The time came to update my blog's infrastructure and as a result this blog and it's posts have moved over to djkelly.ca. (blog.djkelly.ca should automatically direct there now but the orginal Blogger address of this site will stay active.) The RSS feed should have stayed the same but if anything went array I encourage you to resubscribe.
Thank you and I'll see you at the djkelly.ca Blog's new home!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
This blog has moved
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Calgary City Council saves face by embarrassing themselves: ward boundaries solved!
Watching Calgary City Council debate the ward boundaries for the 2010 election last night was one of the funniest moments I think I've seen in that haloed chamber. I mean funny as in sad. Like a comedy of errors. A comedy of people so deep in trouble the only way out was to thoroughly embarrass themselves further.
It was a debacle for council to even keep straight what each motion was, whether it took eight or 10 votes to pass or reject it, and what the implications were for voting for or against that particular motion. At one point the mayor even apologized to members of the media awaiting their final decision for how convoluted the whole process was.
My favourite quote of the night could have been this one:
Mayor: "Is everyone clear on the question". Several aldermen: "No!"
But instead it is from this exchange between Alderman John Mar and Mayor Bronconnier:
Ald. Mar: "It's somewhat murky here." Mayor: "Murky began months ago."
Murky did indeed begin months ago when council decided they wanted to add one more direction to the returning officer's mandate (a mandate first approved in 1990): keep five wards on the east side of Deerfoot Trail. (Why they couldn't have thought of that six months earlier before they set her to work is beyond me.) Then things got really murky when council didn't wait for her to do her job and decided to start drawing their own boundaries. A process called gerrymandering. You can read all my thoughts on how we got to this point here, here, here, and here.
I live tweeted the whole thing and you can follow that via the #yyccc hashtag on Twitter starting at about 8pm last night.
What were the results? Everything was thrown out. Council admitted failure, apologized to the returning officer and passed only minor boundary changes from the current ones.
Here are the new boundaries for 2010:
As silly as it all seems, I'm happy council admitted the error of their ways and made the best decision they could have given the mess they created for themselves.What are the next steps however? That is the big question. There is some thinking that these changes MAY put the City in violation of the Municipal Governance Act but I don't think it does. Taking a look at the council agenda attachment showing the deviation of population between each new ward, everything looks a-okay on that front too.
Either way, expect two major things to come out of this:
- Expect a council policy to allow an outside group determine ward boundaries in the future, so council won't get their fingers in the pie and make a mess of things like this again. This is pretty much exactly what they have done for determining their salaries and I think it has worked well. Ald. Farrell tried to pass a motion to this effect last night but as several members of council didn't like her wording and 9:30pm was fast approaching, it was referred to administration to wordsmith and come back with a proposal in September.
- The next major redistricting - which normally happens every nine years (2010 being the ninth year) - will probably happen in time for 2013 now. With more time available between now and then I fully expect council to explore the possibilities of increasing the number of aldermen to created a more fair balance of representation. And a more manageable workload. You can read my thoughts on this topic here.
University of Calgary cutting 200 jobs
I don't work at UofC but have several friends that do (including my wife) I hope this doesn't affect any of them. But then again, knowing how Fine Arts has already been gutted in anticipation for the merging of the Arts faculties the majority of my friends probably find this as old news and not likely to affect them any further.Subject: [All-staff-l] Budget Update from the PresidentMESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
Budget Update
July 14, 2009
We are now about three months into the 2009-2010 fiscal year. This period has allowed us to appreciate fully our financial situation at the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year and to evaluate the reasonableness of some of the assumptions we made in constructing the 2009-2010 budget.
We ended 2008-2009 with a $14.3-million deficit. In fact, because of the financial prudence exhibited by the University community, we actually spent $4.5 million less in university operations in 2008-2009 than we anticipated. So, where did the deficit come from? It stemmed primarily from the fact that we continued to fund the various activities supported by the University endowments—things like undergraduate and graduate scholarships and bursaries, salary support for professors, equipment and facilities upkeep—even though, as a result of poor market performance, the return on endowment funds did not provide sufficient monies to underwrite these expenses. This resulted in an additional $19 million charge on our operating fund.
What does this mean for our 2009-2010 budgets, the fiscal year we are currently in? As we have indicated in other budget messages, the first charge on our 2009-2010 budget is the $14.3 million needed to cover the previous year’s deficit. In addition, though, the 2009-2010 budget will also be adversely affected by the increase in the deficit in the Universities Academic Pension Plan (UAPP), itself a victim of poor market performance. This will result in the U of C having an additional $8 million expense to cover the UAPP liability in 2009-2010.
