Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Enterprise risk management document order insaccatrice per salumi prezi presentation St. Francis College, write for me capstone project for manufacturing equipment Hyde Park campus, Hyde Park, Marist College, Poughkeepsie sample cover letters kenya Schenectady. Institute of Fine Arts need someone to do my dissertation methodology on social security numbers cheap rhetorical question in essays 5th Avenue zip 10036. SUNY College at Oneonta itet master thesis on risk write for me capstone turbine forecast Greene County Gallatin School of Individualized Study, Empire State College, Saratoga Springs keogh report paramedics plus 10th Street, East zip 10009.
Enterprise risk management document order whats a capstone brothers karamazov grushenka analysis report hi there I'm Gord developer of baby you I I was looking for a nap suitable for my son one of the problems I found with most apps they expect you to use a menu choice in order to bring up more options in the app so if baby you I rotate the device he might not deliberately rotate device to bring up a new option but he will stumble upon it and i'll respond to shake it will respond to touch as its face down it's making sounds about once a second sure isn't making sounds it's just sort of investigate interacting with the ipod again and I've got a version for iPad as a native app there's no information buttons at the bottom there's no advertising on this app either it's just strictly baby user interface nothing more I'll get that back to you in just a sec I'm building particle systems for baby you I include hidden free updates until my son's old enough that he has other iphone apps but it catches interest bye bye to the nice people they're more likely to buy the app if you act too cute give him a wave good morning everyone I feel like we haven't been together in a long time I'm very excited to be hanging out with you all again we're going to start this morning with a special presentation and recognition and like to invite GM Logan to talk to us a little about the United Way good morning your worship I am for those of in the audience who aren't familiar with me my name is Mack Logan I'm the general manager of transportation for the city mayor Nenshi members of council and attendees it's my great pleasure today to share with you some great news about the end of our 2010 united way campaign as you know United Way is the city of Calgary's charity of choice and we we garner tremendous support for the united way through employees of the city of calgary heading into last year's campaign we weren't quite sure what to expect we were in this about the third year of an economic downturn we needed to reevaluate the way that we were tackling the united way campaign and we also knew that there was more need for our support than ever so keeping that in mind we set our target at 375 thousand dollars for the 2010 campaign which would be duplicating the prior year's campaign we went back to our tried and true corporate fundraising methods anchoring our campaign was our corporate donations through our payroll deductions or through designated donations from employees at the City of Calgary and what we got out of that campaign this year was an increased amount not only in total donations but in an increase in in the number of people that have donated more than a thousand dollars per person it's quite amazing if you see how many city employees do that we had a number of other initiatives we started off last last spring with our cities minute to win it which was a little bit of fundraising as well as fundraising and we went on to our one of our major campaigns which is the flower day now you may participate in the flower day with your staff and and buy flowers for either chocolate or real flowers for people that you know around the organization this year we did something new we extended it to the meals on wheels and 550 city staff members bought flowers for anonymous meals on wheels recipients I thought that was a really great thing that we did this year we've also done a number of things for the last few years we've had quite successful bingos 50 50 draws in fact we upped our 50 50 draw this this last week to about 75 hundred dollars which was a new level for us we do an online silent auction we've had golf tournaments it's really been a tremendous campaign and we do have a lot of success and a lot of participation overall we reach over 17,000 staff members in about a hundred different locations around the city of calgary and we certainly get the message out to every staff and we encourage people to participate if not through a donation through participating in one of our events we had a lot of other fun things to do like paper airplane flying contests inside the atrium if you were here that day we had our first annual artisans auction we did bake sales book sales jewelry sales all sorts of other things in different business units dozens and dozens of events across different areas around the city we tried some new things like but busking four bucks we had a band night or some some folks in the field orientated units put on a put on a special night with three bands and sponsored the save a kid's area it's great to have United Way events that are targeted towards specific charities not just towards the overall general fund so the overall collaborative efforts have managed to raise 400 over four hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars and the enthusiasm that was exhibited by the team was was really tremendous and I'd like to acknowledge a few of the people that were instrumental in making mrs. success first off Jason Merritt Jason let our campaign he was seconded from Rhodes for the year transportation is leading the program for two years and we secondo staff member to lead that individually Jason was this year's and next year is going to an individual in Calgary Transit and Jason was supported by nearly 40 employee campaign coordinators and if I could just ask those folks to stand up right now who are here in tendence to be acknowledged thanks Jason I'd also like to thank Olin Tolbert for his ongoing support and all the members of council for their ongoing support of letting the City of Calgary raise money for the United Way year after year and put out a thank you to all the individual sponsors and individual volunteers that make each event come off successfully as we are also city servants we take pride in doing great things for the city of calorie and I think the united way campaign and the success that we've had year after year demonstrates how much city employees care about the city that they work for and they work in and they live in so I'd now like to invite the following individuals up for the check presentation mayor Nenshi Owen Tolbert and the Calgary chair of united way Ruth ramsden would as well as our campaign lead Jason Merritt thank you all thank you particularly to our 40 campaign coordinators who are actively energized in this campaign but this is all about building a great city together and we are very strong partners in that work the three pillars of United Way are moving people out of poverty building strong neighborhoods and ensuring that all children and youth of Calgary grow up great and that is the work that we do together with City of Calgary employees and we're thrilled that they learn more about the community they get so actively involved in giving back to our community and building a city of with everybody and thank you all for your participation to the mayor for your leadership and Mac thank you for your involvement you've been a member of our campaign cabinet this year you've gone well above and beyond your normal course of duties to be involved in the community in a different way so thank you very much for that thank so thank you mr. Logan in ms Ramzan wood and before all of you leave let me add my personal thanks to all of the City of Calgary employees who worked so very hard to make this campaign such a great success thank you all moving on with our agenda then on question period alderman Jones thank you your worship your worship I don't know who the questions for but a couple of years ago I asked asked a question in regards to allowing cell towers on mr sites in particularly community sites so that communities could receive the benefit of the money since then I've gone through people in parks and recreation have gone through people in planning I've gone through people in transportation I've gone through people in law and now I've heard its corporate properties problem are we going to coordinate a response at some point time soon so that i can find out whether i should do a notice of motion or is it going to come forward through one of the department's i just mentioned mr. Watson is volunteering to answer the question I am volunteering to answer the question and to try to coordinate all these things you're absolutely right there's a number of players for the chair alderman Jones we are writing a report and it slips my mind but I know what's coming back in the first half of this year coming over the last council discussion on this and that'll be part of that report okay where we also by the timing sorry are we also going to look at the fact that there's about 400 of these yet to come and all we're doing right now is annoying a lot of people by putting them behind their fences well you're certainly annoying a lot of people I certainly hear about it again as all the Jones I'm sure you know we have a very little power on this whole this whole file and you know mom is I can look around the table almost all you have problems with cell phones in your board somewhere and you're right if we can move malt Mr that'd be one thing but their challenges doing that but we'll bring it all back and let Counsell make some decisions on it and it'll go through land use it will come to lpt okay thank you your issue thanks alderman Jones on question period alderman Chabot thank you worship this would be for mr. Logan I was speaking to a resident recently about a product that they thought might be more environmentally friendly and provide and maybe some relief to some of the Calgarians in regards to to traction control its product called eco track and I was wondering if you were aware of it and whether or not we had considered using it currently very environmentally friendly and does provide significant traction enhancement to the roads drinks no that's you worship I'm not familiar with that particular brand name I I'd welcome information on it or if somebody wanted to contact our office or Ryan Justin the director of rose to talk about this particular product okay I've heard I've heard miracle melt I've heard a number of different things that have been that have different chemical properties that have a lower melting point apparently this was in Metro news paper on the 28 to februari so apparently there's a website available if you could maybe look look into that mr. Logan original track eco track yet thank you your worship thank you thanks alderman Chabot anyone else in question period very well then I'll take a motion to approve the agenda please thanks Aldrin Margo I have a seconder thanks alderman Stevenson on the agenda alderman Chabot thank you your worship well a couple of things first of all I would like to ask you to bring forward and deal with CPC 2011 27 prior to dealing with CPC 2011 001 hey and that's and land use bylaw amendment for the signs I think we should probably deal with that before dealing with this specific sign and we probably have a number of in camera items that need to be added I'm not sure if the chair of land and asset wanted to move the addition of those i believe thats urgent business is that correct I don't know how to Bob Lee knows about that viewership there are there are three items already listed in the interim ragams la s of 2011 04 05 and 06 are already on today's agenda personal pressure there are no additional ones i have i have an additional in-camera personnel item if you wouldn't mind moving that while you're at it absolutely okay dealership i have no other amendments to propose at this point okay do I have a seconder for those thanks alderman wander we agreed very well then now I believe we've got a couple more I'll take a motion to add a couple more urgent business items there is the urgent business item on the council innovation fund a on those urien camera okay and one more in camera urgent business on the airport tunnel can have a motion to add those thanks alderman Stevenson do I have a seconder thanks alderman Hodges are we agreed so I could get another move are all these people oh sorry I need another mover alderman Hodges and alderman Farrell will second all right so on those linner we agreed any opposed carried great anything else all right then on the approval of the agenda are we agreed any opposed Carrie all right confirmation of the minutes can I have a motion to accept these three sets of minutes please it works alderman Jones seconded alderman MacLeod any changes to these alderman Chabot thank you worship just a couple on the first set of minutes page 18 and 50 although it may be a minor change typically on third reading authorization for third reading and I've seen this throughout the minutes it does say carried unanimously when it's when the motion is put in the middle of page 18 of 50 authorization for third reading says carried but it does not say carried unanimously and is required to give three readings so add unanimously to the minutes tactically take that as a clerical addition on page 41 of 50 of the same set of minutes just get to it here real quickly it was two ends just got to find it here amendment to amendment to move by alderman Chabot seconded by alderman colley-urquhart and then in the quotation marks it says in in in the operating budget and subsequent you'll see that is only one in that's incorporated throughout the amended motion so it should only have one in two mins good catch alderman Chabot it's what I do you worship thank you that's my next job it's a proofreader proofreader thanks alderman Chabot I think we can take those as both as editorial changes alderman Hodges on the next item anyone else on the on the minutes very well then on the motion to approve the minutes with a couple of editorial changes are we agreed any opposed carried all right then that takes us to the consent agenda all during Hajj well I should get a motion to move the consent agenda can I have a motion to vote thanks alderman Pincott do I have a seconder thanks alderman Stevenson and alderman Hodges yes thank you worship I'd like to pull ue 2011 0-60 multifamily recycling opportunities out of the consent agenda for so that I wasn't that you and a committee for this item and I'd like to ask mr. Pritchard a couple questions okay so i will move that to ten point four point two under utilities environment spc madam clerk do I need a motion for that okay can I have a motion then to move that one off the consent agenda thanks alderman Hodges do I have a seconder thank thanks alderman Pincott oh no you can't Aldrin thing cut thanks alderman Carra on that one are we agreed any opposed alright done anyone any other anything else you want to pull off the consent agenda okay I'll take a motion we have a motion to accept the consent agenda then or we agreed create any opposed carried all right that takes us then to our public hearing items worship it was multifamily I wanted to follow which yeah 10 stuck that under ten point four point two on our agenda okay show you any report later on in the agenda again yep thank you my practice is if we're gonna pull them off the consent agenda let's put them with the committee so all right and given the change that alderman Chabot put to our agenda we're going to deal with items 7.2 in your agenda prior to 7.1 so 7.2 is CPC 2011 0 27 amendments to the land use bylaw and we'll just do a little musical chairs up here and then we'll really good to go are you ready for us mr. Kimber yes good morning your worship council my name is Lori Kimber and I'm here today representing the recommendations of the calgary planning commission for CPC 2011 27 textual amendments to the land use bylaw to allow and to regulate digital third party advertising and message signs in calgary with me today and my left is mr. ken Melanson and also behind us is mr. Zorin car kick transportation engineer this report proposes interim rules to regulate digital third party advertising and message signs pending the completion of permanent policy and rules which are targeted for the end of 2012 at that time the interim rules proposed today if adopted would be replaced this photograph shows an example of a digital third party advertising sign these signs use LED technology similar to televisions and their purpose is to display images and words to advertise products they are designed and positioned to get the attention of drivers and passengers in Motor Vehicles in order to communicate an advertising message they are called third party because the advertisements displayed on them are not related to a business on the site this photograph shows an example of an electronic message sign it is different than a third party advertising sign because it conveys messages about businesses and the associated products that are located on the site the rules for other types of signs and Calgary including conventional third party advertising and message signs the conventional ones are shown on the overhead are not proposed to be changed this time we have now like to briefly review the status of Calgary's current sign rules and explain why changes to the rules to allow digital signs in some areas of Calgary are being proposed today the overhead shows a general history of Calgary sign rules they date back to nineteen eighty with updates being done throughout the 1990s the last being the billboard rules and policy in 1999 there was some reorganization of the rules in baila 1p 2007 but the strategy was that a comprehensive review would be done after the implementation an initial monitoring of the new bylaw was completed this comprehensive review has now started and is targeted for completion by the end of 2012 it will include detailed consultation with sign and outdoor advertising businesses community groups and the public at the main 13 2010 meeting of the Calgary Planning Commission it was requested that the administration develop in term amendments to the land use bylaw to manage digital signs this motion was based on an earlier CPC report that identified the need for an interim method to manage the quick adoption of digital sign technology in Calgary as it was being implemented rapidly by the advertising industry prior to any new sign rules and policy and prior to communication with community and industry stakeholders the graph on the overhead shows the increasing number of applications for digital advertising signs in Calgary with seven of nine applications in 2009 being approved by the SDA be increasing to 15 applications in 2010 this map on the overhead shows the locations of some of the over 300 third-party advertising signs in Calgary the purple stars show where the city has approved digital signs and the green stars show where digital signs have been approved by the SDA be some of these digital signs have replaced previously existing conventional advertising signs and the gold circles represent these conventional advertising signs and finally your worship the red dots show the locations of the digital third party advertising signs that are currently in progress in developing the amendments today we met and listened to stakeholders three meetings were held with community group representatives in april-september in october 2010 the general consensus was not in favor of digital third party advertising signs due to concerns expressed about how their presence impacts the built environment and how they affect that they have on the use and enjoyment of dwelling units when they're visible community stakeholders expressed a general desire for rules that require digital signs to be separated a minimum distance from dwelling units industry stakeholder meetings were held in April May September at October and November of 2010 the framework of the proposed rules was circulated to industry organizations on November first 2010 and while no consensus on the rules was achieved there was general acknowledgement that the rules governing brightness location and image refresher intervals were needed the purpose of today's amendment are rules to guide where digital signs can locate and how they operate since Calgary's current rules were not to design to manage LED technology we do not have rules to manage sign brightness response to ambient light image refresh timing the distance from the sign to the roadway the impact on residential uses or policy that guides what land-use districts are appropriate for digital signs the technology used for digital signs is similar to television the images can change quickly as well as the colors and the brightness levels there is some evidence that digital signs have a different aesthetic and safety impact as compared to non digital signs the reason they may have a different safety impact is that the images are brighter and can change quickly potentially grabbing the attention and the expectations of the driver of a vehicle about the current and the upcoming image the faster the sign images refresh the greater the potential for driver distraction a report by a recognized expert in the field engineering psychologist Jerry wachtel on the safety impacts of digital sign technology indicates that the human eye is hardwired to be drawn to the brightest object in the scene and to those that display motion or apparent motion advertising signs are different than business identification signs because the images and text are designed by advertising professionals to purposely capture the attention of drivers and passengers and to focus that attention of drivers on the advertising message business identification signs shown on the overhead have a different effect on drivers than digital advertising as they are oriented to identify the location or the entrance of a business to the public not to sell a product the impact of business identification signs is mitigated by the important wayfinding purpose that they serve the aesthetic concerns about digital signs relate to their compatibility and impact on adjacent uses billboards can clutter the built environment and can be architectural II incompatible with adjacent buildings the brightness levels of digital billboards can impact the quality of life in mixed use in residential areas as they represent advertising they can't be turned off or avoided they can also affect the enjoyment of parks and pathways and the aesthetic quality of the urban landscape particularly in areas where people live some of these issues have already occurred in Canada as shown by this recent article regarding the impact of digital signs on dwelling units in the city of Winnipeg Calgary's municipal development plan envisions and promotes higher densities at transit notes and Road corridors large digital advertising signs are not oriented towards pedestrians but rather towards the drivers of cars and the effects of these signs may discourage people from wanting to live in the areas where our policies seek to promote vibrant efficient mixed-use communities to our knowledge only for Canadian cities currently have approved permanent rules on digital signs st. John's Toronto in Quebec City have minimum 10 second message times as well as ambient light emission standards and some restrictions on location the City of Vancouver does not allow any new billboards at all including digital billboards there are also a variety of rules in various US cities and states where minimum message refresh times range from 6 seconds to 60 minutes while many cities have outright bans on digital billboards including cities such as denver and dallas the proposed rules do acknowledge that there is a place for digital signs in calgary the rules are designed to allow but too conservatively managed those signs until council approves permanent policy and rules the rules proposed in by law 15 p 2011 include a minimum message sign message time of 10 seconds with a maximum 1 second transition time the 10-second interval minimizes the potential for driver distraction full motion video blinking or changes in contrast or brightness during a message are not allowed a maximum brightness level during the day and at night is included in the rules and signs must not overly exceed the ambient-light levels digital advertising signs and electronic message signs must be separated by 300 meters reflecting a long-standing existing rule in the land use bylaw and digital signs must not be located within 30 meters of a road intersection the rules also propose the digital advertising signs not be located within 150 meters of a dwelling unit in the Beltline or downtown and 300 meters of a dwelling unit elsewhere in the city the method used to measure the setback is shown on the overhead this overhead shows a digital advertising sign at a 300 meter distance you worship the rules also require the digital third party advertising signs be located 14 meters from a property line which is based on an 80 kilometer an hour posted speed limit this requirement can be relaxed down to 6 meters when the posted speed limit is 60 kilometers or less as shown on the overhead the proposed rules also require that digital message signs be turned off at certain hours when close to residential uses with this rule also being relaxful the remainder of the rules for digital third party advertising signs in terms of sighting and setbacks from major parks their size and the restricted roadways remain the same as for conventional science the rules and districts where conventional third-party advertising signs can occur remain unchanged but digital third-party advertising signs are not proposed to be listed as discretionary uses in the neighborhood community and commercial corridor mixed-use districts where dwelling units are allowed and indeed encouraged going forward worship ministration will continue to communicate and consult with the public community organizations and the sign and advertising industry to complete the review and redesign of the sign rules with completion targeted at the end of 2012 calgary planning commission recommends that council adopt the proposed amendments 2 by ilan 1p 2007 and give three readings to bylaw 15 p 2011 thanks very much whichever one quick question for clarification which is given that we're looking at these vile Asti and you showed on a map the location of a number of signs are they all illegal right now and yet they're up anyway your worship a number of digital third-party and advertising signs have been approved by the SDA be there have been a few by administration and there is I believe at least one that's up with those but they've been approved in sort of a policy vacuum is that fair to say that that is correct in the vacuum of any rules or policy from council that's overt great thank you questions of clarification alderman Mar remember their clarification alderman Mar you get questions for administration later okay all right it is actually a legitimate question so could you go back a few slides to the the images where it's at nighttime in the I think it's one of the very first slides that yes something like that now that you'd mentioned in your presentation that there are different lighting levels for night and day is that correct because you have an image of one during the day or not believe we do with mr. Mallinson has went for the daytime but nothing closer because that I can barely see even without my yeah with my glasses and if he can zoom it is there something closer to me if that if that's all we've got that's all we've got that's my that was my question I just wanted to know if there was a difference between the night shot in the day shot thank you very much thank you wish thanks alderman Mar really a question of clarification alderman Chabot thank you worship mr. Kimber a couple of questions of clarification the first one has to do with the one second transition time that you referenced saying the maximum transition time between each digital copy went must not exceed one second that doesn't seem to make sense to me the maximum can't exceed one second so it can be one one-hundredth of a second yeah your worship the purpose of the rule is so that we don't have movement or effects that transition from one sign to the next in other words there is a sign image up and then the sign image it goes away and the next time image image comes up instead of fade in fade out movement right movement left that's the way it's written it doesn't say that it says the maximum is one second so that means I could have it one tenth of a second which would appear like a flash I think I get it alderman Chabot I think what mr. Kimber is saying is that it can instantaneously switch to another image but what the effect of the rule is to avoid animation because that's what's distracting so if it was more than one second you could have an animation going on at the same time no because anyways I can get into go into detail further about what it does to clarify that that you can't have it fade in or fade out that it has to actually be changing pixels without turning them off at through the transition point through the transition time but it should be a minimum of one second not a maximum because it could be one one-hundredth of a second which would appear like a flash anyway so I will argue that point later be six seconds versus 10 second that you referenced mr. Kimber and I'm just wondering because I've heard otherwise in regards to what is the standard and you say the standard is more in than ten second time frame ok I'll ask mr. melanson to put up the best practice research research that we've done in Canada of course this is new technology and a number of different cities are beginning to deal with it the best practices that we've identified from st. john's quebec city in toronto are that there is a ten second message not a six-second Maggie's message sign and the purpose your worship of the of the message interval is that or the principle behind it is that the faster the images refresh the more quickly they were flesh refresh the greater potential there is for driver distraction so that the driver's attention is oriented towards the signs anticipating the next side in the next sign so the longer interval minimizes that stir timber respectfully you're going way beyond question which is just what is the norm 10 second versus six seconds if you had further evidence of that but I'll ask for the questions later worship their more in line with the thanks alderman Chabot we're getting into debates some questions of clarification here alderman Lowe on clarification Thank You mr. Kimber the you made a reference to speed and what's the Genesis or what's the basis what's the background what's the what's the anchor for identifying speed is a relationship to distance how far how far away the sign is from the roadway yes your worship I I might have to call on my colleague Zoran carcass to explain the references to speed in the various setbacks LLL worship mayor Nenshi my name is sauron carkeek on with the transportation planning the field of vision field of view is changing depending on speed at 60 km/h field of view is 20 degrees and 100 km/h is 10 degrees and the lateral distance is changing the speed what in addition stopping sight distance is changing as well for vehicle to be able to stop to come to a full stop at 60 km/h is 85 metres and 800 kilometers per hour which is first column is 2010 what what is the basis on which these this table was developed was this developed for third-party signs or developed for highway signage idiot these are used for it is the tool is called he's developed for high be4 highway signs if you are to stop it for the red light in other words I was driving down a freeway that's how long it would take me to recognize the next sign so that I could actually maneuver into the exit at a given speed is that correct that's correct so it is really nothing to do with third party advertising that's correct thank you you worship thanks alderman Lowe seeing no other questions of clarification so I'm really fascinated by this visual I have no idea how to read it but I like lots of numbers um so thank you for that i will ask that if there are members of the public present who would like to speak in favour of this proposal anyone who would like to speak in favour of this proposal alright anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this proposal please that is a huge relief good morning your worship members of council my name is Doug Forsythe vice president of Patterson outdoor advertising and I'm here today representing the outdoor advertising industry I have 35 copies of our presentation for submission today if I may thank you my intent is to briefly show you an actual static digital billboard ad and make sum over all comments our industry has been part of this city for more than a hundred years and through the years we've employed many new different technologies from hand painting to silk screening to rotary posters that display three different ads on slats every three to four seconds as you currently see on the street we're now in the digital age of course and what you see here is our static digital poster each ad is six seconds long there's a seamless transition between ads there is no motion or video involved at all only static pictures the billboard size is a standard Calgary size 10 feet by 20 feet the signs were equipped with light sensors to adjust to light levels and a camera so they are monitored at all times this style of billboard does away with paper technology and requires much less maintenance than existing billboards our industry has no issue with interim regulation of this form of signage it is not a new product it has been used around the world for over 10 years and in Canada for about three most jurisdictions that have signs like this employ a six-second refresh rate like we do in fact in Edmonton they just finished a new set of rules and that was one of the things that they recently recommend agreed to recommend to council there is enough experience out there with the use of this technology to be able to identify its impact and regulate them for the good of all involved when I say all I mean to include the industry and the hundreds of businesses and charities and Calvary that benefit from this form of advertising as well as residents who are informed by it that said our differences with administration at this point arise mostly because they have approached this form of signage as something radically new and have been in their word conservative with these rules where industry sees a reasonable regulatory solution for problems which administration identifies the proposed solutions before council today are of a completely prohibitory nature industry has made concessions to administration requests during the process leading up to today for instance in a lower than agree to light level and in a three-year term for digital permits we do not object to most of the new rules however there are five of them which will severely affect us and our customers and these we cannot agree with we have transportation and lighting experts here today to address some of those rules and my colleagues will deal with them as well we sincerely hope that council will approve the rules with the reasonable changes we would like to see made to them thank you for your time thank you very much I was really tempted to say that I couldn't focus on what you were saying because I was distracted by the sign but that would be mean questions for mr. Forsythe alderman Hodges thank you worship mr. Forsythe if you put the photograph for the image back on the screen please you mentioned a camera where is the camera the camera you can see just to the right but I can't see that's why I'm asking so is it on the fish yeah it's there's a pole sticking out of the to the sign to the bottom right of it and that is a camera at the end of it so we can it is completely monitored at all times but does it monitor the vehicles or doesn't monitor the skid monitors the sign to make sure it's functioning correctly and what if it is then it's seen by the folks that monitor it and can be shut down in in certain circumstances okay do you have a little point or something that can show me where this cameras no I'm not sure we are am extending out the bottom right-hand corner yep so in all of our signs there's it is hard to see but there is a a camera on each one now this is a modest-sized if we were thinking in terms of billboards is this a typical size the maximum size or standard size this is the typical Calgary size that you see most everywhere 10 10 feet by 20 feet looked like 10 by 20 though it looks a little shorter than that a little smaller it is too much won by 20 yeah it it's replaced all of our signs for have to replace existing signs 10 by 20 signs but they are essentially exactly the same size it just looks a little smaller that's why i was asking thank you oh we got some speakers list for you mr. Forsyte settle in alderman Mar thank you thank you mr. for thi this now I had some questions about light with fur administration and and what as I understand there's different types of either daytime or nighttime in your presentation you said that there is a camera which I can see and that monitors assigned does that also change and fluctuate the the brightness of the sign over time ambient light does does change the signs so they the light does levels do come down much more at night i would like to probably start that again sorry too i would like to defer your question though to to some lighting people who do understand the technical aspects of it better than I do okay please yeah whomever can can answer the question because this is that's interesting to me you worship and members of council my name is Chris Rebecca's with Patterson 02 advertising I'll just put yeah would you mind restarting that yeah i'll restart it again so an answer the question the camera serves a different function just for security and to maintain the integrity of the sign and we're watching it for maintenance purposes and sign is vandalized with the lights go wrong we have someone to go out there immediately to respond because of the camera and our operation center can watch it the second question from the through the chair through the mayor is the the light sensor again difficult to see but on the very top of the Billboard is the light sensor on top of the digital billboard is a light sensor kind of a shape of a beehive you can barely see it above her head there a little little white gadget that measures the ambient lighting levels around the area so yes when the sign so it so during the day the sign density functions the most of course under the sunlight right and at night it drops down to ten percent levels obviously because of the nighttime levels the scientists need to be as late as it is now drops down ten percent or drop stuff down to a ten percent of the daytime level so nine percent drop ninety percent drop ok ok that's interesting and and I guess it it it changes it fluctuates during the day automatically so it can actually does so sensors and measure correct so cloudy days it would be less than sunny days and so on yes hey so most people are familiar with either the plane billboard that's papered up and you see the guys putting it up then there's also the ones with which are triangular in shape and they they adjust how is this different in of the timing of the rotating mechanical ones versus this this digital one it's a good question actually I can probably show a video of it but I can describe it real quickly for you or you're going to show a video maybe it perhaps if there's this you have more presentation yes so what i can do is i can prepare I'm the next presenter and I can prepare an answer to that question visually you worship what maybe what I'll do is I'll let them finish all the combined presentations and put my leg back in thank you thank you yeah thank you your worship um a couple of questions up not sure if you saw administration's presentation but they did show a cone that they would be using as their as their guide in regards to the setbacks from residential inner city vs sub the suburbs and we just wondering what your thoughts are in regards to that new Tanith proposal I think again alderman Chabot we sum of art the people that we have here will be addressing that issue so that will come as part of our presentation okay now that was 66 they do have a graph as well 6 second versus 10 second administration has suggested that the norm is more ten seconds just wondering what your experience or your understanding of what is again that will be covered we would respectfully disagree we would we will be covering that issue as to where our signs I'll have a six-second refresh rate as along with many others okay so along with a much more detailed information on that okay so what questions would you like me to ask you Wow well I I I really yes I'd happy to answer questions but perhaps at the end might be it's just we do have specific detailed presentations that had have covered all of these and I think it's best to have them answer for you so they have charts and graphs in some cases and admitted lighting experts and transportation experts okay foresight then throw it land use is that something you would point of order this gentleman right here can we have the full presentation and then maybe ask question oh no no because that that would just be a way of someone getting way more than their five minutes that their previously allotted so you don't get to come back mr. Forsyte so answer what you can now I think I'll accept that offer thank you so some of the land uses that are prohibited is that something that you think should be amended I know that had met with with one of your colleagues specifically in relations to seek or one Sikh or to ie and and scri districts as being banned and something that I think you guys would have liked to have seen included we do have grave concerns about the districts that that are now included that administration has brought forward again I think mr. Rebecca's as part of his presentation will be covering with in some detail that issue now in your transition on based on your presentation I I noticed that the sign was was changing rapidly from one to the next and to me and a sudden change like that it's something that would draw my attention it's akin to flash it may not be a flash but because there's a specific light output associated with these devices this is not a reflected light issue this is a transmitted light so when you change from one image to the next like that without a transition time associated with it or minimal transition time it looks like a flash it draws my attention any kind of a change like that will draw a people's attention and the technology exists for you guys to make that transition with X number of pixels or so many lines as a transition over the entire display over a longer period of time which would appear less like a flash more something that's more similar to the mechanical ones that we see where they they flip over one segment at a time is that something that you would consider that's part of the transition between the two as opposed to this sudden change well certainly the technology would exist this is this is our current model that's that we utilize throughout the province and and and through most of the country again the technical side of it in terms of how that would impact our signage I can't again probably best left with mr. Rebecca's who knows more about the workings of the side yeah I'm a and bylaws written to accommodate that trend kind of transition and to me that is wrong when it changes suddenly like that it's akin to a flash it may be a static picture that gunk comes from and goes to but because it's a sudden change like that it automatically draws your attention to it and that could be distracting and which is why we prefer to have seen something that had a longer transition time between one display in the next and being as it was part of your your presentation i thought id address it here with you now I have no further questions for you at this point because it would seem that i will have to address some of my questions with some of the other presenters so i'll reserve those for later thank you your worship thanks alderman Chabot alderman Carra thank you worship um can you sort of you're here representing the professional third-party sign industry can you maybe differentiate between the work that you guys do is some of the sort of billboard flashy signs that we see on Macleod Trail these days like well I yeah I can only speak to to really our particular signs our company has always adopted this model that you see here which represents static technology it's we've done a lot of work and done a lot of studies and find it that for our model of business third party advertising it is the beta as the product and if this is the the workings of the sign that are best for us there are some first-party signed representatives that that are that are likely here today that can speak to the flashing video signs some of the signs and I'm not aware of the permits and and some of us on some of the other ones i dunno they McMahon Stadium sign a crowchild trail is a whole separate issue that does have the video sign and we're often confused and and and it's represented and think that's our sign but that is not our technology okay thank you thanks alderman corralled Herman low thank you and you may not be able to answer business so I can go to the next person I'm curious about the set back from the edge of the road sign in this particular if you're not that that can check was mr. Rebecca's or whenever when he stands up I'm also interested in the speed limit in road that goes to buy there and whether or not that affects your company's determination of an appropriate set back from the road and if you can't answer that again I can appreciate that I certainly I think it's probably best left with mr. Rebecca's who's the expert or not in that area my last question is this Patterson and I'm thinking of Piccadilly Circus the big phony sign that I think just came down that's third party advertising correcting is and time swear yeah there's lots of that or do we have any examples of that in the city that your company operates that our company operates and no no are you aware of any of that type of third-party signage well the only one that really comes close in a large scale is the one on I'd McMahon Stadium on a large scale basis on crowchild trail yeah okay and that son but from what I understand federal land not subject to to the City University Calgary federal yeah yeah q of ceylon okay thank you you worship thanks alderman Lowe actually maybe I'll ask a really quick follow-up to that one I'm just not familiar with the scope of your company's operations across Canada but I do know that in Toronto for example in the under Street corridor there are a lot of moving video display signs those aren't yours uh most are not there are a couple we do have like that and you have can you comment on your experience with those well it turns a confusing scenario there on the Gardiner Expressway you may have seen some number of different signs as well and Dundas Square is a whole area similar to a smaller Time Square if you will different rules in and situations I'm not if that's again a lot of that is is it separate third-party advertising on-premise signage in some cases I'm not completely aware of all the details of that our type of sign and M is generally we use a smaller size of 10 by 20 that are separate from those cluster areas that have been built especially within a city okay Thank You alderman Keating thank you your worship I have a couple basic questions I guess and we've talked about the different types of signs and we know the mechanical ones that rotate and the stationary ones these obviously are lit up from within so there's no external light shining on the sign because is is the sign that is lit itself agra correct it we do have signs that are lit without in other words they have over hanging lights or ones underneath and and then we have the the rotating ones that change images three or four sides on a vein I guess right how is this and it's very basic I guess how is these regulations different in regulating those three different types of sciences so I'm looking for things like the illumination how is it different how we're real imitating the illumination and these signs different than the ones that have the stationary or the rotating location-wise all of those sorts of things I'm really looking at if i look at this sign it may be a less intrusive i'm not sure because the other ones may actually give you more illumination than this one does in a residential area I don't know that's what i'm looking for something along the lights well we are science invariably replaced existing signs that do exist in your right summer front lit from above or below others are backlit signs that are that are static Wii U difficult to answer your question and probably again mr. Rebecca's or someone could is better at covering that off but like I guess just so that we follow up where I'm coming from as I would like to know how these new regulations treat these differently than technically any other sign because and my view of all sign should be equal within reason within reason we agree and and we do see this as an evolution in technology a digital we are digital everything now and we do see this as as a transition from our existing signs the rotary ones that change every three to four seconds to signs of change every six seconds now so if these are restricted in a certain area compared to other signs but the illumination on the other science is greater than this one I wonder why so that's where I read thank you are great concerns correct thanks alderman Keating alderman Demong easy question time just how far away are we from this ah boy that's not an easy question cut yeah we're in the media cross-referencing just thought if you're making that presentation yeah probably one for ya 150 150 let's suggestion ok thank you ok not so not so much that was easy thanks ang among children call your Curt thanks mr. Forsythe for being here I'm trying to just hone in on your presentation I just got it this morning so if if you could turn I want to hone in on the recommendations so I think that's under Tab one the second page correct it is that primarily there are four recommendations that you reference there correct there we go odd correct in so could we go through those recommendation from the planners two bands there tardy advertising where exactly in the bylaw are you making reference to this point have you looked at that could you yeah I I apologize alderman except i think mr. Bosley will handle I think we'll be able to handle that question okay in his recommendations or in his presentation rather okay so you agree with the proposed districts except for the ones that you've outlined there can you explain why or have you done that somewhere else in here yeah this will be its way here yes yes okay how about the second recommendation that you that you're asking that this not be adopted and and and your and someone else going to talk about this one yeah yes and what about the next one asking a industry ask for this not to be adopted like why again Thanks yes okay and the same was the last one okay good do you have other amendments that you're bringing forward with someone else be dealing with that as well if you will you know yeah it's unfortunate that we've done this I mean it's not unusual for us to have combined presentations and questions around each of these even if it does take longer than the five so this is it this is different procedure so it really doesn't get to the best conversation about this matter so ed and I apologize for that it was my goal to introduce the product and give essentially an outline and then go how many how many others will be speaking well we we have 44 others okay so I guess we'll all stand up ask the same questions we won't get the answers will sit down and then we'll we'll go on so San Forge and sadly if that's how the industry wanted to do it that's how they wanted to do it we could have talked about a combined presentation but anyway that is as it is where rules are in place for a reason alderman pootmans thank you we're shop two quick questions I'm interested in the comet made in passing that if there's a problem with the sign as detected by the camera someone would have the opportunity to presumably quickly to drive out and look at it potentially there might be a very serious problem with a sign flashing irregularly or whatever and I'm running what sort of controls are in place to shut down the sign or modify the messaging or if there is something like that is there some automatic processes or manual processes they assign is turned off immediately if there's an alarm that comes in that there is something fundamentally so there's a default that it just shuts down perfectly I'd like to dig a little bit into the 300-meter issue and I'm wondering if you're the best person asked about that it I'm just strikes me as next next presenter thanking right after that off thanks alderman pootmans alderman Jones thank your worship so you don't want to ask answer any questions fairly I'm not doing a very good job out of it okay well I'll leave those questions and I