Planning and Economic Development Committee

Planning and Economic Development Committee

info@hamiltoncatch.org

January 17/06 Report

Present: Pearson, Merulla, Mitchell, McHattie, Bratina, Whitehead (arrived at 11:15).

Absent: Kelly, Ferguson

Also present for some items: Jackson, McCarthy, Bruckler, Braden

5.1 Removalof 'H' Holding Symbol from Lands Located at
1564 Second Concession Road West(Former Town of Flamborough)
(PED06004) (Ward 14)

5.2 ERASERedevelopment Grant Application (ERG-05-02)
- J. Beume Real Estate Ltd. -106/127 Burton Street (PED06026) (Ward 3) Conversion of an old factory site into 21 townhouses. Praised by McHattie as a great example of Brownfield redevelopment "This is a very good news story, the kind of thing that I think is going to be written up in planning journals."

5.3 Tree Removal and Replacement, 145, 147, and 149 Green Road
(Stoney Creek) (PED06008) (Ward 10) Removel of street trees to accommodate development. Developer pays about $13,000 to city and replaces trees. McHattie asks that the money for the lost trees be allocated to the Trees Across Hamilton project. Staff say money will be used for tree planting. McHattie suggests Gage Park would be favoured by Bernie Morelli "one of our largest parks. And as you know we've had a hard time with our tree planting program. We're doing street trees. We've got some community based plantings going, but planting trees in parks is still a gap in our funding mechanisms at the moment." Moves to allocate the $13K to Gage Park , seconded by Merulla who raises a related issue: "Back in 2002 or 2003, during the budget deliberations, there was a pedestrian bridge at the CP rail line on Lawrence that we didn't fund. We took that allocation, and a $100,000 of that was allocated to Gage Park . I've to actually see activity there to any great extent. I'm wondering what the status is" Asks for staff report. McHattie: "direction is that we review this $100,000 that has been previously allocated and that we add in this $13,000 to be allocated for Gage Park as well, specifically for tree planting." Direction to general manager of Public Works. Carried.

5.4 Updateon Civic Gateway Design Study (PED06010) (CityWide)

5.5 Volunteer Committee Budget - Agricultural and Rural Affairs Advisory
Committee (City Wide) (PED06012)

5.6 Concession Street Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget
and Schedule of Payment for 2006 (PED06005) (Wards 6 & 7)

5.7 BartonVillage Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget
and Schedule ofPayment for 2006 (PED06014) (Ward 3)

5.8 Main Street West Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget
and Schedule of Payment for 2006 (PED06015) (Ward 1)

5.9 Downtown Hamilton Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget and Schedule of Payment for 2006 (PED06016) (Ward 2)

5.10 OttawaStreet Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Proposed Budget
and Schedule ofPayment for 2006 (PED06020) (Wards 3&4)

5.11 Downtown Hamilton Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.) Resignations
from the Board of Management (PED06021) (Ward 2)

5.12 Demolition Permit - 190 West Avenue North (PED06017) (Ward 3)

5.13 Demolition Permit - 188 West Avenue North (PED06018) (Ward 3)

5.14 Demolition Permit - 5 Munn Street (PED06019) (Ward 6)

5.15 Transfer of Funds from the 2005 Operating Budget
- Data Processing Services (City Wide) (PED06024)

5.16 Drainage Concerns at 45 Rockhaven Lane (PED06013) (City Wide)

5.17 Peer Review of the Environmental Screening Report for Liberty Energy,
675 Strathearne Avenue (Hamilton) (Ward 4) (PED05021(a)) David Hart Dyke has asked to speak on this item. Peter DeIulio provides staff overview. "Last Thursday staff had sent a letter to the Ministry of the Environment requesting - as per the council resolution back in July 2005 - requesting a formal elevation of the screening report to a full EA or an individual EA. That was sent to all councillors last week for their information. In the meantime, we have received the additional information that was requested by our peer reviewers that came in yesterday and we will be forwarding that on to them as well for their review and comments back to us to see if it meets their needs, the concerns that are raised in their peer review." Notes deadline is today and decision is now in Ministry's hands.

Hart Dyke : "I'm speaking on behalf of the Waste Reduction Task Force. We intend to ask the Ministry of the Environment to bump-up Liberty Energy's current environmental assessment to a full one, similar to that being conducted by the Hamilton-Niagara joint working group. We hope that you guys do ultimately decide to add your voice to ours. Since Liberty has declined our request for an extension during which the Task Force could meet to evaluate the effect of its proposal on the solid waste management plan, we'll have to request the bump-up today, which is the deadline for such a request. I won't bore you with the reasons for Liberty 's refusal at this time. You can get them off Pat Parker if you like. I'll simply say that they're not entirely accurate and complete. And by the way I'd like to make it clear that I don't think there's an intent to deceive here. I just think there's a failure of meeting of the minds. Liberty told us there'd be no effect on the solid waste master management plan. It now appears that there may be an effect on recommendation five, directly, and perhaps others indirectly. We believe that it's important that these two proposals, which may very well wind up in competition, should be evaluated on the basis of a level playing field. The current situation does not allow for a fair and equitable competition. One of the reasons we believe the necessity for a choice may emerge is that Liberty 's own consultant, Golder Associates, concluded that the affected airshed is reaching its capacity with respect to certain pollutants. Although this conclusion is not beyond question, Liberty took it so seriously, they voluntarily decided to cut emissions to a lower level than originally planned. As it stands, the smaller Niagara-Hamilton proposal is facing a multi-year, multi-million dollar assessment, while the Liberty proposal faces a much lower level of scrutiny. We believe that if a choice has to be made between the two proposed facilities, the much larger Liberty plant will already be up and running before the smaller one had even finished with the EA process. I've been troubled that Liberty 's response to some questions has been accurate, but so narrowly defined as to be less than informative. As you know, the people of Hamilton have had considerable experience with proponents who have promised the moon until approval was obtained, then delivered a marble. At their last workshop, a member of the public asked whether the rising cost of energy was at the root of Liberty 's proposal. She was told that this was the case. I subsequently asked Mr Wilson Nolan, Liberty 's CEO, if recent regulatory changes that would end the practice of spreading sewage sludge on agricultural fields wasn't a more important reason. Well, yes, he allowed, that was another reason. When I pressed him on whether Liberty Energy would obtain more revenue from burning sewage sludge or from selling energy, he did not provide a clear answer. It seems to me that this is central to whether we conclude Liberty Energy is building a generating plant that burns sewage sludge, or a sludge burner that produces energy on the side. You may be interested to know, that according to Mr Nolan, Liberty Energy and its parent company McCarthy Farms currently do not have any generating plants. They do, however, burn quite a lot of sewage sludge. If I may make an analogy. Just because I back my car over walnuts, then sell the shelled nuts to a third party, it doesn't mean I'm suddenly driving a nut cracker instead of an automobile. Nor does it mean that I should be allowed to avoid paying auto insurance or putting plates on my nutcracker. As another member of the public who attended the workshop last night said to me, ironically a meeting that was part of the full EA process the Niagara Hamilton proposal is conducting: quote, 'it seemed when you asked a question, there answer was that's an excellent question, we'll get back to you'. Thus even if in the fullness of time we receive a response, it will be long after the public debate has concluded and those people who were at the workshop will not be able to hear and evaluate the final answer. I must also question whether Liberty Energy is actually informing the public or merely exposing them to paid advocates and public relations professionals. At the other information session I attended, they ensured that there was no opportunity for people to ask questions in a group situation, although a room had clearly been prepared for that purpose. Instead members of the public were met singly, almost as they entered, by paid experts with an interest in advocating the Liberty point of view. A full environmental assessment would ensure that a lot of questions are answered fully and publicly, and that groups with far more knowledge and expertise than our little Task Force would be able to evaluate Liberty Energy's proposal, as they are now evaluating the Hamilton-Niagara proposal. A level playing field and a fair evaluation - that's all we're asking for.."

