 By James Young
December 9th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
I attended The Planning and Development Committee on Thursday when Councillor Bentivegna expressed his controversial “disappointment” with a delegation.
 Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith delegating at city hall. I heard presentations by city planners and consultants, one doesn’t have to agree with them to find them informative. I heard informative delegations from Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith of “We Love Burlington” and Don Fletcher for “Plan B”, the conscience of our waterfront. I heard self-serving delegations from developers and their professional associations, leaving me wondering: Do developers from Hamilton or Toronto deserve equal consideration with local residents who have to live with the developments long after developers have moved on?
In the evening session I heard a detailed delegation from Gary Scobie, who provided councillors with a concise, accurate and informative planning history of Downtown. I hope council and staff learn as much as I do every time Gary delegates.
Roland Tanner, for Engaged Citizens of Burlington, gave an intelligent dissertation on the compromise inherent in the staff recommendation, to get the Official Plan done now and fight the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) and Urban Growth Centre (UGC) designations later.
I loved David Barker’s idea of a pedestrian area at Lakeshore and Brant St.
Coming from Glasgow where, in the 1970s, Sauchiehall and Buchanan Streets were pedestrianised and closed to traffic. On a Burlington scale: this is the equivalent of closing Lakeshore from Guelph Line to Maple Ave. and Brant Street from Fairview to Lakeshore. Despite the hue and cry at the time about where will cars go? How will local businesses survive?
Fifty years on, these streets bustle with successful retail, patio cafes and restaurants, buskers on street corners, making it one of the most vibrant and attractive pedestrian precincts in the world. So closing Brant from Caroline to Lakeshore as a pedestrian precinct seems easily achievable if the city will is there.
 Gary Scobie during his delegation. Then there was the “disappointment” that councillor Bentivegna expressed at some of Gary Scobie’s delegation. This seems to have outraged some Gazette contributors.
I disagreed with the councillor. Gary was spot on in his summation of the Downtown OP Review. But was it outrageous or disrespectful? Have we reached a stage in our sensitivity that any criticism or response to a delegation is somehow offensive? What I saw was a poorly thought out point from the councillor, very ably responded to by Gary in what he later described as the normal thrust and parry of council/delegate debate.
My take on outrage is: “Commentators may not be more outraged than the victims.” I happened to be sitting with Gary and Roland Tanner when Clr. Bentivegna stopped by to discuss their delegations. Neither Roland nor Gary were outraged or offended. For those so outraged by a single word, cast your minds back to a time when five of seven councillors repeatedly offended and were downright rude to delegates like Gary, Tom Muir, Lynn Crosby, myself and many others. While I understand and respect Clr. Nisan’s desire for decorum, perhaps he was a little quick on the draw in this case.
 Angelo Bentivegna I was actually more offended when Clr. Bentivegna appeared to question the legitimacy of Roland Tanner’s ECoB delegation, while he accepted the presence of We Love Burlington and Plan B groups without question. Perhaps he should reflect on the influence of ECoB on the outcomes of last municipal election and be quietly thankful.
I leave readers with two thoughts on the Downtown Proposals:
If an OP is approved based on the existing designation of downtown as a MTSA/UGC, then those designations are rescinded, doesn’t that nullify that OP?
Might developers appeal that at LPAT?
Might the Province or Region resist undoing those designations on the grounds that the new OP was approved based on those designations?
I also worry that the planner’s two options are based on provincially mandated “average” UGC density targets of around 200 people or jobs per hectare. Yet developers will still apply for amendments on a case by case basis, most of which considerably exceed that number.
Judging by past appeals it appears that LPAT adjudicates on this case by case basis, regardless of Official Plan’s average densities. This will inevitably lead to over intensification which will strain infrastructure, roads, transit, traffic congestion, all of which are planned around that 200 average.
 James Young is an Aldershot resident who has delegated at city hall frequently.
 By David Barker
December 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
What is the Vision for the Downtown?
The public’s vision for the Downtown is to provide for a walkable, accessible, vibrant downtown which is similar to that set out in Section 8.1.1 of the Adopted Official Plan.
 Lakeshore and Brant Main precincts should be both walk-able and accessible. However I question the concept the Lakeshore precinct is currently a pedestrian precinct, it is far from that status currently. However, the public’s vision also stresses the need to maintain and add new green spaces and trees, while providing additional space for year-round activities and festivals. The character of Brant Street as the ‘retail main street’ of Burlington with its eclectic mix of shops, meeting places and culture will be supported and enhanced. Lakeshore Road as the gateway to the waterfront will be maintained as an important pedestrian precinct to ensure the Downtown’s sense of place is preserved.
I noted the words “walkable”, “accessible” “additional space for year-round activities and festivals” are used.
I also noted the use of the following description “Lakeshore Road as the gateway to the waterfront will be maintained as an important pedestrian precinct to ensure the Downtown’s sense of place is preserved”.
Yes, the Lakeshore and Brant Main precincts should be both walkable and accessible. However I question the concept the Lakeshore precinct is currently a pedestrian precinct. It should be for sure. But it is far from that status currently.
I refer you to Page 36 of the consultant’s report where it states:-
Recently completed projects and those under construction such as Bridgewater and Saxony total an additional 335 units plus commercial and office space, which results in a further 2,068 persons and jobs. That’s a ratio of 6.17 people per unit.
Those projects that are approved but not yet built total an additional 732 units plus commercial space, which equals a further 1,225 people and jobs. That’s a ratio of 1.67 people per unit.
I don’t know why the ratios are so different.
Referring to the chart on Page 36 of the consultant’s report it shows for just the combined Lakeshore & Brant Main precincts between 1,350 units for concept 1 and 1,160 units for concept 2 should be anticipated.
At an average occupancy of 1.50 people per unit (my number) generates between 2,025 and 1,740 additional residents.
Then as per the same chart an additional jobs of between 495 and 610 for concepts 1 and 2 respectively will be created.
That’s a total of 2,520 and 2,350 additional people anticipated in the two precincts.
Those figures do not contemplate the increased congestion arising out of attracting people and traffic that the invigorated downtown will draw.
So my question is:-
How are we going to cope with all these additional people?
My intent tonight is not to pass judgement on Concept 1 or Concept 2.
To be honest whether it is decided to go for either of the two offered concepts, or another hybrid version, or another version altogether that results from the City being forced by outside forces to accept the tall buildings we are all fighting to prevent; we seem to be concentrating in isolation concerning ourselves as to what the “built form” will look like. How pretty will it be?
We do not seem to be giving what I believe should be simultaneous serious consideration as to how the City will deal with the issues that result from the reinvigoration of the downtown; issues such as traffic, parking, transit and other infrastructure.
These go hand in hand and must be developed simultaneously. Look at Toronto’s experience. It built and built and built, offices and condos and subdivisions, and totally ignored traffic, parking, transit and other infrastructure issues. All those items are now real headaches.
I have put forward to you all at a previous Planning and Development Committee meeting a suggestion that the City needs to be radical in its thoughts and approach to the future of the Downtown. These concepts offered by SGL are, in my view, just tinkering.
 David Barker delegating before city council. Going off at a bit of a tangent, I would like to touch upon some things that have been said by earlier delegates. Mr Bales of Carriage House has as a part of his delegation submitted a letter to Council whinging and whining that the City has not provided his company with background research it has developed through this long study process. He infers the development community is being excluded from the City’s engagement process and so cannot support the City’s decision, whatever that might be. I find Mr Bales to be completely ingenuous.
He and his company have provided presentations on its proposed downtown high rise developments at Lakeshore and Pearl, and between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore. These proposals completely ignore not only the in-force zoning bylaws but also the very clearly articulated wishes of residents not to have 20+ story buildings forming a canyon along either Lakeshore Rd. or Brant St. At those presentations he talks about bring benefits to Burlington through these high rises, but will never address the problems that will result.
A number of earlier delegates have expressed the position that residents do not want to see change in the downtown area. No one likes change. But change has to come. The downtown needs changing. It is only “ticking over” it is not “really revving it up”. I believe residents are only seeing a discussion taking place about the height of new buildings. There is no vision being offered as to what the downtown will look like. Give people a clear vision of how everything will look after the change and I believe buy in will come.
Which brings me to my previously suggested vision of the Downtown and Lakeshore precincts.
Let’s make the Downtown and Lakeshore Precincts totally pedestrianized.
That’s Lakeshore to Caroline and Martha to Locust.
Obviously certain vehicular access must be allowed for residents, businesses as well as transit.
The City should offer low cost bus transit between the downtown and Mapleview Mall, Burlington Centre, the Fairview & Appleby GO stations, where free parking would be available.
