Present:

• Whitehead (out 2x for 15 min),
• Pearson (out 1x for 3 min),
• Merulla (out 2x for 4 min, left 12:47),
• Bratina (out 6x for 39 min),
• Mitchell (out 3x for 9 min, left 12:40),
• McHattie (out 2x for 3 min),
• Ferguson (out 4x for 24 min),
• Kelly (out 7x for 76 min).

Also present: Bruckler (left before 11 am )

Media:

• McGuinness (Spectator),
• Mann (CHML),
• Werner ( Brabant )

CATCH: Don

Changes to the agenda: 4.1 and 4.2 delegation requests. Added submissions to 6.2, 6.7 and 6.9.

4.1 Delegation request from Renzo Bandiera regarding improper diversion of storm water from Fifty Point subdivision to Lochside Drive properties in Stoney Creek .

4.2 Repeat delegation request from Mark Volterman regarding Loretto Academy property. Volterman's earlier request had been turned down by the committee in favour of directing him to speak with staff. Volterman did not agree with this decision. Committee agreed it will hear him at its next meeting.

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Information Report: City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Denial of Consent/Land Severance Application FL/B-04:71 (Joe and Shirley Slagter, Owners), 43 Bayview Avenue, Former Town of Flamborough - Supported by the Planning and Economic Development Department (PD05140) (Ward 15)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PD05140.pdf

5.2 Heritage Permit Application (HP2005-010) Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Alterations to the Designated Property at 47-49 Cross Street (Cross-Melville Heritage Conservation District), Dundas, in the City of Hamilton (PED05020) (Ward 13)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05020.pdf

5.3 Heritage Permit Application (HP2005-008) Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of an Addition to a Detached Residence Within the St. Clair Boulevard Heritage Conservation District, 231 St. Clair Boulevard, in the City of Hamilton (PED05024) (Ward 3)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05024.pdf

5.4 Removal of the Holding Provision for Part of Lot 9, Broken Front Concession, Seabreeze Estates Inc. - Phase 2 (Stoney Creek) (PED05026) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05026.pdf
Location: Part of Lot 9, Broken Front Concession, Whitefish Crescent Owner: Seabreeze Estates Inc. - Phase II (c/o Peter DeSantis) Agent: Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (John Ariens)

5.5 Declaration of Surplus Property Located at 13 Mountain Avenue, Stoney Creek , (PED05030) (Ward 9)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05030.pdf

5.6 Sale of City Owned Property - Part of 30 Limeridge Road to 814904 Ontario Inc. (Orvin Zendel) (PED05031) (Ward 7)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05031.pdf

5.7 Removal of the "H" Holding Provision - for a Portion of the Lands Located at 2461 Regional Road 56 (Glanbrook) (PED05038) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05038.pdf
O'Neils Farm Equipment \

5.8 Appointment of Weed Inspectors for the City of Hamilton (PED05016) (City Wide)

5.9 Administrative Amendment to the Former City of Stoney Creek Official Plan (PD05017(a)) (Ward 11) This also refers to Seabreeze Estates.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PD05017a.pdf

5.10 Concession Street Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Revised Board of Management (PED05032) (Wards 6 & 7)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05032.pdf

5.11 Appeal of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Decision to Approve Minor Variance Application HM/A- 05:50 (Betsy Chou and Jeff Brown, Owners), 61 Locke Street South , Former City of Hamilton - (PED05037) (Ward 1)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05032.pdf

For Receipt Only; 5.12 Minutes of Hamilton LACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee) from April 28, 2005
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/LACAC
%20MINUTES%20-%20April%2028.pdf

All consent items were approved without any discussion.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 Application for an Official Plan Amendment and a City Initiative for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 4300 Binbrook Road , More Particularly Described as Lot 5, Block 5, Concession 3, Part 2 of Plan 62R-5365 (Glanbrook) (PED05025) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05025.pdf

This is the Glanbrook municipal centre (formerly townhall) and city wants to rent a portion to a doctor. Whitehead asked if this would be unfair because the city doesn't pay taxes. Staff said they were charging market rents so no benefit.

6.2 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located in Part of Lot 33, Concession 7, in the Former Township of Saltfleet (Hamilton) (PED05033) (Ward 9)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05033.pdf

Bruckler raised a question on density. The staff presentation was not heard.

6.3 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 1575 Brock Road (Flamborough) (PED05018) (Ward 14)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05018.pdf

No discussion. No public delegations. Staff report not heard.

6.4 Application for a Further Modification in Zoning for Lands Located at 556 - 564 James Street North (Hamilton) (PED05023) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05023.pdf

This concerned an attempt by the owner to legalize an existing residential use. Ed Fisher who operates a business across the road from this site appeared before the committee and noted fire safety problems, lack of fire escapes. No mention in the staff report. There was also concern about no penalties imposed on property despite breaking the zoning bylaws for 10 years or more. Staff noted it was a new owner seeking to correct past problems. Item was tabled until the next meeting to allow the ward councillor to investigate further, and fire safety inspections to occur.

23 minutes for this item.

6.5 Application for a Modification in Zoning for Lands Located at 250 Rymal Road West (Hamilton) (PED05017) (Ward 8).
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05017.pdf

Zoning change will allow lot severance and future house construction. Son of owner of lands behind these appeared over issue of access. Currently access is not exactly on legal route to avoid removal of mature trees. Wants to make sure this zoning change doesn't disrupt things. Staff says this is an issue for the private owners to work out.

17 minutes for this item.

6.6 Application to Amend Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 for Lands Located at 711 North Service Road ( Stoney Creek ) (PED05022) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05022.pdf

No staff presentation heard. Mitchell makes amendment for no stopping signs. Also raises concerns about storm drainage. 3 minutes for this item.

