YYCCC 2011-04-11 Calgary City Council - Video Archive - April 11, 2011


Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on 15.04.2011

Transcript:
Shall you play Mozart for your infant? Beethoven?
Da da da da.
Your baby has Beethoven symphony in here!
Where is baby symphony?
Beethoven never listened to Beethoven when baby!
Cube of Wood. What your child needs.
>> O GOD, AUTHOR OF ALL WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTAND, WE THIS THY GUIDANCE IN OUR
CONSULTATIONS TO THE END THAT TRUTH AND JUSTICE MAY PREVAIL IN ALL OUR JUDGMENTS.
AMEN. [Inaudible] [Laughter]
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MORNING, EVERYONE. WE'RE GOING TO START THIS
MORNING WITH A VERY IMPORTANT PRESENTATION. SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO DOWN
OVER HERE. SO, IT IS MY ABSOLUTE PLEASURE TODAY TO HONOUR THE CITY'S
RECEIPT OF THE CANADIAN AWARD FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING. FROM THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE
OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. RECEIPT OF THIS AWARD REPRESENTS
A SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENT FOR THE CITY AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO RECOGNIZE OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER ERIC SAWYER AND THE FINANCE ACCOUNTING AND COMMUNICATIONS TEAMS FOR THIS
OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT AND FOR ONCE AGAIN MEETING THE HIGH STANDARDS THAT THIS AWARD
REPRESENTS. FOR EXCEPTIONAL FINANCIAL AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES.
THE CITY'S RECEIPT OF THIS AWARD IS IN RECOGNITION OF THE EFFORTS ON THE 2009 CORPORATE ANNUAL
REPORT. THE FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD WAS ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS THROUGHOUT CANADA TO PUBLISH HIGH-QUALITY FINANCIAL REPORTS.
I AM VERY PROUD THAT THIS AWARD HAS MOTIVATED CITY STAFF TO PUT FORWARD THE EXTRA EFFORT
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THIS RECOGNITION FROM THE GFOA OF THE U.S. AND C.
THAT'S FUN TO SAY. THE 2009 CORPORATE ANNUAL REPORT WAS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
BETWEEN FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES AND CUSTOMER SERVICES AND COMMUNICATION.
THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO PROVIDE CALGARIANS WITH A HIGH QUALITY ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT THAT
INCLUDES AN EASY TO READ OVERVIEW OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OF OUR OPERATIONS.
THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION IS THE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES OF STATE, LOCAL AND
PROVINCIAL OFFICES IN THE U.S. AND CANADA. ITS MAIN PURPOSE IS TO ENHANCE
AND PROMOTE THE PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THE GFOA ACCOMPLISHES THIS BY IDENTIFYING FINANCIAL POLICIES AND PROMOTING THEM THROUGH
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LEADERSHIP. MEMBERS FROM EVERY PROVINCE
ACROSS CANADA PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL OF
OUR STAFF FOR THIS ACHIEVEMENT. THANK YOU, Mr. SAWYER AND THANKS TO THOSE ON OUR FINANCE
AND COMMUNICATION TEAMS FOR THEIR DEDICATION TO EXCELLENCE AND EXCEEDING THE HIGH INDUSTRY
STANDARDS REQUIRED IN ACCOUNTING, FINANCIAL REPORTING AND COMMUNICATIONS.
Mr. SAWYER, PLEASE COME UP AND RECEIVE THIS AWARD. WHICH IS OVER THERE.
[Applause] >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF REMARKS. RECEIPT OF THIS AWARD FROM GFOA
IS EXCELLENT NEWS FROM THE CITY. IT REFLECTS THE HIGH STANDARDS THAT OUR ACCOUNTING, FINANCIAL
AND COMMUNICATION EXPERTS PROVIDE TO THE CORPORATION AND CITIZENS OF CALGARY YEAR AFTER
YEAR. THE INTEGRITY, RELEVANCE AND COMPARABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL
DATA IN THIS REPORT ARE THE RESULT OF STRONG ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, BUDGETING PROCESSES
AND OTHER FINANCIAL CONTROLS THAT THE CITY MAINTAINS. OUR COMMITMENT TO ACCOUNTABILITY
AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE CITY'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IS ONE OF OUR MOST STRONGLY HELD VALUES.
I'M ALSO PROUD OF THE WAY THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED AND SHARED WITH CITIZENS AND
STAKEHOLDERS IN AN ATTRACT ACTIVE AND INFORM ACTIVE DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO
ALL THROUGH CALGARY.CA. RECEIVING THIS AWARD TAKES A HUGE EFFORT AND CERTAINLY DOES
NOT COME EASY. WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT AND IT IS
CERTAINLY MY PLEASURE TO ACCEPT THIS AWARD ON BEHALF OF FINANCE AND CUSTOMER SERVICE AND
COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE INCLUDING A COUPLE
OF RETIREES WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS GREAT ACHIEVEMENT, AND I'D
LIKE TO ASK THEM TO STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED. [Applause]
[Inaudible] [Inaudible] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL
RIGHT, FOLKS, QUESTION PERIOD. ALDERMAN STEVENSON ON QUESTION PERIOD?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MY QUESTION IS FOR GM WATSON. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING
BACK THE DRAFT ASP FOR THE NORTHERN -- FIRST CELL. NORTHERN ANNEXED LAND IN JUNE.
COULD YOU TELL ME IF WE'RE ON TARGET FOR THAT ASP TO COME TO COUNCIL THEN?
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN STEVENSON, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
I'LL CHECK WHEN I GET BACK, I KNOW THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT DILIGENTLY.
I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYONE SAY IT'S OFF TARGET. >> COULD YOU GIVE AN UPDATE TO
COUNCIL BY E-MAIL ON THE TIME LINES? >> BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ON QUESTION PERIOD, ALDERMAN JONES?
ON QUESTION PERIOD ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> NO, IT'S A PRESENTATION.
NO, NOT A CLASS. I'M GOING TO PRESENT THIS AWARD TO COUNCIL THAT I RECEIVED ON
THE BEHALF OF CITY HALL. THIS WEEKEND ON SATURDAY, AND YOU WERE IN ATTENDANCE,
Mr. MAYOR, THE CALGARY SOLDIER MEMORIAL WAS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC, AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL
MONUMENT TO THE FALLEN SOLDIERS FOR THE CALGARY REGIMENTS. IN THE EVENING THERE WAS AN
OFFICERS' MESS AND I HAD THE HONOUR TO PARTICIPATE AND TRY MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT HAGGIS AND...
[Indiscernible] WHICH WAS FASCINATING. I WAS VERY PLEASED AND HONOURED
TO RECOGNIZE THIS TROPHY FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY WITH GREG STEWART FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT,
DOUG MARTYR AND ANN CHARLTON. I HAVE TO SAY THE CALGARY SOLDIERS WERE VERY, VERY
APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THE WORK THE CITY OF CALGARY HAS DONE TO HELP THEM SEE THIS MONUMENT TO
FRUITION. SO THIS TOKEN OF THEIR APPRECIATION WAS PRESENTED TO
THE CITY BY BRIGADIER-GENERAL WINNICK AND I WANTED TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES, THE LANDSCAPE OF
MEMORY FOR MEMORIAL DRIVE IS COMING ALONG BEAUTIFULLY, AND THIS IS ONE LANDMARK MONUMENT
THAT HELPS BRING IT TO FRUITION. SO THIS IS FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
IT WAS INDEED A MARVELOUS CEREMONY ON SATURDAY. THE 94th ANNIVERSARY OF VIMY
RIDGE, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE MEMORIAL IT IS DECEPTIVE.
IT LOOKS VERY SIMPLE, BUT IT IS A REMARKABLE PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE BY A LOCAL
ARCHITECT. AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND BE
MOVED BY THE LIST OF THOSE 3,000 NAMES. ANYONE ELSE ON QUESTION PERIOD?
ON THE AGENDA THEN, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AGENDA. THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ON THE AGENDA, ALDERMAN JONES. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD MOVE THE RECESS THIS AFTERNOON TO 11:45 AMENDMENT TO 1:45 p.m.
TO ALLOW FOR A PRESENTATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FORMER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.
ON THE AGENDAING WITH ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
ON THE AGENDA, I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BRING FORWARD AND MOVE THE LPT 2011-23 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL
WORK PLAN INTERNAL REPORT AND MIGHT AS WELL ADD THE SNOW AND ICE CONTROL YEAR END SUMMARY,
LPT 2011-24 TO THE MAY 16th MEETING OF COUNCIL. THE 16th IS A REGULAR
MEETING. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER REPORT AT THAT MEETING.
SNOW AND ICE CONTROL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: CAN YOU THROW IN THE RELEASE OF THE
SNOW AND ICE CONTROL FUNDS? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND THE REASON FOR THAT, BY THE WAY, COUNCIL, IS I CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE SNIK DEPARTMENT ON A BETTER REPORT TO COUNCIL WHICH WILL BETTER TALK ABOUT THE
RESULTS OF THEIR PILOT PROJECT AND THEY NEED A BIT MORE TIME. DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT
ONE? THANKS, ALDERMAN JONES. ARE WE AGREED?
>> THE SNOW AND ICE CONTROL FUNDS IS C-2011-33. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MAY
16th. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN CHABOT AND LOWE ARE OPPOSED. OH, SORRY.
SORRY, ALDERMAN LOWE, YOU CAN ASK IT NOW. >> I'M TRYING TO RELATE -- I
MEAN, WHAT'S YOU'RE DELAYING IS THE AUTHORITY TO RELEASE FUNDS TO PAY THE BILLS AS OPPOSED TO
THE BROADER REPORT THAT OUTLINES WHAT WAS DONE. I GUESS I WORRY ABOUT STEPPING
IN AND STOPPING BILLS BEING PAID -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'VE
CHECKED WITH ALL OF THAT ALREADY. IT'S A BIT CONFUSING.
BUT COUNCIL AUTHORIZED THE EXPENDITURE OF A REMAINING $5 MILLION FROM THE STABILITY
RESERVE. THAT IS BEING USED TO PAY THE BILLS NOW.
THE MONEY THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS FOR NEXT SEASON. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TIME
THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO SPEND ANY OF IT YET. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SO WE GOT THAT ONE. WE GOT THAT ONE. ON THE AGENDA, ALDERMAN HODGES
STILL? ARE YOU DONE? ALDERMAN JONES ON THE AGENDA?
[Inaudible] WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT NOW. ALL RIGHT.
I WILL TAKE A MOTION THEN TO ADD FOUR ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS. PAC 2011-09 ON THE COUNCIL
INVASION FUND, 2011-15 ON THE CALGARY REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP AND TWO INCAMERA ITEMS ONE ON THE
COUNCIL COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ONE PERSONNEL ITEM.
[Inaudible] THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT. ALDERMAN POOTMANS IS SECONDING.
ON THE AGENDA ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ALDERMAN JONES. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I BELIEVE THIS IS MY SCHOOL.
MONSIGNOR HEATHERINGTON? YEAH. AFTER SEEING HOW MANY TIMES
WE'VE INTRODUCED SCHOOLS THAT ACTUALLY AREN'T HERE YET. THIS IS A GROUP OF 32 STUDENTS
AND FOUR CHAPERONES FROM MONSIGNOR HEATHERINGTON SCHOOL IN CORAL SPRINGS.
THEY'RE HERE WITH THEIR TEACHER AND FOUR CHAPERONES AND TOUR GUIDE.
IF YOU COULD ALL STAND UP SO THAT COUNCIL COULD RECOGNIZE YOU AND PUT YOU ON T.V.
[Applause] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU CAN BE SEATED.
YOU WERE JUST ON T.V. THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY. MONSIGNOR HEATHERINGTON IS MY
COMMUNITY SCHOOL BECAUSE I LIVE ABOUT FOUR BLOCKS AWAY. IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU ALL HERE
AND I HOPE YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY AT CITY HALL. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
SECONDED ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU.
I WAS GOING TO MOVE THE MINUTES WITH THE SMALL AMENDMENT. IF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WOULD
PROBABLY NOTICE WHEN THEY READ IT, THAT ON PAGE 8 OF 40, THERE'S A DECIMAL PLACE THAT'S
BEEN MISPLACED SLIGHTLY. ON THE SECOND BULLET AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, IT SAYS
RECOMMENDATION 3 BE AMENDED BY DELETING THE WORDS 4.2 MILLION. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 42 MILLION.
AND CONSTITUTING THE WORDS 2.1 MILLION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN 21 MILLION.
IF THAT CORRECTION CAN BE MADE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I THINK WE CAN TAKE THAT AS AN
EDITORIAL CHANGE THOUGH IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ONE. WHAT'S TENFOLD BETWEEN FRIENDS,
RIGHT? OKAY. TERRIFIC.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CHANGE EDITORIALLY. ANY OTHER CHANGES, DELETION,
ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? VERY WELL THEN. ON THE MINUTES AS WITH THAT
CORRECTION ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ALL RIGHT. THE CONSENT AGENDA THEN. CAN I HAVE SOMEONE MOVE THE
CONSENT AGENDA? THANKS, ALDERMAN LOW. SECONDED ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
ANYONE WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE CONSENT AGENDA? ANYONE WANT TO PULL ANYTHING?
OKAY THEN. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE WE AGREED?
SORRY? >> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OH.
>> DO WE PULL THINGS -- I APOLOGIZE. FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, DO WE PULL
THINGS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA WHEN WE GET TO THE CONSENT AGENDA OR DO WE DO IT DURING
THE -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU CAN DO IT AT EITHER TIME.
WE TYPICALLY DO IT WHEN WE GET TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS AMENDED ARE WE AGREED?
ALL RIGHT THEN. OKAY. THAT TAKES US INTO OUR PUBLIC
HEARING. WE'LL PLAY A LITTLE MUSICAL CHAIRS UP HERE AND WE WILL GET
STARTED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEE YOU SOON. [Inaudible]
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT THEN. THAT TAKES US TO THE BEGINNING
OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING TODAY AND WE'LL START WITH TABLED REPORTS. THE FIRST IS CPC 2011-018.
AMENDMENT TO THE BOWNESS AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR WORSHIP.
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. ANDY ORR ON BEHALF OF CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY COLLEAGUE Mr. COPE IS TAKING A WELL DESERVED HOLIDAY SO I'M UP HERE THIS MORNING.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A LAND USE REDESIGNATION WITH AN OUTLINE PLAN AND PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE BOWNESS AR PERFORM LOCATED AT 4200, 95th STREET NORTHWEST IN THE
COMMUNITY OF GREENWOOD GREEN BRIAR. THIS PROPOSES TO REDESIGNATE
29.88-ACRES FROM CN 2 COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD 2 DISTRICT AND SFUD SPECIAL PURPOSE FUTURE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO MCD 274 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL CONTEXTUAL PROFILE DISTRICT C 1
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SSPR SPECIAL PURPOSE SCHOOL PARK AND COMMUNITY RESERVE DISTRICT
AND DC DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOTED IN THE AREAS OUTLINED IN RED ON THE SITE MAP LOCATED IN THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY AND IT IS ALSO PART OF THE BOWNESS AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AREA. THE SITE IS BOUNDED TO THE SOUTH BY THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY AND
CANADA OLYMPIC PARK. TO THE WEST BY RESIDENTIAL ACREAGES AND UNDEVELOPED LAND.
TO THE NORTH BY THE GREENWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK AND TO THE EAST BY LANDS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED
FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BUT ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.
IF YOU LOOK QUICKLY AT -- THIS IS AN AIR PHOTO OF -- A BROAD VIEW OF THE SITE IN RELATION TO
NORTH OF 16th AVENUE, WEST OF BEAUFORT ROAD, YOU CAN SEE IT SOUTH OF THE EXISTING TRAILER
PARK. THERE'S A MORE FINE DETAIL OF THE SITE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT AND THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ON THE
LANDS. THE MULTI-RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT HAS A DENSITY OF 25.82 UNITS PER
HECTARE. THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF THE COMBINED STAGES EQUALS
34.26 UNITS PER HECTARE OR 13.86 UNITS PER ACRE WITH A TOTAL OF 835 UNITS POTENTIALLY.
REVISED DENSITY IS COMPATIBLE WITH PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMENDMENTS
IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE LAND USE. THE EXISTING DENSITY RANGE IS A
MAXIMUM OF 764 UNITS AND WITH THE AMENDMENT THE ADVANCED RAISE WE GO AS ANTICIPATED TO A
MAXIMUM OF 835. THERE IS ALSO THREE CLUSTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
APPLICATION. THESE AMENDMENTS ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICE SPACE AND
COMMUNITY ORIENTED USES ON THESE THREE SITES WHICH WILL COMPRISE THE COMMERCIAL CORE WITHIN THE
GREENBRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA. SITE A IS POTENTIALLY FOR A GROCERY STORE OR MIXED USE
APPLICATION. SITE B IS FOR LOCAL COMMERCIAL OR STREET ORIENTED RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT. C FOR OFFICE OR RETAIL AT GRADE USES.
THE LAND USE REDESIGNATION AND OUTLINE PLAN, HAVE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED DC MAP ASSOCIATED, THE
DC CUSTOMIZES THE C CORE LAND USE IN THE SITE 1 AREA OF THE SITE.
AND THE OFFICE DISTRICT AND SITE TO SUPPLEMENT POLICIES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
ENSURING IT IS RESTRICTED TO A NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE STREET ORIENTED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE
ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY OF BOWNESS, BUT ALSO LIMITING AUTO ORIENTED USES AND SPECIFYING THE
LOCATION OF USES WITHIN POTENTIAL BUILDINGS. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN DEDICATED AND MUNICIPAL RESERVE HAS PROVIDED IN LAND AND IN CASH IN LIEU.
LOOKING TO THE OUTLINE PLAN, THE OPEN SPACE PROPOSED IN THE SECOND STAGE ACCOMMODATES LOCAL
AND REGIONAL PATHWAY CONNECTIONS. THE SITE ACCESS TO CONSTRAINED
BY THE TIMING OF THE INITIAL BEAUFORT ROAD 16th AVENUE TRANSCANADA INTERCHANGE
SCHEDULED TO BE BUILT BY 2013. THE INITIAL INTERCHANGE WOULD BE A SIX-LANE BRIDGE STRUCTURE OVER
THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY. PRIOR TO ITS CONSTRUCTION, A MAXIMUM OF 250 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
COULD BE SUPPORTED WITHIN THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND FURTHER LIMITATIONS HAVE
BEEN PLACED ONCE A DEVELOPMENT INTERCHANGE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. IN TERMS OF THE SITE PHOTOS,
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE TRANSCANADA. THIS LOOKING NORTH.
THIS IS THE WESTERLY PORTION OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE IT'S RELATIVELY
FLAT. YOU CAN ALSO NOTE THE -- THERE'S BUILDINGS IN THE BACKGROUND, AND
THAT IS PART OF THE GREENBRIAR SUBDIVISION WITH MOBILE HOMES. AND THAT IS THE -- LOOK NORTH
FROM THE TRANSCANADA, THAT IS THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THERE'S MORE SLOPE OF THE LAND
THAT IS ORIENTED TOWARDS 16th AVENUE. THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN FROM
THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE TRAILER PARK. YOU CAN SEE CANADA OLYMPIC PARK
LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS 16th AVENUE. AND THERE'S JUST ANOTHER
PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE TRAILER PARK LOOKING TOWARDS 16th AVENUE HERE.
FINALLY, YOU SEE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE TRAILER PARK AND THE LAND PROPOSED FOR REDESIGNATION.
IN SUMMARY, THE ARP AMENDMENTS ENCOURAGE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY WITH SWERVE PARAMETERS ON THE --
SPECIFIC PARAMETERS ON THE LINE AND USAGE. A NUMBER OF OPEN HOUSES HAVE
BEEN HOSTED BY THE APPLICANTS INCLUDING A CITY-LED OPEN HOUSE HELD IN NOVEMBER 2010 TO PRESENT
THE ARP AMENDMENTS. CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED ARP
AMENDMENTS AND RECOMMENDS GIVING THREE READINGS TO BYLAW 12 P 2011 AND 13 D 2011, AND THAT
CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. ORR. ANY QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION?
ANY QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION? ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> Mr. ORR, DO YOU KNOW
ROUGHLY HOW MANY SQUARE FEET BASED ON THIS PLAN ARE PROPOSED FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE
COMPONENT AS A COMBINED TOTAL? >> THE THREE CELLS ASSOCIATED WITH THE -- THERE'S A COMBINED
TOTAL OF 15.000 AND THAT IS INTENDED TO BE A NEIGHBOURHOOD CORE AREA.
THE OTHER AREAS -- IN TERMS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE'S NOT AN ABSOLUTELY.
TATION. IT IS OF COURSE ALL SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.
THERE ARE LIMITATIONS PLACED ON THE USES IN THE AREAS. HOWEVER, THE COMBINED TOTAL IS
SOMEWHAT UNDETERMINED DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND APPLICATIONS PROCEED.
>> SO ROUGHLY 10 SQUARE FEET PER SQUARE METRE? >> WELL, 5,000 SQUARE METRES AND
EACH ONE OF THOSE CELLS FOR POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL USES OF COMMERCIAL. HOWEVER, THE 15.000, THAT WOULD
BE THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. >> JUST FOR IN ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE CONVERTING THAT TO SQUARE FEET. >> I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 35.000
SQUARE FEET. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF
SOMEWHERE AROUND 10 PER SQUARE FEET PER SQUARE METRE. >> YES, THAT'S RELATIVELY CLOSE.
IN THAT RANGE YOU'RE LOOKING AT 150.000, APPROXIMATELY. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN HODGES? >> Mr. ORR, YOU MENTIONED IT
IN PASSING BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN APPROVAL FOR 250 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS IN THIS AREA WHICH HAS YET TO PROCEED. BUT ANY FURTHER COMMERCIAL OR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEYOND THAT IS DEPEND END ON THE CONSTRUCTION -- DEPENDENT ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE.
>> , THAT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> AND IT'S SCHEDULED FOR NEXT YEAR?
>> 2013. IT IS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF 2013.
>> IF ALL GOES WELL. >> IF ALL GOES WELL. >> AND THE WEATHER STAYS
PREDICTABLE, YOU MIGHT SAY. SO THE -- ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND KEYS ON THE GRADE SEPARATED
INTERCHANGE AT BEAUFORT AND TRANSCANADA. >> THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT CHANGE INITIATED IN 2008, THE ARP, IT HAS BEEN INITIATED TO 250 MAXIMUM.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY STILL PREVALENT DEPENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE INTERCHANGE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> IS THE FUNDING IN PLACE FOR THAT INTERCHANGE?
>> AS FAR AS I KNOW IT IS. I BELIEVE -- MY COLLEAGUE FROM TRANSPORTATION COULD CLARIFY
THAT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> YOUR WORSHIP, WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
AS PART OF THE 2009-2018 PIIP THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, THE BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA
INTERCHANGE WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR FUNDING STARTING IN 2012. THE ACTUAL BUDGET APPROVAL WOULD
COME FORWARD AS PART OF THE 2012-14 BPPC. >> ARE THERE ANY ANTICIPATED
HICCUPS OR ROADBLOCKS ALONG THE WAY? >> THE CITY HAS INITIATED --
WE'VE COMPLETED THE FUNCTIONAL PLANNING STUDY. WE'VE INITIATED A LAND
ACQUISITION. THE DETAILED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD MOVE FORWARD
AS PER THAT SCHEDULE. >> SO WE'RE ON SCHEDULE TO CONSTRUCT THIS OVERPASS.
>> YEAH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DEPENDING ON A BUNCH OF CONVERSATIONS WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE AT COUNCIL MAYBE TODAY, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. VERY WELL THEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONSES OF CLARIFICATION? FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
IN FAVOUR. >> YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, WITH BROWN AND
ASSOCIATES PLANNING GROUP. WE'RE THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF MELCORP.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO ALLOW CHRIS DELANEY TO SPEAK MORE TO
TRANSPORTATION. WE WERE TABLED IN FEBRUARY TO ALLOW FOR MORE COMMUNICATION TO
HAPPEN BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
BOTH ADMINISTRATION AND OURSELVES HAVE ACTIVELY PURSUED THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
THROUGH E-MAILS AS WELL AS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DETAILED INFORMATION.
WE FEEL WE'VE SATISFIED THAT REQUEST THROUGH THAT MOTION. AND HOPE THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT
THE LAND USE TODAY. I'D LIKE TO INVITE CHRIS DELANEY TO SPEAK TO THE REST OF THE FIVE
MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, CATHY. MY NAME IS CHRIS DELANEY WITH
ISL ENGINEERING, WE WERE ME MELCORP'S TRANSPORTATION GROUP. THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS
INCLUDING STONEY TRAIL AND SARCEE TRAIL WHICH ARE THE MAJOR SKELETAL ROAD CONNECTIONS IN THE
AREA. THE CITY HAS PREVIOUSLY PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA BY
PLANNING FOR THE INTERCHANGE AT TRANSCANADA AND BEAUFORT ROAD AND IN PLANNING THAT INTERCHANGE
THEY HAVE ACTUALLY ALLOCATED TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY TO VARIOUS ZONES WHETHER IT BE
GREENBRIAR, CANADA OLYMPIC PARK OR OTHER LANDS SERVED BY THE INTERCHANGE.
THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS THAT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION
CONFIRMS THAT THE GREENBRIAR PROPOSAL DOES REMAIN WITHIN THE CAPACITY ALLOCATED BY THE CITY
FOR THIS SITE AT THE INTERCHANGE. THE PROPOSAL THUS DOES NOT SEEK
ANY ADDITIONAL CAPACITY OR IMPOSE ANY UNPLANNED REQUIREMENTS ON THE CITY
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. ALSO, TO PROVIDE FAIR DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ALL LANDOWNERS, THE CITY HAS SET CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT CAPS AND TRIGGERS IN THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVALS, BOTH LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN GO IN AHEAD OF THE INTERCHANGE
AND ALSO PROVIDING A CAP THAT CANNOT BE EXCEEDED DURING THE FIRST STAGE OF THE INTERCHANGE.
SO THERE'S FUTURE CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL PRESENT A CAP AND A TRIGGER AS WELL.
THESE CAPS ENSURE THAT ALL AREA LANDOWNERS NOT JUST MELCORP CAN FAIRLY ACCESS THE CAPACITY
THAT'S BEEN ALLOCATED TO THEM FOR THIS INTERCHANGE AND SO MELCORP HAS ACCEPTED THESE
TRIGGERS. THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS IS TRULY DOES MEET THE VISION OF
THE CALGARY TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE MUNICIPAL SELECT PLAN FOR BALANCED APPROACH TO
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND. WITH THE MIXED LAND USE OFFICE, MIXED USE MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL NO SINGLE FAMILY HERE. THERE IS A NATURAL TRAFFIC
INTERACTION WITH BONUS FOR OTHER AMENITIES INCLUDING SCHOOLS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND
SHOPPING. BUT ONE OF THE REMARKABLE THINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS IS THAT THIS
SITE WILL PRODUCE ESSENTIALLY 50/50 BALANCED TRANSPORTATION DEMAND THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
SO IT IS QUITE UNLIKE THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS YOU SEE FOR
EXCLUSIVE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OR MAJOR BIG BOX COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WHERE
YOU HAVE 60/40 SPLIT, 70/30 SPLIT THAT IMPOSE HUGE RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. THAT BALANCED APPROACH IS REALLY A KEY THING TO HIGHLIGHT.
THE SITE ALSO PROVIDES READY ACCESS FOR ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.
THE ADMINISTRATION HIGHLIGHTED REGIONAL PATHWAY NETWORKS. SO WE DO BELIEVE AND WE DO
BELIEVE THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SITE DOES FIT WITHIN THE CITY'S
NETWORK PLANS FOR TRANSPORTATION AND AS WELL SUPPORTED ON THAT BASIS.
THANK YOU PERFOR. [Inaudible] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, Mr. DELANEY. THERE'S A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HERE AND I MAY HAVE ONE TOO.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. Mr. DELANEY, WHEN -- WITH THE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY OF BOWNESS, THIS WHOLE AREA OF COURSE WE KNOW IT'S ALL GOING TO
BE REDEVELOPED. BUT WOULD THE TRAFFIC IMPACT BE GREATER IF THIS WAS DEVELOPED IN
RESIDENTIAL THAN IT IS WHEN IT GOES COMMERCIAL? HOW DOES THAT COMPARE?
>> GENERALLY THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WOULD BE GREATER IF YOU HAD SORT OF AN EXCLUSIVE LAND USE AND
THEN THE MAIN REASON BEING THAT IT WOULD TEND TO CONCENTRATE TRAFFIC IN ONE DIRECTION MORE
SO. BY BEING A BALANCED AND MIXED LAND USE APPROACH IT SORT OF
TAKES ADVANTAGE OF LATENT DEMAND IN BOTH TRAVEL DIRECTIONS. AND THEREFORE IT'S LESS
CONCENTRATED IN ANY PARTICULAR DIRECTION ON THE ROAD NETWORK. >> SO IF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE WAS
ALL HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IT WOULD LIKELY HAVE A BIGGER IMPACT?
>> IT LIKELY WOULD, YES, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE ONE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC BEING THE PEAK THAT
YOU'RE ANALYZING, YES. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN MAR?
>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION.
YOU JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE CONDUCTIVITY WITH PUBLIC
TRANSIT? WHERE IS THAT PRIMARY TRANSIT NETWORK IN YOUR PROPOSED SITE?
>> THE EXISTING TRANSIT IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED IN THIS AREA. I THINK WHAT -- IT IS VERY
LIMITED. WHAT CALGARY TRANSIT HAS LOOKED TO HAVE HERE IS THAT THERE'S
GOING TO BE A PRIMARY TRANSIT CONNECTION ON BOWNESS ROAD AND ALSO SORT OF NORTH TOWARDS THE
CROWFOOT LRT TYPE AREA. AND THAT WOULD BE TH THE ACCESS. WE DO NO TRANSIT WAS LOOKING AT
USING BEAUFORT ROAD 83rd AS A CONNECTOR TO A HUB TO THE NORTH OF SOME KIND.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS IS ALSO AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN A COMPLETE COMMUNITY.
IT HAS THE COMMERCIAL FOOD, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WHAT IS THE RATIO FOR JOBS AND
PERSONS PER HECTARE IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT OUR NEW MDP IS SUGGESTING?
COULD YOU ANSWER THAT? >> WE CAN. AS PART OF THE ERP AMENDMENTS,
THE CITY DID THAT ANALYSIS ON THE OVERALL COMMUNITY AND WE TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT AFFECTS OUR
APPLICATION. IN THE OLD -- ARP AS EXISTS TODAY, THE INTENSITY IS A
MINIMUM OF 45 TO A MAXIMUM OF 68 PEOPLE AND JOBS PER HECTARE. WITH THE CHANGES, THE OVERALL
COMMUNITY GOES FROM 56 AS A MINIMUM TO 78 AS A MAXIMUM. AND THIS APPLICATION ITSELF IS
131 PEOPLE AND JOBS PER HECTARE. >> SO YOU ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEED THE OBJECTIVES OF
PLANNING IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. NOW, WHAT IS THE PROJECTED
BUILDOUT IN TERMS OF YEARS FOR THIS? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA?
>> OF COURSE IT WILL -- FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OR FOR JUST THIS --
>> FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. WELL, THE PORTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OBVIOUSLY.
>> SO OF COURSE THIS WILL DEPEND ON THE INTERCHANGE. I BELIEVE THAT --
>> THAT'S MY POINT. >> OUR INTENTION IS TO -- WHILE THE CONSTRUCTION AND DETAIL ARE
BEING SORTED OUT WITH THE INTERCHANGE IS TO HAVE OUR ENGINEERING ALL WORKED OUT AT
THE SAME TIME SO THAT AT THE TIME -- I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE, BECAUSE BEAUFORT
GOES OVER TOP OF THE TRANSCANADA THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT CUT AND THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF FILL THAT
OCCURS IN THE 83rd BEAUFORT AREA THAT THERE COULD BE SOME CONSTRUCTION THAT HAPPENS IN
TANDEM. THE INTENTION IS TO BE ABLE TO DO ALL THAT WORK IN TANDEM AND
THEN BE ABLE TO START WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT. AS FAR AS AN OVERALL BUILDOUT,
I'LL POSSIBLY GET DENNIS TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THANK YOU.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MY NAME IS DENNIS INGLES, OUR BUILDOUT WOULD BE 5
TO 7 YEARS UPON COMPLETION OF THE INTERCHANGE. >> THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CONTINGENT
WON THE CITY OF CALGARY FUNDING AND MOVING FORWARD ON THIS, THIS INTERCHANGE AS PLANNED.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. ONE LAST QUESTION -- ACTUALLY,
NO, I THINK THAT'S SATISFACTORY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? >> YOUR WORSHIP, ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS AFTER THE TABLING WAS
FURTHER COMMUNITY CONSULTATION. AND I WONDERED IF YOU COULD GET INTO THAT I I IN A BIT MORE DETL
AND EXPLAIN THE EFFORTS AS FAR AS THE SHARING OF INFORMATION. DO YOU HAVE A SUMMARY OF
THOSE -- THE NATURE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS? >> ABSOLUTELY.
I HAVE A TABLE HERE THAT I CAN DISTRIBUTE. I'VE GOT 35 COPIES THAT WE CAN
DISTRIBUTE TO MEMBERS. AND THIS ESSENTIALLY OUTLINES... KIND OF FROM START TO FINISH THE
AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT THAT HAD HAPPENED. WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION IN
DECEMBER 2009. AND WE HAD A DEVELOPER INITIATED PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE IN FEBRUARY.
WE DID RECEIVE COMMENTS BACK FROM AT THAT POINT IT WAS THE RESIDENTS' SOCIETY OF BOWNESS
RESIDENTS, NOT THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. WE DID RESPOND TO THEIR
QUESTIONS AND THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKAGE, IN YOUR AGENDA. FROM THERE THE CITY -- WE WENT
THROUGH THE CIRCULATION AND THE CITY INITIATED THEIR PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE IN NOVEMBER, AND THOSE
WERE MOSTLY DEALING WITH ARP AMENDMENTS. ADMINISTRATION MET WITH THE
BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO CPC. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS RAISED
THERE. >> SUCH AS? >> THAT'S THEIR LETTER THAT'S
INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. AND I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THERE'S REPRESENTATIVES HERE FROM THE
BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TODAY TO SPEAK TO IT, IN THOSE COMMENTS A LOT OF IT WAS THE
LANGUAGE. TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE LOCAL ORIENTED CHARACTER VERSUS SAY A
LARGE COMMERCIAL CENTRE THAT WAS THERE, WHICH WE HEARD RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS NOT A LARGE
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA IN GREENBRIAR. SO WE WENT TO PLANNING
COMMISSION AND SINCE FEBRUARY WE HAD INITIATED -- OUR OFFICE INITIATED CONVERSATION RIGHT OFF
THE BAT TO ASK IF WE COULD GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, TRY TO WORK THROUGH ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE.
WE FOLLOWED UP A FEW TIMES, AND THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION GOT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION.
AND ASKED FOR SOME MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, SO HE ARE WE HELPED -- WE HELPED CITY SUPPLY
THAT TO THE GROUP. THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION REQUESTED A MEETING, IT DIDN'T
WORK FOR ALL PARTIES, WE TRIED TO FIND ANOTHER TIME. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO FIND
ANOTHER TIME. WE TRIED TO MEET WITH THEM. THERE WERE MANY E-MAILS THAT
OCCURRED BETWEEN OURSELVES AND ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO SOLVE THE ISSUES IN ADVANCE OF TODAY,
AND AS OF LAST WEEK WE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SAID THEY STAND ON THEIR E-MAIL -- OR THEIR INFORMATION FROM DECEMBER,
THAT'S THEIR POSITION. THAT'S THE LATEST -- >> THE ORIGINAL E-MAIL, THE
ORIGINAL ISSUES EVEN DESPITE ALL THE INFORMATION AND BACK AND FORTH.
>> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
NOT SURE WHICH OF YOU WOULD CARE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. BUT INSOFAR AS THE CURRENT ROAD
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT EXISTS TODAY, HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT CAN ACTUALLY OCCUR TODAY?
>> ON THE SITE TODAY? TODAY AS PER THE -- OH, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT ONE?
>> THERE IS A CAP IN PLACE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 250 UNITS BOTH COMBINED IN THIS PLAN AREA AND
THE ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. SO 250 RESIDENTIAL, NO
COMMERCIAL, NO OFFICE COMPONENT WOULD BE PERMITTED. EVEN TO BRING THOSE 250 ON LINE
MELCORP HAS BEEN AUTHOR OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR THOSE IF THEY BROUGHT THOSE ON LINE AHEAD
OF THE INTERCHANGE. >> EVEN AT THAT THERE'S STILL FURTHER LIMITATIONS FOR SIX
LANES VERSUS EIGHT LANES? >> , THAT, YOUR WORSHIP. THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR WORSHIP.
THAT ENSURES FAIRNESS FOR ALL THE SURROUNDING LAND OWNERS. >> AND INSOFAR AS THE INTERNAL
ROAD NETWORK, YOU INDICATED THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT INDICATES THAT IT WILL NOT
ADVERSELY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY. WHAT ARE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS GOING TO BE LIKE?
IS IT GOING TO BE ALL ONE-WAYS, SOME REVERSE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT? WHAT DO YOU -- WHAT IS THE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND VISION IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT THE TIA INDICATES IS THAT THERE IS A FAIRLY BALANCED DEMAND FOR THE
TRAFFIC HERE. RIGHT NOW THE DEMAND IS PREDOMINANTLY ONE DIRECTION, SO
IT'S OUT OF BONUS IN THE MORNING TOWARDS THE -- BOWNESS IN THE MORNING AND THEN BACK IN IN THE
EVENING. THAT WAS ALSO SORT OF THE ORIGINAL VISION FOR THIS AS A
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY BUT NOW WITH THE MIXED USE IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT 50/50 IS WHAT THE BALANCE
WILL BE IN. SO AS MANY PEOPLE GOING IN IN THE MORNING AS ARE COMING OUT,
AND THAT HELPS BETTER UTILIZE THAT EMPTY SPACE ON THE ROAD, SO TO SPEAK.
>> IS THAT WHAT FORMED THE DECISION TO BRING IN MORE OF AN OFFICE COMPONENT?
>> THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON, YES. AND IT REALLY IS ABOUT MEETING
THE CITY'S VISION TO BALANCED, COMPLETE COMMUNITY. >> THE COMMUNITY INDICATED
CONCERNS ABOUT CCOR 3 AND THE POTENTIAL FOR HAVING BIG BOX DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU DID ADDRESS
IT IN SUMMARY TYPE FASHION IN THE REPORT HERE. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD
ELABORATE A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT. >> WHEN WE FIRST HAD SUBMITTED
THE APPLICATION WE SUBMITTED THAT WHOLE SOUTHERN CELL, THE LIGHTER PINK, AS CCOR 3 IN ORDER
TO ACCOMMODATE THE OFFICE AND THE RETAIL KIND OF MORE AS A SLASH BETWEEN THE WHOLE SITE.
DUE TO THEIR CONCERNS, THAT'S WHERE WE BROKE THE SITE INTO TWO TO ILLUSTRATE IT'S NOT GOING TO
BE A BIG BOX COMMERCIAL AREA. THAT WE'D FOCUS THE OFFICE ON THAT WESTERN PARCEL AND THAT THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD RETAIL WOULD BE THIS EASTERN PARCEL TO ALLEVIATE THOSE CONCERNS.
>> SO BY REDUCING THE SITE IN HALF, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD ATTRACT A MAJOR ANCHOR
TENANTS IN THE AREA. >> WE DO NOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
MIGHT JUMP IN -- SORRY. WE'LL DO ALDERMAN KEATING AND THEN I'LL ASK SOME QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. UNDERSTANDING NOT MUCH CAN GO AHEAD UNTIL THE INTERCHANGE IS
THERE AND THE NEED TO WORK IN TANDEM COMPLETELY BECAUSE THAT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE TABLE, BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS REPORT WAS DELAYED UNTIL JUNE TO THE
PLANNING OR TO THE PROJECT IN GENERAL? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE DELAY COMES
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ENGINEERING CAPACITY THAT WE HAVE.
WE GENERALLY TRY TO BE -- TO TIME THIS INTERCHANGE WITH OUR ENGINEERING.
SO TOWARDS THE END OF THE... [Indiscernible] WE ANTICIPATE HAVING OUR
ENGINEERING COMPLETED AT SUCH TIME AS THE CITY WOULD HAVE THEIRS.
IF WE STALL BEHIND ON THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE
OF THINGS, AND THERE'S THE DIRT MOVEMENT THAT'S GOT TO HAPPEN BETWEEN HIGHWAY 1 AND BEAUFORT
BECAUSE OF THE CUT ON THE HIGHWAY AND THE FILL ON THE BEAUFORT ROADSIDE, YOU'D HAVE A
DELAY IN THAT. SO WHAT IT DOES, IT COMES BACK TO THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY IN
TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO -- HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE THAT DIRT BETWEEN
APPROVALS ON OUR SIDE AND THEM COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. >> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING. I HAVE A COUPLE OF LINES OF
QUESTIONING I WANT TO FOLLOW WITH. ONE IS THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM
OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA THAT INDEED THERE'S VERY LITTLE
DEMAND FOR OFFICE AND QUITE A BIT OF DEMAND FOR BIG-BANK OFBOX RETAIL.
I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT SINCE I THINK I'M HEARING SOMETHING A
LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM YOU. >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE LOOK AT IT FROM A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. AS OPPOSED TO A PURE RETAIL CENTRE.
WE OWN A SIGNIFICANT LAND PORTION TO THE WEST PORTION OF VALLEY RIDGE, AND IT'S OUR
INTENT HERE TO SCALE IT BACK TO MORE OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD-SIZED COMMERCIAL COMPONENT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'RE THINKING GROCERY STORE, DRUGSTORES, THAT SORT OF THING?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, CORRECT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND DID YOU SAY IT'S ALSO INTENDED
TO SERVE THE FOLKS IN VALLEY RIDGE? >> NO.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THERE'S NO DIRECT ACCESS. >> THERE'S A NOTION OF A FUTURE
RETAIL COMPONENT, BIGGER BOX RETAIL COMPONENT, WITHIN THE WEST USAP AND THAT'S WHERE WE'VE
SEEN THE LARGER BOX GOING FURTHER TO THE WEST. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S
VERY HELPFUL, THANK YOU. Mr. DELANEY, THIS MAY NOT BE A FAIR QUESTION FOR YOU AND YOU
DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT BUT SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TII SHOWING THE
CAPACITY. INTERCHANGE AS CURRENTLY PLANNED SHOULD BE ADEQUATE.
AS YOU ALL A KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO WHAT IS BEING PLANNED ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. DO YOU KNOW IF THE TRANSPORTATION STUDIES THAT HAVE
BEEN DONE TO DATE -- I'M GOING TO ASK Mr. VANDER PUTIN LATER AS WELL, DO THEY INCORPORATE THE
POTENTIAL CHANGES ON THE OTHER SIDE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, Mr.
Mr. VANDERPUTIN MIGHT BE BEST PLACED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THESE
FOLK? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN
FAVOUR? ALL RIGHT. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST
THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I COME HERE WITH THREE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK RIGHT AFTER ME.
SO THAT THE FLOW OF THE PRESENTATION IS PRESERVED. THANK YOU.
YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JOE LISERDOVICH.
I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF WHICH I AM A DIRECTOR.
THE CURRENT VERSION OF BYLAW 7 P 95 KNOWN AS THE BOWNESS AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OR BOWNESS
ARP CAME INTO EFFECT IN JUNE 2008 AND WAS A RESULT OF AN INTENSE PROCESS OF COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION THAT IMPLEMENTED THE POLICIES NOW SUPPORTED BY PLAN IT CALGARY.
THEY SUPPORT HIGHER WALKABLE AND WHOLE COMMUNITIES WITH LINEAR OPEN GREEN SPACE AND ADEQUATE
PUBLIC TRANSIT. IN SHAR SHARP CONTRAST, THE PROD AMENDMENTS NOW IN FRONT OF
COUNCIL HAS BEEN GENERATED WITH NO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION THROUGH A PROCESS IN WHICH CITY
PLANNERS APPEAR TO BE MAINLY ACCOMMODATING DEVELOPER REQUIREMENTS BY CREATING A DENSE
COMMERCIAL CORE WITH LARGE RETAIL SPACES AND PARKING LOTS IN AN AREA CURRENTLY DESIGNATED
AS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD ALLOW FOR A VEHICLE-DEPENDENT
COMMUNITY ARRANGED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON NOVEMBER 4th,
2010. THIS EVENT FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON THE GREENBRIAR AREA PHASE II
OUTLINE PLAN PROPOSED AND GLOSSED OVER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ARP.
THE EVENT WAS ADVERTISED USING ROAD SIGNS, THE INVITATIONS TO COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES WERE
DELIVERED LATE. IN ADDITION TO OBJECTING TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSED ARP
AMENDMENTS, THE BCA STRENUOUSLY OBJECTS TO THE VEILED PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THE BYLAW WAS
ARRIVED AT AND THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS DOWNPLAYED AS PART OF A DEVELOP OPEN HOUSE.
NOW, REGARDING THE GREENBRIAR STUDY AREA, THE CURRENT BOWNESS ARP IS BYLAW 7 P 95.
CONTRARY TO SOUND POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE BONUS ARP AND PLAN IT CALGARY, THE BCA
PERCEIVES A TREND THAT DISREGARDS THESE POLICIES IN FAVOUR OF DEVELOPERS AND AT THE
EXPENSE OF LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BOWNESS ARP AFFECT THE ENTIRE GREENBRIAR
SPECIAL STUDY AREA. NOT JUST THE MELCORP LANDS IN CELL 3.
THESE ARE CELL 1 GREENBRIAR PARK SITE AND CELL 2 GREENWOOD VILLAGE.
I REFER TO THE TABLE IN EXHIBIT 7 -- THANK YOU. THAT SHOWS THAT ITEM 33 OF THE
PROPOSED BYLAW 12 P 2011 LIMITS THE TOTAL AREA RETAIL USES IN THE GREENBRIAR STUDY AREA TO
19.500 SQUARE METRES PLUS OR MINUS 975 SQUARE METRES. THAT RESTRICTION APPLIES TO THE
ENTIRE GREENBRIAR STUDY AREA. THE TABLE IN EXHIBIT 7 ALSO SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED BYLAW
ESTABLISHING NOMINAL LIMITS OF 5,000 SQUARE METRES FOR RETAIL SITES USED IN CELLS 1, 2 AND 3.
PROVISION IS MADE FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE IN SITES A AND B IF UNDERGROUND PARKING IS PROVIDED.
AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 7, THE TOTAL PROPOSED RETAIL SPACE IN CELL 3 ADDS UP TO 19.500 SQUARE METRES
PLUS OR MINUS 975 SQUARE MEETS. THIS IS THE TOTAL SPACE ALLOWED BY THE PROPOSED BYLAW FOR THE
ENTIRETY GREENBRIAR STUDY AREA. IF PASSED, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD ENTRENCH IN A
BYLAW TO DISCRIMINATING ALLOCATION OF RETAIL SPACE TO ONE PARCEL OWNER AND WOULD
EXCLUDE TWO ADJACENT SIMILARLY SIZED PARCELS. THE BCA IS CONCERNED THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD DRIVE A HIGH COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION IN ONE PARCEL.
THIS IS OPPOSITE TO THE CONCEPT OF A WHOLE COMMUNITY SUPPORTED BY PLAN IT CALGARY AND BY THE
CURRENT ARP. I WILL ASK ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO PROCEED
WITH THE NEXT STATEMENT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M JUST GOING TO PRETEND THAT ALL
OF YOU ARE PROTECTING AS INDIVIDUALS. SO -- PRESENTING AS INDIVIDUALS.
SO YOU EACH GET FIVE MINUTES, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS AT THE END.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I'LL CLARIFY SOMETHING. YOU'VE GIVEN ME A HANDOUT I
THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE DISTRIBUTING TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR COPIES HANDY? >> YES, THEY ARE AVAILABLE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE CAN
DISTRIBUTE THOSE IF YOU'VE GOT 35 COPIES. >> I DIDN'T SEE THEM AND I
WANTED TO KNOW IF HE HAD THEM. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
DON'T SEE ANY BUT WE'LL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL YOU BACK SHOULD ANYONE HAVE ANY.
>> YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I SPEAK AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER. PROPOSALS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF BOWNESS CONTINUE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
FOR COMMENT IN A PIECEMEAL FASHION. EVEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUST
CELL 3, GREENBRIAR, AND MELCORP LANDS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR COMMENTS IN PHASES, LEAVING CELL
1, THE RADKE PHASE, OUT WITH NO ATTEMPT TO INTEGRATE THESE SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY. THIS DISJOINTED PRESENTATION
PREVENTS A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE LARGE-SCALE IMPACT THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS WILL HAVE ON THE
BOWNESS AND THE NEIGHBOURING COMMUNITIES AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
A LACK OF AN OVERARCHING DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF BOWNESS IS
EVIDENT. IF WE ADD TO THE MIX THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSAL OF WIN
SPORT LAND THAT ARE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY, THE INADEQUACIES OF THESE
INFRASTRUCTURES IN THE SOUTHWEST BOWNESS SURFACE QUICKLY. AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 8,
GREENBRIAR IS NATURALLY ISOLATED FROM THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY OF BOWNESS.
IT HAS NO ACCESS TO STONEY TRAIL OR TO THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY, OTHER THAN A SINGLE POINT ENTRY
AT BEAUFORT ROAD. BOWNESS PARK AND WOODS HOMES AT THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OFFERS NO
ACCESS ROAD. THE COMMUNITY OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE TO THE NORTH IS PRIVATE
AND FENCED. 83rd STREET NORTHWEST TO THE SOUTH OF THE SINGLE POINT OF
ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY OF BOWNESS. THE GREENBRIAR AND GREENBRIAR
PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENTS WILL INCREASE THE POPULATION OF BOWNESS BY AN ESTIMATED 50%.
THE COMBINATION OF MELCORP, CAD E.R. AND WIN SPORT DEVELOPMENTS WILL ADD -- RADKE AND WIN SPORT
DEVELOPMENTS WILL ADD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
THE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE IS A TEN-YEAR DESIGN THAT IS NOT ANTICIPATED, THE TOTAL BUILT-OUT
POTENTIAL OF GREENBRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA. SUSPECADJACENT TO THE HIGHWAY
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WIN SPORT, NOR DID THEY ANTICIPATE THE SHORTCOMING TRAFFIC IN THE
NORTHWEST. TRAFFIC SIMULATIONS SHOWN AT THE PLANNING -- TO THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BY THE CITY OF CALGARY TRAFFIC
ENGINEERS MADE THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION IS CONCERNED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PIECEMEAL SUBMISSION OF THIS
PROJECT AND THE ABSENCE OF THE OVERAVERAGING PLAN FOR THE -- OVERARCHING PLAN FOR THE AREA.
PIECEMEAL SUBMISSIONS DO NOT EMBRACE THE TYPE OF GOOD URBAN PLANNING THAT THE CITY IS
CAPABLE OF AND DESERVES. THANK YOU. [Inaudible]
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. SO, IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS, WHAT
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THIS PIECE OF LAND? >> I THINK THAT EVERYTHING HAS
TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING PHASE AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AREA AS A WHOLE AS OPPOSED TO ALL THE
PIECEMEALS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE SAW A MODEL OF WHAT HAPPENED
WITH JUST THE ADDITION OF THE WIN SPORT DEVELOPMENT, AND THE TRAFFIC WAS HORRENDOUS AT THAT
POINT. SO TO ADD ON ALL OF THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IS A BIG CONCERN.
>> SO IS YOUR CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC AND THAT'S YOUR ONLY CONCERN?
>> NO, THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONCERNS. IT DOESN'T FOLLOW PLAN IT AS
WELL, AND WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT AS WELL. >> OKAY.
SO IT'S SOMETIMES MY EXPERIENCE, NOT ALWAYS, BUT WHEN SOME PEOPLE ASK FOR MASTER PLANS, IT'S OFTEN
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REALLY WANTING TO SEE DEVELOPMENT. BUT I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT KIND
OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THIS LOCATION? IS IT -- I MEAN --
>> WE DO WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR ON
THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. WE ALSO WANT TO BE ABLE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE OTHER -- THE
REST OF THE COMMUNITY. THIS SEEMS TO BE VERY ISOLATED. WE WANT TO SEE PATHWAYS, WE WANT
TO SEE BICYCLE LANES, WE WANT TO SEE BETTER TRANSIT IN THAT AREA. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
INTERCHANGE ITSELF AND HOW THAT INTERCHANGE IS GOING TO AFFECT ACCESS INTO THE REST OF THE
COMMUNITY. SO THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT ISSUES.
>> SO YOU WANT LESS VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CUTTING THROUGH YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD AND MORE
PERMEABILITY INTO THIS NEW COMMUNITY VIA OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? >> YES, FOR SURE. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, YOU'VE MENTIONED THE GREENBRIAR
PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST OF THE MELCORP SITE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT
ON THE VIEW GRAPH, PLEASE? PERHAPS Mr. McKENZIE CAN GIVE YOU A HAND THERE.
THAT'S IT. NOW, THAT APPLICATION IS IN CIRCULATION.
CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY
ANOTHER 50 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL AND SOME PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEY'RE PROPOSING THERE? I CAN TELL YOU.
>> 854? >> OVER 800. THAT'S THE CONCERN YOU'RE
RAISING ABOUT THE PIECE MEDICAL A-- PIECEMEAL APPROACH, APPLICATIONS COMING IN
SEPARATELY WHICH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN'T CONTROL BUT IT'S A FACT THERE ARE OTHER
APPLICATIONS RIGHT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, RIGHT IN THE NEARBY AREA.
>> YES. >> THANK YOU. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, YOUR
WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES.