just have one them in tab 2 on page two you have digital posters digital spectacular digital mall networks can you explain the difference between this free digital posters are the product that you see here which are traditionally known as 10 by 20 usual size digital mall units or a product we have in in malls like southcenter that are smaller often kiosk type that will have wayfinding systems included in as well as well as ads that run on them for larger posters sundridge mall has them for example and digital spectacular zar the large usually 14 feet high by 48 feet long spectacular much larger we are not able we do not build those in Calgary but we have built those at the at the calgary airport on airport trail and you may see them elsewhere in the province until rebels we have one in Calgary where is it at on airport trail and we also have one at just south of our jury on highway 2 within the city now ok so it's just a matter of the size of the sign them correct so that exactly spectacular being a spectacular sighs thank you those that is the most common type of sign in the United States actually that we're talking about for all of these ok thanks alderman Jones Oldman Farrell thank you i'm wondering if we can reassess how this part of the public hearing is working and ask the the presenters if they would like a combined presentation where we each get five minutes then we'll be able to ask any of the presenters the questions because i can see us repeating this for each presenter so it would you please thank you could do that I'll didn't think up um she's sorry you worship mr. wordsley I was John Smith Fraser Monica Castro sorry they can spell that I was simply going to say this is the procedure that previous councils told us we had to follow when we tried joined presentations were quite happy to do a joint presentation if you'd like well there's no real there's no real ability for a joint presentation but we can do is all during Farrell is suggesting is listening to all of them yea i meant ask questions no and that's that's what we're talking about but i wanted to let you counsel know this is the procedure the way that the procedure bylaw mandates that that's not something we want frankly it's a bit off I mean you should have five minutes to present your case on your period well and I understand that you have a bunch of different a bunch of different nuances but I will say that this is a bit getting around the laws that we operate under but well you know if it is what it is you brought people you have presentations with respect your worship if we have as much time as the administration does I suppose that'd be fine too including questions but that would keep us here for quite some time would have not with respect in my life sir I have presented to this council many many times before I got to sit over here and as alderman colley-urquhart well knows when she asks me questions we can go on for an hour I think my maximum was an hour in 20 minutes and standing on that podium I don't mean to be impertinent that sad the rules are there for a reason yeah even members of council only get five minutes sir so let's just be clear on what we're talking about here we are very clear as of where we come from do we don't get special permission that regular citizens don't get you worship by apologize profusely if you're taking it like that that was certainly not the intention thank you at all thank you no I apologize again older and pink oddly thank you well if it would make it easier I would move a motion that we ask the presenters to do a combined presentation of no more than 20 minutes 15 sorry 15 minutes then I will I will accept that I would i will move that motion because that way we could go around we can do it as a council motion madam clerk is that all right okay yeah I can take that do I have a seconder thanks alderman Lowe sorry you were too slow all right on that one are we agreed granny post very well then I'll see thank you I just have one question which you probably will go to the next person and it's sort of following up on what alderman Keating was asked asking about what comparing looking at the the lighting of different signs these are not the only signs that are lit you we have other signs that are lit but they're lit from the exterior right from the exterior and we do have some backlit interior signs so we have are there are there any ambient light measurement requirements on any of those signs on not to not to my knowledge no do you measure the light levels coming off those signs we have not because you don't need to you're not it's not part of the regulation okay thank you thank you thank you very much mr. Forsyte story for you got to be on the hot seat first but why don't we take the next three together again I'll ask clerk to turn the timer on you've got 15 minutes in total your worship members of council my name is Chris Rebecca's director of leasing with Patterson out to advertising I guess I can deal with the questions after I'll go into my presentation so I'm here to speak to in specifically to speak against the rules that are great concern to the industry so specifically let's start with the first roll the first roll abolish assigns as a discretionary use in si core 01 seek or to industrial edge scri districts the second rule and in sorry and sorry the second rule is abolishing the signs from 300 Earth's from a building containing a dwelling unit and 150 meters from a dwelling unit the building a dwelling units in the core of the calgary city calgary and these rules are not relax about the last two I just stated that separation so we can't go to the appeal board and and argue if the sign is not even visible if there's buildings in between a sign and in and the residential we can't argue that case third rule is the mandatory 40 meter setback today the rule is 6 meters and keep in mind this is set back from the property line not from the edge of the road so in addition as we know from the edge of the road there's other setbacks between the edge of the road and and the property line so the coyote be extensive setbacks already in place and the fourth rule is the separation of digital billboard third-party sign with electronic message sign so any type of sign that has a little bit of digital electronic component would require 300 separation and the final rule it should be the next speaker will address is the refresh rate that's imagine a couple times as well we're here to to request at the 6th second be the norm in a city as in other cities in Alberta in Western Canada and across North America it was only very recently made clear to us the thinking that led administration to suggest these rules that I'm addressing and as mentioned we are in disagreement with the approach administration has taken to these matters which are more prohibitory the regulatory considering that these are only interim rules these rules will severely impair the industry and the countless businesses and charities which uses form of advertising the administration wants to prohibit digital billboards in a number of land-use districts where billboards are now allowed as mentioned the four of these are c41 secor to industrial age and scr scri we understand that the administration's rationale for this is that the in the first two districts ecor1 and seek or tues is that these are pedestrian areas and therefore administration are thinking of banning all third-party signs from them in due course that is over the next 12 to 18 months as we meet and review the bylaw which will address signs all third-party signs in addition to digital signs before you today the administration feels that if they are thinking that in that direction it would be best not to let industry put up any digital billboards while this review is ongoing as it would then be hard to get them out of the band if sorry if the band is put in place down the road be hard to get them out they also give some other reasons such as aesthetics for supporting such as such a band now so I want to give you a couple examples of impact of oh sorry I just verbally verbalize it so seek or when seek or tues some common roadways after that those learnings are found our macleod trail and 16th avenue these are roadways that currently allow third-party advertising signs that standard billboards if you will that are not digital and have always been a common area that you find designs in so our concern is that we aren't able to convert or change or even add a digital to one of our existing billboards on Macleod trails or 16th avenues and disagree that this sir that these type of zones would be should be banned from it industrial adage is self-explanatory and scri arm is a zoning that is definitely for the most part of railway properties railway lines railway right aways and signs are allowed there today the prohibition of a digital billboard so I'll deal with the second rule here within three hundreds of a building container dwelling unit is a major challenge for us there's already a rule in place in the by law that prohibits the impacts of third-party signs on residential areas by changing that to the words dwelling unit to our building containing a dwelling unit and by making this prohibition not relaxing administration is broadening the scope of the rule and saying that in no circumstances can the impact of such a sign within 300 meters be addressed by development permit review whatsoever we fundamentally degrees disagree with that so we just we just so in this diagram and just highlighting some signs here macleod trail between 42nd and 45th avenue this is just an example of three for third party signs that have been approved to have a permit and if we were to approach the city today and change one of those signs to a digital the city would say no because they would take the compass point to the 300-meter circumference and say that if there's any residential within 30 meters or a building on Macleod Trail that has a residential apartment on top of it you would not be allowed whether it's visible or not whether the residentials buffer between commercial industrial today this thrilled past would not allow any digital in this area they won't belabor it again look black betrayal self again a common roadway through industrial parks that have allowed third-party in the past again it turns out this in this case of industrial to the west once again any of these signs would be untouchable for digital billboard regardless of their scene or not and regardless if residentials is far away from this industrial area in addition in an audience as well today to answer his questions we have a light and engineer from stantec who is here it will say if you were as a no-show council that the light cast from these signs is not a factor and is it much less lesser distance of a factor at all when you compare it to 300 meters so our question is why is this real proposed and why in this form existing and proposed rules to which we do not object so the eastern bills today which protect presidential and the proposed rules which number them we've already agreed to an art here to argue against are more than sufficient to address any perceived impacts of these signs on residential areas or dwelling units that is what the development permit process is for why take this away from the industry in this fashion the third rule is the 14 meter setback as mentioned as mentioned today it's six meters is a setback standard today from a property line so already there's already a buffer from us off the roadway for existing billboards they're proposing to increase at 214 meters and they mentioned if we want to have a less than just go the appeal board is kind of the answer back to us the challenge with the 14 meters number of things one in this photo just shows if you go with that far setback also in the scientists are questioned to visibility the sign whether it's even affected with other buildings and trees in addition as well if you located back the challenge as well for property owners and landlords who would allow their sign to be locating the middle there lot where they do their business store things park things their buildings etc so the 14 meters is very challenging for us to deal with and the fourth rule is a 300 meter spacing between digital billboards and message signs is a challenge these are two different types of signs our experienced North America as these bylaws are always dealt with separately and start combining rules overlapping digital billboards which is one size of product versus a message ID sign for a business which have different sizes and different limitations and opportunities you combine that with the 40 meter setback and you're eliminating opportunities for us to do our business I've been enough to before subdivision development Hill board numerous times and to tell you that the ability to relax rules such as these if given will will not be enough to blunt the impact that this will have an industry again we ask why prohibit why regulate in this fashion very damaging to our business existing and proposed rules which we do not object to are more than sufficient to address any perceived impacts these signs the case by case examination of the impact of a sign is what the development permit process is for again why take this away from us thank you thank you sir and I should warn you that you've taken ten into 15 allotted minutes there but just before we go on I'll to stop the timer for a second and recognize alderman Demong I'm pleased to introduce our city hall school class for this week there they are 23 grade 5 and 6 students from Prince of Wales school and parkland accompanied by their teacher Jennifer England their focus for this week will be how do our past and present affect our future she would please stand to be acknowledged and just to let you all know you're now on TV thanks all and I'm looking forward to seeing you in my office later this week all right please continue good morning my name is Nicoletta McDonald and I'm the director of sales at Patterson outdoor advertising I'm here to speak to the fifth rule which troubles the industry and that is the ten-second refresh rate refresh time is the amount of time that one ad appears on the screen currently the ads change every six seconds the planners did actually discuss this issue with industry but they were adamant that the refresh rate be 10 seconds we're not exactly sure why they are so fixed on this rate in the USA 40 states allow digital signs and of those only for use a 10-second refresh rate three have no real regulation and the rest used between eight and two seconds in Canada all the Western markets use six seconds and in fact Edmonton has just recommended new rules about digital billboards and they have accepted six seconds the 10 second rate which the planners want is not industry standard and is used by only three Canadian cities that we know of Toronto Montreal and Halifax the six second rate allows pattinson to offer one spot per minute to nonprofit charities free of charge this is a service which is greatly appreciated as the letters in our materials show you local festivals distress center United Way Alberta ballet glenbow Museum a variety of Calgary artists are just a few of the many nonprofit and charitable agencies who have benefited from our digital boards just this past Christmas our digital boards recruited 22 medical professionals for Samaritan's Purse to help with the cholera outbreak in haiti over the holidays that was an immediate crisis that we were only able to respond to because of the digital billboards and our commitment to preserve one spot to PSA if the refresh rate is raised to where the planners want it at 10 seconds this type of program becomes economically challenging to offer there is no compelling reason to change the refresh rate from the industry standard of six seconds and industry ask the council to approve the refresh rate of six seconds and reject the 10-second refresh rate requested by the planners thank you thank you we've got one more I think pardon me I just said we've got one more person your worship and council my name is Bruce nelligan I'm the manager of transportation at de wat consulting we've been working with the industry over the past several months as the transportation consultants I'm here to answer any technical technical questions about billboards or any aspects as they relate to safety thank you thank you and was there one more story i miscounted I thought there were three with their store I'm seeing from stantec I'm lighting engineer I have done study for medicine for one of the existing digital boat at ninth Avenue and fifth street and i'll be happy to answer any question great all right thank you all very much we will go to questions from Council then for any or all of you you can come back to if you want mr. Forsythe alderman Lowe Oh mr. Bardsley were you still going to present as part of this as well I'm sorry I wasn't clear worship thank you I just had the summary so that instead of saying anything I'm wondering if you just allow me just put it up on the overhead and counts like a little bit of room you can even say it you got three minutes to go no we worshiped by I think we've taken enough of countless time all right thank you sofa just put that up this is just the summary what's paragraph one is what the industry would like to see changed and and the italicized portions are simply the reasons for that you've heard all these before already anyway so I'm not going to belabor it are these the ones that are in the presentation that was out there fairly well except you worship such a couple of things was two additional ones to this when we gave the presentation materials out we were under we didn't realize the SCR I district was in that bunch so we had to add that okay the only other one I think that's different is that we had a better look at the 300-meter separation for digital signs meaning the electronic e-sign class which is the on-premise assign to a billboard and that we have come to conclude is a thing we'd like to see studied more and that's been added for councils information very very quickly the current regulations for third-party signs don't have any separation from these types of signs but there is a 30 meter separation from an ident I'm the recommendation staff is making that there would be a 300-meter separation between a digital billboard and e class sign and that's something we think needs a lot more work so that's been added so those two one tweak one edition otherwise it just isn't a book sir thank you welcome all right questions for this team here alderman Lowe thank you for whomever I guess we need we need the crowd up there the mr. Rebecca's the billboard that was in your original in the original display you're the first video you put up on there well how far was that what was a setback of that sign so i'm i'm going to surmise you're from my collection we don't have the site plan with us it's an 80 kilometer our roadway mcknight boulevard in this area there's extensive SAT back already because of the because of the roadway mcknight boulevard there's a grass boulevard up to the fence and then we're set back from the fence to the park so from the pipeline we're about 3 to 6 meters from the power plane as it is now is my recollection in addition to that there's a setback of the grass boulevard so we're quite far from ignite Boulevard roadway and if you'd went and if you added the grass Boulevard setback and you went in from the fence proper line another 14 meters you'd be in the middle of the lot and it's time to be virtually ineffective because it's so far from the roadway okay with the picture you showed us to your recollection is whatever the boulevard width was plus 3 to 6 meters from the plus defend from the fence and it's marginally up okay correct very much and the speed on mcknight boulevard at that point you say is 80 clicks his 80 km/h correct I need to understand from whomever the relationship between speed and set back for a third party science and I'm going back to the to the the table that was put up by transportation which evidently if I understood the evidence correctly was really related to my ability to recognize a highway sign to read it to take the corrective action necessary to comply with whatever that sign may be instructing me to do including some decision time in there but if I want to get off the road at that point for example so is there a corresponding study with relation to digital bill but obviously you want them read so that there's got to be something in there your worship through to counselor low the relationship between the speed and the placement of the signs is is something that came out of the work that we'd be doing on behalf of the outdoor advertising industry and working with the city and trying to get approval of certain science so we there there isn't a lot of research out there that shows that if a sign is placed and X number of leaders from the roadway that it's that it's less safe or there really isn't a lot of information at for me as an engineer to go off to say whether it's safe or unsafe there's there's been a lot of research but it's all been inconclusive in terms of the relationship about advertising signs to safety so to respond to the city's request to do a safety report on a particular sign we started looking at some of the engineering techniques that we use for the placement of traffic signals so when we look at the placement of traffic so you know one of the things that we look at is the stopping sight distance which is related to speed so the faster you're going the longer it takes for you to stop so that's where the whole issue of the stopping sight distance and the distance that you saw on that chart that was displayed earlier came from was was a stopping sight distance which changes as it depends on speed so it was something that we took from from a different application it wasn't wasn't to do with outdoor at you know the outdoor advertising signs per se but it's something that we tried to apply to this particular topic to try to try to help us in determining where it's I could be placed did you find that the was the comparison useful well it was something that we that we used in to look at specific sites and and to say whether it's in the primary cone of vision or the secondary cone of vision but it was something that that we looked at but whether or not it was useful in know in determining the desired placement of it it's it's questionable okay it strikes me that purposeful highway sign is my maneuvering my vehicle down the road admittedly advertising is to get my attention to read the sign I'm wondering did you read any studies that says that my focus on my primary function is distracted by a billboard over here be it litter otherwise there's been a lot of research on the out draft as industry and science billboards and how it distracts drivers I think as I mentioned earlier a lot of it is inconclusive and tying billboards to safety road safety and actual crashes but what there are a few things that I think the industry and and the research agrees on is that glances of longer than two seconds could be problematic in terms of a road safety perspective however there has been research that has been done that says that that on average a outdoor advertising sign or a billboard will attract a glance of a half a second to one second so so that's the kind of research that's been done in us and that's what we've been using in terms of working with administration on the applications for these these signs but if I understand your information correctly that's for all signs just not digital correct okay so would apply equally to a paper billboard a vane type a front lift the back lift etc okay yes with respect to the ambient lighting issue and I'm harkening back to mr. Rebecca's will remember I think we have we had a problem up in Simon's valley with a sign that was bought and lit that was problematic it is is that lighting controlled at all other than off on and how does it relate in relation to the kind of light ambient lighting that would take place from the bill from the digital billboard which controls are proposing on so sorry for clarification so the first part of question is is regarding whether what kind of impact or what changes the lighting can do for digital how it's changed my question is if I'm using that but I don't know if you recall one what happened in silence Valley overlook sage hill there the you know that was at night it was just a glaring bright light what I understand is the digital signs you can adjust that down is that correct that's that's correct and I do have our lighting specialist shaheen to answer as to what kind of how do I ask how do we measure the point of which any light is too much Oh so so what they've done and actually an earlier question someone ask the difference of lighting between existing billboards today and digital so today for standard billboards which use Hall of Fame lights and can be used at the bottom of the signs shine and upward or the top of the signs shining downward that's physical light onto the sign surface of a paper vinyl billboard today I'm that's always been accepted they've never been measured and the rules and there's no rules in place in the bylaw that's requires certain lighting controls on those existing signs for digital billboards we all recognize that the industry the city manufacturers recognize yes these signs are content so that what the administration did was they spoke to manufacturers the tektronix in specific and came up with a level to measure the sign output so it does not exceed a certain amount in this case in the bylaw it's 500 nits it at night and ten times that during the day of 5,000 it's how its measured is actually there is a gun called a Nik gun well it isn't it and what is in it I'm going to refer that on to finish the question then i'll refer to our lighting specialist to get into the specifics of that but unlike standard billboards this is the first time and we recognize that because of the technology there is lighting levels in place and and even before these roles were discussed or passed our signs have already been placed with the appeal board has heard earlier and it was done independently by stantec they measured the signs and in fact our signs already fell into those guidelines even before we started measuring them so today the digital billboards you see today on the streets that have been proved by the board meet those guidelines that are in the air in Council before E today and as mentioned as you can see in arguments this was not brought up today we're not in we're not concerned with the lighting levels as brought forth by administration that drops difficulty since we first started negotiations but we felt it was a necessary concession and we accepted the fact that the levels were lowered ok you know i'll refer to your mr. Rebecca's before you go on baby your lighting expert can tell me this but what's the effect of I guess I need to know what an it is but what's the effect of the reduced lighting as you move away from 100 metres 150 meters 200 meters 300 meters supposedly into a residential area is that that does that amount of light at what point does it become under certain area in substantial and and yeah and the question you're asking is where does it where does the ambient light kind of just swallow up the sign after a while because I'll see our signs are quite different here in the city context versus rural highway context which is where signs a little ambient lights to compete with out there but it does drop substantially and I've got some numbers here from our lighting specialists to give an idea of how far they drop down at what level is probably a good measurement level for a sign to measure it maybe you could ask you just for my help tell me what an it is I mean give it give me something I can remain its have we got in here at the moment net is Candela per meter square so net if you're looking at any any light fitting or it could be even like son so it's something like if you're looking at any lie fitting the light coming from that source is the brightness nit nit is basically a measurement or brightness okay measurement of breitenstein per square meter that's right so and again for me I'm sorry your worship for me to try to put it in perspective enough light I'm from a flashlight for a meter for me to read a page in a 12 font how many Nets would I need to do that that would be a there are two things one is brightness and the other is a foot candle level so when you are talking like when you want to read something you would be you would need something that's reflected from the reading material so that would be that is measured in lux and two if you want to measure if you want to read something that too at night and the lighting level depends upon the person whether if we have children here they can read ten times less light then I can and as we age we need more light so it's it varies but in general if you want to read something to 200 or 250 luck should be good enough I just have to point out that alderman Pincott is dying to answer this question but but but maybe we really do you want to add something do you mind alderman I just like my questions was next ones that just hand it to me is how many nets in my laptop here no they're so let me just let me just help nits is a way of measuring perceive a brightness so Percy Brighton so you measure an it by looking at the source I got that you measure intensity but will come in a different measurement by what's down here so you can have a very bright very bright source in the corner of that room which would be hien it's but here would be low foot candles so in this room we would have relatively known it's but high foot candles so nits is perceived brightness what we measure down here is lighting intensity something completely different which she tried to explain around foot counts so it's it's two different things that you're measuring then rightness brightness which is the brightness brightness which is the source uh no me all skills and and an FYI for those in the gallery if you're if you're wondering about that exchange all during pink cot in his previous life was a very well renowned and in multiple award-winning lighting designers so he has some expertise in this area of it Wow alderman Lowe ok I think I think I am where I need to be thank you very much go ahead i also have 35 reports if with your permission if it could be distributed maybe that would make things simpler that's fine thank you thank you very much my last question has to do with with the cone that we see being used regardless of topography you know if we have a magnetic Barlow trail here your example of barrel trails really good one where the signs are on the east side of the road residential is on the west side but significantly below the road so but if i read it understand the proposal correctly because of within 300 meters it would not be allowed today as i do i understand decided that the next your problem with that that's exactly correct that is a challenge for us to measure sonication 30 meters and if it's a building with a bowling unit would be prohibited Blackwell trails maokai trails are bored of residential those kind of roadways would be prohibited okay now if it seemed too soon and they seemed to assume to me that they were assuming that all signs were placed that right angles to the roadway it's my experience the very few are in point of fact you tend to angle your signs so that oncoming traffic as it your advertiser has a chance at the oncoming traffic i'll put that way so is there any provision within the bylaws you read it to cut off that arc limiting it to the road particularly where you have a topographical feature that falls away or conversely clients know and that's why that's why we made it a strong case and why we're here today in contingency like this because of that kind of rule there's not allow for any the challenge is twofold one there is no contingency for topography buildings trees and front any kind of buffer between the sign and 300 meters is taken out of the equation and secondly it's not relax about double whammy for the industry I take the first met you while I was on da be mr. Rebecca so I understand about relax about the my last question is in your placement of your current signs your standard signs is speed of the roadway consideration at all no the by lot today has no address does not address there's no concern whether the speed limit is 50 60 70 or 80 kilometers today they have setbacks zoning and as they did in Edmonton they simply added digital billboards to the existing rules and say where bill burr's exists today digital is fine too just two provisions please no no video emotion and control the lighting and we're happy so here they taken it beyond that and they've limit particular zonings they are the huge separations cetera so it is quite different okay thank you you worship thank you very much alderman Lowe the puns they write themselves but i'm going to i'm going to refrain alderman Jones thank your worship worship my question is basically the same mr. Rebecca's in recommendation number two about 150 meetings from a dwelling unit your concerns you don't really address what your concerns are about the distance is it that you might be close to a hotel as that classed as a dwelling unit on a major road is it concerned that the Ellen unit might be behind you and the signs in front and it's not shining back there so what is that the concern or part of it yes the concern is and to clarify the 300-meter from a dwelling unit and 150 meter from dwelling unit are the same it's just the context where three to meet 150 meter rule that you referred to through the chair through the mirror is for the downtown core and our concern for that is of course the core is heavily developed and to put a sign up in a wall for instance we just got approval to put a sign up against international hotel up against the wall of the building but if there's a residential next door that building even though our even though the international tells in between the sign and the hold and the condo it would be a few it would not be allowed based on the rules today so 150 meter our concern is there could be it could be developed it could be a buffer that could be the sign may not be visible whatsoever in the core because it's so heavily concentrated development wise outside the core is a 300-meter rule from a dwelling unit so you combine so that rolls part and parcel together a and B if you well together and both rules are not relax about so hence the picture that you showed earlier on Macleod Trail where it showed units within the 300-meter setback but which wouldn't be able to say the sign if no matter how you try even if you stood on the roof correct because our signs on there again sorry not again but in today's rules our Heights our maximum allowed 26 feet so we're not in love to go as high as a second-story bill in a few will so our signs are low to the ground cannot be more than maximum 26 feet and as a result of that and you go down McCall trail 16th Avenue you put a commercial building behind between our sign residential our sign is not visible so I noticed in here in your your for recommendations that you have your asking the industry or you're asking us not to adopt these but you're not giving us an alternative of what you want to adopt it or at least I haven't seen it looking for this book it's not it's sorry best way to look at is actually these ones here the book sorry okay so it's actually not simply more than just not adopt clarify its to delete so when a so when they suggest that there's four zonings today secor one seek or two for instance scrie industrial edge we're saying those the billboards allowed today in those zones were asking for them to be leading to be deleted from the baile recommendation before you today and then the rest of the rules up and so that's example of one so we're asking for delete the second rule again 300 meters because 350 meters separation that's a second roll we're asking that to be deleted not only not adopted but be deleted for the reasons given in the report and has mentioned the separation distances are critical and impact on our science tree the third rule we're asking is to change from ten seconds to six seconds the fourth rule is another deletion the 300 separation from digital to electronic sign again to delete and again and the final rules the 40 meter set back again to delete there's already provision the bylaw for six meter setback so we're asking for it to be deleted from 14 to six okay so it's mostly deletions and one change from ten-second 26 seconds the other four straight deletions okay I have one question for your lighting person you and it was a question based on what alderman Lowe task is their husbands studies done in regards to light and signage is there have been any correlation between accidents and cars or actually there are this particular subject is very subjective to be her friend um there are various standards available based on illumination engineering society of north america so what we have done is we have done a study of the existing digital board which are frog pattinson which is located between ninth avenue and fifth street i can show you this is for basically most of the question has been asked regarding this just to understand the intensity of light coming out of the LED the digital board if you're standing straight in front perpendicular to the billboard that's that's where you will experience maximum obtrusive nips of light as you go far off it becomes lesser and lesser so if you are at like 70 degree from the edge of the digital signage you are almost like the this the lighting level reduces almost 20 so if you're parallel there's nothing visible the other parameter thats related to obtrusive pneus is the distance how far you are from the board so we did study we actually plotted 300 feet distance for each of these angle as I showed you before like 30 degrees 70 degree 90 degree and then 140 degrees and at every 100 feet we did a measurement two sets of measurement for NIT meter that's a that's a brightness measurement and the other one is the lighting level measurement and we did the two sets of reading one is a daytime and at night time because the lighting level differs at the two times so i will be showing you two tables wherein we which of the measurement the table that you see here is the lux meter Lee reading and this table shows the the net meter reading now in this particular table as you can see at night time at none of the points the net meter reading is exceeding 500 nets which was one of the topic of discussion and between some the table that you see here is is the lighting trespass recommendation that's available so basically each of the area can be divided into various zones the existing lighting study that we did we based it on ambient light brightness that's zone three so what the standard says is is whatever the ambient lighting is for example if the ambient lighting level is one foot candle the combined lighting with the digital signage cannot exceed one point eight foot candles so point eight what you see is the allowed trespass so what we concluded looking at the various readings the lighting level was never beyond the recommended Indian level does that answer your question gonna say so my answer my question is that a yes or no do was there any studies been done that I guess the question was is there any studies that have been done in relation to light digital it signs and car accidents there are Beauty studies not from one but various different association have done so in general when you compare let's between conventional and the digital or just the digital I guess what I'm searching for is it somebody saying that we need a setback because of driver safety and the setback the farther setback is the less distraction it is for driver is there anything that shows that there is a correlation between digitally lit signs and car accidents your worship there has been a lot of research done on the digital billboards and trying to correlate or try to understand how the impact safety none of the research to date is conclusive in indicating that it does cause more crashes there's been research done that shows that it is and it isn't and and because it's relatively new there's still ongoing research where where the fh wa in the US is doing a quite a comprehensive research program right now to try to understand out better but that information is not available yet but the information has been collected to date is inconclusive is it not available just because the digital signs are so new to the industry yes because the research in the digital billboard started in the early 2000s but to date as he said there's been a lot of reports done but nothing conclusive tying that to safety so there that I noticed in the report they're asking for six seconds or 10 seconds rather than six is it because of the as alderman Chabot dad said it looks like a flash and the less flashes there are the better off you are I think what's more important is is the exposure of the drivers to a certain number of ads and from what we've seen and from some calculations that we've done it really doesn't make a lot of difference in terms of the refresh rate whether it's a six second or a ten second the driver is generally going to be exposed to two ads so depending on on what part of the cycle they're arriving at the sign most drivers are going to see one trend at least one transition anyways if it's six or ten seconds so and there's been no research to say that six seconds is less safe than 10 seconds so that's the argument in the industry is you're not going to sit there and watch ten of them go by as you're driving you only see it going to see in maximum two or three anyway correct okay thank you your worship thanks very much alderman Jones all drink eating thank you your worship I'll go back to my original question because I really do believe that knit snaps nuts and candles with feet should all be regulated because we have to because that talks about the distraction the brightness if we look at lumen ated signs in compare into these there has to be a difference I guess when I look at the footprint of the sign goes back to my original question is or are these digital signs as far as size place location be treated differently than any other sign that is out there the only two differences is the video motion and the lighting other than that no there should be no differences in city of edmonton exactly did the way you just stated that what we're doing with these is we're actually treating them different as far as footprint there are certain things that have to be regulated without question but as far as location signs and all of these these are being treated different than any other sign correct our belief today today's bylaws with a 6-meter setback that these signs only be allowed in commercial industrial areas and that these signs are not impact residential these are existing rules today in place in the bylaw thank you yes thanks alderman Keating alderman Chabot not sure if we have enough time for lunch or worship but thank you we'll settle in alderman Chabot finding these guys I've got a couple questions i'm not sure who addresses this one with but I'm got a number of amendments that I was proposing some of which I just had a chance to see them all and I'm not sure who to address which one with whom but one of the recommendations in the amendments that I proposed had to do with some of the things that were presented in regards to the setbacks and with a graduated device and and I appreciate what was said about property line versus edge of roadway but some of the recommendations here include six meters on 60 kilometers are less 10 meters on 70 kilometers per hour or less and 14 meters for 80 kilometers or greater I'm just wondering what your thoughts are in Reverse those proposed amendments we are open to that for the 14 meter setback if it's a graduated increase in based on speed it's we're open to that compromise where as mentioned original presentation we don't think it's necessary as shown by our traffic expert lighting specialist and the fact that is already six meter setback for the pipeline in addition to the regular setbacks of the roadway but if the council so choose and said that would be a fair compromise between industry and the and the sign and sorry in the administration we would accept those recommendations mr. Rebecca son I asked a question earlier about the the transition time and I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on this the question i had to administration in regards to the one second transition vs no more than one second transition as mentioned the technology allows the transition to change correct the model that we have today is just under a second and it meets the proposed rules and administration mentioned should be more more than a second and and we can change it to be closer to a second just above the second it could be 1.1 could be technology allows transition to be changed our point i guess is that these signs have been in place in alberta for two plus years of this model they were successfully we're not aware of any challenges or safety concerns and the ones in front of in situ copy today through the appeal board have been operating six months plus as well as a big night and this model and again there'd be no issues there were aware of with the mall running today but technology allows it to be changed correct because I was going to say I seen other manufacturers or other companies have transition times associated with some of their their LED displays as opposed to what I saw in the screen here which was a basically a like one one-hundredth of second between just between different advertisements so you would not be opposed to having it a minimum of one second is that kind of what I understand correct we would not be opposed okay and I'll try and make that argument later it isn't one of the proposed amendments that I had there's some other things in here and I'm sure if you saw the rationale associated with my proposed amendments alderman Farrell myself and an alderman Pincott had a chance to to speak with administration and some of the traffic engineering folks in regards to why they had incorporated some of the setbacks that they had field of view as you heard intensity and the change in the the pretty the way that that administration will evaluate those based on the cone as you probably saw as opposed to the concentric circle that was originally proposed and and was included in the bylaw changing it from the face of in looking at that cone and I don't know if you had a chance to look at that comb before but it what I saw from your expert there on the lighting from stantec she did kind of demonstrate that there would be reduced intensity as you moved outside of that column but within that cone it kind of suggested that the intensity was fairly concentrated in those areas as well so just your thoughts from the lighting perspective on the cone that was presented by administration how you see that impacting the setbacks in fact it's even more our advantage we feel this this measurements that is done by the lighting specialist is done directly on you have to be driving directly towards the sign so right off the bat when you're driving on the roadway the digital is off set back six meters eight meters 10 14 meters you're already away from your starting to get away from the 30 degree cone of vision already off the bat and yes 30 degrees is the most intense and based on her measurements it drops off it's about at about 80 meters at about 80 meters from the sign is when Alba and lighting pretty well it takes over and at the sign if you have got to measure it from 80 meters and turn the sign off Ron you get the same measurement because of the ambient lighting in the area okay that's interesting 80 meters now I'm not sure if I had heard that number before but I appreciate you saying that now ambient light this is not looking at something that's brighter such as may be a full moon how would that compared to 500 nits out of a sign in comparison with relations to proximity at what point with a full moon be brighter than the light output of a sign at 500 nits at night do you have any kind of comparisons to kind of give me actually hensive you know would be a good comparison and shaheen would be the best person to answer this is when she measure a sign shika Meredith she compared it to North American standards for lighting and compared it to like light standards of the City of Calgary uses lighting that you do inside an exit of a building for instance a certain lighting level requirements and machine could probably give you a quick summary as to how this sign light bright is compared to just the normal lighting levels that the city uses in the surrounding areas will that be yeah I mean a sense of reference a reference in regards to outdoor I mean indoors it's a separate issue we're talking about a television I know HD TVs typically put out between 450 and a thousand nits depending on the light intensity within the room they self adjust but they don't have to compete with ambient light indoors so if you turn out all the lights on the inside the screen will drop down to about 450 minutes but with if you open the curtains you won't be able to see it because it only puts out a maximum of a thousand myths so hence the reason for 5,000 niche during a day for an outdoor sign so just a sense of their putting things into perspective in comparison to other things if you could give me some comparative analysis on that yeah sure you can talk about things into perspective light standards at the city uses to measure standard lighting outside pick up the lighting level generally lake for pathway if you're talking about like Chief are alike east village like pathway is like 1.5 1.8 foot candles that's the lighting level now the digital both study that with it most of the lakes reading I can put it if you can see the readings that we took the maximum that we got was one point nine eight foot candles so if you take typical writing level for downtown like I would say it should be like about one foot candle so allowed the maximum allowed trespass is point eight foot candles so if it's edited basically so one foot candle ambient plus the light price pass through the digital digital signage if you put together it's like one point eight foot candles but some places it may be slightly more 1.2 foot candles plus point eight so it's like about two foot candles so if you look at the lighting levels that we got it's less than two foot candles just the lighting level so how much it would eliminate the ground directly in front of the sign again when we look at the digital signage it depends upon like the study that we did it was for the downtown now different criteria would apply if it's this is for a residential area that if it's a residential area then the light trespass limit is lower compared to the medium mixed-use via unit that we used so it's it's subjective and it depends where it's being used whether it's transmitted later reflected light you could still use a candle one candelabra or one candle can candela measurement like one candle at one candle per meter squared that's me as a measurement whether it's reflected or transmitted so for an illuminated sign that's lit from a standard incandescent light that's reflected off of a sign has there been any kind of measurements done on some of those existing signs yes in fact when we were doing the study we also took a measurement from one of the lighting which was standard conventional so it's a 103 that's what we got instead of 302 90 so if you if you are looking at the conventional board this is what you would get approximately another thing to mention that the readings that you see it's taken out as white background that's the most maximum intensity produced so we wanted to see the worst case scenario so all the readings that you see is with the white background of a digital signage oh so this not led billboard that you're referencing that wasn't necessarily a full white background it was partly the one which I took it with had like some white background in some colored as well 103 minutes is that what I'm that's what that's what we like all right so um interesting again limited to limited to in that particular case on on those kind of signs on a billboard the intensity wouldn't very dependent on the angle of view you wouldn't have that restrictive cone that you would have with an LED that's correct it would be same output wide wide range as opposed to a very focused output with an LED that's right okay thank you i hopes one more point to notice though with the conventional board conventional would be have the up lights so which we generally don't account as an environmental friendly lighting because there's a lot of light spell that goes up a pair as for the digital board it's mostly coming out of it and downwards so there nothing going up no light pollution okay and so i'm not sure like i say if you had had a chance to look at some of these some of the recommendations included some of the relaxations on on the regulations i'm not sure who can comment on all of these proposed amendments that we were going to put forward and your thoughts on all of these I don't know if you saw them there's a b c d e and f GH and I and J as part of the recommended amendments is there anything in here that you do like other than the 10 second thing which I know you don't like is there anything else in here that you think is something that you could work with well you worshipped through the chair of a problem best to answer that the short