YYCCC 2011-03-07 Calgary City Council – Video Archive – March 7, 2011 – Secondary Suites

Hi there I'm Gord,
developer of BABY UI app. iPHONE / iPAD / iPOD app for BABIES!
I was looking for an app suitable for my son. The problem is most iPhone apps require selection
of menu choices to properly use the app. With Baby UI app, you rotate the device
to change modes instead. He may not deliberately rotate the device
at first, but he'll stumble upon it easily. It will respond to shake, respond to touch.
If the iPhone is face-down, it makes sounds. He picks it up to investigate and he's
interacting with the iPhone again. I've got a version for iPad as a native app.
There's no information buttons, no advertising. It is just strictly Baby User Interface,
nothing more. Aaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhaaaaaa!
I'll get that back to you in just a sec. I'm building particle systems for BABY UI
included as free updates until my son is old enough that he has other iPhone apps that catch his
interest. Say "bye-bye" to the nice people! They're more likely to buy the app
if you act cute. Give them a wave.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
I FEEL LIKE WE HAVEN'T BEEN
TOGETHER IN A LONG TIME. I'M VERY EXCITED TO BE HANGING
OUT WITH YOU ALL AGAIN. WE'RE GOING TO START THIS
MORNING WITH A SPECIAL
PRESENTATION AND RECOGNITION AND LIKE TO INVITE GM LOGAN TO TALK
TO US ABOUT THE UNITED WAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR WORSHIP. AND FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE
WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH ME, I'M
THE GENERAL MANAGER OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CITY.
MAYOR NENSHI, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
AND ATTENDEES, IT'S MY GREAT PLEASURE TODAY TO SHARE WITH YOU
SOME GREAT NEWS ABOUT THE END OF
OUR 2010 UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN. AS YOU KNOW, UNITED WAY IS THE
CITY OF CALGARY'S CHARITY OF
CHOICE AND WE GARNER TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR THE UNITED WAY
THROUGH EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF
CALGARY.

HEADING INTO LAST YEAR'S
CAMPAIGN, WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE
WHAT TO EXPECT. WE WERE IN THIS — ABOUT THE
THIRD YEAR OF AN ECONOMIC
DOWNTURN. WE NEEDED TO REEVALUATE THE WAY
THAT WE WERE TACKLING UNITED WAY
CAMPAIGN. AND WE ALSO KNEW THAT THERE WAS
MORE NEED FOR OUR SUPPORT THAN
EVER. SO KEEPING THAT IN MIND, WE SET
OUR TARGET AT $375.000 FOR THE
2010 CAMPAIGN WHICH WOULD BE DUPLICATING THE PRIOR YEAR'S
CAMPAIGN.
WE WENT BACK TO OUR TRIED AND TRUE CORPORATE FUNDRAISING
METHODS.
ANCHORING OUR CAMPAIGN WAS OUR CORPORATE DONATIONS THROUGH OUR
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS OR THROUGH
DESIGNATED DONATIONS FROM EMPLOYEES AT THE CITY OF
CALGARY.
AND WHAT WE GOT OUT OF THAT CAMPAIGN THIS YEAR WAS AN
INCREASED AMOUNT, NOT ONLY IN
TOTAL DONATIONS BUT IN — AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
THAT HAVE DONATED MORE THAN A
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER PERSON.

IT'S QUITE AMAZING IF YOU SEE
HOW MANY CITY EMPLOYEES DO THAT.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF OTHER INITIATIVES.
WE STARTED OFF LAST SPRING WITH
OUR CITIES MINUTE TO WIN IT WHICH WAS A LITTLE BIT OF
FUNDRAISING AS WELL AS
FUNDRAISING AND WE WENT ON TO ONE OF OUR MAJOR CAMPAIGNS WHICH
IS THE FLOWER DAY.
YOU MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE FLOWER DAY WITH YOUR STAFF AND
BUY FLOWERS FOR CHOCOLATE OR
REAL CHOCOLATE. THIS YEAR WE EXTENDED IT TO THE
MEALS ON WHEELS.
AND 550 CITY STAFF MEMBERS BOUGHT FLOWERS FOR ANONYMOUS
MEALS ON WHEEL RECIPIENTS.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GREAT THING WE'VE DONE THIS YEAR
OF FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS WE'VE
HAD QUITE SUCCESSFUL BINGOS, 50/50 DRAWS.
WE UPPED OUR 50/50 DRAW THIS
LAST WEEK TO ABOUT $7,500 WHICH WAS A NEW LEVEL FOR US.
WE DO AN ON-LINE SILENT AUCTION.
WE'VE HAD GOLF TOURNAMENTS.

IT'S REALLY BEEN A TREMENDOUS
CAMPAIGN AND WE DO HAVE A LOT OF
SUCCESS AND A LOT OF PARTICIPATION.
OVERALL, WE REACH OVER 17.000
STAFF MEMBERS IN ABOUT A HUNDRED DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND THE
CITY OF CALGARY.
AND WE CERTAINLY GET THE MESSAGE OUT TO EVERY STAFF AND WE
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE
IF FOR THE THROUGH A DONATION THROUGH PARTICIPATING IN ONE OF
OUR EVENTS.
WE HAD A LOT OF OTHER FUN THINGS TO DO LIKE PAPER AIRPLANE FLYING
CONTESTS INSIDE THE ATRIUM IF
YOU WERE HERE THAT DAY.

WE HAD OUR FIRST ANNUAL ARTISANS
AUCTION.
BAKE SALES, BOOK SALES, JEWELRY SALES, ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS
IN DIFFERENT BUSINESS UNITS.
DOZENS AND DOZENS OF EVENTS ACROSS DIFFERENT AREAS AROUND
THE CITY.
WE TRIED SOME NEW THINGS LIKE BUSKING FOR BUCKS.
WE HAD A BAND NIGHT WHERE SOME
FOLKS IN THE FIELD ORIENTED UNITS PUT ON A SPECIAL NIGHT
WITH THREE BANDS.
AND SPONSORED THE SAVE A KIDS AREA.
IT'S GREAT TO HAVE UNITED WAY
EVENTS THAT ARE TARGETED TOWARDS SPECIFIC CHARITIES, NOT JUST
TOWARDS THE OVERALL GENERAL
FUND. SO THE OVERALL COLLABORATIVE
EFFORTS HAVE MANAGED TO RAISE
OVER $438.000. AND THE ENTHUSIASM THAT WAS
PICTURED BY THE TEAM WAS REALLY
TREMENDOUS AND I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE A FEW OF THE PEOPLE
THAT WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN MAKING
THIS A SUCCESS. FIRST OFF JASON MAYER.
HE LED OUR CAMPAIGN.
HE WAS SECONDED FROM ROADS FOR THE YEAR.
TRANSPORTATION IS LEADING THE
PROGRAM FOR TWO YEARS, AND WE SECOND A STAFF MEMBER TO LEAD
THAT INDIVIDUALLY.
JASON WAS THIS YEAR'S.

NEXT YEAR IT'S GOING TO AN
INDIVIDUAL IN CALGARY TRANSIT.
JASON WAS SUPPORTED BY NEARLY 40 CAMPAIGN COORDINATORS.
IF I COULD ASK THOSE FOLKS TO
STAND UP WHO ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED.
[Applause]
THANKS, JASON. I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK OWEN
TOLBERT FOR HIS ONGOING SUPPORT
AND ALL MEMBERS FOR THEIR ONGOING SUPPORT AND PUT OUT A
PUT TO ALL THE INDIVIDUAL
SPONSORS AND INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERS THAT MAKE EACH EVENT
COME OFF SUCCESSFULLY.
AS WE ARE ALL CITY CIVIL CIVI SE TAKE PRIDE IN DOING GREAT THINGS
FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY.
THE UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN DEMONSTRATES HOW MUCH CITY
EMPLOYEES CARE ABOUT THE CITY
THEY WORK FOR AND WORK IN AND LIVE IN.
SO I'D NOW LIKE TO INVITE THE
FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS UP FOR THE CHEQUE PRESENTATION.
MAYOR NENSHI, OWEN TOLBERT AND
THE CALGARY CHAIR OF UNITED WAY RUTH RAMSDEN WOOD AS WELL AS OUR
CAMPAIGN LEAD JASON MERIT.
[Inaudible] [Applause]
>> THANK YOU ALL.
THANK YOU PARTICULARLY TO OUR 40 COORDINATORS WHO ARE
ACTIVELY ENERGIZED IN THIS
CAMPAIGN.

BUT THIS IS ALL ABOUT BUILDING A
GREAT CITY TOGETHER.
AND WE ARE VERY STRONG PARTNERS IN THAT WORK.
THE THREE PILLARS OF UNITED WAY
ARE MOVING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, BUILDING STRONG
NEIGHBOURHOODS, AND ENSURING
CHILDREN AND YOUTH OF CALGARY GROW UP GREAT.
AND THAT IS THE WORK THAT WE DO
TOGETHER WITH CITY OF CALGARY EMPLOYEES.
AND WE'RE THRILLED THAT THEY
MORE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY THEY GET SO ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN
GIVING BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY.
AND BUILDING A CITY WITH EVERYBODY.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
PARTICIPATION, TO THE MAYOR FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
OURVE BEEN A MEMBER OF CAMPAIGN CABINET THIS YEAR.
YOU'VE GONE WELL ABOVE AND
BEYOND YOUR NORMAL COURSE OF DUTIES TO BE INVOLVED IN A THE
COMMUNITY IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

THANK YOU.
[Applause]
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, Mr. LOGAN AND Ms.
RAMSDEN WOOD.
LET ME ADD MY PERMANEN PERSONALO THE CITY OF CALGARY EMPLOYEES
WHO WORKED SO HARD TO MAKE THIS
A CAMPAIGN SUCH A SUCCESS. MOVING ON TO THE AGENDA, THEN.
ON QUESTION PERIOD, ALDERMAN
JONES. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO THE QUESTION
IS FOR BUT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO
I ASKED A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO ALLOWING CELL TOWERS ON MR SITES
AND PARTICULARLY COMMUNITY SITES
SO COMMUNITIES COULD RECEIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE MONEY.
SINCE THEN, I'VE GONE THROUGH
PEOPLE IN PARKS AND RECREATION, GONE THROUGH PEOPLE IN PLANNING,
GONE THROUGH PEOPLE IN
TRANSPORTATION. I'VE GONE THROUGH PEOPLE IN LAW.
AND NOW I'VE HEARD IT'S
CORPORATE PROPERTIES PROBLEM. ARE WE GOING TO COORDINATE A
RESPONSE AT SOME TIME SOON SO I
CAN FIND OUT WHETHER I SHOULD DO A NOTICE OF MOTION OR IS IT
GOING TO COME FORWARD THROUGH
ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS I JUST MENTIONED?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
Mr.

WATSON IS VOLUNTEERING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> I AM VOLUNTEERING TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION AND TRY TO COORDINATE ALL THESE THINGS.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF PLAYERS. WE ARE WRITING A REPORT, AND IT
SLIPS MY MIND, BUT I KNOW IT'S
COMING BACK IN THE FIRST HALF OF THIS YEAR, COMING OUT OF THE
LAST COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS.
AND THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT REPORT.
>> ARE WE ALSO GOING TO LOOK AT
THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABOUT 400 OF THESE YET TO COME AND ALL
WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS
ANNOYING A LOT OF PEOPLE BY PUTTING THEM BEHIND THEIR FENCE?
WE'RE CERTAINLY ANNOYING A LOT
OF PEOPLE, I CERTAINLY HEAR ABOUT IT.
ALDERMAN JONES, AS I'M SURE YOU
KNOW WE HAVE VERY LITTLE POWER ON THIS WHOLE FILE AND I CAN
LOOK AROUND THE TABLE, ALMOST
ALL OF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CELLPHONES IN YOUR WARD
SOMEWHERE.
AND, YOU'RE RIGHT, IF WE CAN MOVE THEM ALL TO MR THAT WOULD
BE ONE THING, BUT THERE ARE
CHALLENGES DOING THAT.

WE'LL BRING IT ALL BACK AND LET
COUNCIL MAKE SOME EDITIONS.
>> IT WILL GO THROUGH LAND USE? >> IT WILL COME THROUGH LPT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN JONES. ON QUESTION PERIOD, ALDERMAN
CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU. I THINK THIS WOULD BE FOR
Mr. LOGAN.
I WAS SPEAKING TO A RESIDENT RECENTLY ABOUT A PRODUCT THAT
THEY THOUGHT MIGHT BE MORE
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AND PROVIDE MAYBE SOME RELIEF TO
SOME OF THE CALGARIANS IN
REGARDS TO TRACTION CONTROL. THIS PRODUCT CALLED ECOTRACK.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WERE
AWARE OF IT AND WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD CONSIDERED USING IT.
APPARENTLY VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY I AND DOES PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT TRACTION ENHANCEMENT
TO THE ROADS DURING SNOW EVENTS.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR
BRAND NAME.
I'D WELCOME INFORMATION ON IT OR IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO CONTACT
OUR OFFICE OR RYAN JESTIN THE
DIRECTOR OF ROADS TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT.
I'VE HEARD MIRACLE MELT, A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN — THAT HAVE DIFFERENT
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A
LOWER MELTING POINT.

>> APPARENTLY THIS WAS IN METRO
NEWSPAPER ON THE 28th
FEBRUARY. APPARENTLY THERE'S A WEB SITE
AVAILABLE IF YOU COULD MAYBE
LOOK INTO THAT, Mr. LOGAN, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
>> ECOTRACK?
>> ECOTRACK. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ANYONE ELSE ON QUESTION PERIOD.
I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE AGENDA. THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. ON THE AGENDA ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
WELL, A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO
ASK YOU TO BRING FORWARD AND
DEAL WITH CPC 2011-27 PRIOR TO DEALING WITH CPC 2011-001 AND
THAT'S A LAND USE BYLAW
AMENDMENT FOR THE SIGNS. I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY DEAL
WITH THAT BEFORE DEALING WITH
THE SPECIFIC SIGN. AND PROBABLY HAVE A NUMBER OF IN
CAMERA ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE
ADDED. I'M NOT SURE IF THE CHAIR OF
PLAN IT WANTED TO MOVE THE
ADDITION OF THOSE. I BELIEVE THAT'S URGENT
BUSINESS, THAT?
IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THERE ARE THREE
ITEMS ALREADY LISTED IN THE IN
CAMERA ITEMS.

LAS 2011-04, 05, 066 ARE ALREADY
ON THE AGENDA.
>> THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL ONES? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HAVE I
AN ADDITIONAL IN CA CAMERA ITEM.
>> HAVE I NO OTHER AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSE AT THIS POINT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DO I
HAVE A SECONDER FOR THOSE? THANKS, ALDERMAN DEMONG.
ARE WE AGREED?
I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE — I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO
ADD A COUPLE MORE URGENT
BUSINESS ITEMS. THERE IS THE URGENT BUSINESS
ITEM ON THE COUNCIL INOVATION
FUND. THOSE ARE IN CAMERA.
AND ONE MORE IN CAMERA URGENT
BUSINESS ON THE AIRPORT TUNNEL. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADD
THOSE?
THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON.

DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES.
AND ALDERMAN FARRELL WILL SECOND.
ALL RIGHT.
SO ON THOSE THEN ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
ANYTHING ELSE. ON THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ALL RIGHT.
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT
THESE THREE SETS OF MINUTES,
PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN JONES.
SECONDED ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ANY CHANGES TO THESE. ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
JUST A COUPLE. ON THE FIRST SET OF MINUTES,
PAGE 18 OF 50, ALTHOUGH IT MAY
BE A MINOR CHANGE, TYPICALLY ON THIRST READING AUTHORIZATION FOR
THIRD READING AND I'VE SEEN THIS
THROUGHOUT THE MINUTES IT DOES SAY CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WHEN
IT'S — THE MOTION IS PUT.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 18 OF 50 AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD
READING, IT SAYS CARRIED BUT IT
DOES NOT SAY CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND IT'S REQUIRED TO GIVE THREE
READINGS.
SO ADD UNANIMOUSLY TO THE MINUTES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE CAN
TAKE THAT AS A CLERICAL ADDITION.
>> PAGE 41 OF 50 OF THE SAME SET
OF MINUTES.

JUST GET TO IT HERE.
THERE WAS TWO "IN"S.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT. MOVED BY ALDERMAN CHABOT, SECOND
BRING ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART
AND IT SAYS "IN IN" IN THE OPERATING BUDGET.
SUBSEQUENTLY ONLY ONE "IN"
THAT'S INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT THE AMENDED MOTION.
IT SHOULD ONLY HAVE ONE "IN" NOT
TWO "INS." >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: GOOD
CATCH, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I DO. THAT'S MY NEXT JOB.
PROOFREADER.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I THINK WE CAN TAKE THOSE BOTH AS
EDITORIAL CHANGES.
ALDERMAN HODGES? ANYONE ELSE ON THE MINUTES?
ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
WITH A COUPLE OF EDITORIAL CHANGES ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.

ALL RIGHT THEN.
THAT TAKES US TO THE CONSENT
AGENDA. I SHOULD GET A MOTION TO MOVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT. DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON AND
ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'D LIKE TO PULL UE 201106 THE
MULTIFAMILY RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES OUT OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA — I WASN'T AT THE
MEETING FOR THIS AGENDA. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I WILL
MOVE THAT TO 10.4.2 UNDER
UTILITIES ENVIRONMENT SPCP DO I NEED A MOTION FOR THAT?
CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO THAT WITH
OWN OF CONSENWITH — YOU CAN'T,N CHABOT?
THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA.
ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
DONE.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO PULL OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
CONSENT AGENDA.

ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALL RIGHT.
THAT TAKES US THEN TO OUR PUBLIC
HEARING ITEMS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT WAS FUTURE
MEMBER I WANTED TO PULL OUT
WHICH — >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO I
STUCK IN A UNDER 10.4.2 10.4.2 R
AGENDA. >> LATER ON IN THE AGENDA.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IF WE'RE GOING TO PULL THEM OFF
CONSENT AGENDA LET'S PUT THEM
WITH THE COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT.
AND GIVEN THE CHANGE THAT
ALDERMAN CHABOT PUT TO OUR AGENDA, WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH
ITEM 7.2 IN YOUR AGENDA PRIOR TO
7.17.2 IS CPC 2011-027 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE
BYLAW.
AND WE'LL JUST DO A LITTLE MUSICAL CHAIRS UP HERE.
AND THEN WE'LL BE GOOD TO GO.
YOU READY FOR US? >> YES, GOOD MORNING, YOUR
WORSHIP AND COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS LAURIE KIMBER AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CALGARY
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CPC 2011-027 TO ALLOW DIGITAL THIRD
PARTY ADVERTISING AND MESSAGE
SIGNS IN CALGARY. WITH ME TODAY ON MY LEFT IS
Mr.

KEN MELONSON.
THIS REPORT PROPOSES INTERIM RULES TO PENDING THE COMPLETION
OF PERMANENT POLICY AND RULES
WHICH ARE TARGETED FOR THE END OF 2012.
AT THAT TIME, THE INTERIM RULES
PROPOSED TODAY IF ADOPTED WOULD BE REPLACED.
THIS PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS AN EXAMPLE
OF A DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGN.
THESE SIGNS USE LED TECHNOLOGY
SIMILAR TO TELEVISIONS AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO DISPLAY IMAGES AND
WORDS TO ADVERTISED PRODUCTS.
THEY ARE DESIGNED AND POSITIONED TO GET THE ATTENTION OF DRIVERS
AND PASSENGERS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE AN ADVERTISING MESSAGE.
THEY ARE CALLED THIRD PARTY
BECAUSE THE ADVERTISEMENTS DISPLAYED ON THEM ARE NOT
RELATED TO A BUSINESS ON THE
SITE.

THIS PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS AN EXAMPLE
OF AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN.
IT IS DIFFERENT THAN A THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGN BECAUSE
IT CONVEYS MESSAGES ABOUT
BUSINESSES AND THE ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE
SITE.
THE RULES FOR OTHER TYPES OF SIGNS IN CALGARY INCLUDING
CONVENTIONAL THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING AND MESSAGE SIGNS, AND CONVENTIONAL ONES ARE SHOWN
ON THE OVERHEAD, ARE NOT
PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED AT THIS TIME.
WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO BRIEFLY
REVIEW THE STATUS OF CALGARY'S CURRENT SIGN RULES AND EXPLAIN
WHY CHANGES TO THE RULES TO
ALLOW DIGITAL SIGNS IN SOME AREAS OF CALGARY ARE BEING
PROPOSED TODAY.
THE OVERHEAD SHOWS A GENERAL HISTORY OF CALGARY'S SIGN RULES.
THEY DATE BACK TO 1980.
WITH UPDATES BEING DONE THROUGHOUT THE 1990s, THE LAST
BEING THE BILLBOARD RULES AND
POLICY IN 1999.

THERE WAS SOME REORGANIZATION OF
THE SIGN RULES IN BYLAW 1 P
2011. BUT THE STRATEGY WAS THAT —
2007.
A REVIEW WOULD BE DONE AFTER THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION AND
MONITORING WOULD BE DONE.
IT WILL DETAILED CONSULTATION WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS AND THE
PUBLIC.
AT THE MAY 13th, 2010 MEETING OF THE CALGARY PLANNING
COMMISSION IT WAS REQUESTED
ADMINISTRATION MANAGE DIGITAL SIGNS.
THIS MOTION WAS BASED ON AN
EARLIER CPC REPORT THAT IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR AN
INTERIM METHOD TO MANAGE THE
QUICK ADOPTION OF DIGITAL SIGN TECHNOLOGY IN CALGARY AS IT WAS
BEING IMPLEMENTED RAPIDLY BY THE
ADVERTISING INDUSTRY PRIOR TO ANY NEW SIGN RULES AND POLICY
AND PRIOR TO COMMUNICATION WITH
COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS.
THE GRAPH ON THE OVERHEAD SHOWS
THE INCREASING NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR DIGITAL
ADVERTISING SIGNS IN CALGARY.
WITH 7 OF 9 APPLICATIONS IN 2009 BEING APPROVED BY THE SDAB,
INCREASING TO 15 APPLICATIONS IN
2010.

THIS MAP ON THE OVERHEAD SHOWS
THE LOCATIONS OF SOME OF THE
OVER 300 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS IN CALGARY.
THE PURPLE STARS SHOW WHERE THE
CITY HAS APPROVED DIGITAL SIGNS AND THE GREEN STARS SHOW WHERE
DIGITAL SIGNS HAVE BEEN APPROVED
BY THE SDAB. SOME OF THESE DIGITAL SIGNS HAVE
REPLACED PREVIOUSLY EXISTING
CONVENTIONAL ADVERTISING SIGNS AND THE GOLD CIRCLES REPRESENT
THESE CONVENTIONAL ADVERTISING
SIGNS. AND FINALLY, YOUR WORSHIP, THE
RED DOTS SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF
THE DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS.
IN DEVELOPING THE AMENDMENTS TODAY, WE MET AND LISTENED TO
STAKEHOLDERS.
THREE MEETINGS WERE HELD WITH COMMUNITY GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
IN APRIL, SEPTEMBER AND
OCTOBER 2010. THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS NOT IN
FAVOUR OF DIGITAL THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING SIGNS DUE TO CONCERNS EXPRESSED ABOUT HOW
THEIR PRESENCE IMPACTS THE
ENVIRONMENT AND HOW — THE EFFECT THAT THEY HAVE ON THE USE
AND ENJOYMENT OF DWELLING UNITS
WHEN THEY'RE ADVICABLE.

COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS EXPRESSED
A DESIRE FOR RULES THAT REQUIRED
DIGITAL SIGNS TO BE A MINIMUM AWAY FROM BUILDINGS.
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSED
RULES WAS CIRCULATED TO INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS ON
NOVEMBER 1st, 2010.
AND WHILE NO CONSENSUS ON THE RULES WAS ACHIEVED, THERE WAS
GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE
RULES GOVERNING BRIGHTNESS, LOCATION AND IMAGE REFRESH
INTERVALS WERE NEEDED.
THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S AMENDMENT ARE RULES TO GUIDE WHERE DIGITAL
SIGNS CAN LOCATE AND HOW THEY
OPERATE. SINCE CALGARY'S CURRENT RULES
WERE NOT DESIGNED TO MANAGE LED
TECHNOLOGY, WE DO NOT HAVE RULES TO MANAGE SIGN BRIGHTNESS,
RESPONSE TO AMBIENT LIGHT, IMAGE
REFRESH TIMING, THE DISTANCE FROM THE SIGN TO THE ROADWAY,
THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL USES
OR POLICY THAT GUIDES WHAT LAND USE DISTRICTS ARE APPROPRIATE
FOR DIGITAL SIGNS.
THE TECHNOLOGY USED FOR DIGITAL SIGNS IS SIMILAR TO TELEVISION.
THE IMAGES CAN CHANGE QUICKLY AS
WELL AS THE COLOURS AND THE BRIGHTNESS LEVELS.
THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT
DIGITAL SIGNS HAVE A DIFFERENT ESTHETIC AND SAFETY IMPACT AS
COMPARED TO NONDIGITAL SIGNS.
THE REASON THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT SAFETY IMPACT IS THAT
THE IMAGES ARE BRIGHTER AND CAN
CHANGE QUICKLY, POTENTIALLY GRABBING THE ATTENTION AND THE
EXPECTATIONS OF THE DRIVER OF A
VEHICLE ABOUT THE CURRENT AND THE UPCOMING IMAGE.
THE FASTER THE SIGN IMAGES
REMEMBER FRESH, THE GREATER THE POTENTIAL FOR DRIVER
DISTRACTION.
A REPORT BY A RECOGNIZED EXPERT IN THE FIELD ENGINEERING
PSYCHOLOGIST GERRY WACHTEL ON
THE SAFE IMPACTS OF DIGITAL SIGN TECHNOLOGY INDICATES THE
HUMAN EYE IS HARD WIRED TO BE
DRAWN TO THE BRIGHTEST OBJECT ON THE SCENE AND THOSE THAT DISPLAY
MOTION OR APPARENT MOTION.
ADVERTISING SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THAN BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION
SIGNS.
BECAUSE THE IMAGES AND TEXT ARE DESIGNED BY ADVERTISING
PROFESSIONALS TO PURPOSELY
CAPTURE THE ATTENTION OF DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS AND TO FOCUS THAT
ATTENTION OF DRIVERS ON THE
ADVERTISING MESSAGE.

BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
SHOWN ON THE OVERHEAD HAVE A
DIFFERENT EFFECT ON DRIVERS THAN DIGITAL ADVERTISING BECAUSE THEY
ARE ORIENTED TO IDENTIFY THE
LOCATION OR THE ENTRANCE OF A BUSINESS TO THE PUBLIC NOT TO
SELL A PRODUCT.
THE IMPACT OF BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS IS
MITIGATED BY THE IMPORTANT
WAY-FINDING PURPOSE THAT THEY SERVE.
THE ESTHETIC CONCERNS ABOUT
DIGITAL SIGNS RELATE TO THEIR COMPATIBILITY AND IMPACT ON
ADJACENT USES.
BILLBOARDS CAN CLUTTER THE ENVIRONMENT AND CAN BE
ARCHITECTURALLY INCOMPATIBLE
WITH ADJACENT BUILDINGS. THE BRIGHTNESS LEVELS CAN IMPACT
THE QUALITY OF LIFE ON MIXED USE
AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THEY CAN ALSO AFFECT THE
ENJOYMENT OF PARKS AND PATHWAYS
AND THE ESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE URBAN LANDSCAPE.
SOME OF THESE ISSUES HAVE
ALREADY OCCURRED IN CANADA. AS SHOWN BY THIS RECENT ARTICLE
REGARDING THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL
SIGNS ON DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY OF WINNIPEG.
CALGARY'S MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN ENVISIONS AND PROMOTES HIGHER DENSITY AT ROAD
CORRIDORS.
LARGE DIGITAL SIGNS ARE NOT ORIENTED TOWARDS PEDESTRIANS BUT
RATHER TOWARDS THE DRIVERS OF
CARS AND THE EFFECTS OF THESE SIGNS MY DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM
WANTING TO LIVE IN THE AREAS
WHERE OUR POLICIES SEEK TO PROMOTE VIBRANT, EFFICIENT MIXED
USE COMMUNITIES.
St.

JOHN'S, TORONTO AND QUEBEC CITY HAVE MINIMUM 10-SECOND
MESSAGE TIMES AS WELL AS AMBIENT
LIGHT EMISSION STANDARDS. AND SOME RESTRICTIONS ON
LOCATION.
THE CITY OF VANCOUVER DOES NOT ALLOW ANY NEW BILLBOARDS AT ALL
INCLUDING DIGITAL BILLBOARDS.
THERE ARE ALSO A VARIETY OF RULES IN VARIOUS U.S. CITIES AND
STATES WHERE ARE MINIMUM MESSAGE
REFRESH TIMES RANGE FROM 6 SECONDS TO 60 MINUTES WHILE MANY
CITIES HAVE OUTRIGHT BANS ON
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS INCLUDING DENVER AND DALLAS.
THE PROPOSED RULES DO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PLACE FOR DIGITAL SIGNS IN
CALGARY.
THE RULES ARE DESIGNED TO ALLOW BUT TO CONSERVATIVELY MANAGE
THOSE SIGNS UNTIL COUNCIL
APPROVES PERMANENT POLICY AND RULES.
THE RULES PROPOSED IN BYLAW 15 P
2011 INCLUDE A MINIMUM MESSAGE TIME OF 10 SECONDS WITH A
MAXIMUM 1-SECOND TRANSITION
TIME. THE 10-SECOND INTERVAL MINIMIZES
THE POTENTIAL FOR DRIVER
DISTRACTION. FULL MOTION VIDEO BLINKING OR
CHANGES IN CONTRAST OR
BRIGHTNESS DURING A MESSAGE ARE NOT ALLOWED.
A MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS LEVEL
DURING THE DAY AND AT NIGHT IS INCLUDED IN THE RULES.
AND SIGNS MUST NOT OVERLY EXCEED
THE AMBIENT LIGHT LEVELS.

DIGITAL ADVERTISING SIGNS AND
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS MUST BE
SEPARATED BY 300 METRES. REFLECTING A LONG-STANDING
EXISTING RULE IN THE LAND USE
BYLAW. AND DIGITAL SIGNS MUST NOT BE
LOCATED WITHIN 30 METRES OF A
ROAD INTERSECTION. THE RULES ALSO PROPOSE THE
DIGITAL SIGNS SIGNS NOT BE
LOCATED WITHIN 150 METRES OF THE DWELLING UNIT IN THE BELT LINE
OR DOWNTOWN.
AND 300 METRES OF A DWELLING UNIT ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY.
THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE THE
SETBACK IS SHOWN ON THE OVERHEAD.
THIS OVERHEAD SHOWS A DIGITAL
SIGNS AT A 300 METRE DISTANCE, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE RULES ALSO REQUIRE THAT
DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS BE LOCATED 14 METRES FROM
A PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS BASED
ON AN 80 KILOMETRE-AN-HOUR SUPPOSED SPEED LIMIT.
THIS REQUIREMENT CAN BE RELAXED
DOWN TO 6 METRES WHEN THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS 60 KILOMETRES AN
HOUR OR LESS.
THE PROPOSED RULES ALSO REQUIRE THE DIGITAL SIGNS BE TURNED OFF
AT CERTAIN HOURS WHEN CLOSE TO
RESIDENTIAL USES WITH THIS RULE ALSO BEING RELAXABLE.
THE REMAINDER OF THE RULES FOR
DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS IN TERMS OF SIGHTING AND
SETBACKS FROM MAJOR PARKS, THEIR
SIZE AND RESTRICTED ROADWAYS REMAIN THE SAME AS FOR
CONVENTIONAL SIGNS.
THE RULES IN DISTRICTS WHERE CONVENTIONAL THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING SIGNS CAN OCCUR
REMAIN UNCHANGED BUT DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS
ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE LISTED AS
DISCRETIONARY USES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, COMMUNITY AND
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR MIXED USE
DISTRICTS WHERE DWELLING UNITS ARE ALLOWED AND INDEED
ENCOURAGED.
GOING FORWARD, YOUR WORSHIP, ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTINUE TO
COMMUNICATE AND CONSULT WITH THE
PUBLIC, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND THE SIGN AND ADVERTISING
INDUSTRY TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW
AND THE REDESIGN OF THE SIGN RULES.
WITH COMPLETION TARGETED AT THE
END OF 2012.

CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL ADOPT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BYLAW 1 P 2007 AND GIVE THREE READINGS
TO BYLAW 15 P 2011.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS VERY MUCH.
ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR
CLARIFICATION WHICH IS GIVEN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE
BYLAWS TODAY AND YOU SHOWED ON A
MAP THE LOCATION OF A NUMBER OF SIGNS, ARE THEY ALL ILLEGAL
RIGHT NOW AND YET THEY'RE UP
ANYWAY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, A NUMBER OF
DIGITAL PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS
HAVE BEEN ABRUISED BY THE SDAB.

— APPROVED.
THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW BY
ADMINISTRATION AND THERE'S AT LEAST ONE —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED IN A POLICY VACUUM IS THAT FAIR TO
SAY?
>> , THAT IN A VACUUM FROM ANY RULES THAT ARE OVERT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU. QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION,
ALDERMAN MAR.
YOU GET QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION LATER.
OKAY.
>> IT IS ACTUALLY A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.
COULD YOU GO BACK A FEW SLIDES
TO THE IMAGES WHERE IT'S NIGHTTIME — ONE OF THE VERY
FIRST SLIDES.
YES. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NOW, YOU'D MENTIONED IN YOUR
PRESENTATION THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT LIGHTING LEVELS FOR
NIGHT AND DAY?
IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU HAVE AN IMAGE OF ONE FOR
THE DAY OR NOT?
NOTHING CLOSER? BECAUSE THAT I CAN BARELY SEE
EVEN WITH MY GLASSES.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN ZOOM — IS THERE SOMETHING
CLOSER?
>> IF THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT, THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NIGHT
SHOT AND THE DAY SHOT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR FOR REALLY A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION.
ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS OF
CLARIFICATION.
THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE ONE-SECOND TRANSITION TIME THAT
YOU REFERENCED.
SAYING THE MAXIMUM TRANSITION TIME BETWEEN EACH DIGITAL COPY
MUST NOT EXCEED ONE SECOND.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO ME.
THE MAXIMUM CAN'T EXCEED ONE
SECOND. SO IT CAN BE 1/100 OF A SECOND?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE PURPOSE OF
THE RULE IS TO THAT WE DON'T HAVE MOVEMENT OR EFFECTS THAT
TRANSITION FROM ONE SIGN TO THE
NEXT. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS A SIGN
IMAGE UP AND THEN THE SIGN IMAGE
GOES AWAY AND THE NEXT SIGN IMAGE COMES UP.
INSTEAD OF FADE IN, FADE OUT,
MOVEMENT RIGHT, MOVEMENT LEFT. >> BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT
DOESN'T SAY THAT.
IT SAYS THE MAXIMUM IS ONE SECOND.
SO THAT MEANS I COULD HAVE IT
1/10 OF A SECOND WHICH WOULD APPEAR LIKE A FLASH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
THINK WHAT Mr.

KIMBER IS SAYING IT WITH INSTANTANEOUSLY
SWITCH TO ANOTHER IMAGE.
BUT WHAT THE EFFECT OF THE RULE IS TO AVOID ANIMATION.
BUS THAT'S WHAT'S DISTRACTING.
IF IT WAS MORE THAN ONE SECOND YOU COULD HAVE AN ANIMATION
GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.
>> NO, BECAUSE — ANYWAYS, I CAN GO INTO DETAIL FURTHER ABOUT
WHAT IT DOES TO CLARIFY THAT.
THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FADE IN OR FADE OUT.
THAT IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE
CHANGING PIXELS WITHOUT TURNING THEM OFF.
THROUGH THE TRANSITION TIME.
BUT IT SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF ONE SECOND, NOT A MAXIMUM
BECAUSE IT COULD BE 1/100 OF A
SECOND WHICH WOULD APPEAR LIKE A FLASH.
I WILL ARGUE THAT POINT LATER.
THE SIX SECONDS VERSUS TEN SECONDS THAT YOU REFERENCED, I'M
JUST WONDERING, BECAUSE I'VE
HEARD OTHERWISE IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS THE STANDARD.
AND YOU SAY THE STANDARD IS MORE
IN THE 10-SECOND TIME FRAME.

>> I'LL ASK Mr. MELONSON TO
PUT UP THE BEST PRACTICE
RESEARCH. A NUMBER OF CITIES ARE BEGINNING
TO DEAL WITH IT.
THE BEST PRACTICES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED FROM St. JOHN'S,
QUEBEC CITY AND TORONTO ARE THAT
THERE IS A 10-SECOND MESSAGE DESIGN ON A 6-SECOND MESSAGE
SIGN.
THE PURPOSE, YOUR WORSHIP, OF THE MESSAGE INTERVAL IS THAT —
OR THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND IT IS
THE FASTER THE IMAGES REFRESH, THE MORE QUICKLY THEY REFRESH,
THE GREATER POTENTIAL THERE IS
FOR DRIVER DISTRACTION SO THAT THE DRIVER'S ATTENTION IS
ORIENTED TOWARDS THE SIGNS,
ANTICIPATING THE NEXT SIGN AND THE NEXT SIGN.
SO THE LONGER INTERVAL MINIMIZES
THAT — >> YOU'RE GOING WAY BEYOND THE
QUESTION WHICH IS JUST WHAT IS
THE NORM, 10 SECOND VERSUS 6 SECONDS IF YOU HAD FURTHER
EVIDENCE OF THAT.
I'LL ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS LATER, YOUR WORSHIP, THAT ARE
MORE IN LINE WITH —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'RE GETTING INTO DEBATE FROM
QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION HERE.
ALDERMAN LOWE ON CLARIFICATION.

>> THANK YOU, Mr. KIMBER.
YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO SPEED.
AND WHAT'S THE GENESIS — OR WHAT'S THE BASIS, WHAT'S THE
BACKGROUND, WHAT'S THE ANCHOR
FOR IDENTIFYING SPEED AS A RELATIONSHIP TO DISTANCE, HOW
FAR AWAY THE SIGN IS FROM THE
ROADWAY? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
I MIGHT HAVE TO CALL ON MY
COLLEAGUE TO EXPLAIN THE REFERENCE TO SPEED IN THE
VARIOUS SETBACKS.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MAYOR NENSHI, I'M WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING.
THE FIELD OF VISION, FIELD OF VIEW, IS CHANGING DEPENDING ON
SPEED.
AT 60 KILOMETRES AN HOUR, FIELD OF VIEW IS 20° AND HUNDRED
KILOMETRES AN HOUR IS 10°.
AND THE LATERAL DISTANCE IS CHANGING WITH THE SPEED.
IN ADDITION, STOPPING SIGHT
DISTANCE IS CHANGING AS WELL FOR A VEHICLE TO COME TO A FULL
STOP.
AT 60 KILOMETRES AN HOUR IS 85 METRES.
AND AT HUNDRED KILOMETRES PER
HOUR, WHICH IS FIRST COLUMN, IS…
[Indiscernible]
>> WHAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH THIS TABLE WAS DEVELOPED?
WAS THIS DEVELOPED FOR THIRD
PARTY SIGNS OR DEVELOPED FOR HIGHWAY SIGNAGE?
>> THESE ARE USED FOR — IT
IS — THE TOOL IS CALLED — IT IS DEVELOPED FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS.
IF YOU'RE TO STOP BEFORE THE RED
LIGHT — >> IN OTHER WORDS IF I WAS
DRIVING DOWN A FREEWAY, THAT'S
HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE ME TO RECOGNIZE AN EXIT SIGN SO I
COULD ACTUALLY MANEUVER INTO THE
EXIT AT A GIVEN SPEED.

>> , THAT.
>> IT IS REALLY NOTHING TO DO
WITH THIRD PARTY ADVERTISE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
SEE NOTHING OTHER QUESTIONS OF
CLARIFICATION, I'M REALLY FASCINATED BY THIS VISUAL, I
HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO READ IT BUT
I LIKE LOTS OF NUMBERS, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I WILL ASK, THEN, IF THERE ARE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL, PLEASE.
>> THAT IS A HUGE RELIEF.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS DOUG FORSYTHE,
VICE-PRESIDENT OF PATTISON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.
I HAVE 35 COPIES OF OUR
SUBMISSION FOR PRESENTATION IF I MAY.
MY INTENT IS TO BRIEFLY SHOW YOU
AN ACTUAL STATIC DIGITAL BILLBOARD AD AND MAKE SOME
OVERALL COMMENTS.
OUR INDUSTRY HAS BEEN PART OF THIS CITY FOR MORE THAN A
HUNDRED YEARS.
AND THROUGH THE YEARS, WE'VE EMPLOYED MANY NEW DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGIES FROM HAND PAINTING
TO SILK SCREENING TO ROTARY POSTERS THAT DISPLAY THREE
DIFFERENT ADS ON SLABBERS 3 TO 4
SECONDS AS YOU CURRENTLY SEE ON THE STREET.
WE'RE NOW IN THE DIGITAL AGE AND
WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS OUR STATIC DIGITAL POSTER.
EACH AD IS 6 SECONDS LONG.
THERE'S A SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN ADS.
THERE IS NO MOTION OR VIDEO
INVOLVED AT ALL.

ONLY STATIC PICTURES.
THE BILLBOARD'S SIZE IS A
STANDARD CALGARY SIZE, 10 FEET BY 20 FEET.
THE SIGNS ARE EQUIPPED WITH
LIGHT SENSORS TO ADJUST TO LIGHT LEVELS AND A CAMERA SO THEY ARE
MONITORED AT ALL TIMES.
THIS STYLE OF BILLBOARD DOES AWAY WITH PAPER TECHNOLOGY AND
REQUIRES MUCH LESS MAINTENANCE
THAN EXISTING BILLBOARDS. OUR INDUSTRY HAS NO ISSUE WITH
INTERIM REGULATION OF THIS FORM
OF SIGNAGE. IT IS NOT A NEW PRODUCT.
IT HAS BEEN USED AROUND THE
WORLD FOR OVER TEN YEARS. AND IN CANADA FOR ABOUT THREE.
MOST JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE
SIGNS LIKE THIS EMPLOY A SIX-SECOND REFRESH RATE LIKE WE
DO.
IN FACT, IN EDMONTON THEY JUST FINISHED A NEW SET OF RULES, AND
THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THEY RECENTLY AGREED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL.
THERE IS ENOUGH EXPERIENCE OUT
THERE WITH THE USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY TO BE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY ITS IMPACT AND REGULATE
THEM FOR THE GOOD OF ALL INVOLVED.
WHEN I SAY "ALL" I MEAN TO
INCLUDE THE INDUSTRY AND THE HUNDREDS OF BUSINESSES AND
CHARITIES IN CALGARY THAT
BENEFIT FROM THIS FORM OF ADVERTISING.
AS WELL AS RESIDENTS WHO ARE
INFORMED BY IT.

THAT SAID, OUR DIFFERENCES WITH
ADMINISTRATION AT THIS POINT
ARISE MOSTLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE APPROACHED THIS FORM OF SIGNAGE
AS SOMETHING RADICALLY NEW AND
HAVE BEEN IN THEIR WORD "CONSERVATIVE" WITH THESE RULES.
WHERE INDUSTRY SEES A REASONABLE
REGULATORY SOLUTION FOR PROBLEMS WHICH ADMINISTRATION IDENTIFIES,
THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS BEFORE
COUNCIL TODAY ARE OF A COMPLETELY PROHIBITORY NATURE.
FOR INSTANCE, IN A LOWER THAN
AGREED TO LIGHT LEVEL AND IN A THREE-YEAR TERM FOR DIGITAL
PERMITS.
WE DO NOT OBJECT TO MOST OF THE NEW RULES.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE FIVE OF THEM
WHICH WILL SEVERELY AFFECT US AND OUR CUSTOMERS, AND THESE WE
CANNOT AGREE WITH.
WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION AND LIGHTING EXPERTS HERE TODAY TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE RULES AND
MY COLLEAGUES WILL DEAL WITH THEM AS WELL.
WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT COUNCIL
WILL APPROVE THE RULES WITH THE REASONABLE CHANGES WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE MADE TO THEM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
I WAS REALLY TEMPTED TO SAY THAT I COULDN'T FOCUS ON WHAT YOU
WERE SAYING BECAUSE I WAS
DISTRACTED BY THE SIGN BUT THAT WOULD BE MEAN.
QUESTIONS FOR Mr. FORSYTHE.
ALDERMAN HODGES. >> Mr. FORSYTHE, IF YOU PUT
THE PHOTOGRAPH OR THE IMAGE BACK
ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE. YOU MENTIONED A CAMERA.
WHERE IS THE CAMERA?
>> THE CAMERA, YOU CAN SEE IT JUST TO THE RIGHT —
>> BUT I CAN'T SEE.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU. SO IS IT ON THE FRAME?
>> THERE'S A POLE STICKING OUT
OF THE — TO THE SIGN TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF IT.
AND THAT IS A CAMERA AT THE END
OF IT. SO IT IS COMPLETELY MONITORED AT
ALL TIMES.
>> BUT DOES IT MONITOR THE VEHICLES OR DOES IT MONITOR THE
SIGN?
>> IT MONITORS THE SIGN TO MAKE SURE IT'S FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY.
>> WHAT IF IT ISN'T?
>> THEN IT'S SEEN BY THE FOLKS THAT MONITOR IT AND CAN BE SHUT
DOWN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> OKAY.

DO YOU HAVE A LITTLE POINTER OR
SOMETHING THAT CAN SHOW ME WHERE
THIS CAMERA IS? THE ARM EXTENDING OUT THE BOTTOM
RIGHT HAND CORNER.
>> YEAH. ALL OF OUR SIGNS, IT IS HARD TO
SEE, BUT THERE IS A CAMERA ON
EACH ONE. >> NOW, THIS IS A MODEST SIZE,
IF WE WERE THINKING IN TERMS OF
BILLBOARDS. IS THIS A TYPICAL SIZE, MAXIMUM
SIZE OR STANDARD SIZE?
>> THIS IS THE TYPICAL CALGARY SIZE THAT YOU SEE MOST
EVERYWHERE, 10 FEET BY 20 FEET.
>> LOOKS A LITTLE SHORTER, IS THIS 10 BY 20?
>> YEAH.
10 BY 20.

ALL OF OUR SIGNS HAVE REPLACED
EXISTING SIGNS, 10 BY 20 SIGNS
BUT THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE.
>> IT JUST LOOKS A LITTLE
SMALLER. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE GOT SOME SPEAKERS LIST FOR YOU,
Mr. FORSYTHE.
SETTLE IN. ALDERMAN MAR M.P.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, Mr. FORSYTHE. THIS — NOW, I HAD SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT LIGHT FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S DIFFERENT
TYPES OF EITHER DAYTIME OR
NIGHTTIME.

AND YOUR PRESENTATION YOU SAID
THERE IS A CAMERA WHICH I CAN
SEE AND THAT MONITORS THE SIGN. DOES THAT ALSO CHANGE AND
FLUCTUATE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE
SIGN OVER TIME? >> AMBIENT LIGHT DOES CHANGE THE
SIGN SO THE LIGHT DOES — LEVELS
DO COME DOWN MUCH MORE AT NIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO PROBABLY —
>> COULD YOU START THAT AGAIN?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER YOUR QUESTION TO SOME LIGHTING PEOPLE
WHO DO UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL
ASPECTS OF IT BETTER THAN I DO I DO.
>> OKAY.
PLEASE. WHOMEVER CAN ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
>> YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I'M WITH PATTISON
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.
>> WOULD YOU MIND RESTARTING THAT?
>> I'LL RESTART IT AGAIN.
>> IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, THE CAMERA SERVES A DIFFERENT
FUNCTION JUST FOR SECURITY AND
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE SIGN AND WE'RE WATCHING IT FOR
MAINTENANCE PERSONS, AND OUR
OPERATIONS CENTRE CAN WATCH IT.

THE SECOND QUESTION THROUGH THE
CHAIR, THROUGH THE MAYOR IS THE
LIGHT SENSOR, AGAIN DIFFICULT TO SEE BUT ON THE VERY TOP OF THE
BILLBOARD IS THE LIGHT SENSOR ON
TOP OF THE DIGITAL BILLBOARD IS A LIGHT SENSOR SHAPE OF A
BEEHIVE.
YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT ABOVE HER HEAD THERE, A LITTLE WHITE
GADGET.
THAT MEASURES THE AMBIENT LIGHTING LEVELS AROUND THE AREA.
SO WHEN THE SIGN — SO DURING
THE DAY, THE SIGN INTENSITY FUNCTIONS THE MOST UP THE
SUNLIGHT.
AND AT NIGHT, IT DROP DOWNS TO 10% LEVELS OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF
NIGHTTIME LEVELS THE SIGN
DOESN'T NEED TO BE AS LIT LITTLE AS IT IS NOW, DROPS DOWN TO 10%
OF THE DAYTIME LEVEL.
90% DROP. >> THAT'S INTERESTING.
AND I GUESS IT CHANGES — IT
FLUCTUATES DURING THE DAY AUTOMATICALLY.
SENSORS AND MEASURES.
>> CORRECT. CLOUDY DAY IT IS WOULD BE LESS
THAN SUNNY DAYS AND SO ON.
>> SO MOST PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH EITHER THE PLAIN BILLBOARD
THAT'S PAPERED UP AND YOU SEE
THE GUYS PUTTING IT UP.

THERE'S THE ONES WHICH ARE
TRIANGULAR IN SHAPE AND THEY
ADJUST. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT IN TERMS
OF THE TIMING OF THE ROTATING
MECHANICAL ONES VERSUS THIS DIGITAL ONE?
>> GOOD QUESTION.
I CAN PROBABLY SHOW A VIDEO OF IT BUT I CAN DESCRIBE IT
QUICKLY.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO SHOW A VIDEO? PERHAPS THERE'S EVEN MORE
PRESENTATION.
>> I CAN PREPARE — I'M THE NEXT PRESENTER AND I CAN PREPARE AN
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
VISUALLY. >> YOUR WORSHIP, MAYBE WHAT I'LL
DO IS LET THEM FINISH THE
PRESENTATIONS AND PUT MY LINK BACK IN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.

COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU SAW
ADMINISTRATION'S PRESENTATION, BUT THEY DID SHOW A CONE THAT
THEY WOULD BE USING AS THEIR
GUIDE IN REGARDS TO THE SETBACKS FROM RESIDENTIAL INNER CITY
VERSUS THE SUBURBS.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IN REGARDS TO THAT
NEW KIND OF PROPOSAL.
>> I THINK, AGAIN, ALDERMAN CHABOT, SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT
WE HAVE HERE WILL BE ADDRESSING
THAT ISSUE. SO THAT WILL COME AS PART OF OUR
PRESENTATION.
>> THE — >> THEY DO HAVE A GRAPH AS WELL.
>> SIX SECOND VERSUS TEN SECOND.
ADMINISTRATION HAS SUGGESTED THE NORM IS MORE TEN SECONDS.
JUST WONDERING WHAT YOUR
EXPERIENCE OR YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS —
>> AGAIN, THAT WILL BE COVERED.
WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.

WE WILL BE COVERING THAT ISSUE
AS TO WHERE OUR SIGNS HAVE A
SIX-SECOND REFRESH RATE ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS.
MUCH MORE DETAILED INFORMATION
ON THAT. >> WHAT QUESTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE
ME TO ASK YOU?
>> WELL… REALLY, YES, HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS BUT PERHAPS AT THE
END. WE DO HAVE SPECIFIC DETAILED
PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE COVERED
ALL OF THESE AND I THINK IT'S BEST TO HAVE THEM ANSWER FOR
YOU.
THEY HAVE CHARTS AND GRAPHS IN SOME CASES AND ADMITTED LIGHTING
EXPERTS AND TRANSPORTATION
EXPERTS. >> OKAY.
Mr. FORSYTHE THEN, WHAT ABOUT
LAND USE ONES? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD —
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> THIS GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE. >> CAN WE HAVE THE FULL
PRESENTATION AND THEN MAYBE ASK
QUESTIONS? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A WAY OF
SOMEONE GETTING WAY MORE THAN THEIR FIVE MINUTES THAN THEY'RE
PREVIOUSLY ALLOTTED.
YOU DON'T GET TO COME BACK, SO ANSWER WHAT YOU CONDITIO YOU CA.
>> I THINK I'LL ACCEPT THAT
OFFER. THANK YOU.
>> SOME OF THE LAND USE THAT ARE
PROHIBITED, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU THINK SHOULD BE AMENDED?
I KNOW I'D MET WITH ONE OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO C-CORE DISTRICTS
BEING BANNED.
>> WE DO HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOW
INCLUDED THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS
BROUGHT FORWARD.

AGAIN, I THINK Mr.REBEKAS IN
HIS PRESENTATION WILL BE DID YOU
EVERRINCOVERINGIN SOME DETIL DE. >> I NOTICED THE SIGN WAS
CHANGING RAPIDLY FROM ONE TO THE
NEXT AND TO ME A SUDDEN CHANGE LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
WOULD DRAW MY ATTENTION.
IT'S AKIN TO FLASH. IT MAY NOT BE A FLASH BUT
BECAUSE THERE'S A SPECIFIC LIGHT
OUTPUT ASSOCIATED WITH THESE DEVICES, THIS IS NOT A REFLECTED
LIGHT ISSUE, THIS IS A
TRANSMITTED LIGHT. SO WHEN YOU CHANGE FROM ONE
IMAGE TO THE NEXT, LIKE THAT,
WITHOUT A TRANSITION TIME ASSOCIATED WITH IT, OR MINIMAL
TRANSITION TIME, IT LOOKS LIKE A
FLASH.

IT DRAWS MY ATTENTION.
ANY KIND OF A CHANGE LIKE THAT
WILL DRAW PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. AND THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS FOR
YOU GUYS TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION
WITH X NUMBER OF PIXELS OR SO MANY LINES AS A TRANSITION OVER
THE ENTIRE DISPLAY OVER A LONGER
PERIOD OF TIME WHICH WOULD APPEAR LESS LIKE A FLASH.
MORE — SOMETHING THAT'S MORE
SIMILAR TO THE MECHANICAL ONES THAT WE SEE WHERE THEY FLIP OVER
ONE SEGMENT AT A TIME.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER AS PART OF THE
TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO AS
OPPOSED TO THIS SUDDEN CHANGE? >> CERTAINLY THE TECHNOLOGY
WOULD EXIST.
THIS IS OUR CURRENT MODEL THAT WE UTILIZE THROUGHOUT THE
PROVINCE AND THROUGH MOST OF THE
COUNTRY.

AGAIN, THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF IT
IN TERMS OF HOW THAT WOULD
IMPACT OUR SIGNAGE PROBABLY BETTS LEFT WITH Mr. REBEKAS
WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE
WORKINGS OF THE SIGN. >> AND BYLAWS WRITTEN TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT KIND OF
TRANSITION. AND, TO ME, THAT IS WRONG.
WHEN IT CHANGES SUDDENLY LIKE
THAT, IT'S AKIN TO A FLASH. IT MAY BE A STATIC PICTURE THAT
COMES FROM AND GOES TO, BUT
BECAUSE IT'S A SUDDEN CHANGE LIKE THAT, IT AUTOMATICALLY
DRAWS YOUR ATTENTION TO IT.
AND THAT COULD BE DISTRACTING. AND — WHICH IS WHY I WOULD
PREFER TO HAVE SEEN SOMETHING
THAT HAD A LONGER TRANSITION TIME BETWEEN ONE DISPLAY AND THE
NEXT.
AND BEING AS IT WAS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION, I THOUGHT I'D
ADDRESS IT HERE WITH YOU NOW.
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT
WOULD SEEP THAT SEEM THAT I WIE
TO ADDRESS SOME OF MY QUESTIONS WITH OTHER PRESENTERS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN CARRA? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
CAN YOU SORT OF — YOU'RE HERE
REPRESENTING THE PROFESSIONAL THIRD PARTY SIGN INDUSTRY.
CAN YOU MAYBE DIFFERENTIATE
BETWEEN THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO AND SOME OF THE SORT OF
BILLBOARD FLASHY SIGNS THAT WE
SEE ON MACLEOD TRAIL THESE DAYS? >> WELL, I — I CAN ONLY SPEAK
TO REALLY OUR PARTICULAR SIGNS.
OUR COMPANY HAS ALWAYS ADOPTED THIS MODEL THAT YOU SEE HERE
WHICH REPRESENTS STATIC
TECHNOLOGY.

WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND
DONE A LOT OF STUDIES AND FIND
THAT FOR OUR MODEL OF BUSINESS, THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING, IT IS
THE PRODUCT AND THIS IS THE
WORKINGS OF THE SIGN THAT ARE BEST FOR US.
THERE ARE I BELIEVE SOME FIRST
PARTY SIGN REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE LIKELY HERE TODAY THAT CAN
SPEAK TO THE FLASHY VIDEO SIGN.
SOME OF THE SIGNS — A I'M NOT AWARE OF THE PERMITS AND SOME —
ON SOME OF THE OTHER ONES.
I DO KNOW McMAHON STADIUM AT CROWCHILD TRAIL IS A WHOLE
SEPARATE ISSUE THAT DOES HAVE
THE VIDEO SIGN AND WE'RE OFTEN CONFUSED AND IT'S — OUR — THAT
IT'S OUR SIGN BUT THAT IS NOT
OUR TECHNOLOGY.

>> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> THANK YOU.
AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, I CAN GO TO THE
NEXT PERSON.
I'M CURIOUS ABOUT SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD SIGN.
IF YOU'RE NOT, I CAN CHECK WITH
Mr. REBEKAS WHENEVER HE STANDS UP.
I'M INTERESTED IN THE SPEED
LIMIT ON THE ROAD THAT GOES BY THERE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT
AFFECTS YOUR COMPANY'S
DETERMINATION OF AN APPROPRIATE VETBACK FROM A ROAD.
AND IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT, I
CAN APPRECIATE THAT. >> CERTAINLY I THINK IT'S
PROBABLY BEST LEFT WITH
Mr. REBEKAS WHO IS THE EXPERT IN THAT AREA.
>> MY LAST QUESTION IS DOES
PATTISON AND I'M THINKING OF PICADILLY CIRCUS, THAT'S THIRD
PARTY ADVERTISING, TIMES SQUARE.
DO WE HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF THAT IN THE CITY THAT YOUR COMPANY
OPERATES?
>> THAT OUR COMPANY OPERATES, NO.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THAT
TYPE OF THIRD PARTY SIGNAGE — >> THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY
COMES CLOSE ON A LARGE SCALE IS
THE ONE ON — AT McMAHON STADIUM.
ON A LARGE-SCALE BASIS, ON
CROWCHILD TRAIL.

>> OKAY.
>> AND THAT'S ON FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND FEDERAL LAND NOT SUBJECT TO THE CITY.
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY FEDERAL —
YEAH. >> IT'S U OF C LAND.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
MAYOR MAY THANKS, ALDERMAN LOW. MAYBE I'LL ASK A REALLY QUICK
FOLLOWUP TO THAT ONE.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SCOPE OF YOUR COMPANY'S OPERATIONS
ACROSS CANADA, BUT I DO KNOW
THAT IN TORONTO FOR EXAMPLE IN THE YONGE STREET CORRIDOR THERE
ARE A LOT OF MOVING VIDEO
DISPLAY SIGNS. THOSE AREN'T YOURS?
>> MOST ARE NOT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE WE DO HAVE LIKE THAT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: CAN
YOU COMMENT ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE?
>> WELL, TORONTO'S A CONFUSING
SCENARIO. ON THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY YOU
MAY HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT SCIENCE AND DUNDAS SQUARE IS A WHOLE AREA SIMILAR
TO A SMALLER TIMES SQUARE, IF
YOU WILL. DIFFERENT RULES AND SITUATIONS.
I'M NOT — A LOT OF THAT IS A
SEPARATE THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING ON-PREMISE SIGNAGE IN SOME
CASES.
I'M NOT COMPLETELY WEA AWARE OFL THE DETAILS OF THAT.
OUR TYPE OF SIGN, GENERALLY WE
USE A SMALLER SIZE OF 10 BY 20 THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THOSE
CLUSTER AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN
BUILT ESPECIALLY WITHIN A CITY.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IF
YOU.
ALDERMAN KEATING. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I HAVE A COUPLE BASIC QUESTIONS,
I GUESS, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS AND
WE KNOW THE MECHANICAL ONES THAT
ROTATE AND THE STATIONARY ONES. THOSE OBVIOUSLY ARE LIT UP FROM
WITHIN SO THERE'S NO EXTERNAL
LIGHT SHINING ON THE SIGN BECAUSE IT IS THE SIGN THAT IS
LIT ITSELF.
>> CORRECT. >> WE DO HAVE SIGNS THAT ARE LIT
WITHOUT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE OVERHANGING LIGHTS OR ONES
UNDERNEATH AND THEN WE HAVE THE
ROTATING ONES THAT CHANGE IMAGES THREE OR FOUR SIDES ON A VEIN, I
GUESS.
>> CORRECT.

>> HOW IS THIS — IT'S VERY
BASIC, I GUESS.
HOW IS THESE REGULATIONS DIFFERENT IN REGULATING THOSE
THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS?
SO I'M LOOKING FOR THINGS LIKE THE LUMINATION, DIFFERENT THAN
THE ONES THAT HAVE THE
STATIONARY OR THE ROTATING LOCATION-WISE, ALL OF THOSE
SORTS OF THINGS.
I'M REALLY LOOKING AT — IF I LOOK AT THIS SIGN, IT MAY BE A
LESS INTRUSIVE — I'M NOT SURE
BECAUSE THE OTHER ONES MAY ACTUALLY GIVE YOU MORE
LUMINATION THAN THIS ONE DOES IN
A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

I DON'T KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT
I'M LOOKING FOR, SOMETHING ALONG
THOSE LINES. >> OUR SIGNS HAVE INVARIABLY
REPLACED EXISTING LINES.
SOME ARE FRONT LIT FROM ABOVE OR BELOW, OTHERS ARE BACK LIT SIGNS
THAT ARE STATIC.
DIFFICULT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
PROBABLY, AGAIN, Mr. REBEKAS
IS BETTER AT COVERING THAT OFF. BUT —
>> I GUESS JUST SO THAT WE
FOLLOW UP, WHERE I'M COMING FROM IS I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW
THESE NEW REGULATIONS TREAT
THESE DIFFERENTLY THAN TECHNICALLY ANY OTHER SIGN.
BECAUSE IN MY VIEW, ALL SIGNS
SHOULD BE EQUAL. WITHIN REASON.
>> WITHIN REASON WE AGREE.
AND WE DO SEE THIS AS AN EVOLUTION IN TECHNOLOGY.
A DIGITAL — WE ARE DIGITAL
EVERYTHING NOW. AND WE DO SEE THIS AS A
TRANSITION FROM OUR EXISTING
SIGNS. THE ROTARY ONES THAT CHANGE
EVERY 3 TO 4 SECONDS TO SIGNS
THAT CHANGE EVERY 6 SECONDS NOW.

>> IF THESE ARE RESTRICTED IN A
CERTAIN AREA, COMPARED TO OTHER
SIGNS, BUT THE LUMINATION ON THE OTHER SIGNS IS GREATER THAN THIS
I WONDER WHY.
>> ONE OF OUR GREAT CONCERNS. CORRECT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING. EL ADAM?
KEAT ALDERMAN
DEMONG? >> HOW FAR AWAY ARE WE FROM
THIS?
>> BOY, THAT'S NOT AN EASY QUESTION.
WE'RE — ACROSS THE STREET,
OBVIOUSLY — >> JUST REFERRING IN REFERENCE
TO 150 METRES, 300 METRES.
I MEAN JUST THOUGHT IF YOU'RE MAKING A PRESENTATION.
>> PROBABLY 150, I WOULD
SUGGEST.

>> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT
WAS EASY. THANK YOU, ALDERMAN DEMONG.
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART?
>> THANKS, Mr. FORSYTHE, FOR BEING HERE.
I'M TRYING TO HONE IN ON YOUR
PRESENTATION. I JUST GOT IT THIS MORNING.
IF YOU COULD — I WANT TO HONE
IN ON THE RECOMMENDATION. SO I THINK THAT'S UNDER TAB ONE,
THE SECOND PAGE.
CORRECT? IS THAT PRIMARILY — THERE ARE
FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU
REFERENCE THERE. CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> SO COULD WE GO THROUGH THOSE. RECOMMENDATIONS…
[Indiscernible]
TO BAN THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING. WHERE EXACTLY IN THE BYLAW ARE
YOU MAKING REFERENCE TO THIS
POINT? HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT?
>> I APOLOGIZE, ALDERMAN.
Mr. BARDSLY WILL BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT QUESTION IN HIS
RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> SO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED DISTRICTS EXCEPT FOR
THE ONES THAT YOU'VE OUTLINED
THERE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY.
OR HAVE YOU DONE THAT SOMEWHERE
ELSE IN HERE? >> YEAH, THIS WILL BE —
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT.

>> OKAY.
>> HOW ABOUT THE SECOND
RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU'RE ASKING THAT THIS NOT BE ADOPTED
AND — IS SOMEONE ELSE GOING TO
TALK ABOUT THAT ONE AS WELL? >> YES.
>> AND WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT ONE?
INDUSTRY ASKS FOR THIS NOT TO BE ADOPTED.
WHY?
>> AGAIN — >> SAME?
>> YES.
>> AND THE SAME WITH THE LAST ONE?
OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD?
WILL SOMEONE ELSE BE DEALING
WITH THAT AS WELL? >> THEY WILL.
>> IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'VE
GONE THIS — I MEAN, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR US TO HAVE COMBINED
PRESENTATIONS AND QUESTIONS
AROUND EACH — EVEN IF IT DOES TAKE LONGER THAN THE FIVE.
SO THIS IS DIFFERENT PROCEDURE.
IT REALLY DOESN'T GET TO THE BEST CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS
MATTER.
>> AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

IT WAS MY GOAL TO INTRODUCE THE
PRODUCT AND GIVE ESSENTIALLY AN
OUTLINE AND THEN — >> HOW MANY OTHERS WILL BE
SPEAKING?
>> WE HAVE FOUR. >> FOUR OTHERS.
SO I GUESS WE'LL ALL STAND UP,
ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS, WE WON'T GET THE ANSWERS, WE'LL SIT DOWN
AND THEN WE'LL GO ON.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND,
SADLY, IF THAT'S HOW THE
INDUSTRY WANTED TO DO IT, THAT'S HOW THEY WANTED TO DO IT.
WE WOULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT A
COMBINED PRESENTATION. THAT IS AS IT IS.
RULES ARE IN PLACE FOR A REASON.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
TWO QUICK QUESTIONS, I'M
INTERESTED IN THE COMMENT MADE IN PASSING THAT IF THERE'S A
PROBLEM WITH A SIGN AS DETECTED
BY THE CAMERA, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY PRESUMABLY
QUICKLY TO DRIVE OUT AND LOOK AT
IT.

POTENTIALLY THERE MIGHT BE A
VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE
SIGN FLASHING IRREGULARLY AND I'M WONDERING WHAT SORT OF
CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE TO SHUT
DONE THE SIGN OR MODIFY THE MESSAGING OR IF THERE IS
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IS THERE SOME AUTO PROCESSES OR MANUAL PROCESS?
>> THE SIGN IS TURNED OFF
IMMEDIATELY IF THERE'S AN ALARM THAT COMES IN THAT THERE IS
SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.
>> THERE'S A DEFAULT THAT IT JUST SHUTS DOWN.
I'D LIKE TO DIG INTO THE 300
METRE ISSUE AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU'RE THE BEST PERSON TO ASK
ABOUT THAT.
>> NEXT PRESENTER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. ALDERMAN JONES.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
SO YOU DON' DON'T WANT TO ANSWEY QUESTIONS…
>> APPARENTLY I'M NOT DOING A
VERY GOOD JOB AT IT.