ALDERMAN MAR? >> THANK YOU. AND, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH
YOUR NAME. >> JUDY VAN DEN BRINK. >> YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY DONE A LOFT
WORK HERE AND CARE DEEPLY ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY. HOW WOULD YOU SAY THE
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY OF CALGARY AND YOURSELVES AS THE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN SINCE THIS WAS TABLED? >> WELL, THE ONLY INFORMATION
THAT I ACTUALLY RECEIVED THAT THERE WAS CONVERSATION GOING BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE
DEVELOPERS IS THROUGH THE OPEN HOUSE PROCESS. AND THERE WAS ONLY ONE, THAT WAS
THE ONLY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION THAT I WAS AWARE OF. >> AND YOU ARE ONE OF THE
DIRECTORS OF THE -- >> NO, I'M NOT A DIRECTOR. I'M A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
MEMBER. >> OKAY. I'M SORRY.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
PERHAPS MY COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ONE OF THEM INSTEAD. THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR NOW.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU. >> MORNING. >> MORNING.
YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MY NAME IS NICKY SMYTH. THIS THING MOVES!
AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF WHICH I'M THE
DIRECTOR. WE WISH TO BRING TO ATTENTION OF COUNCIL THE IMPACT ON BOWNESS OF
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE -- PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BOWNESS ARP.
WE WOULD AT THE SAME TIME LIKE TO DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION INCONSISTENCIES IN THE
DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO COUNCIL WITH REGARDS TO PROPOSED DENSITY.
THE CPC 2011-018 SUMMARY THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED INDICATES AN INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
IN CELL 3 TO 34.26 UNITS PER HECTARE. ANTICIPATING A TOTAL OF 835
UNITS. A DENSITY OF 34.26 UNITS PER HECTARE WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR
873 UNITS. THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE ARP TALKS ABOUT 32 UNITS PER
HECTARE FOR THE ENTIRE GREENBRIAR STUDY AREA WHICH WOULD BE A TOTAL OF IN CELL 3,
822 UNITS. MAP 3 C IN THE SAME PROPOSED AMENDMENT DESCRIBED AN ALLOWABLE
MAXIMUM OF 800 UNITS, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 31.1 UNITS PER HECTARE.
THE CURRENT BOWNESS ARP STATES UNDER POLICIES GENERAL THE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS
20 UNITS PER HECTARE TO A MAXIMUM OF 30 UNITS PER HECTARE BASED ON GROSS DEVELOPABLE AREA.
EXHIBIT 1 OWS THAT THE CURRENT ARP CAPS THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN CELL 3 OF THE GREENBRIAR AREA AT
764. THE PROPOSED ARP TEXT AMENDMENT INCREASES THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
UNITS PER HECTARE BY 6.7% THROUGHOUT THE GREENBRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA.
WE BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE PROPOSED MAP 3 C GREENBRIAR DENSITY EXHIBIT 2 THAT SHOULD
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BOWNESS ARP BE APPROVED THE ALLOWED DENSITY CELLS 1 TO 5 WOULD
INCREASE AND THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE FIGURES ON THE MAP PROTECTED.
THE CELL 5 INCREASES ARE NOT REPRESENTED, AND THE TOTALS IN THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY RANGES ARE INACCURATE. THEY ARE IN FACT THE FIGURES FROM THE EXISTING ARP.
SO JUST TO -- WE'VE ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT WE BROUGHT TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE ACTUAL CORRECT
FIGURES SHOULD BE. THE CURRENT POPULATION OF BOWNESS IS ESTIMATED AT 11.000
RESIDENTS, EXHIBIT 4. IN THE WORST CASE, AMONGST ALL THE VARIED AND CONFUSING FIGURES
PRESENTED AND ASSUMING A CONSERVATIVE AVERAGE OF 2.5 RESIDENTS PER UNIT, THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CELL 3 ALONE AS PROPOSED WILL RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY 2500 ADDITIONAL
BOWNESS RESIDENTS. THAT'S AN INCREASE OF 20% IN THE POPULATION OF BOWNESS.
IF WE THEN CALCULATE THE TOTAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE
POPULATION OF THE GREENBRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA RISES TO APPROXIMATELY 6300 PEOPLE WHICH
IS AN INCREASE OF OVER 50% IN THE POPULATION OF BOWNESS. THE OVERALL EFFECT OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TO CREATE A VEHICLE-DEPENDENT AND INCOMPLETE COMMUNITY, SINCE
RESIDENTS WILL HAVE TO CIRCULATE MAINLY THROUGH 83rd STREET NORTHWEST TO GAIN ACCESS TO
COMMUNITY AMENITIES SUCH AS RECREATION FACILITIES, SCHOOLS, SHOPPING AREAS, BOWNESS PARK AND
OTHER GREEN SPACES. THE COMMUNITY HALL AND LOCAL EVENTS THAT WOULD NOT BE
AVAILABLE IN THE GREENBRIAR AREA. THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT MAY INCREASE THE POPULATION OF BOWNESS BY MORE THAN 50% IN AN AREA THAT IS
GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED FROM THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WITH ONLY ONE ACCESS ROAD.
THE CURRENT BOWNESS ARP STATES UNDER POLICIES GENERAL THE PREDOMINANT LAND USE IN
GREENBRIAR AREA SHALL BE RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED BYLAW ADDS TO THE
SPECIFIC POLICY COMMUNITY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL INCLUDING RETAIL AND OFFICE USES MAY BE
PERMITTED WHERE APPROPRIATE. OFFICE USES ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE CURRENT ARP AS
THEY TYPICALLY RESULT IN TRAFFIC OF REGIONAL POPULATION AND WOULD CONTRADICT ITEMS IN THE
GREENBRIAR SECTION OF THE CURRENT ARP THAT READ AS FOLLOWS: UNDER POLICIES
COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL USES SHALL BE LOCALLY ORIENTED, COMMERCIAL USES THAT
ARE ORIENTED TO A REGIONAL POPULATION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS MAY
INCLUDE GROCERY AND RETAIL STORES, LIVE, WORK, RESTAURANTS AND PERSONAL USES, HIGH TRAFFIC
GENERATING USES SHALL BE DISCOURAGED. THE SCALE OF COMMERCIAL
OPERATIONS SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT AND SHOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
QUALITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT. THE COMBINATION OF INCREASED
POPULATION AND THE PRESENCE OF A COMMERCIAL CORE WILL ATTRACT REGIONAL TRAFFIC THAT CANNOT BE
SUPPORTED BY THE PROPOSED ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE. IN TERMS OF THE VISION FOR THE
COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA, THERE IS ONE. AND IT'S WELL-EXPRESSED IN THE
CURRENT ARP AND IS THE RESULT OF A LONG PROCESS OF CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S A
RECENT ONE, 2008. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DON'T
GO TOO FAR, MISS SMYTH. I THINK ALDERMAN MAR HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU HERE.
>> THANK YOU. AND SO YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD MY COMMENT TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER
WITH REGARDS TO THE DIALOGUE THAT'S BEEN GOING ON BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AS ONE OF
THE DIRECTORS. AND THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY OF CALGARY.
CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS AN OPEN
HOUSE BUT WAS THERE SOME DIALOGUE AS WELL? >> I THINK JOE IS THE BEST
PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. FORMALLY I WAS ALSO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SOCIETY OF
BOWNESS RESIDENTS AND THAT WAS THE INITIAL COMMUNITY CONTACT THAT WAS MADE.
WE SUBMITTED OUR COMMENTS, EVENTUALLY INFORMATION WAS FORWARDED BACK THAT CONTAINED
MISS OBERG'S RESPONSE TO OUR COMMENTS. AND THEN WHATEVER PROCESS
HAPPENS, HAPPENS WITHIN -- BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WE WERE THEN ASKED TO RE-COMMENT SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE OPEN HOUSE.
WE ACTUALLY ONLY LEARNED ABOUT IT THROUGH THE COURTESY OF MISS OBERG WHO HAD CONTACTED ME AND
LET ME KNOW THAT IT WAS GOING ON. >> AND WHO HOSTED THE OPEN
HOUSE? WAS THAT PUT ON BY THE DEVELOPER OR CITY OF CALGARY?
>> IT WAS THE CITY OF CALGARY, BUT IT WAS... IT WAS LARGELY A PRESENTATION
AND DISCUSSION OF THE OUTLINE PLAN. AND THE LAND USE REDESIGNATIONS.
THE AMENDMENTS -- THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ARP WERE A LITTLE BIT HARD TO FIGURE OUT,
EVEN. THEY WEREN'T WRITTEN IN ANY SPECIFIC FORMAT THAT WE COULD
TAKE HOME WITH US AND GO OH, THAT'S WHAT THIS MEANS. AND THERE WAS ALSO -- THERE WAS
JUST AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT LET'S DISCUSS THE OUTLINE PLAN. >> THESE ARE COMPLICATED.
ARPs AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE ARE REALLY QUITE COMPLICATED. >> IT'S OUR CONTENTION THAT
THEY'RE ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. THIS PARTICULAR OUTLINE PLAN
CAN'T GO AHEAD WITHOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ARP. AND WE FELT THAT THOSE TWO
THINGS NEEDED TO BE PULLED OUT AS SEPARATE ISSUES. >> AND YOU FEEL THAT THIS IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE ARP, OBVIOUSLY. >> YES.
AND IN FACT EVEN MORE SO -- EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ARP, NOT ALL OF WHICH WE
OBJECT TO, SOME OF THEM ARE QUITE GOOD. BUT THERE'S SOME VERY CRITICAL
ONES, THE ONES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP RIGHT NOW, THAT ARE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE EXISTING
ARP AND TO PHRASES AND SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED ARP. >> RIGHT.
WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY HAS REALLY BEEN CONCERNS -- ACCESS OBVIOUSLY IS
A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. >> YES. >> THE INTERCHANGE BEING ONE OF
THE MAJOR, MAJOR TRANSPORTATION COMPONENTS. IF WE PROCEEDED WITH THE
INTERCHANGE, AND COULD ASSURE YOU THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR
COMFORT LEVEL, IF YOU WILL? >> FIRST, MARILYN WILL BE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE
TRAFFIC STUFF ANYWAY. BUT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE INTERCHANGE
IS A 10-YEAR-OLD DESIGN. AND DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE -- FIRST OF ALL, WHEN IT WAS
DESIGNED IT DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AMENDMENTS TO THE ARP THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE KIND OF
INCREASE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND IT DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
DEVELOPMENT THAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING ON THE WIN SPORT LANDS.
IT ALSO DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT -- I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY ANTICIPATED OVER TIME
HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING TO THE WEST. SO THERE'S A TRAFFIC FLOW THAT
HAPPENS ON THE TRANSCANADA THAT NO MATTER WHAT THAT DESIGN DOES, IT IS STILL GOING TO BE
BOTTLENECKING. THERE'S A BRIDGE OVER THE BOW RIVER ON TRANSCANADA LEADING
INTO MONTGOMERY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE WIDENED AS PART OF THIS WHOLE DESIGN.
SO TRAFFIC'S GOING TO BE BACKING UP AND BOTTLENECKING THERE. SIMILARLY, THE TRAFFIC STUDIES
THAT WE LOOKED AT DIDN'T LOOK AT HOW THE TRAFFIC WAS GOING TO BE FLOWING OFF OF 83rd INT BOWNESS
ROAD. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT ANY OF THE INTERNAL COMMUNITY STRESSES THAT
WILL HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF THE INTERCHANGE. >> I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL OF
THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE SAYING. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY IN YOUR GROUP THAT'S GOING TO
TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC SPECIFICALLY. AND THEN I'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR OUR OWN
ADMINISTRATION. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE MDP, THE
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AKA PLAN IT CALGARY. NOW, PLAN IT CALGARY HAS TALKED
ABOUT THE DENSIFICATION CONTAINED IN A COMMUNITY. GREENBRIAR APPLICATION THAT YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT NOW ACCOMPLISHES SIGNIFICANCELY MORE THAN WHAT WE WOULD --
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DISCUSS FOR A NEW APPLICATION IN PLAN IT CALGARY.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT, GIVEN THAT FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY AND WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT COMPLETE COMMUNITIES WHERE HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO NOT ONLY
LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK BUT ALSO BE ABLE TO SHOP AND ACCESS DIFFERENT TYPES OF AMENITIES AND
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND THE CONGESTION THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT?
>> THERE'S SEVERAL POINTS TO RAISE AROUND THAT. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE HIGH
EMPLOYMENT CENTRES ARE OFFICE TOWERS. AND UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO
GUARANTEE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THAT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GET TO HAVE JOBS IN THOSE TOWERS,
YOU'RE NOT GUARANTEEING A LIVE-WORK SITUATION. THE DENSITY THAT'S PROPOSED
IS -- AND, AGAIN, THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SOMEBODY ELSE, DENSITY THAT IS PROPOSED IS ONE
SINGLE MULTI-RESIDENTIAL NOT MIXED HOUSING. I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING
IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE CURRENT ARP, WHICH DOES INCORPORATE ALL THE ELEMENTS
THAT ARE DISCUSSED IN PLAN IT CALGARY AND WAS DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE FEEL THAT THAT SHOULD BE HONOURED. >> DO YOU MIND -- I JUST WANT TO
BACK YOU UP ONE LITTLE BIT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY NOT MIXED HOUSING?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED DC AND THE HOUSING -- THE
HOUSING DESIGNATION THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR, IT'S MC -- SO YOU'RE -- DO YOU MEAN, LIKE,
CONDOS AND FLATS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE MEANING?
I JUST WAS KEYED INTO THAT TERM WHEN YOU SAID IT'S NOT MIXED HOUSING.
AND I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT. >> AGAIN, JOE CAN BETTER ANSWER
THAT -- OR WHO... [Inaudible] >> YOUR WORSHIP, ONE OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF MULTI-RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED FOR
THIS DEVELOPMENT. WHAT WE ENVISAGE AND WHAT PLAN IT CALGARY ENVISAGES IS RICHNESS
IN THE TYPE OF UNITS THAT ARE BROUGHT INTO A COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE AVAILABILITY OF OPEN
SPACES, GREEN AREAS, WALKING SPACES. NONE OF THAT IS AVAILABLE IN
THIS PARTICULAR UNIT. THIS IS A GREAT CONGLOMERATE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH
PARKING LOTS, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING ANOTHER 4,500 SQUARE METRES OF
COMMERCIAL RETAIL IF UNDERGROUND PARKING IS PROVIDED, WHICH FURTHER INCREASES THE TRAFFIC
INTO THE AREA. SO THIS PARTICULAR AREA DOES NOT HAVE ANY WALKABLE SPACE.
MOREOVER, MUNICIPAL RESERVE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE TUNE OF 10% AS A MINIMUM HAS
BEEN REDUCED AND CASH IN LIEU IS BEING PROPOSED FOR IT. SO IT FURTHER MAKES THIS A LESS
LIVEABLE COMMUNITY, A LESS WALKABLE COMMUNITY, A COMMUNITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE LINEAR GREEN
SPACES THAT WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO SEE. SO THIS INITIALLY WAS MEANT TO
BE A RESIDENTIAL AREA. BY CHANGING THE ARP, IT'S MADE INTO COMMERCIAL.
AND ONCE IT'S MADE COMMERCIAL, NOW IT'S FURTHER EXACERBATED BY THE FACT THAT MUNICIPAL RESERVE
IS BEING CONVERTED INTO CASH IN LIEU. [Please Stand By]
THE ONE THAT EXISTS IS VERY, VERY THIN. >> OKAY.
>> SO YOU WOULD BE, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, SIR, BUT YOU WOULD BE
SUPPORTIVE OF AN INCREASED TRAFFIC NODE IN THAT AREA, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OF COURSE I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE CONSTRUED AS SUPPORTING THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T SEE, TO BE QUITE HONEST, I DON'T SEE THAT PROVIDING TRANSIT IS
GOING TO ELIMINATE THE ACCESS THAT THE POPULATION IN THIS AREA WILL REQUIRE TO
FACILITIES THAT ARE IN THE CORE OF BONESS THAT WILL NOT BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA WITH
CLOSE TO 5,000, 6,000 MORE RESIDENTS, THERE ARE NO SCHOOLS BEING PROPOSED HERE.
THERE ARE NO OTHER FACILITIES, SO THE TRAFFIC INTO THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE
THROUGH 83rd STREET. SO THE CONCERN HERE IS PERHAPS NOT SO MUCH, YES, LET'S HAVE
TRANSIT, BUT THAT WILL NOT ALLEVIATE THE ISSUE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC INTO THE
COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE SERVICES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR 5,000, 6,000 MORE RESIDENTS ARE NOT
PROVIDED IN THIS AREA. >> NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. MY QUESTION REGARDING TRANSIT
WAS ACTUALLY JUST TO SORT OF FLUSH OUT WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IN THE NDP AS A WHOLE.
>> I THINK THE GENERAL CONCLUSION AROUND THAT IS THAT THAT AREA, REGARDLESS OF WHAT
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT GOES IN THERE, THAT AREA IS GOING TO NEED BETTER TRANSIT ACCESS.
IT'S VERY POORLY SERVICED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. INADEQUATELY SERVICED AT THIS
POINT IN TIME, SO LOGICALLY, WHATEVER GOES IN THERE IS GOING TO REQUIRE BETTER
TRANSIT. >> NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BUT YOU'VE MADE YOUR CASE QUITE NICELY, AND I DO HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION REGARDING SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BROUGHT UP BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> AM I DONE? >> NO, WE'RE NOT DONE YET.
LOOK AT ALL THESE LIGHTS. YOU'VE ELICITED SOMETHING EXCITING, MISS SMYTH.
ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M JUST READING SOMETHING
HERE BRIEFLY. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS IN
REGARDS TO THE MUNICIPAL RESERVE AND WHAT'S OWING, IS THERE -- DO YOU KNOW IF THERE
WAS A PREVIOUS AGREEMENT FOR A CASH IN LUMP PAID TO THE MD? I THOUGHT I SAW SOMETHING IN
THE REPORT SPECIFICALLY TO THAT. >> I THINK IT'S IN THE CPC
SUBMISSION, IT'S IN THE GENERAL SUMMARY AT THE FRONT. IT'S NOT THE 10% IN CASH IN
LIEU. IT'S A PERCENTAGE OF IT. >> NO, NO, WHAT I WANT TO KNOW
IS DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY AMOUNT PAID TO THE MD OF ROCKYVIEW?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA. >> PRIOR TO ANNEXATION. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THAT
QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATION AFTER. BUT YOU DO REALIZE, OF COURSE,
THAT IN THE COMMERCIAL SITE, IT IS STANDARD PRACTISE FOR US TO ACCEPT CASH IN LIEU OF
GREEN SPACE? >> I THINK OUR CONTENTION AROUND THIS IS THAT THE
ORIGINAL INTENT, AND IT'S A FAIRLY RECENTLY-WRITTEN INTENT THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE
CURRENT ARP, TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE THAT AS PART OF A CONCEPT OF WHOLE COMMUNITY
THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF PLANET CALGARY POLICIES
THAT WERE COMING INTO PLACE AT THAT TIME. >> IF WE LOOK AT JUST THE
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE FAR IN EXCESS OF 10%, JUST BASED ON
WHAT I SEE HERE AS THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE THAT'S BEING PROVIDED IN COMPARISON TO JUST
STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. >> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU JUST ASKED ME. >> THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE 10%
MUNICIPAL RESERVE DEDICATION, IF YOU LOOK AT IT STRICTLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, THAT IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 10% OF THE RESIDENTIAL
COMPONENT. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ALDERMAN CHABOT, I'M NOT SURE
THAT'S A QUESTION MISS SMYTH CAN REALLY ANSWER HERE AND THIS IS TIME --
>> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO YOUR PRESENTATION WHERE YOU
SAID CONSERVATIVELY-SPEAKING, ASSUMING 2.5 RESIDENTS PER DWELLING UNIT, I'M WONDERING
HOW YOU CAME ABOUT THAT NUMBER. >> WE CAME ABOUT IT BASED ON
AN AVERAGE THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE A LOW AVERAGE FOR THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT COULD
BE ACCOMMODATED. >> OKAY. I BELIEVE EVEN THE MDP MAKES
REFERENCE TO MULTI-FAMILY VERSUS SINGLE-FAEM AND SINGLE-FAMILY, I BELIEVE, IS
THAT NUMBER, BUT MULTI-FAMILY IS 1.6 OR 1.7, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT I RECALL FROM MEMORY AND
I COULD BE OFF SLIGHTLY ON THAT NUMBER AS WELL. I THINK THAT'S ALL MY
QUESTIONS FOR THE TIME BEING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. SOME OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED.
SO COLLECTIVELY, ARE THERE FIVE OF YOU HERE, HAVE YOU ALL SPOKEN YET?
>> NO, THERE'S ONE MORE TO SPEAK. >> OKAY.
SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR GROUP AT WHAT POINT HAVE YOU
BEEN -- WHAT WAS YOUR STARTING POINT IN ENGAGING IN THIS APPLICATION?
>> THE ORIGINAL STARTING POINT WAS THE SOCIETY OF BOWNESS RESIDENTS, A NUMBER OF YEARS
AGO. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAD JUST
BEEN RESURRECTED AND DID NOT HAVE A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
>> WHEN WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN? WHEN WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN? >> 2009.
>> THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER OF '09. >> RIGHT.
>> SO THE SOCIETY WOULD HAVE STARTED WORKING WITH THE FILE AND THEN IT GOT TURNED OVER TO
THE ASSOCIATION? >> IN APRIL 2010, THE SOCIETY OF BONESS RESIDENTS MERGED
WITH THE BCA SO THAT CORE GROUP PLUS MEMBERS OF THE BCA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION THEN
FORMED THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHICH THEN BECAME INVOLVED OVER
TIME. >> RIGHT. SO IN THE BEGINNING, WAS THERE
-- WERE THE TWO GROUPS ON THE SAME PAGE AS IT RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION?
>> YES. >> WHEN I ASKED FOR THE APPLICANTS' CHRONOLOGY OF
COMMUNITY MEETINGS, LET ME JUST GO OVER IT WITH YOU, THE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, THE
APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER OF '09 AND THEN A COUPLE MONTHS LATER, THEY HELD
A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, THE DEVELOPER DID. DID YOU ATTEND THAT, DID THE
COMMUNITY ATTEND THAT, DID THE SOCIETY ATTEND THAT? >> YES.
>> AND WHAT WERE YOUR VIEWS AT THAT TIME? >> OUR VIEWS WERE VERY CLEARLY
EXPRESSED WITH REGARDS TO DISAGREEING WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE --
AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAW THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE MAIN, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, OUR MAIN CONCERN WAS WITH A COR3 LAND USE
REDESIGNATION AND THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN SUBSEQUENT -- >> IT WAS ADDRESS?
>> YEAH, THE APPLICANTS' RESPONSE, KATHY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT THE
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE AND THE FILE MANAGER'S RESPONSE WAS TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION
AND COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE TO DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL CORE
WHICH WOULD -- >> A REMEDY WAS FOUND FOR THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE OF CONCERN?
>> UM, IT WASN'T A REMEDY THAT WE THOUGHT WAS ACCEPTABLE. >> WERE YOU IN AGREEMENT AT
ALL WITH THE ISSUE THAT YOU RAISED IN HOW THEY TRIED TO WORK TO REMEDY IT, TO YOUR
SATISFACTION? >> AGAIN, I'LL LET JOE ADDRESS THAT.
>> OKAY. PLEASE. RATHER THAN...
I KNOW, BUT IT'S HARD WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE -- YEAH.
>> AS MRS. SMITEE HAS JUST MENTIONED, WE WERE INVITED, AND THIS IS WHERE MY PERSONAL
PARTICIPATION CAME INTO PLACE, WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS AN OPEN HOUSE ORGANIZED BY THE
CITY OF CALGARY. THIS IS IN NOVEMBER OF 2010. >> NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
PUBLIC HOST THAT WAS HOSTED BY THE DEVELOPER IN FEBRUARY OF 2010.
AND YOUR INVOLVEMENT. >> I WAS NOT PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THAT AT THAT TIME.
>> WAS ANYBODY HERE INVOLVED IN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THESE MATTERS?
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ME. AT THAT TIME. PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY
BOWNESS RESIDENTS. >> OKAY. SO YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT
QUESTION THEN. SO WHAT WERE THE GROUNDS OF SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS WHEN YOU
WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER AT THAT INITIAL PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE AND THEN WHAT ENSUED FROM
FEBRUARY TILL NOVEMBER OF 2010 IN TRYING TO WORK THOSE THINGS THROUGH?
IT SEEMS THAT IN APRIL -- WAS IT IN APRIL THAT THE MERGER TOOK PLACE OF THE TWO
ORGANIZATIONS? >> THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IS TO RESPOND TO THE CITY.
>> TO WHO? >> TO THE CITY OF CALGARY. TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE RESPONSE THAT I AM SURE MRS. SMITHE ADMITTED TO THE CITY ADDRESSED THE POINTS AT
THAT POINT THAT WERE CONSIDERED A CONCERN AND, AS SHE SAID, CCOR 3 WAS A CONCERN
AT THAT TIME. >> SO ADMINISTRATION HAD A MEETING WITH YOU ON DECEMBER
7th AND THEN TWO DAYS LATER, THE MATTER WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. AND AT THAT TIME -- >> HAD YOU WORKED OUT ANYTHING
WITH ADMINISTRATION BEFORE IT WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION? >> THE MEETING WAS AROUND THE
ISSUES OF LAND USE DESIGNATION. AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS THE
ISSUE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE ARP MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED. >> OKAY.
>> OKAY? SO, AGAIN, THERE IS A VERY FRACTURED WAY OR PIECE MEAL
APPROACH TO PRESENTING ISSUES. SO THAT THE ISSUE OF MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS TO
THE ARP WERE DOWNPLAYED AT THE OPEN HOUSE, AND THEN THEY WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL AT THE
MEETING THAT MYSELF AND MARALEE MOORE WHO'S HERE TODAY AS WELL, WE ATTENDED A MEETING
HERE WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF ONCE. >> SO WE TABLED THIS MATTER IN
JANUARY BECAUSE OUR ALDER MEN WAS UNAVAILABLE AND THEN ADMINISTRATION WAS TO WORK
WITH YOU IN FEBRUARY WITH THESE CONCERNS. AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
CHRONOLOGY HERE, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BROWN AND ASSOCIATES
AND MALCORE AND THE COMMUNITY IN TRYING TO RECONCILE AND DEAL WITH THESE THINGS AND GET
BACK TO EACH OTHER IN A TIMELY MATTER -- >> THERE WERE --
>> -- BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN YOU COME TO COUNSEL AND THESE THINGS HAVEN'T BEEN
WORKED OUT. THEN WE HAVE TO SORT OF BE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE.
>> THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CITY, AND I PERSONALLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND
SOME OF THEM WERE NOT -- THEY COULD NOT BE PROVIDED, THAT WAS THE FIRST REACTION.
>> BY THE CITY? >> BY THE CITY, YES. >> WHAT QUESTIONS WERE THOSE?
>> AND THEN PROGRESSIVELY AS WE APPROACHED THIS PARTICULAR HEARING, SOME OF THE ELEMENTS
THAT I HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED THAT HAD BEEN INDICATED TO ME THAT THEY WERE NOT -- COULD
NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE, IN SMALL DOSES, THEY STARTED BECOMING AVAILABLE.
I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT KIMBERLY KING, ONE OF THE PLANNERS, INVITED ME MOST RECENTLY TO
ANOTHER MEETING, BUT WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIMING WASN'T POSSIBLE TO
DO THAT. SHE OFFERED TO MEET EVEN AFTER THIS HEARING.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE LACK OF REGIONAL PATHWAYS. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PLANS HERE
FOR THE CENTRAL PASSIVE RECREATIONAL REGIONAL RESERVE AND THE NATURALIZED AREA AND
THE BEAUFORT MUNICIPAL RESERVE, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT? >> YES.
>> SO THEY DO EXIST. THERE ARE PLANS FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T
THINK WERE THERE. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR WORSHIP, THERE ARE OTHER
COMMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE IN MARILYN MOORE'S PRESENTATION THAT INDICATE THE
SIZE AND THE NATURE OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY.
>> IT IS -- IT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO PATHWAYS, IT'S NOT A WALKABLE COMMUNITY.
IT'S A COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY. >> SO IS THAT THE ISSUE, THEN, THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT OF THIS?
>> THIS IS A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF COMMERCIAL AREA IN ONE PARTICULAR
DISTRICT TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER DISTRICTS THAT WILL HAVE NOUN SO HOW DO YOU INTEGRATE A
WHOLE COMMUNITY -- NON--- WHEN THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF HAVING LOCAL COMMERCE IN OTHER
AREAS AND COMMERCE IS CONCENTRATED HIGHLY IN ONE? AND THEN THE ARP IS AMENDED TO
ENTRENCH IN THE ARP THE FACT THAT ALL COMMERCE WILL BE JUST IN HERE?
AND ALL THE OTHER AREAS WILL HAVE NONE. SO THAT'S OUR CONCERN.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANYTHING -- IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PLAN THAT
YOU LIKE? >> THE FACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN WHAT THE LANDS ARE PROPOSING THAT IS FAR BETTER
IN TERMS OF HAVING LINEAR GREEN SPACES, HAVING MIXED COMMERCE AND RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S A MORE LIVABLE, WALKABLE WHOLE COMMUNITY. AND I ASK MYSELF, IF ANOTHER
DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON HOLD RIGHT NOW PROPOSES SOMETHING THAT IS
BETTER THAN THIS, I'M SAYING THIS AREA COULD BE BETTER, TOO.
THAT'S MY POINT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU.
JUST THAT VERY LAST THING YOU SAID, I KNOW THIS IS A BIT UNTOWARD, BUT I MIGHT ASK,
MR. WATSON, HAS THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT BEEN PUT ON HOLD HERE?
>> THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING. I MEAN, THE OTHER APPLICATION
IS IN AND IS BEING PROCESSED. IT'S NOT -- I EXPECT THERE'S COMMENTS WE'RE EXPECTING BACK
OR SOME NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BEEN PUT ON HOLD BY THE
ADMINISTRATION. IT WILL BE COMING HERE IN DUE COURSE TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, THOUGH. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. WATSON.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BEFORE WE LOST THE THREAD OF DEBATE TODAY.
ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> JOE, NIKKI, I APPRECIATE BEING VOLUNTEERS AND THIS
TAKES AN AWFUL LOT, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE HAD THE COURAGE A FEW YEARS BACK TO DO
WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE AND I APPRECIATE IT. YOU REALLY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION
WHEN YOU WERE COMMENTING THAT 50% INCREASE IN THE POPULATION OF BONE HE IS.
THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT THAT ANY COMMUNITY CAN TAKE IN.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE NUMBERS. IF YOU COULD CLARIFY FOR ME.
THE ORIGINAL ARP ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 30-ODD UNITS PER HECTARE, CORRECT?
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A -- THE NEW ARP YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH IS ALLOWING A 6.7%
INCREASE TO THAT ARP. SO I JUST DID SOME QUICK NUMBERS, AND WHAT THE CONCERN
THERE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IS YOU'RE OKAY WITH 6,000 NEW RESIDENTS COMING IN BUT 6320
IS TOO MUCH. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE
GETTING AT. >> THAT'S PARTLY WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT.
I THINK THE OTHER PART THAT WE'RE GETTING AT, IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT AMENDED
THAT ARP, WE SHOULD LOOK AT DECREASING, NOT INCREASING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT BECAUSE
THERE ISN'T AN INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT. THERE'S ONE ENTRANCE IN AND
OUT OF THAT COMMUNITY. THERE'S NO APPROPRIATE ACCESS THROUGH POTENTIALLY WHAT'S
CALLED CELL ONE, GREENWOOD VILLAGE MOBILE HOME TRAILER PARK IS COMPLETELY FENCED.
SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE TO SEE IT AS ISOLATED FROM, THERE'S
NO ACCESS THROUGH THERE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO BE AMENDING IT, LET'S AMEND IT
DOWN, NOT UP. >> BUT YOU HAVE UNDERSTAND THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
CELL AND WHEN THAT CELL COMES FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I ASSUME IT WILL AT SOME POINT
OF TIME, THE FENCE WOULD COME DOWN AND THAT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AREA.
>> NOT NECESSARILY. THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS. AT THIS POINT IN TIME ON WHAT
CAN BE BUILT IN A GREENWOOD VILLAGE. MARILYN WILL BE BRINGING THIS
POINT UP IN HER DISCUSSION, BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE, BOTH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT THAT ENTIRE SITE WAS A NUISANCE GROUND.
>> WAS A? >> A NUISANCE GROUND, A DUMPING GROUND.
SO THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE, ALL THE REST
OF IT, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOIL STABILITY ISSUES ON THE GREENWOOD VILLAGE MOBILE
HOME AREA MEAN THAT THAT'S BASICALLY THE ONLY KIND OF STRUCTURE THAT CAN GO IN THAT
AREA. >> I APOLOGIZE, I REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO DIGRESS AND
TALK ABOUT GREENWOOD VILLAGE. WITH REGARDS TO JOE, YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL
ACTIVITY ALL BEING CENTRED IN ONE AREA AS OPPOSED TO BEING DISTRIBUTED ALL AROUND, YOU'RE
SAYING THAT YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE ONE RETAIL OUTLET IN ONE CORNER AND THEN HAVE TO HAVE
PEOPLE DRIVE TO ANOTHER AREA OF THE CELL TO GO TO THE DRUGSTORE OR TO THE
CONVENIENCE STORE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES WOULD BE A MORE VIABLE OPTION?
>> WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN THE DESIGN THAT WE'VE SEEN ANYWAY IS TWO 5,000 SQUARE
METRES. >> M'HM. >> OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE
GROUND LEVEL AND -- HOW MUCH OF THAT IS STAND-ALONE BUILDING?
THERE'S A STATISTIC IN -- >> 5,000 INSIDE "A", 5,000 IN SIDE "B".
>> NO, I'M FULLY AWARE OF THE AREA, WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT, YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE SOME
OF THESE SPLIT UP ALL OVER THE AREA SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE DRIVING TO ALL AREAS OF
THE -- >> NO, WE WANT THEM TO WALK. >> OKAY.
I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT WOULDN'T -- I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO SUGGEST IS IF YOU HAVE
ONE TYPE OF RETAIL IN CELL 4 AND TWO OTHER TYPES OF RETAIL IN CELL 1 AND 3, YOU'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE GOING FROM ONE SECTION TO THE NEXT SECTION TO THE NEXT SECTION
ALL IN ONE SO-CALLED SHOPPING DAY. >> I THINK THAT THE VISION
THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE EXISTING ARP WAS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF RETAIL OUTLETS
THAT -- RETAIL OUTLETS WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON TOP AND THEN A MIX OF SINGLE-FAMILY
AND MOBILE HOMES AND WHATEVER YOU WANT ALL AROUND IN THE AREA.
IT WASN'T INTENDED TO BE A SHOPPING AREA. A SMALL GROCERY STORE WAS
ENVISIONED, BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING -- ONE OF THE DISCRETIONARY USES IN -- EVEN
THOUGH IT'S IN THE DIRECT CONTROL AREA, ONE OF THE DISCRETIONARY USES OF CCOR 2
IS A HOTEL. SO ARE WE GOING TO BE BACK AT A TABLE DISCUSSING THAT AT
SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD? I MEAN, IT'S -- OUR CONTENTION IS THAT THE -- WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED HAS TWO -- TOO WIDE AN ENVELOPE. ONCE THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION,
ONCE THE AMENDMENTS HAPPEN AND THE LAND USE REDESIGNATIONS HAPPEN, YOU THEN HAVE
PERMITTED, INDEPENDENT OF WHO THE CURRENT DEVELOPER IS, IN PERPETUITY, YOU'VE COMMITTED A
COMMERCIAL CORE IN ONE AREA TO THE EXCLUSION OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE REMAINDER OF
THE AREA, YOU KNOW, IN THE WHOLE -- >> BUT AGAIN, THAT'S REALLY
THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THE COMMERCIAL OPTION IN
PERPETUITY ALL THROUGH THE ENTIRE AREA AS OPPOSED TO BEING LOCATED IN ONE CENTRAL
AREA SO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING THE HOTEL OVER HERE OR SOMETHING
ELSE IN THE ENTIRE AREA AS OPPOSED TO SAYING AT LEAST IT'S GOING TO BE CENTRALIZED
IN THIS LOCATION? >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST TO EXACERBATE THIS, SITE "C" HAS
AN ADDITIONAL 37.000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. SO THERE IS RETAIL --
>> SQUARE METRES. >> SQUA METRES, MY APOLOGIES. -- SQUARE.
YOU DO NOT HAVE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. WHEREAS LOOKING AT WHAT IS
BEING PROPOSED FOR THE RATSKEY LANDS -- >> I'M SORRY, I HAVE NOT BEEN
PRIVY TO WHAT THE RATSKEY LANDS ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.
>> I AM JUST MAKING MENTALLY THE COMPARISON BECAUSE IN THAT AREA, FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN,
THERE IS A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SO ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR, THERE IS
RETAIL SPACE. ABOVE, THERE IS RESIDENTIAL. OVER HERE, WE HAVE RETAIL
SPACE AND THEN WE HAVE OFFICE SPACE ON TOP. AND WE ARE TALKING, I'M
STEALING THUNDER FROM PRESENTATIONS COMING HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 5,000
SQUARE METRES IS HALF OF MARKET MALL -- THE BAY AND MARKET MALL, SO IF WE ADD
15.000 SQUARE METRES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BAY-AND-A-HALF IN THAT AREA.
SO THIS IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT. SO THIS IS NOT A LIVING COMMUNITY, THIS IS NOT A
COMMUNITY THAT IS WHOLE. >> AND YOU DON'T SUSPECT THAT ANYBODY FROM THE COMMUNITY IS
GOING TO BE USING THAT OFFICE SPACE OR THOSE RETAIL? I MEAN, THAT WAS THE WHOLE
IDEA OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IS THAT YOU HAVE AREAS WITHIN THAT ARE USING THAT.
>> WELL, AS NICKI SMITHER HERE MENTIONED EARLIER, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF THOSE EMPLOYED
IN THOSE OFFICES LIVING IN THE AREA? PROBABILITY IS NOT VERY HIGH.
>> THAT'S THE CONCEPT, WE TRY TO CREATE OFFICE SPACE SO THE OFFICES THAT WILL JOIN THERE
ARE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE -- WELL, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT.
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT TODAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE OTHER
PRESENTATIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY ALDERMAN CARRA AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR PRESENTATION A LITTLE BIT
OF HOW WE EXPECT COMMUNITIES TO KNOW MORE ABOUT URBAN PLANNING IN SOME CASES THAN WE
DO. BUT I'M TRYING TO DRILL DOWN TO THE ESSENCE OF WHAT YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR, AND I THINK, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I FEEL LIKE I'M HEARING
MIXED MESSAGES. SO I'M HEARING TO GO BACK TO THE OLD ARP WHICH IS PRIMARILY
RESIDENTIAL AND QUITE LOW DENSITY AND THEN I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS RICH MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL OFFICE WALKABLE AND I DON'T SEE THOSE TWO AS FITTING
TOGETHER. >> THE CURRENT ARP WAS SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED BETWEEN
THE COMMUNITY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE HIGHER DENSITY,
NOT LOW DENSITY. IT WAS TO INCREASE DENSITY IN A DEVELOPABLE AREA OF BOWNESS
AND THAT WAS TO ALSO INCLUDE -- >> DID IT INCLUDE THIS AREA?
>> YES. THE WHOLE GREENBRIAR SPECIAL STUDY AREA IS A SPECIFIC
SEGMENT OF OUR ARP DEVELOPED IN 2008, SO IT'S EVENT, TO ACCOMMODATE A VISION OF HOW DO
WE DO HIGHER DENSITY. HOW DO WE DO LIVE UP, WORK DOWN?
HOW DO WE HAVE WALKABLE COMMUNITY, HOW DO WE HAVE WHOLE COMMUNITY?
THERE'S COMMERCIAL IN THERE, TOO. >> I'M NOT SURE -- I REMEMBER
THE BOWNESS ARP VAGUELY, BUT I DO REMEMBER IT, AND I REMEMBER BEING VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ABLE TO SUSTAIN RETAIL. BECAUSE THE DENSITY, ALTHOUGH
AN INCREASE FROM WHAT YOU SEE IN THE AREA TODAYR ACTUALLY QUITE LOW, AND I DON'T THINK
WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING AT THE CITY OF G.I. WHAT NEIGHBOURHOOD RETAIL REALLY
NEEDS -- CALGARY WHAT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD RETAIL REALLY NEEDS IN TERMS OF CATCHMENT
AREA, SO I'M HEARING, AND I'M SORRY, SIR, I'VE FORGOTTEN YOUR NAME, BUT I'M HEARING YOU
MENTION THAT THE INITIAL APPLICATION OR INITIAL CONCEPT INCLUDED MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY,
AND THEN I'M HEARING THE RESIDENTIAL ABOVE THE SHOPS. I'M REALLY STRUGGLING TO KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE WANTING WITH THIS, ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY AM VERY CLEAR THAT
YOU DON'T WANT THIS. >> YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE CURRENT ARP.
THE PRIME OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY. THE SECONDARY OBJECTIVE THAT
YOU HAVE YOUR FINGER RIGHT ON, A DIVERSE POPULATION MIXED THROUGH A VARIETY OF HOUSING
FORMS. >> SO A COMPLETE COMMUNITY WOULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE OFFICE
BUT IT'S OFTEN HOW IT'S DISTRIBUTED. >> THE ARP AS IT EXISTS NOW
SPECIFICALLY DID NOT INCLUDE OFFICE SPACE BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ISOLATED
GEOGRAPHIC COMMUNITY, JUST INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER THE INTERCHANGE GOES IN OR NOT.
ONE ENTRANCE, ONE EXIT. AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND IT WAS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION
AT THE TIME BUT THE OFFICE SPACE WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT IS TRADITIONALLY OFFICE SPACE
IS A REGIONAL USE. >> NOT NECESSARILY. AND I THINK THAT'S -- I
BELIEVE THAT WE'VE PROGRESSED, WHEREAS A COMPLETE COMMUNITY WOULD INCLUDE ALL THESE THINGS
AND OFFICE SPACE GENERALLY HAS A LOWER TRAFFIC GENERATION THAN HOUSING.
AND CERTAINLY IF YOU HAVE SOLELY HOUSING WITH NO MIX OF USES, THEN YOUR TRAFFIC
GENERATION WOULD BE HIGHER. >> I'M SORRY -- >> SO WHEN I'M --
>> MAY I JUMP IN HERE? LET'S REMEMBER, THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK THE FOLKS
QUESTIONS, DEBATE COMES LATER. AND I HEAR YOU, BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION MARK AT THE END OF
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND WE SHOULDN'T BE HARASSING THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GIVEN UP THE
TIME OF DAY TO BE HERE. >> I'M SORRY IF IT APPEARS THAT I'M HARASSING YOU.
I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. BECAUSE IF WE'RE -- THOSE ARE
VERY IMPORTANT GOALS. THEY'RE GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN PLAN IT AND YET I
AGREE THAT SOME OF THE PLANS THAT WE SEE DON'T FIT WITH MY INTERPRETATION OF PLAN IT BUT
WHAT WORRIES ME, AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS, WHICH MAY BE MORE INTENSE THAN WHAT YOU
ENVISIONED IN THE BOWNESS ARP? >> I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRULY ASKING IS THAT THE CURRENT ARP
BE HONOURED. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE.
AND, IN FACT, OUR CURRENT ARP, WHICH IS RECENT, 2008, EMBRACES THE CONCEPT OF HIGHER
DENSITY BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION THAT ALL THE COMMUNITIES, ESTABLISHED
COMMUNITIESR FACING, HOW DO YOU ACHIEVE HIGHER DENSITY? AS A GREENY, IT'S NOT MY
FAVOURITE IDEA WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN UP THERE, BUT IT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY GENERALLY
SUPPORTED. AND -- BUT WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH WHY A DEVELOPER CAN'T
COME IN AND HONOUR -- WHY WE HAVE TO CONTINUALLY KEEP AMENDING DOCUMENTS DEVELOPED
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT DO LOOK FORWARD, THAT ARE EMBRACING
NEW POLICIES AND NEW CONCEPTS FOR THE CITY. THERE ARE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE ACTUALLY QUITE GOOD, IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN JOE AND THE
FILE MANAGER, THERE WERE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE ACTUALLY
CLARIFYING, BUT THERE ARE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS THAT REALLY ARE IN CONTRADICTION TO
THE INTENT OF THE CURRENT ARP AND CONTRADICT EVEN THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. >> SO THEN I'LL ASK ONE FINAL QUESTION THEN, IF WE WERE TO
FOLLOW THE INTENT OF THE ARP AS FAR AS THOSE OVERARCHING GOALS, KMIKSED COMMUNITY, --
MIXED COMMUNITY, WALKABLE, THOSE THINGS, BUT IT INCLUDED MORE INTENSITY THAN WHAT'S
OUTLINED IN THE ARP, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO EXPLORE THAT? OR WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO
THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE DENSITIES WITHIN THE ARP?
>> YOU'RE ASKING IF WE WOULD SUPPORT DENSITY HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT ARP?
>> YES, LOOKING AT THOSE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE ARP WHICH ARE VERY MUCH
LIKE WHAT'S IN OUR PLAN IT DOCUMENT, BUT THOSE PRINCIPLES INCLUDED ADDITIONAL DENSITIES
NOT IN YOUR ARP, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO EXPLORE THEM? >> PROVIDED -- IF I MAY
INTERJECT. PROVIDED THERE IS AN OVERALL ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC.
LET ME SHARE WITH YOU WHAT WAS REVEALED TO US IN A PRESENTATION FROM A CITY
ENGINEER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER. THE AREA DOES NOT -- AND THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE BEAUFORT
INTERCHANGE WILL NOT SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR THIS
AREA. IF THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE PROPERLY, AMONGST OTHER THINGS
THAT WERE REVEALED, IS THE FACT THAT IN THE TRAFFIC STUDIES, THEY HAVE TO
IMPLEMENT SIMULATIONS, SIMULATIONS LOOK AT 83rd STREET AS AN OPEN-ENDED
STREET. I ASK THE QUESTION AT THE TIME, WHAT HAPPENS WITH BOWNESS ROAD
WHERE 83rd STREET ENDS? WELL, THE MODEL WAS GETTING TOO COMPLICATED AND IT COULD
NOT INCORPORATE THAT. THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE COMPLEXITY OF A MODEL.
SO THE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN DONE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE IMPACT THAT HIGHER DENSITY IS
GOING TO HAVE IN BOWNESS. THE TRAFFIC CREATED THROUGH MONTGOMERY COMING OFF 16th,
THE TRAFFIC CREATED THROUGH 16 INTO HOME ROAD, NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.
>> OKAY. BUT MY QUESTION WAS A FAIRLY SIMPLE ONE, ALTHOUGH THE WORK
WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SIMPLE, BUT THE QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO EXPLORE THAT?
>> CERTAINLY IF IT'S CONSIDERED -- >> IF THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE
CONSIDERED. >> IN A WHOLESOME WAY WITH ALL ASPECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED SO
THAT THIS IS A WHOLE COMMUNITY, SURE. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN CHABOT, YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED A QUESTION OF
MS. SMITHE. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER? >> NO, ACTUALLY, YOUR WORSHIP,
IF I COULD, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE CITY HALL SCHOOL CLASS.
I'M VERY PLEASED TO INTRODUCE CITY HALL SCHOOL CLASS FOR THIS WEEK.
ALTHOUGH MY DOCUMENT SAYS THERE'S 23 GRADE 6 STUDENTS FROM ERIN WOOD SCHOOL, I ONLY
COUNT 21, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR TEACHER BRENT BANKNOCK AND THE
FOCUS FOR THIS WEEK WILL BE WHAT MAKES A CITY. IF I COULD ASK YOU ALL TO
PLEASE RISE, AND YOU WILL BE TEMPORARILY ON TELEVISION AND COUNCIL WILL RECOGNIZE YOU.
(Applause) >> AND YOU'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE IT WASN'T 2.1,
ALDERMAN CHABOT? THANK YOU, HAVE YOUR SEATS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SPENDING
SOME TIME WITH YOU LATER THIS WEEK. HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEK AT CITY
HALL SCHOOL. I DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THESE FOLKS, SO
-- DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MY NAME IS MARILYN MORA, AND I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, OF WHICH I AM A DIRECTOR.
THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OBJECTS TO THE PROPOSED BYLAW 12 P-2011 AS
THE COMBINED EFFECT OF INCREASED DENSITY AND THE INTRODUCTION OF UP TO 19.500
SQUARE METRES OF RETAIL SPACE AND UP TO 38.850 SQUARE METRES OF OFFICE USE WILL INCREASE
TRAFFIC ON 83rd STREET NORTHWEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
GREENBRIAR RESIDENTS WOULD SEEK ACCESS TO AMENITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, AREA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATIONS FACILITIES, WITHIN THE CORE OF BOWNESS AS NO SUCH AMENITIES HAVE BEEN
PLANNED FOR GREENBRIAR. MEMBERS WOULD SEEK OFFICE SPACE SERVICES IN GREENBRIAR.
COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTHWEST BEYOND 85th STREET BRIDGE WOULD SEEK ACCESS TO RETAIL,
COMMERCE, SERVICES IN GREENBRIAR ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THE PROPOSED BEAUFORT ROAD TRANSCANADA INTERCHANGE WILL NOT ALTER THE RESTRICTIONS
IMPOSED BY THE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF 83rd STREET NORTHWEST.
ALREADY STRAINED AT PRESENT, WITH THE CURRENT LEVELS OF TRAFFIC MEASURED IN THE 2010
AT 10.400 VEHICLES PER DAY AND PROJECTED TO INCREASE BY MORE THAN 30% TO 13.800 VEHICLES
PER DAY AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON 83rd
STREET NORTHWEST ARE EXACERBATED BY THE FACT THAT MOST OF IT'S NORTHBOUND
TRAFFIC FLOWING INTO ONE LANE ON BOWNESS ROAD. A THOROUGHFARE LIMITED
EASTBOUND TO 50 KILOMETRES PER HOUR TRAFFIC THROUGH THE BOWNESS COMMERCIAL AREA WITH
SEVERAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AND LIMITED WESTBOUND BY 30 KILOMETRE PER HOUR TRAFFIC
THROUGH PLAY GROUND ZONES, SCHOOL ZONES AND ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
AS WELL AS TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES. EXHIBIT 5 IS A MAP WITH SOME
ROADWAYS. THE PURPLE ONE IS 83rd STREET WHICH IS REALLY NARROW ROAD,
KIND OF GOING DOWN, STARTS AT BEAUFORT ROAD AND IT PROGRESSES DOWN THE HILL TO
BOWNESS ROAD. THE GREENBRIAR STAGE TWO IMPACT ASSESSMENT DATED JULY
14th, 2011, SEEMS TO IGNORE THESE FACTS AS THEY DO NOT SHOW BOWNESS ROAD IN THE
NETWORK STUDY AND MAKE NO REFERENCE TO THE ABILITY OF BOWNESS ROAD TO HANDLE THE
INCREASED FLOW. THERE IS A GREAT REQUEST TO DECREASE TRAFFIC ON BOWNESS
ROAD THAT IT NOT BE SEEN AS A THOROUGHFARE. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT WE WANTED THE STONY BY-PASS, WAS TO REDUCE THE TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THE
MIDDLE OF BOWNESS DOWN BEAUFORT ROAD AND DOWN BOWNESS ROAD.
TRANSPORTATION STUDIES AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES FAILED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC BEYOND 83rd
STREET INTO BOWNESS ROAD. THEY ALSO DO NOT ADDRESS THE IMPACT ON INCREASED TRAFFIC ON
16th AVENUE THROUGH MONTGOMERY, POTENTIAL BOTTLENECKS AT THE 85th STREET BRIDGE, THE
TRANSCANADA HOME ROAD INTERSECTION AND BOWNESS ROAD SHAGANAPPI.
EVEN IF WE GO WITH THE CURRENT ARP, WE HAVE RESERVATIONS WHETHER THE PROPOSED
INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. AND THAT ENDS THE ADDRESS --
OUR POINTS ADDRESSING THE ARP AMENDMENTS. WE SEPARATED OUR TALK INTO
THAT AND THE OUTLINE -- THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CALGARY BYLAW.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. MORA. ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MS. MORA, IS YOUR PRESIDENT HERE WITH YOU TODAY, OF YOUR
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION? >> NO, THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PRETTY MUCH LEAVES
THESE MATTERS UP TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THOSE OF US WHO
CAME TODAY REPRESENT THAT COMMITTEE. >> AND WHO'S THE CHAIR OF THAT
COMMITTEE? >> THAT WOULD BE MR. LOZARAVIC.
>> MY QUESTION TO YOU, WHY HAVE YOU AS A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION NOT SAT DOWN WITH
THE DEVELOPER? >> I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA.
WE'VE ONLY SEEN THE DEVELOPER AT OPEN HOUSES. >> BUT THE DEVELOPER --
>> -- WITH THE CITY. >> BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN REQUESTING MEETINGS WITH YOU
SINCE FEBRUARY AND THERE'S BEEN NO MEETING. WHY WOULD THAT BE?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT DECISION. SORRY.
>> I MAY ANSWER. WE HAVE HAD FAIRLY RECENT AWARENESS OF THE DIRECTION IN
WHICH THIS PRODUCT HAS GONE. AND NOVEMBER OF 2010 IS WHEN WE BECAME AWARE OF THE LAND
USE REDESIGNATION AND THE ISSUE OF THE ARP BEING AFFECTED WAS MASKED, IT WAS
NOT BROUGHT OUT IN THE OPEN. AND THE NEXT THING THAT WE KNEW IS THAT THERE WAS AN
AMENDMENT OF THE ARP. AND OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN MOSTLY WITH THE CITY AND, YES,
CATHY OBERG HAS TRIED TO REACH US BUT THIS IS ONLY FAIRLY RECENTLY.