6.7 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located on the Southeast Corner of Wilson Street West and Given Road ( Ancaster) (PED05013) (Ward 12)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05013.pdf

No staff presentation given but Ferguson asks question related to written submission. Staff says maximum size is 20,000 square feet and therefore not a full shopping facility. Agrees with Ferguson that letter is a non-issue. Not worried about lawsuit. Whitehead raises issue of competitiveness. Sergio Manchia speaks on behalf of applicant "Report makes reference to Marz Homes. this is not what it's going to be. This is the new headquarters for Royal LePage in the west end of Hamilton which will employ 60-90 people." Currently in Ancaster. Agrees with staff that letter is a "competition matter". "We are not in business to compete against Triway. We are strictly looking for a new business centre for LePage." No public delegations. Ferguson says it was approved by local planning committee. No other discussion. Carried. 7 minutes for this item.

6.8 Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Windwood" and for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located on Part of Lot 37, Concession 3, Municipally Known as 413 Shaver Road (Ancaster), Owner - Branthaven Windwood Inc. (PED05005) (Ward 12) " south-east corner of Shaver Road and Wilson Street West .
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05005.pdf

Whitehead suggests foregoing it but McHattie wants staff presentation so it is given. Facilitate development of 78 freehold townhouses in 13 blocks plus common element area. Location is isolated from other residential and adjacent to Canadian Tire area. "Staff is confident that this development will not prejudice future development and it conforms with the Garner neighbourhood plan. Ferguson speaks first and notes Shaver will be update to an urban standard. Whitehead says if they move that quick out there when are they going to get urban standards in ward 8. Developer agent later says payment is front-ended by the developer. McHattie asks about loss of trees, asks about ESAs. Staff says closest is behind the industrial park. McHattie asks how many trees will be lost. Staff says plan still being developed. That trees along road allowance "are in fair to poor condition" and will be removed and rest not decided until draft plan of subdivision. McHattie asks for the buildings to be placed within the forested landscape rather than removing trees. John Ariens is agent from Planning and Engineering Initiatives. He has the proponent with him. Tells McHattie that "when the Shaver neighbourhood was prepared, detailed environmental studies, woodlots were identified, ESAs, creeks, valleys. All of the open space and wetland areas were identified and this particular property, in fact most of the lands in the immediate area, were not identified as having environmental significance from a sensitivity standpoint." But they've done tree preservation plan "which is currently being reviewed" and "every effort will be made to maximize tree preservation as we go through the process. The most significant challenge to this property is of course the topography and the grade and the fact that the land tiers down and that pretty much predicated the development pattern . did manage to really meet the density objectives . 50 units per hectare is the maximum and we're at 40 . good location for higher density next to commercial areas and right on an arterial road. So this does represent a very well planned project." Ferguson says it's been to the local planning committee "and they're very much in favour of it . fine development . lineup started at 3 in the morning . so there was a pentup demand for this type of development." Bratina notes Ancaster Road Runners used to run past this site and "much as the development is great I think it's sad because it's such a beautiful area and to have townhouses out in the country, virtually . regrettable that the proponents and others can't find their way to do intensified residential developments within the city of Hamilton and closer in. I know there's a Canadian Tire and a Walmart just beside there. and I wouldn't think of standing in front of this. The zoning is all in place. I just want to say as the houses move in and the rural countryside is impacted that it's a passing of time . was a very beautiful area . can't stand in the way of progress but I would have preferred to see some intensification in other parts of the urban boundary other than here." Carried

Whitehead recognizes presence of Terry Frisken, EA of MPP Andrea Horwath.

15 minutes for this item.

6.9 Application for a Modification in Zoning for the Property Located at 675 Strathearne Avenue (Hamilton) (PED05021) (Ward 4)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05021.pdf

[1:21:20] Peter DeIulio makes the staff report (although it was prepared by Shanna Murray) ".application by Liberty Energy Ltd . to permit a private utility that is an electrical generating facility at 675 Strathearne Avenue . surrounded by industrial uses, all K zone . application was circulated to various internal departments and external government agencies. No real concerns were raised. We do have some comments from the Ministry of the Environment regarding a record of site condition, certificate of approval and environmental assessment that will be required. CNR just requesting a chain link fence bordering their rail line. In terms of public consultation . application was pre-circulated to all property owners within 120 metres - there's only 11 property owners - and one letter of concern was received. In addition, the proponent had two public open houses to introduce the project, one in January which 35 people attended, and a follow-up in May which 5 people attended. They circulated people within 1350 metres of the subject property. In terms of the issues, the real issue here is that an electrical generating facility is permitted as of right, but it would have to be owned by a public agency, so the only issue here is it's being run by a private agency. So that's the reason why the amendment is required. There are issues to deal with through the Ministry of the Environment's Certificate of Approval and the city will be a commenting agency on that, so a follow up report will be coming to committee once the Certificate of Approval is applied for. The Certificate of Approval will address the issues of noise, odour and emissions. In addition, the Ministry has indicated that this will require an environmental assessment since it's classified as a category C project. As well, the Ministry of the Environment has identified the need for a record of site condition before the use can be established and in this regard, the city, we're proposing to put a holding provision on the bylaw until that record of site condition is completed and the zoning would take effect. So in summary, the application has merit and can be supported since the application conforms with the Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan and the City of Hamilton Official Plan . It's similar to others that are already permitted within a K district and it's compatible with surrounding uses."