answer alderman Chabot is the amendments that are suggested deal with some textural things which we don't have an issue with they deal with some other things that the industry doesn't have a problem with to the area's we're focusing counsel on you've already heard your answer to the great graduated setback as per speed I think you got your answer to 10 seconds the problem with the 300 meters and the problem with 150 meters even if you take it from the front which is a great improvement I've been is it it doesn't deal with what you're trying to get at which is light cast invisibility you've heard evidence of a measurement for example it says 80 meters is about where it gets too it doesn't allow one to deal with the situation that you're dealing with where the sign is works point and so forth so the problem with that amendment that you've made is that it's good when it says front of the sign have to agree with that changes residential area which is the bylaw now to dwelling unit that's fine but what we'd like it to do is to recognize that there's a lot of situational issues to deal with there was it nobody here as a problem with not shining a light into a residential dwelling in so it's a good start from the point from the front it's good that the recommendation is to be relax about trying to relax that kind of rule at sdab is difficult if it's ironclad like per head so as a bit of a wording issue so that'll take care of that one the classy sign in the class f sine spacing we've already talked about that I don't think you address that and land use districts I don't know that we're those were dressed in your amendment I didn't see them up that's a different issue entirely so the bottom line is with respect to the amendment do you know the change to say or any rules are relaxing the separation from property line is welcome I graduated on speed the measurement of effect of a residential dwelling unit from the face of sign is welcome but we'd like a little more tuning up done based on what you heard today on the proximity so you're saying the 80 meter measurement would be something that you would be more inclined to support as opposed to 150 or 300 yes your worship okay actually I have no further questions at this point would certainly add lots to debate further I I'm a bit shocked alderman Chabot I was all settling him for the lunch break thank you very much Aldrin pink hot um thank you a lot of my questions were around lighting and and the real the real impact on lighting and on the light output of these things and you've done a lot of work to try and get us to understand that and I appreciate that when we take a look at your your illustration of essentially be the drop off as we go off from the viewing angle did you calculate that as a percentage what kind of drop off at thirty percent seventy percent at 70 degrees thirty degrees or do we just have it as just a straight measurements now this measurement actually comes from the manufacture of the LED us-led who have a manufacturer's a digital so we got it from them but we didn't take it the way it is we actually did measurement at site um so which was very close to what they have indicated okay and when you look at the Iassogna guidelines when we when we take a look at the say that the guidelines for ambient streetlight street level intensity required for safety on a sidewalk say for you know a pedestrian what's the minimum level of foot candles that we need on a sidewalk for nighttime safety now when we define like sidewalk safety there are areas that could be defined the area there could be area that is safe and would require lower put candles and there could be area which requires high security so I mean if talking about high security the requirement is about 1.5 foot candles 1.5 that's right but there are areas where we have the design which also deals with point 5 foot candles because that's not a very security concern ok so counter point 5 is is the point so if I go back there if I go then to your table that is measuring that where you were measuring foot candles away from the sign when we're taking a look then say point 5 foot candles as kind of a nighttime ambient-light level from us from ayahs and guidelines for safety that's the majority of these except for the ones that are in yellow which you are below that level right that's right and the ones in yellow are measurements that were taken as you move the way that you ended up being close to a streetlight that's right the very way it's highlighted as yellow there was a lighting standard very near to where we were taking the measurement that's why we piloted highlighted it separately ok and then the ones that are na is that because there was I don't know a building or something yes there was a building it was falling inside some of the points were falling inside the building and some point it was not safe to take because it was a highway ok so we had to just left those points and your furthest away measurement you did this in 100 foot increments so your furthest away was 300 feet so that's correct to round up into meters 100 m max was the furthest your way and in almost all locations except for straight on if you held your hand up you wouldn't actually see a shadow because you are below ambient light levels and also the readings that we choke just to mention to the console arm the reading but we took was at eye level looking straight on to the board sorry okay yep okay thank you I just want to clarify that just so that we understand what the real lighting impacts are of these on the neighborhood thank you thank you thank you all during pincode alderman Mar thank you worship I do have a couple of quick questions relating to some of the guidelines and the impacts that is going to have now I understand the the six second rule versus the ten-second rule what currently is and correct me if I'm wrong but what currently is allowed with the flippy ones is is six seconds is that right so your or is it 10 seconds currently electric sure i'm going to show visually currently right now again there's no limitations on these mechanical trio signs they're what we call entrails trios or trilateral ok draw it they're on a prism and we'll play one now actually I flippy better but you can white can you can you go to a full screen well so there it is the one on the left if you count if you want to start a band accounting it's the ad stays up for about three seconds three to four seconds and then there's a physical motion which is another two seconds plus so you get to be like 56 seconds with the ad in the motion mm-hmm and then we've compared it to our digital 6 second model to the right okay and you could see the difference of the physical motion and and the ad face and and as we introduce this product a year and a half ago we met with the administration we talked about this is just the natural step evolution of our billboard the mechanical tree on the left was also receive trepidation by the city 20 years ago it's does that sign the left has been around for 20 years across North America three advertisers I can you be started we start again three advertisers and basically we think this we think the sign to ref is just a natural on the right sorry is a natural evolution of the mechanical to the digital and it's still display in a static message and in fact the duration is leaving longer on the street six seconds as you heard earlier the longer the better and at the same time they've been around for a number of years successfully know and I appreciate that so the sign on the left the Trilateral sign now that is also illuminated at night is it not correct it's a but its its external eel it so there's a physical light at the bottom you can write can't really see it a single light that shines upward to shine the face is lit at night correct okay so there's there's less light pollution as a result of it being externally let shining up onto the one to thee yes as shown by the resident expert here there's more it's more advantageous for the digital sign because the light is contained and focused in the end of lines and forms the Bill of the sign and it shines downward as opposed to the practice for years and years which is lighting on the bottom to shine upward right okay now on the sky I appreciated the comment that altima Chabot meant about when the oh stop now could you redo it again so when it when it starts to change i'll sign on the left when it starts to change and it's almost like a page-turning rather than something that's just instantaneously changing the image so but you're saying that takes about a second for that DAP fern left to occur longer okay two seconds then okay so and if the and if the image stays for how many seconds here and then two seconds of changing so I just kind of takes three to four seconds actually for that for that physical motion to go through oh then once the ad is up against the motion stopped yes the ad is up for like three seconds three to four seconds max ok so the continuity is basically just really the advance in technology the evolution of the sign to be able to suddenly have a digital image which you can transfer much more yeah but instead of more was edited correct instead of physically taking three seconds okay plus to have it physically done it canal through a Tron digital be done and second okay what struck me as interesting is that as a result of this you were able to add on public service messaging the six-second Mel 6 second model is important to us for two reasons one as much as being around for years these signs are not the costly bottom line and the mecha nomics model allows that six seconds allows us two things one and most importantly small businesses to afford it keeps the cost down so that small businesses are buying these advertisements and can compete against box stores national chains secondly the model allows us to donate one spot is it's a 10-10 message model 10 6 second messages so we donate ten percent of the sign to nonprofit that's already doing now it's not something you're proposing it's something that you're actually doing yeah we've done it yeah it's something we do now it was it's not part of the bottle it's not a requirement it's a man date of our company we as mentioned the way by Doug our first presenter we would do business here for 80-plus years and it's a mandate from our ownership to give back to the community that we live in and do business with so is made clear from day one we introduce these signs from our head up ownership is that we donate one spot to for nonprofit in charity and that's not that's what remains 24-7 throughout the year regardless if we have a queue for advertisers who want to take that spot regards we can sell it more so that one out of ten spots ten percent of the sign goes to that okay and the letters are in your package now I've been looking through this this book that you sent us or the sorry that you've distributed to us with some of the sign locations I know you can't see it from there with the 300 meter radius now some of the signs that that are indicated here are on major roads like ninth Avenue but that if this prohibition comes in to affect it essentially would eliminate the ability to use these digital signs but not necessarily the existing signs that are already in place purchased it would prevent the implementation of this new new type of sign yeah correct we have one ninth avenues in your package across from a Greyhound bus depot as you come to the quad trail yeah so right now that sign used to be the one on the left a trio OST billboard there for years on a cpu railway right away we went to the city and asked to change the two from mechanical to digital his refused the appeal board heard our presentation and felt it was acceptable based on numerous conditions that was put in place a lot of it is in today in the rules they are be proposed in front of console okay so notwithstanding the fact that it went through sdab if actually there's probably more an administrative question maybe I'll hold that one the other thing that was interesting to me is and actually alderman Hodges mentioned it was the concept of he actually said something about amber and that triggered something in my head without Amber Alerts or you know what an Amber Alert is we know very well as part of our presentation actually when we met the administration here in a half ago is that our vision was that one day if there's a handful of these signs the network could be available to emergency departments such as the police to use a for Amber Alert it's already used in the US extensively so when there is Amber Alert they have access to the signs and they have a they have passwords and codes and templates they can get into the system and put up an Amber Alert immediately using the network of signs so that's something that you would actually support leiby we'd be thrilled if we can make that work with one of the city departments here yes we've course we would support it okay but I mean we do it now with our regular billboards it's just that it takes a while right I mean naughty starri not for Amber Alert but for lost missing persons for that kind of thing we've put Brighton ours but that of course takes a few weeks put it up no no I'll see amber alert you needed immediately tonic of course yeah I've seen that happen in the United States that's yes and we would prose that again will be a bylaw thing that would be part of our proposal yes okay a lot of these really technical issues with regards to the lighting and so on and so forth i'm going to i'm going to ask questions of administration as well but what I'm what I'm what I'm seeing is that I understand that this is is it a technological advance and as a result it's it is interesting certainly and it has various trepidation certainly from our administration and people that that are believing that this will have a major impact on on the visual light pollution that's concerning to to us as a municipality and certainly to the different ward alderman but some of the comments that you're saying with prohibition of the 300 meters which would effectively eliminate a lot of these major roadways I mean I have a lot of sympathy towards that in understanding that that has a and the impact on on being able to deliver this so you've answered my questions with regards to the ten seconds and the sec 6 seconds and also your ability to to provide an Amber Alert which i think is interesting and thank you very much for your presentations thank you worship Thank You alderman Mar alderman pootmans thank you your worship of all the interesting issues I'd like to dig a little deeper into 300 meters again I'm not sure who to address of following on alderman Jones questions um you have trying to read the page tab for from your booklet and combined with the material we've just been given it seems industry is recommending that we delete the recommendation establishing the 300-meter rule that seems fairly clear do you have or to start do you have a recommendation of what the appropriate distance should be is there any other issues the recommendation if if it wasn't for just straight deletion because I was mentioned earlier we feel that the bylaw dresses at today with protecting residential and it's very clear in the bylaw today that these signs cannot impact a negative negatively on residential but if I wanted to if you wanted me to throw something out suggest a compromise it would probably be a hundred meters so I take it we say an 80 now you've heard from the lighting expert but 100 meters from from the cone 30 degree cone up front of the sign unobstructed so if so if you want to take a measurement you want 200 meters from the front of the sign in that major 30 degree portion which is where the the sign is a tense and effective that would be like great dread on and you go hundred meters from that middle point and and separate it from that hundred from that point that would be fair compromise thank you and also not sure it's been brought up but what about behind the sign are there any matters that it should be a distance that's appropriate for technical reasons some sort of radio frequency or electromagnetic radiation you have any suggestions as to what the distance should be should we be putting them ten feet outside a window of a multi-unit development for instance actually no there's no no impact or fear whatsoever from electronically electronic point of view for the sign it's like a television this is LED technology you can stand behind your TV no impact your kid you could having dinner behind your TV no impact same same philosophy here as for lighting as shown by the lighting expert again like LED TV if you stand an angle looking at your TV you can't make out the image you can't see it you can barely see any light coming from it so as shown there's no lighting concerns whatsoever behind the sign the sign barely design barely bleeds any late on the edges of the sign in front and from behind it's 0% hun % no lighting bleeds behind the sign so no requirement there for separation thank you just as a matter of curiosity then what is industry practice in terms of billboards and and residential windows at this state lives are a normal protocol or industry standard normal protocol today is one we're not allowed in residential districts that's very clear secondly in the bylaw it states that lighting orientation of a sign can not negatively impact residential so that's a very black-and-white very clear statement in the bylaw today so a single condo tower would constitute a residential district on zoning is touched it that you would be prohibited from locating even off even in a say in neighboring zone badges that would perhaps permit you to be there the Connaught are is interesting because downtown is a mixed-use area so you cannot a comment see a condo tower zoned to allow these type of size nearby like the condo towers people living in downtown accept the fact that they're in that they live in a mixed use of commercial bright signs lit signs railway railway tracks heavier traffic heavy pedestrian volumes etc etc so the way the bottle is right now separation from residential district but from a condominium if that's residential district then the answer to your question is yes but in downtown it could be also zoned commercial if you understand the Dante just I know I'm slightly off topic here but then what would the distance be from the back of one of these signs to the nearest window the back again as long as a sign it is mentioned my compromise as long as a sign orientation and facing is not facing into the condo the back should be no issue if the sign if we back onto the wall of a condominium tower against the concrete wall of a condominium tower and we back right onto it but the sign is facing forward and is not visible that's been done with existing billboards today we see no difference for a digital billboard to back it on to a property as long as its own and commercial and long as the sign is zoned allows for it to be zoned their commercial industrial and does not impact residential in front of the sign we see no issue ok thank you very much thanks alderman pootmans alderman Farrell thank you I have a number of questions and I likely go over so i'll just stop my noon comes I'm sorry Shh in shaheen what's your last name matcha wanna match Ivana I mismatch Ivana did you do the langevin bridge you did yes congratulations on that it looks great when the langevin bridge was first lit there was fairly rapid change over of color and we realized fairly early on that it was distracting to drivers people actually going through the traffic light so we we toned it down quite a bit at what point do we know that something becomes a distraction and and then make a quick change I think the concern that I see is the technology is fairly new it's certainly new to Calgary and safety for drivers is paramount and comfort for our residents is also paramount so at what point do we know when we're creating a driving distraction and are able to adjust or rum or creating a distraction for our residents when I agree with you that initially when the London Bridge was was installed because it came as pre-programmed to meet the schedule so there was some flashing which we said this is not acceptable then it has to be changed for now what it is it's like 60 seconds transitions we have given and there is no flashing or sudden change it's all like seamless transition so that way whoever is driving or whoever is living in the nearby residential area is not disturbed by the lighting the idea here is that person should enjoy being in the environment rather than getting you know disturbed or causing safety concern so that has been fixed but yes we had put it we had changed that from two seconds to 60 seconds and it works why okay thank you i would agree now my concern aside from the distracted driver because when i was taught to drive i was told drive when you're driving and now I think there's there's sort of a general thought that you can do all sorts of other things while you're driving so but so in the urn interim of permanent rules we need to know when these things are distracting they're meant to distract to a certain point and how much is how much distraction is reasonable and i'm not sure if we know the answer to that because the response i'm hearing is any studies are inconclusive so but i think that's the whole point of having interim measures is we can continue to just study it further so um as well as whomever wants to answer that is fun and i'm not sure if we want to have that answered afternoon three minutes so do our proceeding with that's okay um maybe i'll clarify that some a number of cities across North America very large cities have banned these things out right why and and is distracted driving one of the reasons our evidence is the contrary and that's why we presented in the package and you can see that 40 states allow these signs a substantial number of states and number of cities and a lot of cities that have found that were banned already banned billboards in general so they've already just taken to the natural step they already don't allow billboards so of course they're not gonna allow digital as well to know we're not aware and those cities that may have been digital we're not aware of any city that is banned a visual billboard because of a safety or distraction concern the challenge and let Bruce fall up as well that there's numerous distractions both inside the vehicle and outside the vehicle to many in my view there's there's a lot agreed and and that's why the studies have probably found him to be inconclusive the studies that come back and say there's a safety neutral there's no different than a standard billboard no different than in a tim hortons ID sign no different than a city sign that says 300 meter exit 44 Barlow trail and other studies have shown and then of course this newest attraction inside the vehicle and and of course some jurisdictions is as a Burdett done as well is is the cellular phone of course and it's coming for you now before so an answer your question no there's the distraction has not been shown conclusively to be for a billboard rather static where the trigger rather conventional or digital video yes there have been studies to show the video motion a study was done by by lady of Fortran Oh actually half a dozen billboards one of the studies we presented to administration and they came back and clue that yes the video motion guarded more intention but that's never been our desire okay thank you so there's a big difference between residential and dwelling unit and I believe alderman pootmans asked that question but it's we're differentiating between the the right to live without light trespass for multifamily and residential districts which are single family and I think that is a pretty important to clarify I have a lot of concerned people who we've got we've got corridor studies throughout the city where we're trying to encourage people to move into multifamily and somehow we think that their right to peace and quiet and and those things are different than the rights of those in single family and I have an objection to that but multifamily 16 company for example we spent a lot of energy fair amount of money changing the zoning and the feel of 16th avenue to encourage multifamily and and so are you suggesting that the distance should be different for should there we allow one of these units across the street or even right next door facing a multi-family dwelling unit no we would not support that so how can we differentiate in the bylaw that that's not what you intend because in the bottle on what we're proposing is your your scenario you just described as a sign orientated and facing residential so would have an impact dwelling unit yeah drawn unit and and we're what are what we disagree with is they've gone the extreme approach so keep in mind in summary these anything we discussed these are all in term rules so we are going to be sitting down with the industry as you know over the next 12 months and our concern is they've taken the very extreme approach of 300 meters from a building continue to dwell in unit so we could be so and as we use examples throughout our presentation was if the sign is not visible and topography blocks the sign so we could be lower and and or the residential could be lower below the grade it's not visit if it's not visible then why is the city being if you will handicapped with that straight 300 no sense of even allowing to be relaxed they've made it very clear so if so so if we're long 16th Avenue and 62 Avenue multifamily tend to be just a behind is usually commercial on both sides 16th Avenue in my experience well its 16th Avenue has been completely resumed to encourage fairly significant so it was part of the whole it predates planet but it it led to the art contemporary view of an urban corridor where all of 16th Avenue is is high-density residential simply it's well it's what a case by case we looked at a case by case but it's very simple for us if the sign is on sixteenth value they were proposing and it faces into residential the current by law does not allow it and we and we would not allow it you're saying how to protect that my my suggestion was take a measurement from the front of the sign go 100 meters if there's no residential to 100 meters yeah I residential are you talking about dwelling units like dwelling units re yeah if there's a dwelling unit within 100 metres from the front of the sign unobstructed then the Billboard should not be allowed okay all right all right I have a couple of months we're going to stop their lunch break lunch break we'll be back at 120 alderman Farrell you'll still have the floor all right alright we're back in session since 10 this one I don't know ok thank you I think I'm down to one more question we often oh wait till they're coming this is quick when quick one we hear quite a bit about Times Square and I'm not sure the square in Toronto where they've they've got coordinate burger dundas square so I know we've been talking part of the center city team has been talking about changing the rules to allow a concentrated area of the downtown where we would relax are signed by law within certain parameters so are you working with administration on that today no the first step is setting set of girls rules guidelines that both administration in Street can work with for just the present rules for digital which are static and I think that we're referring to the dundas ha's and time squares the world is a different animal together the bigger signs the more video i'm gonna give you well I heard it brought up by your Ottoman low so I don't want to confuse the matter yeah one day that may come up but as of today no there's no talk of it there's no designated area we require a lot of stakeholders mm-hmm landlords down top is association those kind of things and and I could that would be down the road okay that's right now thank you thanks alderman Farrell II will let alderman Demong get back to his seat and there we go alderman Demong okay and and I realized it's my somewhat ignorance with regards to knits versus illuminated and illumination can you give me a some type of reference between one of the old style billboard where we shun a big bright spotlight on the Billboard how that compares to the 5000 / 200 nits that your offer the digital video refer to our lighting specialist it's it's 5,000 it's during the day and 500 at night okay where the maximum level is allowed if you whined all conventional billboards it would be less much less compared to digital because there is no gyming in case off like there it's not bumped up during the daytime yeah miss you may correct no that's correct it so it is the lighting is not made to be possibly lower or higher testing justin straight Hall of Fame bulb yet no I realized that I'm just trying to I in my own mind I'm trying to envision whether whether the brightness I realized during the day it's not going to make a lot of difference but at nighttime is it going to make a lot of difference between the 500 minutes that you're allowed and the Brian I'm looking for help and the and the luminant luminance of the just spotlighted standard billboard that we're all accustomed to if you're comparing the digital with the conventional yes there is a difference the digital is much more brighter compared to the conventional the boat okay that pretty much answers that now I was just curious um you guys had two different displays going with regards to the changing of the on on your DV on your digital's the first one that was going through near I'm not sure where it was and then the second one we had in side by side it was there a difference in the time frame in the changing of the pictures between those two yes yes there is a substantial difference and that's why we believe the digital is a marked improvement nope just so that you I'm clear the the original digital that you showed us sorry yes versus the second digital that you showed us knowing the phased one was there a difference like was 1.2 second change in the first and the second one was a point eight second change or anything like that or was did you guys make note of it at all no we didn't make note but my understanding is all the signs we've ordered are on the same model in transition time so that one sign that showed sabes I does in Edmonton occasional and the very first one we show thats mcknight boulevard that we're showing should be operating the same principle they were operating on the same paper because it also seemed like there was a difference into my eye that one seemed to be doing a much quicker change than the other one optics could be yes and maybe one is off a bit I we can get checked but no I don't have that answer because there are two different signs two different cities install the two different times my understand though is that they're supposed to be running the same model regardless of where they are and when they're ordered thanks sorry if I may add that McKnight sign is six seconds we've checked and rechecked so that I meant the transition time between the changing of the pictures we should be they should be the same ok yeah all right thank you nice and easy thanks alderman Demong alderman Stevenson thank you worship if you presently have two signs that are on airport property is that right we want on Barlow and one on on airport trail for digital correct yeah we have numerous signs or a number of signs on airport / lands but to only two signs correct one an airport trail and wine and Barlow trail and Airport Road the entrance into the airport are our two locations that have digital billboards so neither one of them will if this goes through neither one of those will be able to stay then thou the regulations of the city their profiles a little bit different those have permits so those were applied to the COG airport authority they have their own land use agreement with the city as you're probably aware of with and and so then we got directed by the airport we apply to the city and the city gave us a permit based on the airport's recommendation of where they went and so they so this would not be so to answer your question the bylaw today whatever's passed today would not impact those signs now or later you know I can understand the one at Barlow trail and airport road because that's on it's not facing a city street but the one that's on on airport trail or 96th you know it says in here that will be banned from 96th Avenue at harvest Hills over to Barlow trail well that would take that one in wouldn't it I'm in this case it doesn't because it's on airport lands and has a separate Land Use Agreement so all other all their lands outside of airport lands would meet that rule which is correct there'd be banned so right now Airport trail we cannot build on the north side of airport trail well they're all private lands and they don't meet the bylaw on the south side because the separate lounges agreement the airport is allowed to work with the city and the industry to put signs up thank you thank you your worship Thank You alderman Stevenson folks I think we're done with you for now thank you very much we're still in the public hearing though so is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this anyone else would like to speak in opposition there's one person honey no we're in opposition there was no one who spoke in favor hit ya so I'm just going to leave something here there's one person who cannot who's in favor of our position your worship and members of council she was unable to stay for the afternoon session so I have 35 copies of her presentation she's with the downtown business association we can distribute those thank you thank you your worship members of council my name is Owen Craig I'm with beltline planning group representing beltline communities of Victorian cannot I would like to submit a letter and a brief synopsis of a survey that we've conducted relevant to the topic at hand okay please distribute those thank you very much I'd like to use and be upfront and indicate that I'd like to use an overarching broad description of our stance on digital and billboard vehicular scaled third-party advertising and then drill down on the details and land on the issues at hand for the amendment proposed if you allow me that indulgence so I'd like to do that I will read from the letter that I prepared beltline Planning Group reflects beltline community's best understanding of the majority perspective on billboards this view is garnered from 10 years of experience of community support to eliminate vehicular scaled third-party advertising in our district beltline communities has deployed a survey to confirm and demonstrate the validity of BP geez position to date we have received 149 respondents preliminary results indicate overwhelming response in agreement that billboards digital or otherwise have no place in proximity to residential use and dwelling units in the Beltline beltline communities it encourages the City of Calgary to ban all vehicular scaled third-party commercial advertising billboards or what's typically considered as billboards within the Beltline community district and I'd like to be very clear we're focusing on the vehicular scale digital billboard scenario and billboard scenario and not the kiosk or smaller personal business oriented signs as our community continues to rapidly mature and become more residential mixed use throughout the deployment of these signs runs counter to the emphasis placed on creating vibrant pedestrian scaled environments in the blueprint for the Beltline beltline ARP and city center or center city land use district distracting light pollution emitted from these signs has the potential to significantly impact adjacent residents for example one is we've all experienced the lovely scenario of being in our living room with a over-aggressive channel surfer and how frustrating that can be now if you take that and magnify it on a scale 10 and place it outside a condominium that may have 230 units at one point five people per unit that works out to be about 400 to 500 residents fairly easily that can be exponentially more frustrating and I imagine a single-family home or dwelling that has a sign affects one or two or three four people on a street you put that in the Beltline it can very easily if I impact five hundred to a thousand people with one sign regardless of illumination further vehicular scaled digital signs of a size or placement intended to attract the attention of drivers are wholly unacceptable beltline has no interest in discussion of a regulatory condition to deploy vehicular scale digital billboards in our community district they are entirely unacceptable by their very nature they are designed to capture attention they would not be utilized by industry of that was not the case despite the fact the science is not there I think we all have common sense enough to know that there is an added distraction to the drivers and what is the tipping point between cell phones kids in the back and traffic signs with respect to digital signs and what I'd like to do now is just indicate that while our stance is do not support the amendment simply because it's a third-party amendment for third-party advertising of a vehicular scale in nature I want to emphasize that our concern is we are striving very diligently to create fantastic and appropriately scaled pedestrian environments in the beltline and the city center city we think that these types of signs are appropriate for he more vehicle use and not for areas that are developing in burgeoning pedestrian environment beltline is not opposed to third-party advertising in general rather we oppose the vehicular oriented billboards scaled for commercial advertising digital or otherwise simply put they are a blight on our high-density pedestrian-oriented urban district if i may just like to share with you a couple sound bites from the survey that we've received and being delivering we had 149 people respond to the survey 70 lived in the Beltline 79 lived outside of the Beltline thirty percent of respondents 20 individuals who live in the bell line said they could see a billboard from where they live only seven and a half percent of respondents indicated that they could see a billboard from where they live and this is leading to the question of digital sign proliferation and billboard proliferation in general our aspects that we think that are inappropriate for the current amendment are the seeking of a relaxation from the 300-meter proximity rule to dwelling units to 150 meters regardless of whether you can see the sign or not the signs have a psychological and pedestrian scale impact on neighborhoods that we think are inappropriate for areas that we are trying to strive to create value or high quality pedestrians Grail environments we think it's high time that the Beltline as it matures can evolve such that we can push those signs to other areas a couple sound bites I do of course appreciate the signage that identifies a store business or medical office the billboards however are an eyesore and a safety hazard this is specifically respect to digital billboards depending on and with ever-changing content and design they also alter the whole appearance of the community in an ever new way and a negative way there are architectural guidelines for new buildings which are negatively V which are negatively affected by the billboards this commute this is a community every day it's stronger and stronger but billboards definitely detract and wouldn't be permitted in other communities third soundbite this will be the last one on digital billboards billboards are the wrong scale of public advertising either smaller scale advertisements or better design advertisements should be encouraged and with that I like to conclude my presentation and willing to accept comments and questions from Council thanks mr. krei alderman Mar thank you and thank you for being so patient this morning mr. Craig I know it was sorry this afternoon I know that this can take some time so today the overall discussion is really more centered around digital versus non digital signage not necessarily where it should be in terms of the district but really more the digital vs non digital to bake but I appreciate your comments I do have a couple of fall-off questions in your presentation a moment ago you had suggested that the Beltline Community Association would be posed to automobiles scaled signage so the standard what is it 10 feet by 20 feet 10 feet by 20 signage in the Beltline district as a whole whether or not it is a static paper sign or those flicky triangular ones or digital is that correct that's correct okay so regardless of the type of sign whether it's digital or not digital right now you're really just saying that in your particular area in the belt line because of the density and because of the impact that it has visually on multifamily residents regardless of the type of it you're not position correct although I tried to tie it back to specifics related to digital science but yes right the overarching pretty overarching principle and that was my comment and just again because this is specifically about digital I just wanted to remind you that and and get your comments so thank you very much for that clarification thank you or thanks alderman Mar alderman Chabot thank you worship I'm sorry I I heard your name a few times I still didn't get it it's Owen Craig so Craig being last name correct yes I've had the problem with great school teachers all the way up to apparently alderman now yes but you had you have it in fact I think you told me that once personally um mr. egg I'm so the existing billboards you're not overly happy with those either correct we're not enthusiastic about them we're in a position where the Beltline is maturing far faster than the the bylaw can to help provide more appropriate guidelines for dwelling units and proximity stuff because these types of science so if they're illuminated it poses a similar challenge to what the digital signs could directly yeah okay the you made reference to the overanxious or over-exuberant channel changer and but what's being proposed here is a is a static display with potentially six second intervals what's proposed it's 10 second intervals that wouldn't really associate that with a with full motion video and an exuberant channel changer I think that might be a little extreme when you say well depending on how fast you change channels it looks pretty static to me if you catch one frame per second but I the illustration is the simple example of you have an illuminated object outside of a dwelling units window that affects a large number of people and they're not in control of what's being shown and they look out their window at any point in the day and and have no recourse or ability to adjust to that so we think that there are some parallels while they may not be exactly direct I think the analogy is still valid okay now you mentioned human scale pedestrian type of development and so are you by virtue of saying that arguing that there is no pedestrian functionality associated with these what you call a automobile oriented type billboards the signage is developed by industry to be deployed at high-capacity vehicle thoroughfares their size proximity density and scale of advertising type font and the approach that they use for the copy is specifically targeted towards vehicles and not pedestrians and I think that we'd be fooling ourselves to think otherwise our our issue at hand with those is that while we don't reject advertising that's of the pedestrian scale that's been designed for people to see on the sidewalk we think that our neighborhoods have matured especially the Beltline so that the the motor vehicle is no longer the predominant advertising demographic well I guess it's a matter of opinion because I would argue that I I see these billboards a lot more when I'm walking than I do when I'm driving but that's me personally anyways I appreciate your presentation here today and voicing your opinion your community thank you if I might your worship this body that last component the mere fact that you can actually notice them more as your pedestrian is in fact the the gem at the heart of the discussion and that's the problem that we do have as the Beltline is as people slow down and walk it's not only something that impacts driver safety and illumination and light pollution it's something that impacts the pedestrian realm so that's a very good example of our argument thanks mr. Craig alderman Farrell thank you for being here today mr. Craig so you see a difference between the beltline and macleod trail for example yes we do ok now the Beltline I'm I'd be very surprised if your AARP doesn't have some restrictions around auto oriented signage i does yes it does so you're worried about the the migration of existing billboard signage to digital or proliferation I don't think with these rules we would allow additional but maybe that's something to be clarified we're concerned about I think one very importantly yes the proliferation the conversion of existing signs to digital we're concerned about as our community matures and residential and dwelling projects are brought online in different parts of the Beltline the ability to for the biotic keep pace with this is problematic and so the specific amendment today on the table that we're particularly objected to are objecting to is the relaxation or relaxing requirement of the proximity to dwelling units we don't think that line of sight is a necessary criteria although it's a completely are more objective all and not it's more of a concept of proliferation throughout the neighborhood and pedestrian scale environments as well as driver distraction so the 300-meter relaxation and relaxin eicher and then also the differentiation between the Beltline as a residential and mixed-use dwelling based community versus your typical suburban residential environment we don't think that there should be a distinction made based on density in fact the opposite distinction should be made because you have more people hovering over those signs than you do in a residential suburban community when some of those more suburban communities would have a berm for example separating the sign from from the residential well is it so how many of how many billboards do you have in the Beltline we recently conducted a mapping study it's available on our website beltline dot CA and we mapped between 25 and 36 billboards it's actually more along the lines of 30 and some are in affected areas or neighboring areas on earlton alam macleod trail that are technically across the street from our geographic boundaries as a community but we put them on there as an affected party as an example the majority of them are along tenth Avenue and there are a couple with in residential proximity to dwelling units that have recently gone up that are in the approvals process right now so if we were to make the rules a little bit easier for some areas of the city you you would see us tightening up their rules in in more pedestrian oriented primarily residential districts excuse districts mixed-use districts with proximity to dwelling and residential yes yes I I think every resident in the city should be treated with the same respect thank you for your presentation today thank you thanks mr. Craig anyone else thank you for your time and thank you for being here anyone else would like to speak in opposition to this proposal good afternoon mr. on Regan my name is Bob van huigan I'm the urban planner for the Federation of Calgary communities and while we can't speak for every community association we do try and provide a community perspective and we've been present at that the consultations where the city has been meeting with the community and other stakeholders to discuss this issue of signs so for or against you get up for or against by gotten up for I might have been home by now watching on television for because we need some kind of control on this new class of signage over all the proposals that administration's bought forward to achieve this against because some communities would frankly prefer a moratorium at least in business and third-party signage at least until a full sign review is complete the Federation support administration's first stab at this last April which was to require a DC direct control because maybe that was the next best thing nonetheless administration is planning work on a permanent policy including broad public engagement and public survey that hasn't happened yet except for the meetings with the affected community associations yet in the absence of rules and in the absence of the consent of calgarians many of these new kinds of signs have been deployed with the permission of the subdivision and development appeal board without controls the signs will move for unusual to a bit coitus before we know it a moratorium a direct control is which originally proposed or strong discretionary rules which are being proposed today may apprehend this pending digital sign race and allow some time for civic reflection on this new addition to the public realm before the digital horses any further out of the digital barn if you'll pardon that extremely difficult analogy with everybody coming up to speak against maybe administration got it right this time nobody's entirely happy I want to I want to mention a few things in responses some things that have come up as well I think it would be we would not support a relaxation of the distance from from residences or a reduction to 100 meters 100 meters is very close in my estimation to have the the channel changing as mr. Craig suggested to bring them in to seek or one and seek or to 16th Avenue was raised as an example but what about 17th avenue southwest Marta Luke tenth Street Northwest kensington road fourth street these are pedestrian oriented roads and this is an entirely different scale of signage and if we're talking about driver distraction I tell you as a driver and as a resident of nearby area you must pay a lot more attention when you're driving on 17th Avenue then you are on many higher volume higher speed roads because there's crossroads there's people turning out into traffic there's people jaywalking there's signage during the summer people practically drive with their head out the window looking at the scenery and the last thing we need in these in these in these more pedestrian oriented areas is to have another type of kinetic signage which frankly we're just beginning to understand get used to also I think a good point was made earlier with regards to Planet Calgary we're trying to make these corridors in the areas more human more habitable because we want more inhabitants in these areas and I do think that that having more in different kinds of signage including this new digital signage certainly without a lot of reflection is is going in a direction that's opposite to making these areas more habitable and with that thank you very much if you have any questions thanks mr. Van huigan alderman Lowe Thank You mr. van meeghan I'm curious about your comment about the the relaxation of the 300 meters hmm because and I misspoke myself when I dressed it before I said that Barlow trail will in fact I meant Blackfoot trail where your residential is significantly below to roadway and on the east side it's all industrial so why could the 300 meters not be relaxed in that circumstance well I guess there's a couple things I guess there's a couple things I'd I'd want to to mention one and this is this is like unaffiliated meters to 100 meters and definitely would not support that in terms of relaxation of the 300 meters in the land use discretionary process I guess every time I every time I hear the word discretion I'm always concerned about what the aspect of it might might be some of the examples that were shown I'm not familiar with the Blackfoot example personally but on Macleod Trail for example the examples that were shown in Earl t'en there's quite an elevation change between those signs and the residences inner Alton yet they feel they're looking right down on them and those signs are looking right up at them so I'm not certain that it's it's easy to make that determination I'd say in this interim period better safe than sorry people don't apparently don't want these near to where they live and and we should respect that so I'm having some difficulty and I'll use your ult an example where at night what we hear is that after a hundred meters essentially the signs disappear into the ambient light anyhow I don't believe that for a second go take a look at it at night take a look at at night what's the given signs and and you know the high reflection of not being able to reduce it as I understand it so that that's the my concern around that one so you I hear what what I think I hear you saying is you don't want anything that can get to da be ah does anybody want anything that can get to DAV your get your getting them all now they are yeah they are and the results are I would rather that this B is I would rather this be a straightforward and as bulletproof as possible like I said over the next over the last few months while no rules have been in place these signs have been appearing and will continue to appear I think we need to have a fuller discussion on signs some of the issues raised about the lighting of other kinds of signage I think are very interesting and I don't think I don't think we should do anything to I don't think we should do anything to add to a problematic situation while we discuss these discuss comprehensive sign rules for the city thank you thank you your worship thanks alderman Lowe alderman Farrell thank you mr. van we can