One way that we are mitigating these financial hits, as indicated in previous messages, is that the University is increasing enrolment in a planned and strategic way. Hitting our enrolment targets is key to our financial sustainability and will also help off-set the anticipated zero-percent base increases from the Province of Alberta in the years ahead. Notwithstanding the enrolment increase, the University is in a situation where we must make difficult decisions to ensure that we produce a balanced budget in 2009-2010 and into the future—something mandated by the province and the Board of Governors.
To balance the budget and also to continue to live up to the commitment to fund envelope carryovers, we are pursuing several strategic initiatives. First, we have reduced the 2009-2010 budget allocations by an average of three percent for all units and Faculties. This means continuing budget adjustments by Deans and other budget managers, but this is the reality of the dynamics of budgeting and resource allocation.
Second, as we have indicated in previous messages, a significant portion of the University budget, approximately 60 percent, pays for the salaries and benefits of our employees. Given this reality, there is simply no possibility of ensuring that a balanced budget, once achieved, is sustainable unless we reduce our number of support and academic staff. I anticipate that we will need to reduce our staff complement by up to 200 people by the fall of this year. There is likely to be additional staff and faculty reductions in the future. The number is not known now, but will depend on a whole set of factors such as future government grants, tuition levels, endowment performance and salary and benefit settlements.
No one makes a decision like this lightly, even knowing that the staff complement at the U of C is greater on a per student basis than our comparator G13 universities. The University will reduce its staff complement in as transparent and supportive manner as possible. Senior leadership, as well as your deans, department heads and managers, will share information as it becomes available and work to ensure that you are all informed about the reductions and the plans for your particular units and Faculties.
Third, we are vigorously pursuing the iS2 Project to improve our support service delivery and to reduce operating expenses strategically with as little impact on operations as possible. Projects like iS2allow us to make differential, strategic choices rather than just applying an across the board cost reduction strategy. This project will help the University improve its business processes and internal controls and also reduce expenditures through initiatives such as standardization of service levels and preferred buying arrangements.
I wish that the budget news was better, but it is not. You will continue to hear from us regularly about initiatives—such as iS2, capital projects like the co-gen facility that reduce utility costs and strategic enrolment increases—that reduce University costs and increase revenue, and in some cases allow us to deliver the University’s mission more efficiently than we did before.
Thanks for reading.
Harvey P. Weingarten
President
PS - And don't even go there - my wife did not send me this email text. She was in a meeting. And I doubt she would have even if she could have. She's prim and proper and works hard for the U. I cajoled someone else. Besides, they sent an email to all staff. If that is not making something public I don't know what is. Plus I'm not sure if this is even really new news. It may just be the first I'm hearing about it.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Connelly: let's do the Plan It process over. And this time have no goals.
Here’s the text of his motion:
WHEREAS the Plan-It project has produced a visionary document which will establish the "blueprint" for growth and transportation for the next 60 years with an impact on our city that cannot be understated;I was made aware of Ald Connelly’s motion yesterday in a phone call from Metro Calgary. They asked for my opinion on it. What they basically mentioned to me was Connelly was looking to set up the Developer Panel. You can read my comments in their article but I wanted to go into a little more depth here. (Sound bites only provide so much explanation.)
AND WHEREAS the assumptions in the Plan-It document suggest a significant change in consumer and commuting behaviors which may or may not occur;
AND WHEREAS the measure outlined in the Plan-It document were seen to be too prescriptive and, in some cases, impossible to achieve;
AND WHEREAS given the challenges of predicting the future, a prudent and cautious approach to the Plan-It strategy should be employed.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the measures being prescribed in the Plan-It document be removed and be developed in the implementation phase of the project.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a committee of industry stakeholders be struck to determine by consensus, measures that can realistically be achieved together with an implementation strategy and make recommendations to Council through the Standing Policy Committee on Land Use Planning and Transportation by 2009 December 09.
I had three points to Metro:
- I agree with Ald. Connelly, we need to get the targets right. This is an important document that helps set out the future of our city. I don’t think anyone wants to delay it any longer than need be. Let’s get on with the process of ‘doing’ already.
- After more than a year of public consultation (where hundreds of citizens provided their feedback) and a week of public hearings (where almost 200 people signed up to speak to council in the middle of a work day) what more could anyone possibly have to say? If that is not enough time for them to have had their say, how much time would ever be enough?
- If the development industry did not feel they were given a voice, shouldn’t every other citizen be in the same boat? Why create a panel represented by only one industry? I believe it was Ald. Farrell who said during the hearings that if a panel absolutely had to be struck – thereby admitting the consultation the City has undertaken for the past year was not good enough and that one group of citizens IS more important than another – then there were several developers on the pro-side (such as the developer of Garrison Woods) and many other intelligent citizens (such as Chris Turner and Neil Keough) with exceeding knowledge of such things, who would have a lot to add to that discussion and should be included on the panel.