Merulla asks if waste management advisory committee included in the consultation process. DeIulio : "I'm not sure if they have but I did speak with Beth Goodger on Friday and she has been in contact with the proponent and she did indicate that this is a process in terms of collecting and generating waste the municipality does not collect right now, so that helps them in terms of reaching their goal of waste diversion. And she indicated that they're going through a logical and respectful process and it helps the city if there are viable private enterprises undertaking this type of initiative. Merulla : "I don't know if my question was answered, but the waste management advisory committee wasn't included for any consultation or actual statement from them regarding this ..Iin dealing with odour and emissions issue, do you have any idea what the impact radius would be . with respect to this incinerator?" DeIulio : "I myself, no." Merulla asks if anyone else would like to answer that. DeIulio : "I don't think there's anyone here to answer that question right now." Pearson (acting as chair): "Would that not be something that the Ministry has to address in the application for a CofA?" DeIulio : "As indicated in the MOE Certificate of Approval process, they will deal with the issues of noise, odour and EMISSIONS." Merulla : "As a council, madame chair, I think we should have some idea of what the impact is. I see in the staff report that Ward 4 is affected, but in essence there's a significant radius area that's impacted including Burlington , Stoney Creek , Wards 5,4,3,2 if not even the mountain area for that matter. And what types of emissions will be coming from this plant?" DeIulio : "I'm not familiar with the process. I think the applicant might be better able to answer that question in terms of the process." Merulla: "I'll mention a couple." Pearson interrupts: "Councillor, you can also ask the applicant. You can ask the applicant during their presentation." Merulla : "Dioxins, mercury, sulphur, and nitrous odours in addition to CO2 emissions which contradict federal and provincial efforts to reduce climate changing emissions. Also with respect to the type of incineration . city staff has any type of understanding of this type of technology and whether it exists anywhere else in North America ?" Pearson says hold the question until the applicant makes their presentation. Merulla says he wants to know if city staff have the answer. DeIulio : "Being planning staff, I'm not sure, whether waste management staff are aware of any technologies. We'd have to check with them." Merulla : "In endorsing this . the provincial environmental assessment . if we were to decide to approve this today, would this not be perceived as an endorsement of the actual plant itself from the city, except for the comments subsequent to the application?" DeIulio : "I would say that it's not an endorsement. The generating facility is permitted as of right for PUBLIC utiltities. All we're permitting is a private utility to perhaps run an electrical generating facility here. It's just they need the zoning in place beforehand so they can proceed with their Certificates of Approval. If this was a public agency, they would just be going through a Certificate of Approval process with the MOE." Merulla : "You've reported one Certificate of Approval that they need, is that correct or is there actually three needed?" [long pause] Paul Mallard : "I can't say with certainty, but it's my understanding that there are three, but perhaps the agent or the applicant can clarify that for us at the time they make their presentation." Merulla says he'll wait for that.

McHattie : "I guess the overall concern I have, there are some specific concerns, but overall is the lack of a holistic planning process in this application. They're coming before us today with the planning issues, but there are also clearly environmental issues and social issues as well that arise from this application. And it's my sense that perhaps this is one of the first such incinerators in Ontario and because of that I think we've got to go very slowly on this application, and to proceed with both the environmental issues, the planning issues, and the social issues, public health issues for that matter, dealt with in a holistic sense. So I've got a concern with proceeding only on the planning issues today. That's, in my mind, fragmented planning. And we don't have the answers today that we need. Councillor Merulla asked a number of questions that we don't have answers, at least within our planning department, and that to me demonstrates the importance of dealing with this in a more holistic fashion. I'll certainly not be wanting to support this proceeding today from a land use planning perspective. I'd like to see more of a holistic environmental assessment undertaken on this. And to that end, I wonder if I could ask to our planning department about the category C environmental assessment? I wonder if you could give me just a little primer on environmental assessment, in the sense of what are the different levels, different scopes of EA's and where does a category C EA fit into that overall scope?" DeIulio : "I'm not sure for this type of project, but I certainly know for a roads project or water and wastewater, the category C goes through the most stringent tests. It requires a more thorough process. The category A in terms of municipal roads and water/wastewater are sort of like pre-approved. Category B if there are certain costs, it may require some documentation under the environment, but C would require almost like a full, thorough investigation, if this is part of the municipal Class EA document. I'm not sure if this type of project falls within that document or it's a totally separate EA document that they're following here for municipal energy projects. So I'm not familiar with the municipal energy project, but certainly the other ones that category C goes through the five stages of the municipal class EA process." McHattie : "I think that's the concern we should have here. We need to understand the environmental assessment process. If this in fact is one of the first such incinerators in Ontario , it is a precedent-setting initiative and one that we want to have a full examination of rather than just a class level environmental assessment. I think back to the 1970s to the Ontario Waste Management Corporation with the different types of waste initiatives that they were dealing with, and that was a FULL environmental assessment which in fact took several years. I'm not suggesting this needs to take several years, but it needs to be a full examination, not just with the planning issues that we're dealing with today, but the environmental issues, social issues and public health issues as well. So that again raises a flag for me that we need to understand that before we go any further." McHattie notes that he's commenting, not asking questions, so he says he'll hold his remarks until the appropriate time. One more question: "On the waste itself . with our mass composter that we're setting up, the concern I have is the grass clippings and that category of waste that's going to be used in this incincerator. Is that not something we should be directing towards our composting system? ." DeIulio : "That hasn't come up. She did indicate that some of the products that are going to this facility are products that are not compostible. I know the grass clippings I'm sure are compostible, but she did indicate some of the materials aren't compostible. She supports that aspect of that." McHattie : ".Do we have toxicity data on our biosolids, and any other biosolids which would come from other jurisdictions to this facility, giving a breakdown of what we anticipate in those biosolids. I'm thinking about metals and other materials that we get . industrial wastes through our STP as well as just straightforward nutrients?" DeIulio : "I don't have that type of information. I don't know if the applicant has more of that. It might be in the background information that was part of this application, but I don't have that answer right now." Whitehead says agent is here and McHattie could ask him those types of questions. McHattie says ok but has one last question: ".apparently we don't have the information today on a staff level. I appreciate the proponent likely has some of this information, but I would feel more comfortable hearing it from our staff. .If we turn this down today, or perhaps put it on hold . what is the proponent's likely action on that?..." DeIulio says he hasn't had this discussion. Merulla asks to move a motion to table the application, seconded by McHattie.