sit down in a room with the industry where communities and members of the industry brought brought together to talk about some areas where the rules maybe could be loosened and others where they needed tightening up did you ever have that discussion I was at one meeting that was that had community and industry people and I didn't find the exchange to be very productive there was some pretty entrenched points of view on both sides that were that were strongly expressed so I I wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't say that that was that that particular exercise in particularly good maybe we could try it again at another point is there any sense of urgency I mean I sometimes when people know that a decision is going to be made with or without them they have their more motivated so i'm just i'm wondering if you think it would be helpful in terms of in terms of urgency I think well one thing right now I think I guess in terms of urgency I'm concerned a lot of communities are concerned that right now it appears to be the Wild West and everything's going to subdivision and development appeal board and that we need some sort of interim rules and probably need them today because they're better than nothing and we have a little while to work on the other rules and maybe that discussion at this point is better taken care of in by looking at the long-term rules i think maybe having a sit-down just to focus on this thing one thing that happens is i think we get off on two tangents and talking about the other kinds of signs and so i think a discussion that's a little broader might be more productive and that maybe can happen as the as the as the overall sign review is done that might be the better place for it right now I think that I think that it's well past time that some sort of rules were put in place so this can at least be managed now yes because we have seen a number of applications come in absence of rules and then yeah exactly and we have them in place okay thank you thank you thanks alderman Farrell anyone else for astronomy than huigan okay thanks mr. handling and thanks for being here anyone else would like to speak in opposition to this proposal afternoon mr. Veeck afternoon mayor aldermen said you staff my name is Oscar feck I lived here close to 60 years in Calgary I found a very interesting we create new rules bylaws again to create digital we have digital technology everywhere we have TV we have everything it's affecting our brains already I don't have all this technology and I'm glad I don't when you listen to that experts it affects your blood system your brains get devaluate it it's very frustrating when people know what's going on and again and odds digital is very hard on driving like was indicate you heard some good comments so we should listen to these comments and analyze and say look look at all the paper that I've got here for only one by law it's a little by law all the paper that were using they're always indicated and said when we have good technology we're going to use no paper or hardly any paper we're using actually 10 times more paper because of technology and technology rules controls the whole system what goes in comes out this is in the world we're living in there's no it's like a fiction world so let's get back to good common sense the old billboards were just fine they put some digital on him that was great but now we're going overboard the eyes can even take the glaring the the light thing that's going on but back and forth just a lot of accidents going on because of the other digital I had somebody rear end me about two months ago and and he took off and the guy behind me said Kingdom said look I know he took off too so it chased him one chased him but went to the parking lot he had this foot in the cast I am I am enjoying the story mr. Veeck but some I just to have to get back to the point but I do want to hear what happened yet his foot big ass well because he watched he wasn't walking to digital a proper how many parking spots just generic shopping center you see what I'm saying is I'm partly being facetious but Institute we've been a railroaded back and forth we don't know what's going on anymore our brains are being almost mushed because of all technology I'm glad I don't have all this my brains are just working just just fine I could probably use a better brain and a little less mush Thank You mr. Weston there your brains are just find young picker knowledge is so heavy you know absolutely everything what's going on I'm not sure that everyone around these tables would agree with you mr. all they do in the digital and everything but my final remarks are I'll just exist a camouflage and it's it it will have a big effect this is not Las Vegas not Times Square I've been all these places but what I'm saying is let's get rid of all this flashing and and manipulating we have to get rid of all this let's go back to common sense what we had I know I keep repeating these things now and then and most people don't want to hear that but somebody has to repeat it let's get back what we had in the past that's what makes the world go round not spin everything out of control well where I've been spun out of control that's the whole problem that's why we're heading I call itself implosion like the Roman Empire days and Sodom and Gomorrah and you all know what I'm talking about let's get back to good common sense and that'll work we will survive a lot longer if you get back to that era thank you very much thanks mr. FAQ and it was not all right thank you thank you anyone else would like to speak in opposition to this proposal anyone else who would like to speak in opposition all right then we will close the public hearing on this and take questions for administration okay we'll take some debate I think alderman Mar may have Oh alderman Carra alderman Carra so I guess my first question to administration is have we differentiated between the different types of I'll way have we differentiated between the different types of digital signs worship worship the proposed amendments today only identify the electronic messaging signs as certain type and the digital third party advertising signs as a specific type it doesn't differentiate between the sizes of the signs okay so it's it's motion video or just static presentation is what the differentiation is your worship just to clarify the differentiation is the more or less the content so with electronic message signs the content is related to the business on the site whereas third party advertising is related to it to a third third product party or a third product okay so there's no distinction between the video signs and sort of a static display sign your worship the omit the amendments do not allow any full motion video in either type of sign only static images okay and where does the where does the sort of the video action that's happening on them on the sign by McMahon Stadium where does that fall into the bylaw at this point in time yes your worship mr. Mallinson just reminded me that the McMahon Stadium sign is on University of Calgary land and so it is exempt from our land use bylaw provided that the sign deals with university matters university issues okay my other question is the there is a sign and it's on Macleod Trail right it's sort of the mouth of Mission Road and that's sort of its high up on a pylon and it flashes every time I Drive by it I think I'm dealing with a nova cam imagine if yes your worship we we have had some issues however my understanding is that sign does have a permit now as a as a third-party advertising sign digital and so it's I believe its operating in accordance with the permit okay now thats on drives people crazy I'm having a hard time differentiating between sort of the safety considerations that we're discussing today and the sort of the aesthetic discussion the the aesthetics discussion that we're having and I'm not sure that we've so I think we we've blended them and I don't know how to phrase this question exactly but can you give me some insight as to how you guys sought to differentiate and or blend that within within these proposed offering them try to be brief your worship there there were both aesthetic and safety considerations in this amendment the one thing that we need to emphasize that these are interim amendments to as mr. Van huigan mentioned to manage the situation until we can have some full full engagement and a permanent set of rules so part of the the longer-term plan will be for us to look at some upcoming safety studies one of them's being done by the federal transportation department in the United States to look at the safety aspects and that report is due later this year has been delayed for some times where we can get a better understanding of the safety impacts and then the second the second issue we're dealing with was the aesthetic and compatibility issue and as has been noticed and discussed today we did not list digital third-party advertising signs in the corridors the 17th avenue southeast southwest 16th avenue kensington road etc and the reason for that is we we felt that at this time those are areas are the mixed use areas where council's policies are seeking to promote more dwelling units and more mixed-use so we wanted rather than a default decision for a decision to be based on on policy and considerations that would be the rules coming out of some policy that would occur later so part of that policy development might be to identify smaller size signs that are pedestrian oriented that might be appropriate in those areas okay my last question has to do with this I'm trying to wrap my mind around the the setback requirements for these signs what is the philosophy of safety driving that I have I mean we put up a bunch of charts and we talked about as road speed increases people's reaction time decreases and all of that explain that to me because I mean I think I think we we know that roads have a design speed and then roads have a posted safety limit a speed limit right and the old school of you know Road engineering was that we want to remove objects that people smash into to increase safety but of course the further back you place things from the road now we know the faster people drive and so you might have a posted speed limit but the design speed might be a lot higher than that we do know that speed kills and so you know as we try and transition from an automobile focused transportation environment to an environment that puts a lot more emphasis on other modes and seeks to blend these modes working together explain to me the explain to me the setback within the context of the new CTP as opposed to the traditional conventional way of designing for Road Safety Your Lordship mayor Nenshi eight my name is Oren carkeek I'm with transportation planning I guess you're talking about two concepts here with the setbacks from the property line we're trying to achieve we're trying to manage competition for driver attention we believe at traffic control devices are primary and then maybe on-premise sign would be secondary and then third party advertising sign would be our last concern if drivers are seeing it or not the other concept is the clear zone that you mentioned its minimum is 6 meters it is used to set back the objects from from the true lanes so that there would be nobody would hit these objects so that's that's what you were talking probably when you were talking about pushing God objects away from the true true fair yeah I and I'm just you know obviously the further you set things back the more open the space that the faster people will drive yeah so so these are different are they yep okay okay i guess my last question is to you guys i mean i think what industry is sort of putting forward to us here is that the digital sign when responsibly deployed is no real is not really different from what we currently have and is better because it's less environmentally impactful etcetera etcetera that's a great story unless it's way more visually impactful what is your opinion certainly your worship from what we've seen and heard from community so far is that the digital signs do have a brighter more vivid presentation to the public and that's why at this point in time pending longer term studies were and longer term work we're proposing to manage them essentially it fairly conservatively and then develop more studies that can perhaps give counsel some more conclusive recommendations I'm not sure if that's helpful or not but that's fine thank you very much Thank You alderman Carra alderman Mar your next but I see you're scribbling are you ready all right okay so your worship thank you at this time I'd like to move a referral off this of CPC 2011 27 sorry I should give this to the clerk and create a special counsel task force to be comprised of three members of council including the chair of lpt and two others to be appointed by council today perhaps during the in-camera session and to report back to the standing policy committee on lpt no later than jun 2011 I think that this is a complicated issue there's a lot of people that don't have the technical expertise when we're talking about candles and lumens and Nick's or knocks or whatever the heck there and it is it is controversial in so far as that we are talking about the evolutionary change of an industry that it's involving community stakeholders and administration and I would love to see a smaller task force that was able to understand the h through much more clearly than we do now and report back as as a committee to lpt and then through council so that would be my W more referral motion at this time all right do we have a seconder for that thanks alderman colley-urquhart on the referral motion I'll just run through my list here if it's on the referral motion if it's not I'll leave you on the list in case the referral motion fails alderman Farrell thank you so perhaps the mover can can answer in his clothes think what we're trying to attempt to do today is bring some rules in place when where there is none and and so I would there be an understanding that we would have a moratorium on these applications while we delay further I would hope it would want to see sort of more urban perspective and a suburban perspective included in this and also whether or not you would be including the stakeholders so there would be more meaningful stakeholder involvement and may I ask a question of administration during this to me so when do you anticipate oh we disappeared on me there you go when do you anticipate the report that's coming from the US it talks about the impact on transportation safety and digital signage your worship that report initially was supposed to be in January it's now my understanding is May of this year but of course the the timeline on that is sort of not in our control no but if it does come in May do you think this could help inform that committee or is it true is it too late this probably it's part of the i'm not sure what the timing of meetings would be is certainly the safety study coming out of the US was something we are definitely going to include as part of our longer-term discussions on the on the permanent rules that would be proposed to Council and one of the questions I was going to ask about about the recommendations before us is is there a better way to differentiate the more pedestrian oriented urban corridors as opposed to a more suburban context where I think it needs to be treated differently your worship the recommendations before council today are essentially proposing that in that the districts that we're not recommending that digital signs be listed are the the seeker 1c core to the districts where you typically see dwelling units as well as the industrial edge district which is a district that's immediately adjacent to residential so essentially that's that's the recommendation today as well I do see a big difference between kensington and macleod trail or Blackfoot so I I don't know if that nuance is is covered in this in your recommendations what I'll do is I'll ask mr. Mallinson to what we have a map that shows the Sikh or one the Sikh or to the districts where the sides are not listed and we could show that for council if they'd like to see that so is that the you read the the red color your worship would be the seeker one and the Sikh or two districts I think the yellow is just to highlight the areas just to identify where the red is but it doesn't encompass the yellow area it's just the just the the red dots that you see on the map so the concern about macleod trail where does that come in to play i believe that some of the concerns have been expressed to work with regard to the proposed 300-meter setback from dwelling units and i also understand that there has been some discussion about making that relaxa ball so that if an application was received by the development authority it could be circulated for local communities and discretion could be exercised to say reduce the setback distance if there was a physical obstacle like you're in a valley or behind a building and reduce it to a lower number so that is an option as well for consideration ok thank you well counsel I I will support this referral with and not reluctantly we tabled this at Planning Commission several times and I think the concern I have is that in while we delay making a decision on this we see applications and without policy context but I I'm hoping that if the industry has a little bit more time to work with city administration members of council and with the community that they will do that in good faith and not try and squeeze in a number of these digital applications in the meantime if that happens then you've lost my support in the future so I will support it with reluctance but I do hope that we look at at the urban context and difference from it different from from a more auto oriented context open Farrell I will if you want to up to you but I will accept a motion arising should this pass if you would like to put in a more torium in place I think I can do that I think we can do that I mean from now until this committee makes its report okay i think that would never mind miss phone says we can't do that amor no as a motion arising or as either an action usually we don't have that power I'm hoping that the industry displays some good faith thank you it was worth a try have I mentioned many many many times that the that the mga doesn't give us the powers that we need on the referral motion alderman Chabot yes thank you your worship this is very much reminiscent of what it's like at home being voluntold to do stuff when you're that brilliant alderman Chabot people need you to take opportunities trust me I know well it's interesting I I know there's been a lot of discussion around the rules and I'm also concerned about the absence of having some regulations in place and I can't recall exactly what the timeline was that he had put on there June June June significant amount of time between now and then and I think we could at least come close to ultimately what would be a good interim solution and provide some rules and regulations around this I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this thing at this point to especially in light of the fact that it adds more work to my own workload but assuming that it's going to pass I'm chair not making an assumption there so anyways I yeah I do have some questions from administration if I made very briefly go ahead if we if we were to make amendments to and i'm not sure if all my Farrell at this question i was trying to read through some of the stuff that i had but if we were to amend the land-use districts would that require re advertisement amend that the the list of districts in the vilenjji spoiler in the proposed bylaw I think missing miss flown is not in your head yes it would require read advertising so we couldn't actually make an amendment because we can only make an amendment at second reading so if we were to propose even an amendment it would then necessitate the need to re advertise and have a new public hearing yes so um I'll let miss flown answer that but i will say in advance that yes that's probably right but in fact even some of the amendments that were being suggested by industry today especially the one about changing the districts to which the supplied would in fact require a reactor Iseman and a public another public hearing because because this was not initially advertisements one is that fair that's correct and I'm just trying to be clear about how this process actually moves forward if we we can't officially amend the biological second reading so essentially there'd be no amendments on the floor until second reading in which case the public hearing would then be closed so when it came back if we did approve amendments to it at second reading it would necessitate a riad vert Iseman wouldn't reopen the public process and just trying to understand the processor you your worship it really depends what the amendments are as to whether or not a new public hearing and readd vert Iseman twould be required adding a use to a district that was not previously advertised would absolutely require a new public hearing and a new ad if if you were just tweaking rules for example instead of a 300-meter setback is going to be 250 meters setback that's something that council could do without a riad vert Iseman what caring ok one one caveat that I'd put on that are not cave yet but one additional point I'd make is the difficulty is that a public hearing has been held with respect to this bylaw and so by referring this back and having a group work on this it's highly likely that a new public hearing is going to be required in any event because new information has been gathered outside of the public hearing process so that would necessitate a public hearing as well as a riad vert Iseman mmhmm yeah I'm just one it's unfortunate actually that this referral motion was made before we could actually implement some changes at least to initiate some changes and possibly have an ad hoc committee be directed to develop new or additional guidelines specifically in relations to third party advertisement and I think that would have been a better way forward but Ella listen to the additional arguments end of the mover and as close to see whether or not I can support this and still not there yet thanks alderman Chabot alderman Stevenson I no not on the referral alderman Lowe on the referral well you worship I'd like to thank miss flown for the explanation around the effect of the referral because i was a bit curious about that and that young to be frank you you worship i'm not quite sure why council wants to take on administration's work candidly that's our job is to govern not to manage having said that obviously I can't support the referral for a variety of reasons I also appreciate over the fact that this phone reminded you that we cannot put a moratorium in place we have a bylaw and applicants are entitled to make application under that by law and we're obliged to process those applications under that file on so those those are sort of the salient facts around this so with respect to the obviously you worship I will not support it and i'll leave my light on for further debate thank you i'm going to turn your light off alderman Lowe not because I don't want you to debate further because I want to exhaust the list so turn it right back on again alderman Keating on the referral thank you your worship I do need a couple of questions of clarification administration as well I thought I heard today that we're in the process of reviewing signs sort of assigned by law across the city in general is that correct yes you were sure and I thought the timeline was something like 18 months that is correct ok so we're reviewing the bio so in this interim of 18 months could anyone apply for a regular billboard lit or not lit and that may go forward separate from it being digital yes that's correct the the proposed amendments today do not in any way affect the existing conventional billboards so moratorium is only on the digital aspect not on signs in general and therefore within 18 months we'll come back with a whole possibly whole different set of rules that is the intention you working on that respect to referral I I kind of had wished it dropped the task force as well because I think we should have just referred it back to the 18 months and gone forward from there but on that point I will support it and think it thanks alderman Keating on the referral alderman MacLeod thank you worship my questions relate to I guess in part why why we would have council members on this and I'm hoping not alderman mark and clarify that a little bit further in his clothes but i also am curious as to how this the referring back for more information more detail differs this is an interim policy and so it's not intended to be perfect and it's not intended to be final and so I'm getting the sense that it it's its lack of perfected pneus is a barrier for us to move forward on anything and I I am I think we just need to deal with this as best we can as an interim measure and put the timelines around this thank you Thanks older MacLeod and I think what I've heard from the administration on this is that while this has been tabled a few times their senses they really need a bit more direction on which way to move forward because council has been a little members of council of in a little all over the map so I think that if I may speak for Aldrin Marvin I'm sure he'll mention it in his clothes I think that was the intent here I'll been put nice yes thank you worship an alderman cloud touched on some points but perhaps a point of procedure does a referral motion have to have some sort of content as to what the purpose of the referral is for what we're referring it back to administration to do what precisely is a little bit to the point about where we're at in the policy process sorry i don't have my orange polka notice i know the date has to be in there for referral motion but i'm not sure and everyone looking at their orange book now thank ya you're welcome any other equipments thanks so much if so I know you enjoy these processes no not really not nothing does there have to be a plan long as there's terms on which the referral is put and I think after this long public hearing a sum of the end and the public submissions that we've received it's clear that it's to consider those and come back with an answer to consider ok it's not explicit I think it's clear so too we're referring a report to a task force including the chair CPC and two others to be appointed and to return it that's a bunch of activities i'm not sure what they're doing in the meantime lpg but what what are they going to be doing they're considering maybe older in market suggests and perhaps in your clothes alderman might appreciate understanding what the intent is I'm looking forward to supporting this motion but along with other scrubs seriously considering whether or not we should be engaged to this as council members thank you your worship thanks alderman pootmans anyone else on the referral motion alderman Jones eat a chance your worship I would just like clarification of the two others to others from administration are two others from stakeholders but you've got three members of council plus the chair the Atlanta news planning transportation and two others to be appointed by council today and I just know what he means is three members of council one of whom is the chair of lpt and two other members of council so you said it replace then his coma is I think misplaced okay sorry but are we suggesting that three councillors are going to make these decisions with in conjunction with nobody else just these three because that's what this referral says pardon actually it actually kind of does old it does you've got well come back to lpt with the report from three aldermen well I just would if you're going to respond in your clothes that's not good enough because I want to know who else is going to be on to that you can respond now over tomorrow okay okay so the intent of it is number one why did I want to use it as a small ad hoc team because I think that there are some severely entrenched positions both administrative Lee as well as the as the industry I think that a small group of members of council like we have done with snow and ice and other other committees the public safety task force will allow us to be able to drill down to the real nitty-gritty of the of the issue to determine hey what can work for us as it as a city how do we work together with administration and the stakeholders and bring together a new plan that will make sense for everybody so Jim I'm saying that is that as the latest date if you can bring it back sooner that makes sense the chair of lpt should be on it because it's obviously going to LBT to members of council to be determined in in camera today we I think we can make a very quick decision as to who should be on this and we're going to include that the this team would have the ability to draw from the resources of administration to ask the stakeholders both public and Industry to come together and work towards an agreement that will make sense and create a new bottle as a result then come back through lpt and then report back to council I think it may not be as detailed in the referral motion but i think that the essence of there who could come up with the terms of reference very very quickly in order to determine how the ship move forward so that's my that's the rationale and i think that while we've all enjoyed this for our debate this is a an elegant solution to the problem and we can actually move forward on it in spite of the fact that this keeps going back to CPC and bouncing around our administration who almost sounds like a close did that help Alderman's among know what Peter you can you know I just wanna know who else you want on the task force but again it's an audit committee you had a specific for that snow if you want me to appoint people I can appoint people right now and if you want to be the I think that's a volunteer I believe volunteer me one of the people absolutely Peter welcome welcome aboard after you and Andre an entitlement I think if I may if I may I have just learned that in this council room what's written is what is done if it isn't written it's not by me i think i heard your concern alderans wrong and tell me if i'm wrong i think i heard your concern is being will this involve administration or is this just three members of council going off and making a decision is that right pretty much yes and I think what alderman Mar said was that this task force would of course work with administration to go forward and if you want to add words to that effect well if I wanted it to if you just wanted it to be that I would have made it the chair of CPC just all by himself but in reality thank you for not making it the mayor of I going to throw know me Karuturi cps i'm at cps m's joke I'm joking I'm joking so I think the the intent of it if I haven't addressed that use me I'll just leave and you can close if you wish okay yes dad anyone else on the referral motion before I call on alderman Mar to close we're having fun here today folks anyone else alderman Mar to close you just told me to sit down now standing again okay so I hope that members of council understand the intent of it here I'm not trying to muddy the waters rather than I'm trying to create a small elegant solution where we can have a group of members of council three and number one of them being the chair of lpt we can find out who those other members are going to be during the in-camera session where we can pull members of council has to a interest and be willingness to do it seems that we have a volunteer right there and maybe alderman Pincott demonstrating he's interested so no no not not me but also the intent of it is that we can report back to lpt with the decision no later than june i think if we can come back sooner and create terms of restaurants where we have an understanding that of course we're going to draw upon the resources of our administration of course we're going to talk to our stakeholders both public and industry to determine what's what makes the most sense given this new technology and I would ask for your support on this thank you closed your worship Thank You alderman Mar on the motion to refer are we agreed any opposed call the roll please alderman Carra yes alderman Chabot no alderman colley-urquhart yes alderman Demong nope alderman Farrell alderman Hodges alderman Jones alderman Keating yes hold him and Lowe no alderman MacLeod know Holden mar yes Holden Pincott no alderman pootmans yes Oldman Stephenson sorry you worship mayor Nenshi yes scary Jerusha thanks Kerry all right so alderman Mar I will accept a motion to add as an item of urgent in-camera business the appointment of that task force so I have a seconder thank you so just add this as an in-camera item are we agreed any opposed carried all during McLeod while we're at it you got an item you wanted to add move that alderman Farrell have to go home is that what it was yes to add to the in-camera item an item of urgent business it's is it a personnel matter is that you can say what it is the appointment to the library for appointment to the library board ok so in you're seconding alderman Farrell all right on that one are we agreed any opposed all right carried we've now got 7.1 on the table version on a point procedure yeah being as council just to prove disappointment to this committee that said that we're going to do this today at what point today are we going to be doing this we just added it to the agenda okay that's what the that's not library board you know it's the one that Mar added just a floor MSS just thinking about how to resign from charity you have until we get to the end camera session all tomorrow now folks we've got items 7.1 on the table here and I'm going to turn to miss flown since we've disposed a 7.2 can we table 7.1 at this point where are you worship on 7.1 okay all right i'm prepared to if you take a look at that your agenda there was some recommendations that I made a Planning Commission on 2010 October 28 which fundamentally what to do fundamentally it did reverse the recommendation Planning Commission and I moving approval adopt the proposed re-designation your first reading of the bylaw and then the proposed bylaw as follows in other words okay etc so on see I'm prepared to move that recommendation you worship okay given that given that we still do need to hold a public hearing yeah so given that why don't we go to mr. cope and let's get started thank you your worship damn that's before you today is an application to designate a small piece of land the area outlined in red adjacent midnight boulevard northeast beans point zero zero six hectares in size from the existing SC I land use district to a DC direct control district to accommodate a digital third party advertising signs the parent parcel currently houses the heritage christian academy which is a private school the current time a two-sided third-party advertising sign with the west-facing sign being a digital third party advertising sign are located on the area to be designated sign in question with the west face showing their neither sign has a valid development permit allowing for the use by way of history a third-party advertising sign or billboard as they're commonly called was approved on the site as a discretionary use under the eye to district of by law to p80 in the early 1980s with the possibility of a review every five years a renewal every five years the last renewal for that sign occurred in 1998 in 2000 an amendment to the bylaw to p80 occurred which prohibited third-party advertising signs on this portion of midnight Boulevard this provision has been carried through to the current bylaw 1p 2007 the third party advertising sign which you see here has remained in place without a valid permit since 2003 in 2008 the third party sign was removed and replaced with a new digital third party advertising sign again without benefit of a development permit for the new sign the sign contravened numerous provisions of bylaw 1p 2007 in terms of sine location and was also not a listed use in the SC I land use district the new sign was subject to enforce an action for removal with the order on hold pending the outcome of these proceedings to address the issue at that time the applicant applied for a development permit which was refused that decision was appealed to sdab which also upheld that refusal as a last resort this land use free designation request is the last option available for the applicants retain the illegal sign the bylaw that is before you that has been submitted has been submitted by the applicant its primary focus is to allow for the use to occur in the base SC I district and exempt the sign from the location prohibitions along mcknight boulevard special rules have been incorporated to address some of the aesthetic and safety related issues that have been brought forward by administration in the event 3 designation is considered administration would note that there are still issues with the rate of change of the various images as well as with the light intensity projected by the digital sign itself it should be noted that the proposed bylaw also does not address the other bylaw relaxations which will exist on the site including separation from other non third-party electronic message centers or separate from a major open space the biological acts a shins are noted on the screen at the present time we do have some site photos this is showing the sign which is in place you can just see it to the right hand of your screen this is taken from the intersection of mcknight boulevard at nineteenth Street one of the concerns that we do have with a sign is with respect to safety and its location to a merge lane and the weaving lanes from ignite and nineteenth Street other people this is another sign showing the distance from an existing message electronic message sign which is located on the port of call property nineteenth Street and then you can see the sign again in the background adjacent to mcknight boulevard the next signed picture indicates the relative change at night in terms of the sign comparison to the surrounding light sources is similar unfortunately the reflection is bad on that one yeah should also note we have a photograph showing the relative change of intensity of light between the digital sign and the adjacent is Becky and the adjacent third party advertising signs part of the discussion that sorry sign showing the relative change during the day of the lighting of the electronic message sign which is in the front foreground and two other third party signs located farther away in considering the application the administration noted that the posle is not consistent with the bylaw with respect to the prohibition of third party signs on mcknight boulevard nor with the provisions of the SC i district the use was not considered compatible with the adjacent private school and that is the primary use on the subject site additionally the incorporation of the digital component resulted in a number of aesthetic and traffic safety related concerns which have not been adequately addressed and those can be expanded upon by our traffic engineers that are in the audience today the signs location in close proximity to the major intersection merge and we've lanes creates a significant potential for driver distraction and representatives from the Transportation Department can address that issue as well administration found no planning merit for the use of a direct control district for use that otherwise does not conform to the standard requirements of the land use bylaw similarly there is no physical conditions that would suggest special consideration be given to this particular use in considering the application calgary planning commission had numerous issues these included buildings included the suitability of the use particularly with respect to the digital component of the sign whether or not the use of a DC district was actually the the appropriate method to deal with this type of an application there was also consideration given to allow for the sign to stay in place until the completion of the overall sign study review in 18 months to two years as well as the traffic safety issues associated with locating this type of a sign in this specific location as there is a number of varying degrees of opinion on this sign calgary planning commission was unable to come to a specific round a shinto council as a result of a split motion as such CPC moved to forward the application to the public hearing without their recommendation therefore the only recommendation before you today is from administration that being that three designation be refused and that by law 1d 2011 be abandoned Thank You Minister cope I have been informed by miss clone that if any member of Council wishes to table this matter this would be the time to put that motion forward before we open the public hearing is there such a motion out there your worship I wonder if I could ask Miss from the effect of a tabling in other words would enforcement action continue or would it be going to be allowed to continue until such time as the either the task force has completed its work and/or the sign review that the administration your worship it really depends on the parameters of the tabling my advice is that if it's to be tabled it should be tabled to a specific date so that we do not have to readd your ties for a new public hearing given that a specific date was not set for the other matter to return to Council I'm not sure how council would want to proceed with that correct me if I'm wrong we worship but i believe the task force was to report by june was it not the task force was supposed to report no later than june lpt meaning as it winds its way through the procedures if there's a bylaw change to us to go to CPC right yeah which means it may not get back to council before September unless the task force gets its lpt by May and so miss flan if i was to table this now do not later than December with that what would the effect of that V your worship we'd have to readd vert eyes we need to have a specific date that the count that the public knows to come back if they wish to speak to this item what's the last council meeting in December what's public hearing date in December with that satisfied it could um another option is to table it to a date sooner if you so choose and it can again be retailed to a specific date a I'm thinking on my feet here for a moment worship I will table this matter mr. chair or mr. mayor I'm just wondering if the area alderman might want to do that the courtesy um you know by procedure anyone can do it i believe the area alderman question is actually alderman Chabot now I was accessible in the thing oh it changed to you so if as a courtesy you'd like to see if alderman Jones would like to know i will ask call him and Jones if he would like to table this to the first public hearing in September given that July tends to be a bit of a zoo but yeah the public hearing in September I'll during Jones I kind of like the one in May because I wasn't gonna be here you worship I was thinking a tabling it anyway because I felt that with the bylaw that was before us we would probably have to move a section of GG which is mcknight boulevard from dirt Deerfoot Trail the East Barlow anyway so I was thinking of tabling when I was just waiting for my turn in the lineup so I'm going to do it now although there's a September them so motion then to table this item to the first public hearing in September which is madam Clerk well twelfth of September alderman Lowe is seconding it motion table as you know is non-debatable so on this one are we agreed great Oh although it's not debatable I certainly need some clarification on something before I can vote on this and that's in regards to I'll accept this thing use your worship is it continue on that's a Miss phone question thank you your worship the the current land use will be in place and if they're able to apply for permit under their current land use they can do so if their particular land use does not allow for it and they are precluded from doing so and I don't know the specifics of their application so that might be something mr. cope can answer mr. cope at the current time the development permit that they had applied for was refused it was also refused at sdab traditionally the enforcement order which is still in place is held off pending the outcome of all the options for review all right then on the motion to table then are we agreed any opposed very well then carried thank you that takes us then flip flip flip so item 8.1 that's CPC 2011 031 proposed street name and land use re-designation in Sage Hill mr. cope Thank You mr. just one thing before you start mr. cope members of council I'm just clearing the queue on the lights just for simplicity if you want your light turn it back on all right Thank You mr. chairman i do have color mapping here showing the updated r1s districts that were supplied by the applicant if they like to do receive those Sage Hill arwen is yeah thank you or worship the application would is that is before you is an application for redesignation the community of sage hill along with proposed street names for the affected area the area to be designated is 8.99 Hector's is outlined in red and bounds on Simon's valley road northwest and sage hill drive northwest on the east and the west side respectively proposed re-designation will take the lands from the existing s HUD special purpose urban development of a future urban development district and redesignate the lands to r-1 residential r 1 s residential to accommodate secondary suites as well as m1 multi-residential low profile district the outline plan for the area was considered by Planning Commission and approved this is an example of it this mapping shows the updated r 1 s district which calgary planning commission is recommending occurs on the flank each lots along the roads of in all the affected areas the proposed re-designation 'he's were supported by Planning Commission should also note that the changes to the r 1 s were supported by the applicant therefore the recommendation is for council to adopt proposed street names of sage bluff sage hollow and sage point adopt the proposed redesignate shun from s HUD to r 1 r 1 s and M one and give three readings to bylaw 22d 2011 great thanks mr. cope any questions of clarification for administration alderman Lowe nope all right then we'll open the public hearing anyone wish to speak in favor of this item anyone wish to speak in favor your worship members of council Kathy over with brown & Associates Planning Group where the applicant on behalf of karma I have representatives from karma da wat transportation and stantec engineering should there be any questions that you'd like us to answer Thank You questions for the applicant alderman Lowe alderman Chabot thank you worship thank you Miss Oberg and now this looks just like a residential community only what what kind of other amenities are there in proximity to this because all I see here our houses I don't see recreation or anything like that sure as part of the sage hill community there's quite a vast amount of amenities nearby to the southwest Genesis had approved for there's a regional town center with a Tod area just southwest united has approval for a mix of more single-family and multi directly to the south is the other half of the redevelopment cell this cell was special in that it was subdivided when it was with the md and got an annex tin so that area to the south got redeveloped or it's gone through land use and it's all high density multi-family and then to the east we also have an approval for a mixed-use area and some residential a school site and then to the north that some more high density multi-family and then just to the east of that is the west nose Creek area so it's quite a overall when you look at the entire area quite a bit has been approved to date any any commercial retail to the southwest that whole area there's that future mixed-use and there's the office transit hub basically everything in that South area there is all regional commercial and that's 600 meter line that ice yes that's the Tod line yeah which includes it includes a portion the densities to the south were approved at 31.8 units per acre so when you balance across when we looked at this and and and when we sat down with the administration they were hoping for more of an eight to ten units per acre with the stuff to the north to kind of balance the community and at the end of the day I think we end up at about 17 point 2 units per acre but about mr dedication the mr for this area was given to the to the md there were two sites that were created there's a site directly to the north if you look at the very top of the map there's a municipal reserve site we've had some discussion with with parks and the fact that or maybe there's an opportunity to do a disposition and transfer some into the central part of the community we're still working on that there's some studies and whatnot in communication we need to have with parks ju CC did look at that as part of our application as an option and they were supportive if everything worked out well and it was agreeable by both parties that they would support a disposition so we're currently looking at that okay but that doesn't form part of this that would be moving a piece of em are within this community so in other words moving some from that top parcel but legislatively but it's not part of yes no it's not a requirement no mostly iron and you've already given all of our our municipal reserve yes okay sorry didn't mean to be just disparity yeah thank you worship no further questions thanks alderman ship any other any other questions for the applicant very well then thank you ms Oberg anyone else wish to speak in favour of this proposal anyone else in favor yep what what no no I was to supposed to slow at when we can ask his old words come back I'm sure she wouldn't mind I'm okay okay anyone else wish to speak in favor anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this proposal anyone wish to speak in opposition okay very well then we will close the public hearing and take questions for administration and or recommendation alderman Lowe your worship all moves the recommendations Planning Commission in three readings the bylaw and I point out counsel that when we put the r 1 s slots in this was very carefully done given the shape and nature of the land and the and the the way the community was being developed so the you'll notice that the ir 1a slots have been placed in thank each situations to facilitate parking and to facilitate the rules around r 1 s understand it today so there it is and I'd ask you support thank you Thank You alderman well I feel like that issue may come up later in the agenda somewhere it's just a sense all doin' colley-urquhart second did that alderman Carra thank you I've got a question with the two long linear sort of block partage is that internally i assume front on to the internal road network but back on to Sage Hill Drive Northwest and back onto Simon Valley Road north west respectively yes has there been in any consideration for who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of those defense ways that'll be backing on to those public right aways I believe standard practice and I would stand corrected is that any standard fences that are built as part of the subdivision process are located on private property and therefore would be the responsibility of the individual property so what we start to get into is the kind of mess that we've already learned that we've made for ourselves where you have a privately owned fences that enter into various states of repair and disrepair and no means to deal with them on math unless the fancy be maintained as part of a sound attenuation device well that's what I'm asking yes that's what I'm asking has that been the case I'm not sure for Sage Hill Drive Northwest I think that may just be a common fence to prevent access to say chill drive I believe long simons valley road northwest there is a grey differential there so the need for sound attenuation fencing might not be required however I'd have to go back the outline plan to confirm that well you know in general I understand the layout of this but I think that we're making mistakes by creating property that is single loaded and so surrounded by right of way on both sides and what we're basically doing is we're creating properties that you know couldn't even begin to address they've got two roads basically so from the property tax base that we're pulling out of the area we're double loading the tax load and you know from a maintenance perspective we're starting to create problems was any of this discussed at CPC no no that was discussed at CPC know okay so Simon's valley road is a what's the classification of that road I believe it is a major yes major and that's right across the street from the from the school site school site went back on to it yes okay is there any has there any any provision made for kids who live in this neighborhood to cross Simon's valley road to the to the school site I believe only at the intersections as showing which are controlled by traffic lights okay is it a mono sidewalk or a separated sidewalk along 136 Avenue which is the south boundary there yeah I suspect that would probably be a model yeah could be either apparently yeah it could be either yeah there yeah so this has not been worked out yet you know I've before worked out