>> I'LL LEAVE THOSE QUESTIONS.
I JUST HAVE ONE THEN.
IN TAB 2, ON PAGE 2 YOU HAVE DIGITAL POSTERS, DIGITAL
SPECTACULARS, DIGITAL MALL…
[Indiscernible] CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE?
>> DIGITAL POSTERS ARE THE KIND
YOU SEE HERE, DIGITAL MALL UNITS ARE A PRODUCT WE HAVE IN MALLS
LIKE SOUTHCENTRE THAT ARE
SMALLER, OBVIOUS KIOSK TYPE THAT WILL HAVE WAY LISTE HAVE-FINDINS
WELL.
SUNRIDGE MALL HAS THERM, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND DIGITAL SPECTACULARS ARE THE
LARGE — USUALLY 14 FEET HIGH BY 48 FEET LONG, SPECTACULARS.
MUCH LARGER.
WE ARE NOT ABLE TO — WE DO NOT BUILD THOSE IN CALGARY, BUT WE
HAVE BUILT THOSE AT THE CALGARY
AIRPORT ON AIRPORT TRAIL.

AND YOU MAY SEE THEM ELSEWHERE
IN THE PROVINCE IN YOUR TRAVEL.
>> WE HAVE ONE IN CALGARY. WHERE IS IT?
>> ON AIRPORT TRAIL.
AND WE ALSO HAVE ONE AT — JUST SOUTH OF AIRDRIE ON HIGHWAY 2 —
>> I'VE SEEN THAT ONE.
JUST A MATTER OF THE SIZE OF THE SIGN.
>> EXACTLY.
SPECTACULAR BEING A SPECTACULAR SIZE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> THAT IS THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF SIGN IN THE UNITED STATES,
ACTUALLY.
THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN JONES.
ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU.
I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN REASSESS
HOW THIS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS WORKING AND ASK THE
PRESENTERS IF THEY WOULD LIKE A
COMBINED PRESENTATION WHERE THEY EACH GET FIVE MINUTES.
THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO ASK ANY OF
THE PRESENTERS THE QUESTIONS? BECAUSE I CAN SEE US REPEATING
THIS FOR EACH PRESENTER.
SO WOULD YOU PLEASE — >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN PINCOTT?
>> JOHN SMITH. THEY CAN SPELL THAT.
I WAS SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THIS
WAS A PROCEDURE WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THERE'S NO REAL ABILITY FOR A JOINT PRESENTATION.
BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS ALDERMAN
FARRELL IS SUGGESTING IS LISTEN TO ALL OF THEM AND THEN ASK
QUESTIONS AT THE END.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUT I WANTED TO LET
COUNCIL KNOW THIS IS THE
PROCEDURE THE WAY THAT THE PROCEDURE BYLAW MANDATES, NOT
SOMETHING —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FRANKLY IT'S A BIT OFF.
YOU SHOULD HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO
PRESENT YOUR CASE.

PERIOD.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE A
BUNCH OF DIFFERENT NUANCES THAT I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS A BIT
GETTING AROUND THE LAWS THAT WE
OPERATE UNDER. BUT IF IT IS WHAT IT IS, YOU
BROUGHT PEOPLE, YOU HAVE
PRESENTATION. >> WITH RESPECT, YOUR WORSHIP,
IF WE HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS THE
ADMINISTRATION DOES I SUPPOSE THAT WOULD BE FINE TOO INCLUDING
QUESTIONS BUT THAT WOULD KEEP US
HERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, WOULD IT NOT, WITH RESPECT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IN MY
LIFE, SIR, I HAVE PRESENTED TO THIS COUNCIL MANY WHEREBY MANY
TIMES BEFORE I GOT TO SIT OVER
HERE. AS ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART WELL
KNOWS, WHEN SHE ASKS ME
QUESTIONS, WE CAN GO ON FOR AN HOUR.
MY MAXIMUM WAS AN HOUR AND 20
MINUTES IN STANDING ON THAT PODIUM —
>> I DON'T MEAN TO BE IMPERMIT.
>> Mayor Naheed NenshiIMPERTINE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: LET'S
JUST BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF WHERE WE
COME FROM THAT WE GET SPECIAL
PERMISSION THAT REGULAR CITIZENS DON'T GET.
>> I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY.
THAT WAS CERTAINLY NOT MY INTENTION AT ALL.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.

>> I APOLOGIZE AGAIN.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
IALDERMAN PINCOTT. >> THANK YOU.
IF IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER I
WOULD MOVE A MOTION THAT WE ASK THE PRESENTERS TO DO A COMBINED
PRESENTATION OF NO MORE THAN 20
MINUTES. >> 15.
>> SORRY, 15 MINUTES THEN?
I WILL ACCEPT THAT. I WILL MOVE THAT MOTION.
BECAUSE THAT WAY WE COULD GO
AROUND — WE CAN DO IT AS A COUNCIL MOTION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MADAME
CLERK, IS THAT THERE ARE THE? DO WE HAVE A SECONDER?
ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? VERY WELL THEN.
PROCEED.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION WHICH PROBABLY WILL GO TO THE NEXT
PERSON.
AND IT'S SORT OF FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT ALDERMAN KEATING WAS ASKING
ABOUT, COMPARING LOOKING AT THE
LIGHTING OF DIFFERENT SIGNS.

THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY SIGNS
THAT ARE LIT.
WE HAVE OTHER SIGNS THAT ARE LIT, BUT THEY'RE LIT FROM THE
EXTERIOR.
RIGHT? >> FROM THE EXTERIOR AND WE DO
HAVE SOME BACK LIT INTERIOR
SIGNS. >> ARE THERE ANY AMBIENT LIGHT
MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENTS ON ANY
OF THOSE SIGNS? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
NO.
>> DO YOU MEASURE THE LIGHT LEVELS COMING OFF THOSE SIGN?
>> WE HAVE NOT.
>> BECAUSE YOU DON'T NEED TO. IT'S NOT PART OF THE REGULATION.
OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. FORSYTHE.
SORRY — YOU GOT TO BE ON THE HOT SEAT FIRST.
BUT WHY DON'T WE TAKE THE NEXT
THREE TOGETHER. AGAIN I'LL ASK CLERK TO TURN THE
TIMER ON.
YOU'VE GOT 15 MINUTES IN TOTAL. >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, MY NAME'S CHRIS
REBEKAS, DIRECTOR OF LEASING WITH PATTISON OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING.
I GUESS I CAN DEAL WITH THE QUESTIONS AFTER.
I'LL GO INTO MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO — AND TO SPEAK AGAINST THE RULES THAT ARE
OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE
INDUSTRY.

THE FIRST RULE ABOLISHES SIGNS
AS A DISCRETIONARY USE IN C-CORE
ONE, C-CORE TWO, INDUSTRIAL EDGE, SCRI DISTRICTS.
THE SECOND RULE — SORRY, THE
SECOND RULE IS ABOLISHING THE SIGNS FROM 300 METRES FROM A
BUILDING CONTAINING A DWELLING
UNIT. AND 150 METRES FROM FROM A DWEG
UNIT IN THE CORE OF CALGARY,
CITY OF CALGARY. AND THESE RULES ARE NOT
RELAXABLE.
THE LAST TWO I JUST STATED… [Indiscernible]
CAN'T GO TO THE APPEAL BOARD AND
ARGUE IF THE SIGN IS NOT EVEN VISIBLE, IF THERE'S BUILDINGS IN
BETWEEN A SIGN AND THE
RESIDENTIAL, WE CAN'T ARGUE THAT CASE.
THIRD RULE IS THE MANDATORY 14
METRE SETBACK. TODAY THE RULE IS 6 METRES.
AND KEEP IN MIND THIS IS SETBACK
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.
SO IN ADDITION AS WE KNOW FROM
THE EDGE OF THE ROAD THERE'S OTHER SETBACKS BETWEEN THE EDGE
OF THE ROAD AND THE PROPERTY
LINE. SO COULD ALREADY BE EXTENSIVE
SETBACKS ALREADY IN PLACE.
AND THE FOURTH RULE IS THE SEPARATION OF DIGITAL BILLBOARD,
THIRD PARTY SIGN WITH ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE SIGN.

SO ANY TYPE OF SIGN THAT HAS A
BIT OF DIGITAL ELECTRONIC
COMPONENT WOULD REQUIRE 300 METRE SEPARATION.
AND THE FINAL RULE WHICH WOULD
BE THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL ADDRESS IS THE REFRESH RATE.
THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED A COUPLE
TIMES AS WELL. WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST THAT THE 6
SECOND BE THE NORM AS CITIES IN
OTHER AREAS. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY MADE CLEAR
TO US THAT LED ADMINISTRATION TO
SUGGEST THESE RULES THAT I'M ADDRESSING.
AND AS MENTIONED, WE ARE IN
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE APPROACH ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN TO
THESE MATTERS WHICH ARE MORE
PROHIBITORY THAN REGULATORY CONSIDERING THESE ARE ONLY
INTERIM RULES.
THESE RULES WILL SEVERELY IMPAIR THE INDUSTRY AND THE COUNTLESS
BUSINESSES AND CHARITIES WHICH
USE THIS FORM OF ADVERTISING ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO PROHIBIT
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS IN A NUMBER
OF LAND USE DISTRICTS WHERE BILLBOARDS ARE NOW ALLOWED.
AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THESE ARE
C-CORE 1, 2, SCRI.

WE UNDERSTAND THE
ADMINISTRATION'S RATIONALE FOR
THIS IS THAT IN THE FIRST TWO DISTRICTS, C-CORE 1 AND 2s
THESE ARE PEDESTRIAN AREAS AND
THEREFORE ADMINISTRATION ARE THINKING OF BANNING ALL THIRD
PARTY SIGNS FROM THEM IN DUE
COURSE. THAT IS OVER THE NEXT 12 TO 18
MONTHS AS WE MEET TO REVIEW THE
BYLAW WHICH WILL ADDRESS SIGNS — ALL THIRD PARTY SIGNS
IN ADDITION TO DIGITAL SIGNS
BEFORE YOU TODAY. ADMINISTRATION FEELS THAT IF
THEY ARE THINKING IN THAT
DIRECTION, IT WOULD BE BEST NOT TO LET INDUSTRY PUT UP ANY
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS WHILE THIS
REVIEW IS ONGOING AS IT WOULD THEN BE HARD TO GET THEM — IF
THE BAN IS PUT IN PLACE DOWN THE
ROAD IT WOULD BE HARD TO GET THEM OUT.
THEY ALSO GIVE SOME OTHER
REASONS SUCH AS ESTHETICS FOR SUPPORTING SUCH A BAN NOW.
I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF
EXAMPLES OF IMPACT OF — SORRY, JUST VERBALLY, C-CORE 1, 2s
COMMON ROADWAYS THAT'S NO
ZONINGS ARE FOUND ARE MACLEOD TRAIL AND 16th AVENUE.
THOSE ARE ROADWAYS THAT
CURRENTLY ALLOW THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS, STATISTIC, SD
BILLBOARDS IF YOU WILL AND HAVE
BEEN A, COMMON AREA YOU FIND THESE SIGNS IN.
OUR CONCERN IS WE HAVE NOT BEEN
ABLE TO CHANGE OR ADD TO OUR BILLBOARDS ON MACLEOD TRAIL AND
16th AVENUES AND DISAGREE
THAT THESE TYPE EVER ZONING SHOULD BE BANNED FROM IT.
SCIR IS A ZONING THAT IS
DEFINITELY FOR THE MOST PART RAILWAY PROPERTIES, RAILWAY
LINES, RIGHT OF WAYS AND SIGNS
ARE ALLOWED THERE TODAY.

THE PROHIBITION OF A DIGITAL
BILLBOARD, I'LL DEAL WITH THE
SECOND RULE HERE, WITHIN 300 METRES OF A BUILDING CONTAINING
A DWELLING UNIT IS A CHALLENGE
FOR US. THERE IS ALREADY A RULE IN PLACE
IN THE BYLAW THAT PROHINTS THE
IMPACTS OF THIRD PARTY SIGNS ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
BY CHANGING THAT TO THE WORDS
DWELLING UNIT OR BUILDING CONTAINING A DWELLING UNIT, AND
BY MAKING THIS PROHIBITION NOT
RELAXABLE, ADMINISTRATION IS BROADENING OF THE SCOPE OF THE
RULE AND SAYING IN NO
CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE IMPACT OF SUCH A SIGN WITHIN 300 METRES BE
ADDRESSED BY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
REVIEW WHATSOEVER. WE FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH
THAT.
SO ON THIS DIAGRAM I'M HIGHLIGHTING SOME SIGNS HERE ON
MACLEOD TRAIL BETWEEN 42nd
AND 45th AVENUE. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF
THREE, FOUR THIRD PARTY SIGNS
THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, HAVE A PERMIT AND IF WE WERE TO
APPROACH THE CITY TODAY AND
CHANGE ONE OF THOSE SIGNS TO A DIGITAL, THE CITY WOULD SAY NO
BECAUSE THEY WOULD TAKE THE
COMPASS POINT, DO THE 300 METRE CIRCUMFERENCE AND SAY IF THERE'S
ANY RESIDENTIAL WITHIN 300
METRES OR A BUILDING ON MACLEOD TRAIL THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL
APARTMENT ON TOP OF IT YO YOU WD
BE ALLOWED.

WHETHER IT'S VISIBLE OR NOT, A
BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL TODAY THIS WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY DIGITAL IN THIS AREA.
AGAIN, BLACKFOOT TRAIL SOUTH.
A COMMON ROADWAY THROUGH INDUSTRIAL PARKS.
THAT HAVE ALLOWED THIRD PARTY IN
THE PAST. AGAIN, IT TURNS OUT IN THIS CASE
INDUSTRIAL TO THE WEST, ONCE
AGAIN, ANY SIGNS WOULD BE UNTOUCHABLE FOR DIGITAL
BILLBOARD REGARDLESS IF THEY'RE
SEEN OR NOT AND REGARDLESS IF RESIDENTIAL IS FAR AWAY FROM
THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA.
IN ADDITION, IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL WE HAVE A LIGHTING ENGINEER
FROM STANTEC WHO IS HERE, WILL
SAY A FEW WORDS AND SHOW COUNCIL THAT THE LIGHT CAST FROM THESE
SIGNS IS NOT A FACTOR AND IS
LESSER DISTANCE OF A FACTOR AT ALL WHE WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO 0
METRES.
WHY IS THIS RULE PROPOSED AND WHY IN THIS FORM?
EXISTING OF PROPOSED RULES TO
WHICH WE DO NOT OBJECT, THE EXISTING RULES TODAY WHICH
PROTECT RESIDENTIAL, AND THE
PROPOSED RULES WHICH A NUMBER OF THEM WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO
ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO
ADDRESS ANY PERCEIVED IMPACTS OF THESE SIGNS ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS
OR DWELLING UNITS.
WHAWHAT THAT I IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS IS
FOR.
WHY TAKE THIS AWAY FROM THE INDUSTRY IN THIS FASHION?
THE THIRD RULE, THE 14 METRE
SETBACK AS MENTIONED…

AS MENTIONED TODAY, THE 6 METRES
IS A SETBACK STANDARD TODAY FROM
A PROPERTY LINE. SO ALREADY THERE'S ALREADY A
BUFFER FROM US OFF THE ROADWAY
FOR EXISTING BILLBOARDS. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE
THAT TO 14 METRES.
AND THEY MENTIONED IF WE WANT TO HAVE IT LESS GO TO THE APPEAL
BOARD IS KIND OF THE ANSWER BACK
TO US. THE CHALLENGE WITH THE 14
METRES, IS A NUMBER OF THINGS.
IF YOU GO THAT FAR SETBACK, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE SIGN — YOU
START QUESTIONING THE VISIBLITY
OF THE SIGN.

WHETHER IT'S EVEN EFFECTIVE WITH
OTHER BUILDINGS AND TREES.
[Please Stand By] VERY DAMAGING TO OUR BUSINESS.
THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED RULES
WHICH WE DO NOT OBJECT TO ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS
ANY PERCEIVED IMPACT OF THESE
SIGNS. THE CASE BY CASE EXAMINATION OF
THE IMPACT OF THE SIGN IS WHAT
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS FOR. AGAIN, WHY TAKE THIS AWAY FROM
US?
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, SIR AND I SHOULD WARN YOU
THAT YOU'VE TAKEN TEN OF THE FIFTEEN ALLOTTED MINUTES THERE.
BUT I'LL STOP THE TIMER FOR A
SECOND AND RECOGNIZE ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> I'M PLEASED TO INTRODUCE OUR
CITY HALL SCHOOL CLASS FOR THIS WEEK.
THEY ARE 23 GRADE 5 AND 6
STUDENTS FROM PRINCE OF WALES SCHOOL IN PARKLAND ACCOMPANIED
BY THEIR TEACHER JENNIFER
ENGLAND. THEIR FOCUS FOR THIS WEEK WILL
BE HOW DO OUR PAST AND PRESENTS
AFFECT OUR FUTURE? IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND TO BE
ACKNOWLEDGED.
[ APPLAUSE ] AND JUST TO LET YOU ALL KNOW,
YOU'RE NOW ON T.V.
>> THANKS, ALL AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU IN MY
OFFICE LATER THIS WEEK.
ALL RIGHT, PLEASE CONTINUE.

>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS NICOLET AA McDONALD
AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF SALES AT PATIS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO THE TEN
SECOND REFRESH RATE. REFRESH AMOUNT IS TIME OF TIME
THAT ONE AD APPEARS ON THE
SCREEN. CURRENTLY THE ADS CHANGE EVERY 6
SECONDS.
THE PLANNERS DID ACTUALLY DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH INDUSTRY
BUT THEY WERE ADAMANT THAT THE
REFRESH RATE BE 10 SECONDS. WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHY SO
FIXED ON THIS RATE.
IN THE U.S.

40 ONLY TENUOUS THE FOUR SECOND REFRESH RATE AND THE
REST USE BETWEEN EIGHT AND TEN
SECONDS. IN CANADA ALL MARKETS USE TEN
SECONDS AND EDMONTON HAVE
ACCEPTED 6 SECONDS. THE TEN SECOND-RATE WHICH THE
PLANNERS WANT IS NOT INDUSTRY
STANDARD AND IT USED BY ONLY THREE CANADIAN CITIES THAT WE
KNOW OF, TORONTO, MONTREAL AND
HALIFAX. THE 6 SECOND-RATE ALLOWS
PATTISON TO ALLOW ONE SECOND PER
MINUTE TO NON-PROFIT CHARITIES FREE OF CHARGE.
THIS IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AS
THE LETTERS IN OUR MATERIAL SHOW YOU.
LOCAL FESTIVALS, DISTRESS UNIT
WAY, UNITED WAY, GLENBOW MUSEUM, A VARIETY OF CALGARY ARTISTS ARE
ARE JUST A FEW WHO HAVE SBEFTED
FROM OUR DAMAGE TALL BOARDS. JUST THIS PAST CHRISTMAS THEY
INCLUDED SAMARITAN'S PURSE TO
HELP WITH THE CHOLERA OUTFWLAEK HAITI OVER THE HOLIDAYS.
THAT WAS AN IMMEDIATE CRISIS
THAT WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO RESPOND TO BECAUSE OF THE
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND OUR
COMMITMENT TO PRESERVE ONE SPOT TO PSA.
IF THE REFRESH RATE IS RACED TO
WHERE THE PLANNERS WANT IT AT 10 SECONDS THIS TIME OF PROGRAM
BECOMES ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGING
TO OFFER. NROZ COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE
THE REFRESH RATE FROM THE
INDUSTRY STANDARD OF 6 SECONDS AND INDUSTRY ASKED ASKS THE
COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REFRESH
RATE OF 6 SECONDS AND REJECT THE 10 SECOND REFRESH RATE REQUESTED
BY THE PLANNERS.
THANK YOU.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.
WE'VE GOT ONE MORE, I THINK? >> PARDON ME?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I JUST
SAID WE'VE GOT ONE MORE PERSON? >> YOUR WORSHIP AND COUNCIL MY
NAME IS BRUCE NELLIGAN, THE
MANAGER OF PRESIDENT AT V WATT CONSULTING.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
INDUSTRY OVER THE PAST MONTHS. I'VE HERE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
BILLBOARDS OR ANY ASPECTS AS THEY RELATE TO SAFETY.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU.
WAS THERE ONE MORE, SORRY?
I MISS COUNTED.

I THOUGHT THERE WERE THREE BUT
THERE'S FOUR.
>> I'M SHAHEEN, A LIGHTING ENGINEER.
I HAVE DONE A STUDY FOR ONE OF
THE EXISTING DIGITAL WORLDS AT 9th AVENUE AND 5th STREET AND
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER NIL
QUESTIONS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL GO TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL, THEN FOR ANY/OR ALL OF
YOU.
YOU CAN COME BACK TOO IF YOU WANT Mr. FORSYTH.
ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> WELL, Mr. BRDSLY WERE YOU STILL GOING TO PRESIDE AS WELL?
I'M NOT CLEAR.
>> I JUST HAD THE SUMMARY. INSTEAD OF SAYING ANYTHING I
WONDER IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO
PUT IT UP ON THE OVERHEAD. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU
COULD SAY IT.
WE'VE GOT THREE MINUTES TO GO. >> I THINK WE'VE TAKEN ENOUGH OF
COUNCIL'S TIME.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS JUST THE SUMMARY,
PARAGRAPH 1 IS WHAT THE INDUSTRY WOULD LIKE SEE CHANGED AND THE
TALL SIZED PORTIONS ARE SIMPLY
THE REASONS FOR IF.

YOU'VE HEARD ALL THESE BEFORE
ANYWAY SO I'M NOT GOING TO
BELABOR IT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ARE
THEMES THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE
PRESENTATION THAT WAS HANDED O OUT —
>> FAIRLY WELL EXCEPT THERE'S
TWO ADDITIONAL ONES TO THIS. WHEN WE GAVE THE PRESENTATION
MATERIALS OUT, WE DIDN'T REALIZE
THE CSRI STRICT WAS IN THAT BUNCH SO WE HAD TO ADD THAT.
THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT'S
DIFFERENT IS I THINK WE HAD A BETTER LOOK AT THE 300m
SEPARATION FOR DIGITAL SIGNS,
MEANING THE ELECTRONIC ESIGN CLASS WHICH IS THE ON PREMISES
SIGN, TO A BILLBOARD.
AND THAT WE HAVE COME TO CONCLUDE IS A THING THAT WE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE STUDIED MORE
AND THAT'S BEEN ADDED.

FOR COUNCIL'S INFORMATION, VERY,
VERY QUICKLY, THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS FOR THIRD PARTY SIGNS DON'T HAVE ANY SEPARATION
FROM THESE TYPES OF SIGNS.
BUT THERE IS A 30m SEPARATION FROM AN IDENT SIGN.
THE RECOMMENDATION STAFF MAKING
THAT THERE BE A 300m SEPARATION BETWEEN A DIGITAL BILLBOARD AND
TEMPTCLASS SIGN AND THAT'S
SOMETHING WE THINK NEEDS A LITTLE MORE WORK SO THAT'S BEEN
ADDED SO THOSE TWO, ONE TWEAK,
ONE ADDITION, OTHERWISE THEY'RE JUST AS IN THE BOOK, SIR.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR THIS
TEAM HERE?
ALDERMAN LOWE? >> THANK YOU.
FOR WHOMEVER I GUESS, WE NEED
THE CROWD UP THERE… Mr. REBE REBECCUS,LE BOIL BOARD THAT WAS
IN YOUR ORIGINAL DISPLAY, YOU
YOUR — THE FIRST VIDEO YOU PUT UP ON THERE, HOW FAR WAS THAT —
WHAT WAS THE SETBACK OF THAT
SIGN? >> SO I'M GOING SURMISE HERE
FROM MY RECOLLECTION, WE DON'T
HAVE THE SITE PLAN WITH US, IT'S AN 80km/h ROADWAY, McKNIGHT
BOULEVARD IN THIS AREA.
THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE SETBACK ALREADY BECAUSE OF THE ROADWAY,
McKNIGHT BOULEVARD IS A GRASS
BOULEVARD, UP TO THE FENCE.

AND THEN WE'RE SET BACK FROM THE
FENCE TO —
SO FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WE'RE ABOUT 3 TO 6m FROM THE PROPERTY
LINE AS IT IS NOW.
IS MY RECOLLECTION. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S A
SETBACK OF THE GRASS SBOFLD
WE'RE QUITE FAR FROM McKNIGHT BOULEVARD ROADWAY.
AND IF YOU WENT —
AND IF YOU ADDED THE GRASS BOULEVARD SET BACK AND YOU WENT
IN FROM THE FENCE PROPERTY LINE
ANOTHER 14m, YOU WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT AND THE SIGN
WOULD BE VIRTUALLY INEFFECTIVE
BECAUSE IT'S SO FAR FROM THE ROAD WAY..
>> BUT THE PICTURE HE SHOULD
SHOWED US TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHAT WAS WHATEVER THE BOULEVARD
WIDTH WAS PLUS 3 TO 6m —
>> FROM THE FENCE, YEAH. >> AND THE SFED ON McKNIGHT
BOULEVARD AT THAT POINT YOU SAY
IS 80 SDMRIKS >> 80km/h, CORRE CORRECT.
>> I NEED TO UNDERSTAND FROM
WHOMEVER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPEED AND SETBACK FOR
THIRD PARTY SIGNS.
AND I'M GOING BACK TO THE TABLE THAT WAS PUT UP BY
TRANSPORTATION, WHICH EVIDENTLY,
IF I UNDERSTOOD THE EVIDENCE CORRECTLY, WAS REALLY RELATED TO
MY ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE A
HIGHWAY SIGN, TO READ IT, TO TAKE THE CORRECTIVE ACTION
NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH
WHATEVER THAT SIGN MAY BE INSTRUCTING ME TO DO, INCLUDING
SOME DECISION TIME AND IF I WANT
TO GET OFF THE ROAD AT THAT POINT, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO IS THERE A CORRESPONDING
STUDY WITH RELATION TO DIGITAL BILL —
OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT THEM READ, SO
THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING IN THERE.
>> YURNGS THROUGH COUNCILLOR
LOWE, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SPEED AND THE PLACEMENT OF
THE SIGNS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME
OUT OF THE WORK THAT WE HAD BEEN DOING ON BEHALF OF THE
ADVERTISING INDUSTRY AND WORKING
WITH THE CITY IN TRYING TO GET APPROVAL OF CERTAIN SIGNS.
SO THERE ISN'T A LOT OF RESEARCH
OUT THERE THAT SHOWS THAT IF A SIGN IS PLACED IN X NUMBER OF
NRERTS THE ROADWAY, THAT IT'S
LESS SAFE OR — THERE REALLY ISN'T A LOT OF
INFORMATION FOR ME AS AN
ENGINEER TO SAY WHETHER IT'S SAVOR UNSAFE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF RESEARCH
BUT IT'S ALL BEEN INCLUSIVE IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONSHIP ABOUT
ADVERTISING SIGNS TO SAFETY.
SO TO RESPOND TO THE CITY'S REQUEST TO DO A SAFETY REPORT ON
A PARTICULAR SIGN, WE STARTED
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES THAT WE
USE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PLACEMENT
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IS THE STOP SITE DISTANCE, WHICH IS
RELATED TO SPEED SO THE FASTER
YOU'RE GOING, THE LONGER IT TAKES FOR YOU TO STOP.
THAT'S WHERE THE WHOLE ISSUE OF
THE STOP IN SIGHT DISTANCE AND THE DISTANCE THAT YOU SAW ON IN
A CHARS THAT WAS DISMRARLDIER
CAME FROM WAS THE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE WHICH CHANGES AS
DEPENDS ON THE SPEED SO IT WAS
SOMETHING THAT WE TOOK FROM A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.
IT WASN'T TO DO WITH OUTDOOR —
YOU KNOW, THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS PER SE, BUT IT
WAS SOMETHING THAT WE TRIED TO
APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR TOP TAKE TRY TO HELP US IN
DETERMINING WHERE THE SIGN COULD
BE PLACED.

>> DID YOU FIND THAT —
WAS THE COMPARISON USEFUL?
>> WELL, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO LOOK AT SPECIFIC
SITES AND TO SAY WHETHER IT WAS
IN THE PRIMARY CONE OF VISION OR THE SECONDARY CONE OF VISION.
BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE
LOOKED AT BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS USEFUL IN —
YOU KNOW, IN DETERMINING THE
EXACT PLACEMENT OF IT, IT'S QUESTIONABLE.
>> OKAY.
IT STRIKES ME THAT THE PURPOSE OF A HIGHWAY SIGN IS MY
MANEUVERING MY VEHICLE DOWN THE
ROAD, ADMITTEDLY ADVERTISING IS TO GET MY ATTENTION TO READ THE
SIGN.
AND I'M WONDERING, DID YOU READ ANY STUDIES THAT SAYS THAT MY
FOCUS ON MY PRIMARY FUNCTION IS
DISTRACTED BY A BILLBOARD OVER HERE, BE IT LIT OR OTHERWISE?
>> THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
RESEARCH ON THE DRIVING INDUSTRY AND SIGNS, BILLBOARDS AND HOW IT
DISTRACTS DRIVERS.
I THINK AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, A LOT OF IT IS INCLUSIVE IN
TYING BILLBOARDS TO SAFETY, ROAD
SAFETY, AND ACTUAL CRASHES. BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT
I THINK THE INDUSTRY AND THE
RESEARCH AGREES ON, IS THAT GLANCE OF LONGER THAN TWO
SECONDS COULD BE PROBLEMATIC IN
TERMS OF ROAD SAFETY PERSPECTI PERSPECTIVE.
HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN RESEARCH
THAT HAS BEEN DONE THAT SAYS THAT, ON AVERAGE, AN OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING SIGN OR BILLBOARD
WILL ATTRACT A GLANCE OF ABOUT A HALF A SECOND TO ONE SECOND.
SO THAT'S THE KIND OF RESEARCH
THAT'S BEEN DONE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN USING IN TERMS
OF WORKING WITH ADMINISTRATION
ON THE APPLICATIONS FOR THESE SIGNS.
>> BUT IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR
INFORMATION CORRECTLY, THAT'S FOR ALL SINLS, JUST NOT DIGITAL?
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.

SO IT WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO A
PAPER BILLBOARD, A VEIN TYPE, A
FRONT LIFT, A BACK LIFT, ET CETERA?
OKAY.
>> YES. >> WITH RESPECT TO THE AMBIENT
LIGHTING ISSUE, AND I'M HARKE
HARKENING BACK TO — YOU'LL REMEMBER WE HAD A PROBLEM UP IN
SIMON'S VALLEY WITH A SIGN THAT
WAS BOTTOM-LIT THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC.
IS THAT LIGHTING CONTROLLED AT
ALL OTHER THAN OFF/ON? AND HOW DOES IT RELATE IN
RELATION TO THE KIND OF LIGHT —
AMBIENT LIGHTING THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE FROM A DIGITAL BILLBOARD,
WHICH CONTROLS YOU'RE PROPOSING
ON IT? >> SORRY, FOR CLARIFICATION, SO
THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION
IS REGARDING WHETHER — WHAT KIND OF IMPACT — WHAT
CHANGES THE LIGHTING CAN DO FOR
DIGITAL, HOW IT'S CHANGED? >> NO, MY QUESTION IS IF —
I'M USING THAT — I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU RECALL THE ONE WE BROUGHT UP IN SIMON'S VALLEY, OVERLOOKED
SAGE HILL THERE.
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS — AT NIGHT IT WAS JUST A GLARING
BRIGHT LIGHT.
WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THE DIGITAL SIGNS, YOU CAN ADJUST THAT DOWN,
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT AND I DO HAVE OUR LIGHTING SPECIALIST TO
ANSWER AS TO WHAT KIND OF —
>> HOW DO WE MEASURE THE POINT AT WHICH ANY LIGHT IS TOO MUCH?
>> WELL, SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE —
ACTUALLY THAT'S AN EARLIER QUESTION, SOMEONE ASKED THE
DIFFERENCE OF LIGHTING BETWEEN
EXISTINGING BILLBOARDS TODAY AND DIGITAL.
TODAY FOR STANDARD BILLBOARDS
WHICH USE LIGHTS THAT CAN BE USED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGNS,
SHINING UPWARDS OR THE TOP OF
THE SIGN SHINING DOWNWARD, THAT'S PHYSICAL LIGHT ONTO THE
SIGN SURFACE OF A PAPER, VINE I
WILL BILLBOARD.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN ACCEPTED.
THEY'VE NEVER BEEN MEASURED AND
THE RULES — AND THERE'S NO RULES IN PLACE IN
THE BYLAW THAT REQUIRES CERTAIN
LIGHTING CONTROLS ON THOSE EXISTING SIGNS.
WITH DIGITAL BILLBOARDS, WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THAT THE INDUSTRY, THE CITY, MANUFACTURERS RECOGNIZE,
YES, THESE SIGNS ARE —
TEND TO BE MORE INTENSE SO WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION DID WAS THEY
SPOKE TO MANUFACTURERS,
ELECTRONICS IN SPECIFIC AND CAME UP WITH A LEVEL TO MEASURE THE
SIGN OUTPUT SO IT DOES NOT
EXCEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT — IN THIS CASE IN THE BYLAW, IT'S 500
KNITS AT NIGHT AND TEN TIMES
THAT DURING THE DAY OF 5,000 KNITS.
HOW IT'S MEASURED IS ACTUALLY
THERE IS A GUN CALLED A KNIT GUN.
>> WHAT A NIT.
>> I'M GOING TO REFER THAT ON TO —
I'LL FINISH THE QUESTION AND
REFER TO OUR LIGHTING SPECIALIST SO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF
THAT BUT UNLIKE STANDARD
BILLBOARDS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME — AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT
BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY, THERE IS
LIGHTING LEVELS IN PLACE.

AND EVEN BEFORE THESE RULES WERE
DISCUSSED OR PASSED, OUR SIGNS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED THROUGH THE PEEL BOARD ADS I SAID
EARLIER AND IT WAS DONE
INDEPENDENTLY, THEY MEASURED THE SIGNS AND IN FACT OUR SIGNS WILL
HAVE ALREADY NEIL THOSE
GUIDELINES EVEN BEFORE WE STARTED MEASURING THEM.
SO THE DIGITAL BILL DISORDERS
BOARDS YOU SEE MEET THOSE GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN COUNCIL
BEFORE YOU TODAY AND AS YOU CAN
SEE IN OUR ARGUMENTS, THIS IS NOT BROUGHT UP TODAY, WE'RE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE LIGHTING
LEVELS AS BROUGHT FORTH BY PAD EMERGENCIES.
THAT DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE
WE FIRST STARTED NEGOTIATIONS BUT WE FELT IT WAS A NECESSARY
CONCESSION AND WE ACCEPTED THE
FACT THAT THE LEVELS WERE LOWERED.
AND I'LL REFER TO —
>> SORRY, BEFORE YOU GO AND MAYBE YOUR LIGHTING EXPERT CAN
TELL ME THIS BUT WHAT'S THE
EFFECT OF — I GUESS I NEED TO KNOW WHAT A NIT IS BUT WHAT'S
THE EFFECT OF THE REDUCED
LIGHTING AS YOU MOVE AWAY FROM 100m, 150m, 200m, 300m, SUPPOS
SUPPOSEDLY INTO A RESIDENTIAL
AREA? DOES THAT AMOUNT OF LIGHT —
AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME
UNDISCERNABLE? >> IT'S SUBSTANTIAL AND YEAH,
THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING IS
WHERE DOES THE AMBIENT LIGHT KIND OF SWALLOW UP THE SIGN
AFTER A WHILE?
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY OUR SIGNS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT HERE IN THE CITY
CONTEXT VERSUS RURAL, HIGHWAY
CONTEXT WHICH IS WHERE SIGNS HAVE LITTLE AMBIENT LIGHTS TO
COMPETE WITH OUT THERE.
BUT IT DOES DROP SUBSTANTIALLY AND I'VE GOT SOME NUMBERS HERE
FROM OUR LIGHTING SPECIALIST TO
GIVE US GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW FAR THEY DROP DOWN AND WHAT
LEVEL IS PROBABLY A GOOD
MEASUREMENT LEVEL FOR A SIGN TO MEASURE AT.
>> MAYBE I COULD ASK YOU, JUST
FOR MY HELP, TELL ME WHAT A NIT IS.
GIVE ME SOMETHING —
HOW MANY NITS HAVE WE GOT IN HERE AT THE MOMENT?
>> A NIT IS A CANDLE PER METERS
SQUARE F YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANY LIGHT SETTING OR IT COULD BE
EVEN LIKE FROM SOMETHING —
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANY LIGHT, THE LIGHT COMING FROM THAT
SOURCE IS THE BRIGHTNESS.
NIT IS BASICALLY MEASUREMENT OF BRIGHTNESS.
>> MEASUREMENT OF BRIGHTNESS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> PER SQUARE METER.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> SO — AND AGAIN FOR ME —
I'M SORRY, YOUR WORSHIP, FOR ME
TO TRY TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, ENOUGH LIGHT FROM A FLASHLIGHT
FOR A METER FOR ME TO READ A
PAGE IN A 12 FONT, HOW MANY NITS WOULD I NEED TO DO THAT?
>> THERE ARE TWO THINGS.
ONE IS BRIGHT NELLS AND THE OTHER IS FOOT CANDLE LEVELS SO
WHEN YOU ARE TALKING —
LIKE, WHEN YOU WANT TO READ SOMETHING, YOU WOULD NEED
SOMETHING THAT'S REFLECTIVE FROM
THE READING MATERIAL SO THAT WOULD BE —
THAT IS MEASURED IN —
IF YOU WANT TO READ SOMETHING AT NIGHT AND THE LIGHTING LEVEL
DEPENDS UPON THE PERSON, WHETH
WHETHER — WE HAVE TO ENSURE THEY CAN READ
TEN TIMES LESS LIGHT THAN I CAN,
AND AS WE AGE WE NEED MORE LIGHT SO IT'S —
IT VARIES.
BUT IN GENERAL, IF YOU WANT TO READ SOMETHING, 200 OR 250 LUX
SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH.
>> I JUST HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT ALDERMAN PINCOTT IS DYING TO
ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
BUT MAYBE WE — REALLY?
DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING?
DO YOU MIND, ALDERMAN LOWE? >> I JUST —
HOW MANY NITS IN MY LAPTOP HERE?
>> LET ME JUST HELP.

NITS IS A WAY OF MEASURING
BRIGHTNESS, SO PERCEIVED BRIGHT
NELLS. SO YOU MEASURE A NIT BY LOOKING
AT THE SOURCE.
>> I GOT THAT. >> YOU MEASURE INTENSITY IN A
DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT BY WHAT'S
DOWN HERE SO YOU CAN HAVE A VERY BRIGHT — VERY BRIGHT SOURCE IN
THE CORNER OF THAT ROOM WHICH
WOULD BE HIGH NITS BUT HERE WOULD BE LOW FOOT CANDLES.
SO IN THIS ROOM WE WOULD HAVE
RELATIVELY LOW NITS BY HIGH FOOT CANDLES SO NITS IS PERCEIVED
BRIGHTNESS, WHICH WE MEASURE
DOWN HERE IS LIGHT I INTENSITY, SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
WHICH SHE TRANSCRIBED TRIED TO
EXPLAIN AROUND FOOT CANDLES SO IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT
YOU'RE MEASURING.
THE BRIGHTNESS — BRIGHTNESS WHICH IS —
BRIGHTNESS, WILLS THE SOURCE —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND FIY, FOR THOSE IN THE GALLERY IF
YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT THAT
EXCHANGE ALDERMAN PINCOTT IN HIS PREVIOUS LIFE WAS A VERY WELL
RENOWNED AND MULTIPLE
AWARD-WINNING LIGHTING DESIGNER SO HE HAS SOME EXPERTISE IN THIS
AREA BUT —
WOW! ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> OKAY, I'M —
I THINK I AM WHERE I NEED TO BE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO AHEAD.
>> I ALSO HAVE 35 REPORTS, IF — WITH YOUR PERMISSION IF IT COULD
BE DISTRIBUTED.
MAYBE THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS SIMPLER.
>> THAT'S FINE, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MY LAST QUESTION HAS TO DO
WITH THE CONE THAT WE SEE BEING
USED REGARDLESS OF TOP GRAVE. YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE —
I THINK BARLOW TRAIL, YOUR
EXAMPLE OF BARLOW TRAIL IS IS A REALLY GOOD ONE WHERE THE SIGNS
ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD
THE RESIDENTIAL IS ON THE WEST SIDE, BUT SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW
THE ROAD.
SO — BUT IF I PUNS THE PROPOSAL CORRECTLY, BECAUSE WITHIN 300m
IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TODAY.
DO I UNDERSTAND THAT — IS THAT THE NUX OF YOUR PROBLEM
WITH THAT?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.

IT IS A CHALLENGE FOR US TO
MEASURE IN SOME LOCATION 300m
AND IF THERE'S A BUILDING UNIT WOULD BE PROHIBITED SO BLACKFOOT
TRAIL, MACLEOD TRAIL, THOSE KIND
OF ROADWAYS WOULD BE PROHIBITED. >> NOW, IF THE —
IT SEEMED TO ASSUME —
AND IT SEEMED TO ASSUME TO ME THAT THEY WERE ASSUMING THAT ALL
SIGNS WERE PLACED AT RIGHT
ANGLES TO THE ROADWAY. IT'S MY EXPERIENCE THAT VERY FEW
ARE, IN POINT OF FACT.
YOU TEND TO ANGLE YOUR SIGNS SO THAT ONCOMING TRAFFIC HAS AT
THAT — YOUR ADVERTISER HAS A
CHANCE IN THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC, I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY.
SO IS THERE ANY PROVISION WITHIN
THE BYLAW AS YOU READ IT TO CUT OFF THAT ARC LIMITING IT TO THE
ROAD, PARTICULARLY WHERE YOU
HAVE A TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURE THAT FALLS AWAY, OR CONVERSELY A
CLIMB?
>> NO, AND THAT'S WHY WE MADE IT A STRONG CASE AND WHY WE'RE HERE
TODAY IN CON TIG SIR LIKE THIS
BECAUSE OF THAT KIND OF RULE.

THE CHALLENGE IS TWOFOLD.
ONE, THERE IS NO CONTINGENCY FOR
POPPOGRAPHY, BUILDING, TREES IN FRONT, ANY KIND OF BUFFER
BETWEEN THE SIGN AND 300m IS
TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUATION. AND SECONDLY, IT'S NOT RELAXABLE
DOUBLE WHAIM FOR THE INDUSTRY.
— WHAT AMY FOR THE INDUSTRY.
>> I THINK I FIRST MET YOU WHILE
I WAS ON DA ENDORSEMENT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT RELAXABLE.
MY LAST QUESTION IS IN YOUR
PLACEMENT OF YOUR CURRENT SIGNS, YOUR STANDARD SIGNS, THE SPEED
OF THE ROADWAY A CONSIDERATION
AT ALL? >> NO, THE BYLAW TODAY HAS NO
ADDRESS —
DOES NOT ADDRESS — THERE'S NO CONCERN WHETHER THE
SPEED LIMIT IS 50, 60, 70 OR 80
KILOMETRES. TODAY THEY HAVE SETBACKS, ZONING
AND AS THEY DID IN EDMONTON,
THEY SIMPLY ADDED DIGITAL BILLBOARDS TO THE EXISTING RULES
AND SAY WHERE BILLBOARDS EXIST
TODAY, DIGITAL IS FINE TOO, JUST TWO PROVISIONS PLEASE, NO VIDEO
OR MOTION AND CONTROL THE
LIGHTING AND WE'RE HAPPY.

SO HERE THEY'VE TAKEN IT BEYOND
THAT AND THEY'VE LIMITED
PARTICULAR ZONINGS, THEY HAVE A HUGE SEPARATION, ET CETERA SO IT
IS QUITE DIFFERENT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN LOWE. I'M GOING TO REFRAIN —
THE PUNS WRITE THEMSELVES.
ALDERMAN JONES? >> Mr. RUBECUS IN RECOMMENDATION
NUMBER 2, 150m FROM A DWELLING
URNGTS YOU DON'T REALLY ADDRESS WHAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE ABOUT THE
DISTANCE.
IS IT THAT YOU MIGHT BE CLOSE TO A HOTEL, IS THAT CLASS THE AS A
DWELLING UNIT ON A MAJOR ROAD?
IS IT A CONCERN THAT THE DWELLING UNIT MIGHT BE BEHIND
YOU AND THE SIGN IS IN FRONT AND
IT'S NOT SHINING BACK THERE, SO THAT THE CONCERN OR —
>> PART OF IT, YES.
THE CONCERN IS — AND TO CLARIFY THE 300m FROM A DWELLING UNIT
AND 150m FROM A DWELLING UNIT
ARE THE SAME.

IT'S JUST THE CONTEXT, WHERE.
THE 150m RULE THAT YOU REFERRED
TO, THROUGH THE CHAIR, THROUGH THE MAYOR IS FOR THE DOWNTOWN
CORE.
AND OUR CONCERN FOR THAT IS, OF COURSE, THE CORE IS HEAVILY
DEVELOPED AND TO PUT A SIGN UP
ON A WALL, FOR INSTANCE, WE JUST GOT APPROVAL TO PUT UP A SIGN
AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL HOTEL,
UP AGAINST THE WALL OF THE BUILDING BUT IF IT'S A
RESIDENTIAL NEXT DOOR DO THAT
BUILDING, EVEN THOUGH THE INTERNATIONAL HOTEL IS IN
BETWEEN THE SIGN AND THE CONDO,
IT WOULD BE — IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BASED ON
THE RULES TODAY IS THE 150m, OUR
CONCERN IS THERE COULD BE — IT COULD BE DEVELOPED, THE SIGN
MAY NOTTEN VISIBLE WHATSOEVER IN
THE CORE BECAUSE IT'S SO HEAVILY CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT WISE.
OUTSIDE THE CORE IS THE 300m
RULE FROM A DWELLING UNIT.

SO THAT RULE IS PART AND PARCEL
TOGETHER, A AND B TOGETHER, IF
YOU WILL AND BOTH RULES ARE NOT RELAXABLE.
>> SO HENCE THE PICTURE THAT YOU
SHOWED EARLIER ON MACLEOD TRAIL WHERE IT SHOWED UNITS WITHIN THE
300m SET BACK BUT WHICH WOULDN'T
BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIGN IF — NO MATTER HOW YOU TRIED, EVEN IF
YOU STOOD ON THE ROOF?
>> CORRECT, BECAUSE OUR SIGNS — AGAIN —
SORRY, NOT AGAIN BUT IN TODAY'S
RULES OUR HEIGHT IS MAXIMUM ALLOWED 26 FEET SO WE'RE NOT
EVEN ALLOWED TO GO AS HIGH AS A
SECOND STORY BUILDING.

THEY CANNOT BE HIGHER THAN
MAXIMUM 26 FEET SO AS A RESULT
OF THAT YOU GO DOWN MACLEOD TRAIL, 16th AVENUE, YOU PUT A
COMMERCIAL BUILDING BETWEEN OUR
SIGN AND RESIDENTIAL, OUR SIGN IS NOT VISIBLE.
>> I NOTICED HERE IN YOUR FOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAVE YOU'RE ASKING INDUSTRY — OR
YOU'RE ASKING US NOT TO ADOPT
THESE BUT YOU'RE NOT GIVING US AN ALTERNATIVE OF WHAT YOU WANT
ADOPTED — OR AT LEAST I HAVEN'T
SEEN IT LOOKING THROUGH THIS BOOK.
>> SORRY, BEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT
IS ACTUALLY THESE ONES HERE.

>> SORRY, I CAN'T SEE THAT.
>> IT'S SIMPLY NOT JUST ADOPT,
IT'S TO DELETE. SO WHEN THEY SUGGEST THAT
THERE'S FOUR ZONINGS TODAY,
C-CORD 1, C-CHORD 1, SCI AND INDUSTRIAL EDGE, THE BILLBOARDS
ALLOWED TODAY IN THOSE ZONES
WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO BE DELETED FROM THE BYLAW
RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU TODAY
AND THEN THE REST OF THE RULES —
SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE SO
WE'RE ASKING FOR DELETE. THE SECOND RULE, AGAIN 300m,
BECAUSE 300m, 150m SEPARATION,
THAT'S THE SECOND RULE, WE'RE ASKING THAT TO BE DELEAD,
NOT-FOR-PROFIT ADOPTED BUT TO BE
DELETED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE REPORT AND AS MENTIONED, THE
SEPARATION —
THIS IS OUR — THE SEPARATIONS ARE CRITICAL AND
IMPACT OUR SIGN INDUSTRY.
THE THIRD RULE WE'RE ASKING IS TO CHANGE FROM 10 SECONDS TO 6
SECONDS.
THE FOURTH RULE IS ANOTHER DELETION, THE 300m SEPARATION
FROM DIGITAL TO ELECTRONIC SIGN.
AGAIN TO DELETE.

AND AGAIN —
AND THE FINAL RULE IS THE 14m
SETBACK, AGAIN TO DELETE. THERE'S ALSO PROVISION IN THE
BYLAW FOR 6m SETBACK TO WE'RE
ASKING IT TO BE DELETED FROM 14 TO 6 SO IT'S MOSTLY DELETIONS
AND ONE CHANGE FROM 10 SECONDS
TO 6 SECONDS. THE OTHER FOUR ARE STRAIGHT
DELETIONS.
>> OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOUR
LIGHTING PERSON.
AND IT WAS A QUESTION BASED ON WHAT ALDERMAN LOWE HAD ASKED.
THERE HAS BEEN STUDIES DONE IN
REGARDS TO LIGHT AND SIGNAGE. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CORRELATION
BETWEEN ACCIDENTS AND CARS OR —
>> ACTUALLY, THERE ARE — THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT IS VERY
SUBJECTIVE, TO BE VERY FRANK.
THERE ARE VARIOUS STANDARDS AVAILABLE BASED ON ELIMINATION
ENGINEERING SOCIETY OF NORTH
AMERICA SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE DONE A STUDY OF THE
EXISTING DIGITAL BOARD WHICH ARE
FROM PATTISON WHICH IS LOCATED BETWEEN 9th AVENUE AND 5th
STREET.
I CAN SHOW YOU — THIS IS FOR BASICALLY MOST OF
THE QUESTION HAS BEEN AS
REGARDING THIS.

JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENSITY
OF LIGHT COMING OUT OF THE LED,
THE DIGITAL BOARD, IF YOU'RE STANDING STRAIGHT, PERPENDICULAR
TO THE BILLBOARD, THAT'S WHERE
YOU WILL EXPERIENCE MAXIMUM OF LIGHT.
AS YOU GO FAR OFF…
IT BECOMES LESSER AND LESSER. SO IF YOU ARE AT LIKE 70° FROM
THE EDGE OF THE DIGITAL SIGNAGE,
YOU ARE ALMOST — LIKE THE LIGHTING LEVEL REDUCES ALMOST TO
ZERO SO IF YOU'RE FAR OUT
THERE'S NOTHING VISIBLE. ALSO THE DISTANCE HOW FAR YOU
ARE FROM THE BOARDS SO WE DID
STUDY — WE ACTUALLY PLOTTED 100 FEET
DISTANCE FOR EACH OF THESE
ANGLES, AS I SHOWED YOU BEFORE. LIKE 30°, 70°, 90° AND THEN 140°
AND AT EVERY 100 FEET WE DID A
MEASUREMENT. TWO SETS OF MEASUREMENTS FOR NIT
METERS, THAT'S THE BRIGHTNESS
MEASUREMENT, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE LIGHTING LEVEL
MEASUREMENT.
AND WE DID TWO SETS OF READINGS. ONE IS DAYTIME AND AT NIGHTTIME
BALLS THE LIGHTING LEVEL DIFFERS
AT THE TWO TIMES. SO I WILL BE SHOWING YOU TWO
TABLES, WHEREIN WHICH TOOK THE
MEASUREMENT — THE TABLE THAT YOU SEE HERE IS
THE LUX METER READING.
AND THIS TABLE SHOWS THE NIT METER READING.
NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR TABLE,
AS YOU CAN SEE, AT NIGHTTIME, AT NONE OF THE POINTS THE NIT METER
READING IS EXCEEDING 500 NITS
WHICH IS NOT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION IN BETWEEN SO —
THIS IS THE LIGHTING TRESPASS
RECOMMENDATION THAT'S AVAILABLE SO EACH OF THE AREA CAN BE
DIVIDED INTO VARIOUS ZONES.
THE EXISTING LIGHTING STUDY THAT WE DID, WE BASED IT ON AM BENT
LIGHT BRIGHTNESS —
AMBIENT LIGHT BRIGHTNESS.

THAT'S ZONE 3.
SO WHAT THE STANDARD SAYS IS
WHATEVER THE AMBIENT LIGHTING IS —
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE AMBIENT
LIGHTING LEVEL IS ONE FOOT CANDLE, THE COMBINED LIGHTING
WITH THE DIGITAL SIGNAGE CANNOT
EXCEED 1.8 FOOT CANDLES. SO .8, WHAT YOU SEE IS THE
ALLOWED TRESPASS.
SO WHAT WE CONCLUDED LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS READINGS, THE
LIGHTING LEVEL WAS NEVER BEYOND
THE RECOMMENDED AMBIENT LEVEL. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY —
TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, IS THAT A YES OR A NO?
IS THERE ANY STUDIES BEEN DONE
THAT — I GUESS THE QUESTION WAS IS THERE ANY STUDIES THAT IS
THERE BEEN DONE IN RELATION TO
LIGHT, DIGITAL LIGHT SIGNS AND CAR ACCIDENTS?
>> THERE ARE VARIOUS STUDIES,
NOT FROM ONE BUT VARIOUS DIFFERENT ASSOCIATIONS HAVE DO
DONE.
SO IN GENERAL WHEN YOU COMPAR COMPARE —
LIKE BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND
THE DIGITAL OR JUST THE DIGITAL? >> I GUESS WHAT I'M SEARCHING
FOR IS IF SOMEBODY IS SAYING
THAT WE NEED A SETBACK BECAUSE OF DRIVER SAFETY AND THE SE
SETBACK —
THE FARTHER SETBACK IS THE DID HE SAY DISTRACTION IT IS NOR A
DRIVER, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT
SHOWS THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN DIGITALLY
LIT SIGNS AND CAR ACCIDENTS?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF RESEARCH DONE ON THE
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND TRYING TO
CORRELATE OR TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY IMPACT SAFETY.
NONE OF THE RESEARCH TO DATE IS
CONCLUSIVE IN INDICATING THAT IF DOES CAUSE MORE CRASHES.
THERE HAS BEEN RESEARCH DONE
THAT SHOWS THAT IT IS AND IT ISN'T, AND BECAUSE IT'S
RELATIVELY NEW, THERE'S STILL
ONGOING RESEARCH, WHERE THE FHWA IN THE U.S.

IS DOING QUITE A
COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
RIGHT NOW TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER.
BUT THAT INFORMATION IS NOT
AVAILABLE YET BUT THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN
COLLECTED TO DATE IS INCLUSIVE.
>> IS IT NOT AVAILABLE JUST BECAUSE IT'S —
DIGITAL SIGNS ARE SO NEW TO THE
INDUSTRY? >> YES, BECAUSE THE RESEARCH IN
THE DIGITAL BILLBOARDS STARTED
IN THE EARLY 2000s BUT TO DATE AS I SAID THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
REPORTS DONE BUT NOTHING
CONCLUSIVE, TYING THAT TO SAFE SAFETY.
>> SO THERE — I NOTICE IN THE
REPORT THEY'RE ASKING FOR 10 SECONDS RATHER THAN 6.
IS IT BECAUSE OF THE — AS
ALDERMAN CHABOT SAYS, IT LOOKS LIKE A FLASH AND THE LESS
FLASHES THERE ARE, THE BETTER
OFF YOU ARE? >> I THINK WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT
IS THE EXPOSURE OF THE DRIVERS
TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ADS, AND FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN —
EXPAND FROM SOME CALCULATIONS
THAT WE'VE DONE, IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE
IN TERMS OF THE RATE WHETHER
IT'S A 6 SECOND OR 10 SECOND.

THE DRIVER IS GENERALLY GOING TO
BE EXPOSED TO TWO ADS SO
DEPENDING ON ON WHAT PART OF THE CYCLE THEY'RE ARRIVING AT THE
SIGN, MOST ARE GOING TO SEE AT
LEAST ONE TRANSITION ANYWAYS IF IT'S 6 OR 10 SECONDS AND THERE'S
BEEN NO RESEARCH TO SAY THAT 6
SECONDS IS LESS SAFE THAN 10 SECONDS.
>> SO THAT'S THE ARGUMENT IN THE
INDUSTRY, IS NURT GOING TO SIT THERE AND WATCH TEN OF THEM GO
BY AS YOU'RE DRIVE, YOU'RE ONLY
GOING TO SEE A MAXIMUM TWO OR THREE ANYWAY?
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN
JONES.
ALDERMAN KEATING? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'LL GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL
QUESTION BECAUSE I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT NITS, NATS, CANDLES
WITH FEET SHOULD ALL BE
REGULATED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BECAUSE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE
DISTRACTION OF BRIGHTNESS.
>> WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THESE IS WE'RE ACTUALLY TREATING
THEM DIFFERENT AS FAR AS
FOOTPRINT.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT
HAVE TO BE REGULATED WITHOUT
QUESTION BUT AS FAR AS LOCATION SIGNS AND ALL OF
THESE, THESE ARE BEING TREATED
DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER SIGN? >> CORRECT.
OUR BELIEF TODAY —
TODAY'S BYLAWS WITH THE 6m SET BACK, THAT THESE SIGNS ONLY BE
ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND THAT THESE SIGNS DO NOT IMPACT
RESIDENTIAL, THESE ARE
EXISTING RULES TODAY IN PLACE IN THE BYLAW.
YES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING.
ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME BEFORE LUNCH, YOUR
WORSHIP, BUT THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'LL SETTLE IN, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS.

NOT SURE WHO TO ADDRESS THIS
ONE WITH BUT I'VE GOT A NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS THAT I WAS PROPOSING.
SOME OF WHICH —
I'M NOT SURE TO ADDRESS WITH WHICH WITH WHOM BUT ONE OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
AMENDMENTS THAT I HAD PROPOSED HAD TO DO WITH SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN
REGARDS TO THE SETBACKS. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT WAS SAID
ABOUT PROPERTY LINE VERSUS
EDGE OF ROADWAY. BUT SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE 60m ON
60km/h OR LESS, 10m OR 70km/h OR LESS AND 14m FOR 80
KILOMETRES OR GREATER.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IN REGARDS TO
THOSE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
>> WE ARE OPEN TO THAT. FOR THE 14m SETBACK, IF IT'S
GRADUATED INCREASE, BASED ON
SPEED LIMITS, WE'RE OPEN TO THAT COMPROMISE.
AS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL
PRESENTATION, WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AS SHOWN BY OUR
TRAFFIC EXPERT, LIGHTING
SPECIAL ILLS AND THE FACT THERE'S ALREADY A 6m SETBACK
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN
ADDITION TO THE REGULAR SETBACKS OF THE ROADWAY BUT IF THE
COUNCIL SO CHOOSE AND SAID
THAT COULD BE A FAIR COMPROMISE BETWEEN INDUSTRY
AND THE — SORRY, AND THE
ADMINISTRATION, WE WOULD ACCEPT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER
ABOUT THE TRANSITION TIME.

AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT
YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THIS.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAD TO ADMINISTRATION IN REGARDS TO
THE ONE SECOND TRANSITION
VERSUS NO MORE THAN ONE SECOND TRANSITION.
>> AS MENTIONED, THE
TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS THE TRANSITION TO CHANGE, CORRECT.
THE MODEL THAT WE HAVE TODAY
IS IT JUST UNDER A SECOND SAND IT MEETS THE PROPOSED RULES
AND ADMINISTRATION MENTIONED
SHOULD BE MORE THAN A SECOND, AND WE CAN CHANGE IT TO BE
CLOSER TO A SECOND, JUST ABOVE
A SECOND, IT COULD BE 1.1. TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS TRANSITION
TO BE CHANGED.
OUR POINT, I GUESS, IS THAT THESE SIGNS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE
FOR ALBERTA FOR TWO-PLUS YEARS
AT THIS MODEL. THEY'VE WORKED SUCCESSFULLY.
WE'RE NOT AWAY —
AWARE OF ANY CHALLENGES OR SAFETY CONCERNS AND THE ONES
IN THE CITY OF CALGARY TODAY
THROUGHOUT APPEAL BOARD HAVE BEEN OPERATING SIX MONTHS PLUS,
AS WELL AS McNOOISMGT AND THIS
MODEL — AGAIN THERE HAVE BEEN NO
ISSUES THAT WE'RE AWARE OF
WITH THE MODEL RUNNING TODAY.

BUT TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS IT TO BE
CHANGED, CORRECT.
>> BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO SAY I'VE SEEN OTHER MANUFACTURERS
OR OTHER COMPANIES HAVE
TRANSITION TIMES ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THEIR LED
DISPLAYS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT I
SAW ON THE SCREEN HERE, WHICH WAS BASICALLY LIKE 1/100 OF A
SECOND BETWEEN DIFFERENT
ADVERTISEMENTS. SO YOU WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO
HAVING IT A MINIMUM OF ONE
SECOND, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT I UNDERSTAND?
>> CORRECT.
WE WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED. >> OKAY.
AND I'LL TRY AND MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT LATER. IT ISN'T ONE OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS THAT I HAD.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS IN HERE AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU
SAW THE RATION ALLEGATION
ASSOCIATED WITH MY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ALDERMAN FARRELL, MYSELF AND
ALDERMAN PINCOTT HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH ADMINISTRATION
AND SOME OF THE TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING FOLKS IN REGARDS TO WHY THEY HAD INCORPORATED
SOME OF THE SETBACKS THAT THEY
HAD, FIELD OF VIEW AS YOU HEARD, INTENSITY AND THE
CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT
ADMINISTRATION WILL EVALUATE THOSE BASED ON THE CONE AS YOU
PROBABLY SAW AS OPPOSED TO THE
CONCENTRIC CIRCLE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND WAS
INCLUDED IN THE BYLAW.
CHANGING IT FROM THE FACE OF AND LOOKING AT THAT CONE AND I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE
TO LOOK AT THAT CONE BEFORE BUT IT —
WHAT I SAW FROM YOUR EXPERT
THERE ON THE LIGHTING FROM STANTECH, SHE DID KIND OF
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WOULD
BE REDUCED INTENSITY AS YOU MOVED OUTSIDE OF THAT CONE.
BUT WITHIN THAT CONE, IT KIND
OF SUGGESTED THAT THE INTENSITY WAS FAIRLY
CONCENTRATED IN THOSE AREAS AS
WELL.

SO JUST YOUR THOUGHTS FROM THE
LIGHTING PERSPECTIVE ON THE
CONE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATION AND HOW YOU SEE
THAT IMPACT BEING THE SETBACKS?
>> IN FACT IT'S EVEN MORE TO OUR ADVANTAGE, WE FEEL THIS
MEASUREMENT AS DONE BY THE
LIGHTING SPECIALIST IS DONE DIRECTLY ON.
YOU HAVE TO BE DRIVING
DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE SIGN SO RIGHT OFF THE BAT WHEN YOU'RE
DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY AND THE
DIGITAL IS OFF IS THESET BACK 6m, 8m, 10, 14m YOU'RE
STARTING TO GET AWAY FROM THE
30° CONE OF VISION ALREADY OFF THE BAT.
AND YES, 30° IS THE MOST
INCIDENCE TENSE — MOST INTENSE AND BASED ON HER
MEASUREMENTS IS DROPS OFF AT
ABOUT 80m. AT ABOUT 80m FROM THE SIGN IS
WHEN AMBIENT LIGHTING PRETTY
WELL TAKES OVER AND THAT THE SIGN —
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MEASURE IT
FROM 80m AND TURN THE SIGN OFF, YOU GET THE SAME MEASUREMENT
BALLS OF THE AMBIENT LIGHTING
IN THE AREA. >> OKAY, THAT'S INTERESTING.
80m, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAD
HEARD THAT NUMBER BEFORE BUT I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.
NOW, AMBIENT LIGHT… THIS IS
NOT LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT'S BRIGHTER SUCH AS MAYBE
A FULL MOON.
HOW WOULD THAT COMPARE? TO 500 NITS OUT OF A SIGN IN
COMPARISON WITH RELATIONS TO
PROXIMITY? AT WHAT POINT WOULD THE FULL
MOON BE BRIGHTER THAN THE
LIGHT OUTPUT OF A SIGN AT 500 NITS AT NIGHT?
DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF
COMPARISONS TO KIND OF GIVE M ME —
>> ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT
WOULD BE A GOOD COMPARISON AND SHAHEEN WOULD BE THE BEST
PERSON TO ANSWER THIS, WHEN
SHE MEASURED MEASURES A SIGN SHE COMPARED IT TO NORTH
AMERICAN LIGHTING STANDARDS
FOR LIGHTING AND LIGHT STANDARDS THAT THE CITY OF
CALGARY USES, LIGHTING THAT
YOU DO INSIDE AN EXIT OF A BUILDING, FOR INSTANCE,
CERTAIN LIGHTING LEVEL
REQUIREMENTS.

AND SHE CAN PROBABLY GIVE YOU
A QUICK SUMMARY AS TO HOW THIS
SIGN — LIGHT BRIGHT COMPARED TO THE
NORMAL LIGHT STANDARDS THAT
THE CITY USES IN SURROUNDING AREAS.
WOULD THAT BE SDWRESH A SENSE
OF REFERENCE IN REGARDS TO OUTDOOR —
INDOORS IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE.
HDTVs SELF-ADJUST BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH
AMBIENT LIGHT INDOORS SO IF
YOU TURN OUT ALL THE LIGHTS ON THE INSIDE THE SCREEN WILL
DROP DOWN TO ABOUT 450 NITS.
WELL, WITH — IF YOU OPEN THE CURTAINS, YOU
WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT
BECAUSE IT ONLY PUTS OUT TYPICALLY MAX OF A THOUSAND
NITS SO HENCE THE REASON FOR
5,000 KNITS NITS DURING THE DAY FOR AN OUTDOOR SIGN SO
JUST A SENSE OF —
PUTTING THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE IN COMPARISON TO
OTHER THINGS, IF YOU COULD
GIVE ME SOME COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THAT.
>> YEAH, SHAHEEN CAN TALK
ABOUT SOME OTHER LIGHTING STHADZ THE CITY USES TO
MEASURE STANDARD LIGHTING
OUTSIDE.

>> THE LIGHTING LEVEL
GENERALLY —
IF YOU'RE TALKING LIKE EAST VILLAGE, LIKE PATHWAY IS LIKE
1.5, 1.8 FOOT CANDLES.
THAT'S THE LIGHTING LEVEL. NOW, THE DIGITAL BOARD STUDY
THAT WE DID, MOST OF THE
READING — I CAN PUT IT AGAIN — IF YOU CAN SEE THE READ THAT
GO WE TOOK, THE MAXIMUM THAT
WE GOT WAS 1.98 FOOT CANDLES SO IF YOU TAKE TYPICAL
LIGHTING LEVEL FOR DOWNTOWN,
LIKE I WOULD SAY IT SHOULD BE LIKE ABOUT ONE FOOT CANDLE SO
ALLOWED THE —
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED TRESPASS IS .8 FOOT CANDLES SO ONE FOOT
CANDLE AMBIENT PLUS THE LIGHT
TRESPASS THROUGH THE DIGITAL SIGNAGE, IF YOU PUT TOGETHER,
IT'S LIKE 1.8 FOOT CANDLES.
BUT SOME PLACES IT MAY BE SLIGHTLY MORE, 1.2 FOOT
CANDLES PLUS .8 SO IT'S ABOUT
2 FOOT CANDLES SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIGHTING LEVELS THAT WE
GOT IT'S LESS THAN 2 FOOT
CANDLES, JUST THE LIGHTING LEVEL.
>> HOW MUCH IT WOULD ELIMINATE
THE GROUND DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE SIGN?
>> AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
DIGITAL SIGNAGE, IT DEPENDS UPON — LIKE, THE STUDY THAT
WE DID, IT WAS FOR THE
DOWNTOWN.