Bratina : "David, your presentation is a little aggressive toward the motives such as you suspect with regard to the Liberty proposal and I have to tell you that I found them to be very forthright and forthcoming. And I should tell you when Mr Nolan came to this area to look for a site, he was directed to Glanbrook, Stoney Creek and other places, and he told those people that he didn't feel that this was an appropriate place for that type of facility. That he wanted it located within the brownfields within the industrial core, which is the site that we're discussing now. So and you're referring, you're using language like burning sewage and you know that there is a controvery somewhat over terminology. Thermal treatment has a wide range of descriptions. You have gasification, you have incinceration, and so on, and burning sewage is almost an emotional phrase to elicit a kind of response. So, all I'm saying madam chair is that I hope we're open minded about this, because whatever we're going to do with this sludge, we're going to have to deal with it some manner. And I'm not convinced yet that this is a bad way of handling it. Just to ask you the direct question. Are you totally against any processing of this kind, or it is a matter of weighing the two and not allowing the one to have an advantage over the other?"

Hart Dyke : "It's definitely the second, Mr Bratina. I know, I don't actually necessarily think that this is a bad way to deal with the sewage sludge. We certainly have to do something with it. And again I want to emphasize that I do not think that Mr Nolan is intentionally trying to deceive anybody. I do believe that they had more of an advocacy position, perhaps than one would think with an EA process, which is supposed be be somewhat more fair and objective. If I came across as seeming aggressive, it's not really my intent to come across that way. I wrote in haste, I must admit. But seriously, I do think that if we wind up in a position that we have to choose one or the other, the one, the smaller Hamilton-Niagara facility, if it comes to be trouble with siting the thing, it's part of the 25-year master plan that is essential, now to two municipalities conducting their business in a very responsible and forward-looking way. 65% diversion is a very very aggressive target and we're going to need everything we possibly can working, and working very very well to reach that. And I want to ensure that that is at least given an equal shot, and to be quite honest, I would prefer that it be given the inside track."

Merulla : "Just to the issue of scrutiny. We're dealing with a situation where the public scenario, the Hamilton-Niagara partnership, will be pursuing a very extensive, scrutinized assessment process. Now we have a private individual who is trying to circumvent that same process. You would think that from the public's best interests, that one would have more faith in the public process as opposed to a private sector type of initiative, given that the latter's number one priority would be to maximize profit. Having said that, there's no excuse for not pursuing the same level of scrutiny that the city of Hamilton and the Region of Niagara will have to receive . also with respect to siting these, and picking an east end location, I think what they fail to recognize is that we have an issue with respect to over intensification of particulate matter emitting into our area. Frankly, Glanbrook or some other area, not to mention Glanbrook specifically, but the suburban area would have been far better an initiative if his concerns were that of environmental or impacts on residents, because of a less intensification. So I don't buy the fact that he chose the area and the location as a good one. It might be from a planning perspective, but it definitely isn't from an environmental perspective. And for that reason I find it offensive that that would be used as an argument."

Mitchell : Works with Hart Dyke of the committee, "and they are two different processes. The Niagara-Hamilton process will not be dealing with sewage sludge in any way. And the sewage sludge issue brings many different contaminants, different issues to the forefront and probably has to be handled in a totally different fashion, and yes the agricultural community is very concerned about the spreading of sewage sludge on farm fields as it's taking place right now. And there's another whole program looking at that and trying to make it safer as well. So the two are very different, and I don't forsee the Hamilton-Niagara project ever dealing directly with sewage sludge component. And the sooner we have the problem solved the better because we're not going forward until we have some kind of way of dealing with it that's safer than we are right now."

Hart Dyke : ".I do believe that Niagara region treats its sewage sludge in a somewhat different manner."

Motion to receive the staff report. Carried. [ 17:08 ]

5.18 Advisory Committee Minutes - For Information

(a) HamiltonLACAC (Municipal Advisory Committee) Meeting of
October 27, 2005,2005

(b) HamiltonLACAC (Municipal Advisory Committee) Meeting of
November 24, 2005,2005

(d) Agriculture & Rural Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting of February 24, 2005

(e) Agriculture & Rural Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting of March 24, 2005

(f) Agriculture&Rural Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting of June 23,2005

(g) Agriculture&Rural Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting of August 25,2005

(h) Agriculture & Rural Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting of October 27, 2005

All other consent items adopted without discussion.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 AmendedApplication for a Change in Zoning for Lands Known as
1809 Rymal Road East(Stoney Creek) (PED06006) (Ward 9) This property is located on the north east corner of Rymal and Trinity Church (the latter to be extended to the Red Hill expressway). Concerns raised by Bruckler about transportation issues.

6.2 Applicationsfor an Official Plan Amendment and Change in Zoning
for the Properties Locatedat 106 and 127 Burton Street
(Hamilton) (PED06007) (Ward3) Supportive comments from Bratina, McHattie and Merulla. Approved.

6.3 Applicationsto Amend the Town of Flamborough Official Plan
and Zoning By-law for LandsLocated at 91 Highway No. 5 West,
Flamborough (Ward 15)(PED06001) This is expansion of Coreslab facility. McCarthy spoke in support of application with condition of ongoing dialogue with the area residents "which was badly needed". Thanks staff for their efforts and patience. Approved.