However, what the folks from Metro didn’t tell me was the first part of Connelly's resolution: that the targets be scraped and be created during the implementation phase. This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a while, and I can’t help but want to laugh and cry at the same time.
What would be the POINT of creating a visionary document, laying out the future growth of the city of Calgary, that does not have any measures indicating how we would do that?! That would be like going on a diet without changing your eating habits or ever stepping on a scale to see if you’re losing weight. (Strangely enough some would argue this would be similar to the odd council plan that has come before and is part of the reason we are on the current issue-riddled path.)
How does one even set goals while already implementing a project? I can't imagine having built the fence in my backyard without having a plan first. "Let's just start building a fence and see where it ends up. Once we're done we can decide if we should have had a goal before we started."
On the topics of asinine ideas and doing only what the development industry wants, I’m reminded of a comment made by one of the presenters during the Plan It public hearings that went something like this: The development industry tells us they build only what the people of Calgary want. Studies have shown what we want is un-sustainable and will eventually cause taxes to skyrocket or potentially the City to go broke. There are solutions, but when the developers keep offering us the cause of the problem, we’re going to take it because we want it. It is like offering a child a bowl of ice cream for breakfast. They’ll take the bowl of ice cream every day, unless a responsible adult steps in and helps them make the healthy decision – the right decision for the child's future.
PS – I don't think the development industry is evil like many on the pro-side of Plan It. For an alternate point of view, where I defend the development industry’s rightful hesitations, see my Think! Alberta posts.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The mysterious Plan It amendments
There was a great amount of mystery following the Calgary City Council's public hearing on Plan It (the Calgary Transportation Plan and the Municipal Development Plan). Mainly the mystery was regarding the "omnibus motion" of 76 (or so) amendments suggested by the alderman and referred back to administration.
I still don't know what they all mean, but now that the minutes are out we can at least see what the proposed changes are to the arguably most important document in the history of Calgary's development.
Here they are. (Warning it's a LONG list.) Pick your favourite. Or least favourite.
Confused yet? I imagine those that are against Plan It are hoping you are. I know I am.That with respect to Report CPC2009-082, the Proposed Amendments and Motions Arising to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) be referred to the Administration for a report back to Council no later than 2009 December:
Alderman Ceci
Appendix F - Transportation Maps, that Map 7 Road and Street Network, in the Calgary Transportation Plan and Part 7 - Maps, Map 4 Road and Street Network in the MDP, be amended by reclassifying 61st Avenue S (between MacLeod Trail and Centre Street) as an Urban Boulevard, in order to align with the Chinook Station Area Plan approved June 2008.
Alderman Chabot
1. In the MDP, Part 7 - Maps, Map 1 Urban Structure be amended in the legend, under "developing" to add a new category entitled "Planned Greenfield with Regional Policy Plan (RPP) or Regional Context Study (RCS)" to reflect previously approved regional policy plans or regional context studies following the category "Unplanned Greenfield".
2. In the MDP, Part 7 - Maps, Map 2 Growth and Change in the Municipal Development Plan by deleting the Map in its entirety and by renumbering the maps accordingly.
3. In the MDP, Section 3.3.4, Neighbourhood Activity Centres, Land use policies, page 78 be amended by deleting letter e in its entirety and by re-lettering the sections accordingly.
4. In the MDP, Section 3.4.3, Neighbourhood Corridors, Land use policies, page 83 be amended by deleting letter g in its entirety and by re-lettering the sections accordingly.
5. In the MDP, Section 3.5.1, General Developed Residential Area Policies, page 84, paragraph one, be amended by adding the words "unless prohibited by provincial or federal legislation" following the words "Development Residential Areas".
6. In the MDP, Section 3.6.2, Land use policies, page 89, letter c be amended by deleting the word "gross" following the words "70 people per" and substituting with the word "net".
7. In the MDP, Section Amend 2.2.1 Vibrant, transit-supportive, mixed-use Activity Centres and Corridors, Policies, page 20, letter a be amended by adding the words "in established neighbourhoods" following the words "Direct a greater share of new growth".
8. In the MDP, Section Under 2.2.4 Complete communities, page 25, paragraph one be amended, by adding the words "that is respectful of adjacent communities and provides transitional development." following the words "compact urban form".
9. In the MDP, Section 3.7.1 Standard Industrial Area, page 91, letter d be amended, by adding the words "uses in industrial areas" following the words "stand alone office".
10. In the MDP, Section 2.3.1 Housing, paragraph three, last sentence, page 31 be amended, by deleting the word "can" following the words "variety of housing choices" and by substituting the word "may".
11. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public accountability, page 109, Policies, letter a, be amended by deleting roman numerals " i.-viiii." in their entirety and by substituting with the following:
"i. Planned land supply
ii. Efficient utility servicing
iii. Suitable transportation capacity
iv. Strategic planning objectives
v. Financial impact of infrastructure and operating costs to the city
vi. Landowner interest"
13. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public accountability, page 109, Policies be amended by deleting letter b in its entirety and by substituting with the following:
"b. Upon adoption of a new Local Area Plan, all relevant maps in both the MDP and CTP must be updated.".
14. That the proposed MDP and CTP be referred back to the Administration to make these plans more consistent with the land use and transportation plans recently adopted as part of the East Regional Context Study.
15. Direct Administration to delete the reference made on Map 2 of the MDP which would seem to require an unnecessary amendment to the Municipal Development Plan, just to start an Area Structure Plan for the 17th Avenue SE corridor and Area Structure Plan, for which Council established a commencement date after there is a new financing arrangement between the City and the land development industry.
16. In the MDP, Section 3.4 Corridors, Land Use Policies, Pages 79-83 be amended to create opportunities for large format retail which would include parking requirements necessary for these larger format retail stores.
17. Direct Administration to differentiate between what should be included in the Bylaw and what should form part of the policy document, example targets in policy.
18. Direct administration to work with the land development industry to ensure proposed targets and thresholds will be interpreted in such a way as to enable the Belvedere landowners to create a smart-growth, sustainable, transit-oriented, complete community, as envisioned by the Belvedere landowners within the 17th avenue corridor, which can be implemented and successfully marketed to Calgarians over the next 5 - 10 years.
Alderman Colley-Urquhart
1. That Policy 3.3.2 Major Activity Centres, 3.3.3 Community Activity Centres, and 3.4.2 Urban Corridors be referred back to Administration for further consultation with the Development Industry.
2. Direct Administration, in consultation with the building and development industry, to report back to Council on what the minimum thresholds and requirements for all activity centres (Major, Community and Neighbourhood) and Corridors (Urban and Neighbourhood) will be. The report should include but not be limited to making recommendations on appropriate ranges, and identifying mechanisms to allow for the intensification of these areas.
3. Direct Administration to report back to Council on what amendments would be required to the Land Use Bylaw and what the implications of these amendments would be.
4. Direct Administration to report back to Council on what changes would need to be made to Development Appeal Board to accommodate Plan It and Land Use Bylaw amendments.
Alderman Connelly
1. WHEREAS the City needs to be efficient in managing its costs in relation to operating and maintenance costs; and
WHEREAS a review of current City standards and specifications for infrastructure to find cost savings where possible would benefit the parties involved in the provision and maintenance of servicing and road infrastructure;
THEREFORE it is moved that the City will conduct a detailed review of City standards with the development industry to reduce specifications where possible, reducing the use of resources towards capital replacement and future maintenance.
2. WHEREAS the policies identified under section 2.6.4 Ecological Networking may be counterproductive toward achieving the objectives of compact design as contemplated by the Municipal Development Plan; and
WHEREAS no cost analysis has been performed with regard to the policies of section 2.6.4 to determine the cost impact of the maintenance of the infrastructure required to support the policies of section 2.6.4; and
WHEREAS the Policies of 2.6.4 have not been reviewed with the Development Industry;
THEREFORE it is moved that Policy 2.6.4. be referred back to the Administration for further consultation with the Industry to review and address these concerns.
3. WHEREAS Policy 2.6.4 Ecological networks, Policies, Ecological protection a, be read in conjunction with policy 2.3.5 Municipal, school and environmental reserves, Policies, Municipal and school reserves c., which, may result in challenges in the provision of park space in communities;
THEREFORE it is moved that Policy 2.6.4 Watershed Management be deleted from the Municipal Development Plan.
4. WHEREAS Policy 2.6.4 Watershed Management z represents an intrusion of the public sector on private homeowners;
THEREFORE it is moved that Policy 2.6.4 z be deleted from the Municipal Development Plan.
Alderman Fox-Mellway
1. Direct Administration to review the Plan-It document and implement a small joint working group composed of City representatives and representatives from the Building and Development Industry should be struck to find appropriate targets and flexible thresholds to better respond to the desires of both current and future Calgarians. This group should also determine if any proposed directions are in conflict with existing City policy and address interpretation and implementation issues. This group will participate in a joint review of each of the objectives and policies of the MDP and CTP with the goal of reaching consensus, at which point administration will bring the Plans forward to Council, including an implementation strategy, prior to adoption of these Plans.
2. Direct Administration to provide a report to Council detailing the financial implications, capital and operating, of the MDP and CTP based on a sound understanding of how these documents will be interpreted and implemented. This report should include, but not be limited to, providing the required capital and operating costs for the City for each of the 10 year horizons to match the objectives, goals, targets, thresholds and policies of the documents.