This will link Spencer Smith to Brant St, push transient commuter traffic back on to the QEW, where it becomes the Provinces problem (as it should be). It will reinvigorate the downtown.
 Brant street being set up for the Sound of Music – Barker would like to see it traffic free year round. Now I don’t wish to dwell on a sad event, but did anyone notice when watching news video of the knife attack that occurred in The Hague, Netherlands a week ago, that it happened right outside a Hudson Bay store, which is located in, yes you have guessed it, a pedestrian precinct.
I Googled “European Cities with pedestrian precincts” and got a list that included Vienna, Copenhagen, Prague, Zagreb, Cologne, Amsterdam, The Hague, Cambridge, Canterbury, York.
If these more populated Cities can make it work, then so can Burlington
As said earlier a pedestrian precinct in the Brant Main and Lakeshore precincts would bring the downtown and Spencer Smith Park together, it would allow for green spaces to be created and I am convinced reinvigorate our downtown.
By Roland Tanner
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is the delegation I gave at City Hall yesterday on behalf of ECoB. It is, in essence, already obsolete, which I believe is good news for residents. It is obsolete because Council informally signaled its clear intention to get the Official Plan Review process complete in March 2020, to lift the ICBL, and move on to doing everything in its power to take on the Urban Growth Centre, Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) designations which currently give additional powers to developers to build what they want.
This may still not be the Official Plan most residents want. In fact I’m sure it’s not. Because the city alone cannot insist on the OP residents want – yet. But if the city can persuade other levels of government to work with us, there is some hope that the clearly expressed preferences for residents for downtown Burlington can still be achieved. Nobody should pretend it will be easy. What residents have asked Council to do in reshaping and removing the downtown designations has never been done before, and there is no formal process to achieve it. But getting the revised OP back to Halton Region in March gives us our best chance of achieving those difficult objectives.
I am delegating today on behalf of Engaged Citizens of Burlington. Engaged Citizens of Burlington is a registered non-profit organisation with over 600 signed up supporters, a growing percentage of whom are paid members. We advocate on behalf of the proper recognition of residents’ preferred solutions in all municipal matters, in favour of a stronger role for residents’ voices generally, and in favour of the reform of the province’s relationship with municipal government.
 Tanner on ECoB: We exist because the voices of residents have historically had a hard time being heard at City Hall over the last decade or so. That’s the same phrase I’ve used to start the last three or four delegations I’ve made here. I say it because not everybody in the audience knows what ECoB is, and also to counter the criticism of ECoB made since its early days, and still made frequently on Twitter: namely, that we are a group of angry, unrepresentative and entitled NIMBY’s who represent nothing but selfishness.
We exist because the voices of residents have historically had a hard time being heard at City Hall over the last decade or so, and still need all the help they can get in working, hopefully collaboratively, with City Hall.
But that’s not the same thing as saying ‘what residents want to happen has to happen’. What residents want can only ‘happen’ if it’s legal. But Council can insist on Official Plan that’s ignores the wider planning context, if it wants. It has that right. I suspect that’s the subtext of today’s debate, rather than the two options actually on the table. Should council send these options back to staff for a third time and demand options that reflect what residents want? Or is there another approach that could work?
So I’m not going to do what once would have been expected from ECoB and shake my fist and say that the options presented by staff are an outrage that ignores residents. I’m also not here to capitulate and say this represents a reasonable compromise with the public vision for downtown and we simply have to put up with it. It’s not and we don’t. Downtown’s future should reflect the vision of Burlingtonians. Period. Nobody in this room should have a problem with that. The only question is, how do we get there?
I believe we have two options presented by staff which are a good faith attempt to do what they can to deliver a compromise between what residents want and what is defensible at LPAT. But those options were never going to be popular or reflect the entirety of what residents want. That was very clearly signalled by staff throughout this review. They feel it would be professionally unacceptable to draft a plan that’s inconsistent with the provincial framework.
Why do they believe this? Because of the Urban Growth Centre. That’s the root cause of this entire debate. Regardless of population targets and minimum densities and all the rest of it, while the Urban Growth Centre is in place downtown we are going to get proposals for highrises, and LPAT is going to approve them. That Urban Growth Centre was put in place with little or no consultation, and absolutely no foresight in 2007. The then director of planning was proud that Burlington was the first city in the GTHA to do so. In retrospect it seems like we were first because nobody on that council was paying attention. But that decision informs everything happening now. Everything comes back to the Urban Growth Centre.
So Council has a choice to make, and very little time to make it. The choice is – either, ONE, reject both these options and ask the planning staff for a third time to reconsider their proposals for downtown. Or, TWO, let these options go forward, acknowledging that this is not what residents want, and not what many feel they have the right to expect, but recognising that if we’re actually going to win this battle for a downtown residents like, it’s not going to be the OP that delivers it.
If Council asks staff to think again, if that’s being considered, what will happen? It will mean more delays, with no particular guarantee that staff will even then come back with options that anybody likes. And I presume it will mean the Interim Control Bylaw will be extended, possibly for up to another year. If that happens, my understanding is that council remains unable to address the Anchor Mobility Hub at the John St Bus shelter or the Urban Growth Centre. Everything that has a chance of definitively getting control of downtown remains on hold.
 What Brant Street could look like. Meanwhile development applications keep coming in. And they keep getting taller. And while the ICBL is in place the clock keeps ticking on applications, which means those applications are going straight to LPAT for non-response by council. Far from controlling the decisions on those developments, Council is handing them over to LPAT without trying to use the tools at its disposal to achieve moderation. Those developments are not coming back to you. LPAT will make the call. I freely admit that if I was sitting where you’re sitting I would have voted for the ICBL. I have no doubt. But right about now as I see developments being appealed to LPAT for non-response I’d be wondering if I’d made a mistake. I hope I’d have had the courage to change my mind rather than doubling down.
If in contrast Council takes these options and goes ahead with them as the basis for an imperfect OP for downtown, what will happen? The ICBL will be lifted. The city can, we believe, remove the Mobility Hub and leave central Burlington with one perfectly logical transit hub, taking one tool away from developers. The city can start making decisions on the developments coming before it, and residents need you to do that work. The city can begin lobbying the province for help with the Urban Growth Centre.
 Roland Tanner sees hope for the city. Yes, we know it will not be easy, and there are numerous hurdles to achieving it. But council has something very powerful in its pocket – votes in a marginal riding. We live in a must-win riding for any provincial government, and the current government is on the wrong side of the biggest political issue in our city for this or many generations.
In that context who can say even this pro-development provincial government won’t be willing to listen?
This is EcoB’s position right now. Complete this process as soon as possible and get onto the policies which address where the real power lies. Residents ultimately don’t care about a perfect Official Plan. They care about their downtown, and they want to see a council that is doing everything in its power to address the the many things which are currently taking their downtown away from them.
And if, finally, the Urban Growth Centre can be addressed and placed where it makes sense – where Burlington’s transit already exists and growth is already being focused – could we not then return to the OP and revise it to reflect the new tools that the city holds?
 By Staff
December 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Don Fletcher stood before a Standing Committee to tell them about a Citizens Plan for the Waterfront Hotel site at the foot of Brant street that is already in talks with the city to re-develop the site.
The Planning department had put out their proposed Concept 2 for the site. The creation of that proposal is what brought the Plan B into existence; they knew something much better was possible.
 The city Planning department called it the emerging preferred concept 2 On November 28th, 2017 an alternate building design featuring:
i. Extension of Spencer Smith Park
ii. Enhancement of Brant Street gateway to Lake Ontario
was put forward.
One June 5th, 2018 another Fletcher delegation resulted in amendment to key policy direction to “define & consider a building setback from the Thin Red Line”
 That thin red line would ensure that there would always be a clear view of the lake from Brant Street. The Citizens’ PLAN B remains committed to process, continuing dialogue with all stakeholders.
The Thin Red Line at NE Corner of Lakeshore & Brant is meant to ensure that there are no building West/ Southwest of Thin Red Line.
Fletcher explained to Council why the PLAN B folks were once again before Council.
– Two precincts, the Brant Main Street and the Lakeshore Mixed Use border on Waterfront Hotel property and Spencer Smith Park.
– That is a concern because changes to the adopted OP for downtown and the intensification designations will impact the application and approval of the Waterfront Hotel redevelopment
The participation that Fletcher saw at the Citizen Action Labs sessions caused the Plan B people additional concern about the process
The Re-examination of Adopted OP Process has a number of assumptions including key designations remaining unchanged.
– John Street bus terminal = Mobility Hub/ Major Transit Station Area
– Downtown Burlington = Urban Growth Center
• Both Concepts 1 & 2 seem designed to meet same intensification goals as former Adopted OP – LPAT defensible.