PRESENTATIONS

7.1 HamiltonIdling Control By-law (PD05092(a)) (City Wide)

Presentation by Linda Harvey and Denis Corr of Clean Air Hamilton . Also Brian Montgomery from City staff. Harvey provides background. Council decision in April 2005 to put together an anti-idling bylaw. Issues include enforcement. Corr reports on portion of study being done for Hamilton , Ontario and federal governments. "There have been a number of studies of the health impacts of air pollutants in Hamilton and we do have a fixed network of air monitors but it seemed to us to make sense if we had a mobile monitoring platform we could find out essentially what was happening . in the holes of the existing network." Studied airborne particles, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. Looked at point sources including industries and transportation impacts. "This chart is just to show you the quite dramatic effects of idling at stoplights. This is at Mohawk and Upper James and we were parked about 30 metres away from the intersection, upwind of the intersection, so this impact is strictly due to the cars sitting idling at the stoplights. And you can see the quite large impact of idling." Explained that peaks were during idling and valleys were when traffic was moving freely. The black line is for particulate matter and the yellow line is for Nitrogen Dioxide. The effect is even more dramatic at Barton and Centennial. We were actually downwind of the intersection but we were much closer to the road. And again you can see when the cars are sitting idling at the stoplights you get much higher levels of particulate and also oxides of nitrogen than when the traffic is moving freely. So you can see that in the vicinity of idling vehicles is a very large impact of air pollutants, much higher than normal. It's worth pointing out that with the hybrid vehicles that council is buying, instead of this going up at a stoplight, it would actually go down because hybrid vehicles automatically turn themselves off when they sit and idle and then restart again. As part of this study we were asked by Clean Air Hamilton to look at the impact of idling outside schools and George R. Allan school was selected and Green Venture worked with the school." Plan to get there early but had delays. "We didn't arrive until we were right in the middle of the student drop-off period and we got quite significant levels of nitrogen and particulate. So we thought in the afternoon we will get there early, and we will get the background levels and then we will get the idling. What in fact happened was that in the morning, because we were not early, we arrived in the middle of a lot of idling vehicles outside the school. In the afternoon we noticed that we just weren't getting the high levels in the afternoon that we had got in the morning. So I got out of the truck and walked along and I counted 27 vehicles all with their engines turned off. They had seen us sitting waiting there and had turned their engines off as soon as we had arrived. So this was essentially a natural experiment about the impacts of idling versus non-idling. There's a few spikes here as cars driving in and out." Pearson asks if study at Barton and Centennial was done during construction work in that area. Corr says no. Bratina asked if the mobile unit can be operated with the engine turned off. Corr said no, but they took precautions during the experiment to park the mobile unit so as to not record any emissions from it.

Harvey notes reducing idling doesn't just reduce air pollutants. "Idling also reduces fuel costs. You're not sending money out the tailpipe. It reduces engine wear and tear and it helps us meet our climate change goals by reducing emissions as well. So there's multiple benefits to controlling vehicle idling." Points out factsheet on air quality that she has distributed to councillors. Goes on to recount history of anti-idling initiative. "The first thing we did was get our house in order" Notes internal idling control policy for city vehicles "that restricts idling to 10 seconds for each vehicle". Public awareness program with staff, pamphlets in pay envelopes, etc. Partnerships with industries in challenges to reduce idling. "So at this point, having felt that we're well underway in getting our own house in order, we're looking at launching into reducing idling through an anti-idling awareness campaign, and . the idlling control bylaw. . We don't have an option. We must enforce the bylaw and there's a couple of reasons . one is the anti-idling campaign will be directly affected if the bylaw is seen to not be enforced and secondly the risk management division has indicated that courts have held that municipalities are responsible to enforce the bylaws that they pass, and that there are liabilities associated with not enforcing bylaws. The public education awareness campaign design is underway already with Green Venture and these other groups - Environment Hamilton, Clean Air Hamilton and city governments working together. It's well established in other municipalities so we've got a lot to work on. We're not reinventing the wheel. Enforcing the idling control bylaw is the other issue you really need to consider here." Looked at other departments - parking officers can't do it nor can public health officials, but building inspectors can but have no staff to do it. "So not only is it the anti-idling bylaw, but any bylaws that come forward, the sign bylaw, anything else, you're going to have to look at building some capacity in this division to enforce anything. So what we're recommending . is look at creating a new full-time employee position in this division, not only for idling but also to enforce the other bylaws.. This bylaw will apply to public and private property. It will apply to municipal vehicles. It does not apply to federal or provincial vehicles simply because we don't have that kind of jurisdiction. You should be aware that we were advised that this bylaw should not be applicable to municipal vehicles, by the legal services department. That's a choice council will have to make. I will recommend strongly that it does apply to municipal vehicles for two reasons. One, as someone who's worked in public policy, and I have a graduate degree in public policy, it's a bad idea to generally say it's good for you, it's not good for me. And secondly as a citizen and taxpayer in Hamilton , it's actually inequitable and unfair. Other features of the bylaw. It doesn't apply to boats, rail. We're looking at restricting idling to 3 minutes in a 60 minute period because that's common across the GTA. I would ask you consider that 1 minute in a 60 minute period is another viable option for you. The disadvantage in that is that it would make us different than Burlington which is right across the bridge. The advantage is the less idling, the less pollutants. So again that's a decision that you can mull over amongst yourselves. The bylaw includes exceptions for the common sense things that you would expect to find - emergency vehicles, police, transit, those kinds of things. We've included a temperature exemption for hot and cold weather. Some bylaws don't include this because it can be problematic to determine. But essentially it was trying to recognize the fact that it's a documented heat and cold stress are a greater public health issue than the idling that happens. So we're trying to reflect the best science we could. Obviously the bylaw doesn't apply to vehicles stuck in traffic or situations where the operator has no control over what's happening. There's a whole list of exceptions. They're all based on typical exceptions in other municipalities.." Recommendation for hiring a new enforcement officer through 2006 budget decisions, enact the bylaw in June "after we've had a chance to get the awareness campaign underway". Also asking for direction to expand awareness campaign beyond schools to inform the general public as well. Shows drawing by a child. "The significance of this is that children in grade 4 understand that the things that come out of tailpipes go directly into their body." . "We've got to remember that we're doing a lot of this for our children and grandchildren and future generations."

