University Of Iowa Capstone Order
Bronx County
University Of Iowa Capstone Order Washington Place, West zip 10014
Calculate Your Price
Word count 275
Price for this order:
$12
Proceed to
Order

When can we help you?

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!

Why trust us?

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:

  • Professional paper writer. Our native speakers are true masters at creating unique and custom works per the most detailed and even the vaguest instructions you have.
  • Quality writing. We check all works with several detectors. To make sure your work is 100% unique, add a Plagiarism Report to your order.
  • Convenience of your personal control panel. Signing in, you can get your expert in touch through a direct message, also place orders there, and see their statuses.

Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.

Whats included in the total cost?

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:

  • Type of work
  • Deadline
  • Academic level
  • Subject
  • Number of pages

Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:

  • title page
  • reference page (bibliography)
  • formatting
  • 3 free revisions
  • scan for originality
  • email delivery

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.

Your full security

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.

University of iowa capstone order business plan project feasibility study Congregation of Christian Brothers, capstone project sait for money State University of New York Upstate Medical University, CUNY Graduate Center, Fifth Avenue at 34th Street grayson high school cluster map english essay Franklin County. Plaza College christian views on euthanasia essay free letter of good conduct application form E 22nd Street zip 10010. Wesleyan road bullying essay spm report write for me outcomes based practical guide to thesis and capstone project Jefferson City College, Harlem, Mailman School of Public Health chili 7 curve review movie 88th Street, West zip 10024.