NOW, A DIFFERENT CRITERIA
WOULD APPLY IF THIS IS FOR A
RESIDENTIAL AREA. IF IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AREA,
THEN THE LIGHT TRESPASS LIMIT
IS LOWER COMPARED TO THE MEDIUM MIXED USE UNIT THAT WE
USED.
SO IT'S SUBJECTIVE AND IT DEPENDS WHERE IT'S BEING USED.
>> WHETHER IT'S TRANSMITTED
LIGHT OR REFLECTED LIGHT, YOU COULD STILL USE A CANDLE —
ONE CANDLEABRA OR ONE CANNEDA
MEASUREMENT, LIKE ONE CANDLEA PER METERS SQUARED?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AS A MEASUREMENT WHETHER IT'S REFLECTED OR TRANSMITTED
SO FOR AN I WILL HUGE NATURED
SIGN THAT'S LIT FROM A STATISTIC INCANDESCENT LIGHT
THAT'S REFLECTED OFF OF A SIGN,
HAS THERE BEEN ANY KIND OF MEASUREMENTS DONE CON SOME OF
THOSE EXISTING SIGNS?
>> YES IN FACT WHEN WE WERE DOING THE STUDY WE ALSO TOOK A
MEASUREMENT FROM ONE OF THE
LIGHTING WHICH WAS STANDARD, CONVENTIONAL.
SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE
CONVENTIONAL BOARD, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD GET
APPROXIMATELY.
ANOTHER THING TO MENTION, THAT THE READ THAT IS YOU WILL SEE,
IT'S TAKEN OUT AS WHITE
BACKGROUND.

THAT'S THE MOST —
MAXINE TENSITY —
MAXIMUM INTENSITY SO ALL THE READINGS THAT YOU SEE IS THE
WHITE BACKGROUND OF DIGITAL
SIGNAGE. >> OH.
SO THIS NOT LED BILLBOARD THAT
YOU'RE REFERENCING, THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY A FULL
WHITE BACKGROUND?
>> IT WAS PARTLY. LIKE THE ONE WHICH I TOOK —
IT HAD SOME WHITE BACKGROUND
AND SOME COLOURED AS WELL. >> 103 NITS, THAT WHAT I'M
READING —
>> THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT WE GOT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO — INTERESTING.
AGAIN, LIMITED TO —
IN THAT CAKE TICK CASE ON THOSE KIND OF SIGNS ON A
BILLBOARD, THE INTENSITY
WOULDN'T VARY DEPENDING ON THE ANGLE OF VIEW..
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT
RESTRICTIVE CONE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE WITH AN LED?
>> THAT'S CORRECT NCHT.
>> IT WOULD BE SAME OUTPUT? >> YES.
>> WIDE RANGE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AS OPPOSED TO A VERY
FOCUSED OUT PUT WITH AN LED?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU.
THAT HELPS.
>> ONE MORE POINT, I NOTICED KNOW WITH THE CONVENTIONAL
BOARD, WE HAVE THE UP LIGHTS
SO — WHICH WE GENERALLY DON'T ACCOUNT — THERE'S A LOT OF
LIGHT SPILLED THAT GOES UP,
WHEREAS FOR THE DIGITAL BOARD, IT'S MOSTLY COMING OUT OF IT
AND DOWNWARDS SO NOTHING GOING
UP. >> NO LIGHT DILG POLLUTION?
THANK YOU, OKAY.
AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAD HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT SOME
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
INCLUDING SOME OF THE RELAXATIONS ON THE REGULATION
REGULATIONS — I'M NOT SURE
WHO CAN COMMENT ON ALL OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT
WE WERE GOING TO PUT FORWARD
AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON ALL OF THESE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THEM.
THERE'S AB, C, D, E AND F, G, H AND I AND J AS PART OF THE
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT YOU DO LIKE OTHER THAN THE TEN
SECOND THING WHICH I KNOW YOU
DON'T LIKE? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN HERE
THAT YOU THINK IS SOMETHING
THAT YOU COULD WORK WITH? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THROUGH THE
CHAIR PROBABLY I'M BEST TO
ANSWER THAT.

THE SHORT ANSWER ALDERMAN
CHABOT IS THE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE SUGGESTED DEAL WITH SOME THINGS WHICH WE DON'T HAVE AN
ISSUE WITH.
THEY DEAL WITH SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THE INDUSTRY
DOESN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
YOU'VE HEARD THE ANSWER AS TO THE GRADUATED SETBACK —
YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER, 20
SECONDS. THE PROBLEM WITH THE 300m AND
THE PROBLEM WITH THE 150m EVEN
IF YOU TAKE IT FROM THE FRONT, WHICH IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT I
ADMIT, IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AT WHICH IS LAST CAST AND
VISIBILITY.
YOU'VE HEARD EVIDENCE OF THE MEASUREMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IT
SAYS 08m IS ABOUT WHERE IT
GETS TO.

IT DOESN'T ALLOW ONE TO DEAL
WITH THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE
DEALING WITH, WHERE THE SIGN IS WHERE IT'S POINTING AND SO
FORTH.
SO THE PROBLEM WITH THAT AMENDMENT THAT YOU MADE IS
THAT IT'S GOOD WHEN, IT SAYS
FRONT OF THE SIGN. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
CHANGES RESIDENTIAL AREA WHICH
IS THE BYLAW NOW, THE DWELLING UNIT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO
DO IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT HIS LOT OF SITUATIONAL ISSUES
TO DEAL WITH THERE.
NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH NOT SHINE AGRICULTURE LIGHT INTO A
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.
SO IT'S A GOOD START FROM THE FRONT.
IT'S GOOD THAT THE
RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE RELAXABLE, TRYING TO RELAX
THAT KIND OF RULE AT STAB IS
DIFFICULT IF IT'S IRONCLAD, LIKE PROHIBITED SO THERE'S A
BIT OF A WORDING ISSUE SO THAT
WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE.

THE CLASS E SIGN AND THE
KLASMT F SIGN SPACING WE'VE
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE ADDRESSED THAT
AND LAND USE DISTRICTS, I
DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE WERE ADDRESSED IN YOUR AMENDMENT, I
DIDN'T SEE THEM.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE ENTIRELY.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE
AMENDMENT, THE COMPLAINING TO SAY ANY RULES ARE RELAXABLE IS
WELCOME.
THE SEPARATION FROM PROPERTY LINE IS WELCOME.
AGREEMENTED ON SPEED.
THE MEASUREMENT OF EFFECT ON A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT FROM
THE FACE OF SIGN IS WELCOME
BUT WE WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE TUNING UP DONE BASED ON
WHAT YOU'VE HEARD TODAY.
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING THE 80m MEASUREMENT WOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT YOU WOULD BE MORE
INCLINED TO SUPPORT AS OPPOSED TO 150 OR 300?
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> OKAY.

>> ACTUALLY, I HAVE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT BUT
CERTAINLY HAVE LOTS TO DEBATE FURTHER.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M A
BIT SHOCKED, ALDERMAN CHABOT. I WAS ALL SETTLING IN FOR THE
LUNCH BREAK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALDERMAN PINCOTT?
>> THANK YOU.
A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS WERE AROUND LIGHTING AND THE REAL
IMPACT ON LIGHTING — ON THE
LIGHT OUTPUT OF THESE THINGS. AND YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK
TO TRY AND GET US TO
UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR
ILLUSTRATION OF ESSENTIALLY THE DROP-OFF AS WE GO OFF FROM
THE VIEWING ANGLE, DID YOU
CALCULATE THAT AS A PERCENTAGE, WHAT KIND OF DROP-OFF AT 30%,
70% —
AT 70°, 30°? OR DO WE JUST HAVE IT AS JUST
THE STRAIGHT MEASUREMENTS?
>> THIS MEASUREMENT ACTUALLY COMES FROM THE MANUFACTURER OF
THE LED, WHOEVER MANUFACTURED
THE DIGITAL SO WE GOT IF FROM THEM BUT WE DIDN'T TAKE IT THE
WAY IT IS.
WE ACTUALLY DID A MEASUREMENT AT SITE WHICH WAS VERY CLOSE
TO WHAT THEY HAVE INDICATED.
>> OKAY.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AESNA
GUIDELINES, WHEN WE TAKE A
LOOK AT SAY THE GUIDELINES FOR AMBIENT STREET LIGHT, STREET
LEVEL INTENSITY REQUIRED FOR
SAFETY ON A SIDEWALK, SAY FOR YOU KNOW A PEDESTRIAN, WHAT'S
THE MINIMUM LEVEL FOOT CANDLES
THAT WE NEED ON A SIDEWALK FOR NIGHTTIME SAFETY?
>> WHEN WE DEFINED LIKE
SIDEWALK SAFETY, THERE ARE AREAS THAT COULD BE DEFINED.
THE AREA —
THERE COULD BE AREA THAT IS SAFE AND WOULD REQUIRE LOWER
FOOT CANDLES AND THERE COULD
BE AREA WHICH REQUIRES HIGH SECURITY SO I MAY —
TALKING ABOUT HIGH SECURITY,
THE REQUIREMENT IS ABOUT 1.5 FOOT CANDLES.
>> 1.5 BEING OKAY.
>> THERE ARE AREAS WHICH WE HAVE DESIGNED WHICH ALSO DEALS
WITH .5 FOOT CANDLES BALLS
THAT'S NOT A VERY SECURITY CONCERN AREA.
>> SO KIND OF .5 IS THE POINT —
SO IF I GO BACK — IF I GO THEN TO YOUR TABLE
THAT IS MEASURING —
WHERE YOU'RE MEASURING FOOT CANDLES AWAY FROM THE SIGN,
WHEN WE'RE TAKING A LOOK THEN,
SAY .5 FOOT CANDLES AS KIND OF A NIGHTTIME AMBIENT LIGHT
LEVEL FROM GUIDELINES FOR
SAFETY, THE MAJORITY OF THESE, EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT ARE
IN YELLOW, WHICH YOU ARE —
ARE BELOW THAT LEVEL, RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AND THE ONES IN YELLOW ARE
MEASUREMENTS THAT WRM TAKEN AS YOU MOVED AWAY THAT YOU ENDED
IT UP BEING CLOSE TO A STREET
LIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT.
WHEREVER IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IS
YELLOW.

THERE WAS A LIGHTING STANDARD
VERY NEAR TO WHERE WE WERE
TAKING THE MEASUREMENT, THAT'S WHY WE HIGHLIGHTED IT
SEPARATELY.
>> OKAY. AND THEN THE ONES THAT ARE NA,
IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS — I
DON'T KNOW — A BUILDING OR SOMETHING IN THE SFWHA >> YES,
THERE WAS A BUILDING.
IT WAS FALLING INSIDE — SOME OF THE POINTS WERE
FALLING INSIDE THE BUILDING
AND SOME POINT IT WAS NOT SAFE TO TAKE BECAUSE FOSSIL FUELS A
HIGHWAY SO WE HAD JUST LEFT
THOSE POINTS. >> EXPAND YOUR FURTHEST AWAY
MEASUREMENT — YOU DID THIS IN
HUNDRED FOOT INCREMENTS SO YOUR FURTHEST AWAY WAS 300
FEET SO —
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> TO ROUND UP FOR A INTO
METERS, A HUNDRED METERS MAX?
>> JESMT WAS THE FURTHEST YOU WERE AWAY.
AND IN ALMOST ALL LOCATIONS,
EXCEPT FOR STRAIGHT ON, IF YOU HELD YOUR HAND UP, YOU
WOULDN'T ACTUALLY SEE A SHADOW?
BECAUSE YOU ARE BELOW AMBIENT LIGHT LEVELS?
>> AND ALSO THE READINGS THAT
WE TOOK, JUST TO MENTION TO THE COUNCIL, THE READ THAT GO
WE TOOK WAS AT EYE LEVEL
LOOKING STRAIGHT ON THE THE BOARD.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.

I JUST —
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT JUST TO
THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REAL LIGHTING IMPACTS ARE OF
THESE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN PINCOTT. ALDERMAN MAR?
>> THANK YOU, WORSHIP.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS RELATING TO SOME OF
THE GUIDELINES AND THE IMPACTS
THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE 6
SECOND RULE VERSUS THE 10
SECOND RULE, WHAT CURRENTLY I IS —
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG
BUT WHAT CURRENTLY IS ALLOWED WITH THE FLIPPY ONES IS 6
SECONDS, IS THAT RIGHT?
SO YOU'RE — OR IS IT 10 SECONDS?
>> CURRENTLY —
ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO SHOW IT VISUALLY.
RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO
LIMITATIONS ON THESE MECHANICAL TRIO SIGNS.
NEAR TRIOS OR TRI-LATERAL.
THEY'RE ON A PRISM EXPAND WE'LL PLAY ONE NOW.
>> ACTUALLY I LIKE "FLIPPY"
BETTER BUT — >> ACTUALLY CAN YOU GO TO THE
FULL SCREEN AS WELL.
THERE IT IS, THE ONE ON THE LEFT.
IF YOU WANT TO START MANUALLY
COUNTING IT THAT'S UP FOR ABOUT 3 TO 4 SECONDS AND THEN
THERE'S A PHYSICAL MOTION
WHICH IS ANOTHER 2 SECONDS PLUS.
SO YOU GET TO BE LIKE 5, 6
SWEKDZ THE AD AND THE MOTION.

AND THEN WE'VE COMPARED IT TO
OUR DIGITAL 6 SECOND MODEL TO
THE RIGHT. >> OKAY.
>> AND YOU CAN SEE THE
DIFFERENCE OF THE PHYSICAL MOTION AND THE AD SPACE.
AND AS WE INTRODUCED THIS
PRODUCT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO AND WE MET WITH ADMINISTRATION,
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IS JUST
NATURAL STEP, EVOLUTION OF A BILLBOARD.
THE MECHANIC PAL TRIO ON THE
LEFT WAS ALSO — ALSO RECEIVED TREPIDATION BY
THE CITY 20 YEARS AGO.
THE ONE ON THE LEFT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 20 YEARS ACROSS
NORTH AMERICA, THREE
ADVERTISERS.

THAT CAN BE RESTARTED AGAIN.
THREE ADVERTISERS.
AND BASICALLY WE THINK THE SIGNS —
THE SIGN ON THE RIGHT IS A
NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE MECHANICAL TO THE DIGITAL,
STILL DIG PLAYING AESTHETIC
MESSAGE, AND IN FACT THE DURATION IS EVEN LONGER ON THE
STREET, 6 SECONDS AS YOU HEARD
EARLIER, THE LONGER THE BETTER. AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY'VE
BEEN AROUND FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS SUCCESSFULLY. >> AND I APPRECIATE THAT SO
THE SIGN ON THE LEFT, THE
TRI-LATERAL SIGN, NOW, THAT IS ALSO ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT, IS
IT NOT?
>> CORRECT. IT'S —
BUT IT'S EXTERNALLY LIT SO
THERE'S PA PHYSICAL LIGHT AT THE BOTTOM, YOU CAN KIND OF
SEE IT, A SINGLE LIGHT THAT
SHINES UPWARD TO SHINE THE FACE IS LIT AT NIGHT, CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
SO THERE'S LESS LIGHT POLLUTION AS A RESULT OF IT
BEING EXTERNALLY LIT, SHINING
UP ONTO THE — >> YES, AS SHOWN BY THE —
THERE IS AN EXPERT HERE —
IT'S MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE DIGITAL SIGN BECAUSE THE LIGHT
IS CONTAINED AND FOCUSED IN
THE THE LINES OF THE SIGN AND IT SHINES DOWNWARD AS OPPOSED
TO THE PRACTICE FOR YEARS AND
YEARS WHICH IS LIGHTING ON THE BOTTOM TO SHINE UPWARD.
>> RIGHT, OKAY.
NOW, I DERBY APPRECIATED THE COMMENT THAT ALDERMAN CHABOT
MADE ABOUT WHEN THE STOP NOW.
THE SIGN ON THE LEFT WHEN IT STARTS TO CHANGE AND IT'S
ALMOST LIKE A PAGE TURNING
RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT'S JUST INSTANTANEOUSLY CHANGING
THE IMAGE BUT YOU'RE SAYING
THAT TAKES ABOUT A SECOND FOR THAT TO OCCUR?
>> LONGER.
>> OH, OKAY, TWO SECONDS THEN? OKAY.
AND IF THE IMAGE STAYS FOR HOW
MANY SECONDS HERE AND THEN 2 SECONDS?
>> IT TAKES 3 TO 4 SECONDS
ACTUALLY FOR THAT PHYSICAL MOTION TO GO THROUGH AND THEN
ONCE THE MOTION IS STOPPED THE
AD IS UP FOR LIKE 3 TO 4 SECONDS MAX.
>> OKAY.
SO THE CONTINUITY IS BASICALLY JUST REALLY —
THE ADVANCE IN TECHNOLOGY, THE
EVOLUTION OF THE SIGN, TO BE ABLE TO SUDDENLY HAVE A
DIGITAL IMAGE WHICH YOU CAN
TRANSFER MUCH MORE SDWRESH CORRECT.
INSTEAD OF PHYSICALLY TAKING
THREE SECONDS IT CAN NOW — ELECTRONIC DIGITAL CAN BE
DONNA SECOND.
>> OKAY.

WHAT STRUCK ME AS INTERESTING
IS THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS,
YOU WERE ABLE TO ADD ON PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGING.
>> THE SECOND MODEL IS
IMPORTANT TO US FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, AS MENTIONED, IT'S BEEN
AROUND FOR YEARS. THESE SIGNS ARE NOT —
THEY'RE COSTLY, BOTTOM LINE.
AND THE 6 SECONDS ALLOWS US TWO THINGS.
ONE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY SMALL
BUSINESSES SO AFFORD IT. IT KEEPS THE COSTS DOWN SO
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
BUYING THESE ADVERTISEMENTS AND CAN COMPETE AGAINST BOX
STORES, NATIONAL CHAINS.
SECONDLY, THE MODEL ALLOWS US TO DONATE ONE SPOT —
IT'S A TEN MESSAGE MODEL, TEN
6-SECOND MESSAGES SO WE DONATE 10% OF THE SIGN TO NON-PROFIT.
>> IT'S INTO THE SOMETHING
YOU'RE PROPOSING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY
DOING?
>> IT'S IT'S SOMETHING WE DO NOW..
I'M SORRY NOT PART OF THE BUY
LAWYER, IT'S A MANDATE OF OUR COMPANY.
AS MENTIONED BY DOUG, OUR
FIRST PRESENTER, WE'VE BEEN DOING BUSINESS HERE FOR 80-PLUS
YEARS.
AND IT'S A MANDATE FROM OUR OWNERSHIP TO GIVE BACK TO THE
COMMUNITY THAT WE LIVE IN AND
DO BUSINESS WITH.

SO IT WAS MADE CLEAR FROM DAY
1 WE INTRODUCED THESE SIGNS
FROM OUR HEAD-UP OWNERSHIP IS THAT WE DONATE ONE SPOT FOR
NON-PROFIT AND CHARITY.
AND THAT SPOT REMAINS 24/7 THROUGHOUT THE YEAR,
REGARDLESS IF WE HAVE A QUEUE
FOR ADVERTISERS WHO WANT TO TAKE THAT SPOT, REGARDLESS IF
WE CAN SELL THAT MORE.
10% OF THE SIGN GOES TO THAT AND A LETTER?
YOUR PACKAGE —
>> NOW, I'VE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH THIS BOOK THAT YOU HAD
SENT US —
OR SORRY, THAT YOU'VE DISTRIBUTED TO US WITH SOME OF
THE SIGN LOCATIONS — I KNOW
YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THERE WITH THE 300m RADIUS.
NOW, SOME OF THE SIGNS THAT
ARE INDICATED HERE ARE ON MAJOR ROADS LIKE 9th AVENUE
BUT IF THIS PROHIBITION COMES
INTO EFFECT, IT ESSENTIALLY WOULD ELIMINATE THE TOOBLT USE
THESE DIGITAL SIGNS BUT NOT
NECESSARILY THE EXISTING SIGNS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE?
>> CORRECT.
>> IT WOULD PREVENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS NEW
TYPE OF SIGN?
>> YEAH, CORRECT.

WE HAVE ONE ON 9th AVENUE,
ACROSS FROM THE GREYHOUND BUS
DEPOT AS YOU COME INTO THE CORE.
>> MACLEOD TRAIL.
>> RIGHT NOW THAT SIGN USED TO BE THE ONE ON THE LEFT, THE
TRIO.
THE SAME BILLBOARD THERE FOR YEARS ON THE CP RAIL RIGHT OF
WAY.
WE WENT TO THE CITY AND ASKED TO CONTAINING CHANGE IT FROM
MECHANICAL TO DIGITAL.
IT WAS REFUSED. THE APPEAL BOARD HEARD OUR
PRESENTATION AND FELT IT WAS
ACCEPTABLE BASED ON THE NUMEROUS CONDITIONS THAT WERE
PUT IN PLACE.
A LOT OF IT IS TODAY IN THE RULES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED
IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.
>> SO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT IT WENT THROUGH STAB —
THAT'S MORE OF AN
ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE QUESTION, MAYBE I'LL HOLD THAT ONE.
ACTUALLY ALDERMAN HODGES
MENTIONED IT, THE CONCEPT OF — HE ACTUALLY SAID SOMETHING
ABOUT AMBER AND THAT TRIGGERED
SOMETHING IN MY HEAD ABOUT AM BERT ALERTS.
DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT
WHAT AN AMBER ALERT IS? >> VERY KNOW IS VERY WEATHER.
OUR VISION WAS THAT ONE DAY IF
THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THESE SIGNS, THE NETWORK COULD BE
AVAILABLE TO EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENTS, SUCH AS THE POLICE TO USE IT FOR AMBER
ALERT.
IT'S ALREADY USED IN THE U.S.

EXTENSIVELY.
SO WHEN THERE IS AN AMBER
ALERT, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SIGNS AND THEY HAVE PASSWORDS
AND CODES AND TEMPERATURE
PLATES THEY CAN GET INTO THE SYSTEM AND PUT UP AN AMBER
ALERT, IMMEDIATELY USING THE
NETWORK OF SIGNS. >> STHETS THING SOMETHING THAT
YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT?
>> WE WOULD BE THRILLED IF WE COULD MAKE THAT WORK WITH ONE
OF THE DEPARTMENTS HERE.
YES, OF COURSE WE WOULD SUPPORT IT.
WE WOULD DO IT NOW WITH OUR
REGULAR BILLBOARDS. IT'S JUST THAT IT TAKES A
WHILE, RIGHT?
SORRY, NOT NOR AMBER ALERT BUT FOR LOST, MISSING PERSONS, FOR
THAT KIND OF THING BUT THAT OF
COURSE TAKES A FEW WEEKS TO PUT IT UP.
SEE, AMBER ALERT YOU NEED
IMMEDIATELY, ELECTRONIC OF COURSE —
>> YEAH, I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN
IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> YES AND WE WOULD PROPOSE
THAT —
AGAIN IT WOULDN'T BE A BYLAW THING BUT WOULD BE PART OF OUR
PROPOSAL, YES.
>> A LOT OF THESE REALLY TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH REGARDS
TO THE LIGHTING AND SO ON AND
SO FORTH, I'M GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATION AS
WELL.
BUT WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE AND AS A
RESULT, IT IS INTERESTING, CERTAINLY, AND IT HAS VARIOUS —
THERE IS TREPIDATION CERTAINLY
FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION AND PEOPLE THAT ARE BELIEVING THAT
THIS WILL HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT
ON THE VISUAL LIGHT POLLUTION AND THAT'S CONCERNING TOWELS
AS A MUNICIPALITY AND
CERTAINLY TO THE DIFFERENT WARD ALDERMEN.
BUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT
YOU'RE SAYING WITH PROHIBITION OF THE 300m WE WOULD
EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE A LOT OF
THESE MAJOR ROADWAYS, I MEAN, I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY
TOWARDS THAT IN UNDERSTANDING
THAT THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON BEING ABLE TO DELIVER THIS.
SO YOU'VE ANSWERED MY
QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE TEN SECONDS AND THE SIX
SECONDS AND ALSO YOUR ABILITY
TO PROVIDE AN AMBER ALERT, WHICH I THINK IS INTERESTING,
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR PRESENTATIONS.

THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN MAR. ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
OF ALL THE INTERESTING ISSUES I WOULD LIKE TO DIG A LITTLE
DEEPER INTO 300m AGAIN..
I'M NOT SURE WHO TO ADDRESS. FOLLOWING ON ALDERMAN JONES'
QUESTIONS, I'M TRYING TO READ
THE PAGE TAB 4 WHY FROM YOUR BOOKLET, IT SEEMS INDUSTRY IS
RECOMMENDING THAT WE DELETE
THE RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING THE 300m RULE
THAT SEEMS FAIRLY CLEAR.
DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT THE APPROPRIATE
DISTANCE SHOULD BE?
IS THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES? >> THE RECOMMENDATION, IF IT
WASN'T FOR JUST STRAIGHT
DELEAGUE, BECAUSE AS MENTIONED EARLIER WE FEEL THAT THE BYLAW
ADDRESSES IT TODAY WITH
PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL, IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE BYLAW TODAY
THAT THESE SIGNS CANNOT IMPACT
NEGATIVELY ON RESIDENTIAL BUT IF YOU WANTED ME TO THROW
SOMETHING OUT, SUGGEST A
COMPROMISE, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE 100m SO I WOULD TAKE IT —
WE'RE SAYING 80 NOW, YOU'RE
HEARING FROM THE LIGHTING EXPERT BUT 100m FROM THE CONE,
30° CONE OF FRONT OF THE SIGN,
UNOBSTRUCTED.

SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A
MEASUREMENT AND YOU WANT TO DO
100m FROM THE FRONT OF THE SIGN IN A MAJOR 30° PORTION
WHICH IS WHERE THE SIGN IS
INTENSE AND EFFECTIVE, THAT WOULD BE LIKE DIRECT ON AND
YOU GO 100m FRASER VALLEY
MIDDLE POINT AND SEPARATE IT FROM THAT POINT, THAT WOULD BE
A FAIR COMPROMISE.
>> THANK YOU. AND ALSO, I'M NOT SURE IT'S
BEEN BROUGHT UP BUT WHAT ABOUT
BEHIND THE SIGN? ARE THERE ANY MATTERS —
SHOULD THERE BE A DISTANCE
THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, SOME SORT
OF RADIO FREQUENCY OR
ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION — STHUD WE BE PUTTING THEM 10
FEET OUTSIDE THE WINDOW OF A
MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR INSTANCE?
>> THERE'S NO FEAR FROM AN
ELECTRONIC POINT OF VIEW FOR THE SIGN.
IT'S LIKE A TELEVISION.
IT'S LED TECH NOSMGT YOU CAN STAND BEHIND YOUR T.V., NO
IMPACT P YOU COULD HAVE
DIFFERENT BEHIND YOUR T.V., NO IMPACT.
SAME PHILOSOPHY HERE.
AS FOR LIGHTING, AS SHOWN BY THE LIGHTING PARTY, AGAIN LIKE
LED T.V., IF YOU STAND AT AN
ANGLE LOOKING PAT YOUR T.V., YOU CAN'T MAKE OUT THE IMAGE,
YOU CAN BARELY SEE ANY LIGHT
COMING FROM IT.

SO AS SHOWN, THERE'S NO
LIGHTING CONCERNS WHATSOEVER
BEHIND THE SIGN. THE SIGN BARELY —
IT BARELY BLEEDS ANY LIGHT ON
THE EDGES OF THE SIGN IN FRONT AND FROM BEHIND IT'S 0%.
SO NO REQUIREMENT THERE FOR
SEPARATION. >> THANK YOU.
JUST THE MATTER OF CURIOSITY
THEN, WHAT DOES INDUSTRY PRACTICE IN TERMS OF
BILLBOARDS AND RESIDENTIAL
WINDOWS? WAS THERE A NORM AT PEROT —
NORMAL PROTOCOL OR INDUSTRY
STANDARD JOOD WE'RE NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, THAT'S VERY CLEAR.
SECONDLY IN THE BYLAW IT STATES THAT LIGHTING
ORIENTATION OF A SIGN CANNOT
NEGATIVELY IMPACT RESIDENTIAL SO THAT'S A VERY BLACK AND
WHITE — VERY CLEAR STATEMENT
IN THE BYLAW TODAY. >> A SINGLE CONDO TOWER WOULD
CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, THAT ZONING IS SUCH THAT YOU WOULD BE PROHIBITED
FROM LOCATING EVEN IN SAY A
NEIGHBORING ZONE — LAND USE THAT WOULD PERHAPS
PERMIT YOU TO BE THERE?
>> THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE DOWNTOWN IS A MIXED USE AREA,
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE A
CONDO TOWER ZONED TO ALLOW THESE TYPE OF SIGNS NEARBY.
CONDO TOWERS, PEOPLE LIVING IN
DOWNTOWN ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE IN —
THEY LIVE IN A MIXED USE OF
COMMERCIAL, BRIGHT SIGNS, LIT SIGNS, RAILWAY —
RAILWAY TRACKS, HEAVIER
TRAFFIC, HEAVIER PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO THE WAY THE BYLAW IS
WRITTEN NOW, SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BUT FROM
A CONDOMINIUM —
IF THAT'S A RESIDENTIAL SDPRIKT THEN THE ANSWER TOO
YOUR QUESTION IS YES BUT IN
DOWNTOWN IT COULD BE ALSO ZONED COMMERCIAL, IF YOU
UNDERSTAND THE DOWNTOWN —
>> I KNOW, I'M SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC HERE.
THEN WHAT WOULD THE DISTANCE
BE FROM ONE OF THESE — FROM THE BACK OF ONE OF THESE
SIGNS TO THE NEAREST WIN DEPOT?
>> THE BACK? AGAIN AS LONG AS THE SIGN IS
MENTIONED —
AS LONG AS THE SIGN IS NOT FACING INTO THE CONDO, THE
BACK SHOULD BE NO ISSUE.
IF WE BACK ONTO THE WALL OF A CONDOMINIUM TOUSHGS AGAINST A
CONCRETE WALL OF A CONDOMINIUM
TOWER AND WE BACK RIGHT ONTO IT, BUT THE SIGN IS FACING
FORWARD AND IS NOT VISIBLE,
THAT'S BEEN DONE WITH EXISTING BILLBOARDS TODAY.
WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE FOR A
DIGITAL BILLBOARD TO BE BACKING ONTO A PROPERTY, AS
LONG AS IT'S ZONED AND
COMMERCIAL, AS LONG AS THE SIGN IS ZONED ALLOWS FOR IT TO
BE ZONED THERE, COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL AND DOES NOT IMPACT RESIDENTIAL IN FRONT OF THE
SIGN, WE SEE NO ISSUE.
>> GOOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
ALDERMAN FARRELL? >> THANK YOU.
I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
AND I WILL LIKELY GO OVER SO I'LL JUST STOP WHEN NOON COMES.
I'M SORRY, SHAHEEN, WHAT'S
YOUR LAST NAME? >> MACCIVANI.
>> ALL RIGHT, DID YOU DO THE
LANGEVIN BRIDGE? YOU DID?
CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT.
IT LOOKS GREAT WHEN.. THE LANGEVIN BRIDGE WAS FIRST
LIT, THERE WAS FAIRLY RAPID
CHANGEOVER OF COLOUR AND WE REALIZED FAIRLY EARLY ON THAT
IT WAS DISTRACTING TO DRIVERS
AND PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS SO
WE TONED IT DOWN QUITE A BIT.
AT WHAT POINT DO WE KNOW THAT SOMETHING BECOMES A
DISTRACTION AND THEN MAKE A
QUICK CHANGE? I THINK THE CONCERN THAT I SEE
IS THE TECHNOLOGY IS FAIRLY
NEW.

IT'S CERTAINLY NEW TO CALGARY.
AND SAFETY FOR DRIVERS IS
PARAMOUNT AND COMFORT FOR OUR RESIDENTS IS ALSO PARAMOUNT.
SO AT WHAT POINT DO WE KNOW
WHEN WE'RE CREATING A DRIVING DISTRACTION AND ARE ABLE TO
ADJUST?
OR CREATING A DISTRACTION FOR OUR RESIDENTS?
>> I AGREE WITH YOU THAT
INITIALLY WHEN THE LANGEVIN BRIDGE WAS FIRST INSTALLED,
BECAUSE IT CAME AS
PRE-PROGRAMED TO MEET THE SCHEDULE SO THERE WAS SOME
FLASHING WHICH WE SAID THIS IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IT HAS TO BE CHANGED, FOR NOW WHAT IT IS,
IT'S LIKE 06 SECOND
TRANSITIONS WE HAVE GIVEN AND THERE IS NO FLASHING OR SUDDEN
CHANGE.
IT'S ALL — LIKE IT'S SEAMLESS TRANSITION SO THAT WAY WHOEVER
IS DRIVING OR WHOEVER IS
LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOT
DISTURBED BY THE LIGHTING.
THE IDEA HERE IS THAT PERSONS SHOULD ENJOY BEING IN THE
ENVIRONMENT RATHER THAN
GETTING, YOU KNOW, DISTURBED OR CAUSING SAFETY CONCERNS.
SO THAT HAS BEEN FIXED, BUT
YES WE HAD CHANGED THAT FROM 2 SECONDS TO 60 SECTS AND IT
WORKS FINE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

I WOULD AGREE.
NOW, MY CONCERN ASIDE FROM THE
DISTRACTED DRIVER, BECAUSE WHEN I WAS TAUGHT TO DRIVE, I
WAS TOLD DRIVE WHEN YOU'RE
DRIVING AND NOW I THINK THERE'S SORT OF A GENERAL
THOUGHT THAT YOU CAN DO ALL
SORTS OF OTHER THINGS WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING.
SO IN THE INTERIM OF PERMANENT
RULES, WE NEED TO KNOW WHEN THESE THINGS ARE DISTRACTING T
THEY'RE MEANT TO DISTRACT TO A
CERTAIN POINT, AND HOW MUCH I IS —
HOW MUCH DISTRACTION IS
REASONABLE? AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THAT, BECAUSE
THE RESPONSE I'M HEARING IS ANY STUDIES ARE INCLUSIVE.
SO — BUT I THINK THAT'S A
WHOLE POINT OF HAVING INTERIM MEASURES, IS WE CAN CONTINUE
TO STUDY IT FURTHER.
>> SO AS FAR AS SDWRESH WHOMEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THAT
IS FINE.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE WANT TO HAVE THAT ANSWERED AFTER NOON.
THREE MINUTES?
>> WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH THE ANSWER?
OKAY.
>> MAYBE I'LL CLARIFY THAT.

A NUMBER OF CITIES ACROSS
NORTH AMERICA, VERY LARGE
CITIES, HAVE BANNED THESE THINGS OUTRIGHT.
WHY?
AND IS DISTRACTED DRIVING ONE OF THE REASONS?
>> OUR EVIDENCE IS THE
CONTRARY. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE
PRESENTING THE PACKAGE AND YOU
CAN SEE THAT 40 STATES ALLOW THESE SIGNS, A SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER OF STATES, A NUMBER OF
STESMTS AND A LOT OF CITIES THAT WE FOUND THAT WERE BANNED
ALREADY BANNED BILLBOARDS IN
GENERAL. SO THEY'VE ALREADY JUST TAKEN
IT THE NATURAL STEP, THEY
ALREADY DON'T ALLOW BILLBOARDS SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW
LITTLE BOARDS TOO.
IN THOSE CITIES THAT MAY HAVE BANNED DIGITAL WE DON'T KNOW
OF ANY THAT HAVE BANNED IT
BECAUSE OF THE SAVOR DISTRACTION CONCERN.
THE CHALLENGE, AND I'LL LET
BRUCE FOLLOW UP AS WELL, THERE'S NUMEROUS DISTRACTIONS
BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE
VEHICLE.

>> TOO MANY IN MY VIEW.
>> THERE'S A LOT, AGREED.
AND THAT'S WHY THE STUDIES HAVE PROBABLY FOUND THEM TO BE
INCLUSIVE.
THE STUDIES COME BACK AND SAY THEY'RE SAFETY NEUTRAL,
THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT THAN A
STANDARD BILLBOARD, NO DIFFERENT THAN A TIM HORTON'S
ID SIGN, NO DIFFERENT THAN A
CITY SIGN THAT SAYS 300m EXIT FOR BARLOW TRAIL.
AND OTHER STUDIES HAVE SHOWN —
AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S NUMEROUS DISTRACTIONS INSIDE
THE VEHICLE AND OF COURSE SOME
JURISDICTIONS, AS ALBERTA HAS DONE AS WELL, IS THE CELLULAR
PHONE OF COURSE AND IT'S
COMING FOR YOU NOW BEFORE — SO IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION,
THOUGH, THERE'S —
THE DISTRACTION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN CONCLUSIVELY TO BE —
FOR BILLBOARDS, WHETHER STATI
STATIC — WHETHER CONVENTIONAL OR
DIGITAL.
VIDEO YES, THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT VIDEO
MOTION —
A STUDY WAS DONE BY A LADY FOR TORONTO ACTUALLY, HALF A DOZEN
BILLBOARDS, ONE OF THE STUDIES
WE PRESENTED TO ADMINISTRATION, AND THEY CAME BACK AND
CONCLUDED THAT YES, THE VIDEO
MOTION GAERNED MORE ATTENTION BUT THAT'S NEVER BEEN OUR
DESIRE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

SO THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND
DWELLING UNIT. AND I LEAVE ALDERMAN POOTMANS
TO ASK THAT QUESTION, BUT IT'
IT'S — WE'RE DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN
THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITHOUT
LIGHT TRESPASS FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE SINGLE
FAMILY. AND I THINK THAT IS IT IS A
PRETTY IMPORTANT THING TO
CLARIFY. I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNED
PEOPLE WHO —
WE'VE GOT CORRIDOR STUDIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE
WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE
PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO FUTURE I FAMILY AND SOMEHOW WE THINK
THAT THEIR RIGHT TO FACE AND
QUIET AND THOSE THINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE RIGHTS OF
THOSE IN SINGLE FAMILY.
AND I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT.
BUT MULTI-FAMILY —
16th AVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SPEND A LOT OF ENERGY, FAIR
AMOUNT OF MONEY CHANGING THE
ZONING AND THE FEEL OF 16th AVENUE TO ENCOURAGE
MULTI-FAMILY.
AND SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE DISTANCE SHOULD BE
DIFFERENT FOR — SHOULD WE
ALLOW ONE OF THESE UNITS ACROSS THE STREET OR EVEN
RIGHT NEXT DOOR FACING A
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT? >> NO, WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT
THAT.
>> SO HOW CAN WE DIFFERENTIATE IN THE BUY PLAY THAT THAT'S
NOT THE INTENT?
>> BECAUSE IN THE BYLAW WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS — YOUR
SCENARIO JUST DESCRIBED AS A
SIGN ORIENTATED AND FACING RESIDENTIAL SO IT WOULD HAVE
AN IMPACT.
>> A DWELLING UNIT.

>> YEAH, A DWELLING UNIT.
AND WHAT OUR THEY'VE GONE THE
EXTREME APPROACH. THESE ARE ALL INTERIM RULES SO
WE ARE GOING TO BE SITTING
DOWN AS YOU KNOW OVER THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS AND OUR CONCERN
IS THEY'VE TAKEN THE EXTREME
APPROACH OF 300m FROM A BUILDING CONTAINED OR DWELLING
UNIT AND AS WE USE EXAMPLES
THROUGHOUT OUR PRESENTATION WAS IF A SIGN IS NOT VISIBLE
AND TOPOGRAPHY BLOCKS THE SIGN
SO WE COULD BE LOWER AND — OR THE RESIDENTIAL COULD BE
LOWER, BELOW THE GRADE, IF
IT'S NOT VISIBLE, THEN WHY IS THE CITY BEING IF YOU WILL
HANDICAPPED WITH THAT STRAIGHT
300m WITH NO SENSE OF DISCRETION, NO SENSE OF EVEN
ALLOWING IT TO BE RELAXED?
THEY'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR.

SO IF WE'RE ALONG 16th AVENUE
AND 16th AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY
TEND TO BE JUST BEHIND, THERE'S USUALLY COMMERCIAL ON
BOTH SIDES OF 16th AVENUE, IN
MY EXPERIENCE — >> WELL, 16th AVENUE HAS BEEN
COMPLETELY REZONED TO
ENCOURAGE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ZONING.
IT WAS PART OF THE WHOLE —
IT PREDATES PLANNING BUT IT LED TO OUR CONTEMPORARY VIEW
OF AN URBAN CORRIDOR, WHERE
ALL OF 16th AVENUE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
>> WELL, IT'S VOTED CASE BY
CASE. WE LOOKED AT IT CASE BY CASE
BUT IT'S VERY SIMPLE FOR US.
IF THE SIGN IS ON 16th AVENUE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND IT
FACES INTO RESIDENTIAL, THE
CURRENT BYLAW DOES NOT ALLOW IT AND WE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT.
YOU'RE SAYING HOW TO PROTECT
THAT? MY SUGGESTION WAS TAKE A
MEASUREMENT FROM THE FRONT OF
THE SIGN, GO 100m, IF THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL WITHIN 100m
SDWRESH AND BY RESIDENTIAL
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DWELLING STUDENTS >> DWELLING UNIT,
SORRY F THERE'S A DWELLING
UNIT WITHIN 100m OF THE SIGN UNOBSTRUCTED THEN THE
BILLBOARD SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE'RE
GOING TO STOP THERE, LUNCH BREAK, LUNCH BREAK.
WE'LL BE BACK AT 1:20.
ALDERMAN FARRELL, YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE FLOOR.
ALL RIGHT?
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,
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. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND
WE'RE BACK.
[Inaudible] >> THANK YOU.
I THINK I'M DOWN TO ONE MORE
QUESTION.
THIS IS A QUICK ONE.
WE HEAR QUITE A BIT ABOUT TIMES SQUARE AND I'M NOT SURE THE
SQUARE IN TORONTO WHERE THEY'VE
GOT — DUNDAS SQUARE. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN TALKING —
PART OF THE CENTRE CITY TEAM HAS
BEEN TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE RULES TO ALLOW CONCENTRATED AREA
OF THE DOWNTOWN WHERE WE WOULD
RELAX OUR SIGN BYLAW WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.
SO ARE YOU WORKING WITH
ADMINISTRATION ON THAT? >> TODAY, NO.
THE FIRST STEP IS SET OF RULES
AND GUIDELINES THAT BOTH ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY CAN
WORK WITH JUST THE PRESENT RULE
FOR DIGITAL WHICH ARE STATIC.

I THINK THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO
THE DUNDASS AND TIMES SQUARES OF
THE WORLD IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL ALTOGETHER.
DIFFERENT SIGNS.
MORE VIDEO. >> I HEARD IT BROUGHT UP BY
ALDERMAN LOWE.
SO I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE MATTER.
>> ONE DAY THAT MAY COME UP.
BUT AS OF TODAY NO, THERE'S NO TALK OF IT, NO DESIGNATED AREA.
WE REQUIRE A LOT OF
STAKEHOLDERS, LANDLORDS, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,
THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND THAT
WOULD BE DOWN THE ROAD. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
WE'LL LET ALDERMAN DEMONG GET
BACK TO HIS SEAT. THERE WE GO.
ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> AND I REALIZE IT'S MY SOMEWHAT IGNORANCE WITH REGARDS
TO NITS VERSUS ILLUMINATED AND
LUMINATION. CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME SORT OF
REFERENCE TO THE OLD-STYLE
BILLBOARD WHERE WE SHONE A BIG SPOTLIGHT ON THE BILLBOARD HOW
THAT COMPARES TO THE 5,000
FLASH, 200 NITS THAT YOU'RE OFFERING.
>> IT'S 5,000 NITS DURING THE
DAY AND 500 AT NIGHT ARE THE MAXIMUM LEVELS ALLOWED.
>> BILLBOARDS, IT WOULD BE LESS,
MUCH LESS COMPARED TO DIGITAL.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIMMING IN
CASE OF — IT'S NOT BUMPED UP
DURING THE DAYTIME. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
IT IS — THE LIGHTING IS NOT
MADE TO BE POSSIBLY LOWER OR HIGHER, JUST A STRAIGHT
HALOTHANE BULB.
>> I REALIZE THAT. IN MY OWN MIND I'M TRYING TO
ENVISION WHETHER THE
BRIGHTNESS — I REALIZE DURING THE DAY IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A
LOT OF DIFFERENCE.
BUT AT NIGHTTIME IS IT GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE 500 NITS YOU'RE ALLOWED AND
THE LUMINENCE OF THE SPOTLIGHTED BILLBOARD STANDARD.
>> IF YOU'RE COMPARING THE
DIGITAL WITH THE CONVENTION, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
THE DIGITAL IS MUCH MORE
BRIGHTER COMPARED TO THE CONVENTIONAL.
>> OKAY.
THAT PRETTY MUCH ANSWERS THAT. NOW, I WAS CURIOUS, YOU GUYS HAD
TWO DIFFERENT DISPLAYS GOING
WITH REGARDS TO THE CHANGING OF THE — ON YOUR DIGITALS.
THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS GOING
THROUGH NEAR — I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT WAS AND THE SECOND ONE
WHERE YOU HAD THEM SIDE BY SIDE.
WAS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE TIME FRAME IN THE CHANGING OF
THE PICTURES BETWEEN THOSE TWO?
>> YES.

YES, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE AND THAT'S WHY WE
BELIEVE THE DIGITAL'S A MARKED IMPROVEMENT.
>> NO, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE
ORIGINAL DIGITAL THA THAT YOU SD US VERSUS THE SECOND DIGITAL YOU
SHOWED US, WAS THERE A
DIFFERENCE? WAS ONE A .2 SECOND CHANGE AND
THE SECOND ONE WAS A .8 SECOND
CHANGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR DID YOU GUYS MAKE NOTE OF IT AT
ALL?
>> NO, WE DIDN'T MAKE NOTE. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL THE
SIGNS WE'VE ORDERED ARE ON THE
SAME MODEL AND TRANSITION TIME. SO THAT ONE SIGN THAT SHOWED…
[Indiscernible]
IN EDMONTON, AND THE VERY FIRST ONE WE SHOWED McKNIGHT
BOULEVARD THAT WE'RE SHOWING
SHOULD BE OPERATING ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE.
>> THEY WERE OPERATING ON THE
SAME PRINCIPLE. IT ALMOST SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS
A DIFFERENCE TO MY EYE, ONE
SEEMED TO BE DOING A MUCH QUICKER CHANGE THAN THE OTHER
ONE.
OPTIC? >> YES.
AND MAYBE ONE IS OFF A BIT.
IT CAN BE CHECKED.

NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER.
BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT
SIGNS, TWO DIFFERENT CITIES, INSTALLED AT TWO DIFFERENT
TIMES.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE RUNNING THE SAME
MODEL REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY
ARE OR WHEN THEY'RE ORDERED. >> THAT McKNIGHT SIGN IS 6
SECONDS.
WE'VE CHECKED AND RECHECKED. >> I MEANT THE TRANSITION TIME
BETWEEN THE CHANGING OF THE
PICTURES. >> THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. NICE AND EASY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN DEMONG. ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE TWO SIGNS
THAT ARE ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. IS THAT RIGHT?
ONE ON BARLOW AND ONE ON AIRPORT
TRAIL? >> FOR DIGITAL, CORRECT.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SIGNS ON
AIRPORT LAND. BUT ONLY TWO SIGNS, CORRECT, ONE
ON AIRPORT TRAIL AND ONE AT
BARLOW TRAIL AND AIRPORT ROAD, THE ENTRANCE INTO THE AIRPORT
ARE TWO LOCATIONS THAT HAVE
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS.

>> SO NEITHER ONE OF THEM
WILL — IF THIS GOES THROUGH
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE WILL BE ABLE TO STAY THEN?
>> THAT — THE REGULATIONS OF
THE CITY — THE AIRPORT FOLLOWS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
THOSE HAVE PERMITS.
SO THOSE WERE APPLIED TO THE CALGARY AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LAND USE
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, AS YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE OF, AND SO
THEN WE GOT DIRECTED BY THE
AIRPORT. WE APPLIED TO THE CITY AND THE
CITY GAVE US A PENALT PERMIT BAN
THE AIRPORT'S RECOMMENDATION.

THE BYLAW TODAY, WHATEVER IS
PASSED TODAY WOULD NOT IMPACT
THOSE SIGNS NOW OR LATER. >> I CAN UNDERSTAND THE ONE AT
BARLOW TRAIL AND AIRPORT ROAD.
BECAUSE THAT'S ON — IT'S NOT FACING A CITY STREET.
BUT THE ONE THAT'S ON AIRPORT
TRAIL OR 96th, IT SAYS IN HERE THAT THEY'LL BE BANNED FROM
96th AVENUE AT HARVEST HILLS
OVER TO BARLOW TRAIL. THAT WOULD TAKE THAT ONE IN,
WOULDN'T IT?
>> IN THIS CASE IT DOESN'T BECAUSE IT'S ON AIRPORT LANDS
AND HAS A SEPARATE LAND USE
AGREEMENT. SO ALL OTHER LANDS OUTSIDE OF
AIRPORT LANDS WOULD MEET THAT
RULE WHICH IS CORRECT. THEY WOULD BE BANNED.
RIGHT NOW AIRPORT TRAIL, WE
CANNOT BUILD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT TRAIL.
THEY'RE ALL PRIVATE LANDS AND
DON'T MEET THE BYLAW ON THE SOUTH SIDE BECAUSE OF THE
SEPARATE LAND USE AGREEMENT THE
AIRPORT IS ALLOWED TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND THE INDUSTRY TO PUT
LANDS UP.
>> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. FOLKS, I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH
YOU FOR NOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC
HEARING, THOUGH, SO IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS?
ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? THERE WAS NO ONE WHO SPOKE IN
FAVOUR.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE SOMETHING HERE.
ONE PERSON WHO IS IN FAVOUR OF
OUR POSITION, YOUR WORSHIP, AND MEMBERS OF LITTLE.
SHE WAS UNABLE TO STAY FOR THE
AFTERNOON SESSION. I HAVE 35 COPIES HER
PRESENTATION.
SHE'S WITH THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: BE CAN
DISTRIBUTE THOSE.O >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, MY NAME IS OWEN CRAIG,
I'M WITH BELTLINE PLANNING GROUP.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A LETTER
AND PREVIOUS SYNOPSIS OF THE SURVEY THAT WE'VE CONDUCTED
RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY, PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THOSE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'D LIKE TO USE AND BE UP FRONT AND INDICATE I'D LIKES TO USE AN
OVERAVERAGING BROAD DESCRIPTION
OF OUR STANCE ON BILLBOARD AND VEHICULAR SCALED THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING AND DRILL DOWN ON
THE DETAILS AND LAND ON THE ISSUES AT HAND FOR THE AMENDMENT
PROPOSED.
IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME THAT INDULGENCE I'D LIKE TO THAT.
I WILL READ FROM THE LETTER THAT
I PREPARED.

BELT LINE PLANNING GROUP
REFLECTS BELTLINE COMMUNITY'S
BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAJORITY PERSPECTIVE ON
BILLBOARDS.
THIS VIEW IS GARNERED FROM TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF COMMUNITY
SUPPORT TO ELIMINATE VEHICULAR
SCALED THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING IN OUR DISTRICT.
BELTLINE COMMUNITIES HAS
EMPLOYED A SURVEY TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALIDITY OF ITS POSITION.
WE HAVE RECEIVED HAD 149
RESPONSES, OVERWHELMING IN AGREEMENT THAT BILLBOARDS
DIGITAL OR OTHERWISE HAVE NO…
[Indiscernible] IN THE BELTLINE.
IT ENCOURAGING THE CITY OF
CALGARY TO BAN ALL VEHICULAR SCALED BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE
BELTLINE COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
AND I'D LIKE TO BE VERY CLEAR, WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE VEHICULAR
SCALE BILLBOARD SCENARIO AND NOT
THE KIOSK OR SMALLER BUSINESS ORIENTED SIGNS.
AS OUR COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO
MATURE AND BECOME MORE MIXED USE, THE DEPLOYMENT OF THESE
SIGNS RUNS COUNTER IN THE
BLUEPRINT FOR THE BELTLINE, BELTLINE ARP AND CITY CENTRE
LAND USE DISTRICT.
DISTRACTING LIGHT POLLUTION EMITTED FROM THESE SIGNS HAS THE
IMPACT TO LIMIT THE COMMUNITY.
NOW, IF YOU TAKE THAT AND MAGNIFY IT ON A SCALE OF 10 AND
PLACE IT OUTSIDE A CONDOMINIUM
THAT MAY HAVE 230 UNITS, AT 1.5 PEOPLE PER UNIT THAT WORKS OUT
TO BE ABOUT 400 TO 500 RESIDENTS
FAIRLY EASILY.

THAT CAN BE EXPONENTIALLY MORE
FRUSTRATING.
AND NOW IMAGINE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR DWELLING THAT HAS A SIGN
EFFECTS ONE OR TW TWO OR THREE,
FOUR PEOPLE ON THE STREET, YOU PUT THAT IN THE BELTLINE IT CAN
IMPACT 500 TO A THOUSAND PEOPLE
WITH ONE SIGN REGARDLESS OF ILLUMINATION.
FURTHER VEHICULAR SCALED SCALED
SIGNS ARE WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE. BELTLINE HAS NO DISCUSSION IN
REGULATORY OF DIGITAL BILL
BOARDS IN OUR COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CAPTURE
ATTENTION. THEY WOULD NOT BE UTILIZEDY
INDUSTRY IF THAT WAS NOT THE
CASE. DESPITE THE FACT THE SCIENCE IS
NOT THERE, I THINK WE ALL HAVE
COMMON SENSE ENOUGH TO KNOW THERE IS AN ADDED DISTRACTION TO
THE DRIVERS AND WHAT IS THE
TIPPING POINT BETWEEN CELLPHONES, KIDS IN THE BACK AND
TRAFFIC SIGNS WITH RESPECT TO
DIGITAL SIGNS? AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS
INDICATE WHILE OUR STANCE IS NOT
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S A THIRD PARTY
AMENDMENT FOR THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING OF A VEHICULAR SCALE IN NATURE, WE ARE STRIVING TO
CREATE APPROPRIATELY SCALED
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BELTLINE AND CENTRE CITY.
WE THINK THOSE TYPE OF SIGNS ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE USE AND NOT FOR AREAS THAT HAVE
DEVELOPING BURGEONING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENTS.

SIMPLY PUT, THEY ARE A BLIGHT ON
OUR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED URBAN
DISTRICT. I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU A
COUPLE SOUND BITES FROM THE
SURVEY WE RECEIVED AND BEEN DELIVERING.
WE HAD 149 PEOPLE RESPOND TO THE
SURVEY. 70 LIVED IN THE BELTLINE, 79
LIVED OUTSIDE THEBELT LYNN.
THE BELTLINE. AND THIS IS LEADING TO THE
QUESTION OF DIGITAL SIGN
PROLIVELATION AND BILLBOARD PROLIFERATION IN GENERAL.
SEEKING OF THE RELAXATION TO 150
METRES. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU CAN
SEE THE SIGN OR NOT THE SIGNS
HAVE A PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PEDESTRIAN SCALE IMPACT ON
NEIGHBOURHOODS THAT WE THINK ARE
INAPPROPRIATE FOR AREAS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO STRIVE TO CREATE
HIGH QUALITY PEDESTRIAN SCALE
ENVIRONMENTS. WE THINK IT'S HIGH TIME THAT THE
BELTLINE AS IT MATURES CAN
EVOLVE SUCH THAT WE CAN PUSH THOSE SIGNS TO OTHER AREAS.
A COUPLE SOUND BITES, I DO OF
COURSE APPRECIATE THE SIGNAGE THAT IDENTIFIES A STORE,
BUSINESS OR MEDICAL OFFICE.
THE BILLBOARDS, HOWEVER, ARE AN EYESORE AND A SAFETY HAZARD.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY RESPECT TO
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS DEPENDING ON WITH EVER CHANGING CONTENT AND
DESIGN THEY ALSO ALTER THE WHOLE
APPEARANCE OF THE COMMUNITY IN AN EVER NEW WAY AND NEGATIVE
WAY.
THERE ARE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR NEW BUILDING
WHICH ARE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY
THE BILLBOARDSES.

BILLBOARDS DETRACT AND WOULDN'T
BE PERMITTED BY OTHER
COMMUNITIES. EITHER SMALLER SCALED
ADVERTISEMENTS OR BETTER SCALE
ADVERTISEMENMENTS SHOULD QUESTIN ENCOURAGED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN MAR? >> THANTHANTHANK YOU FOR BEING O
PATIENT THIS AFTERNOON.
I KNOW THAT THESE CAN TAKE SOME TIME.
SO TODAY THE OVERALL DISCUSSION
IS REALLY MORE CENTRED AROUND DIGITAL VERSUS NONDIGITAL
SIGNAGE, NOT NECESSARILY WHERE
IT SHOULD BE IN TERMS OF THE DISTRICT BUT REALLY THE DIGITAL
VERSUS NONDIGITAL DEBATE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. HAVE I A COUPLE FOLLOWUP
QUESTIONS.
IN YOUR PRESENTATION A MOMENT A LITTLE YOU HAD SUGGESTED THE
BELTLINE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
WOULD BE OPPOSED TO AUTOMOBILE-SCALED SIGNAGE.
SO THE STANDARD 10 FEET BY
20 FEET? 10 FEET BY 20 SIGNAGE IN THE
BELTLINE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE,
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A STATIC PAPER SIGN OR THOSE SLICKY
TRIANGULAR ONES OR DIGITAL.
IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SO REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF
SIGN, WHETHER IT'S DIGITAL OR NOT DIGITAL RIGHT NOW YOU'RE
REALLY JUST SAYING THAT IN YOUR
PARTICULAR AREA, IN THE BELTLINE, BECAUSE OF THE
DENSITY, AND BECAUSE OF THE
IMPACT THAT IT HAS VISUALLY ON MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS REGARDLESS
OF THE TYPE OF — YOU'RE IN
OPPOSITION.

>> CORRECT.
ALTHOUGH I TRIED TO TIE IT BACK
TO SPECIFICS RELATED TO DIGITAL SIGNS, BUT YES.
THE OVERARCHING —
>> AND THAT WAS MY COMMENT. AND JUST, AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DIGITAL, I
JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THAT AND GET YOUR COMMENTS.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR. ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'M SORRY, I HEARD YOUR NAME A FEW TIMES BUT I STILL DIDN'T GET
IT.
>> OWEN CRAIG.

>> SO CRAIG BEING THE LAST NAME.
>> CORRECT, YES.
I'VE HAD THAT PROBLEM WITH GRADE SCHOOL TEACHERS ALL THE WAY UP
TO APPARENTLY ALDERMEN NOW, BUT
YOU HAVE IT. >> IN FACT I THINK YOU TOLD ME
THAT ONCE PERSONALLY.
Mr. CRAIG, SO, THE EXISTING BILLBOARDS, YOU'RE NOT OVERLY
HAPPY WITH THOSE EITHER.
>> CORRECT. WE'RE NOT ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT
THEM.
WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE THE BELTLINE IS MATURING FAR FASTER
THAN THE BYLAW CAN.
TO HELP PROVIDE MORE APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES FOR DWELLING UNITS IN
PROXIMITY TO THESE TYPES OF
SIGN. >> SO IF THEY'RE ILLUMINATED, IT
POSES A SIMILAR CHALLENGE TO
WHAT THE DIGITAL SIGNS COULD — >> CORRECT.
YEAH.
>> YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE OVERANXIOUS — OR OVER EXUBERANT
CHANNEL CHANGER.
BUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE IS A STATIC DISPLAY WITH
POTENTIALLY SIX-SECOND
INTERVALS, WHAT'S PROPOSED IS 10-SECOND INTERVALS.
IT WOULDN'T REALLY ASSOCIATE
THAT WITH FULL MOTION VIDEO AND AN EXUBERANT CHANNEL CHANGER.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE
EXTREME, WOULDN'T YOU SAY? >> WELL, DEPENDING ON HOW FAST
YOU CHANGE CHANNELS, IT LOOKS
PRETTY STRATEGIC TO ME IF YOU CATCH ONE FRAME PER SECOND.
THE ILLUSTRATION IS THE SIMPLE
EXAMPLE OF IS YOU HAVE AN ILLUMINATED OBJECT OUTSIDE A
DWELLING WINDOW AND THEY'RE NOT
IN CONTROL OF WHAT'S BEING SHOWN.
THEY LOOK OUT THEIR WINDOW AT
ANY POINT IN THE DAY AND HAVE NO RECOURSE OR ABILITY TO ADJUST TO
THAT.
SO WE THINK THERE ARE SOME PARALLELS, WHILE THEY MAY NOT BE
EXACTLY DIRECT, I THINK THE
ANALOGY IS STILL VALID.

>> YOU MENTIONED HUMAN-SCALE
PEDESTRIAN-TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO ARE YOU BY VIRTUE OF SAYING THAT ARGUING THAT THERE'S NO
PEDESTRIAN FUNCTIONALITY
ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT YOU CALL AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED TYPE
BILLBOARDS?
>> THE SIGNAGE IS DEVELOPED BY INDUSTRY TO BE DEPLOYED AT
HIGH-CAPACITY VEHICLE
THOROUGHFARES. THEIR SIZE, PROXIMITY, DENSITY
AND SCALE OF ADVERTISING TYPE
FONT AND THE APPROACH THEY USE FOR THE COPY IS SPECIFICALLY
TARGETED TOWARDS VEHICLES AND
NOT PEDESTRIANS AND I THINK THAT WE'D BE FOOLING OURSELVES TO
THINK OTHERWISE.
ARE ISSUE AT HAND WITH — OUR ISSUE AT HAND WITH THOSE IS
WHILE WE DON'T REJECT
ADVERTISING THAT'S OF THE PEDESTRIAN SCALE THAT'S BEEN
DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE TO SEE ON
THE SIDEWALK, WE THINK OUR NEIGHBOURHOODS HAVE MATURED
SPECIALTY THE BELTLINE SO THE
MOTOR VEHICLE IS N NO LONGER THE PREDOMINANT ADVERTISING
DEMOGRAPHIC.
>> GUESS IT'S A MATTER OF OPINION BECAUSE I WOULD ARGUE I
SEE THIGHS BILLBOARDS A LOT MORE
WHEN I'M WALKING THAN I DO WHEN I'M DRIVING.
BUT THAT'S ME PERSONALLY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION HERE TODAY AND VOICING THE
OPINION OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.

>> IF I MIGHT, YOUR WORSHIP,
RESPOND TO THE LAST COMPONENT.
THE MERE FACT THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY NOTICE THEM MORE AS
YOU'RE A PEDESTRIAN IS IN FACT
THE GEM AT THE HEART OF THE DISCUSSION AND THAT'S THE
PROBLEM THAT WE DO HAVE AS THE
BELTLINE IS AS PEOPLE SLOW DOWN AND WALK, IT'S NOT ONLY
SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS DRIVER
SAFETY AND ILLUMINATION. THAT'S A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF
OUR ARGUMENT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, Mr.

CRAIG.
ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, Mr. CRAIG.
SO YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE BELTLINE AND MACLEOD TRAIL, FOR EXAMPLE.
>> YES.
WE DO. >> NOW, THE BELTLINE, I'D BE
VERY SURPRISED IF YOUR ARP
DOESN'T HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AROUND AUTO ORIENTED SIGNAGE.
>> IT DOES, YES.
>> IT DOES. SO YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE
MIGRATION OF EXISTING BILLBOARD
SIGNAGE TO DIGITAL OR PROLIFERATION?
I DON'T THINK WITH THESE RULES
WE WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL. BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE
CLARIFIED.
>> WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT I THINK ONE VERY IMPORTANTLY, YES, THE
PROLIFERATION, CONVERSION OF
EXISTING SIGNS TO DIGITAL. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AS OUR
COMMUNITY MATURES AND
RESIDENTIAL AND DWELLING PROJECTS ARE BROUGHT ON LINE IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THEBELT LINE
THE ABILITY TO — FOR THE BYLAW TO KEEP PACE WITH THIS IS
PROBLEMATIC.
SO THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TODAY ON THE TABLE THAT WE'RE
PARTICULARLY OBJECTING TO IS THE
RELAXATION OR RELAXABLE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROXIMITY TO
DWELLING UNITS.
WE DON'T THINK THAT LINE OF SIGHT IS A NECESSARY CRITERIA
ALTHOUGH IT'S MORE OBJECTIONABLE
THAN NOT.

IT'S MORE A CONCEPT OF
PROLIFERATION THROUGHOUT THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD AS WELL AS DRIVER DISTRACTION.
THE 300 METRE RELAXATION AND
ALSO TH THE DIFFERENTIATION, WE DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A
DISTINCTION MADE ON DENSITY.
YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE HOVERING OVER THOSE SIGNS THAN YOU DO IN
A RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
COMMUNITY. >> SOME OF THOSE NOR SUBURBAN
COMMUNITIES WOULD HAVE A BERM,
FOR EXAMPLE, SEPARATING THE SIGN FROM THE RESIDENTIAL.
SO HOW MANY BILLBOARDS DO YOU
HAVE IN THE BELTLINE? >> WE RECENTLY CONDUCTED A
MAPPING STUDY, IT'S AVAILABLE ON
OUR WEB SITE, BELTLINE.CA. WE MAPPED BETWEEN 25 AND 36
BILLBOARDS.
IT'S ACTUALLY MORE ALONG THE LINES OF 30.
AND SOMEWHERE IN AFFECTED AREAS
OR NEIGHBOURING AREAS EARLY TON ALONG — ERLTON ALONG MACLEOD
TRAIL, BUT WE PUT THEM ON THERE
AS AN AFFECTED PARTY. AS AN EXAMPLE.
THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE ALONG
10th AVENUE AND THERE ARE A COUPLE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL
PROXIMITY TO DWELLING UNITS THAT
HAVE RECENTLY GONE UP THAT ARE IN THE APPROVALS PROCESS RIGHT
NOW.
>> SO IF WE WERE TO MAKE THE RULES A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR
SOME AREAS OF THE CITY, YOU
WOULD SEE US TIGHTENING UP THE RULES IN MORE PEDESTRIAN
ORIENTED PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS.

MIXED USE DISTRICT.
>> MIXED USE DISTRICTS WITH
PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AND DWELLING, YES.
>> EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY
SHOULD BE TREATED WITH THE SAME RESPECT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION
TODAY. >> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, Mr. CRAIG. ANYONE ELSE?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BOB VAN WEGAN, WHILE
WE CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WE DO TRY AND PROVIDE A COMMUNITY
PERSPECTIVE AND WE'VE BEEN
PRESENT AT THE CONSULTATIONS WHERE THE CITY HAS BEEN MEETING
WITH THE COMMUNITY AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE OF SIGNS.
SO FOR OR AGAINST, YOU GET UP
FOR OR AGAINST. IF I'D GOTTEN UP FOR, I MIGHT
HAVE BEEN HOME BY NOW WATCHING
ON TELEVISION. FOR BECAUSE WE NEED SOME KIND OF
CONTROL ON THIS NEW CLASS OF
SIGNAGE. OVERALL, THE PROPOSALS THAT
ADMINISTRATION'S BROUGHT FORWARD
DO ACHIEVE THIS.