Merulla asks about bus exemptions especially problems in Gore Park area. Staff person explains that half the buses are natural gas. "It's just a technical matter with the engines. When they're shut down, the internal engine temperature increases by about 30-40 degrees inside that engine, and you can get vapour lock before the engine cools down sufficiently, and it's impossible to restart the bus in some of these circumstances. . The HSR has been very proactive over the last few months in dealing with citizen complaints about idling at the end of routes and I think they've made substantial progress in dealing with that issue." Merulla asks if issue will be resolved by purchase of hybrid buses. Staff person says HSR testing one at this time and notes TTC is purchasing 150 of these buses. Merulla says his point is that ultimately the HSR should be included in the bylaw. Wants amendment to reflect this. "We have to show through example . Secondly I think it would also deal with some of the concerns of the taxi industry . a number of taxi representatives were livid over the fact that they would be included. I think what mitigates that is that there are temperature issues that mitigate a number of their concerns. .if we don't apply it to our own public transit vehicles, it would send a wrong message."

McHattie agrees with Merulla but only when it is possible. He asked that question about emissions with the demonstration hybrid bus "and in fact those emissions are way done, and you can turn off those buses without a problem and get them restarted again and I know that HSR is looking at moving in that direction." Supports initiative overall "very proactive". "The staff report itself, and the way that it handled the triple bottom line review that we ask each staff report to deal with is really a model almost in the way that it addressed that. It addressed the economic impacts, the social impacts and the environmental impacts of what's going on here. I guess that only makes sense in that Linda was involved in writing that, but hopefully other staff members can look at this as a model staff report. Just to reiterate Chris' point, HSR has been shutting off the buses at the Dundurn loop and Governor's Road loop . and they've been successful for the most part, I believe. So there is a bit of a test underway. I don't know whether they're diesel or CNG buses there, but there does seem to be an opportunity there as well." Adds two additional motions - (1) ask staff to report back on the pilot test of a hydrogen device being tested by EMS on their vehicles, and whether this device can be used on other city vehicles (2) ask staff to investigate applying the bylaw to boats, by looking at Toronto which does include them. Also asks for copy of the study that Corr cited. Harvey says study is still underway but will be provided to councillors through Clean Air Hamilton.

Bruckler : [ 1:07:40 ] asks if parking and health staff could be empowered to enforce the legislation. Harvey says they are allowed to ticket vehicles but not drivers, so they can't do bylaw enforcement. Bruckler suggests parking staff particularly good for idling control. Harvey says costs of retraining was around $130,000. But plan to use parking staff as part of the education campaign - ideas such as mock tickets, brochures, etc.

Mitchell notes that presence of mobile unit got people to stop idling. Says he supports education campaign "but I don't like the idea of having more governing bylaws at a time when I don't believe we need them and I don't believe we can enforce them". Notes other bylaws that are not being enforced like anti-littering. "I know the new hybrids are the way to go with less idling . I'd like to think that people in Hamilton would care enough to do this themselves through an education project . very very opposed to the bylaw." Supports McHattie amendments.

Bratina : Enforceability, what is experience of other communities? Harvey : most municipalities haven't actually laid charges. Toronto has done 247 tickets and six summons. Most others "really haven't taken the legal route . so the function of the bylaw may not be to have people out there writing tickets . I think the function of the bylaw would be to say how serious council is about the idling issue and it would ultimately support the credibility of the awareness campaign.. You would use it in the situations where you needed to, but generally it would support your education campaign." Bratina suggests maybe using the next year have the parking wardens hand out tickets and begin enforcement later. Harvey says there is merit in that approach, they are recommending a phased approach "we were looking at June. You could extend that through and do the campaign for a year, there's no question. We are recommending a phased approach. How long the phasing takes, we could decide.."

Merulla says discussions on-going in sub-committee on operational review of licencing and building about expanding authority of bylaw officers, so suggests reference of this issue to that committee. Also asks if police can enforce the bylaw. Harvey says yes.

Motion carried with Mitchell registering opposition to the actual bylaw (section (b)) and (d) to (g). [ 1:23:28 ]

7.2 Westdale Secondary School Economics Students report on the City`s Economic Development Strategy (No copy)

7.3 Responseto Final Places to Grow Plan PD04243(b) (CityWide) Presentation by Paul Mason, Director of Long Range Planning.

Mason : "This presentation is the third that I've made concerning the provincial Places to Grow Plan and in those presentations as well as discussions we've had associated with Places to Grow in GRIDS workshop, I'm presuming that councillors are pretty familiar with the overall background of this provincial initiative. Essentially what we're responding to today is the final draft of the Places to Grow plan which has come forward from the province. The deadline for comments . is the end of this month so we have to proceed today. And from the indications we've received from provincial staff, they're expecting this document to be finalized in the April-May period of this year. So it is something that is timely and will affect the planning issues and operations of the city before year end. . what I would consider the guts or the underlying issues.

"First of all, Places to Grow is trying to change . how we think about urban growth. The concepts that we've lived through in the last several decades in Ontario of urban growth as inevitable, market trends have to be respected, and so forth, is not on the agenda in this planning system. This planning system is looking at changing a number of the fundamental assumptions and directions of how we plan, to make it more focused and more sustainable in terms of urban development in the entire central Ontario area. And to raise the bar significantly to support the renewal of our cities and require a much higher level of performance in suburban development as well. The basic theme is that long term quality of life is not going to be adequately resolved - those kinds of issues in urban development planning - unless we look further down the road and are less concerned with short term market issues. It also is very much founded on the thinking that public and private sectors and province and municipalities are going to have to row together in a very pragmatic and directed way to achieve the objectives of a different urban future and to resolve the deficit in infrastructure which has been building up over the last number of decades.

"Underlying this initiative is also a focus which we haven't really seen yet of bang-for-the-buck efficiencies. That is, everybody wants everything and everywhere and all the time in their own area and that's a great sentiment but the province of Ontario is not going to be supporting that sentiment any longer. They're going to be setting very specific priorities and they are going to hopefully support some communities like Hamilton but we're not going to proceed in planning in the future with the expectation that everything will be even everywhere all the time. The foundation of this thinking, I think, comes from the province's evaluation of what's happening in the USA and Europe in tehir urban structure planning. They see in their opinion that a very clear and consistent set of rules in terms of planning and infrastructure development; a strategic use of public investment and a focus on trying to promote quality of life development and parameters in urban growth has been successful in those jurisdictions and their idea is very much oriented to making it successful here too.

"So the bottom line is Places to Grow is founded on changing the status quo, and changing it in relatively short order .. The Places to Grow plan itself sets a number of what I would call overriding objectives which set a new flavour for community planning in central Ontario . Foremost amongst those is the province will set major land use and servicing priorities. Not general themes that we're to think about, but specific things that have to be done. The expectation is that councils will follow the provinces' lead in detailing and implementing those strategic priorities and that the province will set some mandatory standards for urban growth and urban development particularly in the area of intensification, suburban development densities and so forth. The province is already . working behind the scenes and fully intend to focus on a more long term and coodinated capital infrastructure programming system with municipalities.