University of iowa capstone order

University of iowa capstone order capstone turbine and walmart for money need course work on adoption >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: O. GOD, AUTHOR OF ALL WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, WE ASK THY GUIDANCE IN OUR CONSULTATIONS TO THE END THAT TRUTH AND STILL MAY PREVAIL IN ALL OF OUR JUDGMENTS. AMEN. YOU MAY BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WE'VE GOT AN EXCITING, FUN DAY AHEAD OF US TODAY. WE'VE GOT SECONDARY SUITES, RETURN OF GREENBRIAR, WE'VE GOT FURNITURE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF FUN TODAY. THAT FUN IS GOING TO START WITH ALDERMAN KEATING. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. DUE TO MY EXEMPLARY TIME OUT IN CHESTERMERE I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE 25 STUDENTS IN GRADE 6, IF THEY COULD STAND UP, FROM PRINCE OF PEACE CHESTERMERE SCHOOL WITH THEIR TEACHERS... AND VOLUNTEER. AND WAVE TO THE CAMERAS SO YOU CAN BE ON T.V. [Applause] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WELCOME, ALL OF YOU, HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT DAY AT CITY HALL. ALDERMAN KEATING YOU'VE STILL GOT THE FLOOR IF YOU'D LIKE IT. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR Mr. STEVENS. DID I SEND IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY AND I REALIZED IT WAS FAIRLY LENGTHY AND DETAILED, AND I DID GET A RESPONSE THAT SAID THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FULFILL THAT REQUEST WITHIN A YEAR, POSSIBLY A YEAR AND THREE MONTHS WITH SHEILA -- PARDON ME, LINDA. I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT COULD NOT BE SHORTENED OR WE COULD -- I KNOW THEY'RE WORKING ON WHAT THEY HAVE. I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT I DIDN'T GET A COMPLETE RESPONSE. BUT I'M RATHER SURPRISED THAT IT WILL TAKE A YEAR TO COME UP WITH THIS LIST. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE OR ARE THERE OTHER WAYS OF LOOKING AT MY REQUEST? AND THE QUESTION OF COURSE WAS JUST A COMPLETE LIST OF ALL CITY PROPERTIES, KIND OF WHO INHABITS THEM, WHERE THEY ARE AND WHAT VALUE THEY'RE AT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I WILL FOLLOW UP. I SAW THE INFORMATION. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE TIMELINE. WE ARE PREPARING A REPORT THAT WILL ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME THIS YEAR. BUT IT WON'T HAVE -- FOR ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THIS WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY THAT HAD INFORMATION ABOUT EVERY CITY BUILDING, AND, OF COURSE, I ONLY HAVE SOME -- RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME OF THE BUILDINGS. AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT ALL OF IT. SO I WILL GET BACK TO YOU, ALDERMAN KEATING, ABOUT AN UPDATED TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING. ON QUESTION PERIOD, ALDERMAN HODGES? ON QUESTION PERIOD ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> PRESENTATION, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTION PERIOD. ANYONE ELSE? ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. IF I COULD ASK THE YOUNG FOLKS IN GRADE 6 FROM THE COMMUNITY OF WOODLANDS TO STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED BY COUNCIL. [Applause] IT'S NICE HAVING YOU AT CITY HALL TODAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE HERE ON A TOUR OF THE CIVIC COMPLEX AND YOU'VE BEEN TO THE GLEN BOW AND YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HANG OUT TODAY, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY HERE ALL DAY AND WATCH COUNCIL. WE'LL BE HERE UNTIL 9:30 TONIGHT. IS THAT A DEAL? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'RE JUST HANGING OUT TODAY HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I HOPE YOU TOO HAVE A GREAT DAY AT CITY HALL. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE ON QUESTION PERIOD? ON THE AGENDA CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THE AGENDA, PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. SECONDED ALDERMAN KEATING. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. FIRST OF ALL, UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS FROM LAND COMMITTEE THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'LL ADD A 10.5 THEN. AND THAT'S REPORTS FROM LAS. AND IT WILL BE LAS 2011-07 AND 2011-08 WHICH ARE RELATED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO ONE ANOTHER. >> THEY ARE. AND THE CLERKS HAVE JUST REMINDED ME I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED 21 IN THAT. LAS 2011-21. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'LL MOVE THOSE THREE INTO A NEW 10.5 ON THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. >> YOU WOULD LIKE THE FURNITURE PURCHASE AUDIT MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA SO THAT'S 5.7 IN THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'LL DO THAT ONE AT THE END OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. OKAY. SO WE'LL DO THAT ONE. DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT ONE? THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ANYTHING ELSE? >> IN SECTION 9, CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE IN ROCKY RIDGE, 9.4 AND 9.5, I HAVE A LETTER THAT HAS COME IN FROM A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA WHO IS QUERYING THIS. I KNOW IT'S NOT URGENT, YOUR WORSHIP. AND I'D LIKE TO BRING IT FORWARD AND TABLE IT TO MAY 16th, TO NEXT MONDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I MISS WHAT HAD NUMBER THAT WAS. >> 9.4. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: JUST THAT ONE? >> AND 9.5. THEY'RE RELATED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THEY'RE THE SAME. >> PART OF THE SAME ROAD. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO PROBLEM. YOU WANT TO BRING FORWARD THAT TO WHEN? >> TABLE MAY 16th NEXT MONDAY MARRY MAYOR NEXT MONDAY. OKAY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NEXT MONDAY. OKAY. QUESTION FOR YOU, MADAME CLERK AND/OR Mr. TULLY. BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE AGENDA CAN WE DO IT NEXT WEEK? OH, IT'S NOT. OKAY. I'M SORRY. YES, I SEE IT NOW. >> AND THEY'RE NOT PART OF A LAND USE ITEM. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I NEED A SECONDER. THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. I'M SORRY. ALDERMAN LOWE IS OPPOSED. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? I FEEL LIKE -- OH. I WAS JUST ABOUT TO SAY THAT. AND I SEE THAT ALDERMAN CHABOT IS JUST WALKING IN THE DOOR. I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION TABLE 10.3.3 BRINGING FORWARD TO MAY 16th. I UNDERSTAND WE WERE OFFSIDE ON THE ADVERTISING ON THAT ONE. ALDERMAN CHABOT DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT JUST AS YOU'RE SITTING? THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. DO I HAVE A SECONDER ON THAT ONE? THANKS, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. GREAT. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. AND I WANT TO ADD -- I'LL TAKE A MOTION NOW TO ADD AN ITEM IN THE IN CAMERA SESSION AS 12.3, WHICH IS A VERBAL UPDATE ON THE LOUISE STATION COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT, PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. OKAY. AND I THINK -- OH, JUST ONE OTHER SMALL ONE. I JUST NEED A QUICK PERSONNEL ITEM ADDED TO THE IN CAMERA AGENDA. ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED? OKAY, VERY WELL. I THINK -- IS THAT EVERYTHING? SORRY, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. YES. >> WE HAVE AN ITEM OF URGE THE BUSINESS WITH RESPECT TO THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSUBSIDIARIES. THIS NEEDS TO GO FORWARD VERY QUICKLY. THIS WAS A MOTION ARISING THAT DIDN'T GET ON THE AGENDA AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME THE OTHER ACTIVITIES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THERE TE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION FROM MY OFFICE THAT RESULTED IN THAT ONE NOT GETTING ON THE AGENDA. A MOTION TO ADD 11.1 UNDER URGENT BUSINESS. ALDERMAN MacLEOD, YOU'RE MOVING, ALDERMAN POOTMANS YOU'RE SECOND. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ANYONE ELSE? SORRY? [Inaudible] WE'LL HAVE ALDERMAN JONES DO THAT ONE. THANKS, MADAME CLERK. OKAY. ANY OTHERS? GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE. ALL RIGHT THEN. ARE WE AGREED ON THE AGENDA AS AMENDED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. OKAY. ON TO THE MINUTES THEN. MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF COUNCIL ON APRIL 11th AND ON APRIL 18th. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THEM? THANKS, YOU'RE MOVING THEM BOTH? THANKS, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR. ANY CHANGES, DELETIONS, ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA THEN. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THERE'S A FEW ITEMS THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IF I COULD. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO PROBLEM. WE PULLED A FEW ALREADY. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO PULL? >> SORRY, LAS ONES? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE PULLED 78 AND 21 OFF THE LAS. >> THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO PROBLEM. DONE ALREADY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART I THINK MOVED THE CONSENT AGENDA. DID I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. SO I PULLED THE ITEM ON THE FURNITURE AUDIT, 5.7. AND ALDERMAN PINCOTT STEPPED AWAY. I'LL NEED SOMEONE TO MOVE THIS ONE. THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. SECONDED ALDERMAN MacLEOD. I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND IS THE CITY AUDITOR WITH US TODAY? AND NEITHER IS THE CHAIR OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. WHY DON'T WE -- HERE HE IS. HERE HE IS. IT'S ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN DO IT FOR ME OR THE CITY MANAGER MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THESE. OR Mr. STEVENS. EXCELLENT. I THOUGHT THIS WAS A VERY INTERESTING AUDIT. BUT I NOTICED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT AT LEAST THE WAY THAT I READ IT SEEMED CONFINED TO QUESTIONS OF WHETHER PROPER PROCEDURE HAD BEEN FOLLOWED, WHETHER THINGS WERE SENT TO THE RIGHT ACCOUNT, AND SO ON. AND I WAS A BIT SURPRISED THAT THE AUDIT DID NOT SEEM TO ADDRESS WHAT I SAW AS THE TWO BIG QUESTIONS: NUMBER ONE WAS WHY WAS THERE SUCH A LARGE INCREASE BETWEEN 2006 AND 2007? I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BECAUSE WE WERE OUTFITTING NEW BUILDINGS, BUT I'M WONDERING WHY IT STAYED AT THAT EXTREMELY HIGH LEVEL ARE SINCE THEN BECAUSE I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY NEW GIANT BUILDINGS BEING BUILT. AND QUESTION TWO WAS DID THE AUDITOR IN PREPARING THIS REPORT LOOK AT ALL -- AND THEY MAKE THE STATEMENT A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT THIS IS DONE WITH DUE CONCERN FOR ECONOMY. BUT WHAT I DIDN'T SEE IN THE AUDIT WAS WHETHER WE ACTUALLY HAD COMPARED THE PRICES WE'RE PAYING WITH MARKET PRICES OR BENCHMARKED THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE PAYING PER EMPLOYEE ON FURNITURE WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OF SIMILAR SIZE AND SCALE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. COUPLE OF GOOD QUESTIONS. I DO SEE THAT THE CITY AUDITOR HAS JOINED US. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF... [Inaudible] A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS AUDIT. THIS WAS AN AUDIT THAT WAS INITIATED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND HAD BEEN ON THE -- OFF AND ON THE AUDIT PLAN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND Mr. HORBOSENKO WHEN HE BEGAN FELT THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE TO SALVAGE AT LEAST SOME DEGREE OF THE AUDIT. WITH THAT INTRODUCTION, I'LL ASK Mr. HORBOSENKO -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD MY QUESTIONS. WERE YOU IN HERE IN TIME? >> NO, Mr. MAYOR, I WASN'T. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND REPEATING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I WAS JUST SAYING THAT THE SCOPE THIS AUDIT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO LOOK A LOT AT IMPORTANT TECHNICAL ISSUES AROUND COMPLIANCE. BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO ADDRESS THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE. THE FIRST IS WHY THERE WAS SUCH A LARGE INCREASE IN WHAT WE SPENT BETWEEN '06 AND '07 AND WHY THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF SPENDING SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T BEEN BUILDING NEW -- LARGE NEW FACILITIES SENSE THEN. AND THE SECOND QUESTION WAS THE AUDIT SAYS IN A COUPLE OF PLACES THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE WITH DUE REGARD FOR ECONOMY. BUT I DIDN'T REA REALLY SEE ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, COMPARISON TO MARKET RATES OR PRICES OR WHETHER THE AMOUNT THAT WE SPEND ON AVERAGE PER EMPLOYEE MAKES SENSE FOR AN ORGANIZATION OF THIS SIZE AND SCALE. >> WELL, Mr. MAYOR, YOU MAY NOT BE SATISFIED WITH HAVING YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. SO I'LL TRY AND ANSWER THE SECOND ONE FIRST. AROUND ECONOMY, WHAT WE DID WAS ASSESS THE INCREASES IN PRICES OVER THAT DURATION OF TIME UNDER THE PERIOD OF REVIEW AND SAW THAT PRICE INCREASES WERE LESSER THAN CANADIAN PRICE INDEX. SO WE THOUGHT DUE REGARD FOR ECONOMY. DO RECOGNIZE, OF COURSE, THAT THE BENCHMARK, THE STARTING POINT, WHETHER THAT'S THE BEST PRICE OR NOT, OUR AUDIT WORK CANNOT GIVE YOU ASSURANCE THAT THAT WAS THE BEST STARTING POINT AND THE BEST PRICE. BUT WE GET CONFIDENCE THROUGH A TENDERING PROCESS. AS LONG AS THERE'S A COMPETITIVE TENDERING PROCESS, THEN FROM AN AUDIT POINT OF VIEW THAT ALLOWS THE FREE MARKET TO COMPETE AND OFFER THE CITY THE BEST PRICE. PRICE WAS A FACTOR AND ACTUALLY THE CURRENT VENDOR WAS THE BEST PRICE OFFERING FOR THE CITY BACK IN 2006, SOMEWHERE THERE. AS TO THE FIRST ONE, AS TO THE REASONS WHY THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE AUDIT BUT MAY PERHAPS MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION CAN OFFER AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. SO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT ADDRESSING THOSE IN THE REPORT, BUT LITTLE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, Mr. HORBOSENKO, I UNDERSTAND YOU INHERITED THIS REPORT AND WERE HOPING TO CLEAR IS IT OFF THE DOCKETS. I FEEL WE MIGHT NOT YET BE DONE WITH QUESTIONS AROUND FURNITURE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THE INFORMATION WHAT WAS HAPPENING OVER THE AUDIT PERIOD FROM 2006 TO 2009 WAS THERE WERE TWO NEW BUILDINGS BUT ALSO AN ADDITIONAL NINE LEASES THAT WERE TAKEN UP OVER THAT PERIOD ALONG WITH A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE RENOVATION OF THE PUBLIC BUILDING WHICH WAS PAID FOR OUT OF A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY OF CALGARY TO RENOVATE THE PUBLIC BUILDING. I WON'T LIST THEM ALL BUT THERE WAS TWO NEW BUILDINGS PLUS NINE LEASES PLUS AN EXTENSIVE RENOVATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> THOSE WERE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS, YOUR WORSHIP, AND LINGERING QUESTIONS THINK THAT SOME OF US HAVE. BECAUSE PROBABLY THE AUDIT COULD HAVE GONE MUCH FURTHER THAN IT DID. WE'RE IN TRANSITION HERE. AND THE QUESTIONS WERE CERTAINLY EXCELLENT AT COMMITTEE. Mr. STEVENS, MY QUESTION IS FOR YOU. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED AT COMMITTEE WAS IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO LOOK AT BEST PRACTICE IN THE COUNTRY AND DO SOME COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AS FAR AS WHERE WE'RE AT WITH ALL THIS. THE ANSWER I GOT WAS -- AND WHAT THEY ALLUDE TO IN THE REPORT ARE THE CSA STANDARDS. THAT WASN'T WHERE I WANTED TO GO WITH THIS THE. CSA OR THE CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION IS A DIFFERENT -- A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL OF WAX. RIGHT? SO THE ANSWER I GOT FROM YOUR STAFF WAS IS THAT IF THAT WAS THE WILL OF COUNCIL, THAT YOU COULD GO BACK OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OR SO AND LOOK AT BEST PRACTICE AND COMPARE US TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THE COUNTRY TO GIVE US SOME IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN THAT COMPARISON. COULD I GET YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT RESPONSE AND TO THAT AREA OF CONCERN? PLEASE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WE ARE SCHEDULED TO GO BACK FOR NEW RFP IN 2012. AS I UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSE, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY RELIED UPON THE CSA STANDARDS. WE BELONG TO A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NOT JUST PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS BUT PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS. WE WILL TRY TO GET INFORMATION ON THEIR STANDARDS IN PREPARATION FOR THAT NEXT RFP. >> THERE IS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO THAT SORT OF BENCHMARKING BEFORE 2012 COMES. WHAT DIRECTION DO YOU NEED FROM COUNCIL, AND COULD WE SEE SOMETHING COMING BACK WHICH WOULD BE SORT OF AN UPDATE ON HOW YOU WILL APPROACH THIS, LIKE, SOME SORT OF FRAMEWORK AS FAR AS HOW WE WILL APPROACH GOING INTO 2012 AND BEYOND ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE THREE-YEAR BUDGET PSYCH THEY'LL WE'RE LOOKING AT -- CYCLE THAT WE'RE LOOK AT NOW. IS ANY DIRECTION REQUIRED? >> I DON'T BELIEVE DIRECTION IS REQUIRED. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT COMPARABLE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO PREPARE OURSELVES FOR THE NEXT RFP. I RECALL YOU'LL RECALL FROM THE REPORT THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN ONE EXTENSION OF THE RFP. WE WON'T BE EXTENDING IT AGAIN AND THAT BENCHMARKING PROCESS WILL BE PAR PART OF THAT. THE REASON I'M HESITATING A BIT IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE. WERE HAVE TRADITIONALLY USED CSA BECAUSE IT'S THERE. WE WILL GO OUT AND TRY AND FIND SOME MORE INFORMATION, BUT I'M HESITANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT DIRECTION FOR COUNCIL TO GIVE THAT IS WOULD BE HELPFUL OTHER THAN FOR US TO UNDERTAKE THE WORK DID. >> AS LONG AS YOU'LL UNDERTAKE THE WORK BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME COMMITMENT AT COMMITTEE BUT WE DIDN'T GIVE ANY DIRECTION. BUT SECONDLY, WHEN WILL YOU REPORT BACK TO US THEN? CAN WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THIS, SAY, IN THE FALL TO LET US KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT WITH IT ALL? SOME SORT OF UPDATE ON HOW -- >> PROBABLY THE FALL WOULD BE OKAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE OF WHEN WE'RE GOING IN 2012. I BELIEVE IT'S THE FALL OF 2012. SO WE COULD SAY THE FALL OF 2011 AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, WE WOULD STILL HAVE IT BACK TO YOU BY MAYBE EARLY 2012 IN ANTICIPATION OF THE RFP. >> THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND IF IT CAN COME BACK TO COUNCIL RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE AUDITING PROCESS. >> WE CAN DO THAT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I KNOW THAT I MYSELF AM GOING TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT MAY HELP GUIDE THAT WORK AS WELL WHICH I WILL SHARE WITH YOU. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. IF I MIGHT ASK WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO BEST PRACTICES? OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING OUT FOR BEST PRICE THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS, AND SO THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO IN THIS LOCAL ECONOMY. BUT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR BEST PRACTICES IN OTHER THINGS? FOR EXAMPLE, THE STANDARDS OF FURNITURE, THE STANDARDS OF FURNITURE RELATIVE TO POSITION WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION? WHAT PARTS OF BEST PRACTICE WERE YOU LOOKING FOR? >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO FLESH OUT SO THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. I THINK WHAT DROVE THIS A LOT WAS THE PRICE. RIGHT? AND WHAT ARE WE SPENDING IN COMPARISON TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE AS WELL, AND HOW ABLE ARE YOU TO COMPARE THESE THINGS? >> OKAY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HAVE SOME MORE TO SAY. DO YOU MIND, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> PLEASE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FOR PLEASE THE CHALLENGE IS AND PERHAPS IT'S A BROADER PROCUREMENT ISSUE, OUR ARE RFPs STRUCTURED IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE ACTUALLY GET MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE BIDDING PROCESS? AND THAT LEADS TO THIS QUESTION OF PRICE ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. THE ACTUAL PRICE OF A CHAIR, FOR EXAMPLE. I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE THAT ALL OF US WHO ARE NEW HAVE RUN INTO AS WE'VE BEEN SETTING UP OUR OWN OFFICES IS THE CULTURE WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION IN TERMS OF WHAT IS APPROPRIATE TO SPEND. IN MY OWN OFFICE WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME PULLING BACK THE FOLKS WHO WANT TO DO MUCH NICER, FANCIER THINGS IN OUR OFFICE THAT ARE WITHIN OUR REQUIREMENTS. AND I THINK THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS -- AND, YES, THIS IS ABOUT FURNITURE BUT IT LEADS TO A LINGERING QUESTION IN MY OWN MIND ABOUT HOW WE DO PROCUREMENT OVERALL ON STUFF LIKE THIS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AND ALDERMAN DIANE COLLEY-URQUHART IS THIS IS NOT JUST A PROCUREMENT ISSUE. IT'S ALMOST LIKE A POLICY AND STANDARD ISSUE THAT YOU NEED CLARIFICATION ON BEFORE YOU GO OUT TO AN RFP. BECAUSE THE RFP GETS A SHARP PRICE ON WHAT IT IS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS FOR PRICES. >> YES. SO IS IT MORE APPROPRIATE, THEN, SAY, FOR ALDERMAN PINCOTT AND I OR SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE THIS OFF LINE AND WORK WITH YOU IN A NOTICE OF MOTION TO FLESH THIS OUT A BIT MORE? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TOO GET THAT FORMAL ABOUT THIS. I JUST LOOK AT Mr. STEVENS AND SAY WE NEED AN LAS AND THAT GETS IN FRONT OF LAND AND ASSET AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL TO SAY HERE'S WHAT WE USE FOR STANDARDS AT THE MOMENT. >> NOT STANDARDS AS IT RELATES TO CSA BUT STANDARDS OF PRACTICE. >> YES. >> OKAY. >> AND THEN WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT ONCE WE GET AGREEMENT ON THAT, WHEN WE DO THE RFP PROCESS WE'RE GETTING THE SHARPEST PRICES ON THE RIGHT STANDARDS OF FURNITURE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, FOR THTHE LATITUDE ON THIS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION RELATING TO THE AUDIT AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD -- I HAD MADE OR ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I'D MADE IS WHEN WE'RE PURCHASING THE TYPES OF ERGONOMIC FURNITURE THAT WE ARE, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE PAYING A PREMIUM FOR THAT FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR WORKERS, ARE WE SEEING A DECLINE -- A CORRESPONDING DECLINE IN WORKERS COMPENSATION FLAMES, THE MASSAGE -- CLAIMING, THE MASSAGING, CAN ANYONE ADDRESS THAT? >> THE AUDIT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT. >> ARE WE TRACKING THAT AT ALL? IT WOULD REALLY BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THE INVESTMENT IN THE ERGONOMIC FURNITURE IS ACTUALLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL FOLLOW-THROUGH INFORMATION WITH WCB BECAUSE THE CLAIM CAN BE ADVANCED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS. OVER THE DU DIT PERIOD THERE WAS A 35% REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED. THAT LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MUCH OF THE MUCH OF THE FURNITURE IS HAVING THE DESIRED EFFECT. I DON'T HAVE RAW NUMBERS HERE WITH ME BUT THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS PROVIDED AFTER THE PRESENTATION TO AUDIT COMMITTEE. >> THAT TELLS ME A LOT OF THINGS. IT TELLS ME THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT MOVE FOR US TO DO. AND THAT OUR WORKERS ARE IN FACT WORTH IT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN POOTMANS? TURNOVER, JOB SATISFACTION, THE CALLTATIVE ELEMENTS ARE IMPORTANT AS WELL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. ON THE MOTION TO RECEIVE THIS REPORT ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? I AM OPPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US THEN TO -- WE GET INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION. SO WE'LL PLAY MUSICAL CHAIRS A LITTLE BIT HERE AND GET OURSELVES STARTED. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE TABLED REPORT. WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE GALLERY. THE WAY THIS PART WORKS IS THE ADMINISTRATION WILL PRESENT THE ITEM, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION ONLY, ALDERMAN MAR. FOR ADMINISTRATION. AND THEN THE PUBLIC WILL BE INVITED UP TO SPEAK. FIRST THOSE IN FAVOUR OF THE ITEM, THEN THOSE OPPOSED TO THE ITEM. YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND COUNCIL MAY ASK YOU QUESTIONS. WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TODAY. SO I THINK THIS WILL TAKE US A LITTLE WHILE. AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON FROM THERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO START, THEN, WITH 6.1 IN YOUR AGENDA WHICH IS CPC 2011-035, LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY OF HIGHLAND MARK. >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, REPRESENTING CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE LAND USE ITEMS TODAY. PROPOSED LAND USE THAT'S BEFORE YOU AFFECTS LANDS OUTLINED IN RED ON THE LOCATION MAP HE END T THE END OF 41st AVENUE. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE PRIMARILY SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS AS SHOWN IN YELLOW WITH THE CENTRE STREET CHURCH AND PARKING LOT FOR CENTRE STREET CHURCH LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST THE SUBJECT LOT. PROPOSED REDESIGNATION IS TO TO TAKE THE LAND FROM THE EXISTING RC 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND REDESIGNATE IT TO DIRECT CONTROL TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL USE OF OFFICE. THE DIRECT CONTROL WILL USE THE RC 2 AS THE BASE DISTRICT, BUT AN OFFICE IS A STAND-ALONE USE WHICH MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE SHOULD THIS BE ADOPTED. THE AREA IS IN A PORTION OF CENTRE STREET WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY A -- THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR STUDY WHICH IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. UNTIL THAT TIME, AN AD HOC APPROACH TO LAND USE IS NOT ENCOURAGED. IN THAT RESPECT, ADMINISTRATION AND CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE THIS TO COMMERCIAL FROM RESIDENTIAL WAS PREMATURE AND CPC IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL REFUSE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION TO DIRECT CONTROL AND THAT BYLAW 26 D 2011 BE ABANDONED. THE SITE PHOTOS BEFORE YOU ARE SHOWING THE AREA AFFECTED. SHOULD NOTE THAT THE SITE DID HAVE A SINGLE DETACHED RESIDENCE ON IT. BUT IT HAS BEEN REMOVED, AND THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS. I LIKE THE NEW LOOK. I WAS GOING TO THINK WE'D REPLACED THE SECRETARY WITH SOMEONE YOUNGER. QUICK QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. YOU MADE REFERENCE IN YOUR STATEMENT TO THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR STUDY. IS THAT ON THE DOCKET FOR NOW, DO YOU KNOW? >> IT'S NOT ON THE DOCKET FOR THIS YEAR. I BELIEVE THEY ARE HOPING TO GET IT STARTED NEXT YEAR. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION? QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION ONLY. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THE ITEM? YOUR WORSHIP, MAYOR NENSHI, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I'M THE PRINCIPAL OF THE NUMBERED COMPANY THAT OWNS THE LOT IN QUESTION. AND I DO HAVE SOME MATERIAL I'D LIKE TO HAND OUT IF I MAY, PLEASE. NOW, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING THE PEOPLE OF CALGARY AS A LAWYER AND I'VE DONE SO FOR 20 SOME ODD YEARS. THE LOT IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED AS IT WAS BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD A SMALL LAW OFFICE BUILDING AND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR ON-SITE PARKING. GOOD ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO OUR PRACTICE. IT'S OUR SUBMISSION THAT THE LOT IS NOT SUITED FOR A RESIDENCE AS IT IS SURROUNDED BY THE CENTRE REET CHURCH BUILDING AND TWO LARGE PARKING LOTS ON TWO SIDES. YET ABUTS THE HIGHLAND PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA WHICH IS TO THE RIGHT WHICH IS THAT GRAY AREA THERE. WE MET WITH THE HIGHLAND MARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2010, AND THEY REQUESTED CONCEPT PLANS WHICH WE HAVE PROPOSED TO THEM. THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ADVISED THEY WOULD PREFER A DIRECT CONTROL LAND USE DISTRICT INSTEAD OF A COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND WE ACCORDINGLY AMENDED THE APPLICATION TO DIRECT CONTROL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION MEETING AND THE THEN ALDERMAN BOB HAWKESWORTH WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NO DIRECT OBJECTION TO A PROPOSED USE, BUT THAT BOTH THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND THE ADMINISTRATION DON'T WANT AD HOC LAND USE AMENDMENTS. AND IF I CAN REFER TO THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORDING, IT SAYS URBAN CORDON CENTRE STREET NORTH IN GENERAL URBAN CORRIDORS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT WALKABLE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENTS FRONTED BY A MIX OF HIGHER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS USES. AN URBAN CORRIDOR STUDY AREA OFTEN INCLUDES ALL LANDS WHICH FRONT ONTO THE URBAN CORRIDOR AND EXTEND OUTWARD AT LEAST ONE BLOCK ON EITHER SIDE. POTENTIALLY EXTENDING ALONG INTERSECTING STREETS. INDIVIDUAL URBAN CORRIDOR LAND USE FRAMEWORKS AND APPROPRIATE JOB AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONS WILL BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH LOCAL AREA PLANS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF AD HOC LAND USE AMENDMENTS ALONG CENTRE STREET AND A BLOCK WEST ON 40th AVENUE -- 40th STREET, I'M SORRY, AND Mr. CHU HAS A NUMBER OF SLIDES I CAN SHOW THAT LAND USE THAT INCLUDES ANOTHER OFFICE BUILDING BUILDING, STRIP MALL AND TWO CENTRES OF WORSHIP AS WELL AS A TIM HORTONS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WANTS TO HAVE THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR STUDY COMPLETED FIRST AND THIS MAY BE BUDGETED FOR 2012. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE COMPLETED UNTIL 2015 OR 2016 AT THE EARLIEST. IT'S OUR SUBMISSION THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED FOR FOUR MORE YEARS UNTIL THE OVERALL CORRIDOR STUDY AND PLAN CAN BE COMPLETED. IT'S OUR SUBMISSION THAT THIS PROPERTY IS BEST SUITED FOR AN OFFICE USE AT PRESENT AND IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT THIS IS ULTIMATELY WHAT THIS PROPERTY WILL LIKELY END UP BEING, EITHER A COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE USE. SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE REDESIGNATION TO DIRECT CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SMALL LAW OFFICE AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND Mr. CHU IS HERE AND WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP 3. I WILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR Mr. CHU BUT I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR PRACTICE. WHAT TYPE OF PRACTICE DO YOU DO IN LAW? >> WE SERVE PEOPLE. WE ARE A SMALL BOUTIQUE... [Indiscernible] LAW FIRM AND WE TEND TO FOCUS ON CATASTROPHIC AND WRONGFUL DEATH CASES. THERE'S VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT COME INTO OUR OFFICE. THEY USUALLY COME IN FOR THE FIRST MEET AND A FEW TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF THE FILE THERE IS OFTEN WHAT'S CALLED A DISCOVERY WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER AND CLIENTS COME IN FOR A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING TO DISCOVER THE FACTS. THERE'S COURIERS THAT COME THROUGHOUT THE DAY MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE A DAY. THAT'S ABOUT IT. IT'S VERY LOW TRAFFIC VOLUME, NOT A HIGH-TRAFFIC PRACTICE AT ALL. VERY FOCUSED -- >> BUT BASICALLY YOU'RE DEALING WITH INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN BIG OIL COMPANIES. >> I'D HAVE TO BE DOWNTOWN TO WORK FOR SHELL. >> SO MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT YOU'RE SUITED IN A RESIDENTIAL OR CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF PRACTICE THAT YOU HAVE. WHAT -- HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THERE? >> RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TWO ACTIVE LAWYERS AND FOUR STAFF, THREE OF WHOM ARE PART TIME. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. IS Mr. CHU GOING TO BE MAKING A PRESENTATION AS WELL? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> I'M SORRY, ALDERMAN CARRA. >> I'LL WAIT FOR Mr. CHU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AFTER Mr. CHU'S PRESENTATION, WE MAY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR TWO FOR YOU, SO STICK AROUND, PLEASE. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MANU CHU. I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THIS. FOLLOWING A LITTLE BIT OF PRESENTATION I'LL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. AS Mr. CUBITZ HAS PRESENTED THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT IS TO AN EXISTING RC 2 LAND USE DISTRICT AND THAT NO OTHER CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE RC 2 DISTRICT. THE EXCEPTION THE OFFICE USE. I PRESENTED SOME PICTURES THAT SHOWS THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND I'LL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, Mr. CHU. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> Mr. CHU, I KNOW THIS IS A LAND USE REDESIGNATION, BUT I'M CURIOUS AS TO THE BUILT FORM THAT'S PROPOSED AS AN END RESULT. COULD YOU DESCRIBE TO US WHAT IT IS YOU ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD ON THE SITE? >> THE BUILT FORM CLOSE TO THE CONTEXTUAL OF... [Indiscernible] DISTRICT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES TO THE HEIGHT, ET CETERA. THE BUILT FORM WILL BE PRETTY MUCH IN THAT SCOPE. >> IT WILL BASICALLY BE A HOUSE THAT -- >> MATCHING PRETTY CLOSE TO A HOUSE, YES. >> AND IS THERE ANY SORT OF THOUGHT OF SORT OF DOING A MIXED FORM SO THERE COULD BE SOMEONE LIVING ON THE SITE AS WELL? LIKE IN A LANEWAY HOUSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> NO. THE LOT SITE IS REASONABLY SMALL SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO HAVE AN OFFICE AND MIXED USE -- LIVE/WORK ENVIRONMENT. PURELY AN OFFICE USE. >> AS A MEMBER OF CPC, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN DEBATE OR DID YOU JUST TOTALLY RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ANY DISCUSSION -- >> TOTALLY. I LEFT THE ROOM. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF LIGHTS ON. I WAS JUST LOOKING UP THE SITE IN QUESTION. MY QUICK, QUICK QUESTION IS SO THE PURPLE LOTS DIRECTLY BELOW, IS THAT THE CENTRE STREET CHURCH WEST CAMPUS? AND THIS IS JUST NORTH OF THAT? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT WAS JUST A QUICK QUESTION FROM ME. ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. Mr. CHU, WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT TO THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE, IN PARTICULAR HOW THE HILL GOES UP TOWARDS THE BACK? I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE LAND SLOPES FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. WE HAVE A LANE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND A LANE TO THE NORTH. THE WEST SIDE -- THE LANE ON THE WEST SIDE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCESSIBLE AT ALL. SO WE'RE NOT USING BOTH -- EITHER THE LANE TO THE NORTH OR THE LANE TO THE WEST. LANE TO THE NORTH IS ABOUT 8, 9 FEET DROP FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH. >> THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT ON THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A BIT OF A RETAINING WALL. THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE THAT LAN LANEWAY AT ONE TIME DID COME THROUGH OR WAS SUPPOSED TO COME THROUGH AND IT'S PARALLEL TO THE BACK. I ACTUALLY DROVE BY THERE THIS MORNING AND THOSE -- WHATEVER IS -- POLES, I GUESS IT IS, THAT'S HOLDING THAT UP AND THERE'S CARS PARKED ON TOP THERE, IS ACTUALLY FALLING DOWN. SO SOMETHING DOES NEED TO BE DONE WITH THAT FAIRLY SOON, I THINK. BUT MY POINT IN BRINGING IT UP IS THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THE ELEVATION FROM THE PICTURES HERE, THAT THERE IS QUITE A CHANGE IN ELEVATION THERE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME ON THE -- AND PERHAPS THIS IS AUETI OF CLARIFICATION I SHOULD HAVE ASKED BEFORE, BUT IN THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT WE GOT, IT SAID THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER PARKED BEHIND THE HOME THAT WAS THERE FROM THE BACK ALLEY. YOU SAW THE SITE BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED WHERE THAT PARKING CAME FROM. >> SORRY? I'LL LET Mr. CUBITZ ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THE HOUSE AT THE TIME WAS ACTUALLY A CONVERTED CHICKEN COOP. THE ACCESS WAS THROUGH THE BACKALY. THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU AT THIS FIRST BLOCK WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORNER OF THE BLOCK AND TO THE LEFT WOULD BE A LITTLE PULLOUT OFF THE ALLEYWAY, THAT'S WHERE THE FELLOW PARKED HIS CAR. >> THE HOUSE WAS ELEVATED THEN. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M NOT SURE WHICH OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT THE LOT IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THAT, THAT'S SURFACE PARKING LOT FOR WHOM? DO YOU KNOW? >> THE CHURCH, YOUR WORSHIP. >> OVERFLOW PARKING OR SOMETHING? >> YES. >> AND IS THAT A PAVED PARKING LOT, GRAVELED LOT, DO YOU KNOW? >> IT'S PAVED. >> AND DIRECTLY TO THE WEST IS TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. >> AND THEN CENTRE STREET. >> ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN CONDEMNED AND ABANDONED. >> WHICH ONE, DO YOU KNOW? >> ONE RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF CENTRE STREET AND 40th AVENUE. IT'S ALL BOARDED UP NOW. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> THANK YOU, Mr. CHU. SO THEN YOU'RE SAYING THE ALLEYWAY ON THE WEST SIDE, IT'S REALLY NOT ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE STEEP INCLINE? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. >> SO PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING NORTH OF THE SITE OR PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING WEST OF THE SITE THERE, THEY COME IN FROM THE NORTH RATHER THAN COMING UP THROUGH THAT ALLEYWAY? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. >> SO WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO HAVE PARKING ON SITE BECAUSE OF THAT STEEP INCLINE? >> WE'RE NOT USING PART OF THE LANE FOR THIS PROJECT AT ALL. >> PART OF THE LANE WILL STAY CITY PROPERTY LANE. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. >> BUT YOU HAVE ROOM ON SITE, THOUGH, TO PUT PARKING. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. >> SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT THERE'S A CONCERN FROM THE NEIGHBOURS OR COMMUNITY ABOUT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION COULD BECOME A HEALTH CLINIC OR MEDICAL OFFICE. THERE MIGHT BE SOME SYNERGY IF THAT HAPPENED, IF THE PROPERTY WOULD BECOME A COFFEE SHOP OR COMMUNITY CONVENIENCE STORE THIS WOULD BE DEFINITELY OUT OF CHARACTER. YOU'RE FINE WITH RESTRICTING THE USE WHEN YOU MOVE TO THIS DC, RIGHT? >> , THAT, YOUR WORSHIP. THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE GOING DC, ALLOWS OFFICE USE ONLY. >> THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU. THIS IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR, AND I UNDERSTAND THE TIMING IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOU BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A TIME LAG. BUT I'M ASSUMING THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR STUDY WILL SEE GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS SITE IN THE FUTURE. AND NOT JUST THE SITE BUT THE AREA ADJACENT TO CENTRE STREET. SO DO YOU SEE ANY DIFFICULTY IN -- I MEAN, I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING WHY DO YOU NEED TO MOVE NOW WHEN THERE WOULD LIKELY BE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, AT THE MOMENT, MY CLIENTS NEEDS TO RELOCATE HIS OFFICE, AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S LOOKING AT. IN FUTURE BIGGER OPPORTUNITY, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AT THAT TIME. BUT CURRENTLY, THAT'S WHAT HE'S LOOKING FOR. >> HOW BIG IS THE LOT? >> IT'S ABOUT 9,000 SQUARE FEET. >> AND THE CONDITION OF THE DWELLINGS ALONG CENTRE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE FAIRLY RUNDOWN >> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR WORSHIP. >> WHAT ABOUT ON THE STREET -- 42nd AVENUE, WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THOSE DWELLING UNITS? >> 42nd OR 41st? >> I THINK 42nd. >> SOME OF THEM ARE OWNED, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES IN THAT DISTRICT ARE RENTALS. SO THE ONES THAT ARE ON CENTRE STREET, MOST OF THOSE ARE RENTAL, MOST ARE NOT IN VERY GOD SHAPE AT ALL -- GOOD SHAPE AT ALL. SOME ARE IN GOOD SHAPE AND THE CLOSER TO CENTRE, THE WORSE THEY ARE IF I CAN REMEMBER FROM MY DRIVING THROUGH THE AREA. BUT THEY SEEM TO BE DECENT SHAPE. >> THANK YOU. SO THERE COULD BE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL TO REDEVELOP THAT ENTIRE BLOCK IF THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE ZONE. I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF WHAT I WOULD SEE AS THIS DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THERE'S A REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS WHOLE BLOCK. BUT THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WHO WOULD WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS KEVIN BENTLEY. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGHLAND PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, I'M A RESIDENT OF HIGHLAND PARK, WHICH IS CELEBRATING ITS 100th ANNIVERSARY OF BEING PART OF THIS GREAT CITY. MY COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL WILL BE BRIEF. CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF COMMERCIAL SITE AT THIS LOCATION, 116-41st AVENUE NORTHEAST, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LEGISLATION AND LAND USE POLICY. THIS SITE IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND, IN ADDITION, HAS SEEN A NEW 92-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING BEING CONSIDERED. THIS COUNCIL APPROVED THE LAND USE CHANGE, AND IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THE SITE. THE REVIEW OF THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION INCLUDED A REVIEW OF THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT SOME THE PRECEDENT THAT THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED WAS PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WAS APPROVED I BELIEVE BY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER OF 2009 WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 2010. FURTHER MORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE NORTH BOW DESIGN BRIEF, THE URBAN CORRIDOR ATTRIBUTES, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, AND LOOKING AT THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AREA INTERFACE WITH A RESIDENTIAL AREA. WHAT WE WOULD ADD TO THESE COMMENTS IS THAT THE AREA RESIDENTS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE HAVE PROVIDED THEIR COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CORRIDOR STUDY, AS YOU HAVE HEARD, CITY PLANNING HAS INDICATED UNTIL A CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR IS CONDUCTED, ONE WHICH PROVIDES A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF FUTURE LAND USE AND REDEVELOP PATTERNS, AN AD HOC APPROACH TO LAND USE REDESIGNATION IS UNWARRANTED. THERE'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER REASON WHY AD HOC LAND USE REDESIGNATION FOR CENTRE STREET -- THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR IS NOT APPROPRIATE. HIGHLAND PARK IS IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A TEN-YEAR CITY COUNCIL APPROVED STRONG NEIGHBOURHOOD INITIATIVE. IN HIGHLAND PARK, WE LIKE TO CALL IT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF PROMISE INITIATIVE. WITH THE ASSISSTANCE OF CITY STAFF, THIS IS A RESIDENT-LED REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE WORKING TOWARDS A COMPLETE COMMUNITY. WHICH AMONGST OTHER THINGS INCLUDES A PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT THAT ENCOURAGING SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT, COHESION AND SUPPORT OF A COMMUNITY IDENTITY. AT PRESENT, THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ALONG CENTRE STREET -- SORRY, ALONG THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR IS NOT VERY APPEALING. IT IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE COLLECTION OF VACANT LOTS, IN SUMMER OVERGROWN WITH WEEDS AND COLLECTION POINTS FOR DEBRIS. BOARDED-UP HOMES PLUS A NUMBER OF SCRAP METAL ENTERPRISES PLYING THEIR TRADE. THESE DO NOT REPRESENT POSITIVE INFLUENCES FOR OUR COMMUNITY OR FOR THE CITY. THIS CORRIDOR NEEDS A VISION. IT NEEDS COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS THAT MAY INCLUDE AND ENCOURAGE NEW WAYS FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENTS, NEIGHBOURHOOD BUSINESSES AND THE CITY TO WORK TOGETHER. AS WE, THE CITIZENS OF CALGARY, ASK CITY COUNCIL FOR A VISION OF THE FUTURE, IT IS ONLY FAIR AND APPROPRIATE THAT YOU IN TURN ASK OUR COMMUNITY WHAT OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE IS. WE BELIEVE THAT WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT, WE CAN MAKE THIS A BETTER COMMUNITY. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR US TO HAVE A CORRIDOR STUDY COMPLETED PRIOR TO FURTHER AD HOC APPROVAL OF PROJECTS ALONG THIS STRIP OF CENTRE STREET. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. BENTLEY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION WHICH IS WHEN IS THE CENTENNIAL PARTY. >> IT'S A WHOLE YEAR. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BIG EVENT. ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> YES, I'D LIKE TO BE INVITED TO THAT PARTY AS WELL. SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME DETAILS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT IMPASSIONED SPEAK, Mr. BENTLEY, AND YOU TOUCHED ON MANY OF THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE AS WELL. IT SEEMS TO ME, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY AND STOP ME IF I'M NOT, THAT THE SOCIAL NEEDS, THE REASON THAT HIGHLAND PARK IS A COMMUNITY OF PROMISE IS IN PART BECAUSE THERE ARE SOCIAL NEEDS IN THAT COMMUNITY COMPASS -- EXSAPERATE BY THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR AND TO DO THE AD HOC PLANNING DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO BRING IT TOGETHER WITH THE SOCIAL NEEDS. >> , THAT. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? NO? >> SORRY, NO. >> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, Mr. -- BENTLEY. AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, I'M A HUGE SUPPORTER OF INVOLVEMENT OF COMMUNITY INITIATIVES. AT THE SAME TIME I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE ABOUT THE POSITION THAT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HERE HAS TAKEN OR THE GROUP OF RESIDENTS. I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU ARRIVED AT YOUR DECISION. I AGREE THAT CENTRE STREET NEEDS A VISION IN A BIG WAY, AND I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS WHAT HAS THE CONVERSATION BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING WHERE AND WHAT KIND OF VISION YOU SEE FOR YOUR -- FOR THAT STREET? >> TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT HAD A COMMUNITY VISIONING SESSION, IF YOU WILL. WE'RE IN THE EARLY PROCESS OF TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE. >> BUT YOU GUYS DO SUBSCRIBE TO IDEAS LIKE COMPLETE COMMUNITY AND -- >> FOR SURE, AND A PLAN IT -- GENERAL OVERRIDING PRINCIPLES THAT ARE IN THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. S. >> SO WHEN YOU WERE APPROACHED BY THE PROPONENT AND THEY SAID I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN AN OFFICE WHICH IS PART OF COMPLETE COMMUNITY, WHAT WAS THE GENERAL RESPONSE TO HIM AND HOW DID THAT ROLL OUT AND HOW DID WE ARRIVE HERE? >> THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISJOINT IN RESPECT TO THAT MATTER. THE BOARD OF THE HIGHLAND PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAS NOT RENDERED A DECISION FOR OR AGAINST THIS PROJECT. IT HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BOARD. >> WHY IS THAT? >> THE... THE BOARD MEMBER RESPONSIBLE DID NOT BRING IT FORWARD TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION. >> SO THE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY JUST MADE A DEFACTO DECISION WITHOUT ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY. MY QUESTION -- AM I CORRECT IN THAT -- >> YES. >> SO MY QUESTION THEN IS WHAT -- I MEAN, I CAN... HOW IS IT THAT YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BRING REINVESTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY, SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO SORT OF BRING AN ADDED MIX OF USE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT PERSON CAN BEST FIT IN? OR HAS IT JUST BEEN A YES OR NO PROPOSITION OR WAIT UNTIL THERE'S SOME SHRINING REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME UNDERTAKEN? URBANISM DOESN'T OCCUR IN MASSIVE REDEVELOPMENT. URBANISM OCCURS INCREMENTALLY OVER TIME AND IT'S NICE TO HAVE A BIG SHINING VISION THAT YOU CAN LATCH ONTO, BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT HAPPENS IN FITS AND STARTS OF BUSINESS PEOPLE AND INDIVIDUALS WORK TOGETHER TO BUILD THEIR COMMUNITY. HAS THERE BEEN ANY EFFORT TO COORDINATE WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL AND TRY AND FIND A WAY TO FIT THEM INTO A LARGER VISION AND TAKE STEPS IN THAT REGARD ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY? >> THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ONLY MET WITH ME ON THIS MATTER LESS THAN A WEEK AGO. SO MY KNOWLEDGE BASE ON THIS PARTICULAR FILE IS FAIRLY LIMITED. >> THIS IS LIKE TWO YEARS IN THE MAKING NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SOME ENGAGEMENT ISSUES INTERNALLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. AND AT THE ENTIRE LEVEL OF THE -- THE ENTIRE PROCESS LEVEL OF THE CITY. BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. AND, OF COURSE, HE'S NOT SINGLING OUT YOUR COMMUNITY. BUT INSTEAD REFERRING TO THE NEED TO DO BETTER ENGAGEMENT ACROSS THE CITY. ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. AND THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION THIS MORNING. WHEN DO YOU EXPECT -- HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN ANY INDICATIONS OF WHEN THE CORRIDOR STUDY -- THE AREA STUDY WILL BE COMPLETED? >> NO, I HAVE NOT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE'S AN ENERGY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE COULD HARNESS IN VERY SHORT ORDER AND WE COULD BRING THE HORSES TO BEAR TO MAKE IT A SHORTER PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO A LONGER PROCESS IF THAT WAS THE QUESTION. >> THANK YOU. IF I COULD JUST COME BACK TO YOU IN A MOMENT PERHAPS DIRECT THIS THROUGH TO ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE CHAIR, IS THERE ANY SENSE IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHEN THIS STUDY MIGHT BE ACCOMMODATED OR STARTED? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO LEAVE THAT ONE FOR WHEN WE GET TO QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. >> FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU THINK THAT A USE SUCH AS THIS WOULD BE RADICALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE GOING FORWARD? I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED TODAY, WOULD THIS BE PERCEIVED AS A THORN IN YOUR SIDE OR PERHAPS AS PART OF AN AUGMENTED COMMUNITY, A FULL COMMUNITY PERHAPS WITH A BALANCE OF USES THAT IN SOME WAYS MIGHT BE VERY ATTRACTIVE. >> I THINK IT IMPRUDENT FOR ME TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. I JUST DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. >> SOME OF THE COMMENTS OF ALDERMAN CARRA, WHAT I -- IN TERMS OF WHAT I WAS THINKING IN THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING STOPPED WHILE WE WAITED FOR A PLAN. I THINK THERE IS THIS LIVING TREE NOTION THAT PERVADES THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS AND AREAS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHY STOP A KIND OF ORGANIC GROWTH, PERHAPS A USE SUCH AS THIS COULD BE ACCOMMODATED GOING FORWARD INTO A FULSOME PLAN. >> WELL, I GUESS IT -- THERE'S THE TWO SIDES TO THE COIN IS IF YOU ALLOW AD HOC PLANNING, WHAT'S TO PREVENT THREE MONTHS FROM NOW OR SIX MONTHS FROM NOW FROM ANOTHER APPLICANT COMING BEFORE COUNCIL WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT? AND YOU GET DEFACTO DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT VISION OCCURRING AT ALL. >> PERHAPS YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS THE TWO SIDES OF THE COIN. HAVE LOCAL RESIDENTS BEEN CONTACTED OR HAVE THEY BEEN PART OF THE PROCESS? HAVE THEY EXPRESSED TO YOU ANY CONCERNS OR ISSUES ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT? >> YEAH. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT A NUMBER HAVE WRITTEN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAVE VERBALLY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE PLANNING FILE MANAGER AND I BELIEVE OF THE SIX RESIDENCES, I BELIEVE FIVE HAVE RESPONDED OPPOSING THE PROJECT. >> AND DO YOU KNOW -- PERHAPS UNFAIR QUESTION, DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, ANY PARTICULAR ISSUES, COMMENTS TO THEM? >> GENERALLY THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL FOOTPRINT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOT TO THEIR LIKING. >> HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED RECENTLY THAT HAVE RECEIVED A SIMILAR RESPONSE OR IS THIS ONE OF THE FIRST ONE SAY OVER THE PAST, SAY, YEAR OR TWO? >> YES. WE HAD AN INTRODUCTION OF A SENIORS' COMPLEX IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT BORDERS THE -- IN THE GREENVIEW INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT BORDERS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, AND THERE IS -- WAS SOME CONCERN BY AREA RESIDENTS ON THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT COMES IMMEDIATELY TO MIND. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. ALDERMAN CHABOT? ALDERMAN HODGES? >> I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THIS WEEK'S CITY HALL SCHOOL CLASS. THANK YOU. THERE ARE 22 GRADE 3-4 STUDENTS FROM SCENIC ACRES SCHOOL ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR TEACHERS. AND THEY ARE HERE THIS WEEK AS PART OF THEIR YEAR-LONG FOCUS ON THE TOPIC "WE ARE EXPLORERS OF THE WORLD." I'D LIKE TO WELCOME THEM TO CITY HALL, YOUR WORSHIP. [Applause] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: STAND UP, PLEASE. WAVE TO THE CAMERAS. [Applause] THERE YOU GO. YOU JUST HAD A MOMENT ON T.V. AS WELL. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL IN MY OFFICE LATER THIS WEEK. HAVE A GREAT WEEK AT CITY HALL. THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT HE FEEDBACK OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT I'M JUST TRY OGGET A HANDLE ON THIS MYSELF. IF THIS WAS THE LOT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD YOUR RESPONSE BE EXACTLY THE SAME ON THIS? >> EXCUSE ME, DO YOU MEAN TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST? >> NO, TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH. THE ONE IMMEDIATELY NORTH ON 42nd, RIGHT BEHIND -- YEAH, NORTH OF IT THERE, THAT LOT THAT BACKS TO THIS ONE, WOULD YOUR RESPONSE BE THE SAME FOR THAT AS IT WOULD BE FOR THIS ONE? >> LIKELY YES. BECAUSE IT'S EVEN MORE BURIED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> THAT'S REALLY WHAT MY POINT IS, IS THAT THIS LOT, TO ME, SUITS THIS TYPE OF A DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE LOT NORTH WOULDN'T. THE REASON I'M SAYING IS THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S ON TWO SIDES -- CERTAINLY THERE'S MORE COMPATIBLE LAND USE ON TWO SIDES TO THIS PROPERTY, EVEN TO THE WEST, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE ON THE WEST ON CENTRE STREET, BUT REALLY IT'S ONLY THE NORTH WHERE IT'S DIRECTLY HITTING RESIDENTIAL AND LIKELY WILL REMAIN RESIDENTIAL, WHO KNOWS? BUT I THINK THIS PARCEL HERE COULD BE CARVED OUT AND PUT INTO THE -- A DIFFERENT LAND USE SO EASILY. I THINK IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE LOT TO THE NORTH. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT? >> WITH DUE RESPECT, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WHAT IS PRESENTLY THE CENTRE STREET CHURCH WEST CAMPUS WOULD REMAIN THE CENTRE STREET WEST CAMPUS. IN FACT BEFORE THE WING KAI DEVELOPMENT WAS PUT INTO THE GREENVIEW INDUSTRIAL AREA, THIS WAS THE SITE THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING. SO THERE COULD WELL BE, WITH REDEVELOPMENT IN HIGHLAND PARK AND DENSIFICATION, THIS CORNER COULD BE IN FACT A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND YOU WOULD HAVE AN ORPHANED SITE WITH A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE ON IT. >> YES, BUT TO THE EAST OF IT, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO STAY LIKELY INDUSTRIAL. WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO SEE THAT HAPPENING DOWN THERE. RIGHT? >> CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> IT'S HARD TO SPEAK TO IT. THE THING IS THAT LIKELY IF THE CENTRE STREET CHURCH IS REDEVELOPED IT'S MORE LIKELY TO WOULD GO TO A MIXED USE WITH A HIGHER DENSITY OF SOME RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS. BUT THIS BUSINESS IS COMPATIBLE WITH USE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIT IN IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, WOULD IT? >> YOU'RE ASKING ME TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT MAY BE CONSTRUED AS A POSITION OF THE COMMUNITY -- >> I UNDERSTAND. >> I CAN'T DO THAT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN MAR? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY AND GIVING YOUR VOICE FOR THE COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. SO ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR PLAN IT CALGARY AS WE'RE REFERRING IT? >> GENERALLY I'M NOT BY ANY SENSE OF IMAGINATION AN EXPERT ON THOSE DOCUMENT. >> NO, BUT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF IT? >> YES. >> OKAY. SO WHAT THE COMMUNITY OR WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS SAYING IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO WAIT FOR A STUDY OF THE AREA, THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR. IS THAT GENERALLY HOW YOU'RE FEELING? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU REALIZE THAT BECAUSE OF THE MOVE THAT WE'RE MAKING TOWARDS WHAT WE'RE CALLING A CORRIDOR STRATEGY, WHAT YOU COULD SEE VERY, VERY EASILY WOULD BE WHAT WE CALL A MIXED USE BUILDING IN AND AROUND THIS EDGE, AND BY MIXED USE I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT WOULD INCLUDE SOME FORM OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL WITH LIVING SPACE ABOVE. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IN THE FUTURE? >> I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE -- FROM THE DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD WITH AREA RESIDENTS, PART OF THE VISION THAT THEY WOULD SEE, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE REJUVENATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND PART OF IT BEING A COMPLETE COMMUNITY. COMPLETE COMMUNITY INCLUDES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHICH HIGHLAND PARK PARK IS AT THE PRESENT TIME LACK. OTHER THAN THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS WE LACK EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES OR AMENITIES. THERE ARE NO GROCERY STORES -- >> DAYCARES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >> OF THAT NATURE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO LIKELY, AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL HERE TO NOT LEAD YOU TOO FAR ASTRAY, LIKELY, HOWEVER, WE WOULD BE ENCOURAGING THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. >> ONLY THE MAYOR TRIES TO LEAD ME ASTRAY. SO MY QUESTION, THEN, IS IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WOULD WAIT THREE, FOUR YEARS FOR A CORRIDOR STUDY, AND THAT COULD REALLY TRANSFORM AND RESHAPE HIGHLAND COMMUNITY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO SEE, SO THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, WHICH I THINK YOU MIGHT AGREE WITH ME, AND I WON'T PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, SO I'LL ASK YOU, IS SOMETHING ON THAT SITE, ON THAT LOT BETTER THAN WHAT'S THERE NOW? >> WELL, IT'S A VACANT LOT. >> IT'S LIKE A MUD PIT, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL. >> A MUD PIT. WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THOSE ALREADY IN THE CORRIDOR, WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ONE. SO, YES, SOMETHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN NOTHING. >> OKAY. NOW, WOULD THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT -- OR DO YOU BELIE T COMMUNITY WOULD SUPPORT A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON THAT SITE? >> YEAH, I CAN'T... YOU KNOW, YOU'RE -- >> YOU DON'T KNOW. >> I G TO BE CAREFUL. I'M NOT HERE WITHOUT HAVING ASKED THE COMMUNITY OR THE BOARD WHAT THEIR POSITION IS. >> OKAY. WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO SAY RIGHT NOW IS ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR A CORRIDOR STUDY, EVEN THOUGH THE CORRIDOR STUDY WILL LIKELY SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL ON THAT SITE. ONE LAST QUESTION, SIR: WHEREABOUTS ARE YOU IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT? ARE YOU ON THE MAP AT ALL OR NOT? >> MY RESIDENCE? >> YOUR RESIDENCE. JUST IN A GENERAL AREA. >> MY RESIDENCE IS A BLOCK AND A HALF DUE SOUTH OF THE SITE. >> SO YOU'RE IN -- RIGHT WHERE THE INDICATOR IS. THANK YOU OPINION THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, Mr. BENTLEY. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR FINAL OUT A MONDAY AND BEING WITH US TODAY. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR THE COMMUNITY VOICES WHEN WE MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN AND MOVE TO QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. AND I KNOW ALDERMAN POOTMANS HAD ONE BUT I HAD THE SAME ONE AND HE'S NOT HERE SO I WILL ASK IT. WHICH IS THE APPLICANT'S LETTER SUGGESTS THAT A CORRIDOR STUDY WOULD TAKE SOMETHING LIKE FOUR YEARS TO COMPLETE. IS THAT ACTUALLY THE CASE? IF WE WERE TO GET THIS ON THE DOCKET FOR 2012, WHEN WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, BASED ON SIMILAR OTHER PROCESSES, THE WAY WE'VE BEEN WORKING RECENTLY WE BELIEVE WE COULD COMPLETE SOMETHING IN 12 TO 18 MONTHS ONCE IT'S STARTED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: 12 TO 18 MONTHS. THIS COULD BE A REALLY COMPLICATED CORRIDOR STUDY BECAUSE, IF I GET MY DRUTHERS, IT WILL INCLUDE A CONVERSATION AROUND RAPID TRANSIT ON THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR AND POTENTIALLY A RELOCATION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL LRT ALIGNMENT. THAT SAID, WOULD YOU STILL DO IT IN 12 TO 18 MONTHS? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THE ISSUE IS ONCE -- WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A PROJECT SCOPING. I KNOW TRANSIT IS DOIN SOME WORK ALREADY ON POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL LRT. THE TIMING WOULD BE BASED ON THE INPUTS WE HAVE AT THE TIME. BUT SIMILAR TO OTHER PROCESSES WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE EXERCISES WITH THE COMMUNITY, EVEN THROUGH THE PROCESS YOU START TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE THE DIRECTION IS HEADED AND WE DON'T HOLD UP APPLICATIONS FOR AN ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF A STUDY, NECESSARILY, IF THE DIRECTION IS CLEAR AS TO WHERE IT'S GOING. SO I DO THINK 18 MONTHS IS A REASONABLE TIME FRAME AND SHOULD BE EXPECTED WE CAN COMPLETE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I ALWAYS GET MAD AT MY COLLEAGUES, ALDERMAN MAR, FOR ASKING HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. BUT I'LL ASK ONE TO YOU, WHICH IS IF IN FACT THIS BECOME BECOMA RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR IS THERE ANY THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR AREA WOULD BECOME A TRANSIT NODE IF THERE WAS A STATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THIS GENERAL AREA? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT. I THINK TRANSIT WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO THAT. AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I THINK THE ANSWER IS THEY DON'T NOTE YES EITHER. THANK YOU. -- KNOW YET EITHER. ALDERMAN MAR. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, Mr. MOLLER. UNFORTUNATELY -- OR, SORRY, Mr. COPE. I HATE TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD BECAUSE IT IS VERY HYPOTHETICAL, AND MY QUESTION NOW FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE IS IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A CORRIDOR STUDY, WHERE DOES THAT FIT IN IN OUR OVERALL TIME FRAME IN THE WORK PLAN? CAN YOU RESPOND? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THIS WOULD RANK AS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR MY GROUP IN TERMS OF DOING THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND THERE IS A LOT OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. SO IT WOULD BE -- IN MY PREFERENCE THE REQUEST WOULD LIKELY BE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF OUR THREE-YEAR WORK PROGRAM, THAT REQUIRES INTERNAL ALIGNMENT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS SO ALL THE DEPARTMENTS CAN RESPOND TO GIVE US AN ANSWER IN A SHORT TIME FRAME. >> THANK YOU. NOW, IS THERE ANY INITIATIVE WITHIN PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION TO COORDINATE ON WHAT YOU WERE JUST SPEAKING OF, AT ALL, RIGHT NOW? >> YES. >> SO IT IS -- AND IT IS GOING TO BE IN THE WORK PLAN IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT WILL BE REQUESTED TO BE IN THE WORK PROGRAM. AS YOU KNOW, LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY IS DOES BRING OUR WORK PROGRAM FORWARD TO COUNCIL OPINION IT DOES REQUIRE SOME PRIORITY SETTING RELATIVE TO OTHER PROJECTS THAT MIGHT COME FORWARD. HOWEVER, IT'S A HIGH PRIORITY FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY AT THIS TIME GOING INTO THE WORK PROGRAM DISCUSSIONS. >> OKAY. THAT'S HANDY TO KNOW. SO IN THE EVENT THAT WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD ON A CORRIDOR STUDY, YOU THINK THAT IT COULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN 12 TO 18 MONTHS, COMPLETED. AND SO LAND USE FRAMEWORK WOULD BE ESTABLISHED WHERE IF THIS DEVELOPMENT CAME BACK IN THAT TIME FRAME WE WOULD HAVE A FAIRLY DEFINITIVE IDEA AS TO WHAT THIS CORRIDOR WOULD LOOK LIKE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THE ISSUE AND TIMING OF COMPLETENESS -- I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE SOUTHEAST 17 CORRIDOR STUDY WHICH WAS NOT A COMPLETE STUDY IN TERMS OF AN ARP AMENDMENT AND LAND USE REDESIGNATION, IT WAS DONE IN A 12 TO 18 TIME FRAME. IT HAD A LOT OF PRECONSULTATION IN ADVANCE OF THAT. HOWEVER IT ALLOWS US TO MAKE DECISIONS ON LAND USE APPLICATIONS AS THEY COME FORWARD. I THINK THIS APPLICATION -- FOR EXAMPLE IF THE APPLICANT DIDN'T PROCEED WITH IT AT THIS TIME, IT COULD CONTINUE MORE QUICKLY THROUGH THAT PROCESS THAN WAITING FOR CITY INITIATED LAND USE REDESIGNATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE. >> OKAY, AND BECAUSE THIS IS BASICALLY ONE LOT OFF OF THE ACTUAL CORRIDOR, WOULD IT BE OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE OR NOT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THE MOST CRITICAL POINT OF THIS SITE IS THAT IT'S STRATEGICALLY LOCATED WITH REFERENCE TO HOW THAT AREA REDEVELOPS. THE ACTUAL USE OF RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL IS CERTAINLY AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT IT'S HOW THAT PARCEL GETS USED IN AN OVERALL RECONFIGURATION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA THAT PROVIDES US REAL STRATEGIC VALUE. AND I THINK -- THE USE IS PROBABLY -- WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONSULTATION WITH THE LAND OWNERS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING IT, WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE AS WELL AND THE COMMUNITY INPUT. >> OKAY. THAT DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS, AND I'LL REPHRASE IT, IN THE EVENT THAT WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS STUDY FOR THIS AREA, COMMERCIAL USES WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL PLAN. YES? >> THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED, YES, ABSOLUTELY. >> SO IF THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTEDDOR RESUBMITTED TO US WITH A COMMERCIAL, A MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT ABOVE IT OR ATTACHED TO IT IN SOME FASHION,OULD THAT BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT YOU'RE ENVISIONING THE OVERALL CORRIDOR STRATEGY WOULD LOOK LIKE? >> I GUESS IT'S IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE I'M NOT ENVISIONING ANYTHING MYSELF FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. >> CONSISTENT WITH THE MDP. >> WELL, THE MDP REQUIRES A LOCAL AREA PLAN PRIOR TO MAKING DECISIONS ON THE FUTURE OF THAT VISION. AND THAT REQUIRES THE LOCAL AREA PLANNING PROCESS, INCLUDING LANDOWNER AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION. SO WHILE THE MDP WOULD SUGGEST RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE COULD BE APPROPRIATE, WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR LOT, HOW THAT FITS IN DOES DEPEND ON THAT PROCESS BEFORE WE RECOMMEND A DECISION OR A RECOMMENDATION. [Please Stand By] >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M NOT SURE WHO TO DIRECT THIS QUESTION TO BUT I'M WONDERING HOW MANY PROPERTIES THERE ARE UNDER DEMOLITION ORDER ALONG THIS CORRIDOR RIGHT NOW. I THINK THERE IS FIVE THAT I KNOW OF BUT I GUESS THAT COMES FROM BYLAW DOES IT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. WE COULD SERGELY GET IT TO YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I DO KNOW THE ONE IN THE CORNER THERE IS BOARDED UP AND I THINK IF NOTHING ELSE THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS CENTER STREET CORRIDOR STUDY DONE BECAUSE IF NOTHING ELSE, IT IS POINTED OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF A COMMUNITY. HOW COMMUNITY EVOLVES. HOW IT TRANSITIONS, AND I THINK THAT THE AD HOC PLANNING IN THIS INSTANCE IS JUST ADDING TO THE PROBLEM, AND THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF IT IN THIS AREA. I THINK WE NEED TO STOP DOING THAT, AND SO I AM GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION, MOVE IT WHEN THAT TIME IS APPROPRIATE. THAT WE REF THE APPLICATION -- >> LET'S FINISH UP FOR OUR QUESTIONS AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AT THAT TIME. ALDERMAN CARRA. >> AS YOU KNOW I'M A HUGE PLAN OF MASTER PLANNING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I LIKE MASTER PLANNING AS A TOOL TO HELP SORT OF CREATE THE VIBRANT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT WE WANT TO SEE IN OUR CITY. