{ "segments": [ { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 0.005, "end": 1.725, "text": "So, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 1.865, "end": 3.985, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll. Councillor Ewall.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 4.125, "end": 4.365, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 4.805, "end": 7.485, "text": "Councillor Atkinson. Councillor Chabot.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 10.225, "end": 10.505, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 10.845, "end": 11.925, "text": "Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 11.985, "end": 12.345, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 12.405, "end": 19.165, "text": "Councillor Dollywall. Councillor Jameson. Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 19.225, "end": 19.465, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 19.825, "end": 23.705, "text": "Councillor Kelly. Councillor Mc Councillor McLean.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Councillor D. McLean", "start": 23.705, "end": 23.885, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 24.305, "end": 35.685, "text": "Councillor Pantozopoulos. Councillor Schmidt. Councillor Tyres. Councillor Ward. Councillor Wyness. Councillor Jameson coming back to you. Thank you. And Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 36.285, "end": 36.985, "text": "I am here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 37.125, "end": 37.625, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 43.205, "end": 58.205, "text": "Let's just check in here, just from a process standpoint. Madam Clerk, do you have an estimate of how many registered speakers that we have that have not had an opportunity to speak yet? And do you have a sense of how many new uh registrants over the weekend?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 58.505, "end": 91.245, "text": "Yes, thank you for the question, Mayor Farkas. So up until this morning at approximately 9 30, we have a total of 526 registered speakers. Council has already heard from 287, meaning that we have 239 registered speakers with the city clerk's office that have not had an opportunity to speak with. Over the weekend, we did receive enough registrations that we opened up new panels. So panels 105, 106, and 107 were established over the weekend and this morning.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 91.605, "end": 151.905, "text": "Okay, great. Uh I've also been asked uh by members of council to make two uh separate rulings. The the first one is whether or not we are to continue the public hearing and whether we can prematurely close the public hearing. And get to debate without further delay. My ruling is no, we cannot close the public hearing at this time. As long as there's people that are in the chamber on the line and able to speak, we need to consent continue the public hearing. So we don't have the legal ability to close the public hearing prior to having heard from all of the folks who are on hand. And uh the nuance there, however, is if you had registered to speak but you're not here in person or on the line, you're not deemed uh uh Rather we will not wait. Uh for example, if we run out of people who are in the pr here in person or on the phone line, even if uh you're registered, uh we will not continue the public hearing until we've heard from all the registered folks. So you have to be here in person or on the line in order to participate in the public hearing. Councillor Chabot?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 151.965, "end": 157.505, "text": "Yeah, just on a point of procedure, this legislation by which you're making a ruling on, can you cite that?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 157.745, "end": 375.245, "text": "Yeah, it's uh in under the Municipal Government Act, it sets out uh some of the prescribed provisions for especially specifically land use items as it pertains to this. So My ruling is no, we do not have the ability to close that public hearing. The second ruling that I've been asked to make is whether it is possible to set a certain point by which uh counsel can uh say that if as long as you're registered by this point, we'll continue the public hearing. In essence, uh the the request was could we say that we're gonna hear from everyone registered at this moment, and as long and we'll continue as long as that. And the same thing uh applies is even if you're not registered to speak, if you were to simply Walk into the council chamber or at the very last minute register. Procedural fairness calls for the uh for the fundamental that we need to continue to hear from you. So we'll continue to accept registrations, is what I'm saying. So that's my ruling on those two questions. Uh secondarily, uh I have agreed uh to a rep to representatives from Kreb to allow for a panel against. Uh rather a panel in support of the repeal of blanket rezoning to to commence on 1 p.m. Uh as a courtesy I will allow for a panel uh fully of those uh wishing to uh support uh or rather. I've committed at 1 p.m. that's it's kind of convoluted the for and against given the repeal, but uh I'll repeat again. Uh so at 1 p.m. I have committed to Kreb to allow for a panel speaking in favor of the repeal. And following that, I will also allow for a panel uh speaking against the repeal, just for fairness. Uh we've allowed the latitude for that uh organization. So That said, we're gonna jump into continuing our public hearing. It's we're gonna begin with calling uh alternating between panels of those who have not yet been called and those who have been called. So our first panel will be uh from panels 95 onwards. I'll keep reading names until we have five people, and then following that panel, we'll go back to calling names that had been spoke had been called previously, and then we're gonna alternate back and forth that way for uh fairness' sake. So Let's begin assembling our first panel. So do we have Alex Williams with us? 195. Bryce Williams? Okay, come on down, Bryce. Andrew Thomas? Nope. Spencer Howard? Okay. Unfortunately, I'm not able to speak to you like this in the chamber. What I'll ask is if you could communicate with the clerks what your request is, and I'll do my best to accommodate. At this point, we're calling names from 95 onwards. And this panel will be assembled that way. And then we're gonna alternate back to uh folks whose uh names have been previously called. Alright, uh is there Andrew Thomas with us? Spencer Howard? Okay, come on up, Spencer. Do we have Gunter Samet? Is that you, Gunter? Sorry, the gentleman walking over. Is that uh you Gunter? No. Alright, next on 96, do we have Sarah Elder, Ruben van der Muelen, Debbie Todd? Sir, was that you, Ruben? No. Do we have Tim Clotson?", "segments_merged": 35 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 376.505, "end": 377.765, "text": "Tim Clotten on the line.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 378.725, "end": 399.785, "text": "Great, thank you, Tim. You'll be our final panelist here. Alright, so we have Alex Bryce Spencer. Gunter Tim. Start us off, Alex. Thank you so much for being here. You have five minutes. I'll note the the there's colors that'll change in the chamber here. When it hits red, uh you're out of time.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 401.205, "end": 632.565, "text": "Hello, Council. I'm Alex Williams, and although I have a lot of other things I'd like to speak to around this hearing, housing, and the proposed repeal of the upzoning the city undertook two years ago, I'm here in my capacity as chair of Calgary Transit Riders, a member based nonprofit advocating for rider centric public transit in Calgary. I will be speaking specifically to the needs of transit riders and how this change and potential future changes might affect us for better or worse. We are against the proposed land use change and see a more flexible base zone like RCG as a critical component to providing quality transit to Calgarians. Transit riders are also disproportionately low income, meaning that while the housing crisis may seem to be over for some of us, it is still desperate for many. Remember, this crisis is decades in the making. Spending time commuting on our underfunded transit service, transit riders are often also unavailable for public hearings. So please, when making any decision as counsel, not just this one, but any decision, think to yourself. Who's missing? As a solution to our housing crisis, while supporting the repeal, many have proposed nodes and corridors, or upzoning via LAP, or, our favor, transit oriented development. To all of which I say yes and. So, what is a node? And is a neighborhood collector a corridor, or is that reserved for arterials? And what if it's a big node or a wide corridor? Do we get to build higher? Do we get to build denser? What if people still don't like that? Regardless of how all of that is decided, focusing only on nodes and corridors will not create the tax or population conditions we need for quality transit. And certainly it won't make it happen in the time frame in which it's needed. The city does not control the market. You can't decide what houses go for sale when. Just because you say something can be built on a corridor doesn't mean it will. Remember, RCG still permits uh single detached homes being built. If someone wants that, they can have that. Upzoning via LAP sounds great, but I rarely hear LAPs spoken of in a positive light. In fact, this hearing is the first time I've heard so many people talk about how much they think LAPs are great. I fear this suggestion is largely kicking the can down the road. Also, it's still mostly just nodes and corridors. And now TOD. We need more. I've been enjoying seeing development happen around Heritage Station, not far from my place. And what about the max lines? If we get their service up to their aspired to level, will they qualify? I certainly hope so. But TOD, as you've already seen, is not the ultimate solution. Remember, yes, end. Calgarians can't be easily divided into people who want to live in apartments and people who want to live in single-dached homes. Our needs change throughout our lives, and housing options ought to reflect that, ideally, within the neighborhoods where we already live, where we've already built community, where we have become part of that community character. We've already seen this council be quite supportive of transit. It'd be awesome. I'd give uh specific shout outs, but uh, since that's not allowed, I'll just say thank you to all of you here. So please take the whole picture into account. The city is a system of systems, as you've seen with dealing with the water main crisis. We at Calgary Transit Riders are looking forward to engaging with each of you at stations in your wards and introducing you to the Calgarians who rely on transit to get around the city. Thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 633.645, "end": 639.265, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll call on Bryce next, please. And then Spencer after that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 645.125, "end": 849.785, "text": "Good morning, Council. My name is Bryce Williams. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my future self. I know many young people who would love to be here but can't because they're working full time jobs, uh, saving for a home, which unfortunately tends to be so far off into the future they're not sure when that will even end up happening. Um Though I'm not speaking on their behalf, I know that many of my friends and other young people will definitely agree with me. During this public hearing, and also the last one, many have spoken about two different topics. One, the removal of beautiful large trees in their community, and two, big buildings going up next to them and blocking the sunlight. So I would like to take a minute and talk about the trees. There is a new development right across the street from Beaverbrook in the community that I live in, and most of the trees have actually stayed as well as those trees are also taller than the new builds, which Kind of defeats the argument against. As well as my neighbors, I have a uh a little garden in our backyard, and um the thing that blocks the sunlight from my garden are the trees from my from my one neighbors, and then um unfortunately, actually the garage in our backyard too. Um but uh My neighbor to the other side, they just removed their trees. I had no say in it, and that's totally fine. I can't tell my other neighbors to remove their trees because it blocks sunlight from my garden. I honestly don't think we should ever be allowed to tell our neighbors what to do with their property. It's their property, it's their choice, they own it. And it is something that, you know, when I own my own property, I want to be allowed to do what I want with it. I don't want to have to sit around waste council's time trying to decide on whether I'm not allowed to do something or I'm not allowed to do something just because I have a nosy neighbor that just is upset about what I want to do and just wants to uh poke at me. Um honestly, this world will be a lot better of a place if we just make each other cookies or strudel, bring it to each other, get to know one another, because I guarantee the people that will be moving into the new builds right next to Beaverbrook, they're one they're gonna be wonderful people. Um those builds aren't done yet, so I can't even bring them cookies or strudel. Um but you know what? Maybe I will, even though they live, it's probably a good five-minute walk from my house or so. Um but if we just get to know our neighbors, um I promise you it's they're not scary. Um, and there's no reason to repeal this because city council has more things on their uh on their to-do list where we need to stop wasting time trying to get through these public hearings and decide whether or not someone's allowed to upzone or not. Um if I'm not mistaken, I think the approval rate before the uh before the upzoning, the blanket upzoning, um, I think it was something around like 98% or so I've been told. Um and so it's kind of just, you know, just leave it, let's stop wasting everyone's time. Um but I think. Just remember make everyone's everyone some cookies and just be a friendly neighbor. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 851.025, "end": 853.745, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go to Spencer, then Gunter after that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 855.925, "end": 864.245, "text": "I have a slideshow to accompany my presentation. It's uh uh was emailed yesterday. It's called Fail to Engage. Is that available?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 864.285, "end": 865.525, "text": "Is it the one up on the screen here?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 867.365, "end": 1173.285, "text": "Looks a lot like it. Yeah, second slide, please. Okay, we all set? Good. Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Spencer Howard. I'm a lifelong Calgarian. Um we're on slide two. Good. The b uh 2024 blanket rezoning decision can really only be seen as illegitimate. Can we go to the next slide three, please? Calgarians strongly and justifiably expect the city to engage us on important matters. Real engagement, though, where Calgarians are really listened to and compromise and change are made in response to legitimate concerns. Fortunately, the city has policies that strongly support these expectations. The overarching transparency and accountability policy, the engage policy, the engage administration framework, and the land use redesignation process. Next slide, four, please. Included in the many commitments for respectful engagement in the transparency policy is a commitment that states wherever possible, the city shall engage citizens. And the Engage policy states, the city makes its best efforts to reach, involve, and hear from those who are impacted directly. And finally, in the guiding principles of the Engage framework, it is noted that, quote, the city assigns a high priority to involving citizens early on and throughout the process. End quote. Next slide, five, please. I'm gonna skip over five actually. Let's go to six. Given the strong expectations of Calgarians of the profound impact of blanket rezoning, why was there never any real engagement with us? And why were there very few information sessions not held for more than a year after blanket rezoning was first identified as a possible recommendation by the task force in sharp contrast to the city's own clearly written policies? Slide seven, please. On May 4th, the city issues a news release about the task force recommendations, but fails to even mention blanket rezoning. Calgarians are in the dark regarding a recommendation that will profoundly impact them. At the July 4th council meeting, administration shockingly notes it will not engage with Calgarians, but promises more than once that the September 14th Community Development Meeting will be publicized as widely as possible. September 6th, the city issues a news release about the housing needs assessment report, but there is no mention of blanket rezoning or the upcoming September 14th meeting. Four months now have passed, and Calgarians remain in the dark. Slide eight, please. Despite having made its land use redesignation application, administration does not issue the required land use redesignation notification letters to impacted property owners. Not ever. The first critical step in the process just simply never happens, leaving most property owners completely in the dark. Four months then pass before the first contact with property owners is made. It consists of a postcard sent in mid-January that means very little to most Calgarians. Critically, that postcard fails to mention the upcoming information sessions. On January 29th, the city issues a news release about online and open house info sessions. The first of just two online sessions was held on the very same day. And the first of just six info sessions before the Planning Commission meeting was the next day, on January 30th. The only direct contact with the Calgaryans by administration was made with effectively no notification, and just six info sessions were held for over 300,000 property owners. As for the March 7 Planning Commission meeting, since the land use notification letters were never sent, most Calgarians still did not know about blanket rezoning, and so their right to provide input into the Commission is missed. On the first day of the rezoning hearing, administration informs Calgarians for the first time that the process being used is the standard land use redesignation application process. At the conclusion of a two and a half week long hearing, there was over 70% opposition. And yet the vote went through exactly the way it had been before. Slide nine, please. It's clear that administration was severely conflicted. It acted as the process manager of its own application and clearly performed very poorly. It consistently failed to inform, engage, and be transparent with Calgarians. It is the kind of behavior that leads to lawsuits by citizens against the city and councillors losing elections. Given the complete failure to follow the rules, the blanket rezoning approval must surely be seen as illegitimate. This council has an opportunity to send a strong message to administration and to all Calgarians that this city is serious about engagement and the behavior of administration was completely unacceptable. Please fix this wrong and completely repeal blanket rezoning. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1173.345, "end": 1187.785, "text": "Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go next to Gunter, please. I may have misheard. I assume that Gunter was with us. We'll go then to Tim to round off this panel, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1190.105, "end": 1203.185, "text": "Uh Mayor Farkas, I'm just wondering if it's possible that I could come back later today. I've got important work with the Citizens Appeal panel today, and I wouldn't be able to answer questions if I remained here today. Can I come back later?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1203.465, "end": 1208.725, "text": "Certainly, uh if you don't wish to speak now, uh there'll be further opportunities for previous names to be called.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1210.265, "end": 1211.645, "text": "Thank you for your consideration.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1211.885, "end": 1218.745, "text": "Okay, no problem. Uh Council, we'll uh we'll end this panel with just the three. Let's go on to uh questions. Councillor Johnson, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1221.005, "end": 1234.225, "text": "Yeah, my question is for uh Bryce Williams, please. Sorry, you had mentioned uh allowing neighbors to build whatever they want on their property.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1234.365, "end": 1234.625, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1236.185, "end": 1238.065, "text": "There would you think there would be a limit?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1238.465, "end": 1290.005, "text": "I mean, obviously yes, there would be a limit. Um I I think what we have presently is um a a great A good enough extent. Because I mean there's a there is a reason why we have like an industrial district and a separate area specifically for like apartment buildings and stuff. But you know, I I didn't get to say if my neighbor was allowed to cut down their trees or not. And you know, they can do that if they want, and that's totally fine. And so I like. I don't think that just as a nosy neighbor, we shouldn't be allowed to just tell someone that we don't want to let them build something there because we just don't like it.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1292.165, "end": 1310.885, "text": "And you also mentioned um, you know, they want to keep trees on their lot, but they didn't want a house built next to. Um would you agree that there's a slight difference between a tree and a building?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1311.265, "end": 1374.965, "text": "Certainly, there definitely is, um, 100%. I think that one of the like one of the points that I've heard this this hearing specifically is just talking about how the removal of trees remove um homes for um birds, squirrels, other animals. Um and I do know there was one person that mentioned how um the removal was went went terrible and uh damaged their neighbor's house. Um But if that tree was getting removed anyways, no one would be allowed to say anything about it, right? So that's kind of the the point on that where it's like if they just decide to remove the tree. They don't have to consult anyone. They can just remove the tree and if it does accidentally damage someone's house, like that is unfortunate, and there should there are there's a reason why we have insurance. Um But yeah, it the removal of trees has frankly nothing to do with RCG.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1375.865, "end": 1380.405, "text": "Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Now to Councillor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 1383.285, "end": 1410.285, "text": "I think so. Start with Alex Williams. So Alex, you you talked a little bit about some of the things that you heard from others, and you say and, uh, but if we were to revert uh back to the original land use bylaw, that wouldn't prevent anyone from still applying to redesignate their properties. So it's not and it's not or in this case, it's it's process issue, I think is what you're arguing.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1410.545, "end": 1427.305, "text": "Yeah, yeah, it would extend the process that we're undergoing, and as we've heard from people from Norfolk Housing and people from the Drop In Center in previous hearings, et cetera, it does impact people's ability to deliver affordable, accessible housing options to people.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 1427.565, "end": 1430.605, "text": "So processing time is one of the main drivers.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1430.605, "end": 1440.465, "text": "It adds to the cost, right? I believe the number was $500 a day just to hold on to a property waiting for the you know the the uh land use change to go through.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 1440.465, "end": 1481.805, "text": "Yeah, we're not going to argue the $500 a day, that's pretty pretty far reaching, in my opinion, as far as claiming that it's costing $500 a day. But um not here to debate that, the numbers specifically. The um uh the other issue, I think it was more um Bryce that spoke to it. So I'm gonna ask Bryce a question. Thanks. Bryce? So Bryce, you You mentioned that there's a lot of folks, low-income folks, that couldn't come here because of other for whatever reasons are working. Um do you know what percentage of those folks who were uh maybe better, more to well to do that couldn't be here because of work?", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1484.505, "end": 1532.925, "text": "Well, I don't know if I could get really give you a percentage, but like I have a lot of my friends. I I work from home, so I'm I'm able to come here. Um, and technically speaking, I actually have a meeting in three minutes, but even if I walked out of here right now, I'd I would end up missing that meeting, anyways. Um but they have to actually go to work, and so they can't be here personally. And like we uh I was hoping that we would actually be able to get through and I would be able to speak on Friday, um, but that also didn't end up working out, anyways. Um but yeah, there's like most people my age are presently either at school or they're at work right now. Um so you have some people who, like me, are able to basically skip out of work for the moment to be here and speak, but a lot of people we're not hearing from.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 1533.245, "end": 1548.425, "text": "So what about the people that you're that you're not your age, that are maybe a little bit younger than me, that somewhere between you and I. Uh, do you do you have any idea on on uh how many of those people are would not be able to come here because of", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1548.425, "end": 1574.085, "text": "Oh, I'm sure that there there are plenty, because there, I mean, you know, you go anywhere from 20 to 65, give or take, you know, we're all working full time jobs, nine to five, right? Like there's still a ton of people. Um the only reason why I'm more so speak I'm I'm talking about people around the age of like 20 to 30 is because those are the people my age. They're gonna be here for a long time.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 1574.085, "end": 1581.225, "text": "Yeah. Do you would you say that it's fair to say that both age categories have equal opportunity to write in?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1581.745, "end": 1582.785, "text": "Yep, yeah, for sure.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 1583.065, "end": 1584.725, "text": "Okay. Thanks. No further questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1585.925, "end": 1587.185, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 1588.645, "end": 1616.505, "text": "Uh Mr. Alex Williams, if you don't mind. We obviously have to zone everything something. And so we obviously blanket rezone to RCG as our base, and now we're looking to re blanket rezone as RC1 or RC2 as our base. Given what you just spoke about, curious uh like what base zoning you think would would would best enable what it is that you're talking about.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1616.785, "end": 1684.285, "text": "Yeah, that's a great question. Um I think one of the biggest things that has come up during this hearing uh that that I really agree with from the people who are pro repeal. Is the fact that RCG, when built to its max form, isn't necessarily the most accessible form. And of course, we see that if if you ride transit every now and then, you'll see people using wheelchairs, people using walkers, people with some additional mobility needs. Earlier in the hearing, they were called mountain goat homes, that they have a lot of stairs and they require a level of physical ability that not everybody has. And so from the transit riders' perspective, I actually think it would be great for something like HGO or something to be more widespread, especially near transit stations, so that there is a little bit more opportunity to provide accessible housing options, to provide housing options that are single level, that people in those homes don't necessarily have a basement that they have to deal with or upper floors that they have to deal with.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 1685.225, "end": 1761.905, "text": "I appreciate that, especially as we we move forward in figuring out what comes next and uh addressing the MDP a little bit more. So thank you. Um Mr. Howard, if you don't mind. I wasn't gonna ask about this just uh because it was about the the pre the the previous blanket rezoning process, but uh we know that there's going to have to be another engagement coming forward as it relates to the zoning bylaw in in a cut in a year or so. Uh so I just wanted to kind of get your your thoughts a little bit, because there's nothing more important than community engagement. So I'm really glad that you you brought it up here today. I want to get a little bit of a sense in terms of uh if what we did last time didn't meet your expectations, what would meet your expectations? Uh, because I just noting here in the what we heard report from last time around, we did what? We did uh Uh 58,000 or 580,000 postcards were sent out for nine public information sessions, which over a thousand Calgarians participated at. 500 more Calgarians participated in the online webinars, of which I think there was five or six. And then we received about 5,000 comments and 4,000 participants in the online engagement portal. Just curious, like if not that, then what? Can you just give me a bit of an bit of insight from your perspective?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1761.905, "end": 1793.765, "text": "I don't think it was a terrible process. I think that the timing could have been better. Little advanced notice was given in some cases. And uh uh this uh experience isn't actual engagement. I can't, for example, ask ask the counselors' questions. This is uh this is a very one sided uh debate. But I I just think uh more notice uh You know, with a longer span of time, is going to is going to be very welcomed.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 1794.225, "end": 1811.625, "text": "Or notice perfect, can do that. And I agree with you. This is not engagement. This is this is us listening and learning from you. This is not a an engagement thing. And that that process that I mentioned before was separate from the public hearing that I think was what, 13 days that they that they held last time around. So thank you very much, Mr. Hatt. Appreciate it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1812.445, "end": 1814.365, "text": "Thank you. Back to Councillor Johnston, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1815.805, "end": 1850.305, "text": "Uh thank you. And uh Mr. Spencer again, please. Um I I agree with you on sorry, I agree with you on some uh engagement issues, and you had a couple ideas on how to do it better, but uh I just thought if you wanted to elaborate again just a little bit more on because seeing what the administration does to try to get it out there, um w w what would be the perfect scenario to ensure", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1850.305, "end": 1878.705, "text": "My take is that council did try to get it out there, but for whatever reason, too little notice was given. One day, no days, sending notification out on the on the very day that the first engagement was supposed to take place, and with one day's notice before the second engagement was supposed to take place just simply isn't enough. Extend that span of time, give everyone a wider opportunity, that's going to help a great deal.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1879.325, "end": 1894.165, "text": "um and I guess my question is you you're here, so you saw it and you're engaged as as much as you can be. What would be the difference between you being here and somebody else not being here? They just didn't have the time to see it or", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 1896.205, "end": 1946.265, "text": "I don't know. I think I think that there are several facets to that. This is not this is not an unintimidating forum. I think a lot of people would would uh find it difficult to be here and and to engage in this process. I think a number of people are concerned how they may react. In this forum and have decided not to participate out of concerns how they themselves may behave. But we're not talking about this time around. Everybody saw this one coming well in advance. I'm talking about the 2024 decision having been made based on engagement that was given or that was participated in with far too little notice.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1946.625, "end": 1958.025, "text": "Okay. I I would just so sorry, say there's a KPMG survey results coming out shortly, and hopefully we can learn more from that on how to better engage citizens. So thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1959.085, "end": 1984.125, "text": "Yeah. Thank you. So this concludes our first panel of the day. We ended off on most of panel 96. Now we're gonna go back to alternate to some of the names that were called previously. After this next panel, we're gonna again constitute the panel from 96 onwards. So we're just trying to juggle uh fairness between those names that we've called and those names that we haven't.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1984.525, "end": 1985.845, "text": "Sorry, point up procedure.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1985.845, "end": 1987.185, "text": "Yes, uh Councillor Johnston?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 1987.185, "end": 1997.545, "text": "Uh Mr. Spencer had mentioned something. We weren't supposed to hear it, but would we be able to allow his friend to go into the next panel to allow them to leave at the same time?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 1997.585, "end": 2008.905, "text": "So just out of fairness, there's uh many people who had been waiting uh in advance of that. I I just wanna I wanna I wanna be as uh I don't want to be arbitrary in terms of who we accommodate or or who we don't. So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 2008.905, "end": 2015.845, "text": "You you did that with C R E B and the other panel, so I think we've we've already set the standard that we can schedule people in. So I just thought", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2015.845, "end": 2029.365, "text": "in in the case of uh Kreb, there's an organization that has uh five panelists uh all together. Uh as a courtesy, we've allowed the opportunity for a follow up panel for if there's anyone who wishes to speak in fa or rather against uh the repeal of blanket rezoning.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 2029.365, "end": 2033.745, "text": "that's the definition of scheduling it. So I just thought to allow them to leave at the same time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2033.745, "end": 2085.245, "text": "Okay Thank you, uh Councillor Johnston. So now uh is there anyone on the line or in the chamber with us from panels one through twenty five? Okay, hearing none. Is there anyone on the line or in the chamber with us from panels 26 through 50? Is there anyone in the chamber or on the line from panels 51 through 60? Okay. Okay, we see two people. Please uh come on down. Is there anyone from panel 61? 62? Come on down.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2085.245, "end": 2085.605, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2086.325, "end": 2087.905, "text": "Uh who just spoke just now?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2089.025, "end": 2092.245, "text": "Yeah, Catherine Wzinski on the phone in panel 62.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2093.005, "end": 2099.785, "text": "Thank you. Please stand by, Catherine. Is there anyone in the chamber on the line from panel 63?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2101.605, "end": 2104.145, "text": "Yes, Rick Miller from Panel 63.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2105.125, "end": 2109.265, "text": "Thank you, Rick. Please stand by. Anyone from 64?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2111.165, "end": 2113.665, "text": "Yes, uh Chris Marchuk, panel sixty-four.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2114.905, "end": 2145.685, "text": "Thank you, Chris. We'll uh ask for one more name. 65? Okay, come on down, please. Great. So we have uh three people here in the chamber with us. And we have Catherine, Rick, and Chris on the line, and that will be our panel. So I'll ask uh just the folks who are in the chamber here with us. You can approach uh one by one, maybe in the the order that you're seated. And if you don't mind, just state your name, please, as well as which panel number you want.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2148.205, "end": 2151.825, "text": "I'm Rob Miller and I'm in panel 60 and I have a presentation.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2154.845, "end": 2158.045, "text": "Please uh mute if you're not the current speaker. Great. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 2158.205, "end": 2158.585, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2158.585, "end": 2159.705, "text": "Thank you, Rob. Please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2159.945, "end": 2447.405, "text": "Thank you, Council. I live in Ward 1 in the community of Boness, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Calgary Climate Hub. Next slide, please. So the zoning bylaw is about density, affordability, sprawl, but it's also about tree canopy. So Calgary averages about 8% tree canopy, and some communities in the city are less than 2%. Next slide. The RCG blanket rezoning actually requires more trees on high density properties than low density. About four to five trees versus two for a single detached property. Tree requirements in the land use bylaw can be met by planting in an adjacent boulevard, which doesn't really appear to be happening in my neighborhood. And they can also be met by preserving existing trees on development lots. And again, that's really not a typical thing that happens. Developers usually take down most of the trees on the property. So density in the city prevents sprawl, and that results in less forests being lost to development in the outer edges of the city. Next slide. So RCG, it needs work, but we should support it with improvements. So the RCG tree requirements are double those for a single detached home, which you would find in like R1. They're also more than a R2. Zoning, there's higher tree requirements for RCG. And if we're gonna hit the city's target of 16% tree canopy, we need to get more trees on private property. The land available for tree planting is 30% city owned and 70% privately owned. So that's why it's really important to get more trees on private land. Now, multi-unit infills under RCG don't appear to be meeting the land use bylaw requirements anyway, and so I'm curious why that happens. And also, developers removing trees on a lot. It happens where they take out all the trees, but this is happening both for multi unit properties as well as single detached homes. Next slide, please. So this is just an example of a four unit townhouse that has six trees on the property and a single detached home across the street. This is in South Calgary, and it doesn't have any. Trees on that street. Next slide. So let's talk about solutions. You know, we can monitor and enforce the tree requirements that exist. That would be an improvement. But when tree requirements aren't met, trees should be planted elsewhere in the community. All removed trees from a property should be replaced somewhere. Next slide. So there were recommendations by the administration in response to notice of motion EC 2024 374, and that included incentivizing the preservation of existing trees. Increasing the tree planting requirements from what we already have, and improving site design measures, and that's things like increasing the amount of soil and mulch that has to put down, has to be put down for the trees when you're planting them. Next slide. There's very strong public support for more trees in Calgary. 98% of Calgaryans say trees are important. 96% want to protect mature trees. 82% want Calgary's tree canopy increased. Next slide. The RCG land use bylaw should also include requirements to address tree equity. Neighborhoods to the north of Nose Hill, Wards 2 and 3, as well as those to the east, wards 5, 9, 10, and 12, have low tree canopy and corresponding low tree equity scores. The land use bylaw could be two tier with higher requirements for prioritized wards and communities. Next slide. So, this is my favorite example of two neighborhoods built in the 80s with a stark contrast in tree canopy. Terra Lake is in the northeast, Mackenzie Lake is in the south, and it's it's very clear that there's quite a disparity in the tree cover. Next slide. So I leave you with this. Is the land use bylaw tree requirement helping neighborhoods with low tree canopy? Why are multi unit infill developments not meeting the existing tree requirements? And fixing RCG is an opportunity to include measures to double Calgary's tree canopy. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 40 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2448.565, "end": 2457.825, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll ask uh our next presenter in the chamber to to please approach. If you don't mind just letting us know your name and uh panel number.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2459.005, "end": 2799.325, "text": "Good morning. My name's Jim Sterling. I'm a resident of Ward 7. Um, I have a set of slides that I submitted. It's three slides. There we go. Yeah, so I'm against the repeal of blanket rezoning, but I'm feeling it's insufficient to address the inner city needs. Um on the left, there's a graphic there which I um got when I was researching my candidates' positions on this issue, and this came from Mike Atkinson's office. Thank you, Mike, for allowing me permission to show this. Um Ward 7 and Ward 8, property tax revenue per capita, driven by land value, basically. Inner city, land is valuable. Blanket rezoning works in Ward 7. I've seen lots of raw housing, fourplexes. I haven't seen a great deal of people in my neighborhood objecting to that. I've seen it accommodated, I like it. But Ward 7 remains relatively less affordable, in other words, because the land value is so high. What I'm seeing is a lot of one and two-bedroom condo and rental apartments of ever greater height. That's the wrong kind of density for me. And I think it's the wrong kind of density for the majority of the people living in the world that I know. And what do I mean by that? A real community, to my mind, a real community has diversity in demography. And what we get here is we get. Single people and retired people, that's not the entire demography of a good community. It requires the whole demo demography that we would like. And also residential taxpayer immunity is being eaten away. So the solution I say is to invest to increase inner city land availability for housing and greater residential immunity. And what I mean by that is increase the land supply by targeting underutilized and vacant sites, and the city can capture the land value through that investment and gain an investment return. Second slide. Yeah, so um we've heard talk about the the go the donut of decline. I know that as Tim bits of trauma. Um what do I mean by that? Well, let's have a look at the Grace Hospital site. Being marketed as Kensington Yards, which is on 14th Street, just east, sorry, west of 14th Street. On the bottom left is a scale model of the proposal which the developer is seeking a land use change application for. So he's not applying for development. He just wants a land use change from what was laid out in the local area plan. That features a number of very tall condos, 36, 38 story condos, as I pointed out at the public meeting that was held two weeks ago. You could zip line from the top of the 38 story condo and land on the top of the Jubilee auditorium roof, and you'd have an exciting ride. That's not appropriate. It's over 2,000 residential units on a 2.8 hectare footprint developed over 10 to 20 years. A number of years ago, the city put forward the West Village mixed-use proposal on the Canada Creosote site that I've been researching thoroughly over the last year, associated with another application in my community. It was mooted to accommodate 12,000 residents on 18 hectares, but it's environmentally contaminated, has been so for many years, and that contamination has leaked underneath through the bedrock into the Hillhurst community, and nothing really has been done to solve that challenge. So we have underutilized land and the thing standing in the way in some cases is cleaning it up to make it usable for residential purposes. The reason why Kensington Yards is proposed is because it's not environmentally contaminated land. So last slide. Conclusions recommendations. Higher density development is beneficial for Calgary, but where density increases, which density, which citizens benefit, and what benefits are required is crucial for communities in inner city. The inner city has significant area of underutilized land, including contaminated, environmentally contaminated sites, out on surface parking lots. So again, recommend invest to increase inner city availability for housing and residential amenity, increase the land supply, targeting underutilized and vacant sites, use land value capture, which provides the city with an investment return. You really are in the inner city now the developer of last resort. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 50 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2800.485, "end": 2804.165, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go to our third uh individual here in the chamber.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2811.005, "end": 2813.985, "text": "I had a slide as well. I was on panel 59.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 2815.865, "end": 2818.005, "text": "Sorry, could you repeat your name and uh panel number?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 2818.005, "end": 3133.405, "text": "Sorry about that. Brendan David, panel 59. Yeah, there we go. Okay. So, yeah, hello, my name is uh Brendan David. Thanks for uh listening, Counsel. Again, I'm on panel 59. I'm a professional in the buildings industry. I work across Western Canada. My wife is a teacher, and uh, we have a three-year-old. We reside in Ward 7, Mount Pleasant, so one of the areas with the highest amounts of blanket rezoning permits, as well as redevelopment permits under the prior framework. I'm here today to ask council to uh please continue to support uh citywide missing middle zoning. Do not repeal the citywide zoning, continue to move forward. I'm in favor of the proposed amendments, and I think those will help, but I don't think we should stop there. A repeal of blanket rezoning to the prior framework is just that. It is going backward. It's going backward at a time when we have over a billion dollars worth of critical infrastructure listed in poor condition. And it's going backward at a time where this council is supposed to welcome potentially the two millionth resident at the end of term. So I'm also here to be at a bridge. Within a few blocks of us, there's already been significant development under both of the frameworks. So many in opposition have talked about what could happen. I'm here to talk about what has happened. I'm here to provide feedback on how that development went so we can further improve the policy. So again, to be a thousand percent clear, my position is keep citywide zoning, just make it better. Start with amendments, look for more improvements, and I repeat improvements, not uh exclusions, not exemptions for certain areas or groups. Next slide. Uh yeah, I'm here to advocate for better rules. If we do that, we'll see uh even better outcomes and further reduce opposition. So I think we're missing a golden opportunity to really leverage this density. And I'm gonna use the you know carrot and stick analogy. Next slide. Um yeah, where are the carrots? Where are the sticks? When I I had the same comment in the initial hearings a few years ago, my biggest criticism is around the parcel coverage, and I uh completely agree with the amendment to reduce the max coverage to 55%. But um I don't think that should be for everybody. We don't need to incentivize density to that highest level because density is the incentive for a developer. So, you know, and what about our other goals, whether that's efficiency, barrier free access, um, heritage uh retrof heritage protections, as well as uh tree coverage. Next slide. So I'm going to chat about this in the context of a few projects I've seen. I'm going to use the dreaded Aplex, but I have actually seen a diversity of build forms, and I can certainly speak to that. So 98% of the projects I'd say are here. They're kind of okay to good. Build quality is myth. There's some okay contextual setback matching, some not so much. And you know, 98% are going to end up exactly here unless we make more improvements. So yeah, it's middle density, so that helps, but I think it misses the point of uh some of the finer points of the greater housing strategy. So it's currently set, you know, a developer can do the bare minimum and get the maximum profit. And to me that doesn't really make any sense. So next slide. Now, I have seen a few glimmers of hope, but to my knowledge, a lot of those have come from some of uh grant programs, national incentives, and that's not good enough. So this was a good example where you know I think there's a bit more scale matching, so I like that in the proposed amendments. There's actually quite a bit of original tree retention there as well. Uh next slide. I've even spotted the occasional unicorn. So here's two project examples where They're adding density in a meaningful way. The builders are based in that community, so they actually care about the outcomes as much as the residents. They included some larger setbacks. They also built to a very high efficiency standard, so you can see the exterior insulation on the bottom left. And that included measured and verifiable targets. There is zero incentive for builders to take those measures. And I think that's uh I think we can do a lot better. Next slide. So, how do we create space for outcomes beyond just the bare minimum? And how do we balance the density we need with some of our other goals while addressing some of the legitimate concerns raised? And I think the answer is already there. We use the parcel coverage, but I challenge council and city admin to leverage it better. So just kind of rough examples, not to scale or anything, but you know, left to right, the idea is you get to unlock that higher parcel coverage and the additional units and profits that come with it when you incorporate more of our goals. So whether that's airtightness, barrier free design. So again, adding density, but we're also encouraging a stronger blend of outcomes and a better blend of affordability. Next slide. Talking to some concerns. Next slide again. You know, we love our single detached homes in the city. That's not going to change. What I will say is that under the prior framework, I saw far worse examples and worse and bad actors. So yeah, I'm sorry, but you know, prior, our prior single family zoning does not guarantee the existing form, and it's not going to save your garden from shade. People are not tearing down bungalows and then putting in additional bungalows or new single story builds.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 3133.625, "end": 3135.245, "text": "Thank you so much. You're just a time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 3135.245, "end": 3138.305, "text": "Yeah. Happy to speak to the amendments as well. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 3138.305, "end": 3150.505, "text": "Appreciate you being here. I had only three people in the chamber who uh raised their hand. Is there a fourth presenter there? Okay. And you're on panels one through uh 66?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 3151.025, "end": 3153.345, "text": "Yes, Tim Bacon, panel 62.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 3153.525, "end": 3154.445, "text": "Yep. Thank you, Tim.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 3156.205, "end": 3454.965, "text": "Mayor Farkas, Councillors, City Staff. My family are longtime Calgarians who combined have lived in many different communities, every quadrant, and most types of dwellings. We currently reside in a modest bungalow in a diverse Ward 8 community. Two years ago, we advocated for more moderate measured zoning amendments than those actually enacted. Hopefully, this rewritten presentation is not too redundant relative to the many fine and much more expert submissions that you heard last week and also this morning. It is evident that the council is faced with quite a challenge. As we see it, the major factors now at play include A. Calgary's recent record housing ads have been driven by the large rental and condo projects undertaken by major developers. This has raised supply and helped ease prices. These node and corridor builds would have proceeded under prior zoning and the MDP framework. B, recent smaller-scale builds enabled by the 2024 amendments, wherein 6 to 12 units have replaced a single dwelling, have largely targeted mid priced older neighborhoods. As predicted, their visibly excessive sizing and lot coverage has created negative impacts to tree cover, drainage setbacks, and especially parking. To paraphrase my favorite Stampede Wrestling performer, Tor Kamata, too much, too much, Mr. Whalen. C. A strident and vociferous urbanist activist cohort adamantly oppose the proposed repeal and seem, unfortunately, quite dismissive of the views of anyone with a detached house and car. Despite our climate rigors and blue sky city space preferences, they somehow see Calgary becoming the Paris of the Prairies. On the other hand, a sizable segment of homeowners rigidly oppose any appreciable change to their communities and seem content to bury their heads in the sand. D. Confidence in city planning has plummeted, an unfortunate trend largely attributed to reams of good faith, public input, and consultation being summarily overlooked and unincorporated. E. Many young Calgarians are understandably daunted by their personal housing prospects. However, they desire a quick solution without realistic consideration of basic supply demand economics, new building costs, government finances, and personal budgeting. F, there is an undoubted substantial need for additional subsidized social housing to aid the disadvantaged and struggling residents of our city. Non market housing ads have not kept up with Calgary growth. During my undergraduate studies in urban land economics, the wizened tenured profs repeatedly reminded us that what they termed the use and abuse of land was complex, complicated, and swarming with competing interests. In our opinion, the 2024 zoning amendments fell within the abuse portion. Thus, we support the repeal of the 2024 amendments with a moratorium on new permits to be followed by a reset emanating from a fulsome and transparent review involving public and expert input. From the many presentations to council, we saw good merit in the following suggestions. A. The input of credible, unbiased outside experts to the zoning review stage. I think it was outlined very explicitly by Ms. Evans a couple days or last week prior to the next rezoning reset. B reduced LAP sizes to ensure effective early consideration of community input, distinctive neighborhood character context, and local infrastructure capacities. C. Negative and positive incentives regarding undeveloped properties held for speculation and for stalled builds. D. Quicken the utilization of excess city lands held for housing. E. Enhance building inspection resources to ensure timely and complete bylaw compliance and enforcement by builders. F Engage with the builders on development process streamlining. And G decisively enhance ads to social housing supply, both directly and with response in conjunction with responsible nonprofits. Overall, council need to find a solution to gently add density without changing the face of Calgary neighborhoods. We wish you luck in your upcoming decisions. Thanks for your time and attention.", "segments_merged": 50 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 3456.065, "end": 3464.905, "text": "Thank you so much for being here with us. We'll uh continue our panel uh with Catherine on 62, then Rick after that. Uh please go ahead, Catherine.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 3466.305, "end": 3468.885, "text": "Awesome, thank you. Just confirming you can hear me okay?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 3469.205, "end": 3470.005, "text": "Yep, loud and clear.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 3471.225, "end": 3777.645, "text": "Excellent. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Catherine Wzinski on panel 62, and I'm an impacted homeowner in Meadowlark Park in Ward 11. Just like a recent speaker, I am part of Calgary's Future in the 30 something category with a young family. I am here to speak in favor of the repeal of blanket rezoning. I was in person on Friday morning, but lots of people had the same idea. So I thank you for the opportunity to call in from work between meetings. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to Council again on the topic of blanket rezoning and appreciate the level of engagement that Council is taking with Calgarians for the public hearing on this topic. Most of us are here to speak on what we feel is best for our city. So I would like to start with a couple things that I think makes Calgary unique. First, affordability. I was born and raised on the West Coast and have lived in Calgary for the past 10 years. I made the decision to move to Calgary from Vancouver for affordable living, in particular, so that I could eventually be able to afford a single family detached dwelling. Calgary is still one of the most affordable major cities in Canada. In comparison to what my childhood friends and colleagues in Vancouver can afford, it is astounding what my husband and I were able to purchase in close proximity to downtown Calgary. The second point, prior to 2024, was Calgary's incredible urban planning. Throughout Calgary's history, communities have been thoughtfully set up throughout the city. They are conscientiously designed with specific character and amenities. In the case of new perimeter communities, density is carefully contemplated with single family homes, duplexes, row houses, and higher densities spread throughout the community. Growth in this manner is planned in tandem with road development like ringroads and schooling needs for the growing population. So let's come to blanket rezoning. I think this has created a lose lose scenario for Calgaryans. From what I can see, people who are in favor of the blanket rezoning are not getting the affordability they are seeking, and existing homeowners are having their implicit property value compromised due to the uncertainty about what can be built next to them. So let's look at the Calgary uniqueness under the lens of blanket rezoning. Affordability. When my husband and I bought our first home two years ago, we were surprised to see that newer duplexes or infills on smaller lots were often more expensive than detached older bungalows within the same community or neighboring communities. When looking at older homes on larger zoned lots for increased density, we saw increased competition for purchase. This included developers, causing them to sell for significantly above asking. These patterns have become more frequent in the past few years. We have seen that density under blanket rezoning is coming in the form of shiny, costly involves or multiplexes, driving up neighborhood prices. Careful urban planning. With blanket rezoning, we have turned over the thoughtful planning our city is known for to many individual for profit developers. They now decide where and when density occurs. And with many individuals at play, there's no coordination. We have seen this impact of unplanned densification around us. Streets being repeatedly dug up to tie into sewers, density not supported by the right school cybers or public amenities. Existing homeowners are not incentivized to update their older bungalows because tomorrow a three story multiplex could be towering over them. I am very much in support of growth and densification, but I still ask this council to repeal blanket rezoning. Let's have an evolution, not a revolution, and get back to our thoughtful local area plans based on their original land use bylaws. What I implore council to consider is plan development that complements the character and diversity of our existing neighborhoods without a blanket one size fits all approach. Target vacant lands like the Anthem Property Lot in Earlton. Target main thoroughfares. Target transit hubs and corridors. Target lots or roads adjacent to existing multi-story or higher density development that complement the character and context of that area. Consider aspects and grades that limit sunlight impact on offsetting lots and support solar development. Plan for and commit to building affordable and non market housing. Properly finish what you started with local area plans and move densification forward responsibly. Confucius says the person who moves a mountain begins by carrying away one stone. I have counseled to continue to support the beautiful diversity of our blue sky city through carefully planned development. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 34 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 3778.525, "end": 3784.565, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll we'll go to Rick on 63 now, and then Chris on 64 afterwards. Please go ahead, Rick.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 3786.285, "end": 4066.905, "text": "Good morning, your worship and council members. My name is Rick Miller, Panel 63, and I live in Altidor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I'm in support of repealing blanket rezoning. However, I do support some changes that uh I I doubt I'll have enough time to speak to in my five minutes. Blanket rezoning has been a failure. It has not contributed significantly to the drop in housing prices, to the increase in overall housing supply, or to the supply of affordable housing. Calgary is fortunate to have a robust, capable, and dependable residential development industry. That's why by the time Council approved blanket rezoning, the industry had already started to address the shortage, resulting in record numbers of housing supply and thereby reducing prices and rental rates. Blanket rezoning developments did not play a significant role in this. The strong development industry existed before blanket rezoning and will continue to exist if it is repealed. The city does need to encourage and make it easier to develop areas that are appropriate for multifamily housing and needs to ensure there are enough multifamily appropriate areas to meet the short and medium term demand. If so, developers will continue to build enough new multifamily housing to meet that demand. Blanket rezoning increases the value of all single family homes in a neighborhood, including the most affordable oral older, fixer upper single family homes that are suitable for many buyers. Unfortunately, these are often the homes that developers buy and take off the market to build more expensive townhomes. Apparently, blanket resoring has reduced approval time, resulting in lower housing prices. Simply put, rather than making it easier and faster to build townhouses where they are unsuitable, council should make it easier and faster to build them where they are suitable. Some think that blanket resorning solves affordability and supply issues for seniors, disabled, disadvantaged, and the homeless, but it does not do this. The city has a housing strategy to address these issues and should strive to do more to address these needs. In my education and work in urban planning, one of the guiding principles was to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips and increase transit trips and pedestrian traffic. Blanket rezoning does the opposite. Blanket rezoning creates negative impacts on health, safety, and the environment. By its nature, it introduces more homes into the interior of residential neighborhoods rather than to the periphery. This creates more vehicle trips, longer vehicle trips, as cars wind their way through residential streets to exit the neighborhood and continue on to their destinations. This increase in vehicle activity not only increases noise and air pollution, but it also increases the risk of pedestrian accidents. These are the very streets and sidewalks where our children play, ride their bikes, play street hockey, walk to school, etc. Add to this streets lined with more parked cars, and we are destined to have more vehicle pedestrian conflicts. There have been several times when I was driving down a residential street and had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting a small child running between parked cars and out onto the street. Our city is experiencing an alarming increase in pedestrian injuries and deaths, and I believe blanket rezoning will most certainly increase this risk. Blanket rezoning has been the single most controversial, impactful, and divisive policy I can remember in the 47 years I've lived in Calgary. Council should not dismiss the impact of stress and anxiety that blanket rezoning has caused for many Calgarians. This has created great division within our city and many with the uncertainty and fear that a townhouse may be built next to them. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I believe the council, in some small way, is in a position to heal our community by repealing blanket rezoning and replacing it with a more moderate and gentle change, and also by escalating non market housing initiatives. There's been a myth about loss in tax revenue if blanket rezoning were repealed. Supply and demand dictates that without blanket rezoning, a townhouse that would have been built in RCG would be built and pay tax in a different location anyway. I've also seen statistics claiming to show how inefficient and costly Calgary has been in building services and utilities compared to other large Canadian cities, but this is not a valid comparison. The entire developed area of the city of Calgary is contained within its city boundaries. This is not true for Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, where the city boundaries contain only the small, higher density, inner city portion of the larger urban area. All things considered, the many benefits of blanket rezoning far outweigh the few advantages of keeping it. I believe blanket rezoning is the right thing to do. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 29 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 4069.125, "end": 4073.265, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go now to Chris on 64 to conclude this panel.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4076.985, "end": 4087.805, "text": "Uh hello. Uh my name is Chris Marchak. Um I live in Ward thirteen uh with Dan McLean. And uh I thank Dan for his truth and his common sense that he brings to the", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 4087.805, "end": 4088.445, "text": "I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4088.445, "end": 4402.625, "text": "I'm I I I have to uh I just my presentation Sir I just have to jump in. Calgary's planning uh that has been I has been put forward in the past where blanket rezoning is an initiative that was born out of the controversial climate change narrative and climate resilient. Housing types and net zero goals. We need to back up the bus a bit here. Somehow, over the recent past, a troubling agenda existed to subdue taxpayers and to elevate municipal government to a new level above the people of Calgary. I suspect if this has not changed, there will be many more issues submitted by taxpayers. We would not be here. If our city listened to the people when it came to ridding our city of densification rezoning agenda, our troubles are far greater than blanket rezoning. The democratic process was broken. Additionally, funding for rezoning that came from federal government was illegal and broke the Alberta government Bill 18. As well, the City of Calgary did not ask taxpayers to spend $650 million over the past three years on climate change initiatives, nor, I suspect, did they do their due diligence in reviewing the premise behind the climate crisis narrative or the abhorrent expenditures associated with it. The agenda along with those who promoted it in Calgary had nothing to do with democracy and the will of the people, and everything to do with worldwide dictatorial motive by a small group of oligarchs who see an opportunity to control all municipalities and countries in the world, including the city of Calgary. It's not a conspiracy. Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, the New World Order, Smart Cities, 15 Minute Cities, Net Zero, ICLE, Local Governments for Sustainability, Partners for Climate Protection, Federation of Municipalities, Committee of 340, One World Government, Tents of attempts of strong mayors with the WEF, the WHO, the IMF, the BIS, the UN, and many, many more who have incentivized stakeholders, municipalities, and countries to follow their orders or be dismissed. Our city is under attack. Those heading this agenda are the same people who said in the 1960s that we'd we would run out of oil soon. Polar bears would be extinct. The ozone layer would burn up the world. Sea levels would rise, and cities on the ocean front would be underwater. And we basically have never seen any of that happen. And of course, now Those same people are talking about climate change, and it's going to destroy the planet if we don't take drastic measures. Measures that are not or that are not accepted by the largest polluters in the world, India and China, nor climate experts. You'll find that the very experts who had been called upon for their expertise in the past, when they did not follow the accepted climate agenda, are not funded or relied upon now. The message was loud and clear. Follow the agenda we have, and you will be promoted, paid, and accepted. And within a few years, experts were never respected and a new climate model was put in place. Not real evidence, but models, models that have failed for decades and are failing now. I seriously warn Council, what we've seen is a means where corporations have been taking the reins of municipalities. If the direction of the City of Calgary doesn't feel right or natural, it is because it's driven by unelected nongovernmental organizations and corporations, not taxpayers or the council. As one Councillor stated last year, no one knew where climate emergency came from, and I quote, we still haven't seen the declaration of that, climate emergency, and counselors had to learn about it on social media. And as much as the City of Calgary councillors were not aware of the climate crisis agenda, neither were anyone, including myself and any other taxpayers, yet stakeholders, who, as non-governmental entities without any accountability to our city, have a model of profit and control over the city of Calgary, as we see right now. Who's in control? Non-governmental unelected stakeholders? The City of Calgary? Taxpayers? Not only do I think it is necessary to rescind the blanket rezoning initiative, but it is imperative the City Council review the climate change crisis model and make local decisions that do not include paying nongovernmental stakeholders hundreds of millions of dollars and do nothing to change the climate. We need to admit we were played. I request a review of the Paris Accord, ICLE, the PCP programs, and others that were needlessly crippling our city budget and elevating taxpayer property taxes, removing the enough sir, you're just a time hundred and fifty million dollars in non-envelopmental taxes.", "segments_merged": 20 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 4402.625, "end": 4402.905, "text": "conclude.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4402.905, "end": 4405.005, "text": "That could have paid the average Calgary property. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 4406.325, "end": 4417.945, "text": "Thank you so much for being with us. That concludes this panel. We're going to go to Councillor Atkinson, please. Oh, Councillor Dallywell. I apologize.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4418.405, "end": 4473.965, "text": "Thanks, Mayor. I just got a question for first Mr. Rob Miller. Since we are on the repeal, I gotta be very careful how I put this question because I don't want to start talking about off-topic trees. Um what uh so my question is but pretty much there was another speaker the other day. Um there's a there's a pressure of housing plus trees and all that. Every, in your opinion, every RCG that is going into inner city that has an old tree canopy, we are ripping out on average three to four houses. You think Uh what would your solution be? There gotta be some sort of a replacement ratio in place in land use. Is there should be a requirement to put certain trees? I just want to understand uh moving forward what could be done differently.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4475.125, "end": 4536.005, "text": "Yeah, so I think obviously we want to try and replace those trees, and there are provisions within the RCG land use bylaw to do that. But what I'm seeing is it's not always being followed. So one thing is to enforce the rules that are already there. But often you get more trees being removed than even the bylaw covers. So I would propose that you do an inventory before those trees are taken down. And that they are required to be replaced, uh whether it's on boulevards, like there is a uh a recommendation to plant them on boulevards in the area, but even public spaces. Like there's a lot of uh municipal parks where you could be planting these trees where they don't have a lot of trees right now. Um so basically it's we should be trying to preserve what's there. as well as replanting when they're taken down.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4536.525, "end": 4544.385, "text": "I I think you made a great point that um we are maybe taking four trees out, and bylaw is requiring us to plant just one.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4544.625, "end": 4544.945, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4544.945, "end": 4582.965, "text": "So net loss is negative. And one thing I I'm not a big supporter of is landscape relaxations. So my other question is this is RCG, this is happening. What is your opinion about new growth communities? Because you show Terra Dale. Again, I want to be very careful that I stay on the topic. Tree canopy in my ward is 1.86 or even less. How do we make sure that we are addressing those concerns and though that kind of development that is happening on the on the suburbs that where we are not getting enough trees? Again, through bylaw?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4584.025, "end": 4600.025, "text": "I I think it would be appropriate to do that through bylaw. I think the uh the administration uh Calvary Parks and Urban Forestry um should have some good ideas on how that can be done but they need direction they they need direction to say we want this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4601.325, "end": 4609.485, "text": "Yeah, I totally agree. I think we need to look at that aspect in the our land use bylaw. Thank you for answering my questions. My next question is for Mr. Sterling.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4609.485, "end": 4609.945, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4609.985, "end": 4642.305, "text": "Thank you. We'll stay in touch. You made a great point about lands in our city that are sitting there, vacant lands. Do you, in your opinion, Do you think creating a residential subclass of in our property tax about these lands would be a good idea so we can we can incentivize development of these lands rather than them sitting there and uh whoever invested waiting for appreciation of these lands?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4644.085, "end": 4669.825, "text": "I guess I'm not I'm not familiar enough with the idea. My basic point was you have underutilized land that's virtually worth nothing. You invest in it, you make it worth something, you're going to make a profit when you turn it over to development, and then you're going to make a profit on all the additional tax revenue that you acquire. So that ought to be a pretty commercial.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4670.025, "end": 4671.565, "text": "These are public lands you're talking about.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4672.005, "end": 4707.585, "text": "You own the city own Canada Creosote site. You guys manage the creosote contamination. You've spent millions of dollars trying to manage it and it hasn't entirely worked. So you're actually spending money for no value. And you even bought more land there as part of your 2016 concepts for the potential redevelopment of the Flames Arena, which was going to be put over there at one point. You spent $30 million trying to buy more of that land, I believe, in 2016. So it's just a huge sinkhole of capital.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4708.765, "end": 4716.465, "text": "Yeah, my other question is um are you I think in in your presentation you said do not repeal this bylaw.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4716.785, "end": 4729.425, "text": "Right. But but toughen it up for inner city where we're getting overdensification due to these large condo developments going into areas that are not appropriate when there's land lying vacant that's more appropriate.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4729.885, "end": 4760.385, "text": "But my question is there's weakened land that you're saying we could utilize. But the question here is that we heard from residents, they do not like the fact. Like uh there was a one caller who said uh it leads to uh prices in the neighborhood going up and maybe affordable housing now becoming non affordable because there's speculators, people who want to buy. The the issue we are hearing is demolishing an existing house and making it into four units, six units. That's the problem, not the weakened lands. How do you how do you respond to that argument?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4760.385, "end": 4776.065, "text": "My thinking is that it's not an apples for apples comparison, right? Like if i if it's costing more per unit than it used to, it's costing more per unit everywhere because land values are going up.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4776.525, "end": 4806.865, "text": "Yeah, because my thing is uh if if this bylaw has become so divisive in our city, there's other 97 action items in home is here strategy, and one of the things that you are talking about is definitely in there using city lands to incentivize development uh along nodes, uh TOD, and all stuff. So just I just wanted to understand the relationship why you're s against repealing when your argument is focused more on city owned lands that could be incentivized for development.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4807.005, "end": 4851.745, "text": "Yeah, I mean I'm I'm very focused on inner city. I don't think the inner city gets enough attention, so I'm gonna be talking about the inner city, right? I have seen arguments about other areas which are perhaps more um More appealing. But I just want to say though that the inner city was the first communities developed in the city. You know, to some extent, why I think blanket rezoning has worked to an extent is because we've already gone through one, two infill redevelopments over the years because we were there in the early 1900s.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4851.845, "end": 4854.585, "text": "Okay, great. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4854.625, "end": 4855.185, "text": "You're welcome.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 4855.225, "end": 4886.985, "text": "My last question is for just one question for Mr. Brandon, David Brandon. Oh, by the way, there was a norm in previous council that the administration is going to bring some recommendations this year about creating subclasses on some of the residential properties that are sitting vacant and stuff. Yeah, David, simple question. You said make rules better. There's an amendment, recommendation number four, that is talking about changing RCG rules. What is your opinion about that, please, if you don't mind from your based on your experience?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 4886.985, "end": 5002.505, "text": "Yeah, totally. Um is it possible to bring the slides up again? It would be slide number 11. Could I kind of comment on those specifically a little bit? Hopefully that's somewhat uh uh visible. So yeah, the biggest one I guess would be the you know parcel coverage, which we talked about. Um I think we could leverage that better. Um A big thing with the opposition has obviously been the contextual requirements. I think that's an easy win. We go back to some contextual requirements, whether it's setback as well as height, that seems to be one of the most contentious items. So I'm in favor of the change there. When it comes to the three units plus three units, this might have to be something builders kind of weigh in on a little bit more. But one of the issues I could possibly see there is that you change your uh building. Code requirement from part three to part nine. And actually, this kind of relates to Councillor Kelly when he was chatting with a person about RCG and how it you know plays out in a neighborhood. You know, is it all just a plexus? And in reality, I haven't seen that. I kind of made sure I drove home and I was thinking about it. And part of that is because builders will kind of stick with what they know well. So some builders are continuing to do duplex, some can are continuing to do single detached, like literally on my street or not on my street, but the street over. All new builds at the corner, yes, you have a larger um uh kind of row house. But then in between, you have two semi-detached, new, and then a new infill. So when it comes to the three plus three, one of the issues could be that yeah, you go from part three to part um part nine, which is a lot more onerous. So if you went to maybe like a f a four layout plus leverage the suites, how many suites you get out of that, that actually might um work a little better, in my opinion. But uh I'm not a builder myself, so.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 5002.585, "end": 5007.005, "text": "Okay. Um just uh four plus two. What is that? Four plus two, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5007.005, "end": 5052.985, "text": "Sorry, that would be four. So right now one of the amendments would be to be like a three units plus three suites. And from a building code perspective, and with uh with fire separation in particular, when you go from a semi detached to then row houses, you end up triggering some higher requirements for fire separation. So I think when it comes to like saying people would be able to build sixplexes, I think there might be some complications there. A builder could speak to this better, but it might be easier to stick with a row house of four Macs, but then You're leveraging the amount of uh suites that are allowed. So the total units would still be six, but it would be like four townhouses plus two suites max versus three up, three down.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 5053.065, "end": 5061.525, "text": "Yeah, that's gonna be a problem. How do you manage that through uh through approvals? Because that could become discriminatory, right? Like who's getting those two suites?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5063.465, "end": 5093.005, "text": "Fair. I mean, I I again I my my thing is we have other goals, so attach other goals to it. I mean, the you know uh provincial government has said we we cannot ask to build anything but the minimum. So we can't ask for higher requirements, but we can certainly incentivize and ask for incentives to. You know, um okay, you get those two suites when you are doing something, whether it's original tree retention or a higher tree replacement ratio or more setback matching.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 5093.445, "end": 5096.965, "text": "Okay. No, great. Thank you for answering my questions. That's it for me, Mayor. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5097.545, "end": 5099.065, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 5099.625, "end": 5102.925, "text": "Uh Mr. Bacon, please. Timothy Bacon. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5105.385, "end": 5123.485, "text": "Appreciated your presentation. Uh getting into some of the nuances there. You spoke to the um potentially having negative implications for vacancy installed builds, if I think I caught it right, um, as one of the potential carrots and sticks uh in in the overall suite. Can you speak?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5123.485, "end": 5193.085, "text": "Yeah, I think there's a lot of empty land lots around. Certainly within six blocks of our house, I could count seven empty lots. I think the one down at uh 38th and 14th Street has been empty for 12, 13 years. There's a number of stalled builds I've seen around and during my walks between our house and Glenmore Park, say. I think there's got to be both the carrot but also the stick as to uh having these put back into inventory. Um some are kept by major develop renovation developers uh to sell to somebody who wants to put up the bigger house because if they're making their 16%. They make a lot more money on a 4,000 square foot house going up than uh a 1,500 square foot bungalow. Uh so the incentive to get those lands back into housing uh I think is something that should be considered.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5193.765, "end": 5210.805, "text": "Great. Is there a certain mechanism you you're thinking about when it comes to that or or just something to put to administration and sort of have them explore that? I I agree that it's something that I I see in my neighborhoods in Ward 7, but just wondered if you had a specific thought in mind.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5211.345, "end": 5222.665, "text": "Well, maybe as an ex banker I kind of tend towards the uh stick side. And I thought uh accelerating property taxes on uh lots that are unused, uh undeveloped.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5223.045, "end": 5223.265, "text": "Great.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5223.265, "end": 5229.005, "text": "Is something that could be considered. I don't know what rate you would increase it, but it seems something pretty simple.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5229.665, "end": 5255.845, "text": "That's fair. And just out of curiosity, is there uh a level of um of housing like by right that you think should be permitted use that you think then maybe doesn't won't have the public backlash? Is like is there a certain point at which you think uh by right every every lot in the city could go to this and not have the sort of public backlash that we've seen towards the townhomes and rural homes?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5256.105, "end": 5275.745, "text": "For fear of getting backlash from my neighbors, I think when you're talking exempt on RC1, you want a number minimum three, but not four. And that includes all units, not this funny suite that isn't considered a dwelling.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5275.885, "end": 5294.185, "text": "Fair. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Um I could if I could speak to Jim Sterling, please, for a second. You mentioned at the end of your presentation land value capture. Uh and I was wondering, y I know that means different things to different people in conversations that I've had. What does that mean to you?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5295.165, "end": 5371.505, "text": "It means to me that if there's a piece of underutilized land that for the want of some investment could be then used for residential development, then there are some cases where the city should step in because it's beyond the capability of any given developer to make that investment. So when I said the city is the developer of last resort, there are some lands for which the city should intervene and can probably make money through upgrading the value in its investment. And the Canada Creosote site would be one, the Sears site would be another where there's a gasoline plume. And the fact that you're seeing developments like the Kensington Yard proposal is an indication that developers are not prepared to go to those contaminated sites, even though you know they've previously been slated for development, because they don't have the depth of capital to invest to clean it up. And given that the city owns some of this land, and if they don't own it, the province has ownership, then there's room for the province and the city to collaborate on this. So it's effective use of government to free up the market to work.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5373.065, "end": 5424.245, "text": "Perfect. That's great. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And finally, Robert Miller, please. You in your presentation, you talked about sort of the loss of tree canopy, which is something we're seeing for sure with redevelopment. But you also noted that we're seeing it not just with uh you know row houses and townhouses, but singles and semis as well, and that there is actually a difference in terms of the requirements for what the end result is for. Town homes and row homes compared to singles and semis. Can you speak a bit to what you think a more equitable end result would be to sort of have with the various built forms that we are having in sort of low, you know, low residential, what you think would be a better way to sort of pursue maintaining and growing our tree canopy in the city?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5425.045, "end": 5484.085, "text": "Yeah definitely thank you for that question. So I I believe that the tree requirement should be the same regardless of whether if it's a low density or high density. Obviously, with high density, maybe you you don't have the area to to plant the required number of trees. So then you need to take care of that in a different way. But with a uh you know a a low density development, there's no reason why it should require less trees than a high density development. That that just doesn't make any sense to me. So um and then in terms of uh Equity, um, you know, if you have neighborhoods where there's less than two percent tree canopy, then there should be a focused effort on planting more trees there. And and this is needs to happen on private property as well. So that that's why the land use bylaw is a mechanism for making sure that happens.