"The expectation is that municipal capital priorities will over time be more aligned with provincial priorities. If the province is going to put in a transit station, then we're going to be expected to adjust our transit capital expenditure to support that transit station. It's that type of sentiment. New implementation tools have been raised as a very critical issue by all municipalities. The province has indicating that they're working on that and intend to respond. I haven't seen very much and I'll talk about that a little further in the report. But I think the more significant thing that's emerged since my last report to you on this, is in the regular discussions and relations that we have I think that there is a clear recognition at the provincial level that this is a partnership with municipalities, particularly the single upper tier municipalities, and not only in word, but in action and policy [1:52:05] the province seems to be coming around very nicely to the idea that we're working together and they intend to continue that process under this plan.

"What that means though is that as Places to Grow is finalized and begins to evolve in the next stage, we here in the City of Hamilton and our work priorities as staff is going to have to respond, because this is a step, a major step, but there'll be another one starting before the end of this year that we'll be expected to participate in, supply information and resources towards. The key issues of this report . is that the final draft of Places to Grow has responded to many of council's comments. Those were shared by many municipalities around Ontario . We didn't get everything we wanted shall we say in terms of the specifics but I think the province has made an effort either to revise things substantially in some particular areas or clairify what they intend to do and focus it in a more coherent way.

"So essentially this version of the Places to Grow plan is focused much less on broad generalities and much more on specific actions and expectations for results. So at least we know with greater certainty what we're dealing with. That's not universally the case for all the policies but I think in comparison with the last draft, that's a significant improvement. And as I said, the province is committing to a long term working relationship. The plan . still needs some improvements. The province has evolved its thinking in terms of its role in land use planning for employment areas. I think this is a particular area of great significance to the city of Hamilton . It's an area where perhaps greater detail and greater emphasis in the next Places to Grow planning regime has to be given, not only for Hamilton's benefit, but to bring employment area planning in central Ontario into a more competitive profile with what is occurring in other countries.

"There are some issues raised in terms of overlapping future provincial planning studies on natural areas and agricultural lands which are a concern, and I'll talk about those in a minute. And then as I said, there are a variety of wording issues associated with the plan. Although it is clear in some areas, it is more ambiguous in others and as we are know, before the end of the year, be expected to conform in all our decisions to this document, the report includes an appendix that suggests some wording changes that allow, gives us a better basis to deal with that higher level of performance standard in a reasonable and more predictable way.

"There are a few issues that council raised and they are significant issues which are still outstanding. The process of implementing Places to Grow relies very heavily on the Planning Act and Planning Act mechanisms, and there are a number of issues and improvements to the Planning Act that are required. There has to be major reforms to other tools which municipalities need to be able to finance, for example, capital infrastructure, to support a provincially-driven set of priorities, and to raise revenues, and to coordinate our actions. We need some additional tools as well. All municipalities in central Ontario , as far as I'm aware, have been raising the need for major reforms to the Environmental Assessment Act which at the moment is almost philosophically not designed to support a provincially-directed program. And similarly there are other policies of provincial ministries that directly conflict with what the Places to Grow plan wants to achieve that has to be adjusted as well.

"The issue of transitional rules. All new legislation, all new plans have some form of transitional requirements which identify how work in progress is affected or not affected, and the details on transitiional rules are still outstanding as well. So the recommendations of this report, first of all, as with the the previous reports that council endorsed on Places to Grow plan, this report supports the basis direction and objectives of the exercise. It's important I believe - I would recommend it to this committee - it's important improvement to have the provincial government not only aligning its actions, but aligning the actions of surrounding municipalities in a way that the municipalities who are undertaking growth planning, such as Hamilton, have more assurance that our actions are going to be supported externally as well. This report recommends some further changes particularly as it pertains to appeals under the Planning Act. Bill 51, which are reforms on the Planning Act, was recently announced. There's going to be a report coming before you very shortly .

"A number of the reforms which are in Bill 51 do go a long way to addressing the tools and the issues which are important to municipalities in implementing Places to Grow, but it also raises a number of other flavours which this report recommends you pursue by further changes to the Act. That will be dealt with in the other report. Once again, this report reiterates the need for reform in the Environmental Assessment Act and ministry policies. And to give you an example of ministry policies issues, after spending $600,000 on the Setting Sail secondary plan for the harbour area, the municipality is just about to go into a lengthy Ontario Municipal Board hearing basically over a debate on Ministry of the Environment policies regarding the separation of residential development from railway lands, which is fundamental to intensification in the downtown area. You can't have one without the other, and yet we are basically as a result of pre-existing ministry policies are forced to go through a hearing to debate an issue which the Places to Grow plan wants us to achieve, but another ministry policy doesn't allow us to achieve. So those are the kinds of operational frustrations in the ministry policies that we're looking at. .

"This version of the Places to Grow plan proposes that the province is going to take a stronger role in setting priorities for industrial park planning, setting some to designate areas of employment within the central Ontario area as being of provincial significance. And by inference providing more supportive actions in a strategic way to the economic development of particular employment areas. This is one I think that is very important to the city of Hamilton , and it's an area where this report before you today recommends that greater clarity and more emphasis be placed.

"The other part of this report today talks about not duplicating efforts which municipalities have already undertaken in natural area and agricultural land planning. As staff have gone through the work to implement the Greenbelt , we have been investigating the province's version of natural area policy development and mapping, and agricultural policy and mapping in comparison to our own, and what we find is the differences between the two are really not productive for the exercise at all. The provincial material generally uses slightly different assumptions, is slightly higher level in terms of detail, and doesn't reflect the kind of quality and site checking specifics that a muncipality puts into the exercise. And as a result we spend an unnecessary amount of time debating what we perceive as errors, and they perceive as a higher level view of the world. And in the end it doesn't really help either one of us. So this report recommends that that content in the Places to Grow plan be significantly revised.

"We've also recommended that there be a delay in the mandatory implementation of the Places to Grow plan until municipalities - or phase-in of the implementation - until municipalities have the tools, the financial tools, the operational tools, to implement its objectives more effectively. That involves legislative and policy reform and it's an area where AMO has traditionally been an important coordinating body, and an important voice for the municipalities. AMO, in talking to them, however, would view Places to Grow as a regional or district issue and AMO does not have a strong mandate to get involved in regional or district issues. They're only looking at province-wide matters. And so part of the recommendation is to point the significance of AMO's involvement in the further legislative and policy process of Places to Grow and to ask them to take on a broader role.