AGAINST, BECAUSE SOME
COMMUNITIES WOULD FRANKLY PREFER
A MORATORIUM AT LEAST IN BUSINESS AND THIRD PARTY
SIGNAGE, AT LEAST UNTIL A FULL
SIGN REVIEW IS COMPLETE. THE FEDERATION SUPPORTED
ADMINISTRATION'S FIRST STAB AT
THIS LAST APRIL WHICH WAS TO REQUIRE A DC, DIRECT CONTROL,
BECAUSE MAYBE THAT WAS THE NEXT
BEST THING. NONETHELESS, ADMINISTRATION IS
PLANNING WORK ON A PERMANENT
POLICY INCLUDING BROAD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC SURVEY.
THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET EXCEPT
FOR THE MEETINGS WITH THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS.
YET IN THE ABSENCE OF RULES AND
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONSENT OF CALGARIANS, MANY OF THESE NEW
KINDS OF SIGNS HAVE BEEN
DEPLOYED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD.
WITHOUT CONTROLS, THE SIGNS WILL MOVE FOR UNUSUAL TO UBIQUITOUS
BEFORE WE KNOW IT.
A MORATORIUM, A DIRECT CONTROL WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED OR
STRONG DISCRETIONARY RULES WHICH
ARE BEING PROPOSED TODAY MAY APPREHEND THIS PENNING DIGITAL
SIGN RACE AND ALLOW SOME TIME
FOR CIVIC REFLECTION ON THIS NEW ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC REALM
BEFORE THE DIGITAL HORSE IS ANY
FURTHER OUT OF THE DIGITAL BARN, IF YOU'LL PARDON THAT EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT ANALOGY.
WITH EVERYBODY COMING UP TO SPEAK AGAINST, MAYBE
ADMINISTRATION GOT IT RIGHT THIS
TIME.

NOBODY'S ENTIRELY HAPPY.
I WANT TO MENTION A FEW THINGS
IN RESPONSE TO SOME THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP AS WELL.
I THINK WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT A
RELAXATION OF THE DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCES.
OR A REDUCTION TO A HUNDRED
METRES. A HUNDRED METRES IS VERY CLOSE,
IN MY ESTIMATION.
TO HAVE THE CHANNEL-CHANGING AS Mr. CRAIG SUGGESTED.
TO BRING THEM INTO C-RE 1 AND
C-CORE 2, 16th AVENUE WAS RAISED AS AN EXAMPLE.
WHAT ABOUT 17th AVENUE
SOUTHWEST, MARDA LOOP, 10th STREET NORTHWEST, KENSINGTON
ROAD, 4th STREET?
THESE ARE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED ROADS AND THIS IS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT SCALE OF SIGNAGE.
AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRIVER DISTRACTION, I TELL YOU
AS A DRIVER AND AS A RESIDENT OF
THE NEARBY AREA YOU MUST PAY ALOT MORE ATTENTION WHEN YOU'RE
DRIVING ON 17th AVENUE THAN
YOU ARE ON MANY HIGHER VOLUME, HIGHER SPEED ROADS.
BECAUSE THERE'S CROSSROADS,
THERE'S PEOPLE JAY-WALKING.

THERE'S SIGNAGE.
DURING THE SUMMER, PEOPLE
PRACTICALLY DRIVE WITH THEIR HEAD OUT THE WINDOW LOOKING AT
THE SCENERY, AND THE LAST THING
WE NEED IN THESE MORE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AREAS IS TO HAVE
ANOTHER TYPE OF KINETIC SIGNAGE
WHICH FRANKLY WE'RE JUST BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND AND GET
USED TO.
ALSO I THINK A GOOD POINT WAS MADE EARLIER WITH REGARDS TO
PLAN IT CALGARY.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THESE CORRIDORS IN THE AREAS MORE
HUMAN, MORE HABITABLE BECAUSE WE
WANT MORE INHABITANTS IN THESE AREAS.
AND I DO THINK THAT HAVING MORE
AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF SIGNAGE INCLUDING THIS NEW DIGITAL
SIGNAGE CERTAINLY WITHOUT A LOT
OF REFLECTION IS GOING IN A DIRECTION THAT'S OPPOSITE.
TO MAKING THESE AREAS MORE
HABITABLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS.
ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> I'M CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE RELAXATION OF
THE 300 METRES.
BECAUSE — AND I MISSPOKE MYSELF WHEN I ADDRESSED IT BEFORE.
I SAID BARLOW TRAIL WHEN IN FACT
I MEANT BLACKFOOT TRAIL WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL IS SIGNIFICANTLY
BELOW THE ROADWAY AND ON THE
EAST SIDE IT'S ALL INDUSTRIAL.

WHY COULD THE 300 METRES NOT BE
RELAXED IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE?
>> WELL, I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS.
I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS
I'D WANT TO MENTION. ONE, AND THIS IS LIKE — THERE
WAS SOME TALK ABOUT REDUCING THE
300 METRES TO 100 METRES. AND DEFINITELY WOULD NOT SUPPORT
THAT.
IN TERMS OF RELAXATION OF THE 300 METRES IN THE LAND USE
DISCRETIONARY PROCESS, I GUESS
EVERY TIME I HEAR THE WORD "DISCRETION" I'M ALWAYS
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE ASPECT
OF IT MIGHT BE. SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE
SHOWN — I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH
THE BLACKFOOT EXAMPLE PERSONALLY.
BUT ON MACLEOD TRAIL, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE SHOWN IN ERLTON, THERE'S QUITE
AN ELEVATION CHANGE BETWEEN
THOSE SIGNS AND THE RESIDENCES IN ERLTON YET THEY FEEL THEY'RE
LOOKING RIGHT DOWN ON THEM AND
THOSE SIGNS ARE LOOKING RIGHT UP AT THEM.
I'M NOT CERTAIN IT'S EASY TO
MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

I'D SAY IN THIS INTERIM PERIOD,
BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY.
PEOPLE DON'T APPARENTLY DON'T WANT THESE NEAR TO WHERE THEY
LIVE, AND WE SHOULD RESPECT
THAT. >> SO I'M HAVING SOME
DIFFICULTY.
I'LL USE THE ERLTON EXAMPLE WHERE AT NIGHT WHAT WE HEAR IS
THAT AFTER A HUNDRED METRES
ESSENTIALLY THE SIGNS DISAPPEAR INTO THE AMBIENT LIGHT ANYHOW.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FOR A
SECOND.

GO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT NIGHT.
>> TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT NIGHT
WITH THE GIVEN SIGNS AND THE HIGH REFLECTION OF NOT BEING
ABLE TO REDUCE IT, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, SO THAT'S THE — MY CONCERN AROUND THAT ONE.
>> YOU'RE GETTING THEM ALL NOW.
>> THEY ARE. AND THE RESULTS ARE?
>> I WOULD RATHER THAT THIS BE
AS — I WOULD RATHER THIS BE AS STRAIGHT FORWARD AND BULLET
PROOF AS POSSIBLE.
LIKE I SAID, OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, WHILE NO RULES HAVE BEEN
IN PLACE, THESE SIGNS HAVE BEEN
APPEARING AND WILL CONTINUE TO APPEAR.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A FULLER
DISCUSSION ON SIGNS. SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED ABOUT
THE LIGHTING OF OTHER KINDS OF
SIGNS ARE VERY INTERESTING. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO
ANYTHING TO ADD TO A PROBLEMATIC
SITUATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> DID YOU EVER SIT DOWN IN A ROOM WITH THE INDUSTRY WHERE
THERE WERE SOME AREAS WHERE THE
RULES MAYBE COULD BE LOOS LOOSED AND OTHERS WHERE THEY NEEDED
TIGHTENING UP.
>> I WAS AT ONE MEETING THAT HAD COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY PEOPLE
AND I DIDN'T FIND THE EXCHANGE
TO BE VERY PRODUCTIVE.

THERE WAS SOME PRETTY ENTRENCHED
POINTS OF VIEW ON BOTH SIDES
THAT WERE STRONGLY EXPRESSED. SO THIS CAN AT LEAST BE MANAGED
NOW.
>> YES, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS COME IN
ABSENCE OF RULES AND THEN —
>> YEAH. EXACTLY.
>> THEN WE HAVE THEM IN PLACE.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ANYONE ELSE?
THANKS, THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIK LIKE TO SK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL?
AFTERNOON, Mr. FECH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR, ALDERMEN, CITY STAFF.
MY NAME IS OSCAR FECH.
I'VE LIVED HERE CLOSE TO 60 YEARS IN CALGARY.
I FOUND IT VERY INTERESTING, WE
CREATE NEW RULES, BYLAWS AGAIN TO CREATE DIGITAL — WE HAVE
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY EVERYWHERE.
WE HAVE T.V., WE HAVE EVERYTHING — IT'S AFFECTING OUR
BRAINS ALREADY.
I DON'T HAVE ALL THIS TECHNOLOGY.
AND I'M GLAD I DON'T.
WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS, IT AFFECTS YOUR BLOOD SYSTEM,
YOUR BRAINS GET…
[Indiscernible] IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING WHEN
PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND
DIGITAL IS VERY HARD ON DRIVING.

LIKE WAS INDICATED.
YOU HEARD SOME GOOD COMMENTS.
SO WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THESE COMMENTS AND ANALYZE AND SAY,
LOOK, LOOK AT ALL THE PAPER THAT
I'VE GOT HERE FOR ONLY ONE BYLAW.
IT'S A LITTLE BYLAW.
ALL THE PAPER THAT WE'RE USING, ALWAYS INDICATED AND SAID WHEN
WE HAVE GOOD TECHNOLOGY WE'RE
GOING TO USE NO PAPER OR HARDLY ANY PAPER.
WE'RE USING ACTUALLY TEN TIMES
MORE PAPER BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY.
AND TECHNOLOGY RULES, CONTROLS
THE WHOLE SYSTEM. WHAT GOES IN COMES OUT.
THIS IS THE WORLD WE'RE LIVING
IN. IT'S LIKE A FICTION WORLD.
SO LET'S GET BACK TO GOOD COMMON
SENSE. THE OLD BILLBOARDS WERE JUST
FINE.
THEY PUT SOME DIGITAL ON THEM, THAT WAS GREAT.
BUT NOW WE'RE GOING OVERBOARD.
THE EYES CAN'T EVEN TAKE THE GLARING — THE LIGHTING THAT'S
GOING ON BACK AND FORTH.
THERE'S A LOT OF ACCIDENTS GOING ON BECAUSE OF ALL THE DIGITAL.
I HAD SOMEBODY REAR END ME ABOUT
TWO MONTHS AGO, AND HE TOOK OFF. AND THE GUY BEHIND ME CAME TO
HIM SAID I KNOW WHERE HE TOOK
OFF TO, SO I CHASED HIM — NOT CHASED HIM.
WENT TO THE PARKING LOT.
HE HAD HIS FOOT IN A CAST — >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I AM
ENJOYING THIS STORY, Mr.

FECH.
BUT YOU HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE POINT.
I DO WANT TO HEAR WHAT HAPPENED.
He had his foot in a cast? >> HE HAD A DIGITAL PROBABLY HOW
MANY PARKING SPOTS NEAR CHINOOK
CENTRE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M PARTLY
BEING FACETIOUS BUT IT'S THE
TRUTH. WE'RE BEING RAILROADED BACK AND
FORTH.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON ANYMORE.
OUR BRAINS ARE BEING ALMOST
MUSHED BECAUSE OF ALL THE TECHNOLOGY.
I'M GLAD I DON'T HAVE ALL THIS.
MY BRAIN IS WORKING JUST FINE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
COULD PROBABLY USE A BETTER
BRAIN AND A LITTLE LESS MUSH. >> Mr. MAYOR, YOUR BRAIN IS
JUST FINE.
YOU'RE INTO TECHNOLOGY SO HEAVY, YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING
WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERYONE AROUND
THESE TABLES WOULD AGREE WITH
YOU, Mr.

FECH. >> OH, THEY DO.
YOU'RE IN THE DIGITAL AND
EVERYTHING. BUT MY FINAL REMARKS ARE ALL
THIS IS JUST A CAMOUFLAGE AND
IT'S — IT WILL HAVE A BIG EFFECT.
THIS IS NOT LAS VEGAS.
NOT TIMES SQUARE. I'VE BEEN ALL THESE PLACES.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS LET'S GET
RID OF ALL THIS FLASHING AND MANIPULATING.
WE HAVE TO GET RID OF ALL THIS.
LET'S GO BACK TO COMMON SENSE, WHAT WE HAD.
I KNOW I KEEP REPEATING THESE
THINGS NOW AND THEN.

AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO
HEAR THAT.
BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO REPEAT IT. LET'S GET BACK WHAT WE HAD IN
THE PAST.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND.
NOT SPIN EVERYTHING.
WE'RE BEING SPUN OUT OF CONTROL. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING — I
CALL ITSELF IMPLOSION. LIKE THE ROMAN EMPIRE DAYS AND
SODOM AND GOMORRAH.
LET'S GET BACK TO GOOD COMMON SENSE AND THAT WILL WORK.
WE WILL SURVIVE A LOT LONGER IF
WE GET BACK TO THAT ERA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WORDS
TO LIVE BY. ANY QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
PROPOSAL?
ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT THEN.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND TAKE QUESTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION.
OKAY. WE'LL TAKE SOME DEBATE.
ALDERMAN MAR MAY HAVE —
ALDERMAN CARRA. ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION
TO ADMINISTRATION IS HAVE WE DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF — I'LL WAIT.
HAVE WE DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DIGITAL
SIGNS?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TODAY ONLY IDENTIFY
THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING SIGNS
AS A CERTAIN TYPE AND THE DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING
SIGNS AS A SPECIFIC TYPE.
IT DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE SIZES OF THE SIGNS.
>> SO IT'S MOTION VIDEO OR JUST
STATIC PRESENTATION IS WHAT THE DIFFERENTIATION IS.
>> THE DIFFERENTIATION IS MORE
OR LESS THE CONTENT.

WITH ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS
THE CONTENT IS RELATED TO THE
BUSINESS ON THE SITE WHEREAS THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING IS
RELATED TO A THIRD PARTY OR A
THIRD PRODUCT. >> SO THERE'S NO DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE VIDEO SIGNS AND SORT
OF A STATIC DISPLAY SIGN. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE AMENDMENTS
DO NOT ALLOW ANY FULL MOTION
VIDEO IN EITHER TYPE OF SIGN, ONLY STATIC IMAGES.
>> AND WHERE DOES THE VIDEO
ACTION THAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SIGN BY McMAHON STADIUM, WHERE
DOES THAT FALL INTO THE BYLAW?
>> AT THIS POINT IN TIME… YES, YOUR WORSHIP, THE McMAHON
STADIUM SIGN IS ON UNIVERSITY OF
CALGARY LAND AND SO IT IS EXEMPT FROM OUR LAND USE BYLAW PROVIDED
THAT THE SIGN DEALS WITH
UNIVERSITY MATTERS, UNIVERSITY ISSUES.
>> OKAY.
MY OTHER QUESTION IS, THERE IS A SIGN AND IT'S ON MACLEOD TRAIL
RIGHT AT THE MOUTH OF MISSION
ROAD.

AND IT'S HIGH UP ON A PYLON AND
IT FLASHES.
EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY IT I THINK I'M DEALING WITH A NOVA CAM.
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
WE HAVE HAD SOME ISSUES. HOWEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT SIGN DOES HAVE A PERMIT NOW
AS A THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGN DIGITAL AND SO I BELIEVE
IT'S OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PERMIT. >> THAT SIGN DRIVES PEOPLE
CRAZY.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY AND THE ESTHETIC DISCUSSION, THE
ESTHETICS DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE
HAVING. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'VE — I
THINK WE'VE BLENDED THEM, AND I
DON'T KNOW HOW TO PHRASE THIS QUESTION EXACTLY, BUT CAN YOU
GIVE ME SOME INSIGHT AS TO HOW
YOU GUYS SOUGHT TO DIFFERENTIATE AND/OR BLEND THAT WITHIN THESE
PROPOSED TEMPORARY LIPSZ….
[Indiscernible] >> TRY TO BE BRIEF.
THERE WERE BOTH ESTHETIC AND
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS AMENDMENT.
THE ONE THING THAT WE NEED TO
EMPHASIZE IS THAT THESE ARE INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO, AS
Mr.

VAN WEGAN MENTIONED, TO
MANAGE THE SITUATION UNTIL WE CAN HAVE FULL ENGAGEMENT AND A
PERMANENT SET OF RULES.
PART OF THE LONGER TERM PLAN WILL BE FOR US TO LOOK AT SOME
UPCOMING SAFETY STUDIES, ONE OF
THEM IS BEING DONE BY THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
TO LOOK AT THE SAFETY ASPECTS AND THAT REPORT IS DUE LATER
THIS YEAR, HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR
SOME TIME WHERE WE CAN GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SAFETY IMPACTS.
THE SECOND ISSUE WE'RE DEALING WITH WAS THE ESTHETIC AND
COMPATIBILITY ISSUE AND AS HAS
BEEN NOTICED AND DISCUSSED TODAY, WE DID NOT LIST DIGITAL
THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS IN
THE CORRIDORS, THE 17th AVENUE SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST,
16th AVENUE, KENSINGTON ROAD
ET CETERA. THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE FELT
THOSE AREAS ARE THE MIXED USE
AREAS WHERE COUNCIL'S POLICIES ARE SEEKING TO PROMOTE MORE
DWELLING UNITS AND MORE MIXED
USES. SO WE WANTED RATHER THAN A
DEFAULT DECISION FOR A DECISION
TO BE BASED ON POLICY AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD BE THE
RULES COMING OUT OF SOME POLICY
THAT WOULD OCCUR LATER. PART OF THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
MIGHT BE TO IDENTIFY SMALLER
SIZED SIGNS THAT ARE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED THAT MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE IN THOSE AREAS.
>> MY LAST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THIS, I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY
MIND AROUND THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE SIGNS.

WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF SAFETY
DRIVING THAT?
I HAVE — I MEAN, WE PUT UP A BUNCH OF CHARTS AND TALKED ABOUT
AS ROAD SPEED INCREASES PEOPLE'S
REACTION TIME DECREASES AND ALL OF THAT.
EXPLAIN THAT TO ME, BECAUSE, I
MEAN, I THINK — WE KNOW THAT ROADS HAVE A DESIGN SPEED AND
THEN ROADS HAVE A POSTED SAFETY
LIMIT. A SPEED LIMIT, RIGHT?
AND THE OLD SCHOOL OF ROAD
ENGINEERING WAS THAT WE WANT TO REMOVE OBJECTS THAT PEOPLE SMASH
INTO TO INCREASE SAFETY.
BUT, OF COURSE, THE FURTHER BACK YOU PLACE THINGS FROM THE ROAD
NOW WE KNOW THE FASTER PEOPLE
DRIVE. AND SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A POSTED
SPEED LIMIT, BUT THE DESIGNED
SPEED MIGHT BE A LOT HIGHER THAN THAT.
WE DO KNOW THAT SPEED KILLS.
AND SO AS WE TRY AND TRANSITION FROM AN AUTOMOBILE-FOCUSED
TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT TO AN
ENVIRONMENT THAT PUTS A LOT MORE EMPHASIS ON OTHER MODES AND
SEEKS TO BLEND THESE MODES
WORKING TOGETHER, EXPLAIN TO ME THE SETBACK WITHIN THE CONTEXT
OF THE NEW CTP AS OPPOSED
TRADITIONAL CONVENTIONAL WAY OF DESIGNING FOR ROAD SAFETY.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MAYOR NENSHI,
I'M WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
I GUESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO
CONCEPTS HERE WITH THE SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WE'RE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE — WE'RE
TRYING TO MANAGE COMPETITION FOR DRIVER ATTENTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES ARE PRIMARY, AND THEN MAYBE ONE PROPOSALS SIGN WOULD
BE SECONDARY AND THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING SIGN WOULD BE OUR LAST CONCERN IF DRIVERS ARE
SEEING IT OR NOT.
THE OTHER CONCEPT IS THE CLEAR ZONE THAT YOU MENTIONED.
IT'S MINIMUM IS 6 METRES.
IT IS USED TO SET BACK THE OBJECTS FROM THE THROUGH LANES
SO THAT THERE WOULD BE — NOBODY
WOULD HIT THESE OBJECTS.

SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TALKING
PROBABLY WHEN YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT PUSHING OBJECTS AWAY FROM THE THROUGHFARE.
>> YEAH.
AND I'M JUST — YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE FURTHER YOU SET
THINGS BACK THE MORE OPEN THE
SPACE, THE FASTER PEOPLE WILL DRIVE.
>> SO THESE ARE DIFFERENT.
>> ARE THEY? >> YEAH.
>> OKAY.
I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION IS TO YOU GUYS.
I THINK WHAT INDUSTRY IS SORT OF
PUTTING FORWARD TO US HERE IS THAT THE DIGITAL SIGN WHEN
RESPONSIBLY DEPLOYED IS NO
REAL — IS NOT REALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
AND IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPACTFUL, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
THAT'S A GREAT STORY.
UNLESS IT'S WAY MORE VISUALLY IMPACTFUL.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
>> CERTAINLY, YOUR WORSHIP, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN AND HEARD FROM
COMMUNITY SO FAR IS THAT DIGITAL
SIGNS DO HAVE A BRIGHTER, MORE VIVID PRESENTATION TO THE
PUBLIC, AND THAT'S WHY AT THIS
POINT IN TIME PENDING LONGER TERM STUDIES AND LONGER TERM
WORK WE'RE PROPOSING TO MANAGE
THEM ESSENTIALLY.

FAIRLY CONSERVATIVELY.
AND THEN DEVELOP MORE STUDIES
THAT CAN PERHAPS GIVE COUNCIL SOME MORE CONCLUSIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S HELPFUL OR NOT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN CARRA.
ALDERMAN MAR, YOU'RE NEXT BUT I SEE YOU'RE SCRU SCRIBBLING.
ARE YOU READY?
>> YEAH. YOUR WORSHIP, THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO MOVE A
REFERRAL OF CPC 2011-27 — I SHOULD GIVE THIS TO THE CLERK
RIGHT NOW.
AND CREATE A SPECIAL COUNCIL TASKFORCE TO BE COMPRISED OF
THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
INCLUDING THE CHAIR OF LPT AND TWO OTHERS TO BE APPOINTED BY
COUNCIL TODAY PERHAPS DURING THE
IN CAMERA SESSION TO REPORT BACK TO THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE
ON LPT NO LATER THAN JUNE 2011.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
DON'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT CANDLES AND LUMINS AND
NICKS OR KNOCKS OR WHATEVER THE HECK THEY ARE.
IT'S CONTROVERSIAL INSOFAR AS WE
ARE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE OF AN
INDUSTRY THAT IS INVOLVING
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND ADMINISTRATION AND I WOULD LOVE
TO SEE A SMALLER TASKFORCE THAT
WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE MUCH MORE CLEARLY THAN WE DO NOW
AND REPORT BACK AS A COMMITTEE
TO LPT AND THROUGH COUNCIL.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY REFERRAL
MOTION AT THIS TIME.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT?
THANKS, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.
ON THE REFERRAL MOTION, I'LL RUN
THROUGH MY LIST. IF IT'S ON THE REFERRAL MOTION.
IF TO HIS NOT I'LL LEAVE YOU ON
THE LIST IN CASE THE REFERRAL MOTION FAILS.
ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> THANK YOU. SO PERHAPS THE MOVER CAN ANSWER
IN HIS CLOSE.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ATTEMPT TO DO TODAY IS BRING
SOME RULES IN PLACE WHEN —
WHERE THERE IS NONE.

AND SO WOULD THERE BE AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD HAVE
A MORATORIUM ON THESE APPLICATIONS WHILE WE DELAY
FURTHER?
I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD WANT TO SEE SORT OF URBAN PERSPECTIVE
AND A SUBURBAN PERSPECTIVE
INCLUDED IN THIS? AND ALSO WHETHER OR NOT YOU
WOULD BE INCLUDING THE
STAKEHOLDERS SO THERE WOULD BE MORE MEANINGFUL STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT.
AND MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATION DURING THIS
DEBATE?
SO WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE — OH. DISAPPEARED ON ME.
THERE YOU GO.
WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE REPORT THAT'S COMING FROM THE
U.S.

THAT TALKS ABOUT THE IMPACT
ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND DIGITAL SIGNAGE?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THAT REPORT
INITIALLY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN JANUARY.
IT'S NOW MY UNDERSTANDING IS MAY
OF THIS YEAR. BUT OF COURSE THE TIME LINE ON
THAT IS OUT OF — NOT IN OUR
CONTROL. >> NO.
BUT IF IT DOES COME IN MAY, DO
YOU THINK THIS COULD HELP INFORM THAT COMMITTEE?
OR IS IT TOO LATE?
IT'S PART OF THE — >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TIMING
OF MEETINGS WOULD BE.
CERTAINLY THE SAFETY STUDY COMING OUT OF THE U.S. WAS
SOMETHING WE WERE DEFINITELY
GOING TO INCLUDE AS PART OF OUR LONGER TERM DISCUSSIONS ON THE
PERMANENT RULES THAT WOULD BE
PROPOSED TO COUNCIL. >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS
GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE US IS IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO
DIFFERENTIATE THE MORE
PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED URBAN CORRIDORS AS OPPOSED TO A MORE
SUBURBAN CONTEXT WHERE I THINK
IT NEEDS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY ARE ESSENTIALLY PROPOSING
THAT IN THAT THE DISTRICTS THAT
WERE NOT RECOMMENDING THE DIGITAL SIGNS BE LISTED, THE
C-CORE 1, THE C-CORE 2 AS WELL
AS THE INDUSTRIAL EDGE DISTRICT WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO
RESIDENTIAL.
ESSENTIALLY THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION TODAY AS WELL.
>> I DO SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN KENSINGTON AND MACLEOD TRAIL OR BLACKFOOT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NUANCE
IS COVERED IN THIS — IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL ASK —
WE HAVE A MAP, C-CORE 1 AND C-CORE 2, WE COULD SHOW THAT FOR
COUNCIL IF THEY'D LIKE TO SEE
THAT.

SO IS THAT THE RED…
SO THE RED COLOUR, YOUR WORSHIP,
WOULD BE THE C-CORE 1 AND THE C-CORE 2 DISTRICTS.
THE YELLOW IS JUST TO HIGHLIGHT
THE AREAS, JUST TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE RED IS, BUT IT DOESN'T
ENCOMPASS THE YELLOW AREAS, JUST
THE RED DOTS YOU SEE ON THE MAP. >> THE CONCERN ABOUT MACLEOD
TRAIL, WHERE DOES THAT COME INTO
PLAY? >> I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE
CONCERNS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED
WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED 300 METRE SETBACK FROM DWELLING
UNITS.
AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT
MAKING THAT RELAXABLE SO THAT IF
AN APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IT
COULD BE CIRCULATED TO LOCAL
COMMUNITIES AND DISCRETION COULD BE EXERCISED TO SAY REDUCE THE
SETBACK DISTANCE IF THERE WAS A
PHYSICAL OBSTACLE LIKE YOU'RE IN A VALLEY OR BEHIND A BUILDING,
REDUCING IT TO A LOWER NUMBER.
THAT IS AN OPTION AS WELL FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.

WELL, COUNCIL, I WILL SUPPORT
THIS REFERRAL.
WITH — RELUCTANTLY. WE TABLED THIS AT PLANNING
COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES AND I
THINK THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT WHILE WE DELAY MAKING A DECISION
ON THIS, WE SEE APPLICATIONS,
AND WITHOUT POLICY CONTEXT. BUT I'M HOPING THAT IF THE
INDUSTRY HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE
TIME TO WORK WITH CITY ADMINISTRATION, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL AND WITH THE COMMUNITY,
THAT THEY WILL DO THAT IN GOOD FAITH AND NOT TRY AND SQUEEZE IN
A NUMBER OF THESE DIGITAL
APPLICATIONS IN THE MEANTIME. IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN YOU'VE
LOST MY SUPPORT IN THE FUTURE.
SO I WILL SUPPORT IT WITH RELUCTANCE, BUT I DO HOPE THAT
WE LOOK AT THE URBAN CONTEXT
DIFFERENT FROM A MORE AUTO ORIENTED CONTEXT.
>> Mar Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN FARRELL, I WILL, IF YOU WANT TO, UP TO YOU, ACCEPT A
MOTION ARISING SHOULD THIS PASS
IF YOU D LIKE TO PUT IN A MORATORIUM IN PLACE.
I THINK I CAN DO THAT.
I THINK WE CAN DO THAT, I MEAN. FROM NOW UNTIL IN COMMITTEE
MAKES ITS REPORT.
>> I THINK THAT — >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NEVER
MIND OPINION MISS SLOAN SAYS WE
CAN'T DO THAT.

>> AS A MOTION ARISING OR —
EITHER.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: PRESUMABLY WE DON'T HAVE THAT
POWER.
>> I'M HOPING THAT THE INDUSTRY DISPLAYS SOME GOOD FAITH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT WAS
WORTH A GOOD TRY. HAVE I MENTIONED MANY, MANY,
MANY TIMES THAT THE MGA DOESN'T
GIVE US THE POWERS THAT WE NEED? ON THE REFERRAL MOTION, ALDERMAN
CHABOT.
>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THIS IS VERY MUCH REMINISCENT OF
WHAT IT'S LIKE AT HOME BEING
TOLD TO DO STUFF. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WHEN
YOU'RE THAT BRILLIANT, ALDERMAN
CHABOT, PEOPLE NEED YOU TO TAKE OPPORTUNITIES.
TRUST ME, I KNOW.
>> THAT'S INTERESTING. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSION AROUND THE RULES AND
I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF HAVING SOME
REGULATIONS IN PLACE.
AND I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT THE TIME LINE WAS THAT HE HAD
PUT ON THERE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: JUNE.

>> JUNE.
JUNE.
THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
AND I THINK WE COULD AT LEAST
COME CLOSE TO ULTIMATELY WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD INTERIM SOLUTION
AND PROVIDE SOME RULES AND
REGULATIONS AROUND THIS. I'M NOT SURE HOW I'M GOING TO
VET ON THIS THING — VOTE ON
THIS THING AT THIS POINT. ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT TO THE FACT
IT ADDS MORE WORK TO MY OWN
WORKLOAD. BUT…
ASSUMING THAT IT'S GOING TO
PASS. [Inaudible]
I'M CHAIR.
NOT MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THERE. SO, ANYWAYS, I DO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION, IF
I MAY VERY BRIEFLY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: GO
AHEAD.
>> IF WE WERE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE — AND I'M NOT SURE IF
ALDERMAN FARRELL ANSWERED THIS
QUESTION, I WAS TRYING TO READ THROUGH SOME OF THE STUFF THAT I
HAD, BUT IF WE WERE TO AMEND THE
LAND USE DISTRICTS WOULD THAT REQUIRE READVERTISING?
>> AMEND THE LIST OF DISTRICTS
IN THE LAND USE BYLAW? IN THE PROPOSED BYLAW?
I THINK MISS SLOAN IS NODDING
HER HEAD YES, IT WOULD REQUIRE READVERTISING.
>> SO WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY MAKE
AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY MAKE AN AMENDMENT AT SECOND
READING.
SO IF WE WERE TO PROPOSE EVEN AN AMENDMENT IT WOULD THEN
NECESSITATE THE NEED TO
READVERTISE AND HAVE A NEW PUBLIC HEARING?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YES.
SO I'LL LET MISS SLOAN ANSWER THAT BUT I WILL SAY IN ADVANCE
THAT, YES, THAT'S PROBABLY
RIGHT.

BUT IN FACT EVEN SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE BEING
SUGGESTED BY INDUSTRY TODAY, ESPECIALLY THE ONE ABOUT
CHANGING THE DISTRICTS TO WHICH
IT'S SUPPLIED WOULD IN FACT REQUIRE A READVERTISING AND THEN
ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT INITIALLY ADVERTISED.
MISS SLOAN, IS THAT FAIR?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND I'M JUST TRYING TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
HOW THIS PROCESS ACTUALLY MOVES FORWARD.
IF WE — WE CAN'T OFFICIALLY
AMEND THE BYLAW UNTIL SECOND READING.
SO ESSENTIALLY THERE WOULD BE NO
AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR UNTIL SECOND READING IN WHICH CASE THE
PUBLIC HEARING WOULD THEN BE
CLOSED. WHEN IT CAME BACK, IF WE DID
APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO IT AT
SECOND READING, IT WOULD NECESSITATE A READVERTISEMENT,
WOULDN'T REOPEN THE PUBLIC
PROCESS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THE PROCESS HERE.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IT REALLY DEPENDS WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A NEW
PUBLIC HEARING AND READVERTISEMENT WOULD BE
REQUIRED.
ADDING A USE TO A DISTRICT THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED
WOULD ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE A NEW
PUBLIC HEARING AND A NEW AD.

IF YOU WERE JUST TWEAKING RULES,
FOR EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF A 300
METRE SETBACK IT'S GOING TO BE A 250 METRE SETBACK, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL COULD DO
WITHOUT A READVERTISEMENT OR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OKAY.
>> ONE CAVEAT THAT I'D PUT ON THAT — NOT CAVEAT BUT ONE
ADDITIONAL POINT I'D MAKE IS THE
DIFFICULTY IS THAT A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH
RESPECT TO THIS BYLAW.
AND SO BY REFERRING THIS BACK AND HAVING A GROUP WORK ON THIS,
IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT IN NEW
PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED IN ANY EVENT BECAUSE
NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN
GATHERED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
SO THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A
PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL AS A READVERTISEMENT.
>> YEAH.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE ACTUALLY THAT THIS REFERRAL MOTION WAS MADE
BEFORE WE COULD ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENT SOME CHANGES, AT LEAST TO INITIATE SOME CHANGES AND
POSSIBLY HAVE AN AD HOC
COMMITTEE BE DIRECTED TO DEVELOP NEW OR ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES,
SPECIFICALLY IN RELATIONS TO
THIRD PARTY ADVERTISEMENT.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
A BETTER WAY FORWARD.
BUT I'LL LISTEN TO THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS AND THE
MOVER IN HIS CLOSE TO SEE
WHETHER OR NOT I CAN SUPPORT THIS.
STILL NOT THERE YET.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
NOT ON THE REFERRAL? ALDERMAN LOWE ON THE REFERRAL?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I'D LIKE TO
THANK MISS SLOAN FOR THE EXPLANATION AROUND THE EFFECT OF
THE REFERRAL BECAUSE I WAS A BIT
CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, TO BE FRANK, YOUR
WORSHIP, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY
COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE ON ADMINISTRATION'S WORK.
CANDIDLY.
OUR JOB IS TO GOVERN, NOT TO MANAGE.
HAVING SAID THAT, OBVIOUSLY I
CAN'T SUPPORT THE REFERRAL FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
I ALSO APPRECIATE THE FACT MISS
SLOAN REMINDED YOU WE CANNOT PUT A MORATORIUM IN PLACE.
WE HAVE A BYLAW AND APPLICANTS
ARE ENTITLED TO MAKE APPLICATION UNDER THAT BYLAW AND WE'RE
OBLIGED TO PROCESS THOSE
APPLICATIONS UNDER THAT BYLAW. SO THOSE ARE SORT OF THE SALIENT
FACTS AROUND IT.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE REFERRAL, OBVIOUSLY, YOUR WORSHIP, I WILL
NOT SUPPORT IT.
AND I'LL LEAVE MY LIGHT ON FOR FURTHER DEBATE.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M GOING TO TURN YOUR LIGHT OFF
ALDERMAN LOWE NOT BECAUSE I
DON'T WANT TO YOU DEBATE FURTHER, I WANT TO EXHAUST THE
LIST.
SO I'LL TURN IT RIGHT BACK ON AGAIN.
ALDERMAN KEATING ON THE
REFERRAL? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I DO NEED A COUPLE QUESTIONS OF
CLARIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATION AS WELL.
I THOUGHT I HEARD TODAY THAT
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING SIGNS — SORT OF THE
SIGN BYLAW ACROSS THE CITY IN
GENERAL.

IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> AND I THOUGHT THE TIME LINE WAS SOMETHING LIKE 18 MONTHS.
>> , THAT.
THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO IN THIS INTERIM OF 18
MONTHS, COULD ANYONE APPLY FOR A
REGULAR BILLBOARD, LIT OR NOT LIT, AND THAT MAY GO FORWARD
SEPARATE FROM IT BEING DIGITAL?
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THE PROPOSED APPEALS TODAY DO
NOT IN ANY — AMENDMENTS TODAY
DO NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE EXISTING CONVENTIONAL
BILLBOARDS.
>> SO MORATORIUM IS ONLY ON THE DIGITAL ASPECT NOT ON SIGNS IN
GENERAL, AND THEREFORE WITHIN 18
MONTHS WE'LL COME BACK WITH A POSSIBLY WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF
RULES.
>> THAT IS THE INTENTION, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> SO ON THAT RESPECT, THE
REFERRAL I KIND OF HAD WISHED IT DONNED THE TASKFORCE — DROPPED
THE TASKFORCE AS WELL BECAUSE WE
SHOULD HAVE REFERRED IT BACK TO THE 18 MONTHS AND GONE FORWARD
FROM THERE.
ON THAT POINT I WILL SUPPORT IT, THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN KEATING. ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
MacLEOD?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.

MY QUESTIONS RELATE TO I GUESS
IN PART WHY WE WOULD HAVE
COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS. AND I'M HOPING ALDERMAN MAR CAN
CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER. IN HIS CLOSE.
BUT I ALSO AM CURIOUS AS TOe/c W
THIS — REFERRING BACK FOR MORE INFORMATION, MORE DETAIL
DIFFERS — THIS IS AN INTERIM
POLICY. AND SO IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE
PERFECT AND IT'S NOT INTENDED TO
BE FINAL.

AND SO I'M GETTING THE SENSE
THAT IT'S LACK EVER
PERFECTEDNESS IS A BARRIER TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANYTHING.
AND I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DEAL
WITH THIS AS BEST WE CAN AS AN INTERIM MEASURE AND PUT THE TIME
LINES AROUND THIS.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM ADMINISTRATION ON THIS IS THAT
WHILE THIS HAS BEEN TABLED A FEW
TIMES, THEIR SENSE IS THEY NEED A BIT MORE DIRECTION ON WHICH
WAY TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE
COUNCIL HAS BEEN A LITTLE — MEMBERS OF COUNCIL HAVE BEEN A
LITTLE ALL OVER THE MAP.
IF I MAY SPEAK FOR ALDERMAN MAR, I'M SURE HE'LL MENTION IT IN HIS
CLOSE, I THINK THAT WAS THE
INTENT HERE.

ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD TOUCHED ON
SOME POINTS BUT PERHAPS A POINT PROCEDURE, DOES A REFERRAL
MOTION HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF
CONTENT AS TO WHAT THE PURPOSES OF THE REFERRAL IS FOR, WHAT
WE'RE REFERRING TO BACK TO
ADMINISTRATION TO DO WHAT PRECISELY, A LITTLE BIT TO THE
POINT OF WHERE WE'RE AT AT THE
POLICY PROCESS. I DON'T HAVE MY ORANGE BOOK.
I KNOW A DATE HAS TO BE IN
THERE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
EVERYONE LOOKING AT THEIR ORANGE
BOOK NOW. >> YOU'RE WELCOME, ANY TIME.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN POOTMANS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> I KNOW YOU ENJOY THESE
PROCESSES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: NO,
NOT REALLY.
>> NOT REALLY? >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AS
LONG AS THERE'S TERMS ON WHICH
THE REFERRAL IS PUT AND AFTER THIS LONG PUBLIC HEARING, AND
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS THAT WE'VE
RECEIVED, IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S TO CONSIDER THOSE AND COME BACK
WITH AN ANSWER.
>> TO CONSIDER. OKAY.
IT'S NOT EXPLICIT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I THINK IT'S CLEAR.
[Inaudible]
>> SO WE'RE REFERRING A REPORT TO A TASKFORCE INCLUDING THE
CHAIR OF CPC AND TWO OTHERS TO
BE APPOINTED AND TO RETURN.

THAT'S A BUNCH OF ACTIVITIES.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY'RE DOING
IN THE MEANTIME. LPT.
WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO BE DOING?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THEY'RE CONSIDERING — MAYBE
ALDERMAN MAR CAN SUGGEST THAT.
>> PERHAPS IN YOUR CLOSE, ALDERMAN MAR, I'D APPRECIATE
WHAT THE INTENT IS.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BUT ALONG
WITH OTHERS SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERING WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ENGAGED IN THIS AS COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE REFERRAL
MOTION? ALDERMAN JONES?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULD JUST
LIKE CLARIFICATION OF THE TWO OTHERS — IS IT TWO OTHERS FROM
ADMINISTRATION OR TWO OTHERS
FROM STAKEHOLDERS? YOU'VE GOT THREE MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL.
PLUS THE CHAIR OF LAND USE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION AND
TWO OTHERS TO BE APPOINTED BY
COUNCIL TODAY.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WHAT
=$
=$ COUNCIL ONE OF WHOM IS THE
CHAIR
OF LPT AND TWO OTHER MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL.
>> HE SAID IT TWICE THEN. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HIS
COMMA I THINK IS MISPLACED.
>> OKAY. [Inaudible]
>> SORRY, BUT ARE WE SUGGESTING
THAT THREE COUNCILLORS ARE GOING TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH NOBODY ELSE,
JUST THESE THREE? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS
REFERRAL SAYS.
PARDON? [Inaudible]
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT
ACTUALLY KIND OF DOES. >> IT DOES.
COME BACK TO LPT WITH THE REPORT
FROM THREE ALDERMEN. [Inaudible]
WELL, I JUST…
IF YOU'RE GOING TO RESPOND IN YOUR CLOSE, THAT'S NOT GOOD
ENOUGH BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW
WHO ELSE — >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: CAN
YOU RESPOND NOW, ALDERMAN MAR.
>> OKAY. SO THE INTENT OF IT IS, NUMBER
ONE, WHY DID I WANT TO USE IT AS
A SMALL AD HOC TEAM? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S
SOME SEVERELY ENTRENCHED
POSITIONS BOTH ADMINISTRATIVELY AS WELL AS THE INDUSTRY.
I THINK THAT A SMALL GROUP OF
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL LIKE WE HAVE DONE WITH SNOW AND ICE AND OTHER
COMMITTEES, THE PUBLIC SAFETY
TASKFORCE, WILL ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO DRILL DOWN TO THE REAL
NITTY-GRITTY OF THE ISSUE, TO
DETERMINE, HEY, WHAT CAN WORK FOR US AS A CITY, HOW DO WE WORK
TOGETHER WITH ADMINISTRATION AND
THE STAKEHOLDERS AND BRING TOGETHER A NEW PLAN THAT WILL
MAKE SENSE FOR EVERYBODY.
SO JUNE, I'M SAYING THAT AS THE LATEST DATE IF WE CAN BRING IT
BACK SOONER, THAT MAKES SENSE.
THE CHAIR OF LPT SHOULD BE ON IT BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO
LPT.
TWO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO BE DETERMINED IN IN CAMERA TODAY.
WE CAN MAKE A VERY QUICK
DECISION AS TO WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS.
AND WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE
THE — THIS TEAM WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DRAW FROM THE
RESOURCES OF ADMINISTRATION TO
ASK THE STAKEHOLDERS BOTH PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY TO COME TOGETHER
AND WORK TOWARDS AN AGREEMENT
THAT WILL MAKE SENSE AND CREATE A NEW BYLAW AS A RESULT.
THEN COME BACK THROUGH LPT AND
THE REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.

I THINK IT MAY NOT BE AS
DETAILED IN THE REFERRAL MOTION,
BUT I THINK THAT THE ESSENCE OF THERE WE COULD COME UP WITH THE
TERMS OF REFERENCE VERY, VERY
QUICKLY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE HOW THIS SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.
SO THAT'S THE RATIONALE.
AND I THINK THAT WHILE WE'VE ALL ENJOYED THIS FOUR-HOUR DEBATE,
THIS IS AN INELEGANT SOLUTION TO
THE PROBLEM AND WE CAN ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD ON IT IN SPITE OF
THE FACT THAT THIS KEEPS GOING
BACK TO CPC AND BOUNCING AROUND OUR ADMINISTRATION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT
ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE A CLOSE. DID THAT HELP, ALDERMAN DEMONG?
>> NO.
[Laughter] >> I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO ELSE
YOU WANT ON THE TASKFORCE.
AUDIT COMMITTEE YOU HAD A SPECIFIC — FOR THE SNOW AND
ICE.
>> IF YOU WANT ME TO APPOINT PEOPLE, CAN I APPOINT PEOPLE
RIGHT NOW.
I THINK THAT'S A VOLUNTEER.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
BELIEVE ALDERMAN DEMONG WILL BE
ONE OF THE PEOPLE APPOINT. >> ABSOLUTELY.
PETER, WELCOME ABOARD.
YOU AND ANDRE — >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
THINK, IF I MAY, IF I MAY —
>> I HAVE JUST LEARNED IN THIS COUNCIL ROOM WHAT'S WRITTEN —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
THINK I HEARD YOUR CONCERN AS BEING WILL THIS INVOLVE
ADMINISTRATION.
OR IS THIS JUST THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL GOING OFF AND MAKING A
DECISION.
IS THAT RIGHT? >> PRETTY MUCH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND I
THINK WHAT ALDERMAN MAR SAID WAS THAT THIS TASKFORCE WOULD, OF
COURSE, WORK WITH ADMINISTRATION
TO GO FORWARD.

AND IF YOU WANT TO ADD WORDS TO
THAT EFFECT —
>> IF I WANTED IT TO — IF I JUST WANTED IT TO BE THAT I
WOULD HAVE MADE IT THE CHAIR OF
CPC ALL BY HIMSELF. BUT IN REALITY —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU FOR NOT MAKING IT THE MAYOR ALL BY HIMSELF.
[Inaudible]
>> I MEANT CPS, I'M JOKING. I'M JOKING.
I THINK THE INTENT OF IT, IF I
HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THAT — >> EXCUSE ME.
I'LL JUST LEAVE AND YOU CAN
CLOSE IF YOU WISH. >> OKAY.
[Inaudible]
[Laughter] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE
ELSE ON THE REFERRAL MOTION?
BEFORE I CALL ON ALDERMAN MAR TO CLOSE.
WE'RE HAVING FUN HERE TODAY,
FOLKS.

ANYONE ELSE?
ALDERMAN MAR TO CLOSE.
>> YOU JUST TOLD ME TO SIT DOWN, NOW I'M STANDING AGAIN.
OKAY.
SO I HOPE THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF
IT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO MUDDY THE WATERS.
RATHER, I'M TRYING TO CREATE A
SMALL ELEGANT SOLUTION WHERE WE CAN HAVE A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, THREE IN NUMBER, ONE OF
THEM BEING THE CHAIR OF LPT. WE CAN FIND OUT WHO THOSE OTHER
MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE DURING
THE IN CAMERA SESSION OR WE CAN POLL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AS TO A
INTEREST AND B WILLINGNESS TO DO
IT.

SEEMS WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER RIGHT
THERE AND MAYBE ALDERMAN
PINCOTT'S DEMONSTRATING HE'S INTERESTED.
[Inaudible]
NO, NO, NOT ME. BUT ALSO THE INTENT OF IT IS
THAT WE CAN REPORT BACK TO LPT
WITH THE DECISION NO LATER THAT THAN JUNE.
IF WE CAN COME BACK SOONER AND
CREATE TERMS OF REFERENCE THEN OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO DRAW
UPON THE RESOURCES OF OUR
ADMINISTRATION, OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO TALK TO OUR
STAKEHOLDERS BOTH PUBLIC AND
INDUSTRY TO DETERMINE WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE GIVEN THIS NEW
TECHNOLOGY.
AND I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS.
THANK YOU.
CLOSED, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN MAR.
ON THE MOTION TO REFER, ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. (ROLL BEING CALLED)
(ROLL BEING CALLED)
CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP. 8-7.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
CARRIED. ALL RIGHT.
SO ALDERMAN MAR, I WILL ACCEPT A
MOTION TO ADD AS AN ITEM OF URGENT IN CAMERA BUSINESS THE
APPOINTMENT OF THAT TASKFORCE.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANK YOU.
JUST TO ADD THIS AS AN IN CAMERA
ITEM.

ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. ALDERMAN MacLEOD WHILE WE'RE
AT IT, I THINK YOU HAD AN ITEM
YOU WANTED TO ADD. >> SECOND.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MOVED
THAT ALDERMAN FARRELL HAD TO GO HOME.
IS THAT WHAT IT WAS?
>> TO ADD TO THE IN CAMERA ITEM AN ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS.
IS IT A PERSONNEL MATTER?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU CAN SAY WHAT IT IS, THE
APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY
BOARD. >> THE APPOINTMENT TO THE
LIBRARY BOARD.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU'RE SECONDING, ALDERMAN FARRELL?
ON THAT ONE ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
WE'VE NOW GOT 7.1 ON THE TABLE.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, ON A POINT OF PROCEDURE.
BEING AS COUNCIL JUST APPROVED
THIS APPOINTMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT SAID THAT WE'RE
GOING TO DO THIS TODAY, AT WHAT
POINT TODAY ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING THIS?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE
JUST ADDED IT TO THE AGENDA.

>> THAT'S WHAT THE APPOINTMENT
IS?
THAT'S NOT LIBRARY BOARD. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT'S
THE ONE THAT MAR ADDED.
>> SORRY, I MISSED THAT. I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW TO
RESIGN FROM CHAIR.
[Laughter] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU
HAVE UNTIL WE GET TO THE IN
CAMERA SESSION, ALDERMAN CHABOT. WE'VE GOT ITEM 7.1 ON THE TABLE
HERE AND I'M GOING TO TURN TO
MISS SLOAN SINCE WE'VE DISPOSED OF 7.2, CAN WE TABLE 7.1 AT THIS
POINT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, ON 7.1… [Inaudible]
>> I'M PREPARED TO IF YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT YOUR AGENDA THERE WAS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I MADE
AT PLANNING COMMISSION ON 2010
OCTOBER 28, WHICH FUNDAMENTALLY — DIDN'T
FUNDAMENTALLY, DID REVERSE THE
RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMISSION, GIVE FIRST READING TO
THE BYLAW, AMEND THE PROPOSED
BYLAW AS FOLLOWS. IN OTHER WORDS —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY.
>> ET CETERA, AND SO ON. I'M PREPARED TO MOVE THAT
RECOMMENDATION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: GIVEN THAT, GIVEN THAT WE STILL DO
NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING,
SO GIVEN THAT WHY DON'T WE GO TO Mr.

COPE AND LET'S GET
STARTED.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THE ITEM THAT IS BEFORE YOU
TODAY IS AN APPLICATION TO
DESIGNATE A SMALL PIECE OF LAND, THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED
ADJACENT TO McKNIGHT BOULEVARD
NORTHEAST BEING .006-HECTARES IN SIZE FROM THE EXISTING STI LAND
USE DISTRICT TO A DC DIRECT
CONTROL DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE A DIGITAL THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING SIGN.
THE PARENT PARCEL CURRENTLY HOUSES THE HERITAGE CHRISTIAN
ACADEMY WHICH IS A PRIVATE
SCHOOL. AT THE CURRENT TIME A TWO SIDED
THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGN
WITH A WEST FACING SIGN BEING A DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING
SIGN ARE LOCATED ON THE AREA TO
BE DESIGNATED.

THE SIGN IN QUESTION WITH THE
WEST FACE SHOWING THERE, NEITHER
SIGN HAS A VALID DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ALLOWING FOR THE USE.
BY WAY OF HISTORY, A THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING SIGN OR BILLBOARD AS THEY'RE COMMONLY CALLED WAS
APPROVED ON THIS SITE AS A
DISCRETIONARY USE UNDER THE I 2 DISTRICT OF BYLAW 2 P 80.
IN THE EARLY 1980s, WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF A REVIEW EVERY FIVE YEARS — A RENEWAL EVERY
FIVE YEARS.
THE LAST RENEWAL FOR THAT SIGN OCCURRED IN 1998.
IN 200, AN APPEAL TO THE BYLAW 2
P 80 OCCURRED WHICH PROHIBITED THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGNS ON
THIS PORTION OF McKNIGHT
BOULEVARD. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN CARRIED
THROUGH TO THE CURRENT BYLAW 1 P
2007. THE THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGN
HAS REMAINED IN PLACE WITHOUT A
VALID PERMIT SINCE 2003. IN 2008, THE THIRD PARTY SIGN
WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A
NEW DIGITAL THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING SIGN AGAIN WITHOUT
BENEFIT OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR THE NEW SIGN.

THE SIGN CONTRAVENED NUMEROUS
PROVISIONS OF BYLAW 1 P 2007 IN
TERMS OF SIGN LOCATION AND WAS ALSO NOT A LISTED USE IN THE SCI
LAND USE DISTRICT.
THE NEW SIGN WAS SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR REMOVAL
WITH THE ORDER ON HOLD PENDING
THE OUTCOME OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT THAT
TIME, THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHICH WAS
REFUSED.
THAT DECISION WAS APPEALED TO SDAB WHICH ALSO UPHELD THAT
REFUSAL.
AS A LAST RESORT, THIS LAND USE REDESIGNATION REQUEST IS THE
LAST OPTION AVAILABLE FOR THE
APPLICANT TO RETAIN THE ILLEGAL SIGN.
THE BYLAW THAT IS BEFORE YOU
THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
ITS PRIMARY FOCUS IS TO ALLOW
FOR THE USE TO OCCUR IN THE BASE SCI DISTRICT AND EXEMPT THE SIGN
FROM THE LOCATION PROHIBITIONS
ALONG McKNIGHT BOULEVARD.

SPECIAL RULES HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE ESTHETIC AND SAFETY-RELATED ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
FORWARD BY ADMINISTRATION.
IN THE EVENT THE REDESIGNATION IS CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATION
WOULD NOTE THERE ARE STILL
ISSUES WITH THE RATE OF CHANGE OF THE VARIOUS IMAGES AS WELL AS
WITH THE LIGHT INTENSITY
PROJECTED BY THE DIGITAL SIGN ITSELF.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE
PROPOSED BYLAW ALSO DOES NOT ADDRESS THE OTHER BYLAW
RELAXATIONS WHICH WILL EXIST ON
THE SITE, INCLUDING SEPARATION FROM OTHER NONTHIRD PARTY
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTRES OR
SEPARATION FOR A MAJOR OPEN SPACE.
THE BYLAW RELAXATIONS ARE NOTED
ON THE SCREEN AT THE PRESENT TIME.
WE DO HAVE SOME SITE PHOTOS.
THIS IS SHOWING THE SIGN WHICH IS IN PLACE, YOU CAN JUST SEE IT
TO THE RIGHT HAND OF YOUR
SCREEN. THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE
INTERSECTION OF McKNIGHT
BOULEVARD AT 19th STREET. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE DO
HAVE WITH THIS SIGN IS WITH
RESPECT TO SAFETY AND ITS LOCATION TO A MERGE LANE AND THE
WEAVING LANES FROM McKNIGHT
AND 19th STREET. THIS IS ANOTHER SIGN SHOWING THE
DISTANCE FROM AN EXISTING
MESSAGE — OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE
PORT OF CALL PROPERTY, 19th
STREET AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN AGAIN IN THE BACKGROUND
ADJACENT TO McKNIGHT
BOULEVARD.

THE NEXT SIGN — OR PICTURE
INDICATES THE RELATIVE CHANGE AT
NIGHT IN TERMS OF THE SIGN IN COMPARISON TO THE SURROUNDING
LIGHT SOURCES.
A SIMILAR — UNFORTUNATELY THE REFLECTION IS BAD ON THAT ONE.
[Inaudible]
SHOULD ALSO NOTE WE HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE RELATIVE
CHANGE OF INTENSITY OF LIGHT
BETWEEN THE DIGITAL SIGN AND THE ADJACENT…
AND THE ADJACENT THIRD PARTY
ADVERTISING SIGNS. PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT…
SORRY.
SIGN SHOWING THE RELATIVE CHANGE DURING THE DAY OF THE LIGHTING
OF THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN
WHICH IS IN THE FRONT FOREGROUND, AND TWO OTHER THIRD
PARTY SIGNS LOCATED FARTHER
AWAY. IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION,
THE ADMINISTRATION NOTED THAT
THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE BYLAW.
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROHIBITION
OF THIRD PARTY SIGNS ON McKNIGHT BOULEVARD NOR WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCI
DISTRICT. THE USE IS NOT CONSIDERED
COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT
PRIVATE SCHOOL AND THAT IS THE PRIMARY USE ON THE SUBJECT SITE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE INCORPORATION
OF THE DIGITAL COMPONENT RESULTED IN A NUMBER OF ESTHETIC
AND TRAFFIC SAFETY-RELATED
CONCERNS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
AND THOSE CAN BE EXPANDED UPON
BY OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY.
THE SIGN'S LOCATION IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE MAJOR INTERSECTION, MERGE AND WEAVE
LANES CREATES A SIGNIFICANT
POTENTIAL FOR DRIVER DISTRACTION AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CAN
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AS WELL.

ADMINISTRATION FOUND NO PLANNING
MERIT FOR USE THAT OTHERWISE
DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND USE
BYLAW.
SIMILARLY, THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT WOULD SUGGEST
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN
TO THIS PARTICULAR USE. IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION,
CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION HAD
NUMEROUS ISSUES. THESE INCLUDED THE SUITABILITY
OF THE USE, PARTICULARLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE DIGITAL COMPONENT OF THE SIGN, WHETHER OR NOT THE
USE OF A DC DISTRICT WAS
ACTUALLY THE APPROPRIATE METHOD TO DEAL WITH THIS TYPE OF AN
APPLICATION.
THERE WAS ALSO CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO ALLOW FOR THE SIGN TO
STAY IN PLACE UNTIL THE
COMPLETION OF THE OVERALL SIGN STUDY REVIEW IN 18 MONTHS TO TWO
YEARS.
AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LOCATING
THIS TYPE OF A SIGN IN THIS
SPECIFIC LOCATION.

AS THERE WAS A NUMBER OF VARYING
DEGREES OF OPINION ON THIS SIGN,
CALGARY PLANNING COMISSION WAS UNABLE TO COME TO A SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AS A
RESULT OF A SPLIT MOTION. AS SUCH, CPC MOVED TO FORWARD
THE APPLICATION TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING WITHOUT THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
THEREFORE, THE ONLY
RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS FROM ADMINISTRATION.
THAT BEING THAT THE
REDESIGNATION BE REFUSED AND THAT BYLAW 1 D 2011 BE
ABANDONED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU, Mr. COPE.
I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY Ms.
SLOAN THAT IF ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISHES TO TABLE THIS
MATTER, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME
TO PUT THAT MOTION FORWARD. BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
IS THERE SUCH A MOTION OUT THERE?
[Inaudible]
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I WONDER IF I COULD ASK MISS SLOAN THE EFFECT
OF A TABLING.
IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD ENFORCEMENT ACTION CONTINUE OR
WOULD IT GO INTO — BE ALLOWED
TO CONTINUE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EITHER THE TASKFORCE HAS
COMPLETED ITS WORK AND/OR THE
SIGN REVIEW THAT ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED…
[Indiscernible]
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE PARAMETERS OF THE
TAILING.
MY ADVICE IS THAT IF IT'S TO BE TABLED IT SHOULD BE TABLED TO A
SPEC DATE SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE
TO READVERTISE FOR A NEW PUBLIC HEARING.
GIVEN THAT A SPECIFIC DATE WAS
NOT SET FOR THE OTHER MATTER TO RETURN TO COUNCIL, I'M NOT SURE
HOW COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO
PROCEED WITH THAT.

>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOUR
WORSHIP, BUT I BELIEVE THE
TASKFORCE WAS TO REPORT BY JUNE, WAS IT NOT?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THE
TASKFORCE WAS SUPPOSED TO REPORT NO LATER THAN JUNE TO LPT.
MEANING AS IT WENDS ITS WAY
THROUGH THE PROCEDURE IF THERE'S A BYLAW CHANGE IT HAS TO GO TO
CPC WHICH MEANS IT MAY NOT GO
BACK TO COUNCIL BEFORE SEPTEMBER UNLESS THE TASK FORCE GETS IT TO
LPT BY MAY.
>> I WAS TO TABLE THIS NOW TO NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER, WOULD
THAT — WHAT WOULD THE EFFECT OF
THAT BE? >> YOUR WORSHIP, WED VER WE'D HE
TO READVERTISE.
WE NEED TO HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS TO COME
BACK IF THEY WISH TO SPEAK TO
THIS ITEM. >> WHAT'S THE PUBLIC HEARING
DATE IN DECEMBER?
WOULD THAT SATISFY IT? >> IT COULD.
ANOTHER OPTION IS TO TABLE IT TO
A DATE SOONER IF YOU SO CHOOSE AND IT CAN AGAIN BE RETABLED TO
A SPECIFIC DATE.
>> I'M THINKING ON MY FEET HERE FOR A MOMENT.
YOUR WORSHIP, I WILL TABLE THIS
MATTER.

>> Mr. CHAIR OR Mr. MAYOR,
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE AREA
ALDERMAN MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT. AS A COURTESY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU
KNOW, BY PROCEDURE ANYONE CAN DO IT.
I BELIEVE THE AREA ALDERMAN IN
QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ALDERMAN CHABOT NOW.
[Inaudible]
IT SAYS CHABOT ON THE THING. IF AS A COURTESY YOU'D LIKE TO
SEE IF ALDERMAN JONES —
>> I WILL HAVE ALDERMAN JONES IF HE WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS TO
THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IN
SEPTEMBER GIVEN THE JULY TENDS TO BE A BIT OF A ZOO.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN JONES? >> I KIND OF LIKE THE ONE IN WAY
BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO BE
HERE.

YOUR WORSHIP, I WAS THINKING OF
TABLING IT ANYWAY BECAUSE I FELT
WITH THE BYLAW THAT WAS BEFORE US, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO
MOVE A SECTION OF GG WHICH IS
McKNIGHT BOULEVARD SO I WAS THINKING OF TABLING IT AND I WAS
WAITING FOR MY TURN IN THE
LINEUP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MOTION
TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE FIRST
PUBLIC HEARING IN SEPTEMBER WHICH IS, MADAME CLERK?
12th OF SEPTEMBER.
ALDERMAN LOWE IS SECONDING IT. MOTION TO TABLE AS YOU KNOW IS
NONDEBATABLE SO ON THIS ONE ARE
WE AGREED? OH.
>> ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT DEBATABLE,
I CERTAINLY NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING
BEFORE I CAN VOTE ON THIS.
THAT'S REGARD TO…

[Indiscernible]
IS IT CONTINUE ON?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S A MISS SLOAN QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE CURRENT LAND USE WILL BE IN PLACE AND IF
THEY'RE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNDER THEIR CURRENT LAND USE, THEY CAN DO
SO.
IF THEIR PARTICULAR LAND USE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR IT, THEN THEY
ARE PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO.
I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR APPLICATION.
THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE
Mr. COPE CAN ANSWER. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
Mr. COPE?
>> AT THE CURRENT TIME, THE VERMONT PERMIT THAT THEY HAD
APPLY — DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THEY
HAD APPLIED FOR WAS REFUSED.

IT WAS REFUSED AT SDAB.
TRADITIONALLY THE ENFORCEMENT
ORDER WHICH IS STILL IN PLACE IS HELD OFF PENDING THE OUTCOME OF
ALL THE OPTIONS FOR REVIEW.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT THEN.
ON THE MOTION TO TABLE, THEN,
ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
VERY WELL THEN.
CARRIED. THANK YOU.
THAT TAKES US THEN TO ITEM 8.1,
THAT'S CPC 2011-031 PROPOSED STREET NAME AND LAND USE
REDESIGNATION IN SAGE HILL.
Mr. COPE. >> THANK YOU —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ONE
THING BEFORE YOU START. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I'M CLEARING
THE QUEUE ON THE LIGHTS JUST FOR
SIMPLICITY. IF YOU WANT YOUR LIGHT, TURN IT
BACK ON.
ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIRMAN.
I DO HAVE COLOUR MAPPING HERE
SHOWING THE UPDATED R 1 S DISTRICTS THAT WERE SUPPLIED BY
THE APPLICANT IF THEY'D LIKE TO
RECEIVE THOSE. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE
YOU IS AN APPLICATION FOR REDESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY
OF SAGE HILL.
ALONG WITH PROPOSED STREET NAMES FOR THE AFFECTED AREA.
THE AREA TO BE REDESIGNATION IS
8.99-HECTARES AS OUTLINED IN RED AND BOUNDS ON SYMONS VALLEY ROAD
NORTHWEST AND SAGE HILL DRIVE
NORTHWEST ON THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDE RESPECTIVELY.
PROPOSED REDESIGNATION WILL TAKE
THE LANDS FROM THE EXISTING S-FUD SPECIAL PURPOSE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT — FUTURE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND REDESIGNATE THE LANDS TO R 1
RESIDENTIAL, R 1 S RESIDENTIAL
TO ACCOMMODATE SECONDARY SUITES AS WELL AS M 1 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL
LOW PROFILE DISTRICT.
THE OUTLINE PLAN FOR THE AREA WAS CONSIDERED BY PLANNING
COMMISSION AND APPROVED.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF IT.

THIS MAPPING SHOWS THE UPDATED R
1 S DISTRICT WHICH CALGARY
PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING OCCURS ON THE
FLANKAGE LOTS ALONG THE ROADS IN
ALL THE AFFECTED AREAS. THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATIONS WERE
SUPPORTED BY PLANNING COMISSION.
SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE CHANGES TO THE R 1 S WERE
SUPPORTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THEREFORE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR COUNCIL TO ADOPT PROPOSED
STREET NAMES OF SAGE BLUFF, SAGE
HOLLOW AND SAGE POINT.

ADOPT A PROPOSED REDESIGNATION
FROM SFUD TO R 1, R 1 S AND M 1.
AND GIVE THREE READINGS TO BYLAW 22 D 2011.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, Mr. COPE. ANY QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION
FOR ADMINISTRATION?
ALDERMAN LOWE? NO.
ALL RIGHT THEN.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR
OF THIS ITEM?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR? >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, WITH BROWN AN
ASSOCIATING PLANNING GROUP. I HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM
KARMA, DA WATT AND STANTEC
ENGINEERING SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THANK YOU, THIS LOOKS JUST LIKE A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ONLY.
WHAT KIND OF OTHER AMENITIES ARE
THERE IN PROXIMITY TO THIS? BECAUSE ALL I SEE HERE ARE
HOUSES.
I DON'T SEE RECREATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> SURE.
AS PAR PART OF THE SAGE HILL COMMUNITY THERE'S A VAST AMOUNT
OF AMENITIES NEARBY.
TO THE SOUTHWEST GENESIS HAD APPROVAL FOR — THERE'S A
REGIONAL TOWN CENTRE WITH A TOD
AREA JUST SOUTHWEST, UNITED HAS APPROVAL FOR A MIX OF MORE
SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-DIRECTLY
TO THE WEST.

DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH IS THE
OTHER HALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
CELL. THIS CELL WAS SPECIAL IN THAT IT
WAS SUBDIVIDED WHEN IT WAS WITH
THE MD AND GOT ANNEXED IN. SO THAT AREA TO THE SOUTH GOT
REDEVELOPED — OR IT'S GONE
THROUGH LAND USE AND IT'S ALL HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY.
AND THEN TO THE EAST WE ALSO
HAVE AN APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE AREA AND SOME RESIDENTIAL, A
SCHOOL SITE AND TO THE NORTH
SOME MORE HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY.
AND JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT IS
THE WEST NOSE CREEK AREA. IT'S QUITE — OVERALL WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE ENTIRE AREA QUITE A
BIT HAS BEEN APPROVED TO DATE.

>> ANY COMMERCIAL RETAIL?
>> TO THE SOUTHWEST.
THAT WHOLE AREA, THERE'S A FUTURE MIXED USE AND THERE'S THE
OFFICE TRANSIT HUB.
BASICALLY EVERYTHING IN THAT SOUTH AREA THERE IS ALL REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL.
>> AND THAT'S 600 METRE LINE THAT I SEE THERE?
>> YES.
THAT'S THE TOD LINE. >> WHICH INCLUDES…
>> IT INCLUDES A PORTION — THE
DENSITIES TO THE SOUTH WERE APPROVED AT 31.8 UNITS PER ACRE.
SO WHEN YOU BALANCE ACROSS, WHEN
WE LOOKED AT THIS AND WHEN WE SAT DOWN WITH ADMINISTRATION
THEY WERE HOPING FOR MORE OF AN
8 TO 10 UNITS PER ACRE WITH THE STUFF TO THE NORTH TO KIND OF
BALANCE THE COMMUNITY.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY I THINK WE ENDED UP AT 17.2 UNITS
PER ACRE.
>> WHAT ABOUT MR DEDICATION? >> THE MR FOR THIS AREA WAS
GIVEN TO THE MD, THERE WERE TWO
SITES THAT WERE CREATED.

A SITE DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH IF
YOU LOOK AT THE VERY TOP OF THE
MAP. THERE'S A MUNICIPAL RESERVE
SITE.
WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION WITH PARKS AND THE FACT — OR MAYBE
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A
DISPOSITION AND TRANSFER SOME INTO THE CENTRAL PART OF THE
COMMUNITY.
WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT. THERE'S SOME STUDIES AND WHAT
NOT AND COMMUNICATION WE NEED TO
HAVE WITH PARKS.

JUCC DID LOOK AT THAT AS PART OF
OUR APPLICATION AS AN OPTION.
AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE IF EVERYTHING WORKED OUT WELL AND
IT WAS AGREEABLE BY BOTH PARTIES
THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT A DISPOSITION.
SO WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT
THAT. >> BUT THAT DOESN'T FORM PART OF
THIS —
>> THAT WOULD BE MOVING A PIECE OF MR WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS MOVING SOME
FROM THAT TOP PARCEL. >> BUT LEGISLATIVELY.
>> IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
NO. WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN ALL OF OUR
MUNICIPAL RESERVE.
>> DIDN'T MEAN TO BE — THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT? VERY WELL THEN.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL?
ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOUR?
[Inaudible] >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE CAN
ASK Ms. OBERT TO COME BACK.
>> I'M OKAY. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE
ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
ANYBODY ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL?
ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION.

VERY WELL THEN.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND TAKE QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND/OR
RECOMMENDATION.
ALDERMAN LOWE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I'LL MOVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING
COMMISSION THREE READINGS OF THE BYLAW AND I POINT OUT, COUNCIL,
THAT WHEN WE PUT THE R. 1 S LOTS
IN, THIS WAS VERY CAREFULLY DONE GIVEN THE SHAPE AND NATURE OF
THE LAND AND THE WAY THE
COMMUNITY WAS BEING DEVELOPED. SO THE — YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE
R 1 S LOTS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN
FLANKAGE FACILITATE PARKING AND THE RULES AROUND R 1 S AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT TODAY.
I'D ASK YOUR SUPPORT.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I FEEL
LIKE THAT ISSUE MAY COME UP
LATER IN THE AGENDA SOMEWHERE. JUST A SENSE.
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART
SECONDED. ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> THANK YOU.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION WITH THE TWO LONG LINEAR SORT OF BLACK
FRONTAGES THAT INTERNALLY I
ASSUME FRONT ON TO THE INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK BUT BACK ON TO SAGE
HILL DRIVE NORTHWEST AND BACK ON
TO SYMONS VALLEY ROAD NORTHWEST RESPECTIVELY.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION
FOR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF THOSE
DEFENCE WAYS THAT WILL BE
BACKING ONTO THOSE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS?
>> I BELIEVE STANDARD PRACTICE,
AND I WOULD STAND CORRECTED, IS THAT ANY STANDARD FENCES THAT
ARE BUILT AS PART OF THE
SUBDIVISION PROCESS ARE LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AND THEREFORE WOULD BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER.
>> SO WHAT WE START TO GET INTO
IS THE KIND OF MESS THAT WE'VE ALREADY LEARNED THAT WE'VE MADE
FOR OURSELVES WHERE YOU HAVE A
PRIVATELY OWNED FENCES THAT ENTER INTO VARIOUS STATES OF
REPAIR AND DISREPAIR, AND NO
MEANS TO DEAL WITH THEM EN MASSE.
>> UNLESS THE FENCE IS BEING
MAINTAINED AS PART OF A SOUND ATTENUATION DEVICE —
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING, YES.
HAS THAT BEEN THE CASE? >> I'M NOT SURE FOR SAGE HILL
DRIVE NORTHWEST, I THINK THAT
MAY JUST BE A COMMON FENCE TO PREVENT ACCESS TO SAGE HILL
DRIVE.
I BELIEVE ALONG SIGN REVIEW MONTHS — SYMONS VALLEY ROAD
NORTHWEST THERE IS A GRADE
DIFFERENTIAL THERE SO THE NEED FOR SOUND ATTENUATION FENCING
MIGHT NOT BE REQUIRED.
HOWEVER, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE JUT LINE PLAN TO CONFIRM
THAT.
>> — OUTLINE PLAN TO CONFIRM THAT.
>> IN GENERAL, I UNDERSTAND THE
LAYOUT OF THIS BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING MISTAKES BY
CREATING PROPERTY THAT IS SINGLE
LOADED AND SURROUNDED BY RIGHT OF WAY ON BOTH SIDES.
WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY DOING IS
CREATING PROPERTIES THAT COULDN'T EVEN BEGIN TO
ADDRESS — THEY'VE GOT TWO
ROADS, BASICALLY.

SO FROM THE PROPERTY TAX BASE
THAT WE'RE PULLING OUT OF THE
AREA, WE'RE DOUBLE LOADING THE TAX LOAD.
AND FROM A MAINTENANCE
PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE STARTING TO CREATE PROBLEMS.
WAS ANY OF THIS DISCUSSED AT
CPC? >> NONE OF THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT
CPC, NO.
>> SO SYMONS VALLEY ROAD, WHAT'S THE CLASSIFICATION OF THAT ROAD?
>> I BELIEVE I IT IS A MAJOR.
YES. MAJOR.
>> AND THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE
STREET FROM THE SCHOOL SITE? >> SCHOOL SITE WOULD BACK ONTO
IT, YES.
>> IS THERE ANY — IS THERE ANY PROVISION MADE FOR KIDS WHO LIVE
IN THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD TO CROSS
SYMONS VALLEY SCHOOL SITE? >> ONLY AT THE INTERSECTIONS
CONTROLLED BY TRAFFIC LIGHT.
>> IS IT A MONO SIDEWALK OR A SEPARATED SIDEWALK ALONG
136th AVENUE?
>> WHICH IS THE SOUTH BOUNDARY THERE?
>> YEAH.
>> I SUSPECT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A MONO.
COULD BE EITHER, APPARENTLY.
>> IT COULD BE EITHER? >> COULD BE EITHER.
>> SO THIS HAS NOT BEEN WORKED
OUT YET.

>> NO —
>> WORKED OUT —
>> DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PART OF THE SUBDIVISION.
>> HOW DO I FIND OUT ABOUT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE — BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY GOT OURSELVES INTO
A MESS WITH THIS.
ARE WE REPEATING MISTAKES OF THE PAST?
ARE WE CONSIDERING THIS?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MAYBE I COULD JUST ADD THERE IS A REVIEW
UNDERWAY CURRENTLY OF THE FENCE
MAINTENANCE POLICY FOR THE REASONS YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AND
IT'S BEING LED BY THE DIRECTOR
OF ROADS AND I BELIEVE ALDERMAN STEVENSON HAS BEEN ONE OF THE
PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE BEHIND
THAT. SO THERE IS A REVIEW GOING ON.
I'M NOT SURE OF THE TIME FRAME
FOR REPORTING.

BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN ISSUES IN THE PAST OF
EXACTLY THE NATURE THAT YOU'RE IDENTIFYING.
THERE ISN'T A QUICK ANSW TO
IT, UNFORTUNATELY. >> SO I'VE ALSO ASKED TO BE
PART — ALDERMAN STEVENSON, HAS
THAT COMMITTEE MET YET SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT IT?
>> NO, IT'S MOVING SLOWLY.
>> IT HASN'T MET. I JUST WAS IN A MEETING ABOUT
THREE OR FOUR WEEKS AGO JUST TO
GET THE BALL ROLLING.

>> I'M EAGER TO BE A PART OF
THAT AS WELL.
AND I'M JUST QUESTIONING ARE WE JUST CREATING MORE OF A MESS FOR
OURSELVES BEFORE WE'VE SOLVED IT
HERE? >> UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ISN'T AN
EASY ANSWER TO IT.
>> THE EASE I WHY I ANSWER IS TO — EASY ANSWER IS TO PUT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THAT FENCE INTO
SOME KIND OF COMMON TITLE. DOES THAT HAPPEN HERE OR AT THE
DB STAGE?
>> EVEN WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING THAT UNFORTUNATELY
ISN'T THE ANSWER AS I UNDERSTAND
IT. IT'S QUITE A COMPLEX WEB OF
LEGAL INTRICACIES.
THERE ISN'T A SIMPLE ANSWER TO IT AND WE COULDN'T DO SOMETHING
HERE ON THE FLOOR OF COUNCIL IN
THAT REGARD.

>> WOULD IT HAPPEN AT THIS STAGE
OR WOULD IT HAPPEN AT THE DP
STAGE? SOLVING THIS IN TERMS OF —
>> THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THAT. >> OKAY SO THEY GO RIGHT TO A
BUILDING PERMIT.
>> THE INDIVIDUAL HOMES DO THEIR — THE COMMON FENCE WOULD
BE PROVIDED.
BY THE DEVELOPER. BUT IT'S THE ISSUE OF LONG-TERM
MAINTENANCE THAT WE ARE
GRAPPLING WITH AND HOW BEST TO HANDLE IT.
IT IS CHALLENGING.
>> SO IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING SOLVED IT, WE'RE CREATING MORE
ISSUES FOR OURSELVES BY —
>> WELL, WE'RE HOPING TO FIND A SOLUTION, BUT WE ARE ADD TO THIS
EXISTING DILEMMA.
>> OKAY.

THANK YOU.
[Please Stand By]
>> DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. APPROVAL.
>> AGREEMENT, YES.
>> FOR THE SERVICE. >> THERE'S NOTHING AS YET ON
THIS, IS THERE?
>> NO, ONLY THE OUTLINE PLAN HASN'T BEEN APPROVED.
THE CONDITION — TERMS OF
DEVELOPMENT? >> NO, AS FAR AS THAT PERMIT OF
FENCING.
>> NO, NOTHING AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY.
SO WE HAVEN'T REALLY CREATED
THIS PROBLEM YET. >> PHYSICALLY WE HAVE NOT, NO.
>> OKAY.
WE'RE WORKING ON CREATING A PROBLEM.
>> WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
HALF LAUGH. >> IN REGARDS TO REGIONAL
MOBILITY OPTIONS, ALL I SEE
ISMONLITHIC SIDEWALKS. I DON'T SEE ANY REGIONAL
PATHWAY.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE? >> BELIEVE THE PATHWAYS WERE
SHOWN IN THIS LOCATION MAP
RUNNING ALONG THE RAVINE ALONG 37th — OR SORRY, SAGE HILL
DRIVE NORTHWEST, THE RED LINES.
SO THIS AREA WILL CONNECT TO THE WEST, DOW DOWN TO THE RAVINE SYM
AND OVER TO WEST NOSE CREEK.
OTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO CONNECT THROUGH THE SIDEWALK
SYSTEM INTO THE REGIONAL NETWORK
ALONG THE CREEK.

>> UNLESS SOMETHING COMES UP
FROM THE SOUTH THROUGH THAT
OTHER DEVELOPMENT. >> WE'LL LEAVE THAT — I BELIEVE
THAT IS THE CASE BUT THERE'S
ALWAYS THAT OPTION I SUPPOSE. >> THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBJECT TO A
PLAN YET?
>> THE LANDS TO THE SOUTH HAVE OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL AND LAND
USE.
>> OKAY. AND NO REGIONAL PATHWAY GOING
THROUGH THERE?
>> NO, I BELIEVE IT'S SHOWN ALONG SAGE HILL DRIVE.
>> AND WHERE THAT FUTURE SCHOOL
SITE IS THERE, WHAT IS THAT I SEE IN BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER,
IS THAT A LITTLE BIT OF GREEN
SPACE THERE, FUTURE SCHOOL SITE TO THE EAST?
YEAH, IF YOU KEEP FOLLOWING THAT
THROUGH, YEAH, RIGHT THERE, RIGHT IN THAT LITTLE CORNER DOWN
THERE IS THAT A LITTLE BIT OF
GREEN THAT I SEE THERE.

>> YES, THE RED LINE WOULD BE
THE PATHWAY THAT RUNS THROUGH
THE NOSE CREEK SYSTEM. THAT WOULD BE THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN THE ADJACENT — I
BELIEVE THAT'S THE EXISTING FARMSTEAD DOWN THERE WHICH IS
BEING PRESERVED.
>> THAT LITTLE GREENSPACE I SEE THERE GOING EAST-WEST.
>> I SEE, I'M SORRY, YEAH, THAT
WOULD BE A CONNECTOR FROM THE ROADWAY INTO THE NOSE CREEK PARK
SYSTEM, WEST NOSE CREEK PARK
SYSTEM. >> ALMOST LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT
CONNECT UP.
OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I
HAVE.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS
VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN CHABOT, ANY
QUESTIONS OR ADMINISTRATION OR DEBATE ON THIS MATTER?
YES.
>> WHOSE DIAGRAM IS THIS? WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS
DIAGRAM?
>> I WAS PROVIDED TO US BY BROWN AND ASSOCIATION.
>> I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS
WHY A WALKWAY WHICH IS THE LINEAR FEATURE IS DELINEATED BY
AN ASTERISK.
>> SORRY, THOSE RED ASTERISKS, AM I READING THAT RIGHT THAT
THAT'S A PROPOSED WALKWAY.
>> NO, THE WALKWAYS ARE SHOWN IN RED.
THE RED.
>> SO WHAT'S THE ASTERISK? ACCORDING TO THE LEGEND.
THE RED STARRY THING.
>> I'M SORRY, THEY MUST BE THE THREE-METRE WALKWAYS THAT
CONNECT ROADWAYS TO OTHER ROAD
WAIST BETWEEN LOTS.

ROADWAYS BETWEEN LOTS.
>> OH, I SEE THERE.
THERE ARE CONNECTIONS THROUGH CUL-DE-SAC FOR HUMANS AS OPPOSED
TO CARS.
>> MAJOR ROADS. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN MAR.
ALD LOWE, DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE?
WHAT DID I SAY? OH, DEAR!
(LAUGHTER)
CLOSED. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN,
ARE WE AGREED?
>> AGREED. >> ANY OPPOSED?
I THINK I JUST SAW TWO, LOWE —
OH, MY GOSH. LOSING ALL YOUR NAMED.
CARRA AND FARRELL ARE OPPOSED.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.
WE'LL GO INTO THE READINGS IN
THE BYLAW THEN. FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW, ARE
WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRA IS OPPOSED AND FARRELL.
SAME DIVISION COUNCILLOR, ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
HOW DO WE DO THAT? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW?
SAME DIVISION, ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING
OF THE BYLAW, THIS ONE I HAVE TO
DO SEPARATEDLY. AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
VERY WELL THEN. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW SAME
DIVISION, AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
SAME DIVISION THEN.
THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO 8.2.
"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." ROAD
CLOSURE AND LAN LAND-USE REDESIGNATION IN SCARBOROUGH,
ITEM CPC 2011-32.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. IT INCORPORATES A ROAD CLOSURE
APPLICATION, 2RC 1 THE ADJACENT
LAND USE IN SITE. THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SHOWN ON
RED IN THE LOCATION MAP AND THE
LAND WHICH CURRENTLY FORMS PART OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY AND IS
NOT REQUIRED FOR TRAVEL.
PROPOSAL IS TO DISPOSE OF THIS CLOSED ROAD AND SELL THE LAND OR
EXCHANGE THE LAND WITH THE
CHURCH ON THE ADJACENT SITE.

THE PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED
CLOSURE AND GIVE THREE READINGS
TO BYLAWS 3C-2011. AND SECONDLY THAT THEY ADOPT A
PROPOSED REDESIGNATION FROM
UNDESIGNATED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO RC 1 AND GIVE THREE READINGS
TO BYLAW 23-D-2011.
AREA IN QUESTION BEING SHOWN ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, Mr. COPE. ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION
FOR ADMINISTRATION?
ALDERMAN CARRA, CLARIFICATION? >> I'M ASSUMING THAT THE
LAND-USE REDESIGNATION IS TO
BRING IT — IS THE CHURCH CURRENTLY THE —
>> THE CHURCH IS CURRENT ZONED
RC 1. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, Mr. SCOPE. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING,
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR
OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT, THEN, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
ALDERMAN MAR?
>> AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ADMINISTRATION.
THANK YOU.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.
ALDERMAN FARRELL IS SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON
THIS ONE?
ALL RIGHT, THEN, ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. BYLAW 3C2011, FIRST READING OF
THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED, SECOND READING OF THE
BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING
OF THE BYLAW, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. AND ON BYLAW 23D2011, FIRST
READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE
AGREED? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. AND THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW
ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
VERY WELL.
THANK YOU.

ITEM 8.3, PLEASE.
CPC-2011-33.
LANLAND-USE REDESIGNATION IN SHAPREL.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE AREA IS OUTLINED IN RED ON YOUR LOCATION MAP ON THE SCREEN.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO TAKE THE LAND
FROM THE EXISTING R2M RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE
DWELLING DISTRICT AND
REDESIGNATE THE LANDS TO R2 RESIDENTIAL ONE AND TWO DWELLING
DISTRICT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REDESIGNATION IS TO ALLOW FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
SITES WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED TO HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH ZERO LOT LINE TYPES SINGLE
DETACHED DEVELOPMENT.
SHOULD NOTE AS A RESULT OF THIS REDESIGNATION THERE WILL BE NO
CHANGE FOR THE ACTUAL DENSITY OF
THE SITE, 59 LOTS ACTUALLY CONTINUING TO BE DEVELOPED.
ROPOSED REDESIGNATION WILL ALLOW
FOR THE SINGLE DEATTACHED HOMES TO BE CONSIDERED A USE LEADING
TO A DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR EACH OF THE SITES.

THEREFORE CONSIDERATION OF THE
FACTS ARE RECOMMENDING THAT
COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED REDESIGNATION FROM R2M TO R2 AND
THAT THREE READINGS BE GIVEN TO
PROPOSED BYLAW 24D-2011. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS
VERY MUCH, Mr. COPE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN
CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. Mr. COPE, R2 LISTS SECONDARY
SUITE SAYS AS A PERMITTED USE SO
IF IT TRANSITION TO R2 IT COULD BE 59 LOTS WITH SECOND —
>> PERMITTED USES THERE WOULD BE
THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR SECONDARY SUITES IN EACH OF THE UNITS,
YES.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR
OF THIS APPLICATION?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, CATHY OVER WITH BROWN
AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING GROUP.
ON BEHALF OF GEN TAR, WE'RE THE APPLICATIONS, I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I HAVE
ONE.
I THOUGHT I HEARD Mr. COPE SAY THAT THE OVERALL DENSITY IS NOT
CHANGING.
>> IT WON'T CHANGE.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO
WE'RE MOVING TO A PLACE WHERE IT
COULD HAVE DUPLEXES. >> IT COULD HAVE TAKEN
SEMIDETACHED AND INSTEAD WE'RE
LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PRODUCT THAT MAINTAINS THE SAME DENSITY,
EXCEPT WITH THE ZERO LOT LINE IT
GIVES ANOTHER PRODUCT IN THIS AREA.
GOT QUITE A BIT OF SEMIS.
IT OFFERS ONE OTHER CHOICE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THESE
WILL BE DETACHED.
>> YES, THE SERVICING AND THE WAY IT'S BEEN LOT OUT WE COULD
DO EITHER WAY.
THE ZERO LOT LINE OR THE SEMIDETACHED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT, AL ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> YES,CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE CLARITY AS TO WHAT THAT
LOOK LIKE TECHNOLOGICALLY?
>> SURE.

SURE.
SO THIS HERE IS JUST A SAMPLE OF
WHAT A ZERO LOT LINE PRODUCT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THE TENTATIVE PLAN HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED FOR THIS AREA AND WHETHER WE GO SEMI DETACHED
UNITS OR WE GO WITH THE SAMPLE
STREETSCAPE, IT WOULD LOT OUT EXACTLY THE SAME.
THE ONE THING WE WILL HAVE TO DO
WITH THE ZERO LOT LINE IS WE DO HAVE TO SUBMIT A COMPREHENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE WHOLE
AREA BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING WITH A ZERO LOT LINE.
THERE'S BASICALLY A RELAXATION
AND THERE'S SOME OTHER BUILDING CODE COMPONENTS THAT KICK IN.
BUT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER LEVEL
OF APPLICATION THAT GETS SUBMITTED.
ON A COMPREHENSIVE LEVEL AND
THAT WILL GIVE THE CITY THE ASSURANCES OF THE PRODUCT THAT
WOULD BE GOING INTO THE ZERO LOT
LINE PRODUCT.

>> EXPLAIN WHAT ZERO LOT LINE
HOW THAT APPLIES TO WHAT LOOKS
LIKE — >> IT'S A TYPICAL.
IT GIVES A FIVE-FOOT DISTANCE
BETWEEN THE HOUSES. THERE'S FIRE CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE
HOUSES SO THEY END UP A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TOGETHER SO
ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE ALMOST TAKING
THE DISTANCE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE WITH A SEMI, YOU'RE GIVING A
LITTLE BIT MORE KIND OF BETWEEN
THE HOUSES, NOT AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD GET IN A TYPICAL
SUBDIVISION OR A TYPICAL R1
ZONING, FOR EXAMPLE, OR R2 ZONING BUT IT JUST BRINGS THEM A
LITTLE BIT CLOSER AND YOU GIVE A
DIFFERENT PRODUCT SO YOU END UP WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BUT
AT THE SAME DENSITY LEVEL AS A
SEMI. SO A DIFFERENT PRODUCT FOR THE
AREA THAT WILL — MARK IT
CURRENTLY AS JUST RESPONDING TO VERY WELL.
>> WHAT DOES THE GLAZING LOOK
LIKE ON THOSE, ON THE SIDE YARDS.
>> I MIGHT HAVE TO GET PAUL FROM
GEN STAR TO TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE HE'S BEEN IN CONTACT
WITH THE BUILDERS MORE SO THAN
MYSELF.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> NO, I'M INTERESTED IN THAT.
IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'RE GOING FOR LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY
OF TOWNHOUSES WITHOUT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY OF PARTY WALLS, SO IF WE'RE DOING
THAT THE QUESTION IS WHAT ARE
THE BENEFITS AND I WOULD HOPE IT'S SORT OF LIKE THE FLOOD OF
LIGHT THAT ENTERS THE SPACES,
BECAUSE OF ALL THE GLAZING ON THE SIDE WALLS BUT WITH SIDE
FEET THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR LOW
UNDER THE FIRE CODE SO I'M JUST CURIOUS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN CARRA I TOO AM CURIOUS AND THIS IS VERY INTERESTING AND
I WILL ALLOW IT BUT I SHOULD
WARN YOU WE'RE GOING BEYOND OUR JURISDICTION ON PUBLIC HEARING
BUT I'LL ALLOW IT BECAUSE IT'S
INTERESTING.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A POINT
OF CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>> PAUL WITH GENSTAR. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION
WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS NOT WINDOWS ON THE HOUSES THERE.
IN BETWEEN EACH HOUSE.
FOR FIRE REASONS. >> THIS IS NOT IN THE INNER CITY
WHERE YOU SEE INFILLS THAT SOME
OF THEM ARE ATTACHED AND SOME OF THEM ARE DETACHED BUT THEY'RE
QUITE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
THIS JUST ALLOWS THE HOUSE TO BE BUILT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE
AND THERE'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
>> OKAY. SO YOU HAVE ONE WALL OF THE
HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND
THEN YOU GOT FIVE FEET AND THEN YOU GOT THE WALL OF THE HOUSE.
IS THERE A SIDE YARD
CONTEMPLATED IN THAT SPACE OR THERE —
>> THERE'S ACCESS EASEMENT ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF EACH HOUSE.

SO THERE'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT SO
THE OTHER HOUSE HAS ACCESS ALONG
THE SIDE YARD. THIS PRODUCT IS ACTUALLY QUITE
COMMON IN THE CIT CITY OF CALGA.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE'RE
GETTING TO AREAS OF SAFETY CODE,
WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
>> YEAH, WELL JUST A POINT —
JUST TO POINT OUT WHAT I MEAN. YEAH, I GUESS I WAS ASKING, I
MEAN, WE'VE ASKED FOR CERTAIN
DENSITY AND AT CERTAIN DENSITIES YOU GET CERTAIN EFFICIENCIES AND
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REMOVING
THAT EFFICIENCY FOR AN AESTHETIC LOOK.
I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND
AROUND THIS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: FAIR
ENOUGH.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT WHO HAS ALREADY LEFT?
ALL RIGHT, THEN. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN
FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL?
ALL RIGHT.
THEN. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND — OH, YEAH, SHOULD WE
FINISH THIS ONE? ALDERMAN DEMONG?
>> LIKE TO MOVE THE
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND
THREE READINGS OF THE BYLAW.

THANK YOU, DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE?
ALL RIGHT THEN ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE IN FAVOUR?
AGREED.
THANK YOU, ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ON FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW
AGREED? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED.
CARRIED. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
VERY WELL, THEN.
WE'RE RECESSED UNTIL 3:47. "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 POSSIB
>> EIGHT.
I COUNTE COUNTED AND WE'RE BACKT BARELY.
>> I'M BACK.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO WE ARE NOW AT ITEM 8.4 IN YOUR
AGENDA.
CPC-201-1034. 2011-034.
LAND USE REEXIT DESIGNATION IN
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF MAHOGANY, Mr. COPE.
>> THAN THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
YOUR AFFECTED BY THE PROSED REDESIGNATION IS OUTON THE
SCREEN.
SPECIAL PURPOSE URBAN NATURE DISTRICT AND REDESIGNATE THE
LAND TO SSPR FOR MUNICIPAL PARK
AND SPECIAL PURPOSE REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT TO
ACCOMMODATE A LIST STATION.
THOSE LANDS WERE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATE AS PART OF AN OUTLINE
PLAN PROCESS.
AT THAT TIME IT WASN'T RECOGNIZED AT THE MAIN PATHWAY
SYSTEM WOULD RUN THROUGH THE
NATURAL AREA.

THE S.U.N DISTRICT IS INTENDED
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE TYPE
USES. THAT WILL CORRECT THE SITUATION,
DESIGNATE TO LAND TO SSPR AND
EVENTUALLY MR MUNICIPAL RESERVE AS WELL AS THE PURPLE AREA BEING
USED AS A LIST STATION.
THIS WILL ACCOMMODATE THE OUTLINED PLAN AND IT WAS
SUPPORTED BY THE CALGARY
PLANNING COMMISSION. IN THAT RESPECT THE CALGARY
PLANNING COMMISSION IS
RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PRODAYSED REDESIGNATION AND
THAT WILL READINGS BE GIVEN TO
THE BYLAW. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THERE, Mr.

COPE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION?
SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE TO WISH TO SPEAK IN
FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL?
ANY IN OPPOSITION.
VERY WELL, THEN. ALDERMAN KEATING?
>> SO MOVE THE BYLAW AND THE
THREE READINGS. THANK YOU.
>> RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> (INAUDIBLE). >> CARRIED.
>> (INAUDIBLE).
(AUDIO DIFFICULTIES). >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE
WOULD REFER — OR THAT WE,
SORRY, TABLE THIS FOR TWO MONTHS, PLEASE.
THE REASON IS THERE'S A CENTRE
STREET QUARTER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY THAT'S GOING TO BE DOIN'
THIS AREA AND I'M NOT CLEAR ON
WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN THIS AND THAT STUDY.
AND WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: (INAUDIBLE).
>> YES.
THAT'S THE MAY 9th.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
(INAUDIBLE).
>> YES, I MAY THROUGH TO CHAIR THROUGH Mr. WATSON.
JUST WONDERING AS TO THE TIMING
OF THIS CENTRE STREET REVIEW THAT'S UNDER WAY.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT, WE'RE JUST
STARTING TO SCOPE OUT THAT WORK. IT CERTAINLY WON'T BE DONE BY
MAY.
ALDERMAN HAS WANTED TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT AND PLUS WE'RE IN
HIGHLAND PARK IN GENERAL.
TOUGH TO DECIDE IF COUNCIL WANTS TO PUT THIS OFF FOR TWO MONTHS
TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS OR
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT TODAY?
>> IN TWO MONTHS WILL WE BE
FURTHER AHEAD IN THIS PROCESS? >> WE'LL KNOW A BIT MORE BUT I
CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALDERMAN
MacLEOD WHETHER SHE'LL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING ON
THIS TWO MONTHS FROM NOW.
WANT TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION AND TALK TO THE HIGHLAND PARK
COMMUNITY.
>> THANKS FOR THAT.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
AND CLARIFICATION, TABLING THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US TO TABLE
THIS TO MAY 9th COMBINED
MEETING OF COUNCIL, NOT 19th. 9th.
SO ON THAT TABLING MOTION ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
CARRIED. THANK YOU.
THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 8.6 IN
YOUR AGENDA. CPC 2011-036, LAND USE
REDESIGNATION IN THE DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL CORE. Mr. COPE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION IS
LOCATED ON 7th AVENUE
SOUTHWEST. THE LANDS AFFECTED ARE OUTLINED
IN RED AND A FORMER PORTION OF
THE EXISTING DIRECT CONTROL DISTRIBUTE CURRENTLY IN PLACE.
IT WILL TAKE THE LANDS FROM THE
DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT WHICH IS TRIED TO PLANS AND REDESIGNATE
THE LAND TO CM 2 DOWNTOWN
BUSINESS DISTRICT.

THE REDESIGNATION WILL ALLOW THE
SITE TO BE REDEVELOPED ON ITS
OWN IN A SIMILAR PATTERN AS TO THE ADJACENT LANDS.
IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION.
THE AREA AFFECTED ON THE
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO YOU RIGHT NOW, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED
REDESIGNATION TO TAKE THE LANDS FROM DIRECT CONTROL TO CM 2 AND
THAT THREE READINGS BE GIVEN TO
PROPOSED BYLAW 27D-2011. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION FOR
ADMINISTRATION, ALDERMAN CARRA? >> JUST A QUESTION.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A
PRETTY RUN DOWN LITTLE STRETCH OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE
HERITAGE CHARACTER OF THE SITE
AND WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ANY — OR DOES THAT NOT TAKE
PLACE?
>> THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT OF THE SITE.
I SHOULD NOTE THE EXISTING DC, A PORTION OF WHICH WILL REMAIN ON
8th AVENUE, PART OF THAT
DESIGNATION IS TO PROTECT THE HERITAGE CONDITION OF THOSE
SITES.
ON 8th AVENUE, NOT THIS PARTICULAR SITE ON 7th.
>> SO IN TERMS OF PROTECTING, IS
THIS — OKAY.

THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ON
CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
FORGIVE MY SIMPLE QUESTION, A FUNCTION OF PROCESS, I'M AWARE
OF THESE PLANS FROM THIS
DEVELOPER AND IT'S ALL VERY EXCITING AND WOULD BE A
WONDERFUL ADDITION TO THIS VERY
DIFFICULT AREA WITH SOME VERY INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO PARKING
AND ALL THE REST OF IT.
I'M JUST INTRIGUED WHY WE'RE COMING IN WITH A LAND USE
APPLICATION AT THIS POINT IN THE
PROCESS. ARE YOU ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT OR
IS THAT A FAIR QUESTION TO YOU?
>> I CAN ADDRESS IT BRIEFLY. I SUPPOSE.
THE DESIGNATION ON THE SITE
RIGHT NOW IS DIRECT CONTROL WHICH IS TIED TO PLANS.
THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO DO
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE SITE. OTHER THAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED BACK IN 1983.
WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT THE INTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE
TO DO WITH LAND NOW.
SO IN ORDER TO GET THE SITE INTO A POSITION WHERE ONGOING
PLANNING CAN OCCUR, THEY NEED TO
REDESIGNATION THE SITE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
>> I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO REDESIGNATE TO ALLOW FINANCING TO CONTINUE?
>> THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A
QUESTION TO PUT TO THE APPLICANT.
>> IS THERE ANYONE TO ADDRESS
THAT? MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE?
>> YEAH.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, Mr.

COPE. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
Mr. COPE, I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE.
THERE'S A NOTE IN HERE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE DENSITY
LEVELS PERMITTED UNDER THE
PROPOSED CM 2 ARE LOWER THAN THE APPROVED UNDER THE EXISTING DC.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT FOR A
MOMENT. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
>> THE CM 2, THE STANDARD
DISTRICT HAS A BASE DENSITY OF 7F.A.R. BASED ON WHAT'S CALLED
THE "A" BONUS PROVISIONS, "A"
GROUP PROVISIONS. YOU CAN GET ADDITIONAL DENSITY
USING GROUP "C" AND "D" BONUSING
TO BUILD UP YOUR DENSITIES ON THE SITE.
I'M PRESUMING, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT
IT HAVE BEFORE ME AT THIS TIME, THE EXISTING D.C. INCORPORATED
ALL THOSE THINGS BASED ON THE
EXACT PROPOSED PLANS THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED AND SO THAT EXACT
DENSITY IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
TO THE SITE UNLESS THEY DO SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH THE GROUP
A, B, AND C PROVISIONS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU.
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.
SEE NOTHING FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION, WE'LL OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS APPLICATION?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS NEIL RICHARDSON,
PRESIDENT OF HERITAGE PROPERTY
CORPORATION, WE'RE THE APPLICANT IN THIS MATTER.
I DON'T REALLY INTEND TO MAKE A
PRESENTATION BUT I'LL CERTAINLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY
HAVE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: GREAT. THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS, DO YOU WANT
TO ASK YOUR QUESTION NOW? >> YES, THANK YOU, AND THANK
YOU Mr. RICHARDSON.
I'M AWARE OF YOUR PROJECTS AND THE NUMBER OF WONDERFUL ONES
YOU'VE CONTRIBUTED TO THE
DOWNTOWN CORE. THANK YOU.
JUST A QUESTION OF PROCESS AT
THIS POINT, MAYBE IT'S AN INDISCREET QUESTION SO IF YOU
WANT TO AVOID IT, THAT'S FINE.
ARE YOUR PLANS PROGRESSED TO A CERTAIN POINT WHERE THIS IS
NECESSARY?
I'M JUST INTRIGUED WHERE WE'RE AT IN THIS PROCESS.
>> WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
ADMINISTRATION FOR A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS.
WHEN WE FIRST APPROACHED THEM
THERE WAS A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD APPLY FOR OUR OWN D.C.
ZONING FOR THE SITE OR WHETHER
WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW WHICH IS TO APPLY TO
REMOVING EXISTING D.C.

AND
PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE IS THE
SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED WITH LAND THAT WE DON'T OWN.
IT INVOLVES PART OF THE LANEWAY.
IT INVOLVES PART OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE OWNED ON 8th AVENUE
AND THE ORIGINAL 1983 PLAN WAS
TO CONNECT THEM AND BUILD THIS 52 STOREY BUILDING ON OUR PIECE
OF THE LAND.
AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THE PROPER WAY
WOULDN'T BE TO APPLY FOR A ANOTHER D.C. ZONING BUT TO
BASICALLY ERASE THE CURRENT ONE
AND GO THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CHOOSING TO
DO. >> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
PERHAPS Mr. WATSON CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION TO
THIS QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
ACTUALLY Mr. RICHARDSON HAS
ACTUALLY MADE IT QUITE CLEAR. I HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE
26-Z-83 WHICH WAS A BEAUTIFUL
DEVELOPMENT — I'LL TELL COUNCIL BUT IT WILL NEVER BE REALIZED
AND IT IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES
WITH THE SEA — C WHICH GETS STEAL — STALE AFTER A WHILE.
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO
ANYTHING ON THAT SITE WITH THE ZONING EXCEPT TO BUILD SOMETHING
APPROVED 20 YEARS AGO AND PARTLY
BECAUSE IT'S A SPLIT OWNERSHIP NOW, IT WAS ALL ONE OWNERSHIP AT
THIS TIME — AT ONE TIME, THIS
IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO GET US BACK TO A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
SO WE CAN START OVER AGAIN.
A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER IN ORDER TO GET TO US THE ZONING.
THEN WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION
ON Mr.

RICHARDSON'S IDEA OR ANY OTHERS FROM THE DOWNTOWN.
>> THANK YOU, Mr. WATSON.
>> THANK YOU, Mr. RICHARDSON. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL MORE
Mr. RICHARDSON? >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY, Mr. RICHARDSON.
I HAVE TO SAY A LOT OF PEOPLE BREATHED A SIGH OF RELIEF WHEN
YOU PURCHASED THIS BLOCK.
NOW WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD IN PRESERVING SOME
IMPORTANT HERITAGE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ASPIRATIONS
ARE FOR THIS BLOCK SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU TAKE A MINUTE
TO JUST GO OVER SOME OF YOUR
IDEAS SO THEY WOULD MAYBE PUT INTO CONTEXT WHY THIS
APPLICATION IS BEFORE US AND HOW
IMPORTANT THIS BLOCK IS TO THE HISTORY OF CALGARY.
>> I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY
INTERESTING ASK USEFUL QUESTION AND I'M INVITE Mr. RICHARDSON
TO ANSWER IT BRIEFLY BUT I WILL
REMIND YOU THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO GO BEYOND WHAT
WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE
TODAY.

WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ON
WHAT Mr. RICHARDSON IS ABOUT
TO DESCRIBE TO US. WE'RE SIMPLY MAKING A DECISION
ON CHANGING THE ZONING OF THIS
PARCEL. >> YES, AND I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION.
PREVIOUS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS ISSUE.
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED FOR SOME
TIME. >> IN A NUTSHELL, THE PROPERTY
IS LOCATED MID BLOCK ON 7t
7th AVENUE. SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE LANDS TO
THE EAST OR WEST OF SO IT IT'S
SOMEWHAT LANDLOCKED. IT'S ALSO LOCATED ON 7t
7th AVENUE THAT ANYWAY VEHICLE
ACCESS TO IT BECAUSE OF THE LRT CORRIDOR.
THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS ARE
PROBABLY IMPORTANT INDIVIDUALLY BUT THEY'RE REALLY MORE
IMPORTANT — IMPORTANT AS A
COLLECTION. THE HERITAGE PLAN CALLS IT
STEVEN AVENUE'S LITTLE SISTER.
IT'S ONE OF THE NEW INTACT STREETSCAPES LEFT FROM THE EARLY
1900s UP TO ABOUT THE 1920s,
1930s.

OUR CONCEPT FOR THE SITE IS TO
RESTORE THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS
AND PUT ARTS AND CULTURE SO IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE OLYMPIC
PLAZA CULTURAL DISTRICT, ART
CENTRAL ACROSS THE STREET, THE GRAND THEATRE A BLOCK OR SO
AWAY, THE EPISCORE CENTRE BUT
ALSO TO MAKE THE ECONOMICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT WORK WE INTEND
TO BUILD A ROBOTIC PARKADE
ACCESSED OFF THE BACK LANE. IT CAN BE SMALL, NONOBTRUSIVE
THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS AND ALLOW
THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS TO BE PRESERVED WHILE STILL PROVIDING
WHAT WE HOPE IS AN AMENITY FOR
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. THAT IN A NUTSHELL IS THE
DEVELOPMENT.
>> THAT HELPS A LITTLE. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS
VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART FOR
Mr. RICHARDSON?
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE FOR
MR. RICHARDSON?
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, SIR.
>>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOUR OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE ELSE SPEAK IN FAVOUR?
ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL? ANYONE OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT, THEN.
ALDERMAN FARRELL.

>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
RECOMMENDATIONS OF CPC ON THREE READINGS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS
AND ALDERMAN MAR HAS SECONDED THAT MOTION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION? ALL RIGHT, THEN.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED? AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING
OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO DISPOSITION OF
PUBLIC RESERVE, ITEM 9.1 IN YOUR
AGENDA, CPC-20110-37. RESERVE IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF
COUGAR RIDGE, Mr. COPE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THE AREA AFFECTED — THE RESERVE
IS LOCATED IN COUGAR RIDGE.
THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED. JUST SOUTH OF THE C.O.P.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS
ONGOING. THE PROPOSAL WILL TAKE THE
EXISTING STRIP OF RESERVE LAND
AND REMOVE THE M.R. DESIGNATION ALLOWING FOR AN INCREASE IN SIZE
OF THE ADJACENT STORMWATER
RETENTION POND.

WE HAVE AN AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING
THE EXISTING POND AND THE
STRETCH OF GREENSPACE AS IT NOW EXISTS AND THE ADDITIONAL PHOTO
THAT WE HAVE SHOWING THE LAND
FROM 85th STREET, THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE POND AND THE
LAND TO WHICH THE POND IS GOING
TO BE EXTENDED INTO. IN THAT RESPECT JUCC HAS
SUPPORTED THE REMOVAL OF THE
RESERVE DESIGNATION WITH THE PROMISE THAT AN EQUIVALENT
AMOUNT OF LAND WILL BE DEDICATED
IN THE C.O.P. DEVELOPMENT WHICH YOU CAN JUST SEE ON THE
RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THAT PICTURE.
WE'LL PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL LAND FOR RESERVE AS PART OF
THEIR DEVELOPMENT AREA.
UNTIL THAT DOES OCCUR, A DEFERRED RESERVE CAVEAT IN THE
AMOUNT OWING WILL BE REGISTERED
ON THE APPROPRIATE TITLE. IN THAT RESPECT, CALGARY
PLANNING COMMISSION IS
RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT BY RESOLUTION THE DISPOSITION OF
0.421 HECTARES OF RESERVE LAND
AND THAT COUNCIL DIRECT A DESIGNATED OFFICER TO NOTIFY
REGISTRAR OF THE SOUTH ALBERTA
LAND TITLES OFFICE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NG.A. HAVE
BEEN FIRST LADY AND THAT MEANS
THE REMOVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL RESERVE DESIGNATION IS
APPROPRIATE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: Mr.

COPE, I HAVE A QUESTION OF
CLARIFICATION ON THIS ONE.
I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSE BY THIS ONE BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE
DIFFERENT PARTIES, INCLUDING CAN
OLYMPIC PARK. TELL ME IF I'M DESCRIBING THE
SITUATION CORRECTLY.
THE EXPANSION OF THE STORMWATER POND WILL ASSIST IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OLYMPIC
PARK AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF THEIR
LAND FOR RESERVE.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE EXPANSION IS DESIGNED TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LANDS BEING
DEVELOPED IN C.O.P. WHICH IS IN THE WHITE AREA NORTH OF THE
LANDS BEING DISPOSED OF SO IN
RETURN FOR THAT ACCOMMODATION C.O.P. WILL PROVIDE RESERVE LAND
IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON THEIR SITE.
NORTH OF WHAT'S CALLED THE 4t
4th AVENUE SOUTHWEST ALIGNMENT THERE, WITHIN THE WHITE AREA
THEY'LL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
RESERVE LAND IN COMPENSATION FOR THIS A.M.R.

LAND.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S
WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY. ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, OTHERS IN
THE AREA, THEY'RE WELL AWARE OF
IT DURING PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS DURING THE OUTLINED PLAN STAGE
ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
IS IT NOW AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO MOVE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE
HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE'RE HAVING A FULL PUBLIC —
GEEZ, SORRY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: JUST ABOUT.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR
OF THIS PROPOSAL? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR WORSHIP.
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
RICHARD PRIEST. CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER WITH
APEX.
NOT REALLY GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
I THINK IT WAS WELL DISCOVERED
CAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU
VERY MUCH TO ADMINISTRATION FOR
THE VERY EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS THAT THEY UNDERTOOK FOR US TO
GET THIS PROJECT THROUGH THE
APPROVAL STAGE AND GET US TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE AT NOW AND I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS OF COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, Mr. PRIEST AND MR. WATSON HIGHLIGHTED FOR ME
THAT YOU WERE THANKING US FOR
THE EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS WHICH WE DON'T ALWAYS HEAR AT THESE
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
NY QUESTIONS FOR Mr.

PRIEST? ALL RIGHT, THEN.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> CONSIDERING Mr. PRIEST YOU MADE THE TRIP DOWN I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO SEEM AS…
(LAUGHTER) WHEN WILL CONSTRUCTION START?
WHEN — WILL IT BE MUCH
CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF EXPANDING THE —
>> THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE POND
HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ACTUALLY. >> ALREADY COMPLETED.
>> THE LINER IS IN, EVERYTHING
IS IN. >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS MORE WORK
TO BE DONE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
>> NOW IT'S JUST THE LANDSCAPING.
>> I'M GLAD I ASKED THE
QUESTION. >> ALL THE PIPES ARE IN.
THE LINER IS IN AND EVERYTHING
AND IN FACT PHASE 1 IS BUILT. WHAT YOU CAN SEE UP THERE, R1,
R1,R1N, THAT'S ALL CONSTRUCTED
SO WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR CONDITIONS TO PUT THE PAVEMENT
DOWN AND THE LANDSCAPING AROUND
THE POND. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AND THEN THE NEXT STEP IS
BURYINBURYINBURYING THAT 138KV-. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PRIEST?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH BEING HERE
TODAY, SIR. >> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANYONE
ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF THIS APPLICATION?
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.
VERY WELL, THEN, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS.

>> SO MOVED.
I MOVE THAT WE PROCEED WITH THIS
RECOMMENDATION. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS
AND ALDERMAN CHABOT IS SECOND.
THERE'S NO BYLAW. >> NO BYLAW, OKAY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO ANY
DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE, FOLKS? ALL RIGHT, THEN.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN HODGES IS OPPOSED.
CARRIED. THANK YOU.
THAT TAKES US TO THE END OF OUR
PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL PLAY SOME MUSICAL CHAIRS
HERE AND MOVE TO THE REGULAR
PORTION OF OUR MEETING.

FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE MEMBERS
OF THE GALLERY, THE REST OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING IS — THE REST OF OUR COUNCIL MEETING IS CERTAINLY
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND YOU'RE
WELCOME TO STICK AROUND BUT THERE WILL NOT BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE
SUBMISSIONS. THE ITEMS IN THE REST OF THIS
HAVE LARGELY — THOSE THAT
REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE AEADY HAD THAT HAPPEN AT THE
COMMITTEE LEVEL.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT TAKES US TO 10.1.1 IN
YOUR AGENDA.
WHICH IS AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL'S CIVIC CENSUS POLICY.
CAN I HAVE SOMEONE MOVE TO HAD
TO GET IT ON THE FLOOR. THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANKS ALDERMAN KEATING. WE'LL LET EVERYONE ELSE FLIP TO
IT.
AND I WONDER IF ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO INTRODUCE THIS AT ALL.
NO.
ALL RIGHT, ALDERMAN HODGES.

>> NO.
>> YES.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. YEAH IT IS EXCEPT FOR ONE SMALL
ITEM.
WHAT'S THE QUESTION THAT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WANTS
IN THE CENTS?
CENSUS. WHAT ARE WE QUIZZING THE PUBLIC
ON?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: JM LOGAN IS NOT QUITE HERE YET.
CAN I DEFER THAT QUESTION.
WE'LL GET TO ANOTHER COUPLE PEOPLE ON THE LIST AND WE'LL
BRING IT BACK.
I DON'T SEE HIM COMING. >> THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, Ms. SEEDER IS
HERE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE QUESTION
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING
THE CITIZENS IS THE TRIANNUAL QUESTION.
IT WILL BE STARTING THIS YEAR.
AND OUR QUESTION ACTUALLY IS WHAT MODE OF TRANSPORTATION DID
YOU TAKE TO THE LAST DAY YOU
WORKED.

AND THE SELECTION IS BASICALLY
BY BICYCLE, BY WALKING, BY
DIFFERENT MODES IN OUR LEGEND. >> AND IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT
WORKING, EITHER AS A VOLUNTEER
OR IN TERMS OF PAID EMPLOYMENT, THEN WHAT?
>> THEN THAT IS LEFT BLANK.
>> NO RESPONSE. >> NO RESPONSE.
OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS
VERY MUCH.
ALDERMAN LOWE? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
AND ON THE SAME QUESTION, I HAD
A QUESTION ON THE QUESTION. IT SAYS YOU'RE ONLY OFFERING
THAT QUESTION TO ONE INDIVIDUAL
IN THE HOUSEHOLD, WHY? >> IT'S JUST A RANDOM SURVEY.
I CAN'T ANSWER TO THE
TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST
ANSWERED BY SOMEBODY FROM
TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING.

>> JUST STRUCK ME AS ODD TO —
MANY HOUSES NOWADAYS HAVE TWO
PEOPLE — >> INDEED.
IT'S A RANDOM RESPONSE THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO GET A NICE MIX-UP BUT AGAIN YOU WOULD NEED TO GET
SOMEBODY FROM TRANSPORTATION AND
PLANNING TO ANSWER TO THAT. >> OKAY.
MY SECOND QUESTION HAD TO DO
WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD INFORMATION AND, YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND THERE'S A COST
SHARING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN CBE AND THE CATHOLIC BOARD BUT DO WE
HAVE OTHER BOARDS IN THE CITY OR
OPERATING IN THE CITY NOW, DO WE PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR THEM AND
IS THERE ANY CHANGE IN
RESOURCES? >> YOUR WORSHIP, NO.
THE AGREEMENT IS SIMPLY WITH THE
TWO BOARDS THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE FRENCH BOARD,
WHAT ABOUT THE CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SO ON?
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH BARB CLIFFORD, WHO I COULD TAKE THIS
QUESTION BACK TO.
AND HAVE HER RESPOND. >> YEAH, I WOULD BE CURIOUS ALSO
TO KNOW ABOUT — WE HAVE AN
INCREASING POPULATION PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN THE CITY.
WHICH —
>> THE QUESTION ON THE CENSUS IS BASICALLY GIVE — THE QUESTION
WE ASK IS NOT RELATED TO TAX
DOLLARS.

IT'S SIMPLY AN OPINION TO SEE
WHAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE.
SO THERE ARE SELECTIONS OF OTHER.
OTHER BEING HOME-SCHOOLING OR
THROUGH OTHER MEANS. >> OKAY.
YEAH, I WOULD THINK THAT IT
WOULD BE THE OTHER THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, WHAT PERCENT
OF OUR POPULATION IS NOT USING
THE CATHOLIC BOARD OR THE PUBLIC BOARD AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE ELSE
ARE THEY GOING HERE AND WHAT'S
THE IMPACT ON US. BUT THAT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION,
YOUR WORSHIP.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
DID YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN NOW THAT
MR. LOGAN IS HERE?
>> I WILL. Mr. LOGAN, IN THE
TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS BEING
ASKED, OF ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE HOUSE, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST MODE
OF — WHEN YOU WENT TO WORK, MY
QUESTION IS BY ONLY ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD.
GIVEN THAT MANY, MANY HOUSEHOLDS
HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON EMPLOYED OR DOING VOLUNTEER
WORK.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, TO BE HONEST BUT, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE BUT
YOU ARE CORRECT, IT IS SPECIFIC
TO WHOMEVER THE PERSON IS THAT HAS THE NEXT BIRTHDAY IS WHAT
I'M ADVISED.
IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD THAT'S WORKING.
I WAS JUST CHECKING INSTRUCTION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THIAZOL DOES MAKE SENSE.
I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN LECTURING
PEOPLE A LOT ON STATS THIS WEEK.

>> FEEL FREE, YOUR WORSHIP,
BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE SUBJECT I
NEVER DID WELL IN. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WHAT
Mr. LOGAN IS SAYING IS IT'S A
PURELY RANDOM SAMPLE SO THEY ONLY WANT A RANDOM PERSON.
THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE
WHOLE FAMILY BECAUSE THAT WOULD SKEW THE SAMPLE IF THEY ALL YOU
WOULD CARPOOL SO THEY'RE PICKING
A RANDOM PERSON IN THE HOUSE BY THE BIRTHDAY SO WE GET A FULLY
RANDOMIZED SAMPLE IN THE CITY.
>> I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT PART. I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE
INTERESTED IN THE QUANTUMS
BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK AND WHACK US IN THE HEAD.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
LOWE AND CHABOT, IT'S A COMMON THEME.
THANK YOU.
I HAD THE SAME QUESTION FOR Mr. LOGAN AND THANK YOU FOR
THAT RESPONSE.
DIDN'T NECESSARILY LIKE IT BUT…
Ms.

CEDAR, THROUGH THIS LAST
ELECTION ON THE CENSUS THAT WE GOT OR THE VOTERS LIST THAT WE
GOT, I NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A
NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND THAN RESIDING IN THE RESIDENCE FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS.
THAT WEREN'T ON THIS YEAR'S CENSUS.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING, DO WE
EVER CARRY FORWARD THE INFORMATION?
>> THE CENSUS AND THE VOTERS
LIST, YOUR WORSHIP, ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES.
SO I CAN SPEAK TO THE CENSUS.
I WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE THE ELECTION TO BARBARA CLIFFORD.
CENSUS WE DON'T COLLECT ANY
PERSONAL DATA.

THERE ARE NO NAMES ASSOCIATED.
THERE ARE INDEED ADDRESSES AND
ADDRESSES HAVE A TENDENCY TO CHANGE.
THEREBY DWELLINGS BEING REMOVED
AND ANOTHER DWELLING GOING IN ITS PLACE.
I AM UNCERTAIN AS TO YOUR
QUESTION AS TO THE GROWTH PATTERN.
>> NO, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY
SOME PEOPLE WHO HAD LIVED IN THE RESIDENCE FOR SO MANY YEARS
WEREN'T ON THE —
>> THE ENUMERATION. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DIRECTED
TO BARBARA CLIFFORD AND I COULD
INDEED PASS THAT QUESTION ALONG TO YOU.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO THE CENSUS
TODAY. >> SPECIFIC TO THE THE CENSUS, O
NAMES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO DETERMINATION OF SECONDARY
SUITES, HOW DO WE GO ABOUT
MAKING THAT DETERMINATION? >> WE DON'T, YOUR WORSHIP.
WE SIMPLY ASK THE QUESTION OF
DWELLING UNITS, HOW MANY PEOPLE RESIDE AT THIS DWELLING.
>> YEAH.
JUST WONDERING HOW WE CAN FACILITATE GETTING A BETTER,
MORE CLONS CLEAR RESPONSE OUT OF
THAT.

IF THERE'S LIKE TWO MAILBOXES
THAT'S USUALLY PRETTY INDICATIVE
OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S TWO RESIDENCES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: IT'S
AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION. ALDERMAN CHABOT?
I'M NOT GOING TO PUT Ms. SLOAN
ON THE SPOT RIGHT AT THE MOMENT BUT IT'S A BIT WEIRD TO ASK
SOMEONE TO DESCRIBE WHETHER
THEY'RE IN ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AS PART OF A CENSUS.
NO?
>> BUT WE DON'T ASK FOR NAMES, RIGHT.
>> CORRECT, WE DON'T.
>> I'M JUST — >> WHAT DO YOU THINK,
MR. LEAGUEN?
Mr. LOGAN. >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE CAN ASK ALL
SORTS OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE
NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER. >> HMM.
INTERESTING.
SO WE CAN'T ARBITRARILY MAKE AN ACCESS ON OUR OWN IS WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING.
>> NO, THE CENSUS IS NOT MANDATORY, EXACTLY.
IT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL
WHETHER THEY WISH TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT.
>> MY POINT, YOUR WORSHIP, IS
THAT I BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE SECONDARY SUITES THAN WE'VE
IDENTIFIED.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE PROBABLY WISE TO KNOW ROUGHLY HOW MANY
THERE ARE.
WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE CHOOSE TO ADMIT THERE'S A SECONDARY SUITE
THERE'S CERTAINLY A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN ACCESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE
SECONDARY SUITES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YOU KNOW I DON'T DISAGREE BUT AND I
THINK THAT MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER
THAT QUESTION WHICH IS, IF ALDERMAN CHABOT WERE TO MAKE A
MOTION TODAY PERHAPS LATER ON IN
THIS AGENDA TO ADD A QUESTION ON SECONDARY SUITES TO THE CIVIC
CENSUS, WHAT'S THE TIMING ON
THAT? WOULD WE ACTUALLY DO THAT FOR
2011 CENSUS OR WE TOO LATE?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S TOO LATE.

EVERYTHING IS NOW IN PLACE.
WE ARE NOW TRAINING AS WE SPEAK.
WE'RE GOING OUT APRIL 1st. EVERY YEAR IT'S APRIL 1st.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WE
COULD PERHAPS CONSIDER THIS FOR A FUTURE CENSUS IF WE WANTED TO.
>> THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IN A
FUTURE CENSUS, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I APPRECIATE THAT ADVICE AND
IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT
WE'LL TAKE UNDER ADVISEMENT. Ms. CEDAR, IF I MAY ASK AS
WELL, IN REGARDS TO THE
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES, I KNOW MY WIFE HAS DONE STUFF BEFORE
BUT I THINK IT'S MORE MORE THE
EHUMAN RATIONS ASPECT WHERE THERE WAS A VERY SMALL TOLERANCE
IN REGARDS TO THE NUMBER OF
HOMES THAT YOU COULD NOT RECORD INFORMATION ON.
WHAT'S YOUR TYPICAL RESPONSE
REQUIREMENT FROM YOUR — >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE ASKED THAT
1% OF THE ASSIGNED AREA BE
UNABLE TO CONTACT.

THAT'S A GOAL WE STRIVE FOR.
WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ACHIEVE
THAT, IT IS DEPENDENT ON PARTICIPATION.
THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT WE HOPE
TO ACHIEVE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, AND THE REASON
I ASKED THE PREVIOUS QUESTION TO
THIS ONE IS BECAUSE I THINK THE TWO ARE KIND OF INEXTREKICALLY
LINKED.
I I.E., IS THERE A SECONDARY SUITE AND IS THERE SOMEBODY
RESPONDING AT THAT SECONDARY
SUITE. 1% IS BASED ON REGISTERED
ADDRESSES, RIGHT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, MAY I ADD ON TO THAT.
UNABLE TO CONTACT MEANS EXACTLY
THAT, THAT THE PERSON WASN'T THERE AT NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS.
THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD GET THE
INFORMATION. IF THE INDIVIDUAL ISN'T THERE AT
A CERTAIN POINT, WE WILL GO TO A
NEIGHBOUR AND ASK. THAT NEIGHBOUR WON'T KNOW
WHETHER OR NOT — WHETHER THEY
CHOOSE TO ANSWER CORRECTLY, RIGHT.
UNABLE TO CONTACT MEANS THAT
THERE IS NO INFORMATION.

WE ALSO HAVE OTHER CODINGS SUCH
AS NO, THEY DON'T WANT TO
PARTICIPATE. NO INFORMATION.
BUT THAT'S NOT AN UNABLE TO
CONTACT. >> RIGHT.
>> WELL, THE SECONDARY SUITE
MIGHT BE AN UNABLE TO CONTACT IF WE COULD IDENTIFY THAT IT WAS A
SECONDARY SUITE IS MY POINT.
ANYWAYS, I GUESS THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW FOR NOW.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
INTERESTING NIGHT — PLIGHT OF FANCY FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY
BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE.
>> THE FACT THAT IS QUESTION IS THERE IS AT LEAST A VERY VALID
TEAMMATE MAKE THOSE ASSESSMENTS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS
ITEM? ALDERMAN LOWE, DID YOU WANT TO
CLOSE?
ALL RIGHT, THEN. ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT
THE AMENDED CIVIC CENSUS POLICY
ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
THANK YOU. 10.1.2 THEN IN YOUR AGENDA,
REPORT ON THE CITY OF CALGARY'S
COMMUNICATION FUNCTION. A REMINDER THAT DURING OUR
BUDGET DELIBERATIONS WE ASKED
FOR THIS REPORT.

AND HERE IT IS.
SO I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO GET
THIS ONE ON THE TABLE. THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
DO I HAVE A SECONDNER THANKS
ALDERMAN PINCOTT. Mr. STEVENS, DID YOU WANT TO
SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS REPORT?
QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION OR DISCUSSION?
>> I HAVE SOME.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: Mr. STEVENS.
>> WELL, WE HAVE SEEN A FAIR BIT
OF GROWTH IN THIS DEPARTMENT AND IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, IF
WE EXCLUDE 311 IN STRAIGHT-UP
COMMUNICATIONS WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS, OH, IF I'M READING
THIS CORRECTLY, 34 STAFF
TRANSFERRED IN FROM OTHER PLACES SINCE THE YEAR 2000 AND 31 NEW
STAFF.
COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THOSE 31 NEW STAFF AND THE KIND
OF RESPONSIBILITIES THAT THEY
ARE DOING THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS THE CASE BEFORE WE
STARTED THIS DEPARTMENT IN THE
YEAR 2000.

>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
A LOT OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THAT STAFF WOULD BE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SERVICES FROM THE
CENTRAL FUNCTION TO THE BUSINESS
UNITS. THEY WOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED A
SERVICE IN THE WHAT I WOULD
REFER TO AS THE CREATIVE SERVICES FUNCTION WHERE WE
PROVIDE THE PRINT, MULTIMEDIA
PRODUCTION, SOME OF THE GRAPHIC DESIGN.
THE WRITING AND EDITING, SOME OF
THAT ESPECIALLY WITH THE GROWTH OF THE MULTIMEDIA PLATFORM,
THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE
RESOURCES HAVE GONE. >> Mr. STEVENS, WHILE YOU'RE
UP, THERE HAS BEEN SOME
DISCUSSION AROUND THE CORPORATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF
THIS SORT OF AS SERVICE UNIT FOR
THE REST OF THE CORPORATION. AND THE FACT THAT THAT WOULD
INDICATE THE COMMUNICATIONS
DECISIONS ARE RATHER DECENTRALIZED THAT THEY'RE MADE
ACROSS THE CORPORATION THAT THIS
UNIT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE OVERALL
MESSAGE.
WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT AND WE'VE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT HOW TO MANAGE
THAT? >> I WOULD SAY THAT IS A
STRUGGLE.
THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT.

THE COORDINATION OF THE MESSAGE
IS A DIFFICULT THING WHEN YOU'VE
GOT NEARLY 30 BUSINESSES AND A COUPLE HUNDRED LINES OF SERVICE.
I WON'T DISPUTE THAT.
SO WE DO HAVE SOME CORPORATE OVERSIGHT THAT WE PROVIDE ON
CERTAIN THINGS, BRANDING, WEB,
SOME OF OUR EXTERNAL PRESENCE BUT WITH RESPECT TO MESSAGING
AROUND SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND
BUSINESSES, THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED CENTRALLY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU. I MAY HAVE A COUPLE MORE AND
I'LL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ASK
MORE BUT I SEE SOME LIGHTS ARE ON SO ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHO TO ASK THIS QUESTION TO.
I LOOK AT 2010 PERMANENT
COMMUNICATIONS PAID BY DEPARTMENT.
AS OPPOSED TO 2010 PERMANENT
COMMUNICATION FTEs PAID BY CSC AND I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THIS
LIKE THE TOTAL OUT OF EACH OF
THE DIFFERENT BUSINESS UNITS? >> YES, IT IS.
>> NOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
STAFF DEDICATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS.
DOES THAT INCLUDE CAPITAL
COMPONENTS TO THAT? >> YES.
>> REALLY?
>> YES. YOU WILL FIND IN SOME OF THEM
THAT THEY ARE FUNDED OUT OF
CAPITAL.

THEY ARE — INVOLVE PROJECTS IN
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE FUNDED OUT
OF CAPITAL FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
THEY ARE INCLUDED.
THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE BASED AND THEY ARE FUNDED OUT OF
OPERATING.
I CAN REFER TO MY DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE.
IF YOU LOOK IN CORPORATE
SERVICES THERE ARE SOME PRIMARILY IN OUR BUSINESS UNITS
THAT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY CAPITAL
DRIVEN. THEY ARE FUNDED OUT OF CAPITAL.
SPECIFIC REFERENCE, YOUR
WORSHIP, ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 1 YOU CAN SEE CORPORATE SERVICES
WHERE YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL IN CORPORATE PROPERTIES AND BUILDINGS AND
I.T., FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THAT
IS VERY SPECIFIC PROJECT WORK WHERE COMMUNICATIONS ARE
REQUIRED, FOR EXAMPLE, OUT OF
VACATING A BUILDING. YOU WILL WANT TO DO A FULL
COMMUNICATION PLAN TO STAFF
ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE, THE MOVEMENT, THEY WOULD BE
FUNDED OUT OF CAPITAL.
>> OKAY.

NOT GOING TO PICK ON YOU,
MR. STEVENS, BUT I'M LOOKING AT
SPECIFICALLY UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT.
AND I SEE A TOTAL HERE OF ABOUT
12F.T.E.s BUT I HAVE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND
ADVERTISEMENT, 12-FTEs, THAT COVERS THE CAPITAL COST OF ALL
THE ADVERTISEMENT THAT GOES OUT
SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO WATER CONSERVATION, ET CETERA,
ET CETERA?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. IF I CAN, IF I CAN JUST SPEAK TO
THE UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION COMMUNICATION RESOURCES, AND IF YOU SEE THE
BUILDUP OF RESOURCES SINCE 2000,
BETWEEN 2000-2010, YOU KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THAT INCREASE HAS
BEEN REALLY GEARED TO THE FACT
THAT A LARGE PART OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL SUCCESS IN TERMS
OF DELIVERING PROGRAMS AND
REDUCING AND INCREASING DIVERSION, INCREASING WATER
CONSERVATION, ALL THOSE KINDS OF
PROGRAMS, CREATING PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT HOW THE
STORMWATER GOES DOWN THE DRAIN
AND ALL THE RESPONSIBLE, YOU KNOW,HAIRS THAT GO INTO WATER
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; THAT'S WHY
WE'VE GOT THOSE RESOURCES AND THEY HELP US CREATE THE MESSAGE
AND THE INFORMATION THAT WE PUT
OUT IN OUR VARIOUS BILL INSERTS OR ON TELEVISION OR RADIO,
WHENEVER.
THEY'RE HELPING US CRAFT THOSE MESSAGES AND IF WE DIDN'T HAVE
THOSE PEOPLE, WE WOULD STILL
HAVE TO BE DOING THAT.