Alderman Hodges
Direct Administration to amend the MDP, Section 2.3.4 Parks, Open Spaces and Outdoor Recreation, Policies, letter p, page 39 with respect to ensuring "public access is maintained or improved to major water bodies, where appropriate, including the Bow and Elbow Rivers and Nose Creek", as well as Map 1 of appendix F of the CTP, entitled Primary Cycling Network, wherein line #3 identifies regional multi-use pathway route (both sides of river).
The intent of the amendments would be to recognize that private property exists in some sections of the proposed pathway adjacent to the Bow River in the Community of Bowness, and would affect a number of residential properties in the Community of Montgomery, as well and, as such, alternative pathway alignments should be prepared for inclusion in both the MDP and the CTP which would not require the use or acquisition of private properties.
Alderman Jones
1. In the MDP, Section 2.3.7 Foster community dialogue and participation in community planning, Policies, Community Participation, page 40 be amended by adding a new letter "d." as follows:
"d. Local planning studies will include the necessary resources and timeframes to undertake community planning projects in a manner that is responsible, thorough, transparent and includes participatory community planning and consultation.".
2. In the MDP, Section 2.3.2. Respecting and enhancing neighbourhood character, Policies, page 33 letter d be amended by adding the words "early in the decision making process" following the words "Local Area Plans".
3. Direct Administration to involve community association representatives in discussions of MDP sustainment and implementation, and in the leading sustainment group (e.g. steering committee or similar body), once constituted, along with other stakeholders.
Alderman Lowe
1. In the MDP, Section 2.5.1 Transportation Choice, Objective, page 47, be amended by deleting the objective in its entirety and by substituting with the following:
"Facilitate the movement of goods and services, the effective movement of emergency and urgent services throughout the City while encouraging sustainable modes of transportation (i.e. walking, cycling and transit).".
2. In the MDP, Section 2.6.5 Energy, page 67, Policies, Energy and Buildings, letter c, be amended by deleting the words "such as LEED or Built Green, Go Green (or an equivalent rating system)" following the words "and management systems".
3. In the MDP, Section 3.3.1 General Activity Centre Policies, page 74, Mobility policies, be amended by moving policies n and k to be added before policies I and j and re-letter the policies accordingly.
4. In the MDP , Section 3.3.4 Neighbourhood Activity Centres, page 78, Land Use policies, be amended by policy letter e in its entirety and re-letter the sections accordingly.
5. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public Accountability, page 109, Policies, letter a, ii, be amended by deleting the words "infrastructure and fiscal" following the words "An assessment of The City's" and by substituting the word "financial".
6. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public Accountability, page 109, Policies, letter a, be amended by adding a new roman numeral "iii" as follows and re-letter the sections accordingly.
"iii. An assessment of the City's infrastructure".
7. In the CTP Section 1.5 Transportation Goals, page 05, Transportation Goal #4, be amended by deleting the words "To reduce automobile dependency," following the words "Make public transit, walking and cycling the preferred mobility choices for more people.".
8. In the CTP Section 1.5 Transportation Goals, page 05, be amended by moving Transportation Goal #5 to be Transportation Goal #1 and renumber the sections accordingly.
9. In the CTP Section 1.5 Transportation Goals, page 05, Transportation Goal #4, be amended by deleting the words "To reduce automobile dependency, "following the words "Make public transit, walking and cycling the preferred mobility choices for more people.".
10. In the CTP Section 3.1 Transportation Choice, Objective, page 9, be amended by deleting the objective it in its entirety and substituting with the following:
"Objective Maintain automobile, commercial goods and emergency vehicle mobility in Calgary while placing increased on sustainable modes of transportation (walking, cycling and transit).".
11. In the CTP Section 3.3 Transit, page 21, New river crossings, be amended by deleting the second sentence "These connections would be for exclusive use by transit, pedestrians, cyclists and emergency services." and by deleting word "dedicated" following the word "These".
12. In the CTP, Section 3.4 Goods Movement, page 27, Truck, Policies, letter e, be amended by adding the word "existing" following the words "and expansion of" and by deleting the word "should" following the words "within city limits" and by substituting the word "must".
13. In the CTP, Section 3.6 Quality of Service, page 35, Policies, letter d, be amended by deleting the word "should" following the words "transportation system" and by substituting the word "must".
14. In the CTP, Section 3.7 Complete Streets, page 43, Policies, Planning, design and maintenance of Complete Streets, letter b, be amended by deleting the word "and" following the words "pedestrians, cyclists" and by adding the words "and the movement of goods and services" following the word "transit".
15. In the CTP, Section 3.10 Transportation Safety, page 51, Policies, letter b, be amended by deleting the word "should" following the words "transportation system" and by substituting the word "must".