"The effect of the Places to Grow initiative on GRIDS and other activities of the municipality really can't be assessed until we know what the transitional rules are going to be. Both of council's previous comments to the province on Places to Grow asked for the transitional rules to be available by the time we were at this point. And unfortunately we are at this point, and we have no transitional rules. So the significance of these things is extremely important. We have seen through the implementation of the recent reforms to the Planning Act, and to the Greenbelt Plan, the City of Hamilton has felt the effect of retroactive policy implemnentation - both the effect it had on the Stoney Creek urban boundary expansion and the effect it's also having on the Setting Sail west harbour secondary plan right now. These were both projects initiated well before the province even began their work. They were well engaged in and in some cases completed by the time the province came up with this issue and suddenly just before the final approval is granted, we find there's a new set of rules. And that can be very difficult, not only for the private sector, but also for the municipality as well.

"I would suggest that this is going to be more important as a result of Places to Grow because as a result of Places to Grow legislation, all provincial ministries and agencies must implement it as well. So, for example, when we have an infrastructure project that is going for approval to MOE, MOE has to apply Places to Grow against said infrastructure project. If that infrastructure project started before Places to Grow came into effect, there could be all sorts of difficulties in interpreting rules and so forth. So it's very very important and its particularly problematic because the transition rules under the legislation do not require public notice, and do not require input. And so one of the key recommendations of the report before you is that there be that input before the transitional rules come into effect. [ 2:06:39 ]

"Basically this is a significant policy document which as you know staff in the design of the GRIDS and Official Plan and master plan programs have tried to anticipate. We've tried to develop those projects and conduct studies based on what we saw emerging from the province and the flavours of opinions as they've evolved through time. We've tried to anticipate it as much as possible.

"The final document, however, does raise a number of new issues. It does set a slightly different direction on some other issues that we're well informed on, such that it may have, depending on the transitional rules, a direct effect on how we can complete and when we can complete these important initiatives for the municipality. So I've been asked to try and give you a flavour of what those potential impacts may be. And obviously depending on the topic that we're talking about - since Places to Grow is a very complex document - those impacts can range from relatively minor to very significant.

"For example, the final Places to Grow plan sets a growth target for the City of Hamilton of 660,000 people, whereas GRIDS is evaluating a growth target of up to 700,000 people for the city. We've already done the analysis and have all the statistics for a growth level of 660,000 so it's not really too difficult to make those kinds of adjustments.

"Similarly the identification of intensification areas, and developing a policy expansions that are required on the master plans, those are not particularly difficult issues. There are areas where we have a fair amount of experience and informaiton in terms of work done to date. We would probably have to do some more, and do some supplementary work. So in those sort of moderate impact type of topics there may be a bit of a delay, but it's not something that we can't handle.

"In terms of major impacts, there are a variety of issues raised by the Places to Grow plan which would essentially cause us to either stop and back up or stop and wait for potentially a significant amount of time - and I'm talking several years here. This is an area which is particularly of concern to us and the recommendations before you today ask that the province in their transition rules recognize that there are communities like Hamilton - Durham region is also in this exact same, or virtually exact same circumstances we are - where fairly significant growth planning exercises have been undertaken, are well engaged, and it's simply unfair at this late stage to cause us to stop and go backwards. So these are issues that staff will continue to raise in the course of future discussions with the province and reinforced by the report before you today. And that's my presentation."

Mitchell : ".it's very very complicated" and frustrating for staff. Asks Mallard to highlight changes by province made on staff requests. Mallard : ".previous version . called for a secondary plan type of process where different sub areas of Ontario would develop a secondary plan for everything. . they've abandoned that plan. will be sub-area studies . but won't necessarily lead to another layer of planning documents." Previously Hamilton in two sub-area plans but now "the feeling is that the province is going to set up these sub area evaluations on a fairly flexible basis and . Hamilton will be linked with the GTA group as requested by council." Mitchell : "Did the provincial politicians have to pass this and go through their process?" Mallard: "Places to Grow legislation is now in effect . has requirement for this process we're going through now . receive input and amend the plan as required before it is approved by cabinet." Mitchell: Time frame? Mallard: Late March, early April, May. Mitchell: Right of city to appeal? Mallard : "It has to be sent in as comments. There is no appeal, as with the Greenbelt plan." Mitchell : "So they don't have to listen to the local MPPs comments or the local city councillors?" Mallard : Have to listen, "but there's no Ontario Municipal Board type of hearing on differences concerning this plan." Mitchell : "Do we have to endorse this P2G?" Mallard : No but province is going to proceed if we choose not comment.

Mitchell : ".lot of the growth of the city is in Stoney Creek and Glanbrook and along the 20 highway or upper Centennial Parkway been a four lane highway for years and years. And some of the members may remember there was a Speedway Park there, half-mile track or quarter-mile track where they raced stockcars years ago. And it's since been torn down and there's a farmer's field there, but for us to have to work with documents that do not relate to reality in any way, shape or form, must be frustrating for our staff. I know it is for constitutents as well as my job. Stoney Creek has sewer capacity to handle expansion - it was in the Stoney Creek plans - to expand in upper Stoney Creek . In our LEAR studies and tests it was found that is that's the poorest farmland or some of the poorest farmland - poor drainage and so on - in all of the new city of Hamilton. And yet they've come along and declared it that it's tender fruit belt land -some of the highest protected land that there is. Well there hasn't been a fruit tree grow there in a hundred years and there won't be in the next 100 years, and for us to accept that as the city of Hamilton, and to expect our staff to design things when they know it's not right, and they know it's not the place to go, and not be listened to, is wrong. They're expanding southwardly into Glanbrook, into Twenty Mile Creek farmland which is capable of 200 bushels per acre corn, and leaving upper rural Stoney Creek alone. And I've asked some people why that is, and the answer I've got back is because it's too close to bedrock and its too expensive to build basements. Well my answer to that is that I'd rather buy a home built on rock than a home built on fill and there's lots of places in Canada that don't have basements, and can have development, and there should be commercial and industrial development all along that road. And it's handier for bus service, its handier for everything, and yet we're being told - and it's wrong - that we can't go there. There's my issue. It's an issue for my ward. It's an issue for all of us. Costs and so on. Paul, in your estimation, when will they listen to our data our people our farmers our staff our consultants and everybody that's got the accurate information? When't that going to take place, and when can we expect to have those realistic changes made?" Mallard : "That's a real ouija board question" Says question focuses on Greenbelt and its process and that didn't "involve a great deal of consultation with municipalities" but in P2G they are committing to do that. "I think the province is learning a little bit from the experience, but in terms of the Greenbelt Plan . it is in effect . it does not provide for any kind of review . until 10 years have expired."