– Tall buildings permitted in Lakeshore Mixed Use Concept 1 at both NE corner w/Brant & NW corner w/Locust transition poorly to neighbouring precincts, but yield higher density
– Podium setback in Lakeshore Mixed Use Concept 2 of only 3m is to compensate for lower density of mid rise building
Fletcher believes that the electorate voted on Oct. 22nd, 2018 for fundamental change to intensification levels and the enforceability of Official Plan.
He concludes that key OP policies should to:
– Preserve connections & views to the waterfront
– House mid to low-rise buildings downtown with taller ones toward Fairview
– Maintain small town character and preserve heritage
– Reflect the community’s vision for the area
Fletcher argued that many attendees at Citizen Action Labs viewed Concepts 1 & 2 as different versions of same over-development and added that a different result from the 2018 Adopted OP demands a different approach.
Fletcher is concerned that Proceeding Solely As-Is is a mistake.
An Official Plan recommendation, potentially uninformed by the City’s Land Use Study (This is the work being done while the Interim Control bylaw is in place) was not in his opinion a smart thing to do. The land use study is not due until early March.
– Should the Mobility Hub/ Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) or Urban Growth Center designation remains they will permit the over development of the downtown which residents dislike and voted against.
This allowd for continued grounds for LPAT appeals by developers to plan/ negotiate ever greater heights. That would mean a return to “business as usual”, supported by developer-friendly Bill 108, once ICBL moratorium expires
This is the Brant Street view looking south to the lake that the Plan B people want to ensure does not happen. Citizens’ PLAN B proposes that the city continue to refine recommended Concept (1+2)
• Create an alternate What-if Concept to support growth downtown, without Mobility Hub/ MTSA and Urban Growth Center designations
• Accelerate Land Use Study & publish
• Aggressively lobby Region/ Province to change MTSA & Urban Growth Center designations, to establish viability
• Seek public feedback (January-February)
• Present both options to Council in March
• Decide and submit OP for approval to the Region of Halton, dependent upon finalizing designations for downtown
Burlington’s Downtown is at a turning point.
Related news stories:
The first look at Plan B.
Send the Plan back.
By Pepper Parr
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Shades of the previous council.
Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna told delegator Gary Scobie that he was disappointed with the delegation he had made.
Before Bentivegna could finish his ill-advised comment – Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan spoke on a Point of Privilege and said he did not want to see comments like this being made.
This is the second time Bentivegna has given Scobie a rough ride – he made a snide remark a number of weeks ago, asking “What do you want – a play by play” when Scobie was asking for a little more detail.
Burlington is fortunate to have people like Scobie who take the time and make the effort to bring fresh ideas, hard questions and imagination to how the city could grow.
 Gary Scobie – asking a question during the Walking Tour that was part of the outreach to citizens by the Planning department. In remarks after the Bentivegna choice words Scobie said that everyone knows the city has to grow – and that the growth is needed – he just wanted to see the growth in the right places – in and around the Mobility Hubs.
He told Council that they came to city hall with hopes to put a lid on this.
“We are in a predicament – you are being asked to meet a target you don’t really like – then get rid of the target.”
Scobie who attends most of the public meetings attended the Action Labs and reported that people were confused with what was being asked of them.
He deserved better.
 By Gary Scobie
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
You have been put in a very difficult position as a Council. You wish to please citizens with good development in our downtown, yet you feel you must also create a new OP that will kowtow to the Province’s demands and developer wishes to over-intensify the area of our city that people look to as central to our existence.
Adjust the current OP to reflect the downtown density we really want.  This was the first nail in the coffin for our downtown. You are in this position because of failures of past Councils, dating back to the Council elected in 2002, which threw up its hands
in defeat when trying to re-vitalize the downtown and accepted help from Big Brother in the form of the Places to Grow legislation designation of the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre. That Council and the one following in 2006 welcomed further intrusion in local planning by accepting a questionable designation of our Bus Terminal as an Anchor Mobility Hub.
That Council was more interested in saving the City by building a pier instead. Just think what they might have accomplished if they’d focused on the downtown instead, or not.
 Part of the gift that kept on giving.  The first decision -and they just kept on coming. Fast forward to the 2014 Council who after turning down the Adi request to build a 26 storey skyscraper at Martha and Lakeshore, didn’t know how to defend the decision at the OMB and soon after in November 2017 gave Carriage Gate a gift that keeps on giving, the OK for a 23 storey building at 421 Brant that went way beyond the Op’s 8 storey limit and even beyond the 17 storey limit that was being pondered for an updated OP, all for the asking.
This was the first nail in the coffin for our downtown. Since then Council OK’d a 17 storey building at 409 Brant, again across the road from City Hall. I am almost certain that the developer-friendly LPAT will give in to the request for more height to match the 23 storeys of its neighbour across the road, leading to the Twin Towers of Burlington, a mockery of our OP and our City Hall.
Now we have before us tonight what I’d term Plan D, an attempt to please the Province, LPAT and developers with the over-intensification they desire and are prepared to fight for. And they have all the high cards in the deck and the high-paid talent to do so. No consideration of our current OP and the views of citizens who wish to keep our downtown to a human scale with retail buildings that are two storeys in height in certain areas and individual in character and façade.
When I see either of the two concepts, looking up or down Brant Street, I am reminded of a near faceless canyon of steel, brick and glass fronting sidewalks, with podiums that are a minimum three storeys in height and stores that have no character except for the name on the glass. So the D is for failure – failure to listen to citizens at labs and walkabouts like those that I attended. The D is also for Destruction because if either of these concepts (or a combination of the two) is accepted by Council, it will likely sound the death knell of our downtown, a complete replacement over time of the character we value on Brant Street.
 The Brant Street that was – can any of it be saved? But what did we expect, as developers have been buying up our retail street lots for assembly for years for a redo of the downtown in their image? With these concepts we give them free reign, with the blessing of the Province, to go beyond the minimum density goals of the Urban Growth Centre, Anchor Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area designations.
Developers can always claim they are only doing what the Province asked in intensifying growth centres. Unless this Council rids us of these designations we will see continued destruction of our downtown. And it hasn’t really started yet, so we have yet to realize what will be taking place. We only have vacant lots at 374 Martha and 421 Brant. Wait until the construction starts. We only have a stalled Bridgewater project on the Lake that hasn’t really impacted our congestion during construction like these others will.
But wait, there’s more. We have applications for 29 storeys at Lakeshore and Pearl, two 27 storey building applications for the Old Lakeshore Precinct and a redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel waiting in the wings. The latter three are not even being considered in the concepts we have before us tonight. Why is that?
There is no defense possible at the LPAT by the City to stop them. So we are being sold a backup plan that can’t possibly work to save our downtown. There is only one plan that might work, but apparently we are still waiting for a report about talking to the Province to get us out from under the downtown-killing designations our previous Councils so passively accepted. We don’t need a report. We don’t need a Plan D. We need to hear from Council that it is talking now with the Province on moving the intensity away from the downtown and the Lake up to the three GO Station Mobility Hubs. In other words, put a halt on these concepts and show us some action to save the downtown.
 Please don’t tell us that you aren’t at least setting the stage with the Province.  If you don’t do something with our OP, zoning and heights revert to the current 2008 version. Please don’t tell us that you aren’t at least setting the stage with the Province because the Interim Control Bylaw is in place till March. By then the timeline shows we’ll have selected a concept and maybe even a new OP. This would be like giving the enemy their ammunition.
There is one more thing that you must do as well though – adjust the current OP to reflect the downtown density we really want and the heights we would be comfortable with once we regain control of our downtown growth plan. Looking at creating a Heritage District up Brant Street to Caroline Street might also be suggested, but according to Oakville sources this is a time and effort-consuming task that may or may not fly. If you don’t do something with our OP, zoning and heights revert to the current 2008 version, the one conforming to intensification targets from the Places to Grow legislation. Only heritage buildings will be safe from being demolished unless this is done.
This is our last chance to stop many more skyscrapers from rising from Brant Street lots that will be cleared of the last remnants of unique stores and storefronts. Please don’t tell us these concepts are it – the plan to stop the high buildings. Because they aren’t.
By Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship.
I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith, and we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington. WLB fought against the prospects of municipal amalgamation in order to preserve and protect local voice. We are here today because we continue to advocate for local voice. We believe that Council and the citizens in Burlington are at a crucial point where we have one last chance to fight for the vision of Burlington that citizens have been expressing for years. We have one final opportunity to protect our downtown, preserve our waterfront and ensure that the people are heard.