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A LOCAL BUSINESS WANTING TO IMPROVE A SITE BEING TOLD JUST WAIT AND THEN DETERMINE AMOUNT OF TIME. ARE THERE NO SORT OF MECHANISMS SO SAY THIS SITE COULD INTENSIFY. WE'LL WORK WITH YOU ON A DP THAT WILL BUILD SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU NOW BUT COULD BE PART OF A INTENSIFICATION PROGRAM INTO THE FUTURE OR IS OUR ONLY RECOURSE TO BE JUST WAIT. >> YOUR WORSHIP, OF COURSE IT'S POSSIBLE TO WORK WITH AN INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING. THE QUESTION IS COMING UP WITH SOMETHING RELATIVE TO WHAT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING LAND USES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RELATIVE TO FUTURE CORRIDOR WHICH WE ARE NOT SURE HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. I GUESS WE COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING. WE DO IT ON A REGULAR BASIS BUT I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS PARCEL TO BE PART OF SOMETHING LARGER AND WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THAT IN ADVANCE OF MAKING DECISIONS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. WE RECEIVED A LETTER HERE FROM THE APPLICANT I BELIEVE. INDICATING THAT THEY HAD MET WITH THE HIGHLAND PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INCLUDING Mr. BILL MORRISON, AND IN THE REPORT, IT DOES MAKE REFERENCE TO Mr. MORRISON'S LETTER, ALTHOUGH I DON'T SEE Mr. MORRISON'S LETTER IN THE PACKAGE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. AT THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM Mr. MORRISON. THAT LETTER INDICATED THAT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION AT THAT TIME. CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED THE LETTER AS INFORMATION BUT DID NOT ATTACH IT TO THE REPORT. >> OKAY. THIS LETTER SUGGESTS THAT Mr. MORRISON WAS ACTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT. >> THE ONE WE RECEIVED IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. THAT WAS RECEIVED BY CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR INFORMATION. >> BEAR WITH ME FOR A MINUTE. THIS IS AUGUST 2010. THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING FURTHER SINCE THEN OTHER THAN -- >> NOTHING SUBMITTED TO EITHER THE FILE MANAGER OR PLANNING COMMISSION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN STEVENSON. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO DEBATE. MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO -- YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT THE MOTION TO REF -- REFUSE AND IF IT'S DEFEATED -- >> TO BE POLITE I THINK ALDERMAN MacLEOD DID GET THERE BEFORE YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE MY LIGHT LEFT ON. >> NO PROBLEM. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR INFORMATION? -- ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU. JUST ON THE LETTER THAT ALDERMAN CHABOT WAS ASKING ABOUT, THERE IS ANOTHER LETTER ON AUGUST 19th, I BELIEVE, THAT -- >> WE HAVE NOTHING ON FILE. >> OH, OKAY. BECAUSE I HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE BUT IT'S NOT STAMPED. IT WAS FAXED IN. SO THAT WAS THE ONE WITH THE BYLAW REQUIREMENTS, CONVERSION OF THE BUILDING, SOME OF THE OTHER PIECES THAT HAD BEEN REQUESTED FROM THE APPLICANT. >> OUR FILE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> BUT THIS IS DATED AUGUST 19th, 2010. SO, OKAY, SORRY I HAD IT SO I THOUGHT I SHOULD MENTION IT. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION AS RECOMMENDED BY ADMINISTRATION TO REFUSE THE REDESIGNATION OF THIS LOT AND TO ABANDON THE PROPOSED BYLAW. >> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT? THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THEN TO ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION. ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, DID YOU WANT TO DEBATE THAT ALDERMAN STEVENSON. GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT HE COULD COME FORWARD AND BUILD A HOUSE IF HE WANTED TO AND IF HE APPLIED FOR A HOME OCCUPATION WE WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM VERY EASILY BECAUSE IT'S PERFECT FOR A BUSINESS. THERE IS LOTS OF ACCESS AND PARKING AND NOT INTERFERING WITH ANY NEIGHBOURS OR ANYTHING. AND AS I SAID, EARLIER, THE LOT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USES AROUND THERE, AND I THINK BECAUSE IT IS AND BECAUSE IT'S A COMMUNITY-FRIENDLY BUSINESS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL DRAW FROM THE COMMUNITY, IN FACT PEOPLE CAN WALK THERE, AND WHEN WE GET THE LRT UP CENTER STREET THEY WILL BE ABLE TO WALK FROM THE LRT TO THIS USE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FAIR TO HOLD THIS UP FOR THREE OR FOUR YEARS. I HAVE DIFFICULTY BELIEVING THAT THE STUDY WOULD BE DONE IN 18 MONTHS BECAUSE WE ARE JUST ENTERING INTO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ON THE NEW -- DIFFERENT ROUTES OF NORTH CENTRAL LRT. WE HAVE THE FIRST MEETING TRANSIT IS DOING STARTS IN A WEEK AND A HALF. SO THAT'S GOING TO GO ON FOR AWHILE, AND I THINK THAT IT'S JUST NOT PROPER, IT'S NOT RIGHT THAT WE HOLD A DEVELOPER UP WHEN HE IS BUILDING, PROPOSING TO BUILD A CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA COMPLEX AND IS READY TO GO, NEEDS TO GO, IT'S NOT FAIR FOR US TO HOLD HIM UP FOR A FEW YEARS UNTIL WE DECIDE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE OTHER AREAS ADJACENT. SO IF THIS IS DEFEATED, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST IT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I TOO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO FILE OR TO ABANDON THE BYLAW. I AGREE WITH ALDERMAN STEVENSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH TO -- IN REGARDS TO PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING HE SAID. THE DIRECT CONTROL DESIGNATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS IN KEEPING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USES, IE, THAT IT WILL BE BASED ON RC-2 WITH A DISCRETIONARY USE, ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY USE FOR THE OFFICE COMPONENT. SO IT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BUILT ON SITE. IT JUST PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A BUSINESS TO LOCATE ON THAT SITE WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE SOMEBODY RESIDE WITHIN THE STRUCTURE. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE ALTERNATE MOTION THAT ALDERMAN STEVENSON PUTS FORWARD. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE ABANDONING OF THIS BYLAW. >> ALDERMAN, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN CARRA. >> THANK YOU. I'M TORN ABOUT THIS AS YOU KNOW I DO LOVE MASTER PLANNING AND I DO LOVE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSITIONS. I ALSO UNDERSTAND ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS COULD BE A LINCHPIN PROPERTY IN A COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, THOUGH, WE ARE SORT OF SUCKING AND BLOWING HERE. WE ARE SAYING THAT COMMERCIAL DOESN'T FIT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD. WE ARE HEARING THAT FROM THE COMMUNITY BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT'S GOING TO ESSENTIALLY UP ZONE THIS PROPERTY BEYOND WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING CONTEMPLATED AND SO THEY ARE NOT HITTING WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. THEY ARE NOT HITTING WHAT COULD BE THERE. AND ANOTHER SORT OF I THINK BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WANT SOMETHING THAT'S MORE INTENSE EVENTUALLY ON THE SITE. THE QUESTION IS WHEN IS THE MARKET GOING TO CATCH UP TO WHAT'S THERE? AND WHAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE A LOCAL BUSINESSMAN WHO WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING AND RUN HIS BUSINESS OUT OF THE COMMUNITY PART OF A MIXED USE COMMUNITY. THE BIG CHALLENGE FOR ME AND WE CAN SORT OF SAY, WELL, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN URBAN CORRIDOR. IT'S NOT THAT MYSTERIOUS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN INTENSIFICATION OF USES. I DO AGREE THAT THIS SITE COULD BE SORT OF STRATEGIC IN LINCHPIN. THE BIG QUESTION BEFORE US IS HOW WE DO THE KIND OF INTENSITY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW. WE BUILD IT SUCH A WAY THAT POTENTIAL FOR INTENSIFICATION IF AND WHEN THERE IS A REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME THAT ENVISIONED MASSIVE INTENSIFICATION ALONG THE SITE AND THAT UNFORTUNATELY IS A DP-RELATED CONCERN, AND I WOULD BE -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE DP ON THIS RIGHT. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MULTISTOREY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THE MARKET IS GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. WE HAVE A CALGARY BUSINESSMAN WHO WANTS TO INVEST IN A COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SAY WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. I'M GOING TO -- >> CONVINCE YOURSELF, ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YEAH, I DID. >> JUST FOR FUN. SPENT 990 MINUTES ON ONE LOT. SHOULD I TRY TO CONVINCE YOU THE OTHER WAY? -- 90. >> I NEVER WOULD. I'M TEASING YOU, ALDERMAN CARRA. WALKED US THROUGH YOUR WHOLE THOUGHT PROCESS. VERY HELPFUL. >> SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> IN THE FULLNESS OF BREVITY MY COLLEAGUES PROBABLY OUTLINED WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO FILE AND ABANDON THE BYLAW EITHER. BECAUSE WHAT IT DOES IT PLACES US IN THIS EITHER/OR SITUATION WHERE -- SORRY, IT'S EITHER A CORRIDOR STUDY AND IT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE US, AND I THINK WE CAN DO BOTH. THERE ARE MANY AREAS IN THE CITY THAT I THINK COULD CERTAINLY BENEFIT AND WE WERE HAVING THE DISCUSSION EARLIER FROM THESE CORRIDOR STUDIES TO IMPROVE THE CONNECTIVITY AND THE COMMUNITY WELL-BEING. SO THE RULES OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND CONTEXTUAL RC-2 DISTRICT APPLY IN THIS DIRECT AND CONTROL DISTRICT. THESE FOLKS ARE OPERATING BY THE CURRENT RULES OF THE GAME. BUT WHAT I DO THINK IT ES, ALDERMAN MacLEOD, IF WE CAN APPROVE THIS IT SENDS A STRONG MESSAGE TO ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO COME FORWARD. THAT REALLY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE THESE FOLKS PAY THE PRICE. BUT WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT THESE SORT OF THINGS MUCH MORE SERIOUSLY ON A MORE HOLISTIC AND COMPREHENSIVE BASIS AND WE NEED TO IMPROVE THIS AREA. WE SAW -- I DIDN'T DRIVE BY IT THIS MORNING LIKE ALDERMAN MacLEOD DID BUT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO IMPROVE THIS AREA, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INTENT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> (Inaudible). >> HOLD ON. THE SECRETS I DON'T LET THE MIC COME ON, THEY DON'T TALK. IT'S WORKING NOW, ALDERMAN DEMONG, IF YOU WANT TO TRY. ALL RIGHT. ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> THANK YOU. DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. TO ME THIS DEBATE OVER THIS PROPOSAL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A PRINCIPLE HERE THAT PERHAPS A CONTINUUM TO WHAT EXTENT DO PLANNING PRINCIPLES WORK IN CONCERT WITH ONGOING MARKET ACTIVITY? AND I THINK THAT AS WE SEE A MARKET EMERGE, PERHAPS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME OF THE PLANNING TO PROCESS THIS TO INFORM THEMSELVES OF THIS ACTIVITY NOW, AND I WOULD HATE TO THINK IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY IN SOME DISTRESS AT THE MOMENT WOULD NOT ACCEPT A USE BY ALL ACCOUNTS SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY COMPATIBLE WHAT WE MIGHT IMAGINE IN THE FUTURE. FOR THOSE REASONS I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION. THANK YOU. >> BEFORE I CALL ON ALDERMAN MacLEOD TO CLOSE WOULD YOU GIVE ME INFORMATION TO SAY A SENTENCE OR TWO MYSELF. ALTHOUGH I WAS TEASING ALDERMAN CARRA, I THINK HE PUT HIS FINGER ON THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE WHICH REALLY IS TUESTION OF DO WE ALLOW THINGS TO GO FORWARD WHEN WE THINK THERE MAY BE A BETTER USE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE? AND THIS IS A BIG CHALLENGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT IT'S ADJACENT TO WHICH IS THE LARGEST HOUSE OF WORSHIP IN THE CITY, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT POTENTIAL HIGH SPEED TRANSIT UP CENTER STREET I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS AREA WOULD BECOME A TRANSIT NODE IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME AND ONE RC-2 DWELLING THAT HAS A OFFICE IN IT MAY NOT IN FACT BE THE RIGHT DESIGNATION FOR SOMETHING THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO AN LRT PLATFORM OR LRT STATION. ALL OF THAT SAID, THE QUESTION THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT OURSELVES IS PRECISELY THE ONE THAT'S BEEN RAISED, DO WE PUT A HOLD ON DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE OKAY THINKING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BETTER. I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO GRAPPLE WITH TODAY. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I WOULD RATHER AIM FOR THE MUCH, MUCH BETTER BUT I UNDERSTAND FOLKS WHO ARE SAYING WE CAN'T HOLD ALL DEVELOPMENT UNTIL WE GET OUR DUCKS IN A ROW IN TERM OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO. THANKS FOR YOUR INDULGENCE, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOSE COMMENTS BECAUSE THAT CAPTURES A LOT OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH AS WELL. AND I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I THINK THAT IT'S FAIR ENOUGH TO SAY THIS IS SMALL OFFICE, BUILDING IS GOING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE A HOUSE IN MANY RESPECTS, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IMPACTING ANYTHING, IT'S ONLY ACCESS IS FROM 41st AVENUE, IT'S A DEAD-END. THERE IS NO LANEWAY IMPACT AND ALL THE REST OF IT. AND THAT'S ALL WELL AND FINE UNTIL YOU LOOK AT THE BIGGER CONTEXT, AND YOU REALIZE THAT THIS IS PART OF A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM. AND TWO YEARS IS NOT AN AWFULLY LONG TIME. FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS, SIX YEARS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU -- WHERE YOU CUT OFF THE LINE. BUT I THINK THAT THE FUTURE USE OF THAT CENTER STREET PROPERTY, THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON CENTER STREET AS OPPOSED TO THE CHURCH WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PURPLE DOWN BELOW, AND THAT'S QUITE A HILL THAT GOES DOWN THERE, WE NEED -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AND I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS IN THE GREATER CONTEXT OF IT'S MUCH MORE THAN JUST A SINGLE PROPERTY. THE SOCIAL ISSUES, THE SOCIAL CONTEXT, THE CENTER STREET CORRIDOR, THE WAY THESE BUILDINGS ARE BEING RUN DOWN -- ARE ALLOW TODAY RUN DOWN IS CAUSING CONSIDERABLE PROBLEMS, AND I THINK THIS IS JUST A GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE SO IMPORTANT AND WE HAVE GOT TO GET THAT CENTER STREET CORRIDOR STUDY, AND SO IF WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS ONE ALONG WITH THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED I THINK WE CONTINUE TO SET A BAD PRECEDENT. I WOULD URGE YOU NOT TO SUPPORT THIS. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN -- REALLY, OKAY. THANKS ALDERMAN MacLEOD. I HAVE A REQUEST FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. >> ON THE CPC RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN REPORT 35, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> NO. >> MAYOR NENSHI? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> YOUR WORSHIP I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE REDESIGNATION AND THE THREE READINGS OF THE BYLAW. >> THANKS. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART IS SECONDING THAT ONE. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE JUST DID IS WE -- I LOVE THE DOUBLE NEGATIVES. A COUPLE OF YOU LOOK CONFUSED. WE REJECTED THE REJECTION, AND NOW ALDERMAN STEVENSON HAS MOVED THE APPROVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE NOW. >> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HEAR -- I THINK, YOU KNOW, ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE STILL APPLY AND WHAT'S CRITICAL IS THAT THIS DP -- WE GET THIS DP RIGHT BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SITE AND I DO THINK WHATEVER GETS BUILT HAS TO BE ABLE TO FIT IN WITH THE MORE INTENSE USE IN THE FUTURE, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE AS A COUNCIL. CAN WE DO A MOTION ARISING ON A SECOND READING OR AFTER SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW REQUESTING THAT THE DP OR LIKE SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT THE DP SHOULD ADDRESS POTENTIAL, IMMINENT INTENSIFICATION OF THE SITE SO WHATEVER GETS BUILT NOW AT A LOWER LEVEL OF INTENSIFICATION CAN MELD BETTER OR ARE WE LOOKING AT BUILDING SOMETHING AND THEN LOOKING AT A KNOCKDOWN IN 20 YEARS WHILE THE REST OF THE SITE HAS DEVELOPED INTENSELY AROUND IT? I JUST THINK THAT -- >> OKAY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, CERTAINLY AFTER THE FIRST READING, THE DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT COULD BE AMENDED. HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO AMEND IT WITH SOME SPECIFICITY. IT IS A LAND USE BYLAW AFTER ALL. SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS, YES, YOU CAN BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONTENTS OF THAT WOULD BE. >> MY QUESTION IS NOT SO MUCH AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE BYLAW BUT SO MUCH AN ADMONISHMENT FROM COUNCIL THAT'S VERY CLEAR AS IT MOVES INTO THE PROCESS OR IS THAT IRRELEVANT? >> NO, YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T THINK IT'S IRRELEVANT. I THINK PERHAPS WHAT COULD BE DONE IS SOMETHING COULD BE ADDED TO THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT BYLAW TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION TO THE AUTHORITY IN EXERCISING THEIR DISCRETION. SO -- AND I SEE THAT Mr. COPE IS STANDING. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR I THINK WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS PROBABLY A MOTION ARISING TO PROVIDE DIRECTION THAT WOULD BE PUT ON TO A NOTICE ON POSSE WHICH WOULD BE PICKED UP BY THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNER SHOULD A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMES IN. ONE PERSPECTIVE YOU MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT IF YOU ARE WANTING A SPECIFIC SITE TO RELATE TO OTHER SITES, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNER WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THOSE OTHER SITES HOLD. SO IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO INCORPORATE THAT DIRECTION INTO THEIR REVIEW OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND GET THAT DECISION MADE IN A TIMELY MANNER. >> OKAY, SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS. ONE IS THAT WE REWRITE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. THE OTHER IS THAT WE DO A MOTION ARISING WITH I DON'T KNOW THE TERMINOLOGY THERE. IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS AFTER FIRST OR SECOND READING, AND THEN COULD WE -- WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO DO THAT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING OF COUNCIL IN LIKE TWO WEEKS' TIME WITH THAT WORKED OUT? ONE WEEK. NEXT WEEK. >> YEAH. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, SO WE COULD DO THAT. AND BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK. UNLESS YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD JOT DOWN WHAT YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT IN A MOTION ARISING, IN WHICH CASE WE COULD JUST DO IT AFTER LUNCH. >> THAT'S FAIR. MAYBE WE'LL DO IT AFTER LUNCH THEN. >> SO IF YOU WANT GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, YOU COULD TABLE THIS ITEM NOW AND BRING IT BACK AFTER LUNCH IF YOU LIKE OR YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE -- YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION BUT BEFORE WE HAVE DONE THE BYLAWS. >> I WILL WAIT UNTIL WE APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION. >> OAK. APPARENTLY, WE MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO DO THE PURPOSE STATEMENT AFTER LUNCH. JUST SO THE APPLICANTS DON'T HAVE TO STICK AROUND FOREVER LET'S HAVE THE VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION. IF THAT PASSES THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU TO TABLE UNTIL -- TABLE THE ACTUAL BYLAWS UNTIL AFTER LUNCH. >> I'M HOPING I CAN WORK WITH MARY OVER LUNCH TO GET THIS RIGHT. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY MY POSITION ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I HAVE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF -- A QUARTER STUDY AND SEVERAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES. REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU ARE GOING THROUGH THOSE TYPES OF SUBSTANTIVE TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGES IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT YOU ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TIME TO HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE CHANGES AND BE ABLE TO SORT OF COME ALONG WITH US IN MAKING THOSE CHANGES. SO I THINK THIS IS PRESUPPOSING AN OUTCOME, AND I THINK IT'S UNDERACHIEVING CERTAINLY BUT IT'S A MODEST ENOUGH CHANGE THAT I DON'T SEE IT HAMPERING REDEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FUTURE. BUT I HOPE WE DON'T DO THIS TOO MUCH AND RELY ON THESE KIND OF ONE OFS IN ORDER TO CHANGE OUR CITY. WE HAVE TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME WILL BE AND THAT PERHAPS IS A SPUR TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT COMMUNITIES ARE DESPERATE FOR THESE CORRIDOR STUDIES. THEY WANT THEM. THEY SEE THEM AS POSITIVE THINGS WHILE AS BEFORE MAYBE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO PURSUE THEM. AND SOMEHOW WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO LEARN FROM THE ONES THAT WE HAVE DONE, AND ADVANCE THE NEW ONES MORE QUICKLY. BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THEM -- THIS ONE AS BEING MUCH DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN. AND MAYBE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY AS WE LOOK AT THESE ONE OFS TO USE THEM AS TEST CASES FOR WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE ALONG THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR. BUT I THINK THIS ONE IS REALLY UNDERACHIEVING AND THIS COULD BE QUITE AN EXCITING NODE FOR THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND REDEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW WOULD PROBABLY HOLD IT BACK FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND SO I THINK IT'S PREMATURE. BUT I WILL SUPPORT IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN FRONT OF US. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> RAISE THE ISSUE WHAT ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. THE ONE INTERESTING THING ABOUT WHICH HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED YET, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, LAST TWO HOURS, IS THE PURPOSE STATEMENT APPENDIX ONE PAGE 2, DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT INTENDSED TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH THIS DUPLEX SEMI DETACHED USE AND OFFICE USE WITHIN A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING. THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT THE OFFICE USE TO BE OCCUPY THE ENTIRE NEW STRUCTURE OR NOT? SO ALDERMAN CARRA AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF IS IT THE CON STEP PLAGUES THIS IS AN ENTIRE LIANNE OFFICE USE, PARTLY AN OFFICE USE, OR THE MINOR PART, LESS THAN 50% OF THE FLOOR SPACE WILL BE AN OFFICE USE? I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN SORTED OUT HERE YET. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SORT IT OUT AT THIS POINT. IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF IT WAS. OTHERWISE, IT'S SIMPLY GOING TO BE AN OFFICE USE WITHIN A BUILDING THAT LOOKS LIKE A DUE FLEX BUT DOESN'T FUNCTION AS ONE. SEMI DETACHED BUILDING. LOOKS LIKE A SEMI DETACHED BUILDING BUT IS AN OFFICE. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY. THIS IS INTENDED FOR AN OFFICE USE, NOT A RESIDENTIAL ONE. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BEFORE I CALL ON ALDERMAN STEVENSON TO CLOSE. ALDERMAN STEVENSON TO CLOSE? >> CLOSED. >> THANK YOU. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN TO ADOPT THE LAND USE CHANGE AND GIVE THREE READINGS TO THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED BEEN ALDERMAN HODGES AND ALDERMAN MacLEOD ARE OPPOSED. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL AFTER LUNCH, AND AT WHICH POINT I WILL BE BRINGING BACK A REWORKED APPROACH TO EITHER THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OR THE -- OR A MOTION ARISING. >> WE'LL DEAL WITH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS HOW TO DO THAT OVER THE BREAK. ALDERMAN FARRELL YOU ARE SECONDING THAT. ON THE MOTION IT TABLE THIS, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN CHABOT AND JONES ARE OPPOSED. ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> AND I ALSO HAVE A MOTION ARISING TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PRIORITIZE THE CENTER STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AND TO ENSURE IT IS INCLUDED IN THE 2012 PLAN -- >> LET'S DO THAT AFTER WE DO THE BYLAWS IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO THAT ONE AFTER LUNCH AS WELL. AND ONLY NOT QUITE TWO HOURS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ONE HOUR 45 MINUTES IN WE GET TO THE SECOND ITEM. ITEM 7.1 LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN HIGH FIELD. Mr. COPE. >> THANK YOU. THE AREA IN QUESTION IS OUTLINED IN RED WHICH FACES ON TO 42 NDZ AVENUE SOUTHEAST AT 9th STREET SOUTHEAST. THE AREA IS IN THE HIGH FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO TAKE THE LANDS FROM THE EXISTING IG INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT AND REDESIGNATE THE LANDS TO IC INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. LANDS IS SURROUNDING IT TO THE SOUTH AND WEST HAVE BOTH BEEN RECENTLY REHE IS DESIGNATED TO IC TO RECOGNIZE USES IN THOSE PARTICULAR BUILDINGS. THE SITE ITSELF WAS ORIGINALLY I-2 UNDER BYLAW 2P-80 UNDER THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW BYLAW, THE AREA WAS TRANSITNED IG DISTRICT WHICH RECOGNIZED MAJORITY OF THE USES WITHIN THE BUILDING. DO HAVE PHOTOS THAT SHOW THE BUILDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS. THE CASINO WAS LOCATED DIRECTLY TO THE NORTHEAST. THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF IS A MULTIBAY DEVELOPMENT WHICH CONTAINS A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE ACTIVITIES WITH PARKING AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF USES WITHIN THE MULTIUSE BUILDING, WHICH ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE IG DISTRICT, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE IC DISTRICT BE USED WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE ALL THE EXISTING USES AND FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. IN THAT RESPECT, CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED REDESIGNATION TO IC INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND THAT THREE READINGS BE GIVEN TO BYLAW 3 2-D, 2011. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THESE ARE EXISTING USES. SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE WHERE THE LAND USE BYLAW MAY HAVE BEEN OUT OF SYNC WITH WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE SITE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE -- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION? SEEING NONE. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> THANK YOU, YOURP. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS (INDISCERNIBLE) MAKO ON BEHALF OF (INDISCERNIBLE) AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME. >> FIRST NAME AUTO MACO. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANY QUESTIONS. >> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> JUST BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS, CAN YOU TELL US HOW THIS SORT OF CAME ABOUT, HOW YOU -- ARE YOU -- MISSED YOUR INTRODUCTION. ARE YOU THE PROPONENT HERE? >> NO. I'M HERE -- NO I'M NOT PROPONENT. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF (INDISCERNIBLE). >> FRANK SISEN, OKAY, THE APPLICANT. >> CAN YOU GIVE US A BRIEF TIMELINE. IT WAS IG AND WHO DETERMINED IT WASN'T APPROPRIATE AS IG AND IC AND HOW MUCH TIME HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN. >> I'M NOT QUITE PRIVY WHO DETERMINED IT BUT APPROPRIATE WOULD CHANGE IG BUT IF THAT CHANGE SOME USERS BECAME INN COMPATIBLE. -- INCOMPATIBLE. AND ACTUALLY THE TIME OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW BYLAW IC DID NOT EXIST, AND IC DISTRICT HAS BEEN CREATED TO PERHAPS CORRECT THESE DEFICIENCIES. >> OKAY. AND SO HOW -- SO WERE A LOT OF THESE USES PREDATING THE CHANGE OF THE BYLAW? >> EXACTLY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION? ALDERMAN CARRA? >> WELL, I WILL MOVE IT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER. THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE IT AT ALL OR TALK ABOUT IT? >> IN CLOSE I WILL JUST SAY THAT I THINK THIS IS A WASTE OF EVERYBODY'S TIME. >> WE DO TEND TO DO A LOT OF THESE FIXES OF ERRORS IN THE LAND USE BYLAW, DON'T WE? >> I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE SLICED THE INDUSTRIAL UP INTO A MILLION LITTLE SUBCATEGORIES. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR CITY, TIME AND RESOURCES. I DON'T THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE OF COUNCIL'S TIME. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. AND YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A SYMPATHETIC EAR IN THIS CHAIR ON THAT. SO -- OKAY ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ONE OF THEM HAS A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT. ONE HAD PAINFUL DENTAL SURGERY RESULTED IN AN ABSCESS, IF YOU WERE WONDERING. ON THE BYLAW THEN. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED. SECOND, CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW. ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED. THIRD READING, ARE WE AGREED. CARRIED. THAT TAKES US TO LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY OF WHITE HORN, Mr. COPE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. IN THE COMMUNITY OF WHITE HORN LOCATED ON WHITEFIELD CLOSE NORTHEAST. PROPOSAL TO TAKE THE LANDS FROM THE EXISTING RC 1 DISTRICT AND REDESIGNATE WHICH HAS THE EXACT SAME LAND USES WITH THE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR A SECONDARY SUITE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ITSELF. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN 660 METERS WALKING DISTANCE TO THE WHITE HORNE LRT STATION AND A BUS ROUTE TO WHITEFIELD DRIVE NORTH OF THE SITE. WOULD INDICATE ON THE AIR PHOTOS HERE SURROUNDING LAND USES WHICH WERE ALL SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS. WE DO NOTE THAT THERE WERE LETTERS OF SUPPORT SIGNED BY AREA RESIDENTS INDICATING NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION. IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DID HAVE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS. THESE INCLUDED THOSE WHO WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERATION OF THIS BEING SPOT ZONING WITHOUT A SPECIFIC ERP OR COMMUNITY SUPPORT INDICATED. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE OF OWNER OCCUPATION OF THIS STRUCTURE AND THERE APPEARED TO BE A LACK OF ON-SITE PARKING. WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO COMMENT RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION. THE REVIEW INCLUDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE BYLAW WITH RESPECT TO AREA REQUIREMENTS. WE DO NOTE THAT THE LOT DOES CONFORM TO THE AREA REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR A SECONDARY SUITE AND THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO ON-SITE PARKING AT THIS TIME, THERE IS SUFFICIENT AREA TO PROVIDE FOR THAT. IN THAT RESPECT, CPC IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT PROPOSED REDESIGNATIONS RC-1F TO ALLOW FOREA SECONDARY SUITE AND THAT THREE READINGS BE GIVEN TO PROPOSED BYLAW 33.D-2011. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDEAN JONES? >> YES. THERE IS ONE THING THAT IN THE BACK, IT SAYS THAT THERE WERE SIX LETTERS OF SUPPORT. HOW COME NONE OF THE LETTERS ARE IN THE DOCUMENT? >> WE GENERALLY DO NOT PUT INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT IN THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT FOR FOIP PURPOSES. WE DO TALK ABOUT ANY LETTERS WE RECEIVE AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND ADJACENT RESIDENT SUPPORT OR COMMENTS IN THE REPORT ITSELF. >> IS IT PSSIBLE IN FUTURE THAT MAYBE THE ALDERMAN COULD SEE THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT BEFORE IT COMES TO COUNCIL. >> WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THAT WITH THE FOIP DEPARTMENT. GENERALLY SPEAKING IF THEY ARE ON THE FILE WE WOULD PROBABLY GET THEM TO YOU. >> JUST THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM IF POSSIBLE IN FUTURE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN JONES. QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> ACTUALLY, YOUR WORSHIP, IF THOSE RED DOTS INDICATE THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT IS THE CLARIFICATION I WAS LOOKING FOR. AND THERE IS NO OTHER LETTERS FROM ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS? >> NO LETTERS OF OBJECTION. NO LETTERS OF SUPPORT. >> OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE HARD COPY OF THIS, DO YOU? HAVE TO COMMIT IT TO MEMORY OR WRITE IT DOWN ON MY OWN NOTES HERE. ACTUALLY JUST BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND. THEY ARE NOT INDICATED AS SUCH ON MY, YOUR WORSHIP. BEAR WITH ME FOR ANOTHER MOMENT OR TWO. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? HI. >> GOOD MORNING MAYOR NENSHI AND COUNCIL. EXCUSE ME, I'M VERY NERVOUS. MY NAME -- >> DON'T BE NERVOUS. >> MY NAME IS ANDREA McKINNON. I'M THE OWNER AND APPLICANT OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND JUST BASICALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME. >> THANKS SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE. I WILL ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT I ASK OF EVERYONE WHO IS IN YOUR POSITION, WHICH IS HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN AT THIS? WHEN DID YOU START THIS PROCESS? >> MY APPLICATION WENT IN IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. >> OKAY. >> ABOUT HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOU ARE OUT-OF-POCKET SO FAR GETTING TO COUNCIL? >> AROUND $4,000. >> DO YOU LIVE THERE BY THE WAY? >> I DO. >> THAT IS IT FOR ME. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU. I COULDN'T HELP BUT NOTICE ON THE SITE PICTURES THAT I SAW THAT IT APPEARS TO BE A FAIRLY SIGEL INVASION VARIANCE THERE. -- SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION VARIANCE THERE. >> AT THE FRONT BUT IT LEVELS OFF AT THE BACK. >> LOOKS LIKE THE OTHER SIDE OF YOUR YARD IS HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF THE FENCE. >> IT IS AT THE FAR SIDE BUT I WAS GOING TO LEVEL IT OUT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. IT'S KIND OF HILLY A BIT. BUT IT'S NOT -- THERE ISN'T LIKE A SIGNIFICANT GRADE CHANGE, I WOULDN'T SAY. >> IT LOOKS LIKE MORE THAN 20% TO ME, WHICH MEANS YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY UNDERGO A SLOPE ADAPTIVE DEVELOPMENT, OVER LAND DRAINAGE ISSUES. NO BACK ALLEY. >> NO BACK ALLEY, NO. >> NOT SURE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ON SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. YOU CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING ON SITE. >> NO. PART OF THE FENCE IN THE BACK YOU CAN OPEN IT AND PARK IN THERE IF YOU NEEDED TO IN THE BACK CORNER THERE. IT IS A GATE. AND SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE PARKED THERE IN THAT PREVIOUSLY OWNED THE PROPERTY. I'M NOT SURE. CURRENTLY THERE ISN'T ANY. >> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOURSELF. I WILL BE ASKING ADMINISTRATION SOME QUESTIONS THOUGH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR Ms. McKINNON? I FEEL LIKE I KNOW YOUR STREET VERY WELL. I HAVE A -- I THINK I HAVE A FRIEND THAT LIVES ON IT. ANYWAY, GREAT THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO BE WITH US. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? GOOD MORNING. >> MAYOR, ALDERMEN. I'M NOT PER SE GOING AGAINST THIS SECONDARY SUITE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE ONE ON 41st AVENUE NORTHEAST, YOU HAD SO MANY PROBLEMS GETTING THAT APPROVED. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT GOING WHEN THINGS ARE FALLING APART IN AN AREA. CONDEMNED AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT MY POINT IS THIS HOUSE SITS IN THE GROUND. THERE IS NO WINDOWS VISUALLY I CAN SEE. THEY HAVE TO SPEND -- TO EXCAVATE PROBABLY MAYBE 10, 15.000. THERE IS NO WINDOWS. WHY BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL, IT'S BEYOND MY UNDERSTANDING. USUALLY HOUSES THAT HAVE WINDOWS IN THE BASEMENT AND THE LAW NOW IS THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT IN BIGGER WINDOWS FOR FIRE HAZARD, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. THESE ARE MY COMMENTS, AND WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION EVEN RECOMMENDED THIS OR WHOEVER DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. AND IT'S SPOT ZONING. THE ONE UP IN NORTHEAST WAS NOT SPOT ZONING. PARTLY IT WAS BUT IT TIED IN WITH INDUSTRIAL, AND IT WAS A GOOD SPOT TO HAVE SMALL OFFICE BUILDING IN THERE. AND BRINGS IN A NEW ENVIRONMENT. WHAT ARE WE DOING? CALGARY IS NOT DOING AS GOOD AS IT USED TO ANYMORE. WE NEED ACTIVITY. WE ARE NOT DOING IT, MAYOR. >> DON'T GET OFF TOPIC. TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE. I THINK THAT YOUR POINT IS AN INTERESTING ONE ABOUT THE WINDOWS, AND IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT LEVEL. BUT I IMAGINE ALDERMAN CHABOT MAY HAVE THAT QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION. >> THOSE ARE THE FACTS, MAYOR. LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT AGAINST IT PER SE, BUT GOING BY THE BYLAWS AND WHAT THE CITY SHOULD RECOMMEND, THIS GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING. IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANKS. ALDERMAN JONES DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR Mr. IF HE CAN? -- FECK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST, ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN JONES? >> Mr. COPE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE IS AVAILABILITY FOR PROVISION FOR ON-SITE PARKING. THAT I WOULD TAKE WOULD BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE AT SECOND READING. >> NO. PARKING IF A PERMIT IS RECEIVED THERE WOULD BE ONE STALL REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING DWELLING AND ONE STALL FOR THE SECONDARY SUITE. >> JUST BECAUSE HE BROUGHT THIS UP THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT TO CODE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WOULD HAVE TO BE WINDOWS. >> WINDOWS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOUR WORSHIP, ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? >> I AM. I'M READY. BUT I HEAR ALDERMAN CHABOT SAY HE IS NOT READY YET. SO ALDERMAN CHABOT. I WILL GET HIS QUESTION AND I WILL COME BACK TO YOU, ALDERMAN JONES AND ALDERMAN PINCOTT'S QUESTIONS FOR ADMIN.. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU. HOW OLD IS THIS HOME? DO YOU KNOW? >> I HAVE NO SPECIFIC DATE BUT KNOWING THE AREA THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT LIKELY IN ABOUT 1980, 1979. >> '80, 1979. R 1 PROPERTIES, RC-1, R-1 WHAT'S THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS? >> ONE STALL PER UNIT. >> THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1980 SOMETHING, REALLY EARLY '80s REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ONE PARKING STALL THERE OFF-SITE OR ON SITE. >> ON SITE. >> AND YET WE HAVE NONE TO DATE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. >> NOW THERE IS GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR TWO PARKING STALLS AND FROM WHAT I CAN TELL REALLY THE ONLY PLACE IT CAN BE PROVIDED IS GOING TO BE ON THE SIDE THERE. ALONG SIDE OF WHITFIELD. >> ACTUALLY QUITE A LOT OF ROOM THERE, YEAH. >> SO THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR PEOPLE TO BACK OUT OF THAT SITE OR DRIVE FORWARD OUT OF THAT SITE FROM THE SIDE THERE. ON TO THAT STREET WHICH IS KIND OF LIKE -- >> IT IS A RESIDENTIAL, LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARD. >> IT'S THE ONLY ENTRANCE INTO THAT WHOLE CUL-DE-SAC AREA. AND IT'S RIGHT CLOSE TO THE ENTRANCE. I DON'T KNOW. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE A POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD INSOFAR AS PEOPLE GETTING IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY ON TO THAT ROAD. >> YES. JUST TO INDICATE THAT THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS ACROSS FROM THAT, ACROSS WHITFIELD CLOSE THAT ALREADY BACK ON TO THAT ROAD. >> THEY ARE ACTUALLY TWO ENTRYWAYS INTO THAT LITTLE CLOSED ONE. RIGHT ADJACENT PARCEL AND ONE BELOW. I KNOW THAT STREET QUITE WELL. I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THERE WERE MAJOR SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ISSUES ON THAT STREET. >> I'M SORRY, YOUR WORSHIP, THERE ARE TWO ENTRANCES. >> ONE WHERE THE SITE IT AND ONE BELOW. TEN HOUSES FURTHER SOUTH. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING. >> NO. >> YOU SAID THERE IS ONLY ONE AREA GET INTO THAT CUL-DE-SAC BUT THERE ARE, IN FACT TWO. >> WHERE. >> IT'S ALL A SQUARE. >> THAT ENTIRE AREA IS SERVICED BY THAT ENTRANCE. >> I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. YOU ARE CORRECT. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I CAN'T SEE MYSELF SUPPORTING THIS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS AND I GUESS THE PRIMARY ONE FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, AND THAT BEING THE MAIN ENTRY POINT INTO THE AREA. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DONE IN THE NEW LAND USE BYLAW SAYS THAT UNTIL WE HAVE 50% OF THE STREET THAT HAS FRONT DRIVEWAYS, THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT A FRONT DRIVEWAY. THE ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE WELL, IT'S NOT A FRONT. IT'S A SIDE DRIVEWAY. BUT IN ESSENCE, IT STILL AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING. IT'S BACKING OUT ON TO A MAIN STREET. FOR THAT REASON, AMONGST SEVERAL OTHERS I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN PINCOTT, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. >> YES, THANK YOU. SOMETHING THAT Mr. COPE SAID TWEAKED ME, SO AS PART OF THE DP STAGE THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADD ONE PARKING STALL FOR THE RESIDENTS AND ONE FOR THE SECONDARY SUITE. >> THE BYLAW STANDARD IS ONE STALL FOR THE DWELLING UNIT AND ONE STALL FOR THE SECONDARY SUITE. THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE SITUATION IN THE AREA AND NOT HAVE THAT ON SITE. >> OKAY. BECAUSE AS I LOOK AT THE AREA, THERE ARE MANY PROPERTIES IN THAT SITE WHO DO NOT HAVE -- IN THAT AREA WHO DO NOT HAVE ON SITE PARKING. >> MAJORITY I WOULD SAY DO NOT HAVE ON SITE PARKING. >> THERE IS THE ABILITY FOR RELAXATION AT THAT POINT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. GOOD. I WANTED TO CHECK ON THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN PINCOTT. ALDERMAN JONES, I THINK WE ARE READY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M NOT -- STILL NOT IN FAVOUR OF A BLANKET POLICY FOR SECONDARY SUITE. IF THIS SITE WAS PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR HOUSES DOWN I WOULDN'T BE STANDING TO AGREE TO IT. PROBABLY WOULD BE OPPOSED BECAUSE WOULDN'T BE A PROVISION FOR ON SITE PARKING. I HAD A TALK ABOUT THIS APPLICATION AND SEEING AS HOW HE HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO IT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY AND THERE WAS SIX LETTERS OF AGREEMENT TO IT FROM ADJACENT NEIGHBOURS AND THERE WAS NO OBJECTIONS RECEIVED, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND GIVE THREE READINGS TO THE BYLAW. >> ALDERMAN MAR BEAT YOU TO IT, ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN FARRELL. FURTHER DISCUSSION -- ALDERMAN MAR. EXCUSE ME. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE. VERY WELL THEN, WE ARE GOING TO THE VOTE IF THERE IS ONE IN THE BACK WHO WANTS TO COME OUT. THERE WE GO. >> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SORRY. FOLKS WEREN'T THERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU CAN'T OM BACK. NO. WE ARE JUST VOTING. SORRY. SORRY. MY MISTAKE. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT AND HODGES ARE OPPOSED. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT AND HODGES OPPOSED. SECOND READING ARE WE AGREED. ALDERMAN CHABOT AND HODGES ARE OPPOSED. THIRD READING ARE WE AGREED, ANY OPPOSED? WE'LL HAVE TO DELAY THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW. ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED. ALL RIGHTY. OKAY. SO Ms. McKINNON WE'LL DO THIRD READING AT OUR NEXT MEETING I BELIEVE, IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. ON THE 16th. AND THEN WE'LL BE DONE. THANK YOU. >> 7.3 LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY OF HUNTINGTON HILLS. >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. SIMILAR APPLICATION TO THE LAST ONE. THIS IS IN HUNTINGTON HILLS LOCATED ON 3rd STREET NORTHEAST, PARCEL OUTLINED IN RED ONE LOT IN FROM HUNT BORN HILLS NORTHEAST. PROPOSAL TO TAKE THE LANDS FROM THE EXISTING RC-1 DISTRICT AND REDESIGNATE THE LANDS TO CR -- RC 1S DISTRICT SAME REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE AND DEVELOPMENT WITH DISCRETIONARY USE OF A SECONDARY SUITE IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION, WE DO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. WE DID HAVE INDICATIONS FROM AREA RESIDENTS OF SUPPORT. THERE IS SEVEN ON A SINGLE LETTER, HOWEVER THAT LETTER DID NOT CONTAIN ACTUAL ADDRESSES SO WE CANNOT ASCERTAIN EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED ON SITE. CONSIDERING THIS, CPC DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REDESIGNATION. WE NOTE THE SITE IS FULLY DEVELOPED AND THERE IS EXISTING THREE STALL GARAGE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, ACCESS FROM A LANE WHICH COULD ACCOMMODATE ALL THE POTENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD THIS SECONDARY SUITE BE ALLOWED BY A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THE NOTE THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC SUBMISSION OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSAL, THAT INDIVIDUAL IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE BLOCK SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION, IT WAS NOT A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE WAS ONE OBJECTION. TO THE PROPOSAL. AND THAT INCLUDED REFERENCE TO SPOT ZONING AND THE LACK OF A COMPREHENSIVE ARP AMENDMENT OR COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR AN AMENDMENT IN THE AREA. IN THAT RESPECT WILLING CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED REDESIGNATION FROM RC 1 TO RC 1 S AND THREE READINGS BE GIVEN TO BYLAW 34 D-2011. >> THANK YOU, Mr. COPE. QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU. THE PICTURE THAT YOU SHOWED FROM THE THREEAR GARAGE FROM THE BACK LANE, RIGHT BESIDE IT, WHAT IS THAT? >> TO THE LEFT IS THE AJACE LOT. >> IT IS THE ADJACENT LOT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GARAGE. >> THE SENSE WOULD DEMARK ATE THE PROPERTY LINE AND THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER RESIDENCE BEYOND THAT ANOTHER GARAGE. >> LOOKS LIKE THERE IS ROOM BETWEEN THAT GARAGE AND FENCE. >> VERY LITTLE. JUST A WALKWAY. >> ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NO OVERHEAD VIEW OF THAT. >> THE OPEN SPACE WOULD BE ON THE ADJACENT LOT. >> LOOKS MORE LIKE A WALKWAY THERE. BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THAT. ANYWAYS, THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> HI. I'M REALLY, REALLY NERVOUS. >> VERY FEW OF US BITE. DON'T BE NERVOUS. >> OKAY. I'M MAXINE, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY FOR APPROXIMATELY -- MY PARENTS OWNED THE HOUSE. WE PURCHASED IT, AND I DO HAVE MY CHILDREN LIVING THERE NOW. I DO HAVE MY DAUGHTER WHO IS PREGNANT, AND THAT'S THE BASIC REASON FOR THE SUITE. SHE COULDN'T FIND -- WELL BEFORE THAT, IT WAS MY SISTER, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO IT PUBLICLY AND STUFF. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO. >> BUT NOW SHE COULDN'T FIND A JOB BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT SO THIS IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR HER, AND SHE HAS HER PRIVACY AND STUFF. SO IT'S BASICALLY YOU KNOW USED FOR FAMILY OR CLOSE FRIENDS, AND REGARDING THE PARKING WHERE THE GARAGES ARE, RIGHT BESIDE THAT YOU CAN FIT A CAR THERE. >> YOU CAN. >> YES, YOU CAN. WE DID HAVE A VEHICLE IN THERE BEFORE. SO THERE IS A THREE CAR GARAGE PLUS A SPOT FOR PARKING. >> GOT ROOM FOR FOUR. >> RIGHT. >> DO YOU LIVE THERE? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> YES, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> YES. >> AND THANKS FOR ADDRESSING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET THAT FROM YOU. NOW THERE WAS AN INDICATION THAT YOU HAD LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR SEVEN SIGNATURES. >> RIGHT. >> ANY IDEA ON WHICH PROPERTIES THOSE WERE? >> I HAVE ONE RIGHT BESIDE THE ONE THAT YOU SHOWED, THE PROPERTY BESIDE WITH THE VACANT, THAT'S A PARKIN STALL AS WELL. NO, THE OTHER SIDE. THE CORNER, YES. THE PEOPLE ACROSS -- NEXT TO ME, YES. >> 25. >> YES. >> AND THEN THE ONES BEHIND ME, THEY SUPPORTED BUT I NEVER WAS ABLE TO GET A SIGNATURE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS WORKING. AND THEN THE ONES IN THE FRONT, THE LADY JUST PASSED AWAY. IT'S BASICALLY A LOT OF THEM ALL AROUND ME. I DIDN'T GET SPECIFIC ADDRESSES ON THERE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> MY QUESTION IS FOR ASKED BY ALDERMAN CHABOT, I DID WANT TO ADD THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. MUCH APPRECIATED. >> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE TWO QUESTIONS I ASK EVERYONE. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN AT THIS? >> FOR APPROXIMATELY AS LONG AS THAT OTHER -- >> ABOUT THE SAME. >> HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU SPENT ON THIS SO FAR. >> I SPENT $4,000 PLUS AT LEAST A COUPLE OF DAYS OF SALARY. >> TODAY INCLUDED. >> RUNNING AROUND TO GO TO CITY HALL AND STUFF. AND I JUST WANTED TO MENTION AS WELL, WHEN WE STARTED THE INITIAL PROCESS, AND THE FIRST TIME WE HAD THE LITTLE THING ON OUR YARD, FIRST OF ALL, THEY THOUGHT WE WERE UNDER ARREST BUT ANYWAY. A DRUG HOUSE OR WHATEVER. SOMEBODY LEFT A NOTE IN OUR MAILBOX AND IT WAS FROM A GENTLEMAN WHO JUST PURCHASED A HOUSE AND HE JUST MOVED IN A WEEK BEFORE. AND WHAT HE STATED WAS HE GOT FLAGGED, AND THAT NOW HE JUST BOUGHT THE HOUSE BECAUSE HE HAS OLDER TEENAGERS AS WELL, AND THEY HAVE LITTLE GET TOGETHERS OR WHATEVER, AND IT HAD A SUITE IN THE HOUSE. AND NOW HE WAS CHARGED FOR -- THE BYLAW GUYS CAME. HE WAS EITHER FORCED TO PAY THE $4,000 WHICH HE DIDN'T HAVE OR HE HAS TO RIP IT APART. SO NOW HE DID NOT HAVE THE $4,000 TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROCESS. SO NOW HE HAD TO GO AHEAD AND TEAR THAT ALL APART. AND THAT WAS EXISTING IN THE HOUSE WHEN HE PURCHASED IT. HUNTINGTON HILLS. I SHOULDN'T SAY IT BECAUSE MAYBE THEY WILL ALL GET FLAGGED BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF SECONDARY SUITES BUT AT THE TIME THEY WERE MORE LIKE IN-LAW SUITES OR YOU KNOW JUST A PLACE FOR PEOPLE WILL GO IN THE SUMMER. IT WAS TOO HOT SO THEY COOK IN THE BASEMENT TYPE THING. BUT I THINK IT'S KIND OF -- YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE EVEN FOR US THE $4,000 THAT WAS A BIG CHUNK AND FOR ALL THE TIME AND ALL THE EFFORT AND ALL THE STRESS. MY GOD, THE STRESS. IS A LOT 3 >> YOUR INTENT IS NOT AS YOU SAID YOU ARE USING IT FOR FAMILY MEMBERS. YOUR INTENT IS NOT TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THIS. IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT. >> NO. INITIALLY, THE PEOPLE THAT WE DID HELP, I DID HAVE A LETTER YOU KNOW SAYING WHY WE STARTED TO DO THAT AGAIN. IT'S BECAUSE FOR MY SISTER. DID HELP TO CONTRIBUTE A BIT BECAUSE UTILITIES AND ALL THAT. >> I HEAR YOU. I HEAR YOU. >> TO SAY I DIDN'T TAKE A DIME. >> THAT'S NOT TRUE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. WONDERFUL. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT OF YOUR DAY TO BE HERE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMISSIONS NOT ONLY ON YOUR OWN PLACE BUT TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHERE THE PROCESS IS AND IS NOT WORKING. THAT'S EXTRAORDINARILY HELP FOR US. >> THANK YOU. > THK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I WOULD LIKE COUNCIL TO WELCOME 21 STUDENTS THAT ARE IN GRADES 5 AND 6 FROM THE WOODLANDS SCHOOL ALONG WITH THEIR TEACHER, CAROLINE SWAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED BY COUNCIL AND BE ON TV. [ APPLAUSE ] >> THANK YOU. >> AND WELCOME TO CITY HALL. >> THANKS. HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT DAY HERE AT CITY HALL. AND AS ALDERMAN FARRELL ALWAYS REMINDS ME TO REMIND PEOPLE, YOU WERE JUST ON TV. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION THEN? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IF I MIGHT PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION ON RESPONSE I GAVE TO ALDERMAN CHABOT. WE DID CHECK THE REAL PROPERTY REPORT FOR THE SITE AND YES YOU ARE CORRECT, MY VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LINE WAS THAT IT GOES BEYOND THAT FENCE, AND THERE IS A LARGER PAD AREA WITH A SHED LOCATED ON IT. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. >> THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I DID HAVE A QUESTION BUT IT WAS SORT OF CHEEKY, SO MAYBE I WILL PUT IT AWAY. FOR NOW. ALDERMAN MacLEOD? IT IS. THANK YOU. YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THREE READINGS OF THE PROPOSED BYLAW. DO I HAVE A SECONDER. THANKS ALDERMAN PINCOTT. DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> JUST THAT THE SUPPORT OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT AND THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAS INDICATED THAT THEY DO NOT OBJECT HAS INFORMED AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATION TODAY HAS INFORMED MY DECISION ON THIS. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. CONTRARY TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, THIS STREET THAT THIS HOUSE RESIDES ON IS -- DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A MAIN KENTUCKIER OR EXCLUSIVE ENTRY POINT INTO THE SURROUNDING AREA. FAIRLY ELABORATE GRID SYSTEM THIS AREA. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR FOUR PARKING STALLS ON SITE. IT MEETS ALL OF THE NEEDS THAT I WOULD ENVISION AS COULD EVENTUALLY BECOME PROBLEMATIC FOR HAVING A SECONDARY SUITE. SO ALTHOUGH IT STILL IS SOMEWHAT SPOT ZONING IN ESSENCE, IT IS A PROVISION THAT WE DO HAVE IN THE LAND USE BYLAW TO ALLOW FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO. I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. >> THANK YOU. SO NOTED. YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF BLANKET ZONES IF THERE IS PARKING STALLS WHICH IS THE PROPOSAL THAT CAME BEFORE US ABOUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. I WILL NOTE THAT, ALDERMAN CHABOT. THRILLED YOU CAME TO THE LIGHT ON THIS ONE. FABULOUS. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE MEDIA PAY ATTENTION TO THAT ONE. THANKS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. THEN. DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE, ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> CLOSED. >> WONDERFUL. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES AND STEVENSON ARE OPPOSED. FIRST READING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES AND STEVENSON ARE OPPOSED. SECOND READING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES AND STEVENSON. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED, ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES AND STEVENSON ARE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. JUST FOR THE INTEREST OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE WATCHING THIS IN THE GALLERY AND AT HOME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS ONE AND THE LAST ONE SINCE WE DID ALL THREE READINGS OF THE BYLAW WE ARE DONE. ON THE LAST ONE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE UNANIMOUS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO BRING THE THIRD READING BACK ON A FUTURE DATE AND THE THIRD READING IS REQUIRED FOR US TO COMPLETE THE LAND USE REDESIGNATION SO WE'LL BE DOING THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. WE'LL BE VOTING ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING OF COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US THEN TO ITEM 7.4 LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNE OF ROSEDALE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THE AREA AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED REDESIGNATION IS OUTLINED IN RED. BORDERS 10th STREET CRESCENT ROAD NORTH WEST AND 13th AVENUE. THE SUBJECT SITE ISOLATED CONTAINING A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING. THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION TAKE THE LAND FROM RC-1 AND REDESIGNATE TO DIRECT CONTROL TO ACCOMMODATE A LIMITED RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES. AS INDICATED THIS SITE IS AN ISOLATED SITE FROM THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THERE IS NO OTHER COMMERCIAL LOCATED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. HOWEVER, THE SAIT CAMP SUSS LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS 10th STREET NORTHWEST. CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL USES WHICH DOES CONTAIN TWO PARKING STALLS IF NOT THREE IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE PROPOSAL IS TO ACTUALLY USE THE EXISTING BUILDING AS A COUNSELLING OFFICE. DIRECT CONTROL LIMITS COMMERCIAL USES TO THAT CONTAINED WITHIN THE EXISTING DWELLING BY AREA. SITE PHOTOS, THIS IS A SITE LOOKING TO THE SOUTHWEST FROM CRESCENT ROAD WITH THE PARK AREA LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE SITE. THIS IS LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM CRESCENT ROAD AND 13th AVENUE SHOWING THE SAIT CAMPUS IN BEHIND, AND THE EXISTING PARKING STALLS ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PARCEL. AND THIS IS LOCATION SITE LOOKING DIRECTLY NORTH ON 10th STREET SHOWING THE INTERFACE WITH 10th STREET AND 13th AVENUE. GIVEN THE ISOLATED NATURE OF THE SITE, IT'S LESS THAN IDEAL SITUATION IN TERM OF RESIDENTIAL AND GENERALLY NO IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA. CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED REDES IGNATIUS TO DIRECT CONTROL -- AND THAT THREE READINGS BE GIVEN TO THE BYLAW -- REDESIGNATION. >> THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR FROM THE MAP AND NOW ON HERE, IS THAT A HOME THAT'S FRONTING ON TO 10th STREET? >> THE HOUSE THAT YOU SEE HERE AND THE GARAGE ARE THE SUBJECT SITE. >> THOSE ARE THE SUBJECT SITE. I'M SORRY. I GET IT NOW. OKAY. THERE IS A PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE. >> THERE IS A PARK ON THE NORTH. >> THIS IS KIND OF ONE REMAINING, FUNNY THING ALONG THIS STRETCH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ACCUSED ABOUT. THANK YOU. ALDERMAN CARRA, FOR CLARIFICATION? >> (Inaudible). >> I DID TOO AS I'M LOOKING AT MAPS. TRYING TO COMPARE THAT WITH MY GOOGLE EARTH PICTURE HERE. THANKS. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS CHARLES COLEMAN. I'M THE APPLICANT. THE RESIDENT OF THE CURRENT SITE. AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. >> THANK YOU, Mr. COLEMAN. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, YOU ARE LOOKING AT PUTTING A COUNSELLING SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL USES INTO THIS SITE? >> YES. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS THEN FOR Mr. COLEMAN? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE, SIR. ALDERMAN CARRA HAS REGAINED HIS TRAIN OF THOUGHT. >> YEAH, PROBABLY ASK IF THIS IS AN UNFAIR QUESTION. WHY DC AND NOT A CN 1, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD 1. >> ORIGINALLY WENT PLAN TO GO WITH A CN 1 BUT IN MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, WE CAME TO THE AGREEMENT THAT IT A DC WOULD LIMIT THE USES. >> OKAY. >> PREVENT FUTURE PROBLEMS. >> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE WITH US TODAY, Mr. COLEMAN. ANYONE ELSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH MY MICROPHONE. I'M PREPARED TO MOVE THE ITEM AND THREE READINGS AND JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, ALDERMAN CARRA JUST MENTIONED THIS WAS ONE OF CALGARY'S FIRST DREAM MOMENTS HOME FOR THE CALGARY STAMPEDE. >> IS THAT RIGHT. >> GOES TO SHOW HOW MUCH MORE MODEST WE USED TO LIVE. A NEW DREAM HOME. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT Mr. COLEMAN? >> NO. (Inaudible). >> DID IT REALLY? >> THAT IS VERY, VERY INTERESTING. THANK YOU. DO ASECONDER FOR THAT? THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? VERY WELL. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED. THANK YOU. 7.5 THEN, Mr. COPE, LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY OF HIGHLAND PARK. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. PROPOSED REDESIGNATION AFFECTS PROPERTY FACING ON TO 4th STREET NORTH WEST OUTLINED IN RED ON THIS LOCATION MAP. IT BACKS ON TO THE HIGHLAND PARK GOLF COURSE AND IS ACCESSED IN TERMS OF PARKING FROM A REAR LANE BETWEEN THE GOLF COURSE AND THE SITE ITSELF. PROPOSAL WILL TAKE THE LAND FROM THE EXISTING MULTIRESIDENTIAL CONTEXTUAL LOW PROFILE DISTRICT TO A MULTIRESIDENTIAL CONTEXTUAL LOW PROFILE MC 1 DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE REDESIGNATION IS TO RECOGNIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL TWO DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING. DO NOTE THAT THE SUBJECT SITE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED IN 1969 TO ALLOW FOR 14 DWELLING UNITS. AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REDESIGNATED WITH THE NEW LAND USE BYLAW TO ALLOW FOR THOSE 14 UNITS, THEREFORE, THE DENSITY OF 124 UNITS PER HECTARE. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A SITE PHOTO TAKEN FROM 4th STREET AND AS YOU WILL SEE ON THE NEXT SITE PHOTO, FROM THE REAR, THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DROP RECOGNIZING THAT MAJORITY OF THE UNITS WOULD FACE ON TO THE GOLF COURSE. AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE AVAILABLE PARKING THERE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE REDESIGNATION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL TWO UNITS THAT HAD BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE BUILDING IN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY A COMMON AREA. RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SITE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. OR THIS LAND USE AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO AS I INDICATED, THIS PROPOSED LAND USE WILL ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO UNITS TO OCCUR WITHIN THE SITE SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND BUILDING PERMITS REQUIREMENT AND IN THAT RESPECT CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION AND THREE READINGS TO PROPOSED BYLAW 36 D-2011. >> THANKS, Mr. COPE. QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> FOR CLARIFICATION SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY JUST TO BRING THIS UNIT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING BUILT FORM? >> THIS PROCESS WILL ALLOW FOR THE BUILDING TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF BUILDING CODE AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. >> WILL THEY REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT? >> REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMANENT. >> TO ENSURE THAT THE UNITS ARE ACTUALLY BUILT TO CODE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND SO ON 4th STREET, WHICH IS I GUESS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. >> NO. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE FRONT. HOWEVER THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GRADE DIFFERENCE. IT'S ONLY A ONE STOREY HEIGHT FACING ON TO 4th STREET. YOU END UP WITH ABOUT 3, 3 ― STOREY FACE FACING ON TO THE GOLF COURSE. >> I SEE A VEHICLE PARKED HERE IN FRONT. SO VEHICLES CAN PARK ON 4th STREET HERE. >> THAT'S CORT. >> THAT'S ALL I NEED. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN MacLEOD, QUESTION, CLARIFICATION? >> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. WHEN WERE THESE TWO UNITS ADDED? >> UNCERTAIN TO WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY ADDED INTO THE BUILDING. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN WHEN THEY WERE DISCOVERED. >> WHICH WAS RECENTLY THEN? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WITHIN THE LAST YEAR I BELIEVE. >> IT JUST SEEMS ODD TO ME YOU KNOW FOR A BUILDING THAT SIZE AND NATURE THAT THE OWNER WOULDN'T BE A LITTLE MORE SOPHISTICATED. IT STRIKES ME AS EITHER INTENTIONAL OR (INDISCERNIBLE) I'M NOT SURE WHICH. >> THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME JUST UNDISCOVERED. WE DOAN KNOW. >> IN FACT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT THAT WAY OR DONE AT THE TIME. >> PROBABLY NOT BUILT THAT WAY BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN INSPECTIONS AT THE TIME. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M PREPARED TO MOVE THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES. >> OKAY. AND THE BUILDING HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A GOOD LONG TIME. >> SINCE 1969. >> OKAY. GREAT. QUESTION, CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN HODGES? >> TO THE CHAIR, Mr. COPE, IS THERE SUFFICIENT ON SITE PARKING GIVEN THE PROPOSAL IS FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO UNITS? >> MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WILL BE SUFFICIENT ON-SITE PARKING. >> HOW MUCH ON-SITE PARKING IS THERE, DO YOU KNOW? >> I WOULD PRESUME 16 STALLS. THEY ARE NOT REALLY MARKED BUT YOU CAN SEE THE AREA AS ACCESSED OFF THE LANE. >> ISN'T THERE USUALLY A REQUIREMENT FOR VISITOR PARKING? >> THERE MAY BE A VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, PRELIMINARY REVIEW THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT PARKING AVAILABLE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. I SEE THAT WE ARE AT 12 O'CLOCK. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT AROUND IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. SO ALDERMAN CARRA MOVED TO SUSPENDS THE PROCEDURAL BYLAW SO WE CAN KEEP OUR RECESS UNTIL THE ENDS OF THIS ITEM. DO I HAVE A SECONDER. ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED IN. ALDERMAN JONES AND FARRELL ARE OPPOSED. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, CLARIFICATION FOR ADMIN.. >> A QUICK QUESTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE DP THAT'S COME. AM I TOTALLY MISREADING THIS. THIS IS JUST BRINGING A CURRENT EXISTING USE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE BYLAW. >> THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR 14 DWELLING UNITS. IN ORDER TO INCREASE THAT INTENSITY THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. >> I TOTALLY GOT IT NOW. MY APOLOGIES. >> THEY HAD 16. WE ENFORCED IT. THEY CLOSED DOWN THE OTHER TWO. IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE THEY CAN BRING BACK THE TWO OTHER UNITS. >> GOT IT. >> WHICH THEY PROBABLY HAD FOR A MILLION YEARS. OKAY. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS APRIL AND I'M REPRESENTING THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS APPLICATION. I THINK I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM ALDERMAN MacLEOD. IN MY EXPERIENCE THIS ISN'T REALLY AN ATYPICAL SITUATION. BACK TO BUILDINGS BUILT '60s, '70s. REQUIRED TO HAVE COMMON AREAS AND USUALLY ENDED UP IN THE BASEMENT. IN A LOT OF CASES WE HAVE SEEN WHERE SUITE VERSUS BEEN DEVELOPED OVER TIME, INN DETERMINANT TIME THEY KIND OF SHOW UP AT SOME POINT. DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO RESOLVING THAT. I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY COMES FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATIONS. I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE. I WASN'T AWARE THIS WAS AS A RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION ACTUALLY. WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD AS A LAND USE APPLICATION. AND SINCE THEN THE OWNERS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY COOPERATIVE AND FORTHCOMING. AS A LITTLE ASIDE, AN UPDATE, THE PROPERTY JUST TO CONFIRM Mr. COPE'S WORDS THERE, THE TWO UNITS IN QUESTION ARE NOT OCCUPIED. THE TENANTS HAVE BEEN RELOCATED. I BELIEVE THEY WERE PUT INTO A HOTEL AND THEN FOUNDS ANOTHER SUITE FOR THEM. AND THE MAIN ISSUES THERE IN TERMS OF BUILDING CODE WHICH I THINK ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, THE WINDOWS ARE UNDERSIZED OR WERE UNDERSIZED. THAT HAS BEEN SINCE BEEN CORRECTED AS WELL WITH CODE COMPLIANCE, SLIDING WINDOWS INSTALLED IN ANTICIPATION OF AN APPROVAL. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS RENTAL HOUSING, IS IT? >> YES, IT IS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, THEN, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION? SEEING NONE. ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS. THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. DO I HAVE A SECONDER. THANKS ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? VERY WELL THEN. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THREE READINGS OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED IF ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED. SECOND READING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES OPPOSED. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED. CARRIED. THANK YOU. WE'LL RECONVENE AT 1:20 p.m. WITH ITEM E 2011-03. I HAVE A DISTRIBUTION FROM CHIEF HANSON REGARDING A FUTURE ITEM WHICH WE'LL HAVE DISTRIBUTED RIGHT NOW AS WELL. CAPTIONING OF THIS MEETING IS PROVIDED AS A COMMUNICATION ACCESSIBILITY MEASURE AND IS NOT INTENDED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IF INACCURACIES OCCUR, IT MAY BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR, TECHNICAL STKEUFLS, OR AN INABILITY ON THE PART OF THE WRITER TO HEAR OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID. WHILE BEST EFFORTS ARE MADE TO DOCUMENT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE WHAT IS BEING SAID, THE CAPTIONS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS A CERTIFIED ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS. >> MAYOR NENSHI: WE'RE BACK. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ITEM WE TABLED BEFORE LUNCH. 2011. SO I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAW SO I'LL ACCEPT FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW, THEN PRIOR TO SECOND READING I WILL RECOGNIZE ALDERMAN CARA WHO HAS BYLAW AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BEFORE SECOND READING. WE'RE BACK TO 2001, 6.1. WE PASSED THE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT NOT THE BYLAW. THEN FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW, FIRST READINGS OF THE -- THANK YOU. WE HAVE TO DO THAT. OFF THE TABLE, SIR, THANK YOU, SECONDED BY ALDERMAN. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CARA. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. JUST GETTING THIS HOT OFF THE PRESSES. CAN WE GET IT UP ON THE SCREEN. I'M ASKING THAT WE DO TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS WE CHANGE THE ACTUAL D.C. TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THE BUILDING AT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAGE IS POSITIONED ON THE LOT SO THE OPPORTUNITY TO POSITION IT IN SUCH A WAY THERE WILL BE MORE SPACE ON THE LOT TO DO A HIGHER DENSITY REDEVELOPMENT, AND THAT COMES IN AT SECTION 7, AN ADDED SECTION 7. IN REVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, APPLICATIONS FOR THIS PARCEL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MAY CONSIDER RELAXING THE RULES CONCERNING BUILDING PLACEMENT, BUILDING SETBACK, PARKING AND ACCESS, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL OR THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I'M THINKING IS IN NEW YORK CITY, IN THE EAST VILLAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE AN EIGHT-STOREY BUILDING WALL AND YOU GO INTO THIS BUILDING AND THERE'S A SMALL BACK YARD AND TUCKED UP AGAINST WHAT USED TO BE THE LANE YOU'LL HAVE A HOUSE THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN. THAT'S LIKE THREE -- TWO OR THREE STOREYS HIGH. THE UNDERSTANDING IS IF WE POSITION IT ON THE LOT IN A PARTICULAR WAY THAT ALLOWS US TO DEVELOP THE REST OF THE LOT, IF AND WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR A REDEVELOPMENT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING THERE. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A MOTION ARISING AFTER WE PASS THIRD THAT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT AS COUNCIL'S INTENTION AND WE CAN GET TO THAT LATER BUT I'M ASKING FOR SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAW RIGHT NOW. >> MAYOR NENSHI: WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR, SECONDED BY ALDERMAN MAR. I NEED A DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'D LIKE TO ASK Mr. COPE A QUESTION ON THAT. IF WE HAVE A D.C. BYLAW AND WE PUT IN THIS KIND OF AN AMENDMENT, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY OR ANYBODY TO APPEAL IT IF YOU DECIDE TO PROVIDE RELAXATIONS? >> THESE ARE GUIDELINES, ANY DEVELOPMENT THERE WOULD BE A DISCRETIONARY USE ANYWAY, SO THE USE COULD BE APPEALED REGARDLESS. BUT CERTAINLY THIS WILL GIVE SOME GUIDANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. CERTAINLY AT SDAB IF IT WERE TO GO THAT ROUTE. SDAB IS RELATIVELY -- SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED WITH COUNCIL DIRECTION. AND WITHOUT SPECIFIC ELEMENTS THAT THEY CAN SAY YES, IT CONFORMS OR DOES NOT CONFORM, THERE COULD BE SOME QUESTION AS HOW THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION. >> EXACTLY. THANK YOU, Mr. COPE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. HENCE THE REASON FOR MY CONCERN WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, YOUR WORSHIP, IF THERE IS AN APPEAL THAT'S PUT FORWARD AT SDAB, HOW IS SDAB GOING TO INTERPRET WHAT THIS MEANS? WHAT IS RELAXED, WHAT ISN'T RELAXED, WHAT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY. CAN THE COMMUNITY APPEAL ANY OF THE RELAXATIONS, SDAB MIGHT OVERTURN ANY APPEALS ON THAT BASIS. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS PROPOSAL. >> MAYOR NENSHI: -- ACTUALLY ADDRESS PART OF YOUR QUESTION, I THINK. >> ACTUALLY, YOUR WORSHIP, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO ASK Ms. AXWORTHY THAT QUESTION I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LISTEN TO HER RESPONSE. HAVING SAT ON SDAB, I CAN TELL YOU FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED AT SDAB AND SOME OF THE INTERPRETATION THAT IS HAVE OCCURRED THERE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT CLARIFICATION, YOUR WORSHIP, ON BEHALF -- I'D BE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO IT BUT NOT ON MY BEQUEST. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I WOULD LIKE THAT CLARIFICATION, Ms. AXWORTHY. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I APPRECIATE ALDERMAN CHABOT'S EXPERIENCE ON SDAB AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM. I THINK THE INTENT HERE WAS TO ADD A CLAUSE TO THE BYLAW WHICH WOULD ANTICIPATE THE POTENTIAL FOR RELAXATIONS AND PROVIDE SOME SUPPORT TO RELAXATIONS. IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE LAYOUTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE GIVEN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN WITHOUT THIS CLAUSE I WOULD SUGGEST IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S IN A DIRECT CONTROL BYLAW FOR SDAB OR THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT ANY RELAXATION. SO THAT HAVE THE THINKING BEHIND THE WORDING. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Ms. AXWORTHY. ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THIS SEEMS TO BE A LOT THAT REALLY I STRUGGLE WITH BECAUSE I AM VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF DOING SOME NEW AND DIFFERENT THINGS AND THINKING ABOUT THINGS DIFFERENTLY SO IN SPIRIT I SUPPORT THIS, BUT I ALSO HEARD IN THE DEBATE THAT PART OF THE STRENGTH OF THIS APPLICATION AND PART OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THE INITIAL PROPOSAL AND INITIAL CONSULTATION WAS THAT THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE A HOUSE. SO I FEEL LIKE WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY HERE TO SPEAK TO IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD BE THINKING OR HOW MUCH THAT PART OF THE APPLICATION WAS -- HOW IMPORTANT THAT PIECE WAS TO THEM. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. IN LIGHT OF ALDERMAN MacLEOD'S COMMENTS, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO BRING THIS BACK IN A WEEK OR TWO AFTER SHE'S HAD A CHANCE TO CONSULT WITH HER COMMUNITIES AND GET THEIR INPUT ON IT? Ms. AXWORTHY? >> YES, OF COURSE, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL SUGGESTION. WE WERE JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL. BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY BRING IT BACK IN A WEEK. >> YEAH. SO IF ALDERMAN MacLEOD WANTS TO REFER IT AND BRING IT BACK IN A WEEK, THEN I WOULD SECOND IT, IF IT'S YOUR WISH. >> I'LL SECOND IT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK THAT QUESTION. WOULD THAT TRIG AREA NEW PUBLIC HEARING? WHY DON'T WE DO THIS, THEN: ONE THING I CAN SUGGEST -- I DON'T HAVE MY CALENDAR IN FRONT OF ME -- WHEN IS THE NEXT COMBINED HEARINGS, THREE WEEKS FROM NOW, ISN'T IT? THE COMBINED MEETING. WE HAVE TO REFIVE THOSE. WHY DON'T I SUGGEST THAT WE'LL TAKE ALDERMAN MacLEOD'S REFERRAL MOTIONS, BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK, AND SHOULD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BE REQUIRED THEN WE'RE UNFORTUNATELY BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. BUT IF THIS IS, AS I SUSPECT IT MAY BE, A RELATIVELY MINOR TWEAK, THIS WILL ALLOW US THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT. SO THE MOTION, THEN, IS TO -- TO REFER TO WHOM? REFER TO ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER NEIGHBOURHOOD CONSULTATION TO COME BACK ON -- WHAT'S THE 16th OF MAY? 16th OF MAY, 2011. ARE YOU SECONDING THAT, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> I'LL SECOND. >> MAYOR NENSHI: OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT THE REFERRAL MOTION IN FRONT OF US. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE REFERRAL MOTION? ALDERMAN CARA? >> YEAH, I MEAN, I'M TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE OF GOING TO THE COMMUNITY AND MAKING SURE THIS IS COOL WITH THEM, THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO SORT OF BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE. WE DO HAVE -- I DID HAVE A MOTION ARISING PUT FORWARD THAT WOULD ALSO GIVE MORE COUNCIL DIRECTION SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS BEFORE WE REFER THIS, DO WE MAKE THAT MOTION ARISING OR DO WE MAKE IT AFTER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS MOTION ARISING BE PART OF YOUR CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT SORT OF TALKS ABOUT -- >> MAYOR NENSHI: YES, BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN -- SORRY, THERE'S A SMALL PROCEDURAL BYLAW ISSUE, BUT YES, THAT WOULD BE FINE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED -- ALDERMAN CHABOT IS SHAKING HIS HEAD BUT HE'S WRONG. BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION, IT MEANS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A MOTION ARISING EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE BYLAWS, SO YES, ONCE WE FINISH THIS, YOU CAN GET UP, MAKE YOUR MOTION ARISING, THEN IMMEDIATELY MOVE TO REFER THAT FOR A WEEK AS WELL. OKAY? >> GOOD. UNDERSTOOD. ALDERMAN ALDERMAN ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> I'M GLAD YOU QUALIFIED THE PROCESS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. THANK YOU. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> MAYOR NENSHI: YOU'RE WELCOME. >> I'M -- REFERRING IT BACK SO THE COMMUNITY CAN CONSULT ON THIS ISSUE, YOUR WORSHIP, I WAS THINKING MORE SO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY ALREADY CAME OUT AND SAID THEY WEREN'T SUPPORTIVE OF THIS APPLICATION. SO I WOULD VENTURE TO GUESS IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE LESS SUPPORTIVE OF IT. IF WE GIVE THE AUTHORITY MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR RELAXATION. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE REFERRAL EITHER. ALDERMAN ALDERMAN THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ON THE MOTION TO REFER ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN -- CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN KEATING? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CARA? >> YES. >> CALLED CAB -- CHABOT? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES? >> NO. >> MAYOR NENSHI? >> YES. >> CARRIED. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU. ALDERMAN CARA. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. CAN WE GET THE MOTION ARISING ON THE SCREEN. SO I THINK THIS WAS THE TWO-PART TO THE PROCESS SO I DIDN'T WANT TO PRESUPPOSE THE SOLUTION, THE DESIGN SOLUTION. I WANTED TO GIVE ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY BUT WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THE MOTION ARISING SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONSIDER HOW DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL WILL RELATE TO THE FOLLOWING FUTURE SCENARIOS. A, COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA THAT INCLUDES THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LANDS. B, REDEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING BUT NOT INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PARCEL, PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO BUILDING PLACEMENT ON THE PARCEL, FUTURE OF VEHICLE ARAK CESS CONFIGURATIONS AND BUILDING INTERFACE CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO FUTURE USES AND DEVELOPMENTS. THAT JUST BASICALLY SAYS -- >> SORRY, YOUR WORSHIP, POINT OF PROCEDURE. AS WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY PASS THE PREVIOUS ITEM, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A MOTION ARISING -- >> >> MAYOR NENSHI: IT'S ACTUALLY A MOTION ARISING FROM THE PREVIOUS THING WE PASSED BEFORE LUNCH. >> FROM THE RECOMMENDATION? >> MAYOR NENSHI: YES. NOT FROM THE BYLAW. >> OKAY. >> MAYOR NENSHI: SO HE'S OKAY. >> OKAY. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I THINK HE'S ABOUT TO REFER IT ANYWAY. >> OKAY. >> I WANT TO PUT THAT -- MAKING THAT MOTION ARISING, WHY REFER IT. >> YES, YOU CAN. >> I CAN? >> YEAH. >> MAYOR NENSHI: FIRST I NEED A SECONDER. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. IT'S ON THE FLOOR. >> I ASK IT BE REFERRED TO COME BACK AT THE SAME TIME WE BRING BACK THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAW AND BYLAW ITSELF. >> MAYOR NENSHI: ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART, YOU'RE SECOND THRAG? >> YES. MARCH MINISTER ON THE FEDERAL MOTION ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> MAYOR NENSHI: ANY OPPOSED? >> ALDERMAN CHABOT AND STEVENSON ARE OPPOSED NOW THE WHOLE THING IS COMING BACK NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM. ALDERMAN LOW, YOU CAN COME BACK NOW, WHEREVER YOU ARE. THERE WE ARE. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW OR NEXT WEEK? ALL RIGHT. ANOTHER MOTION ARISING ON THIS ONE, THEN. >> THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT'S DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PRIORITIZE THAT CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AND PRIORITIZE THE CENTRE STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AND TO ENSURE THIS INCLUDED IN THE 2012 WORK PLAN. I BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD THAT IT IS INCLUDED IN THE 2012 WORK PLAN BUT ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS THAT WE ARE SPENDING AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME AND STAFF RESOURCES WITH THE COMMUNITY NEIGHBOURHOOD INITIATIVE AND WITH A STRONG COMMUNITY OR COMMUNITY OF PROMISE. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CENTRE STREET IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THAT. WE NEED TO GET -- TO SYNC THE TWO AND THE CENTRE STREET STUDY IS PART OF THAT. THE TRANSIT STUDY, THE TRANSIT ROUTE, IS GOING FORWARD VERY QUICKLY. I THINK WE CAN SPEED THAT UP A LITTLE BIT AS WELL AND GET ALL DEPARTMENTS WORKING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. IT'S PARTICULARLY NOTICEABLE IN THIS COMMUNITY AS WELL AS TUXEDOED TO A LESSER EXTENT BUT THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF DERELICT HOUSES. WE HAD THREE MORE -- I THINK IT WAS A MONTH AGO ON 30-DAY NOTICE. I THINK THERE'S A TOTAL OF FIVE OR SIX RIGHT NOW THAT I KNOW OF. AND THERE'S LOTS OF EMPTY LOTS AND THERE'S A LOT OF BAD BEHAVIOUR, BYLAWS INDICATED, THEY'RE GOING TO START TARGET THE AREA AND CITY POLICE, WHEN I HAVE OUT ON FRIDAY, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TALKING IN THE AREA. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE VIBRANCY OF THIS COMMUNITY. SO I WOULD ASK FOR SUPPORT ON THIS. >> MAYOR NENSHI: ATECHNICAL ISSUE, ALDERMAN MacLEOD, BECAUSE THE 201 WORK PLAN NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, I THINK THE STRONGEST LANGUAGE WE CAN USE HERE IS TO CONSIDER ITS INCLUSION IN THE 2012 WORK PLAN. >> THAT WOULD BE FINE WITH ME. I THINK MY MESSAGE IS THAT WE HAVE TO GET THIS GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. WE CANNOT HAVE THIS KIND OF THING HAPPENING AGAIN. MARCH PHAEUFRPBG THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN WELL HEARD. WE JUST HAVE TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ON THE TECHNIQUE BUT I'M SURE WHEN THE 2012 WORK PLAN COMES TO US, YOU WILL ENSURE THAT THIS IS ON THERE. AT THAT TIME. DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THIS ONE, PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I -- IF WE'RE GOING TOMORROW BARK ON THE STUDY, CERTAINLY THE COMMUNITIES IN MY WARD WHO FLANK CENTRE STREET ARE REALLY EAGER TO GET STARTED IN THIS WORK. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE FLOW WHAT ROUTE THE LRT IS GOING TO. SO IF THAT WORK ISN'T GOING TO BE DONE IN TIME FOR THIS, I IMAGINE WE'LL HAVE TO DELAY THIS TO 2013. >> MAYOR NENSHI: FAIR ENOUGH. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF OUR 2011 STUFF HAS BEEN PUSHED INTO 2012. WHAT'S THIS GOING TO DO FOR THE 2012 WORK PLAN? >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE'RE JUST BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT THE 2012 WORK PROGRAM, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH THAT'S BEEN PUSHED INTO 2012 IN TERMS OF START DATE BUT CERTAINLY SOME WL LINGER INTO 2012, BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT AT THE MOMENT. WE WOULD GIVE A FULL REPORT TO COUNCIL AT THE TIME WE DO THE WORK PROGRAM, OF COURSE. >> I WON'T DEBATE IT ANY >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALL RIGHT, THEN, ON THIS MOTION ARISING, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? THAT'S IT. IT HAD COME BACK TO COUNCIL AS PART OF THE 12 -- 2012 WORK PLAN. I CAN HELP. COUNCIL CAN'T DIRECT COUNCIL TO DO ANYTHING. IT WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER IF WE COULD. THE MAYOR CAN DIRECT COUNCIL TO DO ANYTHING. BUT WHAT THIS IS SUGGESTING IS IT'S SAYING TO ADMINISTRATION WHEN YOU BRING BACK THE DRAFT WORK PLAN PLEASE CONSIDER THE INCLUSION OF THIS AND AT THAT POINT COUNCIL WILL MAKE A DECISION OF WHAT'S IN AND WHAT'S AT. LET'S DO THAT AGAIN. SO ON THIS ONE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED. CARRIED. ANY MORE MOTIONS ARISING BEFORE ALDERMAN LOWE COMES BACK? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM, THEN, THE RETURN OF OUR FAVORITE TOPIC FROM PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS, IT'S LIKE A GREATEST HITS, KIDS, E 2011-03, AMENDMENT TO THE BONUS AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN GREENWOOD AND GREEN BRIAR. THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THIS ONE BUT MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ERROR BROUGHT FORTH THE FIRST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS ON BYLAW 25 P 2011, THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY NEW. SO WE DO NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON 25 P 2011 AND I IMAGINE THAT IF FOLKS FROM THE PUBLIC HAVE SUBMISSIONS TO MAKE ON THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ONLY TALK ABOUT 25 P, 2011. IF THE ABSENCE OF THE OTHERS. SO WE'LL BE FLEXIBLE ON THAT BUT PLEASE TRY TO RESTRICT YOURSELF AS BEST WE CAN, UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL HAS ALREADY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK WILL COME UP TODAY. SO GIVEN WHERE WE ARE, THIS IS A TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE ONE BECAUSE IT'S A REPORT -- IT'S A STRANGE ONE BECAUSE IT'S AN EXECUTIVE REPORT BUT IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'LL ASK Mr. COPE IF HE HAS ANYTHING MORE TO SAY ON THIS OR WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING DIRECTLY. Mr. LOCKLY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THERE'S JUST ONE SMALL MAPPING ERROR WITH THE FIRST BYLAW WHICH WAS 13 D, 2011 WHICH CAME TO ON THE APRIL THE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS. BYLAW 25 P CHANGES THAT AND IT'S A MINOR CHANGE IN THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF UNITS ON SITES SELL FOR A MAXIMUM OF00 TO A MAXIMUM 873 UNITS. AND THESE WERE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION. OTHERWISE THE BYLAW IS THE EXACT SAME AS THE PREVIOUS ONE. 12 P 2011. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. LOCKWOOD. SO THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE CHANGE THAT WE'RE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON TODAY, CORRECT, JUST THAT ONE NUMBER. >> YES. >> MAYOR NENSHI: GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION FOR THIS? QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS CHANGE? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, KATHY OEB HE EVERY WORTH BROWN ASSOCIATES PLANNING GROUP. I'M GOING TO TRY TO QUICKLY PRESENT. WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY AND AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL AT THE APRIL PUBLIC HEARING MELCOR AND ITS TEAM OF CONSULTANTS MET WITH ADMINISTRATION IN THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THESE TWO EVENING SESSIONS PRESENTED A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE AND A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND EACH GROUP'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE AMENDMENTS. MELCOR AND ITS CONSULTANTS BELIEVE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY IS BEING PROPOSED WITHIN GREEN BUYER. ORIGINAL POLICY IN THE 2008 ARP PROVIDED TKPWOEUDANCE FOR A BLEND OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. THE ARP AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU TODAY REINFORCE THIS ORIGINAL VISION WHILE ALSO OFFERING AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF COMPLETENESS EMPLOYMENT USES. WHILE THE SIZE OF THE LOCAL COMMERCIAL HAS BEEN QUESTIONED IT SHOULD BE EXPRESSED THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY AREA IS REFLECTIVE OF A VERY VIBRANT AND SUCCESSFUL REDEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN CALGARY. GARRISON WOODS WAS REDEVELOPED IN THE EARLY 2000s AND CONTAINED COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, AND LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WHEN COMPARING ITS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREA WITH GREEN BRIAR, NOT ONLY IS THE AREA OF LAND CLOSE IN SIZE BUT ALSO THE AREAS OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ARE EXCEPTIONALLY SIMILAR. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE AREA EQUATES TO 19.252 SQUARE METRES WHICH IS WITHIN 250 SQUARE METRES OF THE GREEN BRIAR AMENDMENTS. THE GARRISON WOODS GROCERY STORE IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED IN GREEN BRIAR AND PARK SPACE IS SMALL. ERR. CONFIDENTLY WE CAN EXPRESS SUCCESS GARRISON WOODS HAS HAD TODAY. ADDITIONALLY TPWAEUR SON WOODS IS NOT SEEN AS A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA. IT PROVIDES LOCAL COMMERCIAL AMENITIES TO NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBOURHOOD BUT ALSO INTOALITY DORRE. TO REINFORCE THE LOCAL NATURE OF THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU TODAY, THE GREEN PRIOR PARCELS HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO SMALL SIZES AND THE TYPICAL BIG BOX RETAIL USE WOULD NEVER FIT ON ANY OF THE SIZES OR BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE RESTRICTED USES AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT. RECOGNIZING THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE GREEN BRIAR AREA, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT OTHER LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE GREEN BRIAR AREA HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THEIR LANDS. TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS WERE GIVEN IN 2008 BY THE CITY FOR EACH PARCEL AND EACH PARCEL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE WHATEVER LAND USE MIX THEY PROPOSE THAT MEETS THEIR THRESHOLDS. THOSE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REVISE THE ARP ONCE STUDIES ARE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY ADMINISTRATION SHOULD THEY WISH TO DEVELOP OUTSIDE OF RESIDENTIAL USE. CAPACITY IS CONSTRAINED BY THE PHYSICAL LAY OUT OF THE INTERCHANGE SITE INCLUDING STEEP TOPOGRAPHY AND THE ADJACENT BUSINESS COMMUNITY. MELCOR HAS WORKED WITHIN THE CAPACITY ALLOCATION OF THE BOWNESS ARP AND APPROVING THIS WILL NOT COMPROMISE ANY OTHER LANDOWNERS' ABILITY TO DO THE SAME. I'D LIKE TO SUMMARIZE WITH THE FOLLOWING: FIRSTRY COMPLETE COMMUNITIES, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THIS ARP WE FEEL MAKE GREAT STRIDES TO COMPLY WITH THE MDP REGARDING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES. WHILE ACHIEVING A COMPACT URBAN BUILT FORM. WE BELIEVE IT'S COUNCIL'S VISION TO ENSURE THAT AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING ARPs SUCH AS THIS ADHERE TO THE MDP POLICIES REGARDING ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS WHICH IS DESIGNING AND BUILDING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES. SECONDLY THE TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS WHEN THE CITY COMPLETED THE FUNCTION OF PLAN FOR THIS INTERCHANGE MELCOR WAS GIVEN A TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLD WHICH WE BELIEVE WAOET MET AND NOT EXCEEDED. THIS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE APPROVAL OF OUR TIA, THE CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. FINALLY THE TIMING OF THE INTERCHANGE, UNDER THE TIPS PROGRAM, THIS INTERCHANGE IS SLATED TO COMMENCE IN 2012. WITH THIS IN MIND WE STARTED THIS PROCESS BACK IN 2009 WITH THE ANTICIPATION THAT WE'D HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING LATE 2010, EARLY 2011 SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT THERE'S A COMPATIBLE TIMING BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE INTERCHANGE AND OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT BEAUFORT. SO IN CLOSING I'D LIKE TO ASK YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO HE WANT GRACE AND SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS OF THIS ARP WHICH WE BELIEVE SPEAKS TO THE VISION AND DIRECTION CITY COUNCIL IS HEADING AND CREATES A COMPLETE COMMUNITY. I'D ALSO LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE DENNIS INNING OLS FROM MELCOR AND CRYSTAL LEANY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I SEE A NUMBER OF LIGHTS AND I KNOW I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BUT WE'LL START WITH ALDERMAN CARA. >> YOU PUT UP GARRISON WOODS. CAN YOU GUYS HAVE A COPY OF THE SORT OF THE MAPPING STUDY YOU'VE BEEN WORK ONGOING FOR THE AREA? >> FOR WHICH? FOR OURSELVES? FOR GREEN BRIAR? >> YEAH. >> OF THE ONE THAT ILLUSTRATED WHAT THE BYLAW WOULD REQUIRE, IS THAT THE ONE THAT YOU'RE... >> YEAH. I DO. YEAH. >> OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT GARRISON WOODS. THAT'S SUBURBAN CALGARY. THE OPPOSITE OF THE COMPLETE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM THAT WE PROVIDE FOR YOU. AND SO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE FLOWERY VISION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT'S BEFORE US? >> THIS WAS DONE AS AN EXERCISE IN ORDER TO WORK WITH ADMINISTRATION TO SORT THROUGH SIZES OF THE COMMERCIAL, GROCER, THE OFFICE, RECOGNIZING THAT WE DO HAVE THE MOTION THAT CAME TPHAORD AT CPC TO LOOK AT A DESIGN AT THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAGE. THIS ESSENTIALLY ILLUSTRATES WHICH WAS IMPORTANT WITH OUR TIA AND WITH ADMINISTRATION TO SHOW HOW MUCH PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THAT AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL. WITH THAT WE USED THESE NUMBERS AND THEN DISCUSSED IT WITH ADMINISTRATION TO BUILD THE NUMBERS INTO THE ARP AMENDMENTS AS TO IF THERE WAS UNDERGROUND PARKING, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM WE CAN WORK WITH THE TRANSPORTATION AND WORK WITH THE SIZING, SIZES OF THE PARCELS. SO THIS IS KIND OF A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE AS TO WHAT THE BYLAW DOES REQUIRE, RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S NOT GARRISON WOODS BUT WE HAVE ANOTHER DETAILED STAGE COMING THAT WE HOPE TO MASSAGE ALL THE COMPONENTS IN ADDITION TO THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE FOR THE SITE, THIS SITE ITSELF ALSO HAS TO FRONT ON TO THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY SO THERE ARE SOME POLICY WORK THAT WE'LL NEED TO DO ONCE WE LAY OUT THE SITES. >> I NEED TO GET INTO THAT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT WHEN YOU SAT IN MY OFFICE AND WENT OVER THE PLAN WAS HOW YOU'RE MASSING UP AGAINST BEAUFORT ROAD WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY AND OF COURSE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE ACCESSED FROM THE PARKING LOT. AS OPPOSED TO CREATING A HUMAN SCALE WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT. WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY FRONT EVERYTHING ALONG THE INTERNAL STREET. WHAT'S THE INTERNAL STREETS THERE? GREEN BRIAR DRIVE NORTHWEST AND YOU TOLD ME THAT PLANNING ACTUALLY REQUESTED THAT IT BE UP AGAINST BEAUFORT ROAD. >> THERE ARE POLICIES ACTUALLY IN THE AMENDMENTS AS WELL THAT HAVE US LOOK AT -- THERE'S ENTRY GUIDELINES THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW AS WELL SO I BELIEVE THIS SITE IS CHALLENGED WITH THAT AND I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY WORK WITH ADMINISTRATION AND WITH CPC WHEN WE COME BACK WITH A MORE MASTER PLAN OF THAT THAT CAN BE A BETTER DESIGN THAN WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT THERE WHICH WAS AGAIN MORE OF A BYLAW EXERCISE FOR NUMBERS AND WHATNOT. >> I DON'T KNOW. SO LET -- I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY THERE. YOU SAID THIS WAS AN EXERCISE IN JUST MASSING AND PARKING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT GOES IN THE BYLAW. THIS OBVIOUSLY COULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF MASS AND PARKING SO IT ACTUALLY WAS A HUMAN SCALE ENVIRONMENT. BUT YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. AND PART OF THE RESTRICTIONS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY, ARE THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT THE BUILDINGS UP AGAINST BEAUFORT ROAD. >> UP AGAINST -- FACING -- AS CLOSE TO THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY. WE ACTUALLY HAVE AS PART OF OUR DIRECT CONTROL GUIDELINES, FOR EXAMPLE THE OFFICE SITE, THERE'S -- WE HAVE TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 3 METRE SETBACK FROM BOW NORTH ROAD. >> IS THAT WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY? >> NO. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE THE ARP AMENDMENTS. >> SO THAT SHIP HAS ALREADY SAILED. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE WORKING AROUND THAT CONSTRAINT. >> YEAH. THAT ITEM STILL HAS TO BE HEARD. IT DIDN'T -- IT'S BEEN -- WHEN THE ITEM WAS REFERRED BACK, THAT ITEM, THE PUBLIC HEARING, HAD CLOSED ON IT BUT THERE HADN'T BEEN A DECISION MADE ON THAT. >> SO THAT SHIP HASN'T SAILED. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S AN IMPORTANT SHIP. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: AS LONG AS YOU DON'T START TALKING ABOUT PIRATES, ALDERMAN CARA. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU, THANKS FOR BEING HERE AGAIN. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN AT THIS PROCESS AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THRESHOLDS THAT YOU THOUGHT -- THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE MET TO THIS POINT IN TIME? AND DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS THAT NEED TO BE MET IN YOUR VIEW? >> YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART, THERE ARE THREE THRESHOLDS I THINK ARE CONTAINED BY MELCOR WAS THE FIRST THING WAS WE COME ALONG IN 2009 HAVING REGARD FOR THE MDP AND LOOKED AT DENSITY, LOOKED AT A COMPLETE COMMUNITY, WHAT WE THINK IS A COMPLETE COMMUNITY -- OR THE RIGHT STEP IN GOING IN A COMPLETE COMMUNITY. IN OUR MINDS WE'VE MET THAT. SECOND WAS THE TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLD. IF YOU THINK OF THE BEAUFORT INTERCHANGE AS A PIECE OF PIE, WE'VE KEPT WITHIN THE PIECE OF PIE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTAL INDICATED TO US. FINALLY WAS THE TIMING. WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS IN 2009, WE ENVISIONED AS WE NORMALLY DO WITH THREE-YEAR BUSINESS MODEL TO BRING SOMETHING TO MARKET. IN 2009 WE STARTED THE LAND USE SO THAT IN 2012 AS KATHY ALLUDED TO WE COULD START CONSTRUCTION AND TIME IT SUCH THAT THE INTERCHANGE IN OUR SITE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME. >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ARP ALREADY SUPPORTS A CERTAIN DENSITY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, YES. THE CURRENT PLAN IDENTIFIES FOR SOME 6,000 HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE CURRENT ARP WITH THE CHANGE THAT WE SEE HERE, WE'RE ONLY INCREASING BY 300 HOUSEHOLDS. >> SO IN YOUR VIEW -- >> 6,000 PEOPLE, SORRY. >> SO IN YOUR VIEW -- THERE SEEMS TO BE A DIFFERENCE OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THOSE THAT CAME FORWARD LAST TIME THAT THIS SEEMS SORT OF LIKE A SURPRISE; THAT THIS IS SORT OF ALREADY THERE. DO YOU FIND THAT PEOPLE ARE -- THAT LIVE THERE ARE SORT OF RECOGNIZING THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, LEARNING MORE ABOUT IT AS THEY GO ALONG, OR WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE COMMUNITY'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CAN BE DONE HERE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THROUGH ALDERMAN URQUHART, THROUGH THE TWO SESSION THAT IS WE SAT WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE ONE THING THAT I THINK RESONATED OUT OF THE FIRST SESSION WHEN IT WAS KIND OF A FACT-FINDING MISSION WITH THEM WAS THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT ARP ALLOWED THIS NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT A LOT OF IT WAS TO DEAL WITH OUR APPLICATION. THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE WERE ONLY ALLOWED 250 UNITS. AND THE ACTUAL NUMBER, IN OUR FIRST PHASE, WE'RE APPROVED FOR 500. THE 250 CAP CAME IN PLACE WHEN THE INTERCHANGE WAS TO STAY AS IT IS. THAT'S THE CAP THAT WE HAVE. SO IN OUR FIRST PHASE WE'RE APPROVED FOR ROUGHLY 493, 500 UNITS, WHICH I THINK WAS A SHOCK TO THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. >> I JUST -- I'M JUST CURIOUS AS FAR AS WHO THE COMMUNITY IS AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE REPRESENTED. SO IN THE OPEN HOUSES, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ATTENDED THOSE? >> WE'VE SEEN NUMBERS OF 35 TO 40 AT THE OPEN HOUSE. >> WOULD THAT HAVE INCLUDED FOLKS FROM THE MOBILE PARK? >> FOR THE MOST PART, THE 50% LIED FROM THE ACTUAL MOBILE HOME PARK TO THE NORTH. THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH HOW LONG IT WAS GOING TO BE BEFORE THE MOBILE HOME PARK REDEVELOPED. THAT WAS PROBABLY THE MOST UNDERLYING CURRENT WE HAD AT THE OPEN HOUSE AND 0 TO THAT EBBED WE COULDN'T ANSWER THAT AS WE'RE NOT THE LANDOWNER. >> SO -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMUNITY WILL BE HERE TODAY BUT DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE WORRIED THAT THERE WILL BE -- THERE WILL BE AN INFLUX OF ACTIVITY OF PEOPLE STARTING TO COME INTO THIS COMMUNITY AND THEY SORT OF WANT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO OR IS THAT NOT AN ISSUE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THE STATUS QUO, NO, I BELIEVE THEY WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT THERE IS IN THEIR MIND AN INFLUX OF PEOPLE COMING INTO THIS COMMUNITY AS A RESULT OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND IN FACT WE'VE ARGUED THE OPPOSITE. WE THINK THE PEOPLE OF BOWNESS WILL UTILIZE THE MAJORITY OF COMMERCIAL LAND THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES TO ENACT THE VISION THAT WE HAVE FOR CALGARY, THROUGH CLIMATE CALGARY, AND I WONDER IF WE COULD JUST HEAR ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE INTEGRATION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THIS AND THE MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE AND YOUR VISION OF HOW THAT WILL ACTUALLY UNFOLD. >> WHEN MELCOR LOOKED AT THIS BACK IN 2009, PREVIOUS TO 2009, EARLY 2008, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT LAND USE, WE ENVISIONED THIS AREA WITH AN OFFICE COMPONENT TO START WITH. WE THINK WITHOUT THE OFFICE COMPONENT YOU'RE STRUGGLING WITH COMPLETE COMMUNITIES IN MELCOR'S MIND. WE THEN LOOKED AT IT AND SAID WHAT IS IT THAT ALSO MAKES COMPLETE COMMUNITY IN OUR MIND. HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING. THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR THESE LANDS WERE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WE KNOW THAT -- WHETHER WE BOUGHT IT IN 2000 THAT'S WHAT IT HAD. SO HERE WE'VE COME SOME 11 YANKEES LATER AND LOOKED AT IT AND SAID COMPLETE COMMUNITIES IN OUR MIND IS COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO WE'VE EXHAUSTED IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH WE CAN PUT ON HERE BASED ON THRESHOLDS SET BY ADMINISTRATION. >> THERE CERTAINLY ARE NATURAL CONSTRAINTS TO THIS AREA. I'M WONDERING IF YOU'VE HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM THERE AND THE CURRENT CAPACITY THAT THE SCHOOL BOARDS MAY HAVE IN THAT AREA AND THAT THEY CAN HANDLE THE CAPACITY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE WENT TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD JUST TO ENVISION THE SCHOOL SETTING. WHAT WE FOUND OUT FROM THEM IS THE THREE SCHOOLS THAT WERE WITHIN THE BONUS COMMUNITY, TWO OF WHICH RUN AT AROUND 45 TO 55%, AND WE FEEL THAT AN INCREASE IN DENSITY LIKE THIS TO BRING YOUNGER CHILDREN, TWO OF THEM BEING MILLIMETERRY -- ELEMENTARY, WOULD ONLY BE A POSITIVE THING FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KEEP THE SCHOOLS OPEN. >> THANK YOU. MAYBE MAYOR NENSHI WOULD COMMENT ON THIS LETTER THAT YOU SENT TO YOUR WORSHIP TO THE MINISTER REGARDING THE INTERCHANGE AT THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY. IF WE DELAY THIS ANYMORE, IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM LOSING INTEREST IN PUTTING IN THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. I KNOW I SAW IT WITH ALDERMAN HODGES AT NOON. BUT MAYBE YOU'D COMMENT ON THAT LATER THEN, I DON'T KNOW, YOUR WORSHIP. >> NOT REALLY PART OF THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE I THINK THE LETTER YOU'RE REFERRING TO, I KNOW THE LETTER YOU'RE REFERRING TO, REFERS TO AN INTERCHANGE TO THE WEST OF THIS AREA WHICH I BELIEVE IS ALSO THE APPLICANT PLAN, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, BUT IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL OF WAX, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAD SUGGESTED WAS WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THIS -- >> THE WHOLE CORRIDOR. >> TOGETHER. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING COUNCIL MAY WISH TO GRAB -- >> THAT'S HELPFUL, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. SO THE DENSITY CAP THAT YOU HAVE FOR YOUR SITE, HOW IS THAT ACHIEVED? WHAT CREATED THE DENSITY CAP? WE HAVE A DENSITY FLOOR BUT NO CAP. >> YOUR WORSHIP, WHEN YOU SAY THE CAP, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE RESIDENTIAL OR ARE YOU REFERRING TO TRAFFIC? >> I'M TALKING ABOUT DENSITY. >> IN TERMS OF DENSITY, WHERE WE RECEIVED THE CAP, IS BASED ON THRESHOLDS AT THAT INTERCHANGE. AND ALLOCATING IT TOWARDS EACH INDIVIDUAL CELL WITHIN THAT ARP. >> SO TRANSPORTATION CREATED THE NEED FOR A CAP? I DO YOUR WORSHIP, CORRECT. >> SO YOUR WORSHIP, I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY ASKING ADMINISTRATION DURING THE PLANET DISCUSSION WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES, 11 SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES, THAT WE WOULD NO LONGER BE DETERMINING DENSITY BASED ON TRANSPORTATION; THAT THAT WAS AN OUTDATED METHODOLOGY. AND ONE NEEDED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DENSITY TO ALLOW FOR PRIMARY TRANSIT NETWORK. SO I THINK WE'RE KIND OF STUCK IN THIS MOBIUS LOOP HERE. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT QUESTION TO LAYS FOR ADMINISTRATION WITH TRANSPORTATION FOLKS WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. I DO THINK THERE MAY BE AN ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY NEARBY, BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THAT ANSWER. >> THANKS. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE TWO, ACTUALLY. ONE OF THEM IS IF WE CAN LOOK AT THAT MASSING PAGE AGAIN, PLEASE. I JUST -- I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THIS. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THE BYLAW, APPEARS TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT THERE'S NO ACCESS TO ANY OF THAT FROM BEAUFORT ROAD, IS THERE, ACCESS IS ALL FROM THE INTERNAL ROAD. RIGHT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, YOU'RE CORRECT. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THE WAY THAT -- I'LL ASK THIS TO ADMINISTRATION TOO. THE WAY THAT I'M READING THIS -- THE SETBACK AND THE ORIENTATION TO THE ROAD ON 16 OF 33 HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SETBACK IS ACTUALLY TO THE MAXIMUM SETBACK IS TO THE INTERIOR ROAD, NOT TO BEAUFORT ROAD, SO IT'S JUST -- IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING AND I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER IT UNLESS YOU CAN, BUT I WILL HAVE THAT QUESTION FOR YOUR ADMINISTRATION AS WELL. NOW, I THINK I -- SORRY, Ms. OBERG, DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? >> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS TO BEAUFORT ROAD AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR TKPHBGS, THAT THAT'S WHERE I WAS GIVEN THE IMPRESSION, BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT PARKING, LOADSING, STORAGE, AND WHATNOT WASN'T FACING THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY AS PART OF THE ENTRY WAY GUIDELINES. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC LIND THAT BUT WHETHER I READ THE BYLAW IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S SAYING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. THAT THERE SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM SETBACK TO THE INTERIOR ROAD TO MAKE MORE OF A WALKABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND NO PARKING IN BETWEEN THE INTERIOR ROAD AND THE BUILDING. SO WE JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE PASS THE BYLAW IS ALL. SO MY OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, AND I FEEL LIKE I ASKED THIS LAST TIME BUT I DON'T RECALL THE ANSWER SO I'LL ASK AND YOU I'M GOING TO ASK IT TO THE TRANSPORTATION FOLKS AS WELL, THAT THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY THAT WAS DONE ON THIS WAS PRESUPPOSING A CERTAIN SET OF ASSUMPTIONS ON WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ACROSS THE ROAD, I THINK, ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. AND DO YOU KNOW IF THE STUDY THAT HAS BEEN DONE INCORPORATES THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED OVER AT WIND SPORT OR IS THIS THE OLD SET OF WIND SPORT THAT WENT IN HERE AND IF THAT'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION FOR YOU, DON'T ANSWER IT, AND I'LL ASK THE TRANSPORTATION. >> THROUGH YOUR WORSHIP, THE STUDY IS BASICALLY BUILDING ON THE PRIOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY AS A WHOLE AND IT DOES PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTING ASP AT CANADA OLYMPIC PARK. BY WORKING WITHIN, AS Mr. INGOLLS MENTIONED, WITHIN MELCOR'S PIECE OF THE PIE, THEY HAVEN'T AFFECTED ANYONE ELSE'S PIECE OF THE PIE AND OTHER LANDOWNERS WILL BE CHANGING THE NATURE OF THEIR PIECES AS WELL. THEIR ABLE TO DO SO STILL. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THAT'S EXTRAORDINARILY HELPFUL. YOU TOOK WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS THE ALLOCATION TO YOU UNDER THE OLD STUDY AND MADE YOUR LIFE WORK WITHIN THAT ALLOCATION. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS APPLICATION, ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR WORSHIP, AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS NICKIE SMYTHE, I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND OF COURSE A RESIDENT OF BOW NECESSARY. WE APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING PHYSICAL COPIES OF WHAT WE WANT TO SAY TO YOU AS WE WEREN'T ABLE TO ACCESS THE REPORT TO COUNCIL UNTIL LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GATHER AS MUCH VOICE FROM THE COMMUNITY AS WE CAN. OUR FIRST CONCERN IS THAT APPROVAL OF 25 P 2011 WILL CREATE AN ARP FOR BOWNESS THAT CONTAINS INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN SECTION 7 A WHICH IS THE GREEN BRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA. IN ADDITION IT IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 8 WHICH IS THE COMMERCIAL SECTION OF THE ARP THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN ADDRESSED IN THESE AMENDMENTS. WE FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND MADE CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL'S DECISIONS. IN TERMS OF GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE REPORT, THE BCA WELCOMED THE OPPORTUNITY OPENED UP BY THE APRIL 11th CRIM MEETING TO BRING THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE DEVELOPER, AND THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO A DIALOGUE. AS A RESULT, I THINK WE HAD A SENSE THAT WE HAD -- THAT THERE WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPERS AND THE COMMUNITY THAT HAD BEEN SOMEWHAT BLOCKED BY THE PROCESS. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON APRIL 26th, 2011, AND OTHER THAN AN E-MAIL ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF OUR INPUT, NO RESPONSES WERE PROVIDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO THE BCA. THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT PRESENTED TO COUNCIL TODAY WAS POSTED AT THE END OF THE DAY LAST FRIDAY AND DIRECT COMMUNICATION -- NO DIRECT COMMUNICATION WAS PROVIDED ABOUT THE NATURE OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION. WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE IN PROCESS. NONE OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE BCA REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF AN OVERARCING MUNICIPAL AREA PLAN OR MAP FOR THE WEST ENTRANCE TO THE CITY HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. THE AREA INCLUDES GREEN BRIAR, PARK SIDE, WIND SPORT, CREST MONTH, AND VALLEY RIDGE FOR SOME OF WHICH THE BCA HAS SEEN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ALREADY CIRCULATED. REGARDING THE RATIONAL FOR THE COMMERCIAL LAND USES, SPECIFICALLY ADMINISTRATION STATES IN THIS REPORT THAT "THE ONUS AMOUNT RP DOES NOT PREVIEWED LOCAL RETAIL USES BEING DEVELOPED ON OTHER SITES WITHIN GREEN BRIAR". WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE CURRENT BONUS ARP DOES NOT PRECLUDE LOCAL RETAIL USES BEING DEVELOPED IN OTHER SITES WITHIN GREEN BRIAR, THE WORDING IN THE NEW PROPOSED BONUS ARP EXPLICITLY ALLOCATES A TOTAL OF 19.500 SQUARE METRES OF RETAIL SPACE TO THE DEVELOPER OF CELL 3, MELCOR, AND LIMITS THE ENTIRE GREEN BRIAR STUDY AREA WHICH ALSO INCLUDES CELL 3 -- SORRY. AND LIMITS THE ENTIRE GREEN BRIAR STUDY AREA TO EXACTLY THE SAME 19.500 SQUARE METRES OF RETAIL SPACE. WE REFER YOU TO YOU 25 P 2011 COMMERCIAL CORE ITEMS 15 THROUGH 33 AND THE CRITICAL ITEM IS NUMBER 33 IN WHICH IT CAPS THAT RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AT 19.500 SQUARE METRES FOR THE ENTIRE GREEN BRIAR AREA STUDY. ADMINISTRATION ALSO STATES "THE LAND USE AMENDMENT APPLICATION ALSO PROPOSES OFFICE USES IN LINE WITH THE MDP POLICY TO PROMOTE A POSITIVE JOBS AND HOUSING BALANCE". IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS BEING INCORRECTLY USED AND INTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY CURRENT ACTIONS. THE TOTAL PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE OF 39.500 SQUARE METRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RETAIL CORE SPACE OF 19.500 SQUARE METRES CONCENTRATED IN THE SAME CELL ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND WILL CREATE REGIONAL TRAFFIC THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO ITEM 12 IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTION OF THE CURRENT ARP AND TO ITEM 11 IN THE PROPOSED ARP WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATE, "COMMERCIAL USES SHALL BE COMMUNITY ORIENTED, COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE ORIENTED TO A REGIONAL POPULATION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED". THIS POLICY WAS INTRODUCED BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTION OF A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS TO THE GREEN BRIAR AREA, RESTRICTION THAT WILL NOT BE REMOVED BY A FUTURE BEAUFORT ROAD INTERCHANGE. THIS AREA IS LANDLOCKED NOW AND WILL REMAIN EQUALLY LANDLOCKED IN THE FUTURE. THERE ARE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK BUT KEEP IT AS BRIEFLY AS WE CAN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR ALL OF THEM AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS OR -- >> MAYOR NENSHI: LET'S DO THAT, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT, Ms. SMYTHE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MARILYN MORA. S ARE OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. SORRY, WE'RE DOING THIS AGAIN. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I REALLY SHOULD TELL TO YOU RESTRICT YOURSELF TO BYLAW 25, BUT GO. >> YOU'LL NEVER ASK ME FOR THAT AGAIN. REGARDING PATH WAYS AND SOAP SPACE, THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INVOKED THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INTEGRATES PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND OUTLINES TRANSIT SERVICE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCES OF 400 METRES FOR THE GREEN BRIAR AREA. THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS CONCERN. THE BCA INVOKED A MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SECTION 7 A OF THE ARP TO STATE THE IMPORTANCE OF GREEN AND OPEN SPACES AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF LINEAR OPEN SPACES FOR THE PROPOSED GREEN BRIAR DEVELOPMENT IN FAVOUR OF LARGE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE SURROUNDED BY CONTINUOUS PARKING LOTS. THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS CONCERN. THE CONCENTRATION OF ALL RETAIL SPACE INTO ONE AREA AS PROPOSED FOR GREEN BRIAR MAKES THE DEVELOPMENT CAR CENT RICK, PEDESTRIAN UNPRESENTEDLY, AND LEAVES NO PLACE TO IMPLEMENT LINEAR OPEN SPACES. THE BCA REQUESTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROVIDE A RATIONAL FOR ACCEPTING THE CONVERSION OF A PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPAL RESERVES INTO CASH IN LIEU WITHIN GREEN BRIAR WHEN THE BASIC SPIRIT OF THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE ARP ARE NOT BEING MET IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HE. THE ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE, THE REQUIRED 10% MUNICIPAL RESERVE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREA HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND WILL INCLUDE THREE PARK SITES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1.1 HECTARES IN SIZE. THE 10% REQUIRED MUNICIPAL RESERVE FOR THE COMMERCIAL AREA IS BEING PROVIDED AS CASH IN LIEU AS FOR THE PROTOCOL ESTABLISHED BY THE JOINT USE CORDINATING COMMITTEE. THE GREEN BRIAR STUDY AREA IS CURRENTLY DEFINED AS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REDUCED THE RESIDENTIAL FOOTPRINT IN CELL 3 TO ONE-QUARTER OF THE TOTAL AREA AND EXPANDED THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE FOOTPRINT AS A LARGE CORE IN THE REMAINING THREE-QUARTERS OF THE CELL. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS THEN REDEFINED MUNICIPAL RESERVE AS 10% OF THE MUCH REDUCED RESIDENTIAL AREA AS OPPOSED TO THE CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION OF 10% OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPABLE AREA AND THE ADMINISTRATION THEN DECLARES THE MUNICIPAL RESERVE REQUIREMENT MET. THE CONVERSION OF MUNICIPAL RESERVE TO CASH IN LIEU HAS BEEN APPLIED PREVIOUSLY TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT ARE NOT CONNECTED TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS. IT SEEMS LUDICROUS TO APPLY THE SAME CONCEPT TO AN AREA LIKE GREEN BRIAR, DEPRIVING IT OF MUNICIPAL RESERVE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ATTACHING TO IT THE OBJECTIVE LISTED BELOW QUOTED FROM THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ARPs, PRIME OBJECTIVE: CREATE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY, A WALKABLE COMMUNITY KNOWN FOR ITS DISTINCT SENSE OF PLACE, HOUSING CHOICE, AND MIXED USES INTENDED TO MEET THE BASIC DAY-TO-DAY NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. CREATE AN INTERCONNECTED OPEN SPACE SYSTEM OF PARKS, ENVIRONMENTALLY-SIGNIFICANT AREAS, PATHWAYS, AND LINEAR OPEN SPACES. IN CONCLUSION, THE BCA DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONVERSION OF MR LANDS INTO CASH IN LIEU AND REQUESTS COUNCIL RECOMMEND THE APPLICATION OF THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL RESERVE AS 10% OF TOTAL DEVELOPABLE AREA AS IT INDICATES GREEN BRIAR NO MUNICIPAL RESERVE IS KWERLTED TO CASH IN LIEU. REGARDING TRANSPORTATION -- >> MAYOR NENSHI: YOU PAUSED, I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THANK YOU. KEEP GOING. >> TRANSPORTATION. REGARDING TRANSPORTATION CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE BCA THAT INCLUDE THE ABSENCE OF A REGIONAL PLAN, ACCESS TO THE AREA RESTRICTED TO A SINGLE POINT, THE ABILITY OF EMERGENCY SERVICES TO ACCESS THE AREA AND INADEQUACY OF THE MODEL USED IN THE TIA THAT TOTALLY IGNORED TRAFFIC THROUGH THE CORE OF BOWNESS. THE BCA'S COMMENT THAT THE GREEN BRIAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND OTHER PROJECTS IN THE AREA ARE BEING REPRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY IN AN AD HOC NAGS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A MUNICIPAL AREA PLAN AS MANDATED BY THE MDP IS DIMINISHED IN THE REPORT TO COUNCIL AS A REQUEST FROM THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO CONDUCT JUST A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION THEN RESPONDS TO BY SAYING ONLY A MAXIMUM OF 250 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED ON THE SUBJECT SITE UNTIL AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY BEAUFORT ROAD INTERCHANGE PLANNED FOR 1213. THE RESPONSE COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT MADE BY THE BCA REGARDING THE NEED NOR A MUNICIPAL AREA PLAN. IT PAINTS THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY BEAUFORT INTERCHANGE AS THE SOLUTION TO ALL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN THE AREA. BASED ON ANALYSIS DONE IN ISOLATION FROM OTHER MAJOR UPCOMING PROJECTS AND BASED ON A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MODEL THAT IGNORED THE IMPACT ON THE INTERNAL CORE OF BOWNESS. REGARDING COMMENTS MADE BY THE BCA ABOUT ACCESS TO THE AREA BY EMERGENCY SERVICES, THE ADMINISTRATION'S REPORT STATES THE LAND USE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED BY THE CORPORATE PLANNING APPLICATIONS GROUP INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES FROM FIRE, POLICE, AND EMS WHO DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CONCERNS WITH THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE CLAIMS WERE INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION WERE ACTUALLY DECLARED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AS NO REPLY. IN THE SUMMARY OF CIRCULATED POLICE. NOTABLY EMS, POLICE, COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO RATHER THAN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD NO CONCERNS, IT SHOULD HAVE SAID NO REPLY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? JUST TWO OF YOU? ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FOR THESE FOLKS. ALDERMAN CARA. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, FOR COMING OUT TODAY. YOU GUYS SUBMITTED A PIECE OF PAPER THAT CAME TO MY OFFICE LAST WEEK, AND IT SORT OF HAD A REQUEST FOR A DIFFERENT PROCESS. I WAS WONDERING IF COULD YOU EXPAND ON SORT OF DIFFERENT -- THE CURRENT PROCESS AND ITS ISSUES AND THE PROPOSED PROETS THAT YOU GUYS ARE RECOMMENDING. >> JOE IS THE ONE WHO PULLED THAT TOGETHER AND HE HAD TO GO BACK TO WORK THIS AFTERNOON. AND I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT IN FRONT OF ME. >> I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT IN FRONT OF ME. I DO HAVE A COPY OF IT IN FRONT OF ME. I HAVE DIANE COLLEY-URQUHART'S. OKAY. I GUESS I WANTED TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS THAT THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY IS RECOMMENDING TO THE ONE THAT WE'RE POTENTIALLY EXPLORING ALONG MISSION ROAD AND INVOLVES A MORE COLLABORATIVE AND LESS OF A CONFLICT-BASED APPROACH. >> JOE DREW THAT UP AFTER DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD HAD AS A COMMITTEE GROUP AND ALSO COMING OUT OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE HAD HAD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE IDENTIFIED FROM THOSE TWO MEETINGS THAT WE HAD WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPERS WAS THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE FOR ME, ANYWAY, THAT THE COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPERS WERE PREVENTED FROM COMING TOGETHER IN A VISION FOR THE AREA BY THE PARTICULAR PROCESS. SO IT ENDED UP BEING CONFRONTATIONAL RATHER THAN COLLABORATIVE. AND THAT ENDED IN THIS DISCUSSION -- THAT DISCUSSION ENDED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION. >> I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE TODAY. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR YOUR VOICE AS WE GRAPPLE WITH IN STUFF, SO THANK YOU FOR COMING AGAIN TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH US. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL, ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK NO SIGNIFICANCE? VERY WELL, THEN. QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN LOWE? HE MOVED IT. >> WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> I'M SORRY. I WAS GOING TO SAY -- I FOR TO TURN MY MIKE ON. I'M PREPARED TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ADMINISTRATION WHEN APPROPRIATE. I KNOW ALDERMAN HODGES HAS SOME AMENDMENTS. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU. I DO HAVE, SO IT'S ON THE FLOOR NOW, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK BEFORE WE GET TO THE AMENDMENTS. AND I THINK ALDERMAN CARA WOULD LIKE TO AS WELL. ALDERMAN HODGES, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL GET THROUGH THOSE, THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. WHY DON'T YOU START, ALDERMAN CARA. >> I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS CAN WE GET INTO THE SORT OF FRONT SETBACK AREA AND SORT OF COME TO TERMS WITH WHAT THE INTENT EVER THIS IS BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. >> SURE. I'M JUST GOING TO LOOK FOR... >> MAYOR NENSHI: THE ONLY PLACE I CAN FIND IT IS PAGE 16 OF 33 IN THE REPORT. IT MIGHT BE SOMEWHERE ELSE TOO. >> WHAT THE INTENT IS FROM PLANNING ISN'T SO MUCH CAPTURED HERE IS THAT WE BASICALLY HAVE THREE SITES, EACH ABOUT 5 ACRES IN SIZE. THE ONE IN KIND OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER IS GOING TO HAVE A COMMUNITY SCALE GROCERY STORE. THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THAT BUILDING FRONTING ON TOWARDS THE INTERNAL ROAD AND AGAIN ACROSS THE STREET THE OTHER STAND-ALONE SITES FOR THE RETAIL IS TO HAVE ALL THOSE BUILDINGS PULLED UP TOWARDS THE INTERNAL STREET. THE GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE PARKING BEING PLACED ALONG THERE. IT HAPPENS TO BE OF A SCALE OF RETAIL WHICH IS CATERED TO THE FOLK IN THE AREA AND YOU'RE ABLE TO WALK TO IT. THE THIRD SITE IS THE OFFICE COMPONENT AND THE CONCERN THERE IS THAT WE WANT TO ENSURE WE HAVE -- THERE IS A VERY KIND OF KEY ACCESS POINT INTO CALGARY SO THAT OFFICE BUILDINGS, THEY ARE -- WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING INTO THE CITY OR LEAVING THAT YOU'RE SEEING BUILDINGS AND NOT SURFACE PARKING. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ISN'T FULLY CAPTURED ON HERE BUT AT THIS LEVEL OF PLANNING WE AREN'T ABLE TO DELVE INTO THAT ACTUAL SITE PLANNING BUT THOSE ARE THE GOALS AND THAT IS ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO IN THE BYLAWS WHICH IS WHY FOR THOSE SITES THE ONE WITH THE GROCERY AND THE ONE WITH THE RETAIL IS THAT WE WOULD BE PLACING THERE A MAXIMUM SETBACK FROM THE STREET OF 3 METRES SO WE DON'T IS LARGE, VAST AREAS SET BACK FROM THE STREET AND TAKE AWAY THOSE CHANCES FOR MORE OF A PEDESTRIAN FEEL TO THE AREA. >> IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING CORRECTLY IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SORT OF TANGIBLE PLAN AND HOPEFULLY SPEAKING TO SOME PLAN THAT MIGHT EMERGE AT SOME POINT, WE'RE LOOKING AT, ON THE WEST SIDE -- THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE, THE FIRST TWO PARCELS BEING ADJACENT TO GREEN BRIAR DRIVE AND THEN THE OFFICE COMPONENT BEING BACKED ON TO BEAUFORT ROAD WITH A SEA OF PARKING IN FRONT OF IT AND THAT'S SORT OF THE SPOKEN TO BUT NOT ILLUSTRATED INTENT OF THE PLANNING PROCESS? >> I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW ON THAT OFFICE SITE WE DON'T FULLY KNOW HOW MANY BUILDINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THERE. THE GOAL IS TO -- WOULD BE TO CARRY THROUGH WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE TWO SIDES FOR THE RETAIL AND HAVING THOSE BUILDINGS ALSO FRONTING ON TO THAT STREET BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE HAVING NOT ON THAT SITE A MIXTURE OF OFFICE ABOVE GRADE, RETAIL AT GRADE, AND/OR ALSO ON OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL. THE OTHER KEY THING IS THAT -- WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID A SEA OF PARKING WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING INTO CALGARY OR LEAVING CALGARY AND SEEING THAT AS YOUR MAIN FIRST IMPRESSION ALONG THAT TRANSCANADA CORRIDOR. >> OKAY, SO WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. >> WE ARE, AND AT THIS STAGE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, WITHOUT GETTING INTO AN ACTUAL DETAILED DP, WE CAN'T REALLY GUESS UNTIL WE START LOOKING AT THAT OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE AREA. >> SO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AN INTENT THAT WE CAN'T GET INTO UNTIL WE... OKAY. CAN I ASK YOU ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE AREA? I CAN START PULLING OUT LOTS OF THINGS HERE THAT I'VE GOT QUESTIONS, BUT -- >> THE EMPLOYEE AREA, WHICH IS POINT 25, 17 OF 33, IS EVERY BUILDING MUST IS AN OUTDOOR AREA FOR THE USE OF EMPLOYEES LOCATED IN THE SETBACK AREA BETWEEN THE FRONT FACADE OF A BUILDING AND THE STREET AS A MINIMUM OF 20 SQUARE METRES. ARE WE BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE WANT PATIOS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHETHER IT'S AN OUTDOOR SITTING AREA, WHETHER IT'S AN URBAN PLAZA, WHETHER IT'S A PATIO, WHETHER IT'S BENCHES. GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SPEND TIME OUTSIDE OF THERE AND HAVE THAT INTERACTION BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE ACTUAL STREET FRONT AND THE OVERALL SIDEWALKS. >> OKAY. THEN I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FOR THIS SORT OF SEEMS TO BE INCREDIBLY AUTOMOBILE FOCUSED. WE'VE GOT TWO OPTIONS. WE EITHER CREATE A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OR A PEDESTRIAN PETTING ZOO WHERE PEOPLE COME OUT OF THEIR CARS AND ARE PEDESTRIANS IN THE SPACE. THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS IT OR NOT IS BY CAR. IS THERE ANY LONG-TERM PLANNING FOR SERVICING THIS IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY BY ANY OTHER MODE THAN THE CAR AND IS THAT SPOKEN TO IN ANY WAY THROUGH THIS? >> I'LL REFER THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF FUTURE DRP TO MY COLLEAGUE IN TRANSPORTATION. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IN ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION, WE WERE DEFINITELY COGNIZANT OF THE NEEDS TO BALANCE THEM -- MOBILITY FOR ALL USERS. THERE DEFINITELY WILL REMAIN THE NEED FOR PEOPLE TO USE THEIR AUTOMOBILE FOR A PORTION OF THEIR TRIPS. BY THE MIXED USE NATURE OF THE SITE YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO CAPTURE A MUCH HIGHER INTERNAL TRIP, CAPTURE WHICH CAN BE USED BY WALKING AND CYCLING. WE CAN ALSO -- WE'VE LOOKED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY ABOUT HOW TO CONNECT THIS SITE DOWN INTO THE REMAINDER OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION THROUGH PATHWAYS AND (INDISCERNIBLE) OF SIDEWALKS. DO YOU HAVE NATURAL BARRIERS SUCH AS THE ESCARPMENT TO WORK AROUND BUT AS PART OF THAT PLAN FOR ALTERNATE MODES WE DEFINITELY HAVE CONNECTIONS DOWN THE ESCARPMENT ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE GREEN BRIAR STUDY AREA AS WELL AS DOWN 83rd STREET. AS FOR TRANSIT, THE VISION AT THIS TIME THAT IS STILL FLUID AS THIS AREA BUILDS OUT IS PRIMARY TRANSIT RUNNING ALONG BOWNESS ROAD WITH A CONDUCTIVITY BY OTHER TRANSIT ROUTES THAT WOULD CONNECT DOWN TO THAT PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE ON BOWNESS ROAD. THAT IS THE WHOLE NETWORK OF COMMUNITY TRANSIT ROUTES IS GOING TO BE REVIEWED BY CALGARY TRANSIT AS THIS AREA OF THE CITY BUILDS OUT AND REDEVELOPS. >> OKAY. I WON'T TAKE ANY MORE OF COUNCIL'S TIME. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN CARA. IN FACT YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK. I HAVE TO SAY I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE SETBACKS AND IT MAKES SENSE TO ME BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSED BYLAW. SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE THAT INTERPRETATION COMES FROM BECAUSE THE ONLY PART -- I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT. THE ONLY PART I SEE ABOUT FRONT SETBACK AREA IS SECTIONS 22, 23 OF THE BYLAW AND 16 OF 33 AND THEY DON'T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC STREET AND BEAUFORT ROAD AND ALL OF THAT. SO WHILE I HEARD IT, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE BYLAW REFLECTS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OR IF I'M READING IT INCORRECTLY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE DO HAVE SOME GUIDANCE ON THIS AND DIRECTION FROM BYLAW 25 P 2011, PAGE 10 OF 15, ITEM I, SPEAKS TO THE GOALS FOR COMMERCIAL AND IT SPEAKS TO A FEW POINTS, THAT WE WISH TO HAVE THESE BUILDINGS ORIENTED TOWARDS TO FACE THE STREET, THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MIXTURE OF FACADES, MATERIALS, THAT WE WANT TO HAVE ANY SO THE OF THINGS FOR ACCESS FOR CARS AND ON SITE PARKING FROM THE REAR LANES SO WE'RE USING THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SETBACK, THEY POINTED OUT TO, IN BYLAW 13 D 2011 SECTION NUMBER 24. >> MAYOR NENSHI: MANAGE TO PUT THESE THINGS TOGETHER. I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M INTERESTED IN THE OVERPASS, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE CAPACITY IT HAS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TRANSCANADA NORTH AND SOUTH. MAYBE I CAN ASK A COUPLE OF GENERAL QUESTIONS. HOW IS THE CAPACITY DETERMINED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES? DO YOU TAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF DENSITY PROPOSALS ON BOTH SIDES OR WHAT SORT OF -- WHAT GUIDANCE DO YOU TAKE IN TERMS OF DECIDING THE CAPACITY OR DETERMINING THE CAPACITY FOR THIS OVERPASS? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA INTERCHANGE THERE'S BEEN A FUNCTIONAL PLANNING STUDY THAT'S BEEN UNDERTAKEN THAT HAS LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECT THAT HAD WOULD BE NEED TO BE ACCOMMODATED BY THAT INTERCHANGE. THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT THE TIME WERE BASED ON THE COUNCIL APPROVED LAND USES FOR THE AREA, WHICH WOULD BE -- WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE CURRENT CANADA OLYMPIC PARK STRUCTURING PLAN ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL AS THE BOWNESS ARP ON THE NORTH AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST. AS DESIGNED FOR THAT INTERCHANGE HAS PROGRESSED INTO SOME MORE OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN, THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES HAVE BEEN UPDATED BASED ON THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT TO THE GREEN BRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND THOSE THAT WAS INCORPSED INTO THAT DESIGN. IT'S BASED ON ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE OF THE INTERSECTIONS ALONG BEAUFORT ROAD AS WELL AS THE SIGNALS THAT WOULD NUMBER PLACE ON THE INTERCHANGE TO ENSURE THAT THE DELAYS AND QUEUING WERE NOT POSING ANY SAFETY OR OPERATIONAL CONCERNS. >> THANK YOU. WHEN YOU SAY THE CURRENT ASP FOR WIND SPORT OR CANADA OLYMPIC PARK, DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND WHAT THE -- WITHIN RECENT FEW YEARS -- >> FOUR YEARS. >> HOW ARE THE -- HOW TO PUT IT, THE CAPACITIES ASSIGNED? IS IT DONE BASED ON NORTH-SOUTH OR HOW DO YOU -- EAST-WEST TRAFFIC USING IT AS WELL. HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH SIDE OF THE TRANSCANADA GETS ALLOCATED CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF CAPACITY ON THE OVERPASS? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I GUESS MAYBE JUST TO CLARIFY IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION, THE ASSIGNMENT OF DENSITY IN THIS AREA WAS NOT SOLELY THE ASSIGNMENT OF DENSITY BASED ON TRANSPORTATION LIMITATIONS. THROUGH THE MDP, THROUGH THE PREVIOUS ASP AND ARPs, YOU KNOW, THE USE OF SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND ASSIGNMENT OF POPULATION IS ALSO CRITICAL IN THAT, AND SPECIAL RATION WITH THE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES. BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY X NUMBER OF TRIPS GET APPLIED TO CERTAIN AREAS. >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE GROWTH CAPACITY OF CANADA OLYMPIC PARK AND WIND SPORTS' POTENTIAL TO CONSIDER SOME PROPOSALS THAT ARE COMING IN AND I'M WONDERING AT WHAT POINT DOES -- IS THERE AN ENTITLEMENT OR A CAPACITY ASSIGNED TO ONE DEVELOPMENT OVER ANOTHER? I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE PROCESS. HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF THIS PROPOSAL, DOES IT TAKE MORE THAN ITS SHARE OF CAPACITY FROM THIS OVERPASS, PERHAPS JEOPARDIZING OPPORTUNITIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, ON A POINT OF ORDER, I DON'T THINK I HAVE RISEN ON A POINT OF ORDER FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. HERE IT GOES. >> I THINK I KNOW WHAT I DID, ACTUALLY. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I KNOW WHAT YOU DID TOO. >> -- TWOEURB DEMENT ON IT BECAUSE I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT I KNOW WHAT FETTERING EVER DISCRETION MEANS. IF YOU'RE FETTERING YOUR DISCRETION, ALDERMAN POOTMANS, TO BRING ON TO THE FLOOR NOW A LAND USE APPLICATION ISSUE THAT HAS YET TO BE HEARD. SO WE HAVEN'T HEARD COP, WE WILL PROVIDE LATER THIS YEAR, SUMMERTIME OR SOMETIME, BUT TO BRING THE ISSUES FORWARD NOW, YOU GET INTO THE PROBLEM OF FETTERING YOUR DISCRETION. >> I WAS HOPING WE WOULD HAVE THIS DEBATE THROUGH THE CHAIR. PERHAPS TO THE CHAIR. THERE MUST BE PRECEDENT FOR THIS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THIS HASN'T HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE WHEN THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE EQUITY OF THE SITUATION FOR ALL PARTIES CONCERNED AND HOW CAN WE MAKE A DECISION ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WITHOUT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PICTURE. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I DO AGREE WITH YOU, ALDERMAN POOTMANS, BUT I THINK THE AREA WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN IS NOT PRESUPPOSING A LAND USE APPLICATION THAT IS NOT YET BEEN HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; HOWEVER, ASKING GENERAL QUESTIONS TO TRANSPORTATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF -- >> HYPOTHETICALS. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> MAYOR NENSHI: WHAT HAPPENS IF -- THE QUESTION THAT I THINK YOU'RE GETTING AT WHICH IS A QUESTION I WANT THE ANSWER TO IS I HAVE HEARD AROUND THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE 16th AVENUE BEAUFORT COP INTERCHANGE IS ONE THAT WILL HANDLE THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES TODAY SPWU NOT REALLY DESIGNED FOR MUCH GREATER VOLUMES. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS IN FACT A PERTINENT QUESTION FOR THIS DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING TODAY. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION, ALDERMAN HODGES. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, FOR YOUR GUIDANCE. >> MAYOR NENSHI: NOW THAT I'VE ASKED THE QUESTION... >> HYPOTHETICALLY, RATHER THAN WASTE TIME, AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, HYPOTHETICALLY WILL THIS IMPAIR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VICINITY? >> TO BE CLEAR THE DESIGN OF THE INTERCHANGE OF BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA IS CONSTRAINED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. ONE IS THE GEOMETRY, ONE IS THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT LANDS BEING THE COMMERCIAL ALONG BOW RIDGE AT BEAUFORT. AS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY THAT WAS DONE, THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ASSUMED FOR GREEN BRIAR ARE AT THE SAME RANGE AS IS BEING PROPOSED TODAY BY GREEN BRIAR STAGE TWO SO THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN WHAT WAS STUDIED AT THE TIME FOR ALLOCATION OF VOLUMES FOR WHAT YOU'RE SEEING FOR GREEN BRIAR. IF A DIFFERENT LANDOWNER IN THE AREA WERE TO REQUEST A LAND USE THAT HAD A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER INTENSITY USE THAN WHAT WAS CURRENTLY ASSUMED, THEN THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE CAPACITY ISSUES WITH THAT INTERCHANGE. I WOULD SUGGEST, YOUR WORSHIP, THAT THE DESIGN IS INTENDED TO SERVE THE LAND USES THAT ARE ENVISIONED IN THE AREA AS CURRENTLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL. IF THERE WERE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THOSE LAND USES TO BE CONSIDERED, WE MAY HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVISIT WHAT THAT INTERCHANGE IS INTENDED TO BE. >> SO IF THERE ARE FOLKS IN THE AREA WHO HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THAT PARTICULAR INTERCHANGE WILL FAIL WHEN IT'S OPENED EVEN GIVEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, IS THAT AN OVERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE, WOULD YOU SAY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, YEAH, THAT ARE WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO SAY. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANK YOU. SORRY, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> NO, THANK YOU, WORSHIP. THAT'S THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION. I'M DONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. VANDER PAOTEN. >> MAYOR NENSHI: ALDERMAN HODGES? >> JUST A QUICK ONE, I THINK. THE TERM FAILURE IS SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF CITIES ARE NO LONGER USING BECAUSE IT SOUNDS FATAL. WHAT IS FAILURE AND WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING IN ORDER TO GET BEYOND THE CONCEPT EVER TRANSPORTATION FAILURE? OR INTERSECTION FAILURE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF AVENUES TO GO DOWN HERE. I THINK PUBLIC SAFETY IS STILL FAIRLY PARAMOUNT HERE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF OUR ROADWAYS IS SAFE AND DOES NOT JEOPARDIZE THE LIFE OF ANY OF THE USERS OF THAT ROADWAY, WHETHER THEY BE IN AN AUTOMOBILE, IN A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, LARGE TRUCK, OR WALKING OR CYCLING OR RIDING TRANSIT. SO THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE A CONSIDERATION FOR HOW THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC OPERATION IS. IF THE LINE IN THE SAND THAT CONSTITUTES FAILURE, I WOULD AGREE IN THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INDUSTRY HAS BECOME A LOT GRAYER OVER THE PAST MANY YEARS. EVEN THE WAY THE CITY OF CALGARY IS LOOKING AT EVALUATING THE OPERATION OF OUR SYSTEM IS MORE ON A QUALITY OF SERVICE LEVEL THAN A QUANTITY OR LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING AN EFFORT TO REVIEW THE WHOLE GUIDELINES ON HOW WE ASSESS THE OPERATION, THE MOBILITY ASSESSMENT AND PLAN GUIDELINES THAT YOU'VE HEARD THAT TERMINOLOGY OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO, IS AN INTENT TO REALLY ASSESS OUR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BASED ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, NOT JUST PERFORMANCE OF THE AUTOMOBILE. SO WHILE WE NEED TO BALANCE ALL MODES ACROSS THIS NETWORK, WE STILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC SAFETY DOES EXIST FOR THE USERS AND WHERE THAT WAS COMING FROM I GUESS SPECIFIC TO THE BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA INTERCHANGE THAT IF THE OPERATION OF THE SIGNALS AT THE TOP OF THE RAMP ARE SUCH THAT DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PHYSICAL CAPACITY TO LET ALL THE DEMAND THROUGH, THERE IS THAT POTENTIAL FOR THE RAMPS TO BACK UP ON TO THE MAINLINE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY. WHEN THAT BECOMES A FREE FLOW CORRIDOR, THAT POSE AS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONCERN TO THE CITY. >> THANK YOU. MARCH MA THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION? ALDERMAN HODGES, I THINK YOU HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS FOR US SO I NOTICE THERE'S QUITE THE SCRUM GOING ON OVER THERE -- >> I NOTICE THAT HAD TOO BUT THERE'S NO MICROPHONE THERE. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I CAN TELL YOU, ALDERMAN HODGES, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE IN THE BYLAW THAT MAYBE INTERNALLY CONTRADICTORY SO WE MAY NEED TO TAKE THE NEXT ITEM BEFORE WE FINISH THIS ONE SO THAT THEY CAN TPEURBGS ANY PROBLEMS BUT FIRST LET'S DO YOUR AMENDMENTS. ARE THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAW OR RECOMMENDATION? >> THEY'RE AMENDMENTS TO BYLAW 25 P, 2011. >> MAYOR NENSHI: WE'LL HAVE TO DO THEM AT SECOND READING, THEN. >> THAT IS CORRECT. I WANTED TO INTRODUCE THEM BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. IT DOES COME IN AT SECOND READING. >> MAYOR NENSHI: GIVE ME A MOMENT, ALDERMAN HODGES. SINCE YOU'VE GOT THE FLOOR COULD I ASK YOU TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO FIX THE ISSUES HERE. >> I'LL MOVE THAT AS LONG AS THE ISSUES ARE RENDERED IN WRITING AND WE CAN BE ABLE TO EXAMINE WHAT THE SCRUM HAS RESULTED IN. >> MAYOR NENSHI: WILL DO. >> I WILL MOVE TABLING TILL LATER. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL SECONDING THAT. WE'LL TABLE IT AFTER ITEM 9.1 IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. NO PROBLEM. ALDERMAN 9.1. WHAT DID I JUST SAY? BRAND NEW ALDERMAN. THAT'S LIKE THE NEW VERSION OF ALDERMAN CARA. HE'S BEEN UPGRADED OVER THE WEEKEND. IT'S NOT JUST THE HAIRCUT. ITEM 9.1. >> YOUR WORSHIP, TWO AMENDMENT OPTIONS WERE PRESENTED TO THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR CLARITY, THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION SELECTED THE AMENDMENT OPTION CONTAINED IN APPENDIX 6 OF ATTACHMENT TO THE REPORT TO THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION. THE AMENDMENTS CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE CURRENT SPECIAL FUNCTION RULES AND RESPOND TO 311 COMPLAINT FINDINGS. AS BACKGROUND THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF SPECIAL FUNCTION TENTS. RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL. RECREATIONAL TENTS ARE PERMITTED USE INSIDE MOST DISTRICTS AND MUST OCCUR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APPROVED USE FOR ASSEMBLY, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, OR SOCIAL EVENTS FOR A TOTAL OF TEN DAYS. THESE TENTS INCLUDE STREET FESTIVALS, WEDDINGS, CUSTOMER APPRECIATION, AND STAMPEDE BREAKFAST EVENTS. CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL TENTS ARE DISCRETIONARY USES. IN MOST DISTRICTS AND MAY ONLY OPERATE IN ASSOCIATION WITH CERTAIN USES AS AN ANCILLARY USE OR AS A TEMPORARY EXPANSION OF THE PRINCIPAL APPROVED USE. THESE CURRENTLY INCLUDE AUCTION MARKETS, DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS, NIGHTCLUB, RETAIL, AND CONSUMER SERVICE. RESTAURANTS LICENSED AND THE LIST IS UP THERE. BOTH RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL TENTS ARE RATHER UNIQUE AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM DEVELOPMENT PERMITS IF THEY MEET THE RULES OF THE BYLAW AND THE EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 24 AND 25. FOR COMMERCIAL TENTS, A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED PROVIDED THEY MEET THE RULES OF THE BYLAW, THE GROSS FLOOR AREA IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 120 SQUARE METRES F IT'S OVER 120 SQUARE METRES, IT MUST BE NOT LOCATED ON A PARCEL THAT ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND THAT INCLUDES LOW AND MULTIDISTRICTS, AND IT CAN'T BE IN THE AVPA AREA OR IN THE FLOOD AREA OR SUBJECT TO THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. A DP IS THE ONLY TOOL AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A DISCRETIONARY USE AND APPLY CONDITIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EVALUATION EXAMINES THE CONTEXT OF THE USE, PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS, SIZE, SCALE, LAYOUT, QUEUING, AND MAY ALSO LOOK AT THE HOURS OF OPERATION. THIS EVALUATION COORDINATES AND BALANCES LIFE SAFETY ISSUES PREDOMINANTLY PEOPLE MANAGEMENT AND USE VALUE AND ENJOYMENT ISSUES. THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS IMPROVED ITS PROCESS AND IS CURRENTLY COORDINATING PERMIT REVIEW CAN POLICE, FIRE, BUILDING REGULATIONS, AND OTHER AGENCIES. DURING THE STUDY PERIOD 236 RECREATIONAL TENTS AND 37 COMMERCIAL TENTS WERE APPROVED. OF THE COMMERCIAL TENTS, ONLY 16 REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WERE RELATED TO SALES EVENTS. OF THE COMMERCIAL TENTS AGAIN, MOST AT 54% ARE FOR SALES IN MARKET OR AUCTION EVENTS. 17 OF THE APPLICATIONS WERE RELATED TO FOOD AND DRINK EVENTS. MOST OF THE FOOD AND DRINK EVENTS OCCURRED DURING THE STAMPEDE PERIOD. DURING THE SUMMER OF 2012, 311 RECEIVED COMPLAINTS RELATED TO NOISE AND POOR BEHAVIOUR IN PROXIMITY TO TENTS. THIS INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED AND COMPARED WITH BPs AND DPs FOR THE ANALYSIS PERIOD. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAND USE BYLAW CANNOT REGULATE TPHROEUS. NOISE IS REGULATED THROUGH THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS BYLAW. THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROVISION RELATED TO THE DURATION OF THE CALGARY STAMPEDE THAT EXTENDS SPEAKER TIMES FROM 10 p.m. TO MIDNIGHT. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE 311 COMPLAINTS, THE MAJORITY AT 28 OF 44 CALLS WERE RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL TENT ON FOUR OF 17 TENT SITES FOR FOOD AND DRINK EVENTS. A COMPLAINT CALLED DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE A VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS BYLAW. OF THE FOUR FOOD AND DRINK EVENT SITES THAT RECEIVED COMPLAINTS, TENT SIZES VARIED. THE SIZE OF THE TENT DID NOT SEEM TO RELATE TO THE NUMBER OF THE COMPLAINTS. WHEN WE LOOKED FURTHER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SIZES OF THE TENT, DWELLING, AND THE COMPLAINTS, THERE IS NO CONSISTENT EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE SIZE OF THE LOCATION IS RELATED TO TENT COMPLAINTS. THE MAJORITY OF THE ISSUES SEEM TO RELATE TO HOW THE TENT IS OPERATED AND THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE PATRONS. AS WE CONTINUE TO PROMOTE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON DWELLING UNITS LOCATED IN SELECT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AS A TRIGGER FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PROVIDE A PROACTIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS AS A DP MAY NOT CURRENTLY BE REQUIRED. ONLY SIX ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE ANTICIPATED BASED ON THE ANALYSIS PERIOD. THREE FOOD AND DRINK EVENT TENTS WERE OVER 300 METRES SQUARE. THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION FELT THAT A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE MOONS TO DO ANALYSIS ON THE IMPACT OF TENTS THIS SIZE. THEY COULD POTENTIALLY ACCOMMODATE UP TO 400 PEOPLE OR SO. ONLY TWO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE ANTICIPATED BASED ON THE ANALYSIS PERIOD. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CLARIFY THE EXISTING RULES. ALL TENTS CUMULATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAXIMUM TENT SIZE. THE USE INSIDE A TENT MUST BE AN EXPANSION OF THE APPROVED USE ON THE PARCEL AND CANNOT CONTAIN A DIFFERENT USE. TENTS CANNOT EXCEED ONE STOREY. SPECIAL FUNCTION TENTS MAY BE TEMPORARILY LOCATED ON REQUIRED PARKING AND LANDSCAPE AREAS OTHER THAN TEMPORARY SURFACE PARKING LOTS. TENTS MAY TEMPORARILY BE LOCATED ON A PARCEL WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THE DISTRICT. SOME ADDITIONAL SALES USES SUCH AS LARGE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT VEHICLE SALES AND MARKET HAVE BEEN ADDED. THE ALLOWABLE AREA FOR ENTERTAINMENT FOR TENTS SHOERBD WITH DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT, LICENSED RESTAURANTS, AND NIGHTCLUBS IS DEFINED. AND TWO NEW SNARE KWROEGS FOR WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED ARE PROPOSED. FOR ALL COMMERCIAL FOOD AND DRINK TENTS OVER 300 METRES SQUARE, AND IN SELECT MIXED USE AREAS, IF THE TENT EXPANDS OF FOOD AND DRINK EVENT. YOUR WORSHIP, THERE'S A LATE SUBMISSION, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS DISTRIBUTED IN THE MATERIALS, BUT ACOPY HERE. IT'S FROM THE HAZE BOROUGH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS IN THE PACKAGE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AND COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE ALSO RECEIVED THREE SUBMISSIONS THIS MORNING. THE HAZEBOROUGH -- SORRY, WE HAVE ACADIA, NOT HAZEHOUR ROW. IF YOU WANT TO DISTRIBUTE THAT WITHIN NOW, THAT'S FINE. >> I BELIEVE THE CLERKS HAVE A COPY OF THAT. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I BELIEVE WE'VE ALSO DISTRIBUTED ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONS FROM THE SUNNY SIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE, AND FROM Mr. TERRY ROCK. COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THOSE ALREADY. THEY WERE DISTRIBUTED JUST BEFORE LUNCH. SORRY, Ms. HARTLEY, ARE YOU FINISHED YOUR FORMAL PRESENTATION? JUST A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. I HAVE TWO OF THEM, ONE OF THEM IS A FACTS-BASED ONE AND THE OTHER IS A BIT MEAN BUT I'LL ASK BOTH. SO THE FIRST ONE IS IT -- JUST TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON TODAY IS REALLY REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN THOSE TWO CASES THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED WHERE THE TENT IS GREATER THAN 300 SQUARE METRES AND WHERE IT IS IN CERTAIN MIXED USE DISTRICTS PROVIDING IT'S FOOD AND DRINK. >> CORRECT. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. >> AS WELL AS THE CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS INCLUDED. MARCH MA NERVE THE CHANGE WE'RE LOOKING FOR OUT IN THE WORLD IS THAT. I JUST FOUND THIS REPORT A LITTLE CONFUSING AS TO WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING. THEN THE (INDISCERNIBLE) WE MEAN QUESTION IS WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE? WHEN YOU PUT UP YOUR CHART A FEW SLIDES AGO, AND YOU SHOWED THE FOUR TENTS THAT HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS AND ONE OF THEM IS SMALLER THAN 300 SQUARE METRES, IT JUST OCCURS TO ME THAT THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE IT'S SLEDGE HAMER TO SQUAT A FLY AND I WONDER IF I'M JUST READING THIS INCORRECTLY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAD TWO TENTS THAT GOT A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND ONE OF THEM WOULD NOT BE CAPTURED BY THE CHANGES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE IMPACT WHERE THE IMPACT IS NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT. WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE TENTS ARE LOCATED SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL, WHERE THEY'RE IN MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AREAS, AND OUR CURRENT PROVISIONS ONLY CONSIDER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR THE NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SOP TS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN UP THE SPECTRUM. IT ALSO GIVES THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THE ABILITY TO COMMENT ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE USE IN THE CONTEXT, WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINTS F THERE'S A HISTORY AND A BENEFIT FROM THE CIRCULATION TO THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, ANY RELEVANT BUSINESS REVITALIZATION ZONES, AND OF COURSE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT MAY BE INVOLVED. >> MAYOR NENSHI: QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, Ms. HARTLEY, YOU SHOWED ME A PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE OF AREAS IN THE CITY THAT WOULD THEN BE INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT, SO THIS ISN'T JUST AN INNER CITY ISSUE. >> NO, IT'S NOT. >> MAYOR NENSHI: I THINK THE MAP WAS INCLUDED IN -- I'LL SEE IF I CAN FIND IT. IN OUR -- THERE IT IS. >> THIS MAP, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE. THIS MAP IDENTIFIES ALL OF THE PARCELS THAT HAVE THE MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THEY'RE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE MAP CONTAINED IN THE REPORT SHOWS THE LOCATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS OVER THE JUST UNDER TWO-YEAR PERIOD THAT WE LOOKED AT THE TENTS. DO HAVE AN OVERLAY IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU. Ms. HARTLEY, SOME PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING THIS A BAN ON TENTS AND THERE SEEMS TO BE QUITE A BIT OF CONFUSION. I'VE EVEN HEARD SOME PEOPLE CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD BE BANNING THE USE OF TEPEES DURING STAMPEDE, WHICH -- I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT. WHAT IS THIS EXACTLY? IT'S NOT A BAN ON TENTS, IS IT? >> NO. IT'S ACTUALLY AN SPEDITED PROCESS TO REVIEW AND EXAMINE THE ISSUES RELATED TO TENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE SO DIVERSE. >> AS A PROBLEM SOLVING MECHANISM BEFORE THEY CAUSE ANY -- >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. ON PAGE 3 OF THIS REPORT, 2011 AND 2011-03, UNDER BACKGROUND, IT SAYS SPECIAL FUNCTION TENTS, THERE'S A NUMBER OF BULLETS THERE AND UNDER THE SECOND BULLET SAYS ARE NOT IN A CALGARY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY PROTECTION AREA, FLOODWAY, FRINGE, OVERLAND, AND NEAR LANDFILL SITES, ET CETERA. AND THE REASON I POINTED THAT OUT WAS BECAUSE IT MAKES REFERENCE THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT ABOUT IN PROXIMITY TO LANDFILL SITES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THEN WE TALK ABOUT CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT TENTS, AND OF COURSE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME IS GLOBAL FEST WHICH FALLS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A LANDFILL SITE AND IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. ADJACENT I.D. ACROSS THE ROAD, ADJACENT, WHICH I GUESS CONSTITUTES ADJACENT. HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT IT? >> WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'VE APPLIED FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BEFORE OR NOT, BUT THEY WOULD BE A RECREATIONAL TENT, NOT A COMMERCIAL TENT. SO THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THESE AMENDMENTS FOCUSED ON THE COMMERCIAL FOOD AND DRINK EVENTS. FESTIVALS, THE RULES PRETTY MUCH STAY THE SAME FOR THOSE. THEY'RE ONLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THOSE AREAS. >> BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THOSE AREAS. AND THEY DO ACCUMULATE IN EXCESS OF 300, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. >> IT'S THE TENT SIZE SO IF THERE'S MORE THAN 300 METRES SQUARED THEY'D PROBABLY BE SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR THAT. WE HAVE A GROUP WORKING ON FESTIVAL TENTS. AND PROCESSING THEM IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER. >> THAT'S NOT COVERED IN HERE, IS IT? HOW TO PROCESS THOSE EXPEDITIOUSLY? >> NO. WE'RE DOING THAT ON OUR OWN AND WE'RE EXAMINING HOW WE HOOK AT THOSE APPLICATIONS. >> APPARENTLY THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT. AT THIS POINT I'LL JUST SIT BACK AND LISTEN TO SOME MORE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME A HISTORY OF HOW THIS CAME ABOUT, LIKE WHY EXACTLY IS THIS BEING PROPOSED, WHERE DID THIS COME FROM, WHO INITIATED IT OR WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED TO GET THIS BALL ROLLING? >> WE HAD INQUIRIES RELATED TO THE 311 CALLS THAT WE RECEIVED ON TENTS OVER THE STAMPEDE SEASON. SO WE -- SPECIAL FUNCTION TENTS WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF BYLAW 1 P 2007 SO WE TOOK THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEM. >> SO DUE TO THE 311 CALLS IS WHY CPC DECIDED TO INITIATE THIS? >> CPC HAS RECOMMENDED THE PARTICULAR OPTION IN THE REPORT. >> LET ME REPHRASE THAT. WHAT GOT US GOING -- THIS SEEMS TO BE RATHER EXTENSIVE REPORT. IT SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF WORK TO PUT INTO IT. WHAT GOT THE BALL ROLLING THAT WE SHOULD BE PROCEEDING DOWN THIS COURSE OF ACTION? >> THE LAND USE BYLAW SUSTAINMENT TEAM TAKES ITS OWN INITIATIVE AND THE TRIGGER I WOULD SAY WOULD BE THE 311 CALLS THAT WE RECEIVED LAST YEAR. >> DUE TO 28 311 CALLS, WE DECIDED TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD? >> WE SAW A BIT OF A PATTERN AND THOUGHT WE'D INVESTIGATE. >> OKAY. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE THE GENESIS OF THIS IS. SO DO YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD GIVE ME A ROUGH IDEA AS TO WHAT KIND OF DOLLARS WE PUT INTO THIS SINCE WE STARTED GOING DOWN THIS PATH? IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A QUIZ AT THE END. >> PERHAPS NO MORE THAN WE WOULD TYPICALLY SPEND ON ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION. WE'VE HAD ONE MEETING WITH PUBLIC MEETING. WE INVITED REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE TENT INDUSTRY, COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, AND BRZs. WE'VE PREPARED SOME MINOR POSTERS, WE'VE MAINLY COMMUNICATED THROUGH E-MAIL. >> CERTAINLY QUITE A NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIVE HOURS. >> WE LIKE TO SPEND IN THE TEUR HOURS -- >> THE REASON I MENTION THAT IS I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT 311 CULLS ARE A BAD INDICATOR BUT I'VE GOTTEN AN E-MAIL FROM ONE OF -- FROM SOMEONE OVER THE WEEKEND HERE COMMENTING ON THEIR CONCERNS FOR THESE AND THE REQUEST FOR THIS. AND SHE HAD CLAIMED HERSELF SHE HERSELF CALLED 311 HALF A DOZEN TIMES OVER THE STAMPEDE BECAUSE OF THE LOUD MUSIC. SO I TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. ARE THESE 311 CALLS DO, WE LOOK BACK AND BE SEE IF THEY'RE UNIQUE CALLS OR 0 COULD THEY BE REPEAT CALLS? >> WE LOOK AT THE GENERICS OF THE CALL. IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DETAILS ON THE NATURE OF THE CALL, WE'D HAVE TO REFER TO -- >> NO, I'M NOT REALLY LOOKING FOR THE GENERIC -- THE DETAILS ON IT BUT I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT THAT GOING OKAY, SO, IF THAT'S THE CASE IT REALLY ISN'T 28 CALLS, IT'S 22 COMPLAINTS ON FOUR TENTS WHICH IS LIKE FIVE COMPLAINTS ON EACH TENT. IT SEEMS TO BE A GREAT DEAL OF WORK AND EFFORT TO DEAL WITH 20 COMPLAINTS. CITY-WIDE OVER A CITY OF A MILLION PEOPLE. JUST WONDERING WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT MIGHT BE. >> WELL, THIS IS A DECISION FOR COUNCIL. CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED APPENDIX SIX. >> MAYOR NENSHI: CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> THIS IS CLARIFICATION. HOW DOES THIS BEGIN? >> SOUNDS LIKE DEBATE, ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> OH, NO, DEBATE IS LATER. I NOTICED ON PAGE 7 THAT ADMINISTRATION ITSELF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THIS OPTION? >> ADMINISTRATION IS HERE TODAY TO REPRESENT THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION AND PRESENT THE OPTION THAT THEY HAVE ORIGINALLY -- >> I'M JUST WONDERING, IN THE REPORT IT SAYS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT RECOMMENDING THIS OPTION AS ONLY 4 OUT OF 17 OF THESE TYPES OF EVENTS GENERATED COMPLAINTS. (PLEASE STAND BY) AND THEY SECURE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF THEY'RE PUTTING ON A STREET FESTIVAL. I THINK SOME FELT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES. THEY WERE PROBABLY CONCERNED WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY MERELY PUT UP THE TENT. THEY DON'T OPERATE THE TENT. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE JUST A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT I BELIEVE THEIR THOUGHTS TO BE. >> WELL, THE WORD I'VE BEEN GETTING FROM INDUSTRY THAT WE'VE GOT WAY TOO MUCH BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE AND THAT THEY'RE AGAINST -- >> THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION. >> OKAY. I JUST -- I GUESS I'M SURPRISED TO HEAR YOU CHARACTERIZE IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GETTING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE CHARACTERIZATION OF MAYBE HOW THAT MEETING WENT OR WHAT THE FEELING WAS. BUT THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN LOWE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST TO SUMMARIZE THINGS HERE SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY PLAIN, WE GO THIS ROUTE, THERE WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL TENTS FOR A FOOD AND DRINK SERVICE TO BE EXTENDED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE -- HOW LONG IS THE NORMAL PROCESS TO PROCESS AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY? >> EIGHT WEEKS AT MAXIMUM. >> EIGHT WEEKS AT MAXIMUM. AND EITHER WAY, THE DECISION IS APPEALED, THOUGH, IS IT NOT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. THIS CHAP CAN LEAD IN HERE AT ANY POINT YOU FEEL FREE, YOU FEEL NECESSARY. >> THIS IS ACTUALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE I WAS TO ASK AN HONEST TO GOODNESS QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION TO WALK US THROUGH THE PROCESS TODAY AND YOU'RE GETTING THERE. >> SO AT PLANNING COMMISSION, ALDERMAN FARRELL, I BELIEVE, BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION ASKING THAT WE COULD HAVE AN EXPEDITED PROCESS. >> CORRECT. WE HAVE BEEN EXPEDITING APPLICATIONS AT THE FRONT COUNTER WE RECEIVE THEM. >> SO WHAT IN YOUR -- WHAT DO WE DO -- I'M GOING BACK YEARS NOW TO MY DAYS IN DAB WHEN THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY WAS WE DIDN'T KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE APPEALING THIS JUST BECAUSE. AND SO I'M WONDERING IN AN EXPEDITED PROCESS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO EXPRESS THAT COULD GIVE RISE TO THE MATTER GOING TO DAB AND I DON'T THINK, ALDERMAN HODGES -- (Indiscernible) THEIR AGENDA IS LONG, AND YOU END UP ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT HEAP. SO WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT -- I GUESS MY CONCERN IS FOR THE STAMPEDE PERIOD, OF COURSE. >> WELL, CURRENTLY, WE SENT OUT A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION TO THE TENT INDUSTRY ADVISING THAT WE WOULD BECAUSE OF THE STAMPEDE SEASON FAST APPROACHING, THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM. IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROBABLY WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION SPEED UP THE PROCESS, AND THAT WOULD BE DOING OUR BUSINESS BETTER WITH MORE EFFICIENCIES. IN TERMS OF TIMING AND WHEN WE SERVE APPLICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT -- TO THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS AND THE BUSINESS REVITALIZATION ZONES. THOSE ARE OUR LONGEST TIME FRAME FOR COMMENTS. THEY ARE RECEIVED THREE WEEKS. SO WE'RE HOPING TO SHORTEN OUR PROCESS DOWN TO MAKE SURE IT REFLECTS THAT. >> AND ARE YOU ABLE TO ACHIEVE ALL THESE STEPS BETWEEN NOW AND FIRST WEEK IN JULY? >> WELL, NOTIFICATION WAS SENT OUT TO ALL OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, BRZs AND THE TENT INDUSTRY AS WELL AS ANYBODY WHO CAME AND LEFT THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESS AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING. I PERSONALLY PHONED PEOPLE WHO MADE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, MADE SURE THAT THEY WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL CHANGE IN THE PROCESS AND THAT THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO JUST COME IN AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS WELL. SO WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO REACH THE PEOPLE WHO REPLIED WITHIN THE LAST TWO STAMPEDE PERIODS. >> SO MY LAST QUESTION, WHEN AN APPEAL IS FILED, IT STAYS IN THE ACTION UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, DOES IT NOT? >> I'M SORRY -- >> THE TENT DOESN'T GO UP UNTIL THE APPEAL'S RESOLVED, BUT THEN I'M ASSUMING I'M A COMMUNITY APPEALING AGAIN. >> WELL, YOU WOULD NEED A DECISION. IF THE APPLICATION REQUIRED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, YES, THEY WOULD NEED THE DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION APPEAL BOARD. WE'RE HOPING THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPENDING ON WHAT COUNCIL DOES TODAY, IS IN A POSITION TO MAKE DECISIONS SHORTLY AFTER COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION ITSELF. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK IN THE LAND USE BYLAW BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THEY WON'T RELEASE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNTIL THE APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD BY SDAB WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY STAY THE APPLICATION. >> THAT WAS MY CONCLUSION ALSO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR WORSHIP, BUT IT MORE HAS TO DO WITH THE RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINTS AND OUR ABILITY TO TERMINATE THE ACTIVITY THAT'S BOTHERING PEOPLE AT THE TIME AND I'LL ASK YOU IF WE'RE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS HEARING BUT IT SEEMS TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM WE HAVE, IF YOU ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE, IS THAT WE'RE MISSING THE HARM HERE. >> I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HAVE THE HEARING BECAUSE WE'RE STILL ON THE CLARIFICATION PART SO MAYBE YOU CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AFTER WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC. >> AND I SEE WE HAVE SOME UNIFORMED MEMBERS HERE WHO I THINK CAN JUST IF WE CAN EXERCISE SOME AUTHORITY NOT LET THEM ESCAPE. >> DON'T ESCAPE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> ALDERMAN MAR, QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND MORE CLEARLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT ONEROUS OF A STEP BECAUSE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE USED TO REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR THIS VERY THING, IS THIS NOT THE CASE? >> WE DID. WE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR THE TENTS LARGER THAN 300 METRES SQUARED. >> WHY DID WE STOP DOING IT? >> WELL, WHEN 1-PO7 CAME INTO EFFECT, WE REALIZED THERE WERE A LOT OF AUCTION HOUSE AND AUCTION MARKET DEVELOPMENT PERMITS OF THAT SIZE THAT WEREN'T CAUSING A PROBLEM. >> THAT WERE OR WERE NOT? >> NOT CAUSING A PROBLEM. WE TRIED TO CONTINUALLY MONITOR THE SITUATION AND MAKE SURE WE'RE RESPONSIVE. AND AT THAT TIME, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST SINCE 2007-2008 BYLAW WAS EFFECTIVE. >> RIGHT. SO WE EXPERIMENTED, WE TINKERED AROUND. >> WE DID. >> WE REALIZE NOW AGAIN THAT THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL MENTALITY DOESN'T NECESSARILY WORK. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION? >> I WOULD. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S MY QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION, YOUR WORSHIP. >> OKAY, MISS HARTLEY, I'M SORRY YOU'RE GETTING SO MANY QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION. IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING SO I NEED IT EXPLAINED TO ME A BIT LIKE A 6-YEAR-OLD. SO TODAY, IF WE DON'T MAKE ANY OF THESE CHANGES TODAY, I'M THE RANCHMANS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I WANT TO PUT UP A THOUSAND SQUARE METRE TENT FOR STAMPEDE. WHAT PROCESS DO I GO THROUGH? >> A BUILDING PERMIT. >> SO ALL I NEED IS A BUILDING PERMIT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY AS THE CITY TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE BUILDING PERMIT AND SO ON, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF IT'S REALLY LOUD, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT, YEAH, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS BYLAW? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. AND SO WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING NOW IS THAT IF I'M THE RANCHMANS AND I WANT SUCH A BIG TENT I GO THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAGE BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT AND WHAT THAT MEANS, WE HAVE TO TELL THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY, IF THEY'RE NOT EXPECTING THE RANCHMANS TO PUT UP THE TENT FOR STAMPEDE, BUT WHAT OTHER POWERS DOES THAT GRANT THE CITY, THE APPROVING AUTHORITY, IF YOU LIKE, THAT WE DON'T HAVE AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE? >> WELL, THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CAN CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE USE, THE HISTORY ON THE SITE, THE OPERATION, ANY COMMUNITY INPUT COMMENTS, ANY BRZ COMMENTS IF THEY EXIST, ANY RELEVANT CHANGES TO THE SITE LAY-OUT AND DESIGN THROUGH OUR PARTNERS AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A COUPING ISSUE, IF WE NEED TO MODIFY THE LOCATION OF CROWD CONTROL -- QUEUING -- IF THE POLICE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OF CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, ALL OF THOSE OTHER FACTORS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE EVALUATION OF THE TENT. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, ALL OF THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT THINGS WE CAN LOOK AT THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, ONLY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WERE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS LAST YEAR FOR A GIVEN TENT, IF I WAS ONLY LOOKING AT IT THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, I WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TURN IT DOWN BASED ON THE FACT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS LAST YEAR. >> THAT'S CORRECT, YOU'D BE REVIEWING THE STRUCTURE OF THE TENT. >> THAT IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT THE HECK, LET'S START THE PUBLIC HEARING, SHALL WE? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL, THEN, ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR. >> YOUR WORSHIP, AND COUNCIL, CONSTABLE MARK KING FROM THE CALGARY POLICE SERVICE. I'M, IF YOU GET CONFUSED, I APOLOGIZE. I WILL TRY TO INTERPRET THE BEST FOR ME. I AM THE OFFICER TASKED WITH WHAT THE CITY CALLED THE CITY PUBLIC TASK FORCE AND VARIOUS CITY AGENCIES AS WELL AS PROVINCIAL AGENCIES. WE ARE AS ALDERMAN LOWE PUT, WE ARE THE HAMMER, WE ARE THE PEOPLE OUT THERE MONITORING THE TENTS ONCE THE TENTS ARE UP, WE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ENFORCING THE ISSUES THAT COME AROUND. FOR US TO BE ABLE TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THIS PROCESS, TO HAVE POINTS PUT ACROSS AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A TENT FROM A MULTI-AGENCY APPROACH, WE CAN GET PAST THOSE LEGISLATION PIECES THAT WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY KNOW OURSELF AS A CITY BUT MAY COME UP LATER FROM ANOTHER AGENCY. THAT TO ME IS A VERY FAIR WAY OF HELPING INDUSTRY, BY SPENDING ALL THE MONEY OUT TO GET A TENT UP TO BE TOLD, SORRY, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FROM ANOTHER AGENCY'S POLICY. SO FROM ME AND FROM THE CHIEF, THE CHIEF -- HE'S IN FAVOUR OF THIS, AND HE LOOKS AT IT THAT WE'RE THERE AT THE FOREFRONT, WE'RE THERE SPEAKING WITH INDUSTRY AT THE BEGINNING TRYING TO ASSIST THEM RATHER THAN BEING AT THE FAR END WHEN THEY ONLY SEE US WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING TO DEAL WITH THEM AFTER THE TENT IS UP. >> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN LOWE? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, CONSTABLE. YOU MENTION THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THAT IS CALGARY POLICE SERVICE, BYLAW, ALGC, AM I MISSING SOMEBODY? >> YEAH, WE HAVE IMMIGRATION ONBOARD AS WELL. WE HAVE HEALTH AND WE ALSO HAVE THE AREA OF REVENUE CANADA JUST IN CASE WE NEED THEM. >> I LIKE THAT LAST LITTLE BUNCH. MY QUESTION TO YOU, AND I'M GOING BACK TO THE PROCESS, AND THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS I ASKED OF MISS HARTLEY AND MISS JACKELL. MY CONCERN SO MUCH AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ASPECT, MY CONCERN IS AROUND SHORT CIRCUITING OR COMPRESSING THAT TO THE POINT WHERE WE ENABLE AN APPEAL WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATES THE TENT, JUST GIVEN THAT THE PROCESS OF GETTING TO THE APPEAL PROCESS AND THE CITY HERE. SO MY -- WHAT -- THE WONDER I HAVE IS WHAT ASSURANCE CAN YOU GIVE COUNCIL THAT IF COUNCIL, AS A RESULT OF THIS, WAS TO SUGGEST A ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ANY PROVINCIAL STATUTE, ALGC REGULATION, CITY BYLAW, CRIMINAL CODE, IMMIGRATION, INCOME TAX, ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT, AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, YOU OBSERVED THE PERMIT IS -- THE OPERATION IS SHUT DOWN, DEAD. WHAT'S YOUR ABILITY TO WALK IN ON A FRIDAY NIGHT AT 12:05 A.M. AND THE OPERATOR KNOW ON SATURDAY MORNING AT 7:00 A.M. THAT HE'S FINISHED? >> AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, WE DON'T REGULARLY DO THAT ANYWAY. WHAT WE'LL TEND TO DO IS SPEAK WITH THE OWNER AT THE TIME. WE'LL TRY AND COME BACK AND SEE THEM THE FOLLOWING DAY AND RECTIFY. I'D RATHER MY VIEW, I'D RATHER WORK WITH INDUSTRY AND GET THE PROBLEM SOLVED THAN COMING DOWN HEAVY ON THEM ALL THE TIME. I THINK IT'S A FAIR AND JUST APPROACH THAT EDUCATION, EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT IS PROBABLY THE WAY FORWARD. HOWEVER, AT THOSE TIMES THAT WE DEEM THAT IT'S AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, THEN WE WOULD SHUT IT DOWN BASED ON WHATEVER LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THIS WAY OF MOVING FORWARD IS A FAIR AND JUST WAY, THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE AGENCIES AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROVINCIAL AGENCIES AT THE TABLE, AND THAT WE DON'T SUDDENLY START GOING OUT TO TENTS AND ASKING THEM TO MOVE THINGS AROUND WHEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE THERE. >> I WOULDN'T SUGGEST WHILE THE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC WERE THERE, I WOULD SAY WHEN THEY WERE FINISHED AT 3:00 A.M., I DON'T WANT YOU TO PUT YOURSELF AT RISK. MY FORMER GENTLEMAN USED TO SIT IN THIS SEAT A COUPLE COUNCILS GO HAD A FAVOURITE SAYING, THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE THE SIGHT OF A HEAD ROLLING ACROSS THE DECK TO GET THE CREWS' ATTENTION. SO THAT'S SORT OF MY THOUGHT IN THAT REGARD. I GUESS I'M GOING TO ADVANCE MY QUESTION A BIT FURTHER ON DOWN. I TAKE IT AS PART OF THIS PROCESS THAT YOUR GROUP, THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE, WILL BE ASKED TO EITHER COMMENT ON OR REVIEW APPLICATIONS AS THEY COME THROUGH AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. ARE YOU ABLE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE REFUSAL? >> YES, WE CAN, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL THE LEGISLATION FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES. SO AT THE VERY BEGINNING, WE ARE PROVIDING THE APPLICANT THE CHANCE TO SEE WHY WE WOULD BE REFUSING IT, RATHER THAN SPENDING ALL THE MONEY OUT TO GET TENTS, STAFF, SUPPLIES AND ALSO LET'S SAY THE COMMUNITY HAVE A CHANCE THAT WE'RE THERE, THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE, WE'RE HAVING A LOOK AT IT AND WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FAIRLY. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE GOT TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS OF IS COMPLAINTS THAT ARE DRIVEN THROUGH OTHER MEANS THAT SOMEBODY'S JUST PHONING BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T LIKE A PERSON, AND THIS IS WHY I'M SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE GO THERE. I AGREE IF WE SEE IT IN PERSON, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE TO A COMPLAINT SO DO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY? ABSOLUTELY. DO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE INDUSTRY'S AWARE OF THAT, ABSOLUTELY. >> MY NEXT QUESTION, YOUR WORSHIP, IS TO MS. JACKELL, AND IT WOULD BE IF DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS OR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TENT INVOLVING FOOD AND DRINK, THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED REFUSAL, IS THAT GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, YES, CERTAINLY. >> SO THEN THAT PUTS AN INTERESTING QUESTION TO SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD BECAUSE IF, IN FACT, WE'RE ENABLING THESE UNDER THE LAND USE BYLAW AND THE BASIS FOR THE REFUSAL IS ALGC REGULATION, IMMIGRATION, ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT, I WOULD SUSPECT THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD MAY WELL SAY WE DON'T HAVE -- >> YOUR WORSHIP, THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT IF IT WAS A DISCRETIONARY USE, THE APPROVING AUTHORITY CAN REFUSE SOMETHING EVEN IF IT COMPLIES COMPLETELY WITH THE BYLAW IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY THINK IT IS INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I DON'T TAKE THE MEMBERS' POINT THAT IF WE WERE REFUSING BECAUSE OF A LIQUOR LICENCE ISSUE OR IMMIGRATION ISSUES OR WHATEVER, THERE CERTAINLY ARE THOSE PROCESSES THAT WOULD APPLY, AND I DO BELIEVE, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T GUARANTEE, I THINK SDAB WOULD BE LOATHED TO TAKE THAT ON. >> SO THAT WOULD BE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THAT APPLIES TO THESE TENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LAND USE BYLAWS. IN OTHER WORDS, HEALTH, LIQUOR, IMMIGRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY IS ALWAYS A TOUGH ONE. >> YOUR WORSHIP THROUGH THE CHAIR, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION THAT DOES ALLOW FOR SUCH RELATED CONDITIONS TO BE APPLIED TO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS SO THAT DOES GREY THE ISSUE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE CERTAINLY THEN SAFETY AND SO ON COULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. BUT FROM A LAND USE BYLAW PERSPECTIVE, AS YOU SAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF LIGHTS THAT ARE ON TO SPEAK WITH YOU, SIR, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT I BANG THE GAVEL, WE TAKE OUR AFTERNOON BREAK, AND IF YOU COULD STICK WITH US, WE'LL RECONVENE WITH LOTS OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU IN HALF AN HOUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE WILL BE BACK AT 3:50 P.M. >> WE'RE BACK. AND CONSTABLE KING, YOU STILL WITH US? SIR, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ALDERMAN MAR. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. CONSTABLE CANE, SO IN YOUR ROLE AS THE CALGARY POLICE SERVICE, HOW ARE YOU CHARACTERIZING OR HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THESE LARGE-SCALE EVENT TENTS WHEN THERE IS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF ALCOHOL AND PEOPLE, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA? >> I THINK WE'VE GOT TO CONSIDER THAT ONCE PEOPLE START HAVING FESTIVITY AND THEY'RE STARTING TO ENJOY THEMSELVES AND ALCOHOL'S FLOWING FREELY, THAT THE NORMAL LAYPERSON SUDDENLY BECOMES A DIFFERENT BEAST. AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT HAPPENS IN A TENT SOMETIMES, IT'S THE OVERSPILL, IT'S THE PEOPLE GOING BACK FROM -- JUST HAVE TO BE CONSIDER THAT PEOPLE ARE THERE TO ENJOY THEMSELVES AND I'M ALL FOR PEOPLE ENJOYING AND HAVING GREAT FESTIVITY AND FUN. BUT I'VE ALSO GOT TO BE CONSIDERATE TO THOSE CITIZENS THAT ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO JUST LIVE THEIR NORMAL LIFE AND THESE PLACES HAVE AN ADDED EFFECT TO THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. HOWEVER, ALCOHOL, LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE, CERTAINLY FROM A POLICING POINT OF VIEW, IS ALWAYS A DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE MORE OFFICERS, YOU HAVE TO ENSURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE GOING INTO THESE PLACES, THAT PEOPLE AREN'T TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GRAB HOLD OF YOU OR JUST EVEN FOR FUN, IT CAN BE POTENTIALLY A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE. >> SO IT DOES HAVE -- IT DOES POTENTIALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA AS WELL AS SOUNDS LIKE TO ME A DRAIN ON RESOURCES FOR THE CALGARY POLICE SERVICE. >> IT CAN. BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S ONLY IN CERTAIN OCCASIONS. I MEAN, AS A GENERAL RULE, MOST OF THE TENTS JUST OPERATE, AND WE ATTEND AND WE MAYBE HAVE ONE SET OF WORDS AND THAT'S IT. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU CAN'T CONTROL THE PEOPLE THAT DO ATTEND SOMETIMES, SO WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT AS WELL, THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL ATTEND AND THERE'S NO CONTROLLING THAT TYPE OF PERSON IF THEY GET OUT OF HAND. THE TIME COMES IS WHEN WE DO GET THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM, AND IT'S HOW IT'S ACTUALLY DEALT WITH BY THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE ACTUAL EVENT. >> I UNDERSTAND. AND WHAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING TO US IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK APPLICANTS PROVIDE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A SERIES -- ASK OR ANSWER A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MITIGATE SOME OF THESE POTENTIAL CHALLENGES THAT MAY ARISE IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS LINE-UPS AND THERE IS OVERFILL, THERE IS NOISE, HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS BYLAW AMENDMENT IS ASKING, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> YES, AND I THINK IT'S VERY VALUABLE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I BELIEVE YOU CALL IT RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALK AND COMMERCIAL SIDEWALK IS ONE OF THE -- ANOTHER KEY FACTOR THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FOOT TRAFFIC ALONGSIDE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC BECAUSE ONCE YOU START SEEING MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE, THEN ADD ALCOHOL TO THAT MIX, IT CAN SOMETIMES BE A RECIPE FOR AN ACCIDENT TO HAPPEN. >> RIGHT. AND IN THE CITY OF CALGARY, WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE FUN, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE IN A SAFE WAY THAT'S RESPECTFUL FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA BECAUSE CALGARY IS REALLY FOR EVERYONE. SO IN MY HAND, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS NOTE FROM CHIEF HANSEN? >> YES, I HAVE. >> YOU ARE AWARE OF IT. AND CAN YOU CHARACTERIZE WHAT THE TONE OF THE LETTER IS FROM THE CHIEF FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ONE IN THEIR HAND? >> YEAH, I CAN PUT IT UP ON -- >> WOULD YOU MIND TERRIBLY? >> KIND OF LIKE THAT. MADAM CLERK, THERE WE GO. SO ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THAT THE CALGARY POLICE SERVICE AND IT'S SIGNED BY OUR CHIEF AND ALSO THE CALGARY POLICE COMMISSION IS COPIED, THE SERVICE IS IN SUPPORT OF PROVIDING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CHALLENGES THAT COULD BE COMING FROM EVENT TENTS, IS THAT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE? >> ABSOLUTELY, AND I THINK IT'S MORE ALONG THE LINES THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND INDUSTRY AT THE FRONT END ALONG WITH THE COMMUNITY SO THEY CAN COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. RATHER THAN TRYING TO DEAL WITH A PROBLEM AT THE END. >> THANK YOU. AND FROM A POLICING STANDPOINT, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS OVERKILL, IS THIS DOING TOO MUCH OR IS THIS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OR HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE IT FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE? >> FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT POINT OF VIEW, I'M ALWAYS A FIRM BELIEVER THAT BEING PROACTIVE RATHER THAN REACTIVE IS ALWAYS A WAY FORWARD BECAUSE IF YOU CAN PUT LESS -- IF YOU CAN PUT THE RESOURCES IN AT THE BEGINNING, YOU PROVIDE LESS RESOURCES AT THE END IF IT'S DONE PROPERLY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR. ALDERMAN KEATING. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, WERE YOU CALLED OR DID YOU HAVE TO ATTEND ANY OF THE COMPLAINTS LAST YEAR? >> YES, I WAS WORKING THEN, UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS FROM 8:00 IN THE MORNING TILL 4:00 IN THE MORNING LAST YEAR EVERY DAY. >> AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE PUT CPS RATHER THAN YOU SPECIFICALLY BUT THAT'S PERFECTLY, I DIDN'T MEAN THAT, BUT WHAT WERE THE ACTIONS TAKEN OR COULD YOU TAKE ACTIONS AT THAT TIME? >> THERE WERE SEVERAL INCIDENTS WHERE WE CAME ACROSS THINGS THAT OBVIOUSLY WERE IN VIOLATION OF CERTAIN LEGISLATIONS. I MEAN, THE LIST GOES ON. I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ACTUALLY NAME ANY PREMISE OR WHAT THE THING WAS -- UNFAIR -- BUT WE CAME ACROSS THINGS WE FELT IF WE HAD GONE TO THE BEGINNING AND WERE SITTING HERE DISCUSSING THIS TOGETHER WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS. SIMPLE THINGS LIKE FIRE CODE BEING ADDRESSED LATER ON OR GIVEN THE REGULATIONS OR TOBACCO REDUCTION ACT, ALL THESE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE SOMETIMES FORGET THAT COULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE ACTUAL BUSINESS AT THE TIME AND WE SAW SOME VERY STRANGE THINGS WHEN WE WERE THERE. >> THANK YOU. >> I SORT OF FEEL LIKE I'D RATHER HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE THINGS. (Laughing) MAYBE NOT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. CONSTABLE CANE, IS IT? >> CANE. >> THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY. A COUPLE THINGS, WE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INDICATING THAT THEY HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RANCHMANS BUT THEY DID HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH SOME NOISE AND AT ONE POINT, THIS PERSON ACTUALLY CALLED 311 ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT WERE CURRENTLY BEFORE THAT HAD BEEN CALLED INTO 311 SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME TIME BEFORE ANYBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THEIR COMPLAINT. IS THERE A MORE PROACTIVE WAY THAT CITIZENS CAN CONTACT THE SAFETY TASK FORCE AS AN EXAMPLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES? >> AS OF LAST YEAR, I INTRODUCED THAT WE HAVE A SPECIFIC MAILBOX THAT COMES DIRECTLY TO MYSELF AND OBVIOUSLY I CAN THEN RELAY THAT TO OTHER AGENCIES, BUT IF YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT PROCESS, THEN CERTAINLY IF A COMPLAINT COMES IN, A QUICK E-MAIL TO MY E-MAIL BOX OR THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE E-MAIL BOX WOULD ADDRESS THAT, IT MEANS WHEN WE'RE OUT AT NIGHT, WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT ALL THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN FROM THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, ADDRESS THEM, IF MY COLLEAGUES AND OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS WERE ABLE TO GO THEMSELVES, WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE A LOOK AT THAT. >> SO IT WOULD BE 24 HOURS LATER THOUGH. >> IF WE'RE OUT, WE CERTAINLY WOULD BE ABLE TO GO THERE. WHEN STAMPEDE COMES IN, WE CERTAINLY INCREASE OUR HOURS OF WORKING AND HOW WE'RE OUT AND ABOUT, SO THE E-MAIL SITUATION, I CAN CERTAINLY PICK IT UP THERE THEN OR WE CAN GIVE A NUMBER TO THE 311 AND THEY CAN CONTACT EITHER MYSELF OR MAYBE ONE OF THE OTHER TEAM DIRECT. >> IS THERE ANOTHER MECHANISM THAT PEOPLE CAN USE TO REGISTER A COMPLAINT AND EXPECT TO GET SOME ACTION THAT NIGHT? >> THERE IS THE PSC OR THE PUBLIC SERVICE CENTRE SO IF IT GOES TO 311, THEY WILL SOMETIMES DIRECT IT TO THEM AND THEN IT GOES OBVIOUSLY TO A DISTRICT UNIT. THE ONLY DOWNSIDE WITH THAT IS IS THAT SOMETIMES THE DISTRICT UNIT MAY NOT SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE SO... >> IF SOMEBODY WAS BREAKING THE LAW, WHATEVER THAT LAW IS, THEN THE PROCESS WOULD BE TO CALL 911, RIGHT? >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. SO IF IT WAS A LEGAL ISSUE, THERE'S CERTAINLY A MECHANISM THROUGH 911. I KNOW WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT 311. 311 IS GOOD BUT THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE 911 IS A PROCESS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING. SO IN YOUR DEALINGS THROUGH THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE IN THE PAST, IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH ENFORCEMENT IN SOME OF THESE FACILITIES? >> SOME THINGS GET FRUSTRATING FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW THAT WE CAN WRITE TICKETS, WE CAN GIVE ADVICE, BUT SOME THINGS, AS ALDERMAN LOWE WAS SAYING, THERE IS A HAMMER, BUT I BELIEVE IN EDUCATION RATHER. THE POTENTIAL THERE IS THAT DO WE TRY AND SHUT A PLACE DOWN THAT'S AS WE CALL IT FULL SWING WHEN YOU COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE A PROBLEM JUST BY CLOSING IT? IF THERE'S AN INTERMITTENT SAFETY ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC, YES, WE WILL, WE HAVE TO. -- IMMINENT. WE DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN WE'RE OUT DOING NORMAL VISITS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO ESTABLISHMENTS, TENTS I JUST SEE ARE AN EXTENSION TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS AND I THINK THEY SHOULD FALL INTO THE SAME CRITERIA. >> AND HOW GOOD OF RECORDS WOULD YOU GUYS KEEP ON A FACILITY SUCH AS YOU HAD TO DO SOME ENFORCEMENT AND THEN THE NEXT NIGHT, IT WAS LESS ENFORCEMENT, THE SUBSEQUENT NIGHT MAYBE MORE DETAIL, SEATING CAPACITY ISSUE, LOUD NOISE ISSUE, LIKE ALL THOSE KIND OF SPECIFICS, WOULD THAT ALL BE RECORDED ON EACH SITE? >> EACH SEPARATE AGENCY KEEPS TRACK OF TIR OWN, BUT I ALSO TRY AND KEEP TRACK OF EACH OF THE AGENCIES AND WHAT IT IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT HADN'T BEEN DONE BY OBVIOUSLY SOME OF MY PREVIOUS COLLEAGUES, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I'M WORKING TOWARDS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THAT MONITORING SITUATION SO THAT WHEN WE COME TO THESE TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS, WE CAN ACTUALLY ACTIVELY SHOW. >> AND MY STRUGGLE WITH THIS BYLAW RIGHT NOW, AND WHICH IS THE REASON I WAS ASKING YOU SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, IS JUST WONDERING ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT KNOWING THAT WE'VE GOT RULES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD AND THE ABILITY FOR ORGANIZATIONS TO RESPOND WITHOUT HAVING TO GO DOWN THE WHOLE REGULATORY PROCESS OR AT LEAST HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IN THE FUTURE, AND ADJUSTING THEIR BEHAVIOUR ACCORDINGLY OR MAKING SURE THAT THE BEHAVIOURS ADHERED TO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY KNOW THAT REGULATIONS WILL BE FORTHCOMING. DO YOU THINK THAT ITSELF MIGHT ACTUALLY CREATE SOME GREATER, I GUESS, COMPLIANCE? >> IT ALWAYS HELPS, BUT I'M ALWAYS A FIRM BELIEVER THAT DEALING WITH IT AT THE FRONT END IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN DEALING WITH IT AT THE BACK END AND I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT WE'RE CLARIFYING ON HERE. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT JUST STAMPEDE TENTS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TENTS IN GENERAL? I THINK THAT'S THE TWO ISSUES THAT I SEE THAT'S HERE THAT WE DO HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS TENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR BUT WE ALSO HAVE STAMPEDE EVENTS, SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHEN YOU LOOK AT STAMPEDE TENTS AND WE START LOOKING AT THAT, YES, WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE, SO THE FACT IS WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE MEANS THAT YOU'RE NOW PUTTING MORE DRAIN ON THE RESOURCES THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT FOR THE CITY, SO IF YOU THEN LOOK AT THAT AND MOVE THAT FORWARD TO SPECIAL EVENT TENTS PER SE, WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WE'RE DEALING WITH NORMAL BUSINESS, WE'RE ADDING A COUPLE EXTRA THINGS TO IT, SO I THINK FROM MY VIEW LOOKING AT THIS, STAMPEDE EVENTS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ESPECIALLY BUT SPECIAL EVENT TENTS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AS A WHOLE AS WELL. >> LISTEN, I'M NOT GOING TO DISPUTE THAT ASSERTION FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. FROM A POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PERSPECTIVE, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I HAVE TO TRY AND WEIGH ALL OF THOSE KIND OF ISSUES TOGETHER IN HOW MANY RESOURCES ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOCATE INTO OUR OWN INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROCESSES ARE CARRIED FORWARD IN A TIMELY FASHION SO THAT IF SOMEBODY IS APPLYING FOR A TENT TODAY, THAT THEY CAN ALL BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO STAMPEDE TIME. PERSONALLY, I'D MUCH RATHER SEE US INTRODUCING SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND LET THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT IN SIX MONTHS' TIME, CALENDAR YEAR, IS GOING TO COME INTO EFFECT AS OPPOSED TO ONCE WE'VE GIVEN IT THREE READINGS. THAT'S WHERE I'M CHALLENGED A LITTLE BIT. RIGHT NOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE'LL BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND ASSESS ALL OF THESE THINGS PRIOR TO STAMPEDE. ANYWAYS, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN JONES. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MY QUESTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO ALDERMAN CHABOT'S. OUTSIDE OF THE 311 CALLS, HOW MANY 911 CALLS WERE YOU RECEIVING LAST YEAR? >> I DON'T HAVE THEM WITH ME. I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE SENT IN EARLIER. >> OKAY. AND HOW MANY ARRESTS DO YOU HAVE? >> THAT'S -- THE PROBLEM WITH THE ARREST SITUATION, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT IT, IT GOES BACK TO WHAT I WOULD SEE NEGATIVE SPILL. IF YOU WERE TO SAY HOW MANY ARRESTS WERE DIRECT WITHIN THE TENTS, THOSE ARE VERY MINIMAL BUT HOW MANY ARRESTS WERE MADE ONCE PEOPLE WERE LEAVING TENTS? I'D SAY WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK UP INTO A DIFFERENT CATEGORY HERE, SO WHEN WE CATEGORIZE FOR THIS, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR OUR ANALYSTS TO ACTUALLY COME FORWARD AND SAY IT WAS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE TENTS. HOWEVER, YOU ADD ALCOHOL AND PEOPLE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO START GETTING MORE ARRESTS. IT'S JUST A FACT OF LIFE. >> SO DOES IT FACTOR INTO YOUR APPROVALS? >> IT WOULD IF WE COULD GET -- IF WE COULD ACTUALLY PROVE IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM A TENT THEN, YES, IT WOULD PROBABLY. BUT IF IT WAS FROM A GENERALIZE AGO OF AN AREA, THEN I HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF CAN I PROVE THAT NEGATIVE SPILL CAME FROM A CERTAIN PLACE. IT'S EXACTLY LIKE IF I PUT IT IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH IT, A DRUNK DRIVER, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARREST HIM, DO YOU THEN TRACE IT BACK TO THE PLACE THAT YOU CAME FROM? THAT'S ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THAT, SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE WHERE THEY CAME FROM, BUT YOU MADE THE ARREST, AND YOU KNOW IT'S PROBABLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FACT THAT THOSE EXTRA -- >> I ACTUALLY DON'T MEAN SOMEBODY GETTING INTO A CAR AND LEAVING AND SAYING ONSITE. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF IT COMES FROM THAT WE HAD, I'LL USE AN EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A HUNDRED ARRESTS, A TENT BASED ON DISORDER, THEN, YES, THAT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE TENT THE FOLLOWING YEAR. >> I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A RESTAURANT PER SE THAT THE WHOLE YEAR, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN A TENT GOES UP AND ARRESTS START TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF IT, THAT WOULD BE A FACTOR THEN, WOULD IT NOT? >> IT WOULD, YES. >> AND I TAKE IT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE ONE-NIGHT STANDS, IT'S MAINLY THE COMPLAINTS COME THROUGH WITH THE TEN-DAY STAMPEDE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. >> YES, AND I'VE ACTUALLY DEALT WITH QUITE A FEW OF THE ONE-NIGHT EVENTS THAT ARE GOING ON AND I'VE ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY GONE OUT TO THE SITES AND SPOKE TO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT ARE ORGANIZING IT. AND ONCE THEY START TELLING YOU WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR SO MANY YEARS, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH AN EVENT THAT'S BEEN GOING FOR TEN YEARS AND NEVER HAD ANY COMPLAINTS. I THINK WE'VE CERTAINLY GOT TO BE CONSIDERATE THAT STAMPEDE, AS THE CITY GROWS, STAMPEDE'S GOING TO GROW AND WE'RE GOING TO START MOVING OUT INTO THE NEIGHBOURHOODS THAT NEVER USED TO SEE A STAMPEDE TENT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN JONES. ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOLLOWING UP ON ALDERMAN CHABOT'S. IN YOUR OPINION, DO YOU SEE THIS CONCEPT, EVEN IF ITS EXPEDITED FORMAT THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED, FEASIBLE TO PROCEED THIS YEAR? >> WE'VE SET UP A LOT -- WE'VE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF PRE-SCREENING ALREADY AS A TEAM, SO WE HAVE A LOT OF PLACES SET AND READY TO GO. SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET IT THROUGH IF IT GOES THROUGH THIS YEAR BUT THAT'S OBVIOUSLY UP TO COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE WORK YOU'RE DOING HERE, I THINK YOU'RE DOING AN AMAZING JOB. I THINK THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES AN AMAZING JOB UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHIEF AND BEING VERY PREVENTATIVE ORIENTED RATHER THAN ENFORCEMENT ORIENTED AND I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY LAUDIBLE. IT REALLY MAKES ME PROUD. I WILL SORT OF ASK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE CHIEF'S LETTER UP THERE, THOUGH, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB AT WHAT YOU DO. MY QUESTION IS IS LAND USE A TOOL TO ENACT THIS THROUGH OR COULD YOU CONCEIVE OF OTHER SORT OF MECHANISMS WHERE WE COULD SIT DOWN, DO A PROACTIVE PRELIMINARY SCREENING, MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE, MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE PROCESSS ARE IN PLACE, RIGHT, WITHOUT HAVING IT INVOLVE LAND USE, BECAUSE TO EVOKE THE MAYOR'S PHRASE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE USING A SLEDGE HAMMER FOR A FLEA AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF LAUDIBLE AND IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY THINGS TACHBD TO IT, I'M JUST NOT SURE WE'RE USING THE RIGHT VEHICLE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE. -- ATTACHED. >> ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SITE LAY-OUT HERE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WAY THE SITE IS LAY OUT FROM A POLICING POINT OF VIEW, YOU IMAGINE YOU HAVE AN ENTRANCE THAT NOW FILTERS OUT ON TO A BUSY, BUSY TRANSPORT ROUTE. THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMEBODY TO GET HURT INCREASES TENFOLD. BY BEING IN AT THE VERY BEGINNING, WE HAVE THAT CHANCE TO MOVE THINGS AROUND AND TO MAKE IT A SAFE AND VIABLE PLACE -- >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THIS WITHOUT GETTING INVOLVED WITH LAND USE? OR NOT? >> I FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO. I FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A NECESSARY WAY OF GETTING ALL THE AGENCIES, ALL THE AGENCIES THAT WE DIRECTLY DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER, I.E. FROM A PROVINCIAL POINT OF VIEW, AT THE FRONT END OF THE TABLE SO THAT THEY CAN -- AND I FEEL THAT THAT IS THE KEY FUNDAMENTAL HERE FOR ME IS THAT WE WORKING SMARTER RATHER THAN HAVING TO WORK HARDER AND THAT WE'RE OPENING UP DOORS AND BETTER COMMUNICATION WITH THE INDUSTRY RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO AND DEAL WITH INDUSTRY AFTERWARDS. >> IN AN ENFORCEMENT BASIS, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I GET TO MAYBE REPHRASE MY QUESTION ONE LAST TIME. IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE ALL OF THOSE THINGS WITHOUT HAVING TO GET INVOLVED WITH A LAND USE PROCESS, YOU'D BE JUST AS FINE WITH THAT? >> I'M GOOD WITH ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT A SAFER CITY. >> THANK YOU. OKAY. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, CONSTABLE CANE. PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD RULES IN PLACE THAT REQUIRED ALL TENTS OF THIS NATURE TO HAVE A DP. AND SINCE THE LAND USE BYLAW CHANGE, WE'RE SEEING MORE TENTS SHOW UP IN NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT HAVEN'T HAD THEM IN THE PAST AND OPERATORS THAT HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THEM, WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND YOUR EXPERIENCE, WERE YOU HERE PRIOR WHEN TENTS NEEDED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS? >> NO. >> SO I MIGHT NOT ASK YOU THAT QUESTION, MAYBE I'LL ASK BLEW THAT QUESTION. SO YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PROBLEM SOLVING AHEAD OF TIME. >> THAT'S IT. AND THAT'S MY WHOLE KEY ISSUE HERE, IS THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS A CITY OURSELVES. IF I CAN THROW A BIT OF CONTEXT IN THIS, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL OF THE INDUSTRY CONTACTS IN VARIOUS SITES LIKE CHICAGO AND NEW YORK AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY DO AS A GENERAL RULE. IF YOU GO TO NEW YORK OR CHICAGO, THEY SIT DOWN AND START TALKING WITH INDUSTRY AT THE FRONT END WHENEVER THEY'RE DEALING WITH ANYTHING, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT FIXED STRUCTURES, SO THAT THE POLICE SERVICE AND ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES ARE THERE, AND THEY CAN GET THE MATTERS RESOLVED SO THAT THEY CAN GET ON WITH THE EVENT. THE POLICE SERVICE AND ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES CAN PRE-PLAN THEIR NUMBERS SO THAT THEY CAN DEAL WITH IT. AND I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT STAMPEDE AS IT STANDS NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT STAMPEDE WAS ONCE CITY CORE. WHAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE NOW, BASED ON SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE MANY YEARS IN THE OTHER AGENCIES, IS THAT WE'RE NOW STARTING TO MOVE OUT INTO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. AND THAT IS WHERE I THINK PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO STEM THE COMPLAINTS FROM, THAT IT WASN'T HERE BEFORE, IS IT A GOOD THING? ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE IF YOU START PUTTING TENTS OUT -- I'M TRYING TO BE AN OPEN-MINDED HERE, YOU START PUTTING THEM OUT INTO THE COMMUNITIES, DOES THAT MEAN THAT PEOPLE HAVE LESS PLACES TO DRIVE BECAUSE WE KNOW, SO WE HAVE TO THINK SMARTER AS WELL AND I THINK THE OTHER KEY TO IT IS THE TRANSPORTATION SO THIS IS JUST ONE PIECE OF A LARGE PUZZLE. >> AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, IT REMIND ME A LITTLE BIT OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE NEIGHBOURHOOD PUBS. IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF SCALE, AND IT'S A MATTER OF BEHAVIOUR, AND WE WANT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF INTEGRATION BUT IF THERE'S A CERTAIN TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR STEMMING FROM THEM, THEN COMMUNITIES WILL REJECT HAVING THAT KIND OF LAND USE IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD. NOW, THE IDEA OF -- I KNOW THAT YOU'RE WORKING IN PREVENTION IN THIS AREA AND LOOKING AT THE CITIES THAT YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED, IN THINGS LIKE SOFT CLOSINGS AND HOW TO DEAL WITH LINE-UPS AND THAT SORT OF THING, SO CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MIDNIGHT COMES ALONG AND YOU HAVE TO CLOSE A TENT IMMEDIATELY AND THEN YOU GET SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE SPILLING OUT ON A STREET, WHO MAY BE INTOXICATED AND HOW DOES A SOFT CLOSING WORK? >> SOFT CLOSING IS MORE -- OKAY, I'LL LOOK AT THE SOFT CLOSING FIRST. SOFT CLOSING IS THAT YOU'RE SLOWLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PREMISES THAT ARE CLOSING DOWN SO RATHER THAN AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING EVERYBODY EMPYTIES OUT ON TO THE STREET AND IT BECOMES A COMPLETE NIGHTMARE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NOT ENOUGH TRANSPORTATION, YOU'VE GOT NOT ENOUGH -- FOOD VENDORS ARE EVERYWHERE, YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE TRYING TO MILL AROUND, WE LIVE IN THE CITY THAT GOES FROM -40 ALL YEAR ROUND TO 0 AT SOME POINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE SOFT CLOSING IDEA IS WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T START CREATING THIS BAR-HOPPING SOCIETY. AND THAT WE'VE ALSO GOT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING THE INDUSTRY TO GET THE BURDEN OF THAT COST. THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF THERE. YOU'RE ASKING THE INDUSTRIES TO STAY OPEN LONGER WHERE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY MAKING THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY MONEY, THEY ONLY PAY THE STAFF LONGER TO STAY ON, IT'S A GREAT IDEA IN THE LONG RUN, ABSOLUTELY, BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW WE INTRODUCE IT. IF YOU THEN START TALKING ABOUT HOW IS IT TO ACTUALLY CLOSE A PLACE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT RECENTLY, WE CLOSED A VENUE DOWN AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING, PURELY WITH THE SAFETY ISSUE, THEIR FIRE PANEL HAD GONE, WE HAD TO EVENTUALLY JUST EMPTY, AND THAT WAS 450 PATRONS. 