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5484.805, "end": 5509.205, "text": "I appreciate it. It's we've been hearing things about some of the extra costs that come in with RCG townhome development and things like replacing the sidewalk, but one I had not really considered cost-wise from just a cost perspective with some of the landscaping costs that are associated with townhomes that are not necessarily actually there on semi and how to sort of balance out the costs on those different. So thank you so much. I appreciate it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5509.205, "end": 5509.545, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 5509.545, "end": 5509.825, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5512.185, "end": 5553.305, "text": "All right, that concludes this panel. Colleagues, it's 11.05. It's about an hour ish to our next break. I'd like to accommodate two more panels if possible. We'll do two panels, going back to the names first that uh haven't been called from 96 onward. And then after that panel is concluded, we'll go to call names that had been called before from 66 onward. So we'll flip over to 96. Do we have Susan Gwynn with us in the chamber on the line? On to 97, do we have David Mowit?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5555.185, "end": 5555.825, "text": "Yes, I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5556.585, "end": 5562.365, "text": "Thank you, David. Please stand by. Do we have Shelley Tullich?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5563.425, "end": 5563.925, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5564.825, "end": 5585.625, "text": "Thank you, Shelly. Please stand by. Do we have Michelle Williams? Leslie Harrara? Craig Chandler?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5587.565, "end": 5588.425, "text": "Yeah, I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5589.345, "end": 5622.785, "text": "Thank you, Craig. Please stand by. On 98, do we have Sean Tuff? Connie Pringle? Anthony Cox, Michael Staroshikov, Deborah Teidelbaum, Nicholas Collins Harchuk, Maxim Stenev.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5625.685, "end": 5626.405, "text": "On the phone.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5627.705, "end": 5652.125, "text": "Thank you, Maxim. Please stand by. Joyce Seeley. Thank you, Joyce. Okay, this will be our panel from date with David, Shelly, Craig, Maxon, then Joyce. David, why don't you start us off? You have five minutes.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5655.825, "end": 5963.345, "text": "Yeah, good morning, Mayor and Council. I'm David Mowit. I'm uh in Albert Park. I'm in on Ward Nine. And uh we we took a uh course on the weekend was called Partners in Planning, the City of Calgary. And uh it was at the Damp Trail Community Center, and we found out that it's this planning was this has been three to five years in the planning, not just a uh a two week or one month, plus is gonna happen. It's been planned for quite a while and it's it's the reappeal. It's uh need to be happening because it was never done. People of the public was never of uh uh presented properly with us. And according to the people we talked to at the at the meeting that day. And according to you know, the the the m things that I brought up is we live in Ward Nine and we live on uh 10th Avenue. We pay an extra tax for a view tax to see the mountain, the downtown, and everything else. Well, with a new uh development we have here now, um, it is these buildings that are building. Um, actually, a child, if you ask a child to draw you a house where they want to live, you'll see a house, some trees, you'll see uh a family, dog, and a cat with grass, and everybody's smiling. What we have here now. Is people aren't smiling, the trees are gone, and these buildings are just atrocious to look at. And as a contractor myself, I look at some of these buildings, and a lot of them are at minimum cold at best. So there's no energy efficiency whatsoever. As for the trees and the grass, that is a big problem because without the trees with less trees, less grass. Now we have less carbon capturing. We have uh more uh heat. Heat it for heat in the atmosphere, and it's just it's an ongoing, going cycle. So the more we lose in green space, the more we lose in carbon capturing, the more um uh heat in the in the atmosphere. And then we were yesterday driving around and looking at these new uh developments, and where they have the garage is in the back for their four car parking. Well, if you have a small car, you can get into the garage, but you cannot open the doors. to get out of it. And then it's and then it's it's just a it's not a good system. And if it's a rental uh place where you have car parking for vehicles, you they their builders know that you can't put up with a vehicle in there, so you can't use it. So they use it for storage for themselves. And then you there again there's no parking. So now you have eight eight units, twelve units. It is It's very frustrating for people who live in the area. It's very frustrating for our area because it is getting to the point of less and less housing. And now with the taking of the parking lot at Franklin Station, we are losing parking for about three to four hundred vehicles per day as they take LRT to downtown. Now it's gonna be housing there, and now there are less there's no parking for anybody to go downtown. uh on LRT, where are they gonna park or drive downtown? Which you gotta pay another five, six hundred dollars a month parking, which they probably can't afford. It is re it's eleven dollars an hour as we go downtown as you need a vehicle for parking. It's ridiculous. And if they've taken out schools and on uh Radison Heights, putting in uh eight hundred uh units. Where are people gonna park there? There. There is no school there anymore. Where are people gonna go? There's no place for children to play. The parks are being taken out. Okay. It's uh the reason uh reappeal for blanketing is it's gotta be looked at in a different state. And uh I'm up for change, but it's just that these buildings gotta be done whether properly, which fits all areas of Calgary, which fits all the landscapes to make it appealing for everybody, just not to the developer. And the ones in the award nine right now, the people, the developers do not live in the country of Canada. And they are the ones funding the money for these development. And uh it just seems to be going on and on. And uh it's it's not quite right. But say this has been pipeline for the past three or five three to five years, and it's been a little bit late now for everybody to be reappealing stuff because the city has shoved it down our throats already. So that thank you for letting me uh speak.", "segments_merged": 127 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5963.785, "end": 5968.805, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to Shelly and then Craig afterwards. Please go ahead, Shelly.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5969.985, "end": 5970.905, "text": "Great. Can you hear me?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 5971.345, "end": 5972.065, "text": "Loud and clear.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 5973.005, "end": 6283.825, "text": "Great. Good day, Mayor and Council. I'm a resident of Calgary and an affected party. I will cover as much ground as possible in my five minutes, but may fall short a few sentences. The physical mailer sent to residents regarding this bylaw is faulty fatally deficient. It omitted critical amendments that maturely alter the scope and impact of the proposal. Amendments buried in the city's website requiring a digital scavenger hunt, but entirely absent from the written notice to affected households is a failure of statutory notice. Canadian legal precedents are clear on this matter. 1. The essence test. The Alberta Court of Appeal affirms that a notice is legally invalid when it fails to bring the essence of the proposal to the average reader. Omitting the amendments results in a misleading notice that fails this test. 2. Duty of fairness. The Supreme Court of Canada established reasonable notice. It is a cornerstone cornerstone of procedural fairness. The city cannot cure. A deficient physical notice with a web link, attempting so discriminates against those without digital literacy or access and denies residents their statutory right to be informed and heard. Violation of city policy. Furthermore, this is a breach of city public notice policy CS010, which commits this administration to, quote, adequate and appropriate communications. Providing only an omitted version of the bylaw by mail while tucking away the real impacts online is neither adequate nor appropriate. Jurisdictional risk to Calgary and residents. Because the statutory notice is deficient and misleading, this council lacks the legal jurisdiction to proceed on omitted amendments. Any decisions made on amendments or similar amendments, especially the corner law plus two and the affected neighbors, is subject to judicial review in the Court of King's bench and risks this hearing being declared void abinocio or void from the start. Proceeding on a faulty notice is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars that invites a court ordered redo of this entire process. We urge Council to move to table the amendments portion of this proposal. Corner Law Plus 2. Council cannot and did not have a fair hearing since the public was not legally notified of the full actual proposal being debated. Amendments or similar amendments may not be considered at this time. I formally object to the procedural irregularity, exclusion, inequity, and the validity of this hearing and raise a jurisdictional challenge based on the city's failure to meet the mandatory notice requirements set out in section 606 of the MGA. I am raising this now to ensure we have exhausted our administrative remedies. Did administration already receive legal advice on amendments exclusion? Is that legal advice in writing and available for public inspection? Did internal advice warn against the omission of critical amendments from the primary mailer? Could this be central to a judicial review? Direct city or city solicitor. Can administration confirm on the record here and now the exact date of the mailers were sent out and why amendments found on the website were omitted from the physical mailer. Simplification is not license for omission. All material facts must be present. Omission changes the essence of the proposal. Fairness is context dependent. Standard for reasonable notice is at its highest given rezoning has profound impact on all residents' lives and property values. Procedural fairness, correctness standard for pre fair procedures, especially with respect to when private rights or property interests are at stake. Council needs to table the Corner Plus Two amendment or amendments until administration can prove full legal compliance with the MGA's advertising standards, as we cannot have a fair hearing debate or vote if the public was not properly legally notified. City Policy CS010 again, effective and appropriate communication, the consistency standard. Citizens should receive the same information in style and content across letter or website. Prejudice by omitting amendments from the mailer, the city caused substantive prejudice to residents who cannot access the internet, thereby excluding entire segments of Calgary constituency from their statutory right to be informed and be heard. Buried key amendments is a jurisdictional error and a misleading notice. A resident reading the mailer would not understand the actual impact on their property, especially the corner plus two lots and their neighbors. A breach of procedural fairness plagues this hearing. This is a legally deficient notice as it failed to include the real impacts. Even if a different version is online, it fails the legal test, placing the procedural validity and jurisdictional authority of this hearing into question, especially with respect to the amendment corner law plus two law. Municipalities are creatures of the province. It is not inconceivable that should a second rezoning hearing, and recalling the earlier defeated guidebook, be brought to a judicial review with a real possible", "segments_merged": 42 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 6283.825, "end": 6289.145, "text": "Thank you so much, Shelley. You're just a time, but I'd like to hear the conclusion of that sentence.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 6292.025, "end": 6306.445, "text": "with a real possibility of being voided that the province would be obligated to step in with a referendum or plebiscite to fairly and finally settle the matter of rezoning for Calgarians, not to mention the waste of time and resources.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 6306.445, "end": 6315.865, "text": "Thank you so much. So appreciate you being with us. Please stay on the line. We'll go now to Craig on 97, then uh Maxon after that. Please go ahead, Craig.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 6317.805, "end": 6446.945, "text": "Thank you, you worship and all city council uh for the opportunity to put my uh comments in. I'm sort of wearing two hats here. Firstly, as many of you know, I'm the executive director of PGIV.org. I'm also on the board for a better Calgary Party. In the recent election, like all of you, I knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of phone calls in both Ward 12 and 14. And the refrain was the same. Almost no one wanted or wants blanket rezoning and were furious that they gave their input and were not listened to. You heard them as well. Taxpayers are sick and tired of politicians who think they know best. This top down type of governing is not what people want. Clearly in Ontario and the East they do, but not here. Let me be crystal clear. We elected each and every one of you running the corporation of the city of Calgary. You report to us just as the unelected bureaucracy must report to you. The tail can no longer wag the dog. I'm sure that for legal reasons you must be going through this process and wasting some tax dollars on an unnecessary process when we could be doing other things. The reason for this repeated process has not been explained well to those outside your chambers, in my opinion. You need to eliminate any idea of blanker rezoning, or you'll find yourselves on the outside of Council Chambers next election. So go back to the old LAP and scrap any amendments, just so you know the blanker rezoning. Listen to the voters. Listen to us shareholders, if you will, of this great city. So far so good guys. Although there was no zero reason for a tax hike of any kind. Reducing a tax hike is still a tax hike. And with billions laying around for infrastructure and money spent on things that are not municipal jurisdiction, blue rings, etc., it was really frustrating to see this new council put their hands deeper in our pockets. There is but one taxpayer. Anyways, there was no need for me to have charts and graphs, etc. As Chris Davis and group and many others have already done that throughout this process. Just do what the public wants and do not be bribed by federal money. We've already met the threshold for the percentage that was tied to the money anyways. Listen to the people and let's make a better Calgary.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 6448.925, "end": 6453.385, "text": "All right. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Maxon on 99, then Joyce after that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 6457.305, "end": 6708.045, "text": "Good morning, Mayor and Member of Council. My name is Maxim Spanier and I'm a resident of Ward 7, and I represent myself. I'm here to ask you to repeal the current blanket rezoning bylaw. Before continuing, I would like to inform you that uh I'm too, like many others before me, was baffled by the registration form question. Are you in favor or opposition of the issue? I don't even remember how I answered it, but uh I would like to go on record uh that I support the immediate removal of the blanket rezoning. My position is not about stopping growth, but about ensuring that growth is responsible, community led, and backed by the available infrastructure. My opinion was informed by the following observations of what is actually happening in our inner city communities. First, blanket rezoning has led to destruction of affordable detached older houses. And property price inflation. Communities with extreme level of development have seen the highest detached house price property increases, driven entirely by land demand from rezoning and densification policies. Families who want to buy an older house in Inner City. Have no chance when they compete against builders with deep pockets, preferred financing, government incentives, and future profits from development. Those who are lucky enough to buy before the current craziness are being squeezed out by huge property bills, tax bills, or worse by ugly structures being built right next to their home. I keep hearing that blanket rezoning will bring house choices and low prices. But after only a short period of densification push, The only widely available house option in the inner city are these depressing, high density, overpriced units with windows staring at garage walls, completely unsuitable for families. This is not a choice. Calgarians deserve the stability, space, and dignity of a real home. Second, we cannot ignore the physical reality of our schools and infrastructure. Our inner city institutions like Rosedale School, Capitol Hill, Rosemont, or Crescent Heights are already at or buff capacity. I urge the city approval committee to do their due diligence. Any new high density development should only be permitted after the school capacity extension. Do not be afraid to reject permits when the math doesn't work. Like I seriously, I have school, like kids at school and the schools are overcrowded. And uh I know that The new provincial bill basically includes new schools, but none of them have mentioned any expansion in our inner city communities. Furthermore, there should be no institutional pressure to approve at all costs when our six seventh year old pipelines and electrical lines are already screaming for a leap. Density without social infrastructure is not progress. It is failure of planning. I also want to debunk the misconception that the inner city is a donut of decline. Our community is not a hollowed out shell. It is a vibrant, thriving neighborhood with a healthy mix of young, middle aged families with children alongside established senior households. We are a multi generational success story. Please support the repeal. Let's return to a system where growth is earned through infrastructure readiness and community engagement. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 56 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 6709.105, "end": 6714.445, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go now to Joyce on 99 to wrap up this panel. Please go ahead and Joyce.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 6714.865, "end": 6803.525, "text": "Thank you. My name is Joyce Seely, and I also live in Ward 7, Bamp Trail. I agree with everything the former the previous gentleman said to me or said to us, and I'm in support of repealing blanket rezoning. So much has gone wrong in my neighborhood in Bamp Trail that I don't even know where to start. I have so many mixed feelings about what I see and what I now live in my neighborhood. Initially, because I live on a corner lot, there was constant harassment from builders wanting my property. They sent me notices, they phoned me, they talked to me when I was out in my in my yard cutting my grass. It never stopped, day after day after day, as soon as blanket rezoning was put out there. I resent that. Eventually, a 12-unit DP was introduced in my street, and it's been almost a whole year of research with neighbors to figure out what we could do about it. We don't have a functional community association, so we couldn't get help there. We had two people on our association at the time. Why? Because only 25% of the houses in my area are actually owned by people who live there. The rest is rental. So why would I volunteer my time to go to a community association to make plans for people who don't live there permanently? They don't live there. They come and they go.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 6803.525, "end": 6821.605, "text": "I'm gonna just jump in and and w uh the we our legal proceedings really require us to be very focused on the user or rather the use and not the user and and speaking to say whether renters are actually members of the community can be quite considered uh offensive. So let's just really focus on the merits of what's before us.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 6822.045, "end": 7050.605, "text": "So, because we didn't have help to find out what was really going on in our neighborhood, I took it upon myself to walk the streets of Bamp Trail last fall. I discovered that there were approximately 200 bungalows torn down and replaced with 1,600 dwelling units. I counted the doors. I was wondering is this dense enough? Have we surpassed our point that we were supposed to surpass? What number means enough is enough? I saw numerous examples of shoddy dangerous workmanship. I saw pipes coming out of the walls in front of the stairs where people would have to exit in case there was a fire. And I wondered how that got passed. They were both shocked by what they saw, and they said, We're gonna have to check that out. They checked it out and it was the result of relaxations. So whatever goes, goes in my community. The overmassing issue is the fact that There are so many, this is a point that I don't know if it's being addressed, but there's so many there's so many builds that are done well, but there are so many that are not done well. And when I see basement windows that are at or below ground level when I'm at the street, and six feet wells to get out of those basements should there be a fire. It makes me very, very nervous and upset. And I wonder why is this happening? How is this happening? I talked to a fire inspector. He didn't like what was happening either, but his hands were tied because of the policy. So we have a DP on the corner of the inside corner, a pie-shaped lot of my street, backs onto a 90 degree blind corner in the alleyway. The developer initially wanted to build three separate buildings on the single family lot, which would include 36 bedrooms and 36 bathrooms. Who does that? Who needs that? What is the purpose of this build? And did I mention that the water pipe burst in our street in January? So we invited the developer to come to talk to us because there was no other way. We just kept sending invitations. And it became clear to us that this was a purpose built commercial development, a dorm or a rooming house in the middle of our street. He told us it was going to be used to be rented to university students. So that's a dormitory. So I'm wondering are all the requirements for a commercial endeavor like this and the safety requirements? going to be built into this or checked afterwards and then built. My question is, is my whole street going to go up in flames? Because all of these doors have to be knocked on by the firefighters before they'll turn on their hoses. I asked this question, and you said, Yep, all the doors have to be knocked on. So that means that if there's three buildings and if there's a fire in the middle building, and a firetruck cannot get in the back alleyway, and nor are they legally required to go in the back alleyway, this fire has lots of time to spread sideways, not to mention how people might be killed. So I'm very concerned about this. Two weeks ago, this particular DP, after all our fighting, was actually grandfathered in because of the clause. And now we have to go to an appeal hearing in June. This has been so stressful, you have no idea. The person who has to,", "segments_merged": 22 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 7050.605, "end": 7054.665, "text": "Joyce, uh unfortunately you're just at time, but I ask uh just a final sentence if you don't mind.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7054.665, "end": 7074.385, "text": "I just wanted to say the person who has to stand up and fight against this is a doctor who works in a cancer clinic, and he has to give up all of his patients for that day to go to a hearing to discuss this when all of these other cancer people victims are worried about their lives.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 7074.565, "end": 7091.285, "text": "Thank you so much for being here with us. We'll now go to questions for this panel. Uh colleagues, I'd ask that uh we can keep it tight if possible. It'd be great to go to one more panel. uh before we break. Over to Councillor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7096.825, "end": 7101.525, "text": "Thank you. Thank you, worship. I think it was Ms. Tollock. Ms. Tallock, are you still on the line?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7102.465, "end": 7103.285, "text": "I am, yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7103.745, "end": 7120.605, "text": "Thank you. Um thanks for your submission. I I I'm trying to I want to be clear about what it is that you're saying. Um are you suggesting that your you believe that the entire hearing today is Something that could potentially be challenged, including the the repeal?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7122.545, "end": 7162.885, "text": "I cannot submit legal advice, but I I am happy to share my concern about the amendment plus corner lot particularly and the two adjacent lots being a poison pill. And that does not protect from mid block upzoning either. And as such, the fruit from a poison tree places this entire hearing in legal jeopardy. And um if I can be allowed to finish the last couple sentences here, I think that will add some clarity.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7163.065, "end": 7163.945, "text": "Sheriff, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7165.165, "end": 7238.265, "text": "Okay, so um let's draw our attention and memory back to the vast rezoning for housing campaign of 2024, which included, but not limited to weeks and months of radio and digital advertising, billboards and transit advertising, TV advertising, webinars, social media campaigns, town halls, nine information sessions, in person, online, walking tours, postcards. And much more compared to this skimpy, deficient mailer. And I want to emphasize this last bit. The past five days of this hearing, which I've watched in an on and off, displayed how uninformed and confused residents are, and even counselors expressed confusion with no clarification from administration at the outset of this hearing. Even when clarification of amendments was needed and requested by council members and then repeatedly requested over the past five days. This entire five days is a discovery gold mine for lawyers. Yeah, I'll just leave it at that. If you have other questions, I'm I'm available.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7238.325, "end": 7269.985, "text": "Yeah, no, I I do actually, but thanks for that. Um so if I'm hearing you correctly, you believe that some of the amendments may not have been clearly um uh advertised or or uh clearly uh understood, but the but the uh the repeal um aspect of it um is is where I'm trying to go with this question is do you believe that the repeal uh aspect of the The uh pamphlet that went out provided enough clarity.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7271.345, "end": 7329.105, "text": "Well, you can you can refer back to the mailer where the re the repeal portion is stated, it's pretty crystal clear. People understand this to be a repeal uh hearing. They the amendments, even though some of them might be okay with the height, zero lot lines, 55%. I don't think a lot of people are going to argue with you on those. But even well informed members of community associations, people who are very um up to speed on things and decades are not coming and understanding. The amendments piece about the corner lot plus three and that and there's no way to protect mid block because those lots have a right to be upzoned as well. So this is completely deficient in every aspect.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7330.565, "end": 7331.305, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7331.305, "end": 7346.745, "text": "No, I open you open the door the the doors are wide open to legal challenge and The this entire hearing will be placed in front of a a judge in the Court of King's Bench and good luck with that.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7346.885, "end": 7354.105, "text": "Okay. So but you're not citing any specific sections of the MGA that you think that this would be uh in contravention on?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7355.165, "end": 7388.425, "text": "Section 606. I have case law as well, which I didn't include because it's simply just too much information to add, but I can try to pull it up really quickly here. Section 606 plus the city policy CS010, and then there's also another policy about transparency. Uh yeah, I mean I just had so much uh to share, and you can only squeeze in so much, even when you're a fast speaker, into five minutes.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7388.905, "end": 7408.325, "text": "Yeah, no, I'm I'm only interested right now in which sections of the MGA that you'd be in you believe are a potential um Uh things that could be considered at a court of King's Bench. And so if you could cite me those specific sections, I'd be more than happy to get clarification around those and do further exploration on my own.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7410.305, "end": 7421.825, "text": "Well, I can say I can say section six zero six definitely. And um uh and there's other, as I said, there's other relevant information that I just don't have at hand, but", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7421.825, "end": 7425.665, "text": "Which would be a council policy, right? The other section you were referring to.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7426.945, "end": 7428.245, "text": "section six zero six.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 7428.405, "end": 7433.465, "text": "Okay. All right. Thanks very much for your submission. I have no further questions for you. Appreciate your submission.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 7434.285, "end": 7445.945, "text": "Thanks. Looks like we have significant amount of members of Council in the queue for for questions here. What I'm gonna say is this will be our final panel uh before breaking. Uh over to Councillor McLean please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor D. McLean", "start": 7446.265, "end": 7449.985, "text": "Uh thank you, Mayor. Questions for Mr. Chandler. Are you still on the line, Craig?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7451.245, "end": 7452.285, "text": "I sure am, sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor D. McLean", "start": 7452.885, "end": 7473.645, "text": "Well, thanks for calling in. I do recall you calling in last time for the public hearing for blanket rezoning, and you had a lengthy conversation with Councillor Curra, former Council Crow at the time, where you spoke quite passionately in favor of blanket rezoning. Now you're speaking against or for repealing blanket rezoning. So my question is what made you change your mind?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7474.885, "end": 7499.105, "text": "Well, the first time I presented I was in person and I was for it. The second time I called in and I was against it. And, you know, I guess you could say smart people when presented with facts and evidence changed their mind. And uh I looked initially across a friend of mine. I initially thought, okay, this might be a good idea, and then I started to look at the ramifications and uh realized he was wrong. So", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor D. McLean", "start": 7502.085, "end": 7507.665, "text": "So good good answer. That's all I had for you, Craig. Thanks so much. Bye now.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 7511.145, "end": 7514.305, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Jameson please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7516.505, "end": 7518.025, "text": "Mr. Chandler, are you still on the line?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7519.145, "end": 7520.005, "text": "uh sure am.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7520.705, "end": 7533.245, "text": "Okay, well, thanks a lot for calling in and being part of this public hearing. Uh, if I may ask, how do you know what people are thinking about this particular issue with such confidence?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7534.925, "end": 7577.145, "text": "Well You know, being involved with a better calgary party, we had uh several candidates and uh the candidates would share information on on regular meetings, whether it's on chats or whether it's uh personally on what the big issues were, and it was overwhelming in every ward that there was a candidate, that the number one issue was get rid of blanket rezoning. And I continue to door knock myself in different areas for uh nominations, and all I'm hearing from the door myself now, too, is nothing but this is a big issue, and we're saying no, that's that's municipal. It's still coming up as an issue at the door. So I'd say maybe I don't know, a hundred thousand doors recently might have uh led to the belief that uh yeah, this is a problem.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7579.605, "end": 7591.165, "text": "You had mentioned it's obvious that the public trust is eroded. So uh, do you have any ideas on how uh we can you know repair that or do a better job of listening to Calgarians?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7592.705, "end": 7629.145, "text": "Well, I think on this particular s overall, I think you guys are are are somewhat doing a good job, as I said in my commentary. Uh didn't think the tax was necessary regardless, but Having consultations like this is good. I just think having two of them when it's overwhelming uh that we ha everyone was against it before, and then election everyone told us we were against it. This is a waste of time and money. But but consultation processes like this are important. I think what Dan McClain did as well by having something at Cardell was uh important as well. So Dan seems to understand consulting with his constituents. That was a great example. So things like that are our way to do things.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7631.025, "end": 7632.585, "text": "Uh thank you. No more questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 7635.725, "end": 7681.665, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Jameson. Actually, it looks like we surprisingly exhausted all the questions for this panel. I'm going to call names that had previously or panels that have been previously called. We do have that important water security meeting over the noon hour, so that's a real uh hard stuff for us. I'm gonna ask for two more panelists to approach. Do we have anyone from panel 66 in the chamber? Alright, so those are two people. So yeah, please approach. So we have these uh we have two people in the chamber with us, please approach. And you'll be our final uh two folks to hear from today. So please come on up. If you don't mind just letting us know your name and your panel number. Oh, 66.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7682.205, "end": 7959.525, "text": "Yeah, Peter Dormar, 66, and I have a presentation. Thanks. Yeah, we can just go to the first. Thanks. So I'm gonna begin. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Peter Dormar, and I'm a business consultant living in Huntington Hills. And I'd like to speak in opposition to the rezoning changes. Just to be clear, I support keeping RCG in place. I imagine that many on council and in the public can think that these public consultation meetings are great gauges for public opinion and that the speakers here are representative of Calgarians. Inspired by a book called Neighborhood Defenders, my friend Katherine Davies and I tested that. First, let's look at Calgary's 2021 profiles. About half of Calgarians live in communities below 105,000 median household income. These residents benefit most from keeping RCG in place. Many live in apartments and basement suites. They often live paycheck to paycheck as renters, and if they can, are saving up to buy their first house. The more housing supply available all over the city, the easier it is for them to stay afloat financially. Roughly the other half live above $105,000, and 3%, roughly 35,000 people, are in a class I'll call the ultra rich, who live in neighborhoods with median household incomes above $160,000. Communities like Upper Mount Royal, Britannia, and West Springs. Their basic needs to live are generally they aren't affected by housing affordability. Um, let's do the next slide, please. This slide shows the average income in the communities these three groups live in. As you can see, the 3% of the ultra-rich households make $200,000 on average annually and live vastly more financially privileged lives elevated above much of the economic problems of the other 97% of Calgarians. We wanted to know more about their representation at City Council public hearings, so Catherine watched the recordings of the public hearing meeting for the guidebook and the meeting for the approval of RCG rezoning and recorded whether speakers were in support or against rezoning and what community they lived in when that was announced. I compared this info with the 2021 Calgary community profiles. What did we find? Can we do the next slide, please? Between the two meetings, 245 speakers spoke in opposition to both the guidebook and RCG and announced what neighborhood they were from. The average community median household income of opposition speakers in these meetings was $145,000, $40,000 higher than Calgary's average. In the guidebook meeting, the average community meeting and household income was $188,000, $83,000 higher than Calgary's average. How did this happen? Across both meetings, 23% of the speakers were from communities in the ultra rich class. In the guidebook meeting, the number was 50%. The vast majority of these ultra rich opposition speakers were from communities with median household incomes above $288,000. Looking at this slide, the pie chart on the left shows the proportion of the three economic groups in Calgary's population, and the three pie charts on the right show the three groups representation at the two housing reform meetings individually and then combined. Just to be clear, they were the anti-I guidebook and anti-RCG group. To test if this was a coincidence, I ran a simulation 200,000 times to ask the question if these speakers had been picked at random from Calgary residents based on where people actually live, how often would we get an RCG opposition group of communities this wealthy? The answer is never. The makeup of the opposition speakers is so unrepresentative of everyday Calgarians that they didn't appear once in 200,000 simulations. So let's look at the next slide. So this is a scatter plot. The y-axis shows the population of these income groups, and the x-axis shows the number of meeting opposition speakers per thousand in their population. So, as we can see, um the 97% of Calgarians are the two dots on the left. They have very high populations and low representation per person at these meetings, and the ultra-rich 3% have extremely high representation per thousand people and very low po a very low population. So, what does this all mean? We tend to think of these public hearings as good gauges of public sentiment on housing reform, that they are like straw poles on an issue. I'm here to say that they are not. The anti RC G group is unrepresentative of Calgarians. The numbers show that they are being", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 7959.525, "end": 7987.265, "text": "Thank you. I'm just gonna jump in. Uh I jumped in previously to suggest that a tax, say, on renters as not being members of the community uh wasn't appropriate. And I'm also gonna do the same thing for uh talking about those with higher incomes or members of any specific group as not being representative of being Calgarian. We're all Calgarian here. I get the point that you're trying to make around statistics here, but if we can just keep it on the the issue and not attack any identifiable individuals, it'd be much appreciated.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 7987.405, "end": 8017.285, "text": "Okay, I understand. I guess I'll just uh summarize by saying that um just that um we often tend to think these these groups are um are like r are representative like I guess in in some way um income actually does make a difference because people who um uh the people who are most affected by this decision aren't being represented here. I guess that's what I would say. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8020.185, "end": 8026.165, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to the other person who's with us, if you don't mind just uh stating your name and your panel number.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8026.165, "end": 8355.525, "text": "Yeah, my name is Devangi Kodi and I am a Wattwell resident. And first of all, thank you so much everybody for giving this chance to speak up today. This is such a privilege being in a society that is multicultural and democratic. So it's such a privilege, and I'm gonna uh many people have raised many great points, but me as a migrant, just 10-year-old Calgarian Canadian, I'm gonna share my personal story. We migrated in 2015, started living Elbow Drive, and we had an opportunity, a family member wanted to visit Canada, see the beauty of Canada, Calgary, of course. We welcomed that and we started looking for two-bedroom apartments. The rent of two-bedroom apartments in Britannia was so high that in my research I looked up and I realized we can actually pay mortgage, which is going to be lesser than that. So we moved to suburbs, accepted the sprawl that was already placed hundreds of years ago. And my husband and my family thought that, oh, that's gonna be a great life living in the big house or whatever. Two years in there, I fell into depression. I almost attempted not almost I attempted to end my life, my depression got worsened because the social life or socialization was so limited in that area that me and my daughter could not adjust for the first three years. The same story repeated of my three friends who migrated to Mohogany, Urban Bay, and recently, because I started after my recovery, I'm thankful to AHS Services and this city for giving me so much treatment, said I'm better now. So in my community work, I found out a woman in Urban Bay actually was successful. doing what I decided to do in 2019. That's a one point. Now I came here on Friday and I got to listen so many incredible human beings raising their voice and their concern. Incredible platform here. And they said things about character. When as a migrant I came to the city, I see the character of Calgary as its snow, the six-foot one, in the winter. It's two beautiful rivers, the confluence of the river. Even indigenous people in their land acknowledgement say that this is a confluence of the Elbow and Bo River, and these beautiful parks around the city. I thought that is the character of the city and its diversity, its people. And some of them are not represented here. It's been repeated again and again. And I had an opportunity to facilitate a workshop at Genesis, and I was talking about this process that I'm being part of. One person living in Northwest, one person living in Southeast, one person far southwest, one from African Caribbean African community, one from the Philippines Islam community, and one a Punjabi. They had no idea something like this is happening right now. And they ask me, what is this? Where are you going? Why are you going to City Hall? So, what I'm trying to say is some of the voices are not being heard here. It's a very limited thing going on and it's been repeated. Now, transformation every time, as a migrant, I know, can be challenging. Change is also challenging. And what I say healthy society and healthy governance should not miss out voices that are not being represented here. Youth voices are not being represented here. People who are digitally not literate are not represented here. People who cannot speak proper English are not taking courage to be here. People from different governing systems coming here building life, they don't know what public hearing is, are not here because they are not confident enough to share their voice. The other thing I would like to say is what transformation is going to be shake up some things. And I am in a position of repeal, but I do respect the concern the residents who are facing right now, some amendments need to be made. Repeal is going to be a step backward. And I'm gonna give the uh another point that I want to make here. Climate crisis is a problem. We cannot keep giving this responsibility to the next generation. And next generation have raised their voice, they are not here, many of them. Mayor Farka, you and your administration is a new, brand new, all new faces, few repeated. You have a chance to put climate action in one hand, housing affordability, and make bringing them together. By not going back, your administration has a chance to be innovative. Keep this upzoning, get the concerns noted, but do not go for the repeal. It is a huge step backward. And you can Calgary can be a national leader by actually keeping the upzoning and its promises ahead by making needed amendments. I humbly request you do that for my daughter who's gonna build life here. Do that for many of our children. Please, the central of Calgary, which has incredible socially multicultural diverse spaces, they are being underutilized. I travel every day 20 times 35 minutes to Genesis. Mr. Daliwal might have seen me somewhere, my face.", "segments_merged": 55 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8355.525, "end": 8357.525, "text": "Fortunately you're you're just at time, but thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8357.525, "end": 8361.145, "text": "That's okay. Thank you. We'll be looking at you. Please make the right choice.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8361.145, "end": 8394.785, "text": "Thank you. I am I'm just gonna jump in real quick uh for you, Peter. I I kind of cramped your flow with uh how I interjected. I I just wanted to see if there's anything you wanted to uh conclude with. Nope, sorry. Devanga, we're just uh speaking with Mr. Dormer. Yeah. Um I know I I uh with my interjection about the identifiable groups, uh I didn't give a chance perhaps uh for you to to finish your thoughts and I know it was uh uh it was awkward. So uh if you had any other uh closing remarks or any thoughts that you wanted to share with us, uh please do so.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8395.045, "end": 8452.705, "text": "Yeah, thanks for giving me the time again. Um I think I spoke about most of what I wanted to get to. And I think that it's not that I have like I understood what you said that we're all Calgarians, but I um I guess I think there is an issue in that like I know counselors' jobs are really hard and stressful, and you don't have a lot of time to get in all the information is you you need. And it's often easy to like um have a few meetings and um do these hearings. um and say like this is all of Calgary's opinion, but often they can be biased towards or they can be unrepresentative of yeah the people who aren't as economically um affected by this decision which is really important to everyone.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8454.705, "end": 8486.285, "text": "Yeah, and that that's really the the point I think we we touched on with uh Ms. Lam at the conclusion of uh Friday night is certainly the the people who participate in the public hearing are those they represent themselves. Um my final question to you would be Is it your position just to retain in full the the current uh version of the blanket rezoning? Do you see from perhaps any of the submissions uh in support of the repeal good advice for how it should be modified, or is it your position that it should just stay the course, no revisions, no changes?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8487.045, "end": 8517.405, "text": "Um it's my it's my position to stay the course with no um revisions. I did I do um really value tree cover, so I understood a lot of the the speakers who um were defending um keeping tree cover, and I I think if there was if there were revisions um it would be to like have a bylaw to um promote keeping these the large trees that are in neighborhoods still, even if we still have a blanket um RCG.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8518.425, "end": 8521.005, "text": "Thank you so much. That's it for me. I'll go to Councillor Chabot, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8523.545, "end": 8549.885, "text": "Uh Ms. Dormer, uh, thanks for being here. And your submission was rather interesting, I thought, because it made reference to very specific demographics, very specific incomes. And I know that we've received some information about certain areas and what the average income is on those in those areas, but you seem very definitive about the individuals that represented. I'm just curious, do you have detailed information on incomes of those individuals?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8550.205, "end": 8602.045, "text": "No, so um we were inspired by a study that was done in the US, and in the US, they have a lot more data that's very granular, but in our study we just looked at the individual community. So if they said they were from a community, they would uh if they said they were from a community, we would just say that the average household um community in the that area, they would like that would be one dot for them or one um data point for them. Um although I will say that the of the three the um The section, the 3% of the wealthy Calgarians, um, they actually made about $288,000 in their average um median household incomes, which shows that like the chance that it's it's very definitive that um", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8602.845, "end": 8602.965, "text": "It's", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8602.965, "end": 8603.145, "text": "that", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8603.145, "end": 8603.425, "text": "not definitive.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8603.425, "end": 8606.225, "text": "they're likely more wealthier than the average Calgarian.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8606.225, "end": 8606.885, "text": "Probable.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8606.885, "end": 8607.665, "text": "Probable, yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8607.665, "end": 8609.185, "text": "Thank you. Not definitive.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8609.405, "end": 8609.565, "text": "Correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8609.565, "end": 8613.245, "text": "So the answer is no. You do not have detailed information on", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8613.245, "end": 8618.285, "text": "And mostly um it's it's about probabilities, yeah, in in my in my analysis.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 8618.305, "end": 8620.405, "text": "okay. Thanks. No further questions?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8621.045, "end": 8622.525, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 8623.985, "end": 8634.285, "text": "Uh yeah, Mr. Yeah, just Domer, it's just uh where did you get the uh the financial data for your uh who your answer?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8634.285, "end": 8640.325, "text": "Yeah, so I just looked at the community profiles, the 2021 Calgary Community Profiles, which you can find online.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 8640.525, "end": 8647.185, "text": "So they're the cities, yeah, the cities reports, which is using median uh income depth.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8647.185, "end": 8647.905, "text": "Household income", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 8647.905, "end": 8675.105, "text": "Yeah. On a household basis. And and did you at all do when you were doing that also sort of map to where the changes are being experienced within the city? I know you were speaking about sort of the differences that we're seeing with those that showed up and those who maybe we didn't hear from, or the difference between those who were opposed to rezoning and those who were for. Did you did you see anything in those different groups?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8675.105, "end": 8676.405, "text": "between for and against.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 8676.405, "end": 8676.785, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8676.885, "end": 8700.245, "text": "Yeah, so um for the RCG supporters, their average community household income was 91,000, which is way closer to the Calgary average, roughly $14,000 lower than it. Only 2% of the people who support RCG were from the ultra rich class, which actually matches our actual proportion in the city.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 8700.465, "end": 8734.465, "text": "Right. So you were looking at sort of the difference in terms of the numbers of people that were spoken speaking up during versus the percentages of representation across Calgary. Yeah. Okay. That's great. Thank you very much for your presentation. I disagree that singling out the affluence of people that are coming and speaking and sort of bringing up this proposal is necessarily speaking against a group. Affluence doesn't mean you're speaking against someone, it's just giving another data point into the information that we are having at our disposal.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8734.465, "end": 8737.845, "text": "Thank you, Councillor. I'll allow for a lot of time for debate when it comes to that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 8738.045, "end": 8739.385, "text": "Yeah, absolutely.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8740.025, "end": 8741.445, "text": "Uh Councillor Dallywell, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 8742.825, "end": 8761.385, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. My question is for Damangi. Um, I just want to understand. Uh I I I I heard your point, don't repeal it. Um I just want to understand why.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8763.545, "end": 8856.925, "text": "So I did mention that repeal is a step back. That's what I'm feeling. I'm thinking. But I said with some amendments, for sure, we can take the concerns of the citizens who are affected. Because me living in War 12 and people living in Calgary for more than 40 years, obviously I cannot be their voice. I don't have capacity for that. But this was put in place for because the city needed it. That's why the previous administration has proposed it. I am just saying opposition to repeal, but if there are any ways we can target the concerns of who are affected, negatively affected by the blanket rezoning, that can be targeted. My humble request to All the the whole administration is repealing is a step back. So I am comfortable. I do believe that if there are some ways we can target their concerns and stop the sprawl because sprawling is something that is going to affect or really, climate crisis is on high. We saw today is not an example. We got the snow, but we see how less snow we got this year, last year, and the heat is increasing in Calgary. So for future generation. This sprawl is not going to be the something that is going to help. And that generation may not want bigger houses and better bedrooms. They are they are going towards a different way of life.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 8857.005, "end": 8902.245, "text": "Yeah. No, no, that uh well said, but what I'm hearing is uh the speakers who came here who wanted repealed necessarily didn't say they don't like density, they want more housing. But I think it's not I think the concerns I heard and were that the way it's being done, uh that there's more sanity. For density rather than just everywhere. What are your thoughts about that? Like if it's repealed, hypothetically, but there's a plan to still keep supporting housing and mostly very near and dear to my heart as non market, non for profit housing. Would you be supportive of that?", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8904.045, "end": 8922.205, "text": "Yes, I need to look into that, but yes, I I we if there are some referendum made that would allow the central of the city utilized in a better way, and the sprawl is stopped or limited. Yes, of course. I be sorry. Okay.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 8922.205, "end": 8936.745, "text": "I have other questions about participation and all that, but they're not related to repeal. So I will not go into that. But please uh let's connect after this meeting so we can continue those discussions. So thank you so much for coming. I really, really appreciate you coming here. Thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8936.745, "end": 8939.805, "text": "And we thank you, your leadership in a word five as well. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 8939.825, "end": 8941.985, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Ward, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 8942.245, "end": 8953.085, "text": "Yes, uh uh for Peter, please. I think that was the name. Yeah. Um, Peter, you you talked about the community profiles, which I brought up while you were speaking here. Sorry, this is for Peter.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 8953.085, "end": 8956.185, "text": "Councillor Ward's uh wishing to speak to Mr. Dormer.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 8956.225, "end": 8969.045, "text": "Thank you. Um so I brought up oh, I closed one by accident, but uh three communities in my ward that are quite opposed to blanket rezoning are Haysborough, Kingsland, and Acadia.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 8969.685, "end": 8991.465, "text": "Um, if we look at, for example, Kingsland, the medium household income in Calgary is $98,000. Kingsland's medium median household income is $68,000, $30,000 below the average. Yet that community is quite opposed to blanket rezoning. Are you able to help me round that square?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 8992.585, "end": 9030.005, "text": "Well, what I would say is what we find in these meetings is that I guess what my my point is about representation at these meetings, and that um oftentimes like the the people who attend these meetings are um the the makeup um I I I get what you're saying, and um that's also a probability as well. So But I would say that the like the people who oppose it and also come to these meetings are far more wealthy than the representation of Calgaryans, essentially.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 9030.005, "end": 9064.945, "text": "For sure. And and I I would generally agree with you on that, but people are able to provide written submissions. I've had several open houses, I've you know, door knocked 24,000 doors. I I guess what I'm saying is I don't think we can draw a conclusion from one aspect of engagement, which I agree this is not perfect. It's intimidating for most people. So I I guess what I'm saying is I I agree what you've said, but I don't think it tells the whole story, right? Like this is one part of engagement. Would you agree with that?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9066.905, "end": 9080.205, "text": "Yeah, and and that's also something I would I would recommend that there be multiple points of input that other than this. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 9080.265, "end": 9080.665, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9080.865, "end": 9089.165, "text": "But I I would also say that a lot of people in communities that are of average income or below would benefit the most from RCG zoning as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 9090.005, "end": 9107.545, "text": "And that may be so. I I I'm just saying, based on my experience, like these communities that are well below the average income are some of the strongest voices against it. So it just it it kind of went against what you were presenting. That's why I wanted to have the discussion. But I appreciate it very much. Thank you. I I love stats, so thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9108.805, "end": 9119.985, "text": "Thanks. We have two more council members. Uh I'm just gonna say, colleagues, I think we've really exhausted the uh the income question. We gotta really stay tight on the uh the use and not the user. Over to Councillor Pantasopoulos, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9120.085, "end": 9154.945, "text": "Great, thanks so much. Uh you just called out uh certain communities within Word 6. So I just wanted to pick that up, particularly West Springs, where I live. And I just want to understand, do you think the issue, whether it's West Springs or Glendale, Glamorgan, which have a substantially lower income, and there's been lots of Calgarians that have spoken, is the issue against blanket rezoning density or simply the fact that it's absolutely no plan, no strategy, and it's a shotgun approach? What do you think the the wealthy in Ward 6 and also the ones that have an average income that are 50% the Calgary average? What do you think their reasons are coming against?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9156.105, "end": 9157.185, "text": "Against RCG?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9158.085, "end": 9172.525, "text": "Against blanket rezoning. You said that generally people in West Springs, as an example, with an income over 200,000, had a concern. Do you think it's a matter of density they're against, or is it a matter of the uncoordinated approach to density?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9174.005, "end": 9177.885, "text": "Well to me, um, so this is just my personal opinion, so I don't have", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9177.885, "end": 9182.345, "text": "Using data, so what's the data say? What's your based on that if you correlate back? What do you believe that is", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 9182.345, "end": 9188.445, "text": "I jumped in previously to call out some others, but let the uh let the public uh speak out.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 9188.445, "end": 9193.965, "text": "um I'd say um I'd say that", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9194.665, "end": 9215.345, "text": "they would probably want the density to be as low as possible, and they're just using um this to be a like to say um it should only be in in certain places, they're saying they don't want it to be close to them. So if if we went halfway, they would argue to go the full way. They like this is just my personal opinion, yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor J. Mian", "start": 9216.945, "end": 9217.585, "text": "Thanks so much. Appreciate it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9218.585, "end": 9220.405, "text": "Thank you. Uh Councillor Johnston, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 9222.605, "end": 9232.865, "text": "Question is for Mrs. Cody. Cody. Sorry, do you mind me asking what neighborhood you live in?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9234.005, "end": 9237.925, "text": "Range view right now, but my first home was in Cranston, very near, very close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 9239.085, "end": 9243.545, "text": "And you are Against sprawl, right?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9244.145, "end": 9244.705, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 9245.505, "end": 9246.905, "text": "Live in sprawl, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9247.265, "end": 9279.765, "text": "Yeah, we had to. I that's why I started my voice with that story that we were looking for something in Britannia, even renting, but we if rent was higher. It was, I think, 200 2200. And the mortgage was coming out as $1800. So it was just a random luck. And yes, we did come up with some savings. We both were working back home. So we had some money to put down for down payment. So within two years or even less than two years, we bought our first home. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 9279.785, "end": 9287.485, "text": "So would you agree that outer sprawl, if you want to call it that, produces affordable housing?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9288.365, "end": 9372.565, "text": "Uh again, like we all are talking, there are certain facts, they don't share the whole truth of the story. And that is why I mentioned that it seemed like a good thing. What ended up happening is I was extremely isolated. My daughter was extremely isolated. I like to get into the community. I do that even for the past five years, I've been doing it, and that's where I'm going to be all my life. I was not able to do any of that when I went to Cranston, and that affected my mental health. My daughter, I had to drive every day to take her to those parks and build, keep into that community because the community connection did not happen there. And there might be a personal reason, but That's not the only story. We had to go there. And as I mentioned, two of my other friends, a young family, had to move out from Heritage Tribe and come to the suburbs because they saw from our thing that oh, mortgage is better. So affordable houses is a one point of it. But I'm a big advocate of climate crisis. That's why I said to Mayor Jeremy Furca that Calgary is in a very unique position right now. We can keep affordable houses goal on one hand, climate action goals on the other, combine them and build something greater for the future generation. Familiar patterns can work time to time,", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "Councillor J. Mian", "start": 9373.725, "end": 9375.405, "text": "Mr. Johnson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9375.685, "end": 9431.405, "text": "But that doesn't mean that they are as effective. We know better. That's how the human world works. When we know better, we do better. So we need to do better. That was a strategy that worked. Yes, I got benefited by it. But entirety in an entirety, no. Because I go four to five times Genesis a week to keep my community momentum going. Past two years I've been trying to do International Women's Day for South Asian community in South, red tips everywhere. I have to choose Genesis Center because they fortunately allowed it. There are incredible spaces in 17th Avenue that allowed multicultural. Events and gatherings with such a warm welcome, like the Alex Community Food Center is one. And uh I I miss those type of spaces in Southeast. I don't have those spaces in right now. I have to always travel, even though I don't like it, but I do have to.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9433.905, "end": 9435.525, "text": "Okay, I'll leave it there. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9435.525, "end": 9436.585, "text": "No problem. Thank you for asking.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9436.585, "end": 9440.065, "text": "Thank you. Stay right there. We have uh Councillor Jameson, I think, to round us off.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9440.205, "end": 9444.525, "text": "Oh, uh yeah. Hello, sir. Nice to meet you. Namaste.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9444.525, "end": 9472.425, "text": "Nice to meet you too. Thank you very much for coming. So, first of all, thank you very much for sharing your personal story. You know, it's it's very uh, you know, it's it's all of us have different perspectives, right? And uh, you know, I'm sorry to hear that your time in Cranston wasn't uh, you know, it was filled with, as you mentioned, some isolation. And uh do you feel that the community experience is better for you in Rangeview currently, right now?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9472.785, "end": 9558.085, "text": "It's a uh it's a bit it's still building. So I'm this time because I've been in here 10 years, I've learned some lessons. So I'm going to try when the community center is being built. The CTN is already up. So I'm trying to reach out to them. And a church, a beautiful church, is nearby. So I'm going to reach out to them too. Just yesterday I had a call with the with the lady who runs craft classes for seniors. And I love to serve seniors. That's my roots. That's that's how I was brought up. And it's my to-do list, like it's my vision. So yeah, we're gonna look into some spaces, but we reach out to Mohogany, we reach out to the nearby Sonashi, there is this area. There's so many uh restrictions there. The same event was warmly welcomed at Genesis with the same requirement we had. But they did not accept those requirements. Even not even Mogany Beach Club, as well as the oh, I keep forgetting, it's the it's the big uh ice hockey center near Shaughnessy uh Shaughnessy YMCA. They did not allow our event to happen. We try hardest to explain them that we need this type of feature to bring in community together. And it's been a two and a half years struggle and it still is my struggle and I'm gonna work on it. And I I w I uh we were supposed to reach out to you. We were gonna write you a petition or an email like five, six organization together.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9558.125, "end": 9573.365, "text": "Well I think the timing's good here and and I would uh definitely uh as soon as break uh happens here uh I'd like to just if you don't mind sticking around to connect with you absolutely because there's lots we can do together and there's you know maybe some some ways that I can help too. Okay? So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9573.365, "end": 9574.205, "text": "Such an incredible", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9574.205, "end": 9575.925, "text": "Yeah. So thank you very much for speaking.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9575.925, "end": 9576.345, "text": "appropriate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9576.345, "end": 9576.705, "text": "All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9577.365, "end": 9631.005, "text": "Thank you so much, uh, colleagues. This uh concludes our panel. I'm about to hit the gavel. I have accommodated uh requests for two panels, uh both for and against uh as it pertains in the uh procedure by law. The when we come back at 1 15 or so, we're gonna have a panel from Kreb with Anne Marie Lurie, Susanita De Diago, Stephen Chakra, San Ostanti, and Terry Wong. And then following that, uh, we will have uh presentation from more neighbors uh with Sandra Mann, Denise Robinson, Philip Turnbull, Clyde Bukert, and Rob Zhang. So with that, see you back at 150. Hello, and welcome back to the public hearing meeting of Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 9631.745, "end": 9642.725, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the role, Councillor Clark, Councillor Dolly Wall, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnston, Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 9644.385, "end": 9644.745, "text": "President", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 9645.145, "end": 9645.965, "text": "Councillor McLean,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor D. McLean", "start": 9646.905, "end": 9647.145, "text": "here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 9647.325, "end": 9659.425, "text": "Councillor Pantozopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell,", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9659.625, "end": 9659.925, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 9660.065, "end": 9662.665, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot,", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 9662.805, "end": 9663.165, "text": "President.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 9663.425, "end": 9664.585, "text": "and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9664.705, "end": 9665.225, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 9665.405, "end": 9665.885, "text": "Two mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 9666.765, "end": 9715.865, "text": "Thank you, colleagues. As mentioned previously, we're gonna start our first panel with uh A presentation from Kreb. We have Anne-Marie Lourie, Susanita Didiago, Stephen Chakras, Sano Stanti, and Terry Wong. Do we have you folks? All right, please approach and uh we will get started. I will have to leave in just a few moments for council business on the uh water main repairs. Uh following this, following the conclusion of this panel as well as the questions from council, we'll go to a subsequent panel from More Neighbors Calgary, and that includes Sandra Mann, Denis Robinson, Philip Turnbull, Clyde Bukert, and Rob Zhang. Great. Thank you so much for being here with us. Pleased for each of you. I may not have called you in the right order that you've uh planned it out, but uh please just uh introduce yourself, Bene.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 9716.785, "end": 10029.605, "text": "Thank you, your worship. My name is Susanita De Diego. I live in Ward 11. This is panel 61. Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and Counselors. As I said, my name is Susanita De Diego. I'm the chair of the Board of Directors for the Calgary Real Estate Board, or Kreb, as we call it. Our organization represents more than 8,700 realtors serving home buyers and sellers across Calgary and the surrounding areas. We are the largest member organization in the Calgary real estate community. Member engagement and collaboration are built into everything we do at Kreb, so I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in the public hearing today and share our perspective. Let me begin by acknowledging something important. Housing affordability and issues of supply have been real challenges in recent years. And we recognize the urgency many Calgarians feel about addressing them. As a realtor myself, I work with these buyers and sellers every day who care deeply about these issues. Our members are uniquely positioned to work with housing consumers to help them navigate a wider range of complexities in the marketplace. We work daily with families trying to buy their first home, seniors looking to downsize, and renters hoping to transition into ownership. We understand the importance of policies that support housing choice and availability across the spectrum of housing options, both market and non-market based. We know that real estate is local. Housing outcomes are shaped by local infrastructure, transit access, and community design. Factors that vary widely across the city. This is why a one size fits all approach is not the most effective way to manage growth and housing demand. For these key reasons, Krebs supports the repeal of blanket rezoning. In its place, we advocate for growth strategies that increase housing supply while safeguarding infrastructure capacity, affordability objectives, and the vitality and character of our communities. Historically, Calgary's housing supply has responded when demand justified it, mostly in the new communities and without the need for blanket rezoning. Since 2000, the city has experienced three major housing shortages in 2005 and 2006, 2013 and 14, and 2022 and 2024. Each was driven largely by a sudden increase in migration. With population growth expected to slow, there's time to ensure that rezoning is done in a way that provides certainty for existing residents, potential residents, and builders. Our chief economist Dan Marie Lurie is here today and will expand on these market trends and what they mean for housing supply in Calgary. These patterns also highlight another important consideration. Market certainty. Blanket rezoning has created uncertainty for buyers and sellers, mostly in our city center district, and has not resulted in improvements in affordability. Stability and predictability are important for maintaining confidence in the housing market, particularly during periods of economic adjustment. A blanket approach to rezoning is leading to densification that creates parking pressures and potential safety issues, reduced livability and long-term community cohesion. Rapid changes in land use can strain infrastructure, contributing to congestion and reduced service levels. Krebs supports a more thoughtful approach through local area planning for existing communities, which look at each community to determine what forms of housing are appropriate for specific streets and neighborhoods. This type of planning provides a clearer blueprint for how communities will evolve over time. It also creates greater certainty for existing homeowners, future residents, and the building and development community, while maintaining the diversity of housing types within neighborhoods, including detached, semi detached, row, and apartment houses. Another important consideration is affordability. Anne-Marie will dive a little deeper during her presentation, but more effective ways to support housing supply and affordability could include targeted densification and priority growth areas, better use of public land for attainable housing, support for secondary suites, and gentle density where infrastructure can support it, and partnerships such as community land trusts that can help maintain long term affordability. These approaches allow the city to increase housing supply while still aligning development with infrastructure.", "segments_merged": 35 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 10029.605, "end": 10036.305, "text": "Sorry uh your time has ended, but uh please stick around for questions should there be any.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 10036.305, "end": 10049.225, "text": "Thank you. One more. Sentence, Calgarians deserve housing policies that are both ambitious and well designed. Policies that create homes, strengthen communities, and stand the test of time. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 10049.625, "end": 10055.685, "text": "Thank you. And my order may be incorrect here, but Anne-Marie Lurie next, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 10056.465, "end": 10373.765, "text": "Thank you. Good afternoon. Um so I am Emory Lurie. My I'm the chief economist of the Calgary Reals Report. While we support several measures taken to improve affordability and densification, we continue to feel that the uncertainty that blanket rezoning creates is more problematic than the perceived benefits and should be repealed. This does not mean that we do not support changes in existing communities, but would rather see the densification occurred based on local area plans and specific land use that outline the where and what of densification, providing clarity to builders and residents in each community. While this planning does take time, shifting market conditions have given you the time that you need. If we s go to slide one. At the time of uh approval of bananary zoning, there was a lot of concern regarding housing affordability and the lack of supply. Much of this was driven by the sudden shift in migration as we went from under 20,000 migrants per year to over 140,000 migrants over a two year period. The sudden inflow caused a supply shortage for resale, rental, and new homes, ultimately causing significant gains in prices and rents. However, thanks to our available land supply, like previous cycles, the shortage also drove a construction boom. If we go to the next slide. The share of redevelopment versus new development remained relatively the same pre and post-approval. 70% in new communities, 30% redevelopment, indicating that blanket rezoning has not significantly altered the level of redevelopment compared to what was already occurring before approval. Furthermore, of the units added in the city center, the majority were apartment-style homes rather than row or semi homes. Missing middle construction in these areas that were redeveloped accounted for less than 6% of the total starts, no different than what occurred prior to rezoning, indicating blanket rezoning did not result in an increase in the share of missing middle development occurring in existing communities. The next consideration is how prices were impacted. Following three consecutive years of record high starts and migration returning to $20,000 per year, conditions have shifted, taking the pressure off home prices and rental rates. However, it was the supply growth in the new communities that have improved affordability over blanket rezoning. Most of the redevelopment has occurred in the city center district. Yet resale prices in the city center continue to rise across all property types, despite the improvement in supply. So while additional supply can weigh on prices, how it influences resale prices is not only dependent on the where, what, and how much supply is being added, but also on the price of new supply. If we go to the next slide. Within the city center, the highest price growth occurred for row homes built within the previous five years, bringing the resale price up to levels that were closer to brand new row homes. Meanwhile, affordable older row homes continue to report price growth and really tight market conditions. Meanwhile, in the southeast area, an area where all construction activity occurred in new developments, the spread between new home prices and resale prices are much closer than what is reported in the city center. So new supply growth has caused resale prices to ease in this area. Ultimately, new home and resale prices are related. And while increasing supply can weigh on resale prices, the impact is dependent on the price spread between new and resale homes. Next slide. So how do you deal with affordability? The first consideration is exactly what segment of the market are you trying to target? Affordable ownership, affordable rental, or non-market housing. The addition of secondary suites and lane homes can help add more affordable rental product in the market as rents in these units are typically less than what you would see from a purpose-built rental and can help also with affordability for owners. However, there is still a significant need for non-market subsidized housing for those who struggle most. The challenge on the ownership side is often more related to suitability and desirability. We have a wide range of lower priced apartment condominium product that is attainable for a large share of households, but ultimately they may not be suitable for larger households or households with several dependents. Blanket rezoning has not drastically shifted conditions nor created affordability, but it has created uncertainty for residents, leading some to consider restrictive covenants and legal action. The challenging economic climate and record high starts point to a longer absorption time of current supply. Given the city time to find a solution that provides more certainty for builders and residents while achieving density targets. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 10375.945, "end": 10387.225, "text": "And next up. I'm sorry, I'm catching up here still. I believe Terry Wong, since uh you're sitting right there, we'll go to you and then I'll move to the telephone.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "Councillor T. Wong", "start": 10388.605, "end": 10395.865, "text": "Uh actually, Chair, we have two other speakers, San Osante and Steve Sarkos. They're online, and they're supposed to speak next.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 10396.445, "end": 10405.545, "text": "Certainly sorry, yes, and my I don't think my list corresponds with the order in which you were called, so bear with me here. Uh so we will start with Stephen Shawcross, then, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 10407.045, "end": 10409.725, "text": "Okay, I'm on the line. Hopefully you can hear me clearly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 10410.565, "end": 10411.305, "text": "Loud and clear.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 10412.765, "end": 10477.865, "text": "Thank you. Uh your worship, uh, members of City Council, I'm Stephen Shawcross, and I'm here with my co author, San Ostanti. In 2024, we produced a paper entitled The unassailable case against blanket rezoning, in which we make predictions on a number of outcomes and impacts associated with the implementation of blanket rezoning. Unfortunately, these impacts have come to pass as predicted and are further elaborated upon in an update of the original paper, which was recently forwarded to City Council. In the interest of time, we've generated a voiceover slide presentation highlighting. The salient points of the paper and will be happy to elucidate on specific aspects at the conclusion of the planning of the of the panel presentations. On that note, we request that the clerk play our updated dissertation, which is eight minutes in total for both speakers. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 10482.405, "end": 10488.085, "text": "Thank you. And next up we have San Ostante, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 10490.485, "end": 10495.745, "text": "We're looking for the presentation to be uh uh to be uh played.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Administration", "start": 10496.725, "end": 10497.685, "text": "It looks like we've got it on.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 10497.685, "end": 10931.545, "text": "The unassailable case against blanket rezoning 2.0. This updated assessment incorporates current market data, administrative performance metrics, and international policy shifts to demonstrate that our original arguments against blanket rezoning have transitioned from predictive warnings to documented realities. As Calgary City Council moves towards a potential repeal of the rezoning for housing program in 2026. It's imperative to review the data that substantiates the need for a full repeal of the blanket zoning bylaw and a return to comprehensive, context-sensitive planning. The original promise of blanket rezoning was to increase affordability through supply, streamline the development process, get more efficient use of infrastructure, etc. Unfortunately, the blanket rezoning has failed to achieve these objectives, but at high social, environmental, and economic cost. As evidenced by the record-breaking year of 2025, supply is not the issue, as only 5.6% was the result of blanket rezoning. The boom occurred in greenfield sites and via local area plans, with a large percentage of the supply already in the pipeline prior to 2024. The city's notion of improving overall housing market dynamics by adding new supply. Is counterintuitive and specious in the extreme. As evidenced, house prices in Calgary have remained stable or increasing from 1980 to the present time, except when impacted by exogenous and extreme events. NEP, the global financial crisis, and COVID being those particular instances. The other mitigating factor in terms of oversupply is that land development and home building are for-profit enterprises and they utilize sophisticated tools to prevent chronic oversupply of units in perpetuity. Supply demand is monitored and refined regularly to match market demand and prevent overproduction of supply. Blanket rezoning has been an affordability failure. Prices have continued to rise. They've increased on new homes between 2024 and 2026, and resale prices increased in the city center in 2025. Calgary's housing progress strategy states at least one in five households are unable to afford their housing. Blanket rezoning did not lower prices, it inflated the land bases. Blanket rezoning turns family homes into redevelopment assets, pricing out families and seniors, and accelerating gentrification of communities. Recent data in Calgary demonstrates the inflationary impact of upzoning on land value in these inner city communities. In Mount Pleasant, for example, a typical 1950s bungalow on a 6,000 square foot lot or a 50 foot lot increased from 722,000 to 986,000, about a 36% increase in land value. Similarly, in Killarney, a typical 50-foot lot increased from $740,000 to over a million dollars, a 37% increase in land value. The unintended downside of blanket rezoning was an immediate inflationary impact on the land value pegged to its highest and best use. That affected a decrease in overall housing affordability. Blanket rezoning promised to streamline the development process, however, removing public hearings at the beginning only created gridlock at the end. It's proven that the tree canopy is one of the major contributors to the appeal of any community in Calgary. Aside from being one of the goals of the City of Calgary to increase the tree canopy, Blanket Rezoning Initiative has reduced the tree canopy by drastically reducing the green space available to plant trees. This also results in the creation of urban heat islands, increasing the need for more summer cooling and wasted energy. When initially promoted, City Administration used Auckland and Minneapolis as the urban leaders in best planning practice to sell blanket rezoning. However, Auckland reverted from blanket rezoning in 2025, and Minneapolis just recently also reverted. The world is moving back to contextual planning and targeted sequenced intensification focused on areas that are best suited to density. Blanket rezoning constitutes a sundering of the social contract, and the uncertainty benefits no one. There is a psychological impact of uncertainty on health and well being, which is contrary to the principles of planning for healthy communities espoused by the City of Calgary. We believe a better way to grow is through comprehensive planning via LAPs, followed by land use redesignation that will provide certainty. Designates the best sites for density, corridors, nodes, and high-intensity areas, but not all sites, and matches population growth with infrastructure capacity. Blanket rezoning is a blunt instrument, a sledgehammer when urban redevelopment requires a scalpel and a deaf touch. The solution to affordable housing is a community land trust. Land is 30% of the cost of any housing. The city owns an abundance of surplus land sites. The city could establish a community land trust and lease these sites to the trust on a 99 year lease. The land trust would then develop affordable housing and sell these homes into the market to qualified buyers at presumably 30% less than market value. Owners would then resell back to the land trust at their cost base plus a cost of housing increase, providing a perpetual, affordable housing solution. Our recommendation is to repeal blanket rezoning and reinstate IP 2007. And then establish a separate public hearing on recommendations regarding policy, programs, and protocols to achieve the stated objectives without the attendant impacts.", "segments_merged": 43 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_82", "start": 10933.225, "end": 10963.985, "text": "As evidenced, blanket rezoning has failed to achieve the stated objectives, instead, delivering unintended and undesirable social, environmental, and economic impacts. Given the easing of in migration and the current supply dynamics, we have the time to fashion policies and programs that are capable of addressing the identified affordability, product diversity, and approval streamlining issues. This is our opportunity to get it right. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 10968.665, "end": 10976.305, "text": "All right. Thank you, PowerPoint presentation. And the presenters that prepared them. Terry Wong, you are up next.