 Lynn Crosby in conversation with a citizen. While we applaud the committed efforts of Planning staff, we would like to add our opinion to that of many of the citizens of Burlington and express both disappointment and concern with the two options or “concepts” that are being offered for the development of the downtown core. We will leave discussion of our main issues for whenever Council will be endorsing amendments to the Adopted Official Plan. We have many technical and policy arguments which justify a more popularly supported vision for the downtown – we will offer them then. This morning, we would like to speak to fundamental flaws in the concepts.
 Where will the growth go? The Esso station site is reported to have been sold. WLB members attended two different sessions (hence received two different perspectives) of the recent ‘action labs’ designed to garner public opinion on what the vision and conceptual layout should be for the development of Burlington’s downtown. We also received feedback from several of our associates who attended different sessions. Notably, all sessions had the same deficiencies.
The two concepts (and the mention of a possible third melded concept) were presented – each based on the existence of the same factors or planning constraints:
The urban growth centre designation for downtown
The mobility hub located at the current bus station, and
The major transit station area designation
No consideration was given to any concept that was not based on and framed by these constraints. So, if these constraints change, and we believe that they should, then don’t the concepts also need to change? Indeed, if after the ICBL expires, and Burlington is successful in removing the classification of the urban growth centre or moving its location further north, then the limiting factors underlying the two concepts become irrelevant. Our fear is that if either of the options are selected for the downtown or anything substantially similar, then the relocation of the Urban Growth Centre becomes moot. You will be backing yourself unnecessarily into a corner that is inconsistent with your stated direction and intent.
Both concepts presented this morning are based on the Adopted Official Plan. The Adopted Official Plan reflects the direction and desire of the past Council. So, first we ask “what does this Council want?” Is the Adopted Official Plan your vision as well? The vision of the past Council, which we believe largely ignored what the people wanted for the downtown, should not automatically be inherited or repeated by you. To be fair, many of the errors made with regard to the future of Burlington’s downtown cannot be completely laid at the feet of the immediate past Council – they go further back. However, what does stand before you is the opportunity to correct these mistakes. This will be your lasting legacy.
In the ‘Action Labs,’ participants were told that the two concepts were developed because they were “defensible”. In other words, they would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfy the requirements of Halton Region as sole approval authority of the plan. But both concepts represent just slightly different flavours of the same thing – tall buildings in the downtown. Should there not be at least one true alternative? Participants were told that any concept that involved ‘no more tall buildings’ was not “defensible” and could not be included. So, when choosing a concept, participants selected the one that was the least offensive of the two rather than that which might actually reflect what they wanted to see.
Many participants that we questioned felt that neither concept was what was desired for downtown. Many felt that they were voting for the option that was ‘the best of a bad lot’; that even the informing vision for downtown (Section 3.3 of the Report) missed the fact, frequently expressed, that it cannot be achieved if tall buildings are part of the environment. This feeling of dissatisfaction with both process and available options is also apparent on the City’s facebook page where over 160 negative comments are registered. Overall, we believe this means any results from the polls and selections made by attendees are skewed and have little if any validity.
Perhaps the most fundamental question concerns the starting point of this process – the Adopted Official Plan. Why was this chosen when it clearly has neither legal status nor resonance with the citizens. Many who participated in the workshops had expected that this exercise was building a fresh view rather than one that merely “refines” an existing and frankly unpopular vision. Indeed, Section 3.4 of the report states that “the overall vision for the downtown remains the same”. Why? Add to this the fact that an Official Plan is intended to be read as a whole. The parts are interconnected and must be considered together to avoid taking things out of context. The downtown, which we are examining here and through this whole exercise, may be the most controversial portion of the OP but it is not the only one and each impacts the other.
WLB believes that the people need to be heard; that ‘tall building’ development in Burlington should not occur in the downtown core and particularly not in proximity to the waterfront. We will expand on this position whenever the final concept is brought back. However, we would like to be clear. WLB is not opposed to development in the interests of intensification but believes that this form of development should occur in areas other than the downtown core; if in the downtown at all, then much further north. The waterfront and our downtown are vitally important to our city and must be protected. The OP is the best way to protect them.
 Why, wondered Crosby and Smith, was the city using the Adopted Official Plan when it did not supposedly represent the current city council? WLB believes that Council should carefully listen to the voice of the people and defend it to the best of their ability. We believe that the new OP should be redrafted to present a ‘no more tall building’ concept for Burlington’s downtown core. Indeed, what is the rush? Why are we here now? There is no deadline in the Provincial Planning Act that is forcing us to push this through without sober second thought. We have been given a “time-out” to carefully reconsider what Burlington needs and what the people want. Why are we here today at the beginning of the Christmas season, rushing to execute on a consultant’s vision for our downtown with arbitrary deadlines and time-frames for response?
We read Mayor Meed Ward’s article piece published last week in Inside Halton about the recommended changes to the OP for the downtown. We were encouraged that she feels “they still represent over-development” and that she’s “looking for an option that is more in line with what residents have expressed throughout the OP process that began in 2017.” We note that Councillor Kearns appears to have similar concerns and are equally encouraged by statements in her recent Newsletter. We also agree that the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area designations are a concern and should officially be removed or relocated.
This whole process to date – the Action labs, the downtown tours, the surveys, the one-on-one discussions with staff and council members – is rather meaningless since it was all predicated on a direction that we believe is flawed; the premise that the popular desire for no more tall buildings at all downtown isn’t defensible and thus can’t even be considered. And why? Because we have designed these options based on the current existence of the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area being downtown, in fact they are “givens”. A circular argument at best.
And we should neither fear nor anticipate LPAT. We believe that at LPAT the position of a municipal Council is paramount. The hearing must first understand the position of Council and the relationship between this position and the existing OP and the PPS. The type of LPAT hearing to be held and the decision resulting can be totally based on Council’s stance and direction. The new or reintroduced issue is the ‘de novo’ hearing and we will get into detail on that when we delegate next. But the critical thing is the strength of Council’s voice and the consistency of its position. A good municipal lawyer will use this to maximum advantage. This position of fearless champion of what is best for Burlington is what we expect our Council to adopt.
Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith during their delegation: Were they heard? Finally, the result is that we feel that we are again not being sincerely engaged or truly heard. All the public engagement that has been done has landed us here in a position where the two concepts presented do not reflect what the public wants. We understand that Council will work with staff on modifications to produce an option for endorsement by early next year. This is far too important to be done in haste.
We respectfully request that Council take as long as is needed to produce the right solution for Burlington; one that protects the waterfront for generations to come and preserves a downtown free of any additional tall buildings. Please extend the ICBL if need be, complete the necessary studies, including the transportation study, the market analysis and the fiscal impact study, among others, acknowledge that the Official Plan is an integration of perspectives and should be addressed as a single entity. There is only one waterfront and one downtown – once gone there will be no bringing anything back and, fairly or not, you as a Council will be judged by the Burlington you saved or permitted to be lost.
 By Pepper Parr
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
In a media release the Halton Regional Police Service said: “Incidents of intimate partner violence threaten the very sense of safety and well-being that defines our region.
“Last year, our officers responded to more than 3,300 intimate partner domestic violence calls. We also know that intimate partner violence is overwhelmingly under-reported. Statistics Canada estimates that more than 80 per cent of these incidents go unreported.
“Starting this week, the Halton Regional Police Service will periodically publish media releases that capture a de-identified incident of intimate partner violence in the community. No names. No residence details. We will, however, disclose the nature of the incident and what charges were laid as a result of an investigation. Each media release will also include key messaging that:
 Intimate partner violence damages the very fabric of the society we live in. i) reinforces that no one has the right to abuse another person;
ii) encourages victims and witnesses to contact the Halton Regional Police Service; and
iii) provides a comprehensive list of community resources for those affected.
“Our goals with this new approach to community-facing messaging are two-fold:
i) create an opportunity to connect others who are at-risk, or who may already be victims of intimate partner violence, with the resources and support they need and deserve; and
ii) heighten the awareness of the general public regarding how pervasive this violence is in our community.
“Intimate partner violence reaches across socio-economic, cultural, racial and class distinctions. It is a community problem that requires community engagement to address,” says Deputy Chief Jeff Hill. “It is impossible to fix what you can’t see, so we are broadening the conversation to clearly signal that this insidious violence is not solely an issue of concern to victims. If you see something, say something.”
 Diane Beaulieu, Executive Director of Halton Women’s Place Diane Beaulieu, Executive Director of Halton Women’s Place applauds the Police Service for taking this bold step saying “An increase in public awareness will help de-stigmatize the issue of gender-based violence, and particularly violence against women. Every person in the community is entitled to feel safe in their home.”