>> SO MY HISTORY IS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WORK AS A DIRECTOR AND AS THE PRESIDENT, AND WHEN
THE DEVELOPER OF ANY COMMUNITY PROJECT WANTS TO SIT DOWN WITH THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, I
KNOW WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS, AS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE AND
PRESIDENT, BUT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE FIND THE TIME. AND MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THE
DEVELOPER WOULD MEET AT 2:00 ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON OR 2:00 SUNDAY MORNING, IF THAT WAS
THE REQUEST. SO MY QUESTION BACK TO YOU IS THEY HAVE, IN THEIR EVENT
LISTING HERE, SAID THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED MEETINGS WITH YOU SINCE BACK IN FEBRUARY, SO,
AGAIN, I ASK WHY WOULDN'T YOU SIT DOWN WITH HIM? >> THE MEETING THAT WAS
REQUESTED WAS HERE IN THE CITY, WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY. >> SO WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS
SAYING HERE IS THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED THESE DIFFERENT MEETINGS, SO YOU'RE SAYING
BROWN AND ASSOCIATES HAS NOT REQUESTED A MEETING WITH YOU? >> BROWN AND ASSOCIATES, I
DON'T KNOW WHO BROWN AND ASSOCIATES IS. >> THAT'S KATHY OBERG.
>> OKAY, WELL, I KNOW THAT SHE HAS ATTEMPTED TO REACH THE ASSOCIATION RECENTLY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I GUESS, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE BEING SPECIFICALLY IN WHAT
CAPACITY IT IS THAT YOU GUYS ARE HERE TODAY, IS IT AS AN ADJACENT COMMUNITY OR AS PART
OF THIS COMMUNITY OR THIS BEING PART OF THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY?
>> GREENBRIAR IS CONSIDERED PART OF BOWNESS. ACCORDING TO OUR AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
SO NOW SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD IS IN REGARDS TO THE CONCENTRATION OF
SPECIFIC TYPE USES, AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPED
OUT LIKE. >> BOWNESS USED TO BE A VILLAGE.
IT HISTORICALLY WAS -- IT'S A LARGE COMMUNITY. IT'S AN ISOLATED COMMUNITY
BECAUSE IT'S BOUNDED BY THE RIVER AND THE RIVER VALLEY HE IS CASUALTY, THE TRANSCANADA
HIGHWAY AND TONY TRAIL -- SKARMT -- SO WE ONLY HAVE FOUR ENTRANCES.
-- ESCARPMENT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE AN ISLAND. >> PREDOMINANTLY TO THE
PROPOSED USES IN THIS SECTOR ONLY, NOT LOOKING AT CELLS 1 AND ALL THE OTHER CELLS YOU
GUYS HAVE REFERENCED BECAUSE THAT'S NOT BEFORE US TODAY, ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THAT YOU
SEE THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT AS FORMING PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS TODAY.
WHAT IS BEFORE US TODAY, THOUGH, IS JUST STRICTLY THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING, INSOFAR AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, WHAT KIND OF
SIMILAR TYPE DEVELOPMENTS CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE BOWNESS COMMUNITY THAT ARE SIMILAR TO
WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE? MULTI-FAMILY -- >> BOWNESS IS AN OLD
COMMUNITY. IT'S PRETTY MUCH BUILT OUT. THIS IS ONE OF OUR ONLY WE
MIGHT CALL IT A BROWN FIELD. IT WAS A GOLF COURSE BEFORE. IT WAS ALSO REPORTED TO BE A
NUISANCE GROUND. >> IS THERE A LOT OF MULTI-FAMILY CURRENTLY IN
BOWNESS? >> BOWNESS IS TRAGICALLY LOW DENSITY, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU
COMPARE IT TO WHAT SOME OF THE NEW PLANS CALL FOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY USUAL AN
STUDY STUDENTS HAVE DONE A LOVELY PLAN FOR BOWNESS. -- URBAN.
THEY HAVE REALLY RAISED THE DENSITY AND ALONG TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS,
TRANSIT CORRIDORS. AND THIS IS OUR GOAL FOR THE MAIN PART OF BOWNESS AS WELL
AS THE NEW PART OF BOWNESS. >> AND I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THIS WHOLISTICALLY.
AND IN LOOKING AT WHAT POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES MAY EXIST WITHIN THE COMMUNITY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE INTENSEIFICATION,
INCREASING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, PROVIDING A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT HOUSING
CHOICES, AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS ENVIESING FOR THE FUTURE, IS
IT CONVERTING EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INTO MULTI-FAMILY, SPREADING IT OUT
THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY? >> THERE ARE POCKETS OF BOWNESS THAT ARE MUCH HIGHER DENSITY
SO THAT DOES EXIST AND IT EXISTS PRIMARILY AROUND THE BOWNESS ROAD CORRIDOR.
THERE'S A LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONE. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU ASK
THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S A QUESTION THAT WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY WITH, IS
WHAT'S YOUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE? BECAUSE, AS ALWAYS, THERE ARE
DIE-HARDS WHO WANT TO PRESERVE THOSE ASPECTS OF LOW DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AT THE
EXPENSE OF BEING A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE, BUT PRIMARILY, WE'RE LOOKING AT
HOW DO WE DEVELOP ALONG THAT COMMERCIAL CORE, WHY CAN'T WE PUT, YOU KNOW, SECOND STOREYS
ON OUR LITTLE FLAT LEVEL ONE-STOREY RETAIL UNITS ALONG THERE?
HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVE UP WORK DOWN DEVELOPMENT?
WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE DO THIS. THERE'S NO -- THERE ARE NO
QUICK AND NO EASY ANSWERS. >> I CAN TELL YOU ONE ANSWER THAT I'VE LEARNED HERE THROUGH
COUNCIL IS THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT. SPRAWL AND DENSITY.
(Laughing) IT SEEMS RATHER ODD. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT, I GUESS,
LONG-TERM VISION TO INTEGRATE MORE COMMERCIAL THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY POSSIBLY AND
MORALITY NATIVE FORMS OF HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND DO YOU THINK
THAT THAT WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT IMPACT IN REGARDS TO THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE THAN
WHAT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED HERE? >> WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT RARELY COMES UP WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASED COMMERCIAL IS WHAT HAPPENS IF
WE'RE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF HOME OCCUPATION? WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU LOOK AT A
DIFFERENT WAY OF CREATING EMPLOYMENT IN THE COMMUNITY? BOWNESS ACTUALLY HAS A FAIRLY
HIGH PERCENTAGE OF HOME OCCUPATION, BUSINESSES GOING ON IN THE AREA.
SO IT'S HOW DO WE THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AROUND THIS, HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT NEED
FOR HIGHER DENSITY WITH AN UNDERSTANDABLE DESIRE TO SORT OF HAVE PRIVACY IN YOUR
BACKYARD? SO I THINK THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE POCKETS OF BOWNESS
THAT WILL REMAIN FOREVER AS VERY LOW DENSITY BUT THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE BEING LOOKED AT
AS POTENTIALS FOR -- AND GREENBRIAR STUDY AREA WAS ONE OF THEM, HOW DO WE DO A HIGHER
DENSITY, HOW DO WE MIX THAT WITH SOME RETAIL AND SOME COMMERCIAL, AND THAT WAS THE
ANSWER THAT WAS DEVELOPED, AND IT WASN'T JUST CITIZENS OF BOWNESS WHO DEVELOPED THAT,
THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY URBAN PLANNERS. >> NOW, I'M JUST THINKING IN
REGARDS TO CURRENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT EXIST WITHIN BOWNESS, DO YOU FEEL THAT WHAT
EXISTS IS SUFFICIENT, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS TOO MUCH FOR THE BOWNESS AREA IN PARTICULAR
OR IS IT BECAUSE OF THE CONCENTRATION PRIMARILY? >> THERE'S A RULE WHEN THE
PUBLIC -- SORRY, A PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY WITH A LARGE GRADE SEPARATED INTERCHANGE AS WE
SEE AT STONY TRAIL ON TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE EXITS TO LOCAL
AREAS WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF KILOMETRES OF THAT INTERCHANGE BECAUSE THAT
INTERCHANGE EXISTS BESIDE GREENBRIAR, WE MAY NOT HAVE EXITS AND ENTRANCES TO THAT
AREA OFF OF THE -- IT'S SURROUNDED ON TWO SIDE BY HIGHWAYS BUT IT MAY NOT USE
THOSE HIGHWAYS AND THAT'S I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS. IF WE HAD MORE WAYS TO GET IN
AND OUT OF THERE, THERE WOULDN'T BE NEARLY AS MUCH CRITICISM OF THE PROJECT.
>> INTERESTING. EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUGGESTS
THAT FUTURE UPGRADES WILL ACCOMMODATE THE NEED? >> SOMETIMES I WONDER IF THE
PEOPLE WHO DO THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENTS HAVE EVER REALLY VISITED THE SITE.
>> OH, I THINK THEY HAVE. >> I WOULD HOPE SO. >> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS,
YOUR WORSHIP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I HAVE NO
QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS OR IF YOU HAVE.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY. BUT ALDERMAN LOWE'S LIGHT IS ON.
>> FOR ADMINISTRATION. >> FOR ADMINISTRATION, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> IT'S FOR ADMINISTRATION. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS PROPOSAL, ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN, AND WE'LL TAKE
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION -- >>
(Iinaudible) >> I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY.
WE'LL PRETEND I DIDN'T SAY THAT LAST BIT. GOOD MORNING, SIR.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS PETER MORRIEY.
I AM A RESIDENT OF BOWNESS AND I SPEAK ON MY OWN BEHALF. I HAVE LEARNED, I HAVE BEEN
LIVING THERE FOR A WHILE NOW, AND I LIKE VILLAGE LIVING. I GREW UP IN A VILLAGE MYSELF,
AND I HAVE LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE CURRENT PLAN.
THERE IS PROVIDED A PLACE FOR A COMMUNITY, A VILLAGE-LIKE COMMUNITY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF
HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE CURRENT BOWNESS. BUT STILL, LIKE A VILLAGE, IN
A VILLAGE OR IN A LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD SUPPORT THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MEANING THAT, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, CONSIDERING
THE TYPICAL RESIDENT OF BOWNESS IS NOT HOLDING AN OFFICE JOB.
AND I DO NOT SEE LOCALLY THE NEED FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT WOULD CREATE AN OUTFLOW OF TRAFFIC FOR THE PERSON WHO IS GOING OUT TO DO PHYSICAL
LABOUR SOMEWHERE ELSE AND AN INFLOW OF WHITE SHIRT WORKERS INTO THE AREA.
WHICH IS NOT IN LAND IN MY VIEW WITH THE COMMON -- WITH A COMMUNITY INTENDED.
SORRY. THE CURRENT ARP WOULD BE PREVENTING US FROM THAT
PRACTISE AND THEREFORE I PERSONALLY WOULD OPPOSE TO THE AMENDMENT AT THAT POINT.
LOOKING AT TRANSPORTATION -- LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC.
THE AREA IS LANDLOCKED ALMOST ON FOUR SIDES. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO GET
OUT OF THE PLACE. EVEN IF YOU WOULD MAKE IT AN EIGHT-LANE HIGHWAY TO GET OUT
OF THE PLACE, IT WILL STILL BE ONE PLACE OF INTENSE, ONE PLACE OF EXIT.
AND I DO NOT SEE THAT AS LET'S SAY AN EXAMPLE OF VISION FOR A PLANNING COMMITTEE TO HAVE A
DEVELOPMENT THAT ONLY HAS ONE PLACE TO GET IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG.
WE KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT PLAN FOR DISASTERS, AND WE KNOW THEY STILL HAPPEN.
SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERSONALLY IS TO HAVE AN ESCAPE, NOT ONLY IN EMERGENCY,
FOR ONLY EMERGENCY VEHICLES BUT AN EMERGENCY JUST FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO WORK IF
THERE'S A FENDER-BENDER ON ONE CORNER. SO THEREFORE I WOULD THINK,
DEPENDING ON THE VISION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, I WOULD THINK WE WOULDN'T LOOK AT
PLANNING ANY DEVELOPMENT BEFORE SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE.
THEN WHILE SITTING HERE, I PICKED UP THE TERM CASH IN LIEU, AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT
PRACTISE EXISTED, I HAVE NEVER SEEN SOME PEOPLE PAYING ME FOR ALLOWING SOMEBODY ELSE SELLING
GREEN SPACE TO SOMEBODY ELSE, ALTHOUGH I LIVE IN BOWNESS. AND I WAS RATHER SHOCKED TO
SEE NO -- (Indiscernible) WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS
COMMON PRACTISE. SO I ALSO HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO DEVELOPING OF LAND THAT IS LAYING THERE IDLE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME VISION IN IT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BOWNESS AREA STILL
BE BOWNESS, NOT SOME KIND OF A SETTLING TOWN SOMEWHERE ELSE. I ALSO WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE A
BIGGER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN WOULD BE IN BALANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
PLACE, MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE UNFAIR COMPETITION FOR THE EXISTING BOWNESS
BUSINESSES. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. ALDERMAN MAR? THAT'S FOR ADMINISTRATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
PROPOSAL? >> MAYOR, ALDERMEN, MY NAME IS OSCAR FAK.
I'M NOT AGAINST PER SE THIS DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE BEEN GOING TO BOWNESS
PARK SINCE THE 1952s. BOWNESS WAS A NICE AREA, STILL IS.
BUT YOU HEARD SO MANY COMMENTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE ACCESS TO IT IN AND OUT.
IT'S A FIRE TRAP. THE CITY BYLAW SAYS YOU NEED TWO ACCESSES IN AND OUT, NOT
ONE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S EVEN HERE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT'S
THE RULE AND LAW. AS FAR AS DENSITY, IT'S, I THINK, TO SO MUCH BEING SAID,
IT WAS PROPOSED PROPERLY, I THINK THIS PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BUT FIRST
IT NEEDS TO ACCESSES, AND ALDERMAN MAR, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
YOU'RE KIND OF GRINNING. WELL, IT IS, IF THERE'S A FIRE RIGHT ON THE
INTERCHANGE, THERE'S OLYMPIC GOING UP THE HILL, AND SINCE YOU'RE SMILING AND LAUGHING,
THIS ROAD THAT GOES FROM TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY DOWN THE HILL TO BOWNESS, THAT'S ONLY
MISERABLE TWO-LANE ROAD. THAT SHOULD BE WIDENED ALSO. AND THERE'S A RESTAURANT UP
ON TOP OF THE HILL, IT'S A NARROW ROAD. ALL THESE THINGS ARE NOT
BEING MENTIONED TO WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
LIKE THE PEOPLE SAID, IT'S BEING SORT OF RAILROADED THROUGH, AND IT'S NOT RIGHT.
I'VE GOT A PIECE OF LAND UP NORTHEAST, I'VE BEEN RAILROADED ALSO.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THESE THINGS UP. WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL.
I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT MY LAND, WE NEED INTERCHANGES, WE NEED UNDERPASSES,
OVERPASSES, THEY LAUGH AT ME. YOU SEE, MAYOR, AND THE
TUNNEL, BUT WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE PLAN THINGS AHEAD.
WE GOT TO PLAN AHEAD. 50, 100 YEARS AHEAD. WE'RE NOT DOING IT HERE.
WHY AREN'T WE? I HAVE MENTIONED THESE THINGS BEFORE.
AM I TALKING TO A BRICK WALL? I HOPE NOT.
MAYOR, YOU'RE THE NEW MAYOR. I ASK ABOUT THE TUNNEL ALSO, AND YOU SORT OF INDICATED
DON'T TELL ME TOO MUCH. >> DON'T GET OFF TOPIC HERE. >> I KNOW.
>> I'M ALWAYS TRYING TO PROTECT YOU. >> I KNOW, I KNOW.
I'M TRYING TO MENTION THESE THINGS, WE GOTTA PUT EVERYTHING ON THE SURFACE,
BRING EVERYTHING OUT IN THE OPEN, AND THEN HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION.
WHY IS THE CITY DOING SO MUCH BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS WE NEED ANOTHER ACCESS TO IT, AND THE ZONING PROBABLY WILL
BE APPROVED IF YOU GIVE THE COMMUNITY A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING SPACE.
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. THEY LIVE THERE. AREN'T YOU LISTENING TO
THEM? ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN TO ME WHEN I COME INTO A PLAN
FOR THE NORTHEAST? OF COURSE NOT. THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
LOOK AT THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT UP OFF GLENMORE TRAIL, THERE WAS
THE FIRST ALLIANCE CHURCH, THERE'S ONLY ONE ACCESS TO IT ALSO.
THERE'S ELDERLY PEOPLE IN NURSING HOMES AND WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER -- I
SPOKE OUT ON IT AGAINST IT, THEY TURNED IT DOWN BECAUSE WE NEED TWO ACCESSES, EVEN
HERE. I HOPE I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR. WE NEED GOOD PLANNING, GOOD
LEADERSHIP. MAYOR, GO TO IT. >> THANKS.
>> AND I SHOULD POINT OUT, WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE ARE TWO.
>> NO, THERE'S ONE, THAT'S ALL. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SIR. >> I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE ARE AT A PRE-SDERMD RECESS TIME BUT I WANTED TO
SEE IF THERE WERE ANY MORE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE WE
RECESS AND IF THERE ARE, I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION IT EXTEND OUR SESSION.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WE DECLARE THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSE AND HAD WE WILL RECESS AND WE WILL BE BACK FOR QUESTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION AT 1:45. 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 DIFFICULTIES 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.
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 DIFFICULTIES 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. >> I'M GOING CRAZY.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE BACK. SO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING PORTION ON THIS ITEM. I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN
QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION ONLY RIGHT NOW, PLEASE. QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION
ONLY. BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
MOTION ON THE FLOOR ONCE WE'VE FINISHED QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION BUT LET'S DO
IT IN THAT ORDER TODAY. SO WITH QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN
MAR. >> SORRY, YOUR WORSHIP, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
OVER LUNCH, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOTICED THERE'S AN INSICHB IS I
BETWEEN THE MAPS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARP MAP AND THE MAP
THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE REPORT. -- INCONSISTENCY WITH THE
NUMBERS. >> OH. >> MR. LOCKWOOD CAN EXPLAIN
THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES AND THE ERROR. >> OKAY.
>> DOES THAT MEAN IT NEEDS TO BE READVERTISED THEN? >> WHEN SHE COMES BACK, I
WILL ASK HER THAT QUESTION BUT LET'S HEAR THE CHANGES NOW.
YOU CAN SIT DOWN, ALDERMAN MAR. WE'LL LET HIM FINISH.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THIS IS THE ACTUAL MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND USE REDESIGNATION.
PARDON ME, I'M SORRY, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE ARP. YOU'LL NOTICE IN YELLOW, YOU
SEE THE 541 TO 800. IN THE ACTUAL REPORT, THERE'S A PROPOSED MAP 3C,
IN THE REPORT, THE DENSITY MAXIMUM THAT READS 873. SO THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY
BETWEEN WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT TO THE ARP AND WHAT HAS BEEN NOTED
IN THE REPORT. NOW, FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, AND IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE MAXIMUM
CAP ON THIS TO BE 800 AS OPPOSED TO THE 873 WHICH IS IN THE REPORT.
ON THAT BASIS, JUST FOR INFORMATION TO COUNCIL, IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE
THE OVERALL DENSITY OF THE SITE. THE DENSITY REQUIRED WITH
THISOULD BE 12.61 UNITS PER ACRE AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENTION OF THE CHANGES IN THE ARP AND ALSO IT IS UNDER THE 13 MAX WHICH IS BEING
CHANGED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE ARP. YOUR WORSHIP, THAT IS A
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THAT THE 73, THE 873 WHICH IS ON THE MAP IN THE REPORT, IN
ESSENCE, IT'S BEING REDISTRIBUTED ELSEWHERE TO THE OTHER SITES BUT AS I'VE
JUST STATED, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE OVERALL DENSITY OF THE ENTIRE COLLECTION OF
DENSITY BETWEEN CELLS 1 TO 5 AND IT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE INTENTIONS OF THE
DEVELOPER IN THIS INSTANCE. >> OKAY. MISS SLOAN, YOU'RE OKAY WITH
THAT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE OUR
NUMBERS CORRECT, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT ALL OF THE NUMBERS ARE STAYING
THE SAME EXCEPT THE BOTTOM TOTAL, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
YOUR WORSHIP, WE DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION HERE.
WE HAD A TECHNICAL ERROR IN THAT THE WRONG MAP WAS SUBSTITUTED IN THE BYLAW.
IF I CAN STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT, THE CORRECT MAP AND THE ASSOCIATED NUMBERS ARE
IN THE CPC REPORT. THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED AND THAT WAS
THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THE MAP THAT I HAVE -- THAT
IS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW WITH THE NUMBERS REFLECTS THE CPC REPORT WITH THE SOLE
CHANGE OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN CELL 3 TO 800 INSTEAD OF 873.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT WISHES. HOWEVER, IN CONSULTATION
WITH MISS SLOAN, WE WOULD HAVE TO READVERTISE TO APPROVE THE 873 TODAY.
DEPENDING ON HOW COUNCIL WISHES TO PROCEED, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
APPLICANT THAT THEY WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THREE READINGS, IF COUNCIL SO WISHES TODAY,
BASED ON THE 800 NUMBER, AND WE WOULD COME BACK WITH A REVISION WHICH MUST BE
ADVERTISED AND CORRECTED THROUGH A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M HAVING A PROPER MAP DONE WITHOUT MY CHICKEN SCRATCH, AND IT SHOULD ARRIVE
MOMENTARILY. IT'S JUST COMING RIGHT THROUGH THE DOOR.
SO IF COUNCIL WISHES TO PROCEED TODAY, WE WOULD SUGGEST ADOPTING THIS MAP
WHICH, AS I INDICATED, REFLECTS THE CPC RECOMMENDATION WITH THE SOLE
CHANGE OF CORRECTING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AT THE BOTTOM, WHICH WAS IN ERROR,
AND THE 800 NUMBER WHICH WAS STATED AS 873 IN THE ORIGINAL CPC REPORT.
>> THANK, MS. AXWORTHY. MS. SLOAN, IS THIS SOMETHING TO BE AMENDED AT SECOND
READING OR WOULD IT REQUIRE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IF THE
DENSITIES ARE REDUCED FROM WHAT WAS ADVERTISED, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE CPC REPORT IS HIGHER IN SOME CASES THAN
WHAT WAS ADVERTISED AND I DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT. IF IT'S JUST ADDITION OF THE
COLUMNS SUCH THAT THE BOTTOM NUMBER CHANGES BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO AN ADDITION
PROBLEM ON THE BYLAW THAT'S BEFORE COUNCIL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT IF THE NUMBERS IN THE COLUMNS START GOING UP, I DO HAVE CONCERNS.
>> YOU WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO DO THE AMENDMENT THEN. >> OKAY.
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT THEN.
SO DID EVERYONE GET THAT? I SEE A COUPLE OF CONFUSED FACES SO I WILL TRY AND
REPEAT. THERE'S TWO ERRORS IN THE BYLAW.
ONE IS THAT THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN UNDER CELL 3 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS IN
THE REPORT THAT CPC APPROVED THAT WAS IN THE CPC REPORT, IT WAS UP TO 873 BUT IN THE
BYLAW AS ADVERTISED IT WAS ONLY 800. DID YOU SAY THERE WAS AN
ADDITION ERROR AS WELL? >> YES. >> IN THE FINAL BOTTOM
RIGHT-HAND CORNER, AND THAT REALLY SHOULD READ WHAT YOU SEE THERE, 1557 TO 2342
RATHER THAN 2392. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT WILL BE
ASKED TO VOTE ON TODAY IS THAT, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
ALDERMAN LOWE? >> SORRY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
JUST PICK UP, I HEARD MISS AXWORTHY SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR A
SECOND PUBLIC HEARING AFTER SOME ADVERTISING AND THAT'S THE PIECE -- I UNDERSTAND
THIS, IT'S THE NEXT PIECE, MISS SLOAN. >> I THINK WHAT SHE SAID WAS
IF WE WANT TO PUT IT BACK TO WHAT WAS IN THE CPC RECOMMENDATION --
>> ONLY IF WE WANT TO DO THAT? >> CORRECT.
IF WE COULD PASS IT LIKE THIS TODAY SO THAT -- IF THAT WAS COUNCIL'S WILL, WE
COULD PASS IT LIKE THIS TODAY SO THE APPLICANT COULD GET ON WITH THEIR WORK, BUT
THEN HAVE A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING TO CHANGE 800 TO 873.
>> OH, I SEE. IF THE APPLICANT WANTED. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE
APPLICANT DOES WANT THAT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST TO
CLARIFY, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. THE LAND USE IS UNAFFECTED
BY ANY OF THIS. THIS IS SIMPLY AN ERROR IN THE ASP AMENDMENT.
THE LAND USE IS UNAFFECTED. >> OH, THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE BACK TO QUESTIONS
FOR ADMINISTRATION ONLY, PLEASE, ALDERMAN MAR, THEN LOWE, THEN STEVENSON, THEN
ME. >> THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ISSUES
RELATING LARGELY TO THE INCONSISTENCY IN THEIR VIEW OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND THE
ARP. AND HOW CONSISTENT IS THAT WITH THE NEW MDP, PLAN IT
CALGARY, THAT WE'VE PASSED? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IN REGARDS TO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ARP
THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION, THESE AMENDMENTS ALLOW FOR
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL SITE TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES AND
ALSO TO IDENTIFY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SITES WITHIN THE BOWNESS ARP AREA.
THIS ALSO FACILITATES THE LAND USE IN THE OUTLINED PLAN.
CERTAINLY WITH THE USES THAT ARE BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE ARP AMENDMENTS, YOU'RE
GETTING A COMMUNITY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE MIXED USES AND ALSO
VERY LOCAL ORIENTATED COMMERCIAL USES WHICH IS CONSISTENT, I THINK, WITH
THE GOALS OF PLAN IT, WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY AND A VERY LOW-KEY
MANNER OF DENSITY AND ALSO USE. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO DRAW
USES BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE COMMUNITIES. IT'S MORE INTENDED TO BE
LOCAL ORIENTATED AND BASED AND THAT'S ALSO THE RATIONALE FOR THE
INTRODUCTION OF OFFICE USE IN THIS CASE. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A
LARGE OFFICE CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDINGS. IT'S MORE MEANT TO BE OFFICE
USES SUCH AS DENTISTS OR MEDICAL THAT IS INTENDED TO DRAW THE IMMEDIATE PEOPLE IN
THE COMMUNITY IN THE AREA AND NOT SOMETHING FROM A WIDE DRAW.
AND THAT IS CERTAINLY, I THINK, CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE MDP AND ALSO
PLAN IT IN THIS CASE. >> THANK YOU. NOW, WE ALSO HEARD FROM THE
COMMUNITY ISSUES RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT YOUR EXPERTISE,
BUT I DO SEE MR. -- IF YOUR WORSHIP, IF YOU DON'T MIND, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> SO THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION DIRECTORS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INCREASED DENSITY AND HOW THIS WOULD
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE MOBILITY IN THAT AREA. OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE KEY
COMPONENTS OF THIS IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERCHANGE.
WHAT IS OUR STATUS WITH THAT INTERCHANGE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, AS
MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT INTERCHANGE WAS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE 2009-2018 GIP
PROCESS. WE HAVE COMPLETED THE FUNCTIONAL PLANNING STUDY,
AND THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN HAS ALSO BEEN COMPLETED. >> AND IT IS FUNDED
CURRENTLY, IS IT NOT? >> THE FUNDING FOR THAT INTERCHANGE BEGINS IN 2012.
THE 2012 BUDGET HAS NOT YET BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL. IT WILL COME FORWARD AS PART
OF THE 2012 -- >> EVERYTHING NOW IS CONTINGENT UPON COUNCIL
GIVING THE FUNDING OR MAKING SURE THAT THAT FUNDING IS AVAILABLE.
IF COUNCIL PROCEEDS WITH THAT, WHICH I'M SUPPOSING THAT THEY WILL, THE
INTERCHANGE COULD BE COMPLETED BY WHEN? >> THE INITIAL TARGET WAS AT
THE END OF 2013. >> 2013. SO YEAR-AND-A-HALF.
OKAY. AND DOES THIS -- YOU'RE RIGHT, I GUESS IT IS TWO
YEARS. DOES THAT ALLOW US THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE WHAT'S
BEING PLANNED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? WOULD THAT HAVE THE SATISFY
RE MOBILITY? BECAUSE I'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THE
FUNCTIONAL STUDY ON THIS WAS TEN YEARS OLD AND IT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE COMMERCIAL
AND IT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, ABSOLUTELY. JUST A COUPLE OF BACKGROUND.
JUST TO PROVIDE A BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THE TIMING OF THE FUNCTIONAL PLANNING
STUDY. THE FUNCTIONAL PLANNING STUDY CURRENTLY APPROVED WAS
INITIATED IN 2007 AND APPROVED BY LPT IN 2008. >> OKAY.
SO IT'S NOT TEN YEARS OLD. >> IT'S A COUPLE YEARS OLD. AND THAT FUNCTIONAL PLANNING
STUDY HAS ALSO BEEN, I GUESS, AS WE'VE MOVED FORWARD TO PRELIMINARY DESIGN, WE'VE
ALSO TAKEN THE LATEST TRAFFIC INFORMATION AS PART OF THAT PRELIMINARY DESIGN.
>> SORRY, PARDON ME, THAT ALSO INCLUDED FORECASTING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS
THE ROAD, DID IT NOT? >> THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES USED IN BOTH THE TIA AS WELL AS
THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN WERE PREDICATED ON WHAT YOU SEE HERE PROPOSED FOR GREENBRIAR
AS WELL AS WHAT THE CURRENT COUNCIL APPROVED CANADA OLYMPIC PARK ASP PROVIDES
FOR. >> OKAY. AND HOW MANY VEHICLES PER
DAY ARE YOU PROJECTING THERE? DO YOU KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP
OF YOUR HEAD? >> YOUR WORSHIP, FOR WHAT -- AT WHAT POINT ON THE ROADWAY,
I GUESS? >> SORRY, AT PROJECT COMPLETION AND BUILD OUT.
THE INTERCHANGE, I'M SORRY. RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE I'M
TRYING TO COMPARE IT TO VALLEY RIDGE WHICH IS A COMMUNITY THAT IS SIMILAR IN
NATURE TO THIS BEING A ON ONE-ACCESS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T
HAVE THE NUMBERS RIGHT OFF HAND BUT I CAN DEFINITELY LOOK THOSE UP AND GET BACK
TO YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO KNOW WITH SOME DEGREE OF CERTAINTY
FROM YOUR EXPERTISE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS ONE INTERCHANGE IS SATISFACTORY
TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT MOBILITY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THROUGH THE
REVIEW OF THE TIA FOR GREENBRIAR STAGE TWO, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE
APPROXIMATELY 80% OF THE BUILD OUT OF GREENBRIAR CAN BE ACCOMMODATED WITH THE
INITIAL BUILD OF BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA WHICH IS CURRENTLY SLATED TO BE A
SIX-LANE STRUCTURE ACROSS TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY. THERE WOULD BE A SUBSEQUENT
WIDENING OF THAT STRUCTURE TO EIGHT LANES THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE REMAINING
20% OF BUILD OUT WITHIN THE GREENBRIAR AREA. >> NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT
WE HEARD FROM THE OPPONENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT WAS THE TRAFFIC ON 83rd.
CAN YOU RUN ME THROUGH THAT? WHAT IS IT -- IT'S NOT OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR.
WHAT IS THAT CONSIDERED? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE 83rd STREET IS CURRENTLY
CLASSIFIED AS AN ARTERIAL STREET. >> OKAY.
>> IT'S CURRENTLY TWO LANES. AND AS PART OF THE ULTIMATE PLAN FOR 83rd STREET COULD
STILL CONTINUE TO BE TWO LANES. THERE IS RIGHT-OF-WAY
PLANNED THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE A FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL, IF SO DESIRED.
THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, I CAN FIND MY PAGE HERE, THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES CURRENTLY ON
83rd STREET ARE APPROXIMATELY JUST UNDER 6,000 VEHICLES PER DAY.
THE ANTICIPATED BUILD OUT OF GREENBRIAR STAGE TWO TO THE 80% AS ALLOWED WITH THE
CURRENTLY-APPROVED INTERCHANGE WOULD BRING IT TO JUST ABOVE 9,000 VEHICLES
A DAY. THAT IS STILL WELL BELOW A COLLECTOR ROAD VOLUME.
SO THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A CAPACITY ISSUE
ALONG 83rd STREET. WE DO RECOGNIZE THE SENSITIVITY OF 83rd STREET
TO THE EXISTING BOWNESS COMMUNITY, AND WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT ROADWAY
CONTINUES TO FUNCTION FOR ALL OTHER MODES SUCH AS THE TRANSIT CONNECTION DOWN TO
PRIMARY TRANSIT ON BOWNESS ROAD, AS WELL AS THE WALK CYCLE ACTIVE MODES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, I CAN'T HELP BUT NOTICE
THE REASONABLY-CLOSE PROXIMITY TO STONY. IN THE GREATER SCHEME OF
THINGS. NOT ON THIS MAP, OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT IS FAIRLY WELL
LOCATED TO STONY. IS THERE ANY WAY AT ALL THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE CREATE SOME
SORT OF LINK-UP THERE TO PROVIDE ANOTHER ACCESS POINT IN AND OUT OF THIS
COMMUNITY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, AS FOR VEHICULAR CONNECTION TO
EITHER THE TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY OR CONNECTION TO STONY TRAIL, NO, IT WOULD
NOT MEET STANDARDS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE APPROPRIATE SAFE SPACING AND OPERATION OF
THOSE IMPORTANT SKELETAL ROADWAYS. >> OKAY.
>> HOWEVER, YOUR WORSHIP, GIVEN THAT, WE ARE, AS PART OF MOVING FORWARD ON THE
GREENBRIAR APPLICATIONS, REQUESTING THAT THE APPLICANT INVESTIGATE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CROSSING OF THOSE SKELETAL ROADS WITH POTENTIALLY TRANSIT AND/OR
ACTIVE MODES CONNECTIONS TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH. >> OKAY.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY A ONE-ACCESS POINT BUT I KNOW, UNDER THE MDP, -- SORRY, MGA,
WE ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS. WHERE IS THAT LOCATED?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO GREENBRIAR IS SHOWN AS THAT
LIGHT BLUE LINE CONNECTING FROM 83rd STREET UP TO THE EXISTING GREENWOOD VILLAGE.
THAT IS CURRENTLY THEIR PUBLIC ACCESS. >> YES.
>> UPON COMPLETION OF THE BEAUFORT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, THE DOUBLE RED LINE ALONG
THE SOUTH SIDE OF GREENBRIAR, THAT ACCESS WOULD BE COMMITTED INTO A SECONDARY
EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. >> OKAY. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR
NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN LOWE. >> THANK YOU, MR. VANDER
POTEN. SORRY TO MAKE YOU GO BACK AND FORTH, SIR.
SO YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL OF MY TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS. THE ONE OUTSTANDING IS THE
EXPANSION OF THE BRIDGE ACROSS TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY FROM SIX TO EIGHT LANES.
IS THAT ALSO, IN PART, TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF TRANSCANADA, ON CANADA OLYMPIC PARK? >> YOUR WORSHIP, AS PART OF
THE FUNCTIONAL PLAN FOR THAT INTERCHANGE, IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WOULD
BE KIND OF A STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TRANSCANADA, AND THAT
THERE WOULD NOT BE THE NEED TO INITIALLY BUILD OUT TO THE FULL CROSS-SECTION.
THE BUILD-OUT ON THE CANADA OLYMPIC PARK SIDE, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, THEN AT THE
CURRENT ASP ENVISIONED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE EIGHT-LANE
STRUCTURE. THERE WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT CAP ON THE SOUTHLAND, TOO,
UNTIL THAT EIGHT-LANE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED. >> I GUESS I'LL JUST TALK
ABOUT THE -- THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BEING PROPOSED,
A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, BEING PROPOSED ON THE CANADA OLYMPIC LANDS ON THE SOUTH
SIDE. IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IT WOULD BE NOT ONLY THAT COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPONENT BUT ALSO
THE SPORTING FACILITIES. >> IT'S THE WHOLE PACKAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU'VE COVERED OFF THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACCESSES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND LRT LINKS ACROSS. HAVE WE ENTERED INTO ANY
DISCUSSION WITH TRANSIT NOW? IF IN FACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANADA OLYMPIC PARK
LANDS GOES AHEAD, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR A TRANSIT
HUB IN THERE. HAVE WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH TRANSIT ABOUT MOVING THAT
PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION LINK OR GETTING IT ATTACHED OR CONNECTED TO GREENBRIAR?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I GUESS RECOGNIZING THAT THE APPLICATION ISN'T ON THE
TABLE TODAY, THERE DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ON CONNECTIVITY
FOR TRANSIT. WE FEEL AT THIS TIME THAT THE PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE
SHOULD REMAIN ON BOWNESS ROAD AND THAT ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE
SEEING BEFORE US TODAY WOULD PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY DOWN TO THE PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE.
IT ALSO IS WITHIN A COMFORTABLE WALKING DISTANCE, NOT QUITE A 600 METRE RADIUS,
BUT IT'S DEFINITELY WITHIN A WALKING DISTANCE OF THE PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE DOWN
ON BOWNESS ROAD. >> OKAY. BUT -- EXCUSE ME.
I GUESS SORT OF THE FOLLOW-THROUGH IS WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, DEPENDING ON
WHAT HAPPENS, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY THERE TO REVISIT THE WHOLE PRIMARY
TRANSPORTATION STRUCTURE IN THERE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, AND I GUESS
TO ADD TO THAT, WE WOULD ALSO, RECOGNIZING THE CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS ON THE
ROADWAY NETWORK AT TRANSCANADA BEAUFORT, THAT'S ALSO WHY WE'RE PURSUING THE
ADDITIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS, THAT IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE SOME TRANSIT PRIORITY BY A SEPARATE STRUCTURE OR SEPARATE
CONNECTION TO GET THEM OUT OF THE TYPICAL VEHICLE MIX, WE FEEL THAT WOULD BE A
BENEFIT FOR TRANSIT OPERATIONS AS WELL FOR THIS WHOLE AREA.
>> I TAKE IT THE SAME COMMENTS APPLY FOR ACROSS STONY TRAIL INTO VALLEY
RIDGE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, YES. >> OKAY.
SO WE'VE GOT LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY IN THERE TO CONSOLIDATE OUR TRANSIT
SYSTEM AND MAKE IT TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE RESIDENTS IN HERE AND IN VALLEY RIDGE,
AND I SUPPOSE, BY EXTENSION, UP TO -- SO ON. >> YES.
>> THANK YOU. MY LAST QUESTION, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO I'LL DIRECT
THIS TO, PUT IF YOU GO TO THE CPC REPORT, THERE WAS A MOTION ARISING PUT BY A
MR. STURGESS ASKING OR DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT
UNDERTAKE A VISIONARY MASTER PLAN OF THE OVERALL SITE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AND TO FORM
PART OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO COME BACK TO
CPC. DO YOU KNOW, IS THAT PROJECT BEEN INITIATED, STARTED,
WHERE ARE WE WITH RESPECT TO THAT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT SPEAKS
TO PART OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM THOSE OBJECTING TO IT TODAY, THERE WAS NO GLOBAL
PICTURE. >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YOUR WORSHIP, WE HAVE NOT
RECEIVED A FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WOULD
REQUIRE THE DIRECTIVE OF CPC INITIATED BY MR. STURGESS, NOT AT THIS TIME, NO.
>> OKAY. BUT ONCE WE GET THAT, WE WOULD INITIATE THIS PLAN?
>> YES, I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE PRUDENT ON THE AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THERE IS
SOMETHING, A WARNING ON THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THE DIRECTOR OF CPC
IS INITIATING THIS. >> OKAY. SO IN FACT, THE ISSUE OF THE
GLOBAL PLAN IS IN HAND. >> CERTAINLY BASED ON THE -- >> DIRECTION OF CPC?
>> YES. >> OKAY. MY LAST -- I'M SORRY,
MR. VANDER POTEN, THANK YOU. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT ANY DELAY BY THE APPLICANT,
THAT ANY DELAY COULD TRANSLATE OR MAY TRANSLATE INTO INCREASED COSTS FOR THE
CITY OF CALGARY. ARE YOU ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THOSE INCREASED COSTS WOULD BE.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA. >> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY -- IT
SEEMED LOGICAL TO ME, I MEAN, IT MADE SENSE THAT IF THEY'RE DELAYED IN THEIR
LAND, PART AND PARCEL THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG 83rd STREET AND BEAUFORT ROAD AND
FILL WORK THAT HAD TO BE DONE THERE, THE TWO PARTIES, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER,
SEEM TO BE ADVANCING THEIR ENGINEERING LOCK STEP IN THIS.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CITY HAS BEEN PROCEEDING WITH
LAND ACQUISITION REQUIRED FOR THE BEAUFORT TRANSCANADA INTERCHANGE DOES REQUIRE A
LOT OF FILL, BECAUSE THE CURRENT INTERSECTION SITS WELL BELOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE
INTERSECTION WOULD ULTIMATELY BE, YOU KNOW, IN COORDINATION WITH THE TIMING
OF THE DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR BOTH PARTIES.
>> BUT ALSO WOULD NOT BE THE CONSTRUCT OF THE INTERCHANGE AT BEAUFORT AND TRANSCANADA,
YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE APPROACHES ORGANIZED TO BUILD THE BRIDGES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THERE IS A LINKAGE THERE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, YES.
>> BUT NOBODY'S QUANTITIFIED WHAT THE IMPACT OF A TWO OR THREE OR FIVE OR SIX-MONTH
DELAY MIGHT BE? >> SORRY, I'M UNFORTUNATELY NOT...
>> CAN ANYBODY QUANTIFY THAT FOR ME? CAN ANYBODY GIVE ME AN
OPINION ON THAT? >> YOUR WORSHIP -- >> I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO GIVE
OPINIONS, ALDERMAN LOWE, BUT IT MAY NOT BE BASED ON ANYTHING.
ALDERMAN HODGES? >> MR. LOGAN IS OUT OF TOWN, HE'S AWAY, AND ONE OF THE
OTHER CITY ENGINEERS WORKING ON THE COP APPLICATION, AND NOT HAVING CONCLUDED IT YET,
IS ALSO OUT OF TOWN. SO I THINK ALDERMAN LOWE'S INTERESTING QUESTIONS ARE IN
ADVANCE OF ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD BE RESULTING IN THE NEAR FUTURE, ALDERMAN
LOWE, BUT I'VE NEVER READ OR SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>> NEITHER HAVE I, YET I HEARD A FAIRLY DEFINITIVE STATEMENT FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER FOR THE APPLICANT, AND IT RAISES A RED FLAG WITH RESPECT TO
CITY COSTS, YOUR WORSHIP. HENCE THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> AND IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, ALDERMAN LOWE. QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION,
ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MY FIRST QUESTION IS TO MISS
SLOAN. WHEN YOU SAID, AND MAYBE I HEARD YOU WRONG, YOU SAID
THAT YOU WOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE UNLESS THE NUMBERS WENT UP BUT YET I THOUGHT I
HEARD THAT THE TOTAL UNITS WAS 392 BEFORE AND NOW IT'S UP TO 24 SOMETHING, 2392 TO
24, DOESN'T THAT CREATE A PROBLEM? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE NUMBERS
IN THE CHART AND I BELIEVE MISS AXWORTHY IS GETTING A FINAL CHART PREPARED SO THAT
YOU CAN SEE ALL THE NUMBERS, ESSENTIALLY ALL THE NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF ONE NUMBER ON THE CPC REPORT, IT WAS ACTUALLY HIGHER, BUT THEY'RE
NOT PROPOSING COUNCIL AMEND THAT. SO THAT WOULD BE CAPPED AT
THE 800 INSTEAD OF 873. AND THEN THE BOTTOM -- THE VERY, VERY BOTTOM BOX WOULD
CHANGE ONLY BECAUSE OF ADDITION. IT'S JUST MATHEMATICAL.
>> THAT'S NOT A CONCERN OF YOURS? >> NO, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
>> MR. VANDER POOTEN, I WANT TO GO FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAT ALDERMAN LOWE WAS GOING
WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERCHANGE.
IS THERE QUITE A DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION THAT FILL WOULD BE TAKEN FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT TO HELP WITH THE ROADS AROUND THE INTERCHANGE, IS THAT WHAT THEY WERE
TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS IS THERE A LOT OF EXTRA FILL NECESSARY THERE AND IS THAT
COMING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT THEN? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE FIRST
QUESTION, IS THERE EXTRA FILL, ABSOLUTELY, YES. WHERE THAT FILL IS COMING
FROM, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. WE HAVEN'T GOT THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL YET IN THE DESIGN.
>> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE GETTING AT WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
TIMING THEM TOGETHER IN ORDER TO BUILD THE INTERCHANGE BUT MAYBE I GOT
THAT WRONG. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON THE
INTERCHANGE ITSELF. THE INTERCHANGE IS BEING BUILT TO SUCH A STANDARD
THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DEVELOP ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR ON THE NORTH SIDE, WITHIN
REASON, AND THE BIG EVENTS GOING ON AT COP, WHICH WE KNOW SOME HUGE TRAFFIC
SITUATIONS HAPPEN THERE SOMETIMES, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE
INTERCHANGE BUILT AT BEAUFORT WILL BE BUILT TO HANDLE ALL THAT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES USED FOR THE DESIGN OF THAT INTERCHANGE WERE
BASED ON THE FULL BUILD OUT OF GREENBRIAR AND FILL BUILD OUT OF CANADA OLYMPIC PARK
AS CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THEIR ASP. EVENT TRAFFIC DEFINITELY IS
A PEAK, IT OCCURS NOT DURING YOUR TYPICAL A.M./P.M. PEAK AND WE'RE QUITE CONFIDENT
THE DESIGN PUT FORWARD WILL SUFFICIENTLY ACCOMMODATE THAT DEMAND.
>> CAN I GET A LITTLE MORE CLARITY WHEN YOU SAY WHAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED ON THE
ASP ON THE SOUTH SIDE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT, HOTEL, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING LOOKED AT ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF THE HIGHWAY 1, ALL OF THAT IS A PART OF THAT CURRENTLY APPROVED PART OF
THE ASP, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M NOT
AWARE OF ALL THE DETAILS. WHAT I AM AWARE OF, THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ASP
AMENDMENT REQUIRED FOR THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR THE LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR COP.
>> OKAY. BUT THAT EXTRA TRAFFIC, THOUGH, YOU'RE NOT
ANTICIPATING THAT WOULD FORCE THE INTERCHANGE NOT TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE WHAT WE
NEED THERE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THAT FILE, AGAIN, IS CURRENTLY UNDER
REVIEW. AND NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ANALYSIS.
>> SO YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO SAY FOR SURE THAT WHAT'S PROPOSED, BUT OF COURSE THE
FINAL DESIGN IS NOT MADE OF THAT INTERCHANGE YET, IS IT? >> NO, YOUR WORSHIP, THERE'S
AN OPPORTUNITY TO TWEAK THE INTERCHANGE DESIGN AT DETAILED DESIGN STAGE.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN
STEVENSON. QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I GUESS TWO QUESTIONS, NUMBER ONE IS WHAT IS THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION ON THIS? >> OFFHAND, YOUR WORSHIP,
I'M GOING TO ASSUME THERE WAS A CIRCULATION DONE TO FIRE AT THE TIME OF THE LAND
USE APPLICATION. I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY SURE OF THEIR COMMENTS, IF THEY'RE
-- I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE NOTED IN THE ACTUAL REPORT. SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A
DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON THAT. OR IF I COULD, THIS CERTAINLY WAS CIRCULATED TO
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, SO CLEARLY HAD THERE BEEN AN ISSUE, THEY'RE VERY VIGILANT
ON ISSUES LIKE ACCESS, SO THEY DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION.
>> I'M VERY SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE I SHARE THIS SORT OF VISCERAL
CONCERN ABOUT ALL OF THIS DENSITY BEING PROPOSED WITH A ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT
AND THEN COLLIDING WITH ANOTHER MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DENSITY AND USE ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE TRANSCANADA, WHICH ALSO ONLY HAS A ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT.
IT SOAMES LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROOM -- SEEMS LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD
MANY TIMES BEFORE. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR TRANSPORTATION.
PUN INTENDED. WE HAD A LIVELY DEBATE IN MY OFFICE JUST THE OTHER DAY
REGARDING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER, BUT IT WAS REALLY SURROUNDING SORT OF
THE TRANSPORTATION PYRAMID AND THE CPT WHICH PUTS PEDESTRIANS FIRST, TRANSIT
AND CYCLING NEXT, COMMERCIAL VEHICULAR ACCESS AND THEN AT THE VERY BOTTOM, THE PRIVATE
AUTOMOBILE. BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, CAN I JUST GET
TRANSPORTATION'S SORT OF REACTION TO THIS PROPOSAL WITH REGARDS TO ITS RESPECT
TO THE NEW PYRAMID? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE SUSTAINABILITY TRIANGLE THAT
YOU REFER TO IN THE MDP AND CPT IS INTENDED TO BE APPLIED IN CONTEXT, OF
COURSE. THE CONTEXT HERE BEING A CONSTRAINED SITE IN A
PLANNED GREENFIELD AREA. WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE DEFINITELY ARE THE
NEED TO PROVIDE THE TRANSIT WALK CYCLE CONNECTIONS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPER
IS PROPOSING THOSE SUBSTANTIALLY. THERE STILL IS A REQUIREMENT
TO ENSURE THE AUTOMOBILE -- SUFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE CAPACITY IS PROVIDED AS WELL,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTEXT ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD.
>> WHAT'S THE MODE SHIFT THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO COME OUT OF HERE?
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR LONG-TERM ARRIVAL OF LRT AND THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS. THE POINT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A LOT OF
PEOPLE ON A VERY CONSTRAINED PIECE OF LAND WITH ONE WAY OUT AND WHAT IS THE MODE
SHIFT WE'RE ANTICIPATING COMING OUT OF THERE? >> BASED ON THE TRIP
GENERATION RATES THAT WE USED IN OUR -- IN THE ANALYSIS, WHICH WOULD BE
STANDARD GREENFIELD MULTI-FAMILY OFFICE AND RETAIL RATES, YOU'RE LIKELY
TO SEE THE 10 TO 15% ALTERNATE MODE SPLIT TO WALK, CYCLE AND TRANSIT, THE
REMAINING 85% WOULD LIKELY BE THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE. >> SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THIS AS BEING A LAMP LIGHT OF MIXED-USE DENSITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE IN THE PLAN IT PROCESS. AND YET WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS 85% AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
OKAY, THANK YOU. >> IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I'D SUGGEST THAT THE 85% SHIFT
IS VERY MUCH A PEAK HOUR IN AND OUT. WHAT YOU WILL LIKELY SEE
WITHIN AN AREA HERE THAT WE OFTEN FORGET ABOUT WITHIN THE ANALYSIS IS THE ALL-DAY
TRIPS. PROVIDING THE MIX OF USES, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL, WILL
ALLOW FOR INTERNAL TRIPS TO BE MADE BY WALKING AND CYCLING AS THE RESIDENTS WHO
LIVE THERE CAN WALK TO GET THEIR GROCERIES, CAN WALK TO DO THEIR DAILY ACTIVITIES,
AND IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO WORK THERE AS WELL, THEY CAN WALK OR CYCLE AS WELL.
>> THAT'S PROVIDED WE HAVE A DESIGN ON THE GROUND THAT IS ACTUALLY CATERING TO THE
PEDESTRIAN WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY FOR MY DEBATE AS TO WLINK THIS LAND
USE PLAN RIGHT NOW -- WHETHER I THINK THIS LAND USE PLAN RIGHT NOW ALLOWS
THAT TO HAPPEN OR LEAVES THAT WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY.
>> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CARRA. QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MR. VANDER POOTEN -- SORRY,
THROUGH THE CHAIR, YOU ALLUDED AND I THINK WE'VE TOUCHED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY
INDIRECTLY A FEW TIMES, BUT FOR ME, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PERHAPS CONSOLIDATE ALL
THE TRAFFIC STUDY ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THE OVERPASS IN ONE CONVERSATION.
THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY, PLEASE, WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THAT?
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPONENTS PERHAPS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
HIGHWAY AT THIS POINT, WHERE ARE WE AT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I GUESS TO
BE CLEAR, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES.
THE ONE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY WAS SCOPED FOR THE APPLICANT FOR GREENBRIAR
TOO. THAT STUDY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND
ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF CALGARY AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THAT
HAS LED TO CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR GREENBRIAR
STAGE TWO. THERE IS ALSO A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED AND CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AS PART OF THE COPELAND USE
APPLICATION FOR WIN SPORT. AND IT IS A SEPARATE STUDY. AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR WHAT IS
CURRENTLY ENVISIONED BY WIN SPORT ON THEIR LANDS. OVER AND ABOVE WHAT
GREENBRIAR STAGE TWO IS REQUESTING. >> PERHAPS I'LL FOLLOW ON
ALDERMAN LOWE'S COMMENT. ANOTHER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM MAY BE THE FACT THAT THERE
SEEMED TO BE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT, THESE TIA'S HAVE BECOME ADVOCACY
DOCUMENTS, BUT AT WHAT STAGE ARE THESE DOCUMENTS BECOMING INTEGRATED, AS A LAY PERSON,
I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE SOME SYNTHESIS OF THESE AT SOME POINT.
>> AND I WOULD SUGGEST, YOUR WORSHIP, THROUGH THE PROCESS, EVEN OF DESIGN, AS I'VE
ALLUDED TO THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN VOLUMES WERE A REVISED DESIGN VOLUME SET
THAN WAS USED AT THE FUNCTIONAL, AND I'D SUGGEST THE DETAILED DESIGN STAGE,
WE WOULD BE BASING IT OFF THE BEST INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME.