450 PATRONS, WE HAD 10 THAT POTENTIALLY WENT TO A FIST FIGHT NOT JUST WITH THE POLICE BUT WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL SO YOU THEN START DRAWING IN POLICE RESOURCES TO COME AND LOOK AFTER THAT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'VE GOT TO BE MINDFUL OF, THAT YOU'RE NOW GOING TO START PUTTING THE PEOPLE OUT ON TO THE STREET AND THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE ANNOYED BECAUSE THEY'RE ENJOYING, GREAT A TIME, THEY'RE ENJOYING THEMSELVES. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE PREMISE GET IT BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY I WANT MY MONEY, I'VE PAID FOR THIS. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES RAISED WHEN YOU START CLOSING PLACES. I PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S THE LAST, LAST RESORT. IT'S EASIER TO DEAL WITH A PLACE ONCE IT'S CLOSED, ABSOLUTELY, WE THEN DEAL WITH THE OWNERSHIP THEN. BUT TO DEAL WITH IT AT THE TIME UNLESS IT'S AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO HUMAN LIFE, THEN IT'S EASIER JUST TO LET THINGS GO AND MONITOR IT THAN TRYING TO DEAL WITH IT AT THE TIME. >> I WOULD AGREE. NOW, THIS YEAR, BECAUSE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE SEEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE SYSTEM AND YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH THIS SPECIAL TEAM TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE ISSUES, SO WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT YOU -- WE HEARD ABOUT LINE-UPS AND TRYING TO SEPARATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NORMAL PEDESTRIANS WALKING BY AND PEOPLE WHO ARE EXITING THE PREMISE, FOR EXAMPLE. SMOKING, STORING OF LIQUOR, I WOULD IMAGINE, ALL SORTS OF ISSUES ARE BEING HANDLED. DO YOU NOTICE A DIFFERENCE IN THE APPROACH BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES WITH YOUR GROUP PRIOR TO GETTING THEIR PERMIT? A WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH YOU? >> I THINK, YES, THERE IS, AND I THINK CERTAINLY THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE AS WELL THAT I BELIEVE THAT EVEN IF YOU WENT TO THEM ANYWAY, THEY WOULD DO IT. THIS IS JUST A GOOD WAY THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD AND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY TO SEE THAT WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE AS TO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS WHAT THEY CALL A REEFER REFRIGERATOR UNIT, NOW IT'S RUNNING, DO WE GO FOR AN ELECTRIC ONE, DO WE GO FOR A GAS-POWERED ONE BASED ON WHERE IT IS, SO IT'S LIKE WHAT I SAID, IT'S NEGATIVE SPILL, IT'S ALSO, IS THE SIDEWALK, WAS IT EVER DESIGNED TO HOLD THAT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE NOW WE'RE ADDING MORE PEOPLE TO IT. SO ARE WE THEN ADDING THINGS LIKE PARKING, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WILL COME AND DRIVE. A LOT OF PLACES, PARKING IS PREMIUM. IS IT THAT WE CAN GET THE SERVICES IN THERE TO GET THE PEOPLE OUT? SO WE HAVE TO -- ALL THESE THINGS ARE ALL THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO CONSIDER AT THE FRONT END AND ALSO, AS I SAID, HOW PEOPLE ARE EXITING FROM THESE VENUES AND HOW THEY'RE GAINING ACCESS TO THEM, AND THEN DO WE THEN HAVE TO DEAL WITH -- DO WE CLOSE THEM DOWN BECAUSE OF CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL? WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT FINE BALANCE BETWEEN ALL YEAR ROUND AND TEN DAYS. >> THEN WHEN WE GET THAT BALANCE, WE'LL LIKELY SEE MORE COMMUNITIES INTERESTED IN -- AND WELCOMING THESE TYPES OF USES IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOODS BECAUSE THERE IS THAT BALANCE. NOW, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON, I THINK YOU'RE AWARE OF IT. IT'S TALKING ABOUT A THREE-WEEK PROCESS WHERE THE CIRCULATION WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO IS IT LEE MAG, THE LICENCE ESTABLISHMENT MULTI-AGENCY GROUP, WHICH IS A GROUP THAT YOU REFER TO. >> YES, IT'S MORE LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE OF PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCES, JUST ANOTHER ACRONYM. BUT IT'S EFFECTIVELY THE SAME PEOPLE FROM THOSE TEAMS, SO RATHER THAN HAVING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PHYSICALLY GOING OUT DOING THE INSPECTIONS, IT'S THEIR SUPERIORS THAT ARE ACTUALLY AND THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISION SO IT'S -- WE'RE GETTING THE HEADS OF THESE DEPARTMENTS AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY THERE TO MAKE A CALCULATED DECISION. >> AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS PROCESS THE APPLICATION WITHIN THREE WEEKS, SO IF THERE IS AN APPEAL TIME ALLOTTED... IT'S BEEN ACTING UP ALL DAY. SO THREE WEEKS IS SUFFICIENT, THEN? >> THREE WEEKS IS SUFFICIENT. AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT TO CONSIDER WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT THREE WEEK, OBVIOUSLY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. I THINK THAT'S IT, CONSTABLE CANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AND FOR BEING SO GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE STILL HERE IN PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL, ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR WORSHIP. MY NAME IS TIM KITCHEN, I REPRESENT MILLHURST SUNNYSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. AND I'M ALSO A PARENT AND A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS. THIS QUESTION IS TO WHY WE WOULD COME UP AND SUPPORT A CHANGE, AND I THINK SPECIFICALLY OUR PLANNING COMMITTEE HAS GOT A LOT OF WORK. AND THAT WORK IS ENGAGING WITH RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY ON ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD AFFECT THE RESIDENTS. SO WE HAVE A FAIRLY HEAVY WORKLOAD WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS THAT COME THROUGH THERE. SO DO WE LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING ON ADDITIONAL WORK WITH THE VOLUNTEERS THAT WE HAVE? THE ANSWER WOULD BE WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR IT, BUT IF IT SHOULD COME UP, AND IT GENERALLY COMES UP IN THE FORM OF CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS. I REALLY LIKE WHAT CONSTABLE CANE HAD TO SAY, AND THAT IS EDUCATION AND ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM AT THE FRONT END OF A POTENTIAL PROBLEM, OPPORTUNITY, IS THE BEST APPROACH TO IT RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIX IT AFTER AS AN ISSUE. THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OFFERS US AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND THAT IS GET PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT THE FRONT END OF THE PROCESS AND THAT IS THERE IS GOING TO BE AN EVENT IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR OR CONCERNS FOR, IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, AND VOICE THEM AND EVERYBODY CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION THEN AND I'D RATHER A DIALOGUE WHICH IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK IT THROUGH RATHER THAN A DISCUSSION WHICH IS GENERALLY AN ARGUMENT. SO I'D LIKE YOU -- I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU SUPPORT THAT CHANGE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VOLUME OF CHANGE, I THOUGHT THOSE WERE GOOD QUESTIONS, JUST HOW MUCH OF AN EFFORT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WE'RE TALKING TWO OR THREE OR FOUR POTENTIAL DPs THAT ARE GOING TO COME THROUGH OUR COMMITTEE THROUGH THE YEAR, ADDITIONAL ONES, HARDLY AN IMPOSITION. BUT THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT I HAVE TO DO WHEN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS AFTERWARDS AS A VOLUNTEER IS NO COMPARISON, SO GIVE ME THE WORK AT THE FRONT END RATHER THAN THE BACK END OF THE PROCESS. WE'RE NOT SHY OF TRYING NEW THINGS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WOULD SAY WE GO LOOKING FOR NEW THINGS TO TRY. AND, YOU KNOW, I REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE EFFORTS THAT INDIVIDUALS TAKE UPON THEMSELVES TO TRY NEW THINGS. AND SPECIALTY TENTS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WE HAD TRIED OUT LAST YEAR AND WE HAD SOME ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AS A WHOLE, THOUGH, I THINK WE SHOULD EMBRACE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE GOING TO CHALLENGE US TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER. AND I THINK PART OF THE DOING BETTER IS EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. SO I WOULD SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> MR. KITCHEN, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THE EXPEDITED PROCESS, THE ABILITY OF COMMUNITIES TO RESPOND WITHIN THAT. YOU HEARD ALDERMAN FARRELL SPEAK ABOUT A THREE-WEEK PROCESS AND I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT FOR YOU, THIS QUESTION MAY BE UNFAIR, BUT ARE YOU PREPARED TO RESPOND TO A THREE-WEEK PROCESS? >> IN SHORT, YES. I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. THAT IS OUR THREE-WEEK WINDOW, WE HAVE REVIEW ALL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ON A THREE-WEEK BASIS ON A ROTATING THREE-WEEK EVERY THIRD MONDAY, SO -- >> THIS MAY BE OUT OF SYNCH WITH THAT SO I'M SAYING IF, YOU KNOW, THREE WEEKS BEGINNING TO END, YOUR CONSULTATION PERIOD COULD BE TEN DAYS INTO IT. >> YEAH. I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. I THINK THE CHALLENGE IN THIS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO HAD MENTIONED IT EARLIER, WAS THE FACT THAT IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL EXERCISE AS A BUSINESS OWNER, I SHOULD BE GIVING IT MORE THAN THREE WEEKS THOUGHT BEFORE I CAN GO OUT AND EMBARK ON MAKING A MAJOR INVESTMENT. IF IT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO DO YEAR OVER YEAR, I WOULD BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO FOR NEXT YEAR'S EVENT AND PLANNING FOR IT ABOUT THIS TIME AND I SHOULD BE IN THE EXECUTION STAGE AT THIS POINT. IF I'M TRYING TO FAST TRACK AND GET SOMETHING IN ON SHORT NOTICE, THEN THREE WEEKS IS PROBABLY A RUSH, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A SCHEDULE IN PLACE AND IT DOESN'T SEEM UNREASONABLE FOR PEOPLE TO PLAN IN ADVANCE. >> AND WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST TO ME OR HOW WOULD YOU REPLY TO ME IF I WAS TO SAY THAT WE GET APPLICATION ON TODAY, I SEND THE NOTICE OUT ON WEDNESDAY TELLING YOU THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK BY A WEEK WEDNESDAY, THAT NOT HEARING BACK WILL BE INTERPRETED AS NO COMMENT. >> IT'S VERY RARELY THAT YOU WOULD GET A NO COMMENT FROM OUR ORGANIZATION. >> NO, NO, BUT THIS IS A SPECIAL -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- ALDERMAN FARRELL'S PROPOSING A THREE-WEEK IN HER AMENDMENT. IF I UNDERSTAND HER AMENDMENT CORRECTLY, SHE'S PROPOSING A THREE-WEEK, A VERY ABBREVIATED PROCESS WHICH PUTS SOME VERY TIGHT TIME LINES IN IT. ONE OF MY CONCERNS -- >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> -- THIS IS MY PREVIOUS LIFE ON DEVELOPMENT AND APPEAL BOARD, THE COMPLAINT THAT CAME FORWARD, WE DIDN'T KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO CONSULT, WE WEREN'T CONSULTED. >> WELL, THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE'VE HANDLED THAT IN THE PAST, AND THAT REALLY BECOMES WE USE E-MAIL QUITE EXTENSIVELY AND THROUGH OUR WEBSITE, WE'LL DO A MAIL-OUT. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL FLYER DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF EVENT AND JUST OR THE KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND HOW MUCH EFFORT WOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO TRY AND TURN IT AROUND IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. MY PREFERENCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT TO BE DOING THE FIRE FIGHTING OR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE. IT'S TO PLAN IT EFFECTIVELY AND JUST BECAUSE OF THE DP STARTS IN THREE WEEKS, DOESN'T MEAN THE CONSULTATION PROCESS HAS TO START IN THREE WEEKS. I MEAN, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY -- >> THE ISSUE REALLY THOUGH, SIR, WE'RE LOOKING AT TENT FOR STAMPEDE, WE'RE IN MAY. >> YES. >> YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALREADY, UNLESS THE APPLICATIONS ARE IN PROCESS NOW, AND MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE NOT, SO IF WE DO SOMETHING, IT'S GOT TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY. AND I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT YOU WOULD ENDEAVOUR TO REPLY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, IF THERE WAS A TIME LIMIT ON IT? >> ABSOLUTELY, YES. NOT MY PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION, BUT, YES, WE'LL ENDEAVOUR TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, MR. KITCHEN. SO THE APPLICATIONS IN HILLHURST SUNNYSIDE ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS, AND THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DID UNDERTAKE TO GET THEIR COMMENTS IN PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING SO YOU WENT THROUGH THE EXERCISE, E-MAIL AND DELIVERING A HAND FLYER, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR. >> YES, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. YES. SO I GUESS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, INDIRECTLY, WE WERE GIVEN THE THREE WEEKS, AND WE RESPONDED TO IT IN KIND, I GUESS, TO DELIVER. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT I'M HERE TODAY, IS TO RESPOND TO THAT. ANY QUESTIONS? >> YES, I DO. THE HILLHURST SUNNYSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ISN'T SAYING NO TENTS THEN, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WHAT, ADDRESS ISSUES BEFORE THEY OCCUR? >> ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. I PREFER A PROACTIVE NATURE TO IT. I THINK THE LAND USE BYLAW THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE IS PRETTY REASONABLET CHARACTERIZES COMMERCIAL TENTS, AND IT FALLS INTO A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE CATEGORY. IN THAT DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL IS ONE OF WHAT WE WOULD FURTHER GO ON TO SAY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NIGHTCLUB AND A RESTAURANT. AND WHY DO WE GO INTO THAT DISTINCTION AND THE DISTINCTION IS WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS' CURRENTLY, WHAT'S THEIR ENVELOPE OF BUSINESS, AND WE WOULD SUPPORT AN EXTENSION OF THAT BUSINESS TO WHAT IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH A DP PROCESS FOR. WHEN IT STARTS TO STEP OUT OR PROCEED TO STEP OUTSIDE OF THAT ENVELOPE, THEN THAT RAISES CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE DURATION OF TIME IN WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. IT'S NOT A CASUAL THING WHERE -- IT'S NOT JUST A ONE-DAY EVENT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STAMPEDE, IT'S TEN DAYS, AND IT'S TWO WEEKS OF SOMEBODY'S TIME, SO IF YOU'RE HAVING A NOISE BYLAW UNTIL MIDNIGHT, THAT WILL IMPACT ON PEOPLE IF THE NOISE IS AT ITS PEAK LEVELS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL USE OF THE PROPERTY IS FOR. AND SO WE'RE VERY STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE BUSINESSES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, AND THE BUSINESS ENVELOPE, WE USE THAT TERM LOOSELY, AS TO WHAT THEY'RE ORIGINALLY AGREED TO OPERATE A BUSINESS ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND WOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM IN THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY, BUT WHEN WE START TO -- THE PERCEPTION IS THAT IT STRAYS OUTSIDE OF THAT ORIGINAL USE, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A VERY ENGAGED PROCESS TO TALK ABOUT WHERE THAT GOES. AND THAT'S WHAT I SEE THIS AS DOING. >> YOU'RE BRINGING UP ANOTHER ISSUE THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THAT COMMUNITY, NOT MAYBE BEFORE US BEFORE, BUT A BLURRING OF THE LAND USE AND HILLHURST SUNNYSIDE HAS A HISTORY OF ENJOYING GOOD PARTIES. THEY PUT ON THE SUN AND SALSA WITH THE BRZ EVERY YEAR, AND IT'S NOT LIKE YOU DON'T LIKE TO HAVE FUN. SO THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL, AND THANK YOU MR. KITCHEN. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOUR? HELLO, MR. PECK. >> YES, MAYOR, ALDERMEN, CITY STAFF, I LIVED HERE SINCE 1952, AND I WAS A CONTRACTOR SINCE THE EARLY '60s. IT ONLY TOOK A WEEK, MAYBE TWO WEEKS, TO GET A PERMIT BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE MORE BUREAUCRACY WE CREATE, THE MORE FEES WE WANT TO CHARGE. THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, IT SEEMS LIKE. I HAVE NEVER ANY PROBLEMS GETTING A PERMIT BUT IN THE '80s IT ALL CHANGED. IT WAS ALL FOR WHAT DO WE DO TO CHARGE MORE MONEY, THE PERMITS WERE SO CHEAP, JUST LIKE BORSCH. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SO MUCH. AS FAR AS THE TENT ISSUE, I FIND IT ALMOST HYPOCRITICAL. LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER -- THE PREACHER CAME INTO TOWN, USED THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS, HE HAD THE BIGGEST TENT THAT CALGARY HAS EVER SEEN, THEY HELD THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, THEY NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS. EVEN THE BEER GARDENS HAD TENTS, THE STAMPEDE HELD A BEER GARDENS ALSO, IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG TO GET A PERMIT. YOU JUST MAKE A PHONE CALL OR GO IN AND GIVE THEM 20, 50 BUCKS OR WHATEVER, YOU GOT A PERMIT. RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY WANTS TO HAVE A LAND USE TO CHARGE MONEY FOR IT, 3, 4, 5, $10.000, MAYBE $100.000. WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT? ALL MONEY? AREN'T PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING FUN AND BUSINESSES SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF IT? OR IS THE CITY SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF IT? THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, IT SEEMS LIKE. I FIND IS VERY DISTURBING. I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, LIKE I SAID, I LIVED HERE FROM THE EARLY '50s. SO LET'S GET BACK, LIKE CONSTABLE CANE INDICATED, WE GOTTA TALK TO EACH OTHER. THE CITY DEPARTMENTS, THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. EACH DEPARTMENT HAS TO SAY AND THEN BRING BEFORE COUNCIL AND NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. EVEN WITH METIS TRAIL, I INDICATED TO YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'M JUST MENTIONING TO YOU, THEY DON'T WANT TO BUY MY LAND, THEY WANT TO PUT IN A TWO-LANE FOR THE PRICE WHAT IS WORTH -- >> MR. PECK -- >> NO, I'M JUST INDICATING, AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN GO ON AND ON. LOOK AT THE STUFF IN BOWNESS, SAME THING, THE QUOTE SAID YOU NEED TWO EXCESS OR TWO EXITS BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE CITY IS BREAKING THEIR OWN CODES A LOT OF TIMES, AND THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING ABOUT ALL THIS IS WE SHOULD GET BACK BUT CONSTABLE CANE INDICATED, LIKE I'VE BEEN INDICATING SO MANY TIMES HERE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE ZONING, LOOK AT THE HOUSE THAT WAS FORCED TO BE HAVING A SECONDARY SUITE, THERE WAS NO WINDOWS IN THE BASEMENT. HOW CAN HE EVEN LOOK AT PUTTING IN A SUITE? NO ALLEY, NO NOTHING -- >> MR. PECK -- >> NO, I'M JUST INDICATING THESE THINGS, MR. MAYOR, I INDICATE THESE THINGS TO YOU BEFORE BUT MAYOR AND ALDERMEN AND CITY STAFF, LET'S TAKE THE BULL BY THE HORN AND LET'S GET BACK TO GOOD COMMON SENSE. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. NOT FOR CHARGING MONIES THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE CHARGING. WE SHOULD DROP ALL THE FEES. MORE THAN HALF AND GET BACK AND WORK FOR THE TAXPAYERS, LIKE WHOEVER YOU'RE WORKING FOR. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING ABOUT THAT. SO LET'S GET RID OF THIS SHENANIGANS AND GET DOWN TO BUSINESS. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO ANSWER THEM. >> THANKS, MR. PECK. >> NO QUESTIONS? >> I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU. >> I DON'T KNOW WHY. THANKS. >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL, ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOUR? ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? THANKS FOR WAITING, MR. CHANDLER. >> I MUST SAY AFTER WAITING ALL DAY, YOU GUYS DESERVE A RAISE 'CAUSE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU REGARDLESS WHAT STRIPES YOU ARE, BECAUSE THAT WAS MIND-NUMBING. YOU GUYS DO -- >> OH, MR. CHANDLER, MR. CHANDLER, THAT WAS ABOVE AVERAGE. (Laughing) >> WOW. I GUESS I REALIZE NOW WHEN SHANE AND PETER TELL ME HOW EXCITING CITY COUNCIL IS, THEY'RE LYING. BUT I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS CRAIG CHANDLER, AND TODAY I'M ADDRESSING YOU IN THE CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRESSIVE GROUP FOR INDEPENDENT BUSINESS. CALGARY'S LARGEST BUSINESS AND TAXPAYERS PAIR ORGANIZATION. THIS IS SUCH A BIG ISSUE TO SEVERAL OF OUR MEMBERS THAT I FELT A LETTER TO YOU WAS NOT ADEQUATE. THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND TIME I'VE EVER ADDRESSED CITY COUNCIL IN ANY MANNER SINCE PGIB HAS BEEN OPERATING IN CALGARY SINCE 1995. BGIB REPRESENTS A NUMBER OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN OR WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS BYLAW AMENDMENT. THE REPORT WHICH CREATED A BYLAW AMENDMENT AND THE AMENDMENT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION ON OR ABOUT MARCH 17, 2011, WILL BE A DETRIMENT TO BUSINESS DURING STAMPEDE AND WELL BEYOND. MANY BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE STAMPEDE AND ARE LOCKED INTO CONTRACTS WITH ENTERTAINMENT, FOOD AND MORE. CAN YOU REMEMBER, THESE BUSINESSES HAVE RECEIVED BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE STAMPEDE INITIATIVES. HOWEVER, WHAT SOME ARE REALIZING IN HORROR IS THE CITY OF CALGARY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY ENFORCING AND WILL BE ENFORCING THIS BYLAW AMENDMENT AND IT'S MAKING ALL THE APPLICABLE TENTS APPLY FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS IS MORE BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE AND FRUSTRATION FOR BUSINESS AND WILL ELIMINATE MANY OF THE PLANS ALREADY MADE AS THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TAKES EIGHT WEEKS AND THERE'S ALSO AN APPEAL PROCESS WHICH COULD RESULT IN ANOTHER 12 WEEKS OR AS ALDERMAN LOWE DISCOVERED EARLIER, A STAY OF THE PERMIT. EVEN THREE WEEKS IS UNFAIR TO THOSE THAT HAVE CONTRACTS ALREADY IN PLACE AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT ALL. FURTHER, ANY BUSINESS OWNERS ARE -- MANY BUSINESS OWNERS ARE COMPLETELY UNAWARE BECAUSE CITY HALL IS AT A SNAIL'S PACE GOING THROUGH THE LIST OF STAMPEDE TENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. THE CALGARY STAMPEDE ATTRACTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TOURISTS AND HAS A DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR ECONOMY. THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS NOTHING BUT A WAR AGAINST FUN. I ASK YOU TO NOT ONLY CONSIDER THE RAMIFICATIONS THIS WILL HAVE ON BUSINESSES AND CONTRACTS ALREADY IN PLACE BUT THE LOSS OF MONIES THAT WILL BE CREATING FOR THOUSANDS OF CALGARIANS. IN FACT, THERE ARE SEVERAL OF OUR MEMBERS WHOSE ESTABLISHMENTS WILL BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY CHANGING THIS PROCESS. WITH OUR POCKETBOOKS CONSTANTLY BEING PUNISHED YEAR AFTER YEAR BY CITY HALL, WE HOPE YOU WILL NOT BE ELIMINATING JOBS AND THUS PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO PAY THE CONTINUED TAX HIKES WE SEE FROM THIS ROOM. ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANKS FOR BEING HERE. ALDERMAN CARRA AND THEN ME. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THANK YOU, MR. CHANDLER, FOR STANDING TO APPEAR BEFORE US, DEALING WITH IT. I GUESS TWO QUESTIONS. THE FIRST QUESTION COMING OUT OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS THAT I THINK THE PGIB'S POSITION IS THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPACT TO THIS PROPOSED DP THAN WE'VE HEARD TODAY. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT SORT OF DISCRETION BETWEEN WHAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT YOU'RE STATING WILL BE THE CASE? >> THERE'S A LOT AND I'VE BEEN EDUCATING SOME OF OUR MEMBERS, THEY HAVE BUILDING PERMITS AND THEY HAVE DONE THESE PLANS, SOME ASSIGNED COUNTRY SINGERS FROM NASHVILLE, THEY'RE LOCKED IN THE CONTRACTS AND THEY HAD NO IDEA THERE WOULD BE THIS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THEY MIGHT GET TURNED DOWN AND IF THEY DO, THEY'RE OUT ALL THIS MONEY AND FOR SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ROUGH, AND THEY'RE MAKING END MEET AND THIS IS ENOUGH TO PUT THEIR NAIL IN THE COFFIN WITH SOME OF THEIR BUSINESSES SO I THINK WHAT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT HERE IS CONTRACTS THAT ARE IN PLAY, AND, YOU KNOW, ALDERMAN LOWE'S REFERENCED IT, IT'S MAY. THEY HAVE MADE THEIR PLANS WELL IN ADVANCE. AND THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO DELAY TILL NEXT YEAR OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU CAN GIVE SOME BUSINESSES A LITTLE MORE NOTICE, BUT RIGHT NOW, FOR THIS PARTICULAR STAMPEDE, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY HAVE CONTRACTS IN PLACE AND THIS WILL HAVE RAMIFICATIONS THAT I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN TAUT ABOUT AND THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION AND OUR POSITION ON THAT. IS THAT IT'S GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THEM. >> SO I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE CHART THAT WE SAW FROM ADMINISTRATION SAYING THAT THIS IS REALLY ONLY GOING TO AFFECT FOUR OR, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE TENTS, WHAT WAS THE NUMBER, SIX, SIX TENTS IN THE CITY, IS NOT CORRECT? >> IT'S NOT CORRECT AT ALL. WE EVEN HAVE SOME MEMBERS THAT HAVE CUSTOMER APPRECIATION EVENTS RELATED THAT HAVE FOOD AND LIQUOR AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME, AND THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT AT ALL AS WELL. SO IT REALLY DOES SEEM TO BE THIS WAR ON FUN AND WAR AGAINST BUSINESS, AND, YES, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT MUCH MORE. AND INDUSTRY WAS CONSULTED, YET I TALKED TO PEOPLE FROM THE CHAMBER, I TALK TO PEOPLE FROM BOWMA, MANY PEOPLE IN OUR EXECUTIVE AND MANY MEMBERS OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER CONSULTED, NOT ANYONE I TALKED TO WAS, SO INDUSTRY REALLY WASN'T BROUGHT INTO THE EQUATION HERE. >> I LOOK FORWARD TO ASKING ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THAT DISCREPANCY ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. MY OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU IS SAME QUESTION I ASKED THE CONSTABLE, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID ABOUT WORKING PROACTIVELY WITH ALL THE GROUPS FINDING THE BEST SOLUTION, WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES, I'M HUGELY ABOUT THAT. IS LAND USE THE BEST TOOL OR IS THERE A BETTER TOOL TO USE? >> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION, AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE OF THAT ANSWER, BUT INDUSTRY, LIKE US, IS WILLING TO WORK WITH ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TO FIND OUT IF WE CAN USE A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT OR DIFFERENT APPLICATION TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. BUT, AGAIN, I THINK A LOT OF IT RIGHT NOW, AND OUR CONCERN, IT'S ABOUT TIMING. AND STAMPEDE'S AROUND THE CORNER AND THERE'S A LOT OF WORRY RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY BECAUSE WE'RE COMING TO A CELEBRATION, AND CALGARY STAMPEDE IS A GREAT TIME FOR EVERYBODY. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THE WAR ON FUN SHOULD BE ENTERING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, THAT'S ALL. >> THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. BESIDES THE CONTRACTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE BUILDING PERMITS THAT ARE IN PLACE AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED. IS THAT -- YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF SOME THAT HAVE APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED? >> YES. THERE ARE SOME, ALDERMAN KEATING, THAT HAVE RECEIVED THEIR BUILDING PERMITS, HAVE BEEN APPROVED, AND THEY HAVE BEEN GOING ON AND OPERATING JUST AS IF THAT WAS ENOUGH. AND NOW IT SEEMS THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE THERE AND THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY AND I THINK, AGAIN, MAYBE DEALING WITH THIS NEXT YEAR WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND I DON'T OBJECT AT ALL TO WHAT ALDERMAN CARRA WAS SAYING EITHER, WE NEED TO DO THINGS IN THE FRONT END AND WORK TOGETHER AND THAT SORT OF THING. I LIKE A LOT OF WHAT I'VE HEARD BUT I THINK AGAIN IT COMES DOWN TO TIMING. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING. ALDERMAN MAR? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MR. CHANDLER, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. SO YOU'VE GOT DIFFERENT OPINION ON BUILDING PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. YOU UNDERSTAND, I KNOW YOU DO, THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH IS REALLY JUST ABOUT THE STRUCTURE, THE SIZE OF THE TENT AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS, WHEREAS THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN WHICH A PROCESS THAT WE USED TO HAVE, WE USED TO REQUIRE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, IF SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO DO AN EVENT TENT, THEN THEY WOULD S HAVE TO TICK SOME EXTRA BOXES ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD MITIGATE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES SURROUNDING THE EVENT IN WASHROOM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE, LINE-UPS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, IS THAT OVERLY ONEROUS ON A BUSINESS DO YOU THINK? >> I DON'T THINK TICKING ANY EXTRA BOXES IS ONEROUS ON A BUSINESS BUT GOVERNMENT MOVES AT THE PACE OF MOLASSES AND NAILS SO I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY, JUST AN EXTRA COUPLE MINUTES OF THEIR TIME. IT SEEMS TO BE A WHOLE NEW PROCESS AND OUR FEAR, AND I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS, BUT ANOTHER LEVEL OF BUREAUCRACY AND RED TAPE, AND GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO CUT RED TAPE LENGTH-WISE RATHER THAN HALF, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S -- THAT'S OUR CONCERN, BUT YOU MAKE IT SOUND SO SIMPLISTIC, ALDERMAN MAR, AND I DON'T THINK IS THAT AND THAT HE NOT THE PERSPECTIVE THAT INDUSTRY IS TAKING. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSULTED A LITTLE MORE AND MAYBE HAVE A CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH INDUSTRY AND WE CAN AGAIN ADDRESS IT NEXT YEAR AT SOME TIME, THAT MAY BE GREAT. >> BUT IN THEORY, YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA OF OUR TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFERENT EVENTS WOULD MITIGATE THINGS LIKE HUMAN WASTE AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS? >> SURE, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT, IN THEORY. >> IN THEORY. SO I'VE JUST GONE THROUGH SOUTH CALGARY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAS GOT A NEW -- NOT A NEW, THEIR MAJOR EVENT THING, IT'S ABOUT A 300, 350-PERSON TENT FOR WHAT THEY'RE CALLING INDULGE, AND I JUST WALKED THEM THROUGH THAT IN A MATTER OF A FEW DAYS GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THIS EVENT. AND IT DIDN'T SEEM TOO ONEROUS. IT IS EXACTLY A FUN EVENT, IT'S A COMMUNITY-BASED EVENT, AND IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMUNITY IN A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AREA. SO I THINK THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DELIVER THESE TYPE OF THINGS. AND THE COMMUNITY WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA OF TRYING TO MITIGATE OUT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT ONLY LOCATED IN A COMMUNITY, IT'S FOR THE COMMUNITY. >> YEAH, I THINK YOU CAN'T -- I GUESS BUSINESS SEES THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND SO DO YOU PROBABLY, A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION EXAMINE BUSINESS ARE TWO SEPARATE AGS PEKTS OF THINGS AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE WALKING THROUGH EVERYBODY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. IF YOU ARE, THAT'S GREAT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEDICATE YOURSELF TO DOING THAT, THAT'S GREAT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN. WE'RE CONCERNED WITH THE RED TAPE AND THE BUREAUCRACY WE'RE GOING TO BE SEEING AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THINGS AT THE FRONT END. THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT IDEAS TALKED ABOUT HERE, I'M NOT BELITTLING THAT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT'S REALLY A TIMING ISSUE AND WE'RE QUITE CONCERNED THERE MAY BE SOME THAT HAVE ALREADY SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN GETTING THINGS ORGANIZED THAT MAY END UP BEING TURNED DOWN AND THAT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY BECAUSE IF IT IS APPEALED, WELL, IT'S A STAY OF THE PERMIT AND GUESS WHAT, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AND THAT MIGHT OCCUR WITH SOME OF OUR MEMBERS AND THAT'S A CONCERN. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> THEY GOTTA FEED THE FAMILY AND THEY GOTTA PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE WE GOTTA KEEP CITY HALL GOING. >> OKAY. SO THE NEXT QUESTION THAT I HAVE, IT'S SPECIFICALLY TO THE POLICING STANDPOINT. SO WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE CALGARY POLICE SERVICE SIGNED BY THE CHIEF HIMSELF SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? >> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A TIMING ISSUE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT'S BAD NOW, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ANY BUSINESS OWNERS IN THIS CONSERVATIVE TOWN THAT ARE ANTI-LAW AND ORDER, BUT I THINK BECAUSE INDUSTRY WASN'T INCLUDED IN THIS CONSULTATION PROCESS, THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR OUR SIDE AND I THINK THE LETTER MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY WORDED IF SO. I MEAN, I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT WE WERE INCLUDED, BUT WHO'S GOING TO OPPOSE THE POLICE ON THINGS LIKE THAT? EVERYONE'S P FOR LAW AND ORDER BUT I DON'T THINK ANYONE LOOKS AT THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE. I RARELY MAKE ANY ADDRESSES TO YOU. YOU'VE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS, I DON'T COME TO CITY COUNCIL THAT OFTEN. I AM BECAUSE THERE'S THAT MUCH CONCERN. OBVIOUSLY IF I'M HERE MAKING THAT PRESENTATION TO YOU, INDUSTRY DOESN'T SEE IT THE SAME WAY THE CHIEF DOES. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. SO MR. CHANDLER, MY RECOMMENDATIONS, I'VE GOT SOME AMENDMENTS THAT I WAS THINKING OF PUTTING FORWARD AND I WORKED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THEM. AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT CONSTABLE CANE SUGGESTED, WHICH IS A SPECIAL TEAM THAT WE HAVE. IT'S WORKING VERY WELL WITH OUR BAR INDUSTRY IN SOLVING PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY START, AND AFTER THEY START, I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT'S A VERY COOPERATIVE GROUP THAT RATHER THAN TAKING AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE, WALKS THE INDUSTRY THROUGH PROBLEM SOLVING. IT'S BRILLIANT. BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS A THREE-WEEK PROCESS, SO THAT IT'S SENT DIRECTLY TO THIS TEAM, IT DOESN'T GET CIRCULATED CITY-WIDE, AND THE COMMUNITY, IF THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE INPUT, WOULD HAVE TO HAVE INPUT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD. BUT IT'S, IN MY VIEW, IMPORTANT FOR PROBLEM SOLVING BECAUSE WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED IS A RELUCTANCE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES UNTIL SOMETIMES, NOT EVERYONE, SOMETIMES THEY REQUIRE MEETINGS TO ADDRESS THEM SO WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ON THIS AMENDMENT? >> WELL, NOT OBJECTING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, NOT EVEN OBJECTING TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO BUT THREE WEEKS, IT'S LIKE SAYING THE FOOT BRIDGE ONLY COST $25 MILLION, YOU CAN'T ALWAYS TRUST EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO SAY. AND THAT'S THE BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE. AND WE'RE CONCERNED THAT RAMMING ANYTHING THROUGH IN THREE WEEKS WOULD -- REALLY IT BEGS THE QUESTION THEN IF YOU CAN DO THIS IN THREE WEEKS, YOU SHOULD BE DOING A LOT MORE EFFICIENTLY AT CITY HALL TOO THEN. >> I THINK YOU'RE BRINGING UP A GOOD QUESTION, AND IF YOU WANT TO OPEN THE DOOR TO THAT ONE, WORKING REALLY WELL WITH THIS TEAM IS EVERYBODY IS SITTING AROUND THE TABLE DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC ISSUE, SIMILAR TO OUR CENTRE CITY TEAM THAT IS WORKING IN PLANNING, SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT A POINT THERE. WHAT WORKS BRILLIANTLY WITH THIS TEAM IS THEY ALL ARE SITTING AROUND THE TABLE AND THEY GO THROUGH THESE PERMITS AND COME UP WITH SOME REALLY GREAT SUGGESTIONS THAT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT HADN'T THOUGHT OF ABOUT LINE-UPS AND WHAT DO YOU DO WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SMOKE, WHERE DO THEY GO AND SMOKE, WHICH IS A BIG ISSUE. SO IT'S REALLY PROACTIVE AND COULD SAVE US MONEY, TAXPAYER MONEY, BECAUSE WE WON'T BE HAVING TO INCREASE OUR POLICE SERVICE DURING STAMPEDE WEEK. IT'S CRIME PREVENTION REALLY. >> AND I WOULDN'T OBJECT TO THAT AND I'M NOT BELITTLING WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I'M NECESSARILY SAYING THE TIMING RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOOD, THE INDUSTRY DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THEY WERE CONSULTED AND WE TALKED TO OTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, AND THEY FEEL THE SAME WAY. SO I JUST THINK MAYBE HAVING SOMETHING TO DEAL WITH THIS AND STREAMLINE THINGS AND MAKE THEM BETTER NEXT YEAR MIGHT BE THE GREAT TIME TO DO IT. AGAIN, I APPLAUD EVEN THE EFFORTS OF YOU RESPONDING TRYING TO MAKE IT THREE WEEKS, ET CETERA, BUT IT REALLY IS, AND WE DID CONSULT A LOT OF OUR MEMBERS ON THIS, IT'S THE TIMING AND NEXT YEAR. THIS IS A GOOD THOUGHT. BUT IT'S JUST TIMING I THINK IS EVERYTHING. >> AND YOU BROUGHT UP A QUESTION THAT WE CAN ASK ADMINISTRATION, HOW MANY ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ALL ARE IN THE PROCESS NOW AND ARE BEING PROCESSED NOW AND NOT WITH DELAY. SO THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT I CAN CLARIFY WITH ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. >> THANKS FOR THAT. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> MR. CHANDLER, DO YOU KNOW OF ANY BUSINESSES THAT WERE CONSIDERING PUTTING UP A TENT AND DECIDED AGAINST IT AFTER HEARING THAT THIS WAS COMING ALONG? >> ONLY TWO THAT I'VE TALKED TO BUT I HAVEN'T REALLY -- >> TWO THAT YOU KNOW OF? >> THAT I KNOW OF BUT I HAVEN'T LOOKED AND ASKED THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION. >> THAT'S AN INDICATOR. ARE THERE ANY BUSINESSES AFFECTED THAT YOU KNOW OF OTHER THAN BARS AND RESTAURANTS? >> YEAH, THERE'S A PRINTING COMPANY THAT ACTUALLY WANTED TO JUST HAVE A CUSTOMER APPRECIATION AND FEELS THAT THE PROCESS IS NOT GOING TO BE HANDLED QUICKLY AND ADEQUATELY SO I THINK IT'S -- THEY'RE WITHDRAWING FROM IT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY DID EVERY YEAR THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS AND STAFF WON'T TAKE PART IN EVERY YEAR. THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE TERM OF WAR ON FUN, THAT'S THE TERMINOLOGY THE BUSINESSES HAD, THIS IS A WAR ON FUN. >> WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORDS CITY HALL OR CITY GOVERNMENT AND EXPEDITED PROCESS IN THE SAME SENTENCE, WHAT COMES TO MIND TO YOU? >> I'VE DEALT WITH ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AS A LOBBYIST AND I REALLY DON'T THINK -- SORRY, I HAVE DOUBTS, YOU KNOW, ANYONE WHO'S A BUSINESS OWNER AND SIGNED THE FRONT OF A CHEQUE IN THEIR LIFE NOT JUST THE BACK OF ONE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN DEALING WITH GOVERNMENT, IT MOVES AT A SNAIL'S PACE, AND IT JUST DOES. >> AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS REPORT, IT HAD -- THE CPC HAD A LOST MOTION ASKING FOR IT TO BEGIN ON SEPTEMBER 1st OF THIS YEAR RATHER THAN AS IMMEDIATELY AFTER READING THIS, THE THREE READINGS. THAT WILL SUIT YOUR PURPOSES, YOU THINK THAT WOULD GIVE BUSINESS ENOUGH TIME TO ACTUALLY START PLANNING? >> I THINK AFTER THIS STAMPEDE WOULD BE A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE POSITION. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MEMBERS, AND I DO FEEL THAT THAT'S REASONABLE. BECAUSE IT IS AFTER THE STAMPEDE AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONCERN IS RIGHT NOW. I'M NOT SAYING, AGAIN, YOUR WORSHIP, AND ALDERMEN, THAT THINGS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED HERE ARE BAD. I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT I'M HEARING AS WELL, IT'S JUST THE TIMING AND I THINK SEPTEMBER MIGHT BE A MUCH BETTER OPTION FOR THE INDUSTRY. >> SO REALLY WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT BUSINESSES LIKE TO HAVE A KNOWN PROCESS, THEY LIKE TO KNOW CONSISTENCY, THEY LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING, THEY DON'T LIKE TO BE TOSSED CURVEBALLS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHANDLER, I WONDER IF PART OF THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME MISINFORMATION ON WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. AND I CAN CERTAINLY SEE THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE I TOO WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. BUT I MEAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ONLY IMPACTS HUGE TENTS, RIGHT, TENTS OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET, OVER 3,229 SQUARE FEET TO BE EXACT. AND IT WOULDN'T ACTUAL IMPACT YOUR PRINTING COMPANY AND THEIR -- >> POINT OF ORDER. >> YOUR HONOUR, IT ACTUALLY AFFECTS THE SMALLER TENTS AS WELL IN NEIGHBOURHOOD AREAS. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY AND THOSE THAT ARE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOODS, WHICH I CAN'T IMAGINE IS A VERY LARGE NUMBER. AND THAT'S WHERE ADMINISTRATION CAME UP WITH THEIR NUMBER SIX, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS DO YOU THINK THAT THE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS TO YOU WERE WORRIED THAT THIS WAS A BROADER THING THAN WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED? >> I THINK A LOT OF OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE IN THE BURBS AS WELL, MacKENZIE TOWN, WHO WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP SOME TENTS, UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE COMPLEXITY AND THE RANGE OF ISSUES SO, NO, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. THERE IS JUST CONCERN ABOUT THE TIMING AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT'S ALL GOING TO COME DOWN TO, AND I'LL SAY IT ENOUGH TIMES, THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT IS THE TIMING. AND THAT'S THE REAL CONCERN HERE FOR US. >> WELL, YOU CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOUR PRINTING COMPANY THAT UNLESS THEY'RE PLANNING ON MAKING A LOT OF MONEY SELLING ALCOHOL, THEIR CUSTOMER APPRECIATION EVENT SHOULDN'T BE IMPACTED BY THIS IN ANY WAY. >> WELL, THEY'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN THEY SEE IT BUT STILL, I HAVE TO, AS YOU DO YOUR JOB REPRESENTING YOUR CONSTITUENTS, I DO MY JOB REPRESENTING MINE AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. >> THANKS, I APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. CHANDLER? THANKS FOR BEING HERE AND THANKS FOR STICKING AROUND ALL DAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M THE PRINTING COMPANY. MY NAME IS DOUGLAS McRAE. I'M A PARTNER OF SMALL BUSINESS HERE IN CALGARY, CONTINENTAL IMAGING PRODUCTS. WE'VE BEEN A PROUD CALGARY-BASED COPYING AND PRINTING COMPANY FOR OVER 30 YEARS. ( PLEASE STAND BY ) WE DEPEND UPON THAT ANNUAL CUSTOMER EVENT TO STRENGTHEN OUR EXISTING CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS AND BUILD NEW ONES. WE'VE HOSTED THIS EVENT IN THE PARKING LOT WITHOUT ANY ISSUES OVER THE YEARS. IT WON'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT MY BUSINESS AND THE CUSTOMERS ON WHICH IT DEPENDS. I LIKE, YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE. WE'RE USING A SLEDGE HAM TORE SWAT A FLY. I FEEL THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE AND IT'S GOING TO COST ME AND MY BUSINESS, AND MOST BUSINESSES ARE NOT AWARE OF THIS. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS CHANGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. I THINK IT'S AS MUCH A TIMING ISSUE AS ANYTHING ELSE, HAD WE KNOWN WELL IN ADVANCE OF OUR PLANNING PROCESS. WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE COMPLIED. I DON'T -- I HAVE NO ISSUE AT ALL WITH WHAT CONSTABLE CANE AND HIS POSITION IS. WE AGREE. WE'RE GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENS, BUT THIS REALLY IMPACTS ME BY BUSINESS, AND I ASK ALL OF YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE MA'AM FICTIONS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WHERE ARE YOU LOCATED, SIR? >> IN THE BELT LINE AREA, ON 10TH AVENUE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT SHOULDN'T APPLY THERE. HOW BIG OF A TENT? >> IT HITS THE CRITERIA. WE WERE ADVISED BY THE TENTING COMPANY AND BY THE BUILDING PERMIT PEOPLE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE IT APPROVED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DO YOU THINK IT WAS MORE THAN 3,000 SQUARE FEET? I'M JUST TRYING GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS. >> IT WOULD BE SMALLER THAN 3,000 SQUARE FEET. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU SHOULDN'T BE CAPTURED BY THIS AT ALL SO IT'S INTERESTING TO ME. IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT YOU WERE ADVISED OF THAT. BECAUSE JUDGING FROM HOW YOU'RE DESCRIBING IT, IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL EVENT, IT'S IN A SMALL TENT, A RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> ONE TIME DEAL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT'S A ONE TIME DEAL. DO YOU GO LATE AT NIGHT? >> WE CUT OFF AT 11:30. AT THE LATEST. USUALLY WELL BEFORE THAT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: INTERESTING. SORRY. I DON'T MEAN TO QUIZ YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET ME HEAD AROUND THE SITUATION. >> I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS, YOR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN LOWE. >> MOST OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD WERE DID YOU MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT? >> NO, WE HALTED THE PROCESS AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT WE HAD TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. WE WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT OR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO PROCEED WITH THE EVENT, AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T HAVE A TENT. SO, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL -- >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S OKAY. SO -- BUT TO MY QUESTION, YOU MADE AN APPLICATION -- YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. YOU STOPPED THE PROCESS BECAUSE YOU WERE TOLD YOU NEEDED A DP IF YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE A TENT. DID YOU MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A DP? >> I DID NOT. >> NO? >> NO. THE APPLICATION -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS A FEE APPROACHING $400. WE ALSO HAVE TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS SO THERE'S A COST DEVELOPING THOSE DRAWINGS TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION. IT'S AN ONEROUS, TENUOUS PROCESS THAT I BELIEVE IS PUTTING A BURDEN ON MY COMPANY. >> OKAY. YOU JUST ANSWERED THREE OF THE QUESTIONS. I WON'T ASK THEM. THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS HOW MANY NIGHTS DURING STAMPEDE DO YOU RUN THIS EVENT? >> SINGLE AFTERNOON. >> ONE AFTERNOON? >> YES. >> AND YOU DON'T KNOW -- >> JULY THE 14TH, AND YOU'RE INVITED. [LAUGHTER] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] >> OKAY. SO I THINK IN RESPONSE TO Mr. NENSHI YOU SUGGESTED THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW BIG THE TENT WAS, BUT YOU DIDN'T FEEL IT EXCEEDED 3,000 SQUARE FEET. >> IF I HAD TO PUT A MEASURING STICK ON IT, IT WOULD BE AROUND 3 OR 400 SQUARE FEET. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. ALDERMAN MAR. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SIR, I'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON YOUR ISSUE. PLEASE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH MY STAFF. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN MAR, HE IS AFTER ALL YOUR AREA ALDERMAN. HE'S NOT JUST BEING NICE. >> I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN FERRELL. >> WE SEEM TO HAVE A LACK OF CLARITY AROUND THESE TENTS, PROBABLY WITH THE CHANGE TO THE LAND USE BY LAWARRELL. >> WE SEEM TO HAVE A LACK OF CLARITY AROUND THESE TENTS, PROBABLY WITH THE CHANGE TO THE LAND USE BY LAW. I'M GLAD YOU CAME TODAY. S TO NOT MEANT TO CAPTURE YOUR TENT. IT WAS A LONG-TERM TERM PARTY TENT ASSOCIATED WIT. SO GOOD POINT. >> AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS BEE HOLDEN ON THE CITY TO REALLY REALIZE WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SOME ARE, AND HOW IT IMPACTS BUSINESS. >> NO QUESTION. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE CLARITY WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENTS ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE BYLAW. SO IF YOU DON'T FIT WITHIN THE BYLAW, THEN THAT CAN BE CLARIFIED WITHOUT THESE CHANGES TODAY. >> WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT THEN TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE PEOPLE THAT WORK AT THE BUILDING PERMIT DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY TOLD US WE NEEDED A BUILDING PERMIT. >> OBVIOUSLY, YEAH. WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW PROBLEMS, AND CERTAINLY LAST YEAR WAS EVIDENCED BY SEVERAL RESTAURANTS OPERATING NIGHTCLUBS. AND THAT'S NOT EVEN WITHIN THEIR LAND USE. SO SOME CLARITY WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU OPERATED THIS TENT? >> FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. >> THE PAST TEN YEARS. AND JUST THE SHEAR THOUGHT OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PERMIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS -- >> NO, WE ALWAYS HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT. >> NO, THE SHEAR THOUGHT OF GOING THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. >> WE WERE TOLD THAT WE HAD TO. >> I KNOW T. THE THOUGHT OF YOU ACTUALLY HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT HAD YOU RUNNING SCARED. DO YOU THINK THERE WERE ANY OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE SAME SITUATION AS YOURSELF? >> I BELIEVE ANYBODY THAT WENT TO HIRE A TENT WOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS, YES. >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS AS WELL? TURN AROUND AND RUN? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU'RE INFORMED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT YOU DON'T NEED ANY FORM OF PERMIT TO HOLD A PARTY IF YOU DON'T HAVE A TENT. >> WHICH I FIND VERY INTRIGUING. WOULD -- IF THEY HAD SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING SOMETHING, IT'S GOING TO BE STARTING FOR NEXT YEAR, WOULD THAT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE TO YOU? >> ABSOLUTELY. I COULD BUDGET FOR IT. I COULD PLAN FOR IT. WE FEEL THAT THIS WAS A CHANGE THAT WE WERE COMPLETELY ILL PREPARED FOR. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME. MOST OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. I'M JUST VERY CURIOUS THAT WHEN SOMETHING HASN'T EVEN COME TO COUNCIL, JUST BEING FORMULATED AT COMMITTEE, HOW ADMINISTRATION DEAL WITH THAT. AND I GUESS THAT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT I'M QUITE INTRIGUED THAT SOMEBODY FROM ADMINISTRATION WOULD SAY YOU NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. >> >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. WHEN WE GET TO QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION I THINK WE SHOULD ASK IT. BECAUSE THIS IS -- WE'VE JUST DONE A LITTLE LOOKING HERE, SIR. JUST FYI. >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND I MADE A FLOWCHART, WHICH I THINK IS VERY HELPFUL. TO ME. SO I'M JUST GOING TO ABUSE MY TIME WHILE YOU'RE STANDING THERE. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY IS BASICALLY -- IT STARTS WITH THE SIZE OF THE TENT. IF THE TENT IS OVER 300 SQUARE METERS, ABOUT 3 THOU SQUARE FEET, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS YOU NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. IF IT'S BETWEEN 120 AND 300, NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, NO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA OR CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. IF IT'S UNDER 1,200 SQUARE FEET OR 10 SQUARE METERS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS, NO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED. THIS IS ONLY FOR COMMERCIAL TENTS. THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER YOURS WOULD BE COMMERCIAL OR RECREATIONAL. RECREATIONAL NOT REQUIRED. I MEAN, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT CAPTURED UNDER ANY OF THESE. AND IF YOU WERE INFORMED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN, THAT'S A QUESTION WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INFORMATION -- THE CORRECT INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN GETTING OUT. SO YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. [LAUGHTER] >> I'LL I HAVE IS MY EXPERIENCE, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HEAR YOU. SO THE REAL QUESTION IS -- SO YOU WENT HOW LONG AGO? YOU WENT TO GET YOUR BUILDING PERMIT AS YOU NORMALLY WOULD EVERY YEAR. >> ABOUT FOUR WEEKS AGO. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FOUR WEEKS AGO. AT THAT TIME YOU WERE TOLD BY THE FOLKS AT THE FRONT DESK THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THIS. >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DID YOU SAY THE PEOPLE FROM WHOM YOU RENT THE TENT TOLD YOU THE SAME THING? >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME TO KNOW. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I NOTICED THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF INDUSTRY EVENT AND TENT COMPANIES WHICH -- I THINK THIS IS AN OKAY QUESTION TO ASK. WOULD YOU MIND -- NO, FORGIVE ME. IT'S NOT. I'LL PULL THAT RIGHT BACK. THAT'S 10 SECONDS OF YOUR LIFE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE GETTING BACK. SORRY. >> WHAT SURPRISES ME THOUGH IS THERE ISN'T ANYBODY HERE FROM THE TENT INDUSTRY, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, TO SPEAK TO YOU. THEY'LL BE THE ONES HAVING THE GREATEST IMPACT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'RE NOT DONE THE PUBLIC HEARING YET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WE HAVE TWO. WHO WILL GET THERE FIRST? [LAUGHTER] >> I WANTED THE LAST WORD. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU GOTTA BE ELECTED MAYOR FOR THAT. [LAUGHTER] >> YOUR WORSHIP AND ALDERMEN, I'M CHRISTOPHER, AND I'M A LAWYER IN THE CITY OF CALGARY, AND I HAVE BEEN RETAINED TO REPRESENT A NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT, LIKE MY FRIEND, HAVE CONCERNS IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. I'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF SITTING BACK AND LISTENING TO ALL OF THE SUBMISSIONS, AND WHAT I TOOK OUT OF IT IS THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME CONFUSION. AND I PARTICULARLY AM CONFUSED BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE REASON WE WERE HERE WAS BECAUSE OF NOISE COMPLAINTS, AND AS WELL FOR BEHAVIOR. AND WHEN I WAS PERUSING THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT THERE WAS AN INDICATION THAT NOISE IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. I'M ALSO CONFUSED BECAUSE THE HONORABLE MAYOR NENSHI POINTED OUT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THOSE TENTS THAT ARE OVER 300 SQUARE METERS. YET, ON PAGE 4 OF THE REPORT IT STATES THAT THERE IS NO CONSISTENT EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT SIZE OR LOCATION IS RELATED TO TENT COMPLAINTS. SO WE'RE TARGETING TENTS ABOUT 300 SQUARE METERS, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS A SOURCE OR GENESIS OF COMPLAINTS. WHAT WE ARE TARGETING IS THE OPERATORS, AND HOW THEY OPERATE THEIR BUSINESSES. AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS THROUGH AN INDIRECT METHOD OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, THROUGH THE LAND USE PROCESS. THERE ALREADY IS EXISTING MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THIS. WE ALREADY HAVE THE BUSINESS LICENSE HEARING PROCESS. IF YOU HAVE AN OPERATOR THAT'S OPERATING ITS BUSINESS IMPROPERLY YOU HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE REVIEW. I'VE BEEN REPRESENTATIVE FOR RESTAURANT AND BAR OWNERS THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS. IT'S A VERY EFFECTIVE PROCESS IN MEETING THOSE OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES. WE ALSO HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS THE OPERATORS ALREADY DEAL WITH ALGC. THEY ALREADY DEAL WITH THE FIRE MARSHALS. THEY ALREADY DEAL WITH PUBLIC HEALTH. THE VAST MAJORITY OF OPERATORS ALSO TAKE THE PROACTIVE APPROACH OF ADDRESSING THE CALGARY CITY POLICE. WE'RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 TO 40 COMPLAINTS IN A CITY OF 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE. YET, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE BY ONE INDIVIDUAL, TWO INDIVIDUALS, THREE INDIVIDUALS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINING A DOZEN TIMES. THERE'S ALSO NO VERIFICATION THAT THOSE COMPLAINTS DIRECTLY RELATE TO TENTS. IT'S ANYTHING WITHIN 150 METERS. SO WE'RE DEALING WITH UNRELIABLE, UNVERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS TO EVEN GET TO THIS PROCESS. I'M GOING TO ECHO THE COMMENTS OF Mr. CHANDLER IN THAT THIS IS A TIMING ISSUE. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS, THEN WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER CREATIVE SOLUTIONS. JUST BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS WAS IN EFFECT YEARS AGO DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE MOST PROPER AND BEST USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY. NOR IS IT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. WE NEED INPUT FROM INDUSTRY MEMBERS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT PROBLEMS WITH NOISE. WE NEED THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. BUT WE NEED TO DO IT IN A TIMELY MANNER. A TIMELY MANNER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HOW CLOSE STAMPEDE IS. SO IN SUPPORT OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE ASKED ME TO SPEAK TODAY, THE MOST RESPONSIBLE APPROACH IS TO DELAY THIS UNTIL SEPTEMBER. TAKE A LOOK AT THESE CONCERNS. TAKE A LOOK AT THE MOST PROPER MECHANISM TO IMPLEMENT AND CONTROL FOR THESE ISSUES. AND THEN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND USE IS THE MOST PROPER VEHICLE. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR LAST NAME, SIR. >> SOUSTER. >> WHO DO YOU REPRESENT TODAY? >> I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT. THAT WOULD BE A BREACH OF SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. >> BUT WE USUALLY HAVE A SOLICITOR REPRESENT A PARTICULAR CLIENT AND THEY NAME THE CLIENT. YOU'RE SAYING A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS? BUT YOU CAN'T SAY WHO THEY ARE? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ARNOLDMAN FARRELL. ANYONE ELSE FROM Mr. SOUSTER? ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR AND ALDERMEN. I'M FRED HANSFORD. I'M THE TENT MANAGER WITH GOOD TIME PARTY RENTALS. WE REPRESENT ONE SEGMENT OF THE RENTAL INDUSTRY. WITH THE PASSING OF THIS PROPOSED LAW REQUIRING MOST TENT FUNCTIONS TO APPLY FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR RENTAL AND INDUSTRY AS IT CREATES A TIME CONSUMING AND COSTLY PROCEDURE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. TO REITERATE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THE POINT COMES UP OF TIMING. IT' TAKEN SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS TO GET THIS PROCESSED. WITH NO GUARANTEES THAT WE MAY RECEIVE A PERMIT. THEN WE STILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR OUR BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH TAKES ANOTHER 10 TO 12 DAYS TO RECEIVE. SO I FEEL THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS THE WRONG WAY TO PROCESS THE PERMITTING OF SPECIAL FUNCTION TENTS. I AGREE THAT WE NEED SOME CONTROL AND SOME EFFORT MADE BY THE INDUSTRY TO MAKE IT WORK, BUT I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE A SPECIAL NEW SYSTEM THAT IS PUT IN PLACE TO ALLOW FOR TENTS. I UNDERSTAND OUR SISTER CITY, EDMONTON, ANY TENT REQUIRED UP THERE, ANY PERMIT, THEY DON'T REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR ANY TENT IF IT'S 3 DAYS OR LESS. THEY DON'T REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ON THEIR TENTS IF IT IS PARCEL TO THEIR LAND OWNERSHIP. SO IF I LEASE A PLACE AND I WANT TO HAVE A TENT FUNCTION ON MY PROPERTY I'M ALLOWED TO DO IT WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT IF IT'S OVER 3 DAYS. THE ONLY TIME THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A D.P. IS IF THEY DON'T PHYSICALLY OWN THE LAND. WE'VE GOT ONE PRIME LOCATION DOWNTOWN ON 4TH AVENUE. OUR 5TH AVENUE AND 4TH STREET, IT'S A PARKING LOT. A LOT OF PEOPLE USE IT FOR OIL WELLS. SERVICING COMPANIES USE IT FOR APPRECIATION, CUSTOMER APPRECIATION. THERE IS A BAR, I THINK, ON ONE SIDE OF IT DURING STAMPEDE. AND THAT'S THE EVENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A D.P. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, EDMONTON, AS FAR AS I KNOW, YOU CAN CARRY ON. THEY WORK WITH THEIR FIRE DEPARTMENTS. WE WORK WITH OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS. THE BUILDING PERMIT TRIGGERS THIS WHOLE PROCESS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE HEALTH, ET CETERA. THEY ALL GET TRIGGERED. SO IF WE CREATE THE SPECIAL OFFICERS OR THE SPECIAL CODES OFFICERS, THEY CAN BE INVOLVED IN THAT TRIGGER POINT TOO, AND THEN CARRY ON FROM THERE. BUT IT'S VERY TIME CONSUMING. CUSTOMERS JUST DETEST GOING TO CITY HALL. I DO MYSELF. IT TAKES TWO OR THREE HOURS SOMETIMES JUST TO APPLY FOR THE PERMITS. I SAT IN THERE FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF ONE DAY, AND THEN IT TOOK ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF AT THE COUNTER. THAT'S PRETTY WELL ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M SORRY, SIR. I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME. >> FRED HANSFORD. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, Mr. HANSFORD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I HAVE ONE TOO. ALDERMAN LOWE FIRST. >> Mr. HANSFORD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YOU'RE THE MANAGER OF TENT OPERATIONS FOR -- >> GOOD TIME PARTY RENTALS. >> THANK YOU. WERE YOU USED BY "THE CITY" THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT WAS THERE? >> I WAS INVITED TO THE MEETING BACK IN FEBRUARY OVER THIS, AND I KNEW THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF THIS COMING DOWN THE PIPE. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO COME DOWN THIS FAST. AND THE PROCESS, WHEN WE WERE INFORMED ABOUT IT, WAS THEY WERE TARGETING SPECIFICALLY THE LARGE FUNCTION BEER TENTS, ET CETERA, FOR STAMPEDE. LEAVING MOST OF OUR CUSTOMERS ALONE. THEY WANTED SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS TO BE TARGETED. >> HAVE YOU ADVISED ANY OF YOUR -- >> I HAVE ADVISED EVERY -- >> THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A D.P.? >> YES, I HAVE ADVISED EVERYONE THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A D.P. BECAUSE THE CLARIFICATION OVER THE LAST MONTH HAS BEEN TERRIBLE. I'VE HAD NUMEROUS CUSTOMERS PHONE AND SAY, WHAT'S GOING ON? THEY WON'T APPROVE MY BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE THEY'RE WAITING FOR A MAY 9TH MEETING TO GET THE D.P. PROCESSED. SO I'VE HAD CANCELLATIONS, REDUCTIONS IN TENT SIZE, AND SOME EVENTS SAID, HEY, I'M NOT GONNA PUT UP WITH THIS. I'LL JUST USE MY WAREHOUSE. WHY RENT A TENT? I DON'T NEED A TENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS. ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, Mr. HANSFORD. WERE YOU -- HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THIS INDUSTRY? >> I HAVE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1987. >> SO A LONG TIME. NOW, PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR TENTS HOW DID THAT WORK? IS THIS A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAT YOU'RE SEEING THIS YEAR? >> YES. IT WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THIS YEAR. IN THE PAST ONLY THE VERY LARGE VENUES WERE TOLD THAT THEY NEEDED TO HAVE A D.P. THE LITTLE ONES THAT SAID OKAY, I'M GOING TO HAVE A STAFF APPRECIATION, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GET EVERYTHING DONE. BUT NOW WE'RE TOLD HAVE I TO GET A D.P. AND THEY'RE JUST TOTALLY CONFUSED. >> SO OBVIOUSLY WE ARE TOO. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THIS LAND USE CHANGE, WAS TO REQUIRE THE STAFF APPRECIATION EVENTS TO HAVE A D.P. >> RIGHT. >> SO IT'S GOOD THAT YOU'RE HERE TODAY. BECAUSE I THINK IT HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE FRUSTRATION I'VE BEEN FEELING WITH THIS ISSUE. NOW, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS SOMETHING THAT IS WHAT CONSTABLE CANE HAS SUGGESTED. THAT WE HAVE THIS -- I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CUSTOMER APPRECIATION, OR THE COMMUNITY EVENTS. AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION OBVIOUSLY WITHIN CITY HALL, AS WELL AS OUTSIDE CITY HALL. BUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE COMMERCIAL -- THE TENTS ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL USES WITH A LIQUOR LICENSE. THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH A STEAMLINE PROCESS. OBVIOUSLY WE'D HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT. THAT WOULD TAKE ABOUT THREE WEEKS FOR THAT PROCESS. AND WHETHER IT HAPPEN THIS IS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR, IT'S PROBABLY -- WELL, IT'S PROBABLY MORE STREAM LINE THAN WHAT YOU EXPERIENCED BEFORE THE LAND USE BYLAW CHANGE. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH? >> YES. THE TIMING THIS YEAR IS JUST TERRIBLE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THAT FAR AWAY. LIKE I SAY, I'VE HAD TWO CUSTOMERS, ONE HAS BEEN TOLD THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS AT THIS MEETING TODAY THEY MAY BE FORCED TO GO BACK AND APPLY FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. >> AND ARE THEY ASSOCIATED WITH -- >> THEY'RE A SMALL BAR THAT HAS A VERY SMALL TENT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BUT AS FAR AS MOVING FORWARD -- >> I AGREE THAT WE NEED SOME PROCESS. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE LAND USE BYLAW. THERE'S GO THE TO BE SOME OTHER STEP THAT WE GET IN THERE TO REGULATE IT OR CONTROL IT. >> WELL, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING UP FOR DISCUSSION. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE LAND USE BYLAW IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL TRIGGER THIS KIND OF PROCESS. SO IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT WAY TO TRIGGER IT, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE LAND USE BYLAW, THAT THE PROCESS USED FOR IT HAS TO BE OWNERUS. IT CAN BE STREAM LINED. WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE DOING. WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> YOU'VE BEEN RUNNING TENTS FOR HOW LONG? >> SINCE 1987. I'VE BEEN WITH THIS COMPANY SINCE 2001. >> THEN YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT STREAMLINING THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BEFORE. >> YES. >> HAVE YOU WITNESSED ANY OF THIS EVER WHEN YOU GO TO GET SOMETHING DONE AT CITY HALL IN 25 YEARS? >> NO. >> OKAY. YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD CANCELLATIONS. >> YES. >> YOU ARE HAVING A BETTER YEAR THIS YEAR OR A SLOWER YEAR THIS YEAR? >> THE YEAR IS BETTER. BUT EVERY DOLLAR -- IT HAS IMPROVED. >> OKAY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A -- OR THERE WAS A MAJOR TENT -- WHAT DO YOU REFER TO YOURSELF AS? CONSTRUCTOR TENT SELLER. SOMEBODY IN THE TENT INDUSTRY RECENTLY WENT UNDER. >> YES. >> I'M NOT NECESSARILY SUGGESTING YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BUT WOULD YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT? [LAUGHTER] DID THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] >> WELL, IF WE'RE LOSING INDUSTRIES AND BUSINESSES SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE CONCEPT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOSING BUSINESSES I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT IT. >> IT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE, BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. >> THAT'S OKAY. JUST THE CONCEPT OF IT KIND OF SCARES ME. SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING IT MOSTLY BEEN THE COMMUNICATION. THE CONCEPT ISN'T YOUR FAVORITE IDEA, BUT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE, BUT IT'S BEEN THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS IN THIS THAT'S REALLY CAUSED YOU MOST OF THE PROBLEMS? >> YES. >> OKAY. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS. >> AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION TO DO IT. AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL FUNCTION TENT, BUT NOT -- OUR TENTS ARE CONSISTENTLY THE SAME TENT DAY IN AND DAY OUT. WE SUPPLY THE SAME INFORMATION EVERY TIME WE APPLY FOR A D.P., BUILDING PERMIT. THE SAME PAPER. TIME AND TIME AGAIN. >> OKAY. >> AND IT JUST IS TIME CONSUMING CONSTANTLY AND INEFFECTIVE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. >> SO EVEN SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF LET IT APPLY FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. >> I HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THREE IN FIVE-YEAR PERMITS ON DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. AND, YES, IT WORKS, BUT IT'S STILL TIME CONSUMING. >> OKAY. >> THE PROCESS IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE REQUIRED FOR APPLYING FOR A D.P. >> YOU MEAN GOING THROUGH CITY HALL? >> YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'VE GIVEN US ALL KINDS OF IDEAS UP HERE. SO THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT. I MEAN, I THINK I JUST HEARD YOU SAY -- AND JUST CORRECT ME ON THIS IF I HEARD INCORRECTLY. THAT EVEN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS IS MAYBE NOT THE CORRECT PROCESS FOR YOUR BUSINESS BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME DARN TENT. SO EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU HAVE TO GO, IT'S THE SAME SIZE AS IT WAS LAST WEEK, FIRE RETARDANT AND SO ON AND SO ON. >> I AGREE. THERE ARE VARIOUS SIZES OF TENTS. BUT, YES, TIME AND TIME AGAIN WE SUBMIT THE SAME DRAWINGS, AND THEY NEED THE ELEVATION DRAWING. THEY NEED HOW YOU'RE GONNA STAKE IT. THEY NEED THE FIRE CODE REGULATIONS. AND YOU NEED THREE COPIES OF IT. JUST FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU NEED THREE COPIES EVERY TIME? >> YES. YOU NEED EIGHT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HAD A LITTLE TENT DURING THE ELECTION LAST YEAR, AND WE HAD FUN WITH THAT ONE TOO. HOW HEAVY ARE THE SANDBAGS, DO YOU HAVE THE RECEIPT FROM THE FIRE RETARDANT CHEMICALS? STILL NOT CONVINCED I'VE RECOVERED FROM THOSE FIRE RETARDANT CHEMICALS. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUFF THAT YOU SELL. I HAVE MY HEAD AROUND THE SIZES WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. OF THE TENTS THAT YOU WOULD RENT DURING STAMPEDE, HOW MANY ARE BIGGER THAN 300 METERS, WHAT PROPORTION O KIND OF 120 TO 300 AND WHAT PORTION ARE SMALLER THAN 120, JUST ROUGHLY? >> WE RANGE IN SIZE ANYWHERE FROM A 10 BY 10 UP TO A 60 BY THAT'S EXPANDIBLE. WE CAN GO UP TO 3, 400 FEET IF WE WANTED TO. MOST AVERAGE BUSINESSES AND CUSTOMERS ARE USING BETWEEN THE 10 BY 10 UP TO 40 BY 60'S. FEET. PARDON ME. WE DO HAVE SOME CUSTOMERS WANTING THEM IN THE LARGER SIZES. AND FOR THE WHOLE PERIOD OF STAMPEDE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BUT A BIG TENT WOULD BE THE 40 BY 60, YOU THINK? >> NO. 60 BY 300 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S A GIANT TENT. >> YEAH. WE HAVE A COUPLE THAT ARE REQUESTING 40 BY 180'S, 40 BY 100'S. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. I'M JUST GETTING MY HEAD AROUND THIS BECAUSE A 40 BY 60 IS 2,400 SQUARE FEET. I CAN'T BELIEVE I JUST USED MY CALCULATOR FOR THAT. IT'S 2,400 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS SMALLER THAN WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT HERE. THAT'S HELPFUL, JUST TO HELP US GET OUR HEADS AROUND THAT. ALDERMAN CARRA. >> WELL, I THINK BETWEEN ALDERMAN FARRELL'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS D.P. PERMIT AND THE STREAM LINE, I WAS GOING TO GO INTO THE PERMIT BUILDING SIDE AND TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT YOU WENT THERE. SO I'VE GOT NOTHING TO SAY. BUT I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: CERTAINLY SOME IDEAS ARE RUNNING AROUND MY HEAD, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN KEATING. >> THANK YOU, WORSHIP. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. I HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, EVEN BEFORE I STARTED MAKING THE NOTES. SHOULD WE NOT HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY SEPARATE BYLAW FOR ESPECIALLY USED TENTS? WE CAN ADDRESS ALL OF THESE ISSUES. IT'S VERY SIMPLE, CLEAN CUT, DE. >> THAT WOULD BE PERFECT. >> I KNEW I WAS BRILLIANT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO KNEW YOU WERE BRILLIANT, ALDERMAN KEATING. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WERE YOU PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, AS FAR AS AMENDMENTS? >> IT IS, BUT IT'S STILL VERY CONFUSING. LIKE, TO TRY AND READ YOUR BYLAWS IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COMMON GUY LIKE ME. >> YEAH. WELL, I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT STRUGGLE WITH THE LAND USE BYLAW. YOU ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE LAND USE BYLAW IN FRONT OF YOU TO SEE WHAT IT SAYS WE'RE AMENDING. IT ACTUALLY ASKS FOR IT TO BE CALLED DOWN, BROUGHT TO ME BECAUSE IT SAYS THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENTS DO NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 24 ARE MET. THEN IT GOES ON TO A NUMBER OF OTHER SPECIFICS. AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS SOME AMENDMENTS TO SOME OF THOSE SPECIFICS THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUT IT DOES TALK ABOUT UNLESS IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, OR IF IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT, LARGE DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT MEDIUM, AND THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT CRITERIA IN HERE THAT WASN'T IN THE LAND USE BYLAW PREVIOUSLY. SO IT'S NOT STRICTLY 300 METERS. 120 METERS PLUS CERTAINLY HAS A NUMBER OF TRIGGER POINTS AS WELL. >> DEPENDING ON WHERE IT'S LOCATED. >> AND NOT JUST THAT, BUT THE TYPE OF USE. AND THIS IS RECREATIONAL SPECIAL FUNCTION TENTS THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE. A SPECIAL FUNCTION TENT COMMERCIAL -- ACTUALLY, A SPECIAL FUNCTION TENT COMMERCIAL. I'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE GOING THROUGH THIS TO SEE IF I CAN FIGURE IT OUT MYSELF. BUMPER TO BUMPER AS IT STANDS IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SPECIFIC THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. IT DOES INVOLVE QUITE A BIT OF CHANGE. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION THE -- OPPOSITION? >> YOUR WORSHIP, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M ADAM CARR, PRESIDENT OF MAJESTIC TENT EVENT. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING FRED SAID. THE PRINTING GUY WAS FRED'S CUSTOMER. HIS TENT WAS 800 SQUARE FEET. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT EVERYTHING HE SAID BECAUSE IT'S GETTING LATE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'RE MY BEST FRIEND RIGHT NOW, Mr. CARR. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THERE IS A QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK THE PREVIOUS GUY. IN REGARDS TO YOUR TENTS, SOME OF YOUR TENTS, THE SMALLER ONES, THEY CAN BE CONNECTED UP TO FORM A LARGER TENT? >> YES, THEY CAN. >> SO A 10 BY 20 COULD END UP BEING -- >> A 10 BY 500 OR WHATEVER. >> OKAY. SO EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A SMALLER TENT ORIGINALLY, IT COULD BE ADDED TO FORM A LARGER TENT? >> YEAH. WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO THAT. IT'S TOO LABOUR INTENSIVE. IF THEY WANT BIG WE JUST GO INTO THE BIGGER TENTS. >> IT'S JUST THAT I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THE SMALLER, LIKE, 20-FOOT ONES. I DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE THEY ARE. BUT THEY ADDED A WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM ADDED TOGETHER TO FORM MUCH LARGER TENTS. >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE MAY HAVE GOTTEN THEM ALL OUT. DO YOU WANT TO JUST TAKE A STAB AT THE QUESTION I ASKED FROOEF SPEAKER IN YOUR BUSINESS. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TENTS THAT YOU WENT OUT WOULD FIT INTO THIS GREATER THAN 300 SQUARE METERS? >> EVERYTHING. IT'S TOTALLY VAGUE. LIKE, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT. WE'VE ONCE DENIED THAT WE'RE UNDER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. I MEAN, 800 SQUARE FEET WAS DENIED AT THE PRINT SHOP. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF POPUPS ARE GOING TO BE NEXT. I JUST WANT TO GO OUT ON A LIMB. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE TENTS. I THINK IT'S THE ALCOHOL THAT'S MAKING PEOPLE BREAK THE NOISE BYLAWS AND ACT CRAZY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. THERE IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE TENTS DON'T HAVE WALLS TO KEEP THE SOUND IN. BUT I HEAR YOU. >> BUT IT IS STAMPEDE, RIGHT? IT'S 10 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR THAT PUTS US ON THE MAP, MILLIONS COME INTO THE ECONOMY. PEOPLE SHOULD JUST SUCK IT UP. 26 OR 28 COMPLAINTS. I MEAN, WE ARE LIVING IN A CITY WITH A RURAL AREA. I MEAN F THEY WANT PEACE AND QUIET THEY SHOULD MOVE INTO THE COUNTRY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: COULD YOU COME BACK OFTEN TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS? >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I SUSPECT A NUMBER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO JUST RECORD WHAT YOU JUST SAID. >> IT'S CRAZY. THIS WHOLE THING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SPENT ON IT. LIKE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY. AND IT IS HURTING THE INDUSTRY. FOR SURE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FOR SURE. >> IT IS. WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS ONES. LIKE, TENTS IS WHAT I DO. THAT'S MY THING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO SINCE THIS TALK STARTED EARLIER THIS YEAR YOU'RE GETTING CANCELLATIONS ALREADY? >> OH YEAH. AND WE LOOK LIKE IDIOTS. WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO CUSTOMERS AND SAY WE ACTUALLY HAD BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED AND THEN THE CITY CAME BACK TO US AND SAID OH, BY THE WAY, YOU'LL NEED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS NOW. SO WE'VE HAD TO GO TO OURS AND SAY WE NEED ANOTHER $700 FOR US TO PULL THIS FOR YOU. A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT-FOR-PROFIT TOO. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. >> LOTS OF THEM ARE CHARITIES TOO AND THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY TO WORK WITH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FOR STAMPEDE BREAKFAST AND THE LIKE. >> THAT'S MORE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE CHARITABLE EVENTS. THERE ARE THOSE RUNS AND STUFF. IF THEY'RE FORKING OUT -- LIKE, ON AVERAGE WE'RE CHARGING $8,900 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. -- 8 OR $900 FOR IT. THAT'S MONEY THAT COULD HAVE GONE TO A CHARITY. IT'S DRAWING UP AND DOING DRAWINGS AND FILLING OUT EIGHT DUPLICATES OF EVERYTHING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BECAUSE IT'S THAT TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT, BUT THEN YOU HAVE WORK TO DO TO ACTUALLY GET THE PERMIT? >> EXACTLY. WE NEED JUST A FORM THAT WE CAN FILL OUT THAT'S ESPECIALLY FOR EVENTS. AND THEN IF IT LOOKS -- IF IT'S A BAR AND RAISE AS RED FLAG IT GOES IN ONE DIRECTION. IF IT'S NOT IT GOES IN ANOTHER. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. THAT'S ACTUALLY EXTREMELY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >> YEAH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING OR IS YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT A CHARITY EVENT WAS TOLD THEY NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT? YOUR CONCLUDING STATEMENT WAS IF IT'S A BAR IT GOES INTO A DIFFERENT STREAM. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. IT'S NOT THAT YOUR CHARITY EVENTS GET CAPTURED IN THIS. >> YEAH. I THINK THE INTENTIONS WERE PURE TO SLAP THE BARS, BUT I THINK IT'S THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO GET PENALIZED AS A RESULT. >> WELL, THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. I'M ASKING ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE. HAVE THEY BEEN REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT? OR IS THERE JUST -- WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE'S A LOT OF RUMOR AND PARTLY A LACK OF CLARITY. WHEN YOU READ THE LAND USE BYLAW IT'S PRETTY CONFUSING. >> YEAH. >> BUT I REALLY NEED TO KNOW. ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS, WHO ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CAPTURED IN THESE AMENDMENTS BEING ASKED TO SUPPLY -- >> YES. FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, YES. I DON'T DIRECTLY PULL THE PERMITS, BUT THE INFORMATION BACK TO ME SAYS YES. >> SO WE WOULD NEED TO, IF YOU'RE WILLING, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW EXACTLY THE SPECIFICS. >> YEAH, FOR SURE. I COULD GET YOU THAT INFORMATION IF YOU'D LIKE. >> I THINK IT'S HARD TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS THERE'S CLARITY. >> YEAH. I MEAN, EVEN IF WE JUST -- YOU KNOW F Y -- YOU KNOW F YOU GUYS LOOSENED UP THE ROPE A LITTLE BIT IT WOULD BE BETTER. >> PEOPLE WHO LIVE BY THESE THINGS, THEY'D LIKE TO TIGHTEN THE NOOSE A LITTLE, OR THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE GOOD NEIGHBORS. THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS. SO HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT? THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING TODAY. >> YEAH. >> HOW TO BALANCE THAT. >> SORRY. >> IT NEEDS TO BE REASONABLE. >> YEAH. I AVOID PERMITTING LIKE THE PLAGUE. I TRY TO GET OTHERS TO DO IT WITHIN MY COMPANY. BUT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE'RE GOING OFF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR EVENTS, ARE WE NOT? >> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF EVENT. >> WHAT I'M SAYING THOUGH IS WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A PERMIT THAT'S FOR EVENTS. WE SHOULD HAVE OUR OWN DONE UP AND THEN IT CAN GO FROM THERE. >> YEAH. I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. SO CLARITY, EASE OF PROCESS IS WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT. >> YEAH, AND THIS THREE WEEK STREAM LINE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THING IS -- WE HAVEN'T COME ACROSS THAT. WE'RE SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS. >> I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SUGGESTED BY OUR POLICE THAT'S WORKING WELL IN OTHER AREAS. IT IS JUST THIS ONE TEAM WHO WOULD LOOK AT IT. NOW, YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SOME CONCERNS. >> WHAT IF THE POLICE INSTEAD -- I MEAN, IF THERE WAS THREE NOISE COMPLAINTS AT A BAR THEY CAME OUT AND GAVE THEM A MASSIVE FINE. OR REQUIRED BARS TO HAVE MORE SECURITY ON SITE. I MEAN, IT'S STAMPEDE. PEOPLE ARE BINGE DRINKING. >> WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY PART OF THE PROBLEM. SOMETIMES HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE ARE BINGE DRINKING ALL IN ONE LOCATION. BUT I THINK WE'LL COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. IT MAY NOT BE IN FRONT OF US TODAY. >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN MAR? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME. IT SEEMS WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS A CONTINUING THEME FROM THE INDUSTRY. IT'S THAT THE RULES ARE NOT CLEAR. THEY SEEM TO BE CHANGING ON YOU ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS. AND FROM A BUILDING PERMIT PERSPECTIVE IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME TENT. I IMAGINE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT TENTS, RIGHT THE. >> YEAH. >> DIFFERENT SIZES. IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME. YOU STAKE IT INTO THE GROUND AND OFF YOU GO. MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW THIS PROCESS IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY. OUR PROBLEM HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S PERSPECTIVE IS WE'RE FACED WITH THE AFTER EFFECT OF SOME BUSINESSES AND SOME EVENTS THAT DON'T GO ACCORDING TO PLAN. THAT HAVEN'T PLANNED OUT HOW TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES OF HAVING AN EVENT IN A COMMUNITY OR IN A STREET OR SOME OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS. ARE YOU SUPPORTIVE OF US MOVING FORWARD WITH A PLAN THAT WOULD USE A CHECKLIST SAYING HOW DO YOU PREVIOUS THAT YOUR EVENT, YOUR INDUSTRY WILL BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH BEING ABLE TO MANAGE SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES. AND ALSO WORK WITH US AS THE MUNICIPALITY. HOW WE WOULD SORT OF TAILOR OURSELVES, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL MENTALITY DOESN'T WORK. >> THERE'S NO CHANCE YOU GUYS WOULD JUST LEAVE US ALONE, WOULD YOU? IDEALLY THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE. BUT IF NOT I'M UP FOR STREAMLINING IT, SIMPLIFYING IT, WHATEVER IT TAKES. REALLY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEND A TECHNICAL DRAWING, ADDRESS, TIMES. >> SHOOT IT OFF IN AN E-MAIL. >> OR EVEN APPLY ONLINE. PUT A VISA NUMBER ON IT. SEND IT IN. I MEAN, IT SHOULDN'T BE SO DIFFICULT. IT REALLY SHOULDN'T. WE SHOULDN'T BE REZONING LAND OR -- >> NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT WE AS A MUNICIPALITY, WE'RE ONLY -- WE ONLY HAVE CERTAIN TOOLS IN OUR BUCKET THAT WE'RE ABLE TO MANIPULATE. YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S INTERESTING, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AMONGST US, OURSELVES AND WITH ADMINISTRATION. IT'S QUARTER TO. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S -- ARE THERE ANYMORE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC? I WILL -- CAN YOU RECOGNIZE ME AGAIN IN ONE SECOND THE THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. THE COMMON SENSE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IS REFRESHING IN THESE CHAMBERS. WE MAY -- YES, I'M TALKING ABOUT -- YOU KNOW. WE MAY LOOK TO YOU TO HELP US GET THIS ONE RIGHT, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMEN, THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. MOST OF EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SAID. I'M LEE SUITOR, BY THE WAY. I WORK FOR A COMPANY CALLED SPECIAL EVENT RENTALS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: CAN YOU SAY YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE. >> LEE SUITOR. I THINK EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COVERED. I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE COST OF THESE AND HOW THIS AFFECTS OUR CUSTOMERS. THE LAST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT I PULLED WAS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO FOR A CLIENT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT $850, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. THAT IS WHAT WE CHARGED FOR THE PERMIT. THE PERMIT ITSELF WAS ABOUT $650, AND I CHARGE $200 FOR MY TIME. THAT WAS BEING NICE. NOW, THE CITY INSPECTORS DON'T WORK EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS, WHICH IS WHEN OUR BUSINESS OPERATES. SO TO GET SOMEONE OUT TO INSPECT A TENT, WHICH THEY HAVE VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE IN, COSTS ABOUT $650. THIS IS FOR ONE EVENT. WE THEN NEED AN ENGINEER TO SIGN OFF ON IT, WHICH IS ANOTHER $500. SO YOU'RE GETTING UP TO AROUND THE $2,000 MARK FOR ONE EVENT. AND THAT'S FINE IF YOUR CLIENT HAS DEEP POCKETS. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S VERY -- IT MAKES IT VERY EXCLUSIVE FOR ANY CHARITIES OR ANYTHING RUNNING AN EVENT. FOR EXAMPLE, I TALKED TO A CLIENT TODAY WHO IS -- HE ACTUALLY JUST WENT THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT. BUT BECAUSE HIS CHARITY RUN IS ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON, HE'LL HAVE TO PAY $650 TO GET AN INSPECTOR TO COME OUT AND LOOK AT HIS POPUP TENTS. POPUP TENTS LIKE YOU BUY AT CANADIAN TIRE OR WHATEVER. HE'S GOING TO SIGN OFF AND SAY THAT'S OKAY, YOU HAVE THE SANDBAGS ON THEM. THAT'S GREAT. GO AHEAD WITH THE EVENT. SO THAT WAS MY POINT. THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF TICKIC OFF BOXES. THERE ARE A LOT OF COSTS INVOLVED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT'S NOT JUST TIME. IT'S MONEY. >> IT'S MONEY. AND THAT'S FOR EVERYONE. THE OTHER ISSUE WITH THE CLARITY THAT WAS TOUCHED ON, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE TENTS, AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT. WE WANT TO MAKE THESE EVENTS BETTER, AND WE WANT TO MAKE THEM SAFER, BUT THE MESSAGE WE'RE HEARING FROM APPROVALS IS THAT EVEN THESE SMALL EVENTS REQUIRE THESE PERMITS. AND THAT IS RIPPING A LOT OF PEOPLE OFF. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. ALDERMAN LOWE. >> VERY BRIEFLY, SIR, THE BUILDING PERMITS, DO THEY ALSO TRIG INTEREST SAME INSPECTIONS? >> THE BUILDING PERMITS TRIGGER FIRE, HEALTH, AND IF THERE'S LIQUOR THEY TRIGGER LIQUOR. THEY ASK YOU THOSE QUESTIONS. >> DO THEY TRIGGER THE SIGN OFF BY ENGINEERS AND THAT SORT OF THING? >> YES, THEY DO. >> SO THOSE COSTS ARE COMMON TO BOTH THE D.P. AND THE B.P. >> YES. ANY EVENT YOU HAVE THOSE ARE TRIGGERED OFF. >> THOSE ARE SAFETY RELATED ISSUES, COMMON TO BOTH. >> CORRECT. AND WHAT HAPPENS -- EVEN IF YOUR TENT -- IF IT'S 20 PEOPLE AND YOUR TENT IS, YOU KNOW, 600 SQUARE FEET YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT PROCESS. >> OKAY. BUT FOR BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE BUILDING PERMIT? >> YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: VERY IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU ALDERMAN LOWE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? ALL RIGHT. ALDERMAN MAR. OH, ALDERMAN STEVENSON, SORRY. DID YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? OKAY. I THINK ALDERMAN MAR ASKED ME TO RECOGNIZE HIM FIRST SO I WILL. >> THANK YOU. SO, YOUR WORSHIP, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS AS STAFF AND ADVANCE THE BREAK RIGHT NOW TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, SEE IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF SYNERGY THAT CAN BE CREATED HERE, RATHER THAN GOING AHEAD AND MOVING AHEAD WITH REFERRAL. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS ASK THAT WE RECESS FOR THE DINNER BREAK NOW TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: CAN I MAKE A DIFFERENT SUGGESTION? >> OF COURSE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THESE POOR FOLKS HAVE BEEN WAITING AND WAITING AND WAITING. CAN WE AT LEAST BRING THAT FORWARD BEFORE DINNER? >> YES. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAID. [LAUGHTER] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BRILLIANT SOLUTION THAT WE'LL DEAL WITH IN ONLY 15 MINUTES, RIGHT? ALDERMAN FARRELL, I'LL JUST LOOK TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THE BREAK, OR THE FIRST ITEM AFTER THE BREAK. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO THAT WE CAN GET OUR HEADS AROUND IT AFTER THE BREAK. >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. SO THE MOTION IS TO TABLE THIS AND COME BACK AFTER DINNER NOW THAT WE'VE FINISHED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. I DON'T THINK I NEED A MOTION FOR THIS. THE PREVIOUS ITEM. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO MAKE ONE. YOU CAN MAKE ONE IF YOU LIKE, ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> MOTION TO LIFT FROM THE TABLE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT'S BECAUSE THE REFERRAL MOTION HAD IN IT AT THE TIME TO BRING IT BACK. WE'LL DO IT NONETHELESS. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART, YOU'RE SECONDING THAT? OKAY. WE'RE BACK TO GREENWOOD GREEN BRIAR. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ISSUE THAT CAUSED US TO TABLE THIS EARLIER THAT IS, IN FACT, BEEN DEALT WITH. AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY FURTHER CHANGES. SO THAT'S GOOD. WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE US, THE ADMINISTRATION RECK MOMMENDATIO RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY'VE BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. TIME FOR DEBATE OR QUESTIONS ON THOSE. SEEING NONE, -- WE HAVE IT ON THE FLOOR ALREADY. SO, SORRY, ALDERMAN FARRELL, WERE YOU GOING TO? WHAT'S BEFORE US IS THE -- NO, ALDERMAN MAR MOVED IT, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SECONDED IT. WE TABLED IT EVEN BEFORE WE SECONDED IT. AND ALDERMAN PINCOTT SECONDED IT. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T REALIZE WE DID THAT. WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US NOW ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PER THE REPORT ON PAGE 104. AND THOSE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BASICALLY APPROVE THE CHANGE. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE SOME AMENDMENTS COMING FORTH FOR SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW. ALL RIGHT. FURTHER QUESTIONS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU FOR DEBATE. I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS. I KNOW THE COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED, AND THEY'RE USING LANGUAGE THAT'S ACTUALLY QUITE EXCITING. THEY'RE CITING SOME VERY IMPORTANT PARTS OF PLANET CALGARY, AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPLETE COMMUNITIES. SO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS COULDN'T BE HIGHLIGHTED MORE. AND I'M HOPING THAT WE LOOK AT MASTER PLANNING MORE FREQUENTLY. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO THE WORK THOUGH, AS THE CITY. AND I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE CONDITION FOR SUCCESS IN CREATING COMPLETE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. I WOULD SUGGEST WE NEED TO BE A BIT MORE FLEXIBLE IN THIS LOCATION AND THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FRANKLY. AND I HAVE TO SAY, THAT I'M QUITE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE STILL USING TRANSPORTATION CAPACITIES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE OUR DENSITY CAPS, WHEN WE HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY TOLD THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. SO THAT CONTINUES TO CONCERN ME. BUT I'LL SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN HODGES, I HAVE YOU, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR THE AMENDMENTS OR IF YOU WANT IT NOW. >> OKAY. I'LL WAIT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN CARRA. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT -- I WANT TO REITERATE ALDERMAN FARRELL'S POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET FROM HERE TO THERE. THE FACT THAT WE'RE FOCUSSING ON DENSITIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WE ALL SAW WHAT WENT UP ON THE TABLE. I WANT TO JUST REITERATE THE PIZZA PIE REALITY. YOU CAN HAVE A BLOCK OF MOZZARELLA CHEESE AND TOMATOES AND A BAG OF FLOUR ON THE TABLE AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE A PIZZA PIE. I THINK IF YOU WANT YOUR COMMUNITIES TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S COMING FORWARD, THEY WANT TO SEE THE BAKED, FINISHED PROJECT. SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE SORT OF SLOWLY SLIPPING TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING. AND WE COULD GET ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. I'M VERY LEERY OF THIS PROCESS, AND I'M VERY LOOKING -- I FEEL BAD FOR THE DEVELOPER TOO. I THINK THE DEVELOPER AND THE COMMUNITY ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, RATHER THAN WORKING COLLABORATIVELY. I APPRECIATE THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S EXACTLY WITH A WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE INNOVATION PROJECT. I THINK HAVING AN IDEA OF WHERE YOU'RE GOING IS ESSENTIAL. BECAUSE IF YOU START MAKING DECISIONS NOW THEN YOU'RE LOCKED IN. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE DETAILED DESIGN STAGE, WE HEARD IT FROM OUR OWN PLANNER SAYING, WELL, WE HOPE AT SOME POINT THAT IT MIGHT TURN OUT LIKE THAT. WHY DON'T WE SAY WHAT IT WILL TURN OUT LIKE AND THEN BACK OUT THE LAND USE THAT SUPPORTS IT. I LOOK FORWARD TO ALDERMAN HODGES' AMENDMENTS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN LOWE. OH, NOT YET. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, THIS HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING PROJECT TO SAY THE LEAST. I DO HAVE FEELINGS FOR THOSE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT HAVEN'T VISITED THIS ISSUE BEFORE. FOR MYSELF, THIS IS THE FOURTH GO AROUND OF THIS SITE. THERE HAVE BEEN ABOUT THREE PREVIOUS OWNERS, AND THEY'VE ALL HAD DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT THE SITE. MOST INNOVATIVE WAS THE HEALTH PARK PROPOSAL IN 1995. EARLIER -- SOME OF YOU ARE FEELING THAT IT'S TAKEN A LONG TIME TO GET THIS FAR. IN 1980 I WAITED FOR TWO DAYS TO SPEAK TO A PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSAL ON THIS SITE. THAT WAS IN THE DAYS OF -- A COMPANY BY THE NAME OF DAON DEVELOPMENT, WHO AREN'T IN EXISTENCE ANYMORE. THE RECESSION OF THE EARLY MID '80S TOOK THEM DOWN. AND ALL THE BORROWING THEY'VE DONE, I TAKE IT. SO LATER THERE WERE OTHER PROPOSALS, NONE OF WHICH WILL PROCEEDS IT. I THINK PROBABLY THIS PROPOSAL IS, IN TERMS OF MODERN DAY PLANNING, IS THE MOST PRACTICAL TO DATE. IT'S STAGE TWO OF THE PROPERTIES OWNERED IN THE AREA. AND IT FITS WITH THEIR STAGE 1 PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2007 BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL. SO NO MATTER WHICH PROPOSAL HAS COME FORWARD ON THIS SITE, THEY'VE ALL BEEN CONTROVERSIAL, AND THEY'VE ALL TAKEN SOMETIME TO SORT OUT. AND THIS ONE'S TAKEN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO SORT OUT AS WELL. I THINK AS ALDERMAN CARRA HAS JUST MENTIONED, ONE OF THE MOST PROMISING THINGS THAT'S COME OUT OF THIS EXERCISE IS THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF A BETTER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW. A BETTER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, WHICH THEY PUT IN THEIR LETTER OF LATE APRIL, EARLY MAY OF THIS YEAR. IT'S ENTITLED MOVING GREEN BRIAR FORWARD, THE POINT OF VIEW. IT'S ATTACHMENT ONE IN TODAY'S AGENDA. AND I THINK THAT PROCESS HAS SUMMED UP HOPE THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ONE DAY. IT WOULD BE A MORE PRODUCTIVE PROCESS THAN THIS HAS BEEN TO DATE. IT CERTAINLY WOULD CUT THE TIME DOWN OF GETTING ANY KIND OF A LAND USE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. AT LEAST THAT'S MY VIEW. SO, YOUR WORSHIP, I HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS I'LL PUT AT WHEN WE GET TO THE BYLAWS. I HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE PUT, AND SOME FURTHER WORK, OBVIOUSLY THAT, NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE FUTURE OF WHAT THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, HOW IT CAN BE APPROVED IN THE FUTURE. THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT THIS PARTICULAR SITE, BUT WHICH WOULD AFFECT OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT COUNCIL WILL HEAR IN THE FUTURE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN HODGES, ALTHOUGH YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THE AMENDMENTS NOW, IT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES VOTING, WHAT THE TENURE IS OF THEM. >> YES T FIRST IS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, Mr. STURGESS. ALL SUPPORTED IT. IT WILL BE A NEW -- IT'S IN PARAGRAPH 8 IN THE A.R.P. A MASTER PLAN FOR THE OVERALL GREEN BRIAR AREA SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH AND PART OF THE FIRST PERMIT APPLICATION AREA IN THE GREEN BRIAR AREA, WHICH SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE CALGARY PLANNING AREA FOR REVIEW AND DECISION. SINCE IT'S A NEW NUMBER 8 THAT WOULD MEAN WE'RE NUMBERING THE REST OF THE POLICIES. SO THAT'S ONE OF THEM. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THAT THE ONLY ONE? >> NO. THERE IS ANOTHER ONE THAT I'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BRIEFLY AND WITH THE LAND OWNER. AND THAT RELATES TO THE F.A.R. IN D.C. SITE 2. THE BYLAW, HE HAS A MAXIMUM F.A.R. OF 2, AND EVERYTHING THAT I'VE READ, INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE CONSULTANT FOR THE LAND OWNER FOR MELCORE, INDICATES AN F.A.R. OF 1. SO MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO MOVE FROM A 2 F.A.R. TO A 1.0 F.A.R., WHICH IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS BACKUP TO THIS APPLICATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I CALL ALDERMAN LOWE TO CLOSE? ALDERMAN LOWE. >> VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR WORSHIP. THE CONCEPT OF THE MASTER PLAN, IT WAS PART OF PLANNING COMMISSION. IVES HESITANT TO SUPPORT IT THERE. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. I'M INCREASINGLY WORRIED ABOUT PLANNING COMMISSION. RATHER THAN BEING A TECHNICAL REVIEW, PLANNING MATTERS, PLANNING. AND IT'S OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN. BUT NONETHELESS, IT'S A REQUEST THAT THEY PUT FORWARD, AND IT WAS PASSED. AND I SEE THAT I DID VOTE FOR IT. I CHECKED IT. WITH RESPECT TO THE F.A.R., I WILL NOT AGREE TO THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD PERMIT A HIGHER F.A.R. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE MATTER AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. I'M GOING TO ECHO SOME OF WHAT ALDERMAN FARRELL SAID. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED THROUGH THIS PROCESS, GIVEN WHERE THIS LAND IS, GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS, GIVEN THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES THAT SURROUND IT, GIVEN THE LOCATION ABOVE THE COMMUNITY, IN FACT, IT'S NOT REALLY CONNECTED TO THE COMMUNITY. IT'S -- I THINK WE'VE COME A VERY LONG WAY. I WORRIED WHEN I SAW THOSE AMASSING DRAWINGS GO UP BECAUSE THEY WERE INSTANTLY MISINTERPRETED. THEY DON'T REPRESENT THE END PRODUCT AT ALL. THEY REPRESENT A PLANNING EXERCISE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING THROUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND HOW TO SPREAD THEIR COMMERCIAL THROUGH THE ENTIRE AREA. SO THAT'S THE RISK WE DO WHEN WE HEAR IN PUBLIC HEARINGS. GETTING TOO FAR DOWN BEYOND THE LAND USE. ON THAT, YOUR WORSHIP, CLOSE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. THEREFORE, ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? I AM OPPOSED. AND ALDERMAN CARRA IS OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT, THEN. ON FIRST -- WHICH BYLAW ARE YOU GOING TO BE AMENDING, ALDERMAN HODGES? BOTH OF THEM? >> IT'S THE FIRST ONE. BYLAW 25-P, 2011. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. >> THAT'S THE SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE GREEN BRIAR AREA LAND USE POLICIES, WHICH IS A PART OF 25-P. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. SO FIRST READING OF BYLAW 25-P 2011 ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? I AM OPPOSED. ALDERMAN CARRA AND I ARE OPPOSED. NOW ALDERMAN HODGES, BEFORE WE GET TO THE SECOND READING YOU CAN TABLE THAT AMENDMENT. >> YES, I BELIEVE -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OH, LET'S JUST FINISH THE VOTE. >> I BELIEVE MADAM CLERK HAS COPIES MASTER PLANNED FOR THE OVERALL GREEN BRIAR AREA BE SUBMITTED. AND REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN IT IS COMPLETED, OBVIOUSLY, FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND DECISION, AND RENUMBER THE REST OF THE POLICIES. I BELIEVE MADAM CLERK HAS A COPY OF THIS, AND IT'S A PROPOSED AMENDMENT I WORKED OUT WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, AND WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? >> SECOND. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YEAH. MY ONLY QUESTION IS, COUNCIL IS NOW DONE WITH THAT THEN, WITH THIS AMENDMENT. WE DON'T SEE IT AGAIN. AND WE JUST TAKE IT AS A MATTER OF FAITH THAT PLANET IS GOING TO SOMEHOW MIRACULOUSLY CONGEAL IN THIS SITE, YOU KNOW. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO ALDERMAN LOWE, THAT MASSING MODEL IS WHAT'S PERMITTED ON THE GROUND BY A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE BYLAW. SO IF IT DOESN'T REFLECT THE END PRODUCT, IT CAN VERY WELL REFLECT THE END PRODUCT AND WE JUST WASH OUR HANDS AND SEND IT OFF. IS THERE ANYWAY TO HAVE COUNCIL'S EYES ON THIS AGAIN? IS THAT DESIRABLE? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK A MASTER PLAN IS IMPORTANT HERE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT? IS THERE A WAY THAT COUNCIL COULD HAVE EYES ON THIS AGAIN? >> YOUR WORSHIP -- THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THEY'RE REALLY POWERFUL. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE THAT CLOSE. >> GOOD. WELL, IN THE NORMAL COURSE, NO. I GUESS NORMALLY COUNCIL CLEARLY APPROVES LAND USE, AND THEN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND SUBDIVISIONS ARE DELEGATED THROUGH APPROPRIATE BYLAWS TO THE SUBJECTIVE AUTHORITY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. I SUPPOSE ONE WAY OF HAVING IT COME BACK WOULD BE NOT TO NOT APPROVE THE LAND USE NOW AND HAVE IT WITH OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, NOT ADVISING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. BUT THAT'S REALLY HOW YOU WOULD GET IT BACK. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD GIVE DIRECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO BRING IT BACK FOR INFORMATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT PURPOSE THAT WOULD SERVE. >> SO BASICALLY WE DELAY THE DEVELOPER BY HOLDING UP THEIR LAND USE, OR WE JUST HOPE THAT OUR ABILITY TO DO WHAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO REALLY CONSISTENTLY IS GOING TO SOMEHOW HAPPEN ON THIS MATTER THROUGH OUR CURRENT PROCESS. THAT'S AN HELL OF A CHOICE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. [LAUGHTER] INDEED. >> IS THERE ANY -- YEAH. ALL RIGHT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN CARRA, WHILE YOU'RE STANDING, I NOTE THE HOUR. I'M JUST GONNA LOOK AROUND THE TABLE AND SEE IF THERE'S INTEREST AMONGST COUNCIL IN FINISHING OFF THIS ITEM BEFORE OUR BREAK. SEVEN NOW. ALL RIGHT THEN. SO IN THAT CASE, I'M GONNA BANG THE GAVEL, AND WE WILL BE BACK HERE AT 7:20. >> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN HODGES. AND ALDERMAN HODGES YOU STILL GOT THE FLOOR, I THINK. >> YOUR WORSHIP, GIVEN SOME OF THE WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN UNARTICULATED COMMENTS ABOUT MY GOOD IDEA OF A MASTER PLAN. >> GOOD IDEA. >> IT IS. IN PRACTICAL TERMS. WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THE COOPERATION OR EXPECT TO AGREE WITH THE COOPERATION OF THOSE OTHER TWO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. I'M GOING TO AMEND IF YOU WILL ALLOW THAT. MASTER PLAN FOR THE LANDS IN THE AREA SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND FORM FIRST PART OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. THAT THEY HAVE A SAY IN. OBVIOUSLY. THEY ARE THE LANDOWNER AND I THINK IT'S MORE REALISTIC THAN EXPECT THE OTHER LANDOWNERS TO SIGN ON. >> OKAY WITH THAT. YOU ARE OKAY WITH IT. I THINK I'M OKAY WITH IT. NO, ACTUALLY JOOP YOUR WORSHIP, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROCEDURAL BYLAW SAYS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS OKAY AS LONG AS IT'S UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED BY COUNCIL. >> YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ME LOOK, AREN'T YOU? WHAT THE HELL. WE'LL CALL THIS AN AMENDMENT -- YEAH, OKAY. COUNCIL, DO YOU AGREE? WELL, ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS EASY. THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. GOT THAT DONE. ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MY ORANGE BOOK WITHIN ARM'S REACH. BUT, ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT IS FINE. I THINK ALDERMAN CAN A REGARD, YOU HAD YOUR GO. YOUR LIGHT IS STILL ON. >> NO. >> DID WE FIND SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION TO THE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP RIGHT BEFORE WE BANGED THE GAVEL? >> NO, OF COURSE NOT. BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT 3 AND THOUGHTFUL ISSUE. >> I MEAN -- >> I WAS HOPING THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAME UP WITH SOMETHING OVER DINNER. >> WILL COUNCIL SEE IT AGAIN IS PART OF THE PROBLEM? >> NO. >> NO. >> AND WILL THERE BE ANY PUBLIC CONSULTATION, THIS ADVANCED PROCESS WITH ACTUAL COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPER? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT ALDERMAN CARRA HAS MADE. WE CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN HAVING DISCUSSIONS HOW WE CAN BETTER DEAL WITH THESE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTRES, AND SO WE ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM. IT COULD BE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OR MORE FORM-BASED CONTROLS ON THESE KINDS OF AREAS BUT I'M SURE MALKROR IS WILLING TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY AS PART OF THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN BRING SOME OF THE ELEMENTS TO FRUITION THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED IN THE MEETING THIS EVENING UNDER OUR PRESENT PROCESSES. >> ONLY FINAL COMMENT REALLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD AS IS CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THE THE MALCORE LANDS ARE NOT THE FULL NEIGHBOURHOOD. YOU NEED THE MOBILE HOME PARK AND THE OTHER CELL TO SORT OF REALLY BE THAT COMPLETE NEIGHBOURHOOD. AND SO I WAS EXCITED AT THE PROSPECT THAT THE WHOLE THING WOULD BE SORT OF ROUGHED OUT TOGETHER AND MALCORE LANDS PLACED WITHIN THE LARGER NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT WOULD GROW THERE WOULD BE CONSIDERED. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE NIGHTMARE OF TRYING TO BRING RELUCTANT LANDOWNERS TO THE TABLE. WHICH IS A SHAME. I ENCOURAGE THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS TO CONSIDER CONNECTIVITY AND BUILD OUT OF THE REST OF THE AREA. THAT ENTIRE PLATEAU ZONE HAS TO HANG TOGETHER COMPLETE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT SOME POINT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALSO PLATEAU ZONE WOULD BE A REALLY COOL NAME FOR A NEIGHBOURHOOD. DOES THAT HELP, ALDERMAN CARRA? >> I THINK SO. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> YEAH, YOUR WORSHIP, I'M TRYING TO GRASP WHAT THE INTENT IS OF THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE GOT ALL KINDS OF DOCUMENTATION ON STAGE ONE AND STAGE TWO PRIOR DEVELOPMENT THAT LAYS OUT PRETTY MUCH IN DETAIL WHAT THE LAND USES ARE GOING TO BE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL SECTION CONTAINED WITHIN STAGE ONE AND STAGE TWO. I'M NOT SURE WHAT ADMINISTRATION WOULD PERCEIVE THIS AS MEANING. >> IN TERMS OF THE MASTER PLAN? WE WOULD BE LOOKING MORE AT THE DETAILED DESIGN OF THE SHOPPING AREA, IN PARTICULAR, AS IT RELATES TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBOURHOOD. SO IT WOULD BE MORE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LEVEL DETAIL ON THE SHOPPING CENTRE SITE AND THEN HOW IT WOULD CONNECT TO THE LARGER NEIGHBOURHOOD. >> SO ON THAT POINT THEN, WHEN THEY COME FORWARD WITH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, WOULD THEY NOT BE THEN GOING THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN? >> NO. THIS WOULD BE AS PART OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A LARGER AREA THAN JUST THE SITE AT HAND AND LOOKING AT THOSE CONNECTIONS TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, ET CETERA. SO IT WOULD BE PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. IT WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE OTHER LANDS BUT IT WOULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE APPROVALLING AUTHORITY AND IN THIS PLACE IT WOULD BE PLANNING COMMISSION, HOW THOSE THINGS WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. >> BUT EACH ONE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RIGOR WHEN THEY CAME FORWARD WITH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION? >> IF THEY ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED IN MANY OF THESE CASES, SO THE LEVEL OF RIGOR WOULD DEPEND ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION THAT WAS BEING MADE. >> I WILL LISTEN, SEE WHAT ELSE COMES OUT OF THIS. BUT AS IT STANDS I CAN'T SEE MYSELF SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN MAR? THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU. I KNOW ALDERMAN CARRA HAD ASKED WHY PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T ASK THAT COUNCIL REVIEW THE MASTER PLAN, AND PLANNING COMMISSION CAN'T DIRECT COUNCIL BUT IT CAN REQUEST THAT PLANS DO COME BACK FOR SOME EXTRA OVERSIGHT, AND ALDERMAN LOWE AND I DON'T AGREE NECESSARILY ON THE ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ALTHOUGH IT'S WELL DEFINED, WE LOOK AT URBAN DESIGN ISSUES AND ARCHITECTURE ISSUES AND HOPEFULLY RAISE THE BAR WHENEVER POSSIBLE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ANTICIPATE IN THIS CASE. IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE BAR. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I'M NEW AT THIS BUT I'M STILL TRYING TO GRASP WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THIS PROCESS FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE STANDARD PROCESS TO WHICH THEY GO THROUGH CPC TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. IS IT JUST A LARGER CONTEXT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT? >> YES, IT WOULD BE A LARGER CONTEXT. IT WOULDN'T BE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE WHOLE AREA. IT WOULD FOCUS ON THE SHOPPING CENTRE, BUT TALK ABOUT ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. >> WHEN YOU SAY SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO HOW IT RELATES TO THE OTHER CELLS OR HOW IT RELATES TO BOWNESS OR ALL OF IT? >> JUST THE MALCORE LANDS AS INDICATED IN THE MOTION. >> JUST THE MALCORE LANDS. >> YES. >> HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM A STANDARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT? I'M SORRY. >> NORMALLY WE ONLY WOULD HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT COULD DEAL WITH THE SHOPPING CENTRE SITE ON ITS OWN AND IN THIS CASE WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WOULD SHOW THE ENTIRE BUILD OUT OF THE COMMUNITY, THOSE OTHER PARTS WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUT IT WOULD SHOW THAT CONCEPT FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, AND SPECIFICALLY HOW IT RELATES TO THE SHOPPING CENTRE SITE, AND THE OFFICE LOCATIONS. >> AS PART OF THIS IF PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T LIKE THE WAY THE R-1s ARE BEING STATIONED INTO OR R 1Ss, SORRY, IN RELATION TO THE SHOPPING CENTRE AND OR OFFICES, IT COULD BE DECLINED IN THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAGE? >> NO. WE WOULDN'T BE REFUSING THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE. BUT WE COULD PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT ON THE BUILD OUT OF THE LARGER COMMUNITY AND HOW IT RELATES. BUT I THINK THE MAIN FOCUS WOULD BE ON THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTRE SITE, AND THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. >> CAN YOU EXPAND JUST A LITTLE WHAT YOU MEAN ON THE LARGER AREA, HOW IT RELATES TO THE LARGER AREA, JUST HOW IT RELATES TO THE OFFICE, HOW IT RELATES TO THE SINGLE FAMILIES? WHAT? >> I THINK THE CONNECTIVITY FOR EXAMPLE FROM THE BALANCE OF THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER. ALSO THERE ARE OTHER MULTIFAMILY SITES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND HOW THEY WOULD CONNECT, ET CETERA. SO WE WOULD BE JUST REALLY LOOKING AT A BROADER AREA, AT A FINER GRAIN OF DETAIL THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY LOOK AT A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BUT IT WOULDN'T BE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE LARGER AREA. I THINK WOULD BE SOMEWHAT BREAKING NEW GROUND HERE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE PROCESS, AND I THINK WE COULD LEARN A LOT FROM THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH AND SEE IF IT COULD BE APPLIED IN OTHER AREAS, AND HOW THE PROCESS MIGHT ACCOMMODATE IT. >> SO WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS AND WE ARE KIND OF USING THIS GROUP AS A GUINEA PIG TO TRY IT OUT? >> WE CERTAINLY HAD CONCEPT PLANS BEFORE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO STRUGGLE WITH AT TIMES IS HOW TO USE THOSE CONCEPT PLAN AND THEIR LONGEVITY, ET CETERA. SO WE HAVE USED CONCEPT PLANS, BUT I DON'T RECALL AN EXAMPLE, LOOKING AT THE STAFF, OF A CASE WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE USED SOMETHING FOR THIS KIND OF A FOCUS ON A SHOPPING AREA AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING. SO I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT NEW. >> OKAY. SO JUST STEPPING ME THROUGH THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A AGREED UPON MASTER PLAN AND THEN THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DO THE SHOPPING CENTRE? >> NO, THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD BE HANDLED AS PART OF THE LARGER DISCUSSION AROUND THE MASTER PLAN. SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO -- IT WOULD BE ONE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE USED ONLY FOR THE SHOPPING CENTRE. SO THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD ALSO SHOW IN CONCEPT HOW THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE DEVELOPED, AND SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT I MENTIONED. >> I GO BACK TO MY FIRST PART IS THAT IF DEPENDING ON HOW THEY BUILD OUT THE BALANCE OF AREA IS GOING TO DEPEND WHETHER THE SHOPPING CENTRE GETS A PERMIT? >> NO. IS YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE COMMENTS ON THE BUILD OUT OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY MIGHT INFLUENCE THE ACCEPTANCE OR NOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE SHOPPING CENTRE? >> YES. >> I WOULDN'T SEE IT WORKING IN THAT WAY. I THINK IT COULD BE MORE -- WELL, IT DEPENDS WHAT ISSUES WERE RAISED ABOUT THE SHOPPING CENTRE SITE IN ITSELF. WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SHOPPING CENTRE SITE ONLY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT AROSE FROM THAT RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING AREA, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ATTENDED TO ON THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. BUT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE STAFF REVIEW. BUT -- >> STAFF REVIEW OR PART OF THE CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION. >> PART OF THE STAFF REVIEW IN THE REPORT THEY PROVIDE TO CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE ARE SOME SUBTLE NUANCES HERE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH, AND I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. ABOUT THAT. >> SO I'M SORRY, WE ARE BACK TO DEPENDING ON HOW THE BALANCE OF THE MALCORE LANDS ARE BUILT OUT IN RELATION TO THE SHOPPING CENTRE IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS GRANTED OR NOT? >> THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE VALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE SHOPPING CENTRE. >> SO YES. IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT WHETHER THEY GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON HOW THEY DECIDE TO BUILD OUT -- >> IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION, YES IT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT, WHICH IS WHY WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE LARGER COMMUNITY. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> STILL NEED A DP FOR THE REST OF -- OTHER THAN THE SHOPPING CENTRE, WE WOULD NEED OTHER DEVELOPMENT -- YEAH, I KNEW THAT. >> THANKS ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN LOWE? >> I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THIS WITH A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST. IT'S THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT COMES IN AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT MAY BE FOR THE HOTEL. >> WELL, IT MAY BE FOR THE HOTEL, YOUR WORSHIP, BUT THAT IS PART OF THE -- PART OF THE SHOPPING CENTRE AREA, AND SO THEREFORE, YOU WOULD STILL WANT THE MASTER PLAN SHOWING THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> YOU ARE QUITE CORRECT. YOU ARE QUITE CORRECT. >> A LOT OF FOCUS ON IT BEING THE SHOPPING CENTRE WHEN THE SHOPPING CENTRE IS ACTUALLY DIVIDED OVER TWO PIECES OF LAND. >> YES. >> LET'S NOT GET HUNG UP. IT'S THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT COMES IN FOR APPROVAL WE ARE BEING ASKED TO SHOW THE -- >> I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT'S CORRECT. >> I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY FROM WHAT I HEARD AT PLANNING COMMISSION CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IF I'M WRONG, THEY ALSO INDICATED LATER CONNECTIVITY TO THE TRAILER COURT. SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS RELAX. I'M STILL NOT (INDISCERNIBLE) I WILL TELL YOU WHY ALDERMAN FARRELL AND I DON'T AGREE AND WHILE I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMING, PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DO THAT. I WORRY ABOUT MASTER PLAN COMING BECAUSE WHILE I BELIEVE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IS REVIEW OF TECHNICAL REVIEW OF PLANNING MATTERS, AND DOES IT FIT THE POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE AREA? PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE REDESIGNING. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE STARTING TO FALL INTO THAT HABIT, AND I WORRY GREATLY ABOUT THAT. SO WHILE I APPRECIATE ALDERMAN HODGES' DEFINING LANDS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO BE HERE, AND I REMIND COUNCIL DON'T FORGET THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTRE THING, IT'S THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT COMES IN WHATEVER PIECE OF LAND IT'S ON. IT'S THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS THAT'S CAUSING ME NOT TO SUPPORT IT. AND THAT'S THE PROPENSITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION NOW TO TRY TO MAKE POLICY WHICH IS AN ELECTED BODY'S JOB, NOT APPOINTED BODY'S JOB. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN LOWE. TO CLOSE ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THOUGHT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I THINK AS ALDERMAN FARRELL MENTIONED IT DOES RAISE THE BAR. IT I THINK WILL RESULT IN A BETTER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A BETTER DEVELOPMENT OVERALL FOR THE MALCORE LANDS. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE APPLICANT, WITH THE OTHER THAN THIS MORNING BEFORE 9:30. HE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. BUT HE HAS HAD DIFFICULTIES TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE OWNERS TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE MOBILE HOME PARK SITE. I DON'T DOUBT THAT HE HAD THOSE PROBLEMS COMMUNICATING WITH THE OWNERS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARKS. I HAVE FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. I HAVE NEVER HEARD FROM THEM EVER. THEY OPERATE A MAPLE LEAF MANAGEMENT COMPANY OUT OF VANCOUVER. THEY FRONT FOR THEM. AND THEY HAVE NO COMMUNICATION WITH THE KNOWN PUBLIC THAT I KNOW OF. SO I TAKE IT, YOUR WORSHIP, WHEN THEY WANT SOMETHING I WILL HEAR FROM THEM. BUT I GATHER THEY HAVEN'T WANTED VERY MUCH FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS WHICH IS OKAY WITH ME. >> BECAUSE THEY BENEFIT FROM OUTSTANDING REPRESENTATION, ALDERMAN HODGES. I DON'T EVEN IF THEY KNOW WHAT REPRESENTATION IS. SO I WOULD -- >> I'M LEARNING SO MUCH TODAY. >> SO THEY OPERATE VERY ISOLATED FASHION THERE AS OWNERS OF THAT SITE. MALCORE DO NOT OPERATE THAT WAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT REQUIREMENT -- MASTER PLAN FOR THEIR LANDS WILL RESULT AS I SAY IN A BETTER DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ON THE AMENDMENT THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ON THE AMENDMENT ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL? (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES. >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN LOWE? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> YES. >> MAYOR NENSHI? >> YES. >> CARRIED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MOVING RIGHT ALONG. SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW THEN ARE WE AGREED? OH, WAIT. YOU HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT. IS IT FOR THIS ONE. THE OTHER ONE. SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW. ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED? SAME DIVISION. ARE WE AGREED? NO. ALL RIGHT. SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? I AM OPPOSED. AND SO IS ALDERMAN MAR. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW AREE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN MAR AND I ARE OPPOSED. NOW, THAT TAKES US TO BYLAW 13D 2011 THEN. WE DONE THAT ALREADY. 13D 2011 FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CARRA AND I ARE OPPOSED. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES, I HAVE HANDED OUT AN AMENDMENT, APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO THE CLERK, TO THE STAFF AND I THINK I GAVE YOU YOUR WORSHIP, IF NOT I THINK THEY CAN PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS THE ISSUE OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. THIS BYLAW SAYS FAR OF 2. THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRODUCED BY THE CONSULTANTS FOR THE DEVELOPER AND FOR THE LANDOWNER, BY THE LANDOWNER INDICATE AN FAR OF 1. FAR OF 1 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ONLY ON DC SITE 2. DC SITE 1 IS FOR AN FAR OF 1. SO I AM ASKING THAT BE CONSISTENT TO HAVE AN FAR OF 1 ON DC SITE 2 AS WELL. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ALDERMAN CARRA. >> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN HODGES AND I HAVE ASSESSED THIS OVER THE BREAK. I WILL JUST SORT OF STATE THAT I THINK FLORAREA RATIO IS A MISERABLE PLANNING TOOL. IT WAS DESIGNED AS A MEASUREMENT TOOL FOR QUICK AND DIRTY ANALYSIS BY ACADEMICS. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND WICHITA. DESIGNED AS A QUICK AND DIRTY APPROACH. IT'S NOT A GOOD REGULATORY TOOL AND IT'S NOT A GOOD DESIGN TOOL. IN FACT, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS IN THE LAND USE BYLAW WHICH WILL IMPACT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AS A FINAL OUTCOME. I THINK THAT IF WE ARE ENGAGING IN A MASTER PLAN IN PROCESS, AND WE WANT TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IT WOULD BE A DAMN SHAME IF THE PERFECT PLAN THAT EVERYONE AGREED TO WAS AN FAR OF 1.1 OR 1.15 AND THEN YOU HAVE TO START SHAVING STUFF OFF, RIGHT. I WOULD ACTUALLY PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT THAT WE GET RID OF THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO ALL TOGETHER AND LET THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS SORT OF DETERMINE WHAT THE BEST PHYSICAL OUTCOME WOULD LOOK LIKE. ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT'S ALREADY CONSTRAINED BY A PLETHORA OF OTHER THINGS. PHYSICAL ENVELOPES, SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSED OVERPASS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT ALDERMAN HODGES IS TRYING TO DO HERE. I THINK THIS DOES ONE BETTER AND ACTUALLY GETS RID OF IT. THAT'S MY AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. CAN'T DO IT. >> IT'S CONTRARY. >> CONTRARY. WELL THEN I -- >> IF THIS FAILS THEN I WILL ASK IF WE CAN DO THAT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING BYLAW. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN WITHOUT ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. AND I WOULD LOVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. >> WELL, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I THINK YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM MAXIMUM MOVE TO DO THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. >> THANKS. I DON'T THINK I DISAGREE WITH YOU. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> WE WANT MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY TO DO THE BEST PLAN POSSIBLE WITHOUT HAMSTRINGING. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> BRIEFLY. FIRST OF ALL, CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING, THIS IS THE OFFICE COMPONENT, RIGHT? OFFICE SEAL. DISTRICT. OKAY. SO IF WE ARE LOOKING AT MAXIMIZE ON THE POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT IN THIS AREA TO MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR PEOPLE THAT COMMUTE IN AND OUT OF THE AREA THEN CERTAINLY WE WANT TO HAVE THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL DENSITY TO ACCOMMODATE FURTHER EMPLOYMENT. REDUCING THAT NUMBER IS CERTAINLY DOESN'T ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PLANET DOCUMENT IN MY OPINION. SO NO. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN HODGES DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE? >> WELL, YOUR WORSHIP I SEE WHAT WAS IN THE BYLAW AND I SEE WHAT WAS IN THE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THE LAND USE APPLICATION. I SAW THE DISCREPANCY AND I THOUGHT THAT MOVING IT TO ONE, WHICH IS THE SAME AS DC SITE 1 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. IT'S UP TO COUNCIL TO DECIDE. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ON THE AMENDMENT THEN ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> ANY OPPOSED. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES? >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN LOWE? >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR? >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT. >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> (Inaudible). >> MAYOR NENSHI. >> NO. >> LOST. >> ALL RIGHT THEN. SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED. ANY OPPOSED. ALDERMAN CARRA AND I ARE OPPOSED. >> OH, SHOOT. >> RIGHT NOW. CAN HE DO THAT OR WOULD THAT REQUIRE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING? >> COULD YOU JUST REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> HE HAD LIKE TO REMOVE THE LINE ABOUT FLOOR AREA RATIO AND JUST NOT HAVE IT AT ALL? I CAN SEE AMENDING IT. GETTING RID OF IT IS THAT TOO SUBSTANTIVE OF A CHANGE? >> WELL, YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY I THINK THERE WOULD BE NO CONTROLS ON THE DENSITY AT ALL THEN WOULD THERE? >> RESPECTFULLY THERE ARE ALREADY MULTIPLE CONTROLS ON THE DENSITY. THERE IS SETBACKS, THERE IS BUILDING ENVELOPE THE WITHIN THE LAND USE DISTRICT THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE DC AND THEN THERE IS ALSO THE CARING CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE THAT WILL RESTRICT HOW BIG EVERYTHING GETS AND THERE IS BUILDING HEIGHTS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I GUESS I WOULD ASK FOR JUST -- PARDON ME, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION MAYBE FROM PLANNING THEN. THE RULE OF THUMB WE HAVE IS IF YOU CHANGE THE LAND USE IN THE RULES -- AND THE RULES ENOUGH TO AFFECT A JUMP IN DISTRICT OR BASE DISTRICT THEN YOU WOULD NEED A NEW PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M SORRY, I'M NOT A PLANNER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COULD BE THE RESULT. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT IS TYPICAL AND STANDARD FOR US TO HAVE A DENSITY STATEMENT, A DENSITY THRESHOLD, IF YOU WILL. MAXIMUM IN THIS CASE. AND I TAKE ALDERMAN CARRA'S POINT THAT THERE WOULD BE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE SETBACKS AND ET CETERA, THERE WOULD BE AN OUTPUT OF BUILDING ENVELOPE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT ALDERMAN CARRA IS REFERRING TO. WITHOUT HAVING DONE THE ANALYSIS, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT IS. SO I WOULD BE CONCERNED PERSONALLY THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A STATEMENT OF MAXIMUM DENSITY PROVIDED IN THE BYLAW. I TAKE THE POINT HE IS MAKING ABOUT FAR AS A TOOL BUT I THINK IT IS VERY STANDARD FOR US TO HAVE SOME REFERENCE TO DENSITY AND MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE ONE PROVIDED HERE. >> SO I THINK THAT BASED ON WHAT I JUST HEARD, ALDERMAN CARRA, I THINK TO CHANGE THIS AT THIS JUNCTURE WOULD TAKE US INTO LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE GROUNDS. I'M ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT. >> COULD WE JUST DO AN AMENDMENT AND THEN REFER IT FOR A WEEK TO FIND OUT WHETHER THAT'S ACTUALLY THE CASE? IF SOMEONE WERE TO SECOND IT. >> DO AN AMENDMENT AND REFER IT FOR A WEEK. MADAM CLERK? >> WE HAVEN'T REALLY VOTED. >> HE JUMPED UP DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE VOTE. WE DIDN'T DO THE ROLL CALL ON THE VOTE. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE VOTE WAS. >> YOU ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT. BY LAW YOU CAN'T RECONSIDER IT. >> WHAT WAS THE ROLL CALL ON THE SECOND VOTE, MADAM CLERK. >> THERE WASN'T ONE YET. >> WE DIDN'T EVEN GET TO THAT. >> WE WERE JUST THERE. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO IT, ALDERMAN CARRA, SORRY. WE'LL HAVE TO CATCH THIS ONE THE NEXT TIME. >> THERE IS NO NEXT TIME. >> I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT Ms. AX WORTY WILL TAKE THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT AND SHOULD SOMETHING COME BACK WITH GREATER THAN TWO MAXIMUM. >> I DON'T SEE IT COMING BACK. I'M WILLING TO SIT DOWN. I HAVE HATRED IN MY HEART FOR FAR. >> OKAY, SO NOTED. >> YOU SHOULDN'T HATE, ALDERMAN CARRA. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL WORLD. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN HODGES AND I ARE OPPOSED. DID YOU JUST STICK YOUR HAND UP. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THAT'S THIS ONE. THEN I WILL NEED A MOTION PLEASE TO LIST FROM THE TABLE. THANKS. ALDERMAN FARRELL. SECONDED, ALDERMAN MAR. ARE WE AGREED? ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE BACK TO THE TENTH FOLKS. ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS RESULTING FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HEARD A LOT OF CONFUSION AND PERHAPS SOME MISINFORMATION. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF EXAGGERATION BUT IT REALLY CONCERNS ME THAT WE ARE HEARING THAT PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY DON'T REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAVE BEEN TOLD BY SOMEBODY THAT THEY DO. SO WHAT IS -- IS THIS WHAT'S OCCURRED? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I DID CONSULT WITH THE STAFF, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME INFORMATION PROVIDED TO -- AND I CAN'T SAY HOW MANY PERSONS, ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT WERE INCORRECT. WE HAVE MADE A CHANGE IN THE APPROACH ON THE COUNTER BECAUSE WE DID LEARN THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME DIFFICULTY, AND ALSO INCREASED THE TRAINING. SO I DO APOLOGIZE, PARTICULARLY TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO APPARENTLY RECEIVED THE INCORRECT INFORMATION. >> SO DID WE CONTACT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE TURNED AWAY OR THAT GOT THE WRONG -- DID WE CONTACT THEM AND TRY TO CLARIFY? >> WELL, I'M NOT SURE AT THIS POINT THAT WE NECESSARILY KNOW WHO THOSE PEOPLE WERE. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO COMPILE A LIST, I UNDERSTAND, FROM Ms. HARTLEY OF PERSONS WHO APPLIED FOR TENT APPLICATIONS IN THE PAST, AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED. TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED WITH THE CORRECT INFORMATION, BUT OF COURSE, WE CAN'T BE SURE THAT SOME PEOPLE THAT MAYBE HAD NOT BEEN A PAST CUSTOMER WERE GIVEN THE CORRECT INFORMATION. >> DID WE CONTACT THE TENT COMPANIES TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WRONG INFORMATION WAS GOING OUT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO ASK Ms. HARTLEY IF SHE COULD COME FORWARD AND ASSIST US WITH THAT. >> CERTAINLY. >> IT'S HARD TO TELL WHEN INCORRECT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO AN APPLICANT. WHAT WE DID WAS PROVIDE TWO NAMES FOR CONTACT FOR THE TENT INDUSTRY. THESE ARE (Inaudible) PLANNER AND THEY ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT INFORMATION. INDUSTRY HAS ON TWO OR THREE OCCASIONS RECEIVED THEIR NAMES AND PHONE NUMBERS AND ARE ABLE TO CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY. THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT WORK ON THE FRONT COUNTER. THEY CAN LOOK INTO THE ENTITY CANADIANSES OF THEIR PARTICULAR INQUIRY -- ENTITY CANADIANSES OF THEIR INQUIRY AND RESPOND. >> I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE WHERE TO GO. WE HAVE TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE JUST CLARIFICATION OF THE BYLAW. WE ARE HEARING THAT FOR MOST OF THE SPEAKERS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WAS BEFORE US TODAY, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE TIME. AND I THINK MOST OF THEM UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO HAVE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THESE THINGS. BUT WHAT ARE YOU -- WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE DO ON BOTH CITY SOLICITOR AND FOR MOVING FORWARD. DO WE MOVE THESE TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS SO WE HAVE CLARITY FOR THE DEFINITIONS AND DO WE REFER THE WHOLE THING BACK FOR MORE CONSULTATION? AND I'M CONCERNED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CONSTABLE KANE SOME QUESTIONS HOW WE CAN DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE SAW FROM LAST YEAR. SO MAYBE IF YOU COULD ADVISE ME ON THE NEXT STEPS, PLEASE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO Ms. JACKLE ABOUT POSSIBLE WAY TO MANAGE THIS SITUATION, AND I THINK PART OF THE CONCERN THAT HAS ARISEN HERE IS AROUND THE DEFINITION OF ADJACENT, AND IT SPEAKS TO THE RELATIONSHIP TO A STREET OR LANE. IN SOME CASES, IN THE CASE OF MAYBE OFFSET PARCELS, WE CAN FIND OURSELVES WITH SITUATIONS WHERE TO THE LAYMAN IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SITE IS ADJACENT BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE NARROW DEFINITION IN THE BYLAW, AND I THINK THAT THE AMENDMENT, SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. WE ARE SUGGESTING, IF IT'S COUNCIL'S WISH, THAT YOU COULD GIVE FIRST READING TO THE BYLAW AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE WORDING AS DRAFTED, AND WE COULD COME BACK NEXT MONDAY WITH PERHAPS A DEFINITION OF ADJACENT WHICH WILL ADDRESS MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO HAVE THESE KINDS OF SITES IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND TO THE LAYPERSON WOULD APPEAR TO BE ADJACENT BUT IT WOULDN'T CAPTURE AS MANY APPLICATIONS IN THE NET AS PERHAPS WAS PROPOSED UNDER THE CURRENT BYLAW. SO IF COUNCIL SO WISHES, YOU COULD GIVE FIRST READING AND WE COULD MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS ON SECOND READING WHICH MIGHT ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE TENT INDUSTRY AND ALSO BY THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE. >> SO, THEN, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION. WE COULD THEN REFER THOSE I'M THINKING OF TEAM THAT -- WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT TEAM THAT WE HAVE. THE LICENSED ESTABLISHMENT MULTIAGENCY GROUP. >> YES. >> THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. THE INDUSTRY, OF COURSE. COMMUNITY. AND THEN REFER THAT TO COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR I THINK OCTOBER. >> WE COULD LOOK AT MANY OF THE PROCESS ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY AS WELL TO SEE IF THERE ISN'T A WAY THAT WE COULD PROVIDE MORE EXPEDITED PROCESS EVEN FOR SOME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. (PLEASE STAND BY) >> DOW HAVE SOME TOOLS IN PLACE? THAT'S A CONCERN I HAVE. DO YOU HAVE SOME TOOLS IN PLACE? ARE THE TOOLS THERE FOR YOU TO BE PROACTIVE? >> I THINK CERTAINLY WITH THE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT I WORK WITH, WE CAN OBVIOUSLY STILL LOOK AT APPLICATIONS THIS YEAR. AND MORE SO JUST GOING OUT AND SPEAKING TO SAYING WE NEED TO SLIGHTLY CHANGE THIS SO WE CAN GET A FIRM APPROACH TO WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE. SO I THINK, YES, WE COULD. BECAUSE ALL THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THE LIMA GROUP, AS IT'S CALLED NOW, IS THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE ENFORCING STUFF ON THE PUBLICITY TASK FORCE SIDE, SO, YES, WE DID. I THINK WE SHOULD STILL REVIEW IT. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT RELYING ON THE DP AT THIS TIME BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'LL HAVE DT. s. >> IT CERTAINLY GIVES YOU MORE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'VE GOT FORWARD BUT -- OKAY. THAT WILL BE AN INTERESTING TASK. WE'LL HAVE THIS STAMPEDE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE SUCCESS OF THAT AND THEN PERHAPS COME UP WITH SOME BETTER REGULATIONS. >> YEAH. I THINK IT WILL CERTAINLY GIVE US CHANCE TO LOOK AT HOW THINGS ARE STANDING TWO YEARS IN ROW BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT LAST YEAR, THE WEATHER WAS OBVIOUSLY A REAL FACTOR FOR A LOT OF THINGS THAT STAMPEDE DID SUFFER BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER. I THINK IF THE WEATHER IS DIFFERENT THIS YEAR, WE COULD POSSIBLY SEE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO HOW THE STAMPEDE IS RUNNING. >> MM-HMM. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SO Mr. MAYOR -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE THINK WE'VE GOT THIS. SO IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, WHICH IS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ADOPT SOME OF THOSE SIMPLE TEXT WALL AMENDMENTS BUT REFER THE BIGGER QUESTION TO A DIFFERENT PROCESS, THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE FOR COUNCIL TO FIRST READING ONLY TODAY, AND THEN REFER SECOND AND THIRD READINGS TO NEXT WEEK. NEXT WEEK, WHAT WE WOULD COME UP WITH IS A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS WHICH INCLUDES DELETING THE CONTENTIOUS SECTION FOR SECOND READING. THIRD READING AND THEN WE'D HAVE A MOTION ARISE TO GO START A PROCESS TO DO THE REST. >> OKAY. >> MAKE SENSE? >> THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'RE ACTUALLY REFERRING IT TO ADMINISTRATION FIRST. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE NEXT WEEK. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? COUNCIL, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON TODAY IS FIRST READING. NOTHING ELSE. THE WHOLE BYLAW. OKAY. AND THEN THERE WILL BE -- THEN WE'RE GOING TO REFER THE WHOLE -- REFER TO ADMINISTRATION PRIOR TO SECOND AND THIRD READING WHICH WILL BE BACK NEXT MONDAY. >> WHY COULDN'T WE JUST REFER THE WHOLE THING FOR THOSE AMENDMENTS? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: TODAY? >> YEAH. AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN WE NEED FIRST READING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE DON'T NEED FIRST READING TODAY EITHER, DO WE? >> NEXT WEEK. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NEXT WEEK. THEN NEXT WEEK YOU'LL GET A NEW MOTION. YES. YES. THAT WILL HAVE TO HAPPEN AT SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW. WE'RE NOT QUITE READY FOR THAT YET. CORRECT. OKAY. >> OKAY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WON'T BE CLARIFYING -- RIGHT NOW THE BYLAW IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IT DID AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO THIS YEAR IS CLARIFY THAT. IT'S A TEXT UAL AMENDMENT AND THEN IT WOULD THEN COME BACK TO COMMITTEE IN OCTOBER FOR -- TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TODAY. WITH MORE CONSULTATION. PPS. COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES. SO IS THAT CLEAR? I'M GOING TO OPEN WITH A BIT DEBATE THEN. NO TASK FORCE. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO INTO THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE, BECAUSE -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M GOING TO LET YOU DO THAT BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR REFERRAL MOTION, OKAY? >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN DEBATE IT. >> THAT'S -- YES. SO I THINK -- YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY. PREVIOUSLY, COUNCIL, WE REQUIRED PERMITS FOR ALL TENTS AND IT WAS A PROCESS THAT WAS -- THAT WAS FAIRLY ELEGANT. I DON'T THINK WE HEARD OF MANY CONCERNS, MOST OF THE TENTS WERE EITHER IN WARD 7 OR WARD 8. BUT WITH THE TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD WITH THE NEW LAND USE BYLAW, THE TENT BYLAW WAS CHANGED, AND I HAVE TO SAY, IT CONCERNS ME THAT THAT OCCURRED WITHOUT IT REALLY BEING FLAGGED FOR COUNCIL, THAT WE WERE MAKING A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE LAND USE BYLAW. WHEN WE WERE BEING TOLD AT COUNCIL THAT THESE WERE SIMPLY TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY A NEW BYLAW AND BRING IT INTO LINE WITH THE OLD BYLAW. SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE. SO WHAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT IS THERE WAS NO ABILITY UNDER THE NEW FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES FOR THE IMPACTS OF SOME OF THESE TENTS. AS WELL, SOME OF THE TENTS OPERATED AS NIGHT CLUBS WHEN THE PRIMARY USE WAS A RESTAURANT. THAT POSED ANOTHER PROBLEM. SO WE HAD A NEW BYLAW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY EVEN OUR FRONT DESK IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DIDN'T HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF. RESULTING IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF CONCERNS FROM LAST YEAR. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WAS GOING TO BRING AN AMENDMENT IN THE FALL TO SORT OF TIGHTEN UP THE RULES A LITTLE BIT AND THE REASON YOU'RE SEEING THAT THIS LATE IN THE DAY, JUST BEFORE THE SUMMER, IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET TO IT UNTIL JUST A MONTH AGO. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME TO ADJUST AND TO CONSULT AND TO PREPARE THEIR BUSINESS PLANS FOR THE NEXT YEAR. BUT I STILL THINK THAT COUNCIL, WE NEED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE LEFT UNADDRESSED WITH THE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE BYLAW AND OUR NEW INTERPRETATION OF IT. SO I THEN WILL NOW REFER ALL OF THE -- THE MOTION BEFORE US AND REFER IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION FOR ONE WEEK TO DO TWO THINGS, TO BRING FORWARD CLARITY ON WHAT'S ADJACENT, DEFINITION OF ADJACENT, AND TO COME WITH A WORK PLAN OR A PROGRAM FOR CONSULTATION TO RETURN TO COUNCIL IN -- TO COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES IN OCTOBER. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'RE SECONDING THAT REFERRAL MOTION. VERY WELL, WE HAVE A REFERRAL MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ON THE REFERRAL MOTION, ALDERMAN, LOWE? ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. DOES THIS MEAN THAT WE'RE REFERRING THE RECOMMENDATIONS, EVERYTHING, WE CAN STILL THEN HAVE AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF THIS FALL AND WE WOULD MOVE THAT NEXT -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND HAVING THAT CONVERSATION WITH MS. AXWORTHY IN THE ENSUING TIME, SHOULD THE REFERRAL MOTION PASS. >> WE NEED TO GIVE THE INDUSTRY SOME ASSURANCE THAT WE'RE NOT MOVING AHEAD WITH THIS FOR THIS STAMPEDE. THAT'S IMPORTANT. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE, BUT THE PROBLEM REALLY IS THAT SOMEONE PREDETERMINED WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS DISCUSSION TODAY WAS GOING TO BE AND SPREAD THAT WORD THROUGHOUT -- AND THAT CREATED A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE INDUSTRY. SO WE NEED TO -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT ONE MORE WEEK, ALDER STEVENSON, FOR THE FINAL DISCUSSION. I THINK IT'S PRETTY SAFE TO SAY BASED ON THE CENTRE OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD -- TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD HERE TODAY THAT THAT MESSAGE HAS BEEN WELL HEARD AND WHAT MS. AXWORTHY IS TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT THE PARTS THAT DO NEED TO BE IN PLACE FOR THE STAMPEDE WHICH ARE LARGELY JUST AROUND THE MEANING OF THAT WORD, ADJACENT. AND THE REST OF IT, ACCORDING TO ALDERMAN FARRELL'S REFERRAL MOTION, IT AIN'T HAPPENING NEXT WEEK. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CURRAGH ON O THE REFERRAL MOTION? >> WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT WEEK. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN CHABOT ON THE REFERRAL MOTION? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. AND SO THE WORD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE OF REPLACING WITH ADJACENT IS A PLUS, I WOULD ASSUME -- IS ABUT UNDER SECTION 25 SUBN SUB"I" "I" "I". IT SAYS IF NOT LOCATED ON A PARTIAL THAT ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ONLY SEPARATE FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY INTERVENING STREET. IS THAT THE WORD IN QUESTION? PRIMARILY? YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THIS OCCURS? ON SPECIAL -- >> THAT WOULD BE THE WORD THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO CLARIFY IN TERMS OF WHAT ADJACENT EFFECTIVELY MEANS TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THE AMENDMENT IS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WITH SUGGESTING REPLACING "EH BUTT "WITH "EH JAYS EN." WE DIDN'T DO ADJACENT EITHER. >> ISSUE IS THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THIS MEANS AND WHAT THE CHALLENGES THIS IS CREATING, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WORDED. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? >> THERE IS A DEFINITION OF ADJACENT WE'RE ABOUT YOU WE'RE NOT SURE THAT IT REALLY FULFILLS WHAT THE LAYPERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND TO BE ADJACENT. THERE MAY BE SOME ODDITIES THAT WE JUST FEEL WE SHOULD FURTHER CLARIFY. >> THERE MIGHT BE A BETTER WORD SUITED. >> WE MAY JUST FULLY -- SORRY, NOT FULLY -- FURTHER -- WE MAY ADD A FEW WORDS TO THE DEFINITION OF ADJACENT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT COUNCIL'S INTENT AROUND THE PROXIMITY OF LARGE TENTS TO A AREAS. >> OKAY. AND THE BALANCE OF EVERYTHING ELSE IS BEING PROPOSED AT THIS POINT SUBJECT TO FURTHER DEBATE NEXT WEEK? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I SUSPECT THAT WHAT WILL COME BACK TO US NEXT WEEK IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION ON THE STAMPEDE PERIOD ON EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. >> FOR THE REFERRAL. I'LL SEE WHAT ALDERMAN FARRELL HAS TO SAY IN HER QUOTE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE JUST GOT TO GET THAT DARN ONE WORD DONE OR WE COULD REFER THE WHOLE THING DONE TODAY. ALDERMAN DEM ONG? >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT NEEDED KLAEFRLGS. WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR THE MOTION, THE REFERRAL, WE'RE REFERRING EVERYTHING BACK. FOR ONE WEEK TO ADMINISTRATION TO FURTHER CLARIFY ADJACENT AND ABUT. THEN THE ADMINISTRATION WILL COME BACK WITH A PROCESS OF CONSULTATION FOR THE WHOLE BYLAW TO COME BACK IN OCTOBER TO COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES. WELL, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE IT OUT. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING ON THE FLY. IS THAT CLEAR? OKAY. THANK YOU. CLOSED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL FRPT ON THE MOTION TO REFER THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THAT TAKES US. WHERE IS THAT? ALL RIGHT. LET'S FIND IT. OKAY. NOT QUITE YET. ACTUALLY, YES, 9.2 PROPOSED STREET NAME IN SHERWOOD. THIS IS JUST A RESOLUTION. WE DON'T NEED A PUBLIC HEARING. CAN I HAVE SOMEONE MOVE THIS ONE, PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE, SECONDED ALDERMAN McLEOD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? IN SHERWOOD. >> YOUR WORSHIP, FORGIVE ME FOR THAT. YES, I KIND EVER GOT AN IDEA OF WHERE IT IS, BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA. ALDERMAN LOWE? SHERWOOD? >> IT'S IN THE NORTH END OF SYMONS VALLEY. >> IS THIS A NEWLY ANNEXED PORTION -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU KNOW WHERE BEACON HILL IS, SAR SI TRAIL? ROUGHLY IN THAT AREA. -- SARCEY TRAIL. AS ALDERMAN SAID DON'T GIVE THE ADJACENT ANY IDEAS. ALL RIGHT. SO ON THIS ONE, THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. NOW, I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE MY AMENDED AGENDA IN FRONT ME. WHICH ONES DID WE MOVE? ARE WE STILL DEALING WITH THREE, NOT FOUR AND FIVE. 9.3 THEN. 9.3 IS A NAME CHANGE IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF ROCKY RIDGE. NO, WE TABLED FOUR AND FIVE. SO WE HAVE TO DO THREE. >> I WILL MOVE THIS ONE, YOUR WORSHIP. THIS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT DOESN'T INVOLVE ADDRESS CHANGES FOR ANYBODY'S RESIDENCE. IT'S LOGICAL. FOR THIS ENTIRE ROAD ACROSS THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE CITY TO BE THE SAME NAME. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HAD NO IDEA THAT A LITTLE PORTION OF WHAT I WOULD CALL COUNTRY BOULEVARD HAD A DIFFERENT NAME. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT. ON THIS ONE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. OKAY. AND FOUR AND FIVE HAVE BEEN TABLED. THAT'S THE WORD I'M THINKING OF. SO WE CAN MOVE ON NOW TO THE NEXT SECTION OF YOUR AGENDA. WE'LL JUST DO SOME MUSICAL CHAIRS UP HERE. THANKS FOR WAITING AROUND, GENTLEMEN. AND WE'LL GET TO ITEM 10.1.1 IN YOUR AGENDA, C 2011, 44, A BYLAW REPEALING BYLAW 7, THE WATER FLORIDAATION BYLAW, THIS IS THIRD READING. IT'S NOT REALLY A DEBATE. I HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR A RECORDED VOTE BUT ALDERMAN FARRELL'S GOING TO MOVE IT FIRST. >> I'LL MOVE, IT THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQHART HAS SECONDED IT AND A RECORDED VOTE, PLEASE. I CAN'T DO A RECORDED VOTE WHEN I DON'T HAVE A PEN. THANK YOU. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT BACK. HOLD THE FORT HERE. >> NO. >> OH. >> ON THE RECORDED VOTE FOR THIRD READING OF THE C 44 ALDERMAN MAR, FOUR, ALDERMAN HODGES, FOUR. ALDERMAN FARRELL, FOUR, ALDERMAN CURRAGH, FOUR. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQHART, FOUR, ALDERMAN CHABOT, FOUR, ALDERMAN DE MONG, FOUR. ALDERMAN McLEOD, AGAIN, ALDERMAN LOWE, AGAINST. ALDERMAN STEVENSON, FOR. ALDERMAN JONES, FOR. ALDERMAN PINCOTT, FOR. MAYOR NENSHI AGAINST, CARRIED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO REPORTS FROM FINANCING CORPORATE SERVICES, 10.2.1 IN YOUR AGENDA. >> MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQHART, ARE YOU SECONDING? THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? I HAVE SOME TOO. ALDERMAN CHABOT, GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A BIT OF A DISCUSSION WITH Mr. SAWYER ABOUT SOME, I GUESS, JUST FORMATING ON SOME OF THIS. THERE WAS A SMALL AMENDMENT THAT I HAD SUGGESTED AND I'M NOT SURE -- I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO FIND IT AGAIN. Mr. SAWYER, WILL YOU FIX THAT LITTLE PARENTHESES ISSUE? THE NEGATIVE VARIANCE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I BELIEVE THAT RELATES TO THE ANNUAL REPORT, NOT THE YEAR END REPORT THAT'S HERE AND YES, THAT WAS FIXED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH, NO FURTHER COMMENTS OTHER THAN LIKE I SAID, THE FORMATING, I THINK, COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: Mr. SAWYER, I'M REALLY PLEASED TO HAVE RECEIVED THIS AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL BE SPENDING SOME TIME WITH YOU ON IN THE FUTURE IS FIGURING OUT GREAT WAYS OF GETTING THESE REPORTS BACK TO COUNCIL. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE TEND TO PASS THE BUDGET AND NEVER KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION. SOMETHING THAT JUST WASN'T CLEAR TO ME, WHICH IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE YEAR TO DATE SPENDING ON THE CAPITAL BUDGETS AND WE SEE NUMBERS AROUND 50%, COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN IN LAYMAN'S TERMS WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS. YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE REST OF THE MONEY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE -- WHEN THE BUDGET IS SET, FOR EXAMPLE, 2010, BASICALLY TO PROCEED ON ANY WORK, THERE HAS TO BE AN APPROVED BUDGET IN PLACE. SO BY ITS VERY NATURE, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE'LL SPEND A HUNDRED PERCENT OF IT BECAUSE INVARIABLY SOME OF IT WILL SHIFT TO THE NEXT YEAR. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THIS IS ACTUAL CASH OUTLAY, SO IF I'M BUILDING THE WEST LRT, I'VE APPROVED THE BUDGET IN 2008, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND IT ALL UNTIL 2013. SO THIS IS REFLECTING BACK. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT? >> ESSENTIALLY, YES. WE DON'T ACCOUNT ON A CASH BASIS BUT RATHER AS INCURRED. THE CASH MAY NOT HAVE GONE BUT THE -- FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT'S BEEN SPENT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THESE ARE INVOICES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED? >> THAT'S RIGHT. WORK HAS BEEN DONE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT WE PASSED A BUDGET AND WE SORT OF NEVER HEAR FROM IT AGAIN AND I WAS -- I JUST WANT TO CHECK ON Mr. SAWYER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT ISN'T TRUE. WE DO ACTUALLY GET QUARTERLY UPDATES AND REPORTS. DO WE NOT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, YES, WE DO QUARTERLY REPORTING THROUGH FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES AND ONTO COUNCIL FOR SURE. AND IT WILL RECORD AND TRACK ALL THE EXPENDITURES. IT ALSO ATTRACTS CERTAIN SUBSET OF THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT LEND THEMSELVES TO MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY CALCULATIONS AS WELL AS IT TALKS ABOUT ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CHALLENGES, ET CETERA, SO THERE IS DETAILED REPORTING QUARTERLY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I OVERSPOKE. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY, I'LL WALK IT BACK A LITTLE BIT -- WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IS THAT COUNCIL DOESN'T REALLY ENGAGE IN THIS STUFF. IN MY EXPERIENCE, EXCEPT IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BETTER ENGAGEMENT THAT WAY. YOUR REPORTS ALSO HAVE BEEN CLEAR AND MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ONE ALDERMAN LOWE TO CLOSE? >> I WAS ABOUT TO DO MENTION WHAT ALDERMAN PINCOTT MENTIONED, AND FOR THOSE WHO WANT FURTHER ENGAGEMENT, IF THEY COME TO FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES WEDNESDAY, IT WILL BE Q 1 OF THIS YEAR. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THIS WEEK? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: VERY EXCITING. >> SO FOR THOSE OF US WHO GET IT AND READ IT, IT COMES. IT'S THREE-HOLEED PUNCHED AND CAN GO IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. AND CONDESCENDING AS YOU MAY BE, YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S CLOSED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WAIT A MINUTE. I'VE GOT A BOOK? ALL RIGHT. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US THEN TO A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS FROM THE SPCA ON LAND USE PLANNING AND -- STC ON LAND USE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> MOVE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, YOUR WORSHIP, AND IF NEED BE, I'LL ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS IN MY CLOSE ON EACH ONE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO PROBLEM. SO WE'LL TAKE THE FIRST -- AND I NEED A SECONDER, PLEASE. THANKS, ALDERMAN PUTMAN. ON THE FIRST ONE, THEN, WHICH IS LPT 2011-30, 10.3.1, INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE LAND USE BYLAW AND RELATED PROCESSES, ON THIS ONE, ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. THAT COMMITTEE AS IS INDICATED ON PAGE 204, I DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOUR OF RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER 2 AND 3. NUMBER 3 IS ONE THAT'S ALMOST BOTHERS ME MORE THAN ANYTHING IS TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO ADJUST DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING APPROVALS SUSTAINMENT RESERVE TO A GUIDELINE MAXIMUM OF 60 MILLION. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL, IF WE GIVE IT A FEW MORE YEARS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIGGER RESERVE THERE THAN THE FISCAL STABILITY RESERVE. WHAT THE PURPOSE IS, I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA, BUT I KNOW THAT IT COULD BE A GOOD RESERVE TO -- IF WE HAVE TO RESORT TO IT THIS FALL TO FUND SOME THINGS IN EITHER THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUDGET OR RELATED BUDGET. I DON'T KNOW WHY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WASN'T -- >> MICROPHONE'S NOT WORKING VERY WELL. THERE IT IS. IT'S WORKING NOW. THAT SHOOK UP ALDERMAN LOWE'S SYSTEM THERE. HEARING SYSTEM. SO YOUR WORSHIP, IT WAS 30 MILLION. I KNOW THERE'S MORE THAN 30 MILLION IN THE RESERVE RIGHT NOW AND IT'S IN THE 35 TO 40 MILLION DOLLAR RANGE AT THE PRESENT TIME AS I RECALL. BUT IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION I'M GOING TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S HEADED. MAYBE A HUNDRED MILLION IN FIVE YEARS. I DON'T KNOW. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS. ALDERMAN HODGES. IN FACT, I WAS WONDERING WHEN I READ THAT MYSELF, AND I THINK I JUST HEARD YOU SAY THAT IT NORMALLY SAYS -- I'M SO SORRY. WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NOW? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S Mr. SAWYER QUESTION OR MS. AXWORTHY QUESTION. >> 30 MILLION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. AND WHAT THE HECK. THE RATIONALE FOR THAT, AGAIN? >> THE RATIONALE FOR THE DOUBLING? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YES. >> AS IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT CONDUCTED BY ZUKER SYSTEMS AND Mr. ELLIOTT, HE INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HAVE A RESERVE OF SUFFICIENT MEANS TO SUSTAIN A PERIOD OF A DOWNTURN, FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE DID EXPERIENCE THIS RECENTLY IN THE RECESSION A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHERE WE WERE -- HAD THE POTENTIAL TO ACTUALLY BURN THROUGH ALMOST 22 OF THAT 30 MILLION IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN AND IT'S SURPRISING HOW QUICKLY THE MONEY CAN BE SPENT AND WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN RETAIN STAFF THAT ARE VERY VALUABLE AND HIGHLY TRAINED DURING PERIODS OF THIS TIME. WHEN LOOKING AT OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND HOW THEY HANDLE THE MATTER Mr. ZUKER AND Mr. ELLIOTT DETERMINED THAT A MAXIMUM 60 MILLION WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE KIND OF SUSTAINMENT THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY SHOULD WE HIT SOME OF THESE PERIODS OR ALSO TO DEVELOP THE NECESSARY I.T. SYSTEMS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO IMPROVE OUR "E" PLANS, ET CETERA. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. Mr. SAWYER, ON THAT NOTE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONCERN AND DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE WE ARE BEING TOO HELPED AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT EACH OF THE RESERVES THREE-YEAR ROTATING BASIS. WOW FIND IN YOUR EXPERTISE THAT DID YOU BELIEVE ON ALL THE OTHER ONES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR RESERVES, WE HAVE OPERATING RESERVES AND WE HAVE CAPITAL RESERVES. A BIG PORTION OF THE CAPITAL RESERVES IS MORE TIMING RELATED. FUNDS ARE COMING IN. THEY'RE HELD UNTIL THEY'RE SPENT. AND ON THE OPERATING SIDE, REALLY THE ONLY RESERVE THAT'S OF SUBSTANTIVE AMOUNT IS THE FSR, WHICH IS SITTING JUST BELOW 10% WITH ITS TARGET D -- TARGET AT 15. THE DBA RESERVE HERE, I'VE GONE THROUGH THE REPORTS FROM THE CONSULTANTS AND BASED ON THE THINGS THAT CAN CHANGE, ET CETERA, AND HOW QUICKLY THEY CAN CHANGE, TO MY MIND, IT SEEMS SUPPORTABLE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ALL IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT IS COUNCIL'S DIRECTION AROUND THE RESERVES POLICIES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. ALDERMAN HODGES, ARE YOU DONE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE THERE IS TO SAY. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A DISCRETIONARY CALL BY COUNCIL. THE ADMINISTRATION'S GOT THEIR MINDS MADE UP AND NEEDS TO BE 60 MILLION. THE CONSULTANT THINKS THAT. I THINK THE CONSULTANT SHOULD HAVE HAD A DEEPER LOOK AT THE CALGARY ECONOMY AND HAVE A LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE CITY IN THE LAST 30 YEARS WHERE, YES, THERE HAS BEEN A TIME OF THINGS SLOWING DOWN, BUT THEY'VE NEVER -- THE GROWTH HAS NEVER REALLY SLOWED DOWN THAT MUCH IN THE CITY. I REMEMBER IN THE EARLY SIXTIES AND OTHERS MAY REMEMBER MORE FINE DETAIL THAN THAT, THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE MET NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMING INTO CALGARY WAS A THOUSAND A MONTH. AND IT GOT TO 2,000 IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES, 2,000 NEW RESIDENTS AND THAT REALLY HASN'T CHANGED THAT MUCH, AND THOSE NEW RESIDENTS HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE. SO THEY FIND A PLACE TO LIVE, AND THAT GENERATES GROWTH IN OUR CITY. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU. I'M WONDERING IF IT'S TIME TO START LOOKING AT THE SUCCESS OF THE CENTRE CITY TEAM, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SEE IF WE CAN'T DUPLICATE ALMOST LIKE A COMMUNITY BASED PLANNING. WHERE WE BRING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION TOGETHER IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. BECAUSE IT'S SO SUCCESSFUL AND I THINK WHAT I'M SEEING IS A REAL DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION. IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT? >> IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT IF COUNCIL WISHES TO DO SO. >> WOW SEE VALUE IN THAT? >> WELL, CERTAINLY, THERE HAS BEEN SOME ADVANTAGES WITH THE CENTRE CITY TEAM AND HAVING THE MERGING OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND LAND USE AMENDMENTS IN THAT POLICY GROUP. WE DO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN DBA AND THEY HAVE A GEOGRAPHIC BASED SYSTEM, BUT THEY ARE NOT SITTING IN THE SAME PLACE, ET CETERA, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT AND WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT OVER THE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, STUCK WITH THE CURRENT MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE CITY. >> AND CERTAINLY THE APPLICATION PROCESS IN THE CORE, IN THE CENTRE CITY, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE DEALING WITH REALLY SIGNIFICANT APPLICATIONS, MOVES VERY SMOOTHLY AND RAPIDLY AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S SITTING AT THE TABLE AND THEY HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD NEED A MOTION ARISING FOR. OR IS IT JUST SOMETHING THAT I COULD ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, MY -- THAT'S A PRETTY PROFOUND CHANGE IN DIRECTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. NOTICE OF MOTION WOULD BE MY BEST SUGGESTION, IN TERMS OF PUTTING SOME CONTEXT AROUND WHAT IT IS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. >> IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE SUCCESS AND IS THEN WE OFTEN DON'T REPEAT THEM, AND WE'VE GOT A REAL SUCCESS MODEL THERE. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD EXPAND TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. SO I'LL RUMINATE ON THAT FOR A WHILE. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN POOTMAN? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. PERHAPS TO GENERAL MANAGER AXWORTHY TO THE CHAIR, PERHAPS Mr. TOLE, IT'S WITH A FULL DEGREE OF RESPECT TO THE STAFF OF DBA AND APPRECIATION OF RETENTION AND THE VALUE OF THAT THROUGH THE VARIOUS CYCLES THAT ONCE WE START TO GET TO THIS LEVEL, IT COMMANDS, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT HARDER NOSED APPROACH PERHAPS AND I'M WONDERING IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONSIDERED WHAT SORT OF -- I WOULDN'T GO SO FAR AS TO CALL IT A CONTRACT, BUT WHAT SORT OF A BARGAIN IS MADE WITH VALUED STAFF THAT ARE RETAINED THROUGH TOUGH TIMES ONLY TO SEE US PERHAPS LOSE THEM TO INDUSTRY IN GOOD TIMES AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A BIT OF A QUID PRO QUO IF THERE'S AN ACCOMMODATION THROUGH THE LEAN TIMES THAT WE GET ACCOMMODATION ON THEIR SIDE AND WHEN TIMES ARE PERHAPS MORE PROSPEROUS? IT MIGHT BE LEGAL, I'M NOT SURE. >> A BIT OF A DIFFICULT QUESTION, YOUR WORSHIP. I MEAN, GENERALLY, EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THAT AT THE SENIOR MANAGER LEVEL ARE NOT ON EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. THEY'RE EMPLOYEES OF INDEFINITE DURATION, SO EMPLOYEES HAVE THE ABILITY CONSTITUTIONALLY TO COME AND GO IN JOB CIRCUMSTANCES GENERALLY AS THEY WISH, YOUR WORSHIP, SO I DON'T SEE ANY ABILITY TO TIE EMPLOYEES DOWN FOR LONG TERM, YOUR WORSHIP. THAT'S JUST NOT A POLICY THAT THE CITY HAS OPTED GENERALLY IN MY EXPERIENCE HERE WITH THE MUNICIPALITY, YOUR WORSHIP. SO I DON'T SEE ANY WAY OF TYING AN EMPLOYEE DOWN, EVEN THE LONG-TERM CONTRACTS GENERALLY HAVE FAIRLY SHORT THREE OR SIX-MONTH TERMINATION NOTICES WHERE THE EMPLOYEE CAN MOVE TO ANOTHER JOB OPPORTUNITY, YOUR WORSHIP. >> JUST TO FOLLOW ON, SO ARE THERE OTHER MECHANISMS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF AN EMPLOYMENT LAW WAR AN EMPLOYER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERHAPS SMOOTH OUT THE CYCLES BY HAVING SUCH CONTRACTS IN PLACE OR UNDERSTANDINGS? >> I'M CERTAINLY NOT AWARE OF ANY, YOUR WORSHIP. GENERALLY, THE EMPLOYEE IS FREE TO GO WHEN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BY GIVING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NOTICE AND THAT NOTICE IS GENERALLY EITHER THREE OR FOUR MONTHS IN MY EXPERIENCE. THERE'S GENERALLY NO WAY OF TYING AN EMPLOYEE DOWN FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAD SOMETHING PROFOUND. I WAS WAITING. IT'S THAT TIME OF THE EVENING. >> I WAS WAITING FOR SOMETHING PROFOUND, NOTHING CAME. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT NEVER HAPPENS TO ME. ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> IF YOU COULD, MS. AXWORTHY, WALK ME THROUGH WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE WOULD ACTUALLY GOTTEN TO ZERO ON THAT MONTH. >> THERE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF CONSEQUENCES OF GOING TO ZERO ON THE FUND. FIRST OF ALL, WE DO FUND TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE DB SUSTAINMENT AND RESERVE SO WE'D BE LOOKING FOR ESSENTIALLY MILL RATE SUPPORTED DOLLARS TO FUND SOME OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. AND ALSO, THE REAL CONSEQUENCES, AS WELL, WOULD BE THAT IF THERE WERE TIMES WHEN APPLICATIONS WERE DOWN, AND I TAKE ALDERMAN HODGES' POINT, I'VE BEEN AT THE CITY WHEN WE HAVE HAD TO LAY STAFF OFF, AND LOST VERY VALUABLE STAFF THAT HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, AND SO PART OF THE INTENT OF THAT RESERVE IS THAT WE BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE TIME -- THE DIFFICULT TIMES, BUT THE REAL INTENT OF THE RESERVE THAT I DIDN'T MENTION IS ALSO TO SUPPORT THE INCREASED NEED FOR STAFF DURING VERY HIGH VOLUME TIMES, AND WE'VE CERTAINLY SEEN CASES GOING BACK OVER THE LAST MAYBE NOT THE LAST TWO YEARS, BUT PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE WERE IN A VERY HIGH VOLUME SITUATION AND WE USED THAT RESERVE TO BRING ON ADDITIONAL STAFF TO HANDLE THOSE VERY HIGH VOLUMES THAT WE'VE HAD, SO THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT WOULD BE NEEDING TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO HIRE STAFF AND A REAL DELAY IN OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO CUSTOMER DEMANDS FOR INCREASED SERVICE. >> SO WE DO HAVE MICROPHONES. WE DO HAVE PERMITS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE WORKED THAT STEMS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. LET'S SAY THE BOW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A VERY LARGE DOWN PAYMENT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, SOME OF THE INSPECTION THAT IS ATTEND TO THAT PERMIT GO OUT TWO OR THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE SO THE INTENT OF THAT RESERVE IS TO HOLD THAT MONEY SO THAT WE CAN DO THESE FUTURE YEARS INSPECTIONS AND DO THE FINAL RELEASE OF THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT AND SO YOU ACTUALLY SHOULDN'T TAKE IT TO ZERO, BECAUSE SOME OF THE LIVES OF THESE PERMITS GOES OUT OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. >> I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DOW DO? IF IT GOES TO ZERO? DOW GO TO THE MILL RATE? >> WE HAVEN'T YET. >> PARDON? >> WE HAVEN'T YET. I >> I MEAN, THAT'S A GREAT THING. I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT DOW DO WITH THE EXCESS FUNDS WHEN IT'S OVER 30? DOES THAT GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND? GENERAL REVENUE? >> NO. I BELIEVE THAT -- I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE THE AMOUNT THAT'S IN THE RESERVE AT THE CURRENT TIME. BUT I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN OVER 30 MILLION IN RECENT HISTORY. AND IT HAS JUST REMAINED THERE. IT DOESN'T GET TRANSFERRED INTO ANOTHER PART OF THE ORGANIZATION. IT HAS JUST REMAINED THERE. SO WE, OF COURSE, IN HAVE BEEN OVER THAT NUMBER. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF THIS. WE WANT TO INCREASE IT TO 60 MILLION ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN TO ZERO BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE MILL RATE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE COB PUTTING THIS EXTRA 30 MILLION INTO GENERAL REVENUE AND IF IT GO DOWN TO ZERO WE GO BACK TO THE MILL RATE? >> WELL -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WELL, YOU KNOW, YES. >> WHAT'S THE POINT OF SAYING WE WANT TO INCREASE THEN? >> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, JUST FOR CLARITY, THIS PARTICULAR RESERVE FUND IS, AS Mr. TOBACCOER PUT IT, IT'S MEANT TO BE COSTS THAT ACCRUE. I GET THAT AFTER A PERMIT. BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE CHARGING AND WHAT WE'RE SENDING OUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN SYNC WITH ONE ANOTHER AND I BELIEVE Mr. SAWYER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MONEY THAT COUNCIL APPROVED IN OUR LAST BUDGET FOR THE EAST SERVICES IN THIS AREA, WAS ACTUALLY FUNDED FROM THIS RESERVE FUND. YES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, YES, IT WAS, AND, IN FACT, I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY, I HAVEN'T GOT THE RESERVE FUND DETAILS WITH ME. BUT I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THIS RESERVE, THERE IS WORDING IN THERE THAT IF THE AMOUNT IS IN EXCESS OF THE 30 MILLION, THEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR YEARS, IT'S TO BE FACTORED INTO THE REDUCING THE RATES OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES SUCH THAT IT RETURNS TO 30. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN. SO WE CHARGE THE CUSTOMERS LESS. THE RESERVE IS BEING FUNDED FROM THE FEE. SO THAT WOULD -- YOU WOULD EITHER REDUCE THE FEES OR YOU MIGHT ROOT FEES FROM WHAT THEY OTHERWISE MIGHT BE. >> THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN IN THERE TO GET IT BACK TO THE -- CURRENTLY TO THE 30 MILLION LEVEL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO AS IT STANDS, WE DO HAVE A MAXIMUM THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BUT WE DON'T GO BY IT. IF WE GO DOWN TO ZERO, WE WILL GO BACK TO THE MILL RATE. WHY WOULDN'T WE SAY IF IT GOES OVER A SPECIFIC MAXIMUM, IT GOES INTO THE GENERAL REVENUE INSTEAD OF GOING BACK IF THIS IS THE GENERAL COST TO REVENUE THAT WE NEED TO FUND IT ON AN ONGOING BASIS? >> ANYONE? >> REALLY, THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY YOU COULDN'T DO THAT. BUT IN ESSENCE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU HAVE A RATE STRUCTURE THAT'S INTENDED TO COVER A CERTAIN LIABILITY, YOU SHOULD ADJUST YOUR RATES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: RATHER THAN GO BACK TO THE MILL RATE. >> NO, I UNDERSTAND. WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO THE MILL RATE. BUT I HAVE TO LISTEN -- I HAVE TO AGREE WITH ALDERMAN HODGES. AT SOME POINT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXTREMELY LARGE RESERVE. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS LARGER RESERVE IF -- IF THE OPTION IS WE KEEP OUR RATES AS IS, AND IT HAPPENS TO BE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATE AND IT GOES INTO THE MILL RATE ONCE WE HIT A MAXIMUM ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT IF IT GOES DOWN TO ZERO, WE REALIZE THAT IT'S GOING TO COME BACK OUT OF THE MILL RATE, THAT, TO ME, SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE SONG SO I'M NOT SURE IF I'M IN FAVOUR OF INCREASING THIS TO 60 MILLION. >> I HEAR YOU. THE ONLY CLARIFICATION THAT I WAS GOING TO DO IF IT WERE ME IN THAT WORLD, THE WAY AS IT IS, I WOULD SAY, RATHER THAN THE MONEY GO BACK TO GENERAL REVENUE, IF THE RESERVES ARE TOO BIG, THE MONEY BE USED TO REDUCE THE FEES THAT THE PEOPLE ARE PAYING IN THE FUTURE YEARS. DOW SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO IT STAYS WITHIN THAT WORLD. >> THAT IS THE ROUTE WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IN THE SAME TIME AS IN BUSINESS, IF WE'RE OFFERING IT AS A COST RECOVERY MECHANISM, ALMOST BE RUN AS A BUSINESS, YOU TAKE A LITTLE HIGHER ROUTINE SO THAT IN TIMES OF DOWNTURN, YOU HAVE THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> THANK YOU. I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION FROM MS. AXWORTHY. I WROTE DOWN YOUR WORDS AND I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEANT. YOU SAID IN THE DOWN TURN, WE HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BURN THROUGH 22 MILLION OF THE 30 MILLION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITH THE POTENTIAL? >> YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT I MEANT WAS THAT DURING THE DOWN TURN, WHEN WE WEREN'T GETTING -- WHEN PERMIT VOLUMES WERE NOT SUSTAINING OUR COST THAT IS WE WERE INCURRING, WE DID -- IF THE RECESSION HAD CONTINUED ON FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, AT ONE POINT, WE WERE LOOKING AT HAVING TO SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE RESERVE JUST TO MAINTAIN OUR CURRENT OPERATIONS, AND AS Mr. TOBERT INDICATED, OFTEN TIMES THERE ARE STILL INSPECTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE HAD REAL IMPACT. BUT I MEANT THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO DRAW ON THE RESERVE TO SUSTAIN OUR CURRENT OPERATIONS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT'S THE LOWEST THE RESERVE HAS BEEN TO? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. WE COULD PROVIDE THAT TO YOU. >> THE WAY -- THE REASON -- FOR ME TO SUPPORT DOUBLING THIS, I WOULD NEED TO KNOW THAT WE WERE REALLY IN THE POSITION WHERE IT DROPPED DOWN. WHEN I HEAR THE WORDS WE HAVE POTENTIAL TO BURN THROUGH 22 MILLION IF IT HAD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED, I WOULD -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, DID WE GET DOWN TO FIVE MILLION? DID WE GET DOWN TO TEN MILLION? YOU DON'T KNOW THAT? >> NO, I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE CURRENTLY. MAYBE Mr. TORT CAN HELP. >> OKAY. >> I DID HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS -- SORRY, IT'S NOT WORKING. IT IS ON. >> IT'S ON NOW. >> I HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH Mr. WATSON DURING THE RECESSION AND WE DISCUSSED AT WHAT TIME WOULD WE START LAYING STAFF OFF BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE THE WORD WE USED IS THE BURN RATE. WITH YOU WHU RUN AN OPERATING BUSINESS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE COMING IN, HOW MUCH ARE YOU SPENDING PER MONTH WITHOUT NEW MONEY COMING IN? YOU RUN THROUGH YOUR RESERVE PRETTY DARN QUICK AND WE WER PROBABLY SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM SAYING WE BETTER START LAYING OFF STAFF AND THEN PERMITS PICKED UP AGAIN AND WE THEN WALKED BY THAT ISSUE. >> WE WERE SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM BEING DOWN TO ZERO, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> I SAID WE WERE SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM LAYING OFF STAFF. >> WHAT WAS THE -- WHAT WOULD BE THE RESERVE AT THE END OF THAT SIX MONTHS? >> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, YOUR WORSHIP, BECAUSE WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS HOW MUCH OBLIGATIONS DID WE HAVE LEFT. >> I SEE. >> TO FINISH OUT THE WORK THAT WE HAD TAKEN PREPAYMENTS FOR. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> THERE'S TWO THINGS AT PLAY HERE, ONE OF WHICH IS KEEPING STAFF ON WHO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WORK TO DO BUT YOU NEED THEM IN CASE THE NEXT UP TURN COMES ALONG AND KEEP ENOUGH IN RESERVE TO PAY YOUR OBLIGATIONS THAT YOU KNOW ARE COMING BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO CLEAN OUT PERMITS AND DO FINAL INSPECTIONS. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR -- HAS THIS BEEN MOVED YET? IT HAS BEEN. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE 60 TO 40 MILLION. YOUR WORSHIP. >> I WILL BOTH ASK FOR SECONDER AND ASK THE ORIGINAL MOVEMENT SECONDER IF THEY FIND THAT CONTRARY AS IS MY PRACTICE. YOU DO FIND IT CONTRARY? I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT. OKAY. BUT I WILL ASK FOR A VOTE ON THE THREE ITEMS SEPARATELY. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> A COUPLE MORE FIRST. ALDERMAN CURRAGH? >> YOU'RE PICKING UP WHERE DRUH LEFT OFF BEFORE WE -- SORRY. ALDERMAN FARRELL, I APOLOGIZE. OBVIOUSLY GETTING A LITTLE BIT TIRED. I'LL TELL YOU WHEN I WAS READING THESE NOTES, WHAT I WAS READING THIS IN THE MINUTES THIS WEEKEND, I HAD A HARD TIME WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND WHAT WAS GOING ON, BECAUSE WE, OF COURSE, DID LPT IN HERE AND I THOUGHT IT WAS COUNCIL. HOW CAN IT BE COMING BACK TO COUNCIL? >> THE POINT NUMBER TWO, THE BOLDED IN PLACE, JUST TO EVALUATE AND EXAMINE THE BYLAW USE AND THE CONCEPT OF THE SMART CODE BASE OBJECTIVE STANDARD COMING OUT OF THE MISSION ROAD MAIN STREET PROJECT. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION NOT JUST ABOUT THAT PROCESS IN TERMS OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING THE PROCESS ISSUES THAT ALDERMAN FARRELL WAS REFERRING TO. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE AMENDED NUMBER TWO. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CURRAGH. ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> THANK YOU. I JUST -- I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE RESERVE. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL, I DO REMEMBER A YEAR AGO, JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, WHEN WE WERE -- WE WERE IN THIS COUNCIL, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE RESERVE AND HOW WE WERE GETTING TO THE POINT THAT Mr. TOBERTTC TOLD US ABOUT. THE RESERVE IS PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT. IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT ALLOWS US TO, IN A VERY CUSTOMER DRIVEN AREA OF OUR CITY, ALLOWS US TO SMOOTH OUT THE BUMPS WITHIN OUR STAFF. IT ALLOWS US TO FORWARD PLAN. THERE IS A CITY THAT IS TO THE NORTH OF US THAT DOESN'T OPERATE WITH A RESERVE. THE SAME WAY THAT WE DO. BALZAC, INDEED. NO, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING TO FUND FUTURE WORK OUT OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE COMING IN TODAY. AND IF THOSE APPLICATIONS DRY UP, THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE MONEY, THE FUNDS IN PLACE, BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE FEES THAT ARE PAID TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE WORK THAT CONTINUES. I MEAN, THAT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO US TODAY. I JUST WANT TO -- SORT OF UNDERLINE THAT THIS IS PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND WE, AS A COUNCIL, AND THE TAXPAYERS, ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF THAT PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT, IT MEANS THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO MILL RATE SUPPORTED STAFF WHEN WE HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT TO. SO PLEASE, DO SUPPORT ALL THREE RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I CALL -- ALDERMAN CHABOT TO CLOSE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, I FEEL THE NEED TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THE RESERVE. THANK YOU PINCOTT FOR THOSE WORDS OF WISDOM FROM THE NEED TO EXPAND ON THIS RESERVE. THE ZUKER REPORT INDICATE THAT HAD NOT ONLY SHOULD WE -- ZUKER CLARION REPORT INDICATED NOT ONLY SHOULD WE INCREASE THE RESERVE WE SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY DO IT IN A VERY SHORT TERM. THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THIS BROUGHT UP TO 60 MILLION BY 2019, SO THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. THIS IS COMING OUT OF FEES. THIS IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE MILL RATE. THIS IS COMING OUT OF DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PERMITS, SO THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE INDUSTRY IS PAYING FOR. WHOEVER'S COMING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. THE INITIAL -- THE FUND, WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SET UP, WAS DESIGNED TO STABILIZE -- LET ME JUST READ RIGHT FROM THE REPORT. SHOULD FRONT GO. JUST TO TOUCH ON SOMETHING Mr. TOBERT SAID, SHOULD THE FUND EXCEED THE GUIDELINE MAXIMUM, THE CONTRIBUTION FROM RESERVE TO DV OPERATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. TO SOFTEN ANY REQUIRED INCREASES TO THE FEES. EVERY YEAR, WE HAVE INCREASES TO THE FEES. IF THE EXCEEDS THE 30 MILLION DOLLARS, THAT EXCESS WILL BE USED TO REDUCE THE INCREASE IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS. DBA WAS ORIGINALLY RESERVE WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN CONSULTATION WITH DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRY IN ORDER TO STABILIZE THE DBA OPERATING BUDGET. THE ONE-TIME OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. THE PREMISE FOR THE SIZE OF THE RESERVE WAS BASED ON HISTORIC ANNUAL FLUCTUATIONS OF ACTIVITY LEVELS OF 15 TO 20%. BUT WHAT WE SAW IN 2009 WAS A REDUCTION OF 30% IN THE ECONOMY AND THAT AT THAT SUSTAINED RATE WE WOULD HAVE BURNED OUT THAT COMPLETE A RESERVE IN LESS THAN THREE YEARS WHICH IS THE TIME LINE FOR THE SOME OF THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO HAVE FUNDS IN THERE TO BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THAT BUSINESS UNIT FOR TWELVE MONTHS. THIS IS SUSTAINED DEVELOPMENT BUILDING APPROVALS OPERATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS. SO THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION DBA OR THE CLARION REPORT RECOMMENDED AND LOOKING AT SUSTAINMENT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, STABILIZING THE PRICE OF THE INDUSTRY, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE LARGE FLUCTUATIONS UP OR DOWN, IT'S TOO HIGH ONE YEAR, IT REDUCES THE COSTS IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, SO IT ACTUALLY STABILIZES THE ACTUAL PRICE ON THERE OUR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO THAT'S ONE, I THINK THAT, WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO SUPPORT. AND THE OTHER, I THINK, MOST MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE SPOKE ENOUGH ON BOTH OF THE OTHERS TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE AND TWO ALSO. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS SEPARATELY. ON RECOMMENDATION ONE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. RECOMMENDATION TWO, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED. RECOMMENDATION THREE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> RECOMMENDATION 3, ALDERMAN MAR? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> WHY. >> ALDERMAN POOT ALDERMAN STEVENSON? ALDERMAN CURRAGH? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQHART? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> YES. >> ALDER FARRELL? JONES? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN LOWE? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN McLEOD? >> YES. >> MAYOR NENSHI? >> NO. >> CARRIED. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US 10.3.2, SOUTH EAST CORRIDOR STRATEGY UPDATE. DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS ONE, ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> WELL, YOUR WORSHIP, THERE IS A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THE REPORT, AND MANY OF WHICH TALKED ABOUT HOW SOME CERTAIN COMMERCIAL USES WERE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE IN THE NEAR TERM. BASE THE ON THE APPLICATION THAT'S COME FORWARD RECENTLY THERE'S CERTAINLY TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN INITIATE BID ADMINISTRATION ON THIS AND HOPEFULLY COUNCIL CAN SUPPORT T THE REASON THAT I WASN'T OVERLY SUPPORTIVE OF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER THREE IS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE TIME LINE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THOUGHT THAT WAS TOO LENGTHY. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORWARD A RECOMMENDATIONS AT COMMITTEE AND ASK MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO SUPPORT AT LEAST ONE AND TWO. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. I WILL SUGGEST THAT RECOMMENDATION NUMBER THREE HAS, AMONGST THE BEST EXAMPLES OF BUREAUCRAT EASE I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME, WITH A STATUS REPORT ON OUTLINING THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH TO THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY. THERE'S AT LEAST SEVEN MORE REPORTS COMING OUT OF THAT RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. AND I NOTICED -- NEVER MIND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? AND AS PER THE OPENING, I WILL TAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS SEPARATELY. I ASSUME YOU'RE OPPOSED, ALDERMAN CHABOT? SO ON RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED ON RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED ON RECOMMENDATION NUMBER THREE, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. WE'LL CALL THE ROLE ON THAT ONE, PLEASE. -- THE ROLL. >> ON RECOMMENDATION NUMBER THREE, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CURRAGH? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN HAD A CHABOT? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQHART? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL? ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES? ALDERMAN LOWE? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN McLEOD? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> NO. >> MAYOR NENSHI? >> IT DOESN'T MATTER. YES. >> IT'S LOST ON A TIE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY VOTED NO AGAINST IT IN COMMITTEE. IF YOU HAVE A MOTION ARISING THERE, ALDERMAN CHABOT, WITH POTENTIALLY AN EARLIER DATE, THIS WILL BE THE TIME TO DO IT. OR WHATEVER. YEAH. >> I'M SORRY. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT BUTTON. I GUESS I DON'T NEED TO REQUEST THE SPEED BUTTON. WELL, I WAS HOPING TO HAVE SOMETHING AT LEAST ON AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SOME TIME BEFORE THE BREAK, MAYBE IN JULY. SO THAT WE COULD CONTEMPLATE IT OVER THE BREAK AS TO HOW TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SO, YOUR WORSHIP, IF WE COULD MAKE THAT DATE JULY, WHENEVER THE LAST MEETING OF COUNCIL WOULD BE, IN JULY, ACTUALLY LPT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DURING THE STAMPEDE, RIGHT? >> YES. JULY. LPT WOULD BE THE 20th. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S RIGHT. AFTER STAMPEDE. SO YOU ARE SUGGESTING -- YOU'RE GIVING THE MOTION THAT SAYS DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK NO LATER THAN 2011 JULY 20th, REGULAR MEETING OF THE STC ON LPT ARE "W" A STATUS REPORT ON OUTLINING THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH TO THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY? >> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT? THANKS, ALDERMAN CURRAGH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I DEFINITELY SAW ONE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP TO THE DISCUSSION THAT LPT, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR A REPORT IN DECEMBER. IF I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION WHICH SEEMS LIKE A LIFETIME AGO BUT WAS ONLY TWO MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS ACTUALLY -- THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING OF MEANING TO CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS A NUMBER OF US WHO VOTED AGAINST THE AMENDMENT, THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE AMENDMENT FOR SEPTEMBER RATHER THAN DECEMBER. WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING MEANINGFUL IN JULY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I CAN PARTIALLY RESPOND TO THAT. WE HAVE A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THIS, AND THAT IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 17th AVENUE BRT PLAN. BY JULY, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OUTLINE THE STEPS THAT WE WOULD BE PLANNING TO FOLLOW, BUT, NO, NOTHING OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. >> FOLLOWING UP ON OUR ORIGINAL DISCUSSION AT LPT WHERE THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION OF DECEMBER WAS AMENDED TO SEPTEMBER AND THEN HERE, SUBSEQUENTLY LOST HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ARISING, IF I MAY, YOUR WORSHIP, AND CHANGE THE DATE TO DECEMBER 14th. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NOT GOING TO WORK. WE WON'T LET YOU. IT'S CONTRARY. I'M NOT EVEN LOOKING AT HIM. I KNOW HE'S GOING TO SAY THAT. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU. WELL, IF YOU WON'T ALLOW THAT AMENDMENT, THEN I'LL RECOMMEND THAT WE VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION ARISING FOR THE REASON THAT THE SEPTEMBER DATE WAS UNREALISTIC. THIS ONE IS AS WELL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT. I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. I'LL WAIT 'TIL THE END. ALDERMAN LOWE? >> ACTUALLY, YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN PINCOTT HAS SAID IT ALL AND SAID IT ALL VERY WELL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS. ALDERMAN CURRAGH? >> IF I RECALL, LPT APPROPRIATELY, THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION. AND SEPTEMBER WAS AS CLOSE AS WE COULD MAKE IT AND FLY. I RECALL THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS REALLY HINGING ON POINT TWO WHICH WAS TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH THE INTERNATIONAL AVENUE, INNOVATION PROJECTS, CONSULTANT TEAM ON KRAFRTING THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND THE IDEA WAS THAT SOME OF THE IDEAS COMING IN FROM THAT PROVED MIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE SCOPE OR CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF HOW WE'RE CURRENTLY SCOPING IT AND LOOKING AT IT. SO WE SUPPORTED IT AND MIGHT HAVE BUDGET IMPLICATIONS. SO WE SUPPORTED IT COMING IN BEFORE BUDGET. I THINK WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE A SENSE OF WHETHER THE CONSULTANT TEAM'S GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT BY JULY AND IF NOT, THEN SEPTEMBER WAS A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS AS IT DIRECTLY RELATES TO NUMBER TWO AND WE'LL HAVE A CLEAR IDEA AS TO WHETHER ANYTHING COHERENT CAN COME BACK FOLLOWING WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT TEAM AND THEY'RE HERE THIS MONTH AND THEN IN JUNE. SO JULY WILL BE ENOUGH TIME. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS. I'LL REMIND FOLKS THAT IT IS, AFTER ALL, A STATUS REPORT ON OUTLINING THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH TO THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT ALL NIGHT. AND SO AS I READ THAT, IT'S A STATUS REPORT. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A GIANT BOOK HERE. BUT A REPORT ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, THIS ALL TIES BACK INTO A MOTION THAT COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS WELL WHICH WAS ON AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY AND AS ESSENCE WOULD PROVIDE US AT LEAST SOME GUIDELINES ON WHAT IT IS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY PUT FORWARD TO THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN REGARDS TO MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY FOR 17th AVENUE. SO SOME GREEN TRIP FUNDING, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO COME OUT OF THIS -- THE INNOVATION FUND THAT -- COUNCIL'S APPROVED ON FOR THE CONSULTANT TEAM TO COME UP WITH SOME STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY DEVELOP 17th AVENUE QUICKER. THAT HAS BEEN ON HOLD FOR -- FOR TOO LONG, SINCE COUNCIL ORIGINALLY APPROVED THIS. SO THE SOONER WE CAN GET A REPORT BACK ON A POTENTIAL STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD, THE BETTER. AND WHAT ULTIMATELY WE DECIDE TO DO WITH THAT AND THEN WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS IN JULY AND POTENTIALLY SOMETHING IN SEPTEMBER. CLOSED. >> CLOSED. >> INTERNALLY BUT WITH OUR FUNDING PARTNERS WHICH IS FIRST AND FOREMOST THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN AS MUCH LAST YEAR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROVINCE ON HOW TO STREAMLINE OUR PORTFOLIOS AND THE FUNDING PROCESS. EACH ONE OF THE NINE PORTFOLIOS HAS DIFFERENT OPERATING GUIDELINES, HAS DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES AND THAT LEADS TO A GREAT DEAL OF COMPLEXITY. SURPLUS, A PORTION OF THE SURPLUS IS RETURNED TO THE CITY. AND A PORTION OF IT DOES GO INTO RESERVES TO PAY -- TO FUN FUTURE -- TO FUN FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS, FUTURE CAPITAL. PART OF THAT IS AGAIN ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITHIN THE FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT WE HAVE IS THAT SOME OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSIDERED IMPROVEMENT OR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE FUNDED DIFFERENTLY THAN COSTS WHICH ARE RECURRING CAPITAL COSTS SUCH AS WHEN A UNIT TURNS OVER AND YOU HAVE TO PAINT IT AND CHANGE THE CARPETING. THOSE ARE CAPITAL COSTS BUT THEY ARE FUNDED DIFFERENTLY FROM A DIFFERENT POT OF MONEY AND HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FROM THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THAN SAY A ROOF OR THE BUILDING ENVELOPE OR REPLACING THE FURNACES. IT IS A VERY COMPLEX COMPANY TO OPERATE WITHIN THOSE NINE PORTFOLIOS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS A GREAT DEAL OF FRUSTRATION AROUND THE INEFFICIENCIES BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING MODEL THAT HAS BEEN SET UP WITH THE PROVINCE AND WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE WORK TO WORK WITH OUR FUNDING PARTNERS, THE PROVINCE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS AND MAKE THIS LESS, I DON'T WANT TO SAY OBSCURE AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY OBTUSE BUT DENSE, HOW ABOUT THAT? I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS AND I ANTICIPATE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AND IT WILL BE A LOT MORE RESPONSIVMORE RESPONSE. >> THOSE WERE MOST OF MY QUESTIONS. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN, ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. >> THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEW 10.5 ACCESS COMMITTEE, 2708 AND 2001. ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP, THANK YOU. >> THERE WERE THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE INCLUDING MYSELF THAT DID NOT SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON EITHER NO. 7 OR NO. 8, I'M HAVING A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING THE VALUES ATTRIBUTED TO THE LANDS THAT THE CITY REQUIRES IN THE WEST END OF DOWNTOWN ADJACENT TO THE 7 AVENUE C-TRAIN STATION REFURBISHMENT AND FOUR ACRES OF LAND IN THE WEST PART OF THE CITY. WHICH HAPPENED TO BE OUT IN THE GREENBRIER CELL 5 AREA. THE VACANT LANDS TO THE WEST OF THE LANDS THAT WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. SO THE PROBLEM FOR ME THEN ARE THE VALUES. I THINK THE VALUES SHOULD -- THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUES SHOULD BE MUCH LARGER THAN IS THE CASE. THAT'S NOT HOWEVER WHAT THE COMMITTEE DECIDED. I CAN MOVE THESE 07 AND 08 REPORTS BUT I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOUR OF THEM BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THE VALUES ARE AS EQUAL AS IS SUGGESTED IN THESE REPORTS. >> VERY WELL THEN. I WONDER IF WE CAN GET SOMEONE ELSE TO MOVE THESE REPORTS? THANKS, ALDERMAN PUTMAN. ALL RIGHT. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 07 THEN? >> I THINK IT'S SORT OF A MISTAKE TO TAKE THEM ALL SEPARATELY BECAUSE THEY ARE BASICALLY THREE DIFFERENT LAND DEALS THAT ARE ALL TIED TOGETHER IN THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS. WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE KIRBY CENTRE ON THE WEST END OF THE DOWNTOWN, THE KIRBY CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET ON 8 AVENUE AND IT'S A PARKING LOT OWNED BY THE KIRBY CENTRE, PROVINCIAL HOLDING AND WE WANT TO BUILD THE STATION OF THE LRT ALONG THAT BLOCK FRONT. AND IN ORDER TO BUILD THE STATION PLATFORM CORRECTLY, WE NEED, LIKE, A METER-AND-A-HALF STRIP THAT CUTS INTO BOTH THE KIRBY SITE AND INTO THE PARKING LOT SITE SO IT'S A METER-AND-A-HALF BY THE LENGTH OF A PLATFORM AND ACCORDING TO HOW WE DO VALUATION, THAT METER-AND-A-HALF STRIP WHICH IS ONLY GOING TO ADD TREMENDOUS VALUE TO THE KIRBY CENTRE AND MAKE THE LIVES OF ITS INHABITANTS MUCH BETTER, WE'RE TURNING THAT OVER FOR, LIKE, AN ACRE-AND-A-HALF OF LAND IN GREENBRIER OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO AN ACRE OR SOMETHING. >> TWO ACRES. >> TWO ACRES. THIS IS SORT OF THE LIKE THE PREDATORY RIDICULOUS RELATION SHAND I ALSO THINK IT SPEAKS TO HOW WE'RE VALUING THINGS IN A WAY THAT'S NOT CONSTRUCTIVE TO CITY BUILDING. YOU CAN MAKE A MARKET VALUE ARGUMENT ABOUT THIS BUT IT'S IN WAY CONSTRUCTIVE TO BUILDING A KIND OF CITY WE WANT TO BUILD. WE SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE PROVINCE AND I THINK WE SHOULD PURSUE SOME SORT OF RECOURSE TO SAY TO THE PROVINCE, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT. I KNOW WE'RE SORT OF OVER A BARREL HERE BUT I'VE LOST SLEEP OVER THIS ONE. >> AS MUCH AS I HATE SAYING THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE: IF YOU LIKE, YOU COULD MOVE TO REFER THIS TO THE MAYOR TO HAVE A SENIOR LEVEL POLITICAL DISCUSSION WITH THE PROVINCE, AND COME BACK TO COUNCIL ON SOME SHORT TIME PERIOD TO SIGH IF WE CAN ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE RAISING. >> SO MOVED. >> GIVE ME A TIME PERIOD. >> I'LL SECOND. >> A MONTH? >> WHAT'S THE TIMING ON GETTING THE PLATFORM BUILT? ARE WE NOT QUITE THERE YET? >> WITH RESPECT TO THE PLATFORM, WE'RE IN THAT ZONE NOW. >> TO BE HONEST WE ARE TRYING TO GET THROUGH THIS PARTICULARLY ON THE KIRBY SIDE AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. THEY THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH US. >> TELL YOU, ALDERMAN CROFT. SO YOU CAN GET A LITTLE BIT OF SLEEP, LET'S MAKE IT A WEEK. LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO BY NEXT MONDAY. >> WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO REFER LES2007 AND 2008 TO THE MAYOR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION -- >> I THINK IT'S THE OTHER ONE TOO. >> THAT'S IN ROCKY RIDGE. >> 99 APOLOGIES. >> AND ALDERMAN HODGES SECOND THAT REFERRAL MOTION? >> ALL RIGHT. ON THE REFERRAL MOTION THEN, SMOKE ALARALDERMAN CHABOT. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY DITTO BUT NOW THAT HE'S MADE THE REFERRAL MOTION, I APPRECIATE MR. LOGAN WEIGHING IN ON THIS AND LETTING US KNOW THAT TIME IS PRETTY SENSITIVE ON THIS ISSUE. I'LL SUPPORT IT BUT ONLY FOR A WEEK. >> IT SEEMS TO ME THE DIFFICULTY I HAVE YOUR WORSHIP IN MY EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH ALDERMAN HODGES IS A WE CAN TAKES THREE YEARS. >> I HEAR YOU BUT I FEEL LIKE I CAN AT LEAST MAKE A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING FOR YOU NEXT WEEK AND IF THAT SOMETHING IS THEY HANG UP ON ME, THEN WE KNOW. >> OKAY. >> I GUESS I'M MORE AFRAID THAT THEY'LL SAY GEE, WE REALLY CAN'T DO SOMETHING, WE'LL TALK TO YOU AFTER THE ELECTION. >> THEN COUNCIL GETS TO SEE SIDE. >> THAT'S THE KIND OF CONVERSATION I HAVE. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT, I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'VE GOT A MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT DEPENDENT ON THIS. SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. ON THE REFERRAL MOTION, ALDERMAN MOORE? >> THANK YOU. YES. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON WHAT MR. LOGAN WAS SAYING. HE WAS BEING A BIT SHY. WE'RE NOT JUST IN GENTLE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE KIRBY CENTRE. THEY'RE MAD AS HELL AS WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. IT'S HAD A HUGE IMPACT ON MY SENIORS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING KEEPS CHANGES ALL OF THE TIME. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO PUT THIS TO BED, YOUR WORSHIP SO I ONE SUPPORT THIS AND I'M ASKING COUNCIL, THIS IS ANOTHER DELAY. THERE IS HUGE IMPLICATIONS. I'VE ALREADY MET WITH THE PROVINCE ON THIS AND THERE'S VERY, VERY LITTLE ROOM TO MOVE RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AS IS. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN MOORE. ALDERMAN HODGES, SORRY. >> I DON'T CARE WHAT THE PROVINCE IS SAYING. I CAN IMAGINE THEY WANT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. I'M REMINDED AS ALDERMAN MAR STOOD UP OF THE RULES WE HAVE UNDER THEIR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT OF BUYING AND SELLING LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE. WHAT THEY'RE HOLDING A GUN TO OUR HEAD IT SOUNDS LIKE TO DO A LAND EXCHANGE WHICH IS NOT FAIR MARKET VALUE. SO I HAVE NO INTENTION OF PUTTING MY COUNCIL SEAT OR ANYBODY ELSE'S CONTRACT SEAT ON THE LINE ON A TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT A FAIR MARKET VALUE. AND THAT'S THE END OF THE STORY RIGHT THERE. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE? >> CLOSED. IT'S A WEEK. CLOSED. >> THANK YOU. ON THE REFERRAL MOTION THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ON THE REFERRAL, [ ROLL CALL ] >> CARRIED. >> The Hon. Ken Kowalski (Speaker): THAT TAKE US TO 21. ALDERMAN HODGES. >> 21 YOUR WORSHIP IS AN ITEM THAT WAS BEFORE LAND COMMITTEE THE PROCESS WAS NOT COMPLETED OF THE LAND EXCHANGE. THIS LAND EXCHANGE IS A GOOD IDEA. IT PRESERVES THE WETLANDS IN THE AREA AND GIVES THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER/DEVELOPER A POTENTIALLY SMALL PIECE OF DEVELOPABLE LAND HE CAN ADD TO THE LAND HOLDINGS HE HAS IN THE SO THIS IS AN EXCHANGE THAT MAKES SENSE AND THAT'S WHY I'M RECOMMENDING IT. >> THANKS. >> VISUALLY IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT. SO WITHOUT HAVING THE TIME TO EXPLORE THIS FURTHER TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THE NUMBERS ARE INDEED ACCURATE, I WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE AGAINST IT. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ONE? ALDERMAN HODGES TO CLOSE. >> THANK YOU. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED. CARRIED. MATTERS OF URGENT BUSINESS, 11.1 ON WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES. ALDERMAN MACLEOD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS MOTION WITH RESPECT TO WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES. THIS IS SUPPLEMENTARY TO ALDERMAN DEMONG'S MOTION. IT TAKES IT THE NEXT STEP IN TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DEVELOPING POLICY AROUND WHY WE CREATE WHOLLY OWNED SUB ADVISORIES AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO OR DON'T DO FOR US. I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR INTRODUCING IT. AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL ANSWER AT THE POINT IN THE CLOSE. >> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> ALL RIGHT I NEED A SECONDER, SORRY. THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. IT'S THE LEGISLATIVE GOVERNING STAFF COURSE BUT WE CAN JUST MAKE THAT EDITORIAL CHANGE. ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ONE THEN? >> ALL RIGHT. ON THIS RECOMMENDATION, ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> ANY OPPOSED? >> CARRIED. >> ALL RIGHT. I WILL -- TEN MINUTES. I WILL TAKE A MOTION DVP BEFORE I TAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE IN CAMERA TO EXTEND THE PROCEDURES BYLAW SO THAT WE CAN EXTEND OUR BUSINESS. THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. THANKS ALDERMAN HODGES. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN MAR IS OPPOSED? AND THEN I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IN CAMERA TO DEAL WITH THESE COUPLE OF IN-CAMERA ITEMS. ALDERMAN JONES, THANKS ALDERMAN HODGES. ARE WE AGREED? ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE BACK THERE. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. >> ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> THE REPORT, PERSONAL -- THE VERBAL REPORT PERSONNEL ITEM BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION, THE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE VERBAL REPORT REMAIN IN CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT. >> SECONDER? >> (POOR AUDIO). >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING THE CALGARY PARKING AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2 FOR INFORMATION AND DIRECT THE AT THAT. S WITH RESPECT TO REPORTS IN 2011-07, REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 17 .1 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY -- PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT. >> GREAT, DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS ALDERMAN HODGES. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. ON REPORT 2-2011, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW THAT WE RECEIVED THE VERBAL UPDATE AND THE DEFERRAL REQUEST AND THAT THE INFORMATION BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTIONS 24.1 C, 21.1 G AND 25.1 G OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT UNTIL THE REPORT IS DELIVERED TO COUNCIL AND KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL COUNCIL RISES AND REPORTS. >> ANY DISCUSSION AN THIS ONE? AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE VERBAL REPORT PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CALGARY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND ANY CHANGES TO THE PROJECTED COST OF THE AIRPORT TUNNEL BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION AND NUMBER 2 THAT THE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE VERBAL REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 23.1, 25.1 C, 27.1 B OF FOIP. >> YOU'RE SURE THERE'S NO MORE? SECONDING ALDERMAN POOTMANS. VISUALLY VERY WELL THEN. AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I MOVE TO WAIVE THE READING OF INQUIRIES IF ANY. >> THERE AREN'T ANY. >> ADJOURN >> ALDERMAN JONES YOU'RE SECONDING ARE WE AGREED THANKS, FOLKS, GOOD DAY. >> GOOD DAY. [ ķ ķ ķ ] enterprise risk management university order City University of New York.

Your One and Only Stop for All Types of Writing Services

All types of works. All kinds of complexity. Any deadline. Any time.

Our Samples

Our Samples

We write from scratch
according to your instructions.

Our Guarantees

Our Prices

Start at $10/page. Edit and
proofread your paper.

Our Prices

Our Guarantees

Get plagiarism free papers,
100% guarantee!

Want to make sure if we have an available expert? Learn now! Place a Free Inquiry
We have taken appropriate security measures to protect you against loss, misuse or alteration of the information we
have collected from you. Please read our Privacy Policy to learn more.