►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - 28 May 2020
Description
Planning Committee - 28 May 2020
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
B
C
C
D
F
A
D
A
Well,
maybe
not
fully
recovered,
but
hey
we're
ready
for
new
challenges.
Just
think
of
how
exciting
it's
going
to
be
to
build
this
city
in
the
next
really
short
months:
hi
Alan,
I,
don't
know
whether
they're
Scott's
gonna
join
us
or
not.
He
did
ask
me
if
he
could
be
excused
so,
but
we
do
in
a
quorum
right.
You
too
good
good.
C
A
A
Something
surprises
us
I'm,
not
using
my
video
because
I'm
at
the
Walter
Baker
at
my
ward
office.
First
of
all,
as
you
know,
I
have
problems
in
bar
Haven,
just
because
you
know
we
have
a
hundred
thousand
people
in
like
one
cell
tower,
but
I
actually
at
the
Walter
Baker
have
to
use
the
library's
Wi-Fi
I.
In
fact,
if
I
have
meetings
here,
people
play
sign
in
with
your
library
card.
It's
awesome
anyway.
So
welcome
to
the
planning
committee
meeting
of
Thursday
May
the
28th.
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive,
efficient
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
one
to
four
on
today's
agenda.
For
the
items
just
mentioned,
only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
ax
men,
sir
adopted,
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
appeal
tribunals.
A
H
A
A
H
A
A
We
have
there's
only
bylaw
amendment
for
that
and
we
do
have
Kevin
Harper
from
mineral
communities
who's
willing
to
speak
of
necessary.
We
did
receive
this
morning
written
submission
from
our
dear
friend
Marion
Wilkinson,
who
was
a
warden
at
that
church,
a
longtime
member
of
the
church.
That
is
right
next
door.
She
had
a
few
comments
to
make,
but
other
wise
does
anyone
have
any
questions
on
this
item?
The
zoning
bylaw
4
3
3
5,
Samuel
I.
A
A
D
A
A
D
Thank
you
chair
very,
very
briefly:
it's
I'm
not
thrilled
to
have
a
parking
lot
coming
to
the
neighborhood,
but
it's
to
help
out
D&D
and
it's
temporary.
This
is
prime
real
estate
area
and
hopefully,
it'll
be
developed
later
on.
So
this
is
kind
of
a
stopgap
until
D&D
gets
its
act
together
on
its
parking.
Not
that
that's
a
problem
right
now.
Maybe
they
should
have
just
sent
their
people
home
in
the
first
place.
D
A
I
A
J
All
right,
on
behalf
of
the
center
town
to
me,
Association,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposal.
Let
me
say
at
the
outset
that
we
believe
you
should
defer
a
decision
on
this
proposal.
For
now,
we
believe
more
time
is
needed
for
us
to
work
with
a
developer,
to
address
the
serious
concerns
that
this
proposal
presents,
but
before
I
learn
those
concerns.
Let
me
say
that
we
are
not
opposed
in
principle
to
adding
public
parking
to
this
development,
as
provided
for
an
official
plan.
J
Underground
parking
has
a
role
to
play,
particularly
particularly
if
it
replaces
existing
surface
parking,
lots
or
main
barriers
to
intensification
last
fall
in
this
proposal.
First
came
forward
to
reached
out
to
the
developer
in
good
faith
and
tried
to
engage
in
a
dialogue
about
our
concerns
on
October
25th.
We
met
with
their
one
of
their
staff
and
had
what
I
thought
was
a
cordial
and
productive
discussion.
However,
our
subsequent
attempts
to
continue
with
the
dialogue
were
rebuffed.
J
Well,
this
proposal
allowed
essentially
there
are
500
Park
502
parking
spaces
available
in
this
development,
of
which
249
will
be
allocated
for
residential
parking.
The
proponents
seeking
an
open-ended
designation
to
allow
the
remainder
253
parking
spaces
to
be
used
for
public
parking.
The
bare
minimum
has
been
allocated
for
bicycle
parking
and
the
site
is
a
mere
500
meters,
a
five-minute
walk
away
from
the
park
from
the
Parliament
LRT
station.
J
So
that's
potentially
an
additional
253
vehicles
coming
into
and
leaving
every
day
the
block
bounded
by
O'connor,
Metcalf,
Nepean
and
Gloucester
streets,
so
253
vehicles,
if
you
put
those
vehicles,
end-to-end
bumper-to-bumper,
the
line
would
stretch
for
over
1100
meters,
that's
more
than
a
kilometer.
That's
what
we're
talking
about
here
now.
Let
me
briefly
outline
the
three
reasons
why
we
believe
a
decision
on
this
proposal
as
it
currently
stands
should
be
deferred.
First,
safety
with
intensification
comes
more
people
with
more
people
come
more
cars
and
with
more
cars,
come
greater
safety
risks.
J
The
transportation
impact
assessment
accompanying
the
proposal
shows
conclusively
in
Section
5
on
page
23,
that
the
four
intersections
that
provide
access
to
the
site
currently
failed
to
meet
the
minimum
pedestrian
level
of
service
target
in
the
city's
embossed
guidelines.
The
Nepean
Street
Hana
Street
intersection,
is
particularly
dangerous
in
particularly
notorious
it's
when
I
walk
by
every
day.
It's
currently
rated
as
F
the
target
is
a
well
we'll
adding
another
253
vehicles
coming
into
this
block
mean
for
pedestrian
and
cyclist
safety.
J
At
this
intersection,
while
the
TI
a
report
has
an
answer
quote,
the
intersection
is
anticipated
to
deteriorate
further
and
continue
to
operate
with
a
loss.
F,
that's
on
page
23.
What
this
means
in
practice
is
you
will
get
more
dangerous,
more
collisions,
more
injuries
and
potentially
fatalities.
Remember
this
is
the
developers
own
consultant
saying
this
surprisingly
applying
department's
report
to
you
is
silent
on
this
increased
safety
risk.
Second,
the
magnitude.
The
proposal
is
not
consistent
in
the
five
big
moves,
vision
for
the
future
mobility
in
our
city,
adding
two
hundred
fifty
three
commercial
parking
spaces.
J
Only
five
minutes
from
the
LRT
is
the
equivalent
of
adding
a
large
parking
ride
in
the
heart
of
Ottawa.
In
fact,
it
would
be
almost
exactly
the
same
size
as
a
Chapel
Hill
park
and
ride
in
in
its
water.
This
would
be
the
largest
addition
to
the
stock
of
commercial
parking
in
urban
core
in
recent
years.