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, WE CAN
ONLY BASE TIAs ON WHAT INFORMATION IS KNOWN AT THE TIME.
THERE BECOMES A SIGNIFICANT RISK FOR SPECULATING WITHIN A TIA DOCUMENT OF WHAT COULD
OCCUR ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT COUNCIL APPROVED AND HENCE WHY THE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
FOR THE GREENWOOD STAGE TWO TIA ASSUMED BUILD OUT OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS BASED ON
COUNCIL APPROVED ASPs, NOT BASED ON POTENTIAL PRE-APPLICATIONS OR OTHER
CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS UNDER REVIEW DUE TO THEIR STATUS.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
MR. VANDER POOTEN, I'M LOOKING AT A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP HERE OF THE AREA, AND IT
APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE'S SOME SORT OF A CONNECTIVITY INTO STONY TRAIL, AND YET I
DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN ON THIS MAP. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S
CURRENTLY A CONNECTION THERE. BUT I DON'T IMAGINE THIS IS
GOING TO BE A LONG-TERM -- >> YOUR WORSHIP, I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ACCURATE
CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING SERVICE ROAD THAT I BELIEVE SERVICES THOSE LAND WEST OF
GREENBRIAR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AN ALTERNATE ACCESS IS PROVIDED TO THOSE LANDS.
NO, THEY CURRENTLY DO HAVE LEGAL ACCESS TO STONY TRAIL WHICH WOULD BE REPLACED BY
AN ACCESS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIS OUTLAND PLAN TO BEAUFORT ROAD.
>> THE ACCESS IS THERE. WAS THERE 40 YEARS AGO. IT'S FOR A COUPLE OF
ACREAGES AND AS SOON AS THE PROVINCE GETS A CHANCE TO CLOSE IT, THEY'RE GOING TO
CLOSE AND THEY HAVE TOLD THE ONE ACREAGE PERSON LEFT, I THINK IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY
NOW, THAT THEIR TIME IS SOON GOING TO BE UP. SO IT COMES BACK FROM 35, 40,
50 YEARS AGO, WHEN THERE WAS AN ACCESS FOR A COUPLE OF ACREAGES, NOT FOR THE
VOLUMES WE TALK ABOUT TODAY. >> INTERESTING. HAVE WE TALKED TO THE
PROVINCE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL EMERGENCY ACCESS POINT
SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA IN CASE SOMETHING UNBEKNOWNST OCCURS AT THE BEAUFORT
INTERCHANGE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE SPECIFICALLY
SPOKEN TO THE PROVINCE ON THAT BASED ON UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR STANDARDS AND
PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS, IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT THEY NOR THE CITY WOULD SUPPORT AN
EMERGENCY ACCESS ON TO THE SKELETAL ROAD NETWORK AT THAT LOCATION.
THERE ARE OTHER EMERGENCY ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE LANDS.
>> OKAY. NOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE CPC REPORT, AND ON PAGE 3 OF THE
LOC 2010 LEDGERS, THERE ARE SIX, IT DOES MAKE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THIS WAS
CIRCULATED TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, AND I SEE HERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
HAS RESPONDED WITH NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, BUT I ALSO
FOLLOW THIS DOWN TO THE POLICE SERVICE AND IT SAYS HERE NO REPLY.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT PROCESS WE USE, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO LEAVE JUST YET,
MR. VANDER POOTEN, I MAY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR TWO FOR YOU.
POLICE SERVICE HAS INDICATED NO REPLY. WHAT PROCESS DO WE HAVE IN
PLACE WHEN WE DON'T RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE FROM ANY PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, DO WE
RESUBMIT, DO WE RESOLICIT? >> IT'S VERY COMMON ON APPLICATIONS SUCH AS THIS,
THE LAND USE AMENDMENT IS CIRCULATED AND IF NO COMMENTS ARE RECEIVED BACK,
VERY OFTEN WE SEE -- GET THE COVER PAGE BACK, IT WILL SAY NO COMMENT OR OBJECTIONS
NOTED AND UNLESS WE HAVE A FORMAL REPLY IN WRITING, IT IS NOTED AS NO COMMENTS OR
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE APPLICATION. >> SO WHAT GETS CIRCULATED
THEN TO THESE DEPARTMENTS? THE FULL PLAN, TIA, THE WHOLE KIT AND KABOODLE OR
WHAT? >> WHATEVER IS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL
CIRCULATION OF THE APPLICATION SO THERE WOULD BE PLANS, IF THERE WAS A TIA
ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPLICATION, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED WITH THE
ORIGINAL CIRCULATION. THE CIRCULATION PACKAGE IS CONSISTENT TO THE REFEREES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTUAL CIRCULATION PROCESS. >> NOW, I RECEIVED A COPY OF
A REPORT THAT WAS COMMISSIONED BACK IN 2009 BY A COMPANY CALLED URBANICS,
AND IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A CORRIDOR STUDY LOOKING AT THE VIABILITY OF THE
COMMERCIAL MARKET IN THIS REGION. I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU
WERE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARTICULAR REPORT. >> THAT PARTICULAR ONE, NO,
I AM NOT, YOUR WORSHIP, NO. >> OKAY. WELL, THIS REPORT CERTAINLY
DOES SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASED COMMERCIAL, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY
YOU WEREN'T GIVEN A COPY OF THIS REPORT. I'M CERTAINLY MORE THAN
HAPPY TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU. URBANICS, HAVE YOU HEARD OF
THIS COMPANY BEFORE? >> JAUFD HAND, YOUR WORSHIP, NO.
>> URBANICS CONSULTANTS LIMITED. OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
-- OFFHAND. THIS IS ALL PREDICATED, AS WAS INDICATED BY ALDERMAN
STEVENSON, THAT THIS IS BASED ON THE CURRENT INFORMATION THAT'S BEFORE US
IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE NOT ONLY ON
THESE LAND BUT ADJACENT LANDS BASED ON CURRENTLY-APPROVED, BUT YOU
HAVE SEEN COPIES OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AT WIN SPORT, I WOULD ASSUME.
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT MAY SOMEHOW HAVE FURTHER NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS TO
THAT INTERCHANGE IN REGARDS TO ITS VIABILITY IN THE FUTURE?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I GUESS JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS CURRENT APPLICATIONS ON THE
COP LANDS AS WELL AS WE'RE DEFINITELY UNDERTAKING THE WESTVIEW ASP AT THE WEST END
OF THE CITY LIMITS. AS WELL AS SOME PRE-APPLICATIONS IN WORK IN
THE CALGARY WEST ASP AREA, THAT'S WHERE THE WEDDING CHAPEL IS.
UNTIL, I GUESS, COUNCIL DIRECTION IS GIVEN TO CHANGE OUR ASSUMPTIONS FOR WHAT
LAND USE WOULD OCCUR IN THOSE AREAS, I GUESS THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE
INCLUDED IN THE TIA IS THE BEST APPROVED THAT WE HAVE TO DATE.
>> SO MAKING ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IS PRESUPPOSING
AN OUTCOME, THEREFORE WE CAN'T REALLY CONSIDER IT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, EVEN IN MY
LIMITED TIME, I'VE SEEN SOME VERY INTERESTING ASPIRATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
THAT IF WE INCLUDED ALL THOSE PRIOR TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THOSE
DEVELOPMENTS,, I WOULD SUGGEST IT WOULD COMPLETELY SKEW OUR ANALYSIS.
>> OKAY. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO
SAY, BUT I WANTED TO HEAR IT RIGHT FROM YOU. AND I JUST WANTED TO GET
SOME CLARITY ON SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THE TABLE
ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY TRIANGLE, AND WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, IT WAS
WRITTEN UP AS THE HIERARCHY AND THE WORD "HIERARCHY" WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND MY UNDERSTANDING, AND OF COURSE I STAND TO BE CORRECTED, AND
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU, IS THAT THE SUSTAINABILITY TRIANGLE WAS LOOKING AT THE
CURRENT BUILT FORM AND WHERE OUR FOCUS WAS, PREDOMINANTLY BEING THE AUTOMOBILE AND THE
SUSTAINABILITY TRIANGLE WAS DEVELOPED PRIMARILY TO LOOK AT INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES
AS COMPARED TO STATUS QUO IN THE ORDER BY WAY IT'S LISTED ON THE TRIANGLE, NOT
ELIMINATING THE NEED TO PROVIDE THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR VEHICULAR
MOVEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, YEAH, I GUESS, IN ITS INITIAL NOTION,
THE SUSTAINABILITY TRIANGLE IN ITS FINAL FORM WAS INTENDED TO HIGHLIGHT THE
MOST SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. ITS APPLICATION THROUGHOUT
THE MDP AND SPT IS VERY MUCH CONTEXT SENSITIVE. THEY INTRODUCED A NUMBER OF
CONCEPTS SUCH AS ACTIVITY CENTRES AND CORRIDORS, NEW ROADWAY TYPES WHEREBY WITHIN
THOSE DISTRICTS, IT WAS EXPECTED THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY PROVIDE A HIGHER
QUALITY OF SERVICE FOR THOSE ALTERNATE MODES SUCH AS WALK, CYCLE, TRANSIT, AND
POTENTIALLY ALONG SOME OF THOSE CORRIDORS, NOT EVEN PROVIDE FOR THE AUTOMOBILE.
NOW, WE CAN'T -- >> VERY SELECT AREAS. >> IN VERY SELECT AREAS.
THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF ROADWAYS, SUCH AS OUR SKELETAL ROAD NETWORK, THAT
WILL CONTINUE TO BE DESIGNED FOR THE AUTOMOBILE. AS PER DIRECTION AND
POLICIES WITHIN THE CTP. >> THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT, I JUST WANTED
CLARIFICATION ON THAT. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN FARRELL WITH
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND THEN MY QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION.
>> THANK YOU. SO CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, MR. VANDER POOTEN, WHY BOTH
ACCESSES CAN'T STAY OPEN? WHAT RULES PREVENT THAT? ARE THEY OUR RULES OR OTHER
ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT RULES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE REFERRING TO
THE TWO ACCESSES FROM 83rd STREET? THE ONE PUBLIC AND THE ONE
EMERGENCY ACCESS? I WOULD SUGGEST IT'S MORE FROM AN OPERATIONAL
STANDPOINT, THE CLOSELY-SPACED INTERSECTIONS, AS WELL AS A DESIRE FOR, I
GUESS, SAFE AND WELL-MAINTAINED ROADS. THAT THE CURRENT ACCESS TO
GREENVIEW VILLAGE IS NOT THE MOST IDEAL FROM A GRADE STANDPOINT AND OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE AND A TRANSIT STANDPOINT. WE PREFER FOR THAT TRAFFIC
TO BE SERVED ON A MORE APPROPRIATE CITY STREET SUCH AS THE TWO NORTH-SOUTH
STREETS PROPOSED WITHIN GREENBRIAR STAGE TWO. >> OKAY.
SO MY QUESTION THEN I THINK IS TO MR. WATSON. MR. WATSON, WE DISCUSSED
THIS AT LENGTH IN PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY
MR. STURGESS, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR A MASTER PLAN. AND THERE WAS SOME HEALTHY
DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS THAT
RICH COMMUNITY FLAVOUR THAT WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF IN NEW DEVELOPMENT IN CALGARY.
SO HOW WOULD THAT WORK THEN? WOULD THAT NEED TO BE -- IT'S A MOTION ARISING WORK
THAT NEED TO BE A MOTION ARISING OF THE DECISION TODAY?
AND IS THIS THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE PLANNING WORK IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE
THAT RICH COMMUNITY THAT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SO DESPERATELY WANTS?
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I COULD, ALDERMAN FARRELL, THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING
SITE. I THINK THIS IS ABOUT THE THIRD TIME I'VE DEALT WITH
IT IN MY CAREER. BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, PLANNING COMMISSION DID TALK
ABOUT THE NEED TO LOOK AT IT MORE COMPREHENSIVELY, MUCH LIKE SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY SPOKE TO EARLIER. THE WAY IT WOULD WORK, THERE
WAS A MOTION ARISING OUT OF PLANNING COMMISSION. WE WOULD THEN MAKE SURE THAT
THAT WAS PUT ON THE FILE AND AT THE TIME WHEN THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CAME IN
ON THIS SITE, WE WOULD ASK THAT THAT MASTER PLAN BE DONE TO ANOTHER LEVEL OF
DETAIL AND SOMEWHAT IN THE LINES OF WHERE ALDERMAN CARRA WAS COMING IN TERMS OF
SEEING HOW THIS WOULD WORK, IN TERMS OF THE ASPIRATIONS THAT HAVE VERBALLY BEEN
MENTIONED. ANOTHER MOTION ARISING BY COUNCIL HERE COULD DO
EXACTLY THE SAME THING AND THAT WOULD AGAIN BE PUT ON THE FILE IN TERMS OF THE
POSSE SYSTEM SO THAT WHEN AN APPLICATION DOES COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON THIS
LAND, THAT IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY QUOTE A MASTER PLAN THAT LOOKS AT ALL THE PIECES AND
ANOTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL AS WE START SEEING AT THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL WHETHER
WE'RE GOING TO START ACHIEVING WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO IN THIS.
>> SO THAT MASTER PLAN WORK, AND I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
REDEVELOP PROPERTY WITHIN OUR CITY BOUNDARIES, THAT SHOULD BE LOOKING AT MASTER
PLANS, THAT WORK IS NOT PART OF THIS PROCESS TODAY, IT'S FUTURE PROCESS, BUT IT'S
JUST AS NECESSARY. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE ARE NOT RELUCTANT TO DO -- I USE
THE WORD MASTER PLAN, BUT I KNOW THAT'S A LOADED WORD AND PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT QUITE OFTEN, AND I KNOW IN SOME CASES WE USE
MASTER PLAN OR CONCEPT PLANS AND THEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER, SOMEONE BRINGS BACK A
PLAN THAT DOESN'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THE ORIGINAL LAND USE AND THERE'S ANOTHER
WHOLE SET OF PROCESSES THAT GET KICKED INTO PLAY SO WE'RE TODAY, THOUGH, TRYING
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, OVERALL, THE LAND USES WITH THE RANGES THAT ARE
ESTABLISHED IN THE ARP AND WITHIN THE LAND USE ITSELF ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS
PIECE OF LAND. AND IF NOT THIS, THEN WHAT? AGAIN, COUNCIL KNOWS IF WE
SAY NOTHING'S APPROPRIATE, THEN I GUESS WE BETTER BE TALKING TO MR. STEVENS ABOUT
BUYING THIS LAND OR WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT ACTUALLY WILL FIT ON THIS LAND.
I THINK, IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THERE ARE SOME ASPECTS HERE THAT, IN FACT,
COULD MOVE US TOWARDS WHERE WE HAVE TO GO IN TERMS OF INTENSEIFICATION AND SOME --
IF PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVING HERE, THEY'RE LIVING SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND ARE MOST
LIKELY LIVING ON THE EDGES. AND THAT IS NOT WHERE WE SUGGEST PLAN IT OUGHT TO BE
GOING, AND IF WE CANNOT IN-FILL PIECES LIKE THIS, FRANKLY, COUNCIL, WE WILL
OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS WATCH US GROW ON THE EDGE AS OPPOSED TO --
>> WHICH WE HAVE BEEN DOING AT GREAT COST. AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW THAT
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO A MORE AGGRESSIVE PLAN IT, SIMILAR TO WHERE WE STARTED
OUT, BUT THANKS FOR THOSE ANSWERS. THANK YOU.
>> NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY, REALLY BIG NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY.
YOU ASKED WHAT THE USE OF THAT LAND COULD BE. MR. VANDER POOTEN, I THINK
YOU'VE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION ALREADY, BUT I WANT TO PUT IT TO YOU QUITE
PLAINLY. A NUMBER OF FOLKS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE CITY HAVE
SUGGESTED TO ME THAT THE BEAUFORT ROAD INTERCHANGE AS CURRENTLY PLANNED IS
INACCURATE EVEN FOR WHAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
THE WORD I'VE HEARD USED ARE IT WILL BE A FAILURE ON THE FIRST DAY.
IS THIS AN UNFAIR ASSESSMENT, DO YOU THINK? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THAT IS UNFAIR. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE BY THE CITY AND
ITS CONSULTANTS TO DESIGN THE MOST APPROPRIATE PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THIS
LOCATION. TO SERVE THE DESIRED INTENSITIES IN ITS
SURROUNDINGS. THE AREA CURRENTLY OPERATES WITH A SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SAFETY ISSUES IN THE PAST.
THERE ARE SOME PEAK CAPACITY ISSUES. DAY ONE, I DON'T BELIEVE
THERE TO BE ANY ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE. YOUR WORSHIP, PER MY
PREVIOUS COMMENTS, THERE WILL NEED TO BE AN ULTIMATE DESIGN.
THE INITIAL DESIGN AS MENTIONED IS ONLY SIX LANES CROSSING THE TCH AND AT SOME
POINT IN THE FUTURE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TIMING AND FUNDING OF THE WIDENING OF
THE STRUCTURE. >> AND FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, GIVEN THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IS
BEING PROPOSED BUT IS NOT APPROVED FOR THE LANDS SOUTH OF THE HIGHWAY, WOULD THE
ULTIMATE STRUCTURE SERVE IF COUNCIL, I'M VERY HYPOTHETICAL HERE, IF
COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR SOUTH OF THE HIGHWAY, WOULD
THE ULTIMATE STRUCTURE SERVE OR WOULD IT STILL BE INADEQUATE, DO YOU THINK?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HEARD RAISED TODAY THAT HAS BEEN ECHOED
BY THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IS THAT SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS.
YOU KNOW, SINGLE POINTS OF ACCESS HAVE INHERENT AMOUNT OF RISK TO THEM WHEN THERE
ARE CAPACITY ISSUES THAT RAISE THEMSELVES OR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.
AS WE'VE CONDITIONED WITH GREENBRIAR, WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE
CONNECTIONS ACROSS STONY AND THE TRANSCANADA. AND WE'VE MADE THOSE SAME
COMMENTS TO WIN SPORT TO THE SOUTH. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT WITH ANY INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, EVEN FURTHER THAN WHAT
EXISTS TODAY, ONE VEHICULAR OR ALL MODE ACCESS IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION?
ALL RIGHT THEN. ALDERMAN HODGES. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'LL FIRST REFER TO A BIT OF THE HISTORY OF THE SITE BRIEFLY WHICH IS A PART OF
THE LAND USE APPLICATION. LOC 2010-00 06 ON PAGE 3 TSHG GIVES AWE HISTORY OF
THE SITE AND AS MR. WATSON SAID MINUTES AGO, HE'S SEEN THREE APPLICATIONS ON THIS
SITE, THE THIRD IN HIS CAREER. I AGREE.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE EVEN EARLIER THAN ANY OF US REMEMBER, BUT IN THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT WAS IN JULY 1995 WHEN THE GIMLIBLE HEALTH PARK DEVELOPMENT WAS
PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE. -- GIMBLE. WHICH DID NOT PROCEED
BECAUSE I BELIEVE OF FEDERAL POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH CARE FUNDING SO THAT
WAS AN APPROVED PLAN THAT COVERED ALMOST ALL OF THE SITE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED. THE CURRENT APPLICATION HAS
BEEN IN THE MILL FOR SOME TIME AND FOR VARIOUS REASONS, AND I'M NOT BLAMING ANYBODY
OR SINGLING OUT ANY ONE GROUP IN PARTICULAR, A SUFFICIENT DIALOGUE TO ME, A
CLEAR SIT-DOWN DISCUSSION OR DISCUSSIONS HAVE NOT OCCURRED.
YES, THERE'S BEEN AN EXCHANGE OF E-MAILS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
AND THE APPLICANT, AND BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION GROUP AND THE
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER
THAT EVERYONE WHO SPOKE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ARE
ALL VOLUNTEERS. THEY'RE NOT PAID LOBBYISTS, THEY'RE NOT PAID TO PRESENT
DETAILED COMMISSION -- SUBMISSIONS AT PUBLIC HEARINGS OF COUNCIL, THEY DO
THE BEST THEY CAN WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'VE GOT.
AND I THINK THEY'VE MADE A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO PRESENT THEIR POSITION, EVEN
THOUGH NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH IT, AND PARTICULARLY NOT THE APPLICANT.
PERHAPS THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NOT A GREAT DEAL OF ENTHUSIASM FOR A MEETING
TO THIS POINT IN TIME WAS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN, WHICH IS APPENDIX 5 ON THE
LAND USE APPLICATION, THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN BY THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARTICULATING SIX ISSUES THAT ARE OUTLINED ON FEBRUARY
12th, 2010. THE RESPONSE TO THAT IS IN A LETTER, APPENDIX 6, FROM
BROWN AND ASSOCIATES, WHICH REFUTES ALL BUT ONE OF THE COMMENTS BEING MADE BY THE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. SO, IN EFFECT, THERE HAS, UP TO THIS POINT, BEEN
AGREEMENT TO DISAGREE. BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS AN AREA OF AGREEMENT AND CAN BE
AN AREA OF AGREEMENT ON THIS PROPOSED LAND USE AND ON THESE TWO THINGS, THE
PROPOSED ARP AMENDMENT AND THE LAND USE APPLICATION AND FOR THOSE REASONS, AND I'VE
WRITTEN THIS OUT BUT IT'S NOT TYPED, MADAM CLERK, AND THIS IS MY MOTION, THAT BOTH
BYLAWS 12P-2011 AND 13D-2007 BE REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
PURPOSES OF CONVENING -- 2011 -- A THOROUGH DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE THREE PARTIES,
THAT IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE LAND OWNER AND THE REPRESENTATIVE --
AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE BCA, WITH A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO
COUNCIL NOT LATER THAN THE JUNE 13th, 2011, COMBINED MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK THAT IS A POINT IN TIME AT WHICH WE'LL KNOW IF THE PARTIES AGREE ON ANY
POINTS, AND I THINK THERE CAN BE AN AGREEMENT ON SOME. AND IT WILL BE BACK BEFORE
COUNCIL AS A REPORT, NOT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, BUT AS A REPORT FOR COUNCIL
TO ADJUDICATE. BUT TODAY, YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A BIG
RUSH TO PROCEED. I DON'T SEE ANY EARTH-MOVING EQUIPMENT OUT ON THE SITE.
WE KNOW THAT NOTHING MUCH IS GOING TO PROCEED IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INTERCHANGE IS UNDER WAY AND, YES, I'M SURE THE LAND OWNER
WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH SOME ENGINEERING WORK BUT THERE'S THE ELEPHANT IN THE
ROOM THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER -- ANY ANSWERS FOR TODAY, AND THE INFORMATION
I'VE HEARD TODAY FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IS
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'VE HEARD AND DISCUSSED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE FOR CANADA OLYMPIC PARK AND WIN SPORT.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU'LL SEE THE DISCUSSION MOVING FROM A SIX-LANE OVERPASS OVER
TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY TO AN EIGHT-LANE OVERPASS OVER TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY AT
BEAUFORT ROAD AND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW OF THE WIN SPORT
APPLICATION WHICH I UNDERSTAND WILL BE AT COUNCIL AT THE JULY PUBLIC
HEARING. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH THE WIN SPORT
APPLICATION, EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE HEARD TODAY THAT THERE MAY NOT BE, I BELIEVE
THERE ARE. AND HOPEFULLY IN THE INTERIM, THEY WILL GET THOSE SORTED
OUT BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 4th OR 5th, WHENEVER OUR JULY PUBLIC
HEARING IS. DIG MY LITTLE CALENDAR OUT HERE.
JULY 4th. COMBINED MEETING OF COUNCIL, THAT'S WHEN YOU'LL SEE, AS
FAR AS I KNOW, THE WIN SPORT APPLICATION. SO YOUR WSHIP, I DO THINK
WE HAVE TIME TO BE HAVING A SECOND LOOK AT THIS. I THINK IT WOULD BE
WORTHWHILE. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL PLANS APPROVED FOR THIS SITE
THAT HAVE NEVER PROCEEDED. I THINK PERHAPS THIS ONE HAS THE MORE LIKELIHOOD OF
PROCEEDING. IT'S NOT A SINGLE-USE APPLICATION THAT THE GIMBLE
HEALTH PARK WAS AND I ASK COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
>> I PERSONALLY AM FEELING THE EARTH MOVE WITH ALL THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM HERE
MYSELF, BUT DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT REFERRAL MOTION?
THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ON THE REFERRAL MOTION THEN, ALDERMAN LOWE.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, PLEASE RESHMI, CAN I DEBATE REFERRAL OR ONLY AS TO TIME?
>> YOU CAN DEBATE THE REFERRAL. >> I CAN DEBATE THE
REFERRAL. WELL, YOUR WORSHIP, IF IT WERE A REFERRAL FOR TWO
WEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT ALDERMAN HODGES IS SUGGESTING, I'D BE PREPARED
TO ENTERTAIN IT. BUT FOR THIS LONG, I'M NOT. AND I'D BE FAR HAPPIER IF
THE MOTION WAS TO GRANT FIRST READING. THEN REFER IT FOR TWO WEEKS
FOR THE DISCUSSION TO TAKE PLACE WHICH WOULD ENABLE ANY KIND OF AMENDMENTS TO BE
MADE AT SECOND READING. NOW, IF REFERRALS ARE NOT AMENDABLE, IF I RECALL
CORRECTLY... >> ONLY AS TO TIME, SIR. ONLY AS TO TIME.
>> ONLY AS TO TIME. SO YOUR WORSHIP, I WILL AMEND THE DATE TO NEXT
COUNCIL MEETING WHICH IS THE 18th DAY OF APRIL. >> THAT'S ONLY A WEEK FROM
NOW. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> OKAY, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
BECAUSE YOU SAID TWO WEEKS EARLIER. >> I KNOW, I APOLOGIZE, IT'S
ONE WEEK FROM NOW. WHAT THAT DOES, YOUR WORSHIP, IS ALLOWS OR, IF YOU WILL,
IT'S GOING TO PUT THE TWO GROUPS INTO A ROOM, I RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE
VOLUNTEERS, BUT I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT THE CITY FOLKS DO WORK EVENINGS AND AS I THINK
SOMEBODY POINTED OUT HERE SUNDAY MORNINGS AND SUNDAY AFTERNOONS AND SATURDAYS,
THEY WILL DO WHATEVER'S NECESSARY TO TRY TO GET THE TWO GROUPS TOGETHER.
THIS ITEM AS ALDERMAN FARRELL POINTED OUT QUITE CORRECTLY WAS SUBJECT TO A
VERY LONG DISCUSSION AT PLANNING COMMISSION, A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG DISCUSSION
AT PLANNING COMMISSION. THE ISSUES OF THE ACCESS TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK, THE
ISSUES OF FUTURE ACCESS TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK, THE ISSUES OF EMERGENCY ACCESS,
THE ISSUES OF THE ACCESS OFF OF 83rd STREET, WHATEVER IT IS, WERE ALL DISCUSSED.
THE INTERNAL FLOW OF ROOM, I BELIEVE THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OUT OF THAT WAS
MR. STURGESS'S MOTION ARISING ASKING FOR THE OVERALL VISION FOR THE AREA
TO BE DEVELOPED WITH THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO IT WAS GIVEN AN
EXTREMELY-THOROUGH HEARING AT PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THIS IS THE
RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU GO THROUGH IT, YOU'LL FIND NOT ONLY IT WAS PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY TO THAT PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THERE WERE A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS AND
MOTIONS ARISING CAME OUT OF IT WHICH AGAIN, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, AND IT'S IN THE
REPORT, WERE SUPPORTED BY ALL MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THIS WAS BEATEN TO DEATH, SIR. AND I THINK ONE WEEK SHOULD
BE SUFFICIENT TIME TO AIR THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICANT
AND THEN BRING IT BACK HERE AND UNREGRETTABLY, WE WILL START OUT AT FIRST READING.
IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE AT SECOND READING, IT WILLING -- IT WILL GIVE
ALDERMAN HODGES OR WHATEVER AN OPPORTUNITY THEN. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE REFERRAL MOTION SECONDED BY ALDERMAN STEVENSON TO CHANGE
THE DATE -- WE DON'T HAVE IT UP ON THE SCREEN YET -- TO CHANGE THE DATE -- THERE WE
GO -- FROM JUNE 13th TO APRIL 18th. ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN
CARRA. >> I'VE GOT A VARIETY OF THINGS TO SAY.
FIRST OFF, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN LOWE, FOR YOUR SYNOPSIS OF WHAT WAS
DISCUSSED AT CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION. I THINK THAT THAT'S THE KIND
OF SYNOPSIS THAT WE SHOULD GET FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT TAKES FIVE MINUTES, GIVES A LAY-OUT. I WAS VERY CONCERNED WITH
OUR REPORT. THERE WAS A VERY PERFUNCTORY TREATMENT GIVEN TO OTHER
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE.
AND THERE WAS A VERY PERFUNCTORY TREATMENT GIVEN TO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE CALIBRE, WHAT THE ISSUES WERE, AND THAT'S PROBLEMATIC, AND I
THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE OUR CPC REPORTS BETTER. AS I EXPLAINED TO THE
APPLICANT WHEN THEY PAID ME THE COURTESY OF VISITING ME IN MY OFFICE TO DISCUSS THIS
ISSUE, I HAVE MASSIVE CONCERNS THAT IT SEEMS I SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY
REGARDING THE ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT NATURE OF THE PLAN.
I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC. I ALSO, AS I EXPLAINED TO
THE APPLICANT, HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE LACK OF INTEGRATION BETWEEN THE MEL
CORE PART OF THE PLAN, THE MOBILE HOME PARK, AND THE PARCEL TO THE WEST, I FORGET
THE NAME THAT WE'RE -- >> ( INAUDIBLE ) >> NO, TO THE WEST.
THE PARK SIDE PORTION OF THE PLAN. I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THIS ENTIRE THING COMPRISES A NEIGHBOURHOOD UNIT AND WHETHER AND HOW IT HANGS
TOGETHER AS A NEIGHBOURHOOD UNIT, HOW IT ALL WORKS, IS THE QUESTION.
AND SLAPPING A COUPLE OF LAND USE PARCELS WITH A SKELETAL ROAD NETWORK THAT'S
VERY, VERY QUESTIONABLE AS TO WHETHER WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT'S
QUALITATIVELY THE INTENT OF PLANNING, THERE IS ALSO, AS WE DISCUSSED TODAY, HUGE
QUESTION MARKS REGARDING THE LACK OF COORDINATION BETWEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING THE WAY AT
COP, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EIGHT-LANE INTERCHANGE HOPING THAT'S GOING TO DO
IT. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A MODAL -- OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A MODAL
PRIORITIZEATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE HERE THAT, FOR ALL THE MIXED-USE HIGH
DENSITY IS NOT GETTING DOWN TO THE CORE ISSUE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN
PLAN IT. MY FEELING, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY LIKE THIS, WE
BETTER TALK ABOUT TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO THIS AND, AGAIN,
VERY PERFUNCTORY TREATMENT. AS I EXPLAINED TO THE APPLICANT, THOUGH, WHEN THEY
PAID ME THE COURTESY OF COMING TO SEE ME, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL
WITH THIS PLAN BUT THERE'S HUGE QUESTION MARKS. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
EITHER/OR QUESTION THAT WE'VE BEEN BATTING AROUND HERE AS TO WHETHER THE
COMMUNITY IS RIGHT OR WHETHER THE DEVELOPER'S RIGHT AND THAT'S OUR PLACE
TO DECIDE, I THINK WE'VE SORT OF BEEN -- WE'RE IN A HORRIBLE TRAP IN TERMS OF
QUANTITYIFICATION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY, WE'RE NIT-PICKING DENSITY
NUMBERS AND WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND IT COULD BE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT ACHIEVES THE QUALITATIVE, YOU KNOW,
PROMOTION OF THE LIFESTYLE THAT WE'RE TRYING AND THE OPTIONS WE'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE THROUGH PLAN IT OR IT COULD BE JUST MORE OF THE SAYING WITH POTENTIALLY A
COUPLE OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TO MAKE IT LOOK PRETTIER.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK THE MASTER PLAN ISSUE IS THE CORE PRINCIPLE, IS THE CORE
ISSUE, AND WHETHER IT IS ABLE TO BE -- WHETHER WE'RE ABLE TO ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE OR NOT COMES 100% DOWN TO THE MASTER PLAN.
YOU HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THEY'RE SAYING, BOWNESS IS A VILLAGE.
WE WANT THAT VILLAGE CHARACTER, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE VERY HIGH
DENSITY, VIBRANT VILLAGE OR YOU CAN HAVE -- THE THING THEY'RE HANGING THEIR HAT ON
IS THE QUALITY AND THE REALITY IS, AS A FORMER PROFESSIONAL IN THE FIELD, I
HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE QUALITY OF THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S WHY
I THINK THE MASTER PLAN IS ESSENTIAL. SO I'M MORE INCLINED TO
SUPPORT DALE'S MOTION. I SECONDED IT, OF COURSE, BUT I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO
HAVE IS A MASTER PLAN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS IS ALL GOING TO WORK.
RATHER THAN A COUPLE OF BIG BLOBS ON THE LANDSCAPE. IN MY EXPERIENCE, IF YOU
WANT TO ACHIEVE THE VIBRANT, URBAN VILLAGES, THE ACTIVITY CENTRES, THE MIX-USE,
EXCITING PLACE, YOU DESIGN THEM, AND THEN YOU BACK THEM OUT INTO THE BLOBS FOR LAND
USE AND OTHER THINGS. TO TRY AND GET IT RIGHT AT THE LAND USE, THE BLOB STAGE,
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GET IT DOWN TO THE RIGHT DESIGN, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF YOU HAVE
TO MOVE A ROAD, WHAT IF YOU HAVE -- GET THE DESIGN RIGHT, THEN BACK IT OUT.
SO I'D BE VERY -- I NEED TO SEE A MASTER PLAN BEFORE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
AND SO I WILL BE NOT SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE REFERRAL.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP, THANK YOU. YOUR WORSHIP, IF THE
AMENDMENTS HAD BEEN FOR TWO WEEKS OR LONGER, I.E. FOUR WEEKS, I COULD HAVE POSSIBLY
SUPPORTED IT. EFFECTIVELY, ALDERMAN LOWE AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL,
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT FOUR DAYS. I DON'T THINK THE NEXT FOUR
DAYS IS EXACTLY REASONABLE. PEOPLE DO HAVE THINGS, OTHER THINGS IN THEIR LIVES, EVEN
OCCASIONALLY SOMETIMES MEMBERS OF COUNCIL DO. (Laughing)
THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW, TOO. >> I MUST TRACK THEM DOWN.
>> THERE IS NO MEETING AFTER THE 18th ON OUR SCHEDULE UNTIL MAY 9th SO MAY 19th IS
THE COMBINED MEETING AND IF ALDERMAN LOWE HAD SAID MAY 9th, I'D BE INCLINED TO
SUPPORT IT. HE DIDN'T SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT,
YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN
MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I TOO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE WEAK. -- WEEK.
I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE, AND I ALSO AM CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE -- COMMISSION, AND
I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN REMISS IN NOT MAKING THEMSELVES AVAILABLE
FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION. HOWEVER, I THINK WE SOMEHOW NEED TO MAKE THIS BETTER,
MAYBE NOT RIGHT IN THE FULL SENSE, BUT WE CAN DO BETTER. AND SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT
ONE WEEK, BUT I DO SUPPORT -- I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS GO ON ANY LONGER THAN IT
ABSOLUTELY IS NECESSARY. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU.
WELL, I THINK THE REQUEST TO MAY 9th IS A REASONABLE ONE. I DON'T WANT TO DELAY IT AS
PER ALDERMAN HODGES' REQUEST, BUT I THINK MAY 9th GIVES EVERYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO
LOCK AT THEIR CALENDARS, SO I WILL AMEND THE AMENDMENT, UNLESS THE MOVER OF THE
AMENDMENT WANTS TO CHANGE IT. I GUESS IT'S ALREADY ON THE
FLOOR. I'LL AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO MAY 9th, IF SOMEBODY WOULD
SECOND IT. >> THANKS. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART,
ALL RIGHT, ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, ANYONE? ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I GUESS THIS IS JUST A QUESTION, AND I'M PUTTING
THIS TO ALDERMAN FARRELL, THEN TO ALDERMAN LOWE, THEN TO ALDERMAN HODGES.
WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO GET OUT OF THE CONSUMPTION? ( PLEASE STAND BY )
>> BEING THAT WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION, HOW DOES THIS PLAY INTO ALL OF THIS
NOW. ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS. >> I WAS GOING TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION BEFORE WE VOTED. MAY AS WELL ANSWER IT NOW. >> YOUR WORSHIP, AS ALWAYS
WHEN ITEMS ARE REFERRED BACK FOR FURTHER CONFRONTATION THERE IS A RISK THAT A NEW
ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE REQUIRED. REALLY DEPENDS WHAT
INFORMATION COMES UP. THERE MAY BE NOTHING NEW THAT ARISES, IN WHICH CASE COUNCIL
CAN SIMPLY PROCEED. IF THERE IS NEW INFORMATION THAT ARISES AS WE HAVE SEEN IN
THE PAST YEAR ON OTHER APPLICATIONS IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO READVERTISE AND
HAVE A NEW PUBLIC HEARING. NOT JUST THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE MEET CONSULTATION BUT
THE GENERAL PUBLIC ARE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THOSE ISSUES. BECAUSE THERE COULD BE ISSUES
THAT ARISE THAT PEOPLE WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT THEY MAY WISH TO COME FORWARD AND ADDRESS THAT
OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE CONCERNED THEM. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT,
Ms. SLOAN. THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD.
I KIND OF THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER DELAY THE PROJECTS BEYOND THE
DATE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE SHOULD SOMETHING NEWCOMBE OUT OF THAT, WHICH POTENTIALLY
COULD FURTHER DELAY THIS PROJECT TO I GUESS PROBABLY ANOTHER 45 DAYS BY THE TIME IT
CAN ACTUALLY MAKE IT BACK TO COUNCIL, AFTER THIS DATE. ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE
INTENT I THINK THE ORIGINAL DATE OF APRIL THE 18th HAS BEEN AMENDED TO MAY SOMETHING
OR ANOTHER WOULD HAVE AT LEAST PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR IT TO COME BACK WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME FRAME, EVEN IF SOMETHING NEW AROSE OUT OF IT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT
THE MAY 9th DATE. I MIGHT POSSIBLY SUPPORT THE 11th, APRIL 18th DATE BECAUSE
AT LEAST THEN THAT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH THIS IN A RELATIVELY TIMELY FASHION
BUT I WILL HAVE TO DO SOME CALCULATIONS HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT I WILL SUPPORT
THAT AMENDMENT AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE ON THE
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? ALDERMAN LOWE. >> YOUR WORSHIP I HAVE NO
DIFFICULTY WITH MAY THE 9th. I STARTED OUT THIS CONVERSATION WITH SAYING TWO
WEEKS UNTIL THE NEXT ONE WHEN YOU POINTED OUT QUITE CORRECTLY THE NEXT COUNCIL
MEETING IS ACTUALLY A WEEK AWAY. THE END RESULT IS THE SAME.
WE PROVIDE PARTIES WITH AN OPPORTUNITY AND AS Ms. SLOAN POINTS OUT IF SOMETHING
DRASTICALLY NEW ARISES THEN WE ARE -- OUR DUTY IS VERY CLEAR.
ALDERMAN, >> OKAY. WE ARE BACK.
AND WE HAVE A MICROPHONE ON. ITEM 7.2. VOTE CLOSURE AND LAND USE
REDESIGNATION. >> I WAS JUST STARTING TO GET INTO IT.
FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH THE BIG CHAIR. >> YOUR WELCOME TO STAY.
ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR WORSHIP.
THIS ITEM IS FOR A ROAD CLOSURE AND LAND USE REDESIGNATION LOCATED IN THE
COMMUNITY OF CRESCENT HEIGHTS, CONTAINING 0.24 ACRES OF LAND ADJACENT TO 102 CRESCENT ROAD
NORTHWEST AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AS THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED. THE INTENT OF THE APPLICATION
IS TO CLOSE A PORTION OF THE UNDEVELOPED ROADWAY INDICATED AND REDESIGNATE IT TO RC 1
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING DISTRICT. CORPORATE PROPERTIES IS CURRENTLY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OF 102 CRESCENT ROAD NORTHWEST FOR A LAND EXCHANGE AND SALE
WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THE EXCHANGE OF A NARROW STRIP ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARCEL
RUNNING NORTH/SOUTH REQUIRED BY THE CITY FOR THE BYLAW SET BACK REQUIREMENTS OF CENTER
STREET NORTH AND IN RETURN A PORTION OF THE CLOSURE AREA ALONG WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE
REMAINDER WOULD OCCUR. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LARGE YELLOW AREAS, THE AREA
INDICATED TO BE CLOSED, THE EXCHANGE PORTION IS THE AREA INDICATED THERE, AREA C.
GIVING UP A AND B AND GETTING C, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> WE ARE GETTING --
DESIGNATING AREA B AND WE ARE GETTING AREA C AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A ROAD
WIDENING. >> OKAY. >> YOU CAN SEE THE AREA JUST
IN THE ORANGE THAT IS THE AREA OF THE PORTION OF THE ROAD THAT IS ENCLOSED AND THERE IS
MORE DETAIL BUT YOU CAN SEE IT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AT
102 CRESCENT ROAD. THAT'S THE ACTUAL AREA OF THE CLOSURE IN BLACK.
NOW THAT'S THE HOUSE WHICH WOULD BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE LAND.
THE LANDS ARE JUST OFF THE SCREEN. WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH
OF THE SOUTH PORTION AND THAT'S THE ACTUAL AREA FORCLOSURE AS INDICATED ON THE
PHOTOGRAPH -- FOR CLOSURE. THERE IS A PATHWAY STAIRS THAT GOES DOWN CONNECTS ON TO THE
PATHWAY, THAT IS ABUTTING THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED CLOSURE AND
REDESIGNATED ROADWAY WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE LANDS AT 102 CRESCENT
ROAD NORTHWEST OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABUTMENT AND PARCELS AS
SUCH. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ADOPTION AS WELL
AS THE REDESIGNATION FROM UNDESIGNATED ROAD TO RC 1 DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE RECOMMENDATION AND ALSO TO GIVE THREE READINGS TO BYLAW 2 C 2011 AND 16 D 2011.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION TO ADMINISTRATION?
ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. Mr. ORR, FROM LOOKING AT THE
MAP THAT I HAVE HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS FOUR PROPERTIES THAT WOULD FORM PART OF WHAT
MIGHT ULTIMATELY BE THE ULTIMATE ROAD WIDENING REQUIREMENTS.
HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO 102? >> IN THIS INSTANCE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE
THAT THE CLOSED PORTION THAT'S BEING SURRENDERED IN THIS CASE, THAT IS THE WHOLE PARAMETERS
OF THE PARCEL AT 102. >> IF I LOOKED A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE NORTH LOOKS
LIKE THERE IS STILL ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT WE MAY HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THOSE SAME SORT OF?
>> YES. THAT OF COURSE IS INDEPENDENT OF THIS APPLICATION.
>> AND ANYTHING IN THE WORKS ON THAT? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
I'M UNAWARE OF ANYTHING GOING ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. >> WHAT'S THE URGENCY OF
MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS RIGHT NOW? >> THE APPLICATION FOR THE
CLOSURE INITIATED BY THE OWNER OF 102, AND THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO OBTAIN
THE FUTURE SETBACK AT THIS TIME. AS THE LAND IS CONSIDERED TO
BE SURPLUS AND NOT REQUIRED BY PARKS, IT IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GET AN EXCHANGE
AT THIS TIME, SO WE HAVE SOME SECUREMENT OF THE PROPERTY. >> SO IT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY-BASIS TYPE OF ENDEAVOUR THAT WE ARE UNDERTAKING.
SO THEY ARE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? >> YES.
>> AND I BELIEVE Mr. WALLACE IS ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
>> OKAY. IT SAYS RELOCATION OF ANY UTILITIES BE IT THE
APPLICANT'S EXPENSE. IS THAT THE LANDOWNER OR TRONS SURVEYS?
>> THAT WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDOWNER. >> THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS YOUR WORSHIP. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN HODGES ON CLARIFICATION?
>> YES. THANKS YOUR WORSHIP. I THINK THE OBVIOUS QUESTION
IS WHAT WAS THE RATIONAL FOR PARKING THE RC 1 DESIGNATION? >> THE RC 1 DES I GOATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE AT THE DWELLING OF 102.
>> OBVIOUSLY. SOMEONE PLAN TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE.
>> IT'S FOR HIS YARD. >> I'M PLAYING OUT HERE. >> GOT YOU.
>> THERE IS A CONDITION ON THE SALE AND AGREEMENT THAT THE PARCEL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH
THE EXISTING TITLE SO THAT IF ANY CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BY SEPARATE
DIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE
INTENT IN THIS INSTANCE. >> DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH? I THINK YOU HAD ONE UP A
MINUTE AGO. JUST SEE IT FOR A SECOND. >> OF THE HOUSE.
>> YOU SHOWED THE PARCEL ITSELF. THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THIS
APPLICATION. AND WHAT'S BELOW THE PARCEL WHERE IT SHOWS ALL THE
LANDSCAPING AND TREES AND SHRUBBERY IS THE ESCARPMENT, CORRECT?
>> YES. THERE IS QUITE A STEEP GRADE CHANGE JUST OFF THE PROPERTY
TO THE SOUTH. >> SO THE IDEA IS SOLELY CONSOLIDATION?
>> YES. THAT IS WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING
CONDITIONED AS THE TERM OF APPROVAL ON THE REDESIGNATION. >> JUST AN RC-1 PARCEL.
>> WHILE WE ARE ON THAT TOPIC, A QUICK QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION.
I HAPPENED TO BE ON AS IS MY HABIT I LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THESE THINGS AND I HAPPENED TO
BE ON THIS PIECE OF LAND YESTERDAY, AND I NOTICED THERE WAS A SIGN THAT SAID OFF LEASH
DOG PARK, ALTHOUGH APPARENTLY IT'S JUST A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT PART
OF A DOG PARK OR OFF LEASH AREA. IT IS A ROAD --
>> LOOKED LIKE A REAL CITY SIGN THOUGH. >> RESPECTFULLY YOUR WORSHIP,
I WAS OUT THERE TOO, I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN
INTERESTING SIGHT TO HAVE SEEN IT. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WHEN I
WAS OUT ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT INTENDED FOR AN OFF LEASH AREA.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR
OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
>> YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CAMERON WALLACE AND
I REPRESENT JIM SHAW WHO IS THE PURCHASER OF THE CITY'S ROAD ALLOWANCE.
THE ROAD ALLOWANCE AREA WILL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH Mr. SHAW'S SINGLE FAMILY
PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE ROAD ALLOWANCE AREA. THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED USES
FOR THE ROAD ALLOWANCE. NUMBER ONE IS THE COMMUNITY PARK IN THE FRONT AREA NEXT TO
CRESCENT ROAD. AND NUMBER TWO IS THE BACK AREA TO BE RETAINED BY
Mr. SHAW AS AN EXPANDED SIDE YARD THAT WILL BE ENHANCED BY LANDSCAPING.
THERE WILL NEVER EVER BE ANOTHER HABITABLE BUILDING ON THIS ROAD ALLOWANCE AREA
BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF SLOPE. I MET WITH THE CRESCENT
HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ON NOVEMBER THE 16th, 2010, AND ON JANUARY THE 18th, 2011, I PERSONALLY
DELIVERED LETTERS TO 19 NEIGHBOURS TO ADVISE THEM OF THIS PROPOSAL.
Mr. SHAW HAS PRESENTED THREE LANDSCAPE OPTIONS TO THE CRESCENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY IN
ORDER TO SOLICIT THEIR RESPONSES FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBOURS ON HOW THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE VACANT AREA LANDSCAPED, AND ALL THIS IS AT NO COST TO THE CITY, TO
THE NEIGHBOURS, OR THE COMMUNITY. THE TWO CITY APPLICATIONS WERE
APPROVED UNANIMOUS NEWSLY BY CALGARY COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 9, 2010.
ON FEBRUARY THE 7th THESE TWO APPLICATIONS ARE TABLED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION. CRESCENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY MET ON MARCH 15th, 2015 --
I'M SORRY MARCH 15th, 2011 AND RECONFIRMED THEIR SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THIS LAST MEETING ON MARCH THE 15th, 2011 BECAUSE I WAS AWAY ON
VACATION. MY REQUEST IS FOR CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE BOTH APPLICATIONS
FOR THE ROAD CLOSURE AND THE LAND USE RECLASSIFICATION TO RESIDENTIAL BASED UPON FOUR
BENEFITS. NUMBER ONE, THE CITY RECEIVES FUNDS FOR THE UNUSEABLE ROAD
ALLOWANCE. NUMBER TWO, THE CRESCENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY RECEIVES
LANDSCAPED COMMUNITY PARK ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE. NUMBER THREE IS Mr. SHAW IS
ABLE TO EXPAND HIS TIGHT SIDE YARD AND CREATE A BACKYARD WITH ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.
AND NUMBER FOUR, MY CLIENT IS WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE TO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING OF THE
McQUEUE BLUFF SLOPES BY INSTALLING SOME NATURAL VEGETATION TO IMPROVE ITS
APPEARANCE. THE EXISTING McQUEUE BLUFF AREA IS OUTSIDE BUT ADJACENT
TO THE SOUTHBOUNDRY OF THIS ROAD ALLOWANCE. ALL OF THESE BENEFITS HAVE NO
COST TO THE CITY, NEIGHBOURS OR COMMUNITY. NOW Mr. WARD DID PRESENT SOME
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AREA, AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A QUESTION ON THE OFF LEASH DOG AREA, AND I
DO HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH WITH A SIGN THAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU MENTIONED, YOUR WORSHIP.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE OFF LEASH DOG AREA IS IT'S SHOWN GOING DOWN THE STEPS, I
BELIEVE THERE IS 31 STEPS THERE, GOING DOWN TO THE LINEAR PATHWAY THAT EXTENDS
FROM CENTER STREET STRAIGHT ACROSS THE McCUE BLUFF AREA. >> I SEE.
REFERRING TO SOMETHING DOWN THE HILL. THERE SHOULD BE AN ARROW ON IT
THEN, DARN IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
I'M NOT CRAZY. THERE REALLY IS SUCH A SIGN. OKAY.
I STILL MAY BE CRAZY BUT NOT ABOUT THE SIGN. >> IN CONCLUSION, YOUR WORSHIP
AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, WHEN THE WIND CHANGES DIRECTION, SOME PEOPLE BUILD WALLS AND
OTHER PEOPLE BUILD WINDMILLS AND MY HOPE IS THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE A WINDMILL FOR
THE CRESCENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
MAKING A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL, AND I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANKS, Mr. WALLACE. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES, THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP.
NO DOUBT YOU SEEN THE LETTER, E-MAIL REALLY THAT WAS SENT IN BY Ms. JONES FROM THEIR
PLANNING COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO A CAVEAT. TO ENSURE IT WILL REMAIN GREEN
SPACE. DOES YOUR CLIENT INTEND TO DO THAT?
>> MY CLIENT IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WOULD PREVENT ANY
HABITABLE BUILDING FROM EVER BEING BUILT THERE. THE COMMITMENT IS TO MAINTAIN
GREEN SPACE. THERE WILL BE A PORTION AT THE FRONT THAT WILL BE COMMUNITY
GREEN SPACE AND THE PORTION AT THE BACK WILL BE GREEN SPACE THAT'S CONSOLIDATED WITH
Mr. SHAW'S PROPERTY. NOW JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF AREA, IT'S APPROXIMATELY
2500 TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE FRONT COMMUNITY PARK AND ABOUT 10.000 SQUARE FEET AT
THE BACK. >> THE BACK BEING MORE ADJACENT TOWARDS THE CRESCENT
ROAD NORTHWEST ADDRESS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY READ 102
CRESCENT ROAD NORTHWEST. THAT'S THE ADDRESS OF Mr. SHAW'S PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S WHAT IS IN OUR AGENDA HERE. IS IT THEN --
IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED -- PART OF IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED AS GREEN SPACE BUT NOT THE
PART CLOSEST TO HIS HOUSE, I WOULDN'T THINK THAT WOULD BE THE CASE?
>> Mr. SHAW WOULD MAINTAIN HIS AREA, THE AREA THAT IS MORE WHAT WE ARE CALLING MORE OF
THE A PRIVATE PARK SPACE AND THE AREA AT FRONT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY DESIGNED.
WE PRESENTED THREE OPTIONS. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE INPUT OF THE CITY PARKS
DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBOURS, AND Mr. SHAW WOULD PAY FOR ALL
THE CAPITAL COSTS OF THAT PARK CONSTRUCTION. >> I FIGURED THAT OUT.
I'M GOOD WITH THAT. VERY, VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD GESTURE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU TO DEFINE WHAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WOULD BE ABOUT WOULD
IT BE ABOUT THE PART THAT'S PUBLIC. >> I THINK WHAT Mr. ALDERMAN
HODGES IS ASKING WOULD THE LANDOWNER BE INTERESTED IN HAVING A COVENANT SAYING THE
PORTION THAT IS PUBLIC GREEN SPACE WILL ALWAYS REMAIN PUBLIC GREEN SPACE?
>> YES. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT?
>> EXACTLY. >> I THINK I NEED TO CLARIFY ONE MORE THING, YOUR WORSHIP,
IS THE PORTION THAT Mr. SHAW IS PURCHASING IS BEHIND THE AREA THAT IS GOING TO BE
PUBLIC. THERE IS AN AREA AROUND THE FRONT THAT HAS A SMALL --
HAS A FIRE HYDRANT, THERE IS ALSO A POLE THERE, AND THE CITY OF CALGARY CORPORATE
PROPERTIES DID NOT WANT THAT INCORPORATED INTO A PIECE OF LAND THAT WAS SOLD TO A
PRIVATE OWNER. >> THAT WILL REMAIN PUBLIC LAND.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST FOR
FURTHER CLARIFICATION MAYBE PUT A PENCIL OR PEN ON THE VIEW GRAPH.