“Given the prevalence of intimate partner violence in the region, it is imperative that all stakeholders shed light on this issue. In collaboration with our community partners, through ongoing education and shared information, the Halton Regional Police Service hopes to further prevent and reduce future victimization.”
 By Ray Rivers
December 4th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services and reasonably comparable levels of taxation. (Constitution Act of 1982)
The communique read ‘Premiers United” but it was hardly a love-in when the provincial leaders of this great country got together at the invitation of Ontario premier Ford this week. Mr. Ford apparently had an epiphany as he watched the federal Tory leader, Mr. Scheer, fall on his own dagger. It is a different dagger than the one Mr. Ford’s provincial predecessor fell on. But there is an inscription carved in a snow bank at the back of Brampton’s city hall – Et tu Brute?
Indeed, given the circumstances of Mr. Ford’s meteoric rise to leader of the Ontario Conservatives, there may soon be an opportunity for the job he really covets.
 Which people: Ontario or the whole country? So no longer the national disrupter, that role having been usurped by messers Kenney, Moe and Pallister, Ford has donned a new persona. He now fancies himself the national bridge builder, not literally of course. Even Ford gets that being nasty and confrontational, the way Mr. Scheer was during the last campaign, is a proven recipe for failure. So today it’s ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ and tomorrow it’s the yellow brick road to leadership of the federal Tories.
It may not be just personal ambition. After all, national conciliator is a role which Ontario has played since confederation, most recently with Robarts, Davis and Peterson, leading the we’re-all-in-this-together charge. And Trudeau, having lost most of his battalion of liberally-minded provincial leaders since his 2015 election triumph, is hardly in a position to refuse Ford’s help.
 This is what “Kiss and Make up” looks like. So his kiss and make-up encounter with Mr. Trudeau under his belt, Ford clearly is out to charm the other provincial and territorial leaders, to get them to put aside the differences among them and to help him unify the nation. And nothing can unify a gaggle of subnational leaders more than a chance to pile on with grievances about the federal government. That is providing they can avoid the other big issues which might pit one premier against another.
So there was nothing in the communique about Quebec’s controversial secularism Bill 21, which had provoked a war of words… and more… between Quebec and the high and mighty Manitoba premier, who somehow thinks it is his business to intervene in an internal Quebec provincial matter.
Nor was there any mention of Alberta and Saskatchewan potentially ramming pipelines full of diluted bitumen through Quebec and B.C. to the coasts to pacify Alberta, there were a few statements about resource development with some less than subtle references to Canada’s environment assessment law. And despite Quebec Premier Legault’s objection to the increased production of what he calls ‘dirty oil’, he would sign onto anything that limited and constrained federal powers.
 Ontario Premier Doug Ford There was no mention of the carbon tax, despite four provinces taking the federal government to various courts, including the Supreme Court, over that policy. And neither was there anything but a passing comment around climate change, the most important national issue which faced voters in the last federal election. It appears nobody wanted to provoke a stand off between the climate deniers and delayers and the other folks who actually understand the issue.
And although Albertans have been recently venting about the unfairness of Canada’s federal-provincial equalization program, there is no inkling that the premiers even discussed it. They did spend some quality time trying to fine tune the Fiscal Stabilization Program, an equally complicated multi-year mechanism intended to help provinces through rough economic patches. And as one would expect from kids in a candy store their fix was to simply demand more. Like equalization, this is federal money – somebody else is paying, right?
Equalization is one of the glues that keeps this nation together. It’s been a fundamental part of Canada since confederation though it was only formalized in 1957. And while Pierre Trudeau may have held the pen as it was being written into Canada’s 1982 constitution, equalization was initiated, formalized and most recently amended all by Conservative governments. And those last amendments which, in fact, expanded the benefits of the program to Quebecers were penned by Stephen Harper, with Jason Kenney at the Cabinet table,.
 Jason Kenney So for Jason Kenney now to be talking of seriously downgrading or even ending equalization is two-faced hypocrisy. Of course we know it was a baseless threat to Quebec over a pipeline which will never be built. But it was also politics – what better way to fire up Albertan voters, using exactly the same kind of tactic Quebec separatists have employed for decades.
Alberta is by far the wealthiest province with the greatest fiscal capacity in the country and also the one with the lowest taxes. Per capita income is 30 to 40% greater than the Canadian average. And that has hardly changed even after the oil patch experienced its big price shock a couple of years ago.
And as for Quebec, the lion’s share of the equalization budget does go that province, but given its population Quebecers receive the smallest share per capita among all the have-not provinces. Albertans may look at Quebec with some envy though. After all, it has balanced its budget. That has to do with its fiscal management and its degree of taxation, almost twice as much as Albertans pay. And unlike Alberta, the province also manages both a child care and pharmacare program.
Quebec’s pharmacare program, implemented in 1997, is a two-tiered system, similar to Ontario’s OHIP+ (youth pharmacare) – except it applies to all ages of Quebecers. It has received accolades from the Fraser institute claiming it “offers better drug coverage and quicker approval for new drugs coming to market than the rest of Canada.” In fact the plan covers twice as many pharmaceuticals as Ontario does.
But drug costs are higher and rising rapidly, particularly for the public tier of the ledger. Canada’s expert panel on pharmacare rejected the Quebec model, recommending a single payer system as a more efficient (lower cost) and sustainable option. In any case, some premiers, such as Manitoba’s Pallister, aren’t willing to even entertain the notion of a universal pharmacare program.
Pallister, much like Ontario’s Ford, has an intractable problem with hallway medicine in his province’s hospital wards. And like Ford, his prescription is turbulent restructuring, cost-cutting and eliminating health care jobs. So Pallister, like Ford is looking for more federal money to get him out of the pickle jar in which he has placed himself. That is a negotiating tactic – he’ll not agree to pharmacare unless it comes with a Santa-sled of new cash.
 NDP leader Jagmeet Singh Quebec, and possibly Alberta, can be expected to opt out of any national pharmacare program, regardless that the alternative would be more costly. So getting to a universal pharmacare program across the country may be as much of a pipe dream as Mr. Kenney piping his province’s diluted bitumen across la belle province. Still pharmacare was at least given honourable mention in the final meeting communique. And it is the gun which Mr. Singh is holding to the prime minister’s head.
The next step in Mr. Ford’s unifying process involves the premiers meeting with Mr. Trudeau. But nobody should hold their breath waiting for any kind of unity coming out of that meeting either. If you do you might end up in one of Mr. Pallister’s hospital hallways.
 Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Premiers’ Meeting – Fiscal Stabilization – Alberta Economic Stats –
More Economics – Equalization – Kenney Equalization – Quebec Drug Plan –
 By Pepper Parr
December 4th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Unless there is a massive shift in the thinking of this council, Burlington is going to have a private tree bylaw – which is going to take some time to get used to.
City council has been at this issue for more than nine years: there was a pilot program in the Roseland community that was iffy in term of results.
Everyone will say they love trees – but when they become a nuisance, they want to be able to cut t hem down. This city council is saying that the Climate Change issues are such that we have to save every tree we can.
 This is the Burlington everyone wants; keeping this canopy means we stop cutting down trees unless absolutely necessary. In comments she made just before the vote to recommend the bylaw was passed Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns said:
Either were a Climate forward Council, or we’re not;
either we commit to our business plan, or we don’t;
either we look to the priorities of the next generation or we don’t;
either we empower the best staff doing their best work or we don’t;
either we invest or we don’t;
either you’re on the right side of history. Or you’re not;
I am, and I am supporting Burlington’s city wide private tree bylaw.
Her views reflected the mood and determination of this council.
There were delegations that believed the city did not have the right to do what they were setting out to do. Some impressive arguments were put forward telling us more than we ever wanted to know about the British North America Act and “letters patent”.
 Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte, who moved the motion said:
This debate has been going on before Burlington City Council for almost a decade now…
We’ve all heard the arguments from one extreme to the other…including delegates last evening who presented legal arguments cautioning Council against supporting what they claimed to be an illegal bylaw.
Following Committee last night I did some research and would like to take a moment and share the following in regard to the legislation behind Tree By-laws:
In 1946, the Trees Conservation Act was passed in an attempt to protect woodlands from clearing and overcutting.
Under the Municipal Act in 1994, all local municipalities with a population of greater than 10,000 could regulate tree cutting.
To simplify the process and authority for Tree By-Laws, provisions were consolidated into the new Municipal Act (2001) which took effect on January 1, 2003. Upper tier, single tier and lower tier municipalities could now all pass Tree By-laws under the new Municipal Act, 2001.
Consolidation of the tree cutting provisions into the new Municipal Act, 2001 enabled:
All local municipalities and upper/single tier municipalities to pass and enforce by-laws. They may also delegate these powers up or down.