16. In the CTP, Appendix B Principles and Design Considerations for River Crossings, page 65, paragraph six, be amended by deleting the word "may" following the words "transit and pathway systems" and by substituting the word "will".
17. In the CTP, Appendix D Connectivity Handbook, page 94, Access to regional street system, letter g, be amended by adding the following "All temporary and permanent access points should also be designed to serve as emergency evacuation routes." following the words "two full access points are not practical.".
Alderman Mar
1. Direct Administration to amend the MDP and the CTP to explicitly address the fundamental differences between urbanism and sub urbanism in order to permit successful development, redevelopment and management of both of these development patterns within the City of Calgary throughout the life of the Plan It Calgary Plan.
2. Direct Administration to create an Implementation Team consisting of City Staff and the Development industry to address specific threshold implementation and interpretation concerns as identified by the development industry.
3. Direct Administration to refer the population targets and density thresholds to Administration for further consultation with the development industry, including but not limited to Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Home Builders Association with the intent that the targets and thresholds reflect the projected "Maintenance Rate Scenario" as per the geo-demographic predictions of the Baxter Study.
4. Direct Administration to prepare, as part of the Plan It Calgary implementation plan, detailed maps that reflect areas of intensification that would affect developed communities, with particular attention, but not limited to, area surrounding Transit Orientated Development sites and Traffic Corridors.
Alderman McIver
1. In the MTP, Section 1.5 Review of the MDP, page 9, first paragraph, be amended by adding the words "are long term and" following the words "Core Indicators of the MDP (Part 5)" and by adding a new sentence "Meeting these goals is intended to be done on a city-wide basis and will not be completely burdened onto each individual ASP, ARP, RCS or Land Use application as it comes forward." following the words "Calgarians and Council on three-year cycle.".
2. In the MTP, Section 1.7 Interpreting the MDP, page 10, third paragraph, be amended by adding the word "reasonable" following the words "be interpreted to mean that every" and by deleting the words "unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority, that the policy could be achieved in another manner." following the words "effort is to be taken to enact the policy".
3. In the MDP, Section 1.7 Interpreting the MDP, page 10, be amended by adding a new paragraph four as follows:
"In other cases, the policy is meant to be a guideline which will require judgment to be exercised. In these cases, the words should, may or might are used.".
4. In the MDP Section 2.1.2 Creating a city attractive to business, page 15, Policies, Supporting manufacturing and industrial businesses, letter n, be amended by deleting the word "industrial" following the words "and developable land for" and by substituting with the word "residential".
5. In the MDP, Section 2.1.2 Creating a city attractive to business, page 15, Policies, Supporting business and investment, be amended by deleting letter c in its entirety and by re-lettering the sections on page 15 accordingly.
6. In the Municipal Development Plan, under Section 2.1.1 Creating a city attractive to people page 14, Policies, be amended by adding a new letter g as follows:
g. Ensure the availability of competitively priced, easily serviceable and developable land for residential purposes; including providing opportunities for brownfield redevelopment.
7. In the MDP, Section 2.1.4 Ensuring sustainable municipal finances page 17, Policies, letter c, be amended by adding the words "market conditions" following the words "infrastructure requirements".
8. In the MDP, Section 2.5.3 Complete streets, page 51, Policy, letter a, be amended by adding the words "-as amended from time to time." following the words "contained in Part 3 of the CTP".
9. In the MDP, Section 2.5.4 Local transportation connectivity, page 51, Policy, letter a, be amended by deleting the words "must be assessed according to the connectivity policies contained in the CTP" following the words "Unplanned Greenfield developments" and substituting with the words "should aspire to the highest connectivity reasonable.".
10. In the MDP, Section 2.6.2, Land, page 55, Objective, be amended by deleting the Objective in its entirety and substituting with the following "Strongly encourage that any land taken from undeveloped areas and placed in permanent use for any purpose is done in a way that is contiguous to existing development and is an improvement on the value of the undeveloped land as an asset to the environment, the economy or the quality of life of Calgarians".
11. In the MDP, Section 2.6.2 Land, Policies page 55, letter b, be amended by deleting the words "seek to retain greater amounts of" following the words "Designs for new communities should" and substituting with the word "evaluate" and by deleting the words "in order to create more compact communities, increase" following the words "undisturbed land" and substitute with the words "to keep those areas undisturbed that have the highest value in regard to increased" and by adding the words "and opportunities to create more compact communities." following the words "improve water quality".
12. In the MDP, Section 3.2 Centre City, page 71, Land use policies letter a subsection I, be amended by deleting letter "i" in its entirety and by substituting with the following "Encourage all districts for business and employment while maintaining the Downtown as the largest.".