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 10977.365, "end": 11290.265, "text": "Thank you, Your Worship. I have a document I'd like to put on the corporate record if that's okay. Thank you. Your worship, members of council, my name is Churry Wong, uh resident of Ward 7, Hounsford Heights, Briar Hill, former member of City Council, former uh executive director of Chinatown's Business Improvement Area, former president of the Hounswood Heights Briar Hill Community Association. As you've heard of our speakers in the panel, we've given you a number of facts, evidences. We've given you perspective of analytical rationalization of the of the recommendations and the change of recommendations. These are from people who have have been in the business of real estate, economics, land development, and industry preparation. In my case, I'm not going to speak about that. I'm going to speak to you about my role as a member of council and as a member of community. Many of you know when we talk about blanket rezoning, we're talking about densification, we're talking about intensification, we're talking about infrastructure, we're talking about environment, we'll talk about transportation, transit. That is the role of Planning Commission and the Council to establish the great city that people want to live and work in. Go back into 2006 2009 timeframe, the city of Calgary engaged in what we call Imagine Calgary. Imagine Calgary was the was again the view of 100 years. What will Calgary be? At that time, Many people took a look at that. 18,000 people as a matter of fact. 18,000 people over 18 months engaged in that planning process. It was a city led process, but owned by communities. It was a process that led into planning calgary. It was a process that led into a lot of the conversations we're having today. When we talk about those processes, you know, I often say in the in the course of 2006 to 2026. Have we gone through Groundhog Day? We keep popping up over and over again, looking for a, you know, a different world, but we're back in the same world, doing the same thing, hoping for a change, but the definition definition sounded, we're back to the same place again. Welcome to Imagine Calgary. What was Imagine Calgary? Imagine Calgary asked the question what kind of city does this Calgary want to become? The core idea at that time was it's a great place to make a living, a great place to make a life, built based on built environment, economic systems, social systems, natural environment, and governance. It was based upon understanding that Imagine Calgary formulated a policy, which therefore then could help shape policies and bylaws and to get us to the place we are today. So where we are today is really on the evolution of creating great things. The question I asked during my years in administration and subsequently during my years in council are we doing the right things the right way? That's the perennial question. That's the Groundhog Day question. Because nine times out of ten, when we go back to, you know, when I started back involved in in this conversation, when we talked about the established era guidebook or what became the developed era guidebook, we talked about the North Hill Local Area Plan, which is part of Ward 7, which I represented, when we talk about creating the RCG bylaw amendments, the H GO bylaw, when we talk about creating the, you know, the the um how do you say the Housing Affording Task Force to Home Assurance Strategy? Each and every time we do these things, we ask the public, what do you think? We asked the public, where do you want to go? We asked the public, is this right or not? But guess what? Each and every time, and with the evidence, you see it in the media, each and every time, the public said, no, we missed the mark again. When we missed the mark, when we missed the mark of not doing the right things the right way, we erode public confidence, we erode public trust. We are all here as a former member of council and a current member of council to do the right things the right way. Because at the end of the day, the constituents elect us to put us that put us there. So there are a number of speakers I've spoken to relative to different approaches and one of one of the things that I'll say when we um talk about the housing strategy. The housing strategy really focused on the house, sorry, the affordability task force report really focused on the need for non-market affordable housing. For those that are struggling on the streets. Whether we be struggling because of income, whether we're struggling because of newcomers, whether we're struggling because of COVID and mental health and drug addiction, that is the area that is struggling the most. We are coming through a winter time period like we've had for the last five years, post-COVID, mental health drug addiction, homelessness, people are on the streets. But yet, we are struggling in 2024 and 2026, dealing with a homeless strategy on housing that's affordable as opposed to affordable housing. Why are we talking so much time, dedicating so much time about market housing when we need to spend more time on the other part? Now, some people say we are. We need to uh address the housing affordability task force, housing accelerated fund. With that, we will get the money to do what we need to do. There's no doubt about it. We do need to rely on the federal provincial governments. We do need to rely on our programs.", "segments_merged": 38 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 11290.265, "end": 11292.025, "text": "Sorry, but uh your time has run up.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 11292.025, "end": 11293.285, "text": "Okay. Thank you. We'll come back.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 11293.285, "end": 11301.205, "text": "Stay seated, yes. Okay, for questions we have Councillor tires.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 11302.625, "end": 11335.845, "text": "Uh thanks, Chair. First, I wanted to bring up a potential point of procedure. We for public hearings, um, it's clear in the rules that we're unable to provide, or or one speaker is unable to provide their time to another speaker. Would you say that this was kind of walking the line a little bit on that? It was like an eight minute presentation. It wasn't by one individual, it was by two, but it was combined. I just want some clarity on that.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 11336.205, "end": 11385.785, "text": "Yes, it was a little bit complex as far as one speaker ending far under their time and then partially going over to the next time. Madam Clerk, who's not currently present, had um set up the PowerPoints to fall one after another. And I think that was the intention there. So was it slightly irregular? I would say yes. Um however. It still ended up being 25 minutes approximately in the end. So your point of procedure is taken. It was an awkward position as to doing the math, and uh so it uh the ship has sailed, but it it is well taken, so thank you.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 11385.865, "end": 11427.565, "text": "Okay, understood. I had a question for Miss Anne-Marie Louie. Thank you for your presentation. So something that we've been hearing a lot during this public hearing is that there is a missing middle. Um, but you're saying that the missing middle wasn't built. Um the opposing side says you just need to give it more time. This is a policy that was put in place, you know, in 2024. It hasn't given much time to mature. The missing middle will appear. I want to know your opinion on that. Like, do you do you think it does need more time? Or", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 11427.945, "end": 11516.545, "text": "I I think it was getting built before. So so I think the challenge is is did blanket rezoning speed it up? It didn't really. We're still seeing a lot of and it's not that they were not seeing that developed, it's just it it's still at that 70-30 split. Even on the row type homes, we're still seeing a lot of it happen in the newer communities versus in the redevelopment side. So and I and I do feel we need to continue building that stuff. I just don't think blanket rezoning is a way to approach it. I actually just think you should just plan out this area of this community looks best for that type of property. Um so I I don't it it's not that I don't agree that we do need that product, and we do absolutely need that product. It's just how do we get it in a way that you know works for everyone and with certainty? Because I think that's probably um always been my biggest challenge is that if you're in a community um and you want to see more of that row houses, um, which is really falls under that missing middle, you're not seeing much of that semi anymore. That stuff's starting to shrink. We're seeing it more row versus semi. Um, but that being said, if you just plan certain streets, you do those local area plans, you give certainty for everyone, then you know exactly where it is, and I think you might actually get even more developed than you would just under a blanket approach because now you have certainty and you'll have less people fighting about it. I know the time to take to get there, I'm sure, is longer in some ways, but I think that in the end you'll still get that product. I mean, it was being developed before. Um, and it's continuing to be developed at the same pace.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 11517.645, "end": 11519.645, "text": "thank you so much for your feedback. Appreciate that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 11522.825, "end": 11530.105, "text": "I believe Councillor Kelly, you are up next. Councillor Yule, you're up next. My apologies.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 11531.505, "end": 11547.765, "text": "Yeah, I'm not sure who I wanna. Why don't we go with uh Ms. D Diego? Um I'm just curious, so C R E B, uh you represent a membership of of how large? Like how how many uh", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 11547.765, "end": 11551.985, "text": "We have uh a little over 8,700 realtor members.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 11551.985, "end": 11556.665, "text": "Okay. And so you so you guys are speaking on behalf of of that many realtors.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 11556.665, "end": 11557.125, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 11557.605, "end": 11580.405, "text": "And I so it's it's interesting to me to see that you know realtors would be um advocating um Against or or for the repeal in that, like, doesn't this uh zoning provide more housing, I guess, uh for realtors to to for the industry to sell? Um so maybe just kind of speak about that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 11580.445, "end": 11620.265, "text": "Sure, and I'll I'll use my own self as an example because I am a realtor buying and selling houses every day. We care about the communities that we serve, and as Anne-Marie brought up, we care about the certainty that our clients can expect when they buy into a community. Yes, is more inventory beneficial to our members at large for sure, but at what cost? And every realtor member that I've ever known in my 38 year career cares deeply about their clients. And so that certainty is a really big part of what we do or what we would like.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 11621.125, "end": 11642.705, "text": "So as a realtor, like um, so my parents are getting older and they're in a one of the donut communities, um, unable to find the the the downsizing in in their community, uh, have to look at places at the outskirts of the of the of the city. Uh is that it like are you are you experiencing that as a realtor?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 11642.725, "end": 11700.125, "text": "Most definitely. So if if we're looking at established communities in the inner city of Calgary, that affordability factor for seniors who are downsizing is definitely an issue. But I think that again, if we're talking about how those communities are developed, if we're looking at putting the density in those communities, there's a better way to do it. If we are still looking at putting them in areas that are higher traffic areas, that can lessen the cost of that new product. There's currently in my neighborhood in Oak Ridge a new development going in where the co op is, and it's going to be multifamily apartment style, both off market and market housing. If communities can support that, that actually solves the problem too. So these will be affordable for the owners that are selling their homes in my community.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 11702.045, "end": 11706.645, "text": "Um okay, I think I think that's all. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 11706.645, "end": 11707.345, "text": "Did I answer your question?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 11707.345, "end": 11708.505, "text": "You did. Yeah, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 11708.765, "end": 11709.205, "text": "You're welcome.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 11711.105, "end": 11733.925, "text": "Thank you, Chair. Um, Mr. Wong, please. This may be the first time I've actually asked you to speak longer at council, but I I value your opinion, all of your presenters' expertise, statistics. This is what we need. And you're an expert at that, so I like to do I don't think you finished your presentation. If you have anything more to add, please do.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 11734.205, "end": 11736.045, "text": "Thank you. Thank you, Council McLean. And uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 11736.465, "end": 11924.585, "text": "I'm a bit of a sidebar. When I was on the other side, I never knew. Yeah, I I exceeded my time now that I'm here. My goodness. Okay. Thank you. Let me just summarize by a couple of things. You've heard from our chair of the real estate board, you've heard from our economists, you've heard from realtors, you've heard from our urban planners, all the different rationalizations, realizations. But at the end of the day, when you get down to my statement, the choice is yours. The choice is as to where you go, how to go is yours. When you do that, you have to take all the variety of input that you've heard over the course of the last five, six days. You have to take a look at all the facts and evidence. But you have to also sort out back from reality, right? As well as some of those aspirations and wishes and hopes. One of the things that wasn't said before, or maybe said vaguely, for example, is that Calgary is going to be a population of two million by 2030. When you take a look at the actual demographics right now, number one, we haven't done a census since 2019. So a lot of the basis decisions have not been based on accurate data uh up to date data. But the projections right now for Calgary to be two million, the city of Calgary two million, is 2045, 2050. A metropolitan region, our economic region, yes, we're there, but we're not responsible for airdreen, okotoks, and balzac and places like that. You need to take a look at the facts of that population data. The other thing you need to take a look at, and I talked to Anna Marie about this. We talk about income and housing. Back when I came in Calgary, back in 1980, and I bought my first house, the income ratio to housing was about 2.3. So with 2.3 times the household income could buy you a house. Today it's five times, right? But you asked yourself the question, what was what was the differential there? What was the change there? The change was inflation pushed housing prices up, but inflation did not keep up with cost of living and the household income. So consequently, we're in this condemned conundrum about how do you resolve the social income challenge, affordability challenge, using things that you are in control with, and that is land development and marketplace, right? I'm not 100% convinced that council has all the tools to solve all the questions about affordability. So again, you're gonna hear from more speakers after that, talk to you about affordability and income and rents and their thing. There are certain things that we can do and we can stay within our lanes. The second part about staying within the lanes, and San Osante and Stephen Shaw Cost made reference, community land trusts. We have an abundance of city land that can be converted into city leases. Turn it over, build housing, 99 year leases. Taking that 30% of costs out of that property will create market housing to be sold, but again, at that without the land value. Those are things that are within your control, Council McLean. Those are things that you can do. Last thing I'm going to say is that we ought to say on council, you don't make sausage on the floor. Right? I agree. We don't make ham out of s you know, ham out of sausage either. As a former you know, when I was younger as a meat cutter, we made ham by carving up, you know, the pig accordingly. We didn't make ham by making sausage first. And that's what people want. They want quality housing, not sau sausage housing.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 11927.205, "end": 11939.885, "text": "Yeah, well said. And uh again, I thank you. It was very important for all of you to come down with uh A real expert opinion on real estate and and homes and what blanket rezoning uh would do or not do. So again, thank you so much for coming today.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 11942.205, "end": 11943.105, "text": "Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 11945.145, "end": 11975.945, "text": "Thank you, Chair. Ms. Lurie, if I could start with you just really quickly. Really appreciate your comments here today. If Calgary hasn't seen any proportional difference in missing middle housing, I kind of want to ask this question a little bit the opposite of how uh Councillor Tyres asked it before. If we haven't seen any increase in that, like why do you think that we're seeing so many of our neighbors come to advocate for the repeal of the zone that is enabling it?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 11977.785, "end": 12012.105, "text": "I think they're feeling it. Like they just feel that redevelopment. And I think that some people were um, you know, they were s I mean, people were complaining about this before. Uh let's be honest, like people in Eltador have had issues with this before any blanket rezoning came in. So I think it's just now more people are potentially seeing that. And we have to remember we had a record high number of starts. So so technically that number has risen, um, just in proportion, it hasn't changed. We just had a record high in both new communities and in the redevelopment. So I think it's just more different people are feeling it as opposed to communities that were already dealing with redevelopment for quite some time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 12012.545, "end": 12038.385, "text": "Perfect, thank you. Uh and Ms. Diago, if I may. We've had a great conversation here over the past several days. Uh, local area planning is continually coming up, uh, so much so that I'm I'm I'm contemplating bringing forward a motion of some kind to uh to expedite that to do more. Just wanted to get your thoughts in terms of whether that would be a good idea or not.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12039.165, "end": 12073.545, "text": "I've been present at hearings where people are talking about this issue, and I think it's a really good idea to reopen the discussion with the residents of communities. They know best what is going to be best for their neighborhoods, and it is very local. It's very specific. So if you have an LAP that constitutes, you know, two dozen communities, well, all of those communities are quite unique and distinct. So yes, I would welcome reopening that discussion for sure.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 12074.025, "end": 12107.765, "text": "That's great, thanks. I also uh uh I I appreciate the the the the presentation overall. Lots of really great ideas. Uh unfortunately, most of those ideas are not before us today. Um so I just wanted to get like really clear on this, if it if it's okay. Um we're talking about what should the base zoning be for low density housing. That's what's before us right now. So to be clear for all of us, are your members better served by that being RCG and HGO or by R1 and RC2?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12110.185, "end": 12123.685, "text": "I think it depends on the community for sure, but um I you know we we are recommending a complete repeal without amendments. So to go back to the RC one and RC two.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 12123.805, "end": 12127.965, "text": "So your members are are are would prefer R1 and RC2 and that's why.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12128.065, "end": 12128.505, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 12128.885, "end": 12132.305, "text": "Okay, thank you. That's it, Cher.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 12134.545, "end": 12136.525, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12137.505, "end": 12146.205, "text": "Um I'm not sure who this question would be for. It was during the uh the presentation uh but about tree canopy. S Steven Sano?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 12149.925, "end": 12151.565, "text": "Uh you can take it, Sano, if you want.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 12151.565, "end": 12152.905, "text": "Sure. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12152.905, "end": 12154.105, "text": "Okay, great", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 12154.105, "end": 12154.565, "text": "Fair enough.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12154.845, "end": 12186.105, "text": "So the tree canopy, we heard from a presenter this morning that was talking about how we've we are losing tree canopy, but we're also seeing that happen on single and semi-detached lots that are being rebuilt within the inner city. I'm wondering, we also heard that uh RCG has higher requirements in terms of trees being replanted than you have on semis and singles that come up new. Do you have any thoughts about uh equalizing that and helping our tree canopy in terms of new singles and semis that get built in the inner city?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 12189.465, "end": 12242.725, "text": "I'm not sure that um I I guess what I can say is that I know that uh the tree canopy is one of the most um influential factors in in the community's appeal. And so I I I know how important it is. I don't know that that there's any differentiation between um building infills uh versus building you know an RCG other than We know it's a fact that there just simply isn't any uh land available after you pave and provide for sidewalks and uh and other amenities on an RCG lot on an eight unit you know development. There simply isn't the the available land to to to replant trees. So I don't know, I hope that answers your question.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12243.065, "end": 12266.325, "text": "Uh no, like RCG requires five trees to be planted after the building goes up that in a way that uh singles and semis do not. Uh so uh we actually have more trees getting planted on those sites after they're constructed that we don't see on singles and semis. And I'm wondering if you think uh we should maybe be looking at something equal for singles and semis that are being rebuilt in the inner city to help with that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 12267.725, "end": 12282.565, "text": "I think that that's the notion I I think that notion has virtue. Uh yeah, I'll just add that uh I think in practice we're not that the evidence isn't there, but the notion certainly has virtue and I'll uh over to you, Stephen.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12284.065, "end": 12284.805, "text": "Okay, great.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 12284.805, "end": 12364.665, "text": "Yeah, it it it the issue relates to coverage, uh, you know, lot coverage in a typical uh uh single at 45, uh versus uh if you get a double row of townhouses at uh 60 and and above, uh I don't know how you're gonna get trees in there. And and uh moreover, there's no room for the canopy uh you know to to actually grow. So uh you know that's a it's a bit that's a bit of a uh a falsehood. Uh you may be asked to plant more, but you certainly don't have room for the canopy to expand and provide you with The canopy space you debt at 45% coverage. However, to to your point, uh it would make sense to look at making sure that we continue to uh uh if you know to not lose the canopy. And to it's it's kind of interesting if uh when I when I did the the work on uh Uh garrison wood, we came up with a set of customized infrastructure standards that had sidewalks bent around uh bent around the tree so we could preserve the mature the mature canopy. Um that that was just that's one example of how you might be able to deal with it through customized infrastructure standards where you're redeveloping uh in existing areas and you want to preserve the canopy.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12367.065, "end": 12374.205, "text": "Okay, thank you. Um there was a slide about social well being. Which of the two of you would be the right person to speak to on that?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 12376.385, "end": 12378.965, "text": "I I could speak to that. Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12379.265, "end": 12418.845, "text": "So my question is you you spoke to sort of the social well-being of homeowners and sort of their their loss potentially, the loss aversion, the uncertainty there. But we've actually had a lot of young people who are sort of feeling a lot of social unease and well-being by not really having a path to homeownership and not really seeing a future within Calgary. Did you uh study any of that in terms of your look at social well being within? Because you I know you represent both, you know, uh home sellers but also home buyers. And so first time home buyers who maybe are are feeling a little bit worried about their prospects for uh being able to purchase a house within Calgary.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 12420.445, "end": 12518.665, "text": "yeah, uh obviously we we've quoted in the paper, and you've got you've got our larger paper. We have uh you've got footnotes on the the more recent research. Um, it's interesting. We when we did the the Nose Creek area structure plan with the city, it was based on healthy planning principles and a whole series of uh of uh of uh items you could put into the plan that would uh that would improve uh health and well being. Uh uncertainty is is the a killer. That's that's stress. And that, and you're absolutely correct. It it it it weighs on both sides. And uh as as someone who had three jobs and a renter in my first house in Calgary. I I I know the the the pressure and the stress that that can put on one. Um uh so you know what what we're suggesting is uh that's why I I'm saying saying after you get an LAP that the community can sign off on, you go to land use because that creates your certainty. Uh certainty for for the existing residents, uh certainty for builders. Uh where we we might be doing a better job is uh again on on the uh public land trust is providing housing. uh at below market rates to to facilitate uh and to house the the younger uh generation that need that's that's starting out that's that that uh could could get into one of these houses to start out with before they they build some equity they they you know they they they move up they advance in their career and are able to move into market based housing so that you know that those are that that's the way you would address both of those uh the the uncertainty related to both of those uh cohorts", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12519.905, "end": 12563.845, "text": "Okay, thank you. Anne-Marie Flori, if I could. We're hearing sort of this idea to sort of sort of repeal, but I think you actually bring up a great point. Like we've seen only really 5.6%, 6% of this kind of product being built, right? It's not actually that significant. I guess I'm having a hard time with this sort of idea like. On the one side, it's having the most drastic impact. It is the world-ending problem that we need to deal with right now. But on the other hand, it's only 5.6%. Can you help me sort of rationalize this disconnect that I'm feeling?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 12564.205, "end": 12612.345, "text": "Well, and and I'm on the camp of yeah, it hasn't had that much of an impact. I mean, that's what the numbers are telling me. Um I and that's why I'm arguing that you have time. Like, why don't we plan it so that you give everybody certainty? So those people who are feeling that angst, um, you know, both for existing homeowners or people looking to buy in communities, have that certainty. That's the whole point. Um, it hasn't changed much yet. We still know we need that sort of product. Densification is going to happen as your city grows. We know this is going to happen. So why don't we just take the time and plan it in a way that gives everyone certainty? Um and and that and that's part of the argument is that we do know that this hasn't had that much impact yet. Um so why don't we just take that time to do things in a way that makes sense for everyone?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12612.685, "end": 12655.605, "text": "I guess when I pair that up with your piece around this, we've seen a flat flattening of the prices. We not decrease, so we haven't necessarily created affordability by reducing the price in townhomes, but we've seen it seen it flatten. And if we hadn't been building those. Row homes. I mean, I I only took economics to a 203 in university, but like the basic idea, right? More supply, then it brings down the cost. Maybe doesn't bring down the cost because we actually haven't seen that many. But this flattening, had we not been building the town homes, we would have actually seen that product, which has been selling and whatever, increase in price. My reading that incorrectly.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 12655.605, "end": 12725.905, "text": "Okay, no, on the price side, that is not exactly what's happening. Um so so what I would say what we have been seeing, um, and again, it's hard to, we've only had one year of full data, so that's part of what we're looking at. Um, most of where the price adjustments have been happening to date have not been in the inner city, not in that city center. I know our mapping doesn't perfectly align, but our city center, we've actually seen prices rise for row homes for existing resale, in part because of the price spreads. So the challenge is in the inner city, in the city center, the new product is coming in at a higher price point. So let's say the row product is at $7.75. That's generally what the numbers that we're seeing at, you know, on the aggregate. Well, the row homes that are, let's say, not even five years old, we saw actually a stronger increase in price for those homes to bring it closer to the new home price. Whereas the lowest price stuff in the existing, so this under six, which is the typical for the resale, um, that stuff still saw price growth. Right. Because so, but in the other areas, so again, when I look at outside, so you added supply there, um, not enough to change the pricing point because of the relative spreads.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12725.905, "end": 12754.025, "text": "But isn't that sort of saying that there is a demand for this? Like people have different choices about how they want to live, where they want to live, and that there is a demand for living inner city, and that demand is being met in terms of this townhome and this price point at a steady level by the amount of supply that has been coming on in this area, by be by the fact that we have sort of seen this level off and not huge vacancy rates in terms of the sales of that product.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 12754.025, "end": 12834.165, "text": "Well, the supply-demand ratios are actually very different depending on price points. So, what I've actually saw in some of the numbers in the city center is you have much more supply at the higher price point than the demand ratio. So one thing I look at sales to new listings ratio. You're at a 40% ratio for newer product that's higher priced, whereas you're at a 70% ratio for older product. So what that tells me is that there's a lot more demand for the affordable product than there is for the higher price product. So naturally, that supply will start to shift as market changes. So I think that's partly what we're starting to see is it's not necessarily supply will just start to slow. At some point, if the demand isn't there, you will see the starts start to slow because they can't sell them. So I think that is something that you always have to be aware of. Even in the surrounding, in kind of at the outskirt areas, that supply that's coming on, that new supply, that price spread isn't very different from the resale. So what we see happen is a lot more substitution effect into the new product versus the resale because the price spread is so much smaller. So the challenge in the city center or in our city center bubble is that the prices of the stuff that's coming in is so much higher that at some point the resale prices have to come up enough. To create that more demand from new builds.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12834.345, "end": 12895.325, "text": "Until the market sort of levels off or whatever, right? So the market would take care of that in in theory in terms of swings. And I guess the other thing that your presentation really brought up is we have these ten year cycles, right? Basically in terms of of housing affordability. And and so the decision that we're actually making today Will actually not be felt. We'll have the housing starts that are already in the queue, those ones getting built, and but we'll really see those. I mean, it's by and large, we'll probably see it around 2035, is when it we see the next housing crunch. And I'm just wondering how you think that this decision today can make it so that we don't see the housing crunch that we saw in 2005, 2015, 2024, right? Like it's kind of on this cadence of every 10 years. So how do we how does the decision that we make today? Yes, we maybe have rounded that side of the of the curve, but how do we make it so that we level it off? Because every one of those times we have these huge price spikes, which just make housing that much unaffordable for people trying to get in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 12895.325, "end": 12938.785, "text": "Right. And it's driven by migration and economic conditions. So I think that again, I'm in favor of like plan it out. You have local area plans where you can actually identify where everything's gonna be, you have time, and that way when it's time for builders to ramp up, it's easier for them to do so. They'll face less opposition, everyone knows what's happening in those areas, they've already identified it. It's like your new communities. You go into a new community, everyone knows exactly what you're getting. It'd be really nice if we could do the same thing in the existing communities where it's very clear. And if you set up that principle now, by the time that you know our next sort of spike comes, you're able to ramp up that demand much quicker, similar to what we almost do in new communities.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 12939.785, "end": 12965.925, "text": "Uh okay, thank you. This is good. Uh I'll on that note I'll go into LAPs maybe with uh Susanita uh Da Diego, please. Thank you. You were merely mentioning sort of this like long term stability, predictability, and sort of this focus on LAPs as providing this. Um you do you know, like have you done a lot of research into where we've seen townhomes and row homes being built across the city in your your research for this?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12966.005, "end": 13026.925, "text": "So I I work in So many communities in the city. I do a lot of relocation work, so it takes me all over. I can tell you that in the new communities, you see where that multifamily is being built. The density is on the corridors. Even TASA, which is kind of inner city, that's where the density is, is in the corridors. If you're able to look at opening up the LAP discussion and look at each community and see where those corridors are, and that's where the density happens, I think that the residents in those communities, again, they'll have the certainty, they'll know where it is. And also for people who want to live in those communities, they'll know what they're getting themselves into and the certainty going forward. And I think that's probably anecdotally the most complaints that I get about blanket rezoning when I'm out in the communities is that you just don't know where those things are going to be built, and it's a it's a big fear.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 13027.245, "end": 13030.745, "text": "Are you quite familiar then with the LAPs that have been done to date?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13031.265, "end": 13035.025, "text": "Uh, not with first hand experience. I couldn't speak to that. No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 13035.025, "end": 13118.285, "text": "Yeah, I've just I've been looking at it. We've got South Shaganapi, Riley, North Hill, Westbrook, West Elbow, Chinook Heritage, and East Calgary International Avenue are all the ones that are done. And actually, if you take those and you map where we've built town homes and row homes, there are only two communities in this city that have that sit outside of LAPs that have actually seen any. Real townhomes or row homes. That's Boness and Bridgeland. Those are the only two communities that sit out outside of existing LAPs, places where we have planned the density. So I guess I'm having a hard time with this idea on the one side, we need to plan our density, plan our LAPs, land the density in this very planned sort of way. Every community that has had townhomes and row homes built in any sort of significant way within the last 10 years sits under an LAP currently existing. We are building out new ones in South McKnight, South Bow, and Kayburn. But those areas actually have not seen the density coming in yet. They will likely see the density coming in in a planned way as it comes. So I guess I'm having a hard time with this rectifying of like we need LAPs to land where the density comes, but we have LAPs where we have the density that has come in in terms of townhomes and row homes. The two almost overlap, except for those two communities of Boness and Bridgeland. Any thoughts on that?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13118.925, "end": 13154.205, "text": "I'm not an expert in LAPs. That's not what I do. I buy and sell real estate and work with the realtors at my member board. If that is already in the LAPs and that's where the density is planned for, great. It's the inner city communities that are having this, you know, mid street, eight plex being built. These are the communities that I'm hearing from. These are the clients that I'm hearing from. They have no problem with density, it's just where it's happening in their community. How that relates to the LAP for that community, I'm sorry, I'm not my area of expertise.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 13154.205, "end": 13168.045, "text": "'Cause they just seem to basically one hundred percent overlap. So we've done that exercise. We've told community they can look up any of these LAPs, they are standing LAPs, uh, but I guess the certainty has not sort of been provided in that so", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13167.985, "end": 13183.245, "text": "I think it's uh from what I've heard from other um presenters at these hearings is that uh a lot of the residents don't feel that they were fully consulted before these LAPs were created. And I think that's also the source of frustration.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 13183.425, "end": 13184.705, "text": "Okay. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13184.845, "end": 13185.245, "text": "You're welcome.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 13186.625, "end": 13187.905, "text": "Councillor Pantzovis.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13187.905, "end": 13198.465, "text": "so much uh oops. Thanks so much. Several questions have been answered, so I'll try to make sure I don't uh duplicate. Um Mr. Stante, on the phone.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 13198.465, "end": 13198.885, "text": "Online.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13199.345, "end": 13220.165, "text": "Um you you gave the presentation about what wasn't working, or excuse me, what didn't work with blanket rezoning. A lot of conversation has been uh from Calgarians about uh amendments, and I appreciate Krebs' position is no amendments, but if you were to build back something, what are some successes that Kreb observed in what was implemented uh two years ago?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 13224.585, "end": 13305.865, "text": "Well, I would say that they um what we recommend is it's a full repeal, followed by a structured plan to rebuild the LAPs across the city. And um you know we believe that that the LAPs are the the path forward. But in a more uh consultative way with communities. Um I think the mismatch that you're what that everybody's addressing, and if I can sort of read between the lines, you know, we have a we have a system where uh supply provide you know supply is provided on a slow curve. You know, and we only have a limited number of houses. If we did, if we pulled out all the stops, every builder in Calgary could only build so many houses per year in Calgary. And we have a system where immigration, for example, reach something like three times that. No matter the best intentions, we're never going to be able to achieve a supply match matching supply and demand. So you have to have planned growth, long term growth in communities, in consultation with communities, and preserving the nature and the and the character of these communities. So I'm not sure if I answered your question, but that's", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13307.165, "end": 13330.225, "text": "No, no. What about um a lot of committee members have said the benefit of blankary zoning was that uh approvals were accelerated so you didn't have to come to council, uh building could could save. Any thoughts there? Again, just looking if there was to salvage one of the hundred things that blanker zoning provided. Does Kreb have any saying they all should be thrown away, or is there a few gems we could pull out?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_63", "start": 13330.225, "end": 13374.545, "text": "Uh uh I I I wish there were, but we looked at all six goals of uh uh of the blanket rezoning, and in our paper, which I think everyone uh we provided a copy of our detailed paper, uh in in every case, for every one of those six goals, blanket rezoning worked in opposition to them. So uh and and specifically for uh streamlining of uh streamlining approvals, it it worked actually. in reverse. So we had more uh cases at STAB. So you really instead of uh you streamlined the front end but uh but you uh kind of loaded up the back end at the uh at the STAB process.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 13376.105, "end": 13533.305, "text": "I wonder if I might interject here. Being a planner of 50 odd years with the second largest architectural practice in the world, I I've had a bit of experience. I think, and this is this, and through the chair, this is uh this is uh getting back to a couple of the points. The the L LAPs are are the mechanism that one uses uh to identify uh the best locations for. Your higher density product. And invariably you want to be working collegially with the communities in a participatory versus a dictatorial manner in defining in defining your LAPs. But then what you want to do is you want to go to your land use redesignation as soon as you get an approved LAP, because then you've got certainty, and uh you could start to stimulate some more of that building because again you do have the certainty. The other thing that the removal of uh blanket rezoning will do. And when you do have an LAP with the land use in place, is you're not good you're not getting into a lot of spot rezoning, which is what is what tends to clog up council. If if you have a definitive LAP that has land use in place, you have far fewer issues that are going to be coming to council to be resolved because the community has uh the community has uh uh is on side, they've they've worked through the plan, they support the plan, you've got land use in place. Uh developers and builders know what they can do and where they can do it, and you you have solved a lot of your issues. The the the blanket rezoning. uh was was again, as I as I've explained, it's a sledgehammer when uh urban redevelopment requires a scalpel. Uh and and and so uh we've indicated and you know again I I've I've been through this mill a few times uh And the examples, some of the larger uh urban redevelopment projects I have done are Garrison Woods, Curry, Lincoln Park, Cory Park, and more recently Midtown Station. All of those we engaged with the community early on and had full support of the communities, bringing those master plans forward. And that is the key to having a relatively smooth process as you were moving forward, adding units and densifying. And I think The existing LAPs provide a reasonable starting point. They need to be refined. And again, followed up with an industry designation.", "segments_merged": 20 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13534.205, "end": 13570.185, "text": "Perfect. Mr. Maybe I'll just continue on there, Mr. Shawcross, about LAPs. I I'm in a word that maybe a third of my communities have LAPs and two thirds don't. So certainty, I agree with you 100%. We've heard a lot of that in the last week. So, how do you give certainty to communities when there isn't existing LEPs? If we went and used the LEPs as the guiding, should we go and get it across the city? How do your thoughts are? How do you bridge that, those areas that, as Councillor Atkinson said, there's several but don't have? How can we address that? Still provide certainty. But we still want our goals of gentle densification across the city.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 13572.445, "end": 13613.025, "text": "Well, that might be, you know, again, you may have to expedite that process. Uh expedite the LAP process. Uh and what if if or if they have if there are existing area redevelopment plans you can work with. Again, I I don't, you know, uh blanketing is is not is not a good method. Um uh it it it suggests you you really have to uh you you have to get you know have to get with with with the planning and the intensification in those communities. And and that that could be uh you may have to, as I said, fast track or expedite that that process in the communities where you're having where there are development pressures and uh where where you don't have an LAP in in place.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13613.665, "end": 13656.165, "text": "Thank you so much. Ms. Lurie. Thank you. You know, interesting. A lot of conversations have come and said the 5.6% supply and demand. If you build it, trickle down, impact. And I know 10 years ago you you commented on an article, but that that sort of logic if you build it, every home is important. They come with compelling arguments and just simple supply and demand economics. What is the disconnect? Why does Kreb come to the saying no, that 5.6% does not have a material impact? And others say we need it. Absent the 5.6%, there would be. Whatever, price spiking, et cetera. So what's the what are we missing as as a community?", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 13657.105, "end": 13673.845, "text": "Um well I think that the reality is if if there is a market demand for it, it will it will come. Like I mean the mar the prices will d drive that and the demand will actually happen. So you'll see the supply that will rise to meet that. I think sometimes the disconnect is you know there's a lot of talk over the filtering effect.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13673.845, "end": 13674.305, "text": "Sorry, it was", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 13674.305, "end": 13761.745, "text": "There's been a lot of talk over the filtering effect. So somebody moves out, it frees up, you know, another unit. Yes, that is true to a certain extent, but what we have to remember is that we went through a massive migration period. So what that did is it slows that impact. It's just because we had so many people come here at such a short time frame that you're not going to have that same impact in terms of the filtering effect. So that's one, that's where some of that disconnect is, is just because of the sudden change. When you go from under 20 to 60 to 80,000 migrants, that does it. The next aspect is sometimes there's a disconnect of what people want and what's available. And that's another challenge. And again, suitability. We have no problems building condos and higher density stuff. That's the stuff that's the most oversupplied right now. You know, it's just, it's it's not necessarily what people want. Um not to say that that's broad base. I mean, obviously somebody is still buying them, but that's where we're seeing the most oversupply. So, row homes, what we've seen is almost a shift in that less semis are being built in favor of more row. Um we do still have some pockets of the market where there's too much supply in row as well. It doesn't tend to be more in areas where they're building much more of it and where the price spread is much closer to the existing supply. So so I think some of the challenges is price point, where, and how much supply is being added.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13762.365, "end": 13814.205, "text": "I really appreciate that. Thank you. Just trying to spread that needle. It maybe that along that line, you know, you've you've said it, hey, look, this didn't have a material impact on on supply, and it's referenced. Our own administration said 64 units completed to date, 64 of 25,784 under construction. But 4,500 are being enabled. So, have we had enough time? The argument people have said, give it another five years, come back, give it another two years, let it go through. You even said your own presentation look, most of the housing that came on today was approved prior to 2024. So help me just sort of thread that again is saying, do we need another two, three years just to check? From an economics perspective, from your area of expertise, two, three, four, five years, would it be detrimental, or let it let it go through and see if it actually has an impact? Because 18 months, it's it's short. It's short.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 13814.225, "end": 13853.505, "text": "Sure, but if market conditions are changing and there's less demand for it, then you might not see that show up in your numbers, anyways. Um I'd argue that a lot some of that supply growth is starting to slow now. So because of the changing market conditions. So again, you're saying, well, you might see more of it, you might actually see less of it. Um what I'm actually seeing currently play out in the market is the demand for detached is far higher. Um, in fact, that is one of the tightest markets. That market is starting to slip into much tighter territory than any other market. Um, so we're not seeing a lot of detached, we're not seeing a lot of semi. So even if you're saying this stays in place and we'll start to see over time more row, um depends on the demand preferences.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13853.945, "end": 13871.625, "text": "But did not even say that. You know, there's folks that say but but RCG is the most flexible. So if the market changes and the builders they're smart men and women, they're gonna make an economic decision. So now they're only gonna build single family homes and just, you know, knock down the old fixer upper. So so do you think so so you think it it's a failed experiment, time to move on and go back to more", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 13872.265, "end": 13955.585, "text": "I just think there's alternative ways to do it. Um I so so I think that's probably more um my my basis on that is I just think that you know the market will determine what they want. Um blanket rezoning was there's a lot of other tools that the city were doing that, you know, I applaud them for. There was great things that they were doing to try and achieve density. Um, you know, they do focus on transit oriented and looking at where it makes sense. I think that that's probably a better mechanism. Um and and that's why we were saying, well, just plan it out so that we know what's gonna happen. Help enable the market to actually develop it when it needs it. Um I and I just don't know if I feel blanket rezoning is gonna do that. I know there's a lot of talk over time. Um Yeah, honestly, as an economist, you don't know. Time will tell if if that's the case. I can't say offhand that no, it won't ever happen. But from what we've seen to date, I'm I'm just not seeing that. I'm actually seeing some of the starts levels are starting to slow for some of that middle product just because people still want their detached homes for the most part. Um and we're not even factoring in that leapfrogging that's happening in our surrounding areas. We're seeing a lot of development happen in Airdrie, Chestermere, Cochrane. Um so so if they're not getting the product that they meet in Calgary, it's not to say that they're not willing to go outside of these areas. They are also growing tremendously.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 13956.965, "end": 14002.825, "text": "Appreciate that. No, just again, just trying to hear the arguments and and your years of experience and expertise and knowledge just to help understand. Because they're they're compelling arguments, and you see the logic of just one more year, one more year, and and to hear the other side. And maybe for for who I I don't remember who spoke a bit about the um backyard suites and the garage suites. So so whichever of the panel, um, there's been a conversation right now, it's or and and I would just love the the you know the commentary in the context of gentle growth, provide certainty, market economics. If we were to make that subtle change to an end. And from OR, so allowing three on an R1 as an example. Thoughts. Would that have material impact? All the issues you you faced with blank rezoning, would they be addressed, or is this a a nuanced way, a subtle way to get the density?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 14003.005, "end": 14049.445, "text": "Well, in terms of secondary suites, that I did mention secondary suites, lane homes. Again, how many? I'm not an expert in that by any means, but what I can say is that really does tend to add affordability. That does tend to be more affordable rental. It also offers a lot of options for potential owners, you know, mortgage helpers, multi-generational living. Like the benefits are pretty significant with secondary suites and potentially lane lane homes. I would hate to see that disappear for many reasons, just because, again, I think that fills some of that niche. I mean, we know that even the new rental that's coming in tends to come in at a higher price point. We don't necessarily struggle with building rental that's in that higher range. How do we get some of that product in the lower range where again where you don't have a lot of supply?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 14049.805, "end": 14068.445, "text": "Can I ask the same question, Miss De Diego? It's the final. Just the AND. I think I think in your presentation you mentioned about that. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. Yeah, the AND versus OR for basement and garage, impact to market, impact to affordability, and so on, and from your client's perspective, from Krebs' perspective.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14068.445, "end": 14128.185, "text": "I'm so happy that you asked me back. Thank you. Um I think and So I was watching the news the other day, and it was a profiling of family. I think it was in Brentwood, and they had a house where they built a Laneway home for their parents. And that helps multi-generational families. The grandparents were looking after the kids during the day. I know from, you know, we talked a lot about new home, new to the market buyers. I listened to a couple who I think they were both doctors, or one was a doctor and a lawyer, and they were talking about the affordability issue in Calgary. And even though they were working professionals, it was going to be perhaps be a struggle for them to purchase a property. That's where secondary suites come in very handy. If a neighborhood can support it, and if the lot sizes are large enough so that it doesn't become, you know, an overdensity issue, I think it's an and. It would be for me.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 14128.945, "end": 14133.685, "text": "Got it. So so that's interesting because you you you know, if you put it above a garage, it's already a building there.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14133.685, "end": 14133.925, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 14133.925, "end": 14142.265, "text": "You know, so the density doesn't improve increase the um the the lock coverage and and things like that. But no no, I I I appreciate your commentary and thank you all.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14142.265, "end": 14155.225, "text": "Right. And also uh just sorry as a um secondary suites uh are actually lower rentals than brand new uh inventory as well. So from an affordability standpoint it would be helpful.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 14155.345, "end": 14162.045, "text": "A much more targeted approach uh versus the look, thank you so much Kreb for the presentation, the data, and uh thanks for coming. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 14162.925, "end": 14164.325, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Winez, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14164.345, "end": 14181.945, "text": "Thanks. Miss Diego? D Diego? You back up? I I have one quick question. Um when you answered earlier, uh you said you wanted a repeal with no amendments. Are you happy with the built form of the definition of RCG right now?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14184.465, "end": 14203.865, "text": "Uh so this isn't my area of expertise either, so probably um either Mr. Stante or his co author would be uh better to answer that question. But if we're talking about the difference between uh three units, uh I think it was three units, what was the amendment again?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14204.425, "end": 14208.205, "text": "Removing zero lot lines, reduction of height, contextual setbacks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14208.285, "end": 14214.545, "text": "Right. So so the amendment was to change it to back to the way it was before,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14215.285, "end": 14252.085, "text": "No, to improve because there's still zero lot line building in the way it goes back because and you're still gonna have four versus three. It just sounded like everyone's talking about uh repeal into R1. They're not talking about what's happening with the RCG definition that still exists on the books. And so that's where I'm curious because when you hear a lot of people talk, they're talking as if we when we repeal, RCG definition is no longer a choice of housing, but it still will remain on the by the bylaw because what's before council is a bylaw with definitions.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14252.085, "end": 14252.225, "text": "right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14252.225, "end": 14258.805, "text": "And we're actually amending the RCG definitions off of what's before us.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14259.205, "end": 14290.245, "text": "Right, and I think it goes back to I think the beginning of these hearings when when I think the amendment discussion began. I wasn't here that day, but um you know if it if it is a matter of an amending an amendment to take it to the three units rather than the four units, I think that that would be something that would um you know be appealing. Um yeah, I I can't speak for Krebs' position to that because we didn't look at amendments.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14290.605, "end": 14307.505, "text": "But that's the foundation of what's before us because we're amending the bylaw from putting it everywhere. We're rebringing back definitions for single family duplexes with secondary suites. And those are all the rules that's before council. And so that I was just curious about your statement. So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14307.505, "end": 14322.185, "text": "Yeah, I'm sorry I can't I can't help in that regard. When we were speaking about it uh um from Krebs perspective, it was before amendments were suggested. So um, you know, our our recommendation is to repeal without amendments.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14322.185, "end": 14327.445, "text": "but but the amendments have always been there since the notice of motion was passed. And so, yeah, anyway.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14327.445, "end": 14329.965, "text": "I'm probably not the right person to ask, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 14334.265, "end": 14378.385, "text": "Thank you. I believe that uh concludes this panel. We will move now to our next panel, and this will be likely the final panel before we go on break around 3 15 ish or so. Next uh panel is Sandra Mann. Denis Robinson, Philip Turnbull, Clyde Buchert, and Rob Zang. Alright, uh let's proceed. Sandra, we're ready for you.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 14379.765, "end": 14380.565, "text": "Go second.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 14380.885, "end": 14383.205, "text": "Okay, who is first up? Okay, please proceed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 14389.585, "end": 14581.645, "text": "Hi, my name is Rob Zhang. I'm from Panel 45. Hello, Council members and Mayor. I'm here to speak in opposition to the repeal of blanket rezoning. I live in Ward 6 with my wife. I'm a mechanical engineer, and she's a registered nurse. We moved here from Winnipeg in 2023 in no small part to the fact that we knew we wouldn't be able to afford Toronto or Vancouver. The housing affordability, mountains, and economic opportunities of this city are what drew us to Calgary. We currently live comfortably in a detached home in Aspen Woods because we're fortunate enough to receive help with a down payment from our parents. Without that help, our house will be in much poorer shape, or we will live much further away from downtown where I work. We are grateful for this advantage, but I believe homeownership should be accessible for everyone that works hard. Many young people like me, like my wife and I, many young people like my wife and I have moved to Calgary for the opportunities this city offers. They all want a place to live, and the topic of housing is ever on our minds. If we want to have a strong economic base in the city, we have to make living here easier for the younger generation. Signs that the 2024 blanket rezoning is just starting to work. 4,500 new housing starts are enabled by rezoning. And I also took a little economics in university, and I learned that when you increase supply, the price falls. But in our case, where demand is high, the velocity of price increases on homes can flatten. While reduced demand from immigration cuts may play a role, limiting population growth is not a long term strategy. Housing is cheap in Detroit too. Calgary and Edmonton have been leading the country in housing starts in the last two years, and it's no coincidence. People want to come to the city to work, and it would be economically detrimental if we couldn't properly house them all. Calgary has been leading the country in economic expansion, tourism, and population growth. If we can also keep housing prices down, Calgary will be the greatest Canadian city of the 21st century. The only other way to provide housing without density is to do greenfield development, but that comes a lot of baggage. It means new paved roads, new water pipes, and new garbage truck routes. It means destroying the natural environment and putting more commuters to be stuck in traffic with. This inevitably leads to increased property taxes and more points of failure in our critical infrastructure. It also locks us into more car ownership with its myriad of problems. I don't want this to be the path that we set for our city because it'd be really expensive for all of us in the future. We don't even need to look very far for the results of failed housing policies. Toronto, Vancouver, and the entire state of California are stark examples. They've resisted change for decades, and now their cities are unlivable, especially for those living in poverty. The insane housing costs, commute times, have driven tens of thousands of people out of the metros. Those places have tried nothing and they're out of ideas. Calgary doesn't need to follow their path. Council members, I know many of you ran on a campaign of repeal, and you're gonna have to keep that promise, and I get it. What I hope to see from you is that you don't simply put things back the way it was. I hope you can compromise on things like duplexes everywhere, upzoning around C train stations, or a plexus on corner lots. Exclusionary zoning worked when the city had a population of 600,000 people. It's not working for us now and it won't work for us in the future. This is my first time speaking on council, so thank you for listening. I'm open to any questions as long as they're softballs.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 14583.445, "end": 14586.205, "text": "Thank you. Uh we'll go to Sandra next, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 14589.765, "end": 14883.245, "text": "Hi, I'm Sandra Mann, and I'm a resident of Brentwood at Board 4. I'm also a member of the Calgary Lines for the Common Good. And I've been here for a while, and I'm just super impressed at how well you counselors have been listening and really trying to understand what people are saying. And I really thank you for this opportunity to talk as well. First of all, I want to say that I am against repealing the blanket rezoning, but if you decide to do so, please have a replacement plan that addresses affordable housing, accessibility, reduces urban sprawl, and meets the criteria for federal funding. I've lived in Calgary for forty-six years and have witnessed tremendous change during that time. Our city has not just grown in size, but in diversity, and unfortunately in need. Through my work with the Calgary Alliance, I've joined many others who are committed to ensuring Calgary remains a compassionate, inclusive, and welcoming city. It's deeply troubling to me to see so many people without stable housing and those with mobility issues struggling simply to find shelter. When I first moved to Brentwood, my family lived in a single family home across the street from several apartment buildings. While I didn't get to know all my neighbors personally, I saw them caring for our shared spaces. Most of them are ranchers, clearing the snow, clearing the ice so melt water could flow and prevent dangerous buildup. In other words, they were great neighbors. Over the years I've seen three high-rise buildings constructed near us, and these buildings have just brought so much vitality to our neighborhood. We have so many more amenities these days, sandwich shops, coffee shops, game stores, doctors' offices, and the neighborhood feels more alive. There are more children playing in the parks, more families gathering outside, and there's a sense of joy when you walk through our neighborhood. Actually, it's a very fun place to live. Um Brentwood is especially suited for thoughtful increases in density. We're close to an LRT station and the University of Calgary. And uh before the apartment towers were built, my family often took in students because they couldn't find homes. The demands for homes were urgent then and remains urgent now. So for those reasons, I strongly believe that it is important to find ways to increase density in my neighborhood and other inner city neighborhoods. The infrastructure already exists, increasing density in a well-established neighborhood like Brentwood enriches the community rather than diminishes it. The alternative, continuing to expand the footprint of Calgary, comes at a significant cost. SPRA requires more roads, more vehicles, more transit lines, and more water and utility infrastructure. I guess it weakens the city, I think, uh in terms of a sense of cohesiveness. But I also want to highlight another concern that's paramount in my mind. I think it's critical for this council to ensure there are mechanisms for affordable housing for people who have disabilities and for those who have mobility issues. Like many of my friends, my age. People with disabilities in Alberta have already been hit hard by the provincial government, which has clawed back the $200 federal disability grant from those who spent their time to apply for it. And those who are currently receiving Alberta income for the severely handicapped AISH will be soon losing another $200 a month as the new Alberta Disability Assistance Program replaces AI for most recipients. This puts a huge financial strain on so many people with disabilities in Calgary. It's so challenging now to find an accessible home, and retrofitting one to be fully accessible is prohibitively expensive. I fear that more people with disabilities will join the unhoused population in Calgary if affordable, accessible homes are not made available. So my message to you, honored members of City Council, is please do not repeal this zoning legislation. And if you must, I urge you to do so, not to do so before replacing it, with a clear and effective plan, one that supports affordable housing, gives options for affordable disability access, preserves access to federal funding, and reduces the need for further urban sprawl. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to the city of Calgary.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 14883.985, "end": 14887.405, "text": "Thank you so much for being here with us. Let's go to Philip next, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 14889.245, "end": 14892.065, "text": "Um, I emailed some slides. Are you able to pull them up?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 14892.745, "end": 14893.665, "text": "Yep, please stand by.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 14911.785, "end": 15206.585, "text": "All right, thank you for your time, Mayor and Council. Uh my name is Philip Turnbull. I'm actually on panel 94, my slide is incorrect. Um, I've lived in Calgary for 20 years, and I've been in the Mount Pleasant community in Ward 7 for about 10 years now. First as a renter, and then I came back when we bought a house. Next slide, please. I'm going to speak to three things today my community, infrastructure, who you've heard from, and perhaps more importantly, who you haven't. Next slide, please. When I first started renting in Mount Pleasant, I paid about $1,500 a month for one of those old bungalows some speakers have referred to as affordable housing. It was a typical setup with a two-bedroom main floor and an illegal basement suite. So I took a look at RentFaster to see what I could get for the same amount today. And I found that several of the new RCG builds have rentals at rates that compare favorably to what I rented 10 years ago, and that's before you account for inflation. And what's important is these are actually built to current code and safe for somebody to live in. Don't get me started on some of the basement slums that I've lived in over my time. We've also seen rental prices decline in Mount Pleasant in the time period after RCG was implemented. For the free market enthusiasts, this simple, this is simply supply and demand. It's early days, but let's give this early trend some time to continue. Next slide, please. When I first moved to Mount Pleasant, it was a declining community. Many of the buildings were at the end of their life cycle. Peak population was 6,000 people in the late 60s. Mount Pleasant only hit that mark again in 2017. Next slide, please. Even in 2021, as the community's population was starting to grow, we had a different kind of missing middle compared to the rest of the city. 10 to 19 year olds were significantly below the Calgary average. We had no kids. Over the past years, that has changed as new families have moved into more affordable locations, and that makes the community more vibrant and exciting. Next slide, please. Now, some might say that that much growth must have been a burden. Sure, there's construction, it's inconvenient sometimes, but we live in an inner city community in the fastest growing city in the country. Of course, there's construction. And my four year old son loves watching all the big construction vehicles, so that's pretty fun too. So I invite you to reframe the so-called density burden as a positive. In the 10 years that I've been here, as the community has been redeveloping, it has gotten significantly more vibrant. We have new businesses on 4th Street that can be supported by a larger population, and I look forward to welcoming new ones. In fact, I'd love to see more commercial on 4th Street, but that's a topic for another hearing. As I mentioned earlier, we have more young families, makes things more fun and interesting. Now, of course, growth inevitably brings us to infrastructure. So next slide, please. I apologize, as this probably gives you some nightmares. Rezoning allows the city to raise more tax revenue and get the most efficient use of infrastructure investment. My friends in corporate finance would call these synergies. The feeder main break is clearly the most prominent, but recent reports from the city highlighted $49 billion in capital infrastructure needs over the next decade, with $18 billion in assets at poor or very poor condition, and a further $1.7 billion of those in poor condition that were deemed critical. A full repeal going back to RC1 and RC2 for the majority of the city is a recipe for large increases in property taxes or a continued infrastructure deficit and the next disaster 20 years from now. Continuing RCG zoning is fiscally prudent and a meaningful action you can take to address the infrastructure gap as it enables more effective use of your infrasting infrastructure spend. Next slide, please. Now, much has been made of how many submissions or speakers were for or against repeal, but let's remember that every one of us coming up to speak are the hyper-engaged and frankly the nerds. While this hearing is a marathon, in a city of 1.6 million people, those speaking represent less than 1%. The remaining 99% of the city haven't heard, can't be here due to personal or work commitments, or probably they're just thinking, huh, it's fine. In fact, Janet Brown's polling found clear support for RCG amongst youth and parents. The same people that are building or will hopefully be choosing to build their future in this city. Next slide, please. And even beyond that, you know who else isn't here to speak? It's people that will be moving here in the coming years. Even if they can't come to council today to give you their opinion on rezoning, they're coming, and they're going to need somewhere to live. So, in conclusion, rezoning for housing is working. We've had the most housing starts in the country last year. That's a huge achievement. And we need more years like that, just like that, to catch up. Don't throw that away, and send almost 90% of the city back to RC1 or RC2. I urge you to vote against repeal, and if not, to at least pause until a meaningful plan for reform is put into place. Thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 15207.465, "end": 15210.325, "text": "Thank you so much. Let's go to uh Denis next, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15217.645, "end": 15533.965, "text": "So I had a presentation as well. Just wait for it. Great. My name's Denny Robinson. Uh my wife and I are homeowners in Banff Trail. We live quite close to the university. And I'd like to talk today about a slightly separate um line of thought, but um something I think is very important to this discussion. COSEAN bargaining solutions. Next slide, please. So I'm going to talk about what is COCIN bargaining. I'm going to explain my own experience with two HGO developments going up beside us, how we got a successful resolution there, what we can learn from that, what I think council can learn from that, and what I think that tells us about the path forward. Next slide, please. So here's Ronald Coase, he's a Nobel laureate, and he pointed out and mathematically demonstrated that there are ways to solve externalities that do not require government intervention. Private citizens, neighbors can contract together and solve problems of economic externalities, arrive at optimal solutions, and they can do that if there are clear property rights and low transaction costs. Next slide, please. So, what does this mean for dealing with in field development near somebody? What it means is that we need to think about the different types of externalities. More cars in the street, parking, that's a neighborhood wide issue. The shading from a rowhouse development on somebody's backyard, that's uh that's a neighbor's, a one to one issue. Our current system says go to the community association, go to the city, talk to the planner, let's have a fulsome engagement process to discuss all of these problems. That throws the immediate neighbor under the bus because they actually have extremely low transaction costs with the developer. They just need to talk one to one with them and say, I'll say yes if you can do some things for me. And if you can do enough for me that I don't want to roll the dice on blocking the development or not, that it's good enough, then we can come to an agreement. But as you heard from Mike Bohrkristol earlier, The current system makes it very hard for developers to actually engage directly. In fact, blocks them from hearing the comp comments in some places. Next slide, please. So what happened for in our situation? So that's the elm tree in the property adjacent to mine and my wife's. That's going to turn into an H go is 7 over 7. And my wife didn't want that elm tree to go away. So I said, okay, well, do you want me to go down? You know, I'm fairly familiar with these processes. I can be an absolute nightmare. Do you want me to cause problems and you know whatever? And she said, no, no, we we believe in housing. Let them build, but I want you to save the elm tree. So I engaged early. I, as soon as they bought the property, I figured out who owned it. I gave them a hard time. I want to talk to the architect. Once they actually hired one, I talked to the architect, I talked to the planner. And I went and I engaged our community association. And I said, Look, if you guys have concerns about this, that's fine, but we're the only lot adjacent, and I expect, you know, our needs to take to take primacy here. I was also civil. It was struck me throughout the process that you know there was almost a sense of fear from the people I was engaging with about how I was going to behave. Merely by being polite and being outcome-oriented, I got good solutions. And they, well, who knows if they cut it down or not, but assuming they're honest, they said they're saving the tree. In the DP, it says they're saving the tree. And whether planting true new trees in the lot, the one right beside, you know, my wife's patio there, they let her choose it. So it was a very satisfactory resolution. And by getting involved in the process early and using my familiarity with this, I was able to ensure, you know, there was no external influence that was undermining our interests in this negotiation. I did spend probably a hundred hours working all this out, so that it's not like there were low transaction costs, but We could do better. Next slide, please. So that's the conclusion, right? Neighbors of new developments lose out in a process which prioritizes wider neighborhood questions at the cost of individual homeowners. Next slide, please. So where are we? We're growing. The paper house is too expensive, and new development can impact neighbors. Your problem is not with the RCG based district. The most obvious and extreme problems here are the immediate impacts of the direct neighbors. The problem is not with the RCG district, but with the process that cuts them out of the bargaining and prevents them from reaching good solutions. Through conversations directly with the developer. Next slide, please. Okay, so that's what we learned. Next slide, please. And here's some questions you can ask me.", "segments_merged": 32 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 15534.825, "end": 15542.025, "text": "Thank you so much for being here. Don't go far. We'll ask Clyde uh Buchert to jump in now. Clyde, are you with us?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 15544.865, "end": 15545.285, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 15547.085, "end": 15548.125, "text": "Thank you. Please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 15550.605, "end": 15857.085, "text": "Um hello, esteemed members of council. Uh I am Clyde and I was born and raised in Calgary. I have family roots that are deeply interconnected with the city and its identity, and I'm also a very proud Calgarian. I love the city and plan to live and raise a family here as well. And I mentioned this to show that I have a vested interest in Calgary's growth and sustainability and to characterize who many are worried will affect their neighborhood's character. I am in full support of keeping the city blanket zoned to RCG. I work in the city as a programmer, I receive a good salary, and I'm considered a skilled laborer. But like many in my demographic, I am seriously struggling to find affordable housing. We have a housing shortage for many reasons, including stagnant wages, investments owning much of our property, and what is known as the missing middle or lack of medium density housing. Our zoning laws are Euclidean, which is inextricably linked to exclusionary practices. But Calgary zoning was also intended to protect property values and prioritize car usage. I want to discuss these points today. Is preserving home value worth as much as providing access to housing during a housing crisis? I disagree with that viewpoint, but even to its proponents, I would say research shows rezoning has no negative impact on home values. The city agrees with this based on its own market research, and increasing supply also causes rents to be cheaper. Advertising car usage also leads to many issues that others are mentioning, such as parking issues or urban sprawl. Continuing to build outward fuels our dependency on cars, gasoline, and necessitates parking. Alternatively, higher density housing leads to walkable areas, increased access to localized services, and lessens car dependency. Building outward is also environmentally devastating. Viewing the situation holistically, we have to consider building new roads, building new infrastructure, displacing wildlife, pavement causing air pollution, and not absorbing water, which leads to flooding. And finally, people living further out will be car dependent if they wish to access the rest of the city or services. Roads are also very dangerous, and this is all very expensive. Who pays for new roads or maintenance when they inevitably break down? It's passed back to the taxpayers. In Calgary, like most cities, denser populated areas bring in more tax for the city, which effectively means suburban areas are subsidized. Denser areas also cost less because they decrease the amount that needs to be spent per person. Fairing roads and services and even heating. One more point of note is that single family homes are comparatively very inefficient for heating. They're constantly losing heat from all sides. Mixed density and high density have better heat retention, which lowers our use of fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas during winters in Alberta. I just want to highlight this for the city council that declared a climate emergency. So I don't mean to demonize single family homes or cars. Funnily enough, I aspire to own a single family home and would love to purchase a car, but can't as it would be too expensive and push home ownership further out of reach. I can only choose one. But this leads me to my final concern I wish to address. I hear a lot of fear about adding new people to a community and destroying its character, which can be quite insulting to Calgaryans like myself or my friends or my family who just wish to own a piece of property. So I want to offer an alternative perspective. An urban advocacy group in Vancouver, Urbanarium, shared many designs for possible living and RCG type housing that promotes communal living. Things like green areas, communal areas, and vested interests in property promote cooperation and camaraderie. Density contributes to market targeting, promoting doctors, cafes, grocery stores, etc. to move into an area. This further contributes to access to services, walkability, and desirability for an area. RCG zoning is not a mandate. People who own single family homes will not be forced out. As mentioned before, some areas are not even financially feasible for RCG zoning or for RCG housing and are likely to remain single family areas. But rezoning standardizes and smoothens the process for developers. RCG zoning saves money for the city, lessens car dependency, helps the environment. But something that RCG zoning is not is a silver bullet. The housing crisis is a complex and multifaceted issue. Other North American cities have rezoned, and it hasn't been the perfect solution. This is due to things like mandatory parking minimums, design restrictions, and in larger buildings, outdated safety codes and mandatory staircases. I implore the city to consider these factors as well. Just as single family zoning was outdated and required updating, RCG rezoning should be monitored and updated, not regressively repealed without reasonable cause. With all that said, I am vehemently against repealing blanket zoning. I am against the proposed ban on mid-block row houses and their aggressive changes in the recent proposals. I want to be proud of Calgary, and for that we must grow sustainably. RCG zoning promotes sustainability for the environment, for our city's growing population, and for the city's finances at once. This is an extremely rare and beneficial combination that repealing would destroy. Please do not wound our city like this. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 15858.225, "end": 15862.905, "text": "Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go now to questions for the panel. Councillor Pantozoulis.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 15862.905, "end": 15927.765, "text": "Thanks so much, Mr. Zhang. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming to present. And uh you said it's your first time presenting at City Hall. I hope it's not your last. You're very articulate and uh you expressed your opinion quite well. And I'm and I'm glad you came and brought up the area of Aspen. It's a wonderful neighborhood, a lot of single families, but I actually think it's one area that has proper city planning. Uh I know many folks that live in the seniors complex off 17th. It's true transit oriented development. And in fact, I don't know where you live specifically, but within 100 meters, you can live in a 12 plex, 12 story, a townhouse, uh, an estate home, a single family home. So I think it's it's epitomizes what Calgary needs and from planning. But obviously you live in the neighborhood and your lived experiences, it's not enough. So maybe I'd just love to reconcile that when we see proper planning, people know exactly where the 12 story is going on 17th, next to the high school, next to the C train. Why do you think a bespoke approach that Blanker is owning, where your neighbor could knock down their home and put up an Aplex makes more sense? How do I reconcile that given I believe that Aspen has a wonderfully thought out process and uh plan?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 15927.805, "end": 15986.005, "text": "All right. Aspen is a very nice neighborhood. My whole thing is I was able to afford, me and my wife were able to afford Aspen because our parents helped with the down payment. And we bought our house in 2023, and with the pre-approval that me and my wife were able to obtain, we were looking around $500,000. But in 2023, the housing market was going crazy, and houses in that price range were being overbid like crazy as well. So that's when parents chipped in and we thought we would get out of that price range and buy something more expensive where the competition was a lot less. And we live in like quite contentment in Aspen, we're quite satisfied with the neighborhood, but you know, it's not fair for people who don't have that advantage from you know the bank of mom and dad who can help them with that. And my in my opinion is that if we can do what we can to increase the supply, the prices will flatten and will eventually fall. And if we go back to the exclusionary zoning that the city and many other North American cities have had for decades, that's a big step backwards and it puts a lot of young people out of reach for homes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 15986.345, "end": 16003.605, "text": "Yeah, I just think what if we replicated the density that we have just south of you on 17th Ave, where think of that uh 85th to 77th. You know, I'm assuming you live in a single-family home. Is that is that a fair? That's perfect. So I do you think blank your rezoning would help single-family home pricing? Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 16005.245, "end": 16027.025, "text": "I think eventually we'll trigger down. What I've seen so far is that single detached homes have been the most resistant to price change, and the prices have come down the most in like one bedroom rental apartments, townhomes, and row homes. So if we do increase supply, I think eventually, you know, single family homes could be next for price flattening or price decreasing, which is what I want for younger people.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 16027.145, "end": 16043.305, "text": "you mentioned you're a mechanical engineer, and engineers are always gonna bring order over chaos. And and do you think the planning is a better approach where it's very clear for community where density is going to be versus a bespoke approach where an apex anywhere? What what's your what would be the best outcome?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 16043.645, "end": 16045.705, "text": "This is kind of like an LAP process.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 16045.825, "end": 16083.325, "text": "No, I was thinking what what we if we repeal, if we don't repeal blanket rezoning in areas like Aspen, we can C uh RCG remains, you can have a plexus, four and four, and and so on, sort of anywhere, versus right now, uh, if we went back to R1, which would generally be an aspen, the density would occur where the community has agreed on 17th Ave, that area. So if we go back to the way uh if we maintain where it is, you'll have density anywhere no matter what with no community input, versus if we go back, repeal, the argument is we go back to what we sort of planned. And you think maintaining now density anywhere is a better approach than a thoughtful.