I
want
to
underscore
we
are
not
against
cars,
but
why
isn't
there
more
bicycle
parking
or
provision
for
shared
car
services
like
virtue
car?
J
Such
a
huge
increase
in
commercial
parking
is
not
consistent
with
our
current
target
for
sustainable
transportation
mode
share
in
a
transportation
master
plan,
nor
is
it
in
the
spirit
of
addressing
the
climate
emergency
of
this
council
has
declared.
Finally,
there
is
a
real
possibility
that
the
kovat
19
pandemic
will
forever
change
the
way
we
work
and,
most
importantly,
where
we
work
Shopify,
one
of
our
largest
employees
in
center
town
has
announced
that
it
will
shift
work
from
home.
It
will
shift,
will
work
from
home
model.
D
J
Will
surely
follow
this
could
have
an
important
impact
on
the
demand
for
parking
in
future.
Perhaps
now
is
the
time
to
be
looking
at
how
spaces
like
these
can
be
used
for
things
other
than
parking
that
it
yet
that's
provide
a
return
to
the
owner.
So
for
these
three
reasons,
I
would
ask
the
committee
to
seriously
consider
deferring
a
decision
today
in
the
proposal.
We
stand
ready
to
work
in
good
faith
with
the
developer
and
the
city
discuss
how
together
we
can
mitigate.
We
can
arrive
at
a
compromise.
J
A
Thank
you,
I'm
going
to
be
I,
see
a
counselor
do
desk
waving
and
but
I'm
going
to
go
to
our
planner
mr.
Gao,
to
ask
him
whether
he's
considered
any
of
the
things
or
had
conversations
with
the
community
at
all.
Just
just
respond
to
what
we
heard
from
mr.
barber
and
then
we'll
go
to
counselor
to
desk
and
counselor
McKenney
you're
not
waving,
but
I,
see.
A
F
You,
madam
chair,
in
response
to
some
of
the
comments
raised
by
mr.
barber.
The
report
does
speak
to
the
applicant
being
willing
to
and
having
investigated
a
car-sharing
service
in
the
building.
There
I've
had
preliminary
discussions
with
kim
yu-na,
doe
and
I
believe
their
delegation
is
here
to
speak
to
that
further
I
just
want
to
clarify
one
small
fact.
Both
the
report
and
the
recommendation
is
that
we
are
proposing
a
cap
on
the
amount
of
potential
parking,
the
use
of
a
parking
garage
of
250
spaces.
I
know
it's
just
a
slight
difference
from
mr.
F
barbers
number
and
just
on
the
comment
of
adding
adding
additional
cars,
the
the
existing
garage
is
there.
The
502
spaces
are
going
to
be
constructed
and
there's
nothing
in
this
proposal
that
is
suggesting
a
parking
garage
has
to
be
operated,
so
the
impacts
of
of
traffic
and
vehicles
moving
from
the
site
I've
already
been
addressed
in
and
the
rezoning
for
the
large
tower.
Thank
you.
A
B
C
J
A
J
Sorry,
the
the
current
allocation
for
bike
parking
in
the
in
the
in
the
proposal
is,
is
the
bare
minimum
of
0.5
spaces
per
unit.
We
think
that
we
can
move
that
up
to
something
closer
to
1.
Perhaps
so
it's
we
could
split
the
difference
to
make
it
0.75,
but
we
think
we
think
in
this
in
this
era
of
the
mobility
of
the
the
the
5
big
moves,
mobility
vision,
going
with
a
bare
minimum
when
it
comes
to
bicycle
parking
and
trying
to
encourage
your
cycling
in
our
city.
J
It's
really
not
the
right
signal
that
we
should
be
blending,
so
we
think
we
should
go
beyond
the
minimum,
and
that
means
more
than
more
than
the
point
5
spaces
per
unit.
That's
given
in
their
proposal,
so
something
more
akin
to
the
0.75
might
be,
or
even
one
might
be
more
appropriate.
Given
the
the
increased
cycling,
that's
happening
in
our
city,
given
the
investments
that
that
city's
been
making
in
bike
paths,
so
we
think
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
space.
For
that.
J
Let
me
just
answer
the
question
that
the
issue
that
that
the
planner
Diaco
raised
with
a
request
with
respect
to
the
the
cap,
he
said
it's
being
capped
at
250.
In
fact,
the
number
of
spaces
left
over
is
253,
so
they're
capping
it
at
at
250,
which
is
which
is
leaving
three
spaces
open,
which
which
really
in
for
all
intensive
purposes,
is
no
cab.
So
let's
be
clear
about
that,
Thanks.
C
And
just
to
follow
up
question
in
addition
to
the
cycling
infrastructure
in
the
bike
spots
in
terms
of
the
ultimate
number
of
parking
spots
and
the
public
versus
private
aspect
of
it.
Are
you
looking
to
change
that
if
you
were
to
have
more
time,
if
you
were
to
have
a
different
working
relationship
with
the
developer,
where
you
could
come
to
some
kind
of
agreement.
J
Well,
let
me
say
that
say
that
we
think
253.
Let
me
say
that
we
did.
We
said
and
I
said
in
my
statement
that
we're
not
opposed
to
a
designation
of
a
public
parking
garage
and
this
in
its
development.
The
question
is:
is
this
scale
and
the
number
we
think
250
are
2050
or
to
153
is
far
too
much,
particularly
given
the
safety
concerns
that
I
outlined
and
that
are
outlined
in
that
in
the
developer's
own.
J
A
consultants
ta
report
as
I
said
that
intersection
at
O'connor
and
Nepean
is
a
deadly
intersection
someone's
going
to
get
killed
there
as
I
said,
I
walked
by
it
every
day
and
I've
been
sworn
at
yelled
at
I've,
seen
close
calls
with
cyclists,
I've
seen
minor
collisions
happen.
We
put
another
two
hundred
fifty-three
vehicles
coming
through
that
that
intersection
or
that
in
that
area,
something
Bad's
gonna
happen.
So
I
think
we
need
to
move
down
the
number
from
250
to
something
less
than
that
something
considerably
less
I
think
we
can.
C
J
About
the
number
of
there,
a
number
of
surface
parking
lots
in
the
area
and
I
mentioned
that
we
believe
I
mean
we.
We
we're
not,
as
I
said,
we're
not
opposed
underground
parking,
particularly
if
they
display
surface
parking.
The
problem
is
this:
isn't
displacing
surface
parking.
This
is
creating
a
huge
park
and
ride
in
the
basement
of
a
of
an
existent
is
going
in
now.