Upper tier municipalities can regulate or prohibit the cutting of trees in woodlands designated in the by-law that are 1 ha or greater.
Lower tier municipalities can regulate or prohibit the cutting of individual trees in areas up to 1 ha in size.
The Municipal Act enables municipalities to „prohibit‟ the destruction or injuring of trees where the previous Forestry Act could only „regulate‟ the destruction or injuring of trees.
By-laws enacted under the Municipal Act, 2001 can require a permit for the destruction or injuring of trees.
The permit may impose conditions including how trees are cut and qualifications of persons authorized to cut.
The changes that came with the Municipal Act have empowered municipalities more than ever before.
In the past 10 years almost all upper tier Tree By-laws have been updated incorporating some new considerations for good forestry practices and requiring applications for permits instead of just notices of intent.
The Municipal Act states that:
“A local municipality may prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees.”
and
“An upper tier municipality may prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees in woodlands…”.
The Act also states that:
“…a municipality shall have regard to good forestry practices…”
and
“…a municipality may… require a permit …impose conditions to a permit…including… the manner in which destruction occurs and the qualifications of persons authorized to injure or destroy trees.”
Also important to note is that delegation can occur up from the lower tier municipality to the upper tier municipality and also down from the upper tier municipality to the lower tier municipality. Single tier municipalities have jurisdiction over both trees and woodlands.
Currently, there are at least 23 upper tier municipalities (counties and regional governments) with by- laws and 35 lower and single tier municipalities with Tree By-laws in Ontario.
Clearly many other communities have taken the progressive action of creating a Climate Action Plan and protecting their green infrastructure by way of a Private Tree Bylaw, and it is time for Burlington to get off the fence and take concrete steps to doing the same.
We cannot dispute that our Urban Tree Canopy is in a state of crisis…Conservation Halton has rated our downtown forest health as “poor” and its getting worse.
The reality is we are losing thousands of trees and it does not matter whether these losses are from disease or development, we cannot afford to lose anymore.
We need to do everything possible to protect AND enhance our tree canopy.
Is this Private Tree Bylaw the only answer? NO, of course not.
It is but one important tool in our Urban Forest Management Toolbox.
This is not about picking just one tool to use, it’s not a matter of investing in tree protection OR tree planting but exploring and implementing as many tools as we possibly can.
For my colleague who trusts numbers more than words I will offer a simple equation…
25 small trees planted minus 25 mature trees taken down leaves us with just 25 small trees.
Whereas…25 small trees planted plus 25 trees protected leaves us with a healthy forest of 50 trees.
The best way to preserve and grow our canopy is through protection AND planting and I believe that everyone on this Council supports robust tree planting and looks forward to implementing concrete tree planting initiatives throughout the City. The hope is that residents will replace trees on their property as per the program and NOT opt to pay any cash-in-lieu…but giving residents a choice, the funds that are received as cash-in-lieu will continue to help to enhance the canopy.
To supplement a strong tree planting initiative our Forestry Dept. has come up with a fair and reasonable Bylaw that also protects our existing canopy and I hope that this Council, in light of operationalizing our Climate Action Plan, is willing to support this Bylaw that protects and preserves our trees.
 Steve Robertson The proposed bylaw is complex. The Forestry department is going to add staff whose prime role is to educate and explain the bylaw. Steve Robertson, manager of forestry said the job is to help people work with the bylaw and to be educators and not draconian enforcers.
This is not going to be a smooth process; if the climate change people are right it is a necessary process.
 By Pepper Parr
December 3rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It was a year ago this evening – the new city council was sworn in.
 City Manager James Ridge is shown the exit door. The next day the Mayor called a Special Meeting of Council and got their approval to fire the city manager.
There were other changes in the wind. The Council’s first budget increase was modest – but the Mayor had to convince her Council to shake $4million out of the hydro Reserve Fund.
That this was going to be a different council was made evident the night the Goldring Council held its last meeting. Meed Ward had some comments she wanted to make – Mayor Goldring politely advised her that comments were not permitted at that point. Marianne Meed Ward stunned the Mayor and the City Clerk that she wanted to speak on a point of personal privilege. While the Clerk was shuffling through the Procedural bylaw Meed Ward gave her a copy with the appropriate section marked.
And then she let blast. The full report of that meeting is linked below.
Paul Sharman was the only holdover from the 2006 through to 2018 terms; the others either resigned or were defeated. ( In 2010 every council member was re-elected.)
The other five were new to municipal politics. They had basically zero political experience and several had to struggle but they learned the ropes and little by little we began to see where there was some talent and where some help was going to be needed.
There was a new city manager who had served the city in the past; he was known, well-liked by most and was able to bring some stability to an administration that had gone through a very difficult period of time and knew that there were many rough months ahead.
 Mary Lou Tanner’s job disappears – she finds the exit door. The Deputy City Manager was shown the door; there was a new Chief Planner with a team that needed help and support.
The learning curve for the five new council members was steep; some are not doing all that well. Some have surprised us while others have been a disappointment.
What is evident is that this Council is pulling together and doing so rather well.
Collectively they are taking on huge issues – Climate Change was a challenge they did not shirk.
The opportunities to do things that were badly needed were embraced and while there is a lot that is not yet known – the outcome, whatever it is, will not be because this council didn’t try.
The members of council are learning the strengths and weaknesses of their colleagues; they are as well learning which Staff members are straight shooters and which are not to be relied upon all that much.
None of the five had any idea that the experience they are having is what they imagined the day they submitted their nomination papers.
The city’s downtown core is under an Interim Control Bylaw which means nothing moves forward until the research and the deep thinking is done.
 Official Plan gets re-write.  Might work in Mississauga – not wanted in Burlington. The re-write of portion of the Official Plan is taking place – with the Planning staff trying every idea out there to involve the citizens.
Some stunning developments have been brought forward; all of which would be embraced quickly by Mississauga – but Burlington is not Mississauga.
Council has to come to terms with wanting to do everything and what fiscal reality will permit. There are only so many Reserve funds that can be raided.
At this point council deserves to be told publicly that we appreciate what they are trying to do and wish them well as they enter their second year of their four year term.
A closer review however is merited.
The day Meed Ward let the outgoing council have it right between the eyes.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
December 3rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Monday was a long day, a very long day for the seven members of city council and the city manager who had to sit through it all. Various Staff came and went as Council worked its way through a heavy agenda.
The debate on the Climate Action Plan was robust; the debate on the Private Tree Bylaw was divisive; the debate on the Leash Free space to exercise dogs was instructive – we just might see some creative solutions on this one.
 Is leaf collection a service the city should continue to offer? At some point the citizens of the city just might learn where the screw up on the leaf collection problem was and who is responsible. Weather was certainly an issue – the real problem was Staff effectively and professionally informing members of council and the public. Angelo B saying it was a lesson learned just doesn’t cut it.
The debate made it clear that Burlington has to find a solution to the leaf collection that is financially sound.
The city is now at the point where it can begin the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding with all four school boards that will lead to a formula for free transit use for high school students. It is complex and will take some serious negotiation.
It was an issue that Mayor Meed Ward brought to Council and she expected to be the lead on the issue.
 She won the election – she is the Mayor.  Councillor Sharman: A course correction needed. Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman wasn’t comfortable with that – he wanted the report to come from Staff rather than the Mayor. City Manager Tim Commisso said he would have the report come from his office.
The battles’ that plagued the 2006 and the 2010 councils have not ended. Sharman is still dogging Meed Ward – this time he is alone and no longer has former Councillor Rick Craven supporting his efforts to reign in Meed Ward whenever they could.
Meed Ward won the election, she is the Mayor. Councillor Sharman has to come to terms with that fact.
Today, Tuesday December 3rd is the first anniversary of this Council being sworn in – a good opportunity for Sharman to complete the psychological adjustment he has to make.
By Staff
December 2nd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The re-building of a political party is, an at times, slow process.
 Kathleen Wynne led the Liberals into a devastating loss – didn’t win enough seats to be recognized as a political party. Power, or what is left of what a political party had before it went down to defeat is up for grabs.
That is the process the Ontario Liberals are going through this month.
They are about to elect who their new leader is going to be.
Today – at 6 pm, is the deadline for Liberals to renew their memberships and be eligible to vote for the next leader and to take part in some of the policy decision deliberations.
The Liberals have seven seats in the 124 seat legislature.
The Progressive Conservatives form the government which is not all that popular. The Liberals have at least two years to re-grow and create policies that will be needed to win.
The leadership candidates are:
- Michael Coteau
- Steven Del Duca
- Kate Graham
- Brenda Hollingsworth
- Mitzie Hunter
- Alvin Tedjo
Brenda Hollingsworth recently submitted a complete nomination package and we are now commencing the Party’s official green-lighting process with her. The other candidates have been previously greenlit and are fully registered.
