (b) That in accordance with the mandatory requirement specified in the lease agreement, a Performance Appraisal of Hamilton International Airport (Tradeport) management, operations and financial performance be undertaken and the results be reported back to Council for direction. (c) That the City's external Auditors be authorized and directed to conduct this review, and that the cost of this review be funded first through the Economic Development Operating Budget to a maximum of $10,000, with any additional costs funded through the overall Corporate Budget. (d) That the balance of the report remain In-Camera. CARRIED

13.2 Expansion of Airport Lands-East (City Wide)-(PED05028/FCS05071) (Item13.2) (Ferguson/Pearson) (a) That the City of Hamilton approve and complete the Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated April 27, 2005, with the Canadian Warplane Heritage, for the lands known municipally as 9266 Airport Road, Mount Hope, Ontario. (b) That the funding for the total land acquisition costs of $3.15 million be funded from a funding source to be identified. (c) That the Head Lease Agreement between TradePort International Corporation and the City of Hamilton be amended to reflect the additional lands acquired in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated April 27, 2005 . (d) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized and directed to execute the necessary documents, in a form satisfactory to Corporate Council. (e) That the balance of the report remain In-Camera CARRIED

13.3 Expansion of Airport Lands - West (City Wide)- (PED05029) In camera item - no resolution recorded in the minutes.

Return to Part 1