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 16083.345, "end": 16121.125, "text": "Yes. Yes. And I think that because if we go back to uh picking and choosing what neighborhoods should be densified, we're gonna be in this kind of hearing over again where the naysayer is gonna come say, Well, sure, I want thoughtful growth, but not here. This neighborhood doesn't make sense, like where I live. I want to put it somewhere else. And if we do this across the whole city, it's gonna waste a lot of your time, a lot of our time, a lot of the city's time. And that's a big patchwork approach, which I don't think will be conducive to. uh building more in the city. I think a blanket approach for the whole city is more or less is actually a little bit more fair this way because everybody gets hit at the same time and it'll be better for housing development.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 16122.145, "end": 16125.225, "text": "Thank you so much for time and I appreciate uh you coming down to City Hall. Thank", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 16125.225, "end": 16126.005, "text": "Thank you for your questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16127.085, "end": 16145.005, "text": "Thank you. I've jumped in. We got about five minutes or so until the uh break, but uh I'm up for Denis, please. I just want to go back to your second last slide. I didn't get a chance to read that if you could just walk us through that. I think it was about the learnings or", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16145.765, "end": 16148.165, "text": "Oh, yeah, summary of the presentation. So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16153.005, "end": 16155.965, "text": "yeah. So what what did uh you and your partner learn through the experience?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16158.285, "end": 16412.165, "text": "uh yeah, yeah, I I don't think much. Just that the I think most of the learnings were afterwards when we realized, oh. It's actually incredibly difficult to get the outcome we got without having a bunch of knowledge and a certain amount of persistence. You know, I'm willing to, you know, sort of implicitly threaten somebody on the phone that I'm going to be a bureaucratic nightmare if they don't, you know, deal with me in the way I want them to. And not everybody is necessarily willing to uh engage in that. You know, it can feel right, I was very polite about it, but not everybody's necessarily willing to, you know, do that kind of sharp bargaining. Um and I mean. I think I behaved well in this situation, right? They built they're building their seven over seven, they're gonna do okay, but also we got what we wanted. And so the question then is um how can you replicate that? Uh how can you Create a process that has a higher rate of replicating those successes for other people. And part of that, I realized when I heard Mike talking about how much of the comments they're able to see is breaking down the barrier between the immediate neighbor. So what I actually think should be happening is that there should be a separate process, that the engagement process is actually lighter for the broader community and should be focused on broader kind of community wide planning standards, but that there be a specific process for the immediate neighbors of anything under four stories and the immediate neighbors in one over. So and I mean orthogonally adjacent neighbors. I think diagonally, you you add diagonally if it's um. if it's like four plus stories, and where they get to um uh they get a notice and then they're allowed to have a 30-minute meeting with the developer and you create some kind of uh General outlines for the general public of what base level low-cost accommodations look like. So a member of the general public may not be aware uh about some of the things you could do with window placement, or uh they might be concerned about a balcony. I didn't know the solution to the balcony, but they just pointed out look, we can pull the railing back like six inches. And then unless you know they're hanging their, you know, it's like they're hanging their self out the balcony, they won't actually see into your because there'll be a privacy wall. Um So if you can create a piece of the process for that, uh some guidance for people to engage in it, and then separate it from the other piece of the process, lighten the responsibilities for engagement in the other part, because I I just don't think that whether there's been a couple extra cars parked on your street is nearly as impactful as whether or not somebody you know builds a large wall immediately adjacent to your garden. I think there are two, there's sort of an order of magnitude of difference in the level of impact. And uh once you once you get to that point, then you can start seeing you have to pilot it, but then you can start seeing if you can actually get uh people more comfortable with development. And if they're aware that that process is coming, that they can uh then use that to to like to have their needs matter, get better, better outcomes. Um There's a there's a sort of a a deeper problem in uh you know what I'm suggesting, which is what do you do when there isn't agreement in that case? Uh and I think that you can't just like give veto power to the neighbor, right? We didn't I didn't try to exercise veto power, even though maybe I could have, maybe I would have been success successful, maybe not. But what happens is it becomes when uh the DP comes to the this body, it becomes a um A factor, right? Did you do consultations with the two immediately adjacent neighbors? Uh was there a uh some requests? What were they? How did you meet them? And you know, did you get to a sign off of like, okay, that's good enough, or I asked for these three things I got to, so I don't love it, but that's where we are. And that it can then inform this body's uh decisions on what to do.", "segments_merged": 22 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16413.305, "end": 16443.725, "text": "Yeah, I'm I'm very much reminded or early in my council career. Uh there's uh Oak Ridge Cooper Development and there was a huge amount of community opposition for it, but we went back to basics and we looked at who was most acutely impacted. It was r single family homes abutting it. Deval Cooper came back to the table, said, All right, we're gonna taper that off. What's it gonna take for you to support it? And significant amount of reductions were provided there. But you found we found more community support when the most acutely impacted folks were treated with respect.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16444.585, "end": 16504.885, "text": "Yeah, and and that's that's COSA's insight that uh not on not on the acutely impacted folks, but that the people are often willing to bargain and that it's actually the agency. Right. The private property stuff's already sorted out. We have very clear system private property rights in this, that's that's kind of what we're already working within, but it's the agent, it's the um the transaction costs. The does do does somebody need to lawyer up? Does it go through council and CPC and SDAB? And do we add costs and time to all the parts? Then you can't come to a resolution. But if you can push as much of that away and get to the heart of the problem, then you can actually get and it sounds like that's what happened at Oak Ridge, and that's what I think you should try to replicate in the um uh. Y you know, on a personal level, I actually don't think most of these things are a big issue, but if council has decided on political level that it is an issue for residents, then here's a way to better address the heart of the issue.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16505.245, "end": 16562.105, "text": "My uh final question for you would be. I've heard from folks, and even through this uh public hearing, many people engaged in the local area plans that said, all right, uh, we're willing to make concessions, we're willing to make some levels of compromise. They came to the table, supported those LAPs, and then they felt subsequent land use amendments above and beyond what they had compromised and committed to really impacted their trust in the process, where they said on a go forward basis, why should they engage and why should they give a little bit if they knew that. Down the road, uh, the city would be taking more. Do you have a sense of how we could be acting to restore some of the trust and confidence in the process overall? Because I think many people are coming to us and speaking about the bill form, whether Naplex is appropriate here, lot coverage, but I'd say more deeply than that, through the public hearing, we've learned about the lack of trust and confidence that many Calgarians have in the decision making process.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16563.125, "end": 16578.405, "text": "Okay, uh yes that's a really good question. Uh briefly about the LAPs. Uh so I participated uh to some extent in the South Shaganapi LAP, kind of in toward well, actually a lot, but towards the end of the process. Uh I didn't I wasn't immediately involved in it in the in the release.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16578.405, "end": 16584.845, "text": "Just a moment, Council, can we have uh your general consent that we conclude uh this panel? Okay, sorry, uh proceed, Denny.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16585.945, "end": 16847.185, "text": "Uh so Well, I I thought, I mean, what I heard during the South Shaganapi LIP process was that there were people who wanted less and people who wanted more and people who wanted in the middle, and we ended up with a lot of compromise and nobody being entirely, entirely happy. And maybe, you know, in these kind of planning processes, that's always where you're gonna end up. And if people go in with the expectation that, you know, they're gonna get everything they want, then that expectation is inevitably gonna be broken because we talk about what the community wants, but the community is a lot of people and they don't want all the same thing. And so there's gonna be compromise within that. Uh, on stuff that's non-LAP compliant, uh, I would have a hard time speaking to that. I'm not familiar with any developments in the South Shaganapi LAP that are not LAP compliant. There may be some, but I'm I'm not familiar with them. Uh I have noticed the council has voted down a couple of land use amendments that were LAP compliant, H goes in Hillhurst, and so I think that that's you know the same concern, but on the other side. But on on trust, there's actually a deeper question. And The question of trust has been framed as we wanted you to do something, and we believe we had a majority that wanted you to do that thing, and you didn't do it, and that's a violation of trust. Uh and I actually think that's the wrong way to think about it. First of all, uh I mean other speakers have talked about the polling data, it's much more complicated than the, you know, whatever you get from the blanket hearing, the blanket rezoning hearing, whatever you pull out of the comments there. But The way I like to think about uh the reason we have problems with trust in government right now is that the trust in government doesn't flow from disagreement with a specific policy decision. It flows from a general observation of failure to execute and implement. So uh when you talk about trust in government in Calgary, I mean there's a big drop after the Watermane disaster. There are a ton of things that in the last 20 or 30 years in Canada, government has gotten appreciably worse at doing and delivering on. So I think if you want to solve trust in government, it's actually not about engagement, it's at improving the quality of execution within government organizations. So Green Line gets built on time and on budget. Uh the roads get fixed and the procurement process and the capital spending get improved so that people drive on roads that are of adequate quality. The water system gets maintained better, the leakage rate goes down, uh, and and 311, I actually think 311 is probably pretty good, but there's a perception that it's maybe not the greatest, maybe it has room for 10% improvement. So all those execution things are, I think, what create like a broad level of distrust and frustration in government. And then all the specificities of the of the policy compromises that are inevitable part of a city of two million people with all the, you know, disagreements within a democracy. Become far less salient and concerning to people if the core um function of government and the execution on that is perceived to be uh effective. And the the final thing I'll say on that is I think folks are doing a little bit better than uh they maybe recognize. I understand last election was contentious, but uh I knocked on over 10,000 doors, uh 9,000 of them in Ward 6, and the number one thing I heard was not any of the policy issues we're discussing today, but well. Maybe something could be better, but actually things are pretty good. Or there's an election on, oh, I hadn't realized. Yeah, I I guess stuff's good. Well, maybe now that I think about it, X or Y. And number two is property taxes. And the property taxes are deeply connected to the trust. People, especially in Ward 6, don't mind paying property taxes if they trust that the organization using them is executing on spending them to good effect. Like, you know, there's some very large homes in Ward 6, very wealthy people. And it's like, yeah, sure, 10, 20, 30k, whatever, I'll pay it. But you have to actually do useful things with it. I'm not gonna pay for uh blue rings, is the example everybody gives. I think that was quite old now. But you know, I I don't want money wasted, but I'll pay a lot if it's spent well, and I won't mind. Do uh does that answer your question?", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16847.245, "end": 16850.365, "text": "It does. I'm gonna go over to Councillor Schmidt, please. Or Deputy Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 16851.405, "end": 16853.325, "text": "I actually rescinded my RTS.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16853.265, "end": 16870.245, "text": "Oh, you did? Okay. All right, uh colleagues, that is it for this panel. We're gonna come back uh reading panelists from 99 onwards, and then we're gonna alternate back to names that we had uh previously called earlier. So we'll let's be back here at 350.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 16870.425, "end": 16879.405, "text": "Sorry, uh point of procedure. Is there any chance we can go back and see if anybody here still wants to speak before we go further? Or we just", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16879.405, "end": 16882.425, "text": "I believe we need to change out the staff. We need to take our break now.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 16884.345, "end": 16885.445, "text": "after the break, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16885.825, "end": 16900.465, "text": "Uh after the break, we'll come back, we'll fill the panel from 99 onwards. Those are names that have not uh been called yet, and then we'll alternate back and forth with uh the the previous panels that we had called up to. I believe it was 66 that we had left off on.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 16901.565, "end": 16901.885, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 16906.745, "end": 16908.505, "text": "Thank you, Mayor, on the roll.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16908.925, "end": 16910.125, "text": "Councillor Dolly Wall,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 16911.325, "end": 16911.645, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16913.645, "end": 16921.305, "text": "Councillor Jameson, Councillor Councillor Jamison was at you remote. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 16921.425, "end": 16922.225, "text": "Yes, it is. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16922.225, "end": 16923.745, "text": "Councillor Johnston,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 16923.885, "end": 16924.065, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16924.285, "end": 16925.165, "text": "Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 16925.345, "end": 16925.725, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16925.865, "end": 16940.265, "text": "Councillor McLean, Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot,", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 16940.385, "end": 16940.765, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16940.905, "end": 16941.805, "text": "Councillor Clark,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16941.805, "end": 16942.225, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16942.345, "end": 16943.485, "text": "and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 16943.485, "end": 16943.985, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "City Clerk City Clerk", "start": 16943.985, "end": 16944.585, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16944.945, "end": 16959.825, "text": "All right. First panel is gonna be uh counting up from uh panel 99, and then after this panel, we'll go back and do a catch up panel uh from 66 onward. Uh on 99, do we have Nora McGregor with us? On 100, Philip Barber.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_64", "start": 16961.685, "end": 16963.425, "text": "Yes, Nora McGregor is here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16964.005, "end": 16996.845, "text": "Thank you, Nora. Please stand by. Do we have Autumn Malsbury Bog? Kenton Manning? Stan Ingham? Thank you. Come on up, Stan. Cher Cheryl Sellinger. Come on up, Cheryl. On 101, Heather Sherman. Sylvia Kowalowski. Sir, was that you, Heather?", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_74", "start": 16998.645, "end": 16998.985, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 16999.385, "end": 17021.525, "text": "Thank you. Please stand by. On 101, Sylvia Kowalisky. Jan Jan Schreider. Come on down, Jan. Alright, this will be the first panel. Nora, Stan, Cheryl, Heather, then Jan. Nora, why don't you start us off, please?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_64", "start": 17023.965, "end": 17127.125, "text": "Sure. My name is Nora McGregor. I'm a resident of uh Board Three and I've been living here since um 2003. And during that time, um we were one of the most northern communities and we've seen a lot of city sprawl going north this year. Northwest, north north, and northeast. And um yeah, I just want to thank you, thank the um Counselors and mayor for the opportunity to speak. My position is I'm not in favor of repealing blanket rezoning. The more we sprawl outwards, the more expensive development gap. We need to make far more roads, more transit, more utility corridors, emergency services, et cetera, et cetera. The other option, of course, is densification, which the blanket rezoning. Is meant to achieve. Once we lose valuable watershed and wetlands, native species, et cetera, we just can't bring them back. So I would like to see less sprawl and more densification. And so I am not in favor of repealing blanket rezoning. I assume that council will need to make some changes to the blanket rezoning bylaw to make it. more workable for inner city Calgarians. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 22 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 17128.845, "end": 17133.005, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to Stan, then Cheryl next. Stan, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_41", "start": 17137.145, "end": 17441.905, "text": "Okay. Hello, Mayor Fargus, and greetings to the council. My name's Stan Ingham, and I live in Canyon Meadows, which is part of War 13. I'm on panel 100. I'm here to support the repeal of the City of Calgary blanket rezoning bylaw in its entirety. Amendments to The land use bylaw to allow the blanket rezoning was against the wishes of the majority of Calgarians when it was first introduced. Now, the thing is, I'm not against it. I'm not against densification. I'm not against having the zoning, rezoning. But what we are facing is that there are people out there that feel that this is all about affordability, and it clearly is not an uh a point with this rezoning. I am flexible to changes in our neighborhood, but I am against an haphazard approach that is being applied. Houses or changes in redevelopment need to be planned and implemented thoughtfully. The current strategy that we have with the blanket rezoning is all about densification. It lacks clear citywide planning. Local inputs can provide guidance and a more orderly development in the process of densification, but what ends up happening is the developers or the people or what's being built are the largest possible structure. Allowing the maximum amount of usage units to be developed on the land that is provided. Treetop canopy lossage, loss of habitats for insects, birds, animals, shadowing in neighborhoods, increase in pressure infrastructure, safety issues, everything like that is really an afterthought or not even considered in this blanket rezoning. Let's see. In many of the uh inner cities, uh inner city developments that are meant for diversification, we are seeing three-story structure or three-level structures with no provisions for the handicap or the mobile impaired. And guess what? We're all getting older. So, how are we gonna get around when they take away all the bungalows and say, no, no, no, we only have these three story structures that you have to climb up and down the stairs? Planning, um, what I would like to go and suggest so blanket rezoning, the decrease in number of lots available for the ownership is suitable only for the fit population. These limitations are in addition to the issues surrounding affordable housing. What I'd like to suggest is an amendment to allow for greater involvement. In the process of reviewing, approving, and appealing any proposed developments. This can happen only if this blanket rezoning is repealed in its entirety. This suggestion is plans that are developed by the public with the interests of the community and the city in mind are a good beginning. This suggestion is focused on reducing the time for approval for the application, which is a plus for the developers. And because of the better communication during the process, a plus for the public. The outcome is a win-win situation. Addressing conflict at the end of the process after development has been appealed is going to be a costly and time consuming process to both parties. Repealing the blanket rezoning necessary for the for the implementing of land. Okay. If a lot cannot be subdivided and the unit will be uh the unit will have to be a rental unit. It's not going to be sold. Time's up.", "segments_merged": 46 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 17441.865, "end": 17449.545, "text": "Thank you so much. Just time, but so appreciate you being here with us. All right. We'll go over to Cheryl and then Heather after that, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 17453.285, "end": 17754.605, "text": "Oh, you have it up quickly. All right. Okay, so I'll start. Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Cheryl Sellinger. I hold a master's degree in public policy and have over a decade of experience in affordable housing, research, and policy. But I come here today as a homeowner and a mom. I'm here to share our story, an actual example of what the redevelopment process looks like for an average homeowner in Calgary. Next slide, please. My husband and I are long-term residents and homeowners in Ward 7. We have three kids who were born and raised here. Those kids are now teenagers who are becoming young adults. We don't know where our kids will end up, but living in Calgary is expensive. Anyone who's had to look for a place to live in the last five years can tell you homeownership is out of reach for a lot of people, and the cost to rent is skyrocketing and fraught with uncertainty. We want to future proof and create some flexibility and security for our kids and for us as we age. We think the best opportunity for this is with the land we own that our current house sits on. Next slide, please. We're on a 50 foot lot, currently zoned RCG. That zoning means we have way more choice with what we can do with our land than we did previously, where the only thing we could have was either a semi detached or a single family with a basement suite. Maximum two units on the lot in either case. We want to create some options for our family. We're not looking to maximize what is currently allowed and instead would like to build a semi-detached with basement suites plus one backyard suite over the garage. This would meet our families' needs and critically enable us to pay for it all when we subdivide and sell the other half of the semi. This is not a money making opportunity. We will be in the hole on this. But we think it's the most affordable long term solution. Next slide, please. This is something we've been thinking about for years, but until the 2024 rezoning came through, it was too murky and too risky. We're not planners or in the development industry, and the prospect of seeking a land use redesignation was scary. The rezoning gave us the certainty and clarity we needed to take the next step, because the next step is incredibly expensive. I don't think people understand the cost and risk of simply submitting a development permit application, let alone the actual construction. We're almost $10,000 and hours upon hours into the process just to get up to the DP stage. The list of requirements is long. The amount of expertise needed to understand the zoning, regulations, local area plan, everything is immense. And being able to pull all together in a development proposal is best left to the experts, not us. We don't have those sorts of skills. The only way for us to get through it was with help from architects, builders, and other professionals, but that costs money, lots of money. We never would have risked these expenses and time without the certainty in the zoning. This is because of the expected opposition. We live in a great neighborhood and have good relationships with our neighbors and across our community. We know that everyone wants what's best for us. Still, we 100% expect opposition because ultimately everyone wants what's best for them as well. I don't blame them. This is why society relies on governments to consider what's best for everyone, to take in all the evidence and look at the trade-offs, to understand the big picture and find the best possible policies. Just a point of clarification, because I don't want to throw anybody under the bus here, I don't take issue with the planning department or their processes. They're simply implementing council's decisions. So as you consider this item, please understand that in our very real world example, every single restriction and requirement you add makes development less feasible. Next slide, please. I hope there is room for reasonable compromise on this issue. I don't support going back to the old zoning. Among many other issues, it would mean people like us would never build or adapt our homes for our needs. Calgary needs a variety of housing at different price points. As part of the solution, you need homeowners like us building things like this. On the other hand, people have reasonable concerns about the 2024 districts and regulations. I think the proposed amendments before you are a reasonable compromise, and I mostly support them. The one change I would ask you to consider would be allowing a basement suite and a laneway suite or a backyard suite in the same development versus one or the other as proposed. Thank you very much for your time and good luck with your decision.", "segments_merged": 31 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 17755.345, "end": 17761.285, "text": "Thank you for being here. We'll go to Heather on 101, then Jan after that. Heather, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_74", "start": 17763.265, "end": 17995.225, "text": "Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of Council. My name is Heather Sherman. I am in my late thirties. Today I speak on behalf of myself and my husband. Thank you for this opportunity. We are professionals residing in an inner city community in Ward 8. For the reasons that follow, we are in support of a full repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw, a reset of the zoning designations to what they were prior to the blanket rezoning bylaw. And a return to thoughtful community-based planning. Prior to moving to our current community, we lived in Marteloup. In the span of approximately five years, the block we lived on underwent a significant transformation. Bungalows that had stood for decades were demolished, large mature trees were cut down. New trees that were planted appeared to struggle to flourish. Reflecting on this morning's discussion, I question whether the ongoing removal and replacement of decades-old mature trees with saplings that may or may not thrive will be sufficient to preserve Calgary's tree canopy. There came a time when Marteloup was no longer suitable for our growing family. Among other things, we desired a larger yard, more privacy, and a quieter street. In 2022, we chose to move to our current community in part because of its park like historic nature. We made the decision to purchase our almost 100-year-old home with some certainty regarding community character based in part on how the community was zoned at that time. Consistent with the statement of the Calgary Real Estate Board, we believe that blanket rezoning significantly reduces certainty for individuals and families who have chosen or are looking to enter Calgary's housing market. This is in part due to the disproportionate impact that blanket rezoning has on historic established neighborhoods. The policy neither recognizes nor protects the unique nature of these neighborhoods. For example, in newer master plan communities, we understand that houses are often grouped by type, which creates certainty for people who live in or choose to move to these areas. In contrast, allowing eight unit complexes to be constructed mid block in established communities. With limited, if any, input from neighbors, has the potential to create significant uncertainty and place undue strain on utilities and schools. Further, it is our understanding that blanket rezoning has not effectively addressed Calgary's housing affordability challenges. We have seen modest, relatively affordable homes and rentals demolished and replaced by higher priced developments. We understand that blanket rezoning increases redevelopment pressure everywhere at once and incentivizes demolition over renovation, accelerating the loss of lower cost housing. We are not opposed to densification, however, it must be pursued strategically and thoughtfully with stakeholder input. The Calgarians that participated in the historic 2024 public hearing on rezoning for housing overwhelmingly opposed blanket rezoning. That opposition was reiterated in the 2025 municipal election by electing a council majority that campaigned on repealing blanket rezoning. We respectfully request full repeal of the bylaw and a return to thoughtful community based planning. Thank you for your consideration.", "segments_merged": 36 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 17996.425, "end": 18000.645, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go now to Jan to wrap up the panel.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 18002.845, "end": 18335.865, "text": "Good day. I think I'll sort of presentation. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, hi, I'm Jan. I live in Ward 8. And when I was thinking about what I wanted to talk about, it occurred to me there are so many things pertaining to rezoning that can be addressed. And the one thing I uh focused on was what makes Calgary City worth living in. And I think you've seen the next picture quite a couple of times. Can you go to the next one? I think that one has been shown quite frequently. Uh to make Caribbe worth living, or to make Caribbee an amazing city. You need affordable houses, you want low taxes, you want great services. And well, where are we at with that? So if you can go to the next one, I think you've seen that as well because it's from the City of Cairi website, and it shows that on the taxes front we're doing quite well. I mean, tax in Caribbean obviously everyone would love to pay less, but we're doing quite well. Next one, please. Then on the housing start side, I mean that has been discussed. Earlier today, so I don't want to go too much into it, but we are seeing that the amount of missing middle that is being constructed is increasing. Next one. And we're also seeing that we get at least a leveling out, if not even a decrease, in prices. And next one, that the CREB is forecasting that prices may even drop further, or at least they stay stable, which I suppose, in light of the last years, is also quite a win. Next one. And on the services side, I mean there are quite a lot of projects that are ongoing to improve the city. We've got the repair of the water main feed, we've got the green line improvement or green line implementation, and we've got the new arena that is being built, that's being set up. And well, you need a good tax base in order to make sure all of these projects are paid for, right? I think last week there was a presentation on the fiscal conservative case for increasing density. I think that was on Wednesday. And for that person made very good points. Next one, please. So, all in all, it seems like we are on a good track between the taxes, the services, and the affordability, at least in terms of the trajectory. Next one, please. So, what's the problem actually? And I think the problem is that we are on a good trajectory in terms of the city, but what about the communities? What about the neighborhood? What makes a neighborhood worth living? What makes you come back from a long day of work and you put into your driveway and you think, well, That's an awesome place to live. That is my home. And I think that is where people have anxiety about what is going up. There was a woman here this morning. I think it was Joyce from Banff Trail. I think she just made it, she just nailed it. She was talking about how she saw that there was sloppy work in adjacent houses, how she had concerns about the safety, about access of emergency vehicles to other buildings, which then led her led to anxiety from her or in her that if there were ever a fire, that this would burn down the neighborhood. And that is obviously a problem. And that can't stand. So I'm wondering if we were to repeal blanket rezoning and we would have this added layer of a hearing on zoning change and all of the input from the community and a building proposal would come up, like that 12 plex that she was referring to, what would that change? Or are all of these concerns in terms of how do we need to build buildings to have proper access to for emergency crews? How do we need to build buildings and how do we need to inspect buildings that there's no sloppy workmanship? How do we ensure that there's proper canopy, proper tree coverage? Isn't that all part of well, what does our GC allow? And not what is blanket rezoning? So that is that those were kind of my thoughts this morning, which I would like to the council to dive in further. Now, actually, I do work myself a bit in problem solving and uh solution implementation. I work in as a quality manager in oil and gas. And one thought I would want to leave you guys with is don't let perfect stand in the way of good. The blanket rezoning has had benefits to the community. And with the implementation, there are new challenges. But these challenges they need to be overcome. And that's also part of the process. If you think about the hockey club up north, the Edmund Noilers, they aspire to win the Stanley Cup one day. But and they've been made it to the playoffs for the past four rounds, and they failed to win it four times in a row. But they're not kicking out Dreisidel or McDavid. They're not making a complete 180 and walk everything back. They are looking at improving what they have. And also, I would like you to so a lot of people, I'm gonna wrap this up after this one. So I hear a lot of people talking about common sense solutions and what I think are common sense solutions are solutions with a Proven track record of effectiveness. And there are quite a lot of cities who have gone through that process that Calgary is currently going through, especially for example, Austin or Auckland in uh in New Zealand. And in Austin, um you can look for the newspaper articles from 2022 and then compare them to 2025, and they have exactly the same conversations. If you look at a 2022 article.", "segments_merged": 49 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 18335.865, "end": 18343.285, "text": "We unfortunately are just at time, but uh please don't go far in case there may be questions. Awesome. Thanks. That concludes this panel. Over to Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 18340.205, "end": 18340.285, "text": "you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 18344.625, "end": 18394.445, "text": "Um Cheryl Sellinger, please. Yeah. Hey, thank you for coming and sharing. It's a great perspective that we haven't had a lot of within the presentations. We've heard a lot from the development industry, builders, architects, that sort of side of things. But for homeowners who are sort of venturing into this sort of world, I just wonder if there's anything that you've experienced on the process side. And I know you maybe don't know the difference of what you'd be going through if it was a semi-detached or a single necessarily with what you've gone through for RCG, but if there's anything that could make it so that more current homeowners ha see this path and sort of don't run into the many roadblocks that you were sort of speaking to in your presentation. Anything that we can do on our side for the process?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 18395.865, "end": 18506.585, "text": "Yes, um, I wouldn't say I've hit roadblocks. Um, I think it was more that. When the zoning came, before the zoning came in, I knew that we could only build a semi-detached or a single attack or single detached with a basement suite. Those are the only two options. We were RC2, right? And so, you know, I have some some background in this world, but going through this process has really opened my eyes to um how complex it it really is and how not difficult, but uncertain. And so when the rezoning came in and it was like, okay, now you can do all these other things, that opened our world. And we always, all we ever wanted to do was create enough housing for our kids. Our oldest is 18 now. He has some disabilities and will probably be living with us for a while, but he's an adult. And so we don't want him, you know, living in our basement trying to get on with independence for years and years and years. So when the rezoning came up and there was an option to do something different, that didn't mean we had to go through a land use redesignation or whatever else, because as I understand, that adds months and months and months to the process and a lot of uncertainty. You know, there was no way we were we're not rich. We weren't gonna lay out thousands of dollars just to see if we could do something. You know, this way we know we're pretty certain to do something and Our our architectural firm has been godsend and they've been so patient and wonderful with us, educating us along the way and figuring out what we can do and you know, helping us along. But there was no way we were going to go through that process without knowing that we were going to be able to build sort of what we want to build.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 18506.765, "end": 18515.885, "text": "Yeah. It's great. It's such a just a different perspective and just sort of shows something that we haven't heard. Thank you so much for sharing that. Yeah, thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 18516.765, "end": 18518.025, "text": "Thank you, Deputy Mayor, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 18520.705, "end": 18553.305, "text": "And Cheryl, I'll ask you a couple questions. I'll stick with your personal experience there because you mentioned that you were going, you expect that you might get some pushback from neighbors. And we heard a presentation on the panel before yours about sort of the relationship between a neighbor and somebody who's going to develop. So I think just hearing how you might approach that issue with your neighbors would be helpful for us.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 18553.765, "end": 18631.125, "text": "Yeah, and I actually I was watching that and I I loved his um perspective and I think a solution like that could be really helpful. I sort of see like I sort of see councils being the 10,000-foot view, right? You guys set the direction, decide on what's getting built where. And then dealing with your immediate neighbors and trying to find solutions there is the micro, right? And I we're already, you know, we submitted our application, and you know, something was a little different than I expected, and immediately started chatting with my neighbors to be like, okay, I know that sunshine's going to be an issue for you guys. I know you use your back deck a lot. We're gonna look at making some adjustments to move this because I knew as soon as they saw it, they were going to be calling me up saying, Oh, this is kind of a problem, right? And so we want to work with them. They're our neighbors, they're our they're our kids' best friends, things like that, right? This is our community. So working with neighbors that are immediately impacted, I think, is a really good solution, but having all of Calgary or all of your community or like through a local area plan getting to decide what is where, I I feel like it's a bit inefficient. I think that council should be setting a broad direction that benef that's beneficial to the whole city and then you work with your close neighbors to make it work.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 18632.085, "end": 18694.305, "text": "And which gets back to our role as governance and not sort of the the micro of each issue. Um on that point though, something that's come up a lot in this that we kind of keep floating back to is that a lot of what you're discussing there is actually not related to the actual land use. It is the process outside of land use. And so it sounds to me. Like the suggestions that you're making are signaling to us that things outside of the land use process need to be looked at and not the land use process itself. Because things like shadowing and trees setbacks, those aren't necessarily the land use issues. So it it tell me if I'm right that it sounds like the issues that you're identifying are not actually the land use issues because those things could arise with a single family home as well.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 18695.725, "end": 18752.825, "text": "I think for us, we were always going to work with our neighbors, no matter what the situation, what we were building. But we had a type of thing that we wanted to build, and that thing wasn't even allowed under the previous land use. So that's land use redesignation. That's months, that's a lot of uncertainty, that's a lot of people commenting and reviewing that, right? The application that we went in, because we went in with a laneway suite, is discretionary. So people are looking at it, but we could have gone in with contextual and still gotten duplex with basement suites. And there would have been a lot of relief in that, right? There's a lot of certainty in that. It really reduces the risk that okay, this can get done no matter what, right? In the very least, at the end of the day, we're going to end up with at least that, and that's going to help meet our family's needs. But without that, you know, if we're if we're trying to ask for land use redesignation, that's a hu that's a way bigger risk.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 18754.745, "end": 18768.765, "text": "Then what happens, because this is something we also, I don't think, discuss enough. For you in your personal situation, if you go down this road and then your application ends up getting denied, what happens to you?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 18769.425, "end": 18818.145, "text": "Well, here's where our architects have been Helping me guide, helping guide me along the way because I wasn't even, you know, again, coming sort of from this sector, it's really been eye-opening about what you can do and what you can't do, and at what stage it's discretionary and contextual and this and that, right? And so I don't actually know, right? Like we've we're we're submitting something that um we think is completely there's a component of it that's completely permitted, there's a small component that's discretionary. But I think because the use is allowed, it's a go-ahead that we then work with. But I I don't know for sure. Um, but I do know that we're avoiding a more complicated process. If the if the rezoning went back to RCD, RC2, we wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot pole. We would never have gone in with an application like this.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 18819.865, "end": 18850.225, "text": "And then just touching on you it your resume sounds like you have expertise in the affordable housing sphere. And we have heard Several arguments. It came up with Kreb and it came up with some others on previous days that we should be focusing on affordable housing and not this. So, and truly afford like non-market below market housing. Do you see this and that being in conflict with one another?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 18851.285, "end": 18982.625, "text": "Um well first I'll say I don't have my my professional hat on, so I'm not speaking for my organization or my employer, but um from what I know, right? So we have non-market affordable housing and we have housing affordability, right? And I think you understand that non-market affordable housing is expensive to build and requires some government support. And in a city and in a country where you know we we struggle with things like nobody wants their taxes to rise, we have other huge expenses going on, infrastructure expenses, people are loath to spend money, spend the money that's needed on non market affordable housing, truly. The investments need to be made there, but there's a place for for the market to to play a role. There's a place for the market to deliver. And if we're talking free market, I mean there's lots of room there. But just creating more supply of any type isn't necessarily going to Improve affordability to the people that need it the most. As you've heard lots, I'm sure, during this hearing, there are price points at different product types, right? And so I think a lot of people are arguing, hey, we're seeing these $700,000 townhouses go up, that's not affordable, this isn't improving affordability. But things like basement suites and laneway suites certainly have a lower price point than a lot of these other products. They they have a lower price point than new apartments coming on the market, right, for rent. And so I think there's room for the market to play a more significant role in delivering market affordable product, but you guys have to let it happen. And If you know if we're not sort of enabling some more secondary suites and more laneway suites and some smaller products and different types, the market can't deliver. Like I'm saying, there there are so many hurdles in my way to delivering these sorts of things that it's not going to happen.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 18983.865, "end": 18996.065, "text": "So then I think maybe more pointedly, as governors of this organization, can we feasibly do both things at once? Address affordability and address affordable housing.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 18997.025, "end": 19052.885, "text": "That's that's a big question. I I mean I do think that all cities need to make investments in non-market affordable housing. I think it's critical. It's going you're going to get savings in other areas, right? Policing, judicial, everything else. Most of those savings currently go to the provincial government who's delivering health care and things like that. But in working with working across governments, there's a solid case to be made that building non market affordable housing is way cheaper than the alternative. And it's it's it's just um fiscally responsible, right? It just makes sense. But I don't think Calgary can do it. g can deli can solve all those problems with that alone. I really do think you need to get market delivered affordable housing.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 19054.125, "end": 19074.765, "text": "Thank you. And then Mr. Schreider, you you ran out of time. You were raising some interesting points, and if there was just anything else you wanted to add, you were getting towards your common sense kind of solutions. So just if there's anything else you wanted to add on, you're happy to give you the time.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 19074.865, "end": 19122.445, "text": "I was actually just trying to uh yeah, I was just wrapping this up and just saying, well, a lot of cities have gone through the very same process. And if you really look at the newspaper articles from Austin, you see exactly or very similar conversations about uh people are concerned about parking situations, people are who worried that this is a ploy from developers, uh, people are unsure unsure about community engagement and What solutions did they come up with and are there solutions that apply to Calgary as well? And these conversations have been going on in Austin, they've been going on in Auckland as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan implementation, and those are just great examples where things worked, things didn't work out. So we don't need to reinvent the wheel. That's kind of my point.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 19123.825, "end": 19129.625, "text": "And then just from your own perspective, you know, briefly, um you mentioned you live in Ward 8.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 19129.625, "end": 19129.885, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 19130.605, "end": 19139.845, "text": "And so then I would expect that you're seeing some of this change. So How have you experienced the change that you're seeing around you?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 19140.505, "end": 19185.385, "text": "So I live on 20th Street, uh close to 55, so pretty far in the south of Ward 8. There, and I'm not impacted a lot myself with where my wife and I live. So I can't really speak to that. I do see that there's a lot of development along that street, a lot of townhouses coming up. So I do believe that I can understand why people are concerned. And I would like for the council moving forward to figure out what are these concerns that are actually related to land use and not to the actual zoning, what the zoning allows to build. to address the root of the issue. Um yeah, that's it.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19186.205, "end": 19189.845, "text": "Thank you. I am done. Thank you. Councillor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19193.005, "end": 19209.905, "text": "Thanks for Ms. Sherman? Or Schreider. Schreider. Oh, no, sorry, wrong person. I'm looking for the lady who spoke before that. Heather Sherman? Ms. Sherman.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19209.905, "end": 19210.265, "text": "Are you still", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_74", "start": 19210.265, "end": 19211.285, "text": "Heather Sherman here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19212.405, "end": 19218.665, "text": "Uh so Heather, were you speaking in opposition or in favor of repeal?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_74", "start": 19220.085, "end": 19220.665, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19220.885, "end": 19229.945, "text": "Okay. And was there anything that you uh didn't get a chance to say because you might have run out of time, or do you feel like you pretty much said everything you had to say?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_74", "start": 19231.665, "end": 19234.665, "text": "Thank you very much for asking. I completed my statement.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19235.485, "end": 19264.565, "text": "Okay, thank you. Um now my question is now for Ms. Sellinger. Thank you for being here. So if if I understand you correctly, you've gone through a development permit process and based on RCG, but you said that if it had gone back, you wouldn't be able to because there was a something that didn't meet the requirements of RCG, or I mean RC2, but isn't that sort of what you're building? Semi detached with a basement suite?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19265.765, "end": 19287.285, "text": "Um okay so we're we're on a 50 foot lot so on our lot um we would be under RC2 we would be allowed two units. Um so that can be in the form of either a semi-detach so uh whatever you guys call them, duplexes, right? Or a single family with a basement suite, which is what we are currently in. We have a single family house on that whole lot.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19287.365, "end": 19289.925, "text": "Or semi detached with a basement suite on each.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19290.145, "end": 19293.185, "text": "No, that's not that wasn't allowed under RC2, I don't think.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19293.665, "end": 19301.685, "text": "That's allowed. The only thing that's not allowed is one is both a backyard suite and a basement suite.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19302.525, "end": 19306.165, "text": "Under RC2, yeah, so I could have put four in RC2 on a 50 foot lot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19306.165, "end": 19306.485, "text": "Yes?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19307.125, "end": 19308.325, "text": "Okay, that's news to me.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19308.725, "end": 19320.325, "text": "Councillor Shabot? I apologize for jumping in, but I think from admin we're getting a crossing of the head. So there might be some uncertainty on whether that's allowed or insure. But we can get back to you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19320.685, "end": 19339.025, "text": "Okay. Well that was that was the subject of an amendment recently because RC2 didn't allow basement suites in the past, but that bylaw was amended to allow basement suites on RC2 properties. Anyway, so I'm not going to get into the merits of the bylaw. But you do have an application that's in the works now?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19339.345, "end": 19349.225, "text": "I do. And I I guess the other thing, even if the if the basement suites were allowed, then I don't think the backyard suite was. And that's kind of an important part of our development as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19349.225, "end": 19355.845, "text": "However, I think there is something that's being proposed specifically to make an amendment to allow both.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19356.025, "end": 19356.685, "text": "Oh okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19356.865, "end": 19366.385, "text": "Which so you would be supportive of that amendment if that were put through. So even if we did go back um it through that process, it would still allow both.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19366.885, "end": 19368.105, "text": "Absolutely. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19368.105, "end": 19370.285, "text": "You would support that land that type of land use?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_84", "start": 19370.285, "end": 19378.605, "text": "As long as I can get a semi detached with basement suites and one garage suite, and then I can subdivide and use the other half to pay for this whole thing, I'll be happy.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19379.005, "end": 19390.265, "text": "Yeah, it's certainly something we can discuss later on, but uh uh thank you for giving us your perspective here today. Um Mr. Ingham. Ingham? I I'm not sure if you were finished. No, I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_41", "start": 19390.265, "end": 19495.205, "text": "I wasn't finished. Um I was going to talk about um the uncertainty if you don't repeal everything. In its entirety, there's going to be a lot of confusion both for the general public and for the developers, contractors, or whatever. So that uncertainty will lead to a lot of appeals. And we're starting to see that right now is a tremendous increase in the number of appeals. The problem with it is that, as been pointed out before, there has been A lack of knowledge on the public side. And when we go through this appeal process, what happens is that we are at a distinct disadvantage of not knowing things that apply or don't apply. And things like sh um shadowing, um trees, canopies, and everything like that. That has nothing to do with this blanket rezoning. And what ends up happening is that the general public. Pushes gets kind of pushed to one side because often it does not follow the checklists that they have to approve any type of development. And these developments, again, are not are not really affordable for the public, and nor does it really address the missing middle.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19495.885, "end": 19514.325, "text": "Okay. So the original land uses around RCG before the blanket zoning included a lot of different elements that were subsequently amended, including front yard setbacks as one example. And so the front yard setback, is that something that was something that you were concerned with? Or", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_41", "start": 19514.545, "end": 19536.445, "text": "That's one of many things that were were discussed in a particular development that was in our neighborhood. And the size of the structure and so on like that, being totally out of characteristics, out of character with all the surrounding buildings in that area.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19537.225, "end": 19574.425, "text": "so I'm not sure exactly what's gonna happen as far as the full repeal or whether some of the other amendments are gonna uh be approved because there are some other suggestions under recommendation number four. I think you spoke to that, and again, not a lot of certainty in regards to the interpretation of some of those. So From your perspective, do you think that's something that should be maybe relegated to some further debate prior to um or maybe public consultation, development industry consultation, prior to um actually going towards either approving or not approving those recommendations?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_41", "start": 19575.245, "end": 19603.165, "text": "Yeah, um I would agree with you, but I would get rid of the rezoning first. Okay, go back to the old system and then start bringing in this new. Way of doing business, in particular the consultation with the with the community, because after all, they are the ones that know what fit, what doesn't fit, they're the ones who have to live with the results.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19605.125, "end": 19617.145, "text": "Yeah, no, there's quite a few amendments that are being proposed there, and I'm not sure the development industry's signed off on all of those either. Yeah. Um I think for the most part the community would likely be supportive of some of those amendments or most of those amendments.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_41", "start": 19617.245, "end": 19652.705, "text": "I'm sure that there will be lots of it, but let's get rid of this because the longer it's it's gets sustained, the more complicated it's going to become, because then it's going to be very difficult. What is implemented, what's not implemented, how can we develop with the changing situations. So it's easier to just take everything off the table, go back to the old system, but revisit this and get a new process going with the proper amendments.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 19653.185, "end": 19657.325, "text": "Okay. All right. Thanks for being here. I have no further questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19657.865, "end": 19669.005, "text": "Thank you so much. So we're going to go back to calling uh the some of the previous panels as we're alternating. We ended off on panels. Sorry, who is speaking?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_70", "start": 19669.005, "end": 19673.485, "text": "Panel 100. Autumn Mullesbury Bog. I was panel 100, but I couldn't unmute in time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19675.085, "end": 19676.245, "text": "What is your name?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_70", "start": 19677.425, "end": 19683.025, "text": "Autumn Malsbury Bogue. You'd called my name for panel 100, but I couldn't unmute in time to answer.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19683.185, "end": 19687.725, "text": "Sorry, could you uh repeat uh your name? It just kind of came out muffled.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_70", "start": 19689.345, "end": 19691.025, "text": "Autumn Mullesbury Bogue.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19691.325, "end": 19694.925, "text": "Okay, autumn, uh, please stand by, you'll be the first up. One second.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_65", "start": 19694.925, "end": 19695.225, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19696.025, "end": 19701.165, "text": "All right, uh do we do we have uh anyone from panel 66 with us?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_65", "start": 19702.505, "end": 19707.185, "text": "Uh yes, I'm here from panel sixty-six. My name is Sonia. Johnson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19707.405, "end": 19715.325, "text": "Okay. Thank you, Sonia. Please stand by. On 67, do we have Jacob Dak or David Jacobs?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 19716.425, "end": 19717.225, "text": "Yes, I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19717.865, "end": 19744.405, "text": "All right, David, please stand by. Do we have anyone from panel 68 in the chamber online? Okay, we have one person with us. Please come on down. Do we have anyone from do we have Alaya Routstein from 69? Okay. Do we have anyone from panel 70? Okay.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 19753.425, "end": 19765.865, "text": "Sorry, Mayor Farkas. I'm on panel seventy-three and I'm calling in from abroad. Uh I'm wondering if I could speak now. I've been trying to call in, it's difficult with the time change.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19766.325, "end": 19767.425, "text": "Thank you. Who's speaking?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 19768.645, "end": 19772.385, "text": "This is Risa Dasaw. I was panel seventy-three.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 19773.765, "end": 19781.245, "text": "All right, Reza, please uh stand by. You'll be our final uh panelist for this. All right, uh let's start off, please, with Autumn from 100, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_70", "start": 19783.825, "end": 20061.125, "text": "Good afternoon. My name is Autumn Mullesbury Bogue. I am director at large with Ward 14 Parkland Community Association. However, these are my own opinions I'm representing today. I'm having deja vu here as I'm once again speaking before council on the same topic. I am in favor of a full repeal with no amendments back to RC1, RC2 zoning and restarting engagement properly with residents. I have hoped this new council will choose to really hear the public, although I'm sure many have given up trying to be heard. I'm disappointed by the confusing wordings surrounding this hearing as well as the terrible timing over school spring breaks, and had it not run long, I would have missed it completely as I just returned from other country. One thing I think we can all agree on is the conflict that this has created between Calgarians and their neighbors. And the distrust of Calgarians towards council and city administration is incredibly sad for our city overall. It was claimed to increase affordability, but it has done the opposite. I know of people whose long term affordable rentals their homes have been sold off with nowhere to go. I have not seen a single development where the new units with a fraction of the land have sold for less than the original home and full land parcel. It creates landlift on all properties, whether they develop or not. It creates further commoditization of the housing market, the very things the National Housing Advocate has warned against. That is the opposite of creating affordability. It creates parking disputes as we don't have the mass transit infrastructure or climate to suddenly switch to a car free lifestyle. The Calgary Real Estate Board today presented very clearly, showing the numbers proved that upzoning has made housing more expensive and out of reach, not more affordable. It creates further strain on aging infrastructure that has been neglected and is already struggling with the current population in these neighborhoods. My neighborhood frequently has water lines breaking and electrical transformers catching fire. I know the city has a tax problem and this need for more tax revenue is not the reasoning used to appeal to the public with blanket up zoning. But why is the city simply giving away windfalls of profit from landlift of densification and not capturing for the good of all Calgarians to offset some of the downsides? Vancouver negotiates community amenity contributions with each free zoning that targets a capture of 75% of the increase in land value to be returned back to the city to benefit the public instead of instead of a windfall for the developer. Quoting the City of Vancouver, community amenity contributions, CACs, are in kind or cash contributions provided by property developers when City Council grants development rights through rezoning. CICs help the city build and expand facilities like affordable housing, parks and open spaces, childcare facilities, community facilities, community centers, libraries, transportation, and public realm. Arts and Culture Spaces. CACs are in addition to their DCC development cost charge, similar to our off site levies. And their DCCs tend to be more than triple our single and semi levies and quadruple our multi unit levies. Repealing blanket upzoning does not remove opportunities for well thought out appropriate densification, but returns the onus to the developer to ensure it is appropriate and respectful of the neighborhood and not the other way around. Rubber stamping applications and leaving the fallout to neighbors and the FDAB is a dereliction of basic duties of city planning. In Ward 14 alone, there are examples of approved plans that have exceeded basic lot coverage limits and certainly don't consider the recommended good neighbor guidelines. Also approving a commercial business in a residential home right across the street from a commercial mall that has a vacant spot from the exact same business. In Ward 11, has anyone seen what is going up on the corner across from Lord Beaver Book High School and the busy day here on the other corner at a very chaotic and dangerous traffic location? Multi-unit slot homes with no parking, where is logic and reason? I grew up in government subsidized housing. Trust me, I first under firsthand understand this need. True affordable housing can be built where it is properly planned for from the start and on lower cost land in your communities and along C train routes such as Heritage Station, the development plan in the industrial area near Chinook Mall. It's already been proven blanket upzoning only hurts affordability. A new plan should not even be considered until a proper updated census is completed. You can't plan based off five-year-old data with explosive growth. Please fully repeal this poor and damaging excuse for legitimate planning. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 57 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20062.385, "end": 20068.445, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go to Sonya on 66, then David after that. Please go ahead, Sonia.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_65", "start": 20070.545, "end": 20101.785, "text": "Thank you, Council. My name is Sonia, and I reside in Ward 11. I'm here to oppose the repeal on RCG zoning. I believe this is my fifth time speaking to counsel about housing. I go all the way back to the contentious guidebook and LAPs. And yes, despite the sudden love in for LAPs, I've heard during this meeting, they were very contentious. None of these documents changed any zoning, but they were about housing, amongst other things. It's hard to believe that we'll be right back where we started should the up zoning be repealed. But here", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20101.785, "end": 20110.185, "text": "Sonia, sorry to interrupt you. Are you on speakerphone by chance or could you speak just a little bit uh closer? Uh you're coming off kind of muffled here in the chamber.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_65", "start": 20110.665, "end": 20114.085, "text": "Oh, am I okay, sure. Would you like me to start again or was I clear enough?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20114.325, "end": 20116.085, "text": "Uh you can continue. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_65", "start": 20116.605, "end": 20339.525, "text": "Okay. None of these documents changed any zoning, but they were about housing, amongst other things. It's hard to believe that we'll be right back where we started should the up zoning be repealed. But here we are. There's been lots of good data presented over the past week, and I hope that counselors take the time to really understand the data. There's a lot of emotion in this debate for obvious reasons, but it's your job to look at what's best for all Calgarians, present and future, and to use real numbers and not emotion to make a decision. I've lived in Calgary two separate times over my life. I moved here as a child from Montreal in 1980 and after several relocations, moved back here to raise my two children in 2007. As a child, I lived in Lake Bonavista. My house was huge compared to my home in Montreal. The trees were small, but I loved my new friends hiking with my family and hanging out at the lake and dancing to Xanadu in those huge basements. It was awesome. It wasn't Montreal, which I missed, but it I had new friends, new adventures were to be had here. Even though my mother complained that there was nowhere to get a good croissant coffee, they loved it here too. Fast forward 25 years and my children are starting kindergarten in Southwest Calgary. The city had changed so much, and in 2007, Calgarians felt like this was the greatest place on earth, despite all of the changes that had occurred in the 25 years previous. And it was great. Different, but great. For one thing, good croissant and coffee were everywhere, and vegetarian and vegan restaurants too. My kids walked to school, tore around the neighborhood on their bikes and go karts. We had drinks on friends' patios and decks and met new people and had new experiences. Fast forward 19 years later to 2026. My husband commutes to work on his bikes. New cycle tracks have helped with this. My kids take the BRT to the university if they need to. Calgary has changed so much since we moved here in 2007. People are coming from all over the planet. They come for different reasons, many of them because they see Calgary as a safe haven where they can raise their families and contribute to their community, city, province, and country, an opportunity they might not have in their previous home. These newcomers will change the city, as newcomers to a new place have done for millennia. They will bring their food, their stories, their cultures, whether they be from Ethiopia or Toronto. We need housing, affordable housing, purpose built rental, below market, POD, all of it. There's no question about this. We have a housing problem and a climate problem which needs solving. Change is often messy and disruptive, but always necessary. Nothing lasts forever, including the quote, idyllic neighborhoods I and many others have cherished. But change must must come. Flip that feeling of loss to a feeling of gratefulness for what we have been fortunate enough to have had. But to hang on to the past is a fool's errand and always has been. The changing dynamics of the world will make our neighborhoods and cities different and I believe better. I notice as I speak I've not once mentioned my house, a mid-century bungalow which we lovingly renovated in homage to the era it was built. We love the house, but it's a house. In the end, it's the characters that make your community, not the character, which, after hundreds of presentations, is yet to be defined. Newcomers will share walls and yards and have smaller patios and stoops, and they will love this place, as we who have been here slightly longer have loved it. We will love that we have shared our space and provided homes for those who otherwise would not have been there because we'll be lucky to have those people too. Counsel, I'm here to implore you not to take a step backwards, but to move forward. Do not repeal the zoning. Move forward to ensure we are all able to have a place to call home. This will make Calgary a better place to live for all of us. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20340.425, "end": 20346.165, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to David on 67, and then after that, uh the presenter in person here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 20347.965, "end": 20670.005, "text": "Yes. Good good afternoon, Council. My name is David Jacobs. I um panel sixty-seven. Uh ward I'm in ward thirteen and I'm on the Shawnee Evergreen Planning and Development Board. I'm here to speak about blanket rezoning, not for or against, but rather talk about some of the misconceptions and misinformation I've heard throughout this and the previous blanket rezoning public hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with Council. Clearly, a much different council, but it's the same group of concerned Calgarians. I'd like to share my observations. Coming at the end, you get to hear a lot of people. So here's some of my observations. The majority of presenters agree we need more housing. How we achieve that is the question at hand. Do we build out or do we build up? Well, it's not going to be up or out. It's likely a combination of both. But you've already heard that from many people. And I believe the Calgary Real Estate Board did an excellent job of telling us how the market has changed since blanket rezoning was originally approved. There is less demand and more supply. I've also heard from a number of people that increased density. equals increased taxes. But it was that was said by many presenters, but it was never suggested that the increased cost by those new infills and residents will add to the cost of the city's infrastructure, parks, and schools. So let's just not look at increased taxes alone. And we also have the discussion about the have and the have nots. Governments around the world have tried for centuries To address these issues and have not succeeded. And I don't think the City of Calgary will succeed there either. Remember how years ago Calgary was going to end homelessness within 10 years? Well, how has that worked out for us? I would like to go on to talk about for profit and subsidized or non market. We live in the capitalist economy, and I have no qualms. With developers and people making money. That's what's been driving Calgary's and Canada's economy for years. But let's recognize that the bulk of the drop-in center clients and new immigrants will never be able to afford even the lowest rental rates, including utilities, that was supposed to be generated by increased supplies. Clearly, we need more subsidized housing, whether it be a drop in shelter. or a government institution or specialized housing choices. Many of the clients that used to be housed in something like the Michener Center got more than shelter, they got services. I think we need to go back to that model again. And I do not accept what has been said by many presenters that the repeal of blanket zoning eliminates housing choices. I believe City Council and other level, with the help of other levels of government, have many tools to provide housing to meet the range of affordable and subsidized housing needs. Now is the time to explore other solutions that might be more productive and less offensive. So I want to talk about blanket versus targeted zoning. Blanket zoning, if you consider it planning, then it's lazy planning. One size fits all does not address the needs of housing or the locations that people need. Blanket rezoning is a shotgun approach, whereas targeted zoning through responsible planning addresses the various housing needs, affordability, and specific location requirements. Student housing next to secondary institutions, more drop-in facilities, and government facilities with services, those are what are needed, not a row house or a basement suite in the middle of suburbia that won't address those housing needs. In my opinion, blanket rezoning is an abdication of city administration, that's planning, engineering, and transportation, to manage and control growth. The for-profit marketplace will determine where growth will occur based on their profit requirements, not housing needs, affordability, or infrastructure capacity. City Hall must take a leadership role and determine where the most cost effective housing can be built with the least intrusive impact on surrounding neighborhoods.", "segments_merged": 92 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20670.005, "end": 20670.625, "text": "Thank you, David.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 20670.625, "end": 20678.085, "text": "There are just a time approaches. Would be to locate increased density adjacent to public transit modes.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20678.085, "end": 20689.765, "text": "Thank you so much, David. Uh please uh hang on the line in case there may be follow up for you. Thank you. We'll now go to our speaker here in the chamber if you don't mind introducing yourself and stating which panel you're on.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 20690.945, "end": 20940.185, "text": "So hi, my name is Lindsay McLaren. I'm panel 68. So good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of council. Thanks very much for this opportunity to participate in the deliberations. My name is Lindsay McLaren. I live in Ward 7 in the community of Montgomery in the Northwest, where I have been a homeowner for over 20 years. I work at the University of Calgary, where I teach public health and the social determinants of health. And I'm here today to respectfully ask counsel to vote no to repealing the rezoning bylaw. Housing and city livability are inextricable and they are immensely important to the health and well being of our communities. We live in a context of rising cost of living, unsustainable pressures on our environments, and weakened community connections. Housing policy sits at the nexus of these issues. And must foreground priorities like affordability for all Calgarians, including young people, being thoughtfully located near existing services and amenities like schools, places of work, grocery stores, rec centers, and parks, and limiting harms to the environment. The 2024 rezoning bylaw took us a step in the right direction in that regard. Allowing for densification rather than making it difficult, blocking it, allowed us to start to meet the needs of a growing population in a way that suits a wider range of budgets and living arrangements, respects our natural environments, especially at the edges of the city. Saves money on infrastructure costs, which are greater if we build out than if we build up, allows us to provide more opportunities for active and public forms of transportation. I was excited when Calgary started to talk about rezoning, and I felt very proud of Calgary for taking that important step of passing the bylaw back in 2024. I'm disappointed that we're back in this place now. From a personal perspective, I will say that it breaks my heart to see the development occurring on the edge of the city, where natural environments are destroyed to permit building out, and where those residents really have no choice other than to drive, when we could be addressing both social and ecological concerns and enhancing the livability for all Calgarians by investing in existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. I myself don't like to drive. I prefer to get around mostly by bike. In addition to people like me who are privileged enough to choose that, there are many people in Calgary who can't drive because of costs or age, etc. Collectively, we make up an important contingent of Calgary's population. And although I appreciate improvements that have been made to cycling infrastructure, it could be so much better for all people, including drivers. And this would only be supported by maintaining the important rezoning step taken with the 2024 bylaw. In my neighborhood of Montgomery, there is densification going on very near to my house, and I really don't see any significant downsides. As others have said today, there is a vibrancy that comes with having more people with diverse housing needs in our community. And in fact, as I stated in response to the consultations prior to the 2024 bylaw, I wish those kinds of housing options had been in place when my husband and I first moved to Montgomery over 20 years ago. We would have been all over them. So in summary, for reasons of affordability, community, environment, and overall quality of life in Calgary, I very much support saying no to repealing the rezoning bylaw and dedicating efforts instead to improving it. And I urge and support members of council in doing the same. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 22 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 20941.985, "end": 20945.245, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to Barbara, please, on 70.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 20948.265, "end": 20971.325, "text": "have uh an overhead here. Um good afternoon, uh Mayor and Council. Um I'm with uh uh again Barbara Jessiman I'm Livin Boness and I'm on panel uh", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 20971.325, "end": 20971.865, "text": "Seventy.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 20972.185, "end": 21281.685, "text": "okay there we go uh all right thank you okay that's better um this is my fourth time at the mic in the past two years defending my home my neighborhood my community and my city against arbitrary and misguided zoning measures Along with thousands of fellow Calgarians, I took part in the previous public hearing. The vast majority of us said no to blanket rezoning. The majority of city council unfortunately said yes. A significant number of Boness residents opposed a 12 unit row home complex on the corner of 69th Street and 45th Avenue. Council voted 10 4 in our favor. Our victory was short-lived, however. The developer waited a while, then came back with an even larger 12-unit plan, and it's well underway. And that's it right here. In addition to this development, it will be twinned by a 16 unit complex on the lot next door over here. The owner, a longtime friend and neighbor, decided to sell his privacy and quality of life. Already diminished by the intense activity next to him, and he'll be leaving Boness. A mid block infill, more row homes and suites is under construction on 70th Street. And that's another 12 units. These three developments will inject a total of 40 new residences within a block and a half, where there were once three. Two more of these city sandwich boards have recently appeared in front of two more homes on 70th Street. Looks like we're in for a population explosion. A significant number of us took exception to a five story, 50 unit residential complex being built on a neighborhood park and playground. We lost and the park is gone. Over the last two years, developers have been busy. They seem to have a particular fondness for boness. Countless homes have been leveled to accommodate an array of mind-numbingly similar row homes, town homes, and duplexes. Has this demolition construction frenzy produced that promised affordable housing? That missing middle? One real estate site lists 96 properties for sale in Bonas. Some older homes, a few marketed on their development potential. Apartments, and a few mobile homes. There are 25 new construction listings. The least expensive, $666,000 for a triplex. Duplexes range from $830,000 to $250,000. For single family offerings, $1,360,000 to just under $2 million. Affordable for whom? Communities have become commodities. Assemblages of properties to be bought and sold and exploited for maximum profit. What has been the human cost of blanket rezoning? The house next door turned into a pile of rubble after two hours of being worked over by a backhoe. The family that lived there gone, who knows where. The impact of having a towering multi unit infill set up shop next door. Your property devalued, your privacy gone. The loss of friends and neighbors, a park, a community garden, all the small deaths leading to the larger death of a much loved boness. What about us? The folks who worked hard often sacrificed for home ownership, raised families, made friends, felt a sense of belonging, of safety and security. We have become pawns. Bit players in the chess game of politicians, big money, and special interest groups. This mostly new mayor and council have an opportunity, indeed, a responsibility, to halt the ravages of blanket rezoning before even more damage is done. Repeal, no amendments. We said no last time. Please do the right thing this time. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 58 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 21282.745, "end": 21288.445, "text": "Thank you so much, Barbara. We'll now go to Reza to uh conclude this panel, please. 173.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 21290.205, "end": 21600.145, "text": "Uh thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. Um my name's Risa Dasaw, and I support a full repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw without amendments. I want to focus my comments on one central issue, the loss of meaningful public participation, and how that connects to broader impacts on affordability, land value, and taxation. Prior to blanket rezoning, residents had two meaningful opportunities to participate in the planning process. First, at the land use redesignation stage, there was formal notice and a public hearing at council. Where residents could speak directly to whether a change in land use was appropriate. Second, at the development permit stage, residents could comment on the specifics of the proposal and its necessary appeal. Following blanket rezoning, that first and most important stage was removed. Put plainly, the point in the process where residents could influence whether a land use change should occur was eliminated despite major public opposition. Public input still exists, but it is narrower and occurs later, where fewer aspects of the discretionary development project can be meaningfully influenced. Contextual development applications, not at all. Planning has become a technical review by administration as opposed to a hearing with direct public accountability. The blanket rezoning policy is described as citywide, but the impacts are not evenly distributed. In practice, redevelopment is concentrated in certain neighborhoods, raising questions about fairness and planning balance. If the intent is to build public trust in planning decisions, it is difficult to reconcile that goal with a system where the most consequential decision is made without a site specific public hearing. I'd like to illustrate this through my own experience in Elbow Park in Ward 8. Across the street from my home, a corner lot was purchased and consequently subdivided into three parcels. In a neighborhood historically characterized by single detached homes, this was a significant change. The bungalow sold for approximately $1.65 million in 2023. Following rezoning, it was discussed at a value exceeding $2.8 million prior to any construction. That represented over a million dollars in value created before a single home was built. While part of that increase reflects higher density, it also reflects reduced approval time and reduced risk from removing the rezoning step. If a land use redesignation was still required, the land would likely transact at a lower value due to uncertainty and delay. Removing that step shifts land from conditional to effectively pre approved, and that certainly is capitalized into value. The cost savings that supply might create could be real, but so is the upward pressure on land value. This causes a tension with affordability. The policy may support affordability over the long term by increasing supply, but in the short term it increases values and works against affordability locally. The benefits are theoretical and long term. The cost increases are immediate and real. When the permit development permits were posted across from my home, there was strong opposition, but no direct engagement from the file manager, and comments were summarized but not substantially addressed. After approval, I requested the decision rationale to assess whether I could appeal and was told I needed to file a SOAP request. Given the 21 day appeal window, this creates a barrier to participation. In effect, the process asks residents to exercise a right of appeal without timely access to the information needed to make an informed decision. The appeal process itself is highly technical and creates an imbalance between applicants with consultants speaking on their behalf and residents with limited guidance. Property assessments are based on market value and development potential. When zoning increases that potential, land values can rise even before redevelopment, shifting tax burden onto existing homeowners. I understand the city's overall tax requirement does not change, but individual homeowners can see a higher relative tax burden. I would also note that as a directly affected property owner of a corner lot, I have not received any specific notice that amendments affecting my property are being considered apart from the notice of appeal that I of repeal that I got through the mail.", "segments_merged": 39 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 21600.385, "end": 21605.725, "text": "Thank you so much. If you don't mind uh just speaking one more sentence.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 21607.585, "end": 21619.825, "text": "Um I just say I um I respectfully ask Council to vote for a full repeal without amendments and to undertake a transparent and consultive process to determine an appropriate path forward. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 21620.325, "end": 21627.025, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh that concludes our panel. We will go now to questions. Uh Councillor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 21630.105, "end": 21636.525, "text": "Well, I'm gonna uh first go to Mr. Jacobs. You uh sounded like you hadn't finished your presentation. I was hoping uh you'd be able to do that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 21638.065, "end": 21739.265, "text": "Thank you. One of the things I'd like to point out is the city owns an awful lot of land around LRT stations. And over the years I've worked on four LRT TOD plans, and nothing has changed on them. They're still parking lots, not mixed use communities. And I believe most presenters, for and against, would support developing on the LRT nodes. Now, many speakers have said you have a difficult decision to make. I disagree. I think it's very simple. Do the planning. Determine where you can provide the greatest range of housing without overloading parking, transportation, and service capacities. Provide certainties to the neighbors. Work with your communities and citizens to develop local area plans with proper interfaces between existing and proposed developments. And I would also say why don't you look at your successes in converting downtown office space into housing for hard to house at affordable prices? That was City Hall leadership. And financial subsidization. Also accept that much of the increased housing may need subsid subsidies. And recognize that the private sector will only will not satisfy your housing needs. And let's start implementing TOD around LRT stations. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 27 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 21740.185, "end": 21752.845, "text": "Thank you for that. Um, Ms. Dessa is there Is there anything else you wanted to say? Yeah. I mean you had your concluding statement there, but was there something else that you maybe wanted to add to your presentation if you had had the opportunity?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 21753.805, "end": 21754.685, "text": "Well, I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 21754.685, "end": 21755.285, "text": "Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 21755.885, "end": 21756.725, "text": "I would suggest", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 21756.725, "end": 21757.365, "text": "sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 21757.365, "end": 21758.285, "text": "that", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 21758.285, "end": 21763.705, "text": "Thank you, uh Mr. Mr. Jacobs. The the question was directed by Councillor Shabot to uh Ms. Deza.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_72", "start": 21767.085, "end": 21901.065, "text": "I was just gonna say that you know the public voice has been lost in this whole process. It is extremely frustrating to go through any of this um process. There is nobody seems to want to. even this reply to you, you it's like you're talking to yourself. And uh maybe your points are not valid, but you know, it's quite a dismissive process when you pay a lot of money. Uh we pay a ton of money in property taxes. And it just grows without transparent and an accessible process, it just undermines public confidence and trust in what's happening. So I really encourage you to repeal, create trust, And work on a solution where communities are involved. People know their communities. Nobody wants people to be homeless. Everybody wants people to have a home. So I just hope that y'all have the courage to step back and say, I think we've maybe overstepped and we do need planning. We know that there's an instrument infrastructure issue. When I asked about our home that has pipes from 1954. And now they're adding there are about nine homes being constructed on our house to subdivide it. So I know that we're not town house uh uh houses, but in an area like Elbow Park where the land cost is high, you're not gonna find townhouses. What you're gonna find is people subdividing the land to make their money. Like they they're gonna s build houses and try and sell them for three point five million or And it's really taking away the chance for young families to come in to a start at home and build up. Life is about start and work your way up and hopefully you you know and and nobody wants to be at council. We all just want to live our life and unfortunately we're being dragged into this because it affects something that's fundamental to everybody, which is their home. So um I hope that you'll listen to Calgaryans and um uh vote to repeal. So thank you.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 21901.945, "end": 21918.885, "text": "Thank you for that concluding statement. Ums uh was it just just Simon? Yes. So from your perspective, full repeal, and what about the amendments?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 21918.885, "end": 21920.545, "text": "Now start all over again.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 21920.745, "end": 21921.805, "text": "Right, from okay", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 21922.165, "end": 21965.105, "text": "You can add things. I'm afraid that if you start tinkering with amendments, uh things will get really complex. Uh they they don't need to be. Again, go back to the way things were before the the zoning bylaws, and then given all the input that you've had from hundreds of people as to specific needs, uh the the the homeless, the lack of affordable housing, transportation, the draw on aging infrastructure, surely you can come up with. Really far more thoughtful, more nuanced ways of approaching uh the issue of housing all of us.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 21965.105, "end": 21987.185, "text": "Yeah. So forgive me for s asking, but a lot of the recommendations are actually looking at uh decreasing the intensity of use of even of the RCG under the definitions. But at this point, you think it should just go back and have greater consultation with the community, including the development industry, to look at what's the best path forward.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 21987.265, "end": 22004.145, "text": "Well, I think the development industry is doing very well. It's homeowners who have been hit hard. And especially in Boness. Have any of you driven through Boness recently? It does not look like Boness anymore.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 22005.685, "end": 22035.285, "text": "Okay. Thanks for that. Uh Ms. McLaren. Uh thank you for being here. Um I guess my question for you is you you're not supportive of the idea of repealing completely. I'm not sure I quite heard whether or not you'd be uh amenable to consider uh maybe um uh Going back and adjusting it as opposed to a full repeal as a potential option.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 22037.205, "end": 22091.845, "text": "So we are living in a state of intersecting social and ecological emergencies, and so what I'm interested in seeing is City Council taking bold steps to address these things in a meaningful way. I feel that the blanket rezoning was such a bold step. So, as such, I would not be interested in any kind of partial version of that. I think I think retaining the blanket rezoning is really important. Now, based on what I've heard today and also Friday, You know, is is the blanket rezoning perfect? No. Is it sufficient? No. So I think the blanket rezoning plus improvements to deal with the things that come up repeatedly around, for example, affordability, around the tree canopy, around kind of I guess the consultation process, et cetera.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 22092.285, "end": 22113.585, "text": "So some of the things that we've heard over the last, well, not just this public hearing, but previous public hearings, was that the the blanket zoning being applied citywide is not necessarily appropriate in some locations where there's some places it makes absolutely no sense. There's no um transit in close proximity, there are no amendments.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22113.585, "end": 22115.925, "text": "Councillor Shabot, I'm gonna ask you not to engage in debate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 22116.625, "end": 22146.005, "text": "No, I'm trying to set the stage for the answer from the um anyway, so there was debate as to whether or not it was applicable or made sense citywide. And so the blanket zoning imposed that throughout the entire city. And some of the discussions looked at more planned strategic focus type uh density uh as a maybe an alternate. And do you think maybe there's something in between there, maybe as a hybrid that would be uh maybe better to apply?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 22147.265, "end": 22196.785, "text": "I I'm skeptical because again, I think the blanket, the beauty of the blanket rezoning is the blanket part of it. There's an equity element embedded in it through the blanket aspect. This could happen anywhere in the city, which I think is the way it needs to happen. We see in other cities how you know certain types of housing can end up being concentrated in certain areas because it's determined to be, you know, desirable. But then, you know, these areas sometimes get shut off from the rest of the city. They become, you know, they become a site where people living in certain social and economic conditions are all in one place. And so this is this is highly problematic from an equity point of view. So I do think the beauty is in the blanket. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 22199.185, "end": 22204.725, "text": "Yeah. Okay. Anyways, I appreciate you coming and you providing your perspective. No further questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22206.025, "end": 22207.445, "text": "Thank you. Councillor McClain, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 22207.925, "end": 22222.025, "text": "Actually, uh I was Councillor Chabot beat me to it. I was gonna ask Mr. Jacobs if he had more to say, but he's already said it. Thanks for coming, David. He's an expert in planning and lives in my words. So thanks again, David, for coming. Uh that's it.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22223.005, "end": 22236.665, "text": "Thank you, Council McLean. That uh concludes this panel. Colleagues, we have time for one more panel. We'll go back to calling names that previously hadn't been called. Do we on 101 do we have Anna Strasser with us?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_71", "start": 22239.225, "end": 22240.945, "text": "Hello, I'm here, Anna Strasser.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22241.785, "end": 22243.045, "text": "Thank you, Anna. Please stand by.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_83", "start": 22244.865, "end": 22246.365, "text": "Um Mayor Parker, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22247.525, "end": 22297.225, "text": "Unfortunately, I can't speak to you across the bar like this, if you don't mind uh communicating with the clerks and we'll uh uh be able to track your correspondence. On 102, do we have Ellen Smith with us? Thank you, Ellen. Uh please stand by. And I believe we have the remainder of Palinol 102, is that right? Do we have with us Kayla, Jessica, Lindsay, and Kate? Great, come on down. You'll uh round us off as the uh final panelists. So this panel will be Anna on 101, Ellen on 102, then Kayla, Jessica, Lindsay, and Kate from 102. Alright, Anna, why don't you start us off, please?", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_71", "start": 22299.205, "end": 22495.225, "text": "Thank you. Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Anna Strasser and I am a homeowner in Ward 14. I've lived in Calgary for 25 years and I've lived in the Northwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast. I represent myself, my husband, and my two university age daughters. As I reflect on the various speakers of the hearing, I think it's fair to say that everybody wants affordability and that most people are okay with some form of densification. Where the disagreement comes in is whether or not blanket rezoning is the way to reach the housing and affordability goals. I support the full repeal of blanket rezoning to the previous zoning. I don't think that we can simply hope that housing, affordability, accessibility, these complex issues will be a side effect of blanket rezoning. We need a thoughtful, planful, data-informed strategy. I would like to see better data. I believe we're using census data from 2021, and of course, we're now post-COVID. We've had a couple of years of record immigration and migration. How can we plan when we don't actually know our starting point? I think we need to better understand our infrastructure. We can't just assume that it can handle the density. Water, power, sewage, roads. We need accurate, trusted data to make data informed decisions. I think that we need a Focused and specific plan for housing affordability and accessibility. I think we should look to things like shared ownership housing, quite common in Europe, where an individual or a family will own a portion of a home and a housing association or a nonprofit owns the other portion. This creates an entryway for young families into the housing market. I think we could also look to long-term leased lands, where also common in Europe, you might have a 99-year lease. So the city would lease out the land, you could build affordable housing, and you have a savings because you've semi-removed the cost of land. I think we should look to purpose-built rental housing, cooperative housing. I heard somebody last week talking about accessibility accessibility and visitability and the things that are required through building codes, and I understand that has a provincial and federal component to it, but I think the idea of kind of targeting specific issues will get better results. So I believe that there has to be a better way and a more targeted way to address housing affordability and accessibility. Blanket rezoning seems to inflate land prices and therefore housing prices. This has been previously spoken to, and I can say for all of the infills in my community and surrounding area, they are all more expensive than the home that they replaced. I think that we need to leverage LAPs with genuine consultation. I think we need targeted densification, transit corridors, major roads, potentially corner lots, uh vacant land, mixed use development. I think we need incentives for secondary suites. I think we need a phase densification strategy. I think we need to set targets, collect data, evaluate the ro results, and adjust as needed. So in", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 22495.225, "end": 22501.885, "text": "Closing. In closing, please repeal blanket rezoning. and the chaos that is", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_71", "start": 22501.885, "end": 22530.145, "text": "Has created. There has to be a better way. Please do not throw away decades of city planning. Please address housing and affordability directly, not as a side effect of blanket rezoning that seems to benefit developers more than anyone else. Please don't rush to some in between or hybrid option. Do the full repeal. Please take the time to prepare a thoughtful and strategic plan. Please follow through on election promises to fully repeal blanket rezoning. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22530.945, "end": 22533.625, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to Ellen on 102.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_68", "start": 22536.165, "end": 22629.545, "text": "Hi, thank you for allowing me to speak today. Um again, my name is Ellen Smith, and I live in Ward 8 with my husband. We have three small kids, and we've been living um in our current neighborhood since uh 2019, 2020. Uh, we came from Altidor. We got married and built a beautiful single-dached home in Altador. Um, within five to six years, we had decided to start trying for a family and quickly realized that the neighborhood was starting to shift. It wasn't just single-deteched homes anymore. In fact, we were on the 49th Avenue cul-de-sac and 16th Street, and we had a massive townhome complex spring up in our backyard, which changed the complete feel of our entire neighborhood. In fact, I think there were more people living in that townhome complex than on our entire street in the entire cul-de-sac. And with that happening, we made the really tough decision to uh sell our home that we loved, that we never planned to leave, and move to another neighborhood. Um We're happy where we are. We have a lot mostly single family homes here. The kids ride their bikes, they're young, they play with the neighbors. I'm not worried about them getting hit by a car or with a lot of extra traffic. And I would really like it to stay that way. Again, we're in Ward 8, and I am in support of a full repeal of blanket rezoning. And that's all I have to say. Thank you so much for your time. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 22629.925, "end": 22635.225, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go next to Kayla, then Jessica, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 22642.485, "end": 22701.485, "text": "Okay. Thank you, Council, for the opportunity to speak against the repeal of RCG zoning. My name is Kayla Brown, founder and architect at Bold Workshop Architecture. I'm joined today by my colleagues and collaborators, Lindsay, Jessica, and Kate. I currently serve on Council's Advisory Committee on Housing, but I'm speaking today on behalf of myself and my company with the generous support from the Alberta Real Estate Foundation and BEA Calgary. Next slide. I'm going to walk you through our Inglewood project and why we swapped it from RCG to HGO and what we learned through that permitting process. Lindsay will then explain our proposal for a pathway to permitted use for all housing types and all densities. Jessica will then outline specific reform ideas to RCG that will help architects and developers build better housing that fits within the neighborhood context. And Kate will explain how you can introduce our proposal with the LAP process and provide some thoughts on how to create outcomes based design criteria. Next slide.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 22703.625, "end": 22704.985, "text": "We're currently developing", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 22705.685, "end": 22933.085, "text": "A 16-unit infill housing project in Inglewood called New Monica. It's on a non-standard and oversized site with two frontages along New Street and St. Monica Avenue. Our site is located near the Ninth Ave Corridor up on the screen with strong access to transit, commuting paths, commercial staples, and a mix of existing housing types. This is an area that is both desirable for Calgarians to live and a suitable candidate for increased density. Next slide. We began designing the project in 2023, assuming we would proceed with the RCG land use. After attempting to work within the constraints of the district, we realized that this wasn't optimal for our site. Prescriptive design criteria in RCG limits flexibility, restricts innovation, particularly on these non standard sites, and lacks clear contextual design expectations. Determining the appropriate land use for higher density housing happens at the pre application stage. You then proceed with the current land use or land use redesignation, and then you go to council for a vote. We ultimately decided to change our land use to HGO for greater certainty of approvals and flexibility in housing types. Next slide. During this process, we learned that feasibility is fragile when using the RCG land use. The permitting process results in a product that is more expensive for the end user due to delays and uncertainty. RCG doesn't allow the flexibility to achieve the highest and best use of the site without compromising on contextually responsive design. Furthermore, the risk of discretionary use creates unpredictability and risk. To prepare and receive our land use redesignation from initial pre app inquiry to approval, it took 12 months with priority status. The CPC process adds significant delays, and we support the elimination of its involvement in mid density housing delivery. And if you want to know more, ask me questions. Next slide. Despite the fact we were given priority status, our development permit took 12 months for approval. If a permitted use application is complete and compliant, the permit must be issued. Instead, for our application, we received a discretionary review of a permitted use application with 101 comments and minor bylaw infractions. Our permitted use project then got appealed and delayed by the SDAB process, which further added cost and delayed our project an entire season. My job is to design and deliver housing for people and communities, and I spend too much of my time and money dealing with red tape. Next slide. So what did we learn? HGO is a stronger district because its reduced prescriptiveness gives us more flexibility to design buildings that respond to context. While our lot was appropriate for HGO, many standard lots are not, and they are best suited for RCG. To address public concerns about contextually inappropriate RCG development, we need to introduce flexibility and housing types into the district. To reduce housing costs, we need to streamline approvals so permits are fast and predictable. Calgary is predicted to grow to two million people. Our neighborhoods are not going to look the same forever, nor were they meant to. We need to provide diverse housing options, increase housing supply, and increase certainty for both developers and neighbors so that we all understand where and how our city is going to grow. The issue at stake today is not whether we allow density, it's whether we have a clear and predictable way to deliver it. For people like us who design and develop these projects, for the current and future residents, we need to find a clear and thoughtful way forward. We have a proposal that, based on our experience, can help address some of the issues that we've seen with RCG unfold in our city. Thank you. And I'm going to hand it over to.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 22933.885, "end": 22939.745, "text": "Jessica. Hi.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 22940.245, "end": 23205.565, "text": "I'm Jessica Stolbert, an architect at Bold Workshop Architecture. Thank you for this opportunity to speak against the repeal of blanket RCG zoning. Building on what we've learned through direct project experience, we're proposing an adjustment to the RCG framework. This proposal has three components. One, a clear baseline, two, a defined pathway to permitted use approval for all housing types, and three, a structured approach to increasing density. Next slide. The first step is to simplify and clarify the base conditions of RCG. This would keep RCG as the base land use, but with a small adjustment that makes it similar to the prior RC2 zoning. This is something that we believe can and should be implemented today. This change keeps federal funding intact and would not require another hearing. We propose that the existing density of 75 units per hectare and the lot coverage maximum relative to unit count remains as is. So for a standard 50 by 120 foot lot, the maximum density is four units. However, in order to address neighborhood concerns of too much density being built in inappropriate areas, we propose removing secondary suites as a defined use, as they don't currently count towards density. The intent of the current framework was to enable four equivalent units of housing. Secondary suites exceed that baseline and are not required to meet density targets. The classification of secondary suites also introduces complexity into the permitting process with conflicts between city regulations and building and safety codes, as well as longer timelines. Next slide. Crucially, these units must be able to take the form of any residential typology for this policy to be effective. For each typical lot, these could be configured as a single house, a house with a basement unit with separate access, a side by side with a laneway unit, or a small multi unit building such as a double duplex, townhouses or row houses. Next slide. The project you see here and on the following slides are examples of thoughtful infill housing projects that are not currently allowed in RCG zoning. Components two and three of our proposed framework are further changes to RCG to allow more flexibility in the resulting built form. These changes shouldn't be decided on during this hearing as they'll take time to evaluate and refine to ensure a successful framework. So the second component is a clear and consistent pathway to permitted use approval. This starts with all forms of housing being treated consistently and fairly with no housing configuration being prohibited. All residential types, including single family homes, are initially treated as discretionary uses by default, so they are evaluated under the same criteria. For developments of up to four units, parking remains at a one to one ratio with adjustments for specific conditions. This establishes a clear and stable foundation. Next slide. Projects that meet newly defined performance and contextual criteria at the pre-application stage are then recategorized as permitted use and are eligible for priority processing, while all others proceed through discretionary review. This creates a system where expectations are clear and outcomes are known in advance by developers, architects, and importantly, members of the community. And by allowing multiple housing types to be delivered within the same framework, we enable a broader range of options within established neighborhoods, supporting different household sizes, life stages, and financial capacities. Next slide. The third component introduces a structured location-based approach to density. Higher density modifiers are tied to proximity to transport, nodes, and corridors with increases aligned to local area plans or main streets and implemented as of right. As proximity increases, permitted density increases and parking requirements decrease. This creates a density gradient that aligns growth with existing infrastructure and services. It's an extension of the nodes and corridors approach, but with more jurisdiction to ensure this targeted density is actually realized and more thoughtfully implemented. Next slide. Taken together, these adjustments establish a framework that maintains balanced density, supports housing diversity, aligns growth with city planning, and reduces uncertainty in the approval process. This creates a system that is both flexible and predictable. Thank you for your time. I'll pass it over to Lindsay to discuss the proposed permitted use pathway in more detail.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 23208.265, "end": 23209.225, "text": "Thank you. Please coming up.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_45", "start": 23213.345, "end": 23488.665, "text": "Hi, I'm Lindsay Andres, also an architect at Bold Workshop Architecture and founder of VEA Calgary. Thank you for the opportunity to speak against the repeal of RCG zoning. I will be presenting the part of our proposal that determines permitted versus discretionary uses. Currently, under RCG, the use is prescribed in the land use bylaw with all higher density options categorized as discretionary. We are proposing a pathway to permitted use for all housing types that follow an outcomes based framework. Next slide. Today we have a framework that tells you what to build. Setbacks, heights, unit counts, but it doesn't reliably deliver what people actually care about. Tree canopy, privacy, shadowing, or street character. An outcomes based framework flips that. So it defines the results that must be achieved and allows flexibility in how to achieve them. We already do this with the energy code. We regulate performance, not just form. We are proposing a similar approach for land use. Next slide. Instead of relying only on fixed rules like maximum height on all lots and discretionary interpretation, we define what successful outcomes look like and evaluate projects based on how well they meet those outcomes. Within this framework, the pre application stage becomes a key decision point. Projects are evaluated under the bylaw, including a new set of enhanced performance criteria. If a project is complete and compliant, no matter the housing type or density, and satisfies contextual performance criteria, it is automatically recategorized as permitted use. Otherwise, it proceeds through the discretionary process for further review. Projects requiring further refinement or relaxations receive appropriate scrutiny and appeal risk. Projects that meet or exceed expectations don't clog up the system. What we are proposing is a shift from a rules-only zoning system to a performance-based system with a clear permitted pathway where good projects are fast-tracked and only complex or non-compliant ones require discretionary review. Next slide. To illustrate how this works in practice, I'll briefly reference our new Monica project. Rather than replicating existing buildings or building to the maximum size allowed by our land use designation, we recombine elements from the community into new forms that are familiar but not identical. Next slide. Instead of asking whether a project matches a specific typology, we asked, does it borrow from the existing built form, such as texture and colors seen in the surrounding houses? We adopted community built forms like front wood steps, arched windows accented with bold frames, and gabled roofs with dark shingles from the contextual built form along the street. Next slide. We asked, does it manage scale and massing appropriately? At New Monica, our building height is consistent with the single family homes across the street, even though we could have built as high as 12 meters. We increased the setbacks from the minimum 1.2 meters to range between three and seven meters. While we could have built up to an FAR of 1.5, we designed a project at an FAR of one to be more consistent with the massing in the neighborhood. Finally, we asked does it contribute positively to the street and the public realm and consider the impact to the neighbors? At New Monaco, we sized the windows smaller where they could be and position them to prevent unnecessary overlook into the neighbors' houses. We conducted a shadow study and adjusted setbacks and building height to avoid casting shadows into backyards. Next slide, please. Under this proposal, projects that meet these types of criteria would move directly into the permitted pathway. This approach reduces timelines and therefore costs for applicants, provides a clear framework for administration, reduces discretionary applications for council, and gives residents greater clarity on how neighborhoods will evolve. Ultimately, it creates a system that is more transparent, more predictable, and better aligned with the housing outcomes that we are trying to achieve, while also improving how new development responds to its context. The current prescriptive regulatory system reduces my ability as an architect to design projects that fit into the existing neighborhood context. And I'll pass it on to Kate McGregor. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 26 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 23490.305, "end": 23491.225, "text": "Thanks, coming up, Kate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 23495.205, "end": 23813.385, "text": "Hi everyone, thanks for having me here today, Council, to give me the opportunity to speak against the repeal of RCG. I'm Kate McGregor. In addition to some of the other roles, I have I'm the president of XYC Design. Next slide. Reducing baseline RCG to four units without the secondary suites requires that we're able to increase density above 75 units per hectare in some areas. How can we plan for this effectively? Local area plans already identify where and how growth is intended to occur along transit corridors near nodes and key main streets. On this map, you can see zones highlighted for more density along important corridors like 16th Avenue. I want to look at a small portion in the dashed line of this map, for an example. Next slide. So per the LAP on the left, everything in the lightest pink, which are primarily RCG zoned residential parcels, is capped at three stories. But everything in there is painted with the same brush. So at point one, houses the back onto Confederation Park, they're allowed to have the same density as point two, houses one block away from 16th Avenue that will have a 12-story building planned immediately behind them. We proposed that a density gradient whereby sites closer to transit and services would be eligible for higher density and lower parking ratios. So the map on the right illustrates how this might manifest with medium density in RCG in teal and high density in RCG in purple. In areas without LAPs, the same approach could be applied using established neighborhood main streets and transit corridors. This creates a consistent citywide system where density is predictable, location based, and aligned with existing planning policy rather than negotiated on a site by site basis if RCG is repealed. Next slide. At the core of ensuring this additional density is thoughtfully implemented is our proposed outcomes-based design criteria, which would expand on an existing city contextual design policy and be developed and tested by industry professionals and embedded in the city's statutory documents. Residents want quality projects that improve the build character of their area and to avoid cookie cutter designs, low quality builds, or units that are packed so tight that they don't get any sunlight. We've categorized the contextual concerns that we've heard and have started developing a proposed metric for each. Next slide. I want to caution that this is a proposed way forward and that I recommend council works through a motion arising or a later motion. I do not recommend making these detailed changes from the council floor. And I know that this is a lot of text to take in right now, but it gives you an indication of the research that we are continuing on with our ERIF grant. So first, larger projects must deliver a meaningful number of units and a mix of types, supporting housing supply and unit diversity. Second, projects must manage massing height and lot coverage to respond to proximate buildings while incorporating recognizable architectural elements from the context so new development relates to its surroundings. Third, projects must minimize shadow impacts and overlook through appropriate building placement, window design, and setbacks, ensuring access to light and privacy for neighboring properties. This will be measured and proved by shadow studies and window alignment studies. Fourth, light density parking requirements are calibrated based on proximity to nodes and corridors with higher density and reduced parking in well served areas. Projects that meet these would become permitted use and eligible for priority processing. Projects that do not would continue under the current discretionary review process. Next slide. I want to end my presentation on a personal note. This house, now the location of Civic Tavern, is the home my grandma grew up in. So over her life, she saw the beltline and the entirety of Calgary change significantly. But I never heard her complain about any of that. I only saw her try to work to make our city a better place. Neighborhoods are not meant to be stagnant. They are meant to grow and change with us. The city of 85,000 in 1939, when this photo on the left was taken with my grandma up there on the balcony, is not the same city that is 1.6 million people today, and we cannot expect today's neighborhoods to be exactly the same when our city grows to a predicted 2 million people in the next decade. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but the framework that we have proposed here is number one, don't repeal RCG. To address the concerns over inappropriate density in inappropriate locations without sacrificing housing choice, remove secondary suites and make all housing types viable. Number two, adopt a pathway to permitted use governed by outcomes-based criteria. The current regulatory process is prescripted, and this blocks architects from making things contextual. In addition, discretionary use applications increase complexity and delay projects, and that cost gets added in to the final cost of the product. Number three, increase density targets and reduce parking requirements where it makes sense to do so, near established main streets, transit corridors, and high intensity nodes. Our proposal connects design quality, proximity to transportation and services, and a reliable and simplified approvals process for greater certainty, allowing a path for projects to move forward faster, while giving Calgarians and council greater confidence in how our neighborhoods will evolve.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 23813.385, "end": 23817.365, "text": "Thank you. You're just a time, if you don't mind a concluding sentence is fine.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 23817.765, "end": 23820.205, "text": "Uh it all the content was delivered on.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 23820.585, "end": 23824.385, "text": "Perfect. All right, uh, Councillor Kelly for this panel, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 23824.745, "end": 23830.705, "text": "If you could come back up, Miss McGregor, I will let you finish from where you were with the full, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 23831.265, "end": 23858.725, "text": "Sure. We know that fully developing and implementing this framework will require a lot of work and a future public hearing, which is daunting after we've all been spending so much time contemplating this. But the effort to get required to get this right for all of us who have spoken and listened in these processes and for our future fellow Calgarians should not prevent progress. Thank you for taking the time to hear our proposal. Please do not take a step backward in voting to repeal RCG. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 23859.485, "end": 23932.885, "text": "Thank you for that. Um I will maybe direct my first question here to Miss Stolbert. Is that correct? Stolbert. The reason why I'm going to direct it to you first, and you do feel free to redirect to any of your colleagues there. But uh you are the one who said specifically that like we recognize that this is not before you right now, and we don't want you to do this here. We want you to do it later. Um what I really normally when we've had a few of those, when we've had presentations like that, I'm like. Then do it later and we'll talk about it later. But what I really appreciated about this is that you put something forward in front of us that actually does address the issue that we are debating here today. Um and recognizing the fact that it's not an option that's on the table for us right now, but it could be better. Um what I really appreciated about this whole thing is how innovative it it was in terms of the approach to planning. And so my question to you, through you, you choose, um, is have you shared this with our administration? And if so, what was the response?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 23933.105, "end": 23957.465, "text": "I mean Kate and Kayla can probably talk to this better, but we had started to talk to some of the members of council to get input because with having such a bold different idea, we wanted to run it by some others to make sure we weren't way out there and get some initial input to make sure that what we were proposing is possible and feasible.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 23957.465, "end": 23959.465, "text": "But it was City Admin, right? That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 23959.605, "end": 23959.765, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 23959.765, "end": 23969.805, "text": "So I inquired about if it was possible and that's all I wanted to know. And I was told something like this would be, so I was happy with that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 23970.605, "end": 24013.945, "text": "I would be very happy to meet with you and to facilitate a larger conversation about this because this is the kind of thing we need to have a little bit more of a conversation about. It's um taking away from sort of the rules based way that we have right now. Um what I I I I mean I'm entering into debate, I suppose, so I'll just say that uh I'd love to have a conversation here because this is innovative, different, and will require a little bit more. So please do reach out. I'd love to have a little bit more of a conversation about this. Um Because there's something really interesting here. You are have maybe I'll I'll ask sort of a a f uh a final question here in terms of have you read the Calgary plan? Have you uh taken a look at the draft of the zoning bylaw?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24014.305, "end": 24015.305, "text": "The new ones?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 24015.305, "end": 24015.605, "text": "Correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24015.605, "end": 24020.085, "text": "A long time ago. A while ago, yeah, before it Yeah, a while ago.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 24020.305, "end": 24032.085, "text": "The reason why I ask is because I think that our opportunity to do something like this may be there. Yes. So uh if you could so if you could reach out to have a conversation and uh would you be willing to read those before we meet?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24032.605, "end": 24033.665, "text": "Yes, of course.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 24033.665, "end": 24035.225, "text": "That'd be great. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 24035.225, "end": 24049.525, "text": "I just wanted to clarify too, so because there were the three components, it was number two and three we are proposing as being something that could be implemented later as they're more complex. But the first component, which is um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 24049.705, "end": 24052.965, "text": "Is there a specific slide number that clerks could go to that you could show that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 24052.965, "end": 24100.245, "text": "It's not, it doesn't really help the visual. But it was about how with keeping RCG as a blanket rezoning to address concerns about too much density, because we agree, I mean, eight units on a 50 by 120 lot is a lot for many people. So by removing the secondary suites from the zoning and not having that be added to the density, because even though secondary suites don't count towards density, you're still doubling the number of units and people on the site. So by removing that, it's you're able to keep the RCG blanket rezoning in place and it should address a lot of those concerns. And that's something we think could be implemented tonight.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 24101.105, "end": 24107.585, "text": "I will give this look a look through in a little bit more detail as we move towards there, but um in the meantime, thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 24110.165, "end": 24140.445, "text": "All right. Uh we have two requests to speak. Um may I have uh general consent to extend the uh start of our dinner break to conclude this panel. All right. Um seeing that, thank you, colleagues. Uh I should also mention that uh around six o'clock or just a little bit after, we're gonna go on our break from six to seven fifteen. So there's not an opportunity for any uh members of the public to be called additionally from now until at least uh 75. All right, uh Deputy Mayor Schmidt, please.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24141.325, "end": 24158.665, "text": "Um just whoever feels like answering this one, but uh why permitted use? But perhaps in the interest of time, one of you feel that whoever feels the most interested in answering that question.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24160.965, "end": 24163.365, "text": "Permitted use? Because", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24163.365, "end": 24165.145, "text": "So why why the focus on that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24166.005, "end": 24265.205, "text": "There's a certain there's more of a certainty around the timeline and the risk around appeals is decreased. So with a discretionary use, I mean, particularly as the discretionary use now applies to the higher density options. Those are almost always at risk of appeal. And they also allow, there's a framework in the land use bylaw under discretionary use, where there's a whole bunch of different sections that the plans can be scrutinized against. And what that does is it introduces a bunch of discretionary comments to be inserted into the project that you must consider and you must address. Whereas permitted use, it doesn't have that same sort of framework in the land use bylaw. So if you are complete and compliant, particularly in HGO, I'm going to speak to HGO. If you're complete and compliant and you provide a housing type, whatever shape or form that it is, it's permitted, it's allowed. And so what that does is it allows the unit types and the form of the building to take whatever shape it needs to to serve the site and the project the best. And within discretionary use, there's just a bunch more of requirements that are pretty prescriptive that you need to work through that don't necessarily serve the site and the end user and the community the best. And I think that our slide, at least for our project, that that slide that shows the comparison between RCG and HGO, the two site plans, is the best way to show that. Does that make sense?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24265.205, "end": 24306.545, "text": "Yes. And and with the framework of sort of what you're proposing here, and given how much we've heard about. Concerns around community engagement and input. So, how how would your system not only create certainty for the builders of the final product, but would there still be certainty for the community about understanding and also knowing what's what's happening in their neighborhood and having that that sort of certainty about? The contextuality, parking, all those types of things.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24307.045, "end": 24350.945, "text": "Yeah, I think that what we're proposing offers a clearer manifestation of how these things will be treated. What we're really doing through this research project is attempting to quantify everything that we have heard on both sides of the both sides of this aisle of like providing housing choice, providing the best use of the site, making sure that these things are contextual and that they're not cookie cutter developments. And so what we want to do is to develop and test a series of metrics that can be applied that can actually sort of address these concerns before we get to the point of applying.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24351.885, "end": 24353.745, "text": "So it would come earlier in the process.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24354.705, "end": 24439.605, "text": "It would it's sort of a way to understand because most of the complaints we've heard about these things are there's a lot of repetition in what we've heard over this hearing, over the past RCG hearing, over our own projects, and we've got a sort of comprehensive list that's even longer than that table that I put up there. And what we are attempting to do in this process, and what we're hoping to do, is to be able to provide actual metrics as to what is a permissible shadow that you can cast and what is not a permissible shadow, and what is an acceptable level of tree canopy coverage, instead of do you have to keep all the old trees or can you replace them with three new trees? And so instead of just saying that you need three trees, we're going to say that you need a percentage of tree canopy. Instead of saying that you need a certain height, we're going to say that you can't cast a shadow over a certain percentage of lots next door. And so it doesn't allow for more community consultation earlier in the process on a specific basis, but it does tighten up how projects need to respond to these things with a more serious set of criteria that is performance based instead of prescriptive.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24439.605, "end": 24516.305, "text": "And a lot of the requirements like in that big table that we've created are contextually based. So I'll give an example. If you are in a community and you see only Bungalows, and you were to overlay our criteria onto what could be developed next, you definitely are not going to get a three-story building. Because once you apply the criteria in relation to the context and you respond to the context, you're not getting a three-story building. And so I think a big part of what we're seeing is like you can do this, and you can do this four-pack, front-back, basement suites, the whole deal, absolutely everywhere. And there's not a set of contextual design criteria that, say, for example, you would find in a contextual single family home or a contextual semi detached home. So what we want to do, and part of what I spoke to about some folks at city administration, is in the I spoke to the land use bylaw team in particular, and they suggested you could develop this contextual criteria for this scale of housing, and that would be where. part of the system would live and then another one would be a more robust row house guide. So Does that make sense and answer your questions?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24516.305, "end": 24545.225, "text": "Yes, it does. And then final question, perhaps for our benefit, given that we're here talking about the current rezoning and the future of the bylaw, could and and you did touch on it and and Councillor Kelly mentioned that some of this would be more forward looking, but is there a very brief summary one of you could give about which aspects of this may be relevant to what's before us today?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24546.805, "end": 24570.825, "text": "I think uh the most the sort of the first stage of this would be to remove the secondary suite option and consider all housing types equally. So uh you know what would have been considered a backyard suite as a secondary suite becomes a unit. It's just a unit. It's just a unit, and if you want four units, you can have four of whatever you want on that property. And as a baseline, you have to park one to one.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24570.825, "end": 24636.485, "text": "One-to-one. I think some of the projects that were in Jessica's presentation would be good to look at. So, for example, this is compliant in Edmonton, but it's not compliant here because we're stacking dwelling units. And you can't have stacked dwelling units in RCG. But like, what does it matter? It's just the same shape as what's above. And then if you go to maybe three slides prior, this is a great project. I've seen it in person. It's two stories on the main and the basement. That's a full dwelling unit. And then above, second and third, that's a full dwelling unit. So in areas where you already have, and you can see the context, in areas where you would already have three-story and two-story homes, this would be compliant, but it's not under RCG. But these are great projects. And they it looks like a house. And this would be in our framework compliant and permitted because it's just four units. It's a 25 by 120, 25 by 120 together, that's 50 by 120. You've got four units.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 24638.485, "end": 24639.665, "text": "That was a good summary. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24639.665, "end": 24640.265, "text": "Okay, great.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 24641.825, "end": 24644.445, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Atkinson to take us home.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24645.285, "end": 24677.265, "text": "Great. I'm loving a lot of things you're talking about. Stack density. These are, yeah, great initiatives. A piece that I'm having a harder time with is the idea of removing the uh secondary suites because we've heard from many presenters, we just heard from Kreb earlier today, like these are providing some very affordable units within the inner city that we are actually quite a bit more affordable than the rental units that we're seeing built as purpose built rentals. Can you help me with?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24677.265, "end": 24677.665, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24677.745, "end": 24679.065, "text": "That friction.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24679.085, "end": 24737.405, "text": "All we're proposing is that they are counted as units. So if you want to have a basement suite because your kid is going to university next year and wants a sort of like a separate living area within your own home, you can take up one of those units with a basement suite. Or if you live on a 25-foot lot, then like absolutely two units. It's just that the suite is no longer classified as a suite, which claw actually causes problems down the road when you're at building permit and safety code stage. And so just having that clarity simplifies the application process and it takes care of some of the density problems. But if you don't combine that with making any of these types of houses, essentially just treating any type of house as a unit, you run into all of these things where, like, oh no, I can't do basement suites anymore, or oh no, I can't have a stacked dwelling, which you know we can't have, but this is a beautiful project, and we would love to design some of these.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24737.445, "end": 24763.385, "text": "And for example, a backyard suite. One of the reasons why we've rezoned to HGO on our Inglewood project is because we wanted two units over the garage and we wanted that to be attached to another building. And you can't do that in RCG because a backyard suite is a very narrow definition, and then you have to have, I think it's 5.5 meters, you would know, between the backyard suite and another building. But what does it matter?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_45", "start": 24763.725, "end": 24764.165, "text": "Right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24764.185, "end": 24792.885, "text": "Like it doesn't matter. And so in our project, we had the same number of you s units and suites as we would have with RCG, but because we got the flexibility with HGO, they could take whatever shape or form they wanted, and the doors could face in and we could stack them and we could put two over a garage and attach it to another building and save all these mature trees. The uses are just very, very restrictive for um. Yeah, creative people and if you want to innovate.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24792.945, "end": 24846.805, "text": "Yeah, the RCG build form is just very prescriptive. Yeah. Um Which you talked a lot about your your one project there, the new Monica, and how you did things like changes in height and setbacks and floor area ratio, all of these sort of accommodations towards community. And we've been hearing a lot today specifically around this idea of trying to meet your neighbors, especially those within direct vicinity, where they're at, and sort of to help. Was this were these accommodations part of that responding to blowback from community or sort of like uh the push and shove of like consultation with community? And did they answer like the problem? And you were all sales up and away you go?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24847.565, "end": 24909.385, "text": "I uh a little bit like in particular the the massing um was very responsive to our neighbors. Our neighbors on the front northeast side very supportive of the project, so we stuck the mass of the building, the larger mass on their side. And at the back side, the neighbor on the east was very supportive of our project, so we stuck the mass of our building on their side, and then our neighbor at the back at the east was not, so we saved like these 30-meter-tall trees that you know are in between our building and her space. And yes, she agreed that that was a much better outcome for her than the RCG outcome. And so, yes, and then also I would say that good architects do what we do regardless, because that's what good design is, and that's what good architects should do. So while we just do this stuff because we think it's the most appropriate thing for the site, and we like to design contextually appropriate buildings, good architects will do that anyways.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24910.745, "end": 24914.685, "text": "Fair, fair. And did you have then reduced pushback?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24914.685, "end": 24914.945, "text": "No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24914.945, "end": 24915.765, "text": "No. Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24915.765, "end": 24942.645, "text": "It was both. It was both. We you know what we had we had a mix. We had a we had a mix of people, because we're we're we're down from the cove, which has got a lot of multifamily in there. And so we've got a real mix of like people that um can't afford to live in Inglewood, that really, really want to find a place to live, and then we've got people that don't want it to change. There's a real mix, and I think we had support and um non supporters pretty equal on both sides, I'd say.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24943.245, "end": 24967.265, "text": "That's actually, I think, really important to this conversation. That you didn't get just suddenly everyone on board and whatever. Absolutely. Is that there is opposition as a part of change. And even when you make your height not go to three stories, and even when you change your floor area ratio, and even when you set your setbacks, right? I think that's a a great thing for for me to sort of understand the tussle of this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 24967.265, "end": 24971.505, "text": "Yeah, and and we also forty-five percent law coverage, so everyone.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 24971.505, "end": 24999.585, "text": "There you go. 45% lock coverage. Interesting. Good to know. Finally, I guess just we are in this conversation around RCGHO, and you did sort of go into your yours was not really nodes and corridors, but it was kind of. It was like an expansion of nodes and corridors, but you are at your baseline, sort of saying RCG district as the baseline that is everywhere, just to clarify.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25000.585, "end": 25054.005, "text": "Um we would like to see RCG uh Transform into something that is closer to the flexibility allowed by HGO. HGO is explicitly transportation based, and so that doesn't make sense for a base zoning for the entire city. And we think that there is a step backward to avoid by making RCG work for what it's meant to work for. And it can function more like HGO if you do, you know, if you're not prescriptive about the housing types that can be considered units. If you're reducing the density by eliminating the secondary suites and giving that back in flexibility as to how these things can manifest, you know, I think that's a step forward instead of resurrecting seven land use districts that we don't need.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25054.005, "end": 25079.165, "text": "And what we're proposing with the the four units in total is actually very similar to RC2. It's just not um discretionary and prescriptive. Whatever you want, you have to follow obviously safety code regulations and some the criteria and the bylaw and the outcomes design.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 25079.525, "end": 25120.785, "text": "Which actually maybe just brings up one final thing. You that flexibility is great, but also a big part of This sort of middle missing middle housing has been its ability to be built. Yes, it's more prescriptive, but it that also adds to its ability for the development industry and for local builders to build it quickly and sort of have certain build forms that we've sort of seen get built up quickly. Do you think that we can achieve that with this sort of flexibility? Not everyone's going to hire great architects to do their build. We're just got to also build housing. Is that achievable with the things that you're talking about?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25120.885, "end": 25122.905, "text": "With a pathway to permitted use it is.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 25123.705, "end": 25124.965, "text": "Great. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25126.705, "end": 25128.465, "text": "All right, uh Councillor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25130.905, "end": 25145.305, "text": "You're not quite off the hook yet. Sorry. So if I'm interpreting what you said accurately, uh, you're suggesting that 75 units per hectare needs to be revised as long as you count every single unit.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25146.265, "end": 25148.125, "text": "No, it does not need to be revised.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25148.445, "end": 25148.785, "text": "75", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25148.785, "end": 25153.245, "text": "Don't you you remove secondary suites. It it stays as the", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25153.325, "end": 25156.665, "text": "as a as a unit as opposed to a suite.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25157.185, "end": 25163.205, "text": "uh yeah, so right now it's calculated as seventy five hectares for a unit, but then you get four extra second add ons.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25163.205, "end": 25163.785, "text": "150.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25163.785, "end": 25164.505, "text": "Don't count.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25164.645, "end": 25166.285, "text": "So it's actually 150 if you count.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25166.285, "end": 25169.565, "text": "If you're H go, yeah. If yeah, if you're counting it as all units, yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25170.765, "end": 25210.065, "text": "Okay, so based on what I've heard, and it sounds like you guys put a lot of thought into this, but uh it's it's not a simple make this amendment and have it go through because it'll trigger a new public hearing. So in this process, uh to kind of implement all the things that you suggested, um, what do you see as the best best path forward? You still want to retain the RCG, but then there's a lot of things associated with it currently. If it goes back, it'll go back to Permitted, but with all of the other parameters around it, how do we how do we bridge that gap? Essentially, is where I'm I'm going with this question. You have any ideas on that?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25213.065, "end": 25214.825, "text": "For the second part or the first part?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25215.005, "end": 25223.465, "text": "Either or all of the above. Because currently it's it's discretionary. If it goes back, it goes back to permitted use, right?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25223.825, "end": 25225.785, "text": "Well, a semi detached is a permitted use.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25226.085, "end": 25263.245, "text": "Yes, but are but uh the RCG zone itself will go back to a permitted use. While it still has to go through a land use if it goes back, it'll go back as a as a permitted use if you get the land use. Currently, it's permitted everywhere, but it's discretionary. Trying to figure out a way to sort of bridge the gap between the two and not retain the discretionary uh element out of all this, but trying to move more towards a permitted element. Um I'm I'm sorry, it's kind of a weird question, but", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 25264.665, "end": 25265.085, "text": "a little bit of a.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25265.085, "end": 25265.345, "text": "I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25267.265, "end": 25267.465, "text": "Isn't", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 25267.465, "end": 25335.585, "text": "Sorry, I'm not sure if this will completely answer your question, but It's not necessarily that there's going to be a gap to bridge. I mean, initially we need to maintain the blanket RCG zoning because going back and then having to proceed, it's going to make the path to where we need to be much longer than it already is. So keeping the the blanket RCG and then by just making that adjustment where The sec there's no secondary suites, so you can only have the four units. So that's kind of where we're starting. It's like it doesn't change what's currently considered permitted or discretionary. It doesn't change anything about the current blanket rezoning except how density is calculated on RCG essentially, because you don't have the secondary suites. And then it opens us up to make these further adjustments, which are a much longer process, and that's when you need like the additional hearings. So it's not that there's a gap, it's it's making that small adjustment now so it's easier to move forward and progress.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25336.305, "end": 25355.005, "text": "so if we go for four by right. What you're saying, right? Four by right as an interim solution. I I'm not sure that it'll won't require a new public hearing because what we're talking about here is not that. And so even just that alone, going to four by right, counting every unit, I believe will also trigger a new public hearing.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25355.105, "end": 25362.365, "text": "that what was advertised for my right? For the initial public hearing? For this one. For rezoning for housing.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25362.565, "end": 25366.225, "text": "But rezoning is to go back to what it was previously, which is not four by right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 25367.845, "end": 25406.005, "text": "But keeping if we don't repeal RCG, we're keeping how it is now. There was already an amendment brought up about revising density. So that was already a motion that was advertised as something that would be addressed tonight. So it's kind of a different way to address that change in density. So rather than lowering the density as was proposed to be addressed tonight, it's changing how the density is calculated essentially. So I don't it I don't believe it's different from what's already being", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25406.505, "end": 25428.925, "text": "Anyways, there's like a there's a A to P on recommendation number four with a whole bunch of amendments that uh obviously need to be um considered through all of this. Do you think moving forward with all those amendments or considering any and all of those amendments is the right path forward to do today or is do you think there needs to be more consultation on some of those?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 25429.545, "end": 25472.025, "text": "I mean if I don't th I the the the big amendment that was proposed is lowering the density for RCG. And if we're gonna move forward, I d I I Correct me if you feel differently, but I don't think that's the right step to take because then it kind of hinders the ability to make further adjustments and then it might require another change to density. So based on the amendments that have been proposed, we would say keep RCG as a blanket rezoning. And if no other amendments are brought in tonight, then it still opens us up for bringing in all of these amendments in the future when more time is allowed.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25472.245, "end": 25473.885, "text": "Possibly with the next bylaw.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 25474.145, "end": 25485.965, "text": "When we do the next slide, bylaw review. So do you think maybe in between now and then would be a good chance to to discuss all of these proposals that you brought forward today? Okay, thanks. No further questions for me. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25487.225, "end": 25491.945, "text": "All right, Council, we will be back. Oh. Councillor McLean, all right.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25492.945, "end": 25496.305, "text": "I'm usually the last one to get between dinner.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25496.305, "end": 25497.205, "text": "You're gonna be dinner.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25498.465, "end": 25501.105, "text": "But a quick question, I guess, what you're saying", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25501.105, "end": 25506.465, "text": "Sorry, that was inappropriate. I was called out earlier for for chirping from the chair. Proceed, uh Councillor McLean.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25506.465, "end": 25507.005, "text": "I gotta fix.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25507.005, "end": 25510.805, "text": "I theoretically have an unlimited time limit. Yeah. Or seven minutes rather. Go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25511.005, "end": 25525.165, "text": "I I from what I'm getting, I guess you could just answer what you're suggesting and being in in your field, the biggest obstacle to building more homes and and lowering the cost is the permitting the time and the fees. Right?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25526.025, "end": 25528.385, "text": "That's a really, really significant part of it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25528.385, "end": 25528.745, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 25528.745, "end": 25529.045, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25529.225, "end": 25542.325, "text": "Okay. That that's what I really think we all really gotta focus on. We can't do it with this bylaw, this is zoning and stuff, but I think that's what comes next. I think that's what comes next to try to get the really ex uh accelerating the timelines to build and costs.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25542.525, "end": 25554.325, "text": "I think that's one of the major components that as uh council and administration you guys have the control over on how that manifests for people that are out there building housing. So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25554.525, "end": 25555.865, "text": "Excellent. Thanks for coming down.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25555.865, "end": 25556.425, "text": "oh thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25557.385, "end": 25583.925, "text": "All right. Anybody else? All right. We will be back at 7 30. When we get back at 7 30, we're going to do a catch up panel with uh panel 70 onwards. And then we're going to alternate back to the panelists that we hadn't called from 103 onwards. Madam Clerks, please call the roll.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25584.485, "end": 25589.965, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Jamison. Okay, Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 25590.045, "end": 25590.245, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25590.525, "end": 25591.465, "text": "Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 25593.345, "end": 25595.785, "text": "Uh present for both myself and Councillor Jameson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25596.485, "end": 25598.405, "text": "And Councillor Kelly. Councillor McLean.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor D. McLean", "start": 25599.165, "end": 25599.745, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25599.925, "end": 25615.365, "text": "Councillor Pantozopoulos. Councillor Schmidt. Councillor Tyres. Councillor Ward. Councillor Wyness. Noted Remote. Councillor Ewell.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 25615.485, "end": 25615.705, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25615.925, "end": 25618.465, "text": "Councillor Atkinson. Councillor Chabot.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "Councillor A. Chabot", "start": 25619.505, "end": 25620.145, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25620.625, "end": 25621.545, "text": "Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 25622.005, "end": 25622.445, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25622.565, "end": 25623.725, "text": "Councillor Dollywall.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Councillor R. Dhaliwal", "start": 25627.185, "end": 25627.565, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25627.925, "end": 25629.445, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Mayor J. Gondek", "start": 25629.605, "end": 25630.065, "text": "I am here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 25630.225, "end": 25630.845, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25631.665, "end": 25677.065, "text": "All right, we are going to assemble a panel from 70 onwards from names that we had called previously, and then after this panel is concluded, we're going to go to 103 and onwards. All right. Do we have on 71 Blair Cosgrove with us in the chamber online? Mark McWilliam. On 72, Vernon Yu, Connor McGibney, Patrick King, Christopher Villa Corta. Right, please come on down. Please stand by. On 73, Patrick Mahaffey. On 74, Charles Toth, Bistran Opachik, or Brett Turner.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_77", "start": 25678.765, "end": 25679.845, "text": "Uh Brett Turner is here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25682.185, "end": 25726.985, "text": "Thank you. Please stand by, Brett. Everyone, please make sure to mute if uh you're not the person speaking. On 75, uh Ray McVee, June Heisler, Harkumal Kalan, or David Vera. Thank you. Come on down, David. On 74 76, rather, Mihail Sarbu, Ray Vizina. On 77, Mary Manilato, Karen Lorto, or Kelly Zarnke. On 78, Faiza Fuse, George Clark, or Jody Petrowich.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_61", "start": 25728.725, "end": 25729.605, "text": "Jodi is here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25730.325, "end": 25803.125, "text": "Thank you, Jody. Please stand by. On 79, Madison Cox, Delaney Lamont Green, Jideep Binder, Gerald McRae, or Darryl McCrae, sorry. On 80, Dean Steinman, Thomas Eric Coyle, Tristan Chang, Mahad Rizane, or Sean Evans. Is that you, Sean? Okay. Come on down. And then on 81, Kendra Wanamiker, Steve Bentley, or Betty Burke. So is that you, Kendra? Okay, come on down. Alright, so that'll be our panel. And that's six. So we have uh one person in the chamber I didn't catch their name, then Brett, then David, Jody, Sean, and Kendra. Uh maybe for the person I I didn't catch their name, you can please approach. And if you just don't mind introducing yourself. Yep. Just on the far left, yeah. Thank you so much. If you don't mind just introducing yourself uh with your name and panel number.", "segments_merged": 24 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 25805.225, "end": 25812.665, "text": "Uh absolutely. Uh Christopher Villa Corta Lopez from uh Ward Ten, uh panel seventy-two.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25812.945, "end": 25819.785, "text": "Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 25820.385, "end": 25832.465, "text": "Thank you. Uh I actually want to start by uh apologizing for my earlier interruption. So thank you and uh thank you all the counselors and the mayor for taking this large task uh meeting people.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 25832.465, "end": 25847.945, "text": "Uh what I'll I'll say is uh was said previously it's a very challenging environment to be in and we're we're trying as hard as we can to adhere to the procedure, but you know we fully recognize that it can be kind of an intimidating setting. So thank you so much as well to you and everybody else uh who's been uh bearing with us.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 25848.765, "end": 26146.845, "text": "Thank you. I also want to thank the staff. You guys are absolutely amazing. One, not just because you helped me, but uh you guys are the fastest slideshow slingers in the West. So great job. Um so uh I am grateful for this opportunity and I uh and uh a chance to contribute to a better city, to a better Calgary, uh, and share with everyone my perspective and experience. Uh, as a born and raised Calgarian. Uh growing up in Calgary, I have formed many wonderful memories. A good childhood uh where I was connected to the city, and everything was close and accessible. Uh here in this council uh we are all surrounded by people with uh from different walks of life. Uh some Calgarian lifers like myself, some migrated here, but all of us have good memories uh here. One particular memory I want to share to highlight the opportunity that this city gives its citizens is uh I grew up under the um poverty line for most of my childhood with a single mother and my grandmother. And despite that, my quality of life thanks to the city was pretty good, I would say. Uh I had an opportunity once, thanks to my school in the city, to attend an uh orchestra just right over there at the Theater Calgary, and we got there uh by train. My cousin and I met our classmates, attended this orchestra for the first time, and then we were able to just hop back onto the city transit, back home, uh, and we were able to experience some Calgary culture that day, and there was enough time for some um high s uh teenage shenanigans along the way, too. So I am very grateful for living here in Calgary, and I know everyone here has great memories, and I want to take this opportunity to reflect and go into a little bit of nostalgia. So, for 10 seconds, I promise. Think about a memory. Of being here in Calgary. As I look around, I do see some genuine smiles. So you must have fantastic memories. And I think we can all agree that Calgary is a great place. And what I want to express today is that Calgary is big enough to share these Calgary moments, these experiences, with other people. And that there is a great cost of hoarding these memories and being trapped by nostalgia. And this cost is just too high. I have seen the city grow, and I have seen farms lost as a result. I had difficulties accessing Calgary's parks as my family moved further outwards. Our endless expansion comes at the cost of our water infrastructure, something we are all too painfully aware of. It comes at the cost of our transportation, emergency response, and various natural ecosystems like wetlands. It stretches our tax dollars and how far it goes. And it will also impact the memories our children will form here in Calgary. Expansion isolates, alienates our youth, and Calgary has so much to offer them. Building outwards is like stretching a rubber band, and one day it will snap. What I asked today, knowing full well that many people ran on reappe uh repealing the blanket zoning policy, is to reconsider because uh or at the very least replace the policy uh before we get rid of it. We were all taught very young about sharing with others. We have a lot to share: opportunities, memories, and a great quality of life with dignity. If we believe as I do that Calgary is a wonderful place to live, then let's share it. More people are coming. People we invited from outside the city, outside the province, outside the country. And more people will be born here in Calgary as well. So instead of stretching our resources, let's share this great city responsibly, sustainably. Do not repeal. Please. reconsider, or at the very least, replace. Thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 20 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 26148.005, "end": 26152.985, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go now to Brett on 74, then David on 75 after that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_77", "start": 26155.785, "end": 26157.365, "text": "Hello, council. Am I coming through okay?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 26157.765, "end": 26159.025, "text": "Yes, uh please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_77", "start": 26160.365, "end": 26476.205, "text": "Fantastic. I want to uh first begin by expressing how encouraged I am with you guys. I've been following along here for several days now, and I'm really impressed with the questions being asked and the engagement you've had with uh panelists thus far. I think you guys are doing a great job. Um I have 20 years of experience in the Calgary real estate sector. I own and operate a large real estate sales firm and also a residential property management company. Combined, we do about 1,500 housing transactions per year between rental and resale. I'm also a developer. I've recently completed two 10-unit rental projects in Calgary, one in Spruce Cliff and the other in Shaganapi. I've got 30 more units on the way, 10 in Haysbarrow and 20 in Acadia. I'll also add that none of my projects are on an RCZ RCG zone parcel. More on this a little later. I spoke in support of blanket rezoning at the last public hearing because we badly needed more supply. But now, several years later, I can see that it was a bit of an overreach, and I would now consider myself a centrist on this topic. Combined with action by the federal government, uh blanket rezoning has made a real difference with respect to rental affordability. I can tell you that rental rates on all unit types are down by several hundred dollars per month from peak levels. But when you drive or walk through the communities and experience the new build forms and action, it's just not quite right. So we need to work to find harmony. Blanken rezoning has sparked a needed debate on density, and it has gotten many community associations to finally come around to allowing density in their neighborhoods. You've heard it time and time again from the CAs. They say they're not opposed to density, but want it done the right way. But when this council has pressed them for practical solutions, they just aren't often sure what to say in response. I believe that the answer lies not in repealing the bylaw, but rather amending it ever so slightly. We don't need any massive change, just the guts to make small moves that when market factors and development economics are taken into consideration will make all the difference. Repealing it entirely would send us back to square one. The last three years and two historic public hearings would have been for nothing, and the debate will rage on. You guys can be heroes by amending the bylaw in a smart way rather than repealing it. And I have two practical solutions to propose to council today. The simplest and most elegant solution is to keep RCG as the base zoning. However, amend the bylaw to make basement suite development a discretionary use on projects of five dwelling units or more. This simple change will be the magic bullet that we're looking for. The reason we've seen such a prolific uptake of rental developments is not because of blanket rezoning, but also because of changes made at the federal level in the name of affordability. How construction is financed has not been discussed much at all throughout this hearing, but understanding it is a key to understanding why this has become so contentious and became a ballot box issue at the last election. CMHC Insured Financing allows developers to build rental projects with only 5% down, and the insured financing allows low interest rates, which makes new construction rental developments economic. By making basement suites discretionary, it would add just the right amount of risk to the development community to weed out the fly by night developers who seek only to build rental products with little equity and then resell the whole project later to an end user. Discretionary use would also introduce an opportunity for community engagement for residents to have a say in eight or tenplex projects being built on RCG, and for the city to take into account the concerns being raised for parking, laneway access, and the amount of other rental units nearby before granting a permit. This increased risk will see many developers move on to other build forms. I'm also here to tell you that four unit rental projects are not economic for development. So the development community would now pivot towards row townhouses being brought to the market for retail sale to owner occupiers. This is an entirely different class of real estate and one we need more of. Having the guts to keep RCG would also enable side-by-side infill development, which is more likely to occur when there aren't a lot of rental eightplexes nearby. Four unit townhouses and side-by-side infill developments are homeowner demographics and entirely different from what we've seen in the last two years. I think the established communities could live at this density as one new townhouse would be very close in price to the old homes they're replacing, and there'd be four or less units contributing to parking congestion. This simple amendment, going from permitted use to discretionary on projects of five dwelling units or more on RCG, ticks all of those boxes. Now, if that won't fly, then I would ask council not to roll RCG all the way back to RC1 and instead roll it back to RC2. Almost every former R1 community can handle side by side infill development. People are upset because their communities went from having a single family home to having to deal with an eight unit rental development. That's a shocking change and probably went too far. But if we build out more infill style homes that are widely accepted in some of the best communities in Calgary, we can accommodate more density and make meaningful progress on housing. My second recommendation is to instruct planning and development to get more aggressive with the allocation of H GO land use. This is what I look for as a developer because H GO was designed assigned to areas that make sense for rentals. Close to transit, shopping, and you can go up a little higher to build bigger units.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 26476.205, "end": 26482.045, "text": "Thank you so much. Brett, you're just at time, but uh please don't go anywhere. There may be a follow up for you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_77", "start": 26482.065, "end": 26483.445, "text": "Okay. All right.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 26483.865, "end": 26490.405, "text": "Thank you. Uh we'll we'll go now to David on 75, then after that, Jody on 78. Please go ahead, David.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 26490.765, "end": 26799.945, "text": "Thank you. Mayor and counselors, thank you for uh giving me a voice here tonight. Um my name is David Vera. I live in Killarney, Ward 8. And um I am an architect in the city. I uh studied architecture in Halifax and moved to Calgary in 2003. Um I wanted to uh take a slight angle to this um discussion and just talk about a couple projects that I've worked on that I feel are working. So my first project, I call it Four Villas. A client was really interested in a kind of Scandinavian style design. And this one's located in Montgomery at uh 5228 21st Avenue Northwest. And the appeal period just ended last Thursday. Um, and according to the SDAB, there's no appeals on this project, which I consider a win. I think what's interesting about it, or what we've what the client has asked me to do, was uh only provide two secondary suites instead of four. Um so essentially, uh you know, people were tonight we're talking about unit counts on the site. There would be six units on on this parcel. And we provided um you can go to the next slide actually. You can go, and we provided um four parking stalls at the back in a in a garage. Um so for this project in particular, I would have to say that the process was actually quite smooth with the neighbors and um. Of course, with my clients, really, really nice to work with. There, um, I I did a renovation to their house and uh they own this uh rental property um and they wanted to redevelop it. So working really closely with them and um on on something that you know they care about and um is beautiful. Um there were some discussions over the you can go to the next slide. There were some discussions about what makes a property, you know, what people complain about at properties. And I have to say, just living on 33rd in Kalerney, there's quite a few um fourplexes that are going up. HGO, just on the corner of 26th. I have to say they're not very beautiful buildings. And I'm not trying to be like a snotty architect or anything. I just feel like when you do something that's designed and thoughtful and contextual, People don't think about it. They don't complain about it and they don't appeal them. So even though this is a six unit, there's no no appeals to the project. And maybe Montgomery's uh forward thinking, um, it probably also helped that there is a new secondary suite that's under was under construction, it's probably near near complete now. That's about the same size. So, in terms of mass, you know, these these um if we can design these units in a way that's kind of fitting to the neighborhood, um, yeah, people just don't complain. The hardest thing I had to deal with during the process was actually dealing with the development process. And not particularly with a planner, but mostly different bylaw questions and dealing with mobility in terms of how big the bike locker should be. Why can't I use a product for a bike locker? A lot of issues dealing with the slope. It's a fairly steep slope site. So you know you slope up to the back, and then you have to keep going up some stairs to get to your garages at the back. And you'll see that there's a slope across the entire front area, but we had to just slope 2% to the property line. So then we were forced to do these retaining walls, but they wouldn't allow us to do a concrete retaining wall. So they were trying to tell us to turn our stairs. So we negotiated kind of back and forth, and then we were able to put like some stonework to kind of like feather that down. So for me, that was actually the most kind of stressful portion is dealing with the planning department in that sense. You can go to the next slide. This is just a view. You can see the semi detached on the neighbor, and then our our building just sticks out just a little bit further past it. So when it comes to the massing of these buildings, they could be similar to what semi detaches are already at in a certain sense. They're actually getting bigger and bigger. I think people just want more. Area. Always try to convince clients like just go small and design it nicely. Go to the next slide. Actually, you can go to the slide after that. My next project I want to talk about is on 19th Street in West Hillhurst and 6th Avenue, where it turns into Fifth Avenue, right across the street from the Community Association Building.", "segments_merged": 42 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 26799.965, "end": 26805.025, "text": "Thank thank you so much. You're you're just at time, but uh if you don't mind, just a final sentence to conclude.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 26805.445, "end": 26809.185, "text": "Oh no, that's okay. I'll I'll continue if people uh ask questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 26809.765, "end": 26828.245, "text": "Thank you. We'll go to David now, then Jody after that. Oh, whoops. Oh my gosh. I apologize sincerely. Uh Jody, it's uh your turn, and then uh Sean after that.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_61", "start": 26833.745, "end": 26851.125, "text": "Good evening. My name is Jodi Petrovic. I'm on panel 78. I am in favor of a full repeal to blanket rezoning without amendments. I am a proud millennial and would never consider one of these stack row houses. My generation grew up with grass", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_75", "start": 26851.645, "end": 26852.245, "text": "Garden.