AND OUR VIEW IS THAT THE RIGHT
PEOPLE TO GIVE THOSE MESSAGES
ARE THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATORS WHO ARE TRAINED TO
DO THAT AND THEY TAKE THE
TECHNICAL CONTENT, THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
PORTRAY AND THEN THEY TURN IT
INTO LANGUAGE THAT'S MORE USER FRIENDLY IF YOU LIKE FOR THE
BROADER COMMUNITY.
VERY CRITICAL. >> MAYBE I DIDN'T WORD MY
QUESTION PROPERLY.
THESE 12FTEs ARE EMBEDDED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT?
>> NO.
THEY'LL BE OUT AT THE WATER CENTRE, THEY'LL BE OUT AT WASTE
AND RECYCLING.
THEY'RE PONDING TO ISSUES MANAGEMENT, THEY'RE RESPONDING
TO THE MESSAGING AROUND IF
THERE'S SERIOUS ISSUES WITH WARE MAINE BREAKS, THEY'RE GETTING
OUT ALL THE SORT OF DAY-TO-DAY
OPERATIONAL MESSAGING AND IN REGARDS TO Mr. STEVENS'
COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY
OF MESSAGING AND THE CORPORATE MESSAGING, THERE'S SOME
MESSAGING THAT WE HAVE TO PUT
OUT VERY, VERY QUICKLY THAT IS VERY, VERY UNIQUE TO OUR
BUSINESS AND SO —
>> THAT'S WHY YOU ARE THOSE INTERNAL PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY
DEDICATED TO THE COMMUNICATION
STRATEGY. SO MY QUESTION THEN IS, IS THIS
FULLY BORNE HERE WITH REGARDS TO
THE COSTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN YOUR DEPARTMENT?
>> YES.
>> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE COSTS FOR ADVERTISEMENT, THE COST FOR
THE ARTWORK, THE COST FOR THE
PRINTING OF THE MATERIAL? >> WELL, THAT'S A SEPARATE
BUDGET.
THIS IS THE PEOPLE, THE FTEs THAT WE HAVE THAT WE NEED TO DO
OUR WORK.
NOW THEY WILL CONTRACT WITH OR THEY WILL WORK WITH THE
CENTRALIZED CUSTOMER SERVICE AND
COMMUNICATIONS GROUP AND CREATIVE SERVICES AND THOSE
KINDS OF PEOPLE.
AND THE COST OF THAT WORK SHOWS UP ELSEWHERE IN THE REPORT.
>> Mr.

STEVENS IS TELLING ME
ATTACHMENT 6. SO I THINK THAT EACH OF THESE
ATTACHMENTS HAS A DIFFERENT
PURPOSE. I THINK ATTACHMENT 5 IS
SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO
ILLUSTRATE WHERE THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS HAVE RESOURCES
EMBEDDED IN THEIR BUSINESS THAT
THEY NEED IN ORDER TO DO THEIR BUSINESS.
THAT IS PAID FOR BY THE
BUSINESS. JUST THE OPERATIONAL COMPONENT.
>> YEAH, WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF
I'M GETTING ACROSS HERE AS TO WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.
SEEMED LIKE I'M NOT BUT I'M
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOUR WORSHIP, RESPECTFULLY, WHAT OUR
OVERALL COMMUNICATIONS COSTS ARE
BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME COSTS THAT AREN'T REFLECTED IN THESE
NUMBERS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT.
THAT IS DEDICATED TO
COORDINATING THE CITY'S MESSAGING BUT I SOMEHOW GET THE
FEELING THAT THERE'S SOME
ADDITIONAL COSTS WITHIN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS UNITS THAT
ARE DEDICATED TOWARDS
COMMUNICATIONCOMMUNICATIONS THAT NECESSARILY FLESHED OUT IN THIS
REPORT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: Mr Mr. CHABOT.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE INFORMATION
IS PRESENTED IN TWO DIFFERENT PIECES ONE OF WHICH IS AN FTE
COUNT WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST
USEFUL MEANS TO SEE THE GROWTH OF THE FTEs ON THE
DISTRIBUTION OVER A PERIOD OF
TIME.

ON ATTACHMENT 6 IS A LIST OF
EXPENDITURES ON COMMUNICATIONS
BY DEPARTMENT BY UNIT AND YOU THE AMOUNT IS
$12 MILLION.
THAT'S EXCLUSIVE OF WAGES AND SALARIES OF THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE
DEDICATED TO THAT FULL-TIME.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO THIS IS CREATIVE WORK,
ADVERTISING BUYS, THAT SORT OF
THING. >> YES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT'S
VERY HELPFUL. DOES THAT HELP, ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> A LITTLE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT 12.6 IS IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER TOTAL THAT
I HAD FOR COMMUNICATIONS?
>> I'M NOT TOO SURE WHICH OTHER TOTAL YOU HAD.
IT'S EXCLUSIVE OF WAGES AND
SALARIES FOR THE FULL-TIME FTEs.
>> WHAT'S THE TOTAL COST FOR
COMMUNICATIONS? 18 MILLION?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WHERE
IS THAT? >> I HAVE THE NUMBER HERE
PREVIOUSLY.
I JUST DIDN'T MARK IT UP WELL ENOUGH, I GUESS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: WHILE
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT, I CAN SUGGEST THAT…
I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST…
IF I'M READING CORRECTLY, THEN WE HAVE 84.6 FTEs IN, 65 IN
COMMUNICATIONS, ANOTHER
57-FTEs EMBEDDED IN DEPARTMENTS AND WE SPEND
$12 MILLION A YEAR ON CREATIVE
SERVICES.

>> A TOTAL OF 149.6 FTEs I
GATHER.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THAT INCLUDES 311 PLUS ANOTHER 57 IN
DEPARTMENTS.
>> AT VARYING RATES. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THEY'RE NOT ALL THE SAME AND —
>> AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, YOUR WORSHIP IS WHAT
IS THE TOTAL.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: DO WE HAVE THAT NUMBER IN HERE
INCLUDING WAGES AND BENEFITS,
Mr. CHABOT? >> THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONTAIN.
IT TRIES TO SHOW COUNCIL TWO
THINGS, THE GROWTH OF FTEs OVER TIME AND WHAT'S RELEVANT IS
HOW MUCH ARE WE SPENDING ON
COMMUNICATING. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A GROSS
NUMBER AND IT'S NOT HERE.
>> YES AND DON'T GET ME WRONG. THERE'S A TON OF INFORMATION
HERE THAT TELLS ME ABOUT HOW
MUCH WE'VE IMPROVED EFFICIENCY WITHIN THIS DEPARTMENT AND I
HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OVERALL COSTS FOR THE
CORPORATION ARE IN REGARDS TO
COMMUNICATIONS.

AND TOTAL GROSS.
AGREED.
BUT MAYBE I'LL FIND OUT MORE WHEN I LISTEN.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I AGREE WITH YOU, ALD CHABOT, THAT
THE TOTAL COSTS WOULD BE AN
EXTREMELY HELPFUL NUMBER HERE AND WE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TO GO
FISHING FOR IT.
I DO HAVE ANOTHER PLACE FOR YOU TO LOOK, THOUGH, ON PAGE 12 OF
14 YOU WILL SEE THE BUDGET OF
THAT DEPARTMENT, Mr. STEVENS MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS, THE
BUDGET FOR THAT DEPARTMENT IS
515.50 — 15.506 MILLION. NOW, Mr. STEVENS, I'M ASSUMING
THAT THAT NUMBER INCLUDES THE
WAGES AND BENEFITS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
PERHAPS NOT THE FULL 12 MILLION
IN CREATIVE BECAUSE THAT GETS CHARGED TO THE DEPARTMENTS.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, WE'RE NARROWING
IT DOWN. I CAN GET THAT NUMBER.
WE DON'T NEED TO SEARCH FOR IT
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, WHAT THE OUTSTANDING NUMBER AND YOU'VE
CHARACTERIZED IT EXACTLY
CORRECT, YOUR WORSHIP. THERE ARE 149.6 FTEs WITHIN
COMMUNICATIONS AND THE COST OF
THAT IS SET OUT ON ATTACHMENT 4, THE PAGE 3 OF 3.
$15.927 MILLION.
PLUS THE COST THAT'S IN ATTACHMENT 6, THE COST THAT I
DON'T HAVE FOR YOU IS THE COST
OF THE ADDITIONAL 57 BUSINESS UNITS, 57 FTEs IN THE BUSINESS
UNITS WHICH I CAN PROVIDE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I THINK FROM ALDERMAN CHABOT'S
LINE OF QUESTIONING WHICH I ECHO
IS HE WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE EVEN THE GROWTH OF THAT NUMBER
OVER TIME.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IN HERE IN ONE OF THE REASONS — WELL, I
WAS GOING TO SAY I REQUESTED,
THE COUNCIL REQUESTED AT MY URGING THIS REPORT WAS REALLY TO
UNDERSTAND THE GROWTH OF THAT
BIG NUMBER OVER TIME BECAUSE IT IS CHALLENGING WHEN WE'RE
LOOKING AT BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO
REALLY FOLLOW THROUGH PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT.
IT'S ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT
ONES, THIS ONE IN I.T.

SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I UNDERSTAND ALDERMAN CHABOT'S QUESTION TO BE
ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS.
OBVIOUSLY THAT INCLUDES THE 311 NUMBER.
DO YOU WANT THE OVERALL NUMBER
WHICH I CAN GET. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
WOULD LIKE IT BUT ALSO WITH 311
BROKEN OUT WHICH IS A DIFFERENT SERVICE.
>> I'LL SEND A MEMO TO COUNCIL.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN LOWE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE QUESTION I
HAD OUTSTANDING ON IT AND OTHER THAN THAT UNLESS THERE'S OTHER
LIGHTS ON — OKAY.
JUST AS A MATTER OF WHEN I READ THE REPORT, I FOUND IT AN
INTERESTING REPORT TO READ.
STRUGGLE THROUGH IT.

I FORGET WHICH ATTACHMENT IT IS,
THE CHRONOLOGY OR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF IT AND IT SEEMS TO ME YOUR WORSHIP EVERY TIME
THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE WON AN
AWARD THEY CUT THEIR BUDGET. SPELLED OUT THERE.
I MENTIONED THAT TO ONE OF THE
MEDIA PEOPLE. HE SAYS THAT SORT OF SOUNDS LIKE
THE PRESS.
THERE WE ARE. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN FARRELL — OH, YOU TURNED YOUR LIGHT OFF.
YOU'RE GOOD.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.
SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
Mr. STEVENS IS GOING TO TAKE ON THAT MEMO WE'RE ASKING FOR WITH
THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,
ALDERMAN LOWE, DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE?
ALL RIGHT THEN SO ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS, RECEIVE THE REPORT TO INFORMATION, AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.

ALL RIGHT.
THAT THEN TAKES US TO THE SPC ON
FINANCE IN CORPORATION SERVICES, ITEM 10.2.1 IN YOUR AGENDA,
ALDERMAN LOWE.
>> MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE THREE READINGS OF THE
PROPOSED BYLAW.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE IT AT
ALL? >> NO, IT'S STANDARD.
IT'S THE PROPERTY TAX, TAX
BYLAW, STANDARD REPORT IS WHAT IT COMES TO.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART, YOU'RE SECONDING?
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM?
VERY WELL, THEN. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE
AGREED?
>> AGREED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ANY
OPPOSED?
CARRIED. FIRST READING OF BYLAW 11M-2011
AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ON BYLAW 12M-2011, FIRST READING
OF THE BYLAW ARE WE AGREED? SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW?
AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
CARRIED.

THANK YOU.
LPT-2011-14, ITEM — MISSING A
NUMBER, 10.3.1 IN YOUR AGENDA. ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'D BE HAPPY TO MOVE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LPT WITH
THE EXEMPT OF LPT-2011-11.
AS YOU KNOW THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION BY COMMITTEE BUT
I DO HAVE AN ALTERNATE
RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
ABSOLUTELY.
HAPPY TO MOVE ALL THE OTHERS AT THIS POINT.
AND HAPPY TO OPEN AND CLOSE ON
ANY AND ALL IF NEED BE.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.
DO YOU WANT TO OPEN ON THE MARLBOROUGH ONE?
>> WELL, VERY BRIEFLY LOOKING
AND IDENTIFYING PARKING ZONE, THIS ONE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR
SOME TIME EVEN BEFORE WE
INTRODUCED PARK AND RIDE. IT HAS CREATED SOME CHALLENGES
FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOURHOOD.
NOT ONLY THAT BUT AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT AT ONE POINT THE
ADJACENT APARTMENT BUILDING WAS
CHARGING FOR THEIR PARKING AND SOME OF THE RESIDENTS REFUSED TO
PAY IT AND ENDED UP PARKING ON
THE STREET WHICH FURTHER EXACERBATED THE WHOLE ISSUE.
THE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN PUTTING
UP WITH IT FOR SOME TIME. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM
TO PETITION THE REST OF THE
STREET TO PROVIDE ON-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND I
DO HAVE A QUESTION BUT I'LL TAKE A SECONDER FOR ALL OF THESE WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE SECONDARY
SUITES ONE.

CAN I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANKS, ALDERMAN HODGES.
WE'VE GOT THAT. Mr. LOGAN, AND ONLY BECAUSE
THIS IS THE STREET, I HAVE A
SPECIAL — THE STREET I GREW UP ON, I HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST IN
THIS ONE PARTICULAR, IS THIS
PARK-AND-RIDE DRIVEN. DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF IF WE'RE
DOING THIS ON APRIL 1st THE
PROBLEM WILL GO AWAY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULDN'T SAY
IT'S ENTIRELY PARK-AND-RIDE
DRIVEN. THERE IS ONE STATION WE HAVE
VACANCIES IN THAT LOT.
I THINK THE PROBLEM STEMS FROM ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT LAND USES
IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBOURHOOD
TO BE HONEST. THERE'S A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENTS AND ALDERMAN CHABOT
JUST MENTIONED THERE ARE MULTIFAMILIES THAT ARE RESULTING
IN A LOT OF CARS BEING ON THE
STREET.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO
GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID, JUST
FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND MY EDIFICATION, HOW MANY
PARKING PASSES DO YOU GET IF YOU
HAVE A HOUSE? >> TWO.
>> YEAH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: TWO. >> YEAH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: TWO ON
THE STREET. >> YEAH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND I
KNOW MOST OF THESE HOMES DO HAVE BACK LANES AND GARAGES AS WELL.
>> YES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, THIS
STRIKES ME AS QUITE A LARGE ZONE
ALONG MERIVALE DRIVE, THE STREET I GREW UP ON, IT GOES ALMOST
FROM 36 STREET TO 32ers
STREET. DO WE DO THEM THIS LARGE?
IT'S QUITE A DISTANCE FROM THE
HUB OF ACTIVITY AND THE C TRAIN.

>> TYPICALLY, YOUR WORSHIP, IF
IT WAS RELATED TO A SPECIFIC USE
IT WOULD BE A SMALLER ZONE. OUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT THE
PARKING AND WALKING FALLS OFF
CONSIDERABLY AFTER ABOUT 4 TO 600 METRES.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS
ONE?
ALDERMAN CHABOT DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE.
>> VERY BRIEFLY, THIS IS
ACTUALLY NOT A REALLY LARGE PARKING AREA.
IF YOU WILL NOTE, THE AREA IS
BOUNDED NORTH BY MARL BANK DRIVE TO 36th STREET AND EAST TO THE
MIRANDA CLOSE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP.
I WAS SAD THERE'S NO MAP IN
HERE. WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO MERIVALE
DRIVE IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO
50th STREET. IT'S PRETTY FAR.
>> IT ONLY GOES DOWN TO
MERIVALE. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT A LONG BLOCK
THERE.
IT'S IN AND AROUND THAT WHOLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AND IT'S PREDOMINANTLY WHAT'S
DRIVE ON THE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO PARKING DEFICIENCIES THAT
EXIST ON THE STREET.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS VERY MUCH.
I JUST SAW THE MAP.
I DIDN'T HAVE TO GOOGLE MAP IT.

THANK YOU.
IN FACT, THE HOUSE I GREW UP IN
IS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE ZONE SO ALL THE PARKING WOULD GO THERE
BUT I DON'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE
SO IT'S ALL RIGHT. I WILL CONSIDER THIS DISEASE.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS —
CONSIDER THIS CLOSED. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT IS OPPOSED. ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBOURS,
THANK YOU ALDERMAN AND THEN
THREE READINGS OF THE PROPOSED BYLAW, 13-M-2011, AGREED?
SECOND READING, ANY OPPOSED?
THIRD READING? AGREED.
ANY OPPOSED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ALDERMAN PINCOTT IS OPPOSED.
CARRIED.
THANK YOU. LPT-2011-09, CENTRE CITIES
LEVIES UPDATE, ALDERMAN CHABOT,
DID YOU WANT TO…? >> WELL, BRIEFLY, YOUR WORSHIP,
WE'VE ESTABLISHED LEVIES BASED
ON FRONTAGE AND I THINK THE PROPOSAL IS PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
MONIES THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WITH THE INTENTION OF BEING
SPENT AT SOME POINT TIME WHEN
THEY'RE REQUIRED FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE.
OTHER THAN THAT, NOT MUCH MORE
TO SAY.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM?
VERY WELL, THEN, ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
10.3.3 THEN. WAS THERE A BYLAW THERE?
>> 15M-2011.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THERE IT IS.
MY APOLOGIES.
BYLAW 18-M-2011, FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW AGREED?
SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW
AGREED IN AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW
AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED.
THANK YOU.
10.3.3 THEN, ZONE FARE FOR TAXIS AND LIMOUSINES, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONE BASED FARES FOR TAXI AND
LIMOUSINE HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED
BY T-LACK COMMITTEE AND THERE WAS SOME DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE IN
COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT I WOULD ASK SOMEBODY TO PUT ON MY
BEHALF AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY IN
REGARDS TO THE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION, OF COURSE THE
DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD
MIRROR THE DATE OF THE CLOSURE OF BARLOW AND I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT'S REFLECTED ACCURATELY IN
THE BYLAW.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
CLOSURE OF BARLOW SHOULD BE
APRIL 3rd, 2011. I KNOW THAT ONE.
WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THE BYLAW?
>> COMES INTO FORCE THE DAY IT'S PASSED AND THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY
SAY THIS BYLAW COMES INTO FORCE
ON APRIL 3rd. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SURE.
WOULD SOMEONE LAKE TO MOVE THAT
AMENDMENT, PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
THANKS, ALDERMAN POOTMANS, ON
THE AMENDMENT ANY DISCUSSION? ON THE AMENDMENT AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. SO THE AMENDMENT IS AS YOU
SUGGESTED.
ALD — ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> RESPECTFULLY, YOUR WORSHIP, I
BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT ON THE
BYLAW HAS TO BE AT SECOND READING.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: MY
APOLOGIES, AN AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAW, NOT THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE'LL DO THAT IN A FEW MINUTES.
THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CHABOT FOR CATCHING THAT.
QUESTION TO I GUESS IT'S
MR.

LOGAN. OH, IT'S Mr. WATSON.
HOW ARE YA'?
(LAUGHTER) NO, THAT WAS NOT QUESTION.
(LAUGHTER)
I WAS LOOKING AT GIVEN THAT THIS IS DRIVEN BY THE CLOSURE OF
BARLOW TRAIL, I WAS LOOKING AT
THE NORTHEAST FARES, WHICH I WOULD IMAGINE WOULD BE THE ONES
THAT WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED BY
THAT CLOSURE. BUT I NOTICE THAT FOR REASONS I
COULDN'T QUITE FIGURE OUT, SOME
OF THEM WENT UP AND SOME OF THEM WENT DOWN.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT?
>> TO THE CHAIR, YES, I CAN, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE FARES WERE ORIGINALLY SET A
NUMBER OF YEARS AGO BUT THIS TIME WE WENT BACK AND ACTUALLY
DROVE THEM SEVERAL TIMES BOTH IN
RUSH HOUR, NON-RUSH HOUR.

FOUND OUT FRANKLY THAT THE
PREVIOUS FARES WERE NOT ALL THAT
ACCURATE. THIS IS A MUCH MORE ACCURATE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE
DIFFERENCES ARE AND THE FARES SHOULD BE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO
IT'S JUST A CLEAN UPDATE. >> IT'S A BIT OF A CLEAN-UP AS
WELL AS ALDERMAN CHABOT POINTS
OUT WHAT THE CLOSURE OF BARLOW TRAIL WE HAVE TO REJIG THEM
ANYWAY THEer BECAUSE THE
DISTANCES ARE ALL DIFFERENT.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THIS
IS ONE OF THE FIRST PLACES WE
START TO SEE THE IMPACTS OF THAT.
THERE WILL I SUSPECT BE OTHER
PLACES WHERE WE SEE THE IMPACTS OF THAT.
VERY WELL, THEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE DISCUSSIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS?
DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE, ALDERMAN
CHABOT? >> JUST WITH WHAT Mr. WATSON
JUST SAID, THE RATES THAT ARE
GOING DOWN TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT THE REALITIES ARE
IN REGARDS TO RUNNING THESE
ROUTES AND SO AS YOU SAID SOME ARE UP, SOME ARE DOWN.
IT'S NICE TO SEE THAT SOME ARE
ACTUALLY GOING DOWN. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
MM-HMM.
NOT TO MY NEIGHBOURHOOD BUT TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD NEXT DOOR.
MAY GET DROPPED OFF ON THE
CORNER FROM KNEW — NOW ON. (LAUGHTER)
GREAT.
SO ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN ARE WE AGREED?
FIRST READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW, ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
>> AMENDMENT BEFORE —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: RATHER THAN THE BYLAW COMING IN, IT'S
PASSED, THE BYLAW SHOULD COME
INTO FORCE APRIL 3rd, 2011. DESTROY A SECOND — DO I HAVE A
SECONDER?
THANKS, ALDERMAN JONES.

ON THE AMENDMENT, AGREE.
SECOND READING OF THE BYLAW AS
AMENDED AGREED? ANY OPPOSED.
CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW, AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED.
CARRIED. THIRD READING OF THE BYLAW ARE
WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED.
ALL RIGHT.
HEY, HOW DID 10.3.4 GET IN THE AGENDA IN DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS
GOING TO BE AN ISSUE TODAY.
ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: EXCUSE
ME, I'M SORRY, ALDERMAN CHABOT. BEFORE I RECOGNIZE YOU, HAVE TO
DO A LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING HERE.
ALDERMAN MAR.

>> THANK YOU.
IT'S WITH A HEAVY HEART, YOUR
WORSHIP, THAT I WILL AGAIN DECLARE AN INTEREST IN THIS
ISSUE AS MANY OF THE PUBLIC KNOW
AND CERTAINLY ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL IS AWARE I AM PRESENTLY
BUILDING MY NEW HOUSE WHICH
INCLUDES A SECONDARY SUITE IN THE PLAN ABOVE THE GARAGE.
AS A RESULT, I'VE BEEN
ACKNOWLEDGED BY CITY LAW DEPARTMENT IS HAVING A PECUNIARY
INTEREST AND WILL NOT BE
PARTICIPATING IN THE VOTE NOR IN THE DISCUSSION AND I EXCUSE
MYSELF AND HAVE THAT NOTED FOR
THE MINUTES AT THIS TIME. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN MAR.
>> WITH A HEAVY HEART. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. UNFORTUNATELY I FIND MYSELF IN
THE SAME BOAT AS IT WILL BE
WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS OR WEEKS OR SO THAT I WILL BE APPLYING
FOR A SECONDARY SUITE IN MY
PRIMARY RESIDENCE SO I'M DECLARING A PECUNIARY INTEREST.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.

WOULD YOU MIND JUST EXPLAINING
THIS PECUNIARY INTEREST FOR THE
INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING.
>> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IMPOSES CONSTRAINTS ON MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL RESPECT TO PECUNIARY
INTERESTS, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 170 TO 174 OF THE MGA ARE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND THE MGA
SETS OUT THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING THE MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAS
PECUNIARY INTEREST IF THE MATTER
COULD MONETARILY AFFECT THE COUNCILLOR.
EACH MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO EXAMINE THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES AND MAKE THE
DETERMINATION IF THEY HAVE A
PECUNIARY INTEREST AND IF THEY DO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE
THAT BOTH AT COMMITTEE AND
COUNCIL MEETING. AND THEY MUST DISCLOSE THIS
PECUNIARY INTEREST PRIOR TO THE
DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER BY COMMITTEE OR BY COUNCIL.
AND THEY MUST ABSTAIN FROM
VOTING AND SUBJECT TO VERY LIMITED EXTENSIONS WHICH DO NOT
APPLY IN THIS CASE THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO LEAVE THE ROOM.

THE CONSEQUENCE FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
INFORMATION IS DISQUALIFICATION FROM COUNCIL.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE
BOTH ALDERMAN MAR AND ALDERMAN KEATING EITHER HAVE AN
APPLICATION IN THE WORKS FOR A
SECONDARY SUITE OR HAVE ONE THAT IS COMING FORWARD IMMINENTLY AND
AS SUCH BY PARTICIPATING IN THIS
MATTER IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THEY WOULD BE MAKING IT MUCH EASIER
ANDLESS EXPENSIVE FOR THEMSELVES
TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY WOULD
BE ENHANCING THE VALUE OF THEIR
PERSONAL REAL ESTATE IF IN FACT THE SUITE IS CONSTRUCTED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
Ms.

SLOAN, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
ONE THING.
YOU SAID EITHER HAVE AN APPLICATION CURRENTLY OUT THERE
OR HAVE ONE IMMINENT.
DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE AN OPINION ON THE WORD IMMINENT
WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THAT'S FACT SPECIFIC.
EVERY ARGUABLE PECUNIARY
INTEREST MUST BE ASSESSED ON ITS FACTS.
IN ALDERMAN MAR'S CASE, IT IS
VERY CLEAR THAT HE HAVE AN APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM.
IT'S A VERY IMMEDIATE BENEFIT TO
HIM IN THE EVENT THAT SOME AMENDMENTS WENT THROUGH THAT
WERE PERHAPS FAVOURABLE TO HIS
POSITION. WITH RESPECT TO ALDERMAN
KEATING'S POSITION, IT'S A
LITTLE LESS CLEAR. IN THAT HIS APPLICATION IS NOT
IN THE SYSTEM BUT BASED UPON
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD, THIS IS NOT A PIE IN THE SKY OR VERY
LONG-RANGE POSSIBILITY THAT MAY
COME TO FRUITION ONE DAY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE PLANS
ON MAKING A REALITY IN THE VERY
NEAR FUTURE. SO THE ACT ITSELF DOES NOT SPEAK
TO IMTHENCY.
THAT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC TO HIS SITUATION.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, Ms. SLOAN.

I THINK ALL OF US APPRECIATE
THAT CLARIFICATION.
SURE, I'LL TAKE IT NOW. >> THANK YOU.
>> Ms. SLOAN, CAN YOU JUST
EXPAND ON — I MEAN, I DON'T SEE HOW ANYONE WHO OWNS A PROPERTY
THAT CONCEIVABLY COULD BE
UPZONED TO A SUITE AND BENEFIT FROM THAT FINANCIAL LIST IS NOT
ALSO IN A PECUNIARY POSITION.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF
EACH MEMBER OF COUNCIL TO MAKE
THEIR OWN DETERMINATION. BASED ON THEIR OWN VERY SPECIFIC
FACTS.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE IN A VERY
GENERAL WAY.
ONE ITEM THAT I WOULD POINT OUT TO COUNCIL IS THAT THERE THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS TO
WHEN A PECUNIARY INTEREST EXISTS AND THOSE ARE OUTLINED IN
SECTION 170 SUB 3 IN THE MGA AND
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM AND ONE OF THEM IS EVEN THOUGH A
MEMBER OF COUNCIL COULD — OR A
MATTER COULD MONETARILY AFFECT A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THAT DOES NOT
BECOME A PECUNIARY INTEREST IF
THE MATTER — OR IF THE INTEREST IS HELD IN COMMON WITH THE
MAJORITY OF ELECTORS OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OR IF IT ONLY AFFECTS PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY
AND THAT'S UNDER SUBSECTION I
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BECAUSE OF
THE IMTHENCY OF THE APPLICATION
AND BECAUSE OF THE APPLICATION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE WORKS,
THIS ISN'T FALLING WITHIN THE
REALM OF GENERAL ELECTORS.

PEOPLE WHO OWN PROPERTY, SURE,
IT'S CERTAINLY UP TO THEM — OR
THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THEY COULD MAKE AN APPLICATION TO
UPZONE THEIR PROPERTY AS YOU
SUGGESTED. HOWEVER, THESE ARE TWO VERY REAL
AND VERY IMMEDIATE SITUATIONS I
WOULD SUGGEST DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF
THE REST OF THE ELECTORS.
>> THANKS, Ms. SLOAN. ALDERMAN CHABOT, BACK TO YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> YES. >> MY QUESTION WAS, IS THE —
WHEN A MEMBER RECUSES
THEMSELVES, IS IT PERMANENT ON THAT MATTER?
>> I'M NOT SURE.
>> OR CAN THEY COME IN AND OUT ON IT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, UNLESS THE
SITUATION CHANGES DRAMATICALLY, I DON'T SEE HOW ONE COULD COME
IN AND OUT.
ONCE ONE IS DECLARED A PECUNIARY INTEREST, THEY HAVE A PECUNIARY
INTEREST AND THE ACT DOES SPEAK
TO THAT TO SOME EXTENT.

WITH RESPECT TO DECLARING THE
INTEREST AT COMMITTEE THEY ARE
OBLIGATED TO REMOVE THEMSELVESES FROM COUNCIL.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN POOTMANS FOR MS. SLOAN?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
Ms. SLOAN, YOU MENTIONED THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE
DISQUALIFICATION FROM COUNCIL.
COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT A
DISQUALIFICATION FROM COUNCIL
REALLY MEANS. >> ABSOLUTELY.
YOUR WORSHIP.
IT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES AND WHAT THAT MEANS
IS YOU ARE NO LONGER A MEMBER OF
COUNCIL. YOU ARE DEPOSTED, SO TO SPEAK.
>> DEPOSTED.
>> YES, AND, YOUR WORSHIP, SECTION 174 OF THE "MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT ACT" SPEAKS
SPECIFICALLY TO THAT AND IT REQUIRES THAT — PARDON ME.
175 SPEAKS TO THAT.
AND IT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT A COUNCILLOR THAT IS DISQUALIFIED,
WHICH IS EXPLAINED UNDER SECTION
174 MUST RESIGN IMMEDIATELY. IF A COUNCILLOR DOES NOT RESIGN
IMMEDIATELY, THEN COUNCIL MAY
APPLY BY ORIGINATING NOTICE TO THE COURT TO GET AN ORDER
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY
WERE QUALIFIED OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL PECUNIARY INTEREST AND
WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE
DISQUALIFIED.

ALTERNATIVELY AN ELECTOR MAY
ALSO MAKE THAT SAME APPLICATION.
>> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
DON'T KNOW WHY BUT I JUST FIND
THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION AWFULLY MORBID ALL OF A SUDDEN.
ALDERMAN FARRELL OR HODGES FOR
Ms. SLOAN? >> Ms. SLOAN, THE COURTS HAVE
DONE THIS IN ALBERTA AND I THINK
THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE I RECALL IS MEDICINE HAT.
WASN'T ON A MATTER OF LAND USE.
IT WAS ON A MATTER OF BUSINESS OR BUSINESS LICENCES I RECALL IN
THE EARLY '80s.
IS THAT NOT CASE? SO THERE ARE SOME ACTUAL COURT
DECISIONS.
>> THERE ARE DEFINITELY ARE, YOUR WORSHIP.
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
SPECIFICALLY IN ALBERTA.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
QUESTION FOR Ms. SLOAN,
ALDERMAN FARRELL? GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
SO IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED OR REJECTED BY THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THERE'S
NO LIVE APPLICATION OR NO IMMINENT APPLICATION, THEN THE
SITUATION WILL HAVE CHANGED.
IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, EVERY SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE EXAMINED
CLOSELY AND ON ITS OWN MERITS. AND I AM VERY HESITANT TO GIVE
BLANKET ADVICE IN THAT REGARD.
IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT CIRCUMSTANCES COULD CHANGE IN
WHICH CASE THAT PERHAPS WE COULD
RE-EXAMINE IT. BUT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I'M VERY
HESITANT TO GIVE ANY BLANKET
ADVICE. BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE VERY
CRITICAL TO THESE
DETERMINATIONS. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'M SCARED TO BUT I WILL.
SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE
ALDERMEN WHO RECUSED HIMSELF HAS HIS APPLICATION FOR THE LAND USE
CHANGED APPROVED BY THIS
COUNCIL, SO COUNCIL NO LONGER HAS POWER OVER IT, COULD THAT
ALDERMAN PRESUMABLY THEN DEBATE
ON FUTURE SECONDARY SUITE DEBATES?
(PLEASE STAND BY)
THE FACTS CAN MAKE IT FEEL VERY DIFFERENT AFTER.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.

I WON'T BELABOUR THE ISSUE.
YOUR WORSHIP, I HAVE, I
BELIEVE, 35 COPIES, THERE'S A WORD THAT I'VE OMITTED ON
THESE SO I'VE BEEN QUICKLY
TRYING TO PEN THE ADDITION HERE AS I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO
ALL THIS VERY INTERESTING
DEBATE ON PECULIARRY INTEREST. I DIDN'T QUITE GIVE YOU 35
COPIES, MADAM CLERK, BUT
HOPEFULLY THERE'S ENOUGH FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHILE I
CONTINUE TO MAKE THESE
AMENDMENTS. PETER.
LET'S HAVE A LOOK AT THAT.
JUST KEEP CARRYING ON. YOUR WORSHIP, I HAVE FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.
THESE ARE DISCUSSIONS OF COURSE THAT YOU AND I HAVE HAD
OVER THE WEEKEND AND TRYING TO
FIND A COMPROMISE TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL SECONDARY
SUITES OR FACILITIES OF
SECONDARY SUITES IN AREAS WHERE IT'S MORE CONDUCIVE TO
DO SO.
ALTHOUGH I HAVE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE, I'M
PERSONALLY NOT PREPARED TO PUT
FORTH ALL FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I WILL SUBMIT THESE FIVE BUT
I'M ONLY PREPARED TO MOVE RECOMMENDATION ONE AT THIS
TIME, AND BEING AS ALL MEMBERS
OF COUNCIL WILL THEN HAVE THIS IN HAND, IF SOMEBODY SHOULD
CHOOSE TO MAKE SOME FURTHER
AMENDMENTS, FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, I'D BE
CERTAINLY WILLING TO LISTEN
AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

BUT AT THIS POINT I'M NOT
PREPARED TO MOVE THOSE OTHERS,
YOUR WORSHIP, SO RESPECTFULLY I'M MOVING RECOMMENDATION 1,
LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY
MAY. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN CHABOT.
JUST BEFORE I ASK FOR SECOND AND BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN
THERE'S A WORDING CHANGE ON
NUMBER ONE THAT WE MAY WISH TO MAKE HERE.
>> R 2 CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM
THAT LIST, YOUR WORSHIP. I JUST NOTICED THAT BECAUSE
IT'S ALREADY LISTED AS
PERMITTED UNDER R 2. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I
THINK I CAN FIGURE IT OUT FROM
THERE. IT IS SECONDARY SUITES
CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN
DISCRETIONARY USE SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY ASKING THEM
TO CHANGE.
THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT. SORRY.
Mr. WATSON, IN R 2 ZONES ARE
THEY ALREADY A PERMITTED USE? >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: SO THE
MOTION IS NUMBER 1 AS PUT BY ALDERMAN CHABOT BUT WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF R2 WITHIN THE
BRACKETS. WE'LL GET THAT UP ON THE
SCREEN SOON.
I THINK THAT CLERK HAS AN ELECTRONIC VERSION AS WELL.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT
ONE, PLEASE? THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
WHAT WE'LL DO, ALDERMAN CHABOT,
GIVEN WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF US,
IS WE'LL TAKE THAT ONE AND
THEN IF PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE THE OTHER ONES OR ANYTHING
ELSE WE'LL TAKE THEM AFTER
THIS ONE.

SO ON THIS ONE AND THE IDEA
HERE IS TO CHANGE FROM
DISCRETIONARY USE TO PERMITTED USE IN THE ZONES FOR SECONDARY
SUITES ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED
AS A DISCRETIONARY USE. Mr. WATSON, COULD YOU JUST
SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ON THE
NATURE OF THE APPEAL THAT WE CURRENTLY RECEIVE IN THESE
AREAS.
ALL RIGHT. IT'S JUST — IT'S — I THINK
YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED IT BY
E-MAIL AS WELL.

WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW IS JUST
NUMBER 1.
THAT'S ALL THAT'S ON THE FLOOR NOW.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S COMING.
>> YOU CAN STRIKE R2 OUT OF THAT LIST.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: YEAH.
>> NO, ACTUALLY. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: OKAY.
ARE YOU ALL READY?
ALL RIGHT, THEN. SORRY, MANY WATSON.
BACK TO YOU.
>> EXCUSE ME, TO THE CHAIR. SINCE THE LAND USE BYLAW WAS
APPROVED IN 2007, IN JUNE OF
THAT YEAR THERE'S BEEN 159 ACTUAL SECONDARY SUITE
APPLICATIONS.
VERY FEW OF THEM HAVE BEEN APPEALED.
SOME HAVE.
IN FACT MOST OF THE APPEALS WE GET ARE NOT THROUGH SECONDARY
SUITE APPLICATIONS.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY THROUGH ORDERS THAT ARE PLACED ON
COMPLAINTS THAT WE INVESTIGATE
THAT WE THEN MOVE TO ORDERS TO EVENTUALLY DEAL WITH.
IN FACT WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF
ABOUT — WE'RE RUNNING ABOUT A THOUSAND OF THOSE COMPLAINTS A
YEAR.
AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE TKHUL THE BULK OF THE WORK
THAT ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH TO
SDAB BECAUSE OF COURSE THREATEN THE APPLICANT TRIES
TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
IF REFUSED GOES TO SDAB, WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
SDAB.
INTERESTING ENOUGH IN ORDER 2, WHICH IS WHERE WE WERE JUST
SAYING THAT SECONDARY SUITES
IS ACTUALLY A PERMITTED USE, WE'VE HAD VERY, VERY FEW
APPLICATIONS SINCE THE LAND
USE BYLAW HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE.
R2, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER,
COUNCIL, IS ON THE OUTER EDGES.
IT'S R2 IS NOW IN THE
DEVELOPING AREAS.

IT'S NOT IN THE DEVELOPED
AREAS.
BUT IN THOSE LOCATIONS WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A SECONDARY
SUITE, OF COURSE YOU CAN HAVE
OTHER USES. SEMI-DETACHED, ET CETERA.
MOST OF THOSE ARE TURNING TO
SEMI-DETACHED AS OPPOSED TO THE (INDISCERNIBLE)
CONSIDERING SECONDARY SUITE.
YOUR WORSHIP, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT FULLY ANSWERED IT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: IT
CERTAINLY DID FOR ME. THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN JONES?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.

YOUR WORSHIP, THE FIRST
QUESTION I GOT IS SO WHAT
HAPPENS TO THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION THAT IS WERE ON
THIS?
ARE YOU FILING THEM? >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:
BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE IS
FORWARDING THIS TO COUNCIL WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, WHAT
ALDERMAN CHABOT PUT ON THE
FLOOR IS THE ONLY THING ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IF THIS
MOTION PASSES, THEN THE PROPER MOTION, I BELIEVE, WOULD BE TO
FILE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> OF ADMINISTRATION. >> OF ADMINISTRATION.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I
THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

>> I'LL SPEAK TO THIS SHORTLY,
JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR WORSHIP.
Mr. WATSON, THIS IS THE 116.000 SUITES WE WERE TOLD
ABOUT, UNITS THAT COULD BE
UTILIZED RIGHT NOW IN COMMITTEE?
>> THAT 116.000, YOUR WORSHIP,
WERE THE NUMBER OF PARTIALS THAT WERE UNDER VARIOUS
DISTRICTS THAT ALLOWED
SECONDARY SUITES. SO THEY ARE RCU 1 AND THE RC
2.
THE R 1 AND THE R2. THE R2 M AND THE R 1 S.
THOSE ARE ALL THE NUMBER OF
PARCELS THAT EXIST IN THE CITY WHICH TOTALS JUST ABOVE
116.000, OF WHICH WE'VE DONE
SOME FURTHER CALCULATION, ALMOST 86.000, 87.000 OF THOSE
HAVE SINGLE DETACHED HOUSES ON
THEM TODAY. SO IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT
THAT, VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO PROBABLY GO FROM A SINGLE DETACHED HOUSE TO A
SECONDARY SUITE IN TERMS OF
PUTTING ONE IN. SO YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT
ANOTHER 20, 30.000.
REGARDLESS THAT'S 116.000.

THAT'S WHAT TOP NUMBER IS.
IT ALSO INCLUDES SOME OF THE
MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS THAT COUNCIL ALLOWED SECONDARY
SUITES TO GO INTO, BUT THE
NUMBER OF — THAT WAS MAINLY IN CASES WHERE YOU HAD A
STRANDED PARCEL AND WANTED TO
ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR SOMEBODY TO PUT A SECONDARY SUITE IN.
A NUMBER OF THOSE PARCELS IS
PRETTY SMALL. >> A NUMBER OF THESE PARCELS
COULD ALSO BE A LITTLE BIT
BETTER THAN A SECONDARY SUITE. THERE'S PROBABLY A HIGHER,
MORE INTENSE USE THAN JUST —
>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IF YOU HAVE SOME OF THESE,
ESPECIALLY THE MULTIFAMILIES,
THE CHANCES OF YOU WANTING TO INCREASE YOUR VALUE BY PUTTING
A SECONDARY SUITE IN IS
MINIMAL UNLESS THERE'S NOTHING ELSE AND YOU'RE A STRANDED
PARCEL OR YOU HAVE A SINGLE
DETACHED HOUSE. I DO SOME PEOPLE MAY USE IT AS
TEMPORARY USE.
>> YEAH. >> BUT YOUR WORSHIP, AFTER
HEARING THAT IN COMMITTEE,
THAT WAS WHY I WAS BASICALLY OPPOSED TO THE NUMBER 1 AREAS.
I FELT WE SHOULD MAXIMIZE THE
USE OF THE AREAS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN MAXIMIZED YET.
I THINK THERE'S MOTION AND THE
DISCUSSION THAT A NUMBER OF US HAVE HAD OVER THE WEEKEND THAT
PRECIPITATED THESE FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS WAS WOW, TOO BAD WE DIDN'T HAVE IT PRIOR TO
COMMITTEE.
COULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF TIME AND IT COULD HAVE SAVED A LOT
OF EFFORT OVER THE LAST TWO
WEEKS. PROBABLY A LOT OF NAME-CALLING
AS WELL THAT'S BEEN CREATED
FROM THIS.

I'M NOT PERSONALLY A PERSON
THAT BELIEVES IN SURVEYS.
I BELIEVE IN THE CALLS AND THE E-MAILS THAT I'VE RECEIVED IN
MY OFFICE, AND THEY WERE VERY
PREDOMINANT OUT OF 9-1 BASIS ON PEOPLE WERE VERY INSISTENT
THEY DID NOT WANT THESE IN AN
R1 AREA IN MY COMMUNITIES. THAT ALSO CAME FROM EVERYONE
IN MY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
OF WHICH I HAVE LETTERS FROM THEM INDICATING THE SAME
THING.
THAT WAS WHY I TOOK THE STANCE THAT I DID.
BUT WITH THIS MOTION, AT LEAST
NUMBER 1, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH 2, 3, 4, AND 5,
WITH NUMBER AT LEAST IT
ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS THAT EVERYBODY HAS ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE INTERIM.
IT ALLOWS FOR POSSIBILITY OF IN EXCESS OF 116.000 SITES
WHERE WE CAN PUT SECONDARY
SUITES.

AND I GUESS THAT'S A START.
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN
FUTURE. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS
JONES. ON NUMBER 1, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
BETWEEN 1 AND 3.
IT MAKES REFERENCE TO R1 AND NUMBER 1 AND ALSO NUMBER 3 AS
IT RELATES TO PROXIMITY TO AN
LRT STATION. IN NUMBER 1, R1, SUITES WOULD
BECOME A PERMITTED USE.
UNDER 3, THEY WOULD BECOME A DISCRETIONARY USE?
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: NO,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS. NUMBER 1 ONLY SPEAKS TO R1 F,
R1 LF.
>> I MISSED THAT, THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THOSE
ARE THE ONES THAT ALREADY HAVE
SECONDARY SUITES OF WHICH THERE ARE VERY FEW IN THE CITY
RIGHT NOW.
I BELIEVE IF I WAS READING THE MAP CORRECTLY THERE ARE A
GRAND TOTAL OF FIVE PARCELS
THAT ARE R1 S TODAY.

I DO THANK YOU.
I'LL COME BACK ON OTHER
MATTERS. THANKS.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: DID I
GET THAT WRONG, Mr. WATSON? WE DID, WE APPROVED NINE MORE.
>> EXCUSE ME.
YOU DISAPPROVED MORE THAN FIVE, I THINK IN COUGAR RIDGE, ABOUT
15 MINUTES AGO, BUT IT IS A
SMALLER NUMBER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER NUMBERS WE WERE
TALKING.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS EXCEPT I'M
TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF IT.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN JONES SUMMED UP MOST CERTAINLY
MY EXPERIENCE VERY PLAINLY.
I TOO — SURVEYS I LOOKED AT ARE THE E-MAILS AND CALLS I
GET, BUT I EVEN BREAK IT DOWN
A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN THAT.
THOSE WHO SAT DOWN AND WRITTEN
ME A THOUGHTFUL NOTE AS OPPOSED TO A BOILER PLATE ARE
THE ONES THAT I LOOKED AT.
MOST CERTAINLY 9-1 WAS THE RATIO I WAS GETTING OUT OF MY
WARD.
8-2 FOR THE REST OF THE CITY COMING INTO ME.
SO IT DOES PUT 116.000 PARCELS
OUT THERE WHERE WE CAN SECONDARY SUITES CAN GO IN.
THE AMOUNT — THE LAND USE WE
DID ON SAGE HILL, ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS THAT WE PLACED
THOSE R1 S LOTS VERY, VERY
CAREFULLY, VERY CAREFUL CONSULTATION WITH THE
APPLICANT AT THE TIME,
RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT IT WAS — IT'S NOT A LANED
PRODUCT.
WE PLACED THEM SO THEY'D BE SENSITIVE TO THE COMMUNITY.
SO THEY ARE THIS BUT IT WILL
BE 15 OR 20 YEARS BEFORE WE REALIZE WHAT THE UPTAKE ON
THOSE WILL BE.
BUT AT LEAST NOW THOSE WHO BUY THE LOTS KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO
WITH THEM.
THOSE WHO BUY THE LOTS AROUND THEM KNOW WHAT MAY BE EXPECTED
IN THE FUTURE.
AND THAT'S THE KEY.

AND SO I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY
WITH NUMBER 1.
I WILL TELL YOU CANDIDLY. NUMBER 2 AND 3 DO NOT CONSULT.
THEY FAIL.
THEY FAIL. SO THAT'S WHERE MY LINE IS,
YOUR WORSHIP.
>> POINT OF ORDER. SHOULD WE BE DISCUSSING NUMBER
1 NOW, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO
THE OTHERS? >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:ALITY
HODGES.
>> EVERYBODY'S GOT ONE MORE POINT TO MAKE TODAY.
IT'S VERY INTERESTING DAY
TODAY. WORSHIP, AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, NUMBER 1, COUNCIL
HEREBY DIRECT ADMINISTRATION. SO THE LAST COUPLE LINES OF
NUMBER 1 IS "WOULD NOT REQUIRE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHILE DETACHED FORMS OF SECONDARY
SUITES SUCH AS — IN SUCH LAND
USE DISTRICTS WILL REMAIN AS A DISCRETIONARY USE".
RIGHT.
BUT WHAT'S BEING MISSED IS OUR REGULARS, THE LANDOWNERS,
REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
SOMEWHERE, MR.

WATSON, I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO PUT IN RED
HIGHLIGHTED LETTERS,
REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS, WHETHER THEY NEED A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR NOT.
GENERALLY AROUND HERE WE KNOW THAT.
BUT OUT IN THE REAL WORLD,
THEY DON'T. I EVEN GOT A CALL ON FRIDAY
FROM SOMEONE IS PLAINLY THE
ORDER OF AN ILLEGAL SUITE, RC 2 DISTRICT, AND WHAT HE WANTED
TO MAKE SURE IS ALL THIS GOT
PASSED ON MONDAY SO HIS ILLEGAL SUITE COULD BE
LEGALIZED.
SORRY, LITTLE BUDDY, YOU NEVER DID BOTHER WITH A BUILDING
PERMIT, DID YOU.
BUT I DIDN'T TROUBLE HIM WITH THE FACTS.
SOMEWHERE, THOUGH, WE HAVE TO
TROUBLE SOMEBODY WITH THE FACTS, AND LITTLE BOOKLET YOUR
DEPARTMENT PRODUCES DOES THAT,
BUT THIS ISN'T A BESTSELLER YET, WHICH IT OUGHT TO BE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:
Mr.

WATSON? >> WELL, NO, I DON'T THINK IT
IS A BESTSELLER.
TRYING TO GET IT ON (INDISCERNIBLE) OR SOMEWHERE.
BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT,
OUR EXPECTATION AND CERTAINLY OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT ANY NEW
CONSTRUCTION WOULD NEED A
BUILDING PERPLTD, AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME IN AT ANY
POINT AND SAY I'VE GOT A SUITE
AND PERHAPS I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
BUILDING PERMIT, WE WOULD WANT
TO TAKE THEM THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
NOW, THERE IS FURTHER ON IN
THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ALBERTA
BUILDING CODE, THE COMPANION
DOCUMENT, THE FIRE CODE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME
WORK ON.
OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE WHO HAS BUILT A SUITE DOESN'T WANT TO
SELL US ABOUT IT AND ISN'T
INTERESTED IN DOING ANY CHANGES BASED ON ANYTHING.
IT'S NOT LIKELY TO BE COMING
IN.

BUT ALSO FURTHER ON THERE'S
SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE
CAN FOCUS ON ENFORCEMENT, IDEAS, AND MAYBE TURN THIS
INTO A BESTSELLER AT SOME
POINT. IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE.
I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE
AND SAY THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EASY ROUTE.
PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY OWNING
SUITES THAT HAVE NOT COME FORWARD, DON'T WANT TO COME
FORWARD, (INDISCERNIBLE)
INCENTIVE BUT CERTAINLY OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE END UP
WITH SAFE SUITES, SAFE LEGAL
SUITES WOULD BE THE BEST SOLUTION.
>> I AGREE, Mr. WATSON.
SO YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK SOMEWHERE IN THIS FIRST
RECOMMENDATION THE REFERENCE
TO A BUILDING PERMIT BEING REQUIRED SHOULD BE THERE.
I KNOW IT'S BUILT
(INDISCERNIBLE) BUT STILL IT SHOULD BE THERE.
THE WHOLE PROCESS DOESN'T END
WHETHER YOU NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR NOT, OR LAND USE
CHANGE OR NOT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I'M JUST CHECKING WITH Ms.

SLOAN
HERE.
IF ALDERMAN HODGES WERE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS SAYING WHERE
IT SAYS "THEREFORE NOT
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BUT WOULD REQUIRE A BUILDING
PERMIT", WOULD THAT BE LEGIT?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT IT'S THE
PROVINCE THAT DETERMINES WHAT
REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT AND WHAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A
BUILDING PERMIT.
IT'S NOT THE LAND USE BYLAW. AND THE SAFETY CODE ACT IS
VERY CLEAR THAT THE EXTENT TO
WHICH A BYLAW PURPORTS TO REGULATE SOMETHING IN THE
PROVINCIAL DOMAIN IS
INOPERATIVE. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: WHEN
WE SAY PERMITTED USE RIGHT NOW,
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THIS,
WHEN WE SAY PERMITTED USE IN
OUR LAND USE BYLAW RIGHT NOW, DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY IMPLY
THAT A BUILDING PERMIT IS
REQUIRED? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK
GENERALLY SPEAKING YES, BUT
SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT EVEN THOUGH SOMETHING
MIGHT BE A PERMITTED USE IT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT IS EXEMPT FROM REQUIRING A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
THE ONLY TIME THAT SOMETHING IS EXEMPT FROM A GP REURPBLT
IS IF IT'S IN THE LIST OF
SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS.

>> RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
THIS MOTION PRESUPPOSES FOR A CHANGE TO THE LAND USE BYLAW.
YES?
>> IF YOU WANT IT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM A DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT REQUIREMENT, I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT YOU PUT THAT IN THERE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: IT
DOES SAY THAT, DOESN'T IT, SUITES AND ATTACHED FORMS IN
SUCH LAND USE DISTRICTS WOULD
THEREFORE NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT —
>> PARDON ME, YES, IT DOES.
>> MY CONCERN STILL REMAINS, YOUR WORSHIP, NO ONE IS GOING
UP TO EDMONTON OR TAPPING IN
ON LINE, AS I GUESS IT IS THESE DAYS, TO GET A BUILDING
PERMIT.
THE WHIP DOWN HERE AS THOUGH SUPPOSED TO UP ON THE THIRD
FLOOR IN THE BUILDING
REGULATIONS SECTION. SO TECHNICALLY Ms.

SLOAN IS
CORRECT, BUT AGAIN CITIES IN
THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BUILDING PERMITS.
IF ANYONE WOULD BE SO GOOD AS
TO BRING SOME DRAWINGS IN THAT WOULD INDICATE WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO DO.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: UNDERSTANDING WHAT Ms. SLOAN
HAS SUGGESTED AND ALSO
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BYLAW AMENDMENT IS YET TO COME BACK,
IF YOU WANTED TO PUT AN
AMENDMENT TO PUT THOSE WORDS IN TO DIRECT AS BEST WE CAN
THE BYLAW AMENDMENT BEING
ASKED FOR HERE, I WOULD ALLOW THAT IF YOU WANT TO DO IT NOW.
>> YEAH.
WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THEREFORE NOT REQUIRE A
BUILDING PERMIT, COME MARKS
BUT MAY REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT, COMMA, WHILE DETACHED
FORMS, THEN THE REST OF IT IS
A SEPARATE — REALLY A SEPARATE PART OF THE WHOLE
EXERCISE, WHILE DETACHED FORMS
OF SECONDARY SUITES IN SUCH LAND USE WILL REMAIN AS A
DISCRETIONARY USE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: SO YOU WANT TO ADD COMMA BUT MAY
REQUIRE BUILDING PERMIT COMMA
BEFORE THE WORD "WHILE"? >> YEAH.
>> DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
>> THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO ON — DO ON THE FLOOR OF
COUNCIL, YOUR WORSHIP.
THIS LITTLE BOOKLET, Ms.

SLOAN, IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO READ
PAGE 4, DOES SAY ADDITIONAL
DWELLING UNITS, MEANING SECONDARY SUITES, BUILT AFTER
DECEMBER 31st, 2006, MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ALBERTA BUILDING CODE.
SO THE INFORMATION THE CITY IS
PROVIDING IS BASED ON THE RULES OF THE BUILDING, ALBERTA
BUILDING CODE.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVINCE'S DOCUMENT AND RULES.
BUT THIS DOES — THAT'S WHY
I'D LIKE IT, Mr. WATSON, TO PROMOTE IT AS A BIT OF A
BESTSELLER IN THE NEXT WHILE,
IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. HOWEVER YOU HAVE TO DO THAT.
MAIL IT TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD, IF
YOU IN UTILITY BILLS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DO YOU, TO GET THE
MESSAGE OUT THERE.
THANK YOU, WORSHIP. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN HODGES.
FOR THE RECORD, YOU CAN CALL ME "LITTLE BUDDY" ANY TIME YOU
WANT.
I KIND OF LIKE THAT.

ON THE AMENDMENT, ANY
DISCUSSION ON THE 5E789, JUST
WAVE. ALL RIGHT, THEN.
ON THE AMENDMENT, ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
BACK TO THE MOTION AT HAND. ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
>> THANK YOU.
WELL, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.
AOEURPL GOING TO UNEQUIVOCALLY
SUPPORT THIS. I DO HAVE TO SAY I FIND IT
DISAPPOINTING THAT WE'RE
ACTUALLY LOOKING AT TRYING TO PIECEMEAL THIS AND TRYING
TO — I'M NOT GOING TO CALL IT
COMPROMISE BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH COMPROMISE AND FINDING
THOSE AVENUES WHERE WE NEED TO
MOVE FORWARD, BUT THIS TO ME FEELS AS OPPOSED TO COMPROMISE,
FEELS PIECEMEAL.
AND I GUESS MY DISAPPOINTMENT LIES IN A LOT OF THE
DISCUSSION THAT HAS BEEN
HAPPENING IN THE PUBLIC AROUND THIS ISSUE FOR THE LAST FEW
WEEKS.
AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF, AS ALDERMAN JONES CALLED IT,
NAME-CALLING, MISINFORMATION,
MISUNDERSTANDING, COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF WE HAD
ACTUALLY GONE ABOUT DOING THIS
PROPERLY. TALKING ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS
PROPERLY.
HAVING THE DISCUSSION AND RESPECTFUL MANNER.
I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN, IN
A WAY, TRYING TO SET UP OUR CONSTITUENTS, OUR RESIDENTS,
OUR NEIGHBOURS AS ADVERSARIES
IN THIS IS NOT SERVED.

IT HAS NOT SERVED ANYONE IN
TRYING TO ACTUALLY MOVE
FORWARD. I THINK — I DO HAVE TO SAY
THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE
HAVE BEEN WRONG. BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE
AROUND SECONDARY SUITES HAVE
BEEN DISRESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER.
THOSE WHO PROMOTE THIS AS THE
PANACEA TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION,
IT'S NOT.
IT'S NOT THE SOLUTION. IT'S A PIECE.
IT'S A PAT OF WHAT WE NEED TO
DO, TO HAVE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY.
IT'S ABOUT SUPPORTING PEOPLE,
IT'S ABOUT SUPPORTING COMMUNITY, IT'S ABOUT CREATING
A DEGREE EVER AFFORDABILITY.
BUT IT IS NOT THE SOLUTION. IT IS NOT THE MAGIC BULLET.
SO FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
TOUTING THIS AS THE MAGIC BULLET FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND HOW DARE WE NOT SUPPORT
THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A PLACE TO LIVE,
IT'S NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
THEN AGAIN FOR THOSE ON THE OPPONENTS SIDE WHO HAVE BEEN
TOUTING THIS AS THE THING THAT
IS GOING TO LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY, IT'S
NOT GOING TO DO THAT EITHER.
SECONDARY SUITE IS STILL GOING TO COST — STILL GOING TO
REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
IT'S STILL GOING TO COST, I DON'T KNOW, $50.000 TO PUT ONE
IN.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A HUGE RUSH TO HAVE THAT PUT IN.
WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
EDMONTON, THE EXPERIENCE IN EDMONTON AROUND SECONDARY
SUITES, WHERE THEY'VE PUT IN,
I DON'T KNOW, GENEROUS, 100, 10 A YEAR SINCE THEY MADE THEM
A PERMITTED USE.
LET'S SAY WE'RE WILDLY SUCCESSFUL IN CALGARY.
WILDLY SUCCESSFUL AND
CALGARIANS ARE KNOCKING DOWN THE DOOR AND WE PUT IN 500 A
YEAR ACROSS THE CITY.
WELL, SPLIT THAT OUT AMONGST 150 COMMUNITIES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT — HELL,
LET'S SAY THEY'RE ONLY GOING IN HALF THE COMMUNITIES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVEN IN A
COMMUNITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
THAT'S NOT — ON AVERAGE. THAT'S NOT DESTROYING A
COMMUNITY.
SO BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND I THINK
IT'S UNFORTUNATE.
I THINK IT'S BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY I HAVE TO SAY
THAT I THINK THAT IT'S BECAUSE
WE AS A COUNCIL, WE AS A CITY, HAVE HANDLED IT BADLY.
WE ACTUALLY HAVEN'T HAD THE
DISCUSSION. I WAS JUST AT SEM LAST WEEK
AND I TALKED TO A LOT OF
PEOPLE ABOUT SECONDARY SUITES, AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT A LOT
OF OUR SISTER CITIES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY, A LOT OF TIMES I GOT WHAT, YOU HAVEN'T DONE
THAT YET?
IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. IT ISN'T AN ISSUE.
IT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE AS
PART OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASKFORCE WHERE WE LOOKED AT
OTHER CITIES.
IT WASN'T AN ISSUE. I WILL SUPPORT SOME OF THESE.
I WON'T SUPPORT ALL OF THE
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE BEFORE US, BUT I HAVE
TO JUST SAY THAT I SUPPORT
THEM — I SUPPORT THIS NOT RELUCTANTLY BUT JUST AS —
JUST AS THE PIECEMEAL APPROACH
IS JUST NOT THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD FOR OUR CITY AND IT IS
DISAPPOINTING.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
ALDERMAN CARRA, YOU'VE SPOKEN
ON THIS ALREADY.

DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?
OH, FOR THE NEXT ONE.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR
WORSHIP.
I ECHO MANY OF ALDERMAN PINCOTT'S COMMENTS.
I SUPPOSE WE ALL FEEL TO SOME
EXTENT DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS HASN'T BEEN THE IDEALISTIC AND
UTOPIAN FULLY-INFORMED PUBLIC
DEBATE. AND THAT TO ME IS A TRAGEDY.
THE EXTREME EMOTIONS ON BOTH
SIDES FOR THE PAST THREE WEEKS HAVE BEEN REMARKABLE.
OUR STAFF IN WARD 6 HAS PUT
TOGETHER A LIST OF YES AND NO CALLS AND E-MAILS.
150 NOs, 99 YESs, CHANGED FROM
THE ORIGINAL OPENING. THE MOMENTUM IS GOING TOWARDS
THE YES BUT NONETHELESS STILL
AT THIS POINT 3-2 AGAINST. THE COMPELLING INPUT THAT I
RECEIVED IS IN COMMUNITY
DISCUSSIONS WHEN I'M AT THE SKATING PARTIES OR BARBECUES
OR WHATEVER FOR THE PAST
SEVERAL WEEKS. AND I THINK THE BEST WORD TO
DESCRIBE THE FEELINGS IN WARD
6 IS THAT THERE'S BEEN APPREHENSION.
I THINK THERE'S BEEN A REAL
WORRY ABOUT HOME VALUES, BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS, OWNER
OCCUPANCY, PARKING, SAFETY.
THE KEY ISSUES WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHICH I HOPE ARE
ENSHRINED IN FINAL DOCUMENTS
ARTICULATED IN THESE PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT I
WILL BE LOOKING FOR THOSE IN
THE BYLAW AMENDMENTS SOMEHOW INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BYLAWS
FOR THE CITY.
I THINK GOING THIS ROUTE WITH R2 AND ALL THE OTHER LAND USE
DISTRICTS ENUMERATED I THINK
IS A VERY SOFT FIRST STEP.

I'M NOT SURE IT SHOWS THE
POLITICAL WILL THAT PERHAPS
THE CITY COULD BE, BUT I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WARD 6 WOULD
I THINK BE AMENABLE AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO READING THE BYLAW AMENDMENT.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, I'M NOT
SURE IF NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE PROCESS AS IT
REVOLVES AROUND BRINGING FORTH THIS BYLAW AMENDMENT.
WILL IT BE GOING THROUGH CPC?
I GUESS I POSE THAT HAD QUESTION.
IS THAT WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
WILL IT THEN COME TO COUNCIL AS PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING,
Mr. WATSON?
>> BE ALL AMENDMENTS OF THE LAND USE BYLAW COME THROUGH
CALGARY PLANNING COMMISSION
AND COME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT CITY COUNCIL.
>> IT WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOREVER PUBLIC INPUT AT THAT POINT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THAT WILL BE A FULSOME DEBATE.
THANK YOU.
AS OPPOSED TO SO MUCH TIME FOR A FULSOME DEBATE.
ON THAT NOTE, YOUR WORSHIP,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ANYONE
ELSE ON NUMBER 1 BEFORE I CALL
ON ALDERMAN CHABOT TO CLOSE? ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
YOU'RE RIGHT; MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THERE HAS BEEN A LOT
OF DEBATE.
IT'S BEEN A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE FOR MANY, MANY
YEARS, ACTUALLY.
NOT JUST FOR THE LAST COUPLE, THREE MONTHS.
WE JUST APPROVED A MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH TALKS ABOUT INTENSIFICATION AND SAYS
IN A SENSITIVE MANNER.
IN CHOSE PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT AND NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS.
BLANKET APPROACH I DON'T THINK
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONCENTRATE
INTENSIFICATION IN PLACE THAT IS MAKE SENSE.
THIS AT THE VERY LEAST IS
THERE'S A CERTAIN SENSE OF EXPECTATION THAT AT SOME POINT
IN TIME SECONDARY SUITE MAY
DEVELOP NEXT DOOR TO YOU.

BY MOVING IT FROM
DISCRETIONARY TO PERMITTED USE,
THEN FACILITATES THAT OPPORTUNITY.
IT PROVIDES AN INCREASED
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO DEVELOP SECONDARY SUITES IN
THOSE AREAS WHERE AT LEAST AT
SOME POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY IS GOING TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT, I
BOUGHT IN THIS AREA WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT THIS MIGHT HAPPEN.
THIS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE ONE
SINGLE ILLEGAL SUITE LEGAL. NOT ONE.
HOWEVER, IT WILL PROVIDE AN
INCREASED OPPORTUNITY. WE HEARD THE NUMBERS 116.000,
BUT BECAUSE WE'VE EXCLUDED R1
N AND RC 1 N IT ACTUALLY REDUCES THE NUMBER DOWN TO
SOME OF 6,800 OR SOMETHING.
BUT THEN AGAIN THAT ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MCG, MCL, MC 2,
MHL, MH 1, 2, AND 3, AND I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER CONSTITUTES BUT I CAN TELL YOU
THE OTHER ONES REPRESENT ABOUT
66.800 ADDITIONAL HOMES OR ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES THAT
WILL MOVE FROM DISCRETIONARY
TO PERMITTED. SO PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED THAT
THIS IN ESSENCE TAKES AWAY THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ON THIS.
IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE
THINGS FROM DISCRETIONARY TO PERMITTED OTHER THAN IT
FACILITATES IT.
IT MAKES IT CHEAPER TO DO.

IT DOESN'T CREATE AN ONEROUS
PROCESS FOR SOMEBODY SHOULD
THEY WANT TO APPLY FOR A SECONDARY SUITE 'CAUSE WITH
DISCRETIONARY PEOPLE CAN
OBJECT TO IT, SEND THEIR COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORITY, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE AUTHORITY
APPROVES IT THEY CAN STILL FILE AN APPEAL AND GO IN FRONT
OF SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD. THE COST FOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
THAN A BUILDING PERMIT. THE — SOME OF THE NEW
COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY TO ACCOMMODATE A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
THAN WHAT WAS STRICTLY
APPROVED BASED ON THE DENSITY BY THE INCLUSION OF RC 1 S.
AGAIN, SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE
BUYING THOSE HOMES MAY NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS
AND PAY THE ADDITIONAL COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
THIS IS SAVING PEOPLE MONEY.
IT'S PROVIDING INCREASED OPPORTUNITY.
TPHOEFRDZ RC 1 AND R 15 AND
THE REASON THAT I WASN'T PREPARED TO MOVE THE REST OF
THE AMENDMENTS AND WHY I
WANTED TO MOVE JUST THIS IS AGAIN IN KEEPING WITH THE MDP
WHICH TALKS ABOUT SENSITIVE
INTENSIFICATION, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, OPPORTUNITY FOR
PEOPLE TO PROVIDE INPUT ONTO
WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEIR COMMUNITY DEVELOP OUT
AS.
WHAT ARE THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
INCREASED INTENSITY?
MANY OF THE NEW COMMUNITIES IN PARTICULAR HAD A PARTICULAR
DENSITY THAT WAS ENVISIONED.
IF WE START INCREASING BY VIRTUE OF A BLANKET APPROVAL,
THIS MAY BE A NEED TO INCREASE
OUR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, MORE POLICE, MORE FIRE PROTECTION,
MORE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
THE LIST GOES ON.