Whitehead : "I'm going to do something a little different because there is a lot of questions being asked of a technical nature, I'm going to ask, before we go to the public, that we would allow the agent or applicant to come down and make a brief presentation and respond to the questions."

[ 1:39:09 ] Sergio Manchia of Planning and Engineering Initiatives: ".for the record, this is not an incinerator and I'll get into that, for the record. And I don't appreciate the words being used as incinerated. We in fact are not an incinerator. . Today I have here with me Mr. Anthony Zircone from Golder Associates. Also Mr. Wilson Nolan from Liberty Energy, the proponent. He is from California . Liberty Energy is a - and I'll have him speak - is a family-operated business. . This is a very exciting day for Hamilton . We're embracing what we call green energy and it is something that has been widely accepted throughout Europe and is now being introduced into North America and California in particular, where our project has already been initiated. As your staff has indicated, our application before you is not to introduce a new use, but simply a TECHNICAL application. The city of Hamilton bylaw, as we all are well aware, is outdated. It's done it's duty and it's time is past. But unfortunately, the definition of private versus public energy facility is a bit of a tweaker here. . We're taking approximately a five acre site in the heart of an industrial area and we are proposing to introduce a power plant source, an application, Mr. Chairman, that's being endorsed by our province. The province, as you are probably aware, the community's aware and staff and the public, is pushing for private energy facilities, and, once again, green clean energy. As mentioned by your staff yes we did hold two public meetings and for the record it was 500 metre radius. The planning act requires 120 metres. We went beyond that for the obvious that beyond the 120 there is very little residential. Also for the January 19th meeting we posted a notification in the Spectator for three days. And we did only have 35 persons on the first, and second meeting the circulation went out and we only had 5 visitors. . The comments that were made regarding the Certificate of Approval by the MOE is the large hurdle that we must still overcome. The application has been submitted by our consultant and client, and we are working, and have met, for the record, with MOE. And they too are very excited about this new initiative. Regardless of where it's located, in the heart of the industrial Hamilton port area, or if it was somewhere else, this, Mr. Chairman, is once again clean technology. And we are here once again to reinforce the point that it is a permitted use in the K district. We still have to overcome a variety of approvals including the Certificate of Approvals, which are required the three, not the one, as councillor Merulla has mentioned. Clarification, councillor, it is three applications, three requests. We are not at the final approval stages. We are simply ironing out the small technical issues the province wants us to deal with. And that once again deals with the outdated bylaw. The facility will simply be heating, via gas fire, not incineration. There is a stack and in fact we will be working with biomass - leaves, wood chips, grass clips, sludge, vines, and it will work with sand and heat combustion system which Mr. Zircone will talk about in a moment. This is a thermal reaction, creating energy to create energy which can be floated back into the grid for up to 8000 homes. This investment will be approximately $60 million, which has been endorsed by the province of Ontario with our client. And we look forward to moving to that date of construction as we get closer to our approvals. Your staff did in fact have an opportunity to attend Sweden last summer, and I believe councillor Ferguson also attended, and there they actually witnessed this technology in operation - a technology that has and continues to work well throughout Europe . .[shows slide on plant layout] .we are on a five acre parcel and we're not even going to be using the majority of the land. . if you simply thing about the dollars that the city could save in landfill, and in addition the environmental concern echoed by the rural farmers about spreading sludge on farmland which will be, can be alleviated. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is clean green energy and this is a very important point that we are in keeping with the Kyoto agreement which I think is a very key crucial component that we all can agree that's something we should strive for and not debate. There has been comments related to SWARU. This is apples and oranges, Mr. Chairman, members of committee. It's my understanding in speaking to the experts that SWARU produced 5 grams every year of dioxins into the air. Mr. Chairman we know that our facility will have 1 gram of dioxin in every 20 years. In conclusion . we're providing energy for 8000, for potentially 8000 homes, $60 million investment, technology that we refer to as green energy, endorsed by the province. Innovative technology making Hamilton a leader in North America . The question becomes what is the glitch here, and it is, once again, a technical zoning wording issue of public versus private energy facility. We're in compliance with Kyoto . We're going to create 11 full time jobs here. In addition, there has been an agreement with my client and some community groups to constantly have liaison so that once we're operating, there'll always be discussions and updates on how we operate. We are keeping within Vision 2020. We still have a long way with regards to our environmental approvals and our friends at the MOE. Once again, Mr. Chairman, this is nothing new in the municipality. The energy centre at Bay and York , the Energy Centre as its referred to, has been in place for numerous years, and I know for a fact, in working on a lot of downtown projects, there are a lot of companies and institutions that are reaping the benefits of the Energy Centre. Mr. Chairman, I will step down. I went over my limit [he spoke 9.5 minutes]" Offers to answer questions. [ 1:48:40 ]

Merulla : "With respect to the downtown example . do we have a garbage powered facility downtown?" Manchia : "No it's not garbage. It's natural gas. It's natural gas like ourselves." Merulla : "So that's not a real fair comparison? ."