>> THIS IS A BIT CONFUSING. >> SHOW THE EXACT PORTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>> SHOW US WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. EVERYTHING FROM THERE TO THE
ROAD IS THE PUBLIC PIECE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I SEE.
>> THE AREA RIGHT IN FRONT YOU MIGHT SAY OF THE DWELLING THAT'S THERE NOW WOULD BE
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE I WOULD THINK. >> YOUR WORSHIP, EVERYTHING
FROM THE CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE 102 CRESCENT ROAD, EVERYTHING BACK
OF THERE WHERE IT SHOWS THE TREES, EVERYTHING BACK OF THERE WOULD BE PRIVATE SPACE,
EVERYTHING WEST OF THERE WOULD BE PUBLIC SPACE? >> OKAY, SO THE PUBLIC SPACE
IS ADJACENT TO THE ROAD ITSELF? >> PARDON ME.
>> ADJACENT TO THE ROAD ITSELF. >> IT IS, YES.
>> I'M SORRY TO TAKE THE TIME AWAY WHILE YOU ARE SPEAKING BUT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO PUT
UP THE PHOTO THAT Mr. ORR HAD SHOWN FACING EAST AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE
CLEAR. OKAY. ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.
SO WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT FROM THE SIDEWALK THAT'S THERE NOW WHICH IS AT THE TOP
OF THOSE STAIRS, BACK TO THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE A LITTLE HANG OUT SPACE, PUBLIC
SPACE AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS, AND THEN IT WOULD BECOME PRIVATE FROM THERE TO CENTER
STREET. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE AREA APPROXIMATELY
ABOUT 2500 AND 3,000 SQUARE FEET DESIGNED FOR A PUBLIC AREA FOR BENCHES, VIEWING AND
SO ON. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. GREAT, THANK YOU.
IMPORTANT TO GET THIS ONE RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS A BIT CONFUSING COMPARED TO WHAT WE
NORMALLY DO. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU.
SO I HAVE A BETTER FROM THE COMMUNITY PRESIDENT Mr. McDERMOTT SAYING HELLO
CAMERON, HAD A MEETING LAST EVENING AS SCHEDULED AND MANDATED BY OUR POLICY AND THE
CRESCENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WILL RESTATE ITS SUPPORT FOR THE CHANGE OF USE
AND DISPOSITION OF THE CRESCENT ROAD UNDEDICATED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK. IT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL PROJECT
BUT I THINK IT HAD A LOT OF MEANING TO THE COMMUNITY. HOW WOULD THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT BE IMPLEMENTED? WOULD THAT BE AT LAND COMMITTEE WHEN WE --
Mr. WATSON? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I MEAN IT'S AT THE --
ASK TO HELP ME ON THIS, ON THE LAND COMMITTEE ALREADY. SITTING AT LAND COMMITTEE
PENDING WHAT COUNCIL DOES OR DOESN'T DO. COULD BE A CONDITION ON THE
SALE OF THE LAND THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE, AND I BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE EITHER
WHEN THAT COMES THROUGH TO. IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF -- >> THIS.
>> PLANNING ASPECT. WONDERING COULD BE A MOTION ARISING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR CLIENT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS SOME NERVOUSNESS ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY
AND THE NEIGHBOURS THAT A BUILDING COULD BE PUT ON THAT APPROXIMATELY 66 FOOT BY 200
FOOT SITE, AND MY CLIENT Mr. SHAW IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT RESTRICT THAT THERE WILL
NEVER BE A HABITABLE BUILDING ON THAT SITE. THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
>> IT'S A BIG BUILDING NOW AND I THINK THEY WERE CONCERNED THIS WAS JUST PURCHASED TO
EXPAND THE DWELLING. OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> WHISPERING IN MY EAR SUMP A COVENANT COULD BE A CONDITION ON CLOSING.
-- SUCH. >> COULD ALSO BE A CONDITION
OF ROAD CLOSURE. CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OR CONDITION OF ROAD
CLOSURE OR BOTH. >> THAT WOULD BE MADE HERE AT COUNCIL NOT A MOTION ARISING.
>> IT COULD BE. OR COUNCIL COULD JUST AS YOU SUGGESTED DO A MOTION ARISING
REQUESTING THIS BE DONE THROUGH LAND COMMITTEE. >> WE CAN RECOGNIZE THAT AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I FEEL LIKE I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU BUT I FORGOT
WHAT IT WAS. YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED IT ALREADY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> THANKS, YOUR WORSHIP,
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. >> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL?
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST? >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBER OF COUNCIL, WAYNE GODDARD LIVED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CRESCENT HEIGHTS FOR OVER 30 YEARS. 3.25 DECADES FOR THE AMYTH MAT
CALI INCLINED. DURING THOSE YEARS I HAVE COME TO APPRECIATE THIS QUIETLY
DIFFERENT SPACE WITH ITS UNIQUE VIEW NOT SHARED WITH THE USUAL CRESCENT VIEWPOINT
MENTIONED IN THE MICHELIN GUIDE THAT DRAWS TOUR BUSES AND STRETCH LIMOS SEVERAL
BLOCKS TO THE WEST OF THIS SPACE. FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO NOTICING
IMPROVEMENTS, AND OVER TIME I CONTACTED SEVERAL AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN AN ATTEMPT TO
DISCOVER WHO IS MAKING CHANGES TO PUBLIC PROPERTY. WHAT I FIRST NOTICED IS THE
REMOVAL OF 150 FEET OF SIDEWALK THAT RUNS ALONG JUST TO THE SOUTH EDGE OF WHERE
THAT FENCE IS. EVEN WENT TO THE EXTENT OF STICKING A PROBE DOWN INTO THE
GRAVEL MAYBE SOMEONE WAS PROTECTING A GOOD PIECE OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
ALSO THE INSTALLATION OF CHAIN LINK FENCING ACROSS THE EAST END.
DUMPING AND COMPACTING OF A GRAVEL MIX UP TO 32 INCHES DEEP NEAR THE FENCE AT THE
EAST END. PLANTING OF HEDGE MATERIALS. ON THE UPPER LEFT WAS TAKEN
FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PURPOSES. IT WAS A FILM TEST BUT BY
CHANCE IT SHOWS THE END OF THE SIDEWALK THAT USED TO BE THERE AND THE RATHER STINK VIEW OFF
TO THE EAST WHICH NOW I THINK WOULD SHOW YOU MAYBE WINTER SUNRISE OVER THE EAST VILLAGE.
AND THEN WHEN I SAW THE NOTICE OF THE PLANNED REDESIGNATION THAT EXPLAINED MUCH OF WHAT MY
QUESTIONS HAD BEEN, THAT SOMEBODY WANTED TO EXPAND INTO THAT TERRITORY.
BUT THEN I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION FROM THAT BECAUSE IF THE REDESIGNATION STARTS FROM
A ROAD ALLOWANCE, NEW STRUCTURE NORTH OF THE FENCE LINE IS ONLY ABOUT FOUR FEET
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. I UNDERSTAND HAD THERE BEEN AN EXISTING ROAD ALLOWANCE THERE
THAT NEW STRUCTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET BACK A BIT FURTHER. I THINK THERE PROBABLY WAS AN
INTENTION TO HAVE A ROAD. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION WITH CALGARY AND
THE DROPPING OF CENTER STREET INTO THE TRENCH SO IT COULD CONTINUE ON TO THE CAUSEWAY
ACROSS THE PRESENT CENTER STREET BRIDGE. THAT CUT EXTINGUISHED ANY
POSSIBILITY OF CRESCENT ROAD CONNECTING TO ANYTHING EAST OF CENTRE A STREET.
90 YEARS OF PUBLIC ACCESS HAS ESTABLISHED WHAT I HAVE SINCE DISCOVERED IS A RECREATIONAL
EASEMENT AND ON TOP OF THAT THERE IS RECOGNITION OF GREEN SPACE BY SEVERAL CITY
AGENCIES. THE MATERIALS I HAVE HERE ARE COLLECTED FROM BEING ON THE
CRESCENT HEIGHTS ERP COMMITTEE 15 YEARS AGO AND ATTENDING VARIOUS WORKSHOPS AND MEETINGS.
THIS IS A CITY OF CALGARY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THAT GREEN SPACE.
ITEM NUMBER 7 WHICH ON ANOTHER PAGE IN THAT IS DEFINED AS PARKS CLASSIFICATION VISUAL
RELIEF/URBAN BUFFER AREA FOR EMPHASIS REGIONAL. AND ON ANOTHER PAGE IN THAT
ARP DOCUMENT IT NOTES THAT CRESCENT HEIGHTS ARP COMMITTEE WOULD NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH
McCUE BLUFF. BLUFF BEING TIED TO SUNNISIDE ARP AND CITY COUNCIL HAD
ADOPTED McCUE BLUFF CONCEPT PLAN WHICH IS TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
AND THIS IS A QUOTE FROM SOMEWHERE IN THERE I HAVEN'T MARKED.
McCUE BLUFF RESTORATION PLAN. GREEN SPACE. ADJACENT TO THE BLUFF.
AND MAP 1 RESTORATION PLAN CROSSHATCHING IN THERE, SHOWS IT AS PART OF McCUE BLUFF
PARKLAND. SINCE PORTIONS OF THE ESCARPMENT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SOLD OFF THINKING OF 7th STREET AND 9A STREET WEST AND ON THE EAST SIDE 1st STREET
EAST ALL THE WAY TO EDMONTON AUSTRALIA THESE ARE NOT ANYTHING THAT CAN BE RECOVERED
WHEN IT'S GONE. TREND APPEARS TO BE STEADY DECLINE BOTH IN AREA AND
VARIETY OF INNER CITY GREEN SPACE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RETAIN THIS UNIQUE SEGMENT AS PUBLIC PROPERTY AND ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT TO
APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VIEW YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE EXTENT OF THIS
LITTLE PATCH. AND I MIGHT REMARK THAT I WAS PRESIDENT --
PRESIDENT, SORRY, PRESIDENT OF NOTHING. PRESENT AT THE MARCH 15
PLANNING TRAFFIC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AT THE CRESCENT HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
I REALIZE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR VOTES, BUT I THINK IT WAS VERY INN
FORMATIVE OF THE REASONS GIVEN FOR SELLING OFF THIS BIT OF PROPERTY.
I REMINDED MYSELF WHEN I GOT HOME OF THE MEANING NON-SECULAR AND ADHONYMON.
I SINCERELY WILL DO NOTHING FOR THE DRUG DEALING, PARTYING LIMOS AND NOISY TOUR BUSES IN
THE 2 AND 300 BLOCKS TO THE WEST OF HERE. AND SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY
NOT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU YOUR WORSHIP PARK SPACE AND HOSPITALS EQUIVALENT.
OUR INNER CITY HOSPITALS HAVE DISAPPEARED. WE CAN'T GET THEM.
MAYBE WE CAN HANG ON TO GREEN SPACE. >> THANKS.
YOUR TIME'S UP. I THINK THAT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU BUT ALDERMAN MAR ALSO
HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.
Mr. GODDARD, IS IT. >> GODDARD. >> THANK YOU.
SO MY QUESTION IS GIVEN THAT THIS IS FAIRLY SMALL BIT OF LAND WHAT IN YOUR OPINION
SHOULD BE DONE WITH IT? JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS? >> NO.
IN ONE OF MY E-MAILS TO PARKS I ASKED IS THERE SWAY TO FIND OUT WHO VANDALIZED IT.
ASK THEM TO PUT IT BACK TO A DECENT SENSE OF ACCESS AND THERE WAS VEGETATION
STRUGGLING UNTENDED THERE. IT WAS A COURSE GRASS AND TREES THAT HUNG TOGETHER.
AND THEY HAVE NOW BEEN OVERLAID WITH GRAVEL, AND ALL WEATHER SIDEWALK WHICH WAS
BETTER CLEARED THAN THE RED SHELL PATH ALONG THE TOP OF THE BLUFF WHICH TENDS TO
FREEZE-UP OR TURN INTO PUDDLES, DEPENDING ON THE WEATHER, THIS DEEP PIECE OF CONCRETE WAS
ALWAYS WALKABLE AND ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T CHECK THE DATE ON IT, THE ONE DIRECTLY ACROSS CENTRE
A STREET HAS A MARKING OF 1945, AND IF YOU GO A BLOCK FURTHER WEST AND STILL WITHIN LINE OF
SIGHT OF THIS PROPERTY, A SIDEWALK IS MARKED 1910. GOOD OLD SIDEWALK THAT STAYED
THERE. PEOPLE COULD WALK ALONG. >> YOUR INTENTION OR WHAT YOU
BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A SIDEWALK WHERE PEOPLE CAN WALK DOWN AND
BASICALLY ENJOY THE VIEW. >> ESPECIALLY THAT IT IS A DIFFERENT VIEW AND I THINK
WHAT ACTUALLY PUT THE BRR UNDER MY BLANKET THIS WAS A BREACH DELIVERY OF SOMEONE
DOING MODIFICATIONS BEFORE THEY HAD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. >> WHETHER IT WAS THE PRESENT OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER TRYING
TO MAKE UP FOR DEFICIENCIES OF DESIGN IN THAT HUGE NEW STRUCTURE --
>> I WILL HAVE SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATION.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS A RESIDENT WHAT YOU WOULD ENVISION AND
YOU WOULD LIKE IT JUST TO BE LEFT AS IT IS. THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BUT ALDERMAN LOWE FIRST. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
Ms. SLOAN, A BIT OF AN ODD QUESTION. THERE ARE OTHER JURISDICTIONS
IN BRITISH LAW WHERE A PATHWAY IS USED FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME ACROSS PUBLIC LANDS,
IT'S DEEMED TO BE A PATHWAY AND NOT CLOSEABLE. DO WE HAVE SUCH A LAW IN THIS
COUNTRY, AND DOES IT APPLY IN THIS KIND OF AN ENVIRONMENT? >> THAT'S THE COMMON-LAW THAT
APPLIES TO A ROAD AND THERE IS A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE
PRIVATE LAND CAN ACTUALLY BECOME -- BE CONVERTED INTO QUOTE A
PUBLIC ROAD. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS AN
ACTUAL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SO WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CLOSING A ROAD.
SO ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I AM NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN ABOUT IS THE INTENTION OF THE LAND
DEAL. BECAUSE I'M NOT PRIVY TO IT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE
AREA THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ROAD CLOSURE WILL BE TRANSFERRED ENTIRELY FOR
PRIVATE PURPOSES TO THE ADJACENT OWNER AND SO THERE IS NO ISSUE OF PUBLIC USE OF
PRIVATE LAND. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> IT DOES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. Mr. GODDARD, THAT CHAIN LINK
FENCE THAT YOU WERE SHOWING IN THE PHOTOS, HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN UP THERE?
>> IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IS
THAT ROUGHLY WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT. I DON'T HAVE MY TIME.
>> I DIDN'T MAKE ANY PARTICULAR NOTES. NOTICE THIS IS THE GRAVEL THAT
COVERED UP THE GRASS, THE SHOT TO THE LEFT THAT I TOOK, THAT'S ALMOST KNEE HIGH GRASS
THAT GREW THERE THAT IS NOW COVERED UP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SEEMED
PRETTY FLAT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT. Mr. WATSON, AM I CORRECT IN
SAYING THAT WHERE THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS CURRENTLY IS PUBLICLY OWNED LAND AND THERE
OUGHT NOT TO BE A PRIVATE FENCE THERE? >> I WAS ACTUALLY UP ON THE
SITE MYSELF A WHILE AGO AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE, IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY I BELIEVE. THAT WAS PUT UP, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS PUT UP BY
OURSELVES. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT IT UP SO I SHOULDN'T BE SO
INCLUSIVE ABOUT IT. BUT IT'S NOT -- IT'S ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>> MYSTERIOUS FENCE PUTTER UPPER ELVES MAYBE. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
MIGHT BE THE DWARFS WHO PUT UP FENCES. ALDERMAN MAR?
SORRY, Mr. GODDARD, WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS FOR AWHILE. >> I SUSPECT THE ALIENS THAT
ABDUCTED THE SIDEWALK RETURNED THE FENCE AND FOR THEM IT'S THE SAME SORT OF THING.
>> ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE THEORY. >> I THINK IT'S JUST AS VALID AS SOME OF THE OTHER REASONS.
>> HE KNOWS TOO MUCH. >> SOME GENTLEMEN IN BLACK SUITS MAY NEED TO SEE YOU ON
THE WAY OUT TODAY. >> MY CONCERN WHY SO MANY CITY AGENCIES RECOGNIZE IT AS PARK,
WHEN IT WANTS TO BE REDESIGNATED GOES BACK TO A ROADWAY THAT HASN'T EXISTED
FOR 990 YEARS. >> I HERE YOU -- HEAR YOU.
I THINK I READ THAT YOU WENT TO WALK YOUR DOG UP THERE. IS THE ONLY ACCESS TO THIS
PIECE OF LAND OFF OF THE DEAD-END OF CRESCENT ROAD, YOU CAN'T COME AT IT FROM THE EAST
IN ANY WAY? >> SLOPE GOES DOWN TO CENTER STREET WOULD BE A DEATH TRIP
ON LOOSE GRAVEL. GOING DOWN THROUGH THE TREES IS NOT RECOMMENDED UNLESS YOU
HAVE GOOD INSURANCE ON YOUR ANKLES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I WAS
JUST LOOKING AT TERRAIN MAP AND THERE IS A TREED SECTION ALONG CITY STREET.
LOOKS LIKE THAT'S COMPLETELY IMPASSEABLE BY FOOT TO COME DOWN TO THE NORTH.
>> IT CAN BE. DOWN IS REASONABLE. I HAVE A WHOLE STACK OF
PHOTOGRAPHS BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION. MY CONCERN IS AFTER THE GRAVEL
WENT ON, THE TREES DOWN TO THE SOUTH OF THIS ALONG SIDE THE PAVED PATHWAY CONTINUED DYING.
ONLY THE WILLOWS ARE STAYING A BIT. THE POPULARS ARE ALL DYING.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A WATER PROBLEM. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY.
THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR
Mr. GODDARD. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR COMING. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION? THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN IS CLOSED.
AND WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN MAR?
>> IS THIS A PARK? ROADWAY? BIT OF SCRUB LAND?
ALIEN -- >> PERHAPS DWARFS OR ELVES. ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE.
>> IT IS A ROAD. IT FUNCTIONS WITH GRASS ON IT. BUT OFFICIALLY IT IS A ROAD.
THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS I STATED EARLIER OR NOT, PARKS WAS CIRCULATED THIS
APPLICATION AND THEY STATED THEY DID NOT WANT IT FURTHER INVENTORY PURPOSES AND HAD NO
OBJECTION TO THIS BEING REDESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> OKAY. NOW THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, Mr. GODDARD, HAD A MAP WHICH
SUGGESTED AT ONE TIME IT WAS PART OF PARKS AND IT WAS GOING TO BE UTILIZED AS SOME KIND OF
PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE. THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THAT WAS THE PLAN AT ONE TIME
AND NO LONGER? >> BECAUSE THIS WAS A REDESIGNATION OF A ROADWAY, I
DON'T BELIEVE ANY FORMAL CIRCULATION, NO ONE I DON'T THINK HAD A REAL GOOD LOOK AT
THE ARP WHEN THIS WAS DONE. THIS IS JUST A PORTION OF THE ARP HERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL SITE, IT JUST SHOWS FOR THE LAND USE AS BEING FOR RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSES. THERE IS NOTHING THERE THAT IS INCLUSIVE OR DEFINES IT AS
BEING FOR AN OPEN PARK AREA AND THIS IS THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ARP. I'M SOMEWHAT SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT THE RESIDENT IS SAYING,
BUT EVEN IF THAT WAS INDICATED ON A MAP I WOULD BE SOMEWHAT RELUCTANT TO PURSUE IT --
>> WAS THIS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF CALGARY EVER? >> AS A PARK?
TO MY KNOWLEDGE NO. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A ROADWAY. IT'S VERY COMMON IN THE CITY
TO HAVE PIECES OF LAND VERY MUCH LIKE THIS THAT CAN BE APPEAR QUITE GREEN AND QUITE
LUSH, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ROADS. THEY ARE JUST NOT CURRENTLY
BEING USED AND THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN FORMALLY CLOSED. >> MASTER PARK, FOR EXAMPLE.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. >> SO THE QUESTION HERE, I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THE
QUESTION HERE NOW THEN, IS WHO HAS DONE THESE -- THE IMPROVEMENTS, REMOVING THE
SIDEWALK? DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA? WAS THAT CITY OF CALGARY WHO
HAD DONE IT OR PARKS? >> POSSIBLY THE SIDEWALKS, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A GENERAL
MAINTENANCE ISSUE I WOULD ASSUME BY ENGINEERING AND ROADS.
BUT AS FOR THE FENCE, THAT I COULDN'T MAKE EVEN AN ASSUMPTION WHO PUT THE FENCE
UP. ARGUABLY IT COULD BE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE OFF LEASH AREA TO
THE SOUTH AND THE ACTUAL ROADWAY. BUT IN TERMS OF WHO PUT IT UP,
THAT INFORMATION I COULDN'T TELL YOU. >> OKAY.
THOSE ARE FAIR. I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A
ROAD OR PARK AND YOU HAVE DONE THAT FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU. WELL, I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO
Mr. GODDARD'S POSITION AND BUT DESPITE THAT I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION ON THIS ONE. THEY HAVE CONSULTED WIDELY AND TALKED AT LENGTH WITH THE
APPLICANT ON WHAT COULD BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT WHICH IS TO IMPROVE THE PARK CONDITION ON
THE TOP OF THE STAIRWAY. I DO HAVE TO SAY, THOUGH, I'M ALWAYS DISAPPOINTED WHEN
CALGARIANS DECIDE THAT THEY CAN TAKE OVER LAND AND PUT UP FENCES WHEN IT'S NOT THEIRS.
SO THAT'S NOT IN ANY WAY TO REWARD PAST BEHAVIOUR. I THINK THAT THE BENEFITS TO
THE COMMUNITY ARE AN ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRWAY, WHICH IS A HEAVILY
USED STAIRWAY AND COMMUNITY HAS GONE TO SOME LENGTH IN ENSURING THAT THIS REMAINS IN
PUBLIC ACCESS, AND IS AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD
A MOTION ARISING IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL THEN TO TALK ABOUT A RESTRICTED COVENANT.
THANK YOU. >> THANKS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION? ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL THEN.
WE'LL MOVE TO DEBATE. ALDERMAN FARRELL, DID YOU WANT TO MOVE IT.
YOU DID. I NEED TO PAY MORE ATTENTION. DO I HAVE A SECONDER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE GOT IT ON THE
TABLE. ANY DEBATE ON THIS? OH, C'MON.
ALDERMAN MacLEOD, CAN WE TRADE PLACES PLEASE? >> MAYOR NENSHI, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? >> I FIND THIS -- I FIND THIS PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL PROBLEMATIC FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. ON THE ONE HAND IT'S A SMALL
PIECE OF LAND, IT'S AN UNDESIGNATED ROAD OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WE'LL NEVER
BUILD A ROAD ON, A LANDOWNER THAT WOULD GAIN MORE PUBLIC PERHAPS THE PUBLIC ARE GAINING,
PERHAPS IN THAT CASE NO REASON TO VOTE FOR THIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THE REASON TO VOTE FOR IT IS. BECAUSE AS Mr. GODDARD HAS
POINTED OUT FOR OVER 90 YEARS THE PUBLIC HAS USED THIS AS A PIECE OF GREEN SPACE.
A FUNNY LITTLE PIECE OF GREEN SPACE THAT PERHAPS DOESN'T SERVE A LOT OF PURPOSES BUT A
PIECE OF GREEN IN THE INNER CITY. AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WE
OUGHT TO BE IN THE PRACTICE OF GOING TO LANDOWNERS AND SAYING YOU CAN TAKE AWAY PUBLIC GREEN
SPACE AS LONG AS YOU GIVE US A FEW BENCHES IN RETURN. AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT
CHALLENGING FOR ME. I'M A BIG FAN OF REDEVELOPMENT AS YOU ALL KNOW.
THIS IS NOT THAT. THIS IS TRANSFERRING SOME GREEN SPACE FROM KIND OF UGLY
PUBLIC GREEN SPACE TO ATTRACTIVE PRIVATE GREEN SPACE WITH A FEW BENCHES THROWN IN
FOR THE PUBLIC. SO GIVEN THAT, I'M NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED WHY WE
OUGHT TO BE DOING THIS AND THE QUESTION THAT I REALLY WOULD HAVE IS DOES THIS LEAD TO A
SITUATION WHERE OTHER LANDOWNERS ADJACENT TO LAND WHICH NOTHING WILL BE BUILT
COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SELL ME THAT LAND SO I COULD HAVE A BIGGER BACKYARD
TO PRIVATIZE THE SPACE. YOU KNOW, I HAPPEN TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT HAS A
VERY LARGE SCHOOL SITE SURROUNDED BY HOMES, AND THERE WILL NEVER BE A SCHOOL ON THAT
LAND. GIVEN THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A PARK COULD WE IMAGINE A WORLD
WHERE THE LANDOWNERS OF CORAL SPRINGS WOULD SAY I WANT A MUCH BIGGER BACKYARD AND YOU
SHOULD GIVE ME THAT SURPLUS SCHOOL SITE FOR THAT PURPOSE? I DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST THAT
WE ARE ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE HERE. THIS IS A SMALL PIECE OF LAND
IN A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION. BUT DO I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH
THIS IN TERMS OF SENDING A FUTURE MESSAGE BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T SEE A VERY, VERY
GOOD REASON TO DO THIS. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR NENSHI. ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. TO RESPOND TO YOUR WORSHIP, THE COMMENT THAT THERE IS A
VERY GOOD REASON TO DO THIS. THIS IS NOT PRECEDENT SETTING. THERE IS A GOOD REASON TO DO
THIS. THIS IS NOT PRECEDENT SETTING THAT WE DO THIS ALMOST TO THE
MATTER OF COURSE OF REMNANT PIECES OF LAND THAT ARE REMOVED FROM CITY INVENTORY,
ATTACHED TO PRIVATE DWELLINGS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS PIECE OF
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT CANNOT FUNCTION AS A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, WILL NEVER
FUNCTION AS A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THERE IS A BENEFIT TO CALGARIANS, RATHER
THAN GETTING A PIECE OF SCRUFF LAND WHICH PARKS DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN, AND ROADS DOESN'T
WANT TO MAINTAIN, WE ARE GOING TO GET, AS YOU SUGGEST, I'M GOING TO PUT A DIFFERENT SPIN
ON IT, GET A PIECE OF LAND WITH VIEWING BENCHES AND SOME ENHANCED MAINTENANCE WHICH IS
A BENEFIT TO THIS COMMUNITY AND TO THE CITY OF CALGARY. SO FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I
WILL SUPPORT IT. YOU MENTIONED SCHOOL SITES. THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. BIGGER PIECES OF LAND. IMMENSE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CITY IF THOSE PIECES OF LAND BECOME AVAILABLE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS YOUR
WORSHIP, I WILL SUPPORT THIS AND I WILL ASK YOU TO SUPPORT IT.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN LOWE. ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I TOO WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION FOR THE SAME
REASONS ALDERMAN LOWE STATED AS WELL AS FOR THE POTENTIAL OF ACTUALLY SAVING ON
OPERATIONAL COSTS SHOULD WE DECIDE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND THEN MOVE
FORWARD ON INCREASED MAINTENANCE FOR THESE LANDS, ULTIMATELY THE RESPONSIBILITY
WOULD BE OURS, THE COSTS WOULD BE BORNE BY THE CITY AND FURTHERMORE, OPPORTUNITY TO
ACQUIRE ROAD WIDENING, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN IDENTIFIED BY
THE ROADS DEPARTMENT AS A FUTURE NEED, AND SO THERE IS SOME LOSS OF LANDS FROM THE
ADJACENT OWNER TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE NEEDS FOR THE CITY, FUTURE MUNICIPAL PURPOSES, AND
REDUCED COSTS. AND WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST ON AN OPPORTUNITY BASIS,
AND I THINK THIS IS A WIN/WIN SITUATION. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I APPRECIATE MAYOR NENSHI LEAVING THE CHAIR TO DEBATE THIS BECAUSE HE SAID EXACTLY
WHAT I WAS THINKING. THE TROUBLE WITH THIS REPORT IS THERE IS NO RATIONAL FOR
THIS METHOD OF DISPOSITION. THE NORMAL PROCESS AS I'M AWARE OF IT OVER THE YEARS,
AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN THIS REPORT THAT WOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE, WHY IT'S NOT BEING
OFFERED AS A LANDSCAPE LEASE. THE CITY HAS OFFERED MANY VACANT PARCELS EITHER
RESIDENTIAL OR UNDEVELOPED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS LANDSCAPE LEASES FOR FIVE, TEN OR 15
YEARS, AND YES, THERE IS A PAYMENT TO THE CITY BY THE PERSON LEASING TO HAVE A
LANDSCAPE LEASE THAT HE OR SHE CAN CONTROL AND WHICH THE NEIGHBOURS DON'T THINK IS A
PLACE TO PARK SURPLUS VEHICLES. SO THAT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING TO BE DISCUSSED IN THIS AND DEALT WITH IN THIS REPORT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A POLICY CHANGE WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL FOR WHY THE DE CTO POLICY
CHANGE. TIP OFF IS THE DESIGNATION OF RC-1.
THAT ISN'T, I THINK, A STANDARD OR SHOULDN'T BE A STANDARD PRACTICE EITHER.
I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF OTHER DESIGNATIONS FOR IT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE US.
SO I THINK IF IT WAS A LANDSCAPE LEASE I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND THERE IS ALWAYS A FINITE TIME ON A LANDSCAPE LEASE BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.
THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT DISPOSITION WHICH I PRESUME WOULD BE A LAND COMMITTEE ONE
DAY HERE SOON HOPEFULLY. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN HODGES. ALDERMAN FARRELL?
ALDERMAN CARRA? >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. I APPRECIATE THE DEBATE ON
THIS. I AGREE WITH ALDERMAN LOWE, THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS
PRECEDENT SETTING. AND ALONG THOSE LINES, I JUST WANT TO SORT OF RIFF ON THE
DISCUSSION THAT HIS WORSHIP BROUGHT UP IN TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF GREEN SPACE IN THE INNER CITY THAT WE SHOULD
FOCUS ON INTENSIFYING AND THAT MIGHT INVOLVE FINDING SMALL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN
ORDER TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF THE REST OF THE SPACE. AND I REALIZE THAT THIS ISN'T
SORT OF THE SAME DEBATE. BUT I DO THINK IT DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO PERHAPS THE
SAME EXTENT THAT THE SCHOOLS ZONE IN CORAL SPRINGS DOES. I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD
BE FIXATED ON QUANTITY. I THINK WE SHOULD BE A LOT MORE FIXATED ON QUALITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S A RECURRING THEME FROM THE LAST ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
SO I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS AND I HOPE THAT THE PUBLIC SPACE THAT'S CARVED OUT
AT THE TOP OF THE HILLSIDE IS A SPECTACULAR LITTLE JEWEL OF A SPACE.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN FARRELL TO CLOSE.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE TO SAY THAT I STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE WHEN I WAS FIRST
APPROACHED WITH THE IDEA. AND MY INITIAL INCLINATION WOULD HAVE NOT --
WOULD HAVE BEEN TO NOT SUPPORT IT. BUT THE COMMUNITY WORKED WITH
THE APPLICANT CLOSELY AND THEY SEE A VALUE IN IT. SO I FELT OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT
THEM BECAUSE OF THAT WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE. I WAS VERY, VERY MUCH INVOLVED
IN THE McHUGH BLUFF MASTER PLAN AS VOLUNTEER FOR HILLHURST SUNNISIDE.
AND THAT HAS BEEN AN UNFUNDED PLAN FOR MANY DECADES. MANY THE MEANTIME THIS AREA
DETERIORATES SIGNIFICANTLY. AND THE CITY SELLS RESIDUAL PROPERTIES THAT MAY APPEAR
LIKE GREEN SPACE, BUT ARE NOT GREEN SPACE AND WE SELL THEM ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S TO
HELP US PAY FOR THE MANY THINGS THAT WE NEED THAT FUNDING FOR.
IS IT FUND 69 AND IT'S FOR FUTURE ROAD PROJECTS OR OTHER MUNICIPAL PROJECTS THAT
REQUIRE A CONSTANT INFLUX OF DOLLARS. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE SEEKING
OUT UNDESIGNATED ROAD OF RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND THINGS THAT ARE NOT PARK DESIGNATED SPACES
TO FUND OTHER NEEDS. SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY COUNCIL FEELS A BIT VAGUE
ABOUT THIS ONE. IN A WAY I DO TOO BUT I WILL SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE
I THINK THEY PUT A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK INTO IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ON THE --
THERE IS NOBODY ELSE TO SPEAK. SO ON THE RECOMMENDATION ARE WE AGREED?
OPPOSED? TWO OPPOSED. >> BEAR WITH ME.
ON THE DLAU TO THE PROPOSED CLOSURE, ROAD CLOSURE 2 C 20011 ON FIRST READING ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ON SECOND READING ARE WE AGREED? OPPOSED?
SAME DIVISION. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING, ARE WE AGREED?
OPPOSED? CARRIED. AND THIRD READING, ARE WE
AGREED? OPPOSED? SAME DIVISION.
CARRIED. ON THE LAND USE TO GIVE THREE READINGS TO THE BYLAW 16 D,
2011 FIRST READING, ARE WE AGREED? OPPOSED?
MAYOR NENSHI AND ALDERMAN HODGES. CARRIED.
SECOND READING, ARE WE AGREED? >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> APPARENTLY NOT.
>> AFTER THE FIRST READING, YOU CAN'T ASK -- YOU CAN'T DO AN AMENDMENT.
>> I WILL ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK IF YOU TELL ME WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT BEFORE YOU
DO. >> I APOLOGIZE TO EVERYBODY FOR MY LACK OF MANNERS.
SKILL. OKAY. MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT JUMPING
UP RIGHT AFTER FIRST READING. BEAR WITH ME. ONLY QUESTION THE RC-1, CAN WE
DO SOMETHING TO ALLOW SECONDARY SUITE TO EVOLVE THERE IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME.
R 1 F. WHY CAN I NOT DO THAT? >> YOUR WORSHIP THAT WOULD BE
AN ADDITIONAL USE ADDED TO THE LAND USE AND REQUIRES READVERTISEMENT AND ANOTHER
PUBLIC HEARING. >> IT'S NOT THE WHOLE THING. CAN I DO AN AMENDMENT
REQUESTING THAT THEY DO THAT AS WHEN THEY DO THE CONSOLIDATION?
>> THAT WOULD BE A MOTION ARISING. >> THAT WOULD BE A MOTION
ARISING. OKAY. I WILL TAKE THAT UNDER
ADVISEMENT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ON SECOND READING, ARE WE
AGREED? OPPOSED? SAME DIVISION.
ON AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING, ARE WE AGREED? OPPOSED?
AND THIRD READING, ARE WE AGREED? OPPOSED?
SAME DIVISION. NOW CAN MAYOR TAKE -- NO.
YOU HAVE TO STAY. IT'S NICE CHAIR. IT'S SMALL.
THERE IS A FOOTSTOOL THERE, TOO. OKAY.
MOTION ARISING. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU.
SO Ms. SLOAN, HOW WOULD I WORD THAT? IT WOULD BE AT LAND COMMITTEE,
WOULD IT NOT, THAT REQUESTS THAT COUNCIL DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO IMPOSE A
COVENANT? >> YES. AS A CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE
AND SALE AGREEMENT OR THE LAND EXCHANGE, THAT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BE REGISTERED ON
TITLE TO THE CLOSURE PORTION PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER. AND WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU
WANT IT TO RESTRICT. ANY DEVELOPMENT BEYOND LANDSCAPING OR I HEARD EARLIER
THAT THEY WERE PREPARED TO ACCEPT A RESTRICTION OF NO HABITABLE BUILDINGS.
DID YOU WANT TO KEEP IT THAT GENERAL OR DO YOU WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC THAT ONLY
LANDSCAPING IS ALLOWED. >> I THINK THE INTENT FROM WHAT I HEARD IT WOULD BE ONLY
LANDSCAPING. SO, YES. >> YES.
THEN I WOULD SUGGEST MOTION ARISING THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO LAND COMMITTEE.
>> MIGHT NEED A MINUTE TO WRITE THAT ONE OUT. >> OKAY.
ALDERMAN LOWE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M QUITE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION
ARISING. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THOUGH THAT I THINK IN
SUPPORTING THAT, WE NEGATE ANY ATTEMPT TO HAVE A SECONDARY SUITE IN ANYTHING EXCEPT THE
PRIMARY BUILDING. BECAUSE THE VOTE WE ARE DOING IS SAYING NO INHABITABLE
CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PIECE OF LAND, IF I UNDERSTAND IT OR RESTRICT IT TO LANDSCAPING,
HOWEVER WE PHRASE IT. THE NEXT ONE ABOUT THE SECOND SUITE COULD HAVE TO BE
CAREFULLY WORDED, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, ALDERMAN LOWE. ALDERMAN CARRA, ARE YOU GOING
WITH THE NEXT MOTION OR ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THIS ONE? >> MY QUESTION WAS SORT OF IN
THAT REGARD. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING WE HAVE REACHED THIS POINT.
I THINK THIS IS A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR A LARGE PROPERTY THAT COULD USE A SECONDARY
SUITE AND I WOULD JUST BE VERY INTERESTED TO KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T SORT OF PURSUE THAT AS
PART OF THIS EXPANSION OF A BIG RC-1 PROPERTY THAT'S LITERALLY THREE MINUTE WALK
FROM THE DOWNTOWN. AND UNDERSTANDING THAT Mr. SHAW MIGHT NOT BE DESIROUS
OF HAVING A SECONDARY SUITE IN HIS HOME, BUT THERE IS POSSIBLY THAT FUTURE OWNERS
MAY COME AND GO, AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE A PERFECT PLACE TO HAVE THAT
FLEXIBILITY. SO I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION. I GUESS I WILL WORD IT AS A
QUESTION. WHY WAS THAT NOT DISCUSSED AS THIS CAME THROUGH?
>> OKAY. I ACTUALLY AM UNCERTAIN IF THAT'S REALLY PART OF WHAT
THIS MOTION IS ABOUT BUT I WILL DEFER IT TO SEE IF WE CAN GET AN ANSWER.
>> THE RC-1 DOES NOT ALLOW SECONDARY SUITES, AND THIS WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH AS A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SOMETIME AGO. I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS
ACTUALLY -- Mr. GODDARD POINTED OUT TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, WE WEREN'T
HAVING THOSE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SECONDARY SUITES AT ANYWHERE NEAR THE
KIND OF VOLUME WE ARE TODAY. SO IT SIMPLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THAT
WAS AN OLDER HOUSE ON THE LAND, THE LAND, IT BURNED DOWN, VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY,
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUILDING PERMIT, WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT SECONDARY
SUITE. WE DON'T DISCUSS SECONDARY SUITE EVERY TIME THERE IS A
PARCEL THAT COMES THROUGH FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE -- SO I GUESS THE ATTEMPT IS TO
SORT OF CONNECT THIS, EXACT SAME LAND USE AS THE HOST PROPERTY AND THEN DO THE
CONSOLIDATION AND THERE IS NO REAL MECHANISM WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL TO CONSIDER PUTTING
AN S DESIGNATION ON THE END? >> AS ALDERMAN LOWE POINTED OUT WITH THE MOTION OF RISING
COMING THAT WILL RESTRICT THAT TO GREEN. CAN'T PUT ANY BUILDING ON
THAT. THE OTHER PARCEL IS NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE HOUSE THAT IS ADJACENT TO IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.
IN FACT, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN REALLY EVEN MAKE A MOTION REGARDING IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANKS. >> MY OPINION.
>> I'M MORE INTERESTED IN JUST PUTTING THAT THOUGHT BUBBLE OUT THERE THAN I THINK
ACTUALLY PURSUING THIS. >> Mr. WALLACE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT MESSAGE BACK.
>> OKAY, SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER, DO YOU HAVE THE MOTION.
>> LAND COMMITTEE BE DIRECT TODAY REQUIRE THAT A RESTRICTED COVENANT BE
REGISTERED ON TITLE TO THE ROAD CLOSURE AREA PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF TITLE PROHIBITING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PORTION OF THE CLOSURE AREA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LANDSCAPING.
THE RESTRICTED COVENANT WOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT CITY OWNED PARCEL AND
ROAD. >> THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE ALDERMAN PINCOTT
SECONDING. AND I SEE ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
NO THOUGHT BUBBLES FROM THIS SIDE HERE. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AS FAR
AS WHAT THE WAY THIS IS WORDED IS ONLY FOR LANDSCAPING. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE OWNER
OF THIS PROPERTY THEN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PUT ON A GAZEBO OR A GARDEN SHED OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT ON HIS LAND? BECAUSE I THINK THE NON-INHABITABLE DWELLING WOULD
BE BETTER THAN THE LANDSCAPING. COULD YOU TELL ME THAT
Mr. WATSON? >> WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, NOT PUT A BUILDING ON IT, NOT PUT A HOUSE ON IT, WOULD GET INTO
A REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION AT THE FRONT COUNTER WHETHER A GAZEBO IS
LANDSCAPING OR NOT LANDSCAPING. GAZEBOS AND THINGS LIKE THAT
LOOKING AT Mr. ORR AND Mr. MCKENZIE, NOT THINGS THAT WE REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
FOR. YOU CAN GO TO HOME DEPOT AND BUY YOUR GAZEBO AND GO HOME
AND PLUNK IT DOWN. >> I'M JUST SAYING IF WE WENT WITH THE WORDING NO HOUSE OR
ANY KIND OF -- WOULDN'T THAT BE BETTER THAN JUST SAYING LANDSCAPING AND
RESTRICTING THE PERSON FROM PUTTING ON -- MAYBE Ms. SLOAN CAN HELP US
WITH THAT. CAN SHE? >> Ms. SLOAN ROTE THE --
WROTE THE MOTION SO PERHAPS SHE MIGHT AN IDEA. >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST BY
INDICATING NO HABITABLE BUILDINGS WOULD MAKE IT A MUCH GREATER OPPORTUNITY THAT OTHER
THINGS COULD BE BUILT OR CONSTRUCTED IN THAT AREA THAT WOULD NOT BE GREEN SPACE.
OR LANDSCAPING OR VEGETATION IF THAT WAS THE EXPECTATION. IF IT'S COUNCIL'S INTENT TO
CLARIFY LANDSCAPING BY ALL MEANS WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
WE CAN INDICATE IT WOULD INCLUDE SHEDS AND GAZEBOS. ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, DO
YOU WANT IT TO BE A PARKING PAD FOR LARGE RVs? I MEAN THERE IS THOSE KINDS OF
ISSUES TO CONSIDER. WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO HAVE IN THAT AREA?
I THINK LANDSCAPING IS PROBABLY QUITE RESTRICTIVE. YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT.
COULD GET INTO AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD INCLUDE GAZEBOS.
IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH GAZEBOS AND GARDEN SHEDS, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN HAVE SOME FAIRLY LARGE
GARDEN SHEDS WE CAN CERTAINLY WRITE THAT IN THERE. >> LET ME JUST MAKE THE
AMENDMENT THEN IF I CAN THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GAZEBOS. >> ALLOW GAZEBOS.
>> ALLOW GAZEBOS, YEAH. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SUPPORT THAT, SECOND IT.
>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE
MOVER AND SECONDER ARE BOTH IN AGREEMENT. THE MOTION WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF LANDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING SEEMS TO INCLUDE DECKS AND GAZEBOS AND THAT SORT OF
THING. I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING CONTRARY.
AND MADAM CLERK, IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT INCLUDING GAZEBOS, LANDSCAPING INCLUDING GAZEBOS.
THANK YOU. AND ALDERMAN HODGES? I THINK YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO
THIS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THIS IS GETTING INTO REALLY
INTERESTING AREA. I WAS HOPING THAT ALDERMAN STEVENSON MIGHT INCLUDE A
GARAGE, ACCESSORY BUILDING, LIKE A GARAGE, NO, NO LET ME FINISH.
GET ALDERMAN CARRA'S GARDEN SUITE ABOVE THE GARAGE. HAVE IT ALL.
WE WOULD HAVE THE WHOLE PACKAGE. WE WOULD BE HAPPY.
OF COURSE, NOT JUST BUILD AN ORDINARY GARAGE. A GARAGE FOR HIS COLLECTION OF
POTENTIAL COLLECTION OF ANTIQUE VEHICLES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT DEBATE. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> A GAZEBO IS TECHNICALLY A
PARTICULAR KIND OF ARCHITECTURE. CAN WE JUST USE A TERM OTHER
THAN GAZEBOS. GAZEBO REFERS TO A PARTICULAR KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL FOLLY.
>> YOU HAVE SOME OTHER TERM THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING? >> I WOULD SAY --
I WOULD SAY THE MAYOR IS SUGGESTING GARDEN ARCHITECTURE.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> GAZEBO IS -- >> ARE YOU FINE WITH GARDEN
ARCHITECTURE? >> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE DECIDING FOR A PRIVATE
LANDOWNER EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF OUTDOOR STRUCTURE THEY WANT TO INCLUDE IN THEIR LANDSCAPING.
>> OKAY. THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
IT NOW INCLUDES GARDEN ARCHITECTURE. WHICH PRESUMABLY DOES NOT
INCLUDE A GARAGE WITH AN ANCILLARY SUITE. ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH DOING POLICY ON THE
FLY. AND NOT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH THE LANDOWNER
AS TO WHAT WORDING HE WOULD DEEM TO BE APPROPRIATE OR SUPPORTIVE OF, AND I THINK
THERE IS CERTAINLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE THESE KIND OF AMENDMENTS AT
LAND. I DON'T SEE WHY THERE IS A NEED TO DO A MOTION ON COUNCIL
FLOOR. I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS
WITH THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER AND COME FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF RECOMMENDATION AT LAND
SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO CAVEAT ON TITLE, IF THAT'S WHAT IS DEEMED TO BE NECESSARY.
I'M NOT SURE I'M OVERLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA OF SEPARATING LAND USES WITHIN
ONE PAR SELL -- PARCEL EITHER GENERALLY. IT'S PROBLEMATIC.
NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS.
>> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN MAR? >> THANK YOU.
WELL, ONCE AGAIN, COUNCIL IS STARTING TO REALLY GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE AT COMMITTEE. IF WE WANT TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION AT COMMITTEE, THEN BY ALL MEANS, THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS TO
HAPPEN. BEEN ON THIS ABOUT 90 MINUTES, I'M GUESSING.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN PHILANTHROPISTS IN THE CITY OF CALGARY BUYING FROM US
A REALLY SCRUBBY BIT OF DIRT THAT HAS -- THAT WE'LL NOT BE MISSING,
COUNCIL, QUITE FRANKLY. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE TIME OR PLACE TO BE HAVING
THIS AND I'M HAPPY TO VOTE TO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL MOTION BUT NOT THIS.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN MAR. I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL THE
LIGHTS. WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THE QUESTION.
ALL THOSE -- THE MOTION. THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS.
THE AMENDMENTS WERE CONSIDERED FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. IT IS THE MOTION ARISING.
ARE WE AGREED? OPPOSED? ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> ON THE MOTION ARISING ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART?
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> (Inaudible). >> ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN JONES? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> YES. >>> ALDERMAN MAR? >> NO.
>> MAYOR NENSHI? >> YES. >> DEPUTY MAYOR MacLEOD?
>> YES. >> FOR THE RECORD IT IS WAY MORE FUN OVER THERE THAN IT IS
OVER HERE. I MIGHT ALSO ADD I'M NOT CONVINCED ON WHETHER OR NOT
WE'LL STILL ALLOW GARDEN GNOMES ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I THINK THAT IS A
VITAL ISSUE THAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO DISCUSS. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WELL,
FINISHED THE TABLED PORTIONS. OKAY. LAND USE REDESIGNATION DOUGLAS
DALE, CPC 2011, 8.1 IN YOUR AGENDA, Mr. ORR. >> THANK YOU.
CONTAINING 4.2 ACRES OF LAND AT 2275-98th AVENUE SOUTHEAST FROM 125 MULTIRESIDENTIAL, LOW
PROFILE DISTRICT AND DC DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT TO DC DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT TO
ACCOMMODATE MEDIUM PROFILE DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OUTLINED IN RED.
THE INTENT OF THE APPLICATION IS TO CREATE A MINOR LAND USE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE BUILDING
HEIGHT TO REFLECT A SPECIFIC BUILDING DESIGN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAGE.
PHOTO OF THE SITE. A LOT OF THE SITE HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED IN THE AREA.
RIGHT NEAR THE CORY PARK DISTRICT. THERE IS THIS PORTION IN THE
BACKGROUND IS THE BOW RIVER. THE PROPOSED DC WILL CONSOLIDATE THE EXISTING LAND
USES INTO ONE LAND USE. CURRENT LAY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE
STRADDLES BOTH THE DC AND M-1 DISTRICTS WHICH COMPROMISES THE APPLICANT'S ENTERTAIN TO
HAVE A FIVE STOREY BUILDING DEVELOPED ON THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE AREA.
WHICH ALSO STILL MUST RESPECT THE DC'S INTENT TO LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHTS TO 15 METERS
WITHIN 30 METERS OF THE EXISTING SSPR ABUTTING THE PARCEL.
THE SITE IS FLAT AND WILL BE ACCESSED FROM THE EAST BY CORY WAY.
PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BARLOW ASP AND HEIGHT IS DEEMED TO BE COMPARABLE WITH
ADJACENT LAND USES. AS SUCH CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION REJECTED --
RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WITH THE C PEG
RECOMMENDATION AND GIVE THREE READINGS TO THE BYLAW. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION,
YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION
FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN KEATING? NO.
I HAVE ONE. ANY SHADOWING CONCERNS? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO IN THIS
INSTANCE, YOUR WORSHIP. THE INTEGRITY OF THE DC IS BEING MAINTAINED BY IF YOU
LOOK ON THE HATCHED AREA TO THE NORTH OF IT, YOU CAN SEE THE FDR.
THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON ANY DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING THAT TO HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 15
METERS. THAT DOES HELP MITIGATE AND ALSO REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL
HOW THIS SITE WAS DESIGNATED ORIGINALLY. THERE IS SOME RESIDENTIAL IN
THE VICINITY. HOWEVER, THE HEIGHT I DON'T THINK IS UNREASONABLE
CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE EXISTING DC AND THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS PLACED ON IT.
>> ALL RIGHT, THEN. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR
WORSHIP AND MEMBER OF COUNCIL. I'M BEN LEE WITH IBI GROUP AND WITH ME MICHAEL WITH
REMMINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THE APPLICATION AND WANT TO MAKE OURSELVES AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT
COUNCIL MAY HAVE. >> THANKS. ALDERMAN KETING?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WANT TO CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
IF WE LOOK AT THE LINE THAT SEPARATES THE TWO PARCELS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WILL
BE BUILDING -- THE INTENT IT TO BUILD FOUR BUILDINGS ACROSS THAT SITE?
IS THAT CORRECT? FIVE, OKAY. ONE OF THE BUILDING ENDS UP TO
BE ON THE LINE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. IF I MAY, WHAT PRECIPITATED
THIS WHOLE PROCESS WE TRIED TO LOOK AT BOTH THOSE SITES ON A COMPREHENSIVE FASHION, AND
WHAT THAT DID WAS AT THE END OF THE DAY IT HAD A BUILDING STRADDLED THE LAND USE LINE.
THIS IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL QUESTION SOMETIMES WHEN WE HAVE A LAND USE PUT IN PLACE
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRODUCT RANGE IS AND WE HAVE A NICE DESIGN BUT IT HAD ONE BUILDING
THAT STRADDLED THE LAND USE LINE, DIDN'T RESPECT THE DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN THE
TWO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. JUST NEEDED TO ADJUST THE -- PUT A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
ACROSS THAT RESPECTED WHERE THE ACTUAL LINE FOR THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIATION OCCURS.
REALLY IN ESSENCE WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. >> THE BUILDING ON THE FAR
NORTH END IS STILL GOING TO BE AT THE LOWER HEIGHT RESTRICTION, JUST ALLOW THE
ONE BUILDING THAT STRADDLES THE LINE TO BE AT THE HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW FOR THE
DIFFERENCE IN USES? >> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANKS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> Mr. LEE, RELAXATION OF ONE METER ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE RELATED TO
BUILDING DESIGN, CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL LEEWAY TO MATCH, IF
YOU GUYS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO GO TO CORY PARK WE HAVE REALLY SOME KIND OF FRENCH
RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE HAS STEEP ROOFS. TO ACCOMMODATE THE
ARTICULATIONS AT KEY POINTS ON THE CORNER. >> PREDOMINANTLY BECAUSE OF A
STEEPER PITCH? >> YES. >> AND 16 TO 19 METERS, SAME
REASON? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> 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, THEN ANY QUESTIONS ADMINISTRATION. ALL RIGHT.
ALDERMAN KEATING? >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS
MOTION AND GO FORWARD AND CERTAINLY NOT TO LOWER MYSELF INTO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD
EARLIER, THIS IS EXTREMELY EXPEDIENT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS. ALDERMAN STEVENSON HAS SECONDED THAT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE. ALL RIGHT.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
VERY WELL THEN. CARRIED. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? SECOND READING ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED. THANK YOU.
8.220110, 0399 ROCKY RIDGE. Mr. ORR? >> ON POINT OF ORDER.