So
you
mentioned
the
you
mentioned
the
parking
garage
at
City
Hall,
that's
just
down
the
street.
J
We
have
you
got
utilization
numbers
for
that
for
that
parking
garage
and
it's
nowhere
near
full,
even
in
peak
hours
similar.
Similarly
for
the
venogram
parking
lot
at
Royal,
Exchange
Plaza.
So
what
were
what
we're?
What
we're
doing
here
is
we're
creating
even
more
commercial
parking
spots
downtown
at
a
time
when
we're
trying
to
move
away
from
car
transportation
into
the
city.
J
When
we've
invested
over
two
billion
dollars
in
our
LRT
in
a
facility,
that's
a
five-minute
walk
from
an
LRT
station
and
to
me
this
doesn't
strike
me
as
as
making
sense
from
a
from
a
from
a
transportation
perspective,
and
it
certainly
doesn't
make
sense
from
a
safety
perspective.
Now
again,
we're
not
opposed
to
to
to
making
some
compromise
here,
but
253
250
vehicles
in
that
in
that
block
doesn't
make
sense
something
less
than
that
needs
to
needs
to
be.
E
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
was
just
wondering
if
I
just
in
response
to
some
Americans
that
have
been
raised,
I
wonder
if
I
might
be
able
to
say
something
just
to
to
note
I
think
it
was
mentioned
by
mr.
Jacko
that
these
it's
not
253
additional
cars.
There's
these
spaces
are
there.
They
don't
have
to
be
for
public
parking,
they
can
be
for
residents.
E
These
are
spaces
on
the
site,
so
cars,
it
might
be
residents
to
the
site,
who
use
those
so
to
say
that
it'll,
be
new
cars
coming
to
this
site
is,
is
not
it's
not
necessarily
true.
These
cars
will
already
be
there.
There's
also
a
little
if
you
were
actually
to
be
on
the
north
side
of
the
of
Gloucester,
because
the
dividing
line
between
center
town
and
the
central
area,
the
MD
zoning
on
the
north
side
allows
a
parking
garage.
E
So
every
building
there
on
the
north
side
could
have
a
parking
garage
they're
just
asking
for
something
that
is
similar,
identical
just
outside
of
the
central
area
on
the
boundary
with
center
town,
and
just
to
note
that
with
public
parking
there
are
people
who
do
come
there.
Whether
it
be
from
they
might
not
necessary
office
workers,
they
could
also
be
people
who
are
visiting
for
the
weekends
or
visiting
to
go
to
church
attractions
downtown
and
with
respect
to
public,
transit
and
I.
Think
even
mr.
E
barber
had
mentioned
that
the
official
plan
notes
that
we're
to
provide
transportation
modes
for
all
citizens
in
different
modes,
including
those
related
to
cars
and
the
idea
and
I
think
this
was
brought
up
previously,
perhaps
at
another
another
hearing
at
maybe,
but
that
was
by
councillor
Moffat.
But
the
best
way
to
get
people
out
of
their
cars
is
to
have
an
LRT
system
which
we
are
building.
E
That
provides
convenient
movement
of
people,
and
we
are
doing
that
so
it's
sort
of
like
if
you
build
it,
they
will
come
and
so
by
providing
a
good
LRT
system.
That's
how
you
get
ridership
to
increase,
but
we
have
to
remember
that
we
do
have
to
try
to
meet
the
needs
of
all
people
with
different
modes
of
transportation.
And
it's
our
opinion
that
what's
being
proposed
here,
is
appropriate
for
the
site.
A
A
B
D
For
mr.
barber
I'd
like
to
clarify
one
thing
that
I
thought
I
heard
in
his
remarks,
he
said
that
the
city
hall
garage
and
the
world
exchange
grads
are
not
full
in
peak
periods,
but
you
know
be
pre-pandemic
any
day
we
went
to
City
Hall.
It
was
full
by
nine
o'clock
in
the
morning
at
the
latest,
Oh
kind
of
surprised
with
that
statement.
So
I'd
like
to
get
clarification
as
to
why
he
said
that-
and
the
second
question
I
have
formed-
is
around
parking.
D
J
You
Thank
You
councillor
several
months
ago
with
respect
your
first
question
about
utilization
rates
at
the
city
hall
garage
several
months
ago.
I
made
a
request:
a
transportation
department
at
City
Hall
asking
for
the
utilization
rates
at
the
City
Hall
a
parking
garage,
and
they
provided
me
with
those
I
can
pour
them
on
to
you,
and
it
showed
that
at
peak
periods,
the
the
parking
garage
at
City
Hall
is
not
full
and
I.
Think
it's
I
think
it's
but
I
think
it's
80%
full.
Now
it's
not
empty
for
sure
this
is
pre.
J
J
What
this
means
essentially
is
additional
253
spaces
will
be
available
or
250
spaces
down
the
street
from
that
parking
garage,
and
probably
those
people
who
would
have
otherwise
parked
at
City,
Hall
and
added
to
the
coffers
of
City
Hall,
are
going
to
park
down
the
street
and
provide
additional
revenue
to
the
developer
and
not
to
taxpayers
of
Ottawa.
So
that's
another
concern
that
we
have.
J
Let
me
just
quickly
refer
to
the
the
point
that
mr.
James
made
you
know
you
can
make.
You
can
make
those
points
that
that
this
is
just
if
it's
with
just
across
the
street.
This
would
be
allowed,
but
that's
not
what
the
rule
is
right.
We
planning
goes
ahead
by
certain
rules,
and
rules
is
on
this
particular
site.
You
need
a
rezoning
application,
so
that's
what
we're
talking
about
so
this
is
a
this
is
a
bit
of
a
canard,
actually
and
and
and
and
and
really
should,
should
be
I
think
not
taking.
D
J
Apologize
for
that
yeah,
as
I
said
in
my
my
comments,
they're
using
the
minimum
number
here,
0.5
spaces,
what,
if
I
bike
spaces
per
unit
if
there
are
502
spaces
in
total
in
the
complex,
that's
both
the
Gloucester
Street
and
the
under
PN
Street
towers.
You
multiply
that
by
the
number
of
point
five
and
you
get
the
number
of
spaces
now
I
expect
you'll
see
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
single
people.
These
are
rental.
Apartments,
you'll
see
a
lot
of
single
people
which
is
a
dominant
attendant
occupancy
demographic
in
the
center
town.
J
You
see
a
lot
of
people
using
these.