The Ontario Liberals will select their leader on March 7th.
By Staff
December 2nd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The notice was brief, to the point and for some really disappointing.
The weather was foul and there were not going to be that many people lining New Street waiting for the floats to pass by.
The city posted a notice:
It is with great disappointment that the Santa Claus Parade is cancelled due to the declaration of a weather event and unsafe weather conditions. Public safety is our #1 priority. Unfortunately the parade cannot be rescheduled due to the massive amount of scheduling to coordinate 90 floats and road closures. We encourage all residents to please avoid any unnecessary travel until weather conditions improve.
No mention of any refunds for those people who paid healthy fees to participate in the parade.
 The Salvation Army is there for the good times and during the hard times. The parade was one of the Good Times.
By Staff
November 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Conservation Halton advises of a winter weather system that will move through the jurisdiction late tonight and continue Sunday bringing a mixture of freezing rain, ice pellets and snow.
 Winds from the east pounding the shoreline. Sustained easterly shore bound winds may exceed 50km/hr with wind gusts over 80 km/hr by early Sunday morning resulting in potential wave heights in the order of 2 to 3 meters along Lake Ontario shoreline areas.
Conservation Halton is asking all residents and children to exercise caution around Lake Ontario shoreline areas. Poor weather conditions combined with cold water temperatures and potential for waves to overtop breakwalls and other shoreline structures continue to make these locations extremely dangerous.
This Flood Outlook – Lake Ontario Shoreline message will remain in effect until Monday December 2nd
Conservation Halton will continue to monitor local weather and Lake Ontario shoreline conditions closely and will either terminate this message or issue further updates as necessary.
 By Pepper Parr
November 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Each term the Mayor sets out who she wants to serve as Chair of the various Standing Committees.
The choices have to be approved by Council with each Council member being asked by the Clerk if they will accept the appointment.
The time around the structure of the Standing Committees have been changed. The new committee names and the recommended appointments are shown below. There are some surprises.
In her recommendations Mayor Meed Ward said: “After careful consideration of skills, experience, priorities and exposure, as well as seeking input from each Councillor, the recommended new Chairs/Vice Chairs for the new committees is as follows:
EICS: Environment, Infrastructure & Community Services Committee
Chair: Kelvin Galbraith Vice Chair: Lisa Kearns
CPRM: Community Planning, Regulation & Mobility Committee; AND CPM: Statutory Public Meeting
Chair: Shawna Stolte Vice Chair: Rory Nisan
CSSRA: Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability Committee (includes Budget special meetings)
Chair: Rory Nisan, Vice Chair: Paul Sharman
Council Workshop:
Chair: Angelo Bentivegna Vice Chair: Lisa Kearns
Audit:
Chair: To be determined by Audit
Vice-Chair: To be determined by Audit
 Mayor Meed Ward has put forward the Committee chairs she would like to see in place. Mayor Meed Ward said: “The Deputy Mayor rotation will undergo some changes; the Procedural Bylaw has to be amended to permit chairs to serve in the Deputy Mayor rotation.
“The chair and vice chair of council standing committees rotates annually according to calendar year. Typically, the vice chair of the committee moves into the chair role, and the chair rotates off; however, with the recent reorganization, an additional standing committee has been added. This will mean that all members of council are either a chair or vice chair, and some will have more than one role.
“Chairs can’t be a deputy mayor, according to our current procedure bylaw. We will need to modify that part of our procedure to better distribute the deputy mayor role among more council members.
“Currently the deputy mayor role is on a one-month rotation, which can lead to confusion as to who’s on deck. During this term, I will be bringing forward a report providing better definition of, and outlining an enhanced role for, the deputy mayor. In the short term, I am recommending the role rotate quarterly, and that two deputy mayors serve each quarter, to provide additional backup for the mayor and opportunity to Councillors.
Q1:
Kelvin Galbraith and Angelo Bentivegna
Q2:
Lisa Kearns and Shawna Stolte
Q3:
Rory Nisan and Paul Sharman
Q4:
Angelo Bentivegna and Kelvin Galbraith
 Lisa Kearns – vice chair  Paul Sharman  Lisa Kearns who handled a very full and complex series of meetings did particularly well; it seems odd that she is not the Chair of any of the Standing Committee – she is the Vice Chair of one. Same applies to Paul Sharman. Both he and Kearns were strong chairs able to handle complex situations.
The Mayor may have decided to give the other Councillors some needed exposure at being fully responsible.
Kelvin Galbraith, Shawna Stolte and Rory Nisan are to be appointed chairs.
The City is going into a very difficult phase with an Official Plan that has to be finalized, an Interim Control Bylaw that as to be lifted and a budget that is going to require more from the taxpayer than last year. Add to that some very controversial developments that are going to come before them.
The role of Deputy Mayor has been a wasted opportunity in the past. Expect the Mayor to take some bold steps and put others out on the streets and at major events. Kudos for Meed Ward taking that step.
We can’t wait to see Angelo Bentivegna serving as the Deputy Mayor.
 By Staff
November 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The City has begun the installation of the new floating wave break at the LaSalle Park Community Marina. The new wave break will provide better protection for the boats, docks and public who use the marina. The current wave break is at its structural end of life and does not provide adequate protection against larger waves from storms.
 The sailors had to learn to share the space with the swans and public had to learn to stop feeding the swans.  The belief (hope?) is that the new wave break will prevent the damage boat owners have experienced in the past. Construction will begin Dec. 2, 2019. During the installation, the marina parking lot will be used for housing the construction equipment and materials. Parking at the marina will be limited. To ensure public safety, when the wave breaks and other materials are delivered to the area, there will be no public access to the parking lot during delivery. Visitors are advised to use the parking in the upper lots at LaSalle Park; the marina area is accessible from the park.
The Marina has 219 docking spaces and is protected by a floating wave break. The Burlington Sailing and Boating Club and the Able Sail program offer sailing programs at the Marina. In addition, the City has a public boat launch at the Marina that is protected by the floating wave break.
 Former LPMA President John Birch The decision to install a new wave break was contentious; the debate ranged back and forth for a number of years. The issue was whether or not to build a permanent wave break that was expensive and thought to intrude on the habitat of the Trumpeter Swans who had taken up residence in the park. The city opted for a wave break that is expected to last twenty years.
City Council decided to put up the needed funds and drew down dollars from the Hydro Reserve fund to pay for the $4 million cost.
In the process the President of the LPMA, John Birch, lost his job.
By Ray Rivers
November 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Today it’s just a small group of young folks, one only 12 years old, taking the provincial government to court under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which promises protection for life, liberty and security of the person. Yet, according to the science, they more than the 55 year old Mr. Ford, will suffer “widespread illness and death” because of the policies of this provincial government.
Doug Ford: cancelled virtually all of the positive environmental policies of the previous government, as if the environment is a partisan issue. Even the federal government, which had pioneered a number of progressive climate measures, including the carbon tax, is being sued (by another group of young Canadians) for not doing enough. But Mr. Ford’s government is clearly culpable – having actually cancelled virtually all of the positive environmental policies of the previous government, as if the environment is a partisan issue and he needed to show he was different. So it’s as if Mr. Ford deliberately provoked this kind of reaction, the first such legal action against a provincial government.
Ford slashed the province’s carbon emissions reduction targets. He is suing the federal government at the Supreme Court over a carbon tax, imposed only after he cancelled the province’s own cap-and-trade carbon pricing program – the most cost effective way to reduce all of the peoples’ carbon footprints.
While taking credit for the results of the provincial innovative green energy program, which reduced Ontario’s climate damaging emissions by 22%, Ford has bragged about having shut down the program. Coal which was used to produce 25% of the province’s electricity in 2003 was phased out by 2015 and largely replaced by conservation, wind and solar power.
 Some see the wind turbines as a pleasant addition to a skyline But Mr. Ford doesn’t like the sight of wind generators, so he has killed some 800 renewable energy projects undergoing completion. It is costing a quarter billion dollars to cancel these investments. This action winds down the development of renewable energy in Ontario and with it the thousands of jobs already in the wind and solar industry. Canadian Solar, for example, used to be the third largest global solar manufacturer.
Mr. Ford has also declared war on electric vehicles, and reduced the pump price of gasoline, thus encouraging greater gasoline consumption. He ended the provincial electric vehicle (EV) incentive program and killed the program of installing EV charging stations across the province.
Mr. Ford says he believes in climate change and has a plan to deal with it, but that is clearly rubbish. Just ask those young people suing him or all the people in this province who voted federally for political parties supporting the carbon tax.