in the stage at all of an agreement as part of with part of the subdivision okay how do I find out about the maintenance of the because we've already got we've already got ourselves an OH&S with this I know we've repeating in the space of the past are we considering this we worship maybe I could just add there is a review underway currently of the defense maintenance policy for the reasons you have identified and it's being led by the director of roads and I believe a number i believe alderman Stevenson has been one of the people leading the charge be find that so there is a review going on I'm not sure of the time frame for reporting but we acknowledge that there have been issues in the past of exactly the nature that you're identifying there isn't a quick answer to and unfortunately yeah so I mean I've also asked to be part although most even says that committee met yet since we talked about it no okay no it's moving slowly but it hasn't met I just was in a meeting about three or four weeks ago just to get the ball rolling okay well I'm eager to be a part of that okay and I'm just questioning are we just creating more of a mass for ourselves before we solved it here unfortunately there isn't an easy answer to it well I mean the easy answer is to put the maintenance of that fence into some sort of common title does that happen here at the land you staged it has happened at the DP stage even with the suggestion that you're making that that unfortunately isn't isn't the answer as I understand it it's quite a complex web of legal intricacies there isn't a simple answer to it and we couldn't do something here on the floor of council in that regard look would it happen at this stage or would have happened at the DP stage solving this in terms of there is no development permit required for that okay so they go right to a building permit well the individual homes do their the common fence would be provided by the developer but it's the issue of long-term maintenance that we are grappling with and how best to handle it it is challenging so in the absence of having done and the absence of having solved that we're creating moral issues for ourselves by well we're hoping to find a solution but we are adding to the existing dilemma okay thank you thanks ms axworthy you dine in Hall drinker alderman Chabot please thank you actually I was going to ask one similar question but I I don't see it identified here on the plan it is going to form part of this development he's a perimeter fence I'd have to look their conditions of the outline plan which proved accounts by CPC normally speaking if there's a requirement for common fencing that forms part of the subdivision approval and the development agreement when it comes in the development permit approval of an agreement agreement yes for the service see there's nothing as yet on this yes sir no only the outline plan has been approved the condition I mean in terms of development no as far as that perimeter fencing I know nothing at this time nothing so we haven't really created this problem yet physically we have not no okay we're working on creating a problem in regards to regional mobility options that all i see is monolithic sidewalks i don't see any kind of regional pathways there anything in here leave the path leave the pathways were shown on this location map we're running along the ravine along 37th or sorry sage hill drive northwest the red lines so this area would connect to the west down to the ravine system and over to nose west nose Creek not other than that would have to connect through the sidewalk system into the regional Network long creek unless something comes up from the south through that other development that i don't believe that is the case but there's always that option I suppose that's not that hasn't been subject to a subject in the plan yet the lands to the self have outlined plan approval and land use okay and no regional path we going through there so I believe it's showing along say chill drive and we're that future school site is there what does that I see in the bottom right hand corner is that a little bit of green space their future school site to the to the Beast yeah if you keep following that through yet right there right that little corner down there is that a little bit of green that I see there yes the the red line would be the pathway that runs through the nose Creek system that would be the boundary between the adjacent believe that's the existing farmstead down there which is being preserved that little green space that I see they're going east west oh I see I'm sorry yeah that would be a connector from the roadway into the nose green park system west north creek park system almost looks like it might connect up okay those are all the questions I had thank you thanks very much alderman Chabot any other questions for administration or debate on this matter yes um I'm just question whose diagram is this who's the author of this diagram that was provided to us from the brown alsip switchers brownest yeah I guess my only question of brown and associates is why a walkway which is a linear feature is delineated by a asterisks sorry those at those red asterisks is what did am I reading that right that that's a proposed walk way you know the walkways are shown in red the red so what is the arete with the asterisks according to the legend the red star a thing they are they must be the 3-meter walkways that connect roadways to other roadways between lots oh I see there I see their connections through the cul-de-sac for humans as opposed to an archos back onto the major roads okay okay thank you thanks alderman Mar and alderman Lowe did you want to close what did I say oh dear closed on the recommendations then are we agreed any opposed i think i just saw too low oh my gosh losing all your names Cara and Farrell are opposed everyone else okay we'll go into the readings of the bylaw than first reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed kras opposed and farrell same division counselor we agreed any opposed all right how do we do that second reading the bylaw same division we agreed any post authorization for third reading the bylaw this one I have to do separately are we agreed any opposed very well then third reading the bylaw same division or we agreed any opposed all right same division then thank you that takes us to 8.2 road closure and land use re-designation in scarborough mr. cope that's a item CPC 2011 32 thank your worship the proposed application and cooperates a road closure application as well as a land use to redesignate the closed road to RC 1 which is the adjacent land use to the site land in question is shown in red on the location map and is land which currently forms part of the church property and is not required for travel proposal is to dispose of this resort this road closed closed Road and sell the land or exchange land with the church on the adjacent site the proposed rosal was considered by Planning Commission they are recommending that council adopt the proposed closure and give three readings to bylaw three seat by law 3c 2011 and secondly that they adopt the proposed redesignate shun from undesignated road right-of-way to rc1 and give three readings to bylaw 23d 2011 area in question being shown on the screen right now Thank You mr. cope any questions of clarification for administration alderman Carras question of clarification I'm assuming that the land use re-designation is to bring it in is the church currently the arse the church is currently zoned RC 1 okay thank you thanks mr. cope we'll open the public hearing that anyone wish to speak in favor of this application anyone wish to speak in favor anyone wish to speak in opposition to this application and no unless you speak in opposition all right then the public hearing is closed alder and mark up at this time I would like to move the recommendations of the administration and connect you all there in Farrell is seconding any questions or discussion on this one all right then on the recommendations are we agreed any opposed carried by law 3 c 2011 first reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried second reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried authorization for third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried third reading of the bylaw are we agreed and he opposed carried and on bylaw 23d 2011 first reading the bylaw are we agreed second reading the bylaw are we agreed authorization for third reading of the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried and third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried very well thank you item 8.3 please CPC 2011 33 land use re-designation in chaparral thank your worship the area affected by this proposed redesignation is outlined on red on your location map on the screen the proposal is to take the land from the existing r2m residential low-density multiple dwelling district and redesignate the lands to our two residential one and two dwelling district purpose of the redesignate is to allow for the individual sites which have been previously approved to be developed with zero lot line type single detached development should note as a result of this redesignate there will be no change in the actual density for the sites with a total of fifteen line 59 lots actually continuing to be developed poser II designation will allow for the signal attached homes be considered a permitted use eliminating the need for a discretionary land development permit for each of the sites therefore calgary planning commission and consideration of the facts are recommending that council adopt the proposed re-designation from our 2 m 2 r2 and that three readings be given to proposed bylaw 24 d 2011 thanks very much mr. cope anyone any questions of clarification for administration alderman Chabot well thank you your worship just a quick one mr. cope are to list some secondary suites as a as a permitted use and so if it transitions to r2 it could be 59 lots with second as permitted uses there would be that opportunity for secondary Suites in each of the units guess thank you your worship no for the questions thanks for that clarification thanks alderman Chabot any other questions of clarification very well men will open the public hearing anyone wish to speak in favor of this application your worship members of council Kathy over with brown & Associates Planning Group on behalf of gin star where the applicants I'm happy to answer any questions you might have I have one I just thought i heard mr. copes say that the overall density is not changing at lunch so we're just moving from a place where one could have had town houses to a place where one will have duplexes is that right actually it's a it could have taken semi-detached and instead we're looking at a different product that maintains the same density actually the same size of lot except with the zero lot line it just gives another product in this area they've got quite a bit of some ease and townhouses and multi-family just offers one other choice will be detached but they would yes but the servicing the way it's been lauded out and serviced we could go either way we could do either the zero lot line or the semi-detached terrific thank you any other questions for the applicant alderman Carra yeah can you just give me a little more clarity and so what that actually looks like typologically sure so this here is just a sample streetscape of what a zero lot line product would look like the tentative plan has been submitted for the for this area and whether we go with semi-detached units or we go with the sample streetscape they would law do it exactly the same the one thing that we will have to do with with the zero lot line is we do have to submit a development permit a comprehensive development permit for the whole area because you're going with a zero lot line it's basically a relaxation and there's some other building code components that that kick in but um there will be another level of application that gets submitted on a comprehensive level and that will give the city the assurances of the product that would be going into the zero lot line product explain to me what 0 a lot line how that applies to what looks like it's a typical what it does is it it gives a 5-foot distance between the houses so they're a little bit closer together so that's where the fire there's fire construction elements that are part of the houses so they end up a little bit closer together so you're essentially you're almost taking the the distance that you'd have with a semi you're giving a little bit more kind of between the houses not as much as you get in a typical subdivision or a typical a typical our one zoning for example or r2 zoning but it just brings them a little bit closer and you and you give a different product so you end up with a single family house but at the same density level as a as a semi so a different product for the area that will I just the market currently is just responding to very well what what does the glazing look like in those which is on the side yards on the side yards I might have to get Paul boss quit from genstar to talk to that a little bit more specifically because he's been in contact with the builders more so than myself do you even have any other questions of myself before I pass it over no I'm interested in I mean I'm just it seems to me like we're going for like you know the density of town houses without the environmental efficiency of party walls so if we're doing that question is what are the benefits and I would hope it's sort of like the flood of light that enters the spaces because of all the glazing you have on the side walls but with 5 feet that doesn't allow for a lot onto the fire codes I'm just curious so alderman Carra I too curious this is very interesting and I'll allow it but I should warn you that we are going beyond our jurisdiction in a public hearing on land use okay but nonetheless I'll allow this one because it's interesting I i I'm going to ask for a point of clarification on that okay Paul boss which with Jen star I can't answer that question with absolute certainty but my understanding is that there there is not windows on the houses there in between each house for fire reasons this is not unlike in the inner city where you see in phils that some of them are attached and some of them are detached but they're they're quite close to each other this just allows the house to be built right on the property line and there's an access easement okay so so you have one wall of the houses on the property line and then you've got five feet and then you've got the wall of the house is their side yard contemplated and in that space or there's there's an access easement on the on the other side of each house so there's an access easement so the other house has access along the side yard this this product is actually quite common in the City of Calgary okay thank you thanks alderman Quran just just for clarification it's because we were getting two areas of safety code which are outside of the jurisdiction that we have today yeah well just a point of what I mean I yeah I guess I was asking I mean we've asked for certain density and at certain densities to get certain efficiencies and it seems like we're removing that efficiency for an aesthetic look I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this fair enough thank you any other questions for the applicants who has already left alright then anyone else wish to speak in favor of this proposal anyone wish to speak in opposition to this proposal all right then we'll close the public hearing and oh yeah well shall we finish this one aldrin Demong like to move the recommendation of the administration and three readings of the bylaw thank you do I have a seconder thanks alderman Lowe any further discussion on this one I'll write that on the recommendations are we in favour agreed thank you any post very well then carried on first reading the bylaw are we agreed second reading the bylaw are we agreed authorization for third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried very well then we're recessed until 347 aight i counted and we're back just barely so we are now at item 8.4 in your agenda CPC 2011 already 03 or the longest full of carrying a ba CPC 2011 03 for land use three exits designation in the neighborhood of mahogany mr. cope thank you worship dear affected by the proposed redesignation is outlined on red on the location map on the screen poetry designation will take the lands from the existing s UN special purpose urban nature district and redesignate the lands to SSP are for municipal park and scri special purpose city and regional infrastructure district to accommodate a lift station those lands were previously designated s UN as part of an outline plan process at that time was wasn't recognized at the main pathway system would run through the Natural Area the s UN district is intended for for environmental reserved type uses in that respect this will correct that situation designate lands to SSP are and eventually mr municipal reserve as well as the purple area being used as s CI for a lift station this will accommodate the design aspects of the outline plan and it was supported by calgary planning commission in that respect calculating commission is recommending that council adopt the proposed redesignate from su n 2 scr I and ass spr and that three readings be given to bylaw 25 d 2011 Thank You mr. cope any questions of clarification for administration on this one I'd seeing none we'll open the public hearing anyone wish to speak in favour of this proposal anyone wish to speak in favor and Ewen wish to speak in opposition to this proposal any in opposition very well then all during heating so move the bylaw and the three readings give the administration recommendations I would like to move that we refer this or that we sorry table this for two months please the reason is there there's a center street corridor comprehensive study that's going to be done on this or on the area and we're not I'm not clear on what the relationship is between this and that study and what the impact would be yes that's the main 9th meeting English yeah if I may through through the chair to mr. Watson I believe just wondering lost to the timing of the center street review that's underway through the chair all of in Shabo we're just starting to scope out that work it certainly won't be done by by May altima caught has spoken to me about wanting to talk about that plus work in Highland Park in general it's all I mean it up the council to decide whether or not you want to put this off for two months to have those conversations or what do you want to do with it today and in two months are we going to be further ahead in this process will we know anything more Wow well know a bit more about whether or not i can't speak for all them in the quad whether she'll feel more comfortable and proceeding forward on this and two months or not but interesting we only provide some information and talk to the highland park community yeah thank you for that thanks thanks alderman Chabot and clarification cabling the motion in front of us to table this to the main ninth combined meeting of council not nineteen ninth so on that table a motion are we agreed any opposed alderman Chabot is opposed carried thank you that takes us to item 8.6 in your agenda CPC 2011 036 land use re-designation in the downtown commercial core mr. cope thank you your worship the area affected by the proposed redesignation is located on seventh avenue southwest the lands affected are outlined in red and form a portion of the existing DC direct control district currently in place the land use will take the lands from the DC direct control district which is tied to plans andrey designate lands to the standard downtown district of CM to downtown business district the redesignation will allow the site to be redeveloped on its own in a similar pattern as to the adjacent lands in that respect it is recommended the council adopt the proposed redesignate the area affected on the air fault or the photograph showing to you right now is recommended the council adopt a proposed redesignate to take the lands from direct control 2 cm 2 and that three readings be given to proposed bylaw 27d 2011 questions of clarification for administration alderman Carra um just a question I mean obviously that's a pretty rundown little stretch as their discussion of the Heritage character of the site and whether there should be any or does that not take place that would take place in conjunction with any development permit for the site I should note that the existing DC which portion of which will remain on eighth Avenue part of that designation is to protect the heritage condition of those sites on eighth Avenue not this particular site on seventh so in terms of protecting this is this okay all right thank you on clarification alderman pootmans yes thank you your worship forgive my simple question i Function process I'm aware of these plans from this developer and it's all very exciting and would be a wonderful addition to this very difficult area with some very innovative approaches to parking and all the rest of it I'm just intrigued why we're coming in with a land use application at this point the process are you able to address that or is that a fair question to you I can address a brief the I suppose three designation right now or the designation on the site right now is direct control which is tied to plans there is no opportunity to do anything else on the site other than that was originally proposed I believe back in nineteen eighty-three am seven years now which is clearly not what the intention the applicants have to do with land now so in order to get the site into a position where ongoing planning can occur they need to read as Nate the site to allow that to happen I guess that's my question why do we have to be designate to a lot planning to continue or their financing implications or investment that would be have to be a question you put to the applicant is that is there anyone to address that I what might not be appropriate yes okay thank you mr. cope kitty mr. cope aha I actually have one there's a note in here that says something about the density under the density levels permitted under the proposed cm two are lower than the 20.1 if they are approved under the existing DC can you speak to that for a moment what's the difference cm to the standard district has a base base density of 7 FA are based on the what's called the a bonus provisions a group provisions you can get additional density using Group B in Group C bonusing to build up your deer densities on the site I'm presuming on although I do not have it before me at this time the existing DC incorporated all those things based on the exact proposed plans that were being provided and so that exact tends to you is no longer available to the site unless they do something similar with the group a B and C provisions thank you it's very helpful seeing no further questions of clarification will open the public hearing anyone wish to speak in favor of this application anyone wish to speak in favor good afternoon my name is neil richardson president of heritage property corporation and were the applicant in this matter i don't really intend to make a presentation but i'll certainly answer any questions that council may have great thank you very much all the equipment's you want to ask your question now yes thank you and thank you mr. Richardson I'm aware of your projects and the number of wonderful once you've contributed to the downtown corazon thank you the just a question of process at this point you are you're maybe it's an industry clan indiscreet question so if you want to avoid it that's fine but are your plans progress to a certain point where this is necessary missed intrigued by where we're at the process we've we've been working with administration for a little over two years and when we first approached them there was a debatable whether we should apply for our own DC zoning for the site or whether we should do what we're doing now which is which is applied to sort of remove the existing DC and proceed with a development permit the challenge we have is the site is currently zoned with land that note that we don't own it's it involves part of the laneway it involves part of properties that are owned on eighth Avenue and the original 1983 plan was to connect them and build this 50 two-story building on our piece of the land and at the end of the discussions with the administration it was determined that the proper way wouldn't be to apply for another DC zoning but to basically erase the current one and go through a development permit process so that's what we're choosing to do thank you perhaps mr. Watson can add a little bit more clarification to this question thank you well through the chair thank you well actually mr. Richardson's actually made it quite clear of the night I had something to do with the 2683 which was a hotel council a beautiful development but it will never be realized and that's it is one of the challenges with DC which gets stale after a while it'd be very difficult for mr. Richardson or anyone to do anything on that site with that zoning except build what was approved 20-some years ago so in order to do anything else and partly because it's a split ownership now is all one ownership at one time this is the most efficient way to get us back to a level playing field so they can start over again I was keeping matter i believe in order to get us to the zoning that then we can continue discussions on mr. Richardson's idea or any others from downtown thank you Miss Ross Thank You mr. thanks alderman Farrell for mr. Dixon thank you thank you for being here today mr. Richardson and I have to say a lot of people breathed a sigh of relief when you purchase this block now we need to figure out how to move forward and in preserving some important heritage I think it would be important for new members of council and to understand what your aspirations are for this block so I'm wondering if you take a minute to just go over some of your ideas so they would maybe put into context why this application is before us and how important this block is to the history of Calgary I think that this is a very interesting and useful question and I'll invite mr. Richardson's answer it briefly but i will remind you that we have to be careful not to go beyond what we're being asked to decide today we're not making a decision on what mr. Richardson is about to describe to us we're simply making a decision on changing the zoning of this parcel yes and I think that's an important clarification previous members of council have been aware of this issue has been discussed for some time in a in a nutshell the property's located mid block on seventh Avenue so it doesn't include lands to the east or west of it so it's somewhat landlocked it's also located on seventh Avenue that has no vehicle access to it because of the LRT corridor the heritage buildings are probably important individually but they're really more important as a collection the Heritage planner calls at Steven avenues little sister because it's one of the few intact streetscapes left from the early 1900's up to about the 1920's 1930's what our concept is for the site is to restore the heritage buildings and put arts and culture uses into the building so they'll be compatible with some of the surrounding developments with the what used to be the cultural district called olympic plaza cultural district art central across the street the graham theater a block or so away the EPCOR center but also to make the economics of the development work we intend to build a robotic parkade that's accessed off the back lane so it can be a small Park aid and structure it can be non-obtrusive to the heritage buildings and allow the heritage buildings to be preserved while still providing what we hope is an amenity in terms of parking for the neighborhood not in a nutshell is the development ok thank you I think helped that helps a little thank you thanks very much alderman Farrell alderman colley-urquhart for mr. Richardson all right anyone else for mr. Richardson thank you for being here today sir anyone else like to speak in favor of this application anyone else speak in favor and would like to speak in opposition to this proposal anyone in opposition all right then alderman Farrell thank you I would like to move the recommendations of CPC and three readings thanks an alderman Marr has seconded that motion any further discussion or questions for administration I'll write them on the recommendations are we agreed any opposed carried first reading the bile are we agreed second reading of the bylaw are we agreed authorization for third reading of the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried thank you that takes us to disposition of public reserve item 9.1 in your agenda CPC 2011 0 37 disposal reserve in the neighborhood of cougar Ridge mr. cope thank you your worship dear you affected by the Sri designation or disposal Reserve is located in cougar Ridge the area outlined in red just south of the COP residential development which is ongoing polls will take the existing strip of reserve land and remove the mr designation allowing for an increase in size of the adjacent stormwater retention pond have an aerial photo showing the existing pond and the stretch of green space as it now exists and the additional photo that we have showing the land from 85th Street the current condition of the pond and the land to which the pond is going to be extended into in that respect Jay UCC has supported the removal of the reserve designation with the promise that a equivalent amount of land will be dedicated in the copd development which you can just see on the right hand side of that picture will provide some additional land for reserve as part of their development area until that does occur a deferred reserve cave yet in the amount owing will be registered on the appropriate title in that respect calgary planning commission is recommending the council adopt by resolution the disposition of 0.4 21 hectares of reserve land and that council direct and designated officer to notify the Registrar of the South Alberta land title's office that the requirements of the NGA have been fulfilled and that resumable of the municipal reserve designation is appropriate mr. cope I have a question of clarification on this one I was a little bit confused by this one because we have three different parties including when sport canada and can olympic park so just tell me if I'm describing the situation correctly the expansion of the storm water pond will assist in the redevelopment of canned Olympic Park and that's why they're willing to give up some of their land for reserve did I get that right as I understand it the expansion is required to accommodate the additional lands being developed with co p which is in the white area just north of the lands being disposed of so in return for that accommodation COP will provide reserve land in addition to what they are required to provide on their site north of the what's called the fourth avenue southwest alignment there okay within the white area they will provide additional reserve land in compensation for this mr land ok thank you that's that's what i thought i understood that i wanted to clarify alderman pootmans thank you your worship I've discussed this with the community association others in the area they're well aware of it from previous discussions during outline plan stage and are very comfortable with this so I've so now appropriate time to move that we have to have public hearing but we have 20 having a full public entities ok so just about but we will open the public hearing anyone wish to speak in favour of this proposal good afternoon your worship members of council Richard priest chief operating officer with Apex not really gonna make a presentation it was well covered thank you very much just wanted to say thank you very much to administration for the very expeditious process that they undertook for us to get this project through the approval stage in any and get us to the point where r at now and I'd be happy to answer any questions of counsel thank you thank you mr. priest and mr. Watson highlighted for me that you were thanking us for the expeditious process if we don't always hear at these public hearings any questions for mr. priest all right then Oh alderman pootmans considering mr. priest you made the trip down me I just like the scheme's the one will construction start when will you be with will you will it be much construction terms of expanding the the the construction of the pond has been completed actually oh yes already so now oh yeah the liners and everything's in I thought there was more work to be done to the north side no now it's just the landscaping want that ask the question ya know all the pipes are in the liners in and everything it's and in fact phase one is built what you can see up there r 1 r 1 n and r 1 s that's all constructed so we're just waiting to waiting for conditions to put the pavement down and the landscaping around the pond thank you very much and then the next step is burying that 138 k v power line thank you yeah thank you any other questions for mr. priest okay thank you for being here today sir you anyone else like to speak in favor of this application anyone else in favor anyone only to speak against this application anyone in opposition very well then alderman pootmans so moved I move that we proceed with this recommendation Thanks an alderman Chabot is seconding and three and three there's no bible know about so any discussion on this one folks all right then on the recommendations are we agreed any opposed alderman Hodges is opposed carried thank you that takes us to the end of our public hearing will play some musical chairs here and move to the regular portion of our meeting for the interest of the members of the gallery the rest of the public hearing is the rest of our council meeting is certainly open to the public and you're welcome to stick around but there will not be an opportunity for the public to make submissions the items in the rest of this of largely those that required public hearings have already had that happen at the committee level all right so that takes to 10.1 point 1 in your agenda which is amendment to councils civic census policy can I have someone move this to get it on the floor please thanks alderman Lowe do I have a seconder thanks alderman Keating will let everyone else flip to it and I wonder if administration wants to introduce this at all no all right alderman Hodges yes yeah thank you worship yeah it is except for one small item what's the question that transportation department wants into census what are we quizzing the public GM Logan's not quite here yet can I defer that question will get to another couple people on the list and we'll bring it back because I didn't see him coming that's the only question you worship miss Cedars yeah oh is she oh great missy der why don't you take that one your worship the question that we're going to be asking citizens is the tri-annual question it'll be starting this year and our question actually is what mode of transport a did you take to the last day you worked and the selection is basically by bicycle by walking by different modes in our legend and if the individual is not working either as a volunteer or in terms of paid employment then what then that is left blank no response no response okay thanks very much alderman Lowe thank you you worship and on the same question I had a question on the question it says you're only offering that question to one individual and a household one it's just a random survey I can't answer to the transportation requirements I think that would be best answered by somebody from transportation and planning okay just struck me as odd because both houses now many houses nowadays have indeed it's a random it's a random response that they'd like to get a nice mix up but again you would need to get somebody from transportation and planning to answer to that okay my second question had to do with the school board information and you know I understand there's a cost sharing arrangement between CBE in the Catholic board but do we have other boards in the city or operating in the city now do we provide information for them and do we get is there an exchange of resources legs thank you your worship know the agreement is simply with the two boards that you have mentioned ah what about the French board with both these charter school day I do not believe that they have been in contact with barb Clifford who I could take this question back to and have her respond yeah I don't you know I'd be curious also to know about you know we have an increasing population private schools in the city which the question on the census is is basically given the question we ask is not related to tax dollars it's simply an opinion to see what the demographics are so there are selections of other other being home schooling or through other means okay yeah I would think it would be the other that I've you know what what percentage of our population is not using the Catholic borders over the public board and yell where else are they going here and what's the impact on us but that's just an observation you worship thank you thanks alderman Lowe did you want to ask your question again now that mr. Logan is here I will mr. Logan I in the transportation questions being asked of one individual in the house what was your last mode of travel when you went to work my question was why only one person the household given that many many households now had more than one person employed or doing volunteer work your worship to be honest with you I'm not exactly sure but you are correct it is it is it it it is specific to whomever the person is that has the next birthday is what I'm advised if there's more than one person in the household that's working and I was just checking in strap that actually all right that actually does make sense I feel like I've been lecturing people on stats a lot this weekend so many balls on feel sweetie worship because that was one subject I never did well so it's it's a what what mr. Logan is saying is it's a purely random sample so they only want a random person they don't want to know the whole family because that would skew the sample if they all carpool or whatever so they're just picking a random person in the house based on their birthday so that we get a fully randomized sample through the city okay and I can understand that part I guess I I would have been more interested in the Quantum's because that's what's going to come back and whack us in the head here thank you your shin Thank you Thank You alderman Chabot thank you worship your worship lower than shabo it's common team thank you I had the same question for mr. Logan thank you for that response necessarily like it but miss cedar and through this last election on this and the census that we got or the the voters list that we lot I I noticed that there was a number of people that have been residing in their residence for a number of years that weren't on this year's census and I'm just wondering do we have a carry forward information this census and the voters list your worship are two different processes so I can speak to the census I would prefer to leave the election to Barbara Clifford census we don't collect any personal data there are no names associated there are indeed addresses and addresses have a tendency to change their by dwellings being removed in another dwelling going in its place I am uncertain as to your question as to the growth pattern no I'm just wondering why some people who had lived in their residence for so many years weren't on me money enumeration mauritian that would have to be directed to barber Clifford okay and I can indeed past that question along to you I'm here to speak to the census today all right okay specific to the census no names thank you worship so determination of secondary suites how do we go about making that determination don't your worship we simply ask the question of dwelling units how many people reside at this dwelling yeah just wondering how we can facilitate getting a better more clear response out of that if there's like two mailboxes that's usually pretty indicative of the fact that there's two residences but it's an outstanding question alderman Chabot I'm not going to put miss flown on the spot right at the moment but it's a bit weird to ask someone to describe whether they're engaging in an illegal activity as part of a sense of snow but we don't ask for names right correct we don't I'm just your worship we can ask all sorts of things but people are not required to answer hmm interesting so we can't arbitrarily make an assessment on our own it's what you're saying no the census is not mandatory exactly it's up to the individual whether they wish to participate or not you see my point your worship is that I believe there are more secondary Suites than we've identified and and I think it would be it would be probably wise to know roughly how many there are whether or not people choose to admit that there's a secondary suite there's certainly a number of different ways that we can assess whether or not there are secondary students so that no elders not assume that you know I don't disagree with you and I think that maybe you can answer this question which is if alderman Chabot were to make a motion today perhaps later on in this agenda to add a question on secondary Suites to the civic census what's the timing on that could we actually do that for the 2011 census or are we too late your worship it's too late everything is now in place we are in fact training as we speak figured they will be indeed we are going out April first every year it's April first we could some we could perhaps consider this for a future senseless if we wanted to that could be considered in a future census your worship thank you thank you worship I appreciate that advice and it's certainly something I will take under advisement not miss cedar if I'm asked as well in regards to the percentage of responses I know my wife has done stuff before but I think it's probably more for the enumeration aspect where there was a very small tolerance in reverse to the number of homes that you could not record information on what's your what's your typical response requirement from your your worship we ask that one percent of the assigned area be unable to contact that's a goal we we strive for whether or not we can achieve that it is dependent on participation but that is generally what we we hope to see you worship and the reason I asked a previous question to this one is because I think the two are kind of inuk's inextricably linked ie is their secondary suite and is there somebody responding at that secondary suite you see what I'm getting at one percent is based on registered addresses right your worship may I add on to that unable to contact means exactly that that the person wasn't there at a numerous attempts there's no way we could get the information if the individual isn't there at a certain point we will go to a neighbor and ask that neighbor won't know whether or not whether they choose to answer correctly right unable to contact means that there is no information we also have other coatings such as no they don't want to participate no information but that's not an unable to contact right well the secondary suite might be and unable to contact if we could identify that it was a secondary suite is my point anyways I I guess that's all I need to know for now I do get you have an interesting flight of fancy for our discussion today well it's not good is the fact that the question is there i think is it's at least a very valid attempt to make those assessments and i think you're right thank you for thanks alderman Chabot any further discussion on this item other than loaded you want to close all right then on the recommendation to adopt the amended civic census policy are we agreed any opposed carried thank you 10.1 point2 then in your agenda report on the city of Calgary's communication function a reminder that during our budget deliberations we asked for this report and here it is so I'll take a motion to get this one on the table thanks alderman Lowe do I have a seconder thanks alderman Pincott mr. Stevens did you want to say something about this report questions to administration or discussion I have some well mr. Stevens we have seen a fair bit of growth in this department and if I'm look if I'm reading it correctly if we exclude 311 in straight up communications we've had over the years oh if I'm reading this correctly 34 staff transfer in from other places since the year 2030 one new staff could you speak a little bit to those 31 new staff and the kinds of responsibilities that they're doing that may be different than what was the case before we started this department new year 2000 yes thank you your worship a lot of the vast majority of that staff would be involved in providing services from the central function to the business units they would also be provided service in the what I would refer to as the creative services function where we provide the print multimedia production some of the graphic design the writing and editing some of that especially with the growth of the multimedia platform that's where a lot of the resources have gone mr. Stevens well you're up there has been some discussion around the corporation of the placement of this sort of is a service unit for the rest of the corporation and the fact that that would indicate the communications decisions are rather decentralized that they're made across the corporation that this unit doesn't really have any control over the overall message would you suggest that that's a fair statement and if we've been thinking about how to manage that I would say that that is a struggle I would say that's a fair comment that is one of the the coordination of the message is a difficult thing when you've got essentially there's nearly 30 businesses in a couple hundred lines of service I won't dispute that so we do have some corporate oversight that we provide on certain things branding web are some of our external presence but with respect to messaging around specific projects and businesses that is not controlled centrally thank you I may have a couple more and I'll reserve the right to ask more but I see some lights Toronto alderman Chabot thank you your worship and I'm not sure who to ask this question to and out I look at 2010 permanent community in communications fte's paid by department as opposed to 2010 permanent communication fte's paid by CSC and I'm just wondering is this like the total out of each of the different business units yes it is now we're talking about staff dedicated to the development of communications does that include capital components to that yes really yes you'll find in some of them that they are funded out of capital they are involve projects and communities that are funded out of capital for a short period of time they are included there are others that are base and they are funded out of out of operating if I can refer to my department for example if you look in corporate services there are some primarily in our business units that are fundamentally capital driven they are they're funded out of capital specific reference so you worship if you wanted to take a look at attachment 5 on page one you can see corporate services where you've got significant significant amounts of capital in corporate properties and buildings and IT for example some of that is very specific project work where communications are required for example out of vacating a building you'll want to do a full communication plan to staff about what the impact would be the movement there would be they would be funded out of capital okay well not not going to pick on you mr. Stevens but I'm looking at specifically utilities and and I see a total here of twelve FTEs but a seen significant amount of communications and advertisements specifically related to you Andy and I'm just wondering 12 ftes covers the capital costs and everything of of all the advertisement that goes out specifically in regards to water conservation etc etc thank you worship if I can if I could just speak to the utilities Environmental Protection communication resources and if you see the build-up of resources since 2000 between 2000 2010 you know the majority of that increase has been really geared to the fact that a large part of our environmental success in terms of delivering programs and reducing waste and increasing diversion increasing water conservation all those kinds of programs creating public awareness to about you know how the storm water goes down the drain and all the responsible there you know behaviors that they're going through water resource management that's why we've got those resources and they help us create the message and the in the the information that we put out in our various bill inserts or on television or radio or ever they they're helping us craft those messages and if we didn't have those people we'd still have to be doing that and an our view is that the right people to to give those messages other professional communicators who are trained to do that and so they take the content the kind of technical content the important issues that we're trying to portray and then they turn it into into language that's more user friendly if you like for the broader community so that they're very critical maybe I didn't word my question properly these 12ft user are embedded within CSU's Department know they're embedded there in your own depart yeah they'll be out at the water center they'll be out at waste and recycling they're responding to issues management they responding to the messaging around if there's a you know serious issues with water main breaks they're getting out all the sort of day-to-day operational messaging and so to in in regards to the mr. Stephens comments about the consistency of messaging in the corporate messaging that there's some messaging that we have to put out very very quickly that it's very very unique to our business and for that that's why you have those in down internal people that specifically dedicated to communication strategy so so my question then is is this this is fully born here with regards to the cost for communications within your department does that suit the cost for the advertisement the costs for the artwork the costs for the printing of the material well that's that's a separate budget this is that this is the this is the people the FTEs that we have that we need to do to do our work now they will contract with or they will they will work with the centralized customer service and communications group in creative services and those kinds of people and and the cost of that work is it shows up elsewhere in the report mr. Stevens is telling the attachment six so so I think that each of these attachments has a different purpose i think attachment five is specifically intended to illustrate where the different departments have resources embedded in their business that they need in order to do their business that is paid for by the business just the operational component yeah well i'm not sure if i'm getting across yours to what I'm trying to get at it seems like I'm not but I'm trying to figure out though your worship respectfully what what our overall communications costs are but it seems to be some costs that aren't reflected in these numbers from my perspective on I understand that we have a communications department that's dedicated to coordinating the city's messaging but I I somehow get the feeling that there's some additional costs within individual business units that are dedicated towards communications that aren't necessarily flushed out in this report mr. tobert how you worship the information is presented in two different pieces one of which is an FTE count which is probably most easy means for council members to see the growth of FTEs in the distribution of those over time on attachment six-ten point 1 point 2 is a list of the expenditures on communications by department by business unit so you can see for 2010 the amount is 12 million six hundred and thirty six thousand dollars yeah that's exclusive of wages and salaries of those folks that are dedicated to that full time so this is this is creative work advertising buys that sort of piss okay that's very helpful thank you does that help alderman Chabot a little um so you saying that 12.6 is in addition to the other total that I had for communications I'm not too sure which other total you had its its exclusive of wages and salaries for the full time ft eats what's the total cost for communications 18 million where is that I have the number here previously I just didn't mark it up well enough I guess well you're well you're looking for that I can suggest that I was going to suggest if I'm reading my if I reading correctly then we have 80 4.6 fts and 3 1 165 FTEs and communications another 57 FTEs embedded in departments and we spend 12 million a year on creative services so it doesn't give you a total but at least gives you a quantum of global 149 points 6 f 2 years I gather that includes 311 yeah and then plus another fifty seven in departments at varying range so right there not all hey they're not all the same so yeah and that's that's what I'm trying to find out your worship reduce what what is a total do we have that number in here including wages and benefits mr. sober in worship this report does not contain that what it tries to show council is two things