Merulla : With respect to the consultation, you had the one meeting which was wonderful and I guess 60 people had attended. And then you had a subsequent meeting, but individuals from the first weren't directly invited to the second, is that correct." Manchia : "No, they were." The only thing that didn't happen, councillor Merulla, was that there wasn't a notice in the paper. The first one the notice was three days in the paper, and 35 people showed up. This time we did the same circulation, the same lists, no notice in the paper. But we also now - sorry I didn't mention this - we are having another open house in September as we get closer. We're going to have a series of open houses. It's something that goes beyond the call of duty under the Planning Act, but regardless we've always said, I mentioned to you personally, at the community phase with the people in your ward, and outside wards also. Merulla : "I had a number of calls from people who were at the original but didn't actually get invited to the second." Manchia : "No, same." Merulla : .surrounding incineration, are you making the differential between burning with flames versus burning with heat?" Manchia : "Yes, and I'll have Dr. Zircone talk about the difference." Merulla : "Ok, it's just that if you look at a literal definition of incinceration, I think either one would fall into that category." Manchia : "I'm told by the experts that it's different." Merulla : "And do your experts have an understanding of the migration aspects of the odours and pollutants surrounding this project?" Manchia : "Yes, and Dr. Zircone will talk about that. . technical components."

McHattie : ".the environmental assessment aspects of the project. I'd asked Peter the question, but I'm just trying to understand the category C EA as compared to the whole . in my mind this is a pretty substantive project, perhaps one of the first in Ontario , so it's certainly something we want to take a good look at. So can you explain the EA process and when it kicks in as well." Manchia : "The applications for our actual project have been submitted to the Ministry. We've had a dialogue with the Ministry and they will determine how that EA process will work. Once again, today we are not here, and I understand it's going to come back. You are a commenting agency to that process. Today we are simply here to rectify a problem in your bylaw." McHattie : "So I haven't got the answer, but that's okay. You mention that this has been endorsed by the province - your words. Can you explain" Manchia interrupts but unclear on tape. McHattie : "It seems to me to be very misleading, Mr Chair. We haven't been through an EA, we haven't a record of site condition, a certificate of approval or anything." Whitehead and Manchia both speaking at the same time. McHattie : "I'll pick up on my comments later on." Whitehead : "I believe it's not this particular site and it has to go through an EA or an MOE process. I think it's been clear that the principle of greening industries and putting on the grid is in principle supported by the province of Ontario ." No more questions of Manchia. Next speaker is Liberty Energy consultant. [ 1:53:00 ]

Zircone : "Good morning. My name is Dr. Anthony Zircone. I work for Golder Associates and I'm the director for environmental approvals for Liberty Energy. The number of questions that have been put forward, I'll try to answer them .There's one question with regards to the . emissions with respect to odours and what comes out of the stack basically. And we examined over 75 different substances that can come from this process and what we found is that all substances that are released from the facility are well below the Ministry of the Environment's requirements for air quality. And there was sort of a side question with regards to the toxicity of that data. The way the Ministry of the Environment is set up is that you take the data, basically plug it into a . model and make a prediction to determine if you are, quote, in compliance or not. And what we found is that all these substances are well below the compliance limits the Ministry has set forward for good clean air in Ontario . And we've done that with an advanced air quality model, so we believe that we're well under any particular limits and there's no impact on human health whatsoever with respect to this facility. With regards to odours, it is our client's intent that any odourous air will be vented directly into the gasifier itself and will be used as combustion air, so there will be very little, if any, odourous air being released from the facility that could impact on any residential or industrial property nearby. Is the process in use in North America . and the answer to that is yes. It is being used currently in North America . In fact, in California our plant is currently looking at using this technology in California , where they have even stricter environmental laws that we do here in Ontario . With respect to the provincial EA process, I'd like to address that. A regulation that was passed a few years ago by Ontario is regulation 116, which is the Electricity Act, and under that it provides direction on what projects require environmental assessments - projects that are related to generating power. And there are three classifications under that, A, B and C. Liberty Energy is considered a Class A under that project because it generates less than 10 megawatts of power using renewable fuel, being biomass and biosolids. So under that regulatory requirements, all we need to do is apply for environmental permits. But to take the extra step, we have carried out almost an environmental assessment by including public consultation and talking with everyone and looking at the various impacts that this facility can do. So we've gone the extra yard in that respect. So if the council needs information, this is a class A under the Electricity Act. There are three certificates of approval required. One is for air and noise. There is one required for waste per waste site and a second one for waste management. So there will be three applications being applied for here. This particular facility, as Sergio has discussed, is not an incinerator. It is thermal combustion, just like your automobile; just like your lighter if you smoke a cigarette. .furnaces. Those are thermal units. The way this process particularly works is that material is dropped to the bottom of what we call a gasifier and Sergio has alluded to the same. And what happens is that the material, biosolids and biomass, is basically gasified. It's turned into a gas and at the top, as you can see the diagram up there; you can see the brown material in the centre there. That's where we're basically dropping the material and it gets gasified, the gas raises to the top where it's ignited and produces heat when then, the heat is taken to heat water and runs a steam turbine to generate electricity. So it is not an incinerator. It is a gasifier, thermal oxidation. But it does not burn anything other than biomass or biosolids. It cannot handle any other type of waste products - from the city or anywhere else - so its very restricted to the type of material feedstock that it can possibly use. So I want to make that absolutely clear. The facility will benefit Hamilton as well as southwestern Ontario . The fact of the matter is that it will produce power based on the fact that the fuel is renewable and therefore CO2 neutral. There are no CO2 emissions technically associated with this system. It will also help Ontario in its need to meet Kyoto protocols because it will help in taking trucks off the highways that are destined for Michigan , for their dumpsites. .estimated about 2 kilotonnes of CO2 emissions will be, can be potentially displaced. And that's estimated from trucks going from Hamilton to Michigan . So it is a very positive project for the environment. It will also displace NOx emission and S02 emissions, which will also help Ontario in meeting its requirements to deal with smog and particulate precursors as well. So this is a very positive project for the environment, and based on our work we find it to be. There will not be any impact on the environment. All air quality criteria will be met. All noise standards will be met. So as I said it's a very positive project." [ 1:59:46 ] [spoke just under 7 minutes]