In
these
two
towers,
when
they're
benchley
constructed
the
Tehran
on
Gloucester
at
seven
o'clock,
store
is
going
to
be
a
Fortis
and
affordable
buildings
been
subsidized
to
some
extent
by
CMHC,
so
it'll
be
a
affordable
tower.
So
you're
gonna
see
a
lot
of
young
people,
hopefully
in
that
tower,
and
a
lot
of
young
people
will
be
using
bikes.
J
D
F
D
Perhaps
non-tariff
staff
or
the
the
applicant
can
respond
to
that
like
how
many
of
these
253
spaces
would
have
to
be
taken
to
supply
that
amount
of
space
for
bikes,
because
it
I
agree
with
mr.
barber
and
that
there
will
be
a
need
for
more
bike
parking
in
this
area,
I
also
out
of
respect
for
the
local
councillor,
we
should
also
show
Cooter's
Oh.
F
Can't
start,
thank
you,
I
guess
just
to
clarify.
Typically,
when
we're
doing
our
calculations
for
vehicular
parking
requirements,
our
bike
parking
requirements,
those
are
addressed
through
the
site
plan,
control
application,
the
building
permit
reviews
the
zoning
standards
to
allow
for
the
construction
the
building
and
they
need
to
comply
with
those.
So
we
ensure
this
is
not
the
the
mechanism
to
talk
about
altering
bike
parking
rates.
They're,
not
the
applicant
is
not
asking
for
that.
However,
I
don't
I,
don't
think
in
principle.
F
That's
an
unreasonable
discussion
to
have
as
far
as
physically
manipulating
the
spaces
taking
out
spaces
or
using
different
type
of
bike
parking
systems.
There
are
easy
ways
to
add
additional
bike
parking
stalls.
So
if
that's
a
discussion
or
a
willingness
through
the
the
applicant
and
the
owner
to
to
pursue
that,
we
would
have
no
objection
to
that,
but
it's
typically
not
an
issue
or-
and
it's
not
a
request
that
we're
dealing
with
through
this
application.
B
D
You've
got
the
community
association
asking
for
it
I'm
sure
when
the
ward
councillor
speaks,
she
would
be
supportive
of
it.
So
as
proud
of
a
goodwill.
Gesture
I
think
it
would
be
worthwhile
to
have
that
discussion
sooner
rather
than
later,
and
you
know
to
get
my
support
for
this
application.
I'd
like
to
see
that
you
are
working
with
the
community
Thank
You
chair.
That's
all
I
want
to
say
no
thanks.
A
A
I
The
site
on
which
we
host
our
agenda
documents
is
down.
I
Tia
is
aware
of
it
and
they're
trying
to
work
on
it.
There's
some
question
so
what
they're
the
from
residence
as
to
whether
the
meeting
should
be
proceeding
in
light
of
the
fact
that
the
documents
are
not
available
online
pertaining
to
this
meeting.
A
A
A
All
right,
so
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you
for
that
councillor,
leaper
I
think
that
we
go
ahead
if
anybody
is
on
and
I
have
no
idea,
but
if
anyone
wants
to
copy,
we
only
have
held
this
one
item.
So,
if
they'd
like
a
copy
of
the
report
to
have
before
them,
we
can
do
that
quickly.
Mr.
Massad
F&E,
yes,
as
soon.
A
Let's
go
so
let's
go
on
to
councillor
brockington
and
then
go
to
counselor
McKenney,
oh
sorry,
counseling
for
after
counselor
brockett's
and
so
counselor,
Brockington
and
and
note
to
anyone
who
is
watching
on
youtube.
If
you
would
like
to
have
a
copy
of
the
report,
please
do
quickly
go
to
our
e-mail,
which
is
Miss
Stephanie.
You
can
e-mail.
G
Still
recovering
from
the
marathon
madam
chair,
mr.
James
talked
about
some
of
the
history
with
the
parking
spaces.
I
just
want
to
be
crystal
clear
in
my
mind,
because
I'm
not
how
many
parking
spaces
exist.
Now
like
talk
to
me
about
the
current
structure,
the
current
number
of
spaces
and
what
we
are
going
towards.
Is
it
just
a
change
of
use
through
this
amendment
application
or
is
there
a
and
that
increase
that's
going
to
happen.
E
In
madam
chair,
mr.
Diaco
can
correct
me
if
I
mean,
if
I'm
incorrect,
but
no
there's
a
leave,
it's
a
little
over
five
hundred
five
hundred
and
two
spaces
on-site.
It's
an
underground
parking
garage,
there's
actually
two
towers
being
constructed,
one
on
the
Gloucester
side,
one
on
the
P
inside.
So
it's
just
adding
a
new
use
that
would
allow
other
than
people
who
live
on
that
site
or
visitors
to
that
site
to
also
park
underground
than
those
spaces
that
will
already
exist.
Okay,
so.
G
G
G
I
Thank
you.
One
question
for
staff.
I
think
it
was
interesting
to
listen
to
mr.
Barbara's
assertion
that
parking
garage
traffic
for
a
commercial
parking
lot
is
different
from
traffic
that
is
generated
by
a
residential
parking
lot
and
I'm
curious
to
know
if
we
take
account
of
that
in
things
like
traffic
studies,
so
right
now
we're
building
a
ton
of
tall
towers
all
over
Hintonburg
and
down
on
Scott
Street
I
often
will
point
residents
to
the
tower.
I
That's
at
Rosemount
the
18
story
apartment
building
there
very
few
cars
come
out
of
there,
because
I
think
many
people
are
walking
to
work.
It's
very
different
if
it's
a
commercial
parking
lot,
where
everyone's
going
to
arrive
over
the
course
of
an
hour
and
a
half
do
the
studies
we
do
take
account
of
different
traffic
patterns
depending
on
whether
the
parking
is
commercial
or
residential.
F
Counselor,
sorry,
it's
my
understanding
that
the
traffic
study
that
it's
submitted
did
look
at
that,
and
that
was
the
assessment
that
was
made
to
try
and
understand
in
the
existing
502
spaces.
If
X
amount
is
now
dedicated
towards
a
public
parking
garage,
what
is
the
expected
additional
or
changing?
Movements
in
and
out
of
the
building
versus
a
502
space
parking
garages
as
dedicated
just
for
residents?
I
would
agree
with
you
that
they're
most
likely
are
differences
in
the
two
types
of
behavior
and
the.
I
I
I
I
do
want
to
throw
it
out
that
you
know.
Yesterday
we
took
a
really
momentous
decision
that
no
matter
how
it
turned
out
is
going
to
result
in
much
greater
intensification
right
across
the
city.