the growth of FTEs over time and the distribution of those and then really what's relevant now is how much are we spending on communicating once you have the capacity in place what you're looking for is a gross number yes it's not here yeah and don't get me wrong there's a ton of information here that tells me about how much we've improved efficiency within this department and I have no issue with that it's I'm just trying to understand what the overall costs for the corporation are in regardless of communications and total gross agreed but I'm variant maybe I'll find out more when I listen thank you I agree with you alderman Chabot that the total cost would be an extremely helpful number here and we ought not to have to go fishing for it I do have another place for you to look though on page 12 of 14 you'll see that the budget for that department mr. Stevens maybe you can speak to this the budget for that department is 15.5 06 million now mr. Stevens I i am assuming that that number includes the wages and benefits within the department but perhaps not the full 12 million in creative because that gets charged to the department's your worship where we're narrowing it all I can get that number we don't need to search for it but you're right what this the the the Outstanding number and you've characterized it exactly correct your worship there are 140 9.6 fts within communications and the cost of that is set out on attachment for the page 3 of 3 15.9 27 million dollars plus the cost that's an attachment 6 the cost that I don't have for you is the cost of the additional 57 business units with 57 57 FTEs in the business units which I could which I could provide I think it would I think from alderman Chabot is line of questioning which I echo it would be helpful to see even the growth of that number over time you know one of the challenges in here and one of the reasons that well I was going to say I requested the council requested at my urging this report was really to understand the growth of that big number over time because it is it is challenging when we're looking at budget to be able to really follow through this particular department it's one of the more difficult ones this one and IT so it would be helpful for us to be able to understand that your worship I can do that would you I understood all the vegetables question to be about communications obviously that includes the 311 number do you want the overall number which i can get it I would like it but I would also like it with 311 broken out which is which is sort of as you know a different service I'll send a memo to counsel Thank You alderman Lowe well thank you very much that's exactly the question I had outstanding on it and other than that I unless there's other lights on okay the just as a matter of when I read the report I found an interesting report to read it took me awhile to struggle through it the thing I did note and I forget which attach Minh is it sort of chronology of the development of it and seems to me your worship that every time this group of people won an award we cut their budget spelled out there I mentioned that to one of the media people he said that sort of sounds like the press so there we are thank you alderman Farrell oh you turned your light off you're good okay anyone else all right so with the understanding that mr. Stevens is going to take on the bat memo that we're asking for with that additional information alderman Lowe did you want to close all right then so on the recommendation to receive the report for information are we agreed any opposed carried all right that then takes us to the SPC on finance and corporate services item ten point to point one in your agenda FCS 2011 04 or alderman Lowe remove the recommendations and three readings of the proposed bylaw leadership thank you sir did you want to introduce that at all no it's a standard that's the supplementary property tax assessment tax biologic standard reports of times with okay alderman colley-urquhart you're seconding any discussion on this item very well then on the recommendations are we agreed any opposed carried first reading of bylaw 11m 2011 are we agreed any opposed second reading of the bylaw are we agreed authorization for third reading of the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried on by law 12m 2011 first reading the bylaw are we agreed second reading of the bylaw are we agreed third reading the bylaw are we as a shin for third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried thank you lpt 2011-14 item missing a number ten point three point one in your agenda alderman Chabot yester warship but be happy to move all the recommendations of the lpt with the exception of LPG 2011 11 of course as you know there was no recommendation by committee but I do have an alternate recommendation that I would like to move on that particular item absolutely but happy to move all the other set at this point and happy to open and close on any and all if need be thank you do you want to open on the marlboro wine well very briefly i'm looking at identifying parking zones this one has been an issue for some time even before we introduced park and ride it has created some challenges for the adjacent neighborhood not only that but as well as the fact that at one point the adjacent apartment building was was charging for their parking and and some of the residents refused to pay it and ended up parking on the street which further exacerbated the whole issue the residents have been putting up with it for some time this is an opportunity for them to petition the rest of the street to provide on street parking requirements and I do have a question but I'll take a seconder for all of these with the exception of the secondary suites one can I have a seconder please thanks alderman Hodges so we've got that mr. Logan and only because this is the street I came up on I have a special interest in this particular one is this Park and Ride driven do we have a sense of if we're doing this and on April first the problem will go away not in worship I wouldn't say it's entirely park-and-ride driven I think there's there is one station we have vacancies in that lot I think the problem stems from all sorts of different land uses in this in this particular neighborhood to be honest there's there's a number of commercial developments and as alderman Chabot Ruiz just mention there are multi families that are resulting in a lot of cars being on the street so given what you just said just for the new members of council and my edification how many parking passes do you get if you have a house too yeah tues an echo yes two on the street and I know that most of these homes do have back lanes and garages as well yes now the other question that I had was this is strikes me is quite a large zone along maryvale drive the street I grew up on it goes almost from 36 street all the way to 50 second street so we do these standard this large I mean that's quite a distance from the from 36 street hub of activity in the sea trade typically your worship if it was related to a specific use it would be a smaller zone our experience has been that the walking walking parking and walking falls off considerably after about four to six hundred meters okay thank thank you any other discussion on this one Ullman Show did you want to close very briefly um it this is actually not a really large parking area it's um if you'll note it's areas bounded north by mar bank drive from 36 street to marlon way and east by the alleys used to miranda close it was just I was just looking at the map I was sad that there was no map in here when you get down to maryvale drive it goes all the way to 50th street so it's pretty far but it only goes down to Mary Bailey it's it's a it's actually not a long block there okay it's it's in and around that whole multi-family housing development and it's predominantly what's driven to the to these issues related to parking deficiencies that exists on the street its primary to respond to that thang thanks very much i just saw the map I didn't have to google map it thank you and in fact the house I grew up in is just outside of his own so all the parking would go there oh but I don't live there anymore so it's alright I will consider this closed then on the recommendations are we agreed any opposed alderman Pincott is opposed on behalf of my neighbors thank you all thank God and three readings then of the proposed bylaw 13 m 2011 first reading of the bylaw are we agreed any opposed aldrin think odd as opposed second reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed I'll burn fing cod is opposed authorization for third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried unanimously third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed alderman Pincott is opposed carried thank you lpt 2011 09 center city levies update alderman Chabot did you want to well briefly in worship we've established levies based on frontage and I think the proposal is pretty straightforward as monies that have been collected with the intention of being spent at some point in time when they're required for the ended purpose other than that not much more to say thanks alderman Chabot any discussion or questions aside them very well then on the recommendations are we agreed any opposed carried seven point three point three then I don't think was there by mother Jean M 211 oh there it is that my apologies my apologies all right then bylaw 18m 2011 first reading the Bible are we agreed second reading the bylaw are we agreed authorization for third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried thank you 10.3 point three then zone fares for taxis and limousines alderman Chabot yes your worship proposed amendments his own base fare sir taxi and limousine has been recommended by tilak committee and there was some debate on this issue in committee there are some amendments of what i would ask somebody to put on my behalf and it's specifically in regards to the date of implementation of course the date of implementation should mirror the date of the closure of Barlow and I don't believe that that's reflected accurately in the bylaw closure Barlow should be april third 2011 I know that one I mean what does it say in the bylaw comes into force the day it's past and that should actually say that this by Allah comes into force on april third i'm sure it would someone like to move that amendment please thanks alderman Stevenson do I have a seconder oh thanks alderman pootmans on the amendment any discussion all right then on the amendment are we agreed any opposed all right carried so the amendment is as you suggested Chabot respectfully your worship I believe that in that oh is it to the bylaw has to be a second we have to do it at second reading my apologies they don't amendment to the bylaw not to the recommendation yeah we'll do that again in a few moments than sorry alderman Chabot thank you for catching that question mr. i guess it's mr. Logan oh it's mr. Watson how are you hope that was not the question i was i was looking at given that this is driven by the closure of Barlow trail I was looking at the North East affairs which I would imagine we'll be the ones that would be most impacted by that closure but I noticed that for reasons I couldn't quite figure out some of them went up and some of them went down can you speak to that through the chair yes I can your worship the furs were originally number of years ago but this time we went back and actually drove them several times both in Russia or non rush hour and found out frankly that the previous fares were not all that accurate this is a much more accurate representation of what the distances are in the ferry should be okay so it's just a scientist which is why it's a bit of a cleanup as well as as Alden mention bold points out with the closure of borrowed trail we have to read jig them anyway because the distances are all different yeah this is one of the first place will be start to see the impacts of that there will i suspect be other places where we see the impact of that very well then any other questions on the recommend questions or discussion on the recommendations did you want to close alderman Chabot just a quick much mr. Watson just said the rates that are going down or two more accurate accurately reflect what the realities are in regards to running these do yuh these routes and so as you said some are up some are down it's nice to see that some are actually going down mm-hmm not to my neighborhood but to the neighborhood next door um may get dropped off on the corner from now on great so on the recommendations that are we agreed first reading of the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried second reading of the bylaw I'll alderman Stevenson flava bed with a bit before so rather than the bylaw coming into force on the day it's past the violations of force on april third 2011 and to have a seconder thanks alderman Jones on the amendment are we agreed any opposed carried so second reading of the bylaw as amended are we agreed any opposed carried authorization for third reading the bylaw are we agreed any opposed carried and third reading the bylaw are we agreed any post carried all right hey how did 10.3 point for getting the agenda didn't know that was going to be an issue today alderman Chabot thank you your worship oh excuse me excuse me I'm sorry alderman Chabot before I recognize you got to do a little housekeeping here alderman Mar thank you it's with a heavy heart you worship that I will again declare a pecuniary interest in this issue as remember many of the public know and certainly administration and councils aware I am presently building my new house with which includes a secondary suite in the plan above the garage as a result I been acknowledged by city law department is having a pecuniary interest and will not be participating in the vote nor in the discussion and electric used myself and have that notre for the minutes at this time Thank You alderman Mar thank you with the heavy heart alderman Keating thank you worship I I unfortunately find myself on the same boat as it will be within a matter of days or weeks or so that I would be applying for a secondary suite at my primary residence so I'm declaring a peculiar interest and wreak lose myself from the debate Thank You alderman Keating miss flown just given that there's been a great deal of public discussion on this item would you mind just explaining this puny airy interest for the interests of those who are watching absolutely your worship the municipal government imposes constraints on members of council with respect to pecuniary interests specifically sections 172 174 of the mga are extremely important and the MTA sets out that generally speaking a member of council has pecuniary interest if the matter could monetarily affect the counselor each member of council has an obligation to examine their circumstances and make the determination if they have a keener interest and if they do they are required to disclose that both at committee and council meetings and they must disclose this pecuniary interest prior to the discussion of the matter by committee or by council and they must abstain from voting and subject to very limited exemptions which do not apply in this case they are required to leave the room the consequences your worship for non-compliance with this obligation is disqualification from Council in this particular circumstance both alderman Mar and alderman Keating either have an application in the works for a secondary suite or have one that is coming forward imminently and as such by participating in this matter it is very possible that they would be making it much easier and less expensive for themselves to obtain approval as well as the the possibility that they would be enhancing the value of their personal real estate if in fact the suite is constructed miss phone before you sit down I just wanted to highlight one thing you said either have an application currently out there or have one imminent does the Department have an opinion on the word imminent what that means your worship that's fact specific every every arguable pecuniary interest must be assessed on its facts in alderman Mars case it is very clear that he has an application in the system it's a very immediate benefit to him in the event that some amendments went through that were perhaps favorable to his position with respect to alderman Keating is position it's a little less clear and that his application is not in the system but based upon discussions that we had this is not a up high in the sky or a very long range possibility that may come to fruition one day this is something that he plans on making a reality in the very near future so the act itself does not speak to immonen see that is a circumstance that is very specific to his situation thank you very much miss phul and I think all of us appreciate that clarification sure I'll take it now then you must phone can you just expand on I mean I don't see how anyone who owns a property that per second siva Blee could be up zone to a suite and benefit from that financial lift is not also in a pecuniary position can you tell me how law drop through that yarn please your worship as I mentioned earlier it is the obligation of each member of council to make their own determination based on their own very specific facts so what we're doing is talking about the issue in a very general way one item that I would point out to cancer is that there are a number of exceptions to when a pecuniary interest exists and those are outlined in section 170 sub 3 of the mga and there are a number of them and one of them is even though a member of council could monitor or a matter could monetarily affect a member of council that does not become a pecuniary interest if the if the matter it or if if the interest is held in common with the majority of electors of the municipality or if it only affects part of the municipality and that's under subsection I and in this particular case we're of the view that because of the imminence II of the application and because of the the application that's already in the works this isn't falling within the realm of general electors people who own property sure it's it's certainly up to them to or if the possibility exists that they could make an application to up sell their property as you have suggested however these are two very real and very immediate situations that i would suggest differentiate it from the general inch of interest of the rest of the electors thanks miss flown alderman Chabot back to you oh my question is yes is the when when when a member r accuses themselves is it permanent on that matter I'm not or can they come in and out on it your worship if unless the situation changes dramatically I don't see how how one could come in and out once one is declared a canary interest right I have a bikini or interest and the Act does speak to that to some extent with respect to declaring the interest at committee they are obligated to remove themselves at council thank you other in footman's form is flown yet yes thank you worship miss phone you mentioned the consequences would be disqualification from council could you expand on that i'm not sure what a disqualification from council really means absolutely your worship it is very significant consequences and what that means is you are no longer a member of council you are he posted so to speak you posted yes and and your worship section 174 of the Municipal Government Act speak specifically to that and it requires that note pardon me 175 speaks to that and it speaks to the fact that a counselor that is disqualified which is explained intersection 174 must resign immediately if a counselor does not resign immediately then council may apply by originating notice to the court to get an order determining whether or not they were qualified or whether or not the advocating interest in whether they should be disqualified alternatively an elector may also make that same application thank you I don't know why but I just find this whole conversation awfully more of it all of a sudden alderman Jones did you have a question for Miss loan Ullman feral or Hodges for Miss alone miss flow and the courts have done this in Alberta and I think the most recent example I recall this medicine hat wasn't on a matter of land users in a matter of a business or business licenses I recall in the early 80s is that not the case so there are there are some actual court decisions there definitely are you worship across the country specifically in Alberta was it for Miss phone Audrey Farrell go ahead thank you so if the application is approved or rejected by the planning department and there's no live application or no imminent application then the situation will have changed is that correct your worship every set of circumstances must be examined closely and on its own merits and i am very hesitant to give blanket advice in that regard it's very possible that circumstances could change in which case that perhaps we could re-examine it but until that happens I I'm very hesitant to give any blanket advice because the facts are very critical to these determinations okay thank you I'm scared too but I will so if for example one of the alderman who recused himself has his application for land use change approved by this council so council no longer has power over it could that alderman presumably then debate on future secondary suite debates your worship canary interest only extends insofar as the the matter could monetarily effect that counselor okay so in that case it wouldn't after that if there's word okay I got it you don't have to answer that I got it okay alderman Chabot Oh Mazel carry on that Deemer worship if if a member of council currently resides in a secondary suite or as a secondary suite would they by virtue of that out of pecuniary interest your worship again it's up to each counselor to make their own determination I can certainly assist if there are any facts I'm not aware of any facts in that regard and again giving blanket advice in that respect I'm very hesitant to do so because a slight change in the facts could get to a very different answer okay all right well I won't belabor the issue your worship I I have I believe 35 copies there's a word that i permitted on a sense so I've been quickly trying to tend the addition here as I've been listening to all this very interesting debate on for your interest and I didn't quite give you 35 copies madam clerk but hopefully there's enough to get around to members of council while I continue to make these amendments Peter just have a look at that just keep carrying on her your worship I there's I have five recommendations here and these are discussions of course that you and I have had over the weekend and trying to find a compromise to provide for additional secondary suites or facilitation and secondary Suites in areas where it's more conducive to do so although I have five recommendations here I'm personally not prepared to put forth all five recommendations I will submit these five but I'm only prepared to move recommendation one at this time and being as all members of council will then have this in hand if somebody should choose to make some further amendments or further recommendations that certainly willing to listen and and vote accordingly with this point I'm not prepared to move those others in worship so respectfully I'm moving recommendation one and let the chips fall where they may thanks alderman Chabot just before I ask for second room before you sit down there's just a wording change on number one that we may wish to make here yeah r2 can be excluded from that list your worship I just noticed that because it's it's already listed as permitted under our tube I think they can figure it out from there because it is the second year students that are currently involves the discretionary use so that's what we're really asking them to change are configured over to my life attached right in story um mr. Watson in our two zones are they already a permitted use that's correct ok so the motion is number one as put by alderman Chabot but with the exception of our two within the brackets and we'll get that up on the screen soon and I think that clerk has electronic version as well and do I have a seconder for that one please thanks alderman Claude all right so what we'll do alderman Chabot like thanks given that we have no recommendation in front of us is we'll take that one and then if people want to move the other ones or anything else we'll take them after this one so on this one and the idea here is to change from discretionary use to permitted use in the zones where secondary suites are currently allowed as a discretionary use mr. Watson could you just speak for a moment on the nature of the appeals that we currently receive in these areas all right it's just a it's what you I think you've all received by email as well but is what we've got right now is just number one that's all that's on the floor now yeah I think it's coming and you can strike are two out of that list yeah no actually okay are you all ready all right then sorry mr. Watson back to you excuse me through the chair since the land use bylaw was approved in 2007 in june of that year there's been 159 actual secondary suite applications very few of them will have been appealed somehow in fact most of the appeals we get or not through secondary suite applications or actually through orders that are placed on complaints that we investigate that we then move to orders to eventually deal with and in fact we're running at about a thousand of those complaints a year and those are the ones that are actually the bulk of the work that actually goes through to sdab because of course then the applicant s tries to get a development permit that that's refuse goes SCB we're working through the process of SDA be interesting enough in r2 which is where we're just saying that secondary suites is actually a permitted use we've had very very few applications since the land use bylaw has been put in place are too if you'll remember council is on the other edges it's r2 is now in the developing areas it's not in the developed areas but in those locations where you could have a secondary suite of course you can have other uses sound attached etc most most of those are turning to semi-detached as opposed to bullying or even considering a secondary suite worship and not sure whether that fully answered it but you know it certainly did for me Thank You alderman Jones thank you your worship you version of the first question I got is so what happens to the administration recommendations are on this or you file a number well because the committee is forwarding this to council without recommendation what alderman Chabot put on the floor is the only thing on the floor right now each earlier worship if if the motion passes then the proper motion I believe would be to file the recommendations of administration of administration Thank that's right so I'll speak to this certainly just briefly your worship mr. Watson this this is the hundred and sixteen thousand suites that we were told about their dwelling units that could be utilized right now in committee that hundred sixteen thousand your worship for the number of parcels that were under various districts that allowed secondary Suites a total so they are RC 1 and the RC to the r1 and the r to the r 2 a.m. and the r 1 s all those are all the number of parcels that exist in the city which totals just above 116,000 of which we've done some further calculation almost 86,000 87,000 those have single detached houses on them today so if you really think about that very few people are going to probably go from a single detached house to a secondary suite in terms of putting one in so you're probably looking at another twenty thirty thousand but regardless that's 116,000 that's what the top number is now that also includes some of the multifamily districts at council allowed secondary Suites to go into but the number of that was mainly in cases where you had a stranded parcel and wanted allow the flexibility for somebody to put a secondary suite in a number of those parcels is pretty smile and a number of these parcels could also be a little bit better than a secondary suite there's probably a higher more intense use and just exactly right i mean if you you have some of these especially say the multi families the chances of you wanting to increase your value by simply putting a secondary suite in its minimal unless there's nothing else and you're a stranded parcel or you have a single detached house energy some people may use it as temporary is ok but your worship but I after hearing that in committee that was why I was basically opposed to the men are one areas I felt that we should maximize the use of the areas that haven't been maximized yet I think there's motion and the discussion that number of us have had over the weekend that precipitated these five recommendations was worthwhile as too bad we didn't have a prior to committee could have saved a lot of time and it could have saved a lot of effort over the last two weeks and probably a lot of name-calling as well that's create been created from this I'm not personally a person that believes in surveys I believe in the calls and the emails that I've received in my office and they were very predominant on about an eight to nine to one basis that people were very insistent that they did not want these in an arwen area in my communities and that also came from every one of my candy associations of which I have letters from them indicating the same thing and that was why I took the stance that I did but with this motion at least number one we'll see what happens with two three four or five with number one at least it addresses the concerns that everybody has about affordable housing in the interim it allows for a possibility of in excess of 116,000 sites where we could put secondary suites and I guess that's the start and we'll see what happens in future thank you your wish thanks alderman Jones on number one alderman pootmans yes thank you your worship I'm just trying to understand between one and three it makes reference to our one and number one and also a part number three as relates to proximity to an LRT station so in number one are one other sweets would become a permitted use and under three they would become a discretionary use I know alderman pootmans on number one only speaks to r1 sr1 l.s oh I missed that those are the ones that are already have secondary Suites out of which there are very very very few in the city right others but in fact I believe if I was reading my reading the map correctly there are a grand total of five parcels that are 1s today thank you I'll come back on other matters thanks did I get that wrong mr. Watson yeah we did we proved nice horse excuse me you just approved more than five I think in cougar Ridge about 15 minutes ago but it is a smaller number than some of the other numbers we're talking about Thank You alderman croc so this inhabited nah that's not yet well then I don't really have a lot to say about this except that i'm totally in support of it oh you worship the goal of and joan summed up the most certainly my experience very plainly I two surveys I look at or not are the emails and calls I get but but I even break it down a little bit further back those who've actually sat down and written me a thoughtful note as opposed to a boilerplate are the ones that I looked at and most certainly nine to one was the ratio I was getting out of my ward 8 2 of 8 22 for the rest of the city of foot was coming in to me so it does 116,000 parcels out there where we can secondary Suites will go in you know the amount of the land use we did up in Sage Hill like one of my concerns was that we placed those r 1 s lots very very carefully and very careful consultation what's the applicant at the time recognizing the fact that it was you know it's a not Alayne product we placed them so that they'd be sensitive community so they are there but it's true it'll be 15 or 20 years before we realize what the update and those will be but at least now that those who buy the Lots know what they can do with them those who buys a lot surround them know what may be expected in the future and that's the key and so I have no difficulty with number one I will tell you candidly number two and three do not consult they fail they fail so that's where my alignments what's your point of order should we be discussing number one now and then we can move on to the others okay hey all doing Hodges everybody's got one more point to make today it's very interesting day to worship and members of council number one council hereby direct administration so the last couple lines of number one is would not require development permit while detached forms of secondary Suites such as in social angie's districts will remain as a discretionary use right but what's being missed is our regulars the landowners require a building permit so somewhere mr. Watson I'd like someone to put in red highlighted letters to requirements for building permits whether in whether they need a development permit or not now generally around here we know that but out in the real world they don't I even got a call on friday from put someone's plainly the owner of an illegal sweet in a RC 2 district and all he want what do you want to make sure has all this got passed on Monday so his illegal sweet could be legalized sorry little buddy you never did bother was a building permit did you but I didn't trouble him with the facts some are though we have to trouble somebody with the facts and your little booklet your department produces does that but this isn't a best seller yet which it ought to be mr. Watson well no I don't think it is a best-seller and while we tryin to get it on indigo or somewhere but you're absolutely right our expectation and certainly our hope would be that any certainly any new construction would need a building permit and anyone who wants to come in at any point and say I've got a sweet and perhaps i didn't know i was supposed to have a building permit we would want to take them through that process there is further on in the recommendations here some discussion about the Alberta Building Code of course the companion document the fire code that we're going to have to do some work on obviously someone who has built a sweet doesn't want to tell us about it and isn't interested in doing any changes based on anything it's not likely to be coming in but also farther on there's some discussion about how we can focus on enforcement ideas and maybe turn this into a best seller at some point but it's a real challenge I mean I'm not going to stand here and say this is going to be an easy easy route I mean people that are already in owning sweets that have not come forward don't want to come forward very real incentive but certainly our hope would be that they we end up with safe sweets safe legal sweets would be the best solution yes I agree mr. Watson so your worship I think somewhere in this first recommendation the reference to a building permit being required should be there I know it's built braces but still it should be there the whole process doesn't end whether you need a development permit or not or land use change or not but could we I'm just checking with Miss flown here if alderman Hodges were to make an amendment saying where it says therefore not required development permit but would require a building permit would that mean you Jeff your worship the difficulty is that it's the province that determines what requires a building permit and what does not require a building permit it's not the land use bylaw and the safety codes act is very clear that the extent to which a bio purports to regulate something in the provincial domain is inoperative but when we say permitted use right now I just I think it's important for everyone to understand this when we say permitted use in our land use bylaw right now does that automatically imply that building permit is required your worship I think generally speaking yes but something to keep in mind is that even though something might be a permitted use it does not necessarily mean that it is it is exempt from requiring a development permit culture the only time that something is exempt from a DP requirement is if it's in the list of specific exemptions right and that would be something that that this that this motion presupposes for a change to land use bylaw yeah if you want it specifically exempted from a development permit requirement I would suggest that you put that in there it does say that though doesn't it tell sweets and attached forms and such land use districts would therefore not required well pardon me yes yeah it does okay well my concern that still remains so worship no one's going up to Edmonton or tapping in online as I guess it is he says to get a building permit they whip down here they're supposed to up in the third floor in the building regulations section so I technically mr. loan is correct but again cities in the business of providing building permits if anyone would be so good as to bring some drawings in that would indicate what they're going to do understanding what miss flown I has suggested and also understanding that the bylaw amendment is yet to come back if you wanted to put if you wanted to put in amendments put those words into direct as best we can the bylaw amendment that's being asked for here I would I would I would allow that if you want to do it now yeah well I would say that therefore not require a building permit comma but may require a building permit comma while detached forms and then the rest of it is a separate really a separate part of the whole exercise well detached forms of secondary suites in such land use role in a maintenance of discretionary use so you want to add comma but may require a building permit comma before the word while yep okay so I have a second to have a seconder for the night so i can just on the floor council here we worship because this little booklet miss flan just stuff you haven't a chance to read page for him does say additional dwelling units meaning secondary Suites built after December 31st 2006 must comply with the Alberta building vote so the information of cities providing is based on the rules of the building Alberta building code no not withstanding as the provinces document and rules not ours but this does get so I'd like it mr. Watson to promote it as a bit of a best seller in the next while the next year so however you have to do that mail it to every household put it utility bills I don't know what you do get the message out there thank you worship thanks alderman Hodges and for the record you can call me a little Betty anytime you want I kind of like that on the amendment any discussion on the amendment just wave all right then on the amendment are we agreed any opposed carried back to the motion at hand then alderman Pincott thank you um well I'm I'm going to support this I'm going to unequivocally support this I I do have to say I find it disappointing that we're actually looking at trying to piecemeal this and trying to trying to and and I'm not going to call a compromise because I do actually agree with come from as in finding those those those avenues where where we need to move move forward but this this to me feels as opposed to compromise feels piecemeal and I guess my disappointment lies in a lot of the discussion that has been happening in the public around this issue for the last few weeks and I think that a lot of as alderman Jones called it name-calling miss misinformation misunderstanding could have been avoided if we had actually gone about doing this properly talking about what this means properly having the discussion and respectful manner I think that that there's been in a way trying to set up our constituents are residents our neighbors as adversaries and this has not served it has not served anyone in trying to actually move forward I think I do have to say that both sides of the debate have been have been wrong both sides of the debate around secondary suites have been disrespectful of each other those who promote this is the panacea to affordable housing that this is the solution it's not it's not the solution it's a piece it's a part of what we need to do to have a complete community it's about supporting people it's about supporting community it's about creating a degree of affordability but it is not the solution it is not the magic bullet so for those who have been touting this as the magic bullet for affordable housing and how dare we not support this to to make sure that everybody has a place to live it it's not going to do that but then again for those on the on the opponent's side who've been touting this is the thing that is going to lead to the destruction of community it's not going to do that either the secondary suite suite is still going to cost so going to require a building permit it's still going to cost I don't know $50,000 to put one in that's there's there's not going to be a huge rush to have that put in I you know when you take a look at what Edmonton the experience in Edmonton around secondary Suites where they've they've put in I don't know generous 100-120 a year since they made them a permitted use let's say we're wildly successful in Calgary wildly successful in calgarians are knocking down the door and we put in five hundred a year across the city well split that out amongst 150 communities we're talking about my hell let's say they're only going in half the communities we're talking about seven in a community so we're talking about that's not that's not on average exactly that's not destroying a community so both sides of this debate have been wrong and i think it's it's unfortunate I think it's because at the end of the day I i have to say that I think that it's because we we as a council we as a city have handled it badly we actually have actually haven't had the discussion I was just at FCM last week and I and and I talked to a lot of people about secondary Suites and I have to say that a lot of a lot of our sister cities across the country said there they were a lot of times I got mom what you haven't done that yet it's not an issue it isn't an issue it hasn't been an issue as part of the affordable housing task force where we we looked at other cities it wasn't an issue I will support some of these I won't support all of the the potential recommendations will be before us but I have to just say that I support them I support this not reluctantly but just as just the piecemeal approach is just not way to move forward for our city and I and it is disappointing thanks alderman Pincott alderman Carra you've spoken on this already did you have another question Oh for the next one older equipments yes thank you your worship i echo many of alderman Pincott comments I suppose we all feel to some extent disappointed that this hasn't been that the idealistic an utopian fully informed public debate and that to me is a tragedy the extreme emotions on both sides for the past three weeks have been remarkable our staff and ward 6 has put together a list of yes and no calls and emails 150 knows 99 yeses changed from the original opening the momentum is going towards yes but nonetheless still at this point three to two against the compelling input that I received those in community discussions when I'm at the skating parties or the barbecues or whatever for the past several weeks and I think the best word to describe the feelings in Ward 6 instead it there's been apprehension I think there's been a real worry about home values behavioral problems owner occupancy parking safety the key issues we've been talking about which I hope are enshrined and final documents aren't articulated in these proposals that on table right now but I I will be looking for those in the bylaw amendments somehow included as part of la's for the city I think going this route with r2 and and and all the other language districts enumerated i think is a very soft first step and I'm not sure shows the political will that the perhaps the city could be but i think is something that Ward 6 would I think be amenable towards I look forward to reading the bylaw amendment I have some questions i'm not sure if now is the appropriate time to be asking questions about the pros as a revolve so I'm bringing forth this bylaw amendment will it be going through CPC i guess i'd post that question is that what will happen will there be a public will it then come to council as part of a public hearing mr. Watson through they chair all amendments to the land use bylaw calm calorie Planning Commission and come for a public hearing at city college so they be an opportunity for public input at that point that's correct that will be a fulsome debate thank you as opposed to so much time for folsom debate then on that note your honor thank you very much thanks alderman pootmans anyone else on number one before we I call an alderman Chabot to close alderman Chabot thank you worship well um you're right members of council there has been a lot of debate it's been a lot of debate on this issue for many many years actually not just for the last couple three months we just approved a municipal development plan which talks about intensification intensification and says in a sensitive manner in close proximity to transit and nodal developments blanket approach I don't think it's consistent with the municipal development plan because it doesn't concentrate intensification in places that make sense this at the very least is there's a certain sense of expectation that at some point in time secondary suite may develop next door to you by moving it from discretionary to permitted use then facilitates that opportunity it provides an increased opportunity for people to develop secondary Suites in those areas where at least at some point in time somebody is going to say you know what I bought in this area with the expectation that this might happen the this is not going to make one single illegal sweet legal not one however it will provide an increased opportunity we heard the numbers 116,000 but because we've excluded r 1 s or r1n and RC 1 n it actually reduces the number down to some 60 6800 or something but then again that also does not include the MCG mcl and c2 mm-hmm h1 and h2 mhm three and I don't know what that number constitutes but I can tell you that the other ones represents about sixty six thousand eight hundred additional homes or additional properties that will move from discretionary permitted so people are concerned that this in essence takes away the opportunity for people to voice their opinion on us it it it doesn't really change things from discretionary to permit it other than it facilitates it makes it cheaper to do it doesn't create an onerous process for somebody should they want to apply for for a secondary suite because with discretionary people can can object to it send their comments to the authority and subsequently if the authority approved that they can still file an appeal and go in front of subdivision development appeal board the cost for development permit is significantly more than a building permit the sum of the new communities have been designed specifically to accommodate a higher density development than what was strictly approved based on the density by the inclusion of RC 1s and again some of those people buying those homes may not want to go through the process and pay the additional costs associated with development permit this is saving people money it's providing increased opportunity as mean so far as RC 1 and r 1 and the reason that I wasn't prepared to move the rest of the amendments and why I wanted to move just this is again in keeping with the MDP which talks about sensitive intensification public engagement opportunity for people to provide input on to what they would like to see their community develop out bats what are the infrastructure costs associated with increased intensity many of the new communities in particular had a particular density that was envisioned and if we start increasing by virtue of a blanket approval there may be a need to increase our road infrastructure more police more fire protection more recreational facilities the list goes on where do we do a class recovery there is no mechanism by way of the land use bylaw to do that without imposing additional levies specifically on secondary Suites now that's why this is something that is expected it's not out of context it's in keeping with the MDP it's it's not a panacea but it is at least providing additional opportunity for providing some affordable housing without without negatively impacting some of the community and to suggest that this may not have a negative impact in the community I would argue otherwise some people say that they may this is going to open the doors if we make do a blanket approval and some say that well look at other cities that what does the experience been in other cities only 200 applications 200 applications yes in Edmonton 200 legal applications currently we know that there's anywhere from fifty thousand on up of illegal secondary Suites on the basis of that they are illegal if we were to make it a transition from just from not permitted to permitted there'd be a sense of expectation that there that they are allowed not whether they're permitted are not permitted or discretionary allowed so how many other illegal suites do we think will develop how many illegal suites developed and some of these other communities we don't know that no one has ever given us that number all they've given us is how many legal applications there's been so I'm not prepared to move forward on a blanket approval I think this is a at least a soft approach and I think we should take a soft approach we are not any other city we are Calgary we are unique and I think we need to take a unique approach and I think this is the best mechanism moving forward so I hope you'll support this thanks very much alderman Chabot so on this recommendation are we agreed any opposed carried alderman Carra thank you now we get into the real debate and as preference to the real debate I'd like to state that I don't think anyone has made the assertion that secondary suites are the answer to affordable housing I think everyone's made the argument that they are an integral component of the solution I started communicating with my communities in ward 9 quite a while ago telling them that this is something that's coming down the pike and that the issue is fraught because it's really a two-part question on the first side it's a principled issue and I think the principled issues are pretty pretty significantly on the side of the Angels secondary suites are a critical opportunity for the city of calgary in terms of affordable housing and we're talking about for students we're talking about for artists we're talking about for workers we're talking about for seniors and for allowing seniors to stay in their homes we're talking about for disabled its poverty reduction strategy it's not a panacea it's not the only solution but it's part of the solution it's part of the city's commitment to complete communities it's part of the city's need to be economically competitive as special as we come out of a recession and it's an expression of positive property rights as opposed to negative property rights which is one of the few arguments that's being made on the other side at the principal level and so I recommended that my communities read the mayor's platform i sent them links and to start having a real conversation i said because when you send me your letters i want you to talk to me about the principles in terms of the principles because the principles are undone I ibly on the side of the angels there's another side to this equation too and that has to do with the technical challenges surrounding secondary suites and that is a very important but a secondary matter a separate matter and the technical requirements have to do with problems with our land use bylaw they have to do with problems with our neighborhood based planning processes they have to do with problems with our development approvals processes and our development appeals processes where a lot of these discretionary issues are you know destined to end up they have to do with our enforcement practices and they have to do with our ability to have influence with regards to the reform of provincial building and fire and safety codes we're not going to be able to address those technical issues in any sort of meaningful way unless we make a strong statement regarding the first proposition which is the principled side of the equation having made that argument to my communities I don't know what you're saying to me I'm in the middle of speaking thank you um he's getting there okay well I'm about to make a motion and this is my prelude to making the motion he has lots of whereas us yeah it's a preamble that's right I with with my communities I've received 46 thoughtful letters and emails in favor 28 thoughtful letters against for undecided and I've received another 35 in favor from the city at large and 27 against from the city at large but it comes down to the technical proposition that we have to be able to solve this problem and we're not putting ourselves into a position where we can solve it so having said that I would like to move recommendation number five which refers lpt 2011 11 back to administration for further work to examine the question of allowing secondary suites is illegal use and all use districts with specific consideration too and these are the technical issues that are major barriers