13. In the MDP, Section 3.3 Activity Centres, page 73, be amended in Table 3.3 with an over riding statement: "Intensity required of activity centres must be set location by location in consideration of the actual opportunities available for development.
14. In the MDP, Section 3.3.1 General Activity Centre Policies, page 74, Mobility policies, letter n, be amended by deleting the words "locally-destined" following the words "loading and unloading of".
15. In the MDP, Section 3.3.2 Major Activity Centres, page 75, letter b, be amended by deleting letter b it in its entirety and by substituting with the following:
"MAC's should aspire to an intensity target of 200 jobs and population per gross developable acre to be met over time as opportunities permit and market conditions allow.".
16. In the MDP, Section 3.4 Corridors, page 79, be amended in Table 3.4 with an over riding statement: "Intensity required of corridors must be set location by location in consideration of the actual opportunities available for development.".
17. In the MDP, Section 3.4.1 General Corridors, Land Use Policies, page 80 letter e, be amended by deleting all size limits referenced this paragraph.
18. In the MDP, Section 3.4.1 General Corridor Policies, page 80, Mobility Policies, be amended by deleting letter m in its entirety and substitute with the following "Alternatives to parking in front of stores should be considered.".
19. In the MDP, Section 3.4.1 General Corridor Policies, page 81, Public realm polices, letter r, be amended by adding the words "Where practical" following the words "onto public sidewalks on the north side of the street.".
20. In the MDP, Section 3.6.2 Unplanned Greenfield Area, page 89, Land use polices letter c, be amended by deleting the words "70 people per gross developable hectare" following the words "should achieve a minimum intensity of" and substitute with the words "net developable acre".
21. In the MDP, Section 3.6.2 Unplanned Greenfield Area, Land use polices, page 89, letter e, be amended by deleting "1.5 km" following the words "located a minimum" and substitute with "500 m".
22. In the MDP, Section 3.7.2 Industrial-Employee Intensive, page 92, Land use polices, letter a, be amended by deleting the word "minimum" following the words "should achieve a" and substitute with the word "target".
23. In the MDP, Section 3.7.3 Greenfield Industrial Area, page 94, Mobility polices, letter k, be amended by deleting the word "shall" following the word "Sidewalks" and substitute with the word "should".
24. In the MDP, Section 5.2 A Strategic Framework for Growth and Change, page 105, paragraph two, be amended by adding the words "In consultation with stakeholders from the public, industry partners and available experts" following the words "and Directors Sub-Committee" and by adding the words "A terms of reference and membership list for GMSGC will be presented to City Council for approval within 3 months of the approval of the new MDP and CTP." following the words "Regional Context Studies and information on the City's infrastructure and fiscal capacity for growth.".
25. In the MDP, Section 5.2.2 Strategic decisions, page 105, end of second paragraph, be amended by adding the words, "The goals in Figure 5.2 are city wide and are considered aspirational and an example of what may be achieved over a medium or long period of time as area mature. These goals should not be applied to a specific RCS, ASP, ARP or Land Use but should be considered in the city wide context." following the words "orders of government, the public and stakeholders.".
26. In the MDP, Section 5.2.2 Strategic decisions, page 106, Policies, letter b, be amended by adding the word "across all sectors" following the words "supply".
27. In the MDP, Section 5.2.2 Strategic decisions, Policies, page 106, letter e, be amended by deleting the word "must" following the words "and investment decisions" and substitute with the word "should".
28. In the MDP, Section 5.2.3 Planned land supply, page 106, Policies, letter a, be amended by deleting the words "Endeavour to" at the beginning of the sentence.
29. In the MDP, under Section 5. 3 Monitoring and reporting, page 110, Policy, by adding a new letter b as follows:
"b. The goals in Figure 5.2 are city wide and are considered aspirational and an example of what may be achieved over a medium or long period of time as the MDP changes mature. These goals should not be applied to a single RCS, ASP, ARP or Land Use but should be considered in the city wide context.".
30. In the MDP, Section 5.3 Monitoring and Reporting, Page 111 Figure 5.2, be amended by adding an over riding statement as follows, "The goals in Figure 5.2 are city wide and are considered aspirational and an example of what may be achieved over a medium or long period of time as the areas mature. These goals should not be applied to development applications, RCS, ASP, ARP or Land Use but should be considered in the city wide context.".
31. In the MDP, under Part 6 - Glossary, page 116, be amended following the paragraph low impact development (LID) by adding a new definition of "market conditions".
32. Direct Administration to review the setbacks to the Sheppard Landfill on the map(s) in Plan It Calgary to ensure no unnecessary encroachment on surrounding property.
33. In the MDP, Section 4.1.1 Retail Structure, Pages 95 and 96, be referred to the Administration to make them less prescriptive in consultation with industry stakeholders.