We
have
said
that
that
intensification
cannot
be
car,
centric
and
I
think
we're
all
going
to
have
to
be
very
creative
about
how
we
make
the
level
of
intensification
work.
I
This
parking
garage
where
they
don't
currently
have
permission
to
run
a
commercial
car
parking
garage
would
be
a
really
interesting
spot
to
try
to
come
together
with
some
sort
of
partnership
between
the
city
and
the
developer
in
terms
of
piloting
a
commercial
bike
parking
lot
that
has
like
a
lot
of
commercial
bike
parking
I'm
wondering
is
the
applicant
open
to
trying
something
for
a
while
and
for
councillor
McKenney?
Are
there
section
37
benefits
that
might
be
able
to
be
poured
into
something
like
that.
A
I
A
That's
quite
a
variety
of
questions,
a
little
bit
like
in
a
shooting
gallery,
as
opposed
to
this
kind
of
gallery,
especially
since
they
can't
even
turn
on
my
own
video,
so
I
think
that
mr.
winters
I
see
you
sitting
there
patiently
and
maybe
should
just
take
a
few
notes
on
that.
We're
going
to
when
your
time
comes
up
that
we're
going
to
allow
you
to
what
we
speak
to
all
of
all
of
these
suggestions
and
and
situations.
Okay,
I
think
so
so
councillor
leaper
bring
that
back
up
to
minister
winter
or
mr.
A
H
A
Making
a
mistake
here:
okay
I've
lost
my
my
way,
which
doesn't
happen
often,
but
we
should
not
be
going
this
way
now,
because
we
did
have
a
delegation.
We
have
other
delegations.
I've
got
to
go
to
the
delegation
next,
rather
than
have
us
go
at
this
individually.
Okay,
so
is
mr.
Denham
a
here
or
is
it
just
you
Greg
I
see
you
so
let's
go
to
you.
A
A
Do
you,
and
so
both
of
you
turn
your
mics
on
and
then
both
of
you
can
participate
and
then
we'll
ask
questions
of
these
two
delegations
and
then
we
will
go
to
well.
Whoever
has
questions
of
them
kills
your
vice-chair
Gower
you'll
be
the
next
one
on
the
list.
However,
after
we
go
through
this
process,
does
that
sound
good?
Sorry
go
ahead.
K
Madame,
chair
I,
think
I'm
gonna
leave
this
to
Vincent
to
to
talk
first
as
the
developer
on
this
one,
and
maybe
he
can
address
some
of
the
issues
about
the
parking
requirements
and
stuff
and
then
I
can
follow
up
if
that's
ok,
to
kind
of
address
them,
with
more
policy
related
issues
and
and
to
discuss.
Some
of
the
comments
have
been
made
that
way.
K
A
K
A
A
D
2011,
when
this
was
brought
forward,
it
was
a
condo
development
where
we
see
a
lot
more
demand
for
resident
parking.
Yes,
since
been
changed
to
will
be
talked
about
an
affordable
housing
rental
project.
Therefore,
like
the
demand
for
for
parking,
is
a
lot
lower
and
also
because
of
geotechnical
considerations.
We
actually
had
to
go
five
five
to
six
storeys
down.
We
had
no
choice.
D
K
First
off
I'm,
obviously
here
to
support
Claridge's
development
application
and,
as
well
as
the
support
city
staff
and
there's
in
the
report,
I
thought
it
was.
It
was
well-written
and
it's
consistent
with
some
of
the
other
reports
that
we've
seen
coming
forward
recently
for
a
Liz,
Kerr,
Street
and
others.
What
I
really
was
kind
of
picking
up
on
today
was
mr.
barbers
comments
about
in
reaction
to
mr.
James's
response
about
parking
lots
north
of
Gloucester
Street
in
the
area,
and
one
of
the
things
I
saw
was-
is
that
he
was
reacting
to
mr.
K
James's
comments
that
parking
lots.
You
know.
Well,
that's
not
the
area
that
it's
permitted
with
him,
but,
however,
we're
being
asked
here
to
adjust
our
parking
rates
or
our
bicycle
parkings,
based
on
rates
that
art
in
the
zoning
bylaw
or
within
the
policies.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
here
that
to
recognize
that
this
building
was
approved
in
2011,
just
as
mr.
Denham
a
has
pointed
out
that
it's
proceeded
under
that
basis,
they're
providing
a
valuable
form
of
housing,
that's
going
to
be
happening
in
that
downtown
core.
K
K
Take
advantage
of
this
just
as
we're
talking
about
pilot
projects
or
something
else
to
provide
that
parking
and
get
rid
of
those
surface
parking
lots
that
are
a
blight.
You
know.
Mr.
councillor
leaper
had
this
in
his
own
word
on
Scott
Street,
where
he
was
dealing
with
a
surface
parking
lot.
That
was
just
a
visual
blight
and
I
would
I
would
agree
completely
that
these
parking
lots
should
disappear
in
time.
It's
just
that.
K
The
policies
today
don't
support
that
goal,
that
the
policies
that
we're
looking
at
for
tomorrow,
the
ones
that
the
council
just
approved
yesterday
with
the
five
big
moves
and
the
new
official
plan
policies
coming
down.
That's
where
we
need
to
turn
our
attention
in
our
and
our
energy
towards
is
changing
the
parking
rates
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
that
falls
out
of
that
Official
Plan
policy
environment,
to
allow
for
more
bicycle
parking
and
to
restrict
cars.
But
it's
not
to
turn
back
the
clock
to
decisions
that
were
made
in
2011
or
before
from
the
developer.
K
To
now,
retroactive
Lee
say
that
he
can't
use
parking
lots
in
his
parking
garage.
I.
Just
don't
think
that's
that's
where
our
energy
should
be
devoted.
Reading
you
know,
I
think
council
is,
and
staff
are
definitely
heading
in
the
right
directions.
With
you
know,
mr.
James
was
echoing
my
my
thoughts
is
that
we
should
be
encouraging
more
development
of
LRT
stations
so
that
we
can
get
people
out
of
their
cars,
but
the
cars
are
there
today,
like
you.
K
Can't
the
LRT
system
is
not
a
hundred
percent
built
out
yet
and
in
the
fullness
of
time
we're
gonna
see
this
city
turn
into
like
other
cities,
where
we're
gonna
have
multiple
lines
of
mass
transit
to
the
downtown
core,
which
is
going
to
provide
that
opportunity
for
people
to
get
her
to
their
cars.
But
that's
not
today.
We
can't
flick
a
light
switch
and
make
that
happen
today.