the feasibility of a business license system for secondary suites to regulate owner occupation as well as enforced neighborhood standards and be the development of a new enforcement approach to focus on sweets that are unsafe or otherwise non-compliant the reality is we have a huge black market and sweets that is a reality these people are living with safety issues and they're living with social justice issues and we have to address that and so I think number five makes that motion puts us on the right path and it's a strong step and I encourage council to support motion 5 and if you don't please explain to me from the principal side and from the technical side why you're not thanks alderman Hodges very well alderman Pincott oh thank you worship uh well I'm going to propose an amendment to the motion and that is to delete why not it's a referral motion you can own that's why he said it separately from the others you can only you can only imagine as to time then then I will vote against this if the available today if it did contain just be around enforcement because that actually is one of the issues that we've heard about that I've certainly heard from a lot of residents as okay so you make this legal everywhere how are you going to enforce it how are we going to enforce how we're going to make sure so I fully support actually looking at how we can do in enforcement around compliance and non-compliance as to a I there and the reason I will not support this referral is because of a I don't see the point of making it a permitted use removing the development permit process and then actually adding a business license process top of it I do not see the point a saying too that 85 year old grandmother who wants to have a secondary suite in her home so that somebody will mow the lawn and clean the sidewalk of snow in the winter oh and by the way you have to have a business you have to have a business license to do this I don't think it's an appropriate path to go down I think replacing one permit process with a licensing process is doesn't cut red tape I don't want to have to turn an 85 year old grandmother into a business owner so on that notion because it has been moved and I can't amend it I can't amend a referral although I do see the orange books out you can't amend a referral we're trying to figure out if we can call them separately okay if they can be called separately I will support be but if they can be called separately i would ask that you call a separately so that i could vote against it and i hope everybody else would is I said other why otherwise I I should point out for clarification alderman Pincott well that was beautifully well spoken as always a actually doesn't say do that a says go investigate if that's going to work or not and I just want to be clear that that's not what you said that's that's fine I don't I then I wouldn't like to not what have us waste administration time and money investigating something which i believe is completely inappropriate better thank you we're still looking on whether we can call them separately but alderman Chabot well thank you your worship and an alderman Pincott for making that very passionate plea to not tie it to owner occupancy for me it'd be is equally as challenging if not even more challenging and and the reason I say that is because of the number of fun safe sweets that I've had to deal with in my community and the challenge that the enforcement officer has to try and and bring those into compliance their inability to enter the premises the courts not upholding the request to enter into those premises this isn't a city of calgary issue this is a cessation constitutional issue this goes far beyond our ability to legislate beyond what it is that we've tried to do in fact I've had both arguments people complaining about secondary illegal unsafe secondary Suites next door to them as well as complaints from from people that own some of these suites by how forceful are our enforcement officers have been in trying to get in the door and how they've made their way into the door in their opinion contrary to what is is ethical and yet I hear from the enforcement officers that that that is their only opportunity to be able to get in there otherwise it's virtually impossible so be I can't see how we could possibly change it without changing our courts system changing provincial legislation and federal legislation to to facilitate that or give us an opportunity to actually go into these suites and determine where the deficiencies aren't trying corrective we just don't have the tools to do it we and nor do we have the officers that our officers have such a huge backlog on just a complaint basis number of illegal suites that exists that they can't keep up with the current workload just I can't I can't see how this can actually work so I'm not going to support it thanks alderman Chabot no alderman Lowe while you worship excuse me alderman Pincott summed up the difficulty I have with with a very well and I agree wholeheartedly with him further if it was possible to amend the body of number five to say refer van back for further work including consultation with r 1 and r c1 communities I might be along might be able to do something with it because it seems to me and that would be an opportunity alderman Carra to against the principle as you call it argument and see if it in fact Trump's how people feel about property rights as a principle so recognizing that I can't amend this I can't support it basically because it does not include the very people who are directly affected the people who made the single biggest investment of their lives probably researched it carefully and chose chose to live in an r1 or RC one community was an expectation that those conditions would not change at least without without there being consultant they may not agree and i'll use alderman Farrell's expense experience in Brentwood some stunning results of that detractors all over the place but you consult and you achieve at the end of the day something point of order if alderman Lowe would be willing to crap sorry you'd be willing to find the way to insert that three words or less i'd be happy to include it as a friendly and in fact the fact is alderman craw the procedural bylaw says i can't do it alderman Pincott couldn't do his the only thing I can amend is a disaster time yes so we can in fact take them separately however we can't you can include three words as a not only not in a referral motion no referral however if you and the seconder alderman Hodges wanted to withdraw your motion and we had unanimous consent of all the members presence then you could put a different motion he wants to include community consultation I'd be happy to do that alderman Hodges are we agreed to allow alderman Curragh to withdraw this motion anyway this terrible war has to stay on the table alderman Chabot is opposed why okay fine it stays on the table my question was going to be could we address awesome bin cuts if she asks the same time I can vote on them separately but obviously we cannot alderman Chabot said no so that leaves me and i would suggest anybody who's interested in respecting their rc1 property or not an r 1 and r c 1 property owners no alternative but not to support it as written now once that happens your worship somebody can get up in their hind legs and replace emotional yes if it fails that is certainly possible to do so Thank You alderman Hodges you'll allow this as debate or not your worships or wait for you to state in all the years of the sdab appeals and discussing things with staff in the planning department the bile enforcement division I've not run into a case and maybe miss flan house where a bylaw enforcement officer though he was refused entry ultimately couldn't in fact achieve entry to a building to based on complaint he was for she was following up on seems to me since the 80s the city has had the legislation in the mga now part 17 of the mga the Planning section to obtain access whether by means of court order or a volatile and Lord property owner voluntary voluntarily agree to allow an inspection and that seems to me that's the way the system is unless there's some vinson radical change in the last few hours your worship it's possible for the inspectors to enter a property provided that the owner resident consents to their entry however if they do not get the consent then there is an ability under the municipal government ought to make an application to the Court of Queen's Bench for an entry order however there is a cost for filing fee in excess of 200 dollars there is a need for staff resources to actually prepare an affidavit and originating notice it can be opposed my experience with them I have done some is they are fairly straightforward but you never can predict what will arrive at the courts doorstep so there are some resource implications but there is a tool available in the mga that's I want to clarify your worship band that issue the city faced back in the previous by law to PA T so as far as I know there's nobility to do that though it's somewhat onerous there's a fee involved and of course it's before a court and you're not guaranteed the result but the pathway pathway to the court is set out in legislation Thank You alderman Hodges alderman Farrell thank you well I will support the referral with reluctance I am I do think that there is a lack of clarity by members of the public on the difference between a poorly maintained illegal sweet that is creating havoc in their community and what we're recommending which is a secondary suite a very different animal and until we can somehow explain to Calgarians the difference and how we will manage the difference I think we'll continue to have this debate we've had this debate I think since i got elected so and i do hope that members of the administration can find some solutions some meaningful solutions to deal with item B which is deal with the unsafe non-compliant and I think we need to we need to use some teeth in the bylaw I know the bylaws exist but perhaps it's the reluctance that we've had to to clean these places up because they're the only solution to a lot of tenants but council it I urge every one of you to look mr. Halliday in the face the father who lost his daughter in the parkdale fire excuse me and tell him we shouldn't be addressing this issue we must address this issue if we can look in the mirror at night no as alderman Pincott said this is not a panacea but my research with the committee to end homelessness we looked at portland edmonton toronto vancouver victoria and each of them looked at us with with sort of blank faces going of course you do this this this is a no-brainer in most of those cities it offered ten percent of the housing affordable housing solution that's ten percent of the housing solution without a public subsidy so no it's not a panacea but it is very meaningful and they were just including the individuals that were being assisted that tennis orb is being assisted not certainly the mortgage helper for young families and the seniors who are able to stay in their homes we have communities in our one that have the lowest population of in their history because they have an aging population or family sizes or lower so any discussion that this is going to put a burden on our water or sewer or fire department is frankly laughable it's invisible density council and it is something I believe that we at some point in time have to get our heads around so I'll support this simply because I know that we don't have the numbers to go forward and I think that some of this work may help get some people on side who have a fear of what this will do to their community so meaningful discussion not just to delay please Council thanks alderman Farrell eldren MacLeod thank you worship I too have had quite a number of emails on this issue and quite frankly at most of what I've had have been at some level have there's been a lot of misinformation as alderman Hodges pointed out on the process in particular and I do think that we need to do we need some more time to do a better job with respect to informing people what this really means I was part of the tenure the development of the 10-year plan to end homelessness I did serve on a subcommittee and this this inclusive zoning was part of the recommendations that we made and I have to say this was part of a very big puzzle there was many pieces to it this is one small piece in a very large puzzle it is not going to solve the the problems that we have with housing and homelessness and I would hazard a guess that very few people will that will actually move forward for many of the existing illegal suites they can't be made legal for reasons of the structure of the house or costs related and I'm I think that our ability to accommodate people who are transitioning in their life who are getting older and wants somebody in theirs in to live with them in the basement because they're becoming more infirmary need some support in other ways I think that's important and I think it so it deals with with financial issues it deals with you know another example is somebody who gets divorced it allows the family to stay in the house if they can rent out basement or a bedroom for that matter and we do have you know the whole empty bedroom thing and you know that the effective usage of the square footage of the houses that we have that allows us to use our infrastructure more effectively I am a little concerned I'm more than a little concerned about the whole notion of a business license but I will support this motion the reason that I do not want to see the whole thing defeated I think that and it's an odd way of doing things I think but I think we need to deal with the fears that have been expressed in many of the emails and I think we need to specifically address how this is not going to impact the quality of life of people that live in our one areas and we need to be really clear and we need to communicate that because of all the emails i've had that is the overarching piece is that it this is going to impact my quality of life and i also have to add that the emails that I've had that have been opposed have been very specific to one community in the ward not entirely but very specifically to one community most of the rest have been broadly over over the rest of the communities so there is some some differentials there that I think we also need to address and for those reasons I will support the referral Thank You alderman MacLeod alderman Demong I will not be supporting this either mostly for the same reasons that so eloquently stated by alderman Lowe and Pincott i do want to mention that the section b III believe this is the most important part that we have to deal with I'd rather it not be stated if this comes up again in another form or manner not so much as an enforcement only approach I'd like to see it come up in a carrot and stick approach there are two ways to deal with go with with the sweets and just saying enforcing the rules isn't always know the only way encouraging to bring them to bring up to code would be a far better manner um but knowing that in the matter it's written now I will certainly not be supporting it folks I on the clock well we actually have just another minute alderman pootmans did you want to in that case we are recessed until seven fifteen thank you Nick o ultimo improvements yes your worship present and accounted for um I'm just thinking indeed after a productive series of discussions after supper I think we're moving to number five next we're on number five where we at right now if we moved yet we moved number five yet number five is move has been moved by alderman Carra and yes I have a lot to say as a matter of fact I'm just collecting my thoughts and I think the key to number five is that we really do need to learn more when we ask for a fully informed debate I'm not sure any of us have experienced the kind of debate that we would have ideally sought for an issue of this important so I'm going to support number five as is thank you worship thanks alderman pootmans altering the cloud would you mind trading places with me you worship thanks very much all during the cloud I too am going to support number five for a very straightforward reason we have been talking to Calgarians for weeks and weeks and weeks on this and unlike all during Pincott i don't regret the conversation like it's been a good conversation and i think that well passions have been high passions should be high because this is a really important issue for the future of the city what we heard consistently was that the present system doesn't work even the most hardcore opponents of change admit that it is ridiculous for City Council to make decisions on individual secondary suite applications even the most strident of opponents agree that a system where we willingly turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of our neighbors allowing them to live in a world without the basic legal protections that the rest of us enjoy is not a world or a community in which they want to live we've heard that consistently and all this motion does it's very straightforward as it says go back and think some more we don't have all the solutions we don't have all the right answers but we are not willing to stop we are not willing to freeze in the system that doesn't make any sense and I think this is important because what alderman Farrell pointed out about those kids in Parkdale is very very true they didn't have enough heat they had no one to complain to the only option they got was an unsafe space heater and we know what happened to those people and it's because we as a community have willingly chosen to turn a blind eye because we know that we can to actually enforce the system we have right now we can't do it anymore council and so my goal in all of this it wasn't me who brought this forward I know the media love to say it was me who brought this borders report that came from through the lpt that was initiated by the previous council but I was pleased that it came forward because now that it is on the table we can no longer stop we can no longer say look the log jam the council has been stuck in on this for years is good enough because it is and so yeah we heard lots of great ideas and I would fully admit that what we had on the table going into today was probably not exactly the right answer but we've had lots of good ideas and all this motion does is allow us to be able to move forward it doesn't say you have to have licenses doesn't say you have to have a new enforcement approach it says don't think about it come back to council with some ideas because we understand that the system the way it is today is not the right answer it's not the final system we need so I encourage all of you to vote in favor of this because it really gives us the ability to move forward to do some more thinking and for council to ultimately make a decision on the kind of system we think our constituents want the last thing i should say is there's been so much back and forth on who's in favor of this who was against it here's what we know we know that there have been two scientific polls done in the last year and we know both of those polls showed overwhelming support for change in fact so much support that I would suggest if we asked Calgarians has this winter been too long we wouldn't actually get the same levels of support it's as close to a consensus as we're ever going to get and yeah it's true that some people who have their alderman on speed dial and hey I was one of those people before I got up here maybe the ones who are complaining about this it's true if you guys want more data I'll give you more data we've had 500 communications to my office 67 or 69 percent of them have been in favor of change the scientific polls that we've done have consistently shown that seventy five to eighty percent of people are in favour of change and if we'd ask them the question is the status quo a good answer i would suggest you that 99% of them which have said no so again I encourage you all to move this ball forward to help us move down the field and to help us do what's right for all of our neighbors thank you worship there's no other lights on so we'll call the question that I've had Oh Ottoman crotch clothes yeah I agree with what the mayor said you talked about I just want to make the point that nothing that we've agreed to do or even contemplate it to do today is the answer to any question it's sort of a chicken and egg situation secondary suites are not the answer to affordable housing nothing we've contemplated today or considered contemplating today is the answer to secondary suites it's just a step of motion in the direction of getting there and so I encourage you guys to support this because it's moving out of our current untenable situation and it provides the opportunity to get to a tenable place in the future and so i hope i hope will vote for this thank you close Thank You Aldrin cry I just want to ensure a confirm that we can call this in two parts with part with subsection a being the second part that is my understanding thank you and I've been asked for a recorded vote as well on each how am I going to call it will call a first and then be on procedure you worship the the difficulty was that is you know the preamble has some content in it which I cannot support a has for example I can support and be because so it's got to be called in three parts i guess my question you can't support any of them voted on the NB if i may all during the cloud again on procedure i did check with Miss flown and the preamble is read into a and it's reading to be so what you're really calling is pre a Malay and then preamble be okay is everybody clear what we're voting on sorry I i am not because are we from what the mayor just said our would we be technically voting on the preamble twice yeah okay I just want to confirm that thank you that would be my understand so we're having a recorded vote on a on the recorded vote alderman Hodges for alderman Farrell for alderman Carra for alderman colley-urquhart against alderman Chabot against alderman Demong against New Nenshi for alderman Lowe against alderman pootmans for alderman Stevenson against alderman Jones against alderman Pincott against acting mayor McLeod for that's lost to worship 67 thank you and now we'll vote on be on recorded vote for 5b oldman Hodges for alderman Farrell for alderman Carra for alderman colley-urquhart against alderman Chabot against alderman Demong against mayor Nenshi for alderman Lowe against alderman pootmans for alderman Stevenson against alderman Jones against alderman Pincott for acting mayor McLeod for that's carried your worship 76 and Rec algun Cara thank you you worship again this is a series of chicken and eggs that we're dealing with today recommendation number for direct administration to examine the Alberta building code requirements for secondary suites with respect to requirements that have a material impact on the construction costs of such sweets but do not have an impact on the safety of those houses based on those findings prepare a set of recommended changes to the building code for presentation of the provincial government and report back to council no later than twenty eleven June this is an essential component of the process we cannot even begin to address secondary suites without addressing you there's a bunch of other things that we have to address but we need to bring the province on side we need to send a strong message to the province that we're eager to do this work so I encourage you guys support this thanks alderman Carra and alderman Farrell is seconding and I would be really happy if someone were to ask me a question about my conversations with the provincial government on this particular issue when they get to it alderman Hodges well I think I'll ask that question because in fact that's what was going through my mind there for a couple of seconds as to whether in fact there already been a discussion about this given what I heard MLA whisper in my ear during the celebration of the chinese new years at the end of january of 2011 yeah I can I can certainly fill Council in on my conversations to back up a little bit as many of you know there was an MLA committee chaired by MLA mo amery some years ago whose goal was to simplify building and fire code regulations around secondary Suites and most of them make sense they're very common sense there is one sticky one which is the requirement for a separate heating system in duct work for the secondary suite and in fact we just got an interpretation memo that said that that could be defined as you guys are going to be shocked at this a separate furnace or a space heater yes exactly so I've talked with Minister Dennis on this issue a number of times and he has suggested as Minister and Minister Goudreau in fact wrote me back wrote a letter to me back saying that this is something they would be willing to consider my sense and reading between the lines is it would be easier for them to consider it if council were to authorize us to actually make it make an ask on that so for me this really is about that two furnaces issue yes but your danger would be the prof the problem I'm trying to be serious the problem would be if they take the second furnace out as a requirement and leave the space heater in so when you're discussing it with them as I know or there's a session with you keep an eye you know on that that they don't that we don't end up at the space heater routine I absolutely will alderman Hodges um and in fact I misspoke slightly a moment ago it was actually the letter from the minister that said in his mind a space heater is good and if council passes this I will be able to write him a note going no alderman Chabot um thank you worship well as you indicated there was some discussion some time ago to try and relax some of those regulations to facilitate bringing some of these units into compliance more easily and when it comes to relaxation of regulations and although some may not believe it has a material safety impact as you pointed out yourself even a separate furnace having lived in basement suites myself personally I can I can attest to one thing for sure we never seem to agree on on temperature us and people above so whether it's the upstairs it's boiling or the downstairs it's boiling there seems to be a need to supplement heat somehow someway in one of the rooms and they're analyzed part of the challenge and it goes beyond that at what other relaxations will there be I know one of the proposals had to do with ceiling heights relax the requirement for ceiling heights I know that ceiling heights may not be a problem for a guy of my height but people that are significantly taller than me which is probably the majority the population may have issue with the relaxation on some of those ceiling heights especially when you're in the midst of a crisis and you can't see where you're going what other relaxations would there be separate entrance door that opens in versus out I don't know what all the relaxations are but I'm not supportive of any initiative that will compromise or potentially compromise the safety of individuals that reside within a building so I'm not going to support this thanks alderman Chabot alderman Lowe my questions too I'm not too sure who can answer it is how long does that usually take the government of Alberta to make a regulatory change like this mr. Watson it takes a long time yeah as a matter of fact April fifteenth is when we have to get all our changes proposed changes to the over to government and there's up on my desk a week ago and there's an mo for my so i'm mr. wattson what if i could get you to just I'm sorry better that's better yeah I was just saying that April fifteenth is actually a deadline right now for them to consider changes for the 2012 operator building code as a matter of fact so that's the kind of lead time they're talking about I have a memo coming to you in a couple of days that are going to outline the ones that we are bringing forward I obviously I don't think we can get this into that pipeline that quickly will certainly bring it forward the minister I can order in council I think I'm solicitor is the right term can actually do something out of sync with the rest of it but that even becomes more difficult but we can certainly look at the what a large issue in terms of cost as his worship as mentioned is the requirement under all new construction now for secondary Suites to provide a separate heating system we may be able to get a agreement with the provinces his worship as mentioned that a space heater is the equivalent of a separate heating system certainly take that under advisement we're talking with the province almost on a daily basis on some of these cold changes ok you know that that you answered actually two questions and one there with how long a long times the right answer and when to cut off date with fifteenth of April this year I also understand that the tune order and council things can happen I always worry when that happens because very often like our election expenses things they're not really holy baked when they get through there so it's a bit of a concern if you could add something else to the list mr. Watson to the space heater I just had an application for a secondary suite and r1 just across my desk today the interesting thing about it was that to get to the mechanical room you had to go walk through the full length of the suite and that struck me as being a bit odd particularly on it and you know that that was between what people were living on the way out of the house i might add too so it's a it's a bit of an interesting conundrum so while i appreciate it alderman Carra and I have agreed this is an essential element I have no difficulty supporting this but quite frankly we're probably looking at 18 months conservatively until we have something material in our hands to work with but you've got to start somewhere thank you yes I'll turn MacLeod thank you worship I'll be brief on this I think this is another one of those barriers to creating safe and affordable sweets and i think that the province has committed themselves to the 10-year plan this is a piece of that puzzle and i think it needs to be supported for that many other reasons I i think that the code with respect to secondary suites is something that actually prevents people it encourages people not to get them legalized I guess is what I'm trying to say thank you thank you very much all during cloud on me Collier thank you your worship I was just reviewing those recommendations from the 2006 report of the province and basically what we're being asked to do here is covered in those recommendations I mean they do talk a lot about the the cost the number one recommendation was standards for secondary Suites should be developed for use and single-family homes to address the need for safety and affordability and they have a bunch of numbers around that the government should establish province-wide standards for secondary Suites under the Alberta building and fire codes and continue to have choice to determine where these suites should be permitted standards for secondary Suites should apply to both new and existing homes and there's others I guess what I would rather see mr. Watson is to have you scoped out with this piece of work would entail because if you don't have the resources in order to do this something has to come off the table in order for us to undertake this work I think it's important work but what you could do would be to look at the recommendations as they were approved by the government in 06 and and and look at that five year period on on where we've come since those recommendations were made so my question to you is if we do if we were to refer this and have you come back in a week or two to scope this out with the resources that would be required to do this work especially if it's going to take 18 months I don't know how long it would take to scope it out and a timeline with that what would that be useful good that's right yet thank you I don't think the actual amount of work scope this out is that large with respect the hard work is more of the discussions with the province and the negotiations to get people on side to support it both within the the building industry although again I don't think that should be a huge issue I'm not as worried about the we have people in building regulations now their job is to look at the code and make changes all the time and figure it how to move it forward and you're absolutely right based on the work that was done in 2006 there's a lot of work already preparatory work already done that we can bring back up again and look at so it's not so much getting it ready to go it's more about getting it over the goal line with the province that takes so much longer process right so I appreciate that I'm probably going to have more problems on the enforcement side I am on making code changes in terms of staff and this doesn't speak at all to consulting with anyone well no these these become very technical issues that there are code specialists and this is less of a consultation process than it is making sure that we coordinate with our partners and fire and then making sure that we can get partnerships with other municipalities and then build a case for the various committees that deal with code changes of the problems thank you thank you Thank You alderman colley-urquhart anyone else before I call on alderman Curragh to close alderman Carra yeah I think obviously this is a chicken and egg situation that we're dealing with and we have to just get moving rather than contemplate what comes first I hope you support this closed thanks alderman Carra on this recommendation are we agreed any opposed oh let me see to Shabo and Hodges are opposed very well then alderman Carra thank you your worship we've had a lot of talk today and I mean I think the one thing that I heard that isn't contained in the remaining two motions is the potential for community consultation and I did say in my opening address that I think that we have to get our community planning processes to the next level but in the spirit of addressing the principled issues which are housing affordability which our competitiveness of Calgary as we enter an economic upturn positive property rights as opposed to negative pop property rights the fact that people have the right to do things on their property rather than say what other people can do on there on the property surrounding them I'm going to move two and three to directing administration to prepare a bylaw amendment that allows for secondary suites and attached and detached forms to be a discretionary use in all districts currently zoned r1r c1 and RC 1l within a two point five kilometer radius of mount royal university state a cad Bow Valley College and the University of Calgary and number three directs administration to prepare a bylaw amendment that allows for secondary Suites attached and detached forms to be a discretionary use and all all districts currently zoned r1r c1 and RC 1l within 400 meters of an LRT station or brt stop I encourage the debate surrounding this to differentiate between the principal issues and the technical issues because that's really the crux of the of the matter if you need a seconder alderman Carra is anyone willing a second this thanks alderman MacLeod all right we got her on the table alderman put and and we will though I'm not even asked you we will vote on them separately alderman pootmans thank you your worship I think in the spirit of previous two promotions ago where we passed a referral to administration for more work on this subject in a keen sense from my point of view of wanting to learn how secondary Suites can be allowed to come out into the open become safe the dress parking issues drives owner occupants see all of these issues which I expect administration to consider and furthermore in due course a fully evolved public consultation and full public debate I would expect both the issues of number two that is allowing in a discretionary discretionary use in all districts currently zoned r1r c1 and RC 1l within a 2.5 radius and ward 6 of mount royal university the vast majority of that space will be in glenora gan which is RC 1 I would expect that matter to come under the consideration of number in other words i would expect administration to report on the implications of that for glamorgan in particular and i would assume other neighborhoods affected by the discretionary use now permitted or to be permitted around the other education institution to say take a bow valley and university of calgary similarly in number three directing administration repair bylaw amendment that allows for secondary suites attached and detached forms to be a discretionary use in all currently zoned r 1 r c1 and RC 1l within 400 meters of an LRT station i think that the implications for a number of the current LRT stations and those under construction will also be similarly affected and perhaps could be subject of some of the work and research that administration does so therefore i will not be supporting number two or number three in anticipation of the results of the research that will be done by administration thank you your worship thank you very much alderman pootmans alderman Hodges yeah you worship those are good comments but there's just one problem and number two and number three we're not asking the administration to do any research about anything and they are being given no direction other than a land use application it will fly forth sooner or later probably sooner to the various community associations and we the obligation may be on the city maybe on the association or other organized groups or knotts organized groups to hold some public discussion about it so if alderman pootmans if you had suggested that there be a public engagement exercise attached to number two and in fact to number three as well because that affects a lot of areas in the city given that brt so much more extensive system that it used to be then you need to let even administration now you expect a full public engagement process just as a private company a private developer would do with land use application this is what to say only it affects many many many more residential and commercial areas residentials the issue here course than any private private land use private developers application would ever do so I'm not going to be supporting two and three assists stand either and unless someone can define a good public engagement process it goes with it otherwise we're leaving mr. Watson and his staff hanging out to dry alderman Pincott thank you um question for mr. Watson around 400 meters when we've talked about walk distances and walking distances has it hasn't not typically being a 500-meter radius that we talked about to share the chair there's not a lot of science in this there's been over the last year or so talk about 600 meters then in the Calgary transportation plan it was decided to be 400 metres 400 meters is what about half a mile a mile or a mile court well yeah more your quarter okay so 400 meters is consistent with what we've identified in the CTP 400 is consistent with a calgary transportation plan which is why i think if you know you're looking for a number 400 is not a unreasonable number in terms of i mean obviously and the magic around all these things is of course as you go further the number of people willing to walk drops off and whether an author's connectivity and sidewalks and so on so you know he's always thought I get pic 600 I mean it okay all right make a circle David okay I just wanted to check it wasn't sure whether the 400 was consistent a good worship I would actually like to at this point like to propose an amendment thank you my amendment will be in number three would be to take the word discretionary and change men that to be permitted oh c'mon really that is my amendment okay i will allow it do we have a seconder I would second it if I could brain but well find that disappointing that that there wouldn't be a seconder for that we when we talk about the city that we that we just talked about in the transportation plan a missile development plan it talks about did I see a hand did I did I see a hand go up for a second oh no I think I did I think you got your second well that's good then I'm actually hold on no she and she she's ended today in motion right hey sorry nevermind so I find that to thank you on the cloud valiant effort you know we talked about concentrating or and starting to look around how we make use make make maximal use of our transit notes and to make secondary Suites permitted use around our transit nodes seems to me to be pretty much the place you want to start urban CSA last year gave a great report to Council on exactly how you could start with permitted use secondary Suites 400 meters around around LRT stations and how that would serve the the student population and how that would actually be able to allow us to maximize that of affordable housing for a population that is underserved so I just you know again so I find it disappointing that we're here once again we're talking about discretionary use boy if we were worried about you know work loaded sdab I I will again as I said initially I will support this but again my disappointment is in that it is peace me and I and I do wish that at the very least we could have had secondary Suites be a permitted use around the one place that they should be to start with alderman Pincott your remarkable powers of persuasion are on display yet again because you just got yourself a seconder thank you open so we haven't we have an amendment on the floor to change the word it was number just number three not number two okay so to change the word discretionary to permitted in number three on the amendment just wave your hand if you'd like to speak on the amendment alderman Chabot um your worship by just wondering whether or not we shouldn't move an amendment to the amendment on the basis of that we're moving into a completely new land use designation discretionary is one step this is taking two steps and in light of that I think public consultative process is absolutely essential in order to move into this permitted use as opposed to discretionary discretionary is one thing and and i'm all for thinking outside of the box but right now we need to first think inside the box before we start thinking outside the box and so that's why i'm going to propose that that we add to that motion following a public engagement process hold on all the rich boat the effect of what you're suggesting would be that regardless of the results of the public engagement they would still come back with a bylaw amendment making that change is that you're intense or would you rather have them go think about it and then come back maybe with a bylaw amendment it would probably be preferred the other way as you so what so what I would suggest is the following if you thought if you go with me leave it for now let's let the motion go if the motion passes there's no point because they would have come back without any way if the motion fails I will recognize you and you can put a new motion that says go do public engagement on this issue if it fails if it fails point to order you can't do an amendment to amendment to an amendment anyway it's not in magnitude MetaMan event or only at two this is all amendments no this is this as motions arising now salt new emotions yeah these emotions see so what do you think alderman Chabot it's not a generation a consistent so then you're suggesting that if this fails that that I should come bring forward an alternate motion that says yeah because the challenge here I mean you can do it I'm not gonna I'm not gonna rule it out of order it's just the challenge is the way it's worded now we're doing public engagement but they when we don't want option at the end of the public engagement which is not a game which is to bring forward the the bylaw and it seems a bit disingenuous to do that yeah okay I will stand down thank you for that but thanks alderman Chabot anyone else on the amendment just wave alderman Lowe well you worship as you're aware I had an anticipation with number five failing twice or together a motion which addressed the issue of community by community public engagement to do the research to determine that mr. Watson is dis the truth research yet what would provide the options of going this route that failed and I'm still sitting here looking at the language because I rolled into it issues concerning safety of sweets and community identified safety issues around sweets and there are many and they are identified by the communities whether or not we agree there they are safety issues or not everything you know perception is reality in these cases so I'm not without the community by community reason consultation I believe alderman pootmans you said this this hit spot four or five and communities in your ward a little hipped or in mine and what we're doing is eliminating the work done a Planning Commission where we've put in our 1s in d'l'ed into a community plans and so on that are not developed now but where there are parties patients are brt stations either now or planned and what this does is eliminates all of that and it does it without consulting the people and I can't support that I've said it before I'll say it again if you want to get people on board and you want to have a discussion with them on the principle as the ultimate across as the principles principle item issues around this then you had better talk to the folks if you want massive pushback do this and I for one I'm not interested in the pushback I think if we approach this properly there's an opportunity to have some acceptance but this will guarantee that won't happen so I won't support two or three or the amendment which is what you're actually debating on rate or the amendment k you're doing it all at once you worship it's all right I've got a bad throat and then I'm trying to save it for the real argument here I appreciate your being efficient alderman Lowe and so it's a it's a question of how you go about this if you want community buy-in or not this will not get community buy-in and unless you talk to people about it you're not going to get community politely and Oliver Hodges is exactly right this is exactly like the land use thank you to the amendment alderman Carra and all their equipments yeah I just want to say that a 400 meters five-minute walk the quarter the quarter mile walk it's you know a time-honored across civilization measurement most human settlements sort of fit within that 400 meter radius settlement pattern and it's been proven that people will walk five minutes to catch the bus provided they're walking through environments that are somewhat pleasant to walk through people walk 800 meters to catch high quality train service provided they're walking through a high quality pedestrian environment these are quantitatively established facts and best practices for 30 years urban design so that's where those numbers come from we're well all things being equal but you know there's a lot of walkable cities in frozen places whether it's Scandinavia or Denmark or Montreal no they're quite five minutes is is a gold-plated standard also we're building a transit infrastructure that's going out to these that's going out into these communities that represent a massive investment we have high-level city policy that's saying we are going to create complete communities around their secondary Suites is not a complete community make it's a small step in that eminent all during karate amendments we're speaking on the amendment I know okay you're saying and I'm saying I did not make I thought a baby step of discretionary use was the very least that we should responsibly tackle as as people who represent a municipal development plan that was passed by council and that was the result of exhaustive public engagement with the citizens of Calgary this is a rubber hits the road point i'd be happy to support permitted because i think it's the very least we can do I think it's almost the very least we can do discretionary uses the very least we can do so I'll support this thank you very much alderman Carra on the amendment alderman pootmans yes thank you your worship on the amendment I'm a little concerned by the the freewheeling sense i have here if i were proceeding through some fairly major policy decisions i have heard experts tell us and at lpt for that matter wise and experienced planners say if we are looking at at discretionary at a secondary suites period let's just leave it at that for the moment at secondary suites as a solution for density around LRT & brt stations we've really missed the mark these are not a density solution I've heard my dear colleague this evening say that this is an affordability issue and I'm not so sure it's that either just because its proximity to an LRT yes it has some elements of that but I'm not sure that's the policy either I'm familiar with the MDP and other documents there are a host of people that suggest by forcing anything around these LRT stations especially new ones is that go into established communities we're probably making a mistake we're rushing headlong into this without even a heads up to some of our communities who have a bear inkling that this might be on the horizon and now all of a sudden were entertaining an amendment to suggest permitted use in these areas this is several steps beyond what I think the communities and certainly myself are comfortable with so on that basis I will not be supporting the amendment Thank You alderman pootmans anyone else on the amendment on the amendment I'll drink what do you want to close well I'd want to grab grab one word that all new equipment said and he said force we're not forcing anything we're not forcing anybody to do anything we're saying them within an error within a radius within an area that makes sense from our end the MVPs perspective that makes sense if if we want to look at the Affordable component to maximize affordability we are giving you the homeowner the option to do this we're permitting you to do something with your property we're not forcing anybody to do anything and I think that if we are going to start somewhere with permitted use which as we anybody who has looked at this at other municipalities those other jurisdictions in Canada other places permitted uses we're almost everybody gets to its where it's what you do then this is the place to start is exactly around lr team brt stations exactly around those masks public transit hubs so we're not forcing anybody to do anything with this amendment what we're saying is we're giving we're allowing people to do things if they choose we're not forcing any community to change anybody to change I hope you do support this amendment I think it is if we want to be incremental let us be incremental let us be incremental towards where we know we need to get to which is permitted use for secondary Suites and let's start around the place that it makes the most sense on the amendment closed on the amendment recorded vote on the amendment you worship please okay on the amendment the amendment is simply to change the word discretionary to permit it that's the only thing we're voting on now okay in number three change the word discretionary to admit it to permitted in number three on the recorded vote alderman Hodges against alderman Farrell for alderman Carra for Oldman colley-urquhart against alderman Chabot against alderman Demong against alderman MacLeod for alderman Lowe against alderman pootmans against alderman Stevenson against alderman Jones against alderman Pincott for bernanke against us loss to worship thank you back to the motion on the floor which is number two and number three on your screen I think you already spoken on this oh no you haven't told him oh you only spoke on the amendment so if you want to hit the main motion you may know I spoke to both your worship but not supporting I know but he still has the right thanks alderman Lowe alderman pootmans you've already spoken on the main motion I think you said you didn't like it okay alderman Demong would seem its amendment Tom I don't know if you're going to consider this to be a conflicty I would like not to have the BRT stop listed as they're mostly a transitional stage at this point what brt study send you a link to be an amendment so my um my practice on this one alderman Demong even though other rich people will say it's not in the procedure bylaw my practice is to ask the mover and seconder if they find a contrary so all durand among is proposing an amendment he's I'm not asking you to vote yay or nay but he's 10000 proposing an amendment to remove or brt 1000stop from number three so alderman quran 10002 alderman MacLeod would you find that 10003 contrary to your motion we are going to 10004 call them separately uh-huh it's fine 10005 okay so i'll call them I'll call them in 10006 three sections then I just want to note 10007 that I think that brt stop in your lo's 10008 good wide so you don't the point of 10009 order i just think no I think brtc it's 10010 what point of order that 1001it's a good try though okay alderman 10012 Demong so we'll call them separately 10013 okay continuing on we are getting rid of 10014 the okay primitive scream scratched off 10015 is a two and a half kilometer radius a 10016 realistic area to actually have this as 10017 a discretionary it seems like an 10018 extremely long way I mean that's how 10019 many minutes is at gym Carlo sorry 10020 that's in incorrect um yeah I I will 1002tell you all during Demong that we went 