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_61", "start": 26852.605, "end": 27002.525, "text": "and the ability to have two people in an entranceway. We want single detached homes with the ability to have our parents and friends for dinner. But with stack houses, parking close enough for them to safely walk is beyond challenging. It's been two years, folks, and I still haven't found that half car you outlined in 2024. It's simple. One stall per unit needs to be the minimum in residential areas. Full stop. This bylaw has successfully divided our communities. Your lack of engagement across all stakeholders reflects this. Listen to what has been presented. To be perfectly honest, why would I invest in a residential home with zero assurance that you won't change the rules when I'm in the stick of a mortgage? The uncertainty of what will be built on green space or beside you in Calgary is too high. What you are doing to longtime property holders and seniors is deplorable, and what could be seen as expropriation without compensation. You ignore that my generation grew up in these communities and seem to only seek the narrative that is aligned with your goals. Some of us, believe it or not, like to cut grass. Level up to the destruction of trees and the canopy. Ironic, there was a story last week on the city giving 10,000 trees away when we when we're sacrificing these magnificent 50 plus year old established healthy ones. If a property owner touches a broken branch on a city boulevard tree, you come at them with significant penalties, yet you're witness to the destruction of these grand dames with legacy owners, and the cost falls to property owners due to redevelopment damage that you approved. I appreciate the need for density, but not your approach. In 50 years, when you are all long gone and we are left with this mess, who fosters the tax burden then? We will. Be responsible and look beyond this development for your profit model. Look deep within yourselves. Is this truly what you seek for kids and grandchildren? I am part of the future talent pool that Alberta seeks. Why should I stay when you refuse to listen to us? Responsible density is possible, you know it. I urge you to be better. Repeal without amendments.", "segments_merged": 31 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 27006.285, "end": 27010.305, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to Sean and then Kendra after that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 27012.485, "end": 27143.565, "text": "Uh good evening, Mayor and Counselors. Thank you for your time. My name's Sean. I'm on panel 80. I am a homeowner in Ward 7, and I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed repeal of citywide RCG zoning. So I first moved to Calgary when I was four years old. Growing up, my family lived in a range of housing types, starting with a fourplex in Boness, then a duplex, a townhome in Ranchlands, and later a single family home in Tuscany. As an adult, I left for school but eventually came back with my wife to buy a townhome in Mount Pleasant. Through all of it, I really appreciated having all of those options as our family moved through different stages of life and different financial circumstances. I don't think there's anything fundamentally incompatible about those different housing forms, and I would love to live in a city where they could exist side by side rather than sorted into their own separate corners. What concerns me probably the most about repealing universal upzoning is that it takes us back to a system where those options are arbitrarily limited. So once again, the vast majority of the city will be effectively reserved for one specific kind of housing. And everything else has to fight its way through a slow, expensive, and uncertain approval process. One where the only people with the time and incentive to show up typically are the nearby neighbors who generally are strongly opposed. Meanwhile, people who do support more housing in the city. Generally, can't be expected to show up to these dozens of individual hearings, as that just isn't feasible for everybody. I acknowledge the validity of concerns about universal upzoning, things like tree canopy, privacy, parking, neighborhood character, these things do matter. But these are design and development issues, and I don't believe that the blunt instrument of zoning law is the right tool to address them. I want Calgary to be a city that allows flexibility, inclusion, and opportunity through its housing policy. And as such, I oppose the repeal of citywide upzoning. Thank you very much for your time.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 27144.545, "end": 27147.705, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to Kendra on 81 to wrap us up.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 27154.025, "end": 27296.825, "text": "Hello, Council. No doubt you've been waiting for me, for I'm the boogeyman that so many speakers have warned about. I'm the one who dwells in the townhome on the corner, who can ruin community culture simply by existing within it, who can drive up housing prices while lowering housing prices. Last time I was here, I tried to calmly yell math at you to explain why rezoning was important for affordability in our city now and in the future. Experts from city planners, environmental conservationists, homelessness, transit, and free market capitalists agree. This is a necessary but not sufficient tool on this path. I'm not an expert in these things. I'm a researcher by trade. So when I felt this growing problem in my life and I saw it in those around me, I looked at what the experts were saying. To save you from poorly regurgitated stats and facts that hopefully you already know, I thought I would share why this is so important to me. I grew up in Montgomery. It felt like a community in decline at the time. Schools were at risk of closing, homes were boarded up. I volunteered a lot as a kid, hundreds of hours. Community cleanups, planting trees, delivering newsletters, concession, casinos, you name it. Sure, I was a dumb pair of helping hands, but I got to watch people who genuinely care about their neighborhood slowly make it better. And as it got better, density came with it. Our neighbor's bungalow was replaced with denser housing. It blocked some sunlight, there were more cars on the street, and it was wonderful. Children were running through the yards, new businesses opened. It's where I got my very first job. And recently I met someone who told me that while they were visiting Calgary, they stayed in Montgomery and they loved it so much they moved to this city. So I feel that density didn't ruin my neighborhood, it helped save it. Later in my life, I fell in love with a very handsome man who wanted to do his PhD in Toronto. We lived outside of downtown in a shoebox apartment. Getting around was difficult. Driving and parking were expensive, traffic was a nightmare. Transit was under service, unreliable, and stuck in that very same traffic. We usually rode our bikes, but after a few close calls navigating between protected bike lanes, it was also not ideal. Not being able to navigate a city is deeply isolating. Alas, my very rich husband, or sorry, my very handsome husband was not very rich.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 27298.645, "end": 27300.885, "text": "I'm gonna allow that spontaneous applause.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 27303.205, "end": 27479.545, "text": "Um so one night I stayed up late crunching the numbers, and even if we were able to save all of this money for a down payment on a house, we wouldn't be able to afford the month monthly mortgage payments on a Toronto mortgage. Um, I looked at renting a two-bedroom apartment. Um, but even that was a financially risky decision in Toronto. I gave up hope of owning a home and starting a family that night, at least in Toronto. That's the path Calgary's on if we do not build a smarter city. After our time in Toronto, we did move back to Calgary. We were able to buy a townhome. It meant everything to me. After years of renting, I could hang a picture, own a pet, and think about starting a family. It was hope, it was stability. This missing middle housing means everything to me. I hope that my voice has been part, a small part of the chorus telling you how important this problem is to solve. I believe that every Councillor knows that, though perhaps you prioritize it differently than I would hope. I've heard that there is a clear majority on this issue, but if you are just counting us like beans, why ask us to speak at all? Housing advocates are talking about whether people can avoid homelessness, gain independence, and build a life. Opponents are talking about shadows, bins, and parking. We can solve those. I don't understand how you can look me in the eye and say, but there's more of them. I see a twinkle in some of your eyes. I believe you believe there is a third magic path that will save you from this difficult decision. Perhaps some of you plan to repeal this now and work towards a solution later. But I caution you. It's always easier to pose an imperfect one, a solution, than to deliver one. If your hearts are set against this updated base district, then I plead that you do not support this now, but build a solution and come back to the public with it. Because I worry when I hear I support density, but often this becomes a moving goalpost, a promise that a perfect solution is just out of reach. I've not heard of a credible alternative. Local area plans, transitory development, nodes and corridors, we already have all these tools. They're not replacements. I'm happy to expand on why I think these are shortcomings for each, but I'll focus on LAPs for time. I'm more engaged in my community than most people my age, and that has been true my entire life. And I say this with deep respect for those who volunteer in the community, but I've gone into these spaces to be a dissenting opinion, and it is terrifying. Community associations can become insular. By segmenting this problem into smaller and smaller factions, you increase the difficulty to support housing broadly across the city. I've taken multiple days off work to support rezoning. How could I possibly do this on an individual parcel scale? Finally, if communities can't agree to enough growth within the plan, then what? If you force them, it feels like the plan was a foregone conclusion. If you do not, the LAPs failed to deliver the housing required. I hope that you vote no on this repeal and the disjoint amendments that would weaken RCG unless you come back with a plan.", "segments_merged": 23 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 27480.825, "end": 27485.525, "text": "Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go to Councillor Chabot for questions for the panel.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27489.145, "end": 27498.805, "text": "I can't remember which presenter it was. The first or no, this gentleman over here didn't get a chance to finish. Your presentation, I believe, if you don't mind. Sorry, forgive me for forgetting your name.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27499.065, "end": 27499.505, "text": "David.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27500.745, "end": 27501.125, "text": "Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27501.125, "end": 27604.105, "text": "That'd be an easy name to remember. Yeah, I'll quickly run through this one. And I wanted to, this is not this is an MCG site just for clarity. So the density is 111 units per hectare. But we ended up designing it in a way that made it look like row housing just to make it digestible to the community. Very interesting location, no back alley. So we had some things to contend with on that one. We did one initial design, 10 units, no basement, so they were all on grade. And we did it like a U shape, but the neighbors at the back really didn't like it. I met with them at their house and kind of spun the 3D model around. Until I thought they liked it, and then they they appealed the project because working with um the planning department, um David Down uh gave some really good advice, but we ended up pushing the building out of the property or out of the setback. Um city was willing to allow us to do that, but that's what we got appealed on. So um we waited six months and then we we came back with this design. So we kept, we tried to not have any bylaw relaxations at all. And again, I worked with the neighbors on the back, the three neighbors at the back and one on the side. I met in their homes and again spun the computer or the model in the computer to help them understand. And at that point, the ARP was being approved for 19th Street. And this is now zoned for four stories. So then no one appealed it when we went for DP because this. Sorry?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27605.605, "end": 27606.945, "text": "You could have been allowed to go higher.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27607.705, "end": 27704.685, "text": "Yes, I would have been allowed to go higher. So yeah, the neighbors really like this design after that. So yeah, and what's interesting about this one is now we have basements and there's six units with three secondary suites, but the secondary suites are two stories each. So you go into the main floor and then you can get into the basement for your second story, or you take a set of stairs up. There's nothing in the in the building code that restricts you from having just a single story for a secondary suite. And one thing I just wanted to add to a previous presenter, I think it was bold. They were talking about units. I think that's a very interesting conversation because for a lot of these projects, um people want to own these homes, right? So if you move into like a garage suite, you'll never own it because it's owned by the owner of the parcel. Um it's a rental, it can only be a rental. And same with a basement suite. Um if you have a semi-detached house, two basement suites. It can only be a rental. So when you start doing like the row housing, then there's a way to kind of break it apart and turn them into kind of condos, but but at a at a nice scale where people can walk out and have their gardens and um and I always put trees in front of all my projects. Uh when I was a student, um my first boss he said, if you want to be a good architect, just learn how to draw a tree. And uh I've I've done it ever since. I think it it helps. So um yeah.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27704.685, "end": 27708.125, "text": "So this project was not RCG, it was what MCG", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27708.125, "end": 27708.905, "text": "MCG.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27709.285, "end": 27715.405, "text": "111? MCGB 111. And so that would have allowed you to put secondary suites underneath each unit.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27715.905, "end": 27724.985, "text": "Um technically, I mean we were allowed 12 units with this project size, but the problem is that we didn't have a back alley.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27725.205, "end": 27725.465, "text": "Right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27725.465, "end": 27738.425, "text": "So we we were really restricted because we had to get a waste and recycling vehicle into the site, turn around and back out. So we're using Moloch bins, which is another great product out there. I was hoping the city would someday start collecting them.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27738.425, "end": 27743.985, "text": "And originally it was planned to be um slab on grate, and but you went with the full basement.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27743.985, "end": 27762.965, "text": "Yeah. Like as soon as they they got it peeled and lost, then they were like, okay, how can we how can we rethink this project and not lose kind of area because they're already going down in density by doing Initially 10 instead of 12. Now we were at six with the three secondary seats. So", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27763.085, "end": 27771.825, "text": "Well, I'm trying to rationalize this example with the r cg blanket zoning insofar as support, oppose, modify.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27772.205, "end": 27841.245, "text": "for me, I would modify. But living on in Kalarni and seeing how dense they actually are. In school, we were we were taught about contextual, that's how we designed. So you you research your site, you figure it out, you talk to your neighbors, you see what they're living in. That's how you build a community. With the blanket rezoning, a lot of times it feels like you know, you pull out a tooth and then you add a tooth that doesn't fit. So, you know, I might get a lot of hate mail for this one, but I feel like just there's ways to do it where people will not appeal, and I don't think people actually mind density. Um but I think what they do mind is large obtrusive buildings that have horrible materials, no trees, and just not good for their for their street. Like um if you do a good job in the design, people don't complain.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27842.405, "end": 27844.265, "text": "Having David Down on your team probably helped.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27844.965, "end": 27845.745, "text": "Yeah, he's awesome.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 27846.125, "end": 27847.525, "text": "Yes, thanks. No further questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 27848.505, "end": 27850.145, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 27850.205, "end": 27878.345, "text": "Actually, don't go away there yet, David, if I could. It's interesting to hear your your story about it potentially going higher and suddenly people so maybe actually what we need to do in all this is just uh zone at 20 meters. And everyone gets the exception to 10 and suddenly everything's okay. Um you just quick you you mentioned something about single story basement suite, just really quickly uh when you're talking to Councillor Chabot there. Can you just expand on that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27878.505, "end": 27889.665, "text": "Uh I was saying that the building code allows you to do more than a single story for a secondary suite. There's nothing in the code that per that prevents you from doing a two story secondary suite.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 27889.985, "end": 27890.585, "text": "Gotcha.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27890.585, "end": 27890.945, "text": "Yeah,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 27891.025, "end": 27895.085, "text": "towards the form-based uh stuff that we were hearing earlier before the break.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 27895.085, "end": 27895.605, "text": "exactly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 27895.605, "end": 27960.105, "text": "I got it. Perfect. Thank thank you. Just a quick clarification there. And then I'll go to uh Kendra uh Wanamaker please. I love the joy that you brought to this presentation. I also like hearing from folks who are living in these townhouses. I think that that's a really important perspective that we're not hearing enough of, and uh really appreciate you bringing it. And I really like you talking about your journey from being a renter to a homeowner, because I think that that really is a crux of what we are dealing with in this. Uh, and you talked about hanging a picture on the wall and not having to worry about it, owning a pet. These is like simple pleasures that people who own versus renting are often afforded. And I just wondered if you you you sort of then got into, you've got to get to your your notes, but if you can speak, uh there's not, we don't get to hear from many folks that are have recently been in this transition and made the leap from being a renter into a homeowner, and especially in one of these houses. Can you expand on that a little bit and and sort of your experience transitioning between the two worlds?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 27961.345, "end": 28004.585, "text": "Yeah, I think you know, living in Ontario in the rental industry, they have a lot more protections that we don't have in Alberta. I know that's not a city issue, but it just makes owning a pet more difficult because. You're not protected in that way. But I found the transition to townhome really nice because I had this built-in community of five pe uh five families that I got to meet and you know we gardened together and they're deeply involved with the community and got me immediately deeply involved in the community association. So it was nice to have that built in community. Um and we shovel each other's walks and mow each other's lawns, and it's just been a very nice uh way to live.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 28006.405, "end": 28007.985, "text": "I love that. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 28008.445, "end": 28008.705, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 28008.705, "end": 28009.465, "text": "Thank you. I'm good.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28010.925, "end": 28068.245, "text": "Thank you so much. That concludes this panel. We'll begin assembling a new panel of names that have not been called yet. And we left off on panel 103. So we're gonna call five names. If you're in the audience or uh on the line, please chime in or give me a wave. Uh 103, do we have Beverly Redman, Allison Banks, Aaron Redman? Kevin Hayes or Sean Coley? Sean? Come on down, Sean. On 104, do we have Dominic Messenchuk? Lori Holdenreed? Nadine Burge Cumming? On 104, Brian Magdy.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_69", "start": 28070.525, "end": 28072.245, "text": "Alison Bank is on the line.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28073.085, "end": 28160.125, "text": "Okay, Allison, please stand by. Do we have Tom Spenceley? 104. Was that you, Tom? 105, uh Karen McKherson. Come on down, Karen. 105, Elliot McNiven, Laura Comden, Deanna Dubbin, Michael Reed. Michael, come on down. 106, Ariana Kippers, Kelly Pratt, Carolyn Fisher. Okay, come on down, Carolyn. Robert Curry, Katherine Holgate. Okay, come on down, Catherine. And I'll just finish 106 and 107. Do we have Austin Surson or Ross Strong?", "segments_merged": 19 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_60", "start": 28164.385, "end": 28165.925, "text": "Brian Magdi from 104.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28167.205, "end": 28168.845, "text": "Sorry, could you please repeat your name?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_60", "start": 28170.205, "end": 28172.325, "text": "Brian Magdi, panel 104.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28172.865, "end": 28192.545, "text": "All right, Brian, please stand by. Alright, this one's a little bit bigger, but we'll roll with it. We have Sean from 103, Allison 103, Karen 105, Michael 105, Carolyn 106, Catherine 106, and Brian 104. So, Sean, uh, why don't you start us off?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 28194.545, "end": 28521.565, "text": "Yeah, greetings, council. My name is Sean Cawley. I'm a resident of Inglewood and I've been a home builder since 2012. I dipped my toe in missing middle homes back in 2012, and then the Great Flood came, and all of my homes immediately sold, and I was launched as a new builder. I think that that first townhouse project was perhaps the most difficult thing I had ever done. And I had a lot of regrets about what happened and how to make it better, and I decided not to do townhousing anymore for quite some years. I did I was more of a missing middle hobbyist. It was my favorite form to work in, but also the most difficult and precarious. Now, with all this experience, I think I have tens of thousands of hours of running my job sites. Is it easier now or is it harder? Well, I can tell you it's much, much harder. And the risk is now so so significant that I'm counseling the young aspiring builders who have grown up on HGTV and YouTube celebrities to avoid the middle and go right to. Single homes. And so if you look at uh, I have a long portfolio of many exceptional homes. Um, my Bridgerland project, unfortunately, three years later, you'll notice the red line. That's where the sidewalks go. There isn't any. This is the this this home faces um village ice cream, and there's many, many people waiting in summer for their ice cream, looking across at my weeds and lack of sidewalks. I have two security deposits on the sidewalks. In order to get an indemnified contractor, I need to pay a third security deposit. And all of the contractors are angling to recoup my deposits as part of their compensation for the sidewalks. And they want to charge me more for 110 foot run of sidewalks than I paid for three homes basement foundations, which included nine foot tall walls, eight inches thick, versus a four foot by four inch thick. city sidewalk. And I have since taken out a multi-million dollar insurance policy to build my own sidewalks. But we weren't able to we weren't able to build them last year. So enough about the sidewalks. Um next slide please. When you get into the housing ladder, what we have is Policies that make it much, much easier and faster to build single homes. So if you look at Calgary's most famous home, which isn't in Calgary, it's that large mansion on the highway. And then you then you have the uh apartments. So the large corporations that are building these apartments have plenty of resources to you know put up the hundred unit buildings that um that they need to do to survive. So the rest of us are operating somewhere in the middle, and if you look at the amendments that have been proposed, you're simply taking a saw and cutting out the middle rungs. So I don't think repeal is the answer. I think modification is the answer. And we've heard many good ideas on modification, but what we really needed was the city to put resources into a new building bylaw. I think the 2007 building bylaw is quite obsolete, and um it was obsolete when I started in this field, and it's even more obsolete now. Next slide, please. We go to what is it like to build a threeplex? So I have built quite a few threeplexes. Myself and the uh Builders Association president, uh, we used to compete for these lots, and we would always be uh trying to buy them in Kalarney. So when you do a threeplex, The object is to create as much value as possible. Now, Unit one, the value is uh in the form of it's it's really lost in fees, the DSSP, the dreaded DSSP, and the sidewalks. Now, unit two, the value is lost in your time and your appeals and your likelihood of losing the appeal and all the risk associated. So then you're just down to creating value from one unit. So what you should really do then is just build one unit. So there's simply not enough value created in a threeplex to sustain the administrative overhead of a house building company, even a small boutique one with very few or no employees. Next slide, please. So we go to the last semi detached project I was able to build and sell below $1 million each. So that was in Parkdale, quarter one, 2022. This project isn't possible any longer to due to cost escalation. So I could still build the identical project. I simply couldn't sell it for under $1 million. So we would be into the $1.2 million range, which is getting quite quite expensive for a semi detached product. And that leads us to my Inglewood business, which is my primary focus, which is building single homes. So I've built a bunch of these single homes. The city assessed value is around $1.75 million. And if you look at the property tax, Utilities, down payment needed, carrying cost is around $7,500 to purchase these. So you I I put into the Google what was household family income needed to qualify to purchase these, and you would need a 300K annual household income basically forever. So that is becoming a little bit too much. But", "segments_merged": 38 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28521.565, "end": 28525.365, "text": "Thank you so much. You're just a time, uh maybe a final sentence to conclude. All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 28525.545, "end": 28529.985, "text": "so if you look at all the um next slide, all the amendments that have been proposed, they simply all add cost.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28530.305, "end": 28531.185, "text": "Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 28531.185, "end": 28531.525, "text": "Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28531.745, "end": 28533.865, "text": "We'll go now to Allison on 103, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 28535.185, "end": 28539.505, "text": "Project, it's Tom Spenceley. I'm actually online and I hope I can still speak. Is that okay?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28540.325, "end": 28542.925, "text": "Uh no, we're calling on Allison now, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 28543.765, "end": 28545.685, "text": "No, but at the end or after, I don't mind.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28545.905, "end": 28553.145, "text": "Uh we've just assembled this panel. If I could uh return to calling names following the assembling of this panel, we'd like to speak with Allison on panel 103.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 28554.045, "end": 28554.565, "text": "That's fine.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28557.825, "end": 28559.485, "text": "Thank you, Allison. Can you please go ahead?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_69", "start": 28561.085, "end": 28687.765, "text": "Um, yes, hello. Hello. My name is Allison and I am a resident of Board 14, and I am opposed to the repeal of blanket rezoning. So I am a young Calgarian and I am knowingly living in an abusive environment. I am Trapped in that environment because I cannot afford to move out. Rents are too high. Homeownership is incredibly difficult to attain. It's years and years away. And with the repeal of blanket rezoning, I believe that it will take me longer to move out of the environment that I knowingly live in. So many Calgarians have similar situations to mine. There were 6,415 reported cases of domestic violence in 2025. In 2025, in Calgary, a 7% increase from 2024. Only an estimated one in five cases are actually reported. When we include non-physical forms of abuse and children who witness violence or abusive behavior in their home, this number goes up so much more. And the more expensive housing is, the harder it is for people like me and for other Calgaryans to leave those kind of situations. It creates a sense of desperation, a feeling of being trapped. I have thought about moving into a former meth lab because that would be more affordable for ho in terms of housing. And yes, there everything is unaffordable. And with a blanket rezoning, I've seen rates for rent go down, and that made me feel a sense of hope. And in general, I am just scared. And I know other people are feeling similar fears. And yes, I am I am aware that some people are concerned about things like parking spaces. But I hope the council makes a balanced choice. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 26 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28688.725, "end": 28692.045, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go now to Karen on 105.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 28706.345, "end": 28947.885, "text": "Thank you. Hello, Mayor, members of Council and Administration. I want to thank you all for your time, the extra hours that you've dedicated to the process. And I just want to acknowledge that it takes commitment to support democracy. I really appreciate it. I'm here representing Be the Change YYC, which is in Ward 7. We're a grassroots outreach organization serving unhoused Calgarians. In addition to an overdeveloped sense of fairness, I work in the sector for a personal reason. My son Sam died in 2001 after struggling with trauma, addiction, and for a time with homelessness. I do this work because I don't want other families to go through the same kind of loss. From my experience as an MLA, I know what it looks like when political will translates into positive outcomes for people. Only a lack of attention for an issue means people have to wait even longer for favorable outcomes. At Be the Change, we're on the streets four times a every week, and we see firsthand how difficult it is for people to survive without stable housing. People like a young man I'll call Shane. In his twenties, living with a brain injury, he collapsed in our parking lot just a block from here last winter. If Shane had stable housing, he could take his medication regularly, manage his condition, and avoid almost dying in frigid weather. But instead, we see people left to survive in conditions that make their health worse and their situations more unstable. And the research is unambiguous. A peer-reviewed Calgary study published in the Canadian Public Policy Journal found that for every dollar invested in stables supportive housing, the downstream savings to health and justice systems range from over $1 to nearly $3. Homelessness is expensive. Instability is expensive, and we pay for it either way. The question is whether we pay less in housing or much more in emergency rooms, police calls, and human suffering. Even when people are doing everything they can, the wait list for housing can be three to four years. That's the reality. And right now, more than 6,500 Calgarians are on the wait list for affordable housing. And there are thousands of Calgarians couch surfing, using shelters to stay warm, or living rough. Every tool that increases supply matters. Blanket rezoning is not a complete solution to help end the housing crisis, but it is one of the tools that helps increase housing supply, including more multi unit housing, more secondary suites, and more attainable rental options. We need more housing options in our city, not fewer. From what we at Be the Change see every day, reducing options only increases pressure on people, on communities, and on emergency systems. Calgary has expanded housing before. Between 2008 and 2018, Calgary's 10 year plan to end homelessness housed nearly 10,000 people through coordinated, sustained effort. And that happened because leaders made deliberate choices to increase housing options, not reduce them. This is a moment like that. City Council has the tools to help address what we are seeing on our streets. I think repeal would be an easy vote, but what I'm asking you to do is the harder thing to stay at the table, make amendments that address legitimate concerns, and find the tools that help make that are helping people like Shane find a way home.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 28950.225, "end": 28954.705, "text": "Thank you so much for being here. We'll go next to Michael, please, on 105.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 28985.525, "end": 29274.305, "text": "Good evening, Mayor and Counselors. My name is Michael Reed. I'm the Director of Development for the Alboya Britannia Community Association, and I support the repeal of the blanket up zoning uh bylaw. I'm here to talk about the Calgary planning process and Calgary slowing population growth. I'm a professional engineer and I know effective, rigorous planning is critical for the CES success of any project. Proper housing planning is the process that the developers use to decide what they can build, where, and how, while balancing regulations, design, economics, and community impact. It is controlled by the Calgary Municipal Development Plan, which sets out the regulatory framework for how Calgary will grow. It establishes the strategic direction related to housing forms, types, and affordability. It mandates that 50% of the growth in Calgary should be in the developed areas of Calgary. And I agree with this. We need to put more housing in the in these critical areas, but the growth should be well planned and completely well thought out and comply to the municipal development plan. The MDP requires that the planning process must follow local area plans, land use bylaw, including housing zones, the land use redesignation process, and the planning application. Prior to Blanket Up Zoning, we had a successful planning process. The zoning redesignation hearing was often a key component in the planning process. It required the developer to generate a clear description of what was planned. This could be scrutinized by the administration, council, and residents at the public hearing. I believe this increased the quality of the projects being reviewed. However, when blanket upzoning was approved, the planning process was shifted from the city to the developers. This is a new planning process. The developers decide what, when, where to build as long as it complies with the land use bylaw rules. This is, and they respond to economics and profitability. This isn't a criticism, this is just how the system works. But development becomes random, less coordinated, less predictable, less aligned with infrastructure, less aligned with community texture context, and it doesn't basically comply with the municipal development plan. You have heard of many examples of how this new planning process has resulted in negative impacts. And I won't go into those. It is fundamentally a poor planning process. We should return the planning process to what was working before the blanket up zoning bylaw was passed. I'd like to now talk a little bit about Calgary's growth. This table shows the total population growth in percentage growth per year from the Calgary and Regional Economic Oaklet from 2025 to 2030. It shows that Calgary's population growth was below 2% prior to 2022, but then spiked at 6%, almost three times higher in 2024. Perhaps this drastic forecast growth influenced the panic and fixation that we needed many more row houses immediately to meet the expected demand increase. However, since 2024, growth has significantly declined, and we'll be back to a much lower growth rate of about 1.3% by the year 2028. We can stop panicking. We don't need the massive number of new growhouses. We will need less. So, in conclusion, I would say that blanket upzoning has not delivered affordability. It has weakened the planning process. It was driven in part by a temporary spike in growth. We need a planning approach that is coordinated, policy driven, and aligned with real affordability outcomes. I urge you to repeal the blanket upzoning bylaw. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 32 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 29276.185, "end": 29280.045, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to Carolyn on 106, then Catherine after that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 29287.905, "end": 29545.365, "text": "Hi. Hello, Mayor Farkas and Councillors. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to Calgarians today and this week and last week. My name is Carolyn Fisher. I live in Ward 7, Capitol Hill. I'd like to oppose the repeal of blanket RCG zoning. For the record, I own a 1950s bungalow. There's a two story infill next door, actually several, plus several fourplexes on my street. It's fine. Row houses have not ruined my quality of life, nor the character of the neighborhood. Our schools are busy, our community associations are lively, the parks are hopping, and we get to ski in the Confederation Golf Course. So I'm glad to get to know of the people and the families and the kids who have moved into the neighborhood. I'm the landlord of a registered basement rental suite. By trade, I'm a children's book author illustrator, and my husband drives a bus for city transit. We would never be able to afford a home in Capitol Hill now, but luckily for us, we bought 28 years ago. Because prices were lower, we had the privilege of choosing our neighborhood, a place that was walkable and bikeable and close to transit, and grocery, and parks, and schools, and work. Over the decades that we've lived in our home and rented our suite, hundreds of people have applied to live in our basement, not just students, but families and young working people and more. Some have been so desperate for housing that they have offered to pay three months' rent upfront. If zoning is repealed, then many lots will be restricted to single family dwellings. I can see from my years of experience that there are students and young professionals and older workers and single parents and empty nesters for whom a single family dwelling does not meet their needs. If blanket zoning is repealed and only single-family dwellings are allowed to be built in neighborhoods, and if single family dwellings cost $750,000 plus, as they do in my neighborhood, then only well off people or homeowners like me who were lucky enough to buy a long time ago will live here. So you're leaving out whole swathes of Calgarians who do not have the means to buy a single family dwelling and possibly not the means to speak at this hearing. So, what about the young people? Where will Gen Z and millennials live? What about teachers and nurses and massage therapists and social workers? What about people who don't drive? Does it serve Calgary for the person who cleans the hospital or takes care of toddlers or cuts our hair to have to take a two hour bus ride to get to and from work and school? RCG zoning promotes fiscal efficiency. As people are able to gently densify existing neighborhoods, With a variety of forms that are walkable and bikeable and close to work and school, then transportation emissions and traffic jams go down. As well, smaller multifamily row homes built on RCG lots have smaller carbon footprints. Not everybody needs nor wants to live in a big house. I ask City Council to protect RCG zoning by repealing your incentivizing sprawl at the cost of providing the missing middle housing in the places where Calgarians really need it. We want a resilient, vibrant city with a variety of home forms to serve all ages and backgrounds, not just now, but for generations. Thank you. And I have one more note, which is that I noticed that Cheryl commented that she would like to be able to develop a backyard suite and a basement suite in her lot. And I would like to make a vote for that too, because I hope to have a multi generational household at a time when my teenager gets older and my husband and I would like to age in place. So thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 29 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 29547.445, "end": 29550.305, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to Catherine now on 106, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 29557.325, "end": 29865.245, "text": "Yeah. Good evening. Yes, it's been a long day, I'm sure, for all of you. Um I'm here. I support the full repeal of the rezoning that had been passed. Now, my recollection is that there was some urgency. Oh, thank you. My recollection is that there was some urgency when council pushed it through. Moving counter, because of the government money that was available. I don't think that's the reason we should make our decisions. I think people choose their neighborhoods for a variety of reasons, including the location, the nearby amenities, the prices, the character of the neighborhood, and in some cases for investment potential. And I believe that the rezoning impacted people differently depending on the reason of their purchase. Those who bought with the intention possibly of an increase in value, for example, on 17th Avenue, which borders on my community, Glendale, their houses have gone up dramatically in value. Those who bought because they liked the R1 zoning and liked the space and liked getting to know their neighbors and living in a really like a little small community where we actually celebrate one another's birthdays, we know everybody in the neighborhood. It's a very pleasant neighborhood. But already there have been bungalows torn down and multifamily units built. And I understand the one on 17th Avenue where three houses were replaced with a 100-unit apartment because 17th Avenue is busy. But what is the impact of that on our parking and our infrastructure, the water? I mean, we've had a lot of water main problems in Calgary, and especially in the older neighborhoods. You know, one area within Glendale has twice since Christmas had broken water mains and had to go get water. What's going to happen when that 100-unit apartment building is actually rented and occupied? I don't think there's been enough consideration to the parking issues where there's one parking unit for one parking space for every two units, and also the water and the sewer services, as well as the canopy, because all the trees are gone. Okay, now when when the zoning changed, as I said, it changed, it had different impacts for different people. For many people, it's almost like an expropriation. When you take away someone's house, you compensate them. When you take away the quality of the property and the home that was most important to them, and it goes, it it takes something away as well. And there's no way to compensate people for that. The character of the neighborhood is lost. Someone else had mentioned earlier about all the people that are moving. It's happening in all of the older communities that were our one, that have single family houses. People are moving out because they're afraid of what's happening. Now there were some very interesting presentations this afternoon that I listened to. Um one of them one lady talked about the equity element of blanket rezoning. I have to disagree with her. I think that they bec Equity that would have been equitable had everybody had the same original starting point. But because an R1 zoning is very different than certain other areas of the city, the blanket rezoning really hits the R1 neighborhoods far more than it does the ones that already allowed for more redevelop for more development. Okay, I also was very impressed by the presentation by the lady architects this afternoon. I thought the idea, the contextual idea is very important, and I've heard several people tonight mention that. So I'm not opposed to density. In fact, um the Glendale Community Association at the time of our local area plan, which was thrown away when the new blanket rezoning came in, but it had proposed to have density on the peripheral roads, on 45th Street, on 17th Avenue, on 26th Avenue, and they had done calculations and recommendations that this sort of a development could reach the objective of density without changing all the single-family residences within the community, and without changing the con just the texture of the community. So I've heard people say, oh, but you know, actually, I was at a public hearing earlier for our ward, and there were these young people coming in and saying, but I should be able to buy a home in the neighborhood I grew up in. I certainly my children certainly couldn't have afforded that, and I wouldn't, I wouldn't have expected to as a child. It's fairly normal for young people to buy their first home. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 29865.245, "end": 29867.685, "text": "Just a time, but uh maybe a final sentence to conclude.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 29867.685, "end": 29878.945, "text": "I'm just saying that people don't always get their ideal home the first time round. I don't think any of us got exactly what we wanted the first time or in the location we would have preferred.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 29878.945, "end": 29879.745, "text": "Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 29879.745, "end": 29880.285, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 29880.525, "end": 29883.925, "text": "We'll go now to Brian on 104 to wrap this panel.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_60", "start": 29888.065, "end": 30053.465, "text": "Brian Magdi, panel 104. I am in favor of fully repealing blanket rezoning, resetting the zoning to what it was before blanket rezoning, and engaging with Calgaryans to develop local area plans to guide thoughtful growth. I appreciate this opportunity to address Mayor Farkas and City Councilors to express my viewpoint. Thank you. I also spoke at the public hearing approximately two years ago and at that time stated that I was in opposition to blank of the blanket rezoning. I first moved to Calgary a little over 42 years ago. I have lived in many housing forums apartments, a condo, townhomes, and several single family homes. I've also lived in various communities throughout Calgary. The choices I made depended upon my needs, wants, and personal situation over the years. I currently reside in the community of Alboya in Ward 8. With blanket rezoning, there are no longer any communities or neighborhoods in Calgary that are zoned predominantly for single family dwellings only. This is saying that no one should have the choice to live in a planned low density neighborhood, regardless of their preference and desired lifestyle. Notably, it has eliminated certainty of use in past RC1 contextual dwelling districts and has many residents on edge in anticipation of forthcoming densification of their neighborhood and streets. I recognize the need for various types of housing forms, and I agree that it is critical that these options are made available for the citizens of Calgary. I also agree that densification is a key component in Calgary's housing strategy. However, I believe that blanket rezoning is not an effective and efficient solution. It is important that a solution is developed that allows Calgary to continue to offer a diverse range of housing alternatives while still promoting greater density. A more effective approach is targeted data-driven planning, concentrating density along transportation, transit corridors, and activity center nodes, supported by detailed multi community local area plans. Calgary is a terrific city and is ranked as one of the most livable in the world. I would like to see it remain that way. I believe that not repealing blanket rezoning will have a long term negative impact on the quality of life and choices of lifestyles offered in Calgary. I reiterate that I am for the proposed repealing of blanket rezoning and urge you to vote for to vote to repeal it as you have similarly heard from other concerned and caring citizens of Calgary. Thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30054.685, "end": 30083.365, "text": "Thank you so much. This uh concludes this panel. Before I go to Councillor Clark to start us off, uh Uh real quick, uh who is the gentleman who spoke? Uh saying they were just a a second or two late uh for me calling 103 through 106. So it was me. All right, Tom, uh please stand by. You'll be on our next panel, but it might be a while after uh some of uh the questions from council here. Uh secondly, uh", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 30083.365, "end": 30083.965, "text": "Sorry,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30084.405, "end": 30085.025, "text": "sorry, uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 30085.165, "end": 30090.705, "text": "panel one oh one, panel one oh one, Sylvia Kowalevsky on the phone,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30091.665, "end": 30093.225, "text": "could you could you repeat that name?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 30094.885, "end": 30098.585, "text": "Sylvia Kowalevsky one oh one.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30099.305, "end": 30106.245, "text": "Okay, we will see if we're able to accommodate you tonight. Uh I can't promise based on uh the alternation of the panel, but uh we will do our best.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_76", "start": 30107.945, "end": 30114.125, "text": "Thank you. I'm on panel 96. I know that there are other callers on the line who are also hoping to see.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30114.125, "end": 30196.405, "text": "I know I guys, I opened the door, but uh we just have to conclude this panel. We're not calling or assembling uh other panels. I just wanted to hear from one that one specific uh gentleman. We just for fairness here, we have to go in the order that uh they're called. So with that, um I again and we're and again, uh just out of fairness, I know there's a it's this is a challenging environment for us given that we have many hundreds of people who are signed up, but not all the names uh were there. So again, uh thank you so much. Uh Tom, please stand by for the uh the next panel. Uh secondly, uh Allison, uh Karen, I just wanted to say thank you uh so much for sharing your personal stories. And uh I think your participation as well as others really emphasize that what we're talking here, housing speaks to home, speaks to family, speaks to many other challenges that we're experiencing in the community right now. And just wanted to take a moment to to remind you and everybody else that's present or might be watching. Today, through the proceedings, that uh we can all call the distress line at any time uh for help. The the number is 403-266-4357 or 266 help, and that help is available 24 hours. So again, I I didn't want that comment to uh slide without the the recognition and and thank you for your vulnerability, Karen, for for being here and sharing uh what you did. Uh we're gonna go over to uh Councillor Clark, please.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30197.205, "end": 30197.525, "text": "Sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30197.225, "end": 30197.505, "text": "Sir", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30198.005, "end": 30211.845, "text": "Uh I just wanted to speak with Mr. Codley. Good evening, sir. Thank you for joining us here. You were just kind of cut off there towards the end of your presentation. I just want to make sure that you had the opportunity to conclude.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 30212.465, "end": 30298.105, "text": "Um well if we go to my final slide, I was just gonna Mentioned some of the trade-offs and um the how R1 areas have the largest lots that I would most like to build in and the R2 areas have too much development and I was chased out of Killarney for that reason. It was just overwhelming. And then if we eliminate basement suites, we cut out the market-driven most low-cost rentals. And that's that would be a huge loss to the rental market. And for me, I don't purchase homes on nodes and corridors. I only purchase homes where my clients want to live, and my clients want to live in the heart of communities, and they're willing to pay tremendous amounts of money to pay to live in the heart of the community. And so that's where I am sort of obligated to build where they want where they wish. To work, and if everyone points to these abandoned gas stations, and it I find that to be bad faith negotiation because you're bargaining with a gas station, but you're not bringing any capital to clean the gas station. And if you have a community with 500 homes on it and you say, well, let's go to the gas station that's abandoned and put 100 homes, we've increased the density of our community by 25%, so now we're good for the next generation. So that's the kind of I think unaccountable comment that we're getting in the inner city. And when we look at the brown field, every time we we do a news for all community outside of the ring road, we delay each brownfield project by another few years.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30298.365, "end": 30303.865, "text": "You're speaking my language. I think Brownfield is very much the next step for us. Oh, sorry, go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 30303.865, "end": 30323.725, "text": "So the final one is a a 1,000 square foot home on a 6,000 square foot lot in the best neighborhood. Isn't really a good use of our land. And I would really like to push for some R1 reform if we go back to R1, where I could build a cottage cluster on the R1 areas, and maybe that would be acceptable to the neighbors.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30324.005, "end": 30325.745, "text": "Could you describe a cottage cluster?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 30325.965, "end": 30338.585, "text": "I would try to build four cottage style homes on one lot with a shared garage, but I would try to do them in a ways that the building department would object to and the project would die at the planning stage.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30338.585, "end": 30346.765, "text": "Yeah, we're hearing a lot of that actually through the hearings. Um I believe you came forward as a neutral party or what was your standing on this issue?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 30347.305, "end": 30364.545, "text": "I'm opposed to a full repeal, and I would like to see technical modifications with a technical working group, including the Builders Association, and any change to the building bylaws need to be tested for cost benefit.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30365.445, "end": 30370.925, "text": "So a little bit more engagement with the uh the industry itself, engaging with these policies.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 30371.185, "end": 30377.545, "text": "I think you'll find that the Inner City Builders Association has uh the builders on it who have the most experience building in the middle form.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30378.065, "end": 30380.325, "text": "Yeah. Very good, sir. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 30380.325, "end": 30380.565, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30380.805, "end": 30421.765, "text": "Uh Ms. McPherson. Hello. Hi. It's been a while. Nice to see you. Thank you so much for your time, of course. And the mayor has already thanked you for providing us with some human insight. I wondered as we approach this work, I mean, the decision in front of us, you've already highlighted, it's it's quite big and and there's a lot of dynamics, and what's the most courageous thing we can do? Either way, uh non market housing has to become a priority in our pursuit of the future of the city. And I wondered if you just had any feedback about that from your position, how we could better support that uh as part of blanket rezoning or on the other side of this decision?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 30422.825, "end": 30475.825, "text": "I I think there's a whole array of different kinds of housing that would really help alleviate the suffering of people who are unhoused. Transitional housing, supportive housing, and accessible housing, you know, both low cost as well as physically accessible. A lot of the folks that we serve do suffer with some sort of disability or do live with a disability. So making sure that people are going to be successful and not to have a whole lot of constraints, putting housing first rather than a behavior on behalf of the person that needs to be housed. I think all of those are really important. As well as tools like the blanket rezoning. The more housing stock that's available, the less pressure there is on the lower levels, and the fewer people we see knocked into homelessness because the market has simply become too expensive for them. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 30476.045, "end": 30496.545, "text": "And we've seen those individuals come forward over the course of this hearing, right? I mean, sort of advocating for themselves with no uh there's no real chance of them accessing this kind of housing, but its very existence they think sort of protects them or creates a better sense of security for their place and their and their housing. So yeah, it's very interesting. Thank you very much for being here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30496.905, "end": 30499.725, "text": "My pleasure. Thank you, Councillor Panzopoulos, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 30501.285, "end": 30536.525, "text": "Thank you so much, Ms. Holgart. Holgate? Catherine? Oh, hi. Thanks. Thanks so much. Really appreciate your presentation. Particularly around the commentary. I wanted to uh commentary around if we were to build On 17th, on 26th, on 45th in your community, that that would be sufficient to meet the goals and objectives that were identified. Can you just expand on that? Who told you that? Where did that information come through?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 30536.905, "end": 30542.205, "text": "Oh, the community association submitted that plan at the time of the local area plan.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 30542.205, "end": 30542.445, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 30542.765, "end": 30550.325, "text": "And then the local area plan was shelved because of the rezoning. And it was submitted to the city, but apparently it wasn't considered.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 30551.025, "end": 30567.865, "text": "Okay. You m you made a comment that you were told by somebody that that's what I heard that if we were to have that density on 17th, 26th, 17th, and 45th, thank you. 20 17th, 26th, and 45th, that that would meet the density objectives. Um so was that through communications or did the community association do that analysis?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 30567.925, "end": 30575.025, "text": "Now the community association did it. They submitted it to the city and they submitted it as part of the local area plan.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 30575.325, "end": 30575.965, "text": "Perfect. So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 30575.965, "end": 30580.425, "text": "Actually, there's a board member from the community association who might have more information if you need it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 30580.425, "end": 30598.805, "text": "Absolutely, you know, I definitely will at uh at the break for sure. Uh so the experience of the LAP, obviously, that was the community supported, that's where density made a lot of sense. Uh, if we had to pick and choose on those, I'll call them nodes and corridors or the density, 17th, 26th, 45th. Glendale, that's that's where it makes sense for you and your your name.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_78", "start": 30598.805, "end": 30605.825, "text": "Yes, they already have heavy traffic. You know, it's it's not the same character as the other parts of the community.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 30606.765, "end": 30611.605, "text": "Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Thank you so much for that presentation. I definitely will take you up on that offer at the break. Thanks so much. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30612.485, "end": 30613.865, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 30616.045, "end": 30630.525, "text": "Uh thank you, worship. Um, is Banks. Are you still on the line with us? Is that you, Miss Banks?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 30630.525, "end": 30630.905, "text": "Hello.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 30633.145, "end": 30661.725, "text": "Thank you very much. Um I really want to thank you for sharing your presentation with us today. I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I listened very carefully to what it was that you had to say, and I'm wondering if we might be able to follow up with you. And if so, if you'd be willing to reach out to the women in my office at uh ward4 at calgary.ca to see what we might be able to do to assist.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 30665.785, "end": 30668.325, "text": "Maybe. We'll see.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 30670.805, "end": 30673.445, "text": "That'd be ward four at calgary.ca.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30676.625, "end": 30676.925, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 30679.245, "end": 30680.085, "text": "Thank you, Miss Banks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30681.465, "end": 30738.745, "text": "All right, uh, this concludes that panel. And we had called uh up to from 103 through 106. We're uh for our upcoming panel, this is likely to be the last one for the evening before we break for 9 30. And because tomorrow and Wednesday are occupied with other predetermined council business, uh Thursday at 9 30 a.m. will be the continuation of this public hearing. So we we'll need a motion to that effect uh before we break, but just for the members of the public. Who might be on the line or here in person? This will be the the final panel for tonight. So we have uh Tom Spenceley there from from 104. He'll be the first in there. Uh I'm going to go back to it was panel 81 that we ended off on. Do we have Brooklyn Jansis Jansen with us from 82? Bonnie Petrovic? Al Chapel.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_66", "start": 30738.745, "end": 30739.005, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30740.365, "end": 30741.165, "text": "Bonnie, is that you?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_66", "start": 30741.225, "end": 30742.685, "text": "Bonnie. Yes.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30743.305, "end": 30767.145, "text": "Okay, Bonnie, please stand by. Do we have Anita Showa from 83? Bill Woodward? John Williams? Come on down, John. David Cumming. 84. Clint Sugar. Mark Gottlieb.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 30768.845, "end": 30769.205, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30770.065, "end": 30770.785, "text": "Was that you, Mark?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 30772.025, "end": 30773.285, "text": "This is me, yes, Mark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30773.625, "end": 30784.205, "text": "Thank you, Mark. Please stand by. 84, Mariana Salazar. 84, Cornelia Weeb.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_75", "start": 30785.885, "end": 30786.505, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30787.125, "end": 30803.745, "text": "Thank you, Cornelia. Please stand by. And then we'll accommodate one more. Do we have Darren Polansky? Dylan Proctor.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_81", "start": 30803.745, "end": 30804.505, "text": "You're online, thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30805.145, "end": 30806.125, "text": "Sorry, was that you, Darren?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_81", "start": 30807.325, "end": 30808.405, "text": "Yes, it was me. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30810.005, "end": 30824.365, "text": "Thank you very much. So this will be Our final panel for the evening. It'll be Tom, then Bonnie, John, Mark, Cornelia, then Darren. Alright, Tom, why don't you jump into it?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 30826.185, "end": 31117.185, "text": "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I do apologize for earlier when I pushed the wrong button to say I was present. But uh nevertheless, uh I'm Tom Spenceley and I'm a resident of Ward 8. And for the record, I am for uh uh repealing this uh uh making this uh zoning problem go away, although I think after having heard a lot of the correspondence throughout the day and in general, I do believe that it might be advantageous to put some of these uh new uh or these existing ones in the bylaw around the uh various uh uh LRT stations and and um and so forth where there's high density. Invading into uh or putting Multifamily housing in in neighborhoods is not necessarily the best plan, but you've heard all the reasons why that's the case. One of the strong points I want to drive home is a fact, and it's been stated a few times throughout the day, is that we went through this two years ago, and we heard all the same old stories back then, and then council voted it uh in despite that, and there was a a lot of fanfare of people against it. After which the a number of counselors said wait till the next election see what happens. Well we did and we saw what happened. Many of the people who were causing or were voting for this were gone and many of the people that are support are supporting the thing are gone and many who are against it are on council now. I really hope that the people in council who are for it, because you do represent the majority, still stick to your guns because As I heard in an earlier correspondence today, there's a certain trust that people put in people to abide by what they say they're going to do, and I believe they should. And so that's point number one. The other point I want to raise deals with that of not so much city council, but the people in the planning department from the administration side. We've had meetings called where they say they want us to get into a one of the various um uh meeting places or auditoriums or whatever down in the in the uh either at our Mount Royal facility or the one down the uh down the hill. And they want to tell us, they want to look for our input and how we think things should be uh how the how we can make this better for everybody in the city. They're not interested in input. You get down there and they simply dictate this and they simply tell us what they want to do. They're not interested in hearing what you have to say. Point number two is that they They now, or they've, as you know, with the Banff Trail issue, uh they actually changed the re the designation of the particular area under question so that you couldn't build a single family home there. It all had to be multifamily. Moreover, they go around in our particular area, not that it's all about us here in Mount Royal, but the thing they've gone down and said, Look, we're going to change the designation of one particular property to direct control because we don't want to have to deal with the issue of restrictive covenants, even though we've had one in place here for 110 years. So the problem is if you're going to try and make changes, it's best done with a stick and or with a carrot and not a stick and work with people because anybody will entertain things. But I don't believe that uh that the way that the planning people are working are necessarily in our best interest. They're self serving. The last point, of course, is when they make announcements that I believe council should be making, or in particular the mayor. when they suggest that the city is um going to lose their federal grants if we don't go ahead and repeal the law or rather carry on with the law and not repeal it and or the bylaw rather. So again um a little bit like the the uh the tail wagging the dog it's it's it's inappropriate and it needs to be brought into focus. So in summary I'm not totally against doing stuff in a limited basis, but I don't think we need to destroy any neighborhood and and of course in particular neighborhoods that have um historic value. But that that's selfish and I don't need to make it all about our area, but in areas in general. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 61 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31117.525, "end": 31124.585, "text": "Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go to 82 with Bonnie, then 83, John, after that. Please go ahead, Bonnie.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_66", "start": 31126.085, "end": 31361.765, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Parkas. Uh apologies, I'm full of head cold, so I'm pretty nasally. My name is Bonnie Petrovic. I live in Ward 4. I'm in favor of repealing blanket rezoning without amendment and requesting a return prior. I'm not a subject matter expert. I am, however, a long time proud property owner of what has seemingly become the targeted family bungalow. I raised my daughter in this home. And I'm and and I am age able to age in place, yet as time passes, I feel this is not your plan for me. There were many common themes across the presenters this week I would like to highlight. Just four themes in the closing hours of this hearing. Number one, caring. I'm on panel 82. Uh every single individual that came before me made the time, had the energy to do this again, or could navigate your system to get themselves on the presenter's list. All with passion, articulate, and meaningful dialogues. That is impactful caring across all. A characteristic of this city that I moved to in 1983 that hasn't disappointed me. Number two, affordability. As identified in the 2024 plan, was not a result of this specific bylaw. Non market housing on the scale required to make an impact in our city was never realized at the same rate as Tower Plexes for profit. You know it. There needs to be more work done on that side of this. Whatever it looks like. Um, and that's been that's resounding. That's not just a Calgary problem, that's a Canada wide problem. Number three, trust. I believe the most important theme of the week, a word to keep circling the wagon again and again. The people of Calgary are counting on you to follow through on this repeal. No smoke and mirrors, rather action to pledge. Personally, as the week progressed, I struggled with whether or not to be Uh whether or not being present at this proceeding would be meaningful. I feel more than if you felt the same in their absences as their names were called. And as I watched the news last week to hear a few of you speak to your interests to revisions, revisions not openly communicated before this hearing and not repealing as pledged in the election, my heart sank. There is more on the table here than mid block development folks. I made a deliberate decision to buy the home I'm in 42 years ago because of a certain set of rules and restrictions. I trusted that contract was binding. I have found the past two years extremely stressful every time I see a for sale sign. I never used to worry about coming home. And now I have lost trust that you are true stewards of the communities that you represent. I was trusting in you to follow through on the election position. You have been given a chance to reset the bar, yet I can clearly see and hear this is not the shared objective by all. And finally, number four, density. You've heard it from Calgarians. We are aligned on the need for density, just not your approach. I heard over and over increases to density need to be strategic, balanced, thoughtful, and deliberate, respecting the unique qualities of each community. And I appreciate the city's operating budget is based on ratepayers, and you need more of them, but you each know there are other ways to achieve this. Changes to the TOD, encouraging enhanced commercial residential bills on the TOD and commuter arteries, like the recent co op number two on 16th Avenue, as an example. In closing, I think most politicians would be concerned about the message from the people impacted and say, what I am doing is clearly not resonating with my stakeholders. So it's time to do something else. It's why we are all here. I urge you to repeal without amendment, pause, and come back. Together, we are stronger and we can do much better for Calgary. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 47 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31363.265, "end": 31368.005, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to John next, please. And then Mark after that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 31369.165, "end": 31436.825, "text": "Thank you. I believe there's some visual aids. I'm not sure if they're available, but you can just keep cycling through them as I present. My name is uh John Williams. I'm panel 83, I'm a Ward 4 resident. Uh Mayor Farkas and Council, thank you for the opportunity to present. It's very important that we participate in our democracy, and I appreciate having the opportunity to do so. I am uh a born and raised Calgarian. I'm very proud of Calgary as a city and I believe in constant improvement. I'd have to say we haven't seen constant improvement in the last few years, and we need to do better. Before I start, I took exception to the mandatory endorsement statement as a condition of participating in this statutory public hearing. This requirement is constitutionally vulnerable, legally questionable, inconsistent with democratic norms. I'm optimistic with our new mayor and council. We have 10 new members, and I uh I feel much, much more comfortable with what we uh are moving forward with today compared to what we were left with before. This is a massive improvement. Over our former two mayors.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31437.945, "end": 31454.205, "text": "I'm just gonna jump in and ask that I've been asking presenters to really just stay focused on the policy, not go after any individuals. Let's just get to the merits of the the blanket rezoning repeal as proposed rather than bring in commentary on identified individual individuals, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 31454.405, "end": 31715.745, "text": "Fair enough. I hope to see this council take full control of this oversized administration and to see that the tail no longer wags the tail, the dog. You guys are in control. Own it. Do it for your uh your fellow Calgarians and let's do it right. We can't be bowing to the federal government in Ottawa either. That was a disaster. Don't let them dictate what happens in our city because Ottawa sure as tech doesn't know what Calgary needs. Now on to blanket up zoning. This is not just a simple planning issue. This is about democracy, ethics, integrity, and the future of Calgary. You've inherited a decision, probably the worst decision in the history of this council. A decision that was imposed, not earned, a decision that went directly against what Calgarians clearly and overwhelmingly said. Today is your opportunity to consider fixing it. This was a democratic failure. Let's be very clear about the public record. The first hearing, which I participated in, had over 100 hours of in person presentations, over 730 speakers presented in person. Roughly 65 to 70 percent of those people were clearly opposed. Nearly 90% of written submissions were opposed as well. That was not a divided public, it was overwhelmingly opposition. Yet the policy was approved anyway. Why? This is unacceptable. That's not how democracy works. This is a complete disregard for Calgary taxpayers. Public hearings are not a box to check. They're meant to mean something. This was a slap in the face to Calgarians. Let's look at some of the core principles. It's not about growth. Calgarians support growth and reasonable growth. This is about how growth is forced onto communities. This policy removed the voice of communities and citizens. It removed future hearings. It removed meaningful input. It replaced participation with pre approval. And that is a fundamental shift away from democratic planning. Good planning is careful. We actually had it. That's why we have the Calgary we have. It was destroyed by blanket up zoning. It's contextual. It represents neighborhoods, history, culture, and community. Blanket up zoning does none of that. It destroys all of the above. It applies one rule across the entire city, and we know that doesn't work, regardless of infrastructure, regardless of character, regardless of impact. This is not planning. This is uncontrolled deregulation. Let's look at the infrastructure reality. Our infrastructure has already strained. Problems have intensified exponentially with negligence on the care of our feeder main and water mains. No inspections, no maintenance. We have seen a catastrophic failure of this feeder main. We can't afford any more messes like this several times. The electricity grid. If we want to put charging stations for vehicles and more houses, the grid cannot handle this. Who's going to pay for this? Parking or the complete lack thereof. Calgarians have more cars per capita than most cities in North America. That's not going to change anytime soon. No climate emergency hoax or ridiculous climate policy will ever change that. Calgarians are the way they are. Traffic congestion, pressure on services, roads destroyed with all the installation of deep services. I invite you to come for a ride down my road in Winston Heights. And if the wheels stay on your car, I'd be pretty impressed because it's pretty bad. And this is becoming quite prolific. Somebody's got to pay for all that. The policy accelerates density everywhere with no guarantees of upgrades. The infrastructure system to support that growth is not necessarily going to be there. The cost will fall on the taxpayers. Let's look at the community impact. Look what's actually happening on the ground. Homes are being replaced, not with family housing, but with density at all costs. Two homes become four, four become six, six become eight, and eight become twelve. And what do we lose? We lose the fabric of our very city that makes Calgary one of the best places to live in this world. Let's not change this. The fabric that makes Calgary the most livable city in the world is what we had. It was the concise and clear and delicate planning that we built this city that we're proud of. And trees.", "segments_merged": 32 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31715.745, "end": 31719.205, "text": "Thanks, John. You're just at time. Maybe a final sentence to conclude your thoughts.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 31719.205, "end": 31739.145, "text": "And I've got a couple of solutions to offer somebody who wants to offer. So look, it's on you guys to fix this. And let's rebuild the trust. We can tear this down, we can rebuild it with a lot further, you know, involvement with the community. And let's do it right. There's no one stop fix, but let's do it properly.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31740.285, "end": 31747.165, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go next to Mark on 84, then Cornelia after that, please. Please go ahead, Mark.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 31748.425, "end": 32033.505, "text": "Thank you. Good evening, your worship, and members of council. My name is Mark Otlieb, and I am advocating on behalf of my wife and myself. Thank you for bringing this issue to the fore so quickly. We strongly support the full repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw without amendment. My wife and I have lived in Valley Ridge for more than 25 years. We, like most home buyers and renters, bought our home, our forever home, not only because of the house, but the community, its character, location, and beauty. I doubt that we would have bought the house if it was located elsewhere, much less in a hodgepodge of less than thoughtful development. Our homes and communities are the most fundamental and profoundly important investments most of us will make in our lives. In light of the major land use and social policy changes brought about by the bylaw, it should not have been considered in the absence of a binding referendum, if permitted by the province, or if not, a plebiscite. Instead, with the inducement of $244 million from the federal government, previous council passed the bylaw in defiance of a significant visible and vocal majority of Calgarians. That is not democracy. A lack of due diligence and good judgment have marked previous councils from the Green Line to persistent water feeder main problems to blanket rezoning which the last council should have foreseen would end up here not even two years later. About five years ago, our then neighbor applied for a development permit to build a backyard suite consisting of a double car garage with living quarters on top. Our street was zoned RC2. In our view, and the view of many of our neighbors, the development would have degraded the character and functionality of our street. It also would have set a terrible precedent. We opposed the application. I don't believe any of our neighbors supported it. I was one of the people spearheading the opposition. The city's planning department was very respectful in our dealings. It listened to our concerns, it gave us due process. Ultimately, it denied the application. From what I've heard during this meeting, due process seems to be missing in the application of the blanket rezoning bylaw. Had my neighbor's application been made today, I suspect, to my chagrin, it may have had a greater chance of success. My research suggests that Calgary's population is expanding by 60 to 90,000 people a year, and for prices to come down, we must build 30 to 50,000 units a year. In typical years, we build 12 to 18,000 units annually. There are two roadblocks to increasing our annual build of residential units. In 2025, Calgary had about 5,300 job vacancies in trades-related occupations. That's almost one in four job openings. Labor shortages remain one of the biggest constraints on construction. The other problem is that we live in a capitalist society. Governments should have capped the price of residential units a long time ago. Without price control, we have supply, demand, cost, profit, and greed. My wife and I bought an apartment condominium in Glenbrook in 1978 for $40,000. A friend just sold her plain Jane Half Duplex in Mount Pleasant for $735,000. My understanding is that a brand new fourplex also often sells for between $400,000 and $500,000. Hardly affordable for many. Dotting the landscape with scramble development and the attendant problems of structure, aesthetics, and function is not the answer. My research has revealed that we have a restrictive covenant register on title to our property and other properties on our street that only allows one single detached home. The bylaw seeks to vitiate the restrictive covenant. I echo panel 25's Brian Weatherall's comment about the promise that had been broken by the passage of a bylaw. As restrictive covenants run with the land, if a development application was made to build multifamily dwellings on a single lot on my street against which the covenant on my property has been registered, I would help organize a joint or class action for an injunction to prohibit the build and for damages. I think this is already being done in some Calgary communities. Thank you very kindly for me for permitting me to speak today. We respectfully ask Council to restore our trust in this government by repealing the bylaw and by not advancing the proposed amendments, which in sum don't mitigate our concerns. Thank you once again. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32034.645, "end": 32036.745, "text": "Thank you so much. Uh we will go now.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_80", "start": 32036.745, "end": 32039.865, "text": "I was panelee before, but missed calling in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32041.705, "end": 32055.185, "text": "We will conclude this panel and we'll see if we have uh time before the 9 30 uh hard stop. I apologize. We are procedure bylaw calls for us to end our proceedings at 9 30. We will go now to Cornelia, please, on 84.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_75", "start": 32057.525, "end": 32260.905, "text": "Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Cornelia Weeb. I live in Ward 8, and I am speaking today in support of repealing blanket rezoning, no amendments, full repeal. I want to start by sharing why I'm speaking today. I ran as a municipal candidate in the last election. Here in Calgary, and while I'm no longer on the ballot, I feel a continued responsibility to represent and share the voices of the residents I spoke with, specifically in Ward 8, the majority of whom supported candidates like me, whose platform priority was to repeal the blanket rezoning bylaw. I believe those voices deserve to be heard in this conversation. Over the course of the campaign, I had the privilege of speaking with thousands of residents. The number one identified priority was to repeal blanket rezoning. What I heard repeatedly from Ward 8 residents was not opposition to change, but concern about how this change was being implemented. Blanket Rezoning introduced a one size fits all approach across communities that varies significantly. Each neighborhood has its own context, its own infrastructure, character, and with that, residents who have made long term investments there. Residents highlighted they felt the engagement process lacked meaningful consultation. There was a sense that decisions were being made to communities rather than with them. That disconnect has real consequences, not just for planning outcomes, but for trust in local government. We can do better. And more importantly, we can rebuild trust. Because at the end of the day, this is not just about zoning. It is about governance. It's about whether residents feel heard, respected, and included in decisions that shape their daily lives. When the majority of Ward 8 voters supported candidates who prioritized repealing this bylaw, that is not something we can overlook. It is a clear, democratic signal. It tells us that the mandate of voters is to repeal blanket rezoning. As someone who ran for office, I take that seriously, and that's why I'm speaking today. To carry forward the voices of those Ward 8 residents who made it clear through their participation and their votes that repealing the blanket rezoning bylaw was priority number one. Their engagement did not end on Election Day, and neither should the consideration of the issue they rallied around. In closing, I ask that this council take the first step towards rebuilding trust with Calgarians and fully repeal the blanket rezoning bylaw. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 34 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32261.985, "end": 32265.445, "text": "Thank you. We'll go now to round off the panel 85, Darren, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_81", "start": 32267.325, "end": 32581.365, "text": "Hi, thank you, your worship. My name is Dar Darren Pelanski. I'm a registered architect. And I've worked in the residential sector here in Calgary for, I guess, uh just about 18 years. Um, I'm a resident of Ward 6. Uh, I oppose repealing blanket rezoning. Uh, until there is a uh clear path forward with a plan to ensure development that can keep pace with growth. And address the public concerns about quality, I believe it should remain in place. Just kind of at the risk of going off my script here, I just kind of want to make a comment. I've been I've been listening to a lot of uh commentary over the past week, and there's kind of a common uh theme that's popping up from the public, and that's that's a concern about quality and quality about the built form. And I think what's missing from this process is uh Is essentially that is a discussion, not a discussion, but a framework about the build form, the quality, and what the what actually is built on site in relation to its massing. And you know, I believe the architects at Old Workshop earlier today did a very good job articulating how a framework could be set in place to mitigate some of the concerns that the public might have about established neighborhoods and densification. Back to my script. I'm currently working on a research project between the relationship between housing and access to transit in suburban areas. And I think there's some clear connections between that and this discussion about growth in established communities. Like every zoning allows incremental context sensitive densification in established communities. It does not guarantee affordability, but enables more housing choice and supply, which we need. It helps us use infrastructure we've already paid for. Roads, utilities, amenities, and schools, rather than expanding outward and building new. Many established neighborhoods have underutilized infrastructure, especially roads built for higher volumes than they carry today, schools facing declining or aging populations. I recently defended an SDAB case in the established community of Cambury Heights or a semi detached home with lower suites. This project undertook public engagement process with the community association, and the owner had discussions with the neighbors. You know, there was discussion earlier about engagement would suggestively eliminate the need for SDAB or somehow would would reduce the pressure on that process, but despite engagement and communication with the neighbor, they simply just didn't want something built next to them. So in the end, they ended up appealing it. There was concern from these neighbors about single family character of the neighborhood. Even though the neighborhood had multifamily in it since the 50s. There's actually essentially just a general misunderstanding of what RSCG actually allows, and some claimed high density developments would spread throughout the community. When in fact we were just proposing a low density semi detach with some sweets. An individual who simply wanted to provide units for his extended family while still living in his home. Today, 76% of Calgarians live in autocentric suburbs. That's 1.4 million people and about 480,000 dwelling units in the autocentric suburbs. 