WHERE DO WE DO A COST
RECOVERY?
THERE IS NO MECHANISM BY WAY OF LAND USE BYLAW TO DO THAT
WITHOUT IMPOSING ADDITIONAL
LEVIS SPECIFICALLY ON SECONDARY SUITES.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS EXPECTED, IT'S NOT OUT OF CONTEXT, IT'S IN KEEPING
WITH THE MD.
P, IT'S NOT A PANACEA BUT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR PROVIDING SOME
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING SOME OF
THE COMMUNITY.
TO SUGGEST THAT THIS MAY NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE
COMMUNITY I WOULD ARGUE
OTHERWISE. SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY
MAY — THIS IS GOING TO OPEN
THE DOORS IF WE DO A BLANKET APPROVAL AND SOME SAY THAT
LOOK AT OTHER CITIES.
WHAT HAS EXPERIENCE BEEN IN OTHER CITIES IN ONLY 200
APPLICATIONS.
200 APPLICATIONS IN EDMONTON. 200 LEGAL APPLICATIONS.
CURRENT LIP WE KNOW THERE'S
ANYWHERE FROM 50.000 ON UP OF ILLEGAL SECONDARY SUITES ON
THE BASIS OF THAT THEY ARE
ILLEGAL. IF WE WERE TO MAKE A
TRANSITION FROM NOT PERMITTED
TO PERMITTED, THERE WOULD BE A SENSE OF EXPECTATION THAT THEY
ARE ALLOWED.
NOT WHETHER THEY'RE PERMITTED OR NOT PERMITTED OR
DISCRETIONARY.
ALLOWED.

SO HOW MANY OTHER ILLEGAL
SUITES DO WE THINK WILL
DEVELOP? HOW MANY HAVE DEVELOPED IN
OTHER COMMUNITIES?
WE DON'T KNOW THAT. ALL THEY'VE GIVEN US IS HOW
MANY ILLEGAL APPLICATIONS
THERE'S BEEN. I'M NOT PREPARED TO MOVE
FORWARD ON A BLANKET APPROVAL.
I THINK THIS IS AT LEAST A SOFT APPROACH AND I THINK WE
SHOULD TAKE A SOFT APPROACH.
WE WERE NOT ANY OTHER CITY.

WE ARE CALGARY.
WE ARE UNIQUE.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A UNIQUE APPROACH.
AND I THINK THIS IS THE BEST
MECHANISM MOVING FORWARD SO I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THIS.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS
VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN CHABOT. SO ON THIS RECOMMENDATION, ARE
WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> THANK YOU. NOW WE GET INTO THE REAL
DEBATE.
AND AS PREFERENCE TO THE REAL DEBATE I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT
I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS PLEAD
THE ASSERTION THAT SECONDARY SUITES ARE THE ANSWER TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I THINK EVERYONE'S MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE AN
INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF THE
SOLUTION. I STARTED COMMUNICATING WITH
MY COMMUNITIES IN WARD 9 QUITE
AWHILE AGO TELLING THEM THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S
COMING DOWN THE PIKE.
AND THAT THE ISSUE IS FRAUGHT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A TWO-PART
QUESTION.
ON THE FIRST SIDE IT'S A PRINCIPLED ISSUE.
AND I THINK THE PRINCIPLED
ISSUES ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY ON THE SIDE OF
THE ANGELS.
SECONDARY SUITES ARE A CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CITY OF CALGARY IN TERMS OF
AFFORDABLE MOUSING — HOUSING, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR
STUDENTS, FOR ARTISTS, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT FOR WORKERS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR
SENIORS AND FOR ALLOWING
SENIORS TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR
DISABLED.

IT'S PROPER REDUCTION
STRATEGY.
IT'S NOT A PANACEA, IT'S NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION, BUT IT'S
PART OF THE SOLUTION.
IT'S PART OF THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO COMPLETE
COMMUNITIES.
IT'S PART OF THE CITY'S NEED TO BE ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE,
ESPECIALLY AS WE COME OUT OF A
RECESSION. AND IT'S AN EXPRESSION OF
POSITIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS
OPPOSED TO NEGATIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHICH IS ONE OF THE FEW
ARGUMENTS THAT'S BEING MADE ON
THE OTHER SIDE AT THE PRINCIPAL LEVEL.
SO I RECOMMEND MY COMMUNITIES
READ THE MAYOR'S PLATFORM. I SENT THEM LINKS.
AND START HAVING A REAL
CONVERSATION. BECAUSE WHEN YOU SEND ME YOUR
LETTERS, I WANT YOU TO TALK TO
ME ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES
BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLES ARE
UNDENIABLY ON THE SIDE OF THE ANGEL.
THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS
EQUATION TOO, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE TECHNICAL
CHALLENGES SURROUNDING
SECONDARY SUITES.

THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT BUT A
SECONDARY MATTER.
A SEPARATE MATTER. AND THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
HAVE TO DO WITH PROBLEMS WITH
OUR LAND USE BYLAW. THEY HAVE TO DO WITH PROBLEMS
WITH OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD
PLANNING PROCESSES. THEY HAVE TO DO WITH PROBLEMS
WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
PROCESSES AND OUR DEVELOPMENT APPEALS PROCESSES WHERE A LOT
OF THESE INVESTIGATIONARY
ISSUES ARE DESTINED TO END UP. THEY HAVE TO DO WITH OUR
ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES, AND
THEY HAVE TO DO WITH OUR ABILITY TO HAVE TKPHRUPBS WITH
REGARDS TO THE REFORM OF
PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND FIRE AND SAFETY CODES.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THOSE TECHNICAL ISSUES IN ANY SORT OF MEANINGFUL WAY
UNLESS WE MAKE A STRONG
STATEMENT REGARDING THE FIRST PROPOSITION WHICH IS THE
PRINCIPLED SIDE OF THE
EQUATION. HAVING MADE THAT ARGUMENT TO
MY COMMUNITIES — I DON'T KNOW
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO ME. I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF SPEAKING.
THANK YOU.
I'M ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION, AND THIS IS MY PRELUDE TO
MAKING THE MOTION.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: HE JUST HAD LOTS OF "WHEREASES".
>> IT'S A PREAMBLE, THAT'S
RIGHT.

WITH MY COMMUNITIES, I'VE
RECEIVED 46 THOUGHTFUL LETTERS
AND E-MAILS IN FAVOUR, 28 THOUGHTFUL LETTERS AGAINST,
FOUR UNDECIDED, AND I'VE
RECEIVED ANOTHER 35 IN FAVOUR FROM THE CITY AT LARGE AND 27
AGAINST FROM THE CITY AT
LARGE. BUT IT COMES DOWN TO THE
TECHNICAL PROPOSITION THAT WE
HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM AND WE'RE NOT PUTTING
OURSELVES INTO A POSITION
WHERE WE CAN SOLVE IT. HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD HIKE
TO MOVE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER
5, WHICH REFERS TO 2011, 11 BACK TO ADMINISTRATION FOR
FURTHER WORK TO EXAMINE THE
QUESTION OF ALLOWING SECONDARY SUITES AS A LEGAL USE IN ALL
LAND USE DISTRICTS WITH
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION TO, AND THESE ARE THE TECHNICAL ISSUES
THAT ARE MAJOR BARRIERS, THE
FEASIBILITY OF A BUSINESS LICENSE SYSTEM FOR SECONDARY
SUITES TO REGULATE OWNER
OCCUPATION AS WELL AS ENFORCE NEIGHBOURHOOD STANDARDS, AND
B, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
ENFORCEMENT APPROACH TO FOCUS ON SUITES THAT ARE UNSAFE OR
OTHERWISE NOT COMPLIANT.
THE REALITY IS WE HAVE A HUGE BLACK MARKET IN SUITES THAT IS
A REALITY.
THESE PEOPLE ARE LIVING WITH SAFETY ISSUES, AND THEY'RE
LIVING WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE
ISSUES, AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND SO I THINK NUMBER 5 MAKES
THAT MOTION — PUTS US ON THE RIGHT PATH AND IS A STRONG
STEP AND I ENCOURAGE COUNCIL
TO SUPPORT MOTION 5.

AND IF YOU DON'T, PLEASE
EXPLAIN TO ME FROM THE
PRINCIPLED SIDE AND FROM THE TECHNICAL SIDE WHY YOU'RE NOT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN HODGES. VERY WELL.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, AND
THAT IS TO DELETE — >> (INAUDIBLE).
>> WHY NOT?
>> IT'S A REFERRAL MOTION.

THAT'S WHY HE SAID IT
SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHERS.
YOU CAN ONLY AMEND IT AS TO TIME.
>> THEN I WILL VOTE AGAINST
THIS. IF IT DID CONTAIN JUST B,
AROUND ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE
THAT ACTUALLY IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT
THAT I'VE CERTAINLY HEARD FROM
A LOT OF RESIDENTS AS OKAY, SO YOU MAKE THIS LEGAL
EVERYWHERE.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE IT, HOW ARE WE GOING TO
ENFORCE — HOW ARE WE GOING TO
MAKE SURE? SO I FULLY SUPPORT ACTUALLY
LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN DO
ENFORCEMENT AROUND COMPLIANCE AND NON-COMPLIANCE.
AS TO (A) AND THE REASON I
WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS REFERRAL IS BECAUSE OF (A).
I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF
MAKING IT A PERMITTED USE, REMOVING THE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT PROCESS, AND THEN
ACTUALLY ADDING A BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESS ON TOP OF IT.
I DO NOT SEE THE POINT.
I WAS SAYING TO THAT 85-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER WHO
WANTS TO HAVE A SECONDARY
SUITE IN HER HOME SO SOMEBODY WILL MOW THE LAWN AND CLEAN
THE SIDEWALK OF SNOW, AND OH,
BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUSINESS.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUSINESS
LICENSE TO DO THIS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S AN
APPROPRIATE PATH TO GO DOWN.
I THINK REPLACING ONE PERMIT PROCESS WITH A LICENSING
PROCESS IS — DOESN'T CUT RED
TAPE. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TURN
AN 85-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER
INTO A BUSINESS OWNER. SO ON THAT MOTION BECAUSE IT
HAS BEEN MOVED AND I CAN'T
AMEND IT, I CAN'T AMEND A REFERRAL, ALTHOUGH I DO SEE
THE ORANGE BOOK IS OUT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: YOU CAN AMEND A REFERRAL BUT WE'RE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN
CALL THEM SEPARATELY. >> OKAY F THEY CAN BE CALLED
SEPARATELY, I WILL SUPPORT (B),
BUT IF THEY CAN BE CALLED SEPARATELY I WOULD ASK THAT
YOU CALL (A) SEPARATELY SO
THAT I COULD VOTE AGAINST IT AND I HOPE EVERYBODY ELSE
WOULD AS WELL.
OTHERWISE — >> I SHOULD POINT OUT FOR
CLARIFICATION, ALDERMAN
PINCOTT, WHILE THAT WAS BEAUTIFULLY WELL SPOKEN, AS
ALWAYS, (A) ACTUALLY SAYS GO
INVESTIGATE IF THAT'S GOING TO WORK, AND I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU
SAID.

>> THAT'S FINE.
I DON'T — THEN I WOULDN'T
LIKE TO NOT HAVE US WASTE ADMINISTRATION TIME AND MONEY
INVESTIGATING SOMETHING WHICH
I BELIEVE IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:
BETTER. THANK YOU.
WE'RE STILL LOOKING ON WHETHER
WE CAN CALL THEM SEPARATELY BUT ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> WELL, THANK YOU, YOUR
WORSHIP, AND ALDERMAN PINCOTT FOR MAKING THAT VERY
PASSIONATE PLEA TO NOT TIE IT
TO OWNER OCCUPANCY. FOR ME, (B) IS EQUALLY AS
CHALLENGING IF NOT EVEN MORE
CHALLENGING. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS
BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF
UNSAFE SUITES THAT I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN MY COMMUNITY AND
THE CHALLENGE THAT ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER HAS TO TRY AND BRING THOSE INTO COMPLIANCE.
THEIR INABILITY TO ENTER THE
PREMISES, THE COURTS NOT UPHOLDING THE REQUEST TO ENTER
INTO THOSE PREMISES.
THIS ISN'T A CITY OF CALGARY ISSUE.
THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE. THIS GOES FAR BEYOND OUR
ABILITY TO LEGISLATE BEYOND
WHAT IT IS THAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO.
IN FACT I'VE HAD BOTH
ARGUMENTS, PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT SECONDARY ILLEGAL UNSAFE
SECONDARY SUITES NEXT DOOR TO
THEM AS WELL AS COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE THAT OWN SOME OF
THESE SUITES BY HOW FORCEFUL
OUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE BEEN IN TRYING TO GET IN THE
DOOR AND HOW THEY'VE MADE
THEIR WAY INTO THE DOOR, IN THEIR OPINION, CONTRARY TO
WHAT IS ETHICAL.
AND YET I HEAR FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT THAT
IS THEIR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO
BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE, OTHERWISE IT'S VIRTUALLY
IMPOSSIBLE.
SO B, I CAN'T SEE HOW WE COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE IT WITHOUT
CHANGING OUR COURTS SYSTEM,
CHANGING PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION, AND FEDERAL
LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE THAT
OR GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY GO INTO THESE SUITES
AND DETERMINE WHERE THE
DEFICIENCIES ARE AND TRY AND CORRECT THEM.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS
TO DO IT.

NOR DO WE HAVE THE OFFICERS.
OUR OFFICERS HAVE SUCH A HUGE
BACKLOG ON JUST A COMPLAINT BASIS NUMBER OF ILLEGAL SUITES
THAT EXIST THAT THEY CAN'T
KEEP UP WITH THE CURRENT WORKLOAD.
I CAN'T SEE HOW THIS CAN
ACTUALLY WORK. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT
IT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN PINCOTT SUMMED UP THE
DIFFICULTY I HAVE WITH A VERY —
VERY WELL AND I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH HIM.
FURTHER, IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO
AMEND THE BODY OF NUMBER 5 TO SAY — REFER ADMINISTRATION
BACK FOR FURTHER WORK
INCLUDING CONSULTATION WITH R1 AND RC 1 COMMUNITIES, I MIGHT
BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING WITH
IT.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY,
ALDERMAN CARRA, TO ADVANCE THE PRINCIPLE, AS YOU CALL IT,
ARGUMENT AND SEE IF IT IN FACT
TRUMPS HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS AS A PRINCIPLE.
SO RECOGNIZING THAT I CAN'T
AMEND THIS, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BASICALLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO
ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED, THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE SINGLE
BIGGEST INVESTMENT OF THEIR
LIVES PROBABLY, RESEARCHED IT CAREFULLY, AND CHOSE TO LIVE
IN AN R1 OR RC 1 COMMUNITY.
WITH AN EXPECTATION THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD NOT CHANGE AT
LEAST WITHOUT THEIR BEING
CONSULTED. THEY MAY NOT AGREE, AND I'LL
USE ALDERMAN FARRELL'S
EXPERIENCE IN BRENTWOOD. SOME STUNNING RESULTS OUT OF
THAT.
DETRACTORS ALL OVER THE PLACE. BUT YOU CONSULT AND YOU
ACHIEVE AT THE END OF THE DAY
SOMETHING. >> POINT OF ORDER.
IF ALDERMAN LOWE WOULD BE
WILLING TO FIND THE WAY TO INSERT THAT THREE WORDS OR
LESS I'D BE HAPPY TO INCLUDE
IT AS AN AMENDMENT. >> THE FACT IS, ALDERMAN CARRA,
THE PROCEDURAL BYLAW SAYS I
CAN'T DO IT. ALDERMAN PINCOTT COULDN'T DO
HIS.
THE ONLY THING I CAN AMEND IS THE TIME.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: WE CAN
IN FACT TAKE THEM SEPARATELY; HOWEVER, WE —
>> WE CAN'T INCLUDE THREE
WORDS? >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: NOT IN
A REFERRAL MOTION.
HOWEVER, IF YOU AND THE SECONDER, ALDERMAN HODGES,
WANTED TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION
AND WE HAD UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL THE MEMBERS PRESENT,
THEN YOU COULD PUT A DIFFERENT
MOTION.

>> HE WANTS TO INCLUDE
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.
I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:
ALDERMAN HODGES?
ARE WE AGREED TO ALLOW ALDERMAN CARRA TO WITHDRAW
THIS MOTION?
ANY OPPOSED? >> WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: NEVER
MIND. HAS TO STAY ON THE TABLE.
ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
>> WHY? >> FINE.
IT STRAYS ON THE TABLE.
MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE CAN WE ADDRESS ALDERMAN
PINCOTT'S ISSUE AT THE SAME
TIME. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: YES,
WE CAN VOTE ON THEM
SEPARATELY. >> BUT OBVIOUSLY WE CANNOT.
ALDERMAN CHABOT HAS SAID NO.
SO THAT LEAVES ME, AND I WOULD SUGGEST ANYBODY WHO'S
INTERESTED IN RESPECTING THE
RC 1 PROPERTY AND R1 AND RC 1 PROPERTY OWNERS, NO
ALTERNATIVE, BUT NOT TO
SUPPORT IT, AS WITH — ONCE THAT HAPPENS, YOUR WORSHIP,
SOMEBODY CAN GET UP ON THEIR
HIND LEGS AND RE(INDISCERNIBLE) THE MOTION.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: IF
THAT FAILS, THAT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE TO DO SO.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> IF YOU'LL ALLOW THIS AS
DEBATE OR NOT, YOUR WORSHIP, SO I'LL WAIT FOR YOU TO STATE.
IN ALL THE YEARS OF THE SDAB
APPEALS AND DISCUSSING THINGS WITH STAFF IN THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, THE BYLAW
ENFORCEMENTS DIVISION, I'VE NOT RUN INTO A CASE, AND MAYBE
Ms.

SLOAN HAS, WHERE A BYLAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THOUGH HE WAS REFUSED ENTRY, ULTIMATELY
COULDN'T IN FACT ACHIEVE ENTRY
TO A BUILDING BASED ON A COMPLAINT SHE WAS FOLLOWING UP
ON.
SEEMS TO ME SINCE THE EIGHTIES THE CITY HAS HAD THE
LEGISLATION AND THE MGA, PART
17 OF THE MGA OF THE PLANNING SECTION, TO OBTAIN ACCESS,
WHETHER BY MEANS OF COURT
ORDER OR LANDLORD, PROPERTY OWNER VOLUNTARILY AGREEING TO
ALLOW AN INSPECTION.
AND THAT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS, UNLESS
THERE'S BEEN SOME RADICAL
CHANGE IN THE LAST FEW HOURS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S POSSIBLE
FOR THE INSPECTORS TO ENTER A
PROPERTY PROVIDED THAT THE OWNER RESIDENT CONSENTS TO
THEIR ENTRY.
HOWEVER, IF THEY DO NOT GET THE CONSENT, THEN THERE IS AN
ABILITY UNDER THE MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT ACT TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT OF
QUEEN'S BENCH FOR AN ENTRY
ORDER HOWEVER THERE'S A COST FOR A FILING FEE IN EXCESS OF
$200, THIS IS A NEED FOR STAFF
RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY PREPARE AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINATING
NOTICE, IT CAN BE OPPOSED.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH THEM, I HAVE DONE SOME, IS THEY ARE
FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT
YOU NEVER CAN PREDICT WHAT WILL ARRIVE AT THE COURT'S
DOORSTEP.
SO THERE ARE SOME RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS BUT THERE IS A
TOOL AVAILABLE IN THE MGA.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY, YOUR WORSHIP.
THAT ISSUE THE CITY FACED BACK
IN THE PREVIOUS BYLAW TP — 2 P 08.
AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE'S AN
ABILITY TO DO THAT, THOUGH IT'S SOMEWHAT ONEROUS.
THERE'S A FEE INVOLVED.
AND OF COURSE IT'S BEFORE A COURT AND YOU'RE NOT
GUARANTEED THE RESULT.
BUT THE PATHWAY TO THE COURT IS SET OUT IN LEGISLATION.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN HODGES.

ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> THANK YOU.
WELL, I WILL SUPPORT REFERRAL WITH RELUCTANCE.
I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A
LACK OF CLARITY BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A POORLY-MAINTAINED
ILLEGAL SUITE THAT IS CREATING HAVOC IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND
WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING WHICH
IS A SECONDARY SUITE. A VERY DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
AND UNTIL WE CAN SOMEHOW
EXPLAIN TO CALGARIANS THE DIFFERENCE AND HOW WE WILL
MANAGE THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK
WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS DEBATE.
WE'VE HAD THIS DEBATE I THINK
SINCE I GOT ELECTED.

SO — AND I DO HOPE THAT
MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION
CAN FIND SOME SOLUTION, SOME MEANINGFUL SOLUTIONS, TO DEAL
WITH ITEM B.
WHICH IS DEAL WITH THE UNSAFE NON-COMPLIANT, AND I THINK WE
NEED TO USE SOME TEETH IN THE
BYLAW. I KNOW THE BYLAWS EXIST, BUT
PERHAPS IT'S THE RELUCTANCE
THAT WE'VE HAD TO CLEAN THESE PLACES UP BECAUSE THEY'RE THE
ONLY SOLUTION TO A LOT OF
TENANTS. BUT COUNCIL, I URGE EVERY ONE
OF YOU TO LOOK Mr. HALLADAY IN
THE FACE, THE FATHER WHO LOST HIS DAUGHTER IN THE PARKDALE
FIRE — EXCUSE ME.
AND TELL HIM WE SHOULDN'T BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
WE MUST ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IF
WE CAN LOOK IN THE MIRROR AT NIGHT.
KNOW AS ALDERMAN PINCOTT SAID
THIS IS NOT A PANACEA BUT IF MY RESEARCH FOR THE COMMITTEE
TO END HOMELESSNESS, WE LOOKED
AT PORTLAND, EDMONTON, TORONTO, VANCOUVER, VICTORIA, AND EACH
OF THEM LOOKED AT US WITH SORT
OF BLANK FACES GOING, OF COURSE YOU DO THIS.
THIS IS A NO BRAINER.
IN MOST OF THOSE CITIES IT OFFERED 10% OF THE HOUSING,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SOLUTION.
THAT'S 10% OF THE HOUSING SOLUTION WITHOUT A PUBLIC
SUBSIDY.
SO NO, IT'S NOT A PANACEA, BUT IT IS VERY MEANINGFUL.
AND THEY WERE JUST INCLUDING
THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE BEING ASSISTED, THE TENANTS
BEING ASSISTED, NOT CERTAINLY
THE MORTGAGE HELPER FOR YOUNG FAMILIES AND THE SENIORS WHO
WERE ABLE TO STAY IN THEIR
HOMES.

WE HAVE COMMUNITIES IN R1 THAT
HAVE THE LOWEST POPULATION IN
THEIR HISTORY BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGING POPULATION OR
FAMILY SIZE IS LOWER SO ANY
DISCUSSION THAT THIS IS GOING TO PUT A BURDEN ON OUR WATER
OR SEWER OR FIRE DEPARTMENT IS
FRANKLY LAUGHABLE. IT'S INVISIBLE DENSITY,
COUNCIL, AND IT IS SOMETHING I
BELIEVE THAT WE AT SOME POINT IN TIME HAVE TO GET OUR HEADS
AROUND.
SO I'LL SUPPORT THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE DON'T
HAVE THE NUMBERS TO GO
FORWARD.

AND I THINK THAT SOME OF THIS
WORK MAY HELP GET SOME PEOPLE
ONSIDE WHO HAVE A FEAR OF WHAT THIS WILL DO TO THEIR
COMMUNITY.
SO MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION, NOT JUST A DELAY, PLEASE, COUNCIL.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN FARRELL. ALDERMAN MacLEOD?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I TOO HAVE HAD QUITE A NUMBER OF E-MAILS ON THIS ISSUE, AND
QUITE FRANKLY MOST OF WHAT
I'VE HAD HAVE BEEN AT SOME LEVEL THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
MISINFORMATION, AS ALDERMAN
HODGES POINTED OUT ON THE PROCESS IN PARTICULAR.
AND I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO
DO — WE NEED SOME MORE TIME TO DO A BETTER JOB WITH
RESPECT TO INFORMING PEOPLE
WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS. I WAS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END
HOMELESSNESS. I DID SERVE ON A SUB COMMITTEE,
AND THIS INCLUSIVE ZONING WAS
PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE.
AND I HAVE TO SAY THIS WAS
PART OF A VERY BIG PUZZLE. THERE WAS MANY PIECES TO IT.
THIS IS ONE SMALL PIECE IN A
VERY LARGE PUZZLE. IT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS.

AND I WOULD HAZARD A GUESS
THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE WOULD
ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD. FOR MANY OF THE EXISTING
ILLEGAL SUITES THEY CAN'T BE
MADE LEGAL FOR REASONS OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE OR
COSTS RELATED, AND I THINK
THAT OUR ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE WHO ARE
TRANSITIONING IN THEIR LIFE,
WHO ARE GETTING OLDER AND WANT SOMEBODY TO LIVE WITH THEM IN
THE BASEMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE
BECOMING MORE INFIRM OR BECAUSE THEY ARE NEEDING SOME
SUPPORT IN OTHER WAYS, I THINK
THAT'S IMPORTANT AND I THINK — SO IT DEALS WITH
FINANCIAL ISSUES, IT DEALS
WITH — ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS SOMEBODY WHO GETS DIVORCED, IT
ALLOWS THE FAMILY TO STAY IN
THE HOUSE IF THEY CAN RENT OUT THE BASEMENT.
OR A BEDROOM FOR THAT MATTER.
AND WE DO HAVE THE WHOLE EMPTY BEDROOM THING.
THE EFFECTIVE USAGE OF THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSES THAT WE HAVE THAT ALLOWS US TO
USE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE MORE
EFFECTIVELY, I AM A LITTLE — I AM MORE THAN A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE WHOLE
NOTION OF A BUSINESS LICENSE, BUT I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION
FOR THE REASON THAT I DO NOT
WANT TO SEE THE WHOLE THING DEFEATED.
I THINK THAT — AND IT'S AN
ODD WAY OF DOING THINGS, I THINK.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DEAL
WITH THE FEARS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN MANY OF THE
E-MAILS AND I THINK WE NEED TO
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS HOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE
QUALITY OF LIFE OF PEOPLE THAT
LIVE IN R1 AREAS, AND WE NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR AND WE NEED
TO COMMUNICATE THAT BECAUSE OF
ALL THE E-MAILS I'VE HAD, THAT IS THE OVERARCHING PIECE IS
THAT THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT
MY QUALITY OF LIFE.

AND I ALSO HAVE TO ADD THAT
THE E-MAILS THAT I'VE HAD THAT
HAVE BEEN OPPOSED HAVE BEEN VERY SPECIFIC TO ONE
COMMUNITY.
NOT ENTIRELY, BUT VERY SPECIFICALLY TO ONE COMMUNITY.
MOST OF THE REST HAVE BEEN
BROADLY OVER THE REST OF THE COMMUNITIES.
SO THERE IS SOME DIFFERENTIALS
THERE THAT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO ADDRESS, AND FOR THOSE
REASONS I WILL SUPPORT THE
REFERRAL. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING
THIS EITHER.
MOSTLY FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT SO ELOQUENTLY STATED BY
ALDERMANS LOWE AND PINCOTT.
I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE SECTION B, I BELIEVE, IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT PART THAT WE
HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I'D RATHER IT NOT BE STATED IF
THIS COMES UP AGAIN IN ANOTHER
FORM OR MANNER, NOT SO MUCH AS AN ENFORCEMENT ON APPROACH.
I'D LIKE TO SEE IT COME UP IN
A CARROT AND STICK APPROACH.

THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO DEAL
WITH THE SUITES AND JUST
SAYING ENFORCING THE RULES ISN'T ALWAYS THE ONLY WAY.
ENCOURAGING TO BRING UP TO
CODE WOULD BE A FAR BETTER MANNER.
BUT NO, IN THE MANNER IT'S
WRITTEN NOW I WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE SUPPORTING IT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: FOLKS,
EYE ON THE CLOCK. WE ACTUALLY HAVE JUST ANOTHER
MINUTE.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS, DID YOU WANT TO…
IN THAT CASE, WE ARE RECESSED
UNTIL 7:15. THANK YOU.
"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."
>> ALDER OPINION POOTMANS. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
HASN'T BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR.
I AM JUST THINKING INDEED. AFTER A PRODUCTIVE SERIES OF
DISCUSSIONS AFTER SUPPER, I
THINK WE'RE MOVING TO NUMBER 5, NEXT.
WE'RE ON NUMBER 5.
WHERE ARE WE AT RIGHT NOW? HAVE WE MOVED NUMBER 5 YET?
>> NUMBER 5 IS MOVED.
>> NUMBER 5 HAS BEEN MOVED BY ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> YES, I HAVE A LOT TO SAY, AS
A MATTER OF FACT.

I AM JUST COLLECTING MY
THOUGHTS.
I THINK THE KEY TO NUMBER 5 IS THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN
MORE.
WHEN WE ASK FOR A FULLY INFORMED DEBATE, I AM NOT SURE ANY OF US
HAS EXPERIENCED THE KIND OF
DEBATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE IDEALLY SOUGHT FOR AN ISSUE OF
THIS IMPORTANCE.
SO I AM GOING TO SUPPORT NUMBER 5 AS IS.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN PEOPLE. ALDERMAN McLEOD, WOULD YOU
MIND TRADING PLACES WITH ME?
>> YOUR WORSHIP. >> THANKS VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN
McLEOD.
I TOO AM GOING TO SUPPORT NUMBER 5, FOR A VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD
REASON.
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO CALGARIANS FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS
AND WEEKS ON THIS, AND UNLIKE
ALDERMAN PINCOTT, I DON'T REGRET THE CONVERSATION.
IT'S BEEN A GOOD CONVERSATION,
AND I THINK THAT WHILE PASSIONS HAVE BEEN HIGH, PASSIONS SHOULD
BE HIGH, BECAUSE THIS IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY.
WHAT WE HEARD CONSISTENTLY WAS
THAT THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK.
EVEN THE MOST HARD-CORE
OPPONENTS OF CHANGE ADMIT THAT IT IS RIDICULOUS FOR CITY
COUNCIL TO MAKE DECISIONS ON
INDIVIDUAL SECONDARY SUITE APPLICATIONS.
EVEN THE MOST STRIDENT OF
OPPONENTS AGREE THAT A SYSTEM WHERE WE WILLINGLY TURN A BLIND
EYE TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OUR
NEIGHBOURS ALLOWING THEM TO LIVE IN A WORLD WITHOUT THE BASIC
LEGAL PROTECTIONS THAT THE REST
OF US ENJOY IS NOT A WORLD OR A COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY WANT TO
LIVE.
WE HAVE HEARD THAT CONSISTENTLY.

AND ALL THIS MOTION DOES, IT'S
VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD, IS IT
SAYS GO BACK AND THINK SOME MORE.
WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE SOLUTIONS.
WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE RIGHT ANSWERS.
BUT WE ARE NOT WILLING TO STOP.
WE ARE NOT WILLING TO FREEZE IN THE SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE.
AND I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE WHAT ALDERMAN FARRELL
POINTED OUT ABOUT THOSE KIDS IN
PARKDALE IS VERY, VERY TRUE. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH HEAT.
THEY HAD NO ONE TO COMPLAIN TO.
THE ONLY OPTION THEY GOT WAS AN UNSAFE SPACE HEATER.
AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO
THOSE PEOPLE. AND IT'S BECAUSE WE, AS A
COMMUNITY, HAVE WILLINGLY CHOSEN
TO TURN A BLIND EYE, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE CAN'T ACTUALLY
ENFORCE THE SYSTEM WE HAVE RIGHT
NOW. WE WANT DO IT ANYMORE, COUNCIL.
AND SO MY GOAL IN ALL OF THIS,
IT WASN'T ME WHO BROUGHT THIS FORWARD, I KNOW THE MEDIA LOVE
TO SAY IT WAS ME WHO BROUGHT
THIS FORWARD, IT WAS A REPORT THAT CAME THROUGH THE LPT THAT
WAS INITIATED BY THE PREVIOUS
COUNCIL.

BUT I WAS PLEASED THAT IT CAME
FORWARD.
BECAUSE NOW THAT IT IS ON THE TABLE, WE CAN NO LONGER STOP.
WE CAN NO LONGER SAY, LOOK, THE
LOGJAM THAT COUNCIL HAS BEEN STUCK IN ON THIS FOR YEARS IS
GOOD ENOUGH, BECAUSE IT ISN'T.
AND SO, YEAH, WE HEARD LOTS OF GREAT IDEAS.
AND I WOULD FULLY ADMIT THAT
WHAT WE HAD ON THE TABLE GOING INTO TODAY WAS PROBABLY NOT
EXACTLY THE RIGHT ANSWER.
BUT WE'VE HAD LOTS OF GOOD IDEAS, AND ALL THIS MOTION DOES
IS ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
FORWARD. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE
LICENSES, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A NEW ENFORCEMENT APPROACH.
IT SAYS GO THINK ABOUT IT, COME
BACK TO COUNCIL WITH SOME IDEAS, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS TODAY IS
NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER. IT'S NOT THE FINAL SYSTEM WE
NEED.
SO I ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THIS BECAUSE
IT REALLY GIVES US THE ABILITY
TO MOVE FORWARD, TO DO SOME MORE THINKING, AND FOR COUNCIL TO
ULTIMATELY MAKE A DECISION ON
THE KIND OF SYSTEM WE THINK OUR CONSTITUENTS WANT.
THE LAST THING I SHOULD SAY IS
THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH BACK AND FORTH ON WHO'S IN FAVOUR OF
THIS, WHO IS AGAINST IT.
HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW.

WE KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN TWO
SCIENTIFIC POLLS DONE IN THE
LAST YEAR. AND WE KNOW BOTH OF THOSE POLLS
SHOWED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR
CHANGE. IN FACT, SO MUCH SUPPORT, THAT I
WOULD SUGGEST IF WE ASKED
CALGARIANS HAD THIS WINTER BEEN TOO LONG, WE WOULDN'T ACTUALLY
GET THE SAME LEVELS OF SUPPORT.
IT'S AS CLOSE TO A CONSENSUS AS WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET.
AND, YEAH, IT'S TRUE, THAT SOME
PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR ALDERMAN ON SPEED DIAL, AND HEY I WAS ONE
OF THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE I GOT UP
HERE, MAY BE THE ONES WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS.
THAT'S TRUE.
IF YOU GUYS WANT MORE DATA, I'LL GIVE YOU MORE DATA.
WE'VE HAD 500 COMMUNICATIONS TO
MY OFFICE.

67 OR 69% OF THEM HAVE BEEN IN
FAVOUR OF CHANGE.
THE SCIENTIFIC POLLS THAT WE'VE DONE HAVE CONSISTENTLY SHOWN
THAT 75 TO 80% OF PEOPLE ARE IN
FAVOUR OF CHANGE. AND IF WE HAD ASKED THEM THE
QUESTION, IS THE STATUS QUO A
GOOD ANSWER, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT 99% OF THEM WOULD HAVE
SAID NO.
SO, AGAIN, I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO MOVE THIS BALL FORWARD, TO
HELP US MOVE DOWN THE FIELD, AND
TO HELP US DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR ALL OF OUR NEIGHBOURS.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THERE'S NO OTHER LIGHTS ON, SO WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION.
ALDERMAN CARRA TO CLOSE.
>> YEAH, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE MAYOR SAID.
WE TALKED ABOUT — I JUST WANT
TO MAKE THE POINT THAT NOTHING THAT WE'VE AGREED TO DO OR EVEN
CONTEMPLATED TO DO TODAY IS THE
ANSWER. TO ANY QUESTION.
IT'S SORT OF A CHICKEN AND EGG
SITUATION. SECONDARY SUITES ARE NOT THE
ANSWER TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOTHING WE'VE CONTEMPLATED TODAY OR CONSIDERED CONTEMPLATING
TODAY IS THE ANSWER TO SECONDARY
SUITES.

IT'S JUST A STEP OF MOTION IN
THE DIRECTION OF GETTING THERE.
AND SO I ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE IT'S MOVING
OUT OF OUR CURRENT UNTENABLE
SITUATION, AND IT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO A TENABLE
PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO I HOPE — I HOPE WE'LL VOTE FOR THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN CARRA. >> I JUST WANT TO ENSURE OR
CONFIRM THAT WE CAN CALL THIS IN
TWO PARTS, WITH PART — WITH SUBSECTION "A" BEING THE SECOND
PART.
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> THANK YOU.
>> AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR A
RECORDED VOTE AS WELL ON EACH. HOW AM I GOING TO CALL IT?
WE'LL CALL A FIRST AND THEN B.
>> ON PROCEDURE, YOUR WORSHIP. THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT IS THE
PREAMBLE HAS CONTENT IN IT WHICH
I CANNOT SUPPORT. "A" HAS, FOR EXAMPLE, I CAN'T
SUPPORT, AND "B", IT'S GOT TO BE
CALLED IN THREE PARTS, I GUESS, IS MY QUESTION.
>> YOU CAN'T SUPPORT ANY OF
THEM,LE "A" AND "B".

>> IF I MAY, ALDERMAN McLEOD
AGAIN ON PROCEDURE, I DID CHECK
AND THE PREAMBLE IS READ INTO "A" AN IT'S READ THAT "B" SO
WHAT YOU ARE REALLY CALLING IS
PREAMBLE A AND THEN PREAMBLE B. >> OKAY.
>> IS EVERYBODY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE
VOTING ON? >> SORRY.
I — I AM NOT.
BECAUSE ARE WE FROM WHAT THE MAYOR JUST SAID, WOULD WE BE
TECHNICALLY VOTING ON THE
PREAMBLE TWICE? >> YEAH.
>> OKAY.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT, THANK YOU.
>> THAT WOULD BE MY
UNDERSTANDING. SO WE'RE CALLING A RECORDED VOTE
ON "A".
>> A RECORDED VOTE, ALDERMAN HODGES FOR, ALDERMAN FARRELL
FOR, ALDERMAN CARRA FOR,
ALDERMAN CHABOT AGAINST, ALDERMAN DEMONG AGAINST.
MAYOR NENSHI FOR.
ALDERMAN LOW AGAINST. ALDERMAN PROMPT FOR.
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON AGAINST,
ALDERMAN JONES AGAINST, ALDERMAN PINCOTT AGAINST, AND ALDERMAN
McLEOD FOR.
THAT'S LOTS, YOUR WORSHIP.

>> THANK YOU.
AND NOW WE'LL VOTE ON "B".
>> RECORDED VOTE, FOR 5 B, ALDERMAN HODGES FOR, ALDERMAN
FARRELL FOR, ALDERMAN CARRA FOR,
ALDERMAN CHABOT AGAINST, ALDERMAN DEMONG AGAINST, MAYOR
NENSHI FOR, ALDERMAN LOWE
AGAINST, ALDERMAN POOTMANS FOR, ALDERMAN STEPHENSON AGAINST,
ALDERMAN JONES AGAINST, ALDERMAN
PINCOTT FOR, ACTING MAYOR MacLEOD FOR.
THAT'S CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP.
7-6. >> AND WE'RE OFF.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. AGAIN, THIS IS A SERIES OF
CHICKEN AND EGGS THAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH TODAY. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 4, DIRECT
ADMINISTRATION TO EXAMINE THE
ALBERTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY
SUITES WITH RESPECT TO
REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF SUCH
SUITES, BUT DO NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE SAFETY OF THOSE
HOUSES BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS,
PREPARE A SET OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE BUILDING CODE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT, AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN 2011 JUNE.
THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT
OF THE PROCESS. WE CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO ADDRESS
SECONDARY SUITES WITHOUT
ADDRESSING — THERE'S A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO
ADDRESS, BUT WE NEED TO BRING
THE PROVINCE ON SIDE AND WE NEED TO SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE
PROVINCE THAT WE'RE EAGER TO DO
THIS WORK.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO
SUPPORT THIS.
>> THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA, AND ALDERMAN FARRELL IS SECONDING.
AND I WOULD BE REALLY HAPPY IF
SOMEONE WERE TO ASK ME A QUESTION ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. WHEN THEY GET TO IT.
ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> WELL, I THINK I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IN FACT THAT'S
WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH MY MIND
THERE FOR A COUPLE OF SECONDS AS TO WHETHER IN FACT THERE HASN'T
ALREADY BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT
THIS. GIVEN WHAT I HEARD AT MLA
WHISPER IN MY EAR DURING THE
CELEBRATION OF THE CHINESE NEW YEAR'S AT THE END OF JANUARY OF
2011.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I CAN CERTAINLY FILL COUNCIL IN ON MY
CONVERSATIONS.
TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN MLA
COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY MLA MOE
EMERY, SOME YEARS AGO. WHOSE GOAL WAS TO SIMPLIFY
BUILDING AND FIRE CODE
REGULATIONS AROUND SECONDARY SUITES.
AND MOST OF THEM, THEY'RE VERY
COMMON SENSE.

THERE IS ONE STICKY ONE WHICH IS
THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SEPARATE
HEATING SYSTEM AND DUCT WORK FOR THE SECONDARY SUITE AND IN FACT
WE JUST GOT AN INTERPRETATION
MEMO THAT SAID THAT THAT COULD BE DEFINED AS — YOU GUYS ARE
GOING TO BE SHOCKED AT THIS — A
SEPARATE FURNACE OR A SPACE HEATER.
YES.
EXACTLY. SO I HAVE — I HAVE TALKED WITH
THE MINISTER ON THIS ISSUE A
NUMBER OF TIMES, AND HE HAS SUGGESTED, AS — AND Mr. GOUPD
ROU WROTE ME BACK, WROTE A
LETTER BACK SAYING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THAT WOULD BE
WILLING TO CONSIDER.
MY SENSE IN READING BETWEEN THE LINES IS IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR
THEM TO CONSIDER IT IF COUNCIL
WERE TO AUTHORIZE US TO ACTUALLY MAKE AN ASK ON THAT.
SO FOR ME, THIS REALLY SOME THAT
TWO FURNACES ISSUE.

>> YES, BUT THE DANGER WOULD BE
THE PROBLEM — I AM TRYING TO BE
SERIOUS, THE PROBLEM WOULD BE IF THEY TAKE THE SECOND FURNACE OUT
AS A REQUIREMENT AND LEAVE THE
SPACE HEATER IN. SO YOUR WORSHIP, WHEN YOU ARE
DISCUSSING IT WITH THEM, AS I
KNOW OR THEY ARE DISCUSSING IT WITH YOU, KEEP AN EYE, YOU KNOW,
ON THAT, THAT THEY DON'T — WE
DON'T END UP WITH A SPACE HEATER ROUTINE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
ABSOLUTELY WILL, ALDERMAN HODGES AND IN FACT I MISSPOKE SLIGHTLY
A MOMENT AGO.
IT WAS ACTUALLY THE LETT FROM THE MINISTER THAT SAID, IN HIS
MIND, A SPACE HEATER IS GOOD,
AND IF COUNCIL PASSES THIS, I WILL BE ABLE TO WRITE HIM A NOTE
GOING, UMM, NO.
ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
WELL, AS YOU INDICATED, THERE
WAS SOME DISCUSSION SOMETIME AGO TO TRY AND RELAX SOME OF THOSE
REGULATIONS TO FACILITATE
BRINGING SOME OF THESE UNITS INTO COMPLIANCE MORE EASILY, AND
WHEN IT COMES TO RELAXATION OF
REGULATIONS, AND ALTHOUGH SOME MAY NOT BELIEVE IT HAS A
MATERIAL SAFETY IMPACT, AS YOU
POINTED OUT YOURSELF, EVEN A SEPARATE FURNACE, HAVING LIVED
IN BASEMENT SUITES MICE
PERSONALLY, I CAN — I CAN ATTEST TO ONE THING FOR SURE.
WE NEVER SEEM TO AGREE ON
TEMPERATURE, US AND THE PEOPLE ABOVE.
SO WHETHER IT'S THE UPSTAIRS
THAT'S BOILING OR THE DOWNSTAIRS THAT'S BOILING, THERE SEEMS TO
BE A NEED TO SUPPLEMENT HEAT
SOMEHOW, SOME WAY, IN ONE OF THE ROOMS.
AND THEREIN LIES PART OF THE
CHALLENGE.

AND IT GOES BEYOND THAT.
WHAT OTHER RELAXATIONS WILL
THERE BE? I KNOW ONE OF THE PROPOSALS HAD
TO DO WITH CEILING HEIGHTS,
RELAX THE REQUIREMENT FOR CEILING HEIGHTS.
I KNOW THAT CEILING HEIGHTS MAY
NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR A GUY OF MY HEIGHT, BUT PEOPLE THAT ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER THAN ME,
WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, MAY HAVE
ISSUE WITH THE RELAXATION ON
SOME OF THOSE CEILING HEIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE IN THE
MIDST OF A CRISIS AND YOU CAN'T
SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING. WHAT OTHER RELAXATIONS WOULD
THERE BE?
SEPARATE ENTRANCE, DOOR THAT OPENS IN VERSUS OUT, I DON'T
KNOW WHAT ALL OF THE RELAXATIONS
ARE, BUT I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF ANY INITIATIVE THAT WILL
COMPROMISE OR POTENTIALLY
COMPROMISE THE SAFETY OF INDIVIDUALS THAT RESIDE WITHIN A
BUILDING.
SO I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> MY QUESTIONS TO — I AM NOT
TOO SURE WHO CAN ANSWER IT. HOW LONG DOES IT USUALLY TAKE
THE GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA TO
MAKE A REGULATORY CHANGE LIKE THIS?
>> Mr.

WATSON.
>> IT TAKES A LONG TIME. AS A MATTER OF FACT,
APRIL 15th IS WHEN WE HAVE TO
GET ALL OUR CHANGES, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ALBERTA
GOVERNMENT, AND THERE'S A — ON
MY DESK A WEEK AGO AND THERE'S A MEMO —
>> I WONDER IF I COULD GET YOU
TO — >> I'M SORRY.
IS THAT BETTER?
>> THAT'S BETTER, YEAH. >> I WAS JUST SAYING THAT
APRIL 15th IS ACTUALLY A
DEADLINE RIGHT NOW FOR THEM TO CONSIDER CHANGES FOR THE 2012
ALBERTA BUILDING CODE, AS A
MATTER OF FACT. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF LEAD TIME
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I HAVE A MEMO COMING TO YOU IN A COUPLE OF DAYS THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO OUTLINE THE ONES THAT
WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN
GET THIS INTO THAT PIPELINE THAT
QUICKLY. WE'LL CERTAINLY BRING IT
FORWARD.
THE MINISTER, AN ORDER IN COUNCIL, I THINK, ISRAELIS TEAR
IS THE RIGHT TERM, CAN ACTUALLY
DO SOMETHING OUT OF SYNC WITH THE REST OF IT, BUT THAT EVEN
BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT.

THE LARGE ISSUE, IN TERMS OF
COST, AS YOUR WORSHIP HAS
MENTIONED IS THE REQUIREMENT UNDER ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION NOW
FOR SECONDARY SUITES, TO PROVIDE
A SEPARATE HEATING SYSTEM. WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE PROVINCE, AS
YOUR WORSHIP HAS MENTIONED THAT A SPACE HEATER IS THE EQUIVALENT
OF A SEPARATE HEATING SYSTEM.
CERTAINLY TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
WE'RE TALKING TO THE PROVINCE
ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS ON SOME OF THESE CODE CHANGES.
>> OKAY.
YOU KNOW, THAT — YOU ANSWERED — ACTUALLY TWO
QUESTIONNESS ONE THERE, WITH HOW
LONG, A LONG TIME IS THE RIGHT ANSWER AND WHEN'S THE CUTOFF
DATE AND THAT'S THE 15th OF
APRIL THIS YEAR.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THROUGH
NORTHERN COUNCIL THINGS CAN
HAPPEN, I ALWAYS WORRY WHEN THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE VERY OFTEN, LIKE
OUR ELECTION EXPENSE AND THINGS,
THEY'RE NOT REALLY WHOLLY BAKED WHEN THEY GET THROUGH THERE.
SO IT'S A BIT OF A CONCERN.
IF YOU COULD ADD SOMETHING ELSE TO THE LIST, Mr. WATSON, TO
THE SPACE HEATER, I JUST HAD AN
APPLICATION FOR A SECONDARY SUITE IN OUR ONE DISTRICT CROSS
MY DESK TODAY.
THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT IT WAS THAT, TO GET TO THE
MECHANICAL ROOM, YOU HAD TO GO
WALK THROUGH THE FULL LENGTH OF THE SUITE.
AND THAT STRUCK ME AS BEING A
BIT ODD, PARTICULARLY — AMID — YOU KNOW, THAT WAS BETWEEN WHERE
THE PEOPLE WERE LIVING AND THE
WAY OUT OF THE HOUSE, I MIGHT ADD TOO.
SO IT'S A BIT OF AN INTERESTING
CONUNDRUM.

SO WHILE I APPRECIATE IT,
ALDERMAN CARRA, AND I AGREE,
THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT, I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY SUPPORTING
THIS, BUT QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE
PROBABLY LOOKING AT 18 MONTHS, CONSERVATIVELY, UNTIL WE HAVE
SOMETHING MATERIAL IN OUR HANDS
TO WORK WITH. BUT YOU'VE GOT TO START
SOMEWHERE.
THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: YES,
ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I WILL BE BRIEF ON THIS.
I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF
THOSE BARRIERS TO CREATING SAFE AND AFFORDABLE SUITES, AND I
THINK THAT THE PROVINCE HAS
COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO THE TEN-YEAR PLAN.
THIS IS A PIECE OF THAT PUZZLE,
AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SUPPORTED FOR THAT AND MANY
OTHER REASONS.
I THINK THAT THE CODE, WITH RESPECT TO SECONDARY SUITES, IS
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY PREVENTS
PEOPLE — IT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE NOT TO GET THEM LEGALIZED, I
GUESS, IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO
SAY. THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ALDERMAN CARRIER?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I WAS JUST REVIEWING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2006
REPORT OF THE PROVINCE, AND
BASICALLY, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE IS COVERED IN
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I MEAN, THEY DO TALK A LOT ABOUT THE COST, THE NUMBER ONE
RECOMMENDATION WAS STANDARDS FOR
SECONDARY SUITES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR USE IN SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES TO ADDRESS THE NEED
TO SAFETY AND AFFORDABILITY, AND THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF NUMBERS
AROUND THAT.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ESTABLISH PROVINCE WIDE STANDARDS FOR
SECONDARY SUITES UNDER THE
ALBERTA BUILDING AND FIRE CODES, AND CONTINUE TO HAVE CHOICE TO
DETERMINE WHERE THESE SUITES
SHOULD BE PERMITTED.

STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY SUITES
SHOULD APPLY TO BOTH NEW AND
EXISTING HOMES, AND THERE'S OTHERS.
I GUESS WHAT I WOULD RATHER SEE,
Mr. WATSON, IS TO HAVE YOU SCOPE OUT WHAT THIS PIECE OF
WORK WOULD ENTAIL.
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES IN ORDER TO DO THIS,
SOMETHING HAS TO COME OFF THE
TABLE, IN ORDER FOR US TO UNDERTAKE THIS WORK.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WORK, BUT
WHAT YOU COULD DO WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS
THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN '06 AND LOOK AT THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD ON WHERE
WE HAVE COME SINCE THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE.

SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IF
WE — IF WE WERE TO REFER THIS
AND HAVE YOU COME BACK IN A WEEK OR TWO TO SCOPE THIS OUT, WITH
THE RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED, TO DO THIS WORK, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOING TO TAKE
18 MONTHS, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG
IT WOULD TAKE, TO SCOPE IT OUT, AT A TIMELINE, WOULD THAT —
WOULD — WOULD THAT BE USEFUL?
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK THE ACTUAL AMOUNT
OF WORK TO SCOPE THIS OUT IS
THAT LARGE, WITH RESPECT. THE HARD WORK IS MORE THE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROVINCE,
THAN THE NEGOTIATIONS TO GET PEOPLE ON SIDE TO SUPPORT IT.
BOTH WITHIN THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A HUGE ISSUE.
I AM NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT THE —
WE HAVE PEOPLE IN BUILDING REGULATIONS NOW, THEIR JOB IS TO
LOOK AT THE CODE AND MAKE
CHANGES ALL THE TIME AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE IT FORWARD, AND
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BASED
ON THE WORK THAT WAS DONE IN 2006, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK
ALREADY — PREPARATORY WORK
ALREADY DONE THAT WE CAN BRING BACK UP AGAIN AND LOOK AT.
SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH GETTING IT
READY TO GO, IT'S MORE ABOUT GETTING IT OVER THE GOAL LINE
WITH THE PROVINCE, THAT TAKES A
MUCH LONGER PROCESS.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
I AM PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE MORE
PROBLEMS ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE THAN ON MAKING CODE CHANGES IN
TERMS OF STAFF AND RESOURCES.
>> AND THIS DOESN'T SPEAK AT ALL TO CONSULTING WITH ANYONE.
THIS PIECE.
>> WELL, NO, THESE BECOME VERY TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT THERE ARE
CODE SPECIALISTS, AND THIS IS
LESS OF A CONSULTATIONAL PROCESS THAN IT IS MAKING SURE THAT WE
COORDINATE WITH OUR PARTNERS IN
FIRE AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN GET PARTNERSHIPS WITH
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND THEN
BUILD A CASE FOR THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT DEAL WITH CODE
CHANGES OF THE PROVINCE.
>> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU ALDERMAN.
ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE I CALL ON ALDERMAN CARRA TO CLOSE?
ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> YEAH. I THINK OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A
CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION THAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH, AND WE HAVE TO JUST GET MOVING RATHER THAN
CONTEMPLATE WHAT COMES FIRST.
I HOPE YOU SUPPORT THIS. CLOSED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA.

ON THIS RECOMMENDATION ARE WE
AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED SUNNY ONLY SEE 2, CHABOT AND HODGES ARE OPPOSED.
VERY WELL, THEN, ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TALK TODAY,
AND I MEAN I THINK THE ONE THING
THAT I HEARD THAT ISN'T CONTAINED IN THE REMAINING TWO
MOTIONS IS THE POTENTIAL FOR
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.

AND I DID SAY IN MY OPENING
ADDRESS THAT I THINK THAT WE
HAVE TO GET OUR COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESSES TO THE NEXT
LEVEL.
BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF ADDRESSING THE PRINCIPLED ISSUES, WHICH ARE
HAVING AFFORDABILITY, WHICH ARE
COMPETITIVENESS OF CALGARY AS WE ENTER AN ECONOMIC UPTURN,
POSITIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS
OPPOSED TO NEGATIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE FACT THAT PEOPLE
HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THINGS ON
THEIR PROPERTY RATHER THAN SAY WHAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO ON
THEIR — ON THE PROPERTY
SURROUNDING THEM. I AM GOING TO MOVE 2 AND 3, TO
DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO
PREPARE A BYLAW AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR SECONDARY SUITES IN
ATTACHED AND DETACHED FORMS TO
BE DISCUSHIONNARY ZONES. WITHIN A 2.5-KILOMETER RADIUS OF
MOUNT ROYAL UNIVERSITY, ACADEMY,
BOW VALLEY COLLEGE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY AND NUMBER
3 DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO
PREPARE A BYLAW AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR SECONDARY SUITES
ATTACHED AND DETACHED FORMS, TO
BE A DISCRETIONARY USE IN ALL DISTRICTS CURRENTLY ZONED R 1,
RC 1 AND RC 1-L WITHIN
400 METERS OF AN LRT STATION OR BRT STATUS.
>> I ENCOURAGE THE DEBATE
SURROUNDING THIS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE
PRINCIPLE ISSUES AND THE
TECHNICAL ISSUES, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.
>> DO YOU NEED A SECONDER,
ALDERMAN CARRA.

>> IS ANYONE WILLING TO SECOND
THIS?
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANKS, ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE IT ON THE
TABLE AND WE WILL VOTE. I AM NOT EVEN GOING TO ASK YOU.
WE WILL VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I THINK IN THE PETER OF PREVIOUS
TWO MOTIONS AGO, WHERE WE PASSED A REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION FOR
MORE WORK ON THIS SUBJECT, IN
THE KEEN SENSE FROM MY POINT OF VIEW OF WANTING TO LEARN HOW
SECONDARY SUITES CAN BE ALLOWED
TO COME OUT INTO THE OPEN, BECOME SAFE, ADDRESS PARKING
ISSUES, ZONE OCCUPANCY, ALL OF
THESE ISSUES WHICH I EXPECT ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER, AND
FURTHER MORE, IN DUE COURSE, A
FULLY INVOLVED PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND FULL PUBLIC
DEBATE.
I WOULD EXPECT BOTH THE ISSUES OF NUMBER 2, THAT IS, ALLOWING
IN A DISCRETIONARY USE IN ALL
DISTRICTS CURRENTLY ZONED R 1, RC 1, AND RC 1-L WITHIN A 2.5
RADIUS OF WARD 6 MOUNT ROYAL
UNIVERSITY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT FACE WILL BE RC 1.
I WOULD EXPECT THAT MATTER TO
COME UNDER THE CONSIDERATION OF NUMBER 5, IN OTHER WORDS, I
WOULD EXPECT ADMINISTRATION TO
REPORT ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT FOR MORGAN IN PARTICULAR
AND I WOULD ASSUME OTHER
NEIGHBOURHOODS AFFECTED BY THE DISCRETIONARY USE NOW PERMITTED
OR TO BE PERMITTED AROUND THE
OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SAIT, BOW VALLEY AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY.
SIMILARLY, IN NUMBER 3, DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION,
PREPARE A BYLAW AMENDMENT THAT
ALLOWS FOR SECONDARY SUITES THAT ALLOWS ATTACHED AND DETACHED
FORMS IN ALL CURRENTLY ZONED R
1, RC 1, AND RC 1-L WITHIN 400 METERS OF AN LRT STATION, I
THINK THAT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
A NUMBER OF THE CURRENT LRT STATIONS AND THOSE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION WILL ALSO BE
SIMILARLY AFFECTED AND PERHAPS COULD BE SUBJECT THE SOME OF THE
WORK AND RESEARCH THAT
ADMINISTRATION DOES.

SO THEREFORE I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING NUMBER 2 OR NUMBER 3,
IN ANTICIPATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH THAT WILL BE
DONE BY ADMINISTRATION.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, VERY MUCH ALDERMAN
POOTMANS. ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> YEAH, YOUR WORSHIP, THOSE ARE
GOOD COMMENTS, BUT THERE'S JUST ONE PROBLEM.
IN NUMBER 2 IN THE FIRST 3 WE'RE
NOT ASKING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO ANY RESEARCH ABOUT ANYTHING.
AND THEY ARE BEING GIVEN NO
DIRECTION, OTHER THAN A LAND USE APPLICATION THAT WILL FLY FORTH
SOONER OR LATER, PROBABLY
SOONER, TO THE VARIOUS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS AND THE OBLIGATION
MAY BE ON THE CITY, MAY BE ON
THE ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER ORGANIZED GROUPS, OR NOT SO
ORGANIZED GROUPS TO HOLD SOME
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. SO IF ALDERMAN POOTMANS, IF YOU
HAD SUGGESTED THAT THERE BE A
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EXERCISE ATTACHED TO NUMBER 2, AND IN
FACT TO NUMBER 3 AS WELL,
BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS A LOT OF AREAS IN THE CITY, GIVEN THAT BR
IT'S ARE MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE
SYSTEM THAN IT USED TO BE, THEN YOU NEED TO LET THE
ADMINISTRATION YOU EXPECT A FULL
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS JUST AS A PRIVATE COMPANY, A PRIVATE
DEVELOPER WOULD DO WITH THE LAND
USE APPLICATION.

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS.
ONLY IT AFFECTS MANY, MANY, MANY
MORE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS, RESIDENTIAL IS THE ISSUE
HERE, OF COURSE, THAN ANY
PRIVATE — PRIVATE LAND USE, PRIVATE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION
MAY — WOULD EVER DO.
SO I AM NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING 2 AND 3 AS THEY STAND
EITHER, UNLESS SOMEONE CAN
DEFINE A GOOD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT GOES WITH IT,
OTHERWISE, WE'RE LEAVING Mr.
WATSON AND HIS STAFF HANGING OUT TO DRY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN PINCOTT.

>> THANK YOU.
QUESTION FOR Mr. WATSON AROUND
400 METERS. WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WALK
DISTANCES AND WALKING DISTANCES,
HAS IT NOT TYPICALLY BEEN A 500-METER RADIUS THAT WE TALK
ABOUT?
>> I ASSURE THE CHAIR THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SCIENCE IN THIS.
THERE'S BEEN, OVER THE LAST YEAR
OR SO, TALK ABOUT 600 METERS. THEN IN THE CALGARY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN, IT WAS
DECIDED TO BE 400 METERS. 400 METERS IS, WHAT, ABOUT HALF
A MILE?
QUARTER OF A MILE? QUARTER OF A MILE, ALL RIGHT, A
QUARTER.
>> SO 400 METERS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN
THE CTP.
>> 400 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CALGARY TRANSPORTATION PLAN,
WHICH IS WHY I THINK THAT IF YOU
ARE LOOKING FOR A NUMBER, 400'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE NUMBER IN
TERMS OF — AND HE OBVIOUSLY,
THE MAGIC AROUND ALL THESE THINGS IS, OF COURSE, AS YOU GO
FARTHER, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WILLING TO WALK DROPS OFF AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S
CONNECTIVITY IN THE SIDEWALKS
AND SO ON.

PICK 500, PICK 600, I MEAN,
IT …
MAKE THE CIRCLE BIGGER. >> OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK
BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHEN THE
400 WAS CONSISTENT. YOUR WORSHIP I WOULD ACTUALLY
LIKE TO AT THIS POINT PROPOSE AN
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
MY AMENDMENT WILL BE IN NUMBER
3. WOULD BE TO TAKE THE WORD
"DISCRETIONARY" AND CHANGE —
AMEND THAT TO BE PERMITTED. >> OH, COME ON.
REALLY?
>> THAT IS MY AMENDMENT.

>> OKAY.
I WILL ALLOW IT.
DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? >> I WOULD SECOND IT IF I COULD,
BRIAN, BUT …
>> WELL, I FIND THAT DISAPPOINTING THAT THERE
WOULDN'T BE A SECONDER FOR THAT.
WE — WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CITY THAT WE — THAT WE JUST
TALK ABOUT IN THE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN, THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT TALKS ABOUT — DID I
SEE A HAND?
DID I SEE A HAND GO UP FOR A SECOND?
OH, NO.
>> I THINK I DID. I THINK YOU GOT YOUR SECONDER.
>> WELL, THAT'S GOOD.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
>> NO, SHE — SHE —
>> TO THE MAIN MOTION.

>> SORRY.
>> NEVER MIND.
>> SO I FIND THAT — THANK YOU, ALDERMAN MacLEOD, VALIANT
EFFORT.
YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT CONCENTRATING — AND STARTING TO
LOOK AROUND HOW WE MAKE USE,
MAKE MAXIMUMMAL USE OF OUR TRANSIT NOTES, AND TO MAKE
SECONDARY SUITES PERMITTED USE
AROUND OUR TRANSIT NOTES, SEEMS TO ME TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE
PLACE YOU WANT TO START.
URBAN CSA, LAST YEAR GAVE A GREAT REPORT TO COUNCIL ON
EXACTLY HOW YOU COULD START WITH
PERMITTED USE, SECONDARY SUITES, 400 METERS AROUND — AROUND LRT
STATIONS.
AND HOW THAT WOULD SERVE THE STUDENT POPULATION, AND HOW THAT
WOULD ACTUALLY BE — ALLOW US TO
MAXIMIZE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A POPULATION THAT IS
UNDER-SERVED.
SO I JUST — YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I FIND IT DISAPPOINTING THAT WE'RE
HERE, ONCE AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT
DISCRETIONARY USE.

BOY, IF WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, WORKLOADED SDAB, I —
I WILL, AGAIN, AS I SAID INITIALLY, I WILL SUPPORT THIS.
BUT, AGAIN, MY DISAPPOINTMENT IS
IN THAT IT IS PIECEMEAL, AND I — AND I DO WISH THAT AT THE
VERY LEAST WE COULD HAVE HAD
SECONDARY SUITES BE A PERMITTED USE AROUND THE ONE PLACE THAT
THEY SHOULD BE TO START WITH.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALDERMAN PINCOTT YOUR REMARKABLE
POWERS OF PERSUASION ARE ON
DISPLAY YET AGAIN BECAUSE YOU JUST GOT YOUR SELF A SECONDER.
>> THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO WE HAVE — WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON
THE FLOOR, TO CHANGE THE WORD —
IT WAS JUST NUMBER 3? NOT NUMBER 2.
OKAY.
SO TO CHANGE THE WORD "DISCRETIONARY" TO "PERMITTED"
IN NUMBER 3 ON THE AMENDMENT,
JUST WAVE YOUR HAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I AM JUST WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT WE
SHOULDN'T MOVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDMENT.

ON THE BASIS OF THAT WE'RE
MOVING INTO A COMPLETELY NEW
LAND USE DESTINATION, DISCRETIONARY IS ONE STEP.
THIS IS TAKING TWO STEPS.
AND IN LIGHT OF THAT, I THINK PUBLIC CONSULTIVE PROCESS IS
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO
MOVE INTO THIS PERMITTED USE AS OPPOSED TO DISCRETIONARY.
DISCRETIONARY IS ONE THING AND I
AM ALL FOR THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE NEED
TO FIRST THINK INSIDE THE BOX
BEFORE WE START THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I AM GOING TO
PROPOSE THAT WE ADD TO THAT MOTION, FOLLOWING A PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: HOLD ON, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
THE EFFECT OF WHAT YOU'RE
SUGGESTING WOULD BE THAT REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS OF THE
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, THEY WOULD
STILL COME BACK WITH A BYLAW AMENDMENT MAKING THAT CHANGE.
IS THAT YOUR INTENT?
OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THEM GO THINK ABOUT IT AND THEN COME
BACK MAYBE WITH A BYLAW
AMENDMENT? >> IT WOULD PROBABLY BE
PREFERRED THE OTHER WAY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THE
FOLLOWING.
IF YOU — IF YOU GO WITH ME.

LEAVE IT FOR NOW.
LET'S LET THE MOTION GO.
IF THE MOTION PASSES, THERE'S NO POINT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE
COME BACK WITH THAT ANYWAYS.
IF THE MOTION FAILS, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU, AND YOU CAN PUT A
NEW MOTION THAT SAYS GO DO
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE. >> IF IT FAILS.
>> IF IT FAILS.
>> POINT OF ORDER. YOU CAN'T DO AN AMENDMENT TO AN
AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT
ANYWAY. >> IT'S NOT, WE'RE ONLY AT TWO.
>> THIS IS ALL AMENDMENTS.
>>> NO, THIS IS MOTIONS ARISING. >> ALL NEW MOTIONS.
>> YEAH.
THESE ARE MOTIONS. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: SO
WHAT DO YOU THINK, ALDERMAN
CHABOT? IT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT TO AN
AMENDMENT TO AN AMEND THE, JUST
AN AMENDMENT. >> SO YOU ARE SUGGEST THAT IF
THIS FAILS THAT I SHOULD BRING
FORWARD AN ALTERNATE MOTION THAT SAYS —
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
BECAUSE THE CHALLENGE HERE — I MEAN YOU CAN DO IT, I AM NOT
GOING TO RULE IT OUT OF ORDER,
BUT THE CHALLENGE IS THE WAY IT'S DOING NOW, WE'RE DOING
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT BUT THEY HAVE
ONLY ONE OPTION AT THE END OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WHICH IS TO
BRING FORWARD THE BYLAW AND IT
SEEMS A BIT DISINGENUOUS TO DO THAT.
>> OKAY, I WILL STAND DOWN,
THANK YOU FOR THAT ADVICE.