Mitchell says he went with farmers and mayors office to meet Gerretsen about Twenty Mile Creek area "and was assured that some changes would be made because that's the best farmland we have going in the eastern side of Hamilton . But in order to farm it properly, you need to protect about a mile on each side of it. . they put in protection of the floodplain - about 400 feet on each side of Twenty Mile Creek was protected. No farmer in the future is ever going to be able to farm that. It was totally wrong. There was nobody at the table in that boardroom that had any knowledge of agriculture whatsoever. . Actually our delegation made it worse. I would have rather seen it not protect any than make the boundaries that they made because it's not effective for agriculture there at all.."

[2:19:41] Whitehead ".ward 8 has had its fair share of growth in the last number of years and continues to have a fair share of growth and development . want to make it clear it's not just the outlying areas." Asks about sub-area assessment. Mason says this has changed. "The focus of the sub area assessment work has been focused down very dramatically. Instead of being sort of a general official plan type of document, the idea that the province is pursuing is only to evaluate very specific issues where that particular sub-area requires some common information and common direction. The GTA municipalities all have growth strategies completed. As Hamilton completes our growth strategies, we're joining a group that's already fully prepared to take this next step on the infrastructure side. For example, in the GTA-Hamilton area I think there's general agreement for developing the provincial priorities for employment area and employment land development is very important. And with my counterparts in other GTA municipalities we are working to prepare a terms of reference for that study, even in advance of the province's doing their work. . we're putting specific proposals in front of them." Whitehead : "Great. I think that's good news . it's no longer the linkage that once existed with respect to the whole sub area assessment study . flexibility to move quickly."

Braden : ".I've been to Gerretsen's office recently and really I'm surprised by how little they know about certain things, but there is an apparent willingness to listen. So of course I fed him lots of information. The rural area cannot afford 10 years just because a higher body has said something. And it seems to me in the process of change, we have to develop a record. So I want to speak later on the next issue, but I just want to say merely because the province has said something - and the Greenbelt in many respects is a good idea - it's actually to us it's actual punishment. It's really regressive, and a city person I don't think would understand how bad it is to threaten my neighbours. It's just outrageous. No city person would put up with this, but because of the difference between urban and rural, and where we're going economically, it doesn't seem to be an issue. The reason I raise it. I would prefer that perhaps councillor Mitchell or with myself . that we at least get something in writing that we formally can send to the province and say look, this doesn't work. We can say it more politely than that and we probably have to feed em the answer. But to stand, it's asking you to hold your breath, or hold your investments, or stop progress. It is really really, I am very angry. But I think you can't really be angry because in the dictionary sense they're really ignorant. They have no idea about the consequences of what they have done, and the rural community can't stand for them to get educated. So I would like to see . and the planners know exactly what I'm talking about . they've been told what to do . it's just infuriating that we have been threatened so badly."

Pearson notes that Greenbelt legislation is in place and "there's no ifs, ands or buts" but suggests they work on this.

McHattie : [ 2:25:19 ] Asks to clarify "the new growth forecast of 660,000 people. How does the three alternative growth scenarios that we've chosen . there were numbers in there that said we could accommodate a certain number before we went to an urban boundary expansion. ..I imagine at some point we'll get a new version of that with this in mind. My memory was that it was fairly close that we wouldn't have to do an urban boundary expansion if we follow the intensification route . how this might change that?" Mason : "Well behind the population number of 660,000, there are other forecasts for jobs, for households and different types of households and so forth and to answer the councillor I've got to sort of wade into that a little bit. . The differences between 700,000 that we were working with and 660 are not evenly distributed across all of those issues. Primarily what you will see as a result of 660,000 is only a slightly smaller greenfield quantum. What it's most signifcant impact concerns intensification. The intensification target at 700,000 that we were working with was about 25,000 intensification units. As a result of the lower population number and a shift away from apartments in the sub-forecast of that number, the intensification targe that we would be looking at is now 19,000 units. So effectively, the change will be very slight in terms of greenfield . It will be felt mostly in terms of intensification policy issues." McHattie : "Just that number again, it went from 25,000 intensification units we had to accommodate down to 19, and that's largely a result of the change in apartment buildings?" Mason : "Yeah. The 700,000 population forecast had a different mix of housing, and as we go back to a lower population, we're looking at a more conventional, more suburban distribution of housing types that we plan for." McHattie : "Is that a minimum, the 19,000? Can we go with higher number of intensification units? Is it one of those minimum things where you need to meet the provincial target but if you want to go further you can do it?" Mason : "The Places to Grow plan says it is 40% - 19,000 - of your housing growth OR what you're performing now, if it's above that rate of intensification, OR what you've already committed to in your planning documents if it is above that level of intensification. So it's the highest of actual performance, Places to Grow minimum, or your planned performance, and we can choose to go higher if we wish." McHattie : ".so if we were to stick with the 25,000 and we've got a lower population projection of 660,000 people, again what does that do to our urban boundary expansion situation?" Robichaud : "One of the issues is not only the numbers as Paul indicated, but the types. Under the one growth scenario you had 100,000 households - that was for the 700,000 people. And what the new version of Places to Grow says is we will have 80,000 households. What's consistent though in both of those forecasts is the number of single and semi-detached dwellings which we can't accommodate within the existing area. So it's about 40-45,000 singles and semis over the next 25 years. What we do lose though is the number of apartment units. The 700,000 is more urban, whereas the 660 would be more suburban in terms of the overall housing mix. So when you look at not only what Places to Grow says but also the PPS where we have to provide for that full continuum of housing needs, what we do is we end up having urban boundary expansion that is being driven by the need to accommodate singles and semis. Intensification will accommodate a lot of our demand for row houses and apartments, but at the end of the day the need, the land for singles and semis is pretty much consistent because of the inability of the city to accommodate that within the existing urban area. Because it's not only Places to Grow, but it's also the Provincial Policy Statement that says you must plan for the full range of housing types - singles, semis, rows and apartments. So there's not a huge 700 and 66, whatever that works out in percentage decrease. You don't get that corresponding same percentage decrease in the amount of urban boundary expansion lands required. So that's really where we see the biggest difference when we're looking at it. Yes there will be a reduction, but only because there's not as many apartments and row housing units coming on stream over the next 25 years." McHattie : ".do we have any ability to influence the makeup of the housing that's being suggested to us - i.e. we would like to build more apartment units and townhouses as compared with singles and semis, perhaps based on the study that we've done .that we believe we can move in that direction. which is better from an intensification purpose, would meet the intent of Greenbelt, Places to Grow, the provincial direction in general, to live within your boundaries, use your existing infrastructure, etc. - all those goals in the Places to Grow Act? What I'm getting at obviously is to try to minimize the urban boundary expansion. And these are detailed questions I could pursue afterwards." Mason : "I think what we've been told in relation to those types of questions is that the forecast that is in the Places to Grow plan will be a minimum and a maximum together. That's what the target's going to be. From the province's perspective if one municipality chooses not to perform in some area, then that demand - let's say it's single detached homes - has to be accommodated some place else and within the central Ontario area. And this was an issue for council within the Greenbelt , because council was very concerned about the potential for leapfrogging - shall we say - of Hamilton growth into Brantford . We have to be cognizant of those kind of issues too, and in our growth planning decisions. So I think obviously there is as we have indicated in our workshops to council, there is a supply opportunity for much higher levels of intensification in Hamilton . We've got a lot more than just 19,000 units that we can deliver, but I think the expectation is that we'll still deliver on those other types of units as well." McHattie : "I'll follow up more on that. Just another question. The comment that you made, Paul, under major impacts to GRIDS, it was related to the community infrastructure analysis and impacts . I wasn't really sure what you meant ." Mason : "We've developed the GRIDS program to address community infrastructure issues at a relatively high level, basically because we don't have the depth of detail and knowledge about health services, educational pupil spaces, and the long term plans for a variety of other social services that are beyond this municipality's direct responsibilities. The Places to Grow plan has suggested some very specific wording in this last draft that will require all decisions of council, every minor variance, every site plan, every plan of subdivision, or whatever, to evaluate social service, health service, education, protective services and the effect of each individual decision in detail, all the time. That's a level of complexity that we never anticipated, and we would have to do a major study to build up that information base and extract it from these other organizations that are beyond council's control to be able to supply the information in the level of detail and with coherent suggestions on what you do, to be able to fufill what this last draft implies is required. And that's a concern at this stage. It's not that we can't do it, but it would involve a lot of additional work that we hadn't planned on doing." McHattie : ".in the transportation section on page 3, item 4, public transit should be our first priority. Any hint on how the province is going to investigate that? I guess I'm thinking we have a federal gas tax which we can spend on transit, should we wish, but we can also spend it on other priorities as well. Are they going to be looking at those kinds of decisions, or do we simply don't know that as yet." Mason : "The Ministry of Transportation has developed a 30-year strategy for highway and highway transportation in central Ontario which we thought would be available by now. I think that it's that that we really need to understand before we can answer the councillor's question. What priority means really involves where the monies are going." McHattie : ".and item seven on that same transportation list, I just didn't understand this - muncipalities will plan for land uses that support goods movement near goods movement transportation facilities while balancing intensification policies in urban areas - Is that saying we want to put advanced manufacturing, for example, in an area, where we need to make things and need to ship things, does that mean that we need to put those facilities in an area where there's rail, for example, or highways or an airport as compared to somewhere there's only rural roads?". Mason : "Yes, I think it does. I think anybody who drives around Ontario can see that what we've built in the last 20 years around all the major 400 series interchanges are shopping malls, and I think that's what this plan is indirectly speaking to." [ 2:37:58 ]