K
So
I
think
Council
is
taking
the
right
direction
and
will
continue
to
make
that
right
direction
with
see
staffs
professional
guidance
to
get
us
there
so
that
we
become
cities
like
and
I
was
googling
them.
Last
night
you
know,
we've
got
you
know:
Madrid
has
293
kilometers
of
light
rail
and
mass
transit
Oslo
a
hundred
and
one
stations,
85
kilometers
and
five
lanes
of
mass
transit,
the
downtown
core
Copenhagen.
They
have
a
metro,
Anna
S
train
system,
170
kilometres
84
stations
in
four
lines.
K
These
are
all
cities
that
I
was
googling
last
night,
that
are
the
cities
that
are
all
contemplating
banning
cars
in
their
downtown
core.
So
this
is
where
we
want
to
go
it's
just
not
where
we
are
today,
and
it's
going
to
take
significant
public
investment
from
all
levels
of
government
to
get
us
that
transportation
system,
so
that
we
can
truly
bringing
cars
downtown
and
make
the
city
streets
safe.
H
Actually
do
have
one
quick
question
for
the
applicant
I'm
just
curious,
because
we
always
talk
about
how
is
market
demand
for
residential
homes?
How
is
the
demand
for
parking
shifted
from
people
who
are
buying
new
homes?
Downtown?
Are
you
seeing,
through
this
development
or
through
sales
in
this
area?
Are
you
seeing
less
of
a
demand
for
parking
from
residents?
Are
you
seeing
em,
for
example,
residents
who
might
have
had
two
cars
going
to
one
or
residents
who
might
have
had
one
going
to
zero?
D
In
the
rental
market
for
sure,
but
in
the
car
market,
what
we're
seeing
is
still
one
to
two
cars
per
per
unit.
I
mean
we
can't
sell
condo
units
without
the
parking
stalls
there.
The
demand
is
there
for
sure
and
they
they
may
sit
in
the
garage
all
week
until
you
know
they
want
to
go
to
Gatineau
Park
on
the
weekend,
but
what
the
demand
is
definitely
there.
On
the
rental
side,
we
see
it
a
little
less.
That's
for
sure,
and
that's
why
we
want
to
be
flexible
in
our
in
our
use
here.
A
You
know
I
just
wanted
to
I,
guess
not
I,
guess
we
don't
have
any
questions.
I,
don't
see
any.
Let
me
just
check
again:
I,
don't
see
any
hands
waving.
You
know
I
just
interesting
to
have
this
discussion.
Now,
after
yesterday,
at
Council
we
approved
a
a
redo
of
parking
for
the
more
robotic
kind
of
businesses,
because
there's
a
change
there
and
you
know,
do
you
want
to
have
oceans
and
oceans
of
asphalt
that
impacts
the
stormwater
runoff
and
it
impacts
the
you
know,
value
of
the
land
and
all
of
those
kinds
of
things
too.
A
A
A
Said
I
think
Vice
Chair
Cour,
okay,
so
thank
you
to
the
so
we'll
come
back
and
when
we
go
first
to
Vice,
Chair
wait
a
minute
of
the
people
before
that
we're
on
which
ones
didn't
get
a
turn.
I
think
everybody
got
a
turn.
So
Vice
Chair
down
will
be
first
back
to
questions
and
we
still
have
to
go
to
councilman
Kenny.
Who
is
the
award
chair
or
Jack
consular
so
vice-chair
Gower.
Thank.
H
You,
madam
chair
I,
have
one
quick
question
for
staff,
which
is
I
want
to
be
clear.
If
we
don't
approve
this,
my
understanding
is
you'd
end
up
with
potentially
a
couple
hundred
underground
parking
spaces
downtown
that
cannot
be
legally
used
for
anything
unless
there's
residential
parking
from
these
from
this
building
or
the
buildings
that
that
occupy
those
spaces.
Is
that
right
or
explain
to
me
what
would
happen
if
we
do
not
approve
this
today
for
these
parking
spots?
Thank.
F
H
Okay,
so,
potentially
you
could
end
up
with
a
lot
of
empty
spaces.
I
want
to
wrap
up
where
my
thinking
is
I'm
gonna
support
the
staff
recommendation.
I
think
if
this
was
a
brand-new
parking
garage
with
a
couple
of
hundred
spaces,
downtown
I
be
against
that
in
this
case
we're
repurposing
empty
spaces.
It
is
a
good
thing
that
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
the
empty
surface,
ashphalt
Lots
in
the
downtown
and
central
area
being
converted
into
home
homes
and
businesses.
That's
good,
some
of
that
parking
has
to
move
elsewhere.
H
Hopefully,
a
lot
of
that
parking
is
going
to
eventually
move
to
transit
as
well,
maybe
by
moving
spots
underground.
We
can
reconfigure
spaces
that
are
used
on
street
for
parking
into
something
more
Lyon
to
active
transportation
and
there's
some
good
reasons
to
move
parking
into
underground
and
on
off
street
I.
Think
as
a
committee
as
an
account
so
going
forward,
we
have
to
be
really
careful
with
these
kinds
of
approvals
for
more
parking,
because
we
have
to
put
more
pain.
H
If
we
really
want
people
to
reduce
car
use
and
get
more
people
on
transit,
we
also
need
better
transit.
The
best
way
to
get
people
out
of
cars
is
to
improve
our
transit,
more
investments
in
that
transit,
but
we
also
have
to
couple
that
and
make
it
a
little
more
difficult
for
people
to
get
downtown.
If
people
know
it's
easy
and
simple
to
get
a
parking
space
downtown
when
they're
going
to
an
event
in
the
evening,
they're
not
going
to
be
as
likely
to
jump
onto
onto
transit.
H
A
F
A
I
I
I
think
that
this
is
a
really
interesting
opportunity
to
try
something
new
and
I
would
love
to
see
more
time
given
to
some
kind
of
a
pilot
working
with
the
developer
on
seeing
whether
or
not
in
fact
a
big
chunk
of
this
could
be
turned
over
to
commercial
bike.
Parking
I
think
it's
it's
too
valuable
an
opportunity
to
waste.
So
I
would
like
to
see
this
given
more
time.
I
think
counts.
I
Mckenney
is
going
to
ask
that
we
defer
this
item,
give
a
little
bit
more
time
for
discussion
and
I'll
put
my
name
on
there,
as
the
mover
Greg
mr.
winters
is,
is
right.
We
can't
flick
the
switch,
but
I
do
believe
that
we
can
dial
down
the
the
dimmer
on
this
one.
We
have
the
ability
to
start
moving
transportation
into
a
more
sustainable
path.