And this goes beyond climate change. In 2005 Ontario issued 15 smog advisories covering 53 days, due in large part to pollution from Ontario’s coal-fired electricity. An independent study estimated the health, financial and environmental costs of that pollution at $4.4 billion a year. More recent studies have shown that exposure to nanoparticles emitted in automobile and truck exhaust fumes can also lead to a number of health effects including a rising number of cases of brain cancer.
 This is not the way to determine who governs us. Litigation is today’s new democracy. As we’ve previously discussed in this column, the inadequacies of our first-past-the-post electoral system cry out for electoral reform. In the absence of that reform we have to rely on the courts to ensure politicians listen to the people between elections. So we should expect more legal action – individuals suing government and governments in turn suing industry to recover the costs of the health care and environmental damage and costs they cause.
Current emphasis on environmental litigation has been likened to what has happened with the tobacco industry. Those damage law suits were less about the fact that cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer and heart disease, but that the companies knew all of this and misled or withheld it from the public and public health authorities.
There is substantial evidence that oil company researchers and executives understood that the ongoing expansion of petroleum consumption would lead to irreversible global warming. Not only did they fail to inform the public but deliberately misled all of us. And isn’t the imperilment of the planet’s climate a crime for which no punishment is too harsh.
 Another voice, Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, recently concurred with other experts that its analysis demonstrates that carbon pricing is the most cost-effective way for the country to hit its 2030 Paris emission targets. Of course they argue that the price would need to rise to $210 per tonne compared to $30 today. And then former Ontario Liberal environment minister Glenn Murray, who introduced Ontario’s cap and trade carbon pricing program, now believes that it is too late, even for a carbon tax to be effective.
 Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Youth Legal Challenge – Ontario Coal – Wind energy –
Air Pollution – More Air Pollution – Canadian Solar –
Car Culture – Oil Legal Cases – More Oil Legal –
Carbon Tax Too Late –
By Pepper Parr
November 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Students were arriving at the Mattamy Velodrome in Milton Friday by the busload from every public high school in the Region.
They were there to look at some of the educational opportunities available to them once they have completed high school.
 1500 students from public high schools throughout the Region took part in an opportunity to see what their educational futures might look like. A total of 1500 students were expected to go through two hour sessions looking at the offerings at community colleges and opportunities in both the public and the private sectors.
The exhibits filled the oval of the velodrome, which from time to time, had cyclists speeding around on the track.
The Halton Pathways: A Future that Fits program is designed to give students as many opportunities as possible to decide what they want to do in the way of work once they have completed their education.
 Burlington’s Nelson High School pitching their SHSM program. Several of the Community Colleges were on hand with representatives who could talk about various programs, at least one university was represented. The Regional Police had equipment on the site.
Part of the Pathways program is the Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM).
SHSM programs allow students to specialize their education around their chosen field of interest. Each SHSM program includes a bundle of 8-10 Grade 11 and 12 courses related to that area of interest.
Grade 11 and 12 students choose a major sector area such as:
 Superintendent Julie Hunt Gibbons. Business, construction, arts and culture, energy, environment, information and communications technology, justice, community safety and emergency services, health and wellness, horticulture and landscaping, social justice, sports, transportation, manufacturing, hospitality and tourism.
The opportunity to specialize will result in notations on their report cards that often leads to a job as soon as they graduate because they have marketable skills.
Julie Hunt Gibbons, Superintendent of Education responsible for Secondary curriculum and school program, Student success and pathways destinations, Elementary schools: Brookdale, Eastview, Gladys Speers, Oakwood, Pine Grove, WH Morden and TA Blakelock High School.
By Pepper Parr
November 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It is amazing what can be done by a Mayor when they decide something has to be done.
The Meridian Brick operation on King Road has been a threat to the Tyandaga Community. They organized as TEC and raised tens of thousands to hire people who they believed could help them stop the quarrying that was going to take place for years close to their small back yards.
The previous council looked at the issue, said the quarry had a license to do what they wanted to do, shrugged their shoulders and let it go.
The Tyandaga residents were not prepared to give up.
They had worked with then Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward who was elected Mayor in October of 2018.
On Tuesday of next week she will formally introduce several Staff Directions.
 The quarries as seen from the back yards of the West Haven residences. Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to investigate the Air Quality Bylaw for Oakville and report back to council with a recommendation for a similar bylaw for Burlington by Q2 2020; and
Direct the Executive Director of Legal Services and Corporation Counsel to retain an environmental lawyer to advise on the municipal role in the Aldershot Quarry, the potential air quality bylaw and any other matters arising; and
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to review and report back on the peer reviews of the studies done by Meridian/Aldershot Quarry and requirements for ongoing monitoring and potential impacts on human health. As part of the review, report back on the cost and process to conduct an independent peer review of studies conducted to date; and
Direct the Director of Roads, Parks and Forestry to review the forestry plan for phased removal and replacement of trees at the Aldershot Quarry, and report back with an assessment to council in Q2 2020; and
Direct the Mayor to:
• write to the three local MPPs for Burlington, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry to request a meeting to discuss the conditions of the site plan and their oversight and due diligence in ongoing monitoring and studies conducted on the air quality impacts of the quarry activities to ensure the quarry is operating within provincial regulations.
• establish a Community Council Liaison Committee with representation from Meridian/Aldershot Quarry, local citizens, provincial ministries, city staff and council, and other stakeholders (as identified below), to provide regular communication among stakeholders, renew monitoring studies, and discuss quarry activities and any emerging/new issues.
 Bricks ready to be delivered. What a difference a Mayor makes.
The background on all this:
Meridian/Aldershot Quarry operates in the city of Burlington off King Road, north of North Service Road. The quarry is governed by both a provincially approved license and a site plan. The license was issued in 1972.
In 2010, a revised site plan was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The site plan spells out certain provincial conditions that must be met to continue operations.
Meridian Brick purchased the Aldershot Quarry in 1990. In 1998, the Tyandaga West subdivision, including what is now Westhaven Drive, was approved by the then-Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The OMB-endorsed Minutes of Settlement included conditions for the plan of subdivision regarding ongoing monitoring of dust and noise, which were met prior to the issuance of building permits.
The west and centre cells of the Quarry are almost depleted, so Aldershot/Meridian Brick is now moving into the east cell, closer to the homes on Westhaven Drive.
Residents on Westhaven Drive, along with the broader Tyandaga community and beyond, formed the Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) and have raised concerns about the impact on human health from dust from the quarry. Additional concerns have been raised regarding loss of tree canopy and noise. Residents have asked whether the decades-old license would be granted today, or the subdivision approved today in such close proximity, given up-to-date information about the environment and potential impact of quarries in close proximity to residential neighbourhoods.
TEC is advocating for three actions related to the quarry:
1. Endorse TEC’s proposed Minister’s Zoning Order and Request for Review to allow for the permanent protection of the site, or at the very least the required three-year salamander survey work;
2. Seek, along with the Halton Medical Officer of Health, independent peer reviews of all Meridian’s technical studies, and
3. Commission a Stakeholder Design Charette exercise to explore sustainable rehabilitation and development solutions across the entire Aldershot quarry operation.
Requesting an MZO of the province would depend on the findings of the review of studies and ongoing monitoring requirements and oversight of the site. TEC has advised they have information about salamanders in the vicinity; we have requested they forward that information.
The city has recently taken the position with the proposed expansion of the Nelson Quarry that any post-use design discussion will not commence till the site is decommissioned; the same approach will be taken with the Tyandaga quarry.
There is merit in reviewing the studies that have been conducted, and the ongoing requirements for monitoring and provincial oversight.
In June of this year, myself and Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith met with TEC members Fran Fendelet, Heather Lareau, Maria Rozakis Adcock and their consultant Dr. Franco DiGiovanni.
Mr. DiGiovanni is an expert in air quality, is often called on to testify at hearings (most recently on the proposed Milton CN logistics hub), and currently works for Hemmera, a leading environmental consultancy.
A number of issues were identified and shared by Dr. DiGiovanni regarding the quality of the studies conducted by Meridian Brick/Aldershot Quarry, and the nature of the peer review work that was completed, specifically:
– not conducted by a licensed engineer practitioner
– some contaminants were not examined
– unclear how Meridian is held accountable for ongoing monitoring
The issues raised by TEC, Dr. DiGiovanni, and citizens regarding the nature and quality of the studies done to date warrant the city taking a deeper look at the quarry activities, the ongoing monitoring, and the oversight provided by the province.
Former Mayor Rick Goldring and Councillor Rick Craven must be shaking their heads: they did nothing.
|
|
James Young is an Aldershot resident who has delegated at city hall frequently.