Merulla : ".incineration. I realize that you may have developed a euphanism for it, but the literal meaning of incineration produces ash. Are you not producing something?. What's the end result of the so-called non-incineration, residual?" Zircone : "The result is heat and power." Merulla : "But what do you get at the end, do you get ash?" Zircone : "Yes we have some ash at the bottom which we recover, but all thermal processes do have some residual form of ash." Merulla : "So unless you change the literal meaning for it, its' called incineration. Secondly, where does that ash go?" Zircone : "The ash will be recovered. .You have baghouses on the system which will capture and particular particulate coming out of the system, and whatever is captured will be taken to appropriate disposal sites." Merulla : "Which would be a landfill?" Zircone : "Yes it will be a landfill." Merulla : "Which would be Taro or Glanbrook. Is that correct, to you or staff, could it be Taro or Glanbrook? Where else can you divert this ash from the incineration?" Zircone : "It is not considered appropriate for those landfills. It will be taken to an appropriate landfill which can handle that type of material." Merulla : "All right then. Now with respect to the radius of the potential impact. Have you studied what the actual radius of the impact will be from the emissions?" Zircone : "Yes." Merulla : "And that would be?" Zircone : "There's no impact from the emissions from the facility. It meets all the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment." Merulla : "It's like boiling water. Anything emitted out of that smokestack. There's no emissions whatsoever, that might be contrary to the environment?" Zircone : "I didn't say that sir, I said that the emissions that come from the facility meet all the requirements on the Ontario Ministry of the Environment." Merulla : "What I'm trying to ask you is within that parameter where is it spreading and how far can it spread?" Zircone : "It depends how far you want to go down, sir. In fact, we can show materials spreading as far as a kilometre away." Merulla : "As far as a kilometre away?" Zircone : "If you go down to less than 1% of the standard." Merulla: "So we're looking at within the east end and waterfront and Burlington as well." Zircone : "It would still be well below the Ontario standard for air quality and any potential health effects." Merulla : "After the incineration, you have the ash and you bring it to a landfill site. With respect to what will be in that, is it true that you had mentioned that no CO2 emissions would be emitted, is that correct?" Zircone : "The facility is considered to be CO2 neutral under Canada 's requirements under the Kyoto protocol. The biomass and biosolids are considered to be CO2-neutral fuels." Merulla : "What about mercury or sulphur? Is that being emitted?" Zircone : "Yes there are emissions of those and they are well below the air quality standards of Ontario , as well as Canada ." Merulla : "With respect to the toxicity issues that councillor McHattie brought up. Have you studied that aspect?" Zircone : "Toxicity issues are built into the air quality standards, so if you meet the air quality standards you're well below the one in a million health risks that are pushed forward by Environment Canada and Health Canada ." Merulla : "Are you familiar at all with - I know SWARU was mentioned before .but are you familiar with what SWARU was in the city?" Zircone : "SWARU was, my understanding, was a municipal waste incinerator which uses completely different fuels and completely different combustion techniques than what we are proposing here." Merulla : "But it also generated power as well and" Zircone : "I'm not aware of that sir." Merulla: "And having said that, if we were to go back 25-30 years from now, or go, sorry, I'm sure what we're hearing about this particular incineration and smokestack would be identical to what we heard about SWARU, and we're all familiar with what happened 25-30 years later. That's all I have to say at this point. My motion still stands, to table it. We just don't have the information." Whitehead says he will come back to that. Merulla : "we need a balanced approach to making a decision of this magnitude, particularly when we just learned that we don't require an environmental assessment."

Whitehead : "Can I just remind the committee that what is in front of it today is that the zoning's in place. If Horizon [new name of Hamilton Utilities Corporation] came in and made this proposal, we wouldn't even have this discussion. I want to split the discussion between two issues. One is the technology and whether or not the city of Hamilton wants to host this type of facility. I think that is an issue that needs to be discussed and debated, no question. The other side of it is why they're here in a public meeting and that's to deal with a public utility versus a private utility, and that is what is being asked by this committee to decide on. So if we can break those two issues apart." Merulla interrupts: "Mr Chairman the point on the thing . obviously that zoning issue becomes a catalyst to an incinerator. So I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, frankly and" Whitehead interrupts: ".all this is is a publicly mandated meeting with respect to zoning private versus public. Again if Horizon was here you'd be taking on Horizon in a different form or through economic development from another" interrupted by Merulla : "If they were proposing an incinerator, I'd be saying exactly the same thing." Whitehead : "I'm not taking that away, councillor, I just wanted to make clear . Merulla : "I saying we need more information. . I haven't had one question answered from staff on this issue and I don't think we should be in a situation where we're getting all the answers from the proponent. And I'm not sure you agree with that, but I think we should have our own independent staff review it and present it to us, with all of the ambivalent issues that have been presented here today. Anything short of that would be irresponsible." Whitehead : ". provide clarification on why we're here today."

McHattie : ".I wasn't sure what was being said by Dr Zircone . the technology is being used currently in California ? And if so, where is it? If we wanted to enquire about that and talk to some municipality in California about their experience, where would we go?" Response is by Wilson Nolan who is takes a seat at the staff table in the gallery: "Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Wilson Nolan. I'm with Liberty Energy, the proponent of the project, and I'd like to address that question specifically, since I have personally investigated the technology. Now first of all, the technology using these fuels, in terms of biomass and sewage solids, it's been practiced about twenty years. It began in Switzerland , Austria and Germany . Since it's branched out throughout the European Union. The closest facility to Hamilton is the Lakeside treatment plant just west of Toronto , and there are three units going in there about the size of ours. And the regional municipality of Peel, has also I understand got a facility that's been operating for several years that uses this technology but fires municipal solid waste, which is another fuel. With regards to other nearby facilities, I drove down from Hamilton to the Pittsburgh plant that has two operating units . what we propose for Hamilton . Also the city of St Paul 's, Minnesota 's just commissioned their third unit and they've been in operation about a year now. And that would be nearby technology. With regards to California , no we have no operating plants in California . We have a few . that are an environmentally review process there. They're ahead of Hamilton and in an EIR process in California . Again, altogether there's probably about 300 of these units now functioning in the world, about 70 with these specific fuels, the others they do fire difficult to handle fuels, be it biosolids or biomass or wet bark or things of that nature."