>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE AMENDMENT? JUST WAVE.
ALDERMAN LOWE?
>> WELL, YOUR WORSHIP, I HAD, IN ANTICIPATION OF NUMBER 5,
FAILING TWICE, PUT TOGETHER A
MOTION WHICH ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT TO DO THE RESEARCH,
TO DETERMINE THAT Mr. WATSON IS …
TO DO THE RESEARCH THAT — WOULD
PROVIDE THE OPTIONS OF GOING THIS ROUTE.
THAT FAILED, AND I AM STILL
SITTING HERE LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE I ROLLED INTO
ISSUES CONCERNING SAFETY OF
SUITES AND COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED SAFETY ISSUES AROUND SUITES.
AND THERE ARE MANY.
AND THEY ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITIES, WHETHER OR NOT WE
AGREE THERE, THEY ARE SAFETY
ISSUES OR NOT, EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, PERCEPTION, REALITY IN
THESE CASES.
SO I AM NOT WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY REASON
CONSULTATION.
I BELIEVE ALDERMAN POOTMANS, YOU SAID THIS — THIS HITS, WHAT, 4
OR 5 COMMUNITIES IN YOUR WARD.
IT WILL HIT FOUR IN MINE.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS
ELIMINATING THE WORK DONE OF
PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE WE'VE PUT IN R 1 F INTO A COMMUNITY
PLANS AND SO ON THAT ARE NOT
DEVELOPED NOW, BUT WHERE THERE ARE …
LRT STATIONS OR BRT STATIONS,
EITHER NOW OR PLANNED, AND WHAT THIS DOES IS IT ELIMINATES ALL
OF THAT.
AND IT DOES IT WITHOUT CONSULTING THE PEOPLE.
AND I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.
I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.
IF YOU WANT TO GET PEOPLE ON
BOARD AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM ON THE
PRINCIPLE, AS ALDERMAN CARRA
SAYS, THE PRINCIPLE — THE PRINCIPLED ITEM ISSUES AROUND
THIS, THEN YOU HAD BETTER TALK
TO THE FOLKS. IF YOU WANT MASSIVE PUSH BACK,
DO THIS.
AND I, FOR ONE, AM NOT INTERESTED IN A PUSH BACK.
I THINK IF WE APPROACH THIS
PROPERLY, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME ACCEPTANCE.
BUT THIS WILL GUARANTEE THAT
WON'T HAPPEN. SO I WON'T SUPPORT TWO OR THREE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OR THE
AMENDMENT WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT YOU ARE DEBATING ON.
>> OR THE AMENDMENT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY.

>> DOING IT ALL AT ONCE, YOUR
WORSHIP.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL RIGHT.
>> I HAVE GOT A BAD THROAT AND I
AM TRYING TO SAVE IT FOR THE REAL ARGUMENT HERE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I
APPRECIATE YOUR BEING EFFICIENT, ALDERMAN LOWE.
>> SO IT'S A QUESTION OF HOW YOU
GO ABOUT THIS, IF YOU WANT COMMUNITY BUY IN OR NOT.
THIS WILL NOT GET COMMUNITY
BUY-IN, AND UNLESS YOU TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO GET COMMUNITY BUY-IN.
ALDERMAN HODGES IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE THE LAND
USE.

THANK YOU.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: TO THE
AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN CARRA AND THEN ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
400 METERS, FIVE MINUTE WALK. THE QUARTER MILE WALK, IT'S, YOU
KNOW, A TIME-HONOURED ACROSS
CIVILIZATION MEASUREMENT MOST HUMAN SETTLEMENTS SORT OF FIT
WITHIN THAT 400-METER RADIUS
SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND IT'S BEEN PROVEN THE PEOPLE WILL WALK FIVE
MINUTES TO CATCH THE BUS,
PROVIDED THEY'RE WALKING THROUGH ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE SOMEWHAT
PLEASANT TO WALK THROUGH.
PEOPLE WILL WALK 800 METERS TO CATCH HIGH QUALITY TRAIN
SERVICE, PROVIDED THEY'RE
WALKING THROUGH A HIGH QUALITY PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.
THESE ARE QUANTITATIVELY
ESTABLISHED FACTS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR 30 YEARS FOR URBAN
DIVIDE.
SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE NUMBERS COME FROM.
(PLEASE STAND BY)
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: WE'RE SPEAKING ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> I KNOW.
AND I'M SAYING I DID NOT MAKE — I THOUGHT A BABY STEP
OF DISCRETIONARY USE WAS THE
VERY LEAST THAT WE SHOULD RESPONSIBLY TACKLE AS PEOPLE
WHO REPRESENT A MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS PASSED BY COUNCIL AND THAT WAS
THE RESULT OF EXHAUSTIVE
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CITIZENS OF CALGARY.
THIS IS A RUBBER HIT FOR THE
ROAD POINT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE VERY
LEAST WE CAN — I THINK IT'S HMM THE VERY LEAST WE CAN DO,
DISCRETIONARY USE IS THE VERY
LEAST WE CAN DO, SO I'LL SUPPORT THIS.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, ALDERMAN CARRA. ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN
(INDISCERNIBLE).
>> ON THE AMENDMENT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED BY THE
FREE-WHEELING SENSE I HAVE
HERE OF HOW WE'RE PROCEEDING THROUGH SOME FAIRLY MAJOR
POLICY DECISIONS.
I HAVE HEARD EXPERTS TELL US AND AT LPT FOR THAT MATTER,
WISE AND EXPERIENCED PLANNERS
SAY IF WE ARE LOOKING AT DISCRETIONARY — AT SECONDARY
SUITES, PERIOD, LET'S LEAVE IT
AT THAT FOR THE MOMENT.

AT SECONDARY SUITES FOR
SOLUTIONS FOR DENSITY AROUND
LRT AND VRT STATIONS, WE'VE REALLY MISSED THE MARK.
THESE ARE NOT IDENTITY
SOLUTIONS. I'VE HEARD MY DEAR COLLEAGUES
THIS EVENING SAY THAT THIS IS
AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE, AND I'M NOT SO SURE IT'S THAT
EITHER.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S PROXIMITY TO AN LRT.
YES, IT HAS SOME ELEMENTS OF
THAT. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE
POLICY EITHER.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE MDP AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
THERE ARE A HOST OF PEOPLE
THAT SUGGEST BY FORCING ANYTHING AROUND THESE LRT
STATIONS, ESPECIALLY NEW ONES
AS THEY GO INTO ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES, WE'RE PUBLICLY
MAKING A MISTAKE.
WE'RE RUSHING HEADLONG INTO THIS WITHOUT EVEN A HEADS UP
TO SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES WHO
HAVE A BETTER I THINK THAT LONG THIS MIGHT BE ON THE
HORIZON AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
WE'RE ENTERTAINING AN AMENDMENT TO SUGGEST PERMITTED
USE IN THESE AREAS.
THIS IS SEVERAL STEPS BEYOND WHAT I THINK THE COMMUNITIES
AND CERTAINLY MYSELF ARE
COMFORTABLE WITH.

SO ON THAT BASIS I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT.
MURMUR >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU, AMOUNT POOTMANS.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE AMENDMENT? ALDERMAN PINCOTT, DO YOU WANT
TO CLOSE?
>> GRAB ONE WORD THAT ALDERMAN POOTMANS SAID AND HE SAID
"FORCE".
WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYTHING. WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYBODY TO
DO ANYTHING.
WE'RE SAYING THAT WITHIN A RADIUS, WITHIN AN AREA, THAT
MAKES SENSE FROM OUR MDP'S
PERSPECTIVE, THAT MAKES SENSE IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE
AFFORDABLE COMPONENT TO
MAXIMIZE AFFORDABILITY, WE ARE GIVING YOU, THE HOMEOWNER, THE
OPTION TO DO THIS.
WE'RE PERMITTING YOU TO DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYBODY TO
DO ANYTHING. AND I THINK THAT IF WE ARE
GOING TO START SOMEWHERE WITH
PERMITTED USE, WHICH, AS WE — ANYBODY WHO HAS LOOKED AT THIS,
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, OTHER
JURISDICTIONS IN CANADA, PERMITTED USE IS WHERE ALMOST
EVERYBODY GETS TO.
IT'S WHERE — IT'S WHAT YOU DO.
THEN THIS IS THE PLACE TO
START IS EXACTLY AROUND LRT AND VRT STATIONS.
EXACTLY AROUND THOSE MASS
PUBLIC TRANSIT HUBS.

SO WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYBODY
TO DO ANYTHING.
WITH THIS AMENDMENT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE
GIVING — WE'RE ALLOWING
PEOPLE TO DO THINGS IF THEY CHOOSE.
WE'RE NOT FORCING ANY
COMMUNITY TO CHANGE, ANYBODY TO CHANGE.
I HOPE YOU DO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT. I THINK IT IS — IF WE WANT TO
BE INCREMENTAL, LET US BE
INCREMENTAL. LET US BE INCREMENTAL TOWARDS
WHERE WE KNOW WE NEED TO GET
TO, WHICH IS PERMITTED USE FOR SECONDARY SUITES.
AND LET'S START AROUND THE
PLACE THAT IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ON THE
AMENDMENT, CLOSED ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> RECORDED VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT, YOUR WORSHIP, PLEASE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: OKAY.
ON THE AMENDMENT, THE AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY TO CHANGE
THE WORD DISCRETIONARY TO
PERMITTED. THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE
VOTING ON NOW.
IN NUMBER 3, CHANGE THE WORD DISCRETIONARY TO PERMITTED IN
NUMBER 3.
>> ON THE RECORDED VOTE, ALDERMAN HODGES AGAINST,
ALDERMAN FARRELL FOR, ALDERMAN
CARRA FOR, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART AGAINST,
ALDERMAN CHABOT AGAINST,
ALDERMAN DEMONG AGAINST, ALDERMAN MacLEOD FOR, ALDERMAN
LOWE AGAINST, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS AGAINST, ALDERMAN STEVENSON AGAINST, ALDERMANMAN
JONES AGAINST, ALDERMAN
PINCOTT FOR, (INDISCERNIBLE) AGAINST.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU.

BACK TO THE MOTION ON THE
FLOOR WHICH IS NUMBER TWO AND
NUMBER THREE ON YOUR SCREEN. I THINK YOU ALREADY SPOKEN ON
THIS — NO, YOU HAVEN'T,
ALDERMAN LOWE, YOU ONLY SPOKE ON THE AMENDMENT.
IF YOU WANT TO DO THE MAIN
MOTION, YOU PAY. >> I SPOKE TO BOTH, YOUR
WORSHIP.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I KNOW, BUT HE STILL HAS THE RIGHT.
THANKS, ALDERMAN LOWE.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS, YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN ON THE MAIN
MOTION, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T
LIKE IT. ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE
GOING TO CONSIDER THIS TO BE CONFLICTORY.
I WOULD LIKE NOT TO HAVE THE
BRT LISTED AS THERE, MOST LAY TRANSITIONAL STAGE AT THIS
POINT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: SO MY PRACTICE ON THIS ONE, ALDERMAN
DEMONG, EVEN THOUGH ALDERMAN
CHABOT WILL SAY IT'S NOT IN THE PROCEDURE BYLAW, MY
PRACTICE IS TO ASK THE MOVER
AND SECOND FER THEY FIND IT CONTRARY.
SO ALDERMAN DEMONG IS
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT — I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO VOTE YEA OR
NAY.
HE'S WILLING TO REMOVE OR BRT FROM NUMBER 3 TO SO ALDERMAN
CARRA AND ALDERMAN DEMONG,
WOULD YOU FIND THAT CONTRARY TO YOUR MOTION?
WE'LL CALL IT SEPARATELY.
>> I PREFER THAT.

>> THAT'S FINE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I'LL
CALL THEM IN THREE SECTIONS, THEN.
>> I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I
THINK THAT BRT — >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: IN
YOUR CLOSE.
>> IT'S A POINT OF ORDER. I THINK BRT —
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: IT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER AT ALL.
IT WAS A GOOD TRY, THOUGH.
ALDERMAN DEMONG, WE'LL CALL THEM SEPARATELY.
>> OKAY.
CONTINUING ON, WE ARE GETTING RID OF — IS IT IS A TWO AND A
HALF KILOMETRE RADIUS A
REALISTIC AREA TO HAVE THIS AS DISCRETIONARY?
IT SEEMS LIKE AN EXTREMELY
LONG WAY. HOW MANY MINUTES IS THAT,
GIAN-CARLO?
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I WILL TELL YOU, ALDERMAN DEMONG,
THAT WE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON
THAT NUMBER, AND I WAS ACTUALLY THINKING OF A 3
MINUTE WALK WHETHER I THOUGHT
THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE — WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD MAKE
SENSE.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ON THE
MOTION, ALDERMAN CHABOT?
I DO JUST WONDER IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE SAME
SUGGESTION ON THIS AS YOU DID
ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION, IF I WERE TO SUGGEST THAT WE
PROBABLY WANT TO UNDERTAKE A
CONSULTATIVE PROCESS ON — AROUND THIS ISSUE.
SAME ISSUE, RIGHT?
CONSULTATIVE PROCESS, AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING?
THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: NOT TRYING TO STEAM ROLL YOU,
ALDERMAN CHABOT, BUT IT IT'S
COUNCIL'S WILL TO JUST MOVE FORWARD TODAY, THEN THERE'S
NOT MUCH POINT.
IF IT'S NOT COUNCIL'S WILL, THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU RIGHT
AWAY.
AND YOU CAN PUT TO MOVE FORWARD ON A VERY SIMPLE
MOTION, TO DIRECT
ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE IN A CONSULTATIVE PROCESS AROUND,
THEN JUST TURN 2 AND 3 INTO
BULLET POINTS.

ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE ON THIS MOTION?
ALDERMAN MINUTE COT? >> — ALDERMAN PINCOTT?
>> THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT JUST LOOKED
OVER AND SAID DON'T YOU WANT TO DEBATE?
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING
FORWARD ON THESE TWO PARTICULAR MOTIONS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL HAS
HAD A BIT OF A DISCUSSION AROUND THESE, BUT THESE TWO
ALSO HAVE BEEN ON THE DOCKET,
IF YOU WILL, FOR SOME TIME.

NUMBER 3 IS VERY MUCH PART OF
THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND THE CALGARY TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION
IT IS.
THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED. NUMBER 2 JUST MAKES SENSE.
AND YOU REMEMBER THAT ONE OF
THE REASONS THAT I'VE BEEN RAISING THIS FOR SO VERY LONG
IS BECAUSE I REALLY, TRULY
BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO AFFORD PROTECTIONS TO THE FOLKS WHO
ARE LIVING IN THE ILLEGAL
SUITES. SOMEONE SOME TIME AGO TALKED
ABOUT A CARROT AND STICK
APPROACH, I THINK IT WAS ALDERMAN DEMONG.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE SITUATION
WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS WE HAVE NO CARROT.
WE ONLY HAVE A STICK.
AND THE STICK WE HAVE TO USE IS THE SAME STICK FOR
EVERYONE.
SO ALDERMAN CHABOT AND I WERE SPEAKING OUT OVER DINNER AND
WE WERE SAYING THAT IN THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD IN WHICH HE LIVES AND IN WHICH I GREW UP,
MOST OF THE ILLEGAL SUITES ARE
FINE. THEY'RE DECENT PLACES TO LIVE.
BUT IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS,
THEY'RE NOT. IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN HIS
WARD THEY'RE NOT.
AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. THE PROBLEM IS RIGHT NOW THAT
WE ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
TREAT THEM EXACTLY THE SAME.

THE REAL FIRE PIT VERSUS THE
ACTUALLY TOTALLY DECENT PLACE
TO LIVE WITH THE DECENT LANDLORD.
WHAT THIS ALLOWS US TO DO IN
THOSE AREAS PARTICULARLY AROUND THE UNIVERSITIES WHERE
WE KNOW THERE ARE LARGE
CONCENTRATION OF ILLEGAL SUITES IS IT ACTUALLY PROVIDES
US WITH A CARROT BECAUSE THEN
WE CAN GO TO THE LANDLORD AND SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO
MOVE IN TO COMPLIANCE INSTEAD
OF SAYING TAKE THOSE — KICK THOSE STUDENTS OUT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT.

AND I WOULD — I WOULD
UNDERSTAND CERTAINLY IF
COUNCIL WANTED TO THINK MORE ABOUT THIS ONE BUT I THINK WE
THOUGHT THROUGH THIS ONE QUITE
WELL. WE'VE HAD SOME VERY GOOD INPUT
FROM THE STUDENTS ASSOCIATIONS
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ABOUT THIS ONE.
THEY STRONGLY ARE IN FAVOUR
BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THEIR MEMBERS.
AND I THINK THAT TODAY WE'RE
READY TO MOVE ON THIS ONE AND I WOULD URGE COUNCIL TO GO
FORWARD AND MOVE ON THESE TWO.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
THREE?
SO THANK YOU.

SO A RECORDED VOTE, NEN, ON
NUMBER 2 THAT IS BEFORE US.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THE UNIVERSITIES FIRST.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
ALDERMAN CARRA. SO THANK YOU, CONSIDER IT
CLOSED.
THEN RECORDED VOTE ON NUMBER 2.
>> ON THE RECORDED VOTE,
ALDERMAN HODGES AGAINST, ALDERMAN FARRELL FOR, ALDERMAN
CARRA FOR, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART AGAINST, ALDERMAN CHABOT AGAINST,
ALDERMAN DEMONG AGAINST,
ALDERMAN MacLEOD FOR, ALDERMAN LOWE AGAINST, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS AGAINST, ALDERMAN
STEVENSON AGAINST, ALDERMAN JONES FOR, MAYOR NENSHI FOR,
DEPUTY MAYOR PINCOTT FOR.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ON NUMBER 2, UP TO THE WORDS
"STATIONS". SO LRT STATION.
SO WITHOUT THE LAST THREE
WORDS. RECORDED VOTE, PLEASE.
>> ON THE RECORDED VOTE,
ALDERMAN HODGES AGAINST, ALDERMAN FARRELL FOR, ALDERMAN
CARRA FOR, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART AGAINST, ALDERMAN CHABOT AGAINST,
ALDERMAN DEMONG AGAINST,
ALDERMAN MacLEOD FOR, ALDERMAN LOWE AGAINST, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS AGAINST, ALDERMAN
STEVENSON AGAINST, ALDERMAN JONES FOR, MAYOR NENSHI FOR.
ACTING MAYOR PINCOTT FOR.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: WITH THAT, THERE IS NO POINT IN
VOTING FOR THE LAST ONE.
>> WELL, NO, THERE STILL IS.

>> IT'S THEE WORDS NOT HANGING
ON ANYTHING.
— IT'S THREE WORDS NOT HANGING ON ANYTHING.
>> YOU'RE ACTUALLY RIGHT.
OKAY. THEY ACTUALLY DO PRESUME THE
PREAMBLE.
ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> AS PREDICTED PROBABLY, YOUR
WORSHIP, I HAVE AN ALTERNATE
PROPOSED MOTION, WHICH IS — I'VE GOT IT PARTIALLY WRITTEN
OUT WHICH IS DIRECT
ADMINISTRATION TO UNDERTAKE A CONSULTATIVE PROCESS TO
CONSIDER REZONING R1, RC 1, RC
1 L, TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE LAND USE BYLAW TO ADD
SECONDARY SUITES AS
DISCRETIONARY USE WITHIN 2.5 KILOMETRE RADIUS OF MOUNT
ROYAL UNIVERSITY, SAIT, BOW
VALLEY COLLEGE, AND UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, AND I WONDER IF WE
CAN UNDERTAKE A SIMILAR
DIRECTION FOR RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 —
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I
THINK WHAT WE CAN PROBABLY DO, ALDERMAN CHABOT, IS TO DO WHAT
YOU JUST SAID AS THE
PRE-AMBLING AND THEN JUST SHOW WHAT CURRENTLY 2 AND 3 IS THE
POINTS UNDERNEATH.
MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH.
IF THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH FOR THE
CLERK.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: DO YOU
WANT TO READ IT ONE MORE TIME, THE PREAMBLE.
>> DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO
UNDERTAKE A CONSULTATIVE PROCESS TO CONSIDER REZONING
R1, RC 1, RC 1 L, TO CONSIDER
AMENDING THE LAND USE BYLAW TO ADD SECONDARY SUITES AS A
DISCRETIONARY USE WITHIN 2.5
KILOMETRE RADIUS OF MOUNT ROYAL, UNIVERSITY, S AEUFPLT T,
BOW VALLEY KHEPBLG, EXAMINE
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, AND SAME PREAMBLE TO ADD SECONDARY
SUITES TO DISCRETIONARY USE
WITHIN 400 METRES OF LRT STATION OR BRT STOPS.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: VERY
ELEGANT. THANK YOU.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECONDER FOR
THAT, PLEASE? TO DO A PUBLIC CONSULTATION
PROCESS ON THOSE TWO THINGS.
ALDERMAN DEMONG? ALL RIGHT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS?
ALDERMAN LOWE? >> IT'S GETTING BETTER.
THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION
PROCESS. I'D BE HAPPIER IF IT WAS A
COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY PUBLIC
CONSULTATION PROCESS. TO EXPLORE OPTIONS.
SO I'LL PUT THAT AMENDMENT TO
THIS AND TO REPORT BACK TO LBT BY FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I'M
JUST WAITING UNTIL WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE SCREEN
AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT YOUR
AMENDMENT, OKAY.

>> SURE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: NO
PROBLEM. MUSICAL INTERLUDE, ANYONE?
ALDERMAN PINCOTT?
LITTLE SONG AND DANCE? IF I REALLY WANTED A SONG AND
DANCE I WOULD HAVE CALLED UP
ALDERMAN CARRA. WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR IT TO
GO ON THE SCREEN, ALDERMAN
LOWE, LET ME JUST, SO I UNDERSTAND, YOUR INTENT IS TO
DO A COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION ON THESE TWO ISSUES?
>> ON THESE TWO ISSUES OF THE
AFFECTED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE RADIUSS DESCRIBED.
IT'S QUITE EXTENSIVE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: IT IS QUITE EXTENSIVE.
>> AND THE OTHER THING IS TO
DO THAT WITH A VIEW TO CREATING OPTIONS.
TO EXTEND.
IT WILL COST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD BE A
WORTHY CANDIDATE FOR THE INNOVATIVE FUND.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I
DON'T KNOW WHY Mr.

TILL BERT FINDS THAT SO AMUSING.
BUT —
>> ALSO, YOUR WORSHIP — >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THE
MONEY WOULD HAVE TO COME
SEPARATELY SINCE WE DON'T HAVE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE
INNOVATION FUND.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR WORSHIP.
ALSO IT'S WORK THAT COULD BE
CONDUCTED BY CONSULTANTS. JUST A THOUGHT.
WHILE I'M STANDING HERE ON MY
FEET. I DO YOUR WORSHIP, I JUST HAVE
A QUESTION IN RELATION TO WE
JUST SAID THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO A BLANKET POLICY AND REPORT
BACK IN DECEMBER.
SO SHOULDN'T THIS COME EITHER BEFORE OR IN DECEMBER AS WELL
BECAUSE IF IT COMES IN
FEBRUARY AND WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED TO DO IT THE OTHER WAY
IT'S A MOOT POINT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I WAS WRINKLING MY
FOREHEAD.
>> DECEMBER IS JUST FINE.

>> DO WE HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL
TO DO THAT?
>> WE WILL ARRANGE THAT OUT OF THE FUND.
Mr. WATSON DOESN'T HAVE THE
MONEY TO DO IT. I KNOW THAT.
BUT WE DO — WE DID CREATE AN
INNOVATION FUND, INNOVATIVE USE, INNOVATIVE LAND USE.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT
BE CONSIDER IT THAT WHICH. IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT,
WE'LL SPEND THE MONEY ON IT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ALDERMAN LOWE, Mr. TOBERT IS
WHISPERING IN MY EAR THAT HE
WOULD MUCH PREFER TO BE AEULTS BRING A REPORT BACK AND
DETERMINE WHAT THE COST WOULD
LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD
WANT TO DO. (INDISCERNIBLE) DIRECTION HERE
REGARDLESS OF LOGIC AND
REASON.

I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY ASKING
Mr. WATSON OR Mr. TOBERT TO
SCOPE THIS PROJECT AND BRING US A BUDGET.
HOW QUICKLY CAN DO YOU THAT,
Mr. TOBERT? >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: HE
SAYS AT LEAST A MONTH.
>> THEN WE CAN DO THAT A MONTH FROM NOW.
I GUESS MY POINT, YOUR WORSHIP,
IS THERE'S TWO POINTS HERE. COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION AND OPTIONS FOR
DOING IT. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I HAVE
AN IDEA.
>> YOU'RE REFERRING THIS? >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I HAVE
AN IDEA.
ALDERMAN CHABOT HAS HAD A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DIRECT
ADMINISTRATION TO DO THIS.
YOU RIGHT THIS MINUTE, WHILE YOU'RE STANDING, RATHER THAN
MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT, COULD SAY
REFER THIS TO THE APRIL LPT FOR A SCOPING REPORT DETAILING
COSTS ON A COMMUNITY BY
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION. >> IF THAT GETS US OUT OF THIS
BIND, I WILL DO THAT, YOUR
WORSHIP. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: DO WE
HAVE A SECONDER?
THANK YOU, ALDERMAN JONES. SO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US
RIGHT NOW IS A REFERRAL MOTION
BECAUSE ALDERMAN CHABOT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO AT LPT.
IT'S GOOD THAT WE CAN ALL
LAUGH TOGETHER AFTER WHAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH TODAY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE
RIGHT MOW IS A REFERRAL MOTION MOVED BY ALDERMAN LOWE,
SECONDED BY ALDERMAN JONES TO
REFER ALDERMAN CHABOT'S MOTION TO THE APRIL MEETING OF LPT
WITH SOME COSTING AROUND THE
COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.
SOUND GOOD?
>> REFINE THIS A LITTLE BIT JUST AS I REFER BACK TO THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT TO
THE — >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU.
DISCUSSION ON THE REFERRAL MOTION.
WANT TO CLOSE, ALDERMAN LOWE?
ALDERMAN PINCOTT? YOU'RE TURNING YOURSELF ON AND
OFF.
LET ME TRY FROM HERE.

>> I'M JUST AS CHALLENGED WITH
THE REFERRAL AS I WAS WITH THE
MOTION. TO DO A LARGE SCALE COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION, TO EVEN SCOPE IT
AROUND SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A DISCRETIONARY USE, SO AROUND
SOMETHING THEN THAT WOULD
ALWAYS INVOLVE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AT THE END OF THE
DAY ON EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL
APPLICATION FEELS LIKE, SEEMS LIKE, VERY LARGE EXERCISE IN A
LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF MONEY
THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION AND WE DECIDE TO
DO IT AS DISCRETIONARY USE AS PER 2 AND 3, EACH INDIVIDUAL
APPLICATION WILL THEN INVOLVE
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS DO INVOLVE
COMMUNITY INPUT.
I'M — WE'RE THROWING WORK ON TOP OF WORK, AND THE — EACH
PILE OF WORK IS GETTING BIGGER.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK THAT I WON'T SUPPORT THE
REFERRAL AND I WON'T SUPPORT
THE MOTION EITHER.

YOU KNOW WHAT, IF WE WERE
GOING TO DO IT AROUND
PERMITTED USE, I'D BE ALL OVER IT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN PINCOTT. ON THE REFERRAL MOTION,
ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> I THINK A REFERRAL MOTION IS PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE SOME COST
IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS
THING RIGHT, THEN PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE METHOD TO GO ABOUT
DOING IT IS A COMMUNITY BY
COMMUNITY BASIS. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE SO MANY LRT STATIONS AND
BRT STATIONS THAT RESIDE IN SO MANY DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES
THAT I CAN'T HELP BUT IMAGINE
MY COMMUNITIES WOULD WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THE DISCUSSION OF
HAVING OUR ONE RC 1 DEVELOPED
WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE LRT STATIONS, IF IT WERE GOING
TO BE ALLOWED, WHERE IT'S
CURRENTLY FOR THE ALLOWED.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING
S DESIGNATION TO ALL OF THOSE
RC 1s AND R1 PROPERTIES SO IT EQUATES TO A MASS REZONING.
AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT THIS
IS GOING TO BE A DOUBLE INDEMNITY KIND OF A THING
WHERE WE UNDERTAKE A
CONSULTATIVE PROCESS NOW AND THEN UNDERTAKE A SUBSEQUENT
CONSULTATIVE PROCESS,
COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE PROCESS, IS ACTUALLY NOT ENTIRELY
ACCURATE.
WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION,
THERE'S A VERY LIMITED
CIRCULATION AS TO WHO HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE
DISCUSSIONS.
YES, OF COURSE IT IS NOTICE POSTED, BUT TIP CHI UNLESS
YOU'RE AN AFFECTED RESIDENT,
UNLESS YOU'RE DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO IT OR TWO OR THREE
DOORS DOWN FROM THE HOUSE
THAT'S APPLYING FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION,
YOUR INPUT DOESN'T CARRY A LOT
OF WEIGHT.

THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF
COURSE CAN WEIGH INTO IT ON —
WEIGH IN ON THE ISSUE, BUT AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF A LAND USE
BYLAW, YOU'RE PROVIDING ON SITE PARKING, YOU HAVE MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS, YOU'RE
MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND USE BYLAW, YOUR
ARGUMENT OF I DON'T WANT IT
NEXT DOOR TO ME JUST WON'T FLY.
IT BEARS NO WEIGHT.
SO THIS SINK A VERY THOUGHTFUL APPROACH.
IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOOKING AT SENSITIVE
INTENSIFICATION, PROVIDING IT
WHERE IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO DO IT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK
THIS IS — IT MAY BE A BABY STEP, BUT I THINK IT'S THE
RIGHT BABY STEP.
AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS REFERRAL.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN CHABOT.

ON THE REFERRAL — I'M NOT
DONE.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AROUND. I'VE GOT — I'M JUST GOING TO
GO THROUGH THE SPEAKERS LIST.
I ASSUME YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE REFERRAL.
ALDERMAN JONES?
>> NO. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:
ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> YES. YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, THE TERMS OF
REFERENCE ARE IMPORTANT. HOPEFULLY A REPORT CAN BE
READY FOR THE APRIL LPT
MEETING. I'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME
FURTHER COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT
SORT OF AS MUCH AS Mr. WATSON MAY GRIT HIS TEETH, ABOUT WHAT
SORT OF — WHAT TYPE OR WHAT
IT WOULD BE THE BEST ROUTE TO GO IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THE
CONSULTING ROUTE.
BUT I KNOW THAT Mr. WATSON HAS A STRATEGIC RESERVE IN THE
DEPARTMENT.
SO I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT COST AS ABOUT HOW THE MONEY IS
SPENT.
SO WE CAN GET INTO THAT AT THE APRIL LPT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: — I
DON'T THINK YOU INTENDED IT AS SUCH.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH
ALDERMAN PINCOTT ON THIS ONE.

I THINK IF WE'RE SPENDING TIME
AND RESOURCES ON COMMUNITY BY
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION, WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
OVERARCHING NEIGHBOURHOOD
CHANGE OVER. WE SHOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT
JUST FOR THE TIME BEING
INCREMENTAL NO BRAINER OF ALLOWING SECONDARY SUITES.
SECONDARY SUITES ARE JUST ONE
PART OF A KPEPB COMPREHENSIVE TRANSFORMATION THAT HAS TO
OCCUR WITHIN 400 METRES OF
TRANSIT STOPS. THE TIMING OF THAT, THE END
LOOK, ALL OF THAT, UNLESS
WE'RE DOING CONSULTATION AND DESIGN WORK TOWARDS THAT END,
I DON'T THINK I DON'T — I
DON'T SEE THE POINT IN SPENDING TIME OR RESOURCES.
SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THAT
REFERRAL MOTION. I THINK IT'S A WASTE OF
EVERYONE'S TIME.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN CARRA.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITIES GET AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT IS A
PROFOUND CHANGE TO THE ZONING
OF THEIR COMMUNITIES.

WHEN WE SPEAK OF FORCING, WHAT
WE'RE SPEAKING OF IS FORCING A
POLICY. POLICY WHICH CAN HAVE PROFOUND
IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITIES'
LIVEABILITY FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
IT HAS IMPLICATIONS TO THE
LOOK AND THE FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND I THINK ANYTHING LESS THAN
A COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY CONSULTATION WILL BE
UNSATISFACTORY.
THE IMPACTS OF AN LRT STATION ON A GLENDALE WILL BE
DIFFERENT THAN THE LRT IMPACTS
ON A CHRISTIE OR AN ASPEN. SO I THINK ALL OF THESE AREAS
ARE ENTITLED TO A COMMUNITY BY
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION, AND THEY MIGHT WELCOME UP WITH
DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS AND
DIFFERENT IDEAS ON A COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY BASIS.
SO I HEARTILY ENDORSE THIS
REFERRAL.

THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS. GOOD FOR YOU FOR BEING FORWARD
THINKING WHEN YOU SAID THE LRT
STATION ON GLENDALE. I HAD TO THINK ABOUT THAT FOR
A SECOND.
17th AVENUE AND 45th STREET. RIGHT.
SOME DAY SOON.
ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU.
WELL, LIKE ALDERMAN PINCOTT
AND CARRA BEFORE ME, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.
THIS IS A HUGE BODY OF WORK.
AND I'M SORRY IF IT DOESN'T FEEL GENUINE.
THIS REMINDS ME A LITTLE BIT
OF THE SMOKING BYLAW. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS
REMEMBER IT.
BUT WE DID GET THERE EVENTUALLY.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: CAN WE
PLEASE CALL IT THE NO SMOKING STPWHRAU
>> THE NO SMOKING BYLAW.
IF WE CAN'T MANAGE TO MAKE THESE PERMITTED OR EVEN
DISCRETIONARY AROUND LRT WHEN
IT FITS WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE — ALL OF OUR CITY
POLICIES IN THE NEW MDP AND
PLANET AND FAIR CALGARY AND ALL THAT, THEN I JUST DON'T
THINK WE'RE READY.
SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT AND I'VE HEARD THE USE OF THE
INNOVATION FUNDS TO FUND THIS
VERY LARGE BODY OF WORK.

THIS ISN'T INNOVATION,
COUNCIL.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE REFERRAL
MOTION? ON THE MOTION TO REFER,
THEN — OH, DID YOU WANT TO
CLOSE, ALDERMAN LOWE? OKAY.
ON THE REFERRAL MOTION, THIS
IS TO REFER THIS TO LPT IN APRIL FOR A SCOPING.
ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE.
>> ALDERMAN LOWE?
YES. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD?
>> NO.
>> ALDERMAN PINCOTT? >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN POOTMANS?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEEN SON?
>> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CARRA? >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT?
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART
>> YES.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG? >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL?
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN HODGES 134
>> YES.
>> ALDERMAN JONES? >> YES.
>> MAYOR NENSHI ISSHY?
>> NO. >> CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ALL
RIGHT. I THINK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
WE MAY BE DONE WITH 10.3.4.
NO IS A REFERRAL MOTION. IT WAS A REFERRAL MOTION.
ANY MORE MOTIONS ARISING ON
10.3.4? >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
TO FILE A RECOMMENDATIONS OF
LPT — >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: YOU
ONLY HAVE TO, ALDERMAN CHABOT,
BECAUSE ONE OF THE MOTIONS WE — ONE OF THE MOTIONS WE
PASSED WAS TO EXPLICITLY REFER
THE REPORT BACK TO RETURN TO LPT SO YOU DON'T NEED TO FILE
THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> OKAY.

DARN, I WAS HOPING TO FILE IT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I KNOW
YOU WERE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
ANY OTHER MOTIONS ARISE
ONGOING 10.HE.3.4? OKAY.
10.4.1, PROGRESS TOWARDS 8020
BY 2020 IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR, THE UNE REPORTS.
ALDERMAN JONES.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I'LL MOVE ALL THE REPORTS, THERE WAS ONE
PRESENTATION DONE THAT
BASICALLY (INDISCERNIBLE) WE HAD A COMPANY COME IN THAT
GAVE US SOME ALTERNATIVE WHICH
WAS HENCE GIVES YOU THE DIRECTION ON NUMBER 4, TO
INCLUDE IN THE REPORT OTHER
WAYS OF ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO LOOK AT
HOW WE CAN DO WASTE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: WAS THERE DISCUSSION AT THE
COMMITTEE IF THOSE
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED THE WASTE TO ENERGY STUFF THAT'S
IN THE REPORT?
>> YEAH.

>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT? THANKS, ALDERMAN PINCOTT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE —
REMEMBER THERE'S TWO NOW. SO 10.4.1 AND THE ONE THAT WE
REMOVED FROM THE GENERAL DID
WHICH WAS 10.4.ON MULTIFAMILY RECYCLING.
QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION ON
10.4.1? OH, I'LL DO IT.
Mr. PRITCHARD, WASTE ENERGY.
I WAS A BIT PERPLEXED BY THE REPORT, TO BE FRANK.
IT SEEMED TO DISMISS A LOT OF
WHAT'S GOING ON ON WASTE ENERGY A BIT OUT OF HAND.
AM I READING TOO MUCH INTO IT?
>> THANK YOU, WORE SHIM. ACTUALLY WE SPENT 18 MONTHS
AND PRODUCED A 750 PAGE REPORT,
YOUR WORSHIP, THAT REALLY LOOKED AT, AMONGST OTHER
THINGS, WASTE TO ENERGY AND
THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO DEALING WITH ORGANICS SO WE
STARTED OFF WITH THE —
LOOKING AT COMPOSITING AND THEN WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF
OTHER TECHNOLOGIES AND ALL THE
WAY UP TO THE MOST ADVANCED WASTE TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT
CAME FROM THE CONSULTANT AFTER THAT STUDY WAS THAT THERE IS A
PLACE FOR WASTE TO ENERGY AND
THERE'S A TIME FOR IT, BUT THE SIMPLEST AND MOST EXPEDIENT
WAY TO DEAL WITH THE INITIAL
PROBLEM OF YARD WASTE AND FOOD WASTE FROM RESIDENTIAL IS
ACTUALLY TO GO WITH THE SIMPLE
COMPOSTING ROUTE, AND THEN BY THE TIME WE GET TO SORT OF 75%
DIVERSION, THAT'S THE TIME WE
WOULD START LOOKING AT THE WASTE TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES.
BY THAT TIME, OUT OF THE SORT
OF UNTRIED AND TESTED TECHNOLOGIES WILL HAVE BEEN
AROUND FOR A BIT LONGER AND
WILL HAVE A BETTER TRACK RECORD OF KNOWING HOW THEY
PERFORM AND SO ON.
0 IT'S QUITE A THOUGHT — WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, YOUR
WORSHIP, IN TERMS OF THE
PROPOSALS.

>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THAT
IS PRECISELY WHAT I NEEDED TO
HEAR, Mr. PRITCHARD, THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> ASKED AND ANSWERED RIGHT THERE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU. ALDERMAN HODGES?
NEXT ITEM.
ANYTHING MORE ON THIS ONE? SO ON THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS — DID YOU
WANT TO CLOSE, ALDERMAN JONES? ON THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS, ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
CARRIED. 10.4.2, WHICH IS THE ONE WE
TOOK OFF THE CON SENSE AGENDA
ON MULTIFAMILY RECYCLING, ALDERMAN — IT'S ALREADY BEEN
MOVED AND SECONDED SO ALDERMAN
HODGES.

FORMERLY 6.3.
FORMERLY 6.3.
>> YES, THANKS, YOUR WORSHIP. Mr. PRITCHARD, THIS ISN'T A
COMMITTEE MEETING, HAPPENED TO
BE AT I CAUGHT SOME OF IT ON CLOSED CIRCUIT COVERAGE WE
HAVE IN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR,
AND THERE'S A BIT MORE INQUIRIES.
I'M RECEIVING, ANYWAY, FROM
CONDOMINIUM — MULTIFAMILY BUT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS WHERE
THEY HAVE NO RECYCLING SERVICE
WHATEVER FROM ANY — EITHER PRIVATE COMPANY OR I GATHER
WITH THE RULES THE WAY THEY
ARE FROM THE CITY. SO TO OPEN THIS UP TO, YOU
MIGHT SAY, SOME CITY OF
CALGARY SERVICES, THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
POLICY WE HAVE AT THE PRESENT
TIME, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. >> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR
WORSHIP.
THE PRESENT DIRECTION WE HAVE IS THAT THE CITY DOES NOT GET
INVOLVED IN MULTIFAMILY
RECYCLING UNTIL IT'S EVIDENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO
ACHIEVE OUR A G-20 GOAL BY
2020 AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT THE MOMENT.
SO COMPLYING WITH THAT
DIRECTION WE WOULD WAIT AND I THINK THE STRATEGY THAT WE
HAVE HERE AGAIN IS QUITE WELL
DEVELOPED IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF
TIME REALLY WORKING A LOT MORE
WITH THE INDUSTRY, THE PRIVATE RECYCLERS, LOOKING AT WHAT
PERHAPS THE CITY'S POSITION
MIGHT BE ULTIMATELY AND THEN COMING BACK WITH A FULL PLAN
FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IN THE
2015 TO 17 BUSINESS CYCLE.

>> A COUPLE OF YEARS OUT.
I CAN PURSUE THIS CONVERSATION
WITH YOU OFF LINE. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI:ALITY
CHABOT? >> THANK YOU.
Mr. PRITCHARD, WHERE ARE WE AT
WITH REGARDS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THESE PRIVATE
ORGANIZATIONS DEPOSITING
MATERIAL DIRECTLY TO THE (INDISCERNIBLE) FACILITY OR
HOW ARE WE FACILITATING THAT?
>> THE ARRANGEMENT WE'VE MADE AT PRESENT IS TO FACILITATE
THAT BY HAVING A DROP-OFF
STATION AT OUR SHEPHERD LANDFILL SO THAT THE PRIVATE
RECYCLERS CAN COME TO OUR
FACILITY AT OUR LANDFILL AND DROP IT OFF THERE, THEN WE
TAKE IT IN OUR TRUCKS TO THE
MULTI — TO THE MURFP, THE MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY.
I DO SO THEY PAY A STANDARD
TIPPING FEE? >> THEY PAY — I THINK IT'S
$32 A TONNE, TO BE ABLE TO
DROP IT OFF AT OUR FACILITY. THAT COVERS OUR COST OF
BASICALLY OPERATING THAT
FACILITY AND GETTING THE RECYCLABLES TO THE MRF.
IT DOESN'T COVER THE COST OF
THE PROCESSING FEE AT THE MRF. SO IT'S JUST COVERING OUR
COSTS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD PROBABLY AMOUNT TO 20 OR 30 CENTS PER CUSTOMER PER
MONTH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THE CUSTOMER BASE.
>> IT'S 120 OR SO PER TONNE
TYPICALLY FOR REGULAR WASTE? >> TO DISPOSE OF WASTE IN THE
LANDFILL IS $95 A TONNE RIGHT
NOW.

>> STILL UNDER A HUNDRED
BUCKS.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
I HAVE — HOPING TO DO SOME
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THAT
ISSUE.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANKS,
ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
JUST TO CLEAR UP BECAUSE OF
ALDERMAN HODGES' QUESTION, WHEN I MOVED THE MOTION BACK
TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO TO DO
THIS TO LEAVE THE MULTIFAMILY OPEN TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AT
THAT SAME TIME THE — A PART
OF THAT DIRECTION WAS FOR THE — OUR ADMINISTRATION TO
WORK AT GETTING ACCESS FOR
THOSE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS TO THE MRF.
THAT HASN'T — IT HASN'T
HAPPENED UNTIL JUST IN DECEMBER, THE PRIVATE
CONTRACTORS WERE BROUGHT
TOGETHER AND THEN IN JANUARY THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DUMPTY
TRANSFER SITE.
SO IT'S JUST NOW, AS OF 2011, THAT THE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
CAN ACTUALLY GET GOING AT THIS
AND SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE QUITE AN UPTICK ON THIS
BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF
PRESSURE FROM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS TO FIND A METHOD
OF MOVING THEIR RECYCLABLES,
SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THAT NOW THAT THERE'S
SOME ACTION TAKEN ON IT.
I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE ACTION BECAUSE I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE
FACT THAT THESE PRIVATE
CONTRACTORS ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE THE — THEIR RECYCLABLES
STRAIGHT TO THE MRF, BUT AT
LEAST WASTE AND RECYCLING HAS SET UP THIS TRANSFER FROM
SHEPPARD PARDON WHICH IS GOOD
FOR THE INTERIM AND THEY'RE STILL GOING TO KEEP WORK
ONGOING GETTING IT SET UP AT
THE MRF.

THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> I STILL THINK WE SHOULD
HAVE CALLED IT THE SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY
SO WE CAN CALL IT THE SMURF.
EVERY TIME YOU SAY MRF. ALDERMAN PINCOTT?
>> THANK YOU.
Mr. PRITCHARD, I'M AFRAID I MISSED THIS MEETING.
WITH THE CHANGES IN MAKING IT
SO THAT PRIVATE RECYCLERS CAN DROP OFF MATERIALS, IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE INDUSTRY,
HOW MUCH UPTAKE DO WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET OR HOW MUCH
DO YOU THINK WE CAN ANTICIPATE
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS? >> I THINK WE WERE QUITE
SURPRISED TO HOW MANY PEOPLE,
MULTIFAMILY FACILITIES, ALREADY HAVE RECYCLING AND
WE'RE JUST BEGINNING TO FIND
OUT MORE AND MORE ABOUT WHO'S DOING WHAT OUT THERE.
PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS, IS
THAT THE HUGE DIVERSITY OF OBVIOUSLY HOUSING AND
APARTMENT TYPES THAT FALL INTO
THE MULTIFAMILY SECTOR, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A SIMPLE
SOLUTION TO ANY PARTICULAR ONE,
ONE HOUSING TYPE.

AND SOME RECYCLERS PREFER TO
PICK UP JUST FIBER.
SOME DON'T PREFER TO BE COMMINGLED AND PROBABLY WOULD
NOT WANT TO GO TO THE MUST
HAVE BEEN. MANY OTHERS WOULD.
BUT I THINK WE'RE QUITE
OPTIMISTIC THAT IF WE HAVE, AS ALDERMAN STEVENSON SAID, WE
HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A REALLY
GOODEN GAUGING CONVERSATION WITH THE INDUSTRY UNTIL FAIRLY
RECENTLY AND I THINK WE'RE
QUITE OPTIMISTIC IF WE DO THAT AND SPEND TIME WITH THEM AND
LOOK AT THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
TRANSFER STATIONS, FOR POSSIBLE EASIER ACCESS TO THE
MRF, THE RIGHT VEHICLE TYPES
AND SO ON, THAT THERE WILL BE A TREMENDOUS UPTAKE BECAUSE
WE'RE HEARING FROM MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTS THAT THEY WANT THIS SERVICE.
>> BECAUSE WE SORT OF HAVE
THIS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, PROHIBITION ON THE CITY
ACTUALLY DOING THIS, ARE WE
BEING PROACTIVE IN TRYING TO NOT JUST ENGAGE THE PRIVATE
RECYCLERS BUT ACTUALLY
ENCOURAGE AND PROD THEM INTO DOING THIS?
I GOT TO TELL YOU, AFTER THE
ROLLOUT OF THE BLUE BINS AND DEALING WITH THE CHALLENGE OF
THE ROLLOUT AND PEOPLE
UNDERSTANDING HOW THEY WORKED, THE ONLY CALL THAT I GET IN MY
OFFICE, THE ONLY CALL SINCE
THE ROLLOUT, IS HOW COME I CAN'T RECYCLE, HOW COME I
DON'T GET IT?
>> I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT — I MEAN, AS YOU KNOW,
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RECYCLING
FOR THE MULTIFAMILY SECTOR AT THE MOMENT IS THE COMMUNITY
RECYCLELE DEPOTS, THE 52 WE
HAVE AROUND THE CITY, AND THAT OPTION IS THERE FOR
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS OR THEY
CAN ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF — WE WERE QUITE SURPRISED AT HOW
MANY PRIVATE RECYCLERS THERE
ARE OUT THERE IN BUSINESS.

AND THEY CAN ENGAGE THE
SERVICES OF THOSE.
AND WE ARE HAVING FAIRLY ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THAT
INDUSTRY TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE
MORE — TO TRY AND FACILITATE MULTIFAMILY RECYCLING.
IN THE REPORT THE ATTACHMENT
TALKS ABOUT THE STRATEGY OF ATTACHMENT — ATTACHMENT 1
TALKS ABOUT THE MULTIFACETED
APPROACH THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE
MULTIFAMILY RECYCLING OVER THE
NEXT LITTLE WHILE. AND THEN WITH A VIEW TO REALLY
DEVELOPING A PROPER
COMPREHENSIVE FULL SERVICE IN TIME FOR THE 15 TO 17 BUSINESS
CYCLE.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION. WHEN SOMEBODY CALLS 311 AND
THEY LIVE IN A CONDO, AN
APARTMENT, AND THEY DON'T HAVE RECYCLING AND CALL OUR 311 TO
SAY WHY DON'T I HAVE RECYCLING,
DO WE GIVE THEM A LIST OF PRIVATE RECYCLERS THAT THEY
CAN STKPHAUL
>> THAT I DON'T KNOW, YOUR WORSHIP.
WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT
IDEA, IF WE COULD ENSURE THAT
WE ARE SUPPORTING PUSHING PEOPLE TOWARDS THAT.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO
THAT. >> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THANK
YOU.
ANYONE ELSE? ALDERMAN JONES, DID YOU WANT
TO CLOSE?
CLOSED.

SO ON THE MOTION TO THE
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
10.5.1, AUDIT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE REVIEW, ALDERMAN
PINCOTT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
COMMITTEE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: ALDERMAN PINCOTT — LET'S GET
A SECONDER.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS. ALDERMAN PINCOTT — THERE YOU
ARE.
OKAY. THANK YOU, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART.
ALDERMAN MacLEOD WILL SECOND IT.
ALDERMAN PINCOTT, JUST SO I
UNDERSTAND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE
THEY ARE LET'S WORK WITH THE
NEW AUDITOR TO GET THIS RIGHT RATHER THAN ACCEPT THE
PREVIOUS SET OF
RECOMMENDATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> INDEED.
AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO NOT JUST TO LOOK AT TERMS OF
REFERENCE FOR THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE BUT ACTUALLY TO BE QUITE A LITTLE BIT MORE
FORCEFUL AND ACTUALLY
CREATE — DEVELOP AN AUDIT COMMITTEE BYLAW SO THAT THE
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE
COMMITTEE WOULD BE EMHE HADED — EMBEDDED IN A BYLAW.
I THINK — AND WHEN YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE OUT THERE, IT IS THE WAY
THAT THINGS ARE GOING.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: FOR THE RECORD, ALDERMAN PINCOTT,
I DO LIKE RECOMMENDATION
NUMBER C IN THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION SO I HOPE WE TALK
ABOUT IT.
ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ONE? VERY WELL.
ON THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED.
LAND COMPLETE — OH, I DO? YEAH.
LAND COMPLETE, ITEM 10.6.1,
LAS 2011-02, ALDERMAN HODGES.

>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR
WORSHIP.
THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF SOME DISCUSSION AT LAND COMMITTEE
OVER THE SPACE OF TWO MEETINGS,
WE RAN OUT OF TIME, ON THE FIRST MEETING AND SO WE SET UP
A SECOND ONE.
THE REPORT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMITTEE, AND YOU HAVE TWO
RECOMMENDATIONS TO AUTHORIZE
THE LEASE RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT 2.
NUMBER 2, DIRECT
ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE A STATUS REPORT ON THE PROGRESS
OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
(INDISCERNIBLE) CALGARY AND COMMAND ASSETS STRATEGY
COMMISSION NOT LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER 13th, 2011. (INDISCERNIBLE) IS THE NEW
NAME FOR THE VRRI WHICH HAS
BEEN IN PLACE UP ON 32nd AVENUE NORTHWEST SINCE 1967.
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A LONGER
LEASE, YOUR WORSHIP, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THEIR PROGRAM OF
REBUILDING THE VRRI,
RENOVATING THE FACILITIES, AND IN FACT PERHAPS REBUILDING ON
THAT SITE.
BUT NONE OF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS WE AGREE TO
EXTEND THE LEASE THAT THEY
HAVE ON THE CITY-OWNED LAND.

>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: SORRY,
I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS ON
THIS ONE. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER?
>> SO DID THE COMMITTEE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: DO WE HAVE A SECONDER?
ALDERMAN LOWE, THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW SOMETHING, I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING EXTREMELY
UNCHAIR STICK.
I'M GOING TO GET ON MY CHAIR NOW BECAUSE I DO HAVE A NUMBER
OF QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE THAT
I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION.
ALDERMAN CARRA.
ALDERMAN HODGES, YOU'RE DONE? .I'M DONE WITH THE
INTRODUCTION.
WE'LL SEE WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS ARE.
>> MAYOR NENSHI?
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I FOUND THIS WHOLE THING RATHER
PERPLEXING.
TO START WITH, I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, AS MANY OF YOU
KNOW, IN THE NON-PROFIT SECTOR
AND CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS AND THE LIKE, AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD
OF A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
MAKING THE CLAIM THAT UNLESS THEIR LEASE IS EXTENDED FOR A
PERIOD BEYOND THE USEFUL LIFE
OF A BUILDING THAT THEY CANNOT FUND RAISE FOR THE BUILDING.
IT'S — SHALL WE SAY DUBIOUS
CLAIM AT BEST.

THAT SAID, I'M A VERY, VERY
BIG FAN OF THIS ORGANIZATION.
I THINK THEY DO EXTRAORDINARY WORK IN THE COMMUNITY.
BUT I HAVE ALSO SPOKEN WITH
THE FOLKS AT INNOVATE CALGARY WHO QUITE FRANKLY DON'T HAVE
ANY PLANS YET.
THEY'RE A NEW ORGANIZATION, AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR
IS ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY.
SO Mr. STEVENSON, I DON'T GET THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE IS EXTEND THE LEASE FOR A BIG
LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2 IS REPORT BACK ON THE
NEGOTIATIONS.
BUT IF WE EXTEND THE LEASE, DOESN'T THAT BY DEFINITION
MEAN THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE OVER?
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THAT'S CORRECT.
THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION WAS
ADDED ON THE SECOND DAY, AND IF I CAN BE SO BOLD I'LL TRY
AND INTERPRET I THINK WHERE
COMMITTEE WAS GOING WAS TO SAY IN FACT INNOVATE CALGARY DID
NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS
BUT THERE WAS A DESIRE BY COMMITTEE TO SEE IF THE TWO
GROUPS COULDN'T GET TOGETHER
IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME TO SEE IF THEY COULDN'T COME TO A
BETTER RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE
TWO OF THEM AND THE ENCOURAGEMENT WAS FOR THE TWO
OF THEM TO DO THAT AND THEN
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME BACK IN NO LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER TO SEE IF THEY HAD
MADE ANY PROGRESS IN THEIR DECISION.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I CAN
LIVE WITH RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2 BECAUSE I THINK BOTH
PARTIES ARE KIND OF BEING BAD
ACTORS A LITTLE BIT HERE, BUT DOESN'T RECOMMENDATION NUMBER
1 PUT THE THUMB ON THE SCALE?
DOESN'T IT SAY LECOVIA CAN STAY THIS FOREVER, NOW YOU CAN
GO NEGOTIATE?
>> YES.

THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
WAS NOT THAT, WHAT WAS TO SAY
YOU KNOW WHAT WE'VE GOT THESE TWO GROUPS, THEIR CLAIM BEING
WHAT IT WAS, THEY COULD NOT
PROCEED. IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
WHAT LECOVIA WAS SAYING, WE
WEREN'T HAVING ANY SUCCESS IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS
BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GETTING
ANYWHERE WITH INNOVATE CALGARY, GIVING THEM ALL OF THEIR
CHANGES —
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THAT'S THE KEY PIECE I WAS MISSING.
OKAY.
BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE THERE WAS NO INCENTIVE TO CONTINUE.
>> WASN'T ONLY THAT.
AS YOU'RE AWARE, YOUR WORSHIP, INNOVATE CALGARY HAS GONE KNEW
A NUMBER OFITY RATIONS, NUMBER
OF CHANGES, CHANGES IN LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE FROM
THE UNIVERSITY AND THE
PROVINCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE GOING TO
PARTICIPATE.
IT WAS LECOVIA'S POSITION I BELIEVE TO THE COMMITTEE, AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS CAN CORRECT
ME, THEY REALLY NEEDED TO GET SOME TYPE OF FORMAL CONSENT BY
WAY OF LEASE SO THAT THEY
COULD GET INTO THE DISCUSSIONS WITH INNOVATE CALGARY.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: OKAY.
I THINK GIVEN — I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, Mr.

STEVENSON,
AND I THINK GIVEN THAT — I
STILL HAVE SOME TROUBLE WITH THIS.
ALDERMAN HODGES MIGHT FREAK
OUT AT THIS. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO
BRING THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS
TOGETHER AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO GIVE THEM A
DEADLINE.
I HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH LETTING ONE OF THE PARTIES
HAVE ALL THE POWER IN THE
NEGOTIATION. SO AS A RESULT, I WAS JUST —
REALLY?
COULD DO. WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO WAS I
WAS GOING TO SUGGEST AN
AMENDMENT TO NUMBER 1, WHICH IS TO AUTHORIZE LEASE
RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN
ATTACHMENT 2 AS OF 2011, SEPTEMBER 15, PENDING THE
OUTCOME OF RECOMMENDATION
NUMBER 2. SO IN OTHER WORDS THEY'VE GOT
A DEADLINE.
IF THEY CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT BY SEPTEMBER THE
15th, THEN LECOVIA GETS WHAT
THEY WANT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT STILL MEANS
THEY'VE GOT AN INCENTIVE TO
DRAG THEIR HEELS ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT AT LEAST SAYS TO
INNOVATE CALGARY YOU CAN COME
TO THE TABLE AS A PARTNER HERE.
THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A
PRE-ORDAINED OUTCOME. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT
AMENDMENT.
ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> ANY DISCUSSION TO THAT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT?
I HAVE MY HEIGHT ON. ALDERMAN HODGES.
YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL, I THINK THE COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE AGREED WITH AN
AMENDMENT LIKE THAT, THE CHAIR,
MAYOR NENSHI, EXCEPT THAT THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN IN
DISCUSSIONS AT VARIOUS TIME IN
THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS, AND THESE DISCUSSIONS RESULTED
IN NO AGREEMENT WHATSOEVER.
IN FACT WHAT INNOVATE CALGARY PRESENTED AT COMMITTEE WAS A
DELAY OF SIX MONTHS IN THE
FIRST MEETING AND SECOND MEETING IT WAS A DELAY OF
THREE MONTHS.
AND PERSONALLY IF I'D THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE ANY AGREEMENT
IN THREE MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS
I MIGHT HAVE AGREED WITH Mr.

MASTERS, BUT I KNOW THERE
WILL NOT BE AN AGREEMENT IN
THEE MONTHS, I KNOW THERE WILL NOT BE AN AGREEMENT IN SIX
MONTHS.
SO GIVEN THE ISSUES INVOLVED. INNOVATE CALGARY, QUITE
FRANKLY, WORSHIP, LECOVIA AS
BEING IN THEIR WAY SO THEIR IDEA IS TO HAVE A NEGOTIATION
SET UP SOMEHOW WITH THE
PROVINCE TO RELOCATE THEM IN AN INNOVATE CALGARY AREA, i.e.
NORTH OF 32 AVENUE AND WEST OF
CROWCHILD TRAIL.

GIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
AND TRYING TO BE A PART OF AND
GETTING CORPORATE PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN A NEW SITE, THE
NEW SITE FOR THE NORTHWEST REC
CENTRE, THAT PERSONALLY WAS, WITH ALDERMAN LOWE AND MYSELF,
THAT WAS THREE YEARS.
SO THREE YEARS AND DEALING WITH THE PROVINCE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT
Mr. MASTERS IS INTERESTED IN GETTING THE PROVINCE INVOLVED
ON THEIR LAND HOLDINGS WITHIN
THE INNOVATE CALGARY AREA SO I DON'T SEE THIS DELAY IS
REALLY — NORMALLY I WOULD
AGREE. GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS
ISSUE, I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING YOUR AMENDMENT. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL?
I DO THANK YOU.
I WAS JUST TALKING WITH THE MAYOR AND THOUGHT THAT IF THIS
WAS REFERRED TO THE MAYOR,
PERHAPS HE COULD MEET WITH BOTH PARTIES AND HELP
FACILITATE.
>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE
REFERRED SOMETHING TO THE
MAYOR, ALDERMAN FARRELL. IT DIDN'T WORK OUT VERY WELL
THE FIRST TIME.
>> MAYBE NOT.

>> MAYOR NAHEED NENSHI: I CAN
LIVE WITH THAT.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD… I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
SO Mr. HODGES — ALDERMAN
HODGES — >> WE HAVE A SECONDER FOR
ALDERMAN FARRELL'S REFERRAL
MOTION? (PLEASE STAND BY)
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND
MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA, ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT. IN WE GO.
"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."
AS A CERTIFIED ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS."
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: AND WE
ARE BACK. ALDERMAN HODGES?
>> MOVE THE COMMITTEE RISE TO
REPORT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, SECKER?
ALDERMAN JONES. ARE WE AGREED VERY WELL.
ALDERMAN HODGES YOU STILL HAVE
THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU.
THREE LAND ITEMS, LAND AND ASSET
STRATEGY 2011-04, PROPOSED SALE OF GREAT PLAINS, WARD 9.
FIRST RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
LAND AND ASSET STRATEGY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
CONTAINED IN THE REPORT
L.A.S.-2011-04 BE ADOPTED AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
NUMBER 2 THE RECOMMENDATIONS
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL FOLLOWING THE
IN-CAMERA DISCUSSION UNDER
SECTION 23.5B, AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY ACT UNTIL 2013,
DECEMBER 31. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: OKAY.
>> THAT'S THE FIRST ONE.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ARE YOU GOING DO THEM ALL
TOGETHER IN.
>> OKAY.

2011-05 IS AGAIN PROPOSED SALE
OF LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS
GREAT PLAINS WARD 9. NUMBER 1 THE LAND AND ASSET
STRATEGY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN A REPORT L.AS.-2011-05 BE ADOPTED
AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
REPORT AND ATTACHMENT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL FOLLOWING THE
IN-CAMERA DISCUSSIONS PURSUANT
TO THE SAME SECTIONS. SUBB OF THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION OF PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY ACT UNTIL 201, DECEMBER 31 AND — 2013,
DECEMBER 31.
>> ON A POINT WHERE THOSE FIRST TWO ITEMS THAT HE'S REFERRED,
I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE AND
I WOULD RATHER VOTE ON THOSEVATELY.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I WAS
GOING TO VOTE ON THEM ALL SEPARATELY ANYWAY.
ALDERMAN CHABOT, I WAS GOING TO
LET HIM PUT THEM ALL ON THE TABLE AND VOTE ON THEM
SEPARATELY.
>> THE LAST ONE, ROPOSED TRANSACTIONS NORTH DUFFERIN
INDUSTRIAL LAND WARD 12 THAT THE
LAND AND ASSET STRATEGY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONTAINED IN THE REPORT LAND AND
ASSET STRATEGY 2011-06 BE ADOPTED.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: ALL
RIGHT, THEN. ALDERMAN FARRELL YOU'RE GOING TO
SECOND THOSE AS THE VICE CHAIR?
OKAY. THANK YOU.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS?
SO ON THE FIRST ONE THEN ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED?
ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.

SECOND ONE AGREED, ANY OPPOSED.
ALD CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
THIRD ONE ARE WE AGREED? CARRIED.
ALDERMAN JONES.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, THE FIRST ONE IS AOC-2011 THE REVIEW OF THE
ALLOWANCE ACCOUNT POLICY AND
THAT THE ALDERMAN COORDINATE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONTAINED IN REPORT AOC-2011-05
BE ADOPTED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU.
ALDERMAN CHABOT, SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION ON — WHY DON'T
YOU PUT THEM BOTH ON THE TABLE.
>> OKAY. AOC-2011-15 CONSIDERATION OF
INCREASING THE COMMUNITY CSIF
AIR ALLOCATION AWARD THAT THE ACCORDING COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE
REPORT BE ADOPTED. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
ALDERMAN CHABOT IS SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE ONE? THESE REPORTS WILL NOW BE PUBLIC
ONCE WE PASS IT, MADAM CLERK SO
I CAN ACTUALLY SAY TO THOSE INTREPID MEMBERS OF THE PRESS
STILL IN THE ROOM, READ
AOC-2011-05.

(LAUGHTER)
ALDERMAN CHABOT AND I MAY HAVE A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON WHAT IT SAYS BUT I THINK YOU WILL FIND
IT INTERESTING.
ON THE FIRST ONE, ARE WE AGREED? AGREED.
ANY OPPOSED?
CARRIED. AND ON THE SECOND ONE, ARE WE
AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? CARRIED.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. LET THE VERBAL REPORT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CALGARY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION AND LET THE
DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE
VERBAL REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 23.1 (B), 241 (C) OF
VOIP. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
THANKS.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER? THANKS, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE?
ARE WE AGREED? CARRIED.
ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> WITH RESPECT TO THE CALGARY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD THAT JANE
SHOULD NOT BE A– NOW BE
APPOINTED TO THE CALGARY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD AS AN ELECTED
MEMBER FOR THREE YEARS AND THAT
THE IN-CAMERA DISCUSSION REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 19.1
UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. >> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: THANK
YOU, ALDERMAN FARRELL YOU'RE
SECOND IN THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.
ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. CARRIED.
WHO HAD THE LAST ONE, ALD
MacLEOD? ALL RIGHT.
>> THAT THE VERBAL REPORT
PERSONNEL ITEM BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION AND THAT THE
DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE
VERBAL REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 24.1 (B), ONE, THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OF PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi:
DESTROY — DO I HAVE A SECONDE? AGREED.
CARRIED.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS? >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
THANK YOU.
VERBAL REPORT APPOINTMENT OF REGULATION OF DIGITAL ELECTRONIC
OR COMPUTER SIGNAGE TASK FORCE.
A LOT OF CONSTANTNANCE.

ALDERMAN CHABOT, ALDERMAN
DEMONG, ALDERMAN MAR BE
APPOINTED TO THE RECOGNITION OF DIGITAL ELECTRONIC OR COMPUTER
SIGNAGE TASK FORCE AND THAT TWO
A TERM OF REFERENCE TO INCLUDE A SUNSET CLAUSE AS WELL AS
CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO
SATISFYING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, RETURN TO THE
2011, MARCH 21 REGULAR MEETING
OF COUNCIL, PERIOD. (PLEASE STAND BY)
>> Mayor Naheed Nenshi: I'LL
READ IT TO YOU PRIVATELY LATER, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
OKAY.
ALDERMAN HODGES? ALDERMAN JONES?
ARE WE AGREED?
THANK YOU, GUYS, IT'S BEEN A GOOD DAY.

>> OH, IT'S ONLY 10 O'CLOCK..

As found on YouTube