10022 back and forth on that number and I was 10023 actually thinking of a 30 minute walk 10024 when I thought that that would sense 10025 alright thank you on motion alderman 10026 Chabot sooner if you're going to make 10027 the suggestion on this as you did on the 10028 previous motion if I were to suggest 10029 that we would probably want to undertake 10030 a consultative process on around this 1003issue same issue right consultative 10032 process amounts to the same thing okay 10033 thank you I'm not trying to steamroll 10034 you alderman Chabot but if it's councils 10035 will to just move forward today then 10036 there's there's not much point if it's 10037 not council as well then I'll recognized 10038 you right away and you can put to move 10039 forward on it is very simple motion to 10040 direct administration in to engage in a 1004consultative process around and then 10042 just turn two and three in two bullet 10043 points okay all right anyone else on 10044 this motion I'm yeah actually I would 10045 I'll going thing cut thank you 10046 oh really energy thanks alderman Pincott 10047 alderman Pincott just looked over at me 10048 and said don't you want to debate I'm 10049 comfortable with moving forward on these 10050 two particular motions I understand that 1005council will you know has had a bit of a 10052 discussion around these but these two 10053 also have been on the on the docket if 10054 you will for some time number three is 10055 very much part of the municipal 10056 development plan and the Calgary 10057 transportation plan at least in my 10058 opinion it is that we've already passed 10059 number two just makes sense and you 10060 remember that one of the reasons that 1006I've been raising this for so very long 10062 is because I really truly believe that 10063 we need to afford protections so the 10064 folks who are living in his illegal 10065 suites someone some time ago talked 10066 about a carrot and stick approach I 10067 think it was all during too long the 10068 problem with the situation we have right 10069 now is that we have no carrot we only 10070 have a stick and the stick we have to 1007use is the same stick for everyone so 10072 alderman Chabot and I were speaking out 10073 over dinner and we were saying that in 10074 the neighborhood in which he lives in in 10075 which I grew up most of the illegal 10076 sweets are you know fine they're decent 10077 places to live but in other 10078 neighborhoods they're not in other 10079 neighborhoods in his ward they're not 10080 and I would agree with that the problem 1008is right now that we only have the 10082 ability to treat them exactly the same 10083 the real fire pit versus the actual 10084 totally decent place to live with the 10085 decent landlord what this allows us to 10086 do in those areas particularly around 10087 the universities where we know there are 10088 large concentration of illegal sweets is 10089 it actually provides us with the carrot 10090 because then we can go to the landlords 1009and say this is what you need to move 10092 into compliance instead of saying take 10093 those students out and that's really 10094 what this is all about and I would you 10095 know I understand certainly if council 10096 wanted to think more about this one but 10097 I think we thought through this one 10098 quite well we've had some very good 10099 input from the students association 10100 over the last couple of years about this 1010one they strongly are in favor because 10102 it protects their members and I think 10103 that today we're right where we're ready 10104 to move on this one and I would I would 10105 I would urge council to go forward and 10106 move on these two thank you thank you 10107 okay we're going to have request for a 10108 recorded vote when I'm all three so 10109 thank you so a recorded vote then on 10110 number two that is before us the 1011university's first oh I apologize almond 10112 crop closed your light on so thank you 10113 consider it closed then a recorded vote 10114 on number two just does he 10115 two more 10116 until December and it all starts again 10117 no actually I think well if this fails 10118 she bows oh well if this if this fails 10119 on the recorded vote alderman Hodges 10120 against alderman Farrell for alderman 1012Carra for alderman colley-urquhart 10122 against alderman Chabot against alderman 10123 Demong against alderman MacLeod for 10124 alderman Lowe against alderman pootmans 10125 against alderman Stevenson against 10126 alderman Jones for mayor Nenshi for 10127 deputy mayor pincott for its loss to 10128 Russia thank you very much on number two 10129 up to the words station so LRT station 10130 so without the last three words recorded 1013vote please 10132 on the recorded vote alderman Hodges 10133 against alderman Farrell for alderman 10134 Carra for alderman colley-urquhart 10135 against alderman Chabot against alderman 10136 Demong against alderman McLeod for 10137 alderman Lowe against alderman pootmans 10138 against alderman Stevenson against 10139 alderman Jones for mayor Nenshi for 10140 acting mayor pincott for its loss to 1014worship thank you and with that there is 10142 no point in voting for the last one well 10143 no there's still is it's three words not 10144 hanging on anything yeah you're actually 10145 right okay they actually do presume 10146 ample alderman Chabot 10147 as predicted probably worship I have an 10148 alternate proposed motion we choose I've 10149 got a partially written out which is 10150 direct administration to undertake a 1015consultative process to consider 10152 rezoning r1 rc1 RC 1l to consider 10153 amending the land use bylaw to add 10154 secondary suites is discretionary use 10155 within 2.5 kilometer radius of Mont 10156 Royal University say take advil valley 10157 college and university of calgary and I 10158 wonder if we can undertake a similar 10159 direction for recommendation number 10160 three I think the same I think what we 1016can probably do alderman Chabot is to 10162 what you just said as the preamble and 10163 then just show what are currently two 10164 and three is the points underneath make 10165 sense yep okay if that's clear enough 10166 for for the madam clerk is that clear 10167 enough we read it one more time to 10168 preamble okay direct administration to 10169 undertake consultative process to 10170 consider rezoning r1 rc1 RC 1 l to 1017consider amending the land use bylaw to 10172 add secondary suites as as discretionary 10173 use within 2.5 kilometre radius of Mont 10174 Royal University say take advil valley 10175 college and university of calgary and 10176 same preamble to add secondary streets 10177 discretionary use within 400 meters of 10178 LRT station or brt stops very elegant 10179 thank you so so we have a seconder for 10180 that please to do a constable 1018consultation process on those two things 10182 that just lost Aldrin Devon all right 10183 any discussion on the sweat alderman 10184 Lowe 10185 I was getting better the public 10186 consultation process I'd be happier if 10187 it was a community by community public 10188 consultation process to explore options 10189 so i will put that amendment to this and 10190 that report back to lpt by februari of 1019next year i'm just waiting until we have 10192 the original motion on the screen and 10193 then we'll look your event meant okay 10194 sure no problem musical interlude anyone 10195 I'll turn pink up little song and dance 10196 no oh no I was only kidding all third 10197 thing up if I really wanted a song and 10198 Nancy would have called up alderman 10199 Carra 10200 so while we're waiting for it to go on 1020the screen alderman Lowe let me just so 10202 I understand your intent is to do a 10203 community by community constellation on 10204 these two issues on these two issues 10205 that affected communities within the 10206 radius is described it's quite extensive 10207 and it is quite extensive and the other 10208 thing is to do that with view to 10209 creating options last bit again alderman 10210 Lowe was a view to creating options to 1021extend it will cost a significant amount 10212 of money and I would suggest that the 10213 this would be a worthy candidate or the 10214 innovative fund I don't know why mr. 10215 tobert finds that so amusing but the 10216 also your worship the money would have 10217 to come separately since we don't yet 10218 have terms of reference for the 10219 innovation I appreciate that you worship 10220 and yells also it's worth it could be 1022conducted by consultant 10222 just a thought well I'm standing here in 10223 my feet your worship I just have a 10224 question in relation we just said that 10225 we're going to do a blanket policy and 10226 report back in December so shouldn't 10227 this come either before or in December 10228 as well because if it comes in February 10229 and we've already decided to do the 10230 other way it's a mute point that's 1023exactly why I was wrinkling my forehead 10232 and I've been signalled honest and not 10233 December's just fine you can come 10234 together we have to wherever we're about 10235 to do that oh that will we will arrange 10236 that out of the 2g never out of the 10237 other perhaps fund mr. Watson doesn't 10238 have the money to do it I know that but 10239 we do we did create an Innovation Fund 10240 of innovative use of land innovative 1024land use I think it's appropriate that 10242 we consider it that way if we're serious 10243 about it will spend the money on it 10244 alderman Lowe mr. tobert is whispering 10245 in my ear that he would much prefer to 10246 be able to bring a report back to size 10247 us and determine what the cost would 10248 look like in terms of moving forward and 10249 our mr. tobert that's exactly what I 10250 would want to do but so inter we seem to 1025be so here's rection here regardless of 10252 logic and reason I have no difficulty 10253 asking mr. Watson or mr. tobert to scope 10254 this project and bring us a budget and 10255 biggie how quickly could you do that mr. 10256 Tovar he says at least a month then we 10257 would you do that a month from now is my 10258 point you worship is there's 22 points 10259 there's community by community 10260 consultation and options for doing it I 1026have an idea so you're referring this 10262 yes so I have an idea alderman Chabot 10263 has had a motion on the floor to direct 10264 administration to do this you right this 10265 minute while you're standing rather than 10266 move your amendment could say refer this 10267 for this matter to the April opt for a 10268 scoping report detailing costs on a 10269 community by community consultation if 10270 that gets us out of this bind i will do 1027that your worship do we have a seconder 10272 Thank You alderman Jones so what we have 10273 in front of us right now is a referral 10274 motion because alderman Chabot does not 10275 have enough to do at lpt chairman 10276 fast for stress course you know it's 10277 good it's good that we could all laugh 10278 together after what we've been through 10279 today so what we have on the table right 10280 now is a referral motion moved by 1028alderman Lowe seconded by alderman Jones 10282 to refer alderman Shabazz motion to the 10283 April meeting of lpt with some costing 10284 around a community by community 10285 consultation sound good discussion on 10286 yes we find that a little bit just to 10287 say refer back to the administration for 10288 a report thank you okay discussion on 10289 the referral motion want to close 10290 alderman Lowe oh I'll drink up yeah they 1029don't work you're you're you're turning 10292 yourself on and off let me try from here 10293 like yeah I'm like hey Mike thanks um 10294 I'm just as challenge with the referral 10295 as I was with emotion and and I get part 10296 of to do a large scale community 10297 consultation to even scope it around 10298 something that would be a discretionary 10299 discretionary use so around something 10300 then that would always involve community 1030consultation at the end of the day on 10302 every single individual application 10303 feels like seems like very large 10304 exercise in a lot of work and a lot of 10305 money that at the end of the day if we 10306 have the community consultation and we 10307 decide to do it as discretionary use as 10308 per 2 & 3 each individual application 10309 will then involve community consultation 10310 and development permits do involve 1031community input it's is I'm just we're 10312 throwing work on top of work and the 10313 first each pile of work is getting 10314 bigger 10315 so for that reason I I think that I 10316 think that I I won't support the 10317 referral and I won't support and support 10318 the motion either it you know what if we 10319 were going to do it around permitted use 10320 I'd be all over it thanks alderman 1032Pincott on the referral motion alderman 10322 Chabot all my lights not working very 10323 well huh interesting that led is not 10324 work and I think a referral motion is is 10325 probably a good idea it's going to have 10326 some cost implications associated with 10327 it if we're going to do this thing right 10328 then probably the appropriate method to 10329 go about doing it is a community by 10330 community basis on in light of the fact 1033that we have so many LRT stations and 10332 brt stations that reside in so many 10333 different communities that I I can't 10334 help but imagine my communities would 10335 want want to weigh in on the discussion 10336 of having our one rc1 developed within 10337 close proximity to the to the LRT 10338 stations if it were going to be allowed 10339 or it's currently not allowed this is 10340 essentially providing s designation to 1034all of those RC ones and r1 properties 10342 and so it equates to a mass rezoning and 10343 as far as whether or not this is going 10344 to be a double and M&E kind of a thing 10345 where we undertake a consultative 10346 process now and then undertake a 10347 subsequent consultative process 10348 community consultative process is 10349 actually not entirely accurate when you 10350 apply for development permit application 1035there's a very limited circulation as to 10352 who has an opportunity to weigh in on 10353 the discussions yes of course it is 10354 known as posted but typically unless 10355 you're an affected resident unless 10356 you're directly next door to 10357 or two or three doors down from the 10358 house that's applying for development 10359 permit application your input is doesn't 10360 carry a lot of weight the community 1036association of course can weigh into it 10362 on weigh in on the issue but as long as 10363 you meet the requirements of the land 10364 use bylaw you're providing off-site 10365 on-site parking you have minimum lot 10366 width requirements you're meeting the 10367 requirements of the land use bylaw your 10368 argument of I don't want it next door to 10369 me just won't fly it bears no no no wait 10370 so this I think it's a very thoughtful 1037approach it is in keeping with the 10372 municipal development plan looking at 10373 sensitive and intensification providing 10374 it where it it makes the most sense to 10375 do it at the end of the day I think this 10376 is it may be a baby step but I think 10377 it's the right baby step and I will be 10378 supporting this so referral thanks 10379 alderman Chabot on the referral I am NOT 10380 time I was just looking around I've got 1038a whole speakers I'm just going to go 10382 through the speakers list I assume you 10383 want to speak on there for alderman 10384 Jones okay alderman Hodges yes we 10385 worship members council the terms of 10386 reference are important hopefully a 10387 report can be ready for the April lpt 10388 meeting and I'll be able to make some 10389 further comments and about what sort of 10390 as much as mr. Watson may grit his teeth 1039about what sort of what type or what it 10392 would be the best route to go if you're 10393 going to go the consulting route but I 10394 know that mr. Watson has his strategic 10395 reserve in the department so I'm not as 10396 concerned about cost as about how the 10397 money is spent so we can get into that 10398 at the April lpt 10399 question but I don't think you intended 10400 it as such alderman Carra thank you your 1040worship members of council I'm going to 10402 agree with alderman Pincott on this one 10403 I think if we're spending time and 10404 resources on community by community 10405 consultation we should be talking about 10406 overarching neighborhood change over 10407 time we should not be talking about the 10408 just the for the time being incremental 10409 no-brainer of allowing secondary suites 10410 secondary suites are just one part of a 1041comprehensive transformation that has to 10412 occur within 400 meters of transit stops 10413 the timing of that the end look all of 10414 that you know unless unless we're doing 10415 consultation and design work towards 10416 that end I don't think I don't see the 10417 point in spending time or resources and 10418 so I won't be supporting that referral 10419 motion I think it's a waste of 10420 everyone's time thanks alderman Cara 1042Lynn pootmans yes thank you your worship 10422 I will support this motion I think it is 10423 very important that the communities get 10424 an opportunity to discuss and learn more 10425 about the implications of what is a 10426 profound change to the zoning of their 10427 communities when we speak of forcing 10428 what we're speaking of is forcing a 10429 policy policy which can have profound 10430 impacts on the communities livability 1043for all stakeholders it has implications 10432 to the look in the field of the 10433 community and I think anything less than 10434 a community by community consultation 10435 will be unsatisfactory the impacts of an 10436 LRT station on a Glendale will be 10437 different than the LRT impacts on a 10438 Christie or an aspen so I think all of 10439 these areas are entitled to a community 10440 by community consultation and they might 1044well come up with different solutions 10442 and different ideas on a community by 10443 community basis so I heartily endorse 10444 this referral thank you your worship 10445 thanks alderman pootmans and good for 10446 you for being forward thinking when you 10447 set the LRT station on glendale let's 10448 think about that for a second 17th 10449 Avenue and 45th street right someday 10450 soon Aldwyn Farrell thank you well like 1045um alvin Pincott and Cara before me i'm 10452 not going to support this is this is a 10453 huge body of work and i'm sorry if it 10454 doesn't feel genuine this reminds me a 10455 little bit of the smoking by a lot or 10456 you guys remember it but we did get 10457 there eventually uh yeah please call it 10458 the no smoking by well no smoking by law 10459 if we can't manage to make these 10460 primidone or even discretionary around 1046LRT when it fits with everything we've 10462 all of our city policies in the new mdp 10463 and planet and fair calgary and all that 10464 that that I I just don't think we're 10465 we're ready so I won't be I won't be 10466 supporting it and I've heard the use of 10467 the innovation funds to to fund this 10468 very large body of work at this is an 10469 innovation council thanks alderman 10470 Farrell anyone else on the referral 1047motion on the motion to refer then oh 10472 I'm do you want to close alderman Lowe 10473 okay on the referral motion then this is 10474 to refer this to lpt in April for a 10475 scoping are we agreed any opposed call 10476 the roll please alderman Lowe ultimen 10477 MacLeod no alderman Pincott alderman 10478 pootmans alderman Stevenson yes Osman 10479 craw no alderman Chabot more work yes 10480 alderman colley-urquhart yes alderman 1048Demong yes alderman Farrell alderman 10482 Hodges yes alderman Jones mayor Nenshi 10483 no scary Jewish already I think ladies 10484 and gentlemen we may be done with 10485 10-point 3.4 own Noah was a referral 10486 motion it was a referral motion and any 10487 more motion arising on ten point three 10488 point four I'd like to make a motion to 10489 file recommendations of LPG you don't 10490 have to alderman Chabot because one of 1049the motions we one of the motions that 10492 we passed was to explicitly refer the 10493 report back to return to lpt so you 10494 don't need to file the recommendations 10495 okay darn i was hoping to file it i know 10496 you were looking forward to it but any 10497 other motions arising on ten point three 10498 point four okay ten point four point one 10499 progress towards 8020 by 2020 in the 10500 residential sector to you and II reports 1050alderman Jones their worship I'll move 10502 all the reports there was one 10503 presentation done that basically garden 10504 we had a company come in that gave us an 10505 alternative which we hence gives you the 10506 direction on number four to include in 10507 the report other ways of alternate 10508 concepts that were presented to look at 10509 how we can do waste and what it and is 10510 that do those alternate was their 1051current discussion at the committee if 10512 those alternatives included the 10513 waste-to-energy stuff that's in the 10514 report yes okay thank you do I have a 10515 seconder for that thanks alderman 10516 Pincott so we're going to move remember 10517 theres two now so ten point four point 10518 one and the one that we removed from the 10519 consent agenda which was ten point four 10520 point two on multifamily recycling 1052questions discussion on ten point four 10522 point one oh I'll do it mr. Pritchard 10523 waste energy 10524 I was a bit perplexed by the report to 10525 be frank it seems to dismissed a lot of 10526 what's going on on waste energy a bit 10527 out of hand am I reading too much into 10528 it thank you worship actually we spend 10529 18 months and produced a 750 page report 10530 you worship that really looked at 1053amongst other things waste-to-energy and 10532 the alternative approaches to dealing 10533 with organics so we started off with the 10534 looking at composting and then we've got 10535 a number of other technologies and all 10536 the way up to the most advanced waste to 10537 energy technologies and the 10538 recommendation that came from the 10539 consultant after that study was that 10540 there is a place for waste-to-energy and 1054there's time for it but but the but the 10542 simplest and most expedient way to deal 10543 with the initial problem of yard waste 10544 and food waste and residential is 10545 actually to go with a simple composting 10546 root and then by the time we get to sort 10547 of seventy-five percent diversion that's 10548 the time when we would start looking at 10549 the waste to energy technologies and by 10550 that time a lot of BM these sort of 1055untried and tested technologies will 10552 have been around for a bit longer and 10553 would have a better track record of 10554 knowing how they perform and so on so 10555 that this it's quite a thought well 10556 thought out strategy you worship in 10557 terms of the proposals that is precisely 10558 what I needed to hear mr. Pritchard 10559 Thank You alderman Carra asked an answer 10560 right there Thank You alderman Hodges 1056next item anything more on this one so 10562 on the committee's recommendations then 10563 did you want to close alderman Jones 10564 close on the committee's recommendations 10565 are we agreed any opposed alderman 10566 Chabot is opposed carried ten point four 10567 point two then which is the one we took 10568 off the consent agenda on multifamily 10569 recycling alderman it's already been 10570 moved and seconded so alderman Hodges 1057formerly 6.3 I was just looking for 10572 thank you formerly 6.3 10573 yes thanks worshiper Richard this isn't 10574 a committee meeting happened to be a die 10575 cut some of it on closed circuit 10576 coverage we have in the building next 10577 door and there's a bit more inquiries 10578 I'm receiving it away from condominium 10579 multifamily but condominium developments 10580 where they have no recycling service 1058whatever from any either private company 10582 or I gather with the rules where they 10583 are from the city so to open this up to 10584 you might say some City of Calgary 10585 services this would require an amendment 10586 to the policy we have at the present 10587 time plain and simple um that's correct 10588 your worship the the present direction 10589 we have is that that the city does not 10590 get involved in multifamily recycling 1059until it's evident that we're not going 10592 to achieve our 8020 goal by 2020 and and 10593 that's not the case at the moment so so 10594 complying with that direction we would 10595 wait and I think the strategy that we 10596 have here again is quite quite well 10597 developed in terms of being able to 10598 spend a little bit of time really 10599 working a lot more with the with the 10600 industry the private recyclers looking 1060at what perhaps the city's position 10602 might be ultimately and then coming back 10603 with it with a full plan for council to 10604 consider in the 20 15 to 17 business 10605 cycle yeah it's a couple of years old 10606 doesn't yep and I can pursue this 10607 conversation with you offline thinking 10608 alderman Chabot thank you mr. Pritchard 10609 where we at regards to the possibility 10610 of these private organizations 1061depositing material directly to the merc 10612 facility or I'll we facilitating thank 10613 you worship the the arrangement that 10614 we've made at present is to facilitate 10615 that by having a drop-off station at our 10616 Shepherd landfill so that the so that 10617 the privately cyclists can come to our 10618 facility at at our landfill and drop it 10619 off there and then we we take it in our 10620 trucks to the multi to the murph the 1062materials recycling facility okay so 10622 they they pay a standard tipping fee 10623 then they they pay it's Iraq I think 10624 it's $32 a ton to be able to drop it off 10625 at our facility and that covers our 10626 costs of basically operating that that 10627 facility and getting the recyclables to 10628 the murph it doesn't cover the cost of 10629 the processing fee at the murph so it's 10630 just covering our costs to be able to do 1063that and it it you know it would 10632 probably amount to twenty or thirty 10633 cents per per customer per month or 10634 something like that it's not it wouldn't 10635 have a huge impact on on their customer 10636 base okay it's 120 or something per ton 10637 typically for a regular waste if to 10638 dispose of waste in the landfill is $95 10639 a cot I'm sorry 95 a ton right now oh 10640 it's still under hundred bucks okay 1064thank you I have open to do some 10642 administrative inquiry specifically 10643 related to that issue thank you thanks 10644 alderman Chabot alderman Stevenson thank 10645 you worship just to clear up because of 10646 alderman Hodges question when we when I 10647 moved the motion back two and a half 10648 years ago to do this to leave the 10649 multifamily open to the private sector 10650 at that same time the part of that 1065direction was for the our administration 10652 to work at getting access for those 10653 private contractors to the murph that 10654 hasn't 10655 it hasn't happened until dis didn't 10656 December the private contractors were 10657 brought together and then in January 10658 they were allowed to dump at this 10659 transfer site so it's just now as of 10660 2011 but the private contractors can 1066actually get going at this and so I 10662 think you're going to see quite an 10663 uptake on this because there is a lot of 10664 pressure from condominium associations 10665 to find a method of moving their 10666 recyclables and I so I think you're 10667 going to see more of that now that 10668 there's some action taking on I'm not 10669 happy with the action because I'm not 10670 happy with the fact that these private 1067contractors are not able to take the 10672 recyclable straight to the murph but at 10673 least waste and recycling has set up 10674 this transfer from Shepherd which is is 10675 good for the interim and they're still 10676 going to keep working on getting it set 10677 up at the mirth thank you rich I still 10678 think we should have called it the 10679 sustainable materials recycling facility 10680 so we could call it the Smurfs every 1068time you say Murphy alderman Pincott um 10682 thank you uh mr. Pritchard hi I'm afraid 10683 I miss this meeting with the changes in 10684 making it so that so that private 10685 recyclers can drop off materials in 10686 consultation with the industry how much 10687 uptake do we think we're we're actually 10688 going to get or how much do you think we 10689 can anticipate over the next few years 10690 well I think we you worship we're quite 1069surprised actually how many people 10692 multi-family facilities already have 10693 recycling and and which is beginning to 10694 find out more and more about who's who's 10695 doing what out there part of the 10696 challenge is is that the huge diversity 10697 of obviously housing and apartment types 10698 that fall into the multifamily sector so 10699 there's not really a simple solution to 10700 any particular 11 housing type and and 1070some recyclers prefer to pick up just 10702 fiber some don't prefer it to be 10703 commingled and probably would not want 10704 to go to there to the murph many others 10705 would but I think we're quite optimistic 10706 that if we have as alderman Stevenson 10707 said we haven't really had a really good 10708 engaging conversation with the industry 10709 until fairly recently and I think we're 10710 quite optimistic that if we do that and 1071spend time with them and look at the 10712 opportunities for transfer stations for 10713 possible easier access to the MER for 10714 the right vehicle types and so on that 10715 that there will be a tremendous update 10716 because some we're hearing from condom 10717 from multifamily residents that they 10718 that they want this service okay are we 10719 being because we sort of have this for 10720 lack of a better word prohibition on the 1072city actually doing this are we being 10722 proactive in trying to not just engage 10723 the private recyclers but actually 10724 encourage and prod them into doing this 10725 because like I gotta tell you after 10726 after the roll out of the blue bins and 10727 sort of dealing with the challenge of 10728 the rollout and people understanding how 10729 they worked the only call that I get in 10730 my office the only call since the route 1073since the rollout is how come I can't 10732 recycle how come I don't get it and and 10733 I think the I've been the answer to that 10734 is that I mean as you know the 10735 opportunity for recycling for the 10736 multifamily sector at the moment is the 10737 community recycled Depot so that they're 10738 see IDs that we have 52 of them in 10739 around the city and that option is is 10740 there for multifamily residents or they 1074can engage the services of of we were 10742 quite surprised at how many private 10743 recycles there are out there in business 10744 and they can engage the services of 10745 those and and we are having fairly 10746 active discussions with that industry to 10747 try and encourage more to try and 10748 facilitate multifamily recycling 10749 and if in the report the the attachment 10750 talks about the strategy of attachment 1075one talks about the sort of multifaceted 10752 approach that we're going to take to try 10753 and encourage multifamily recycling over 10754 the next over the next little while and 10755 then with a view to really developing a 10756 proper comprehensive full service in 10757 time for the 15 to 17 business cycle 10758 okay one last question when somebody 10759 calls 311 and they live in a condo in 10760 requirement and they don't have 1076recycling and they call our 311 to say 10762 why don't I have recycling do we give 10763 them a list of private recyclers that 10764 they can call that I don't know your 10765 worship we'd have to look into that I 10766 think that would be a great idea if we 10767 could ensure that that we are supporting 10768 pushing people towards that yeah we can 10769 send you look into that work mr. Steven 10770 great thanks Brad thank you 1077anyone else alderman Jones did you want 10772 to close close so on the motion to 10773 accept the administration 10774 recommendations are we agreed any 10775 opposed carry ten point five point one 10776 audit committee terms of reference 10777 review alderman Pincott thank you 10778 worship move the recommendations of 10779 committee alderman Pincott let's get a 10780 second or alderman pootmans aldrin think 1078of oh there you are okay thank you 10782 altima colley-urquhart ultimate cloud 10783 will second it I'm alderman Pincott just 10784 so I understand the recommendations of 10785 the committee I believe they are let's 10786 work with the new auditor to get this 10787 right rather than accept the previous 10788 set of recommendations is that right 10789 indeed the end the recommendations are 10790 to not just to to look at terms of 1079reference for the Audit Committee but 10792 actually to be quite a a little bit more 10793 forceful and and actually create develop 10794 an audit committee by law so that so 10795 that the the terms of reference for the 10796 committee are would be embedded in a 10797 bios shrine data by law yep okay I think 10798 and and when you take a look at best 10799 practices that are out there it is the 10800 way that things are going okay for the 1080record over in pink cot I do like 10802 recommendation number see in the 10803 original recommendation so I hope we 10804 talk about it anyone else on this one 10805 okay very well then on the committee's 10806 recommendations are we agreed any 10807 opposed carried land committee oh I do 10808 yep land committee item 10 point 6.1 la 10809 s 2011 Oh to alderman Hodges yes thank 10810 you worship this was the subject of some 1081discussion at land committee over the 10812 space of two meetings we ran out of time 10813 on the first meeting and so we set up a 10814 second one then the report 10815 it was accepted by the committee and you 10816 have two recommendations to authorize 10817 the least recommendations as outlined an 10818 attachment to number two direct 10819 administration to give a status report 10820 on the progress of negotiations between 1082Nineveh Calgary and vuckovic to the land 10822 and asset strategy committee not later 10823 than September thirteen to twenty eleven 10824 berkova course is the new name for the 10825 VR RI which has been in place up on 30 10826 second avenue northwest since nineteen 10827 sixty seven they are looking for a 10828 longer lease you worship in order to 10829 facilitate their program of rebuilding 10830 the VRI renovating the facilities and in 1083fact we perhaps rebuilding on that site 10832 but none of this is going to happen 10833 unless we agree to extend the lease that 10834 they have on the city-owned land without 10835 actually sorry alderman Hodges I have a 10836 bunch of questions on this one so we 10837 have a seconder folded to committee we 10838 have a seconder for stool ottoman low 10839 thank you you know something I'm going 10840 to do something extremely 1084uncharacteristic I'm gonna get on my 10842 chair now because I do have a number of 10843 questions on this one that I'd like to 10844 present to administration all the recaro 10845 all our garages you done I'm done too 10846 with the introduction and we'll see 10847 what's your question sir okay 10848 uh mayor Nenshi he's good at that isn't 10849 he don't get in the habit i found this 10850 whole thing rather perplexing to start 1085with i have a lot of experience as many 10852 of you know in the nonprofit sector and 10853 in capital campaigns and the like and i 10854 have never heard of a nonprofit 10855 organization making the claim that 10856 unless their lease is extended for a 10857 period beyond the useful life of a 10858 building that they cannot fund raise for 10859 the building it's a it's a shall we say 10860 dubious claim at best that said I'm a 1086very very big fan of this organization I 10862 think they do extraordinary work in the 10863 community but I have also spoken with 10864 the folks that innovate Calgary who 10865 quite frankly don't have any plans yet 10866 there are new organization and what 10867 they're looking for is also in 10868 flexibility so mr. Stevens I don't get 10869 these recommendations it sounds to me 10870 like recommendation number one is extend 1087the lease for a big long period of time 10872 and recommendation number two is report 10873 back on the negotiations but if we 10874 extend the lease doesn't that by 10875 definition mean the negotiations are 10876 over your worship that that's correct 10877 the record second recommendation was 10878 added after on the second day and if I 10879 can be so bold I'll try and interpret I 10880 think we're committee was going was to 1088say in fact innovate Calgary did not 10882 have any specific plans but there was a 10883 desire by committee to see if the two 10884 groups couldn't get together in this 10885 period of time to see if they couldn't 10886 come to a better resolution between the 10887 two of them and the encouragement was 10888 for the two of them to do that and then 10889 for the administration to come back in 10890 no later than September to see if they 1089had made any progress in their zone so I 10892 can live with recommendation number two 10893 because I think both parties are kind of 10894 being bad actors a little bit here but 10895 doesn't recommendation number one put 10896 the thumb on the scale 10897 it's a the cobia can stay there forever 10898 and ever and ever now you can go 10899 negotiate yes it it that the original 10900 recommendation was was not that was to 1090say you know what we got these two 10902 groups their claim being what it was 10903 they could not proceed it gives the 10904 opportunity for what the co vo was 10905 saying we weren't we weren't having any 10906 success in the previous discussions 10907 because we weren't getting anywhere with 10908 innovate Calgary between all of their 10909 changes that's that that's the key piece 10910 I was missing okay because they felt 1091like there was no incentive to continue 10912 well wasn't only that as you're aware 10913 your worship that innovate Calgary's 10914 gone through a number of iterations 10915 number of changes changes in leadership 10916 and guidance from the University and the 10917 province as to whether or not they were 10918 going to participate and it was the cova 10919 is position I believe to the committee 10920 and committee members can correct me 1092they really needed to get some type of 10922 formal consent by way of least so that 10923 they could get into the discussions with 10924 innovate car okay I think given that I 10925 hear what you're saying mr. Stevens and 10926 I think given that we I still have some 10927 trouble with us scauldron Hodges might 10928 freak out at this I can understand the 10929 need to bring the two organizations 10930 together and I can understand the need 1093to give them a deadline but I have a lot 10932 of trouble with making letting one of 10933 the parties have all the power in the 10934 negotiation so as a result I was just 10935 really could do i what i was going to do 10936 was I was going to suggest an amendment 10937 to number one which is to authorize 10938 least recommendations outlined in 10939 attachment to as of 2011 September 15th 10940 pending the outcome of recommendation 1094number two so in other words they've got 10942 a deadline if they can't come to an 10943 agreement by September the 15th then the 10944 co via gets what they want I understand 10945 that still me 10946 they've got a they've got a incentive to 10947 drag their heels on this but I think it 10948 at least says to innovate Calgary you 10949 can come to the table as a partner here 10950 and the city doesn't have a preordained 1095outcome so I'm going to suggest that 10952 amendment alderman Chabot 10953 any discussion to that proposed 10954 amendment I have my laid on you alderman 10955 Hodges well your worship members of 10956 council I think the committee might have 10957 agreed with an amendment like that 10958 through the chair mayor Nenshi except 10959 that the parties have been in 10960 discussions at various times in the last 1096three or four years and these 10962 discussions resulted in no agreement 10963 whatsoever in fact what end of a Calgary 10964 presented committee was a delay of six 10965 months in the first meeting and second 10966 meeting it was a delay of three months 10967 and personally if i had thought would be 10968 any agreement in three months or six 10969 months i might have agreed with mr. 10970 masters but i know there will not be an 1097agreement three months i know there will 10972 not be an agreement in six months so 10973 given the issues involved innovate 10974 calgary quite frankly worship see 10975 wachovia as being in their way so their 10976 idea is to have a negotiation set up 10977 somehow with the province to relocate 10978 them in integrate calgary area ie north 10979 of 30 second Avenue in West crowchild 10980 trail given my personal experience and 1098trying to be a part of and getting 10982 corporate properties involved in a new 10983 site the new site for the northwest rec 10984 center that personally was with alderman 10985 Lowe and myself that was three years so 10986 three years in dealing with the province 10987 so I think that's what mr. masters is 10988 interested in getting the province 10989 involved on their land holdings within 10990 the end of eight Calgary area so i don't 1099i don't see this delay is really achieve 10992 it normally I would agree but given the 10993 history of this issue I will not be 10994 supporting your amendment alderman 10995 Farrell thank you I was just talking 10996 with the mayor and thought that um if 10997 this was referred to the mayor perhaps 10998 you could meet with both parties and 10999 help facilitate the second time you've 11000 referred something to the mayor that's 1100right Ferrel it didn't work out very 11002 well the first time but but yeah I can 11003 live with that do you think that would I 11004 think it might be helpful so mr. Hodges 11005 ultimate we have a seconder for alderman 11006 Farrell's referral motion until just was 11007 it alderman Demong seconds jun okay so 11008 we're a motion to refer to the mayor's 11009 office to report back to council by June 11010 are you comfortable with seconding that 1101alderman Demong okay any discussion 11012 surrounding the referral motion I see 11013 other and Hodges you worship there's 11014 nothing like experience in dealing with 11015 this issue and the part of your beauty 11016 from the part on the parties involved so 11017 I think June was a good time because a 11018 new lease wouldn't have taken effect 11019 well July first in any case and perhaps 11020 so I'm alderman Farrell if you can add 1102report back to land committee not later 11022 than July fifteenth because we usually 11023 have a committee meeting early in the 11024 month so not later than July fifteenth 11025 of 2011 perfect alderman Farrell you 11026 yeah I'm just asking if you agree with 11027 that amen ok I'm going to allow it 11028 alderman Lowe my question mr. Stevens is 11029 where does this leave us legally 11030 now we're fine your worship this there's 1103nothing that's happened this this the 11032 discussions and negotiations are always 11033 dependent upon any final direction from 11034 counsel and this is a referral back to 11035 try and come to a somewhat different 11036 conclusion so there's no other legally 11037 there's no binding obligations there's 11038 no offer and acceptance until council 11039 actually decides on this so whatever the 11040 outcomes of that where I understand the 1104direction is to report back in July I 11042 guess my concern in listening to this 11043 conversation is the difference between 11044 the end of June first of July as little 11045 as a couple of nanoseconds well you 11046 worship the reality is the tenant 11047 currently has a lease in place until 11048 2020 70 anyway okay so this is this is a 11049 desire for the group to be able to go 11050 out and fundraise and make some 1105commitments on a new building which was 11052 the presentation at committee okay thank 11053 you thank you you're okay no more 11054 discussion to the referral anything to 11055 close alderman Farrell can we get 11056 clarification on those dates again so 11057 it's return to council through land 11058 glasses and that's a strategy in June 11059 about combat to land in July counseling 11060 July not later than July 15 so okay not 1106later than July fifteenth are we all 11062 comfortable with the referral motion 11063 I'll call the question all in favor 11064 agreed opposed that's carried 11065 you 11066 alright so that brings us to urgent 11067 business pack 2011 06 city managers 11068 report on the council Innovation Fund 11069 thank you to my table terms of reference 11070 can I have someone move this please 1107thanks alderman colley-urquhart seconded 11072 by alderman Chabot so the pack met as 11073 per councils direction and came up with 11074 these simple application procedures for 11075 the Innovation Fund the basic idea here 11076 is that pack will vet the proposals and 11077 then council will have the final 11078 decision on them we you will be able to 11079 apply for the Innovation Fund up to the 11080 15th of the month it will then be 1108considered at the following pack meeting 11082 and there is a guideline that we will 11083 hold back approximately half of the 11084 remaining funds what we do have it great 11085 we will hold back approximately half of 11086 the remaining funds to be spent in the 11087 second half of the year this year so 11088 very broad guidelines we didn't want to 11089 hurt the innovation concept of the 11090 innovation funds more too much but we 1109did want to make sure that we had some 11092 good numbers around and what's being 11093 handed out now is a form that my office 11094 put together very straightforward that 11095 one would fill out in terms of applying 11096 so any questions on this 11097 alright um offered colley-urquhart did 11098 you want to close okay well was your it 11099 was your initial intent so if you're 11100 happy I'm happy all right then on the 1110motion to accept these terms of 11102 reference or we agreed any opposed 11103 carried so we will accept applications 11104 up until the fifteenth of this month to 11105 be delivered to my office on this form 11106 please and I'll make sure you have 11107 electronic versions of the form as well 11108 all right I'll take a motion to go on 11109 camera thanks alderman Stevenson 11110 seconded alderman Jones yeah can I can I 1111take a motion to dispense with the items 11112 on the agenda tonight even if we go 11113 after nine-thirty I don't think we will 11114 thanks alderman Pincott ullman Jones are 11115 we agreed any opposed alderman Farrell 11116 is opposed we needed two-thirds were 11117 good add motion to go in camera or we 11118 agreed any opposed all right and we go 11119 you 11120 you 1112and we are back alderman Hodges move of 11122 the committee rise and report tuition 11123 thank you do I have a seconder alderman 11124 Jones thank you a reread very well then 11125 all during Hodges you stood up the floor 11126 yes thank you three land items land and 11127 asset strategy 2011 04 proposed sale of 11128 industrial land Great Plains ward 9 11129 first recommendation that the land and 11130 asset strategy committee recommendation 1113contained in the report la s20 1104 be 11132 adopted in the recommendations number 11133 two the recommendations report and 11134 attachments remain confidential 11135 following the in-camera discussion under 11136 sections 23 1b 2401 a 24 1 g + 25 1 b of 11137 the freedom of information and 11138 protection of Privacy Act until 2013 11139 December 31 ok that's the first your new 11140 model together ok 2011 5 is again 1114proposed sale of lands in the industrial 11142 industrial lands Great Plains ward 9 11143 number one the land and asset strategy 11144 committee recommendation contained in a 11145 report la s20 1105 be adopted and that 11146 the recommendations report and 11147 attachments remain confidential 11148 following the in-camera discussions 11149 pursuant to the same sections 20 31 b 24 11150 1 a 24 1 g + 25 1 b so b of the freedom 1115of information protection of Privacy Act 11152 until 2013 December 31 and last but not 11153 least on a point of order those first 11154 two items that he's referenced I'm not 11155 supportive of those and i would rather 11156 build on those separately when i was 11157 going to vote on the tree i was going to 11158 vote on them all separately anyway other 11159 than she was just going to let him put 11160 them all on the table thank you then 1116we'll vote on the separate the last ones 11162 fairly straightforward 2011 06 proposed 11163 transactions North dufferin industrial 11164 land work 12 that the land and asset 11165 strategy committee recommendations 11166 contained the report land and asset 11167 strategy 2011 06 be adopted all right 11168 then I'm alderman Farrell your 11169 going to second those as the vice chair 11170 thank you I'll write any discussion on 1117these items so on the first one liner we 11172 agreed any opposed alderman Chabot is 11173 opposed on the second one are we agreed 11174 any opposed alderman Chabot is opposed 11175 on the third one are we agreed any 11176 opposed carried all right then Aldridge 11177 ohms they worship the first one is a OCT 11178 2011 a review of the allowance account 11179 policy and that the automatic ops 11180 coordinate committee recommendations 1118contained report aoc 2011 05 be adopted 11182 any disco any discussion on one you put 11183 in both on the on the table ok aoc 11184 2011-15 consideration of increasing the 11185 community csif allocation awards that 11186 the automatic office coordinating 11187 committee recommendation containing 11188 report AOC 2011-15 be it up and alderman 11189 Chabot is seconding any discussion on 11190 this one these reports are now will now 1119be public once we pass it right man I 11192 clerk okay so I can actually say to 11193 those intrepid members of the press 11194 still in the room read AFC 2011 05 11195 alderman Chabot and I may have a 11196 difference of opinion on what it says 11197 but I think you'll find it interesting 11198 okay on the first one are we agreed any 11199 opposed carried and on the second one 11200 are we agreed any opposed carried alden 1120stevenson thank you worship that the 11202 verbal report negotiations with the 11203 calgary airport authority we receive for 11204 information and let the discussion with 11205 respect to the verbal report remain 11206 confidential pursuant to sections 23 1 b 11207 24 1 b 24 1 c 25 1 c and 27 1 b of Floyd 11208 thanks alderman Stevenson do I have a 11209 seconder thanks alderman Chabot any 11210 discussion on this one are we agreed 1121keri herman MacLeod 11212 with respect to the Calgary Public 11213 Library Board that Jane's siddell sit 11214 now be appointed to the calculi brary 11215 board is an elective member for three 11216 years and that the in-camera discussion 11217 remain confidential under section 19 one 11218 of the freedom of information privacy 11219 protection act Thank You alderman 11220 Farrell you're seconding thank you any 1122discussion on this one are we agreed and 11222 he posed carried who had the last one 11223 alderman MacLeod all right that the 11224 verbal report personnel item be received 11225 for information and that the discussion 11226 with respect to the verbal report remain 11227 confidential pursuant to sections 24 11228 be one of the freedom of information 11229 privacy protection act thank you do I 11230 have a seconder thanks alderman Pincott 1123any discussion on this one are we agreed 11232 carried alderman pootmans yes sure 11233 worship thank you verbal report 11234 appointment of regulation of digital 11235 electronic or computer signage task 11236 force a lot of consonants that alderman 11237 Chabot chair of spc on lpt alderman 11238 Demong alderman Mar be appointed to the 11239 regulation of digital electronic or 11240 computer signage task force and to that 1124in terms of reference to include a 11242 sunset clause of 2011 jun 15 as well as 11243 clarification with respect to staffing 11244 and public participation comma returned 11245 to the 2011 march 21 regular meeting of 11246 council period thank you do I have a 11247 seconder i exalt drink raw and yes 11248 alderman Mar even though he's not here 11249 did agree that he would like to do it 11250 thanks to electronic communication any 1125discussion on this one are we agreed any 11252 opposed Oh alderman Hodges is opposed 11253 and aldrin Hodges yes I'll move though 11254 hold on hold on hold on that's about 11255 what I was about to move waving of the 11256 reading of unless someone wants to hear 11257 all right bench with do I have a 11258 seconder for that thanks alderman Jones 11259 are we agreed any opposed alderman 11260 Chabot really want 1126to have it read I'll read it to you 11262 privately later alderman Chabot okay 11263 alderman Hodges hopefully adjourn 11264 alderman Jones are we agreed thank you 11265 guys it's been a good day oh it's only 11266 ten o'clock do my computer science capstone project cheap Stony Brook University.