McHattie : ".you mentioned in California that it's three proposals going through the environmental assessment process?" Nolan : "That is correct and again the regulations in California are a bit different. They accomplish the same thing but in California the whole state has got a process that's called the California Environmental Quality Act, and this project in California, it's actually not three separate projects but it's three units under one project underway in California about 120 miles east of San Diego. And there's an environmental review which is like an environmental assessment that's being performed on that project. Then there's a piece of new 3000 acre industrial complex and so the complex triggered the equivalent of an EA and we're one of five projects that would be the first projects within the overall 3000 acre industrial park." McHattie : "Just trying to understand Ontario 's interpretation of this project as it relates to environmental assessment. We heard that the province under the Electricity Act .there's nothing in front of us that describes this process, I've been trying to write it down as it's being put forward - so Ontario's interpretation as we heard from Dr Zircone, this is being handled through the Electricity Act. And through the Electricity Act, the determination due to the size of the project and that sort of thing, there was no environmental assessment required. I guess as a corollory question to that is what was the basis of deciding this goes enter the EA arena through the Electricity Act as compared to a waste management facility which would be a different consideration of the environmental assessment act. Just trying to understand how the province made that interpretation, and what the discussion was around deciding to go through that route versus a waste management facility? You know waste is involved in this case. Electricity as well, but so is waste." Nolan : "I will respond to that again. Basically that's correct and Dr Zircone mentioned that under 10 megawatts of gross power generation under the Electricity Act and that does classify a small power plant using renewable biomass fuels including biosolids and sewage sludge and biomass as renewable energy. This is where Mr Manchia referenced in the provincial approval, not necessarily of the project but of the concept of what's being proposed here and the type of energy using renewable fuels. So that's an endorsement of the concept, not of the project itself. And in regards to the environmental assessment, yes, then our fuels, even though they're classified and endorsed as renewable fuels by one hand at the provincial level. On the other hand they are also classified as a waste material. And for this waste material designation triggers a Class "C" EA because we're more than 100 tonnes a day of fuel coming to the site. And so that's what triggers the environmental assessment - the class "C", which is the most stringent. Just like a major public works project which is my understanding in Ontario would be the most thorough level of environmental review. And again I'd like to . clairify. We're not able to enter the environmental assessment process until we have satisfied the zoning issue. And that is our purpose before the committee today. Denying the zoning would effectively deny our ability to enter the environmental evaluation process."

McHattie says he has other technical questions which he won't spend a lot of time on. "I think this is a very important project, not only for Hamilton, but for Ontario and it sounds like Canada, although I guess its related to some other applications in Toronto and Peel, so I again hesitate to move quickly on this. I have a whole pile of other questions, but I hestitate to take the committee's time today. I need to understand the MOE process a bit better as well, and I don't have the background to know what a schedule "C" EA requires versus a schedule "B" versus what I would call a full EA - which may be an erroneous use of the term. I don't have the knowledge to know that. I'm also interested in the California environmental assessment as well, before we go in this direction. I understand that we're dealing with a planning issue today, but I guess I believe in a sort of full, holistic style of planning. I'm concerned about the sort of incremental nature of this . that's why I'd want to second councillor Merulla's motion to put this on hold until we can get some of these questions answered, in a different forum so we don't tie up committee's. It may come back here when the committee has some of the questions answered."

Bratina : "Can't we get the answers that the councillors are asking for after we pass the zoning. Isn't that what we just heard?" Manchia: "I must remind committee. We're in a holding position for record of site condition. We're not even close to the end of this process. This is just in order to get to that process as my client has indicated. All of these questions that have been brought forward by councillor McHattie, with all due respect, are things that can be debated and discussed when council meets when it goes through the commenting process to the MOE. So clearly the holding provision is your mechanism."

Whitehead : "If this is approved today in regards to this private versus public, we as a council still have an opportunity as part of the process to provide comments to the MOE? Is that correct?" Manchia : "Yes." Whitehead : "And if we're not satisfied with the response and answers, we can certainly let the MOE know that we're not supportive of this initiative?" DeIulio : "That is correct. What advice they take from the city would be up to them to decide, I guess, at that time. But our input, we'd be a commenting agency to them on the certificate of approval. And whatever advice we give them, they'll take that and review it and decide what they want to do with the certificate - attach extra conditions or monitoring, I don't know." Whitehead : "So the real hammer that we have, I guess what I'm hearing, is the zoning. If we don't want it we can just say no to the zoning. I guess the question I have to staff if we use that hammer, what would our success be at the OMB?" Tim McCabe : ".the usual test for the zoning bylaw is the Official Plan and the Official Plan is heavy industrial, allows all types of heavy industrial uses. And in my opinion, whether public or private, it's the use of land that we're talking about. And I think this would have a very good chance of being successful at the Ontario Municipal Board." Whitehead moves to public delegations.