I HAVE FAMILY THAT LIVES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE AND WOULD ASK
COUNCIL'S INDULGENCE TO ALLOW ME TO EXCUSE MYSELF AS I WILL HAVE A INTEREST ON THIS
PARTICULAR MATTER. (PLEASE STAND BY) IF IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A FAMILY
PROBLEM... >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE ITEM BEFORE WITH YOU IS LAND USE
REDESIGNATION LOCATED AT 9 ROCKY RIDGE CLOSE NORTHWEST. IT'S SHOWN IN RED ON THE
OVERHEAD MAP FROM SFUD SPECIAL FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO RC 1 RESIDENTIAL
CONTEXTUAL 1 DISTRICT AND SUN SPECIAL PURPOSE URBAN NATURE DISTRICT.
FOR INFORMATION TO COUNCIL, ON THE DIRECTION OF CALGARY PLANNING ECONOMICS, THIS ITEM IS
BEING REFERRED TO COUNCIL AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF ROCKY RIDGE PLACE NORTHWEST AND SOUTH OF ROCKY RIDGE
CRESCENT. THE SITE IS ROUNDED BY PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE ATTACHED
DWELLINGS AND AN OPEN POND AREA TO THE WEST WITH ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS TO THE SOUTH.
THERTHERE IS A SERIES OF TREES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE...
THE DEVELOPER HAS VOLUNTARILY PROPOSED TO DEDICATE MUNICIPAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE ON THE
WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ADMINISTRATION FEELS IS A REASONABLE APPROACH WHICH IS
CONSISTENT OF THE INTENT OF THE STRUCTURE PLAN. THERE'S AN AIR PHOTO.
YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING SITE OUTLINED IN RED AND THERE'S AN EXISTING DWELLING ON THE
PROPERTY. I WOULD ADVISE COUNCIL THAT THE SINGLE ATTACHED DWELLINGS TO THE
WEST OF THE SITE, THE PHOTO IS SOMEWHAT UPDATED IN THAT IT IS FULLY DEVELOPED AT THE TIME.
HERE'S A MORE I BELIEVE RECENT AIR PHOTO TAKEN OF THE SAME AREA.
YOU CAN SEE THE LUSHNESS OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO RELATIONSHIP TO THE ABUTTING SIN SINGLE DETAD
DEVELOPMENT EXISTING. GO AHEAD. NOW, IN THE -- THIS MAP YOU CAN
SEE THE RC 1 AREA. YOU CAN SEE THE SSPR WHICH THE DEVELOPER I BELIEVE IS
DEDICATING AND ALSO THE SUN WHICH IS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING DC PORTION WITH A
SIMILAR TYPE OF LAND USE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AS NOTED, THE WETLANDS ARE ALSO
BEING PRESERVED WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT AREA AND A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE SITE
REMAINS IN A NATURAL STATE. CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED TO TABLE THE PLAN
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION UNTIL COUNCIL HAS MADE A DECISION ON THE LAND USE.
THIS ILLUSTRATION YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A WETLAND AREA RIGHT TO THE LOWER PORTION OF THE PARCEL
AND ALSO THERE'S ANOTHER WETLAND AREA NORTH LOCATED CENTRALLY ON THE SITE RIGHT THERE WHICH IS
BEING PRESERVED IN THIS INSTANCE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REFER TO
COUNCIL THERE'S A SPECIFIC SECTION IN THE ASP WHICH STATES REGARDING SITES SUCH AS THIS
THAT EVERY EFFORT SHALL BE MADE TO PROTECT THE KNOB AND KETTLE TERRAIN, VALUED ASPEN TREE
STANDS AND OTHER NATURAL FEATURES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNIQUE QUARTER OF THE QUARTER
SECTION, DENSITY BONUS STRUCTURE OR OTHER METHODS AS DESIRED PRACTICAL AND APPROPRIATE.
IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR WORSHIP, THE ADMINISTRATION FELT THAT THE DEVELOPERS' VOLUNTARY PROPOSAL
TO DEDICATE MR WAS A REASONABLE APPROACH IN THIS INSTANCE AND IT DID MEET THE INTEND OF THE AREA
STRUCTURE PLAN. THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN FROM THE EAST OF THE SITE AT ONE OF
THE BAYS. YOU CAN JUST SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE WORDED AREA HERE WHERE THE
RED DOT IS, AND THAT IS THE EXISTING SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING THAT IS ON THE
PROPERTY. YOU'LL NOTE THE KIND OF ROLLING TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SNOW AND
THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON THE SITE JUST TO THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE HOUSE.
YOU CAN SEE THE ROLLING NATURE OF THE LANDSCAPING HERE. AND ALSO THAT IS JUST ALONG THE
PRIVATE ROAD THAT ACCESSES THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THE SLOPE AWAY FROM
THE ROAD AND ALSO UP TO THE SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING, THAT'S A PATHWAY TO THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE WITH THE RED DOT THERE, YOU CAN GET AN
IDEA OF THE WOODLANDS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SPECIFIC PARCEL.
THE CORPORATE PLANNING APPLICATIONS GROUP RECOMMENDATION TO CPC WAS THAT
COUNCIL ADOPT BY BYLAW THE REDESIGNATION OF 3.4 ACRES TO C 1 S, SPR AND SUN DISTRICTS.
THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HAVE A LOT OF LIGHTS.
ARE THESE QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. YES. THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS IN
REGARDS TO LOC 2010-34. PAGE 3. AT THE VERY TOP OF THE PAGE
THERE, 2010 JULY 26 COUNCIL REDESIGNATED 10.46 HECTARES TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE
SUBJECT SITE. I'M NOT SURE I QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I'M SORRY, THIS IS FROM PAGE 3 ON THE RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY?
>> YES. >> UNDER? >> AT THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE.
VERY FIRST LINE. SOUTH AND NORTH IS TWO OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO POSITION MYSELF. WHERE IS THIS?
THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO? >> I BELIEVE THEY MEANT TO SAY SOUTH AND -- I WOULD SAY EAS EAF
THE SUBJECT SITE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP HERE THAT'S 94 D 2010 THERE'S THE DC ASSOCIATED
TO THE SOUTH PORTION AND ALSO TO THE EAST PORTIONS OF THE SITE. I DON'T HONESTLY SEE ANYTHING TO
THE NORTH. I BELIEVE THAT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A MISPRINT WHEN IT WAS PUT
IN THE -- >> SOUTH AND EAST. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IF I CAN REFER YOU TO PAGE 2 OF 3 OF THE SUBMISSIONS APPENDIX 5. NUMBER D, IT SAYS THAT THERE
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SOME DELIBERATELY -- DELIBERATE DRAINING.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? >> I'M SORRY -- >> THE WORD DRAINING OF THE
WETLANDS. >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YOUR WORSHIP, NO.
I THINK THE INTENT IS HERE HE'S OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN THE ONE AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION WHICH IS
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT -- THE DC-9 42010, THE OTHER ONE IS QUITE SMALL BUT HE IS MAINTAINING THAT
I BELIEVE VOLUNTARILY. >> WELL, I'LL BE ASKING THE APPLICANT THE SAME QUESTION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. I DID CHECK THE PROCEDURE BYLAW
AND THERE IS NO PROVISION THAT YOU CAN VOTE BUT CAN'T TALK. SO WE'LL BE BRINGING THAT
FORWARD SOON. ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP, ON A MORE
SERIOUS NOTE. Mr. ORR, THE ONLY WAY TO ILLUSTRATE MY QUESTION IS
APPENDIX 4, PAGE 1 OF APPENDIX 4. PREVIOUS TO THE PAGE THAT
ALDERMAN CHABOT WAS REFERRING TO. APPLICANT WANTED TO INCLUDE
ROCKY RIDGE PLACE THE ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE OUTLINE PLAN THEY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT.
HOWEVER, WHAT WAS ADVERTISED WAS THE AREA IMMEDIATELY WEST AND ADJACENT TO ROCKY RIDGE PLACE,
BUT ON MY MAP DOESN'T INCLUDE ROCKY RIDGE PLACE. SO COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR
ME? I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT THE FILE MANAGER, BUT THE FILE MANAGER IS
SITTING IN A CHAIR IN THE AUDIENCE BEHIND YOU. >> I CAN ADVISE COUNCIL THAT
WHAT'S GOING FORWARD TO COUNCIL IS JUST THE ACTUAL LAND USE REDESIGNATION.
I UNDERSTAND THE -- THAT ROAD IS ACTUALLY A CLOSED ROAD. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY AN
INDEPENDENT PARCEL OF PROPERTY. >> IT IS. >> IT'S NOT NOTED IN THE
ADVERTISING, YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT INTENDED TO BE REDESIGNATED WITH THIS
APPLICATION. >> Mr. ORR, I AGREE WITH YOU. WHAT I'M SAYING, IT'S NOT THE
APPLICANT'S APPLICATION. HE/SHE INCLUDED ROCKY RIDGE PLACE IN THEIR APPLICATION.
HERE. I CAN SHOW YOU. SO IT WAS EXCLUDED...
[Inaudible] SORRY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, SUBDIVISION
PLANNING. THERE WAS TWO APPLICATIONS MADE, SO ALDERMAN HODGES IS CORRECT.
ONE APPLICATION, THE OUTLINE PLAN APPLICATION DOES INCLUDE THE ROCKY RIDGE PLACE AND THAT
IS OWNED BY ANOTHER LANDOWNER. THE LAND USE APPLICATION IS FOR THEIR PROPERTY ONLY AND
THEREFORE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ROCKY RIDGE PLACE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. I'D HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO CATCH UP TO YOU THIS MORNING, I WOULD
HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION, BUT I WANTED TO ASK IT PUBLICLY AS WELL.
YOUR WORSHIP, THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS AND SO WE CAN HAVE SCHEDULE A AND SCHEDULE B BEFORE
US SO WE CAN PROCEED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. WE'RE STILL ON QUESTION OF
CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU. THIS FAILED AT PLANNING COMMISSION AFTER A LENGTHY
DEBATE, AND YET THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY KIND OF PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO EXPLAIN WHY. WERE YOU PRESENT AT THAT --
>> ACTUALLY, YOUR WORSHIP, I WAS ATTENDING SESSIONS OF THE SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT APPEAL
BOARD SO I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE DEBATE AT CPC ON THIS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, ONE OF THE MAIN
ISSUES -- THERE'S A FEW. ONE OF THE MAIN ONES AT PLANNING COMISSION WAS THE ISSUE OF
CONSERVATION DESIGN. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN AREA
STRUCTURE PLAN AS WELL AS THE BILL FORM CONTRADICTED CONSERVATION DESIGN AND
THEREFORE WE FELT THIS PROPOSAL. CPC DISAGREED THIS PROPOSAL MET THAT REQUIREMENT AND THAT WAS
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT LOST IN A TIE VOTE. >> DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
WE SAW AT CPC OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE SUMMERTIME? >> REGRETTABLY, YOUR WORSHIP, WE
DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PICTURE-WISE THAT DOESN'T HAVE SNOW ON IT. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM
THE SUMMER. I APOLOGIZE. >> AND YET IN PLANNING
COMMISSION WE WERE SHOWN IMAGES THAT SHOWED THE LAND IN THE SUMMER, EXTRAORDINARILY
BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS DIFFERENT IMAGES FROM DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS, AND IN THE DEAD OF WINTER. WHICH I FIND DISAPPOINTING.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT COUNCIL SEE THE SAME PRESENTATION WITH THE SAME
PROPERTIES THAT WE SAW AT CPC. THAT HELPED DETERMINE THE CPC DECISION -- OR LACK OF DECISION.
I WOULD LIKE SOME ATTEMPT TO ARRIVE AT THOSE, SOMEHOW. >> CAN WE FIND THEM SOMEWHERE?
>> IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> Mr. WATSON?
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I TOO REMEMBER THE -- I BELIEVE IT WAS THIS APPLICATION, BUT THERE WAS
SOME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT CERTAINLY WERE NOT WINTER PHOTOGRAPHS -- >> I KNOW.
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD LEAD YOU TO A CERTAIN OUTCOME, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE OUTCOME
CPC -- >> IN THEORY IT SHOULD BE IN THAT FILE.
IF IT'S NOT IN THAT FILE WE COULD TABLE IT AND GO BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER LOOK IF THERE'S
ANOTHER FILE OR SOMETHING ELSE HANGING UPSTAIRS. >> WE CAN DO THAT, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> PARDON? >> WE COULD TABLE IT AND GO UP --
>> WE'D HAVE TO TABLE IT IF THAT'S YOUR WISH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I CAN
CERTAINLY TAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU LIKE,
ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> I'LL MOVE THAT THEN, THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE END OF
THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. CARRIED.
THAT TAKES US TO 8.3 ON OUR AGENDA, CPC 2011-40. CRANSTON.
Mr. ORR. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A LAND USE REDESIGNATION
LOCATED AT 21111 DEERFOOT TRAIL SOUTHEAST IN THE COMMUNITY OF CRANSTON.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO REDESIGNATE 0.03 HECTARES OR 0.07 ACRES FROM URBAN NATURE DISTRICT TO SCRI
SPECIAL PURPOSE CITY AND REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOTED IN RED ON THE SITE PLAN LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE CITY.
NORTH OF THE BOW RIVER AND WEST OF DEERFOOT TRAIL. THE APPLICATION FACILITATES A
FUTURE SANITARY LIFT STATION TO SUPPORT FUTURE PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA.
THE REDESIGNATION IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS UTILITY-BUILDING USE.
THAT'S JUST A SHOT TAKEN FROM DEERFOOT TOWARDS THE SITE AREA. IT'S BASICALLY IN A STRIPPING
AND GRADING STATE AT THIS TIME. AND THAT IS A PORTION OF -- A SMALL PORTION OF THE LOCATION
RELATIVE TO THE SITE FROM DEERFOOT TO THE -- JUST OFF THE SITE OF THE PROPERTY.
CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE C PEG RECOMMENDATION AND GIVE THREE READINGS TO THE BYLAW.
YOUR WORSHIP, THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> SORRY, THIS IS FROM BEFORE. THE TABLED ITEM. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> VERY BRIEFLY HOW IS ACCESS GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO THIS
SITE? IS ACCESS GOING TO BE REQUIRED? >> THE ACCESS IS -- YOUR
WORSHIP, I PERSONALLY COULD NOT GET TO THE SITE BECAUSE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
THERE WILL BE ROAD ACCESS BY WAY OF THE SSCR SURROUNDING THE PARCEL.
CURRENTLY THE STATION IS ABUTTING TWO LAND USES AND THAT IS WHY IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
REDESIGNATION AT THIS TIME. BUT THE ACCESS WILL BE FROM THE COMMUNITY OF CRANSTON ITSELF.
HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME IT'S CURRENTLY NOT ATTAINABLE BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, Mr. ORR.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT THEN. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
ALDERMAN KEATING. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. ONCE AGAIN THIS IS A SMALL
MATTER WHICH JUST IMPROVES THE AREA, AND I MOVE IT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS. SECONDER? THANKS, ALDERMA ALDERMAN STEVEN.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? 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? CARRIED.
THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO 8.4 IN YOUR
AGENDA. WHICH IS LAND USE REDESIGNATION IN ERLTON, Mr. ORR.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU IS AN APPLICATION TO REDESIGNATE
0.009 HECTARES OR 0.02 ACRES LOCATED AT 2329 AND 2329 R ERLTON PLACE SOUTHWEST AS NOTED
ON THE SITE MAP SURROUNDED IN RED FROM AN RC 2 RESIDENTIAL CONTEXTUAL ONE DWELLING DISTRICT
AND SSPR SPECIAL PURPOSE SCHOOL PARK AND COMMUNITY RESERVE DISTRICT TO SUN SPECIAL PURPOSE
URBAN NATURE AND RC 2 RESIDENTIAL CONTEXTUAL 1/2 DISTRICT.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE COMMUNITY OF ERLTON IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ELBOW RIVER.
IT'S TO SIMPLY ADJUST THE EXISTING LAND USES AND ALIGN THEM WITH THE NEW BOUNDARIES
PREVIOUSLY CREATED BY A DISPOSAL. THIS ENSURES THE PATHWAY SYSTEM
IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE OWNERSHIP AND APPROPRIATE LAND USE TO GO WITH THE PATHWAY.
WHAT THIS MAP SHOWS IS YOU CAN SEE THE -- THERE'S A SMALL PORTION AT THE SOUTH PORTION OF
THE MAP WHICH IS 2329 THERE. THAT IS SSPR LAND USE AND IN ORDER FOR THE RC 2 TO HAVE A
CONSOLIDATED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY THE INTENT IS TO CHANGE THE SSPR TO THE RC 2 DISTRICT SO
THAT WAY THE USE IS CONSISTENT ON THE PARCEL AT 2329. IF YOU LOOK ON THE PORTION OF
THE REDESIGNATION WHICH IS ABUTTING THE RIVER, THAT LAND USE THERE IS BEING REDESIGNATED
FROM THE EXISTING RC 2 TO THE SSUP DISTRICT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PATHWAY SYSTEM. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST A MAINTENANCE ISSUE THAT IS
NECESSARY IN THIS INSTANCE IN ORDER SO THAT THE PARCEL AS IT CONSISTENT LANDS USE AND THE
PATHWAY LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABUTTING PATHWAY TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE
PROPERTIES. THIS IS JUST A PHOTOGRAPH. THAT'S THE ACTUAL HOUSE.
THAT'S LOOKING TOWARDS THE RIVER FROM THAT PHOTOGRAPH THERE. YOU CAN JUST SEE THE
NOTIFICATION SIGN FOR REDESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY. AND THIS IS TAKEN -- THIS IS TO
THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT LITTLE STRIP OF PROPERTY WHICH IS ABUTTING THE PATHWAY SYSTEM,
THAT IS THE AREA THERE THAT IS BEING REDESIGNATED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE
CERTAINTIED WITH THE PATHWAY. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE WISH TO -- ALDERMAN
CARRA. >> WHAT WERE THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ON
THIS? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE PACKAGE.
>> IN SPEAKING, MY COLLEAGUE Mr. COPE, THE PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION DID -- GARNERED
SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERESTS IN EXPEDITING THE PROCESS DID NOT
FEEL AS IF A CIRCULATION WAS NECESSARY IN THIS INSTANCE. SO THE APPLICATION WAS EXPEDITED
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND NOT FORMALLY ASSOCIATED TO THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
>> SO THE REASON THERE WAS NO -- >> YES. >> WHOSE DECISION WAS THAT?
>> THAT WAS MY COLLEAGUE DECIDED TO EXPEDITE IT, THAT WAS THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BECAUSE IF I MAY PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH THIS IS HOUSE KEEPING
FOR A DECISION THAT WAS ALREADY MADE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> , THAT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
I'LL NEED SOMEONE TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> I'LL MOVE IT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN CHABOT IS SECONDING.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS? 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. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 9.1 IN
YOUR AGENDA, STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING. PROPOSED BIRD-FRIENDLY URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUNS HERE ARE REMARKABLE.
ALDERMAN CARRA I FULLY EXPECT YOU WILL RISE TO THE CHALLENGE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR
WORSHIP. AND WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WE HAVE THE -- TWO ITEMS HERE, CPC
2011-42 AND 43, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AS ONE ITEM WITH YOUR PERMISSION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IS THAT ALL RIGHT? DONE.
>> OUR FIRST ITEM, THE BIRD FRIENDLY URBAN DECIDE GUIDELINE. IT OFFERS NONSTATUTORY BUILDING
DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGN IDEAS WHICH ADDRESS THE GLOBAL ISSUE OF BIRD BUILDING COLLISIONS IN
RESPONSE TO THE DIRECTION OF CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CENTRE CITY PLAN, SPECIFICALLY
SECTION 7.9 URBAN ECOLOGY AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN THE CITY OF
CALGARY'S ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PAGE ON THE SCREEN
SUMMARIZES THE SPECIFICALLY RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE POLICY DOCUMENTS MENTIONED.
IN THE INTERESTS OF TIME, I WILL NOT READ THEM ALL INDIVIDUALLY. BUT I NOTE THE HIGHLIGHTED URBAN
ECOLOGY SECTION IN THE CENTRE CITY PLAN WHICH DIRECTED US TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE.
AS WELL THE PRODUCTION OF THE BIRD FRIENDLY URBAN DECIDE GUIDELINE DOCUMENT WAS
PRIORITIZED SPECIFICALLY BY CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION IN RESPONSE TO A GROWING GLOBAL
RECOGNITION OF THE BUILDING RELATED AVIAN FATALITY PHENOMENON.
BASED ON LIMITED LOCAL DATA, COLLECTED BY THE CALGARY BIRD BANDING SOCIETY, AND ON RESEARCH
GATHERED FROM GLOBAL SOURCES, THE GUIDELINE PROVIDES A COLLECTION OF DESIGN-BASED
STRATEGIES FOR THE CREATION OF BIRD-FRIENDLY BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
IT ALSO OFFERS SUGGESTIONS FOR BIRD-FRIENDLY OPERATIONS WHICH ALIGN WITH SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
OBJECTIVES. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 25th DIRECTION OF
CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION, VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT WERE REVISED TO MAKE CLEARER
REFERENCES TO OTHER GUIDELINES AND DOCUMENTS TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT AND
TO EMPHASIZE THE NONSTATUTORY VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE GUIDELINE.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON NOW TO CPC 2011-43 THE CENTRE CITY ILLUMINATION GUIDELINE.
IT IS INTENDED AS A NONSTATUTE DOCUMENT PROVIDING LIGHTING GUIDANCE FOR THE CENTRE CITY IN
THE FORM OF PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND SOLUTION-BASED CASE STUDIOUS.
IT ALIGNS WITH THE VISIONS AND GOALS OF THE CENTRE CITY PLAN AND PROVIDES DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR
PROVIDING INVITE ILLUMINATION SOLUTIONS. THE GUIDELINE FOCUSES ON
EXPERIENTIAL LIGHTING WHICH IS DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT DOES NOT ADDRESS LIGHTING SPECIFICALLY INTENDED FOR SECURITY PURPOSES AND DOES NOT
ADDRESS STREETLIGHTING. THE GUIDELINE RESPONDS TO A NUMBER OF INTENTIONS INCLUDED IN
THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY PROVIDING A CATALOGUE OF IDEAS WHICH ADDRESS THE
OBJECTIVES OF URBAN VIBRANCY, AND WALKABILITY. MORE SPECIFICALLY THE GUIDELINE
ADDRESSES SECTION 7.8 OF THE CENTRE CITY PLAN, ARCHITECTURE, SPECIFICALLY POLICY 7.8.2.3
EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE UTIZED TO DISTINGUISH BUILDINGS OF IMPORTANCE TO ACCENTUATE
CHARACTER BUILDINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT AND HIGHLIGHT SPECIFICALLY ELEMENTS.
THE ACTION THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN IN CONSULTATION WITH ARTISTS AND/OR SPECIALISTS
DESIGNERS WORKED WITH LIGHTING TO ACCENTUATE BUILDINGS AS WELL PROVIDE LIGHTING ON NEW AND
RENOVATEDDED BUILDINGS THAT PROVIDE PUNCTUATION AT SPECIFIC BUILDINGS.
IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 25th, 2010 DIRECTION OF CALGARY PLANNING
COMMISSION VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT WERE REVISED TO CLARIFY POSSIBLE AREAS OF
PERCEIVED CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS DOCUMENT AND THE BIRD-FRIENDLY. THAT WAS DONE AND THE DOCUMENTS
RETURNED TO PLANNING COMISSION IN FEBRUARY. THE RESULTING CALGARY PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS THAT COUNCIL ADOPT BY RESOLUTION THE PROPOSED BIRD-FRIENDLY URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES AS A REFERENCE ADVISORY DOCUMENT IN REGARDS THE LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS A AMENDED AND THAT COUNCIL ADOPT BY RESOLUTION THE PROPOSED CENTRE CITY
ILLUMINATION GUIDELINE AS A REFERENCE/ADVISORY DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION ALDERMAN JONES?
NO. ALL RIGHT THEN. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR
OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT THEN. QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. ALDERMAN JONES?
>> WHEN I READ THIS, I HAVE TO -- AND I DON'T WANT TO BE FLIPPANT OR SOUND CRUEL BUT IT
SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WORK TO GO TO FOR 137 BIRDS A YEAR. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING 5 TO
10 BILLION MIGRATORY BIRDS AND WE'VE HAD ON AVERAGE 137 A YEAR, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WORK.
>> THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT WE HAVE VERY LITTLE DATA ON THIS ISSUE.
WE HAVE LIMITED DATA THAT WAS COMPILED BY OUR LOCAL BIRD BANDING SOCIETY IN THE 1990s
AND GIVEN THE LACK OF LOCAL DATA, WE MADE THE DECISION TO PROCEED BASED ON THE PERCEIVED
GLOBAL PHENOMENON AND THE ESTIMATES OF AVIAN FATALITY THAT ARE OCCURRING ELSEWHERE IN NORTH
AMERICA. THE DOCUMENT AS MENTIONED IS VOLUNTARY AND IT SEEMED TO BE
ONE OF THE RIGHT STRATEGIES TO TAKE IN TERMS OF VARIOUS SUSTAINABLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIATIVES HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. >> SINCE I'VE LIVED IN MY HOUSE,
I'VE HAD THREE BIRDS HIT A WINDOW AND I ASSUME BECAUSE THEY'RE EATING THE FERMENTED
BERRY ON THE TREE OR THE FERMENTED APPLES ON THE TREE. IF I HAD THREE, 137 ISN'T BAD IN
THE COURSE OF TIME. WHAT DO OTHER CITIES DO? >> EXCUSE ME?
WHAT DO OTHER CITIES DO? >> OBVIOUSLY WE'VE PROBABLY TALKED TO TORONTO OR ANYBODY
ELSE THAT'S ON A MIGRATORY BIRD ROUTE. >> A LARGE NUMBER OF NORTH
AMERICAN CITIES INCLUDING TORONTO, SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW YORK HAVE PRODUCED FAIRLY
COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS. TORONTO'S IS FAR MORE REGULATORY
THAN OURS BUT THEIR DATA SHOWS A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM THERE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. AGAIN, QUESTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION? ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
AND I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS -- ADOPTING THIS DOCUMENT ARE GOING
TO BE IN THE FUTURE. HOW DO YOU ENVISION APPLYING THIS DOCUMENT?
>> THE DOCUMENT WILL BE USED AS A REFERENCE DOCUMENT IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS THAT ARE
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS IN THE HIGHER RISK AREAS. PARTICULARLY BORDERING NATURAL
AREAS. THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE DOCUMENT. >> SO AS SOME RESOURCE
IMPLICATIONS. >> RESOURCE IMPLICATION? IT WILL BE USED BY STAFF.
IN CONVERSATION WITH THE BUILDING APPLICANTS, YES. >> THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM
THAT I HAD. SECOND PROBLEM IS THAT I CERTAINLY HAVE SEEN A FEW BIRDS
IN MY YARD AND NOT ALL OF THEM MOVING, AND THEY WEREN'T AS A RESULT OF RUNNING INTO GLASS BUT
RATHER AS A RESULT OF NEIGHBOURING CATS OR THE FREE-ROAMING CATS.
YOU'LL SEE THAT AS PROBABLY A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM IN REGARDS TO THE AVIAN POPULATION THAN
THIS. BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN AS THE NUMBER.
EVEN IF THEY'RE CONSERVATIVE AND YOU DOUBLE THEM. THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAD WITH
THIS IS IT SEEMS VERY TWO-DIMENSIONAL IN THINKING. AND NOT REALLY LOOKING AT IT
FROM A BIRD'S EYE VIEW, NO PUN INTENDED. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE
ANGLING OF THE GLASS AS AN EXAMPLE, THAT MAY BE RELEVANT IF YOU'RE FLYING HORIZONTAL TO THE
GLASS. BUT IF YOU'RE FLYING UPWARDS TOWARDS THE GLASS YOUR
PERCEPTION WOULD BE THE SAME AS IF IT WEREN'T ANGLED WHICH IS WHY I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS
IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY OR WHAT WE REALLY HOPE TO ACHIEVE FROM IT, AND WHETHER WE
SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE RECEIVING IT FOR INFORMATION AND PROVIDING IT AS A GUIDE TO DEVELOPERS THAT
ARE INTENDING ON DEVELOPING SOME OF THESE ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE AREAS.
>> IF I MAY RESPOND, THAT IS THE INTENT, THAT IT WOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE.
>> THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS HOW MUCH EMPHASIS WE AS ADMINISTRATION ARE GOING TO BE
PLACING ON THIS DOCUMENT IN REGARDS TO APPLICATIONS MOVING FORWARD.
I SEE IT AS A BENEFIT MAYBE TO SOMEBODY WHO'S DEVELOPING LANDS. I SEE IT AS A DETRIMENT FROM THE
MUNICIPAL PERSPECTIVE IN REGARDS TO ALLOCATING OR ADDING ANOTHER LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY IN REGARDS
TO REVIEWING SOME OF OUR APPLICATIONS. >> IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT AS
WELL, THAT WAS ALSO THE CONCERN OF CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION AND WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, HOW
THE DOCUMENT WOULD BE USED, AND HENCE THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE DOCUMENT BE ADOPTED AS A REFERENCE/ADVISORY DOCUMENT ONLY.
IT'S REALLY JUST A PART OF A LEARNING CURVE WE HAVE ABOUT HOW THESE ISSUES ARE IMPACTED BY
BUILDINGS AND REALLY IT'S INTENT IS TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS PARTICULARLY
DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAY EMPLOY LARGE AREAS OF REFLECTIVE GLASS. THIS BUILDING BEING A GOOD
EXAMPLE. WE GET A FAIR NUMBER OF BIRD KILL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS
BUILDING. IT'S NOT MEANT TO IMPACT THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS OR
DEVELOPMENTS THAT AREN'T ANYWHERE NEAR ANY KIND OF NATURAL AREAS THAT MIGHT BE
HIGHER RISK. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. NOW, YOUR WORSHIP, BEING AS IT
WAS A JOINT PRESENTATION, I WONDER IF I CAN THEN ASK QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY RELATED
TO THE ILLUMINATION DOCUMENT. AND, AGAIN, MY CONCERN IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS.
THE IMPLEMENTATION IS A LITTLE MORE RIGOROUS IN THIS INSTANCE IN REGARDS TO THE LIGHTING
RECOMMENDATIONS? THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE I SAW IN
HERE SOMEWHERE IF I CAN FIND THE STARTING POINT OF THIS DOCUMENT, IS THIS 9.3?
[Inaudible] IT'S ALL UNDER 9.2. I HAD HIGHLIGHTED -- MAYBE IT'S
WITHIN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF ON IMPLEMENTATION. AND IT TALKS ABOUT HOW IT'S
GOING TO BE CIRCULATED THROUGH ADMINISTRATION. IT SAYS IMPLEMENTATION.
ILLUMINATION PROJECTS ARE PURELY VOLUNTARY. BUILDINGS OR PROPERTIES RUN...
(. [Indiscernible] THEN IT SAYS IDEALLY, PROPERTY
OWNERS AND MANAGERS, LIGHTING SPECIALISTS, THE CITY OF CALGARY, URBAN DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVES AND CONSULTANTS MEET BEFORE THE PERMIT'S SUBMISSION AND AGREE ON THE BEST
ILLUMINATION STRATEGIES FOR THE SITE BASED ON THIS GUIDELINE'S RECOMMENDATION.
AGAIN, I'M A LITTLE WARY OF THE RESOURCE INTENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH REVIEWING THE LIGHTING
CONDITIONS THAT WE WILL ATTRIBUTE TO A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS ALSO RAISED AT CPC? >> IT WAS.
IT WAS RAISED IN THE SAME WAY AS FOR THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENT AND IN FACT THE RESOLUTION IS THE SAME,
THAT IT BE TREATED AS A REFERENCE/ADVISORY DOCUMENT. THAT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENT WITH
THIS DOCUMENT IS THAT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CATALOGUE OF IDEAS.
HOW TO LIGHT BUILDINGS MORE EFFICIENTLY USING MORE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, USING LESS ENERGY
BUT DO IT IN A MUCH MORE PLANNED, DESIGNED AND INTENDED KIND OF WAY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF APPLICANTS THAT ARE ASKING ABOUT THE USE OF EXPERIENTIALAL LIGHTING ON
BUILDING APPLICATIONS. THIS HELPS US TO HELP GIVE THEM SOME DIRECTION.
>> AND I PLEASURE TH APPRECIATEE WORDING IS ALL RELATIVE TO SHOULD AS OPPOSED TO SHALL.
SUCH AS ON PAGE 9, PROJECT EVALUATION. NONETHELESS, AISLE I'M A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION WHICH IS -- OR THE MOTION WHICH IS ADOPT BY
RESOLUTION. JUST WONDERING WHY IT HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION.
[Inaudible] >> YOUR WORSHIP, COUNCIL CAN ONLY ACT BY BYLAW OR RESOLUTION.
AND WHEN THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHICH WAY COUNCIL MUST ACT,
THERE'S A CHOICE. AND GENERALLY SPEAKING MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT WHEN IT'S A
CHOICE, A RESOLUTION IS SELECTED. >> AND THANK YOU FOR THAT, MISS
SLOAN. AND THEREIN LIES MY DILEMMA. WE ARE IN ESSENCE APPROVING A
DOCUMENT THAT IS ONLY INTENDED TO BE USED AS A GUIDELINE. DO WE NEED TO ADOPT IT BY
RESOLUTION AS OPPOSED TO JUST RECEIVE IT FOR INFORMATION THEN? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IF COUNCIL
DOESN'T ADOPT IT, THEN IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY ENDORSEMENT BEHIND IT.
AND SO IT WILL HAVE MORE CREDENCE, SO TO SPEAK, IF COUNCIL ADOPTS IT THAN IF IT'S
JUST PRESENTED FOR INFORMATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE REALLY DO ADOPT THINGS THAT ARE
CALLED GUIDELINES, RIGHT? AND THEY HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT MEANING THAN ADOPTING
SOMETHING -- A BYLAW, FOR EXAMPLE. >> BUT RESPECTFULLY, YOUR
WORSHIP, A LOT OF THE GUIDELINES THAT WE'VE ADOPTED ARE FREQUENTLY USED TO ARGUE FOR OR
AGAINST A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. EVEN IF IT IS A GUIDELINE.
[Inaudible] YES, I KNOW. ARGUED FOR OR AGAINST A
PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AND IF THIS IS INTENDED TO BE USED JUST AS A GUIDELINE AND NOT
A STATUTORY DOCUMENT THAT HAS ANY FORCE AND EFFECT IN REGARDS TO OBLIGATING A PARTICULAR
DEVELOPMENT FROM OCCURRING IN A PARTICULAR FASHION, THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT I HAVE WITH
ADOPTING IT BY RESOLUTION. BECAUSE IT IN ESSENCE WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE TODAY IS THAT IT WILL
HAVE NO FORCE AND EFFECT IN REGARDS TO REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR IN A
PARTICULAR FASHION. AM I INCORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION?
>> IT CERTAINLY IS UP TO COUNCIL IF THEY WISH TO ADOPT THIS BY BYLAW.
THEY CAN ADOPT IT BY EITHER IF A METHOD ISN'T SPECIFIED. BUT DOING SO WON'T REALLY GIVE
IT ANY MORE AUTHORITY. THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT YOU NORMALLY ADOPT BY BYLAW INCLUDE
STATUTORY PLANS AND LAND USE REDESIGNATION. AND THAT'S PAUS BECAUSE THE MUNL
GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES THOSE DOCUMENTS AS HAVING AN OFFICIAL STATUS AND THERE'S ACTUALLY
PROVISIONS IN THE ACT THAT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ACT THAT SPEAKS TO DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THIS.
SO WHAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES IS PROVIDES DIRECTION AND ASSISSTANCE TO TH THE APPROVING
AUTHORITY AND EXPRESSES A GENERAL INTENT OF COUNCIL TO THOSE WHO ARE DEVELOPING AND
OPERATING CERTAIN TYPES OF BUILDINGS. >> I'D BE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE
IN ADOPTING THE CENTRE CITY ILLUMINATION GUIDELINES AND RECEIVING THE BIRD-FRIENDLY
URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFORMATION THAN ADOPTING BOTH BY RESOLUTION AND THAT'S I GUESS
PART OF MY CHALLENGE. Mr. WATSON, ANY IDEA ON HOW MUCH ADDED TIME THIS WILL
REPRESENT TO YOUR DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO REVIEWING IT FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES?
>> EXCELLENT QUESTION. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO ADD ANY MORE TIME AT ALL.
IT'S A MATTER OF THESE -- AS Mr. DOWN HAS POINTED OUT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN
DISCUSSING WITH APPLICANTS OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS. THIS SHOULD ACTUALLY SPEED THE
DISCUSSION UP BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE GUIDELINES TO BOUND THAT DISCUSSION.
SO I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY POSITIVE IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO A NEGATIVE.
>> GREATER CLARITY ON BOTH ISSUES MOVING FORWARD SO THAT THERE'S LESS ARBITRARY KIND OF
DISCUSSIONS THAT MAY OCCUR? IS THAT KIND OF WHAT THE INTENT IS?
>> EXACTLY RIGHT. >> I'LL SIT DOWN AND LISTEN. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU. WELL, I WAS GOING TO MOVE IT, BUT MAYBE I SHOULD ASK A COUPLE
OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT GENERATES A LOT OF INTEREST, OF COURSE.
IT'S AN INTERESTING TOPIC. BUT, Mr. DOWN, THE -- WE'RE IN A MIGRATORY PATH, ARE WE, THE
CITY OF CALGARY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE ARE ACTUALLY IN TWO OF THE FOUR MAIN NORTH
AMERICAN MIGRATORY PATHS HERE. >> SO -- AND WHAT HAPPENS TO BIRDS -- WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE STRIKES IN PEOPLE'S FRONT ROOM WINDOWS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE URBAN AREAS LIKE THE DOWNTOWN THAT ARE REALLY WELL-LIT AND CAN YOU
PLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BIRDS ARE GOING THROUGH THEIR MIGRATION AND WHY
THEY'RE ATTRACTED TO THE CORE? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. THE -- IF I MAY, THE DOCUMENT
DOES TALK IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DETAIL ABOUT MIGRATORY PERIODS AND THE CONFUSION THAT'S CREATED
BY OVERLIT URBAN AREAS, ALSO THE CONFUSION CREATED BY THE REFLECTIVE BUILDING SURFACES
THAT PREVENT THE BIRDS FROM FOLLOWING IN THEIR TYPICAL MIGRATORY PATH, SEND THEM IN
CIRCLES IN URBAN AREAS, SOMETIMES EXHAUST THEM AND CONFUSE THEM.
THIS IS INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GATHERED FROM ELSEWHERE, PARTICULARLY TORONTO AND
SWITZERLAND. WE HIRED THE CONSULTANT THAT WORKED ON THE TORONTO GUIDELINE
TO ASSIST US WITH US. UNFORTUNATELY AS I SAY WE DON'T HAVE LOCAL MIGRATORY COUNTS AND
WE DON'T HAVE LOCAL AVIAN FATALITY COUNTS. WE STAND BEHIND THE SCIENCE OF
IT AS STRONGLY AS THEY CAN IN TORONTO. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE
PLANNING COMISSION'S CONCERN WITH THE DOCUMENT BEING TOO REGULATORY.
HENCE THIS UNIQUE LANGUAGE WAS ADDED THAT IT BE TREATED AS A REFERENCE/ADVISORY DOCUMENT DONE
AT PLANNING COMISSION'S REQUEST. >> IF THE DOCUMENT WAS WEAKEN ANY MORE, WE'D BE SAYING IGNORE
THIS DOCUMENT. IT'S VERY MODERATE LANGUAGE THAT HIGHLIGHTS IT AS AN ISSUE, HERE
ARE SOME SOLUTIONS, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADOPT THEM. WE'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH FROM
OTHER CITY. >> IT RAISES AWARENESS OF THE ISSUE AND IF A PLANNER SEES A
PARTICULARLY GLARING EXAMPLE OF A LARGE POTENTIALLY MIRRORED GLASS FACADE FACING A NATURAL
AREA, THEY CAN USE THIS DOCUMENT TO PROVIDE SOME IDEAS ON HOW THAT -- THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS
MIGHT BE MITIGATED. CITIES LIKE TORONTO AND NEW YORK ARE HANDLING THIS ISSUE NOW WHEN
THEY'RE MUCH LARGER AND DENSER THAN WE ARE. I THINK WE'RE AHEAD OF THE GAME
HERE BY RAISING AWARENESS OF THE ISSUE WHEN WE'RE STILL DEVELOPING TO THAT SIZE AND
DENSITY OF CITY AND WE CAN PERHAPS HANDLE THE PROBLEM IN A MORE AWARE FASHION THAN SOME OF
THOSE CITIES ARE DOING, HANDLING IT AFTER THE FACT. >> THANK YOU.
SO, Mr. MAYOR, WHEN IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MOVE THE ITEM? SHOULD I MOVE IT NOW?
[Inaudible] QUESTIONS FIRST? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'D
LIKE TO TAKE QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION BEFORE WE PUT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, I CAN
RECOGNIZE YOU AGAIN. ALDERMAN PINCOTT QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION?
>> AND THANK YOU. BOY, THIS TAGS ON TWO THINGS FOR ME.
BEFORE I GOT HERE I WAS A LIGHTING DESIGNER FOR 20 YEARS. SO HOORAY.
AND ALSO CAME VERY CLOSE TO BECOMING AN ORNITHOLOGIST. SO HOORAY.
AND I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE BEING BROUGHT TOGETHER BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE COMPLEMENTARY.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING THAT. I ALSO THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME.
AS SHAKESPEARE SAID, IF ALL THE WORLD'S A STAGE, I WANT BETTER LIGHTING.
THIS HOPEFULLY WILL GET US THERE. A QUESTION AROUND HOW...
DID YOU IN LOOKING AT THE ILLUMINATION GUIDELINES CONSIDER THINGS LIKE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
OR -- AS TO MIX METAPHORS THE CACOPHONY OF LIGHTING THAT WE HAVE.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THAT? >> WE DID LOOK AT THE CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND YOU'LL NOTE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT IT STRESSES LIGHTING USED AS
PUNCTUATION AND IT TALKS ABOUT CONTRASTING LIT AREAS WITH AREAS OF DARKNESS JUST IN ORDER THAT
IT DOESN'T BECOME A CACOPHONY OF LIGHTING UNLESS THAT'S THE INTENT FOR A PARTICULAR
DISTRICT, SAY AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. THERE IS A FURTHER REQUIREMENT
HERE IN ORDER TO CRYSTALLIZE THE IDEA OF A MASTER PLAN OF LIGHTING, SO TO SPEAK.
IF ONE WOULD REALLY HAVE TO DETERMINE WHERE THE MOST LIT AREAS SHOULD BE AND WHERE THE
LESSER LIT AREAS SHOULD BE. THIS DOCUMENT JUST TALKS ABOUT CIVIC BUILDINGS, LANDMARKS,
PUNCTUATION POINTS, AREAS OF DISTINCTIVENESS. IF YOU WANT TO LIGHT THOSE IN A
MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND MORE DISTINCTIVE WAY IN ORDER TO BRING MORE VITALITY OR ANIMATION
TO THE STREETSCAPE AND SKYLINE HE'S HOW TO DO IT WITHOUT NECESSARILY DECIDING EVERYWHERE
THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE. >> OKAY. SO THIS WOULD APPLY TO -- FOR
CITY SITES AND, SAY, PARKS DEPARTMENT AND WHATEVER AS WELL? JUST FOR THEM TO USE AS A
GUIDELINE? >> ABSOLUTELY. IT COULD APPLY TO -- AND PERHAPS
SHOULD APPLY TO ANY CITY SITES WHERE WE WANT SOME EXPERIENTIAL LIGHTING ADDED AND CAN BE
PRESENTED AS SUGGESTIONS FOR PRIVATE SITES. >> WHAT ABOUT THINGS -- AND ONE
OF THE AREAS THAT I THINK THE LIGHTING IS QUITE HORRIBLE ON IS STEPHEN AVENUE.
AND IT'S A PRIME EXAMPLE FOR ME OF JUST ADDING LIGHT UPON LIGHT UPON LIGHT.
WHERE DOES THE RESPONSIBILITY FALL ON SOMETHING LIKE STEPHEN AVENUE AND SAY THE LIGHT
FIXTURES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE TOP OF THE STREETLIGHTS TO LIGHT BUILDINGS?
WHERE DOES THAT RESPONSIBILITY FALL? >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION,
AND I BELIEVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY FALLS WITH US. I THINK THE LIGHTS HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED AT THE REQUEST OF BUILDING OWNERS. BUT THE CITY OF CALGARY HAS
PROVIDED THEM AND I BELIEVE PAYS FOR THE POWER. AND THAT'S ONE GOOD EXAMPLE OF
LIGHTING THAT'S DONE POORLY AND INEFFICIENTLY. ENERGY INEFFICIENTLY AND JUST AN
INEFFICIENT USE OF LIGHTING. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF BUILDING FACADES IN PARTICULAR THAT COULD
BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS IN THE DOCUMENT. >> OKAY.
IS THERE ANY WAY OF, SAY, USING THIS DOCUMENT TO GO BACK AND SAY -- AND WORK COLLABORATIVELY,
SAY, WITH THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION, THE DOWNTOWN BRZ OR TO USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A
JUMPING OFF POINT TO ACTUALLY START GETTING EXISTING LIGHTING BETTER OR BETTER EXISTING
LIGHTING? >> THE GENESIS OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS ACTUALLY INTO THESE TWO
PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON WITH THE CALGARY DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION.
ONE IS TO RELIGHT THE METAL TREE SCULPTURES IN THE 300 WEST BLOCK.
THE LIGHTING ON THOSE HAS FAILED. AND THEY NEED AN UPDATED
LIGHTING SYSTEM. SO THE RESEARCH THAT WENT INTO DETERMINING A NEW LIGHTING
SYSTEM FOR THAT AS WELL AS THE RESEARCH THAT WENT INTO DETERMINING A NEW LIGHTING
SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRE STREET BRIDGE WHICH WAS OFFERED AS A CENTENNIAL PROJECT TO CHINATOWN,
THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE TECHNICAL WORK THAT WENT INTO INFORMING THE DOCUMENT.
THIS ONE WAS KIND OF A QUICK WIN. WE HAD QUITE A BIT OF WORK DONE
AND COULD PUT TOGETHER SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON WHAT WE'VE LEARNED THROUGH OUR WORK
WITH THAT CONSULTANT. >> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT -- YOU TALK ABOUT THE MX AND CONTROL IN
HERE. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AROUND TAKING THE DMX AND LINKING IT UP
BEYOND BUILDING BY BUILDING AND BEING ABLE TO LINK IT TOGETHER? >> THERE CERTAINLY WAS THAT
DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN -- OR BE DONE VERY EFFECTIVELY IN OTHER CITIES.
MONTREAL IS A SPECTACULAR EXAMPLE OF THAT. BUT NONE OF THAT LEVEL OF
TECHNICAL DETAIL WENT INTO THE DOCUMENT. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE AWARE BUT HOW FAR BEHIND THE
TIMES WE ARE WHEN IT COMES TO LIGHTING OUR CITY AND LIGHTING OUR DOWNTOWN AND LIGHTING OUR
BUILDINGS. IT'S BEEN A HARD SLOG TO TRY AND DO ANY LIGHTING IN CALGARY FOR
YEARS. AS YOU SAID, Mr. DOWN, THIS RAISES ITS IMPORTANCE AND ITS
VALUE AND SORT OF PUTS A PUNCTUATION MARK ON IT. SO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK AND I
APPRECIATE IT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> A LOT OF MY CONCERNS SEEM TO MIRROR ALDERMAN CHABOT'S
CONCERNS WHICH SOMEWHAT FRIGHTENS ME. BUT THERE'S SEVERAL REFERENCES
IN HERE THAT MAKE ME CONCERNED. YOU'RE COMMENTING THAT IT'S BEING USED AS AN ADVISORY
REFERENCE SPECIFICALLY. PAGE 5 ON THE ILLUMINATION ON GUIDELINE 4.
IT SAYS WILL LIGHTING OF THE ELEMENT BE RESTRICTED DUE TO SOME OTHER CONSIDERATION, FOR
EXAMPLE BIRD MIGRATORY PATTERNS. ARE WE ALREADY SUGGESTING WE'RE GOING TO BE USING THIS AS A --
MORE THAN A GUIDELINE TO SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE HAD IS IN THIS GUIDELINE, THEREFORE YOU
CAN'T BE DOING THAT. IT'S THESE KIND OF ISSUES THAT MAKE ME VERY CONCERNED.
>> I THINK THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT'S RAISED BY THAT GUIDELINE, IT JUST SUGGESTS THAT
IN PROPOSING LIGHTING -- IT'S UNDER THE 2.1 CREATING CONTRAST SECTION.
IN PROPOSING THE LIGHTING, ARE THERE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO
INFLUENCE THE DECISION TO USE THE LIGHTING OR NOT. THE DOCUMENT DOESN'T RESTRICT
LIGHTING, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE LIGHT. >> NO, BUT IT DOESN'T RESTRICT
LIGHTING BUT IT IS SUGGESTING THAT IT MIGHT BE RESTRICTED DUE TO A COMPANION DOCUMENT, THE
BIRD MIGRATORY PATTERN DOCUMENT WHICH BRINGS UP SOMETHING THAT ALDERMAN PINCOTT HAD MENTIONED,
YOUR COMMENT ON A LARGE PANE OF GLASS AT PLANNING BEING MITIGATED, SO TO SPEAK.
SO WOULD THIS IN MANY CASES HOLD UP AND/OR DELAY APPROVALS BECAUSE OF THESE SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS? >> I THINK AS Mr. WATSON ALREADY POINTED OUT, IT SHOULD
SPEED UP THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE DO SOMETIMES GET A LITTLE DELAYED AT PLANNING COMMISSION
WITH THE DISCUSSIONS OF BOTH OF THESE ISSUES. AND I THINK WITH THE INFORMATION
INFORMING THE DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT IN ADVANCE, WE SHOULD SPEED THINGS UP.
>> SO RIGHT NOW THAT LARGE PANE OF GLASS WOULD BE PUT BACK ONTO THE DEVELOPER AND SAY YOU CAN'T
DO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT BIRD CONCERNS, ET CETERA? >> COULD YOU RESTATE THE
QUESTION? >> I'M WONDERING -- I'M CONCERNED FOR A SIMPLE SITUATION
SUCH AS YOU'VE GOT -- AS WAS SCRIESE OH DESCRIBED A LARGE PAE OF GLASS AND IT WOULD BE
MITIGATED USING THIS BIRD REVIEW THAT THE DEVELOPER SHOULDN'T NECESSARY LIE USE THAT BECAUSE
IT WOULD BE DISADVANTAGEOUS FOR MIGRATORY BIRD PATTERNS. ARE WE SUGGESTING SOMETHING LIKE
THAT WOULD BE HELD UP WITHOUT THIS REFERENCE GUIDE? >> I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S
BEING HELD UP. WE DO ENTER INTO, SOMETIMES, LONG DISCUSSIONS WHICH PERHAPS
ADDS TO THE LENGTH OF TIME -- I MEAN, WE HAVE A DISCRETIONARY BYLAW AND WHEN PEOPLE COME IN
WITH DESIGN, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE SAY, WELL, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT ILLUMINATION?
HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT BIRD GUIDELINES? HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT SOME OF
THESE ISSUES THAT OTHER NORTH AMERICAN CITIES ARE THINKING ABOUT.
AND THAT GOES BACK AND FORTH. WITH THIS, WE HAVE A STARTING POINT FOR THOSE DISCUSSIONS AS
OPPOSED TO DEPENDING WHO THE PLANNER IS OR WHO THE ARCHITECT IS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE TABLE.
I CERTAINLY CAN'T POINT TO ANY PARTICULAR APPLICATION, Mr. DOWN MIGHT, THAT WE ARE
HOLDING UP WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE. BUT THIS I THINK WILL SPEED UP
THE CONVERSATIONS, NOT SLOW THEM DOWN. >> ON PAGE 4 IT STATES THAT ALL
STAKEHOLDERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS INCLUDING...
[Indiscernible] DID WE GET ANY PROJECTIONS OR ESTIMATES OF WHAT THIS MIGHT
COST ON NEW BUILDINGS OR POSSIBLY RETROFITTING? [Inaudible]
>> YES. IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, WE DID NOT ESTIMATE WHAT THE COST
WOULD BE OF CHANGING YOUR BUILDING IN RESPONSE TO THE GUIDELINES BECAUSE WE DON'T
IMAGINE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY COST IMPLICATION AT ALL. IT COULD MAKE THE BUILDING COST
LESS. IT'S A CHANGE IN PERHAPS THE REFLECTIVE QUALITY OF THE GLASS
IN SOME INSTANCES OR IT'S A CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE TREES IN OTHER INSTANCES.
IT SHOULDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE CONSTRUCTION COST --
>> BUT DID WE ACTUALLY DISCUSS THIS WITH A AS YOU SAY THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THEY AGREE WITH
YOU THEY DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE ANY COST IMPLICATIONS TO IT?
>> THERE IS A PERCEIVED COST IMPLICATION OF THE -- OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
MULLIONS IN A WALL OF GLASS. THAT'S JUST ONE OF A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO DEALING
WITH THE PROBLEM. >> OKAY. I DO HAVE ONE CONCERN OVER ON
GUIDELINE 10 LOCATING THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING AWAY FROM WINDOWS.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A CONCERN FROM A BIRD-FRIENDLY SITUATION.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY PREVIOUS HISTORY THAT THE PLANTS WILL NOT DO NEARLY AS WELL IF
YOU DON'T HAVE THEM NEAR THE WINDOWS TO ACCEPT THE DIRECT SUNLIGHT.
AND I'VE GOT TO ADMIT, THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE SHOWING HOW MUCH STRESS RELIEF A
HEALTHY AND VIBRANT PLANTS ON AN INDOOR AREA IS GOOD FOR THE HUMAN BODY, I'M NOT SURE WHERE I
CAN BALANCE THOSE TWO. TO HAVE THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOBBY, I CAN GUARANTEE THEY
WON'T THRIVE NEARLY AS WELL. I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH GUIDELINE 10 IN THAT RESPECT.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WE HAVE A 6 O'CLOCK -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I AM
ABOUT TO SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE OUR RECESS AFTER THE CONTINUATION OF THIS --
CONCLUSION THIS ITEM SO THAT ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T HAVE TO STICK AROUND.