This
is
too
too
valuable
an
opportunity
to
waste
if
we
have
a
willing
developer,
a
willing
community
and
a
willing
Council
to
work
it
through
thanks
Jeff,
good.
A
Question
I
just
have
a
question
for
mr.
winters,
so
hearing
that
and
hearing
the
deferral
I
mean.
When
would
this
be
going
to
council
not
until
june
the
chance
nice
content
June
the
10th?
Would
there
be
time
in
that
timeframe
to
have
that
discussion?
That's
another
thing
to
think
of
I'm
Kalam
and
you
just
ask
the
question
culturally
/.
Are
you
well
willing
to
have
that
conversation?
Mr.
winters.
K
A
C
Council
leaper
beat
me
to
the
punch
on
that.
One
I
just
wanted
to
ask
staff
if
we
can
not
if
but
what
it
means
to
defer.
This
I
also
agree
I'm
struggling
with
this
one,
because
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
replacing
the
existing
public
parking.
That's
there
I
have
gone
past.
This
particular
parking
lot.
C
The
surface
parking
lot
on
many
occasions
and
it's
always
brimming
you
know
with
bikes,
overflow
button
motorcycles
overflowing
onto
sidewalks
and
it's
packed
so
I
know
there's
a
need,
but
my
concern
is
is
in
the
comments
that
are
made
by
mr.
winters
that
you
know
the
decision
made
yesterday
and
you
know
we're
10
years
away
from
scene
change.
Well,
yesterday
was
yesterday
we're
in
tomorrow.
We
need
to
start
making
these
better
decisions
and
I'm
happy
to
see
more
bike
parking
or
a
mix
of
different
uses
for
this
site,
because
you
know
hosts
covet
19.
C
We
will
start
seeing
more
people.
Take
our
transit
and
there'll
be
less
need
for
people
like
myself
who
live
in
the
burbs
to
drive
downtown,
so
I
actually
would
like
to
see
a
stronger
conversation
between
the
ward
councillor.
The
community
association
and
the
developer
to
make
sure
we
get
to
that
point
and
I'd
be
happy
to
support
deferral,
to
see
that
we
get
to
that
happy
medium.
Where
we
can
get
the
parking
we
can
get
the
bike
share.
C
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
with
respect
to
deferral,
I,
think
the
issue,
while
they
should
before
a
committee
today
and
before
council,
is
with
respect
to
whether
or
not
the
underground
parking
should
be
evil
as
a
parking
opportunities
for
people
don't
live
in
the
property
or
in
the
building
on
the
property.
I'm,
not
sure
what
defer
would
actually
achieve
it
would
be.
It
actually
would
be
up
to
the
applicant
to
decide,
but
I
just
can't
see
the
need
for
a
deferral
for
a
commercial
shared
bike
parking.
It's
not
something!
That's
really
before
the
committee.
E
It's
something
it's
completely
outside
of
what
the
zoning
is
talking
about
here
on
the
property
the
applicant
is
providing
enough
parking
for
bicycles
in
the
courts,
with
the
zoning
bylaw
in
accordance
with
what
council
has
already
said
is
adequate.
They
do
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
more
on-site
if
they
so
desire.
They
already
have
site
plan
control
approval,
but
I
from
a
planning
perspective.
I
can't
see
really
a
reason
to
defer
that
or
for
something.
That's
not
really
part
of
the
zoning
application.
A
B
Thanks
everyone,
thanks
for
the
conversation
thanks
for
Shawn
barber,
thanks
for
coming
out
on
this.
This
is
you
know
it's
it's
that
ongoing
conversation.
You
know
you
know,
what's
worse
the
surface
parking
lot.
Obviously
we
need
to
rid
ourselves
with
surface
parking.
Lots
across
the
city
and
and
having
you
know,
underground
parking
that
serves
residents
is
certainly
better.
Having
housing
is
nobody's
going
to
argue
that
that
is
not
exceptionally
better
use,
but
but
don't
you
know,
let's
don't
forget.
This
actually
is
a
brand
new
parking
garage.
B
This
is
not
a
garage
that
was
built
20
years
ago
that,
seeing
you
know
less
use
for
residential
parking.
That's
been
converted
to
a
portal.
I
can
put
that
aside.
This
is
not
affordable
housing
in
any
in
any
manner,
but
but
it
is,
it
is
a
conversion
from
condo
to
apartment
and
and
we
need
purpose-built
rentals.
So
that's
a
good
thing,
but
in
doing
that,
the
minimum
requirement
for
parking
was
decreased.
People
who
live
in
the
downtown
who
rent
for
the
most
part
don't
require
much
parking.
B
B
We
did
all
agree
on
one
thing
that
we
need
to
intensify
our
communities
and
we
need
to
build
better
communities
and
today's
the
day
this
is
the
day
after
and
250
public
parking
spots
will
fill
up,
they
will
and
they
will
all
be
used,
and
the
use
is
different.
It
is,
it
is
more
frequent
it
is.
It
sets
up
more
of
a
gained
dangerous
situation
for
pedestrians
or
cyclists.
It
brings
more
cars
into
the
downtown
and
there's
no
need
for
it.
Right
now
and
I
think
that
you
know
we
heard
that
we
are
going
to.
B
You
know
that
they
are
providing
adequate
bike
parking
well
today
may
28th
day
after
we
need
to
do
better
than
adequate.
It's
just
a
simple.
You
know
a
simple
matter
of
fact
that
we
can't
continue
to
do
things
as
we
did
so
what's
happened
here.
It's
just
a
bit
of
a
pattern
and
I
raised
it
at
last
committee,
but
then
it
was
only
28
spots,
but
this
is
250,
and
you
know
that
this
is
a
change
in
use.
This
didn't
come
before
us.
B
A
B
He
was
transmitted,
but
very
least
we
can
no,
not
we
cannot.
You
don't
allow
for
an
enormous
amount
of
new
part,
and
this
is
new
parking.
This
is
not
just
replacing
what
was
there
he's
our
new
spot,
some
of
them
not
but
overall
502
spots,
some
for
residential
is
required,
it's
above
the
minimum
requirement,
but
we
also
at
this
location.
As
mr.
B
Don't
believe
that
this
is
adequate
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
what
we
envision
when
we
talk
about
15-minute
neighborhoods
building,
smart
cities
encouraging
people
to
cycle
in
too
long,
we've
got
a
neighborhood
here
where
the
vast
majority
people
do
cycle
and
they
walk
and
do
the
things
that
we
encourage
and
to
put
250
new
public
parking
spots
at
that
location
means
that
we
are
not
benefiting
those
those
those
residents
who
who
we
want
to
ask
to
do
more
of
across
the
city,
so
I
think
of
the
very
least
we
can.