[ 2:19:20 ] Syd Bamber , J.J. Barnicke Real Estate, addressed Committee in support of the application. ".While the technology of this system may be new to Hamilton, there are over 300 as was mentioned worldwide and they've all been deemed to be safe. I think one of the things I can say is that technology is changing by the minute, and it's hard to compare something that's proposed today with something that was done 25 or 30 years ago. With respect to what is coming out of the stacks, I like everybody to stop and consider what you're doing to the environment every time you fire up the barbeque, light a cigarette or turn the key on a 250 horsepower SUV. From what I can understand, the emissions from this may be considerably less. That would have to be shown. The north end of Hamilton is centre ice for Canadian heavy industry. We are there because people in the past with vision have not been afraid of innovation. Innovation keeps us on the world stage. Having spent 22 years in commercial real estate, primarily heavy industrial, I think it's critical for Hamilton to remain on that stage as best we can. As mentioned I spent 22 years in investor real estate in this city. I'm very proud of it, and every moment of it. In fact I started my career in this city with Frid Construction at the age of 15 and worked on many industrial properties in this city. I fully endorse the system being proposed by Liberty Energy which will put Hamilton at the leading edge of North American technology and I recommend the zoning modification be granted." Merulla : "Just a question about your role here. Are you just a concerned citizen, are you acting on" interrupted by Bamber : "A citizen of Hamilton , and I'm very concerned. I think this is one thing. All I know is every day if I am going to go to the store and buy a piece of produce that's been grown on a field where toilet flushings have ended up, it's something that really doesn't excite me all that much. And I know this is changing, there are concerns about landfill sites, but costs are going to come down. And one of the things that the city has and as a concerned citizen I also represent that is that over time costs are going to increase dramatically to handle our waste products and possibly this is one of the ways" Interrupted by Whitehead : "The question was what is. Is there an association of any type between this particular development and Barnicke. Was that the question?" Merulla : "That's correct." Bamber : "The only thing I have the association there is that I went with the proponent, and they looked at various properties. We provided that information. I have no personal gain or interest in this other than as a citizen." Merulla : "So you acting as their real estate agent. Is it on your letterhead?" Bamber : "I'm acting as a citizen and a real estate agent. That's correct." Merulla : "Thank you very much."

[ 2:22:30 ] Bob Lambo , Energy Smart, addressed Committee in support of the application. He explained that his company carries out energy audits on homes and that the rising cost of energy is a real concern. He noted that he supported the project as a resident as it would provide clean energy, unlike the coal burning plant at Nanticoke . He provided a copy of his presentation to the Clerk for the public record.

Robert Hart - Dyke , Chair of the City's Waste Reduction Task Force, addressed Committee and explained that his Task Force had not been consulted. He noted that the presentation had left many questions unanswered, that the proposal was not an efficient way of producing energy, that trucking the material to the plan would cause pollution, and that his Task Force's plan recommended against importing waste. He proposed that further public consultation, with additional information was required. Mr. Hart-Dyke commented that the proposal represented a sewage waste disposal mechanism with electric production as a sideline.

Don McLean addressed Committee with a number of concerns, including the lack of clarity regarding the EA process for the application, the lack of comment in the staff report regarding the impact on residents and the process being followed at this public meeting. He suggested that the City request the Province to examine the proposal through a full EA process.

Committee discussed the proposal and the comments made by the speakers, in detail.

Motion by Merulla, seconded by McHattie to refer the matter to staff to get more information in general, and a determination of whether the EA would be a Class C or a Class A. Defeated 4-3. Supported by Whitehead. Opposed by Pearson, Mitchell, Ferguson and Bratina.

Committee then approved the staff recommendation. Councillors McHattie and Merulla requested that their opposition be recorded.

106 minutes for this item

8. DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Hess Village Entertainment Designation By-law and to Amend the City of Hamilton Licensing Code By-Law No. 01-156 (PED05034) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05034.pdf

8.2 Keeping of pigeons in urban areas -verbal update (From Outstanding Business List)

Randy Charlton explained that meetings were being held with the pigeon-racing groups and that a section on pigeons would be included in the new, comprehensive Animal Control By-law. Charlton advised that this would be brought forward in the Fall.

8.3 Starlings congregating in neighbourhoods-verbal update (From Outstanding Business List)

Randy Charlton explained that the issue has been investigated but that none of the remedies which have been used has any long-lasting effect. He advised that Starlings appear to favour certain tree species, particularly ash, and in the long term, the City could stop planting ash trees. Committee discussed the matter and noted that direction should be given to the street cleaning crews in the affected areas.

Councillor Pearson explained she had talked to some neighbouring communities and suggested we should keep an eye on how Grimsby proceeds with a similar problem there. Committee agreed that they would like a further update on this matter, when new information becomes available, and that the Item should remain on the Outstanding Business List.

8.4 Parking and transportation issues in Downtown Hamilton -verbal update (From Outstanding Business list) 8.5 Parking Report from Market Stallholders` Association - verbal update (From Outstanding Business list)

Marty Hazell advised Committee that work on these two matters was proceeding, and that a second round of consultations was now being set up with the market stallholders. He noted that a report should be coming to Committee in September.

9. ITEMS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL/COMMITTEE

9.1 Application for a Change in Zoning for a Portion of the Lands Located at 162 Ward Avenue (Hamilton) (PED05002)(Ward 1) (Tabled for two weeks by Committee on June 7, 2005)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2005/Jun21/PED05002.pdf

Councillor McHattie advised that discussions had been held between the parties, following the last Committee meeting, and that agreement had been reached. Staff recommendation was approved.

General Information (Item 12)

Councillor Mitchell explained that there was an emerging problem regarding the new tax assessments for farmland. He advised that some farmland is now being sold for higher than normal values and that this is causing some farmers' assessments to double or even triple. Committee approved a Motion to have staff report back to Corporate Administration Committee. "That the General Manager of Finance be directed to prepre a report for consideration at Corporate Administration Committee, regarding the impact of CVA on farmland assessments." Carried.