Whitehead asks about changes to OMB rules by province and the timeline on a report on that. Coveyduck says second meeting in February.

Bratina : "When I lived in Toronto in the 80s, the population was about 600,000. That sounds ridiculous but the old city of Toronto , which was roughly the same geographic area as the old city of Hamilton which had a population of 300,000. So why can't we accommodate all the population growth within the present area without expanding? If you take the area from the lake to Bloor Street and from Dufferin to Jarvis, I'll be the intensification has gone up by 25% or more in the last ten years. Do you know any of the numbers, the population density of downtown Toronto compared to Hamilton ?" Mason : "That's I think - to answer your question properly we'd have to complete some further analysis that we're working on now. Toronto has completed, city of Toronto staff is completed there's and reported to council. The densities have gone up dramatically in Toronto, particularly in places where they didn't expect - the Beaches for example has one of the highest densities, and yet is one of the most liveable communities in Toronto, and they were very surprised to see how high some of the densities - in what they regard to be low density areas - had gone. We have yet to complete that analysis here." Bratina : "I don't want to belabour the point, but all you have to do is drive there and see that there's way more intensification, and its growing, and we're still worried about spreading out into the countryside."

Staff recommendations moved and carried. [ 2:41:10 ]

Added item 7.4 on rural

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Applicationto Amend an Existing Provisional Certificate of Approval
(Waste Disposal Site,)Ministry of Environment Reference
#0897-652R28, PSC Industrial Services CanadaInc., Located
at 52 Imperial Street, (Hamilton) (PED06002) (Ward3)
Deferred for two weeks to allow Councillor Morelli's views to be considered.

8.2 Buildingand Licensing Division Operational Review Sub-Committee
Report05-005

8.3 Applicationto Amend City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92
for Lands Located at 341Regional Road 20 (Stoney Creek) (PED05201)
(Ward 11)(Referred back to Committeeby Council on December 14, 2005)
Deferred for two weeks.

MOTIONS

McHattie moved a motion to refund purhase price to Noco Apparel for city land acquired by the company which couldn't be serviced to meet the company's needs. The company has subsequently obtained other lands and will continue its sports clothing manufacturing in Hamilton with 30 employees. Land is on Pritchard Road , owner lives in McHattie's ward. Jackson also spoke in favour. Carried with no opposition.

GENERAL INFORMATION

11.1 Urban Design Guidelines for Downtown Hamilton (From Outstanding Business List, due December 6, 2005 , no copy) (Held over from December 6, 2005 )

11.2 M and M Tables (From Outstanding Business List, due December 6, 2005 , no copy) (Held over from December 6, 2005 )

11.3 Storm drainage issues in Lochside Drive area (From Outstanding Business List, due December 6, 2005 , no copy) (Held over from December 6, 2005 )

11.4 Clean up of CNR lands (From Outstanding Business List, due December 6, 2005 , no copy) (Held over from December 6, 2005 )

11.5 Business Ambassador Programme (From Outstanding Business List, due December 6, 2005 , no copy) (Held over from December 6, 2005 )

11.6 Exemptions to Parkland Dedication By-law relating to new additions to school board facilities and the impact of these exemptions on the Development Charges By-law (From Outstanding Business List, due December 6, 2005 , no copy) (Held over from December 6, 2005 )

11.7 Keeping of pigeons in urban areas From Outstanding Business List, due January 2006, no copy) There is a draft bylaw that's been prepared and is currently being reviewed by the legal department. There will be public consultation before June. Not back to committee before August.