>> MAY I JUST HAVE TWO MINUTES OFF LINE WITH Mr. DOWN AFTER WE'VE ADJOURNED?
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I JUST
SAID THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOT RECESS UNTIL AFTER WE'VE COMPLETED THIS ITEM SO
Mr. DOWN DOESN'T HAVE TO STICK AROUND. >> I'M PREPARED TO SAY MY
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED. >> AnswerASKEDAND ANSWERED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DONE. ALDERMAN HODGES, QUESTIONS? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
WE STILL HAVE THAT ITEM THAT WAS TABLED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I KNOW
THAT. I FIGURED AT LEAST WE COULD LET Mr. DOWN GO.
[Inaudible] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IF WE'RE DONE.
Mr. DOWN, I MUST SAY THAT I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOUR OF BETTER LIGHTING ESPECIALLY WHEN IT
INVOLVES MORE PURPLE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT ON THE COVER. BUT I WAS A LITTLE BIT
SURPRISED, AND I ALLUDED TO IT A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY,
IN THE BIRD FRIENDLY URBAN DESIGN PIECE WE DIDN'T SEE BENCHMARKS OF CALGARY VERSUS
OTHER CITIES AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU INCORPORATED BEST PRACTICES OF OTHER CITIES IN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THAT WASN'T REALLY EXPLICIT IN THE REPORT. IS THAT ACTUALLY THE CASE?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, WE DID INDEED LOOK QUITE CAREFULLY AT THE TORONTO GUIDELINE AND USING THE
SAME CONSULTANT WE INCORPORATED BEST PRACTICES FROM TORONTO SO MANY OF THE MITIGATION
SUGGESTIONS SUCH AS THE SLOPED GLASS CAME FROM RESEARCH THAT HAD BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY IN
TORONTO WHERE THERE'S A MUCH MORE DOCUMENTEDDED INSTANCE OF THIS ISSUE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: GREAT. THANK YOU. ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULDN'T MIND MOVING BOTH OF THESE, BUT ONE AT A TIME.
I'LL START WITH THE BIRD-FRIENDLY URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
[Please Stand By] >> -- ALTHOUGH A MINOR ROUTE COMPARED TO WHAT TORONTO HAS.
BIRDS TRAVEL AT NIGHT, THEY TRAVEL ALONG THE BOW CORRIDOR, AND THEY NAVIGATE BY THE
STARS. AND SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE
EXAMPLE OF OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AND BROUGHT ABOUT GUIDELINES THAT
ARE JUST THAT. THEY'RE TO INFORM APPLICANTS OF THE ISSUE AND POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS. IT CAN BE AS SIMPLE AS TURNING OFF DETECTIVE LIGHTING DURING
MIGRATORY PERIODS. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY WE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY, IS
HAVING -- IN SOME CITIES IT'S LEGISLATED. BRISBANE HAS MOTION DETECTORS
INSIDE THEIR BUILDINGS AND THEY HAVE HAD FOR DECADES SO THAT IF NOBODY IS IN THE
BUILDING, THE LIGHTS GO OFF. AND THEN IF SOMEBODY IS IN THE BUILDING AND MOVING AROUND, OF
COURSE THE LIGHTS ARE ON AND IT HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY. WE HAVE A SONGBIRD POPULATION
THAT'S IN DRAMATIC DECLINE. IN NORTH AMERICA. A LOT OF IT'S FROM CATS,
PREDATORY ANIMALS, BUT MANY, MANY OF THE FATALITIES ARE COMING FROM THE URBAN
ENVIRONMENT. SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP, I THINK WE
SHOULD MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT TO HELP. AND AS IT'S BEEN STATED MANY
TIMES, IT'S SIMPLY VOLUNTARY BUT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE ARE SOLUTIONS TO THESE
ISSUES WHEN THE QUESTION COMES UP. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FERRELL. ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS, YOUR WORSHIP. NOW, ALDERMAN FERRELL WILL
KNOW THAT I'VE HAROLDED HER A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT DURING THIS BUT I'M PREPARED TO STOPPED
HERE AND EAT A LITTLE CROW. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: JUST BEFORE SUPPER?
>> I'D ACTUALLY CONGRATULATE HER FOR BRINGING THIS ALONG I THINK THE PAST SIX OR SERVE
YEARS. AND IT IS VOLUNTARY. IT IS A GUIDELINE.
AS Mr. DOWNS POINTED OUT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REFERENCED.
AND FOR THAT REASON I'LL SUPPORT IT AND I'LL ASK COUNCIL TO SUPPORT IT.
AND PLUS THAT, I -- WITH THAT I WILL SIT NOW QUIETLY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'LL
RETURN TO YOUR NEST? NOT UNLESS THERE'S A GREAT FUNNEL, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> WELL, I WAS NOT INCLINED OR SUPPORTING THIS, AND HAVING
HEARD FROM Mr. WATSON, BELIEVING THAT THIS MAY ACTUALLY HELP TO SPEED THE
PROCESS, I -- I'M MORE INCLINED, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, TO SUPPORT THE CENTRE CITY
ILLUMINATION GUIDELINES BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY CONTRACT MORE
SIGNIFICANTLY TO PROTECTION OF THE -- CONTRIBUTE MORE SIGNIFICANTLY TO PROTECTION OF
THE AVIAN POPULATION SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF MINIMIZING THE POTENTIAL DRAW TO THE BIRDS
INTO THE CENTRE CITY. DURING THE EVENING HOURS IN PARTICULAR.
I KNOW THAT WE, AS A CITY, HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT I GUESS PROVIDING A BETTER CITY, AND
SO WE MAY BE A VICTIM OF OUR OWN SUCCESS IN LOOKING AT AESTHETICS.
AND A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED IN THE LAST LITTLE WHILE HAVE BEEN TO
TRY AND IMPROVE OUR AESTHETICS BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE BECAUSE I THINK
CONCRETE WOULD BE QUITE VISIBLY TANGIBLE TO THE BIRDS AS BEING A SOLID AND MORE
GLASS WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY IS CREATING SOME PROBLEMS. SO LIKE I SAID, WE MAY BE A
VICTIM OF OUR OWN SUCCESS. SO I GUESS MOVING FORWARD, THERE MAY BE SOME SOLUTION
THAT IS MIGHT NOT BE ALL THAT COSTLY THAT WE COULD IMPLEMENT IF IT CAN HELP TO SPEED THE
PROCESS, ANSWER A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS, ULTIMATELY MAYBE EVEN SPEED UP THE PROCESS, I
GUESS IT'S WORTHWHILE CONSIDERING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS,
ALDERMAN CHABOT. WE'RE A FIN MINUTES BEYOND OUR NORMAL TIME SO I SHOULD
PROBABLY TAKE A MOTION TO SEND THE PROCEDURE RIGHT ALONG TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ITEM,
HOWEVER BEFORE I DO THAT, I WILL ASK COUNCIL IF YOU HAVE ANY APPETITE, WE'VE GOT ONE
ITEM LEFT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU HAVE ANY APPETITE TO GO
THROUGH THAT ONE AS WELL BEFORE WE TAKE A DINNER BREAK, THEN ALL THESE FOLKS CAN GO
HOME? OKAY, SO WHY DON'T I TAKE A APPROPRIATION TO SAW SPEND OUR
PROCEDURE UNTIL BOTH ITEMS ARE DONE. SO ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART,
YOU'RE SECONDING? ARE WE AGREED? VERY WELL THEN.
SO WE'LL FINISH OFF -- SORRY, OPPOSED? CHABOT AND JONES, EURO POSED.
VERY WELL THEN, WE'LL FINISH OFF THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE TAKE OUR BREAK.
ALDERMAN KEATING? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I JUST WANTED TO ADD MY
SUPPORT TO THIS AND CONGRATULATE ALDERMAN DOUGH FOR NOT DUCKING THE ISSUE AND
SPARROWING US MORE DEBATE. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN KEATING, YOU ARE IN FACT A PRINCE AMONG MEN. THANK YOU.
SO ALDERMAN FARRELL, DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE? ALL RIGHT, CLOSED.
ON 9.1 THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
9.2, ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THIS ONE PERHAPS IS NOT -- OR DOESN'T APPEAR AS HE IS
TAKER, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY -- ESO IT. ERIC, BUT I THINK IT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. ILLUMINATION IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND I THINK
NEGLECTED PART OF CALGARY'S ARCHITECTURE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER CITIES THAT I THINK
WE -- MANY OF US WOULD AGREE OR GREAT CITIES, ILLUMINATION IS JUST SIMPLY PART OF HOW YOU
WOULD DESIGN A BRIDGE OR AN UNDERPASS OR A BUILDING, FOR THAT MATTER.
AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WORK. I REALLY HAVE TO THANK THE
STAFF WHO'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE UNDERPASS GUIDELINES, THE ILLUMINATION GUIDELINES AND
THE BIRD FRIENDLY GUIDELINES. I'M GETTING COMMENTS ON HOW ATTRACTIVE OUR PUBLIC REALM IS
LOOKING AND HOW ATTRACTIVE OUR DOWNTOWN IS LOOKING, AND IT'S A LARGE RESULT OF THE WORK
THAT THIS TEAM IS DOING, AND THIS IS JUST ONE NEXT STEP IN HELPING CREATE A GREAT CITY.
SO THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, TO I HAVE A SECONDER,
ALDERMAN PINCOTT? THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE?
ALL RIGHT THEN, ON 9.2 ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALL RIGHT, THAT TAKES US BACK TO THE ITEM THAT WE TABLED
EARLIER, 8.2 IN YOUR AGENDA. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WE WERE STILL ON QUESTIONS OF
CLARIFICATION, WE HASN'T YET OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION,
ALDERMAN HODGES? NO. DO WE NEED ONE?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MOTION TO LIFT THEN FROM THE TABLE, SECONDED BY ALDERMAN CHABOT, MOVED BY
ALDERMAN HODGES, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. VERY WELL THEN. SO YOU HAD THE FLOOR I THINK,
ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> I DID. THANK YOU.
Mr. ORT, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND THE -- YES, THANK YOU. I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO
THE CONTEXT. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE -- >> BIRD -- TREES.
>> THE NATIVE GRASSLANDS ARE VERY TYPICAL IN THE SIZE AREA. PROBABLY BEST IF I JUST GO
THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHS, YEAH, PROBABLY THE BEST. >> GREAT.
>> THERE'S ALSO WETLANDS THAT'S EXISTING. AND I'LL SAY THAT YOU HAVE A
TALL DRY SHRUBS, VERY TYPICAL IN THE ACTUAL SITE AREA. ALSO NATIVE GRASSLANDS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. OBVIOUSLY THESE PHOTOS PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN IN THE
SUMMER. ALSO, WILLOW SHRUBS, VERY COMMON IN THE SITE AREA.
OKAY, ALSO SHOULD MENTION THE WET MEADOW, THAT AREA IS ACTUALLY BEING PRESERVED WITH
THE APPLICATION. AS IS THE -- ALSO THE SHALLOW MARSH, THAT'S ALSO BEING SAVED,
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REDESIGNATION. AND THAT'S JUST A TYPICAL
VEGETATION SHOT OF THE SITE. AND ALSO A DRY SHRUB WHICH IS VERY COMMON IN THE SITE AREA.
ALSO, THIS TYPICAL OF THE BUSH AND THE... AND THERE YOU CAN JUST SEE
WHERE A HOUSE IS ABUTTING IT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S DISTURBED WITH THE
INTRODUCTION OF GRASS SO SOME OF THE NATIVE GRASSES HAVE TO BE REMOVED OBVIOUSLY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE YARD. AND THIS IS A WETLAND AT THE NORTH PORTION OF THE -- OF THE
SITE. ACTUALLY GOING TO BE -- WOULD BE LOST WITH THE APPLICATION.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
CONTEXT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION, QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION ONLY AT THIS
TIME? ALL RIGHT THEN, SO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE WISH TO
SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
FAVOUR? HELLO? THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ROB HEYWARD AND I
REPRESENT THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY AND I WOULD LIKE TO TURN OVER THE TECHNICAL OF
THIS TO LYLE TILLY OF ECLIPSE ENGINEERING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL
RIGHT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
A LITTLE BRIEF HISTORY OF THIS SITE. WE HAVE WORKED OR THE
DEVELOPER AND THE LAND OWNER, THE SAME, HAS WORKED WITH THE LOCAL ALDERMAN OF THE AREA.
WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WERE WRITTEN TO US BY THE NEIGHBOURING -- THE
NEIGHBOURS IN ROCK POINT PLACE. TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR
CONCERNS OVER DIFFERENT ISSUES. IN DOING THIS, THE DEVELOPER
HAS -- HAS GIVEN UP A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF LAND THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED. THIS PARCEL WAS SUBDIVIDED AND WHEN IT WAS PART OF THE MD OF
ROCKY VIEW AND AT THAT TIME THE MR WAS GIVEN, SO WHEN THIS PARCEL IS REDEVELOPED, THERE
IS NO NEED FOR MR TO BE GIVEN OVER TO THE CITY. BUT IN RECOGNIZING THAT THERE
IS UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS, THERE ARE LOWLANDS, THERE ARE THE NOB AND KETTLE AND TO
ALLOW SOME DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARCEL BETWEEN THE ER AND THE MR, ALMOST 30% OF THE SITE HAS
BEEN DEDICATED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, OR UNDEVELOPMENT, SHOULD I
SAY. IN FACT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING NOT TO TOUCH ANY OF
THE EXISTING LAND WHICH IS MOST OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU'RE SEEING, THE NICE
COLORED WETLANDS AND THAT. THEY'RE PROPOSING NOT TO TOUCH ANY OF THAT LAND.
THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS, ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, AN EXISTING ER WITH A
WETLAND. THE ADJACENT LANDS WOULD BE TAKEN WITH THE SITE WAS BEING
DEVELOPED AS ER FRINGE. THE LANDS AS YOU HEAD NORTH THROUGH THE GREEN SPACE AND
THE TREES THAT WE'VE SHOWN WILL BE THE FUTURE MR THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO GIVE
UP. AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A LITTLE SPOT IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE TREES THERE. THAT WAS A WET -- THAT WAS A WETLAND THAT WAS CREATED WHEN
ROCK PLACE -- ROCKCLIFFE PLACE WAS CREATED. THEY FILLED E LAND AND
CREATED A TRAPPED LOW, AND PUT A LARGE RETAINING WALL ALONG IT SO NOW THERE IS A TRAPPED
LOW. BUT WE'RE PROPOSING TO RETAIN THAT TRAPPED LOW.
THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND IS QUITE ROLLING, AND IT DOES FALL OFF TO THE LOWLANDS TO
THE WEST ALONG ROCKCLIFFE PLACE. THE LAND -- THE PROPOSED
GRADING OF THE FUTURE R 1s OR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING WOULD RETAIN THE EXISTING GRADE AT
THE BACK OF THEIR LOT. SO IN THE MR, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO NOT DO ANY
GRADING. THEY'D LIKE TO MATCH THE BACK OF THEIR LOTS WITH EXISTING
GRADING. IT SEEMS THAT WE ALL VISIT THE SITE DURING THE WINTER.
WE HAVE ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL WINTER SHOT OF THE SITE. THIS IS ACTUALLY LOOKING FROM
THE SOUTHWEST ACROSS THAT STORM POND/ER. THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON YOUR
LEFTHAND SIDE ARE ROCKCLIFFE PLACE HOMES. AND THE HOUSE IN THE
BACKGROUND IS THE ACTUAL RESIDENT THAT IS NOW EXISTING ON THE SITE.
WE'RE PROPOSING -- THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION WOULD PROPOSE THAT THESE HOUSE --
THE NEW HOUSES WOULD BE OF NO HIGHER IN ELEVATION THAN THE EXISTING ROCKCLIFFE PLACE
HOMES. THIS PICTURE SHOWS LOOKING FROM THE BACKYARD OF THE
EXISTING DWELLING BACK TOWARDS THE HOMES ON ROCKCLIFFE PLACE. THAT LOW AREA BETWEEN HERE AND
THE HOUSES IN ROCKCLIFFE PLACE WOULD BE THE FUTURE MR. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE,
IT DOES COME UP QUITE DRAMATICALLY HIGH. THE EXISTING HOMES BACK ON TO
THIS HIGH WITH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. WE'RE PROPOSING A SIMILAR
NATURE WITH THE HOUSING THAT WOULD BE BACKING ON TO THIS CHAIN LINK FENCE.
THERE ARE ONLY THREE LOTS WHERE HOUSING WOULD ACTUALLY INTERFACE WITH EXISTING
HOUSING. THE RETAINING WALL THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WAS BUILT AS
PART OF ROCKCLIFFE PLACE, THIS IS IT. THIS IS ACTUALLY ON THEIR --
IS IN THEIR BACKYARDS, BUT THE LOW, THE TRAPPED LOW THAT WAS CREATED BY BUILDING THIS AND
FILLING IN ROCKCLIFFE PLACE WOULD BE RETAINED. THAT'S JUST A BRIEF SUMMARY.
I'D LIKE TO HAND IT OVER TO ROB. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOUR TIME IS ACTUALLY UP BUT GIVEN THAT THERE'S TWO OF YOU I CAN
GIVE YOU ANOTHER MINUTE TO WRAP UP IF YOU LIKE. >> ALL RIGHT.
WELL, YEAH, AND I'LL ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES I'M SURE ARE GOING TO COME UP SO I
WON'T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THAT. BUT WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT IN
THE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND THE
ADJACENT LAND OWNER, THE CPEG TEAM HERE IN CALGARY, THAT WE HAVE MADE QUITE SUBSTANTIAL
COMPROMISES ALONG THE WAY WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE AT THE END OF A LARGER
DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING AS YOU SAW EARLIER TO SAY EAST AND TO THE SOUTH OF US THAT
WAS REDESIGNATED LAST SUMMER TO RC-1 WITH DIRECT CONTROLS PLACED ON IT.
AND ESSENTIALLY WE ARE THE LAST OF THAT AREA TO BE DEVELOPED.
WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THAT AREA ALREADY HAS BEEN REZONED. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR
YOU, ALDERMAN CARRA? >> I'M ASSUMING THAT NOT CARRYING THROUGH TPC WAS A BIT
OF A SHOCK TO YOU GUYS? >> CORRECT. >> THERE WAS A DISCUSSION
ABOUT CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION, I UNDERSTAND, AT CPC? CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THAT
MEANS TO YOU AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT CONVERSATION -- OR --
>> WELL, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO IT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE THE LAST
PIECE TO BE DEVELOPED THIS THAT AREA. I DO UNDERSTAND THE
COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS. I DO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE AS SPEND TREES AND THE
PRESERVATION OF THE WETLANDS AND WE FEEL WE'VE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY TO
PROTECT THOSE AREAS TO THE BEST WE CAN AND TO DONATE AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO MAINTAINING
AN MR. >> OKAY. SO THE CONCEPT BEHIND
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION IS THAT YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE SITE AND YOU DESIGN YOUR
HOUSING AND YOUR LOTTING AROUND THE NATURAL FEATURES RATHER THAN SORT OF SAYING
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS AND WE'LL SAVE THAT IN TWO BIG CHUNKS.
IS THERE EVER ANY CONSIDERATION IN PURSUING A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION PLAN?
>> THAT IS WHY WE'VE -- THAT IS WHY WE'VE CHOSE TONE LEAVE THAT MR STRIP.
IT HAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANCE ON THE SITE. IT HAS THE NICEST TREE GROWTH.
WHERE THE EXISTING HOME IS, IS CULTURED GRASS, NON--- OR WHAT DO THEY CALL IT, NON--- WHEN
THEY DON'T BELONG TO THIS AREA TYPE TREES. THAT THERE IS A LITTLE NOB AND
KETTLE AT THE VERY ENTRANCE. TO DESIGN A HOUSE THAT WOULD SIT AROUND THE TREES, WE'VE
KEPT OUR LOT SIZES TO A SIMILAR LOT SIZE TO THE REST OF THE LOTS IN THE AREA.
WE'VE TRIED TO KEEP THEM SMALLER SO THAT WE COULD RETAIN SOME SORT OF KNOB AND
KETTLE IN ONE CONCENTRATED AREA RATHER THAN TRYING TO INTERSPERSE AND NOT REALLY
HAVE A SUCCESSFUL USE OF THE KNOB AND KETTLE AREA. >> OKAY.
SO THEN THE ANSWER IS... >> YES, WE DID. YES, WE DID, BY CREATING THAT
MR AND LOOKING AT THE LAND USE, YES, WE DID. >> OKAY.
>> 30% OF THE LAND HAS BEEN TURNED OVER TO CONSERVATION. INSTEAD OF NORMALLY IN A
SUBDIVISION, THE CITY WOULD WOULD ONLY ASK FOR 10%; IN THIS CASE NONE WAS REQUIRED
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS CHOSEN TO GIVE 30% FOR CONSERVATION. >> OKAY.
SO TECHNICALLY A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE BRINGING TO
THE TABLE. WOULD THERE BE ANY APPETITE TO PURSUE AN ACTUAL CONSERVATION
SUBDIVISION APPROACH GIVEN WHAT YOU HEARD INTEREST CPC OR...
>> I GUESS THAT WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING.
>> THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME AS WELL. OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA.
ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. ONE QUESTION I ASKED
PREVIOUSLY TO ADMINISTRATION, WHICH YOU PROBABLY ANTICIPATED, IS IN THE AREA THAT WAS DEEMED
TO BE SEASONAL WETLANDS. WHEN YOU -- CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE ROUGHLY THAT LIES WITHIN
THE SITE? IS THIS THE SEASONAL WETLANDS IN A WINTER CONDITION?
>> I'M SORRY. I WAS SHOWING THE RESULTS. >> THE SEASONAL WETLANDS IS
THIS PORTION IN HERE. THAT HAS BEEN CREATED AS A SEASONAL WET -- IT DRIES RIGHT
OUT WHEN THERE IS NO WATER. IT WAS ONE OF THE TYPICAL FOR THE BEARSPAW OR THAT RIDGE UP
THERE IS THAT THE GRAVEL LINER UNDERNEATH DOESN'T RETAIN THE WATER.
THIS BLUE AREA DOWN HERE IS A DESIGNED STORM WATER POND FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THIS PARCEL OF LAND TO THE EAST IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE WETLAND.
SO THERE'S A MIX OF LOWLANDS, STORM PONDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL WETLANDS.
>> OKAY. THAT SEASONAL STORM POND, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE PLANNING
ON RETAINING? >> THIS SEASONAL POND HERE? YES, WE'RE PROPOSING NOT TO DO
-- TO MAKE THAT PART OF THE MR, TO LEAVE THE MR AREA AS NATURAL.
IT'S GOT THE MOST CONCENTRATION OF INDIGENOUS TREES AND GRASSLANDS ON IT.
WE'D PREFER TO LEAVE THAT AS EXISTING. >> IS THAT THE AREA THAT WAS
SUBJECT OF THE COMMENTS PROVIDED TO US BY THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION?
>> CORRECT. >> CORRECT. BUT YOU ARE STILL GOING TO
PRESERVE IT. >> YES. THEY WANTED A SETBACK FROM THE
EXISTING HOMES AND THEY WANTED THE LOWLANDS PRESERVED. >> SO 21 LOTS, SO THEY'RE ALL
GOING TO BE ALIGNED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT PARCEL, IS THAT THE WAY THE INTENT IT?
>> YES, SIR. >> ALL ACCESS THROUGH THE EXTENSION OF ROCKY RIDGE PLACE
OR WHATEVER IT IS? >> ACTUALLY, ROCKY RIDGE PLACE, WE'RE IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE
ADJACENT LAND OWNER TO DO A LAND SWAP. ROCKY RIDGE PLACE WOULD BECOME
PART OF OUR PROPERTY AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SHADOW PLANS, WE'RE PROPOSING A
ROADWAY DIRECTLY THROUGH THE CENTRE OF OUR PROPERTY TO LINEUP WITH THE ADJACENT LAND
OWNER SO THAT THERE'S TWO POINTS OF ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
>> OKAY. SO THAT IS -- I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING
TO PLACE YOUR LOTS ON THERE. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT ROAD?
>> YES. >> OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE
PROPERTIES YOU WERE REFERRING TO THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY YOUR DEVELOPMENT --
>> AT THE TOP WEST CORNER, YES. >> ONLY LOOKS LIKE TWO THERE.
>> RIGHT NOW THE DEVELOPER IS IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND OWNER.
THEY CURRENTLY OWN THIS -- SORRY, THIS STRIP OF LAND HERE WHICH IS BEING USED AS A
TEMPORARY ACCESS TO THE BUILDING. AND THIS CHUNK OF LAND UP HERE,
WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS RC-1. >> SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LAND
SWAP OR SOMETHING? IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE ACTUAL SITE DIMENSION?
>> YES, IT WILL CHANGE AFTER THE FACT. AS YOU SEE HERE, ROCKY RIDGE
PLACE AND THAT SMALL TRIANGLE AT THE TOP OF THE CORNER, THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN
REDESIGNATED. >> OH, I SEE. >> ONE HAS RC-1 DESIGNATION,
THE OTHER ONE HAS THE RC-1CC. >> OKAY. SO NOW THOSE PORTIONS OF MR
LANDS, HOW MUCH OF THOSE LANDS THAT ARE BEING DEDICATED ARE ACTUALLY MR VERSUS ER?
DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF ORDER? >> THIS PARCEL OF LAND IS 1.65 HECTARES.
OF THAT,.83 HECTARES WOULD BE TURNED INTO HOUSING AND ROADS. .41 WOULD BE MR AND .17 WOULD
BE ER. >> SO YOU ARE DEDICATEDING -- DEDICATING 1.01 ACRES, IS THAT
CORRECT, OF MR VOLUNTARILY? >> .41 OF MR VOLUNTARILY, YES. >> .41 HECTARES, YES, 1.0 --
>> 24 -- 25% OF THE SITE -- THE ER WOULD HAVE BEEN TO BE DEDICATED ANYWAYS BECAUSE IT'S
PART OF THE STORM PANNED/... >> I REALIZE THAT. 24.8% YOU'RE DEDICATING
VOLUNTARILY. OKAY, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR
THESE FOLKS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING
HERE AND THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN US GETTING TO THIS ITEM.
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?
HELLO, THANKS AS WELL TO YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE GET TO THIS.
>> BEEN A LONG DAY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YES, YES, IT HAS.
>> I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE PROPOSED -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
INTRODUCE YOURSELF FIRST, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS DIANE COLEY.
I RESIDE AT 8 ROCKCLIFFE POINT WHICH WOULD BE THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE.
(INAUDIBLE) -- BY THIS PARTICULAR THING. THIS IS THE SECOND PLAN THAT
HAS BEEN PROJECTED FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT OF LAND. ORIGINALLY THEY WERE NOT
INCLUDEING THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF LAND AND THE ROADWAY WAS STILL OWNED BY THE
OTHER DEVELOPER. IT HAS SWITCHED FROM BEING ALONG THIS AREA AS YOU SEE TO
THIS AREA AS IT STANDS NOW. AFFECTING DIFFERENT HOME OWNERS AT BOTH TIMES,
OBVIOUSLY, IN OUR DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS ACTUALLY ROCKCLIFFE POINT, NOT ROCKCLIFFE PLACE.
IN REGARDS TO THIS, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS: OBVIOUSLY THEY COULD NOT HAVE BUILT
WITHOUT THIS LAND SWAP RIGHT HERE. IT IS INCORRECT IN SAYING
THERE IS NO OTHER SWAMP LAND, IT IS RIGHT HERE ON THIS POND HERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD.
IT IS VERY LOW AND IT'S FILLED 90% OF THE TIME WITH WATER. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD TWO
HOUSES OVER THAT SITE SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW (INAUDIBLE) -- WHEN THEY
REALIZE THEY ARE OVER A SWAMP LAND. THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT THE
TREES, THIS IS A VERY -- THIS TRIANGLE IS EXTREMELY SLOPED. EXTREMELY SLOPED AREA.
IT WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY FLATTENED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BUILD A HOUSE IN IT OR AT
LEAST THE GRADE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY, REMOVING ALL OF
THE PRETTY TREES THAT ARE THERE. SO THIS IS THINGS THAT WE JUST
REALLY DON'T FEEL THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH. I MEAN, THESE ARE HOUSES THAT
ARE IN THAT CUL-DE-SAC PROBABLY AVERAGE $1.1 MILLION AND MORE.
AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY DON'T PARTICULARLY WANT AND HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT
WE WOULDN'T HAVE GREEN SPACE BEHIND US. SO TO BE ALL OF A SUDDEN BEING
TOLD NO, YOU'RE GOING TO BACK ON SOMEONE ELSE WITH A STRUCTURE THAT IS AS HIGH AS
YOURS AND BE LOOKING FACE TO FACE ON THEM HAS REALLY HEATED THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE VERY UPSET ABOUT IT. WHAT THE OTHER THING IS, IF YOU LOOK AT LOTS 2 AND 3, YOU
HAVE ONE SIDE OF THAT PARTICULAR -- THOSE PARTICULAR LOTS THAT IS EXTREMELY SHORT.
I THINK MY ESTIMATES WERE IT'S AROUND 65 FEET ON ONE SIDE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A
LIVEABLE SPACE AT ALL FOR THEM TO PUT A HOUSE UP, IT MEANS THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO THROW
THEM AN EGG THROUGH THE BACK WINDOW, BASICALLY. BY THE TIME THAT THEY PUT UP
THAT STRUCTURE. EVEN WITH IT ALLOWING FOR 25 FEET AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE,
BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE ANGLE ON THAT ONE CORNER, IT WILL BE EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE BACK OF
THE HOUSE. TO OUR HOUSES. SO THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR
US. THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE REALLY WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IS MORE OF A LINEAR PLAN OF THE GREEN SPACE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE US NOT HAVING TO BACK ON OTHER PEOPLE.
THE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE DEVELOPING IN ROCK LAKE ALL HAVE GREEN SPACES SURROUNDING
THEIR HOUSES, ALL OF THEM. FOR THEM TO PROPOSE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BACK ON TO
PART OF OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN VERY UPSETTING FOR US. WE HAD SUGGESTED THAT THEY PUT
IN A 3 METER -- OR TO PUT IN A BIKE PATH BEHIND US, HOWEVER THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEMATIC
FOR SOME OF THE HOME OWNERS BECAUSE THEY WORRY ABOUT SAFETY.
AS WELL, WE HAVE BEEN ORPHANNED, UNFORTUNATELY, BY ROCKY RIDGE.
ROCK LAKE IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED PART OF ROCKY RIDGE.
YUP. WE ARE NOT -- ONLY -- WE WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO USE THE
FACILITIES OF ROCKY RIDGE BECAUSE WE HAD BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN.
THEY'RE TAKING OUT THE REST OF ROCK PLACE. SO MAINTENANCE OF THOSE
PATHWAYS, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THEM. AT THIS POINT.
WHAT WE WANT IS A BUFFER ZONE. WE WANT THE TREES TO REMAIN. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THOSE
UNUSABLE LOTS 1-4, WHICH WE FEEL ARE BACKING ON TO OUR PROPERTIES, THERE IS NO PARKS
NEARBY FOR KIDS TO PLAY N WE HAVE TO GO ACROSS ROCKY RIDGE ROAD.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NONE OF THE OTHER DEVELOPERS HAVE EVEN DONE IT, HAVE EVEN SUGGESTED A
PARK THERE. THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THE PARK FACILITIES THAT
ARE AT THE ROCKY RIDGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS
THAT THAT PIECE OF LAND BE LEFT AS IS EXCEPT FOR THE CENTRE AREA WHICH IS TO BE
HOLLOWED OUT FOR A CHILDREN'S PARK AREA. SO ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET,
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS THE FIRST FOUR LOTS TO BE HOLLOWED OUT.
IF THAT CAN'T BE COMPLETELY REALIZED, ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MADE A BUNGALOW SO THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING TO FACE THEM RIGHT DIRECTLY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MISS COLLIE, SOMETHING YOU SAID CONCERNED ME, YOU SAID YOU WERE PROMISED THAT YOU
WOULD ALWAYS BACK ON TO GREEN SPACE. WHO MADE YOU THAT PROMISE?
>> WE WERE PROMISED -- DIFFERENT PEOPLE WERE PROMISED IT FOR -- CERTAINLY THE HOME
OWNERS THAT MOVED IN NEXT TO ME WAS TOLD THAT NO, THERE WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPMENT
BEHIND YOU -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BUT SURELY -- BUT SURELY IT WASN'T
THE LAND OWNER OF THAT LAND WHO MADE YOU THAT PROMISE. >> THE PEOPLE BEHIND US?
NO. NO. BUT IT WAS --
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I MEAN, I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HERE, AND I DON'T MEAN
TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT SURELY YOUR NEIGHBOURS ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT JUST BECAUSE
THEY SPEND A -- SPENT A LOT OF MONEY A ON THEIR LAND THAT THEY CAN SAY WHAT OTHER
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS CAN DO WITH THEIR LAND BECAUSE SOME THIRD PARTY MADE THEM A PROMISE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS
AREA WAS TO MAINTAIN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BUT
AGAIN, WHOSE IDEA? >> WELL, I GUESS IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, YOU BUY YOUR HOUSE
AND YOU LISTEN TO YOUR REAL ESTATE AGENT AND YOU LISTEN TO -- THEN THEN THIS IS SORT OF A
BIG PROBLEM; RIGHT? IF YOU'RE MAKING $1.1 MILLION INVESTMENT, I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW MORE THAN WHAT THE REAL ESTATE AGENT IS SAYING TO YOU.
>> YES. YES. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
OTHER SIDE OF ROCKY -- OF ROCK LAKE, IT IS COMPLETELY BUFFERED.
THE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT ARE GOING INTO THAT AREA, ECHO HAVEN, COMPLETELY BUFFERED.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT ROCK LAKE SUMMIT, COMPLETELY BUFFERED. SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE
SAME THING. WE'RE ASKING FOR BUFFER AROUND US.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WELL, THIS IS INTERESTING.
I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC WITH THE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE GREEN SPACE.
YOU KIND OF LOST ME WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT WHAT AN OWNER OF EXPENSIVE HOMES DESERVES IN
CONTRAST WITH OTHERS. BUT I'M GETTING OVER THAT ONE. AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A
QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALDERMAN CARRA AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WHICH IS
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. AND THIS IS NOT CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION.
>> NO, IT'S NOT. >> WHAT IS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION, HOWEVER, IS TO
LOOK AT LAND, ITS MOST APPROPRIATE IN LAND LIKE THIS THAT HAVE NATURAL ASSETS OR IN
SOME CASES HISTORICAL ASSETS, AND YOU CLUSTER THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DISTURBED
AREAS OR THE LEASED -- LEAST VALUABLE ECOLOGICAL AREAS. BUT WHAT DO YOU DO IS YOU
BENEFIT THE LAND OWNER BY INCREASING THE DENSITY SO THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A REASON TO
DO IT. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CLUSTERING DENSITY, IT'S DONE
A LOT IN THE U.S. IT GENERATES A LOT OF VALUE FOR THE HOME OWNERS.
SO WHAT WE HAVE A TENDENCY -- AND I'M GETTING TO A QUESTION, I REALLY AM.
WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO DO IN SORT OF TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT IS WE CARVE UP THE
LOTS E QUA DISTANT AND -- EQUI DISTANT AND CLEAR THE LAND AND KIND OF IGNORE THE NATURAL
ASSET, OR PUT SOME ASIDE AND NOT DEVELOP ON THAT. SO I'M WONDERING WHAT THE
TOLERANCE IS OF YOUR COMMUNITY TO LOOK AT AN INCREASED DENSITY, BUT ON DISTURBED LAND
AND PRESERVING THE NATURAL ASSETS OF THIS REALLY BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY
OF? BECAUSE I HEAR TWO DIFFERENT THINGS: I HEAR LOW DENSITY,
AND I HEAR PRESERVE THE NATURAL ASSETS, AND THAT MEANS THAT THE LAND OWNER TAKES THE
FINANCIAL HIT. I KNOW WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT FINANCES HERE, BUT THE WHOLE
WAY WE PLAN HAS TO HAVE DEVELOPERS ON SIDE. SO WE CREATE VALUE OR THE
WHOLE CONCEPT OF IT IS CREATING VALUE BY GIVING THEM VALUE ELSEWHERE.
WHICH IS ON THE DISTURBED LAND. SO -- AND I HEAR TWO THINGS.
IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOUR COMMUNITY WOULD BE WILLING TO EXAMPLE?
>> PUTTING IN WHAT WOULD BE YOUR EXAMPLE OF A HIGHER DENSITY?
>> I'M NOT TALKING A TOWER BUT MAYBE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT OR IT MAY BE SMALLER LOT
DEVELOPMENT BUT IN A MORE CONCENTRATED AREA SO ALL THE REALLY EXQUISITE PARTS OF THIS
PROPERTY ARE PRESERVED. >> YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M ONE MEMBER OF -- IT'S HARD FOR ME
TO SAY THAT. >> AND I KNOW YOU'RE ONLY SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF.
>> I JUST KNOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TREES STAY BEHIND US.
I MEAN, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. AS WELL YOU HAVE TO REALIZE,
IF THEY SHUT OFF THAT CORRIDOR, WE HAVE DEER AND MOOSE THAT GO AND ARE IN THE SUMMER AT THAT
BOTTOM POND. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET OUT? I HAVE COYOTES THAT GO THROUGH
THE BACK OF THAT, I CAN HEAR THEM AT NIGHT, BELIEVE ME, THEY'RE LOUD.
WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? THEY'RE GOING TO END UP ON OUR STREET.
>> BUT I THINK THE CRITICAL QUESTION FOR ME IS WHETHER YOU -- YOU WOULD TOLERATE, I KNOW
YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR YOUR COMMUNITY, WITH CONCENTRATING THAT DENSITY, AND USUALLY TO
ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF THING, YOU NEED TO ADD MORE DENSITY, SO YOU'D GET MORE UNITS PER
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT THAN YOU WOULD WITH CARVING IT UP EQUA DISTANT.
>> I WOULD PREFER THAT. >> YOU WOULD PREFER IT. >> I WOULD PREFER IT.
YEAH. IF IT WAS CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT LAND OR MORE
TOWARDS THE POND AREA, I WOULD PREFER THAT TO WHAT IT IS NOW WHICH IS REALLY BACKING RIGHT
ON TO PEOPLE. >> AND IT'S CERTAINLY MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT MOST PEOPLE
DO WHEN THEY SEE THE DIFFERENCE. IT'S JUST WE HAVEN'T REALLY
DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF SHOWING WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. >> HI, Mr. MAYOR AND COUNCIL,
I'M A NEIGHBOUR OF DIANE'S IN LOT... >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SORRY,
YOUR NAME IS, SIR? >> CHRIS, KRUPA. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS,
Mr. KRUPA. >> I BROUGHT SOME MAPS AND STUFF BUT I DON'T THINK I'M
GOING TO HAND THEM OUT JUST BASICALLY SHOWING ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE
AREA, HOW THEY ALL HAVE BUFFERS. AND WITH PUTTING THESE FOUR
LOTS IN BEHIND US THERE, IT OBVIOUSLY IT TAKES THE BUFFER AWAY FROM US.
BUT IT SHOWS HERE ON -- (INAUDIBLE) -- ON THOSE PLANS IT'S GOT ONE
LOT. YEAH. AND THAT TRIANGLE THERE --
(INAUDIBLE) SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT -- WELL FIRST OF ALL THE ELEVATION DROP OFF
FROM GRADE OF MY HOUSE IS ABOUT 20 FEET TO THE BASE OF THAT, MIDDLE OF THAT TRIANGLE.
BUT TO PUT THREE LOTS IN THERE AND TO HAVE THE SETBACK AND WHATNOT, LIKE DIANE WAS SAYING,
THOSE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE 60, 65 FEET OR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WILL BE.
SO MY BIGGEST THING IS THE BUFFER BEHIND EVERYONE, WE WANT TO KEEP THE TREES.
I MEAN, I KNOW THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT A BIKE PATH GOING BACK THERE BUT THE
SECURITY AND PRIVACY ISSUE OF THAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TELLING US THERE'S GOING TO BE
A BACK ALLEY PUT IN THE BACK THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.
THAT'S REALLY ABOUT IT. >> Mr. KRUPA, YOU SAID THAT YOUR HOME IS WHAT, ELEVATED OR
BELOW THAT? >> ABOVE. >> YOU'RE ABOVE THAT.
>> YEAH. SO FROM LOT NUMBER 4 WHERE I AM TO THE BASE OF THAT
TRIANGLE, LOT NUMBER ONE, THERE'S ABOUT A 20 FOOT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE.
>> OKAY. IS THERE A RETAINING WALL BEHIND YOUR PROPERTY?
>> NO. >> NO. THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE I COULD
HAVE, SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT UP BUT I DON'T SPEAK IN FRONT OF PEOPLE TOO OFTEN.
BUT A RETAINING WALL WOULD BE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IF THEY KEPT -- KEPT 20 FOOT DEPTH OF
ELEVATION, IF THERE WAS A RETAINING WALL PUT IN, I'D BE ALL FOR THAT TOO.
>> NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET -- >> NO, THERE'S NO RETAINING
WALL, JUST A SLOPE 20 FEET RIGHT DOWN INTO -- >> AND THAT'S TREED UP IN
THERE; RIGHT? >> YEAH. HEAVILY TREED IN THERE; YEAH.
>> OKAY. AND ALL OF YOUR MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES I ASSUME ALL HAVE
FRONT DRIVES NO, ALLEY? >> YEAH, NO ALLEYS. >> FRONT DRIVES.
OKAY. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THESE FOLKS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS?
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? >> MAYOR, ALDERMEN, MY NAME IS
ASHKA FAQ. I'VE LIVED HERE SINCE 1952. I FIND THIS VERY DISTURBING
JUST LOOKING AT THE GREENERY, LUSH AREA THAT I'VE SEEN ON THE -- THAT WAS SHOWED, IT'S
JUST LIKE PARADISE. WETLANDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE KEPT, LOOK AT SPRUCE MEADOWS
30 YEARS AGO, THEY BUILD A ROAD RIGHT THROUGH THE LAKE TO BUILD SPRUCE MEADOWS.
AND THERE'S MANY OTHER ONES WITH WHAT THE CITY DID. MAYBE THIS WHOLE AREA SHOULD
HAVE BEEN KEPT. MAKE A LAKE OUT OF IT. USE IT FOR LEISURE.
YOU KNOW, YOU SAY THE COUNCIL TALKS ABOUT PRESERVING, CONSERVATION BUT ALL I HEAR IS
TALK. WHY? A SMALL, WET AREA, IT DRIES UP
VERY QUICKLY. IF IT'S A BIG, WET AREA, IT WILL STAY THERE FOREVER.
BECAUSE THE BOTTOM, IT'S GOT SILT AND EVERYTHING, IT FILTERS THE WATER THROUGH THE
-- THROUGH THE SOIL, AND THE TREES CREATE DAMPNESS, CREATE -- IT CREATES A GOOD
ENVIRONMENT FOR THE BIRDS, ANIMALS AND EVERYTHING. WHY ARE WE DOING IT?
I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROPOSED FRIENDLY URBAN -- THE BIRD FRIENDLY,
URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: TOO LATE.
>> NO, I'M JUST SAYING THOUGH, IT'S THE SAME THING. IT'S SUPPOSED -- WE'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE BIRDS FLY INTO THE WINDOWS. BUT BIRDS ARE SMART, ANIMALS
ARE SMART. THEY'RE PROBABLY SMARTER THAN PEOPLE ARE.
BECAUSE THEY DO WITH INSTINCT. I WATCH A LOT OF DUTY INDUSTRIES, LIONS AND ALL THE
-- DOCUMENTARIES, LIONS AND HYENAS, THEY ONLY WILL KILL FOR FOOD.
PEOPLE WILL DO FOR GREED, MONEY AND POWER. WHY ARE WE DOING IT?
IT IS RELEVANT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AT THIS POINT, AT THIS POINT CITY
COUNCIL MAY DO ANYTHING FOR FOOD, Mr. FAQ. I'VE KEPT THEM FROM DINNER.
>> MAYOR, YOU'VE BEEN AROUND AND WHAT I'M SAYING ABOUT ALL THIS, WHY I WAS SAYING ONE
THING AND DOING SOMETHING ELSE. THEY KEEP REPEATING, REPEATING,
REPEATING. THE GREEN BUILDINGS. IN 1956, THEY DID BUILD GREEN
BUILDINGS -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ON THIS ONE, ON THIS ONE.
>> I KNOW BUT IT'S THE SAME THING, WE HAVE TO CREATE AN ILLUSION IT WILL BE A GREEN
BUILDING, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT. NO, IT'S NOT DIFFERENT.
IT'S THE SAME. LIKE HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE GOT TO KEEP THAT WHOLE AREA
FOR THE FUTURE. WE CAN'T BUILD A NEW LAKE AND HOPE IT'S GOING TO STAY THERE.
NO, BECAUSE THE LOW SPOTS ARE USUALLY WHAT THE DIVINE HAS CREATED FOR OUR NEEDS.
BUT MANKIND IS DESTROYING IT AND THEN THINK THEY'RE SMARTER.
YOU SEE, IF WE NEED THE TREES, WE NEED THE PONDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT LOOK AT ARIZONA. THEY WERE SO DRY ALL THE TIME. SINCE THEY BUILT MORE LAKES,
MORE EVERYTHING ELSE, IT'S GOTTEN WETTER AND THEY GET MORE RAIN NOW THAN THEY USED
TO BEFORE. OTHERWISE -- IT'S NOT FUNNY BUT IT'S -- ALDERMAN JONES,
IT'S NOT FUNNY BUT IT'S A FACT. I STUDY ALL THIS.
EUROPE IS KEEPING ALL THE PONDS, ALL THE WETLANDS. RUSSIA IS THE SAME THING.
BUT WHY ARE WE DESTROYING HERE? U.S. IS PARTLY DOING THE SAME
THING. THE LAKES ARE DRYING UP, THE PONDS ARE DRYING UP.
NOTHING HAS STOPPED RAPING THE SOIL. WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A
DESERT. WE'RE ALL GOING TO CREATE A DESERT JUST LIKE THE DESERT IS,
NOT IF WE KEEP OUR ENVIRONMENT SAFE AND KEEP THE TREES, THE LAKES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, Mr. FAQ. >> NO, BUT...
I'M ALWAYS WRAPPING UP, BUT YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TOE MOVEMENT YOU DO WHATEVER
YOU WANT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT, Mr. FAQ, YOUR TIME IS
UP. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT. ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE A PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE DO NOT.
>> SO I THOUGHT THAT HOPEFULLY THE SIMPLEST MATTER IS TO GO TO PAGE 7.
PAGE 7 YOU HAVE THE CORPORATE PLANNING APPLICATIONS GROUP RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
A AND B. HOWEVER, B WAS SHELLED AT THE COMMISSION, TABLED AT THE
COMMISSION, SO WE DON'T -- WE CAN'T PERHAPS PROCEED WITH THE OUTLINE PLAN ON THIS -- NOW
POLICE FLOWAN MAY SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO WE
CAN ONLY DO A, NOT B. >> YEAH. AND YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S BEEN A
LONG DAY ALREADY. I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO MOVE A, PLEASE.
AND I HAVE A -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
>> I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO MOFFAT SECOND READING.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. SO ALDERMAN LOWE HAS MOVED IT. DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
VERY WELL THEN. SO IT IS ON THE FLOOR, RECOMMENDATION A,
RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL ADOPT BY BYLAW THE REDESIGNATION, ET CETERA, ET
CETERA. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THIS I KNOW ALDERMAN FARRELL LIKES THE
CONCEPT OF CONSERVATION DESIGN. WELL, WE TRIED IT A FEW YEARS
AGO AND IN MY VIEW, IT DID NOT WORK VERY SATISFACTORILY. EAR HERE WE HAVE AN
APPLICATION FROM A LAND OWNER -- HERE WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FROM A LAND OWNER THAT WAS
HERE TODAY AND REPRESENTED BY CONSULTANT WHO ARE PROVIDING 30% MUNICIPAL RESERVE ON THE
SITE, AND PRESERVING ALMOST ALL OF THE WETLANDS IN THAT SOUTH -- SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE SITE, WHICH IS A FAR BETTER PROPOSAL NOW THAN WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FIRST
MADE. SO GIVEN THE PROGRESS MADE ON THIS AND IT DOES I DO REMEMBER
TO THE AREA STRUCTURE -- CONFORM TO THE AREA STRUCTURE PLAN, I'M PREPARED TO MOVE --
SORRY, I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CPEG WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MOVED
BUT I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT SECOND READING. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY,
THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES. ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU.
WELL I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT, AS I DIDN'T IN PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND COUNCIL, WE HAVE AN ESTABLISHED CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION POLICY.
AND FRANKLY, WE HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED IT YET. BECAUSE THERE IS A RECOGNITION
THAT LANDOWNERS NEED TO GET VALUE OUT OF LAND. AND YET WE ALSO ARE WANTING TO
PRESERVE SOME OF THESE REALLY PRECIOUS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
SO HOW DO YOU DO THAT? YOU CONCENTRATE THE DENSITY IN THE AREAS THAT ARE DISTURBED.
AND WE STILL HAVE A MINDSET WHERE YOU CARVE UPLAND IN EQUAL LITTLE PARCELS AND THEN
WHATEVER IS LEFT YOU CAN DESIGNATE ER. BUT THAT'S NOT CONSERVATION
SUBDIVISION. AND IT WORKS. SO UNTIL THE DAY THAT WE ARE
WILLING TO TRY IT, I THINK I'LL JUST CONTINUE TO GET UP AND TALK ABOUT IT.
BUT I URGE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH, IT I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF REALLY
GREAT BOOKS IN MY OFFICE, TO LOOK AT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS AND LOOKS LIKE.
BECAUSE IT'S QUITE SIMPLE TO DO. BUT IT IS RECOGNIZING THAT
LANDOWNERS NEED TO GET VALUE FROM THEIR LAND WHILE CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF OUR CITY. AND I THINK IT'S -- IT'S --
IT'S DISAPPOINTING IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IF YOU SAW THE LAND THAT WILL BE CARVED UP
INTO LITTLE EQUAL PARCELS, IT'S REALLY EXQUISITE PROPERTY.
SO I'M -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> YES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'VE JUST BEEN CONSULTING WITH MY
COLLEAGUES UP HERE. THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS FORWARD HERE TO GET TO WHERE YOU WANT
TO GO. THE FIRST IS ONE COULD PUT THIS FORTH AND IF IT'S PASSED,
THEN WE'RE DONE, AND IF IT'S DEFEATED, THEN PRESUMABLY THE LAND OWNER COULD THINK ABOUT
WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SEND IT WITH A RECOMMENDATION BUT
IT HAS TO BE A VERY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE DONE.
AND I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT YOUR INTENT IS. >> TO REFER IT BACK TO
ADMINISTRATION TO -- AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC THAT TO BE REVIEWED IN CONTEXT
OF THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION POLICY, AND THAT WOULD BE RECOGNIZING SOME
ADDITIONAL DENSITY ON THE SITE. (INAUDIBLE). >> NOW THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING
IS DONE -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HAPPY TO DO THAT TO SEE IF WE COULD
COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION OVER THE BREAK. OKAY.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT THOUGH, MADAM CLERK? SORRY?
(INAUDIBLE) OH, WE HAVE TO FINISH THE ITEM. YOU CAN'T RECONSIDER A RECESS.
BET YOU THAT IS BRAND NEW TO MOST PEOPLE AROUND THIS TABLE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
>> SO -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BUT WE COULD TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL
LATER IN THE MEETING, COULDN'T WE, MADAM CLERK? >> THAT'S AN ELABORATE WAY OF
GETTING AROUND THAT. DO YOU WANT ME TO TABLE? ALL RIGHT.
BECAUSE I'M READY TO CHEW OFF ALDERMAN HODGE'S ARM -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HE MAY
ENJOY THAT. SO YOU'RE WILLING TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL LATER WHEN
COUNCIL RETURNS FROM ITS DINNER BREAK? WELL DONE, DO I HAVE A
SECONDER? THANKS ALDERMAN STEVENSON, ARE WE AGREED?
OPPOSED? CARRIED. SO WE WILL BE BACK -- WHEN
WILL WE BE BACK? JUST AN HOUR? ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'LL BE BACK AT 10 MINUTES TO 8. >> AND WE ARE BACK.
ALDERMAN FARRELL, I THINK FROM OVER DINNER I HEARD THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO A REFERRAL
MOTION OR ARE YOU? >> NO, I AM NOT. AND IN DISCUSSION I WILL JUST
PREEMPT THE STRIKE HERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH ALDERMAN HODGES AND A FEW OF MY
COLLEAGUES. DECIDED THERE ARE SOME LARGE PARCELS IN ROCKY RIDGE THAT
ARE UNDEVELOPED. AND WE LIKELY HAVE A BETTER RESULT IF WE LOOKED AT THOSE
LARGE PARCELS. AMOTION ARISING AFTER THIS ONE.
I WOKEN BE SUPPORTING THIS LAND USE BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ATTEMPT TO REFER IT.
I DO HAVE A MOTION ARISING THAT LOOKS AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.
>> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> I'M READY TO --
HAS IT BEEN MOVED YET? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE
STATEMENT PUBLICLY THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS DEFINITELY 100%
NON-CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. THIS IS JUST A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF SLAP WHICH STANDS FOR
SPACE LEFT AFTER PLANNING, AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY HOW WE DESIGN TOO MUCH SPACE IN
CALGARY AS WE TRY TO LOT IN THE LOTS AND THEN WHAT IS LEFT OVER BECOMES MR OR PARKLAND.
SO I THINK THE HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN ON THIS ONE. IT BREAKS MY HEART THOUGH.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN LOWE, YOU MOVED IT. YOU ARE JUST GOING TO CLOSE.