We
can
go
back.
B
We
can
I
asked
you
to
support
the
the
deferral.
That's
in
front
of
us,
and
hopefully
the
applicant
to
the
developer
will
come
with
some
ideas.
Certainly
the
Community
Association
has
ideas.
We
can
all
sit
down
and,
at
the
very
least,
bring
that
that
number
down
I
don't
support
any
conversion.
I,
don't
support
them.
The
change
in
use-
that's
not
a
surprise.
I
never
have,
but
I
think
that
in
this
case,
before
just
granting
a
yes
send
a
message
send
a
message
back
to
say:
you
know
what
we
can
be
better
than
adequate.
B
H
Thank
You
chair
it's
for
I
guess
for
legal
cuz.
There
was
some
a
regional
reading
report.
There
was
an
original
approval
and
this
going
back
several
years,
I
think
to
2011
I,
actually
I
like
the
idea
that
that
council
early
burn
councillor
McKinney
have
suggested,
but
I
want
to
make
sure.
Even
if
we're
deferring
it
does
it
do
anything
or
we
are
we
handcuffed
from
any
previous
decisions
by
planning
committee
about
how
this
particular
property
was
zoned.
So
mr.
mark,
if
you
could
comment
on
that
and.
D
Madam
chair,
you
have
a
rezoning
request
in
front
of
you
to
allow
parking
garage
as
an
additional
permitted
use.
This
is
a
fresh
request.
If
you
will
the
it's
my
understanding
that
the
existing
zoning
did
not
permit
the
parking
garage.
So
you,
you
are
not
handcuffed
by
any
past
decision
of
council.
Okay,.
H
I
guess
I
think
it's
an
idea
that
should
be
explored,
I,
just
I,
wonder
if
just
deferring
it
as
enough
gives
it
enough
weight,
we're
kind
of
an
uncharted
territory
here,
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
is
the
commercial
parking
lot.
Zoning
that
would
be
allowed
could
include
my
parking.
It
could
include
car
parking
I.
Think
it's
tough
for
us
to
just
say
you
have
to
do
bike
parking,
so
we're
gonna
need
some
kind
of
dialog
or
or
conversation
between
the
applicant
and
between
planning
staff
and
the
counselor
in
the
community,
mr.
Marcus
or
any
other.
D
E
Yes,
madam
chair,
if,
if
it
was
to
be
deferred
just
some
a
little
bit
more
information
on
I
know,
it
relates
the
bicycle
parking
I
think
that
councillor
leaper
had
mentioned.
It
relates
to
commercial
bicycle
parking
underground.
Just
that's
what
it
that's
what
we
would
have
to
go
on
to
talk
to
the
applicant
about,
but
we
just
needed
a
little
bit
more
direction.
That's
all
right!
If
it
was
numbered
to
see
if
something
could
be
done
or
who
knows,
maybe
not
something.
H
I
think
we
yeah
I
think
we
should
perhaps
counselor
labour
councillor.
Mckenney
might
have
a
clearer
idea
of
of
the
kind
of
language
that
should
go
into
this,
but
I
do
think
it's
worth
looking
at.
You
know
examining
what's
possible
here:
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
have
commercial
bike
parking
in
Ottawa,
so
it's
a
bit
of
unprecedented
territory
and
who
knows
if
two
weeks
or
four
weeks
would
be
enough
to
figure
this
out,
and
perhaps
it's
not
the
entire
parking
lot.
H
A
Perhaps
it's
you
know
perhaps
looking
at
this
as
a
one
of
when
it's
a
quite
a
large
downtown
is
the
wrong
way
to
go
about
it
as
well,
and
it
wouldn't
be
mr.
when
we
talk
about
the
changes
in
commercial
cycling,
a
parking
or
changes
to
parking
that
is
under
mr.
her
wired
shop
and
the
policy
people
over
there.
So
you
know,
while
it's
one
thing
to
have
a
conversation
with
this
gang
at
this
site,
it
doesn't
change
the
the
way
we
go
forward.
A
That
would
be
that
bigger
piece
that
we
talked
about
and
and
likely
be
deal
with
it
through
the
zoning
that's
going
to
have
to
be
implemented
with
the
new
official
plan.
That
would
be
the
time
to
do
that.
But
today
we
have
the
zoning
before
us
at
70,
Gloucester
Street
in
89
and
91,
the
PM
Street,
and
if
we
defer
it,
is
there
a
willingness,
mr.
winters
and
mr.
Denham
a
to
get
together
with
the
ward
councillor,
the
staff,
mr.
A
Barbour
and
his
community,
to
discuss
some
options,
whether
it
is
legitimizing
cycling,
whether
it's
looking
at
commercial
cycling,
whether
it's
looking
at
a
some
kind
of
a
split
between
okay?
We
already
had
like
this.
This
is
already
we
have.
This
was
approved
in
2011,
but
how
can
we
better
serve
today's
times
and
actually
be
flexible
enough
for
the
future?
Is
there
a
willingness
on
your
part.
D
No,
madam
chair,
there
is
willingness
to
continue
those
discussions.
I
don't
like
you
said,
I,
don't
think
two
weeks
is
gonna
be
enough
time.
They
go
I,
don't
even
think
as
a
mechanism
in
place
to
allow
private
pay
bike
parking,
but
these
discussions
can
definitely
be
held
in
the
next
few
weeks
the
developers
to
discuss
yeah
so.
A
B
A
And
you
know
mr.
winters
and
mr.
Denham
II,
you
never
know
we
could
be
onto
something
that
is.
You
know
unique
right,
yeah
day,
one
of
the
new
direction
of
finally
an
official
plan.
Okay,
are
we?
Are
we
good
yep?
That's
it
okay!
So
we
have
a
deferral
motion
moved
by
Councillor
leaper
on
behalf
of
counsel
mckinney
is
it
will
go
with
you
and
nays?
K
F
G
A
H
A
A
No
any
increase,
no
other
business
thanks
everybody
again
for
yesterday
and
the
previous
meetings
as
well
I
really
appreciate
everything
that
you've
put
into
planning
our
city
over
the
past,
certainly
couple
of
years,
but
the
incredible
amount
of
time
you
put
in
in
the
last
month
or
so
I.
Thank
you
a
lot,
so
we're
adjourned
and
next
meeting
is
June
the
11th.
Thank
you.