34. In the MDP, Section 4.1.2 Retail Categories, Pages 97 and 98, be referred to the Administration to make them less prescriptive in consultation with industry stakeholders.
35. In the MDP, Section 2.6.3 Water on page 58, a to f, be referred to the Administration to return to council with an evaluation with how each of these policies can be achieved in co-operation with the development industry.
36. WHEREAS Appendix D is far too detailed to be included as an appendix to the City of Calgary Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS the Connectivity Handbook will result in a "Plan by Numbers" approach to City Planning; and
WHEREAS the Connectivity Handbook will result in a form of development which is more costly to implement, increases impermeable surface, dedicates more land to roadways, increases maintenance costs and may reduce future opportunities for intensification;
THEREFORE it is moved that Appendix D be removed from the Calgary Transportation Plan, and all policies referring to this appendix be amended accordingly.
That the policy documents be amended to acknowledge that increased connectivity is important in all communities and initiatives should be developed in collaboration with the development industry to promote better connectivity throughout new and redeveloping communities.
37. WHEREAS Appendix C is far too detailed to be appropriate for inclusion as an appendix to the Calgary Transportation plan; and
WHEREAS standards in the Interim Complete Street Guidelines have not been constructed previously in the City of Calgary; and
WHEREAS these standards have not been field-tested nor reviewed with the Development Industry; and
WHEREAS these guidelines are more appropriate at a technical rather than policy level that allows for greater flexibility and adaptability to changing conditions;
Therefore it is moved that Appendix C be removed from the Calgary Transportation Plan, and all policies referring to this appendix be amended accordingly.
That a road and street palette be compiled as a set of guidelines in collaboration with the development industry and the public that provides a range of road and street types that can accommodate all forms of mobility:
walking, cycling, transit, and private vehicle use, goods and services movement and EMS, while supporting adjacent land uses.Alderman Pincott
1. Direct Administration to amend the CTP to remove specific references to a 50th Ave Elbow River crossing and an Edworthy/Shaganappi Bow River crossing. Textual amendments are to be made in section 3.3 (Transit) New River Crossings, as well as Appendix B of the Calgary
Transportation Plan. The Primary Transit Network and the Primary Cycling Network maps should also be amended to reflect this change.
2. Direct Administration to amend Bylaw 40M2009 to reflect the above changes and remove the two river crossings from Appendix "A" of The City of Calgary Transportation System Map.
3. In the CTP, Section 3.11 Transit Accessibility, page 52, Policies, by adding a new policy c as follows:
"c.The Primary Transit Network, including all vehicles and supporting infrastructure (such as sidewalks and buildings), should be designed and built to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities."
4. Direct Administration to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism that will include updates to Council on progress toward the targets identified in the Core Indicators for Land Use and Mobility. A multi-stakeholder panel should be convened to review the performance information and provide recommendations to Council on the implications for budget discussions. The reports must be delivered in advance of The City's business planning and budget cycle in order to inform those deliberations. A major review of all targets should occur on a ten year basis as part of the regular policy review.
Alderman Stevenson
Direct Administration to amend the relevant maps and text contained in the proposed Calgary Transportation Plan and Municipal Development Plan (M2009-012) to reflect the appropriate limits and classification of Airport Trail and 96 Avenue N.E.
Proposed Amendments to the Calgary Transportation Plan
1. In the CTP Section 3.1 Transportation Choice, Page 9, be amended by deleting the Objective in its entirety and by substituting with the words "Maintain automobile, commercial goods and emergency vehicle mobility in Calgary while placing increasing emphasis on more sustainable modes of transportation (walking, cycling and transit).".
2. In the CTP, Section 3.4 Goods movement, page 26, paragraph four, be amended by adding the words "Impacts on adjacent municipalities should also be considered." following the words, "The City must balance the need of goods and services movement with the needs of residential communities impacted by truck routes.".
3. In the CTP, Section 3.4 Goods movement, page 27, Policies, be amended by adding a new letter f as follows:
"f. The City should consider the impact of goods movement routes on roadways in adjacent municipalities.".
4. In the CTP under section 3.7, page 43, Policies, be amended by adding a new policy g. as follows and by re-lettering the sections accordingly:
"g. Appropriate transitions for road and street cross-sections should be developed where City infrastructure connects to infrastructure in surrounding municipalities." Also amend all subsequent policy lettering in Section 3.7 as necessary to accommodate insertion of this new policy.".
5. Amend the CTP under Appendix D, page 94, letter g, be amended by adding the words, "All temporary and permanent access points should also be designed to serve as emergency evacuation routes." following the words "two full access points are not practical.".
6. That Council direct Administration to work with industry and all other stakeholders to formulate a strategy to foster a clear understanding of the plan and its policies, as well as the implementation and interpretation of these policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