ALDERMAN HODGES? >> ALDERMAN LOWE -- I HAVE AMENDMENT TO SECOND
READING. >> SECOND READING, OKAY. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. Mr. ORR, I WAS LOOKING OVER
SOME OF THE MAPS AND I COULDN'T TELL IF THERE WAS ANY SPECIFIC WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
THAT LED INTO THAT AREA. COULD YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY CONTINUOUS
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS THAT LEAD INTO THIS AREA? OTHER THAN ROADS, I GUESS NOT.
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, YOUR WORSHIP. THERE ARE SOME --
(Inaudible). NOT A SPECIFIC WILDLIFE PER SE.
>> OKAY. THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS RAISED BY ADJACENT RESIDENTS
SPECIFICALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH TO THE POTENTIAL PROXIMITY TO THEIR RESIDENCE.
SETBACKS STILL ARE REQUIRED, RIGHT? >> YEAH.
ABSOLUTELY. >> SIX METERS. >> 7.5.
>> 7.5 METERS, OKAY. >> THERE WOULD BE A MINIMUM 7.5 PLUS 7.5, 15 METER
SEPARATION MINIMUM? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I
HAD YOUR WORSHIP, THANK YOU. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. I'M JUST DEBATING WHETHER I
WANT TO SAY ANYTHING, NO I WILL GO TO ALDERMAN LOWE TO CLOSE.
>>> YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE DEBATE REFLECTED THE DEBATE AT CBC,
WHAT HAPPENED AT CBC, OF COURSE FOUR OF US ON ONE SIDE AND FOUR OF THEM ON THE OTHER
SIDE. OR YOU COULD TURN THAT AROUND. IT'S WHOLLY MATERIAL.
I'M VERY PLEASED THAT ALDERMAN FARRELL HAS ELECTED NOT TO TRY TO CHANGE THIS ONE BECAUSE MY
ARGUMENT WAS GOING TO BE EXACTLY THAT. THAT THIS PIECE OF LAND --
THERE IS AN ECONOMIC REALITY TO LAND. AND IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS
KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, I THINK YOU HAVE TO START AT A PIECE OF LAND AND YOU HAVE TO
RECOGNIZE THAT AND YOU HAVE TO ASSIGN IT A DENSITY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO IT.
AND TO DO THAT YOU NEED A PALLET IN WHICH TO WORK. AND ON A PALLET HERE SIMPLY
ISN'T BIG ENOUGH AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISTURBED. SO FOR THAT REASON, I STOOD UP
AND MOVED APPROVAL. PLEASED TO MOVE APPROVAL AND THREE READINGS OF THE
APPROPRIATE BYLAW. >> THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE
AGREED? OPPOSED? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
>> ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL? ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN JONES? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN KEATING?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN LOWE? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> NO.
>> MAYOR NENSHI. >> YES. >> CARRIED YOUR WORSHIP.
>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL DO THE THREE READINGS OF THE BYLAW
AND YOUR MOTION ARISING ALDERMAN FARRELL. FIRST READING ARE WE AGREED.
OPPOSED? SAME DIVISION. ARE WE AGREED.
OKAY. BEFORE WE GET TO SECOND READING ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> YES. YOUR WORSHIP, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT THE ATTENTION
TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ASKED THEM TO DO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT AT SECOND READING
AND THAT SIMPLY TO MATCH THE LAND USE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL THAT'S LAND USE IS
IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THIS SITE, ON THE DECKER LANDS.
AND MADAM CLERK HAS A COPY OF WHAT WE WANT TO INTRODUCE AS THE NEW SCHEDULE, AND THE NEW
SCHEDULE B IS STILL 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OR DEPENDING ON THE LAND SWAPS, LAND PURCHASE
OR SWAPS IT MAY NEED TO OCCUR. BUT IT'S STILL THE SAME BASIC PLAN.
BUT MY RATIONAL IS IT'S THE SAME LAND USE AS 94-D-2010, 94-D-2010, SITE THREE, 5 AND
1. IT'S A MATCH FOR THE EAST AND THE SOUTH SIDE.
THANK YOU. >> DO A SECONDER FOR THAT AMENDMENT?
THANKS ALDERMAN KEATING. ANY DISCUSSION. ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT THE LAND USE IS ON THESE DC SITES.
I DON'T HAVE MY REFERENCE MATERIAL HERE. 94-D, 2010 SITE 1.
>> LAND USE IS INDEED VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD YOUR WORSHIP.
THE DIFFERENCE FROM THIS STANDARD DISTRICT IS THE SINGLE ATTACHED DWELLING HAS
BEEN REMOVED AS PERMITTED USE AND THEREFORE ANYTHING WOULD BE DISCRETIONARY USE.
THERE IS GENERAL COMMENTS IN THE DC FOR SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT. (PLEASE STAND BY) THERE IS LAND WORK
ESTABLISHED. ALL I WANT TO BE TO DO IS BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS OF
APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE GOING. >> STILL, Mr. WATSON, WOULD YOU MIND?
>> TO THE CHAIR ALDERMAN HODGES IS RIGHT. ALL THEY ARE DOING IS PUT ON
THIS LAND THE SAME LAND USE THAT SITS ON THE ADJOINING PARCELS.
AND AS ALDERMAN LOWE ASKS, REALLY WHAT IT DOES IS REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR ALL
THE HOUSES. >> INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL
LOT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. PLUS A DEVELOP IN PERMIT IN
ORDER BEFORE THE STRIPPING AND GRADING STARTS. TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOME
DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. >> DOES THAT NOT NORMALLY TAKE
PLACE ANYWAY? REGARDS TO DRAINAGE? >> WELL, THERE'S CERTAINLY
SOME MATERIAL WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BEFORE WE PERMIT STRIPPING AND GRADING.
BUT THIS WILL BE A FULLER EVALUATION THAN NORMAL. >> SO IF YOU'RE REQUIRED TO
COME FORWARD WITH AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT FOR A LOT, HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT YOU
HAVE A CONTINUOUS LAND? >> IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT OF COURSE, BUT THEY'D PROBABLY
COME IN-- NOT ONE AT A TIME. THEY'LL BRING IN SIX AT A TIME OR SOMETHING.
SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE HOW STREET FRONTAGE OR HOW IT MIGHT WORK.
OF COURSE AS INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
>> SO IF WE ARE TO NOT APPROVE THIS, THEN HOW WOULD THIS DEVELOPMENT GO FORTH?
>> IF THIS WAS NOT APPROVED AND THE LAND YOU SET WAS PROPOSED WAS APPROVED THEN
THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO BUILDING PERMITS. >> THEY'D STILL BE SUBJECT TO
THE SAME REQUIREMENTS IN REGARDS TO LAND USE? >> OH YEAH, ALL THE
SUBDIVISION TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS PEOPLE SEND. >> THANKS FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. >> ALL RIGHT, ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE AMENDMENT?
DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YES, WHAT HAPPENED IN OTHER
DISTRICTS IN THE NORTHWEST THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH IS A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT THAT IDENTIFIES THE SKAP IN THE LAY-OUT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNITS ALL
LINED UP OF COURSE HERE ON EACH SIDE OF THE NEW ROAD. AND IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT
FORWARD. AND IT PROVIDES FOR AS I SAID IN THE FRONT PAGE HERE PROVIDE
FOR CON TECH CHURLLY-- CONTEXTURALLY SENTIVELY DEVELOPED.
>> THANK YOU, ON THE AMENDMENT THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN CHABOT AND I ARE OPPOSED. SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW
THEN ARE WE AGREED? OPPOSED? SAME DIVISION?
AGREED, ALL RIGHT, AUTHORIZATION, AWAITING FOR BYLE THE LAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING, AGREEED IN ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. SAME DIVISION, THANK YOU.
I THOUGHT I SAID THAT ALREADY. YEAH, OKAY. >> THANK YOU.
SO IN DISCUSSION OVER THE SUPPER BREAK, MY MOTION ARISING IS AS FOLLOWS.
THERE WE GO. DIRECTED MIN STRAGS TO ENGAGE A THIRD PARTY TO ILLUSTRATE
HOW THE PRINCIPALS OF CONSERVATION DESIGN COULD BE APPLIED TO THE REMAINING LARGE
PARCEL IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTERSECTION IN ROCKY RIDGE AND REPORT THROUGH TO COUNCIL,
OR THROUGH CPC TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 2nd. AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO WITH THIS
PROCESS, IF IT'S APPROVED OR SUPPORTED BY COUNCIL, IS LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT HAS MORE
MEANING THAN JUST TAKING THE RESIDUAL ORPHAN SITES, AND TRYING TO RETROFIT A DIFFERENT
POLICY. WE DO HAVE THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES, BUT
THIS WOULD HELP BRING A THIRD PARTY TO HELP US WITH IT. SINCE WE HAVEN'T SUCCESSFULLY
APPLIED THEM IN CALGARY. KONSER VAEGS SUBDIVISION OR CONSERVATION DESIGN?
DOES IT MATTER? >> SUBDIVISION DESIGN. >> OKAY.
SO CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. >> DESIGN. >> CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
DESIGN. >> YEAH. SUBDIVISION DESIGN.
>> OKAY. >> I THINK REPORT BACK WITH THE ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THE
PRINCIPALS WOULD WORK? AND THEN IT'S REALLY COUNCIL'S DECISION.
>> AND I THINK YOU YOU WANT OCTOBER 3rd. THAT'S OUR COUNCIL MEETING.
>> IS IT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECONDER
FOR THAT ONE? >> THANKS DO I NEED A DISCUSSION ON THIS?
ALDERMAN CARRA. LOWE? >> I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING UP
TO THE END OF THE WORD ROCKY RIDGE. I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY
UNDERSTANDING REPORT THROUGH CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION TO COUNCIL NOT LATER THAN-- WHAT
ARE WE GOING TO REPORT? WE HAVE THE SUBDIVISION, THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
DIVINE POLICY IN PLACE. WE'VE TAKEN OUT-- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE THIRD
PARTY'S GOING TO TALK TO. WE HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE. BUT WHO IS IT GOING TO BE
SHOWN TO? WE HAVE THE POLICY IN PLACE, AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO TAKE
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH THE COUNCIL? UM-- IF IT WERE TO ENGAGE A
THIRD PARTY TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THE PRINCIPALS WORK TO POSSIBLE DEVELOPERS UP THERE.
I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I'M NOT SURE WHO WE'RE TELLING THIS TO, WHAT WE'RE
BRINGING THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TELL PLANNING COMMISSIONER
TO TELL COUNCIL. AND I KNOW EVERYBODY'S POINTING AT Mr. WATTS LIKE HE
CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> HE'S POINTING AT HIMSELF LIKE HE CAN ANSWER THE
QUESTION. SO Mr. WATSON? >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP.
THE REASON WE THOUGHT THIS MIGHT BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO IS THAT YOU ARE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IN FACT WE DID CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN
SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS AREA. WE'VE TRIED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES.
AND PERHAPS NOT ALL THAT-- CERTAINLY NOT SUCCESSFULLY. SO LOOKING AT THE LARGER AREAS
THAT REMAIN IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTERSECTION WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HIRE AN
INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY TO GO IN AND-- WHO HAS SOME EXPERTISE, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH WE
HAVE POLICIES, WE DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF DEEP KNOWLEDGE ON HOW TO DO THIS INTERNALLY.
TO LOOK AT THE REMAINING LAND AND COME BACK AND REPORT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION,
OR PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADVICE. AND THOUGHTS ON THIS.
AND BRING INTO COUNCIL, AND FRANKLY, I SUSPECT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE A LONG WAYS FROM THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT COUNCIL INSTRUCTS THAT ON
THESE AREAS THIS FOR SURE WILL BE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. AND THEN THAT WOULD GO BACK TO
THE LANDOWNERS AND THEY WOULD MAKE APPLICATIONS BASED ON POLICIES IDEAL PRINCIPALS.
BECAUSE UIL COUNCIL ACTUALLY SAYS AHEAD OF TIME TO DO CONSERVATION, SUBDIVISION
DESIGN, WE'RE GOING TO BE COMING IN WITH THESE SMALL PIECES OF LAND, AND EACH ONE
OF THEM ON THEIR OWN. >> WOULD WE NOT BE BETTER TO DIRECT THAT THE REMAINING
UNDEVELOPED LAND IN ROCKY RIDGE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION DESIGN?
AND THEN FRONT-END LOADED RATHER THAN LOADING IT AT THE BACK END?
I'M JUST-- I'M STILL UNCLEAR, I MEAN, I'M NOT DISPUTING THE THREAT, AT ALL.
BUT I WANT AN OUTCOME. AND I THINK HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE
COMMUNITY, GO TO THE LANDOWNERS AND SAY HERE'S WHAT SHALL HAPPEN.
AND HERE'S OUR THIRD PARTY EXPERT WITH EXAMPLES. >> TO THE CHAIR THAT WOULD
CERTAINLY SAVE US A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO BE AMENDMENTS TO THE ASP IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS WORK.
WHERE WE'VE TRIED AS I SAID CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN IN THIS AREA, THERE HAS
BEEN CONSIDERABLE PUSH BACK BY THE COMMUNITY. EVEN WHEN WE HAD A WILLING
APPLICANT. SO THIS IS SORT OF EASING INTO THIS AS OPPOSED TO SAYING IT
SHALL BE. NOW IF COUNCIL WANTS TO SAY IT SHALL BE, THAT'LL MAKE IT A
LITTLE BIT EASIER WHEN WE TALK TO PEOPLE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, PEOPLE
AND THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER STAKE HOLDERS IN THIS THAT WE SHOULD
TALK TO FIRST. >> AND I GUESS THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY.
THERE'S A LOT OF STAKE HOLDERS HERE. AND I THINK WHEN YOU GO TO
SOME OF THE STAKE HOLDERS OUT HERE AND SAY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE VERY HIGH DENSITY, OR
RELATIVELY HIGH DENSITY IN SMALL POCKETS OF LAND AROUND YOU RATHER THAN YOUR $1.1
MILLION HOUSES, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SOME PUSHBACK. SO I GUESS IT DEPENDS WHERE
YOU WANT TO LOAD THIS ON. I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS CANDIDLY BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE
WHAT THE OUTCOME IS. I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THE INPUT IS.
AND I'M MOST CERTAINLY NOT SURE WHAT THE OUTPUT IS. >> Mr. WATSON AND ALDERMAN
CHABOT? >> THANK YOU, WORSHIP. I TO TOO HAVE A BIT OF A
PROBLEM WITH WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED. IF THIS IS INTENDED TO LEAD TO
A CITY I INITIATED REDESIGNATION WHICH WOULD THEN BE PASSED ONTO THE DEVELOPERS
TO SUGGEST WHAT THEY COULD OR COULD NOT DEVELOP, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
OUTCOME. WHAT THE DELIVERABLE'S GOING TO BE HERE.
>> I'M SURE MS. ASHWORTHY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB EXPLAINING THIS.
>> HOPEFULLY I WON'T ADD CONFUSION. I THINK WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING
HERE IS WE'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SOMEONE IN WHO CAN HELP US BETTER
UNDERSTAND WHAT CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN COULD MEAN FOR THE EFFECT FOR THE
REMAINING PARCELS. AND FRANKLY, BRING THAT TO COUNCIL SO THAT COUNCIL ALSO
UNDERSTANDS, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE IN THEIR
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN MEAN.
WE TAKE THESE FOUR AREAS. GET SOME OPTIONS IDENTIFIED ON THEM SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK
THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. SHARE THAT KNOWLEDGE, AND ALSO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND SAY,
YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. HERE'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, AND PERHAPS THE POLICY HAS NOT BEEN A SUCCESSFUL IF IDENTIFYING HOW IT CAN WORK ON
THE GROUND IN SOME OF THESE AREA PS SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO BRING THOSE OPTIONS BACK SO
THAT COUNCIL CAN UNDERSTAND MORE CLEARLY WHAT THE DIRECTION WOULD BE SHOULD THEY
CHOOSE TO EMBRACE IT. >> DOES THIS ALSO INCLUDE A DETAILED ANALYSIS IN
PARTICULAR AREAS, ALL OF THAT? >> THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE DECISIONS FOR THE FOUR
INDIVIDUAL SITES. >> AND IDENTIFYING WHICH AREAS COULD POTENTIALLY DEVELOP THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF LANDS? AND THEN TRY AND WORK OUT THE DENSITY AS ACCORDING?
>> WE WOULD BE TRYING TO ILL STRAET HOW THE PRINCIPALS OF CLUSTERING THE DENSITY COULD
WORK ON PARCELS, AND AREAS THAT WOULD HAVE HIGH POTENTIAL FOR RETENTION.
I'M NOT SURE WE'D GET DOWN TO THE DETAIL THAT YOU WOULD FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD BE MORE ILLUSTRATIVE, BUT JUST TO ADD TO EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING, INCLUDING THE
LANDOWNERS AND THE COMMUNITY ET CETERA, OF WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE SOME LIVING , BREATHING EXAMPLES OF WHAT PEOPLE CAN
EASILY RELATE TO. THERE ARE FOUR SIGHTS. ALDERMAN HODGES PROBABLY KNOWS
MORE THAN I DO ON THE SIZE OF THEM. >> TRYING TO GET AN ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE AND TOTAL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. AND THE REASON THAT I'M ASKING
THAT IS I'M JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH WORK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK. SOMETHING WE COULD EASILY PUT
OUT WOULD YOU TELL HAVING TO GO TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. >> OKAY, AND SOMETHING YOU
THINK YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE WITHIN YOUR CURRENT WORK PLAN? >> WELL WE'D BE USING A
CONSULTANT PRIMARILY, YEAH. >> OH, OUTSIDE OF YOUR CURRENT WORK PLAN?
>> OUTSIDE OF CURRENT WORK PLAN. BUT WE ALWAYS ALLOW SOME
MANEUVERING ROOM SO THAT WE CAN MEET COUNCIL'S NEEDS. >> I HEARD THAT.
DID YOU HEAR THAT? ROOM IN THE BUDGET. >> THERE'S A LIMIT TO THAT
ROOM, HOWEVER. >> THANK YOU. >> IT'S ONLY MARCH, I MIGHT
ADD. NO, IT'S APRIL, SORRY. >> I WON'T SAY IT.
ALL RIGHT THEN. ON THE MOTION RISING ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> YES. >> YOUR WORSHIP, TO MAKE LIFE A LITTLE SIMPLER FOR THE POOR
CONSULTANT PERSON YOU ARE GOING TO HIRE WHOEVER HE OR SHE MAY BE, WHY WOULDN'T THE
DEPARTMENT PROVIDE SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES? AND THEN THEY HAVE A BASE
UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWLEDGE TO BEGIN WITH. RATHER THAN GO OUT AND
DISCOVER THE HARD WAY. >> TO THE CHAIR WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY WE'D WANT TO MAKE
SURE THE CONSULTEN KNEW WHAT HE OR SHE WAS GETTING INTO BEFOREHAND.
>> YES, AND THE 25 ACRES I MENTIONED IS IN ACCUMULATION OF THE DECKER HOLDINGS.
NONE OF WHICH ARE MORE THAN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX ACRES. BUT IN CUMULATIVE TOTAL,
WHEREAS THEY SAY NOW THE SHOVEL FULL OF EARTH IS MOVED FOR YEARS, AN AREA THAT I'M
SURE THEY WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT. LOOKING AT SMALLER PARCELS
TOGETHER HE HAS ABOUT 25 OR 30 ACRES THERE. >> THANKS ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK THEY EXPLAINED IT VERY WELL.
THIS IS REALLY TO SHOW THE ADMINISTRATION AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHAT WE ACTUALLY MEAN
WITH CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE ET SUCCESSFULLY IN THE CITY OF
CALGARY FOR A A VARIETY OF REASONS. PARTLY FRACTURED OWNERSHIP.
WILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT SOMETHING NEW. WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED SOME
EXPERTISE IN THE AREA. SO IT'S REALLY TO DEMONSTRATE TO COUNCIL.
MAYBE SOME LANDOWNERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHAT THE BENEFITS OF THIS DIFFERENT TYPE OF LAND
FORM. SO I THINK WORTH THE EXERCISE IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
TALK ABOUT IT. WELL USED IN OTHER CITIES. NOT EXPERIMENTAL AT ALL.
BUT ALSO EXPERIMENT UNTIL CALGARY. WHENEVER WE ARE TRYING
SOMETHING NEW, AND IT COULD FIT WITHIN THE INNOVATION FUND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
WHEN WE'RE TRYING SOMETHING NEW, IT'S WORTH GOING SLOWLY SO WE CAN BRING PEOPLE ALONG
WITH US. THAT'S WHY THIS SOFTER APPROACH THAT'S WHAT ALDERMAN
LOW HAD SUGGESTED. >> THANKS, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN DEMONG IS OPPOSED. >> OKAY. GOT IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL RIGHT. PLAYING SOME MUSICAL CHAIRS UP HERE.
AND WE WILL MOVE THEN TO REPORTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER STARTING WITH C-2011 32.
WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THESE FOLKS TO GET UP HERE, CAN I HAVE SOMEONE MOVE THIS ONE
PLEASE? DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS ALDERMAN LOW.
THIS ONE IS GOING ON THE ARCHIVE LEGISLATIVE VIDEO. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS OVER, BUT I NOTICED IN THE PROPOSED POLICY, IT TALKS ABOUT DELETING THE ARCHIVES
AFTER THREE YEARS. COST IS SO CHEAP THESE DAYS. I WONDER IF WE WANT TO KEEP
THEM FOR ARCHIVE FOREVER. OH GOD IT'S SO CHEAP. TRIED TO BUY A HARD DRIVE
LATELY? I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T KEEP THEM FOREVER.
>> IT'S CURRENTLY THE POLICY FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY TO HAVE A RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR
ALL DOCUMENTS AND DATA. SO WE DO WANT TO CONTROL NO MATTER WHAT FORMAT INFORMATION
IS STORED IN. A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER ALL THESE WERE DISPOSED OF.
SIMPLE HOUSEKEEPING. >> THERE WAS A NUMBER IN HERE FOR THE COST OF ARCHIVING OR
STORAGE, I GUESS IS ANOTHER TERM. HOW WAS THAT NUMBER DERIVED?
>> EXTENSIONS REACHED BY THE CITY CLERK, YOUR WORSHIP. >> MADAM CLERK, EXTENSIVE?
>> WELL, WHY NOT $15.000 INSTEAD OF THE $10.000 IN THE RED?
DOES ANYONE KNOW? >> I RECALL THAT ONE AS WELL ALDERMAN HODGES.
AND I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS THEY DID IN FACT DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH.
AND THE COST OF STORAGE REALLY IS GOING DOWN VERY CONSIDERABLY.
SO THEY CAME UP WITH ONE-THIRD LOWER NUMBER. AND I BET IF WE ASK THEM NEXT
YEAR IT WILL BE LOWER THAN THAT. >> BUT IS THERE A PHYSICAL
STORAGE INVOLVED? SOMEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM--. >> YOUR WORSHIP THERE IS A
NEED TO HAVE A SERVER SOMEWHERE. UPON WHICH THE MATERIAL
RESIDES AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO RELY ON
THE CLOUD. >> IT IS NOT PAPER. IT IS A GIANT COMPUTER
ATTACHED TO A HARD DRIVE SOMEWHERE. AND WHEN THE MEETINGS GO THIS
LONG, GIANT, GIANT, GIANT HARD DRIVE. THANKS, ALDERMAN DID YOU WANT
TO CLOSE? ALL RIGHT, ON THIS ONE ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED?
VERY WELL THEN. ARE WE OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSE SNPD SECOND READING. AGREED?
OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED? AUTHORIZATION FOR BYLAW
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
CARRIED, THANK YOU. AND 10.1.2 HAS BEEN TABLED. THAT TAKES US NOW TO--.
>> AND YOUR WORSHIP I'LL MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2011 34 THE PROPERTY TAX RELATED
BYLAW. >> THANKS ALDERMAN LOW. DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT THEN, SO ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE?
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE, GUYS. >> WITH THAT TONE OF REZING
VEGAS, YOUR WORSHIP. PERHAPS THROUGH THE CHURCH TO Mr. SAWYER.
I GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS WHICH I DO A POOR JOB OF RESPONDING TO ABOUT 10.4% FOR MUNICIPAL
PURPOSES. AND MINE IS 2.5% FOR PROVINCIAL PURPOSES.
I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON
THAT? >> UH, YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK IF THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING,
THERE WAS A DECISION TO SET THE TAX RATES BASED ON AVERAGE OF 4.4% ON THE MUNICIPAL, OR
ON THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL? SO WHEN YOU TAKE A MINUS 2.5%
IN THE PROVINCIAL PORTION, AND WANT TO GET TO A 4.4 WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMPOSITE, THAT
TRANSLATES TO THE 10.4 CALCULATION. SO 10.4 AND THE MINUS 2.5
COMPOSITE THE 4.4. SAME CALCULATION IS DONE ON THE NON-RESIDENTIAL AND THAT'S
HOW BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE TO 4.4%.
>> COMPOSITE OF WHAT TWO FACTORS OR SEVERAL FACTORS? >> COMPOSITE OF THE PROVINCIAL
PORTION OF THE TOTAL TIMES MINUS 2.5 AND THE MUNICIPAL PORTION TIMES-- AND IT
CALCULATES OUT AT 10.4. SUCH THE COMPOSITE IS 4.4. SO COMPOSITE WITHIN THE
RESIDENTIAL OF THE-- OR SORRY, IT'S THE COMPOSITE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND
NON-RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL PORTION COMBINED WITH THE PROVINCIAL PORTIONS.
WHEN HELPING. >> SO, IT'S--. IT'S LATE.
UM, SO IT'S 4.4% IS THE FINAL NUMBER FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX, AND THAT
REPRESENTS THE RESIDENTIAL MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX AND PROVINCIAL IN THE
CONTEXT OF-- IF WE WERE TO INCLUDE THE NON-RES, THEN THAT WOULD BRINGTOUS 10.4?
>> NO, WITHIN BASICALLY YOU TAKE THE MINUS 2.5 ON THE RES, THAT COMPOSITES TO 4.4 ON THE
RESIDENTIAL. THAT ALSO COMPOSITES TO 4.4. SO THE RESIDENTIAL COMPOSITES
TO 4.4. SO THE TOTAL BILL PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL GOES UP 4.4%.
SAME WITH THE NON-RES. >> AND WHAT DOES THE 10.4 COME FROM THEN?
>> 10.4 RELATES TO THE MUNICIPAL PORTION AND MINUS 2.5 RELATES TO THE PROVINCIAL
PORTION. OF THE RESIDENTIAL. BOTH THE MUNICIPAL PORTION OF
THE RESIDENTIAL, PROVINCIAL PORTIONER OF THE RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL BILL IN TOTAL GOES
UP 4.4%. >> I'M GETTING THERE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU ALDERMAN. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I WISHED I JUST CALLED FOR THE VOTE
RIGHT AWAY. ALDERMAN CHABOT. AND IT'S NOT JUST WHEN
ALDERMAN CHABOT'S LIGHT GOES ON. >> Mr. SAYER, MINUS 2.5 BY THE
PROVINCE. AND THEY TOOK AN ADDITIONAL $3.6 MILLION OUT OF THIS
MUNICIPALITY. WHY IS IT NEGATIVE? BECAUSE THEY TOOK LESS THAN
THE GROSS? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S BASICALLY THE ABSOLUTE DOLLARS
ON THE PROVINCIAL WAS AN INCREASE OF .6 PFRS-- .6%. BUT WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE
ENTIRE ASSESSMENT BASE IN ORDER TO GENERATE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, IT'S ACTUALLY A
MINUS 2.5%. >> ASSESSMENT WENT UP PLUS GROWTH.
SO THE MID MILL RATE GOES DOWN TO THE TUNE OF 2.5% ON THE EDUCATION STUFF?
>> THE PROVINCIAL SIDE, THAT'S RIGHT. >> $3.6 MILLION INCREASE IN
REVENUE TO THEM? >> THEY ARE STILL GETTING ADDITIONAL REVENUE COMPARED TO
LAST YEAR. >> OKAY. I WON'T BELABER THIS YOUR
WORSHIP. I VOTED AGAINST IT BEFORE. AND I'LL BE AS WELL.
>> THANKS ALDERMAN CHABOT. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE CORRECT ON THE $3.6 MILLION
BUT WOULDN'T BIT FUN TO DO A CALCULATION ON HOW MUCH THE ENTIRE TAKE OF PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT HAS INCREASED FROM THE CITY OF CALGARY IN THE LAST YEAR?
I GUARANTEE YOU THE DOLLAR VALUES WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'RE BEING
SKZ TO ACCRUE TODAY. YEP, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. ALDERMAN LOWE DID YOU WANT TO
CLOSE? >> CLOSED, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMANS CHABOT AND DEAMONG ARE OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT SOME BYLAWS THEN.
MACHINE AND EQUIPMENT PROPERTY TAX BYLAW FIRST READING ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? SECOND READING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
THIRD READING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
THE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION BYLAW THEN. OH YES I DID, I'M SORRY.
ON THE PROPERTY TAX BYLAW THEN FIRST READING AGREED? ANY OPPOSEED?
ALDERMANS CHABOT AND DEMONG. SECOND, OPPOSED ALDERMANS CHABOT AND DEMONG.
FOR THIFRD READING AGREED ANY OPPOSED CARRIED? THIRD READING AGREED, OPPOSED?
ALDERMANS CHABOT AND DEMONG OPPOSEED. ON THE RIVERS COMMUNITY
REVITALIZATION BYLAW FIRST READING AGREED? ANY OPPOSESED?
SECOND READ, AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? AUTHORIZE FOR THIRD READING,
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
I THINK THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO LPT.
10.2.1 ALDERMAN CHABOT? ? >> YOUR WORSHIP HAPPY TO MOVE
ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WILLING TO OPEN AND CLOSE ON ANY AND ALL ISSUES IF THE NEED
ARISES. IF YOU'D LIKE I CAN START WITH THE 2011-12.
THERE IS A COORDINATED SAFETY RESPONSE TEAM MADE A PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
IDENTIFYING HOW THEY WILL BE DEALING WITH THE ABANDONED PROPERTIES AS WELL AS
PROPERTIES THAT WERE USED FOR GROW-OPS, IT'S A COORDINATED EFFORT, MUNICIPAL, PROVINCIAL
AND SOME-- I THINK SOME FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT AS WELL, YOUR WORSHIP.
AND OF COURSE THE INTENT IS TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY. MOVE FORWARD MORE QUICKLY ON
SOME OF THESE DERELICT PROPERTIES AND EITHER SHUT THEM DOWN.
OR DEMOLISH THEM. OR POTENTIALLY EVEN DEMOLISH THEM.
>> THANK YOU ALDERMAN CHABOT, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT THEN, ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN LPT 20111/12 AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. THAT TAKES UT TO 10.2 IN YOUR AGENDA.
ALDERMANS CHABOT. >> A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS AS HAD BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD TO
COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY. AND THESE WERE EXPLOREED MORE FULLY IN REGARDS TO CPA'S
STRATEGIC REVIEW AND PLANS MOVING FORWARD. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THERE WAS A
RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD, THAT I WASN'T IN SUPPORT OF.
SO IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU COULD CALL RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOUR FOR ME, AND IF THERE'S
ANY QUESTION, I'LL TRY AND ADDRESS THEM IN MY QUOTES. >> SO SORRY, YOU ARE MOVING
THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT YOU WANT ME TO CALL FOUR SEPARATELY FROM
THE OTHERS? NO PROBLEM. ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUESTION ON
THIS ONE. ON WHETHER IT'S ALDERMAN CHABOT, GIVEN THAT WE ARE
CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE WERE POINTING ALL NEW MEMBERS
TO THE BOARD NOW? OR DOES IT WAIT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DAY?
ALDERMAN McCLOUD I THINK HAS THE ANSWER FOR ME. >> WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS.
AND PART OF THIS WHOLE REORGANIZATION INVOLVES DOING A GRID.
SKILLS AND APTITUDES ACTUALLY. I THINK THE DAY OR PROBABLY FINE OR MAYBE SLIGHTLY THAN
ALDERMAN HODGES MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO ADD TO THAT. >> THANKS ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> FIRST OF ALL, YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN MACLEOD HAS BASICALLY CORRECTED IT.
AT THE THE MARCH 21st MEETING AT COUNCIL WE HAD ONE VACANCY AT THE PRESENT TIME ON THE
BOARD. AND WE-- WE SAID MARCH 2 19S WE WOULD BRING FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION. YOU HAVE FIVE OR SIX NAMES WHO ARE APT TO FILL THAT VACANCY.
IT'S NOT CRITICAL, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A GOOD SELECTION OF NAMES FOR THE
BOARD COMING UP FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING IN OCTOBER.
RIGHT NOW THERE'S ONE VACANCY ONLY IN THE CITIZEN GROUP. >> THANK YOU ALDERMAN HODGES.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? JUST BEFORE I GO TO ALDERMAN
CHABOT TO CLOSE ON THIS, I WILL DO WHAT I HAVEN'T DONE IN A LONG TIME AND SPEAK FROM THE
CHAIR FOR JUST A SECOND. WHICH IS THAT I AM VERY PLEASED THAT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED. A QUESTION REMAINS IN MY BRAIN
OTHER WHETHER THESE RECOMMENDATIONS GO FAR ENOUGH. CONTINUING TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT
THE BPA, I AM CERTAINLY WILLING TO GIVE ME THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
BUT I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF WE FIND THAT WE HAVE MORE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO WITH THIS
ORGANIZATION. MAYBE EVEN ONE DAY. ARLDMAN MACLEOD GO AHEAD.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE BOARD IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT.
THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF A SERVICE ORGANIZATION. INSTEAD OF PUTTING ENFORCEMENT
IN THAT KAAI COTMY I THINK ENFORCEMENT IS PART OF WHAT WE OFFER TO THE CITIZENS OF
CALGARY AND WE NEED TO REFRAIN SOME OF THAT. VERY AWARE OF IT.
WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT TO CLOSE? >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP.
SKPE DIDN'T REFERENCE THE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOR AND WHY AND ASK YOU TO CALL IT
SEPARATELY. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW QUICK COMMENTS ON
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOUR. AND THE REASON WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT AND WHY I WOULD
ENCOURAGE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST IT. THERE WAS A NUMBER OF
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF A CONSULTANT'S REPORT. 12, I BELIEVE.
AND OUT OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THERE WAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT, UM, I
GUESS GROUPS THAT CAME FORWARD LOOKING FOR SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE ADOPTED.
THERE WAS A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUESTS BY INDEPENDENT GROUPS THAT
WEREN'T ADOPTED. AND THE BRC, SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL SOURCES
OF REVENUE. AND NOT ALL BRCs ARE CREATED EQUALLY I GUESS THE PROBABLY
THE BEST WAY I COULD PUT IT. AND SOME OF THE BRCs IN THE DOWNTOWN DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
PARKING REVENUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR AREAS. THAT DOESN'T NOT NECESSARILY
REFLECTED IN ALL OF THE BRCs THROUGHOUT THE CITY. PART OF THE REQUEST HAD TO DO
WITH SHARING OF REVENUE. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FAIR THAT WE SHOULD SEPARATE ONE
BRC FROM ANOTHER. IN REGARDS TO POTENTIAL ABILITY TO SELF-FINANCE.
IF THEY WANTED TO MAYBE APPOINT IT TO THE BOARD THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER ISSUE.
BUT HAVING DIRECT PUT ON CPA AND PARKING STRATEGY DOWNTOWN IN PARTICULAR.
PUTS THEM IN A POSITION THAT NO OTHER GROUPS ARE ENTITLED TO.
AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST RECOMMENDATION FOR AND WOULD ASK OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
TO CONSIDER THAT IN THEIR DECISIONS. >> RECOMMENDATIONS ONE, TWO,
THREE AND FIVE. ONE, TWO, THREE AND FIVE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. RECOMMENDATIONS FOUR, AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? YOU'LL HAVE TO CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE.
>> ARLDMAN LOWE SF. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MACLEOD?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN PINCOTT. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN PIT POOTMANS.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN--. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> NO. >> MAYOR MANSN MAYOR NENSHI?
>> NO. >> NOW WHAT WE WILL DO IS GO FOR NUMBER FIVE REQUIRING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAW. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW THEN ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. OH, ALDERMAN CHABOT IS POSED.
EXCUSE ME. ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YOUR WORSHIP THIS AMENDMENT
I PUT IT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL. THE CITY CFO.
THE RETAINED ON THE BOARD. AS PART OF THE AUTHORITY GROUP.
SO COMPOSITION OF THE AUTHORITY. WE HAVE PAGE 4 OF 7.
UNDER FOUR, SUB C, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER HAS STRUCK OUT THE AREA WHICH WE COULD
RETAIN THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. >> SO I'VE GOT THIS IN WRITING
WHICH I'LL PASS ON. SO 4-1 NOW READS THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF NINE
MEMBERS APPOINTED BY COUNCIL. BY THE GENERAL MANAGERS OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER. AND THEN THERE'S A FURTHER LITTLE AMENDMENT FURTHER DOWN
IN SUB NINE. WHICH SOZ THE GENERAL MANAGER TRANSPORTATION AND THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER MAY EACH APPOINT A DEZING -TO ATTEND ANY MEETING BLAH BLAH BLAH.
HAVING THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.
OKAY? AND WE'LL PASS THE LANGUAGE ONTO MADAM CLERK.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT AMENDMENT? THANK YOU.
ON THE AMENDMENT AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? VERY WELL.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OPPOSED? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW
THEN AGREED? OPPOSED? AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD
READING OF THE BYLAW AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? ALDERMAN CHABOT? IS OPPOSED.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT THEN 10.2.3 I
BELIEVE IS SORT OF A DEFERAL REQUEST. ASKING THAT THIS COME BACK IN
JUNE? >> 2011-17? >> YES.
>> MY ASSISTANT WHO PUT TOGETHER MY AGENDA. OH YES, SHE DID.
SORRY. IT WAS REFERRED BY ALDERMAN MAR, YES.
AND IT WAS CARRIED AS A REFERRAL. YES.
FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION I GUESS INCLUDING FCC A NUMBER OF OTHERS IF MEMORY SERVES ME
CORRECTLY ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. >> YEP.
GOSH, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS ONE COME BACK TO COUNCIL SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT THEN ON THE REQUEST THAT THIS COME BACK TO COUNCIL
IN 2011 JUNE 13th ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
PINCOTT AND MAR ARE OPPOSED. OH THREE, SORRY. NO, THIS IS THE ACTUAL
RECOMMENDATION THAT IS COMING TO US IS TO BRING THIS BACK ON THE 13th OF JUNE.
IT'S THE THENG IN THE BOX ON PAGES-- THEY ALL SAY PAGE 1 OF 1.
OKAY? UM, SORRY, WE ARE CALLING THE ROLE.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN MACLEOD. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN MAR. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN PINCOTT?
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ALDERMAN CARRA? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG?
>> YEP. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL? ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> YES. >> ARLDMAN JONES. >> YES.
>> MAYOR NENSHI? >> NO. >> CARRIED.
>> THANK YOU. THEN 2011-18 I THINK IS JUST AN ADMINISTRATION THAT GOES
ALONG WITH 2011-17 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN? >> IT WAS, I BELIEVE
RECOMMENDATIONS OR REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT OUT BY CONSULTANTS SPECIFICALLY
MAKING REFERENCES TO AMENDMENTS THAT SHOULD BE MADE.
AND IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FILED AND RECEIVE THIS REPORT. >> OKAY AND THAT JUST
FUNDAMENTALLY MEANS THAT CAN COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. ALDERMAN HODGES? >> YOUR WORSHIP ANY AMENDS TO
BE DEALT WITH PUBLIC HEARING AS IN TODAY. HATE TO REMIND ANYBODY OF
TODAY. BUT IN ANY CASE. OKAY.
ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, ON THESE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS THEN ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. I THINK THAT'S IT.
NO, THERE'S ONE MORE. >> FIRST I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT A
PROPOSED ROUND ABOUT POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS ON ONE AND TWO.
AND YOU WILL NOTE. I'LL LET YOU DECIDE WHICH WAY YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THESE
AND HAPPY TO CLOSE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANKS ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I'M SORRY ALDERMAN CHABOT.
I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR. DID YOU WANT ME TO TAKE THEM SEPARATELY?
>> ACTUALLY YOUR WORSHIP I VOTED AGAINST PRODOMINANTLY RECOMMENDATION ONE WAS
AMENDED. RECOMMENDATION TWO I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH.
ON RECOMMENDATION ONE THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ON RECOMMENDATION TWO ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> YOUR WORSHIP THERE MAY BE
SOME PROBLEMS WITH SOME ATTENDING TOMORROW. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
BRING FORWARD THE BYLAW TABULATION. IN CAMERA ITEMS THAT BEFORE
THE NOTICES OF MOTION. WAS TIME SENSITIVE FORWARD. TO GET TO THE OTHER FOUR
NOTICE OF MOTIONS WE COULD HAVE THEM MOVE TO NEXT WEEK. SO--.
>> SORRY? >> YEAH, HE WANTS. >> PRETTY LIGHT AGENDA NEXT
WEEK. >> OKAY, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION TO
BRING FORWARD THE BYLAW TABULATIONS, THE IN CAMERA SESSION, AND ALDERMAN JONES'
NOTICE OF MOTION IN ORDER ON OUR AGENDA NOW, AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE ARE ONCE WE GET
THROUGH ALL OF THOSE? OKAY. MY ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS CAN
PROBABLY WAIT A WEEK. AND I THINK-- OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT?
THANKS ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> YOUR WORSHIP I BELIEVE I AM INELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON 18P?
OR JUST VOTING? OKAY. >> JUST THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW.
OKAY SO WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, CARRIED.
SO THEN WE'LL JUMP DIRECTLY TO--. OH SORRY KEETING.
ALDERMAN KEETING IS A OH POSED. I APOLOGIZE.
TABULATIONS. >> SAYS YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON 18P 2011 DUH BU
DOESN'T SAY I'M ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON WHAT THEY ARE RELATED. I'M JUST WONDERING HOW IT IS.
>> THESE ARE NOT RELATED. >> THEY ARE NOT? >> JUST 18P THAT ARE ALL.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, OH DEAR. YEAH, I THINK IT IS.
THIRD READING. SO YOU MOVE. SECONDING IT.
SO THIRD READING THEN, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. AND THE OTHER ONE IN HERE? 108 D 2010?
THIRD READING, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ALL RIGHT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA THEN. THANKS ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
SECONDED TO ALDERMAN HODGES. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
MOVE BACK IN THE ROOM, PLEASE? >> APPROVAL OF THE CALGARY WASTE AND WATER CORPORATION.
BYLAW AMENDMENTS. THAT THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN
REPORT C-20 11 BE ADOPT AND THAT THE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS VERBAL
DISCUSSIONS PRESENTATIONS AND ATTACHMENT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 21, 25, 27,.1 OF
FOIP UNTIL THIS MATTER IS RESOLVED. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON DO YOU
HAVE A SECONDER M.P. ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED CARRIED.
SORRY ALDERMAN MAR IS OPPOSED. TELL ME WHY LATER. ALDERMAN STEVENSON YOU STILL
HAVE THE FLOOR. >> VERBAL REPORT ON THE BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS OF
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CALGARY AIRPORT AUTHORITY. AND ANY CHANGES TO THE
PROJECTED COSTS OF THE AIRPORT TUNNEL. NUMBER ONE, THAT THE VERBAL
REPORT PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND ANY CHANGES TO
THE PROJECTED COST OF THE AIRPORT TUNNEL BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.
AND THAT THE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE VERBAL REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT
TO SECTIONS 23, 1 B, 241 B, 251 C AND 271 B OF FOIP. THAT'S IT, THANK.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SECONDER THANKS ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ARE WE AGREED? CARRIED. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
ON THE VERBAL REPORT PERSONNEL ITEM, TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE THAT THE VERBAL PERSONNEL
ITEM BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION AND TWO THAT DISCUSSION WITH DISCUSSION TO
THE VERBAL REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 17 SUB 1 OF THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
SECONDER? THANK YOU ALDERMAN CARRA. ON THIS ONE ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. OKAY.
ALDERMAN PIN KHOT. >> THANK YOU ON THE CITY OF CALGARY INSURANCE COVERAGE,
ONE THAT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN REPORT A C-20 11 BE ADOPT AND
TWO THE REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 25.1 OF THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANK YOU. SECONDING ON THIS ONE ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. NOTICE OF MOTION BLAH, BLAH,
BLAH 2011, 12. ALDERMAN JONES. >> YOUR WORSHIP I BRING THIS
MOTION FORWARD AFTER TALKING -- SITTING DOWN AND TALKING TO Mr. ALL EH AND
Mr. CHURCHMAN. THEY FELT THIS SHOULD COME AHEAD OF THEIR REPORT SO THEY
COULD POSSIBLY HOLD OFF SOME OF THE CARRIERS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS WE RATIFY THATTEN THIS AND THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE. AND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF IT IS
THAT WE CAN GETTUITY LIE ADDITIONAL OF COMMUNITY CENTRES OR LANDS FOR PURPOSE
OF THEM RECEIVING THE FUNDING AS WELL. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANK YOU ALDERMAN LOWE ON
THIS ONE ALDERMAN POOTMANS. MOTION ARISING? ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> I'M ASSUMING AS WE -- AS WE DISCUSSED, THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: >> YOUR WORSHIP IF YOU READ
THE FIRST BE RESOLVED THE LAST FOUR WORDS, PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS SO THERE
HAS TO BE A PROCESS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY BEFORE IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND IT'S NOT
SAYING IT'S GOING TO GO ON A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BUILDING.
IT'S SAYING IT GIVES THEM PROVISION TO DO IT IF THEY WISH TO DO IT.
IT'S AN OPTION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: GREAT. THANK YOU.
SO ON THIS NOTICE OF MOTION THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALDERMAN POOTMANS ON A MOTION ARISING.
>> YES. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WITH THANKS TO BRENDA KING,
WHO AFTER OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SESSION LAST WEEK WHERE WE
DISCUSSED THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE BEEN ENJOYING WITH INDUSTRY CANADA AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL AS IT RELATES TO OUR STRUGGLES WITH CELL TOWER LOCATIONS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY, RECOMMENDED IN HEALTH DRAFTED THIS MOTION ARISING WHICH I
THINK IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. I THINK IT WILL LEAD TO ACTIVITIES BETWEEN SEVERAL OF
THE LARGE CITIES IN CANADA WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING CELL TOWER LOCATION PROBLEMS.
WE ANTICIPATE, PERHAPS, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PARTICIPATING AT HALIFAX
DISCUSSING IN COOPERATION WITH ADMINISTRATION FROM VARIOUS CITIES AT MEETINGS AT HALIFAX
ON THIS VERY SUBJECT AS WE GO FORWARD. THANK YOU.
AND IF I COULD HAVE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS MOTION 0, I THINK IT'S --
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. DUE TO THE TIMELINE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS ALDERMAN CHABOT AND YOU WILL FIX THE SMALL TYPO 0 IN
MUNICIPALITIES AND WE WILL BE IN GOOD SHIP. ALDERMAN HODGES OH, NO, THERE
IS AN ITEM BEFORE THE NEXT ITEM ALDERMAN HODGES. >> OH, WELL NOT ON THIS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT. ANY ONE ON THIS ONE?
ON THIS MOTION ARISING ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. BEFORE WE HAVE FOUR WHOLE MINUTES AND IN THOSE FOUR
MINUTES I WOULD REALLY LIKE IT IF WE COULD DEAL WITH THE TWO ITEMS URGENT BUSINESS.
SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO BRING THOSE TWO FORWARD. AND A SECONDER WITH REAGREED?
ANY OPPOSED CARRIED. SO IGT 2015, CALGARY REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP APPOINTMENT
ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> YOUR WORSHIP -- >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SMALL
AMENDMENT, RIGHT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASKS -- IN KEEPING WITH COUNCIL'S
PREVIOUS DIRECTION OR DATE I DON'T BELIEVE WE APPOINT ANYONE TO ANY ONE COMMITTEE
FOR EXCESS OF ONE YEAR I WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM A THREE YEAR TERM 0 TO A 1 YEAR TERM AND
THEN JUST WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME TO LOOK AT A
COMMENCEMENT OF THIS TERM TO EXPIRE IN 2012, AS THIS IS BASICALLY STARTING AND
ESSENTIALLY A ONE-YEAR TERM WOULD BE SERVED AS OF OCTOBER OF 2012.
PLUS A COUPLE OF MONTHS. SO I THINK FOR CONTINUITY SAKE THAT THIS SHOULD BE OR DAY
2012. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY. ALDERMAN PIN KHOT YOU ARE
GOING TO SECOND IT? >> (INAUDIBLE). >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN STEVENSON. MAKES SENSE TO ME. ALDERMAN MOORE.
>> JUST A CONNECTION, YOUR WORSHIP. WE DO ACTUALLY DO APPOINT FOR
TERMS LONGER THAN ONE YEAR. POLICE COMMISSION FOR EXAMPLE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FAIR
POINT. OKAY, ENOUGH. AND ALL RIGHT, THEN, SO ON
THIS ONE, THEN, TO ALDERMAN -- TO APPOINT ALDERMAN PUN COT TO THIS COMMITTEE ARE WE AGREED?
OPPOSED? CARRIED. WE STILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
PACK 201109 COUNCIL FUND APPLICATION. CAN SOMEONE MOVE THIS ONE.
THANKS ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? >> MY BAD.
>> YES, SIR. >> I WAS READING THIS, I WASN'T SURE ON THIS, BUT IS IT
DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC OR IS ALL IN GENERAL? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO
WHAT WE DID IS WE ACTUALLY SENT OUT A REQUEST FOR IDEAS TO EVERY EMPLOYEE.
BOTH ELECTRONICALLY AND THROUGH POSTERS AND STUFF IN THE WORKPLACES.
WE RECEIVED 177 RESPONSES FROM 25 OUT OF 32 BUSINESS UNITS. THEY ARE CONCENTRATED IN A
NUMBER OF BUSINESS UNITS IN THREE OR FOUR OF THEM BUT WE HAVE, YOU CAN GUESS WHICH ONE
HAS THE MOST. >> PROBABLY PLANNING. JERUSALEM UM BUT THEY ARE
SPREAD ACROSS SO THERE IS TWO THINGS THAT WILL HELP HERE IF THIS IS APPROVED.
NUMBER ONE IS THAT THIS LITTLE GROUP THAT'S RUNNING OUT OF MY OFFERS WHICH IS THREE OF THEM
IS KIND OF SHOWCASE ONES. ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION. BUT WE WILL ALSO BE WORKING
WITH ALT TO GET THE OTHER IDEAS BACK INTO THEIR DEPARTMENTS.
>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ONE?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY ON THIS ONE THEN ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED. SO NOW I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION
TO DEFER ITEMS 11.1.1.2, .4 AND .5 TO MONDAY APRIL 11. THANKS ALDERMAN MAR.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER M.P. >> SECOND. >> THANKS ALDERMAN HODGES SO
WE ARE TABLING THOSE FOUR ITEMS TO MONDAY, APRIL 18. SORRY?
YES, KEEP THEM SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO PRINT THEM AGAIN BUT THEY WILL PRINT THEM AGAIN
ANYWAY. >> ALDERMAN CHAN LOT. >> I'M CURIOUS ONE OF THE
ITEMS WE'RE TAKE, JUST WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PROPERLY BEFORE US WITHOUT
FIRST GOING THROUGH RECONSIDERATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT 11.1.1? >> YEAH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MY
RULING ON THAT WOULD BE BUT I WILL CHECK WITH Mr. TELLY, MY RULING ON THAT WOULD BE THAT
IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE LOOKED AT BEFORE. BECAUSE IT'S GOING FORWARD AS
OPPOSED TO REDESIGNATING THE CURRENT ONES. >> BUT IT INCLUDES AREAS THAT
ALREADY APPROVED THAT HAVEN'T DEVELOPED. THE WAY THE WORDING IS.
>> I WILL WORK WITH Mr. TELLY ON THAT BEFORE THE 18th. >> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU. ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> JUST IN LIGHT OF THE DAYS PRECEDING YOUR HONOUR I WANT TO VOICE MY OPINION THAT IT
SEEMS THAT WE IN THE BIRD TALK WE HAVE BEEN RATHER LOONIE IN SEVERAL CASES.
AND I JUST FIND IT RATHER REPOUL CAR THAT PULL ALL OF SUDDEN WE CAN'T MEET TOMORROW
AND CAN'T STAY LATER WHEN WE HAVE DONE THIS MANY TIMES IN THE PAST WHEN WE HAVE SO
LITTLE LEFT TO FINISH SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE REFERRAL, THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT.
THEN, ON THE TABLING OF THESE FOUR ITEMS ARE WE AGREED? ANY OWE 0 POSED ALDERMAN
KEATING AND PIN KHOT ARE OPPOSED. OH, -- PIN PINCOTT IT SORRY
THERE IS THREE. CALL THE ROLE. >> ALDERMAN JONES.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN LOWE. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> YES. ALDERMAN MAR. >> YES.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT. >> NO. ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> YES. ALDERMAN STEPHENSON. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> YES. MAYOR NENSHI. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO.
>> WHAT? >> CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP. >> YOU ARE BEING LAZY.
WE COULD HAVE GOT THEM DONE. ALL RIGHT. ON THAT, ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> I DIDN'T WASTE YOUR -- >> WAIT, WAIT, ALDERMAN HODGES BEFORE YOU GET UP I THINK
THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER BRIER WOOD. GREEN BRIER.
ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YOUR WORSHIP (INAUDIBLE) IF ANY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU DO I HAVE A SECONDER ON THAT?
THERE IS ONE. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANK YOU.
ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED.
ALDERMAN HODGES. >> MOVE WE ADJOURN. >> THANK YOU ALDERMAN JONES.
ARE WE AGREED M.P. ANY OPPOSED? AGREED. THANK YOU ALL.