10 years from now, we could grow to 1.6 million people and 820,000 dwelling units in an autocentric in the autocentric neighborhood. Also, today 78% of workers commute by car. That's 680,000 vehicles, but in 10 years that could grow to 840,000 vehicles. We cannot stop or slow suburban growth, however. We can reduce the onus placed on new road construction and life cycle maintenance by allowing densification in our established neighborhood. Calgary is already planning tens of billions of dollars in new suburban infrastructure over time. 20 billion is allotted for new neighborhoods. That does not include life cycle maintenance, and this money is paid by all Calgaryans through taxation. Robots is coming either way at our current rate. 400,000 more people are predicted to arrive in Calgary in the next 10 years. That's roughly 150,000 new homes needed, and 110,000 of those will be in the auto-centric suburbs. The question isn't not if we grow, it's where and how we efficient and how efficiently we grow. Not everyone can or should live in an established neighborhood, but stopping gentle density pushes more growth outward, increases the cost, traffic, and infrastructure burden that everyone pays for. We should allow balanced development across the entire city. If council chooses to repeal, it must replace with something meaningful. Faster, more predictable land use approvals, uh dwellings and permitted use, um uh you know, looking at parking requirements again, and a more focused development permit appealing. Thank you, sir. You're you're just a time, but", "segments_merged": 63 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32581.365, "end": 32583.705, "text": "Perhaps a final sentence to conclude your thoughts.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_81", "start": 32585.045, "end": 32599.245, "text": "uh perfect. I think um that's you know what, that's fine. I just encourage council to take your time, study the impacts carefully, and fully understand the interconnectedness between housing and infrastructure, traffic improvement, and financial responsibility. Thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32602.265, "end": 32607.905, "text": "All right. There was somebody who spoke up on panel 84, but we had missed them. What's your name?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_80", "start": 32609.625, "end": 32611.165, "text": "Yes, it's Clint Shirker.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32611.625, "end": 32629.305, "text": "Okay, Clint, uh just one moment, please. Uh colleagues, we are at our stop time. Uh is there anyone who is willing to propose a motion to suspend? Is Madam Clerk is a suspension of the procedure bylaw to allow us to conclude this panel?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 32629.765, "end": 32640.165, "text": "It's to modify the time of recess to commence at the conclusion of either this panel or a new panel or whichever council would like to do.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32640.405, "end": 32668.645, "text": "Okay, colleagues, uh I suggest that uh we push a couple minutes late tonight to allow us to hear from Clint and to finalize the questions uh from counsel for the panel. So if you vote yes to this, we will continue for I'm guessing 15 to 20 minutes more. Uh if you vote no to this, then the uh we will sort of end our proceedings uh right here. This motion, I believe, requires a two-thirds vote in order to pass.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 32668.745, "end": 32669.365, "text": "That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32669.425, "end": 32687.865, "text": "So this is on the screen. Is there any of you who would like to move this motion? This is moved by Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Chabot. Uh on this, uh Councillor Johnston, you have a request to speak?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 32690.345, "end": 32696.245, "text": "Sorry, I'm just checking the schedule for tomorrow. We have uh regular council at 9 30 tomorrow, right?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32696.545, "end": 32697.225, "text": "That's right, yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 32699.225, "end": 32708.305, "text": "Yeah, I'm gonna say let's finish this sooner than later tonight, but because we have to be back tomorrow morning early. So", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32708.805, "end": 32749.025, "text": "Okay. All right, uh the motion's on the floor, Council uh Let's uh push through and accommodate uh one more. I'd urge you to support this, but obviously you don't have to. Uh Are we okay? I'm gonna do a voice vote. You probably guys everyone doesn't have east cry vote. Uh are we all in favor? Any opposed? Councillor McLean is opposed. And that motion is carried. So uh Clint, it's your lucky day, my friends. We've made a very rare exception for you, sir. So make make your time count. You got five minutes. Although that's a limit, I'll say.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_80", "start": 32750.665, "end": 32883.625, "text": "This should just be a couple minutes. My name is Clint Shirker. I represent myself. I support repealing the blanket rezoning. I'm gonna start by reading what I presented in April 2024. I'm a 50 year resident of Calgary and 32 year resident of the community of Lake Bonavista in Ward 14. I attended Calctor Damon's April 9th open house at the Lake Bonavista Community Center, where he faced great opposition to the blanket rezoning from the attendees. I'm here in an attempt to persuade other couchers to vote no to the proposed blanket rezoning. I lived in Lake Bonavista in my teens and early 20s before moving away from my parents' home. I've lived in apartments and starter homes in other communities, and when the time came to be more established, I chose to return to Lake Bonavista and it's our one single family dwelling zoning. If I wanted to live in a community with condominiums, rural houses, and multiple family dwellings, I would have bought a house in such an area. I paid a premium to buy in Lake Bonavista, which was historically zoned as R1, but was somehow changed to RC1 in the 2010s, which I'm kind of okay with. I'm deeply opposed to blanket rezoning to RCG, and especially deeply opposed to rezoning my community to RCG. As an ex technician, this all reminds me of something that works in theory but fails in practical application. The group has come up with a plan that works in theory, but failed to take into consideration the extreme changes it is making to historically R1 communities. Please vote no on blanket rezoning. So that's what I said in 2024. However, after 736 speakers with 458 against blanket rezoning, 224 for blanket rezoning, and 51 neutral, the city council voted 96 to pass blanket rezoning. This left many people scratching their heads, but fortunately the present council is readdressing the blanket rezoning. I'm now a 52 year resident of Calgary, 34 year resident of Lake Bonavista, and still deeply opposed to blanket rezoning of RCG. Please repeal the decision on this point made by the previous council. That's all I had. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32884.785, "end": 32891.905, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll go to questions from council members. I think Deputy Mayor, your first second.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 32892.325, "end": 32931.905, "text": "Yes, I I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the speakers. It's not a question. I just wanted to note that we have been indicating to speakers that attacks on individuals or previous counsels is not appropriate. There were some other examples of this in the last panel of accusing administration of you know things bordering on corruption or criminal activities. And I just think that we need to call that out as well because that's not appropriate. Administration acts. on the direction of council and they do the work that they're directed to do and those aspersions don't contribute towards making a decision on this policy.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32933.045, "end": 32937.265, "text": "Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm going to consider that a point of privilege and well taken.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 32937.925, "end": 32939.425, "text": "Okay, I have a point of privilege as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32939.425, "end": 32942.265, "text": "Over to okay, Councillor Johnson on point of privilege.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 32942.265, "end": 32973.285, "text": "Yeah, this is uh the rawest form of democracy, and I feel people should have a right to come and express themselves. Um I don't think I've heard anything outrageous. Um and it's up to the chair to determine if it's out of line or not. Um and so at this point I haven't heard anything up until this point, and I encourage uh members, but again, it's up to the chair, but Uh, we're all adults here. We can handle their freedom of expression to come here and uh yeah, I at this point I haven't heard anything egregious, so", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 32977.045, "end": 32991.765, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Johnson, I'll just note that we don't really have a point of rebuttal or the opportunity. If you feel a rule has been broken, please use point of order. If you feel the the rights of the body or your you individually have been violated, please use point of privilege. I'll go over to Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 32994.425, "end": 32996.325, "text": "Thank you, worship. Mr. Williams.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "Public Speaker", "start": 32997.725, "end": 32998.085, "text": "Yes sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 32998.425, "end": 33018.705, "text": "Hey, neighbor. Hello, neighbor. How's it going? Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to note the fact that you ran out of time just as you were getting to your recommendations, which I'm assuming is kind of the most important part. So I'd like to uh I'm wondering if you would be willing to share with us uh your recommendations, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 33018.805, "end": 33320.245, "text": "Absolutely happy to do that. Um, you know, and this is uh comes from a conversation I had with Mr. Shane Wenzel, a good friend of mine, and a former mayor, gentleman before the last lady, so we'll be uh fair here, has essentially, from what I understand, created a policy that adds $90,000 per door for construction. Now, how does that make Houses affordable. So there's a way we can do that. And I have uh a note from Mr. Wenz on what we can do and do better to remove that cost. But when it comes to solutions, you know, there's there's a few things. Densification has become a failed one-size-fits-all ideological solution. But there's lots of different options. We got lots of land in Calgary. So let's use it effectively and let's be calculated in where we densify, because it doesn't just fit anywhere. So what about uh the city taking some land? And I know they're gonna do this when they uh took over midfield years ago, which still sits there empty. And perhaps um Have some land you can lease to people so they can bring in modular homes and they can have a place for their family with a yard and it's affordable because you take that land acquisition cost out of it. And there's also the opportunity to do some well thought out and well-planned container home villages. They're ideal for singles and couples and people that are currently homeless, and and everybody always has this NIMBY. We don't want affordable housing in my neighborhood. Well, where do we put it? So greenfield development makes sense where we can build the um appropriate infrastructure around there, have transit, and get these people to to work and do this thing efficiently. Because I think over, I think in Northeast, I can't remember where it is, um, I think the lions have some little houses there. And I can't remember what neighborhood that is, and and I think uh Harrison might be in your area. Like, why are we not doing more of that? You know, it uh people may not want it in their backyard, but it's a great opportunity. We've seen on uh YouTube and TikTok and all these things, these container homes, and we can move these things in quickly and people can build them up quite affordable, and uh they can be actually quite temporary as well. So there's an option there. And the other thing is why does Calgary have to grow? We're a unique city, I believe we're probably one of the largest in areas in North America as one physical entity or corporation, and so the cost of keeping going out, out, out. is astronomical, yes, but it's also not reasonable to densify just anywhere and everywhere. So, what about building a sister city? You know, we could take Chestermere Lake and we could extend it and make a giant lake going further north. Having a lake there would actually create a microclimate that would actually do something to fix the hail problems in Northeast, potentially. But building a sister city could be another great option. And there's lots of opportunity there, there's lots of land. And you know, pre-planning towns and satellite communities is not that hard. And we can always bring in transportation from their buses and that sort of thing. There's lots and lots of opportunities, but we've got to start thinking outside of the box instead of just jamming things in there because we're not New York and we're not Toronto, we're not Vancouver, and we don't want to be. That's why we're in Calgary. That's why we are that one of the best cities in the world to live, because we have family spaces. We have backyards and front yards where people can actually spend time congregating and getting to know their neighbors. When you meet on the sidewalk, it just doesn't work. And building community is something that's very important to the fabric in Calgary because I remember the days you could leave your doors open and everybody was everybody knew everybody in the block and we gotta bring that back. And the uh the outright blanket up zoning is hindering that process by jamming in Density at all costs. And let's do better. Let's make Calgary stronger. Let's think outside of the box. Let's look at some of these smaller homes. Let's look at some of these trailer parks. You know, what tell me what's going on with Midfield? It's still sitting there empty today. We had to move these people out in a hurry and uproot these people, and they were homeless. And it's been sitting there for what, 10 years now? It's insane. So I just urge council to think outside of the box, and it's it's a relief to see we have a council that's willing to listen and work towards solutions. But remember, this didn't come as a result of democracy. It was jammed down our throat as Calgarians because it was overwhelmingly obvious people didn't want it. We can tear it down, start again. Doesn't mean we're stuck with R1, R2 forever going forward. But let's be mindful. Let's be neighborly. Let's do what works for every specific community. You got all the people in the world willing to participate. This is great. This is what I love about Calgary. They're the first ones to volunteer and get involved and to make a difference. Let's involve them and let's rebuild this and let's make it bigger, better, and greater without sounding like Donald Trump here. But like I know we can do much greater and we can make Calgary much better. But at what expense? Let's not do it at the expense of community. Let's not do it at the expense of family. Let's just do it right.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 33320.645, "end": 33340.325, "text": "Thank you very much for the ideas, Mr. Mr. Williams. Really, really appreciate it. Happy to connect with you offline. Happy to give you an update in terms of Midfield Park and exactly where it's at and what I've learned since taking this over. You mentioned that you had a letter there from Mr. Wenzel. Happy for you to send it over to my office, but uh did you want it entered into the corporate record?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 33340.565, "end": 33360.665, "text": "You know what? What I'll do is I'll commit to just putting it onto paper and I'll send it to every Councillor's office and to the mayor's office just so they have it, because obviously if there's something the city can do better, obviously there's a fiduciary responsibility because we want to lower our cost of housing in this city, and uh that's one thing we can probably do is create more efficiencies.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 33360.865, "end": 33363.305, "text": "Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. That's it for me, Rishi.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 33363.825, "end": 33373.405, "text": "All right. Councillor no. Madam Clerk, would you be willing to recap what we've done with ourselves over the last six days?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 33373.885, "end": 33390.965, "text": "I'd love to, Mayor Farkas. So all the way up until 9 30 tonight, council has heard from 64 members of the public. Sorry, today. Today council has heard 64 members of the public, and altogether over the last couple of days, 351.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 33391.565, "end": 33396.725, "text": "Do you have a sense of how many outstanding registered speakers that uh we haven't heard from? Approximately 200.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 33396.945, "end": 33404.985, "text": "Uh close to 200, Mayor Farkas, but um registrations have also been trickling in this evening, so those aren't completely unaccounted for yet.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 33405.185, "end": 33409.645, "text": "And uh our schedule is tomorrow with a pretty loaded regular meeting. And", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 33409.925, "end": 33421.425, "text": "Tomorrow's agenda for the regular meeting of council is quite extensive. There's 27 items on the consent agenda, I believe, a number of notices of motions as well as a number of committee reports. It's a", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 33421.425, "end": 33424.585, "text": "Wednesday, I believe, pretty similarly with the Community Development Committee.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 33424.745, "end": 33430.705, "text": "that's correct. Wednesday is the community development committee, and there's some large items on that agenda as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 33431.525, "end": 33468.025, "text": "Based on that, uh, Council Kelly, are you willing to move uh the appropriate motion for us to resume our public hearing on Thursday at 9 30 a.m.? And that'll be a recess of this meeting. All right. That is uh up on the screen, seconded by Councillor Pantasopolis. Uh all in favor? Any opposed? No one is opposed. That uh councillor Shabot is opposed. All right, Councillor is Shabot is opposed, and that motion is carried. Uh I will see you on Thursday for this meeting, and I will see you tomorrow for the other meeting.", "segments_merged": 7 } ], "full_text": "So, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll. Councillor Ewall. Here. Councillor Atkinson. Councillor Chabot. Present. Councillor Clark. Present. Councillor Dollywall. Councillor Jameson. Councillor Johnston. Here. Councillor Kelly. Councillor Mc Councillor McLean. Here. Councillor Pantozopoulos. Councillor Schmidt. Councillor Tyres. Councillor Ward. Councillor Wyness. Councillor Jameson coming back to you. Thank you. And Mayor Farkas. I am here. Thank you. Let's just check in here, just from a process standpoint. Madam Clerk, do you have an estimate of how many registered speakers that we have that have not had an opportunity to speak yet? And do you have a sense of how many new uh registrants over the weekend? Yes, thank you for the question, Mayor Farkas. So up until this morning at approximately 9 30, we have a total of 526 registered speakers. Council has already heard from 287, meaning that we have 239 registered speakers with the city clerk's office that have not had an opportunity to speak with. Over the weekend, we did receive enough registrations that we opened up new panels. So panels 105, 106, and 107 were established over the weekend and this morning. Okay, great. Uh I've also been asked uh by members of council to make two uh separate rulings. The the first one is whether or not we are to continue the public hearing and whether we can prematurely close the public hearing. And get to debate without further delay. My ruling is no, we cannot close the public hearing at this time. As long as there's people that are in the chamber on the line and able to speak, we need to consent continue the public hearing. So we don't have the legal ability to close the public hearing prior to having heard from all of the folks who are on hand. And uh the nuance there, however, is if you had registered to speak but you're not here in person or on the line, you're not deemed uh uh Rather we will not wait. Uh for example, if we run out of people who are in the pr here in person or on the phone line, even if uh you're registered, uh we will not continue the public hearing until we've heard from all the registered folks. So you have to be here in person or on the line in order to participate in the public hearing. Councillor Chabot? Yeah, just on a point of procedure, this legislation by which you're making a ruling on, can you cite that? Yeah, it's uh in under the Municipal Government Act, it sets out uh some of the prescribed provisions for especially specifically land use items as it pertains to this. So My ruling is no, we do not have the ability to close that public hearing. The second ruling that I've been asked to make is whether it is possible to set a certain point by which uh counsel can uh say that if as long as you're registered by this point, we'll continue the public hearing. In essence, uh the the request was could we say that we're gonna hear from everyone registered at this moment, and as long and we'll continue as long as that. And the same thing uh applies is even if you're not registered to speak, if you were to simply Walk into the council chamber or at the very last minute register. Procedural fairness calls for the uh for the fundamental that we need to continue to hear from you. So we'll continue to accept registrations, is what I'm saying. So that's my ruling on those two questions. Uh secondarily, uh I have agreed uh to a rep to representatives from Kreb to allow for a panel against. Uh rather a panel in support of the repeal of blanket rezoning to to commence on 1 p.m. Uh as a courtesy I will allow for a panel uh fully of those uh wishing to uh support uh or rather. I've committed at 1 p.m. that's it's kind of convoluted the for and against given the repeal, but uh I'll repeat again. Uh so at 1 p.m. I have committed to Kreb to allow for a panel speaking in favor of the repeal. And following that, I will also allow for a panel uh speaking against the repeal, just for fairness. Uh we've allowed the latitude for that uh organization. So That said, we're gonna jump into continuing our public hearing. It's we're gonna begin with calling uh alternating between panels of those who have not yet been called and those who have been called. So our first panel will be uh from panels 95 onwards. I'll keep reading names until we have five people, and then following that panel, we'll go back to calling names that had been spoke had been called previously, and then we're gonna alternate back and forth that way for uh fairness' sake. So Let's begin assembling our first panel. So do we have Alex Williams with us? 195. Bryce Williams? Okay, come on down, Bryce. Andrew Thomas? Nope. Spencer Howard? Okay. Unfortunately, I'm not able to speak to you like this in the chamber. What I'll ask is if you could communicate with the clerks what your request is, and I'll do my best to accommodate. At this point, we're calling names from 95 onwards. And this panel will be assembled that way. And then we're gonna alternate back to uh folks whose uh names have been previously called. Alright, uh is there Andrew Thomas with us? Spencer Howard? Okay, come on up, Spencer. Do we have Gunter Samet? Is that you, Gunter? Sorry, the gentleman walking over. Is that uh you Gunter? No. Alright, next on 96, do we have Sarah Elder, Ruben van der Muelen, Debbie Todd? Sir, was that you, Ruben? No. Do we have Tim Clotson? Tim Clotten on the line. Great, thank you, Tim. You'll be our final panelist here. Alright, so we have Alex Bryce Spencer. Gunter Tim. Start us off, Alex. Thank you so much for being here. You have five minutes. I'll note the the there's colors that'll change in the chamber here. When it hits red, uh you're out of time. Hello, Council. I'm Alex Williams, and although I have a lot of other things I'd like to speak to around this hearing, housing, and the proposed repeal of the upzoning the city undertook two years ago, I'm here in my capacity as chair of Calgary Transit Riders, a member based nonprofit advocating for rider centric public transit in Calgary. I will be speaking specifically to the needs of transit riders and how this change and potential future changes might affect us for better or worse. We are against the proposed land use change and see a more flexible base zone like RCG as a critical component to providing quality transit to Calgarians. Transit riders are also disproportionately low income, meaning that while the housing crisis may seem to be over for some of us, it is still desperate for many. Remember, this crisis is decades in the making. Spending time commuting on our underfunded transit service, transit riders are often also unavailable for public hearings. So please, when making any decision as counsel, not just this one, but any decision, think to yourself. Who's missing? As a solution to our housing crisis, while supporting the repeal, many have proposed nodes and corridors, or upzoning via LAP, or, our favor, transit oriented development. To all of which I say yes and. So, what is a node? And is a neighborhood collector a corridor, or is that reserved for arterials? And what if it's a big node or a wide corridor? Do we get to build higher? Do we get to build denser? What if people still don't like that? Regardless of how all of that is decided, focusing only on nodes and corridors will not create the tax or population conditions we need for quality transit. And certainly it won't make it happen in the time frame in which it's needed. The city does not control the market. You can't decide what houses go for sale when. Just because you say something can be built on a corridor doesn't mean it will. Remember, RCG still permits uh single detached homes being built. If someone wants that, they can have that. Upzoning via LAP sounds great, but I rarely hear LAPs spoken of in a positive light. In fact, this hearing is the first time I've heard so many people talk about how much they think LAPs are great. I fear this suggestion is largely kicking the can down the road. Also, it's still mostly just nodes and corridors. And now TOD. We need more. I've been enjoying seeing development happen around Heritage Station, not far from my place. And what about the max lines? If we get their service up to their aspired to level, will they qualify? I certainly hope so. But TOD, as you've already seen, is not the ultimate solution. Remember, yes, end. Calgarians can't be easily divided into people who want to live in apartments and people who want to live in single-dached homes. Our needs change throughout our lives, and housing options ought to reflect that, ideally, within the neighborhoods where we already live, where we've already built community, where we have become part of that community character. We've already seen this council be quite supportive of transit. It'd be awesome. I'd give uh specific shout outs, but uh, since that's not allowed, I'll just say thank you to all of you here. So please take the whole picture into account. The city is a system of systems, as you've seen with dealing with the water main crisis. We at Calgary Transit Riders are looking forward to engaging with each of you at stations in your wards and introducing you to the Calgarians who rely on transit to get around the city. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Uh we'll call on Bryce next, please. And then Spencer after that. Good morning, Council. My name is Bryce Williams. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my future self. I know many young people who would love to be here but can't because they're working full time jobs, uh, saving for a home, which unfortunately tends to be so far off into the future they're not sure when that will even end up happening. Um Though I'm not speaking on their behalf, I know that many of my friends and other young people will definitely agree with me. During this public hearing, and also the last one, many have spoken about two different topics. One, the removal of beautiful large trees in their community, and two, big buildings going up next to them and blocking the sunlight. So I would like to take a minute and talk about the trees. There is a new development right across the street from Beaverbrook in the community that I live in, and most of the trees have actually stayed as well as those trees are also taller than the new builds, which Kind of defeats the argument against. As well as my neighbors, I have a uh a little garden in our backyard, and um the thing that blocks the sunlight from my garden are the trees from my from my one neighbors, and then um unfortunately, actually the garage in our backyard too. Um but uh My neighbor to the other side, they just removed their trees. I had no say in it, and that's totally fine. I can't tell my other neighbors to remove their trees because it blocks sunlight from my garden. I honestly don't think we should ever be allowed to tell our neighbors what to do with their property. It's their property, it's their choice, they own it. And it is something that, you know, when I own my own property, I want to be allowed to do what I want with it. I don't want to have to sit around waste council's time trying to decide on whether I'm not allowed to do something or I'm not allowed to do something just because I have a nosy neighbor that just is upset about what I want to do and just wants to uh poke at me. Um honestly, this world will be a lot better of a place if we just make each other cookies or strudel, bring it to each other, get to know one another, because I guarantee the people that will be moving into the new builds right next to Beaverbrook, they're one they're gonna be wonderful people. Um those builds aren't done yet, so I can't even bring them cookies or strudel. Um but you know what? Maybe I will, even though they live, it's probably a good five-minute walk from my house or so. Um but if we just get to know our neighbors, um I promise you it's they're not scary. Um, and there's no reason to repeal this because city council has more things on their uh on their to-do list where we need to stop wasting time trying to get through these public hearings and decide whether or not someone's allowed to upzone or not. Um if I'm not mistaken, I think the approval rate before the uh before the upzoning, the blanket upzoning, um, I think it was something around like 98% or so I've been told. Um and so it's kind of just, you know, just leave it, let's stop wasting everyone's time. Um but I think. Just remember make everyone's everyone some cookies and just be a friendly neighbor. Thanks. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go to Spencer, then Gunter after that. I have a slideshow to accompany my presentation. It's uh uh was emailed yesterday. It's called Fail to Engage. Is that available? Is it the one up on the screen here? Looks a lot like it. Yeah, second slide, please. Okay, we all set? Good. Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Spencer Howard. I'm a lifelong Calgarian. Um we're on slide two. Good. The b uh 2024 blanket rezoning decision can really only be seen as illegitimate. Can we go to the next slide three, please? Calgarians strongly and justifiably expect the city to engage us on important matters. Real engagement, though, where Calgarians are really listened to and compromise and change are made in response to legitimate concerns. Fortunately, the city has policies that strongly support these expectations. The overarching transparency and accountability policy, the engage policy, the engage administration framework, and the land use redesignation process. Next slide, four, please. Included in the many commitments for respectful engagement in the transparency policy is a commitment that states wherever possible, the city shall engage citizens. And the Engage policy states, the city makes its best efforts to reach, involve, and hear from those who are impacted directly. And finally, in the guiding principles of the Engage framework, it is noted that, quote, the city assigns a high priority to involving citizens early on and throughout the process. End quote. Next slide, five, please. I'm gonna skip over five actually. Let's go to six. Given the strong expectations of Calgarians of the profound impact of blanket rezoning, why was there never any real engagement with us? And why were there very few information sessions not held for more than a year after blanket rezoning was first identified as a possible recommendation by the task force in sharp contrast to the city's own clearly written policies? Slide seven, please. On May 4th, the city issues a news release about the task force recommendations, but fails to even mention blanket rezoning. Calgarians are in the dark regarding a recommendation that will profoundly impact them. At the July 4th council meeting, administration shockingly notes it will not engage with Calgarians, but promises more than once that the September 14th Community Development Meeting will be publicized as widely as possible. September 6th, the city issues a news release about the housing needs assessment report, but there is no mention of blanket rezoning or the upcoming September 14th meeting. Four months now have passed, and Calgarians remain in the dark. Slide eight, please. Despite having made its land use redesignation application, administration does not issue the required land use redesignation notification letters to impacted property owners. Not ever. The first critical step in the process just simply never happens, leaving most property owners completely in the dark. Four months then pass before the first contact with property owners is made. It consists of a postcard sent in mid-January that means very little to most Calgarians. Critically, that postcard fails to mention the upcoming information sessions. On January 29th, the city issues a news release about online and open house info sessions. The first of just two online sessions was held on the very same day. And the first of just six info sessions before the Planning Commission meeting was the next day, on January 30th. The only direct contact with the Calgaryans by administration was made with effectively no notification, and just six info sessions were held for over 300,000 property owners. As for the March 7 Planning Commission meeting, since the land use notification letters were never sent, most Calgarians still did not know about blanket rezoning, and so their right to provide input into the Commission is missed. On the first day of the rezoning hearing, administration informs Calgarians for the first time that the process being used is the standard land use redesignation application process. At the conclusion of a two and a half week long hearing, there was over 70% opposition. And yet the vote went through exactly the way it had been before. Slide nine, please. It's clear that administration was severely conflicted. It acted as the process manager of its own application and clearly performed very poorly. It consistently failed to inform, engage, and be transparent with Calgarians. It is the kind of behavior that leads to lawsuits by citizens against the city and councillors losing elections. Given the complete failure to follow the rules, the blanket rezoning approval must surely be seen as illegitimate. This council has an opportunity to send a strong message to administration and to all Calgarians that this city is serious about engagement and the behavior of administration was completely unacceptable. Please fix this wrong and completely repeal blanket rezoning. Thank you. Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go next to Gunter, please. I may have misheard. I assume that Gunter was with us. We'll go then to Tim to round off this panel, please. Uh Mayor Farkas, I'm just wondering if it's possible that I could come back later today. I've got important work with the Citizens Appeal panel today, and I wouldn't be able to answer questions if I remained here today. Can I come back later? Certainly, uh if you don't wish to speak now, uh there'll be further opportunities for previous names to be called. Thank you for your consideration. Okay, no problem. Uh Council, we'll uh we'll end this panel with just the three. Let's go on to uh questions. Councillor Johnson, please. Yeah, my question is for uh Bryce Williams, please. Sorry, you had mentioned uh allowing neighbors to build whatever they want on their property. Yep. There would you think there would be a limit? I mean, obviously yes, there would be a limit. Um I I think what we have presently is um a a great A good enough extent. Because I mean there's a there is a reason why we have like an industrial district and a separate area specifically for like apartment buildings and stuff. But you know, I I didn't get to say if my neighbor was allowed to cut down their trees or not. And you know, they can do that if they want, and that's totally fine. And so I like. I don't think that just as a nosy neighbor, we shouldn't be allowed to just tell someone that we don't want to let them build something there because we just don't like it. And you also mentioned um, you know, they want to keep trees on their lot, but they didn't want a house built next to. Um would you agree that there's a slight difference between a tree and a building? Certainly, there definitely is, um, 100%. I think that one of the like one of the points that I've heard this this hearing specifically is just talking about how the removal of trees remove um homes for um birds, squirrels, other animals. Um and I do know there was one person that mentioned how um the removal was went went terrible and uh damaged their neighbor's house. Um But if that tree was getting removed anyways, no one would be allowed to say anything about it, right? So that's kind of the the point on that where it's like if they just decide to remove the tree. They don't have to consult anyone. They can just remove the tree and if it does accidentally damage someone's house, like that is unfortunate, and there should there are there's a reason why we have insurance. Um But yeah, it the removal of trees has frankly nothing to do with RCG. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Now to Councillor Shabot, please. I think so. Start with Alex Williams. So Alex, you you talked a little bit about some of the things that you heard from others, and you say and, uh, but if we were to revert uh back to the original land use bylaw, that wouldn't prevent anyone from still applying to redesignate their properties. So it's not and it's not or in this case, it's it's process issue, I think is what you're arguing. Yeah, yeah, it would extend the process that we're undergoing, and as we've heard from people from Norfolk Housing and people from the Drop In Center in previous hearings, et cetera, it does impact people's ability to deliver affordable, accessible housing options to people. So processing time is one of the main drivers. It adds to the cost, right? I believe the number was $500 a day just to hold on to a property waiting for the you know the the uh land use change to go through. Yeah, we're not going to argue the $500 a day, that's pretty pretty far reaching, in my opinion, as far as claiming that it's costing $500 a day. But um not here to debate that, the numbers specifically. The um uh the other issue, I think it was more um Bryce that spoke to it. So I'm gonna ask Bryce a question. Thanks. Bryce? So Bryce, you You mentioned that there's a lot of folks, low-income folks, that couldn't come here because of other for whatever reasons are working. Um do you know what percentage of those folks who were uh maybe better, more to well to do that couldn't be here because of work? Well, I don't know if I could get really give you a percentage, but like I have a lot of my friends. I I work from home, so I'm I'm able to come here. Um, and technically speaking, I actually have a meeting in three minutes, but even if I walked out of here right now, I'd I would end up missing that meeting, anyways. Um but they have to actually go to work, and so they can't be here personally. And like we uh I was hoping that we would actually be able to get through and I would be able to speak on Friday, um, but that also didn't end up working out, anyways. Um but yeah, there's like most people my age are presently either at school or they're at work right now. Um so you have some people who, like me, are able to basically skip out of work for the moment to be here and speak, but a lot of people we're not hearing from. So what about the people that you're that you're not your age, that are maybe a little bit younger than me, that somewhere between you and I. Uh, do you do you have any idea on on uh how many of those people are would not be able to come here because of Oh, I'm sure that there there are plenty, because there, I mean, you know, you go anywhere from 20 to 65, give or take, you know, we're all working full time jobs, nine to five, right? Like there's still a ton of people. Um the only reason why I'm more so speak I'm I'm talking about people around the age of like 20 to 30 is because those are the people my age. They're gonna be here for a long time. Yeah. Do you would you say that it's fair to say that both age categories have equal opportunity to write in? Yep, yeah, for sure. Okay. Thanks. No further questions. Thank you. Councillor Kelly, please. Uh Mr. Alex Williams, if you don't mind. We obviously have to zone everything something. And so we obviously blanket rezone to RCG as our base, and now we're looking to re blanket rezone as RC1 or RC2 as our base. Given what you just spoke about, curious uh like what base zoning you think would would would best enable what it is that you're talking about. Yeah, that's a great question. Um I think one of the biggest things that has come up during this hearing uh that that I really agree with from the people who are pro repeal. Is the fact that RCG, when built to its max form, isn't necessarily the most accessible form. And of course, we see that if if you ride transit every now and then, you'll see people using wheelchairs, people using walkers, people with some additional mobility needs. Earlier in the hearing, they were called mountain goat homes, that they have a lot of stairs and they require a level of physical ability that not everybody has. And so from the transit riders' perspective, I actually think it would be great for something like HGO or something to be more widespread, especially near transit stations, so that there is a little bit more opportunity to provide accessible housing options, to provide housing options that are single level, that people in those homes don't necessarily have a basement that they have to deal with or upper floors that they have to deal with. I appreciate that, especially as we we move forward in figuring out what comes next and uh addressing the MDP a little bit more. So thank you. Um Mr. Howard, if you don't mind. I wasn't gonna ask about this just uh because it was about the the pre the the previous blanket rezoning process, but uh we know that there's going to have to be another engagement coming forward as it relates to the zoning bylaw in in a cut in a year or so. Uh so I just wanted to kind of get your your thoughts a little bit, because there's nothing more important than community engagement. So I'm really glad that you you brought it up here today. I want to get a little bit of a sense in terms of uh if what we did last time didn't meet your expectations, what would meet your expectations? Uh, because I just noting here in the what we heard report from last time around, we did what? We did uh Uh 58,000 or 580,000 postcards were sent out for nine public information sessions, which over a thousand Calgarians participated at. 500 more Calgarians participated in the online webinars, of which I think there was five or six. And then we received about 5,000 comments and 4,000 participants in the online engagement portal. Just curious, like if not that, then what? Can you just give me a bit of an bit of insight from your perspective? I don't think it was a terrible process. I think that the timing could have been better. Little advanced notice was given in some cases. And uh uh this uh experience isn't actual engagement. I can't, for example, ask ask the counselors' questions. This is uh this is a very one sided uh debate. But I I just think uh more notice uh You know, with a longer span of time, is going to is going to be very welcomed. Or notice perfect, can do that. And I agree with you. This is not engagement. This is this is us listening and learning from you. This is not a an engagement thing. And that that process that I mentioned before was separate from the public hearing that I think was what, 13 days that they that they held last time around. So thank you very much, Mr. Hatt. Appreciate it. Thank you. Back to Councillor Johnston, please. Uh thank you. And uh Mr. Spencer again, please. Um I I agree with you on sorry, I agree with you on some uh engagement issues, and you had a couple ideas on how to do it better, but uh I just thought if you wanted to elaborate again just a little bit more on because seeing what the administration does to try to get it out there, um w w what would be the perfect scenario to ensure My take is that council did try to get it out there, but for whatever reason, too little notice was given. One day, no days, sending notification out on the on the very day that the first engagement was supposed to take place, and with one day's notice before the second engagement was supposed to take place just simply isn't enough. Extend that span of time, give everyone a wider opportunity, that's going to help a great deal. um and I guess my question is you you're here, so you saw it and you're engaged as as much as you can be. What would be the difference between you being here and somebody else not being here? They just didn't have the time to see it or I don't know. I think I think that there are several facets to that. This is not this is not an unintimidating forum. I think a lot of people would would uh find it difficult to be here and and to engage in this process. I think a number of people are concerned how they may react. In this forum and have decided not to participate out of concerns how they themselves may behave. But we're not talking about this time around. Everybody saw this one coming well in advance. I'm talking about the 2024 decision having been made based on engagement that was given or that was participated in with far too little notice. Okay. I I would just so sorry, say there's a KPMG survey results coming out shortly, and hopefully we can learn more from that on how to better engage citizens. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you. So this concludes our first panel of the day. We ended off on most of panel 96. Now we're gonna go back to alternate to some of the names that were called previously. After this next panel, we're gonna again constitute the panel from 96 onwards. So we're just trying to juggle uh fairness between those names that we've called and those names that we haven't. Sorry, point up procedure. Yes, uh Councillor Johnston? Uh Mr. Spencer had mentioned something. We weren't supposed to hear it, but would we be able to allow his friend to go into the next panel to allow them to leave at the same time? So just out of fairness, there's uh many people who had been waiting uh in advance of that. I I just wanna I wanna I wanna be as uh I don't want to be arbitrary in terms of who we accommodate or or who we don't. So You you did that with C R E B and the other panel, so I think we've we've already set the standard that we can schedule people in. So I just thought in in the case of uh Kreb, there's an organization that has uh five panelists uh all together. Uh as a courtesy, we've allowed the opportunity for a follow up panel for if there's anyone who wishes to speak in fa or rather against uh the repeal of blanket rezoning. that's the definition of scheduling it. So I just thought to allow them to leave at the same time. Okay Thank you, uh Councillor Johnston. So now uh is there anyone on the line or in the chamber with us from panels one through twenty five? Okay, hearing none. Is there anyone on the line or in the chamber with us from panels 26 through 50? Is there anyone in the chamber or on the line from panels 51 through 60? Okay. Okay, we see two people. Please uh come on down. Is there anyone from panel 61? 62? Come on down. Yes. Uh who just spoke just now? Yeah, Catherine Wzinski on the phone in panel 62. Thank you. Please stand by, Catherine. Is there anyone in the chamber on the line from panel 63? Yes, Rick Miller from Panel 63. Thank you, Rick. Please stand by. Anyone from 64? Yes, uh Chris Marchuk, panel sixty-four. Thank you, Chris. We'll uh ask for one more name. 65? Okay, come on down, please. Great. So we have uh three people here in the chamber with us. And we have Catherine, Rick, and Chris on the line, and that will be our panel. So I'll ask uh just the folks who are in the chamber here with us. You can approach uh one by one, maybe in the the order that you're seated. And if you don't mind, just state your name, please, as well as which panel number you want. I'm Rob Miller and I'm in panel 60 and I have a presentation. Please uh mute if you're not the current speaker. Great. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Please go ahead. Thank you, Council. I live in Ward 1 in the community of Boness, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Calgary Climate Hub. Next slide, please. So the zoning bylaw is about density, affordability, sprawl, but it's also about tree canopy. So Calgary averages about 8% tree canopy, and some communities in the city are less than 2%. Next slide. The RCG blanket rezoning actually requires more trees on high density properties than low density. About four to five trees versus two for a single detached property. Tree requirements in the land use bylaw can be met by planting in an adjacent boulevard, which doesn't really appear to be happening in my neighborhood. And they can also be met by preserving existing trees on development lots. And again, that's really not a typical thing that happens. Developers usually take down most of the trees on the property. So density in the city prevents sprawl, and that results in less forests being lost to development in the outer edges of the city. Next slide. So RCG, it needs work, but we should support it with improvements. So the RCG tree requirements are double those for a single detached home, which you would find in like R1. They're also more than a R2. Zoning, there's higher tree requirements for RCG. And if we're gonna hit the city's target of 16% tree canopy, we need to get more trees on private property. The land available for tree planting is 30% city owned and 70% privately owned. So that's why it's really important to get more trees on private land. Now, multi-unit infills under RCG don't appear to be meeting the land use bylaw requirements anyway, and so I'm curious why that happens. And also, developers removing trees on a lot. It happens where they take out all the trees, but this is happening both for multi unit properties as well as single detached homes. Next slide, please. So this is just an example of a four unit townhouse that has six trees on the property and a single detached home across the street. This is in South Calgary, and it doesn't have any. Trees on that street. Next slide. So let's talk about solutions. You know, we can monitor and enforce the tree requirements that exist. That would be an improvement. But when tree requirements aren't met, trees should be planted elsewhere in the community. All removed trees from a property should be replaced somewhere. Next slide. So there were recommendations by the administration in response to notice of motion EC 2024 374, and that included incentivizing the preservation of existing trees. Increasing the tree planting requirements from what we already have, and improving site design measures, and that's things like increasing the amount of soil and mulch that has to put down, has to be put down for the trees when you're planting them. Next slide. There's very strong public support for more trees in Calgary. 98% of Calgaryans say trees are important. 96% want to protect mature trees. 82% want Calgary's tree canopy increased. Next slide. The RCG land use bylaw should also include requirements to address tree equity. Neighborhoods to the north of Nose Hill, Wards 2 and 3, as well as those to the east, wards 5, 9, 10, and 12, have low tree canopy and corresponding low tree equity scores. The land use bylaw could be two tier with higher requirements for prioritized wards and communities. Next slide. So, this is my favorite example of two neighborhoods built in the 80s with a stark contrast in tree canopy. Terra Lake is in the northeast, Mackenzie Lake is in the south, and it's it's very clear that there's quite a disparity in the tree cover. Next slide. So I leave you with this. Is the land use bylaw tree requirement helping neighborhoods with low tree canopy? Why are multi unit infill developments not meeting the existing tree requirements? And fixing RCG is an opportunity to include measures to double Calgary's tree canopy. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll ask uh our next presenter in the chamber to to please approach. If you don't mind just letting us know your name and uh panel number. Good morning. My name's Jim Sterling. I'm a resident of Ward 7. Um, I have a set of slides that I submitted. It's three slides. There we go. Yeah, so I'm against the repeal of blanket rezoning, but I'm feeling it's insufficient to address the inner city needs. Um on the left, there's a graphic there which I um got when I was researching my candidates' positions on this issue, and this came from Mike Atkinson's office. Thank you, Mike, for allowing me permission to show this. Um Ward 7 and Ward 8, property tax revenue per capita, driven by land value, basically. Inner city, land is valuable. Blanket rezoning works in Ward 7. I've seen lots of raw housing, fourplexes. I haven't seen a great deal of people in my neighborhood objecting to that. I've seen it accommodated, I like it. But Ward 7 remains relatively less affordable, in other words, because the land value is so high. What I'm seeing is a lot of one and two-bedroom condo and rental apartments of ever greater height. That's the wrong kind of density for me. And I think it's the wrong kind of density for the majority of the people living in the world that I know. And what do I mean by that? A real community, to my mind, a real community has diversity in demography. And what we get here is we get. Single people and retired people, that's not the entire demography of a good community. It requires the whole demo demography that we would like. And also residential taxpayer immunity is being eaten away. So the solution I say is to invest to increase inner city land availability for housing and greater residential immunity. And what I mean by that is increase the land supply by targeting underutilized and vacant sites, and the city can capture the land value through that investment and gain an investment return. Second slide. Yeah, so um we've heard talk about the the go the donut of decline. I know that as Tim bits of trauma. Um what do I mean by that? Well, let's have a look at the Grace Hospital site. Being marketed as Kensington Yards, which is on 14th Street, just east, sorry, west of 14th Street. On the bottom left is a scale model of the proposal which the developer is seeking a land use change application for. So he's not applying for development. He just wants a land use change from what was laid out in the local area plan. That features a number of very tall condos, 36, 38 story condos, as I pointed out at the public meeting that was held two weeks ago. You could zip line from the top of the 38 story condo and land on the top of the Jubilee auditorium roof, and you'd have an exciting ride. That's not appropriate. It's over 2,000 residential units on a 2.8 hectare footprint developed over 10 to 20 years. A number of years ago, the city put forward the West Village mixed-use proposal on the Canada Creosote site that I've been researching thoroughly over the last year, associated with another application in my community. It was mooted to accommodate 12,000 residents on 18 hectares, but it's environmentally contaminated, has been so for many years, and that contamination has leaked underneath through the bedrock into the Hillhurst community, and nothing really has been done to solve that challenge. So we have underutilized land and the thing standing in the way in some cases is cleaning it up to make it usable for residential purposes. The reason why Kensington Yards is proposed is because it's not environmentally contaminated land. So last slide. Conclusions recommendations. Higher density development is beneficial for Calgary, but where density increases, which density, which citizens benefit, and what benefits are required is crucial for communities in inner city. The inner city has significant area of underutilized land, including contaminated, environmentally contaminated sites, out on surface parking lots. So again, recommend invest to increase inner city availability for housing and residential amenity, increase the land supply, targeting underutilized and vacant sites, use land value capture, which provides the city with an investment return. You really are in the inner city now the developer of last resort. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go to our third uh individual here in the chamber. I had a slide as well. I was on panel 59. Sorry, could you repeat your name and uh panel number? Sorry about that. Brendan David, panel 59. Yeah, there we go. Okay. So, yeah, hello, my name is uh Brendan David. Thanks for uh listening, Counsel. Again, I'm on panel 59. I'm a professional in the buildings industry. I work across Western Canada. My wife is a teacher, and uh, we have a three-year-old. We reside in Ward 7, Mount Pleasant, so one of the areas with the highest amounts of blanket rezoning permits, as well as redevelopment permits under the prior framework. I'm here today to ask council to uh please continue to support uh citywide missing middle zoning. Do not repeal the citywide zoning, continue to move forward. I'm in favor of the proposed amendments, and I think those will help, but I don't think we should stop there. A repeal of blanket rezoning to the prior framework is just that. It is going backward. It's going backward at a time when we have over a billion dollars worth of critical infrastructure listed in poor condition. And it's going backward at a time where this council is supposed to welcome potentially the two millionth resident at the end of term. So I'm also here to be at a bridge. Within a few blocks of us, there's already been significant development under both of the frameworks. So many in opposition have talked about what could happen. I'm here to talk about what has happened. I'm here to provide feedback on how that development went so we can further improve the policy. So again, to be a thousand percent clear, my position is keep citywide zoning, just make it better. Start with amendments, look for more improvements, and I repeat improvements, not uh exclusions, not exemptions for certain areas or groups. Next slide. Uh yeah, I'm here to advocate for better rules. If we do that, we'll see uh even better outcomes and further reduce opposition. So I think we're missing a golden opportunity to really leverage this density. And I'm gonna use the you know carrot and stick analogy. Next slide. Um yeah, where are the carrots? Where are the sticks? When I I had the same comment in the initial hearings a few years ago, my biggest criticism is around the parcel coverage, and I uh completely agree with the amendment to reduce the max coverage to 55%. But um I don't think that should be for everybody. We don't need to incentivize density to that highest level because density is the incentive for a developer. So, you know, and what about our other goals, whether that's efficiency, barrier free access, um, heritage uh retrof heritage protections, as well as uh tree coverage. Next slide. So I'm going to chat about this in the context of a few projects I've seen. I'm going to use the dreaded Aplex, but I have actually seen a diversity of build forms, and I can certainly speak to that. So 98% of the projects I'd say are here. They're kind of okay to good. Build quality is myth. There's some okay contextual setback matching, some not so much. And you know, 98% are going to end up exactly here unless we make more improvements. So yeah, it's middle density, so that helps, but I think it misses the point of uh some of the finer points of the greater housing strategy. So it's currently set, you know, a developer can do the bare minimum and get the maximum profit. And to me that doesn't really make any sense. So next slide. Now, I have seen a few glimmers of hope, but to my knowledge, a lot of those have come from some of uh grant programs, national incentives, and that's not good enough. So this was a good example where you know I think there's a bit more scale matching, so I like that in the proposed amendments. There's actually quite a bit of original tree retention there as well. Uh next slide. I've even spotted the occasional unicorn. So here's two project examples where They're adding density in a meaningful way. The builders are based in that community, so they actually care about the outcomes as much as the residents. They included some larger setbacks. They also built to a very high efficiency standard, so you can see the exterior insulation on the bottom left. And that included measured and verifiable targets. There is zero incentive for builders to take those measures. And I think that's uh I think we can do a lot better. Next slide. So, how do we create space for outcomes beyond just the bare minimum? And how do we balance the density we need with some of our other goals while addressing some of the legitimate concerns raised? And I think the answer is already there. We use the parcel coverage, but I challenge council and city admin to leverage it better. So just kind of rough examples, not to scale or anything, but you know, left to right, the idea is you get to unlock that higher parcel coverage and the additional units and profits that come with it when you incorporate more of our goals. So whether that's airtightness, barrier free design. So again, adding density, but we're also encouraging a stronger blend of outcomes and a better blend of affordability. Next slide. Talking to some concerns. Next slide again. You know, we love our single detached homes in the city. That's not going to change. What I will say is that under the prior framework, I saw far worse examples and worse and bad actors. So yeah, I'm sorry, but you know, prior, our prior single family zoning does not guarantee the existing form, and it's not going to save your garden from shade. People are not tearing down bungalows and then putting in additional bungalows or new single story builds. Thank you so much. You're just a time. Yeah. Happy to speak to the amendments as well. Thanks. Appreciate you being here. I had only three people in the chamber who uh raised their hand. Is there a fourth presenter there? Okay. And you're on panels one through uh 66? Yes, Tim Bacon, panel 62. Yep. Thank you, Tim. Mayor Farkas, Councillors, City Staff. My family are longtime Calgarians who combined have lived in many different communities, every quadrant, and most types of dwellings. We currently reside in a modest bungalow in a diverse Ward 8 community. Two years ago, we advocated for more moderate measured zoning amendments than those actually enacted. Hopefully, this rewritten presentation is not too redundant relative to the many fine and much more expert submissions that you heard last week and also this morning. It is evident that the council is faced with quite a challenge. As we see it, the major factors now at play include A. Calgary's recent record housing ads have been driven by the large rental and condo projects undertaken by major developers. This has raised supply and helped ease prices. These node and corridor builds would have proceeded under prior zoning and the MDP framework. B, recent smaller-scale builds enabled by the 2024 amendments, wherein 6 to 12 units have replaced a single dwelling, have largely targeted mid priced older neighborhoods. As predicted, their visibly excessive sizing and lot coverage has created negative impacts to tree cover, drainage setbacks, and especially parking. To paraphrase my favorite Stampede Wrestling performer, Tor Kamata, too much, too much, Mr. Whalen. C. A strident and vociferous urbanist activist cohort adamantly oppose the proposed repeal and seem, unfortunately, quite dismissive of the views of anyone with a detached house and car. Despite our climate rigors and blue sky city space preferences, they somehow see Calgary becoming the Paris of the Prairies. On the other hand, a sizable segment of homeowners rigidly oppose any appreciable change to their communities and seem content to bury their heads in the sand. D. Confidence in city planning has plummeted, an unfortunate trend largely attributed to reams of good faith, public input, and consultation being summarily overlooked and unincorporated. E. Many young Calgarians are understandably daunted by their personal housing prospects. However, they desire a quick solution without realistic consideration of basic supply demand economics, new building costs, government finances, and personal budgeting. F, there is an undoubted substantial need for additional subsidized social housing to aid the disadvantaged and struggling residents of our city. Non market housing ads have not kept up with Calgary growth. During my undergraduate studies in urban land economics, the wizened tenured profs repeatedly reminded us that what they termed the use and abuse of land was complex, complicated, and swarming with competing interests. In our opinion, the 2024 zoning amendments fell within the abuse portion. Thus, we support the repeal of the 2024 amendments with a moratorium on new permits to be followed by a reset emanating from a fulsome and transparent review involving public and expert input. From the many presentations to council, we saw good merit in the following suggestions. A. The input of credible, unbiased outside experts to the zoning review stage. I think it was outlined very explicitly by Ms. Evans a couple days or last week prior to the next rezoning reset. B reduced LAP sizes to ensure effective early consideration of community input, distinctive neighborhood character context, and local infrastructure capacities. C. Negative and positive incentives regarding undeveloped properties held for speculation and for stalled builds. D. Quicken the utilization of excess city lands held for housing. E. Enhance building inspection resources to ensure timely and complete bylaw compliance and enforcement by builders. F Engage with the builders on development process streamlining. And G decisively enhance ads to social housing supply, both directly and with response in conjunction with responsible nonprofits. Overall, council need to find a solution to gently add density without changing the face of Calgary neighborhoods. We wish you luck in your upcoming decisions. Thanks for your time and attention. Thank you so much for being here with us. We'll uh continue our panel uh with Catherine on 62, then Rick after that. Uh please go ahead, Catherine. Awesome, thank you. Just confirming you can hear me okay? Yep, loud and clear. Excellent. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Catherine Wzinski on panel 62, and I'm an impacted homeowner in Meadowlark Park in Ward 11. Just like a recent speaker, I am part of Calgary's Future in the 30 something category with a young family. I am here to speak in favor of the repeal of blanket rezoning. I was in person on Friday morning, but lots of people had the same idea. So I thank you for the opportunity to call in from work between meetings. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to Council again on the topic of blanket rezoning and appreciate the level of engagement that Council is taking with Calgarians for the public hearing on this topic. Most of us are here to speak on what we feel is best for our city. So I would like to start with a couple things that I think makes Calgary unique. First, affordability. I was born and raised on the West Coast and have lived in Calgary for the past 10 years. I made the decision to move to Calgary from Vancouver for affordable living, in particular, so that I could eventually be able to afford a single family detached dwelling. Calgary is still one of the most affordable major cities in Canada. In comparison to what my childhood friends and colleagues in Vancouver can afford, it is astounding what my husband and I were able to purchase in close proximity to downtown Calgary. The second point, prior to 2024, was Calgary's incredible urban planning. Throughout Calgary's history, communities have been thoughtfully set up throughout the city. They are conscientiously designed with specific character and amenities. In the case of new perimeter communities, density is carefully contemplated with single family homes, duplexes, row houses, and higher densities spread throughout the community. Growth in this manner is planned in tandem with road development like ringroads and schooling needs for the growing population. So let's come to blanket rezoning. I think this has created a lose lose scenario for Calgaryans. From what I can see, people who are in favor of the blanket rezoning are not getting the affordability they are seeking, and existing homeowners are having their implicit property value compromised due to the uncertainty about what can be built next to them. So let's look at the Calgary uniqueness under the lens of blanket rezoning. Affordability. When my husband and I bought our first home two years ago, we were surprised to see that newer duplexes or infills on smaller lots were often more expensive than detached older bungalows within the same community or neighboring communities. When looking at older homes on larger zoned lots for increased density, we saw increased competition for purchase. This included developers, causing them to sell for significantly above asking. These patterns have become more frequent in the past few years. We have seen that density under blanket rezoning is coming in the form of shiny, costly involves or multiplexes, driving up neighborhood prices. Careful urban planning. With blanket rezoning, we have turned over the thoughtful planning our city is known for to many individual for profit developers. They now decide where and when density occurs. And with many individuals at play, there's no coordination. We have seen this impact of unplanned densification around us. Streets being repeatedly dug up to tie into sewers, density not supported by the right school cybers or public amenities. Existing homeowners are not incentivized to update their older bungalows because tomorrow a three story multiplex could be towering over them. I am very much in support of growth and densification, but I still ask this council to repeal blanket rezoning. Let's have an evolution, not a revolution, and get back to our thoughtful local area plans based on their original land use bylaws. What I implore council to consider is plan development that complements the character and diversity of our existing neighborhoods without a blanket one size fits all approach. Target vacant lands like the Anthem Property Lot in Earlton. Target main thoroughfares. Target transit hubs and corridors. Target lots or roads adjacent to existing multi-story or higher density development that complement the character and context of that area. Consider aspects and grades that limit sunlight impact on offsetting lots and support solar development. Plan for and commit to building affordable and non market housing. Properly finish what you started with local area plans and move densification forward responsibly. Confucius says the person who moves a mountain begins by carrying away one stone. I have counseled to continue to support the beautiful diversity of our blue sky city through carefully planned development. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll we'll go to Rick on 63 now, and then Chris on 64 afterwards. Please go ahead, Rick. Good morning, your worship and council members. My name is Rick Miller, Panel 63, and I live in Altidor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I'm in support of repealing blanket rezoning. However, I do support some changes that uh I I doubt I'll have enough time to speak to in my five minutes. Blanket rezoning has been a failure. It has not contributed significantly to the drop in housing prices, to the increase in overall housing supply, or to the supply of affordable housing. Calgary is fortunate to have a robust, capable, and dependable residential development industry. That's why by the time Council approved blanket rezoning, the industry had already started to address the shortage, resulting in record numbers of housing supply and thereby reducing prices and rental rates. Blanket rezoning developments did not play a significant role in this. The strong development industry existed before blanket rezoning and will continue to exist if it is repealed. The city does need to encourage and make it easier to develop areas that are appropriate for multifamily housing and needs to ensure there are enough multifamily appropriate areas to meet the short and medium term demand. If so, developers will continue to build enough new multifamily housing to meet that demand. Blanket rezoning increases the value of all single family homes in a neighborhood, including the most affordable oral older, fixer upper single family homes that are suitable for many buyers. Unfortunately, these are often the homes that developers buy and take off the market to build more expensive townhomes. Apparently, blanket resoring has reduced approval time, resulting in lower housing prices. Simply put, rather than making it easier and faster to build townhouses where they are unsuitable, council should make it easier and faster to build them where they are suitable. Some think that blanket resorning solves affordability and supply issues for seniors, disabled, disadvantaged, and the homeless, but it does not do this. The city has a housing strategy to address these issues and should strive to do more to address these needs. In my education and work in urban planning, one of the guiding principles was to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips and increase transit trips and pedestrian traffic. Blanket rezoning does the opposite. Blanket rezoning creates negative impacts on health, safety, and the environment. By its nature, it introduces more homes into the interior of residential neighborhoods rather than to the periphery. This creates more vehicle trips, longer vehicle trips, as cars wind their way through residential streets to exit the neighborhood and continue on to their destinations. This increase in vehicle activity not only increases noise and air pollution, but it also increases the risk of pedestrian accidents. These are the very streets and sidewalks where our children play, ride their bikes, play street hockey, walk to school, etc. Add to this streets lined with more parked cars, and we are destined to have more vehicle pedestrian conflicts. There have been several times when I was driving down a residential street and had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting a small child running between parked cars and out onto the street. Our city is experiencing an alarming increase in pedestrian injuries and deaths, and I believe blanket rezoning will most certainly increase this risk. Blanket rezoning has been the single most controversial, impactful, and divisive policy I can remember in the 47 years I've lived in Calgary. Council should not dismiss the impact of stress and anxiety that blanket rezoning has caused for many Calgarians. This has created great division within our city and many with the uncertainty and fear that a townhouse may be built next to them. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I believe the council, in some small way, is in a position to heal our community by repealing blanket rezoning and replacing it with a more moderate and gentle change, and also by escalating non market housing initiatives. There's been a myth about loss in tax revenue if blanket rezoning were repealed. Supply and demand dictates that without blanket rezoning, a townhouse that would have been built in RCG would be built and pay tax in a different location anyway. I've also seen statistics claiming to show how inefficient and costly Calgary has been in building services and utilities compared to other large Canadian cities, but this is not a valid comparison. The entire developed area of the city of Calgary is contained within its city boundaries. This is not true for Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, where the city boundaries contain only the small, higher density, inner city portion of the larger urban area. All things considered, the many benefits of blanket rezoning far outweigh the few advantages of keeping it. I believe blanket rezoning is the right thing to do. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Chris on 64 to conclude this panel. Uh hello. Uh my name is Chris Marchak. Um I live in Ward thirteen uh with Dan McLean. And uh I thank Dan for his truth and his common sense that he brings to the I I'm I I I have to uh I just my presentation Sir I just have to jump in. Calgary's planning uh that has been I has been put forward in the past where blanket rezoning is an initiative that was born out of the controversial climate change narrative and climate resilient. Housing types and net zero goals. We need to back up the bus a bit here. Somehow, over the recent past, a troubling agenda existed to subdue taxpayers and to elevate municipal government to a new level above the people of Calgary. I suspect if this has not changed, there will be many more issues submitted by taxpayers. We would not be here. If our city listened to the people when it came to ridding our city of densification rezoning agenda, our troubles are far greater than blanket rezoning. The democratic process was broken. Additionally, funding for rezoning that came from federal government was illegal and broke the Alberta government Bill 18. As well, the City of Calgary did not ask taxpayers to spend $650 million over the past three years on climate change initiatives, nor, I suspect, did they do their due diligence in reviewing the premise behind the climate crisis narrative or the abhorrent expenditures associated with it. The agenda along with those who promoted it in Calgary had nothing to do with democracy and the will of the people, and everything to do with worldwide dictatorial motive by a small group of oligarchs who see an opportunity to control all municipalities and countries in the world, including the city of Calgary. It's not a conspiracy. Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, the New World Order, Smart Cities, 15 Minute Cities, Net Zero, ICLE, Local Governments for Sustainability, Partners for Climate Protection, Federation of Municipalities, Committee of 340, One World Government, Tents of attempts of strong mayors with the WEF, the WHO, the IMF, the BIS, the UN, and many, many more who have incentivized stakeholders, municipalities, and countries to follow their orders or be dismissed. Our city is under attack. Those heading this agenda are the same people who said in the 1960s that we'd we would run out of oil soon. Polar bears would be extinct. The ozone layer would burn up the world. Sea levels would rise, and cities on the ocean front would be underwater. And we basically have never seen any of that happen. And of course, now Those same people are talking about climate change, and it's going to destroy the planet if we don't take drastic measures. Measures that are not or that are not accepted by the largest polluters in the world, India and China, nor climate experts. You'll find that the very experts who had been called upon for their expertise in the past, when they did not follow the accepted climate agenda, are not funded or relied upon now. The message was loud and clear. Follow the agenda we have, and you will be promoted, paid, and accepted. And within a few years, experts were never respected and a new climate model was put in place. Not real evidence, but models, models that have failed for decades and are failing now. I seriously warn Council, what we've seen is a means where corporations have been taking the reins of municipalities. If the direction of the City of Calgary doesn't feel right or natural, it is because it's driven by unelected nongovernmental organizations and corporations, not taxpayers or the council. As one Councillor stated last year, no one knew where climate emergency came from, and I quote, we still haven't seen the declaration of that, climate emergency, and counselors had to learn about it on social media. And as much as the City of Calgary councillors were not aware of the climate crisis agenda, neither were anyone, including myself and any other taxpayers, yet stakeholders, who, as non-governmental entities without any accountability to our city, have a model of profit and control over the city of Calgary, as we see right now. Who's in control? Non-governmental unelected stakeholders? The City of Calgary? Taxpayers? Not only do I think it is necessary to rescind the blanket rezoning initiative, but it is imperative the City Council review the climate change crisis model and make local decisions that do not include paying nongovernmental stakeholders hundreds of millions of dollars and do nothing to change the climate. We need to admit we were played. I request a review of the Paris Accord, ICLE, the PCP programs, and others that were needlessly crippling our city budget and elevating taxpayer property taxes, removing the enough sir, you're just a time hundred and fifty million dollars in non-envelopmental taxes. conclude. That could have paid the average Calgary property. Yeah. Thank you so much for being with us. That concludes this panel. We're going to go to Councillor Atkinson, please. Oh, Councillor Dallywell. I apologize. Thanks, Mayor. I just got a question for first Mr. Rob Miller. Since we are on the repeal, I gotta be very careful how I put this question because I don't want to start talking about off-topic trees. Um what uh so my question is but pretty much there was another speaker the other day. Um there's a there's a pressure of housing plus trees and all that. Every, in your opinion, every RCG that is going into inner city that has an old tree canopy, we are ripping out on average three to four houses. You think Uh what would your solution be? There gotta be some sort of a replacement ratio in place in land use. Is there should be a requirement to put certain trees? I just want to understand uh moving forward what could be done differently. Yeah, so I think obviously we want to try and replace those trees, and there are provisions within the RCG land use bylaw to do that. But what I'm seeing is it's not always being followed. So one thing is to enforce the rules that are already there. But often you get more trees being removed than even the bylaw covers. So I would propose that you do an inventory before those trees are taken down. And that they are required to be replaced, uh whether it's on boulevards, like there is a uh a recommendation to plant them on boulevards in the area, but even public spaces. Like there's a lot of uh municipal parks where you could be planting these trees where they don't have a lot of trees right now. Um so basically it's we should be trying to preserve what's there. as well as replanting when they're taken down. I I think you made a great point that um we are maybe taking four trees out, and bylaw is requiring us to plant just one. Yes. So net loss is negative. And one thing I I'm not a big supporter of is landscape relaxations. So my other question is this is RCG, this is happening. What is your opinion about new growth communities? Because you show Terra Dale. Again, I want to be very careful that I stay on the topic. Tree canopy in my ward is 1.86 or even less. How do we make sure that we are addressing those concerns and though that kind of development that is happening on the on the suburbs that where we are not getting enough trees? Again, through bylaw? I I think it would be appropriate to do that through bylaw. I think the uh the administration uh Calvary Parks and Urban Forestry um should have some good ideas on how that can be done but they need direction they they need direction to say we want this. Yeah, I totally agree. I think we need to look at that aspect in the our land use bylaw. Thank you for answering my questions. My next question is for Mr. Sterling. Thank you. Thank you. We'll stay in touch. You made a great point about lands in our city that are sitting there, vacant lands. Do you, in your opinion, Do you think creating a residential subclass of in our property tax about these lands would be a good idea so we can we can incentivize development of these lands rather than them sitting there and uh whoever invested waiting for appreciation of these lands? I guess I'm not I'm not familiar enough with the idea. My basic point was you have underutilized land that's virtually worth nothing. You invest in it, you make it worth something, you're going to make a profit when you turn it over to development, and then you're going to make a profit on all the additional tax revenue that you acquire. So that ought to be a pretty commercial. These are public lands you're talking about. You own the city own Canada Creosote site. You guys manage the creosote contamination. You've spent millions of dollars trying to manage it and it hasn't entirely worked. So you're actually spending money for no value. And you even bought more land there as part of your 2016 concepts for the potential redevelopment of the Flames Arena, which was going to be put over there at one point. You spent $30 million trying to buy more of that land, I believe, in 2016. So it's just a huge sinkhole of capital. Yeah, my other question is um are you I think in in your presentation you said do not repeal this bylaw. Right. But but toughen it up for inner city where we're getting overdensification due to these large condo developments going into areas that are not appropriate when there's land lying vacant that's more appropriate. But my question is there's weakened land that you're saying we could utilize. But the question here is that we heard from residents, they do not like the fact. Like uh there was a one caller who said uh it leads to uh prices in the neighborhood going up and maybe affordable housing now becoming non affordable because there's speculators, people who want to buy. The the issue we are hearing is demolishing an existing house and making it into four units, six units. That's the problem, not the weakened lands. How do you how do you respond to that argument? My thinking is that it's not an apples for apples comparison, right? Like if i if it's costing more per unit than it used to, it's costing more per unit everywhere because land values are going up. Yeah, because my thing is uh if if this bylaw has become so divisive in our city, there's other 97 action items in home is here strategy, and one of the things that you are talking about is definitely in there using city lands to incentivize development uh along nodes, uh TOD, and all stuff. So just I just wanted to understand the relationship why you're s against repealing when your argument is focused more on city owned lands that could be incentivized for development. Yeah, I mean I'm I'm very focused on inner city. I don't think the inner city gets enough attention, so I'm gonna be talking about the inner city, right? I have seen arguments about other areas which are perhaps more um More appealing. But I just want to say though that the inner city was the first communities developed in the city. You know, to some extent, why I think blanket rezoning has worked to an extent is because we've already gone through one, two infill redevelopments over the years because we were there in the early 1900s. Okay, great. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you. You're welcome. My last question is for just one question for Mr. Brandon, David Brandon. Oh, by the way, there was a norm in previous council that the administration is going to bring some recommendations this year about creating subclasses on some of the residential properties that are sitting vacant and stuff. Yeah, David, simple question. You said make rules better. There's an amendment, recommendation number four, that is talking about changing RCG rules. What is your opinion about that, please, if you don't mind from your based on your experience? Yeah, totally. Um is it possible to bring the slides up again? It would be slide number 11. Could I kind of comment on those specifically a little bit? Hopefully that's somewhat uh uh visible. So yeah, the biggest one I guess would be the you know parcel coverage, which we talked about. Um I think we could leverage that better. Um A big thing with the opposition has obviously been the contextual requirements. I think that's an easy win. We go back to some contextual requirements, whether it's setback as well as height, that seems to be one of the most contentious items. So I'm in favor of the change there. When it comes to the three units plus three units, this might have to be something builders kind of weigh in on a little bit more. But one of the issues I could possibly see there is that you change your uh building. Code requirement from part three to part nine. And actually, this kind of relates to Councillor Kelly when he was chatting with a person about RCG and how it you know plays out in a neighborhood. You know, is it all just a plexus? And in reality, I haven't seen that. I kind of made sure I drove home and I was thinking about it. And part of that is because builders will kind of stick with what they know well. So some builders are continuing to do duplex, some can are continuing to do single detached, like literally on my street or not on my street, but the street over. All new builds at the corner, yes, you have a larger um uh kind of row house. But then in between, you have two semi-detached, new, and then a new infill. So when it comes to the three plus three, one of the issues could be that yeah, you go from part three to part um part nine, which is a lot more onerous. So if you went to maybe like a f a four layout plus leverage the suites, how many suites you get out of that, that actually might um work a little better, in my opinion. But uh I'm not a builder myself, so. Okay. Um just uh four plus two. What is that? Four plus two, sorry. Sorry, that would be four. So right now one of the amendments would be to be like a three units plus three suites. And from a building code perspective, and with uh with fire separation in particular, when you go from a semi detached to then row houses, you end up triggering some higher requirements for fire separation. So I think when it comes to like saying people would be able to build sixplexes, I think there might be some complications there. A builder could speak to this better, but it might be easier to stick with a row house of four Macs, but then You're leveraging the amount of uh suites that are allowed. So the total units would still be six, but it would be like four townhouses plus two suites max versus three up, three down. Yeah, that's gonna be a problem. How do you manage that through uh through approvals? Because that could become discriminatory, right? Like who's getting those two suites? Fair. I mean, I I again I my my thing is we have other goals, so attach other goals to it. I mean, the you know uh provincial government has said we we cannot ask to build anything but the minimum. So we can't ask for higher requirements, but we can certainly incentivize and ask for incentives to. You know, um okay, you get those two suites when you are doing something, whether it's original tree retention or a higher tree replacement ratio or more setback matching. Okay. No, great. Thank you for answering my questions. That's it for me, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson, please. Uh Mr. Bacon, please. Timothy Bacon. Thank you. Appreciated your presentation. Uh getting into some of the nuances there. You spoke to the um potentially having negative implications for vacancy installed builds, if I think I caught it right, um, as one of the potential carrots and sticks uh in in the overall suite. Can you speak? Yeah, I think there's a lot of empty land lots around. Certainly within six blocks of our house, I could count seven empty lots. I think the one down at uh 38th and 14th Street has been empty for 12, 13 years. There's a number of stalled builds I've seen around and during my walks between our house and Glenmore Park, say. I think there's got to be both the carrot but also the stick as to uh having these put back into inventory. Um some are kept by major develop renovation developers uh to sell to somebody who wants to put up the bigger house because if they're making their 16%. They make a lot more money on a 4,000 square foot house going up than uh a 1,500 square foot bungalow. Uh so the incentive to get those lands back into housing uh I think is something that should be considered. Great. Is there a certain mechanism you you're thinking about when it comes to that or or just something to put to administration and sort of have them explore that? I I agree that it's something that I I see in my neighborhoods in Ward 7, but just wondered if you had a specific thought in mind. Well, maybe as an ex banker I kind of tend towards the uh stick side. And I thought uh accelerating property taxes on uh lots that are unused, uh undeveloped. Great. Is something that could be considered. I don't know what rate you would increase it, but it seems something pretty simple. That's fair. And just out of curiosity, is there uh a level of um of housing like by right that you think should be permitted use that you think then maybe doesn't won't have the public backlash? Is like is there a certain point at which you think uh by right every every lot in the city could go to this and not have the sort of public backlash that we've seen towards the townhomes and rural homes? For fear of getting backlash from my neighbors, I think when you're talking exempt on RC1, you want a number minimum three, but not four. And that includes all units, not this funny suite that isn't considered a dwelling. Fair. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Um I could if I could speak to Jim Sterling, please, for a second. You mentioned at the end of your presentation land value capture. Uh and I was wondering, y I know that means different things to different people in conversations that I've had. What does that mean to you? It means to me that if there's a piece of underutilized land that for the want of some investment could be then used for residential development, then there are some cases where the city should step in because it's beyond the capability of any given developer to make that investment. So when I said the city is the developer of last resort, there are some lands for which the city should intervene and can probably make money through upgrading the value in its investment. And the Canada Creosote site would be one, the Sears site would be another where there's a gasoline plume. And the fact that you're seeing developments like the Kensington Yard proposal is an indication that developers are not prepared to go to those contaminated sites, even though you know they've previously been slated for development, because they don't have the depth of capital to invest to clean it up. And given that the city owns some of this land, and if they don't own it, the province has ownership, then there's room for the province and the city to collaborate on this. So it's effective use of government to free up the market to work. Perfect. That's great. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And finally, Robert Miller, please. You in your presentation, you talked about sort of the loss of tree canopy, which is something we're seeing for sure with redevelopment. But you also noted that we're seeing it not just with uh you know row houses and townhouses, but singles and semis as well, and that there is actually a difference in terms of the requirements for what the end result is for. Town homes and row homes compared to singles and semis. Can you speak a bit to what you think a more equitable end result would be to sort of have with the various built forms that we are having in sort of low, you know, low residential, what you think would be a better way to sort of pursue maintaining and growing our tree canopy in the city? Yeah definitely thank you for that question. So I I believe that the tree requirement should be the same regardless of whether if it's a low density or high density. Obviously, with high density, maybe you you don't have the area to to plant the required number of trees. So then you need to take care of that in a different way. But with a uh you know a a low density development, there's no reason why it should require less trees than a high density development. That that just doesn't make any sense to me. So um and then in terms of uh Equity, um, you know, if you have neighborhoods where there's less than two percent tree canopy, then there should be a focused effort on planting more trees there. And and this is needs to happen on private property as well. So that that's why the land use bylaw is a mechanism for making sure that happens. I appreciate it. It's we've been hearing things about some of the extra costs that come in with RCG townhome development and things like replacing the sidewalk, but one I had not really considered cost-wise from just a cost perspective with some of the landscaping costs that are associated with townhomes that are not necessarily actually there on semi and how to sort of balance out the costs on those different. So thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah. All right, that concludes this panel. Colleagues, it's 11.05. It's about an hour ish to our next break. I'd like to accommodate two more panels if possible. We'll do two panels, going back to the names first that uh haven't been called from 96 onward. And then after that panel is concluded, we'll go to call names that had been called before from 66 onward. So we'll flip over to 96. Do we have Susan Gwynn with us in the chamber on the line? On to 97, do we have David Mowit? Yes, I'm here. Thank you, David. Please stand by. Do we have Shelley Tullich? I'm here. Thank you, Shelly. Please stand by. Do we have Michelle Williams? Leslie Harrara? Craig Chandler? Yeah, I'm here. Thank you, Craig. Please stand by. On 98, do we have Sean Tuff? Connie Pringle? Anthony Cox, Michael Staroshikov, Deborah Teidelbaum, Nicholas Collins Harchuk, Maxim Stenev. On the phone. Thank you, Maxim. Please stand by. Joyce Seeley. Thank you, Joyce. Okay, this will be our panel from date with David, Shelly, Craig, Maxon, then Joyce. David, why don't you start us off? You have five minutes. Yeah, good morning, Mayor and Council. I'm David Mowit. I'm uh in Albert Park. I'm in on Ward Nine. And uh we we took a uh course on the weekend was called Partners in Planning, the City of Calgary. And uh it was at the Damp Trail Community Center, and we found out that it's this planning was this has been three to five years in the planning, not just a uh a two week or one month, plus is gonna happen. It's been planned for quite a while and it's it's the reappeal. It's uh need to be happening because it was never done. People of the public was never of uh uh presented properly with us. And according to the people we talked to at the at the meeting that day. And according to you know, the the the m things that I brought up is we live in Ward Nine and we live on uh 10th Avenue. We pay an extra tax for a view tax to see the mountain, the downtown, and everything else. Well, with a new uh development we have here now, um, it is these buildings that are building. Um, actually, a child, if you ask a child to draw you a house where they want to live, you'll see a house, some trees, you'll see uh a family, dog, and a cat with grass, and everybody's smiling. What we have here now. Is people aren't smiling, the trees are gone, and these buildings are just atrocious to look at. And as a contractor myself, I look at some of these buildings, and a lot of them are at minimum cold at best. So there's no energy efficiency whatsoever. As for the trees and the grass, that is a big problem because without the trees with less trees, less grass. Now we have less carbon capturing. We have uh more uh heat. Heat it for heat in the atmosphere, and it's just it's an ongoing, going cycle. So the more we lose in green space, the more we lose in carbon capturing, the more um uh heat in the in the atmosphere. And then we were yesterday driving around and looking at these new uh developments, and where they have the garage is in the back for their four car parking. Well, if you have a small car, you can get into the garage, but you cannot open the doors. to get out of it. And then it's and then it's it's just a it's not a good system. And if it's a rental uh place where you have car parking for vehicles, you they their builders know that you can't put up with a vehicle in there, so you can't use it. So they use it for storage for themselves. And then you there again there's no parking. So now you have eight eight units, twelve units. It is It's very frustrating for people who live in the area. It's very frustrating for our area because it is getting to the point of less and less housing. And now with the taking of the parking lot at Franklin Station, we are losing parking for about three to four hundred vehicles per day as they take LRT to downtown. Now it's gonna be housing there, and now there are less there's no parking for anybody to go downtown. uh on LRT, where are they gonna park or drive downtown? Which you gotta pay another five, six hundred dollars a month parking, which they probably can't afford. It is re it's eleven dollars an hour as we go downtown as you need a vehicle for parking. It's ridiculous. And if they've taken out schools and on uh Radison Heights, putting in uh eight hundred uh units. Where are people gonna park there? There. There is no school there anymore. Where are people gonna go? There's no place for children to play. The parks are being taken out. Okay. It's uh the reason uh reappeal for blanketing is it's gotta be looked at in a different state. And uh I'm up for change, but it's just that these buildings gotta be done whether properly, which fits all areas of Calgary, which fits all the landscapes to make it appealing for everybody, just not to the developer. And the ones in the award nine right now, the people, the developers do not live in the country of Canada. And they are the ones funding the money for these development. And uh it just seems to be going on and on. And uh it's it's not quite right. But say this has been pipeline for the past three or five three to five years, and it's been a little bit late now for everybody to be reappealing stuff because the city has shoved it down our throats already. So that thank you for letting me uh speak. Thank you so much. We'll go to Shelly and then Craig afterwards. Please go ahead, Shelly. Great. Can you hear me? Loud and clear. Great. Good day, Mayor and Council. I'm a resident of Calgary and an affected party. I will cover as much ground as possible in my five minutes, but may fall short a few sentences. The physical mailer sent to residents regarding this bylaw is faulty fatally deficient. It omitted critical amendments that maturely alter the scope and impact of the proposal. Amendments buried in the city's website requiring a digital scavenger hunt, but entirely absent from the written notice to affected households is a failure of statutory notice. Canadian legal precedents are clear on this matter. 1. The essence test. The Alberta Court of Appeal affirms that a notice is legally invalid when it fails to bring the essence of the proposal to the average reader. Omitting the amendments results in a misleading notice that fails this test. 2. Duty of fairness. The Supreme Court of Canada established reasonable notice. It is a cornerstone cornerstone of procedural fairness. The city cannot cure. A deficient physical notice with a web link, attempting so discriminates against those without digital literacy or access and denies residents their statutory right to be informed and heard. Violation of city policy. Furthermore, this is a breach of city public notice policy CS010, which commits this administration to, quote, adequate and appropriate communications. Providing only an omitted version of the bylaw by mail while tucking away the real impacts online is neither adequate nor appropriate. Jurisdictional risk to Calgary and residents. Because the statutory notice is deficient and misleading, this council lacks the legal jurisdiction to proceed on omitted amendments. Any decisions made on amendments or similar amendments, especially the corner law plus two and the affected neighbors, is subject to judicial review in the Court of King's bench and risks this hearing being declared void abinocio or void from the start. Proceeding on a faulty notice is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars that invites a court ordered redo of this entire process. We urge Council to move to table the amendments portion of this proposal. Corner Law Plus 2. Council cannot and did not have a fair hearing since the public was not legally notified of the full actual proposal being debated. Amendments or similar amendments may not be considered at this time. I formally object to the procedural irregularity, exclusion, inequity, and the validity of this hearing and raise a jurisdictional challenge based on the city's failure to meet the mandatory notice requirements set out in section 606 of the MGA. I am raising this now to ensure we have exhausted our administrative remedies. Did administration already receive legal advice on amendments exclusion? Is that legal advice in writing and available for public inspection? Did internal advice warn against the omission of critical amendments from the primary mailer? Could this be central to a judicial review? Direct city or city solicitor. Can administration confirm on the record here and now the exact date of the mailers were sent out and why amendments found on the website were omitted from the physical mailer. Simplification is not license for omission. All material facts must be present. Omission changes the essence of the proposal. Fairness is context dependent. Standard for reasonable notice is at its highest given rezoning has profound impact on all residents' lives and property values. Procedural fairness, correctness standard for pre fair procedures, especially with respect to when private rights or property interests are at stake. Council needs to table the Corner Plus Two amendment or amendments until administration can prove full legal compliance with the MGA's advertising standards, as we cannot have a fair hearing debate or vote if the public was not properly legally notified. City Policy CS010 again, effective and appropriate communication, the consistency standard. Citizens should receive the same information in style and content across letter or website. Prejudice by omitting amendments from the mailer, the city caused substantive prejudice to residents who cannot access the internet, thereby excluding entire segments of Calgary constituency from their statutory right to be informed and be heard. Buried key amendments is a jurisdictional error and a misleading notice. A resident reading the mailer would not understand the actual impact on their property, especially the corner plus two lots and their neighbors. A breach of procedural fairness plagues this hearing. This is a legally deficient notice as it failed to include the real impacts. Even if a different version is online, it fails the legal test, placing the procedural validity and jurisdictional authority of this hearing into question, especially with respect to the amendment corner law plus two law. Municipalities are creatures of the province. It is not inconceivable that should a second rezoning hearing, and recalling the earlier defeated guidebook, be brought to a judicial review with a real possible Thank you so much, Shelley. You're just a time, but I'd like to hear the conclusion of that sentence. with a real possibility of being voided that the province would be obligated to step in with a referendum or plebiscite to fairly and finally settle the matter of rezoning for Calgarians, not to mention the waste of time and resources. Thank you so much. So appreciate you being with us. Please stay on the line. We'll go now to Craig on 97, then uh Maxon after that. Please go ahead, Craig. Thank you, you worship and all city council uh for the opportunity to put my uh comments in. I'm sort of wearing two hats here. Firstly, as many of you know, I'm the executive director of PGIV.org. I'm also on the board for a better Calgary Party. In the recent election, like all of you, I knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of phone calls in both Ward 12 and 14. And the refrain was the same. Almost no one wanted or wants blanket rezoning and were furious that they gave their input and were not listened to. You heard them as well. Taxpayers are sick and tired of politicians who think they know best. This top down type of governing is not what people want. Clearly in Ontario and the East they do, but not here. Let me be crystal clear. We elected each and every one of you running the corporation of the city of Calgary. You report to us just as the unelected bureaucracy must report to you. The tail can no longer wag the dog. I'm sure that for legal reasons you must be going through this process and wasting some tax dollars on an unnecessary process when we could be doing other things. The reason for this repeated process has not been explained well to those outside your chambers, in my opinion. You need to eliminate any idea of blanker rezoning, or you'll find yourselves on the outside of Council Chambers next election. So go back to the old LAP and scrap any amendments, just so you know the blanker rezoning. Listen to the voters. Listen to us shareholders, if you will, of this great city. So far so good guys. Although there was no zero reason for a tax hike of any kind. Reducing a tax hike is still a tax hike. And with billions laying around for infrastructure and money spent on things that are not municipal jurisdiction, blue rings, etc., it was really frustrating to see this new council put their hands deeper in our pockets. There is but one taxpayer. Anyways, there was no need for me to have charts and graphs, etc. As Chris Davis and group and many others have already done that throughout this process. Just do what the public wants and do not be bribed by federal money. We've already met the threshold for the percentage that was tied to the money anyways. Listen to the people and let's make a better Calgary. All right. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Maxon on 99, then Joyce after that. Good morning, Mayor and Member of Council. My name is Maxim Spanier and I'm a resident of Ward 7, and I represent myself. I'm here to ask you to repeal the current blanket rezoning bylaw. Before continuing, I would like to inform you that uh I'm too, like many others before me, was baffled by the registration form question. Are you in favor or opposition of the issue? I don't even remember how I answered it, but uh I would like to go on record uh that I support the immediate removal of the blanket rezoning. My position is not about stopping growth, but about ensuring that growth is responsible, community led, and backed by the available infrastructure. My opinion was informed by the following observations of what is actually happening in our inner city communities. First, blanket rezoning has led to destruction of affordable detached older houses. And property price inflation. Communities with extreme level of development have seen the highest detached house price property increases, driven entirely by land demand from rezoning and densification policies. Families who want to buy an older house in Inner City. Have no chance when they compete against builders with deep pockets, preferred financing, government incentives, and future profits from development. Those who are lucky enough to buy before the current craziness are being squeezed out by huge property bills, tax bills, or worse by ugly structures being built right next to their home. I keep hearing that blanket rezoning will bring house choices and low prices. But after only a short period of densification push, The only widely available house option in the inner city are these depressing, high density, overpriced units with windows staring at garage walls, completely unsuitable for families. This is not a choice. Calgarians deserve the stability, space, and dignity of a real home. Second, we cannot ignore the physical reality of our schools and infrastructure. Our inner city institutions like Rosedale School, Capitol Hill, Rosemont, or Crescent Heights are already at or buff capacity. I urge the city approval committee to do their due diligence. Any new high density development should only be permitted after the school capacity extension. Do not be afraid to reject permits when the math doesn't work. Like I seriously, I have school, like kids at school and the schools are overcrowded. And uh I know that The new provincial bill basically includes new schools, but none of them have mentioned any expansion in our inner city communities. Furthermore, there should be no institutional pressure to approve at all costs when our six seventh year old pipelines and electrical lines are already screaming for a leap. Density without social infrastructure is not progress. It is failure of planning. I also want to debunk the misconception that the inner city is a donut of decline. Our community is not a hollowed out shell. It is a vibrant, thriving neighborhood with a healthy mix of young, middle aged families with children alongside established senior households. We are a multi generational success story. Please support the repeal. Let's return to a system where growth is earned through infrastructure readiness and community engagement. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Joyce on 99 to wrap up this panel. Please go ahead and Joyce. Thank you. My name is Joyce Seely, and I also live in Ward 7, Bamp Trail. I agree with everything the former the previous gentleman said to me or said to us, and I'm in support of repealing blanket rezoning. So much has gone wrong in my neighborhood in Bamp Trail that I don't even know where to start. I have so many mixed feelings about what I see and what I now live in my neighborhood. Initially, because I live on a corner lot, there was constant harassment from builders wanting my property. They sent me notices, they phoned me, they talked to me when I was out in my in my yard cutting my grass. It never stopped, day after day after day, as soon as blanket rezoning was put out there. I resent that. Eventually, a 12-unit DP was introduced in my street, and it's been almost a whole year of research with neighbors to figure out what we could do about it. We don't have a functional community association, so we couldn't get help there. We had two people on our association at the time. Why? Because only 25% of the houses in my area are actually owned by people who live there. The rest is rental. So why would I volunteer my time to go to a community association to make plans for people who don't live there permanently? They don't live there. They come and they go. I'm gonna just jump in and and w uh the we our legal proceedings really require us to be very focused on the user or rather the use and not the user and and speaking to say whether renters are actually members of the community can be quite considered uh offensive. So let's just really focus on the merits of what's before us. So, because we didn't have help to find out what was really going on in our neighborhood, I took it upon myself to walk the streets of Bamp Trail last fall. I discovered that there were approximately 200 bungalows torn down and replaced with 1,600 dwelling units. I counted the doors. I was wondering is this dense enough? Have we surpassed our point that we were supposed to surpass? What number means enough is enough? I saw numerous examples of shoddy dangerous workmanship. I saw pipes coming out of the walls in front of the stairs where people would have to exit in case there was a fire. And I wondered how that got passed. They were both shocked by what they saw, and they said, We're gonna have to check that out. They checked it out and it was the result of relaxations. So whatever goes, goes in my community. The overmassing issue is the fact that There are so many, this is a point that I don't know if it's being addressed, but there's so many there's so many builds that are done well, but there are so many that are not done well. And when I see basement windows that are at or below ground level when I'm at the street, and six feet wells to get out of those basements should there be a fire. It makes me very, very nervous and upset. And I wonder why is this happening? How is this happening? I talked to a fire inspector. He didn't like what was happening either, but his hands were tied because of the policy. So we have a DP on the corner of the inside corner, a pie-shaped lot of my street, backs onto a 90 degree blind corner in the alleyway. The developer initially wanted to build three separate buildings on the single family lot, which would include 36 bedrooms and 36 bathrooms. Who does that? Who needs that? What is the purpose of this build? And did I mention that the water pipe burst in our street in January? So we invited the developer to come to talk to us because there was no other way. We just kept sending invitations. And it became clear to us that this was a purpose built commercial development, a dorm or a rooming house in the middle of our street. He told us it was going to be used to be rented to university students. So that's a dormitory. So I'm wondering are all the requirements for a commercial endeavor like this and the safety requirements? going to be built into this or checked afterwards and then built. My question is, is my whole street going to go up in flames? Because all of these doors have to be knocked on by the firefighters before they'll turn on their hoses. I asked this question, and you said, Yep, all the doors have to be knocked on. So that means that if there's three buildings and if there's a fire in the middle building, and a firetruck cannot get in the back alleyway, and nor are they legally required to go in the back alleyway, this fire has lots of time to spread sideways, not to mention how people might be killed. So I'm very concerned about this. Two weeks ago, this particular DP, after all our fighting, was actually grandfathered in because of the clause. And now we have to go to an appeal hearing in June. This has been so stressful, you have no idea. The person who has to, Joyce, uh unfortunately you're just at time, but I ask uh just a final sentence if you don't mind. I just wanted to say the person who has to stand up and fight against this is a doctor who works in a cancer clinic, and he has to give up all of his patients for that day to go to a hearing to discuss this when all of these other cancer people victims are worried about their lives. Thank you so much for being here with us. We'll now go to questions for this panel. Uh colleagues, I'd ask that uh we can keep it tight if possible. It'd be great to go to one more panel. uh before we break. Over to Councillor Shabot, please. Thank you. Thank you, worship. I think it was Ms. Tollock. Ms. Tallock, are you still on the line? I am, yes. Thank you. Um thanks for your submission. I I I'm trying to I want to be clear about what it is that you're saying. Um are you suggesting that your you believe that the entire hearing today is Something that could potentially be challenged, including the the repeal? I cannot submit legal advice, but I I am happy to share my concern about the amendment plus corner lot particularly and the two adjacent lots being a poison pill. And that does not protect from mid block upzoning either. And as such, the fruit from a poison tree places this entire hearing in legal jeopardy. And um if I can be allowed to finish the last couple sentences here, I think that will add some clarity. Sheriff, please. Okay, so um let's draw our attention and memory back to the vast rezoning for housing campaign of 2024, which included, but not limited to weeks and months of radio and digital advertising, billboards and transit advertising, TV advertising, webinars, social media campaigns, town halls, nine information sessions, in person, online, walking tours, postcards. And much more compared to this skimpy, deficient mailer. And I want to emphasize this last bit. The past five days of this hearing, which I've watched in an on and off, displayed how uninformed and confused residents are, and even counselors expressed confusion with no clarification from administration at the outset of this hearing. Even when clarification of amendments was needed and requested by council members and then repeatedly requested over the past five days. This entire five days is a discovery gold mine for lawyers. Yeah, I'll just leave it at that. If you have other questions, I'm I'm available. Yeah, no, I I do actually, but thanks for that. Um so if I'm hearing you correctly, you believe that some of the amendments may not have been clearly um uh advertised or or uh clearly uh understood, but the but the uh the repeal um aspect of it um is is where I'm trying to go with this question is do you believe that the repeal uh aspect of the The uh pamphlet that went out provided enough clarity. Well, you can you can refer back to the mailer where the re the repeal portion is stated, it's pretty crystal clear. People understand this to be a repeal uh hearing. They the amendments, even though some of them might be okay with the height, zero lot lines, 55%. I don't think a lot of people are going to argue with you on those. But even well informed members of community associations, people who are very um up to speed on things and decades are not coming and understanding. The amendments piece about the corner lot plus three and that and there's no way to protect mid block because those lots have a right to be upzoned as well. So this is completely deficient in every aspect. Okay. No, I open you open the door the the doors are wide open to legal challenge and The this entire hearing will be placed in front of a a judge in the Court of King's Bench and good luck with that. Okay. So but you're not citing any specific sections of the MGA that you think that this would be uh in contravention on? Section 606. I have case law as well, which I didn't include because it's simply just too much information to add, but I can try to pull it up really quickly here. Section 606 plus the city policy CS010, and then there's also another policy about transparency. Uh yeah, I mean I just had so much uh to share, and you can only squeeze in so much, even when you're a fast speaker, into five minutes. Yeah, no, I'm I'm only interested right now in which sections of the MGA that you'd be in you believe are a potential um Uh things that could be considered at a court of King's Bench. And so if you could cite me those specific sections, I'd be more than happy to get clarification around those and do further exploration on my own. Well, I can say I can say section six zero six definitely. And um uh and there's other, as I said, there's other relevant information that I just don't have at hand, but Which would be a council policy, right? The other section you were referring to. section six zero six. Okay. All right. Thanks very much for your submission. I have no further questions for you. Appreciate your submission. Thanks. Looks like we have significant amount of members of Council in the queue for for questions here. What I'm gonna say is this will be our final panel uh before breaking. Uh over to Councillor McLean please. Uh thank you, Mayor. Questions for Mr. Chandler. Are you still on the line, Craig? I sure am, sir. Well, thanks for calling in. I do recall you calling in last time for the public hearing for blanket rezoning, and you had a lengthy conversation with Councillor Curra, former Council Crow at the time, where you spoke quite passionately in favor of blanket rezoning. Now you're speaking against or for repealing blanket rezoning. So my question is what made you change your mind? Well, the first time I presented I was in person and I was for it. The second time I called in and I was against it. And, you know, I guess you could say smart people when presented with facts and evidence changed their mind. And uh I looked initially across a friend of mine. I initially thought, okay, this might be a good idea, and then I started to look at the ramifications and uh realized he was wrong. So So good good answer. That's all I had for you, Craig. Thanks so much. Bye now. Thank you. Over to Councillor Jameson please. Mr. Chandler, are you still on the line? uh sure am. Okay, well, thanks a lot for calling in and being part of this public hearing. Uh, if I may ask, how do you know what people are thinking about this particular issue with such confidence? Well You know, being involved with a better calgary party, we had uh several candidates and uh the candidates would share information on on regular meetings, whether it's on chats or whether it's uh personally on what the big issues were, and it was overwhelming in every ward that there was a candidate, that the number one issue was get rid of blanket rezoning. And I continue to door knock myself in different areas for uh nominations, and all I'm hearing from the door myself now, too, is nothing but this is a big issue, and we're saying no, that's that's municipal. It's still coming up as an issue at the door. So I'd say maybe I don't know, a hundred thousand doors recently might have uh led to the belief that uh yeah, this is a problem. You had mentioned it's obvious that the public trust is eroded. So uh, do you have any ideas on how uh we can you know repair that or do a better job of listening to Calgarians? Well, I think on this particular s overall, I think you guys are are are somewhat doing a good job, as I said in my commentary. Uh didn't think the tax was necessary regardless, but Having consultations like this is good. I just think having two of them when it's overwhelming uh that we ha everyone was against it before, and then election everyone told us we were against it. This is a waste of time and money. But but consultation processes like this are important. I think what Dan McClain did as well by having something at Cardell was uh important as well. So Dan seems to understand consulting with his constituents. That was a great example. So things like that are our way to do things. Uh thank you. No more questions. Thank you, Councillor Jameson. Actually, it looks like we surprisingly exhausted all the questions for this panel. I'm going to call names that had previously or panels that have been previously called. We do have that important water security meeting over the noon hour, so that's a real uh hard stuff for us. I'm gonna ask for two more panelists to approach. Do we have anyone from panel 66 in the chamber? Alright, so those are two people. So yeah, please approach. So we have these uh we have two people in the chamber with us, please approach. And you'll be our final uh two folks to hear from today. So please come on up. If you don't mind just letting us know your name and your panel number. Oh, 66. Yeah, Peter Dormar, 66, and I have a presentation. Thanks. Yeah, we can just go to the first. Thanks. So I'm gonna begin. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Peter Dormar, and I'm a business consultant living in Huntington Hills. And I'd like to speak in opposition to the rezoning changes. Just to be clear, I support keeping RCG in place. I imagine that many on council and in the public can think that these public consultation meetings are great gauges for public opinion and that the speakers here are representative of Calgarians. Inspired by a book called Neighborhood Defenders, my friend Katherine Davies and I tested that. First, let's look at Calgary's 2021 profiles. About half of Calgarians live in communities below 105,000 median household income. These residents benefit most from keeping RCG in place. Many live in apartments and basement suites. They often live paycheck to paycheck as renters, and if they can, are saving up to buy their first house. The more housing supply available all over the city, the easier it is for them to stay afloat financially. Roughly the other half live above $105,000, and 3%, roughly 35,000 people, are in a class I'll call the ultra rich, who live in neighborhoods with median household incomes above $160,000. Communities like Upper Mount Royal, Britannia, and West Springs. Their basic needs to live are generally they aren't affected by housing affordability. Um, let's do the next slide, please. This slide shows the average income in the communities these three groups live in. As you can see, the 3% of the ultra-rich households make $200,000 on average annually and live vastly more financially privileged lives elevated above much of the economic problems of the other 97% of Calgarians. We wanted to know more about their representation at City Council public hearings, so Catherine watched the recordings of the public hearing meeting for the guidebook and the meeting for the approval of RCG rezoning and recorded whether speakers were in support or against rezoning and what community they lived in when that was announced. I compared this info with the 2021 Calgary community profiles. What did we find? Can we do the next slide, please? Between the two meetings, 245 speakers spoke in opposition to both the guidebook and RCG and announced what neighborhood they were from. The average community median household income of opposition speakers in these meetings was $145,000, $40,000 higher than Calgary's average. In the guidebook meeting, the average community meeting and household income was $188,000, $83,000 higher than Calgary's average. How did this happen? Across both meetings, 23% of the speakers were from communities in the ultra rich class. In the guidebook meeting, the number was 50%. The vast majority of these ultra rich opposition speakers were from communities with median household incomes above $288,000. Looking at this slide, the pie chart on the left shows the proportion of the three economic groups in Calgary's population, and the three pie charts on the right show the three groups representation at the two housing reform meetings individually and then combined. Just to be clear, they were the anti-I guidebook and anti-RCG group. To test if this was a coincidence, I ran a simulation 200,000 times to ask the question if these speakers had been picked at random from Calgary residents based on where people actually live, how often would we get an RCG opposition group of communities this wealthy? The answer is never. The makeup of the opposition speakers is so unrepresentative of everyday Calgarians that they didn't appear once in 200,000 simulations. So let's look at the next slide. So this is a scatter plot. The y-axis shows the population of these income groups, and the x-axis shows the number of meeting opposition speakers per thousand in their population. So, as we can see, um the 97% of Calgarians are the two dots on the left. They have very high populations and low representation per person at these meetings, and the ultra-rich 3% have extremely high representation per thousand people and very low po a very low population. So, what does this all mean? We tend to think of these public hearings as good gauges of public sentiment on housing reform, that they are like straw poles on an issue. I'm here to say that they are not. The anti RC G group is unrepresentative of Calgarians. The numbers show that they are being Thank you. I'm just gonna jump in. Uh I jumped in previously to suggest that a tax, say, on renters as not being members of the community uh wasn't appropriate. And I'm also gonna do the same thing for uh talking about those with higher incomes or members of any specific group as not being representative of being Calgarian. We're all Calgarian here. I get the point that you're trying to make around statistics here, but if we can just keep it on the the issue and not attack any identifiable individuals, it'd be much appreciated. Okay, I understand. I guess I'll just uh summarize by saying that um just that um we often tend to think these these groups are um are like r are representative like I guess in in some way um income actually does make a difference because people who um uh the people who are most affected by this decision aren't being represented here. I guess that's what I would say. Thanks. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to the other person who's with us, if you don't mind just uh stating your name and your panel number. Yeah, my name is Devangi Kodi and I am a Wattwell resident. And first of all, thank you so much everybody for giving this chance to speak up today. This is such a privilege being in a society that is multicultural and democratic. So it's such a privilege, and I'm gonna uh many people have raised many great points, but me as a migrant, just 10-year-old Calgarian Canadian, I'm gonna share my personal story. We migrated in 2015, started living Elbow Drive, and we had an opportunity, a family member wanted to visit Canada, see the beauty of Canada, Calgary, of course. We welcomed that and we started looking for two-bedroom apartments. The rent of two-bedroom apartments in Britannia was so high that in my research I looked up and I realized we can actually pay mortgage, which is going to be lesser than that. So we moved to suburbs, accepted the sprawl that was already placed hundreds of years ago. And my husband and my family thought that, oh, that's gonna be a great life living in the big house or whatever. Two years in there, I fell into depression. I almost attempted not almost I attempted to end my life, my depression got worsened because the social life or socialization was so limited in that area that me and my daughter could not adjust for the first three years. The same story repeated of my three friends who migrated to Mohogany, Urban Bay, and recently, because I started after my recovery, I'm thankful to AHS Services and this city for giving me so much treatment, said I'm better now. So in my community work, I found out a woman in Urban Bay actually was successful. doing what I decided to do in 2019. That's a one point. Now I came here on Friday and I got to listen so many incredible human beings raising their voice and their concern. Incredible platform here. And they said things about character. When as a migrant I came to the city, I see the character of Calgary as its snow, the six-foot one, in the winter. It's two beautiful rivers, the confluence of the river. Even indigenous people in their land acknowledgement say that this is a confluence of the Elbow and Bo River, and these beautiful parks around the city. I thought that is the character of the city and its diversity, its people. And some of them are not represented here. It's been repeated again and again. And I had an opportunity to facilitate a workshop at Genesis, and I was talking about this process that I'm being part of. One person living in Northwest, one person living in Southeast, one person far southwest, one from African Caribbean African community, one from the Philippines Islam community, and one a Punjabi. They had no idea something like this is happening right now. And they ask me, what is this? Where are you going? Why are you going to City Hall? So, what I'm trying to say is some of the voices are not being heard here. It's a very limited thing going on and it's been repeated. Now, transformation every time, as a migrant, I know, can be challenging. Change is also challenging. And what I say healthy society and healthy governance should not miss out voices that are not being represented here. Youth voices are not being represented here. People who are digitally not literate are not represented here. People who cannot speak proper English are not taking courage to be here. People from different governing systems coming here building life, they don't know what public hearing is, are not here because they are not confident enough to share their voice. The other thing I would like to say is what transformation is going to be shake up some things. And I am in a position of repeal, but I do respect the concern the residents who are facing right now, some amendments need to be made. Repeal is going to be a step backward. And I'm gonna give the uh another point that I want to make here. Climate crisis is a problem. We cannot keep giving this responsibility to the next generation. And next generation have raised their voice, they are not here, many of them. Mayor Farka, you and your administration is a new, brand new, all new faces, few repeated. You have a chance to put climate action in one hand, housing affordability, and make bringing them together. By not going back, your administration has a chance to be innovative. Keep this upzoning, get the concerns noted, but do not go for the repeal. It is a huge step backward. And you can Calgary can be a national leader by actually keeping the upzoning and its promises ahead by making needed amendments. I humbly request you do that for my daughter who's gonna build life here. Do that for many of our children. Please, the central of Calgary, which has incredible socially multicultural diverse spaces, they are being underutilized. I travel every day 20 times 35 minutes to Genesis. Mr. Daliwal might have seen me somewhere, my face. Fortunately you're you're just at time, but thank you so much. That's okay. Thank you. We'll be looking at you. Please make the right choice. Thank you. I am I'm just gonna jump in real quick uh for you, Peter. I I kind of cramped your flow with uh how I interjected. I I just wanted to see if there's anything you wanted to uh conclude with. Nope, sorry. Devanga, we're just uh speaking with Mr. Dormer. Yeah. Um I know I I uh with my interjection about the identifiable groups, uh I didn't give a chance perhaps uh for you to to finish your thoughts and I know it was uh uh it was awkward. So uh if you had any other uh closing remarks or any thoughts that you wanted to share with us, uh please do so. Yeah, thanks for giving me the time again. Um I think I spoke about most of what I wanted to get to. And I think that it's not that I have like I understood what you said that we're all Calgarians, but I um I guess I think there is an issue in that like I know counselors' jobs are really hard and stressful, and you don't have a lot of time to get in all the information is you you need. And it's often easy to like um have a few meetings and um do these hearings. um and say like this is all of Calgary's opinion, but often they can be biased towards or they can be unrepresentative of yeah the people who aren't as economically um affected by this decision which is really important to everyone. Yeah, and that that's really the the point I think we we touched on with uh Ms. Lam at the conclusion of uh Friday night is certainly the the people who participate in the public hearing are those they represent themselves. Um my final question to you would be Is it your position just to retain in full the the current uh version of the blanket rezoning? Do you see from perhaps any of the submissions uh in support of the repeal good advice for how it should be modified, or is it your position that it should just stay the course, no revisions, no changes? Um it's my it's my position to stay the course with no um revisions. I did I do um really value tree cover, so I understood a lot of the the speakers who um were defending um keeping tree cover, and I I think if there was if there were revisions um it would be to like have a bylaw to um promote keeping these the large trees that are in neighborhoods still, even if we still have a blanket um RCG. Thank you so much. That's it for me. I'll go to Councillor Chabot, please. Uh Ms. Dormer, uh, thanks for being here. And your submission was rather interesting, I thought, because it made reference to very specific demographics, very specific incomes. And I know that we've received some information about certain areas and what the average income is on those in those areas, but you seem very definitive about the individuals that represented. I'm just curious, do you have detailed information on incomes of those individuals? No, so um we were inspired by a study that was done in the US, and in the US, they have a lot more data that's very granular, but in our study we just looked at the individual community. So if they said they were from a community, they would uh if they said they were from a community, we would just say that the average household um community in the that area, they would like that would be one dot for them or one um data point for them. Um although I will say that the of the three the um The section, the 3% of the wealthy Calgarians, um, they actually made about $288,000 in their average um median household incomes, which shows that like the chance that it's it's very definitive that um It's that not definitive. they're likely more wealthier than the average Calgarian. Probable. Probable, yeah. Thank you. Not definitive. Correct. So the answer is no. You do not have detailed information on And mostly um it's it's about probabilities, yeah, in in my in my analysis. okay. Thanks. No further questions? Thank you. Councillor Atkinson, please. Uh yeah, Mr. Yeah, just Domer, it's just uh where did you get the uh the financial data for your uh who your answer? Yeah, so I just looked at the community profiles, the 2021 Calgary Community Profiles, which you can find online. So they're the cities, yeah, the cities reports, which is using median uh income depth. Household income Yeah. On a household basis. And and did you at all do when you were doing that also sort of map to where the changes are being experienced within the city? I know you were speaking about sort of the differences that we're seeing with those that showed up and those who maybe we didn't hear from, or the difference between those who were opposed to rezoning and those who were for. Did you did you see anything in those different groups? between for and against. Yeah. Yeah, so um for the RCG supporters, their average community household income was 91,000, which is way closer to the Calgary average, roughly $14,000 lower than it. Only 2% of the people who support RCG were from the ultra rich class, which actually matches our actual proportion in the city. Right. So you were looking at sort of the difference in terms of the numbers of people that were spoken speaking up during versus the percentages of representation across Calgary. Yeah. Okay. That's great. Thank you very much for your presentation. I disagree that singling out the affluence of people that are coming and speaking and sort of bringing up this proposal is necessarily speaking against a group. Affluence doesn't mean you're speaking against someone, it's just giving another data point into the information that we are having at our disposal. Thank you, Councillor. I'll allow for a lot of time for debate when it comes to that. Yeah, absolutely. Uh Councillor Dallywell, please. Thank you, Mayor. My question is for Damangi. Um, I just want to understand. Uh I I I I heard your point, don't repeal it. Um I just want to understand why. So I did mention that repeal is a step back. That's what I'm feeling. I'm thinking. But I said with some amendments, for sure, we can take the concerns of the citizens who are affected. Because me living in War 12 and people living in Calgary for more than 40 years, obviously I cannot be their voice. I don't have capacity for that. But this was put in place for because the city needed it. That's why the previous administration has proposed it. I am just saying opposition to repeal, but if there are any ways we can target the concerns of who are affected, negatively affected by the blanket rezoning, that can be targeted. My humble request to All the the whole administration is repealing is a step back. So I am comfortable. I do believe that if there are some ways we can target their concerns and stop the sprawl because sprawling is something that is going to affect or really, climate crisis is on high. We saw today is not an example. We got the snow, but we see how less snow we got this year, last year, and the heat is increasing in Calgary. So for future generation. This sprawl is not going to be the something that is going to help. And that generation may not want bigger houses and better bedrooms. They are they are going towards a different way of life. Yeah. No, no, that uh well said, but what I'm hearing is uh the speakers who came here who wanted repealed necessarily didn't say they don't like density, they want more housing. But I think it's not I think the concerns I heard and were that the way it's being done, uh that there's more sanity. For density rather than just everywhere. What are your thoughts about that? Like if it's repealed, hypothetically, but there's a plan to still keep supporting housing and mostly very near and dear to my heart as non market, non for profit housing. Would you be supportive of that? Yes, I need to look into that, but yes, I I we if there are some referendum made that would allow the central of the city utilized in a better way, and the sprawl is stopped or limited. Yes, of course. I be sorry. Okay. I have other questions about participation and all that, but they're not related to repeal. So I will not go into that. But please uh let's connect after this meeting so we can continue those discussions. So thank you so much for coming. I really, really appreciate you coming here. Thank you. Yeah. And we thank you, your leadership in a word five as well. Thank you. Thank you. Over to Councillor Ward, please. Yes, uh uh for Peter, please. I think that was the name. Yeah. Um, Peter, you you talked about the community profiles, which I brought up while you were speaking here. Sorry, this is for Peter. Councillor Ward's uh wishing to speak to Mr. Dormer. Thank you. Um so I brought up oh, I closed one by accident, but uh three communities in my ward that are quite opposed to blanket rezoning are Haysborough, Kingsland, and Acadia. Um, if we look at, for example, Kingsland, the medium household income in Calgary is $98,000. Kingsland's medium median household income is $68,000, $30,000 below the average. Yet that community is quite opposed to blanket rezoning. Are you able to help me round that square? Well, what I would say is what we find in these meetings is that I guess what my my point is about representation at these meetings, and that um oftentimes like the the people who attend these meetings are um the the makeup um I I I get what you're saying, and um that's also a probability as well. So But I would say that the like the people who oppose it and also come to these meetings are far more wealthy than the representation of Calgaryans, essentially. For sure. And and I I would generally agree with you on that, but people are able to provide written submissions. I've had several open houses, I've you know, door knocked 24,000 doors. I I guess what I'm saying is I don't think we can draw a conclusion from one aspect of engagement, which I agree this is not perfect. It's intimidating for most people. So I I guess what I'm saying is I I agree what you've said, but I don't think it tells the whole story, right? Like this is one part of engagement. Would you agree with that? Yeah, and and that's also something I would I would recommend that there be multiple points of input that other than this. Yeah. Okay. But I I would also say that a lot of people in communities that are of average income or below would benefit the most from RCG zoning as well. And that may be so. I I I'm just saying, based on my experience, like these communities that are well below the average income are some of the strongest voices against it. So it just it it kind of went against what you were presenting. That's why I wanted to have the discussion. But I appreciate it very much. Thank you. I I love stats, so thank you. Yeah. Thanks. We have two more council members. Uh I'm just gonna say, colleagues, I think we've really exhausted the uh the income question. We gotta really stay tight on the uh the use and not the user. Over to Councillor Pantasopoulos, please. Great, thanks so much. Uh you just called out uh certain communities within Word 6. So I just wanted to pick that up, particularly West Springs, where I live. And I just want to understand, do you think the issue, whether it's West Springs or Glendale, Glamorgan, which have a substantially lower income, and there's been lots of Calgarians that have spoken, is the issue against blanket rezoning density or simply the fact that it's absolutely no plan, no strategy, and it's a shotgun approach? What do you think the the wealthy in Ward 6 and also the ones that have an average income that are 50% the Calgary average? What do you think their reasons are coming against? Against RCG? Against blanket rezoning. You said that generally people in West Springs, as an example, with an income over 200,000, had a concern. Do you think it's a matter of density they're against, or is it a matter of the uncoordinated approach to density? Well to me, um, so this is just my personal opinion, so I don't have Using data, so what's the data say? What's your based on that if you correlate back? What do you believe that is I jumped in previously to call out some others, but let the uh let the public uh speak out. um I'd say um I'd say that they would probably want the density to be as low as possible, and they're just using um this to be a like to say um it should only be in in certain places, they're saying they don't want it to be close to them. So if if we went halfway, they would argue to go the full way. They like this is just my personal opinion, yeah. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Uh Councillor Johnston, please. Question is for Mrs. Cody. Cody. Sorry, do you mind me asking what neighborhood you live in? Range view right now, but my first home was in Cranston, very near, very close. And you are Against sprawl, right? Yes. Live in sprawl, right? Yeah, we had to. I that's why I started my voice with that story that we were looking for something in Britannia, even renting, but we if rent was higher. It was, I think, 200 2200. And the mortgage was coming out as $1800. So it was just a random luck. And yes, we did come up with some savings. We both were working back home. So we had some money to put down for down payment. So within two years or even less than two years, we bought our first home. Yeah. So would you agree that outer sprawl, if you want to call it that, produces affordable housing? Uh again, like we all are talking, there are certain facts, they don't share the whole truth of the story. And that is why I mentioned that it seemed like a good thing. What ended up happening is I was extremely isolated. My daughter was extremely isolated. I like to get into the community. I do that even for the past five years, I've been doing it, and that's where I'm going to be all my life. I was not able to do any of that when I went to Cranston, and that affected my mental health. My daughter, I had to drive every day to take her to those parks and build, keep into that community because the community connection did not happen there. And there might be a personal reason, but That's not the only story. We had to go there. And as I mentioned, two of my other friends, a young family, had to move out from Heritage Tribe and come to the suburbs because they saw from our thing that oh, mortgage is better. So affordable houses is a one point of it. But I'm a big advocate of climate crisis. That's why I said to Mayor Jeremy Furca that Calgary is in a very unique position right now. We can keep affordable houses goal on one hand, climate action goals on the other, combine them and build something greater for the future generation. Familiar patterns can work time to time, Mr. Johnson. But that doesn't mean that they are as effective. We know better. That's how the human world works. When we know better, we do better. So we need to do better. That was a strategy that worked. Yes, I got benefited by it. But entirety in an entirety, no. Because I go four to five times Genesis a week to keep my community momentum going. Past two years I've been trying to do International Women's Day for South Asian community in South, red tips everywhere. I have to choose Genesis Center because they fortunately allowed it. There are incredible spaces in 17th Avenue that allowed multicultural. Events and gatherings with such a warm welcome, like the Alex Community Food Center is one. And uh I I miss those type of spaces in Southeast. I don't have those spaces in right now. I have to always travel, even though I don't like it, but I do have to. Okay, I'll leave it there. Thank you so much. No problem. Thank you for asking. Thank you. Stay right there. We have uh Councillor Jameson, I think, to round us off. Oh, uh yeah. Hello, sir. Nice to meet you. Namaste. Nice to meet you too. Thank you very much for coming. So, first of all, thank you very much for sharing your personal story. You know, it's it's very uh, you know, it's it's all of us have different perspectives, right? And uh, you know, I'm sorry to hear that your time in Cranston wasn't uh, you know, it was filled with, as you mentioned, some isolation. And uh do you feel that the community experience is better for you in Rangeview currently, right now? It's a uh it's a bit it's still building. So I'm this time because I've been in here 10 years, I've learned some lessons. So I'm going to try when the community center is being built. The CTN is already up. So I'm trying to reach out to them. And a church, a beautiful church, is nearby. So I'm going to reach out to them too. Just yesterday I had a call with the with the lady who runs craft classes for seniors. And I love to serve seniors. That's my roots. That's that's how I was brought up. And it's my to-do list, like it's my vision. So yeah, we're gonna look into some spaces, but we reach out to Mohogany, we reach out to the nearby Sonashi, there is this area. There's so many uh restrictions there. The same event was warmly welcomed at Genesis with the same requirement we had. But they did not accept those requirements. Even not even Mogany Beach Club, as well as the oh, I keep forgetting, it's the it's the big uh ice hockey center near Shaughnessy uh Shaughnessy YMCA. They did not allow our event to happen. We try hardest to explain them that we need this type of feature to bring in community together. And it's been a two and a half years struggle and it still is my struggle and I'm gonna work on it. And I I w I uh we were supposed to reach out to you. We were gonna write you a petition or an email like five, six organization together. Well I think the timing's good here and and I would uh definitely uh as soon as break uh happens here uh I'd like to just if you don't mind sticking around to connect with you absolutely because there's lots we can do together and there's you know maybe some some ways that I can help too. Okay? So Such an incredible Yeah. So thank you very much for speaking. appropriate. All right. Thank you so much, uh, colleagues. This uh concludes our panel. I'm about to hit the gavel. I have accommodated uh requests for two panels, uh both for and against uh as it pertains in the uh procedure by law. The when we come back at 1 15 or so, we're gonna have a panel from Kreb with Anne Marie Lurie, Susanita De Diago, Stephen Chakra, San Ostanti, and Terry Wong. And then following that, uh, we will have uh presentation from more neighbors uh with Sandra Mann, Denise Robinson, Philip Turnbull, Clyde Bukert, and Rob Zhang. So with that, see you back at 150. Hello, and welcome back to the public hearing meeting of Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. On the role, Councillor Clark, Councillor Dolly Wall, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnston, Councillor Kelly, President Councillor McLean, here. Councillor Pantozopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Here. Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, President. and Mayor Farkas. I'm here. Two mayor. Thank you, colleagues. As mentioned previously, we're gonna start our first panel with uh A presentation from Kreb. We have Anne-Marie Lourie, Susanita Didiago, Stephen Chakras, Sano Stanti, and Terry Wong. Do we have you folks? All right, please approach and uh we will get started. I will have to leave in just a few moments for council business on the uh water main repairs. Uh following this, following the conclusion of this panel as well as the questions from council, we'll go to a subsequent panel from More Neighbors Calgary, and that includes Sandra Mann, Denis Robinson, Philip Turnbull, Clyde Bukert, and Rob Zhang. Great. Thank you so much for being here with us. Pleased for each of you. I may not have called you in the right order that you've uh planned it out, but uh please just uh introduce yourself, Bene. Thank you, your worship. My name is Susanita De Diego. I live in Ward 11. This is panel 61. Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and Counselors. As I said, my name is Susanita De Diego. I'm the chair of the Board of Directors for the Calgary Real Estate Board, or Kreb, as we call it. Our organization represents more than 8,700 realtors serving home buyers and sellers across Calgary and the surrounding areas. We are the largest member organization in the Calgary real estate community. Member engagement and collaboration are built into everything we do at Kreb, so I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in the public hearing today and share our perspective. Let me begin by acknowledging something important. Housing affordability and issues of supply have been real challenges in recent years. And we recognize the urgency many Calgarians feel about addressing them. As a realtor myself, I work with these buyers and sellers every day who care deeply about these issues. Our members are uniquely positioned to work with housing consumers to help them navigate a wider range of complexities in the marketplace. We work daily with families trying to buy their first home, seniors looking to downsize, and renters hoping to transition into ownership. We understand the importance of policies that support housing choice and availability across the spectrum of housing options, both market and non-market based. We know that real estate is local. Housing outcomes are shaped by local infrastructure, transit access, and community design. Factors that vary widely across the city. This is why a one size fits all approach is not the most effective way to manage growth and housing demand. For these key reasons, Krebs supports the repeal of blanket rezoning. In its place, we advocate for growth strategies that increase housing supply while safeguarding infrastructure capacity, affordability objectives, and the vitality and character of our communities. Historically, Calgary's housing supply has responded when demand justified it, mostly in the new communities and without the need for blanket rezoning. Since 2000, the city has experienced three major housing shortages in 2005 and 2006, 2013 and 14, and 2022 and 2024. Each was driven largely by a sudden increase in migration. With population growth expected to slow, there's time to ensure that rezoning is done in a way that provides certainty for existing residents, potential residents, and builders. Our chief economist Dan Marie Lurie is here today and will expand on these market trends and what they mean for housing supply in Calgary. These patterns also highlight another important consideration. Market certainty. Blanket rezoning has created uncertainty for buyers and sellers, mostly in our city center district, and has not resulted in improvements in affordability. Stability and predictability are important for maintaining confidence in the housing market, particularly during periods of economic adjustment. A blanket approach to rezoning is leading to densification that creates parking pressures and potential safety issues, reduced livability and long-term community cohesion. Rapid changes in land use can strain infrastructure, contributing to congestion and reduced service levels. Krebs supports a more thoughtful approach through local area planning for existing communities, which look at each community to determine what forms of housing are appropriate for specific streets and neighborhoods. This type of planning provides a clearer blueprint for how communities will evolve over time. It also creates greater certainty for existing homeowners, future residents, and the building and development community, while maintaining the diversity of housing types within neighborhoods, including detached, semi detached, row, and apartment houses. Another important consideration is affordability. Anne-Marie will dive a little deeper during her presentation, but more effective ways to support housing supply and affordability could include targeted densification and priority growth areas, better use of public land for attainable housing, support for secondary suites, and gentle density where infrastructure can support it, and partnerships such as community land trusts that can help maintain long term affordability. These approaches allow the city to increase housing supply while still aligning development with infrastructure. Sorry uh your time has ended, but uh please stick around for questions should there be any. Thank you. One more. Sentence, Calgarians deserve housing policies that are both ambitious and well designed. Policies that create homes, strengthen communities, and stand the test of time. Thank you very much. Thank you. And my order may be incorrect here, but Anne-Marie Lurie next, please. Thank you. Good afternoon. Um so I am Emory Lurie. My I'm the chief economist of the Calgary Reals Report. While we support several measures taken to improve affordability and densification, we continue to feel that the uncertainty that blanket rezoning creates is more problematic than the perceived benefits and should be repealed. This does not mean that we do not support changes in existing communities, but would rather see the densification occurred based on local area plans and specific land use that outline the where and what of densification, providing clarity to builders and residents in each community. While this planning does take time, shifting market conditions have given you the time that you need. If we s go to slide one. At the time of uh approval of bananary zoning, there was a lot of concern regarding housing affordability and the lack of supply. Much of this was driven by the sudden shift in migration as we went from under 20,000 migrants per year to over 140,000 migrants over a two year period. The sudden inflow caused a supply shortage for resale, rental, and new homes, ultimately causing significant gains in prices and rents. However, thanks to our available land supply, like previous cycles, the shortage also drove a construction boom. If we go to the next slide. The share of redevelopment versus new development remained relatively the same pre and post-approval. 70% in new communities, 30% redevelopment, indicating that blanket rezoning has not significantly altered the level of redevelopment compared to what was already occurring before approval. Furthermore, of the units added in the city center, the majority were apartment-style homes rather than row or semi homes. Missing middle construction in these areas that were redeveloped accounted for less than 6% of the total starts, no different than what occurred prior to rezoning, indicating blanket rezoning did not result in an increase in the share of missing middle development occurring in existing communities. The next consideration is how prices were impacted. Following three consecutive years of record high starts and migration returning to $20,000 per year, conditions have shifted, taking the pressure off home prices and rental rates. However, it was the supply growth in the new communities that have improved affordability over blanket rezoning. Most of the redevelopment has occurred in the city center district. Yet resale prices in the city center continue to rise across all property types, despite the improvement in supply. So while additional supply can weigh on prices, how it influences resale prices is not only dependent on the where, what, and how much supply is being added, but also on the price of new supply. If we go to the next slide. Within the city center, the highest price growth occurred for row homes built within the previous five years, bringing the resale price up to levels that were closer to brand new row homes. Meanwhile, affordable older row homes continue to report price growth and really tight market conditions. Meanwhile, in the southeast area, an area where all construction activity occurred in new developments, the spread between new home prices and resale prices are much closer than what is reported in the city center. So new supply growth has caused resale prices to ease in this area. Ultimately, new home and resale prices are related. And while increasing supply can weigh on resale prices, the impact is dependent on the price spread between new and resale homes. Next slide. So how do you deal with affordability? The first consideration is exactly what segment of the market are you trying to target? Affordable ownership, affordable rental, or non-market housing. The addition of secondary suites and lane homes can help add more affordable rental product in the market as rents in these units are typically less than what you would see from a purpose-built rental and can help also with affordability for owners. However, there is still a significant need for non-market subsidized housing for those who struggle most. The challenge on the ownership side is often more related to suitability and desirability. We have a wide range of lower priced apartment condominium product that is attainable for a large share of households, but ultimately they may not be suitable for larger households or households with several dependents. Blanket rezoning has not drastically shifted conditions nor created affordability, but it has created uncertainty for residents, leading some to consider restrictive covenants and legal action. The challenging economic climate and record high starts point to a longer absorption time of current supply. Given the city time to find a solution that provides more certainty for builders and residents while achieving density targets. Thank you. And next up. I'm sorry, I'm catching up here still. I believe Terry Wong, since uh you're sitting right there, we'll go to you and then I'll move to the telephone. Uh actually, Chair, we have two other speakers, San Osante and Steve Sarkos. They're online, and they're supposed to speak next. Certainly sorry, yes, and my I don't think my list corresponds with the order in which you were called, so bear with me here. Uh so we will start with Stephen Shawcross, then, please. Okay, I'm on the line. Hopefully you can hear me clearly. Loud and clear. Thank you. Uh your worship, uh, members of City Council, I'm Stephen Shawcross, and I'm here with my co author, San Ostanti. In 2024, we produced a paper entitled The unassailable case against blanket rezoning, in which we make predictions on a number of outcomes and impacts associated with the implementation of blanket rezoning. Unfortunately, these impacts have come to pass as predicted and are further elaborated upon in an update of the original paper, which was recently forwarded to City Council. In the interest of time, we've generated a voiceover slide presentation highlighting. The salient points of the paper and will be happy to elucidate on specific aspects at the conclusion of the planning of the of the panel presentations. On that note, we request that the clerk play our updated dissertation, which is eight minutes in total for both speakers. Thank you. Thank you. And next up we have San Ostante, please. We're looking for the presentation to be uh uh to be uh played. It looks like we've got it on. The unassailable case against blanket rezoning 2.0. This updated assessment incorporates current market data, administrative performance metrics, and international policy shifts to demonstrate that our original arguments against blanket rezoning have transitioned from predictive warnings to documented realities. As Calgary City Council moves towards a potential repeal of the rezoning for housing program in 2026. It's imperative to review the data that substantiates the need for a full repeal of the blanket zoning bylaw and a return to comprehensive, context-sensitive planning. The original promise of blanket rezoning was to increase affordability through supply, streamline the development process, get more efficient use of infrastructure, etc. Unfortunately, the blanket rezoning has failed to achieve these objectives, but at high social, environmental, and economic cost. As evidenced by the record-breaking year of 2025, supply is not the issue, as only 5.6% was the result of blanket rezoning. The boom occurred in greenfield sites and via local area plans, with a large percentage of the supply already in the pipeline prior to 2024. The city's notion of improving overall housing market dynamics by adding new supply. Is counterintuitive and specious in the extreme. As evidenced, house prices in Calgary have remained stable or increasing from 1980 to the present time, except when impacted by exogenous and extreme events. NEP, the global financial crisis, and COVID being those particular instances. The other mitigating factor in terms of oversupply is that land development and home building are for-profit enterprises and they utilize sophisticated tools to prevent chronic oversupply of units in perpetuity. Supply demand is monitored and refined regularly to match market demand and prevent overproduction of supply. Blanket rezoning has been an affordability failure. Prices have continued to rise. They've increased on new homes between 2024 and 2026, and resale prices increased in the city center in 2025. Calgary's housing progress strategy states at least one in five households are unable to afford their housing. Blanket rezoning did not lower prices, it inflated the land bases. Blanket rezoning turns family homes into redevelopment assets, pricing out families and seniors, and accelerating gentrification of communities. Recent data in Calgary demonstrates the inflationary impact of upzoning on land value in these inner city communities. In Mount Pleasant, for example, a typical 1950s bungalow on a 6,000 square foot lot or a 50 foot lot increased from 722,000 to 986,000, about a 36% increase in land value. Similarly, in Killarney, a typical 50-foot lot increased from $740,000 to over a million dollars, a 37% increase in land value. The unintended downside of blanket rezoning was an immediate inflationary impact on the land value pegged to its highest and best use. That affected a decrease in overall housing affordability. Blanket rezoning promised to streamline the development process, however, removing public hearings at the beginning only created gridlock at the end. It's proven that the tree canopy is one of the major contributors to the appeal of any community in Calgary. Aside from being one of the goals of the City of Calgary to increase the tree canopy, Blanket Rezoning Initiative has reduced the tree canopy by drastically reducing the green space available to plant trees. This also results in the creation of urban heat islands, increasing the need for more summer cooling and wasted energy. When initially promoted, City Administration used Auckland and Minneapolis as the urban leaders in best planning practice to sell blanket rezoning. However, Auckland reverted from blanket rezoning in 2025, and Minneapolis just recently also reverted. The world is moving back to contextual planning and targeted sequenced intensification focused on areas that are best suited to density. Blanket rezoning constitutes a sundering of the social contract, and the uncertainty benefits no one. There is a psychological impact of uncertainty on health and well being, which is contrary to the principles of planning for healthy communities espoused by the City of Calgary. We believe a better way to grow is through comprehensive planning via LAPs, followed by land use redesignation that will provide certainty. Designates the best sites for density, corridors, nodes, and high-intensity areas, but not all sites, and matches population growth with infrastructure capacity. Blanket rezoning is a blunt instrument, a sledgehammer when urban redevelopment requires a scalpel and a deaf touch. The solution to affordable housing is a community land trust. Land is 30% of the cost of any housing. The city owns an abundance of surplus land sites. The city could establish a community land trust and lease these sites to the trust on a 99 year lease. The land trust would then develop affordable housing and sell these homes into the market to qualified buyers at presumably 30% less than market value. Owners would then resell back to the land trust at their cost base plus a cost of housing increase, providing a perpetual, affordable housing solution. Our recommendation is to repeal blanket rezoning and reinstate IP 2007. And then establish a separate public hearing on recommendations regarding policy, programs, and protocols to achieve the stated objectives without the attendant impacts. As evidenced, blanket rezoning has failed to achieve the stated objectives, instead, delivering unintended and undesirable social, environmental, and economic impacts. Given the easing of in migration and the current supply dynamics, we have the time to fashion policies and programs that are capable of addressing the identified affordability, product diversity, and approval streamlining issues. This is our opportunity to get it right. Yeah. All right. Thank you, PowerPoint presentation. And the presenters that prepared them. Terry Wong, you are up next. Thank you, Your Worship. I have a document I'd like to put on the corporate record if that's okay. Thank you. Your worship, members of council, my name is Churry Wong, uh resident of Ward 7, Hounsford Heights, Briar Hill, former member of City Council, former uh executive director of Chinatown's Business Improvement Area, former president of the Hounswood Heights Briar Hill Community Association. As you've heard of our speakers in the panel, we've given you a number of facts, evidences. We've given you perspective of analytical rationalization of the of the recommendations and the change of recommendations. These are from people who have have been in the business of real estate, economics, land development, and industry preparation. In my case, I'm not going to speak about that. I'm going to speak to you about my role as a member of council and as a member of community. Many of you know when we talk about blanket rezoning, we're talking about densification, we're talking about intensification, we're talking about infrastructure, we're talking about environment, we'll talk about transportation, transit. That is the role of Planning Commission and the Council to establish the great city that people want to live and work in. Go back into 2006 2009 timeframe, the city of Calgary engaged in what we call Imagine Calgary. Imagine Calgary was the was again the view of 100 years. What will Calgary be? At that time, Many people took a look at that. 18,000 people as a matter of fact. 18,000 people over 18 months engaged in that planning process. It was a city led process, but owned by communities. It was a process that led into planning calgary. It was a process that led into a lot of the conversations we're having today. When we talk about those processes, you know, I often say in the in the course of 2006 to 2026. Have we gone through Groundhog Day? We keep popping up over and over again, looking for a, you know, a different world, but we're back in the same world, doing the same thing, hoping for a change, but the definition definition sounded, we're back to the same place again. Welcome to Imagine Calgary. What was Imagine Calgary? Imagine Calgary asked the question what kind of city does this Calgary want to become? The core idea at that time was it's a great place to make a living, a great place to make a life, built based on built environment, economic systems, social systems, natural environment, and governance. It was based upon understanding that Imagine Calgary formulated a policy, which therefore then could help shape policies and bylaws and to get us to the place we are today. So where we are today is really on the evolution of creating great things. The question I asked during my years in administration and subsequently during my years in council are we doing the right things the right way? That's the perennial question. That's the Groundhog Day question. Because nine times out of ten, when we go back to, you know, when I started back involved in in this conversation, when we talked about the established era guidebook or what became the developed era guidebook, we talked about the North Hill Local Area Plan, which is part of Ward 7, which I represented, when we talk about creating the RCG bylaw amendments, the H GO bylaw, when we talk about creating the, you know, the the um how do you say the Housing Affording Task Force to Home Assurance Strategy? Each and every time we do these things, we ask the public, what do you think? We asked the public, where do you want to go? We asked the public, is this right or not? But guess what? Each and every time, and with the evidence, you see it in the media, each and every time, the public said, no, we missed the mark again. When we missed the mark, when we missed the mark of not doing the right things the right way, we erode public confidence, we erode public trust. We are all here as a former member of council and a current member of council to do the right things the right way. Because at the end of the day, the constituents elect us to put us that put us there. So there are a number of speakers I've spoken to relative to different approaches and one of one of the things that I'll say when we um talk about the housing strategy. The housing strategy really focused on the house, sorry, the affordability task force report really focused on the need for non-market affordable housing. For those that are struggling on the streets. Whether we be struggling because of income, whether we're struggling because of newcomers, whether we're struggling because of COVID and mental health and drug addiction, that is the area that is struggling the most. We are coming through a winter time period like we've had for the last five years, post-COVID, mental health drug addiction, homelessness, people are on the streets. But yet, we are struggling in 2024 and 2026, dealing with a homeless strategy on housing that's affordable as opposed to affordable housing. Why are we talking so much time, dedicating so much time about market housing when we need to spend more time on the other part? Now, some people say we are. We need to uh address the housing affordability task force, housing accelerated fund. With that, we will get the money to do what we need to do. There's no doubt about it. We do need to rely on the federal provincial governments. We do need to rely on our programs. Sorry, but uh your time has run up. Okay. Thank you. We'll come back. Stay seated, yes. Okay, for questions we have Councillor tires. Uh thanks, Chair. First, I wanted to bring up a potential point of procedure. We for public hearings, um, it's clear in the rules that we're unable to provide, or or one speaker is unable to provide their time to another speaker. Would you say that this was kind of walking the line a little bit on that? It was like an eight minute presentation. It wasn't by one individual, it was by two, but it was combined. I just want some clarity on that. Yes, it was a little bit complex as far as one speaker ending far under their time and then partially going over to the next time. Madam Clerk, who's not currently present, had um set up the PowerPoints to fall one after another. And I think that was the intention there. So was it slightly irregular? I would say yes. Um however. It still ended up being 25 minutes approximately in the end. So your point of procedure is taken. It was an awkward position as to doing the math, and uh so it uh the ship has sailed, but it it is well taken, so thank you. Okay, understood. I had a question for Miss Anne-Marie Louie. Thank you for your presentation. So something that we've been hearing a lot during this public hearing is that there is a missing middle. Um, but you're saying that the missing middle wasn't built. Um the opposing side says you just need to give it more time. This is a policy that was put in place, you know, in 2024. It hasn't given much time to mature. The missing middle will appear. I want to know your opinion on that. Like, do you do you think it does need more time? Or I I think it was getting built before. So so I think the challenge is is did blanket rezoning speed it up? It didn't really. We're still seeing a lot of and it's not that they were not seeing that developed, it's just it it's still at that 70-30 split. Even on the row type homes, we're still seeing a lot of it happen in the newer communities versus in the redevelopment side. So and I and I do feel we need to continue building that stuff. I just don't think blanket rezoning is a way to approach it. I actually just think you should just plan out this area of this community looks best for that type of property. Um so I I don't it it's not that I don't agree that we do need that product, and we do absolutely need that product. It's just how do we get it in a way that you know works for everyone and with certainty? Because I think that's probably um always been my biggest challenge is that if you're in a community um and you want to see more of that row houses, um, which is really falls under that missing middle, you're not seeing much of that semi anymore. That stuff's starting to shrink. We're seeing it more row versus semi. Um, but that being said, if you just plan certain streets, you do those local area plans, you give certainty for everyone, then you know exactly where it is, and I think you might actually get even more developed than you would just under a blanket approach because now you have certainty and you'll have less people fighting about it. I know the time to take to get there, I'm sure, is longer in some ways, but I think that in the end you'll still get that product. I mean, it was being developed before. Um, and it's continuing to be developed at the same pace. thank you so much for your feedback. Appreciate that. I believe Councillor Kelly, you are up next. Councillor Yule, you're up next. My apologies. Yeah, I'm not sure who I wanna. Why don't we go with uh Ms. D Diego? Um I'm just curious, so C R E B, uh you represent a membership of of how large? Like how how many uh We have uh a little over 8,700 realtor members. Okay. And so you so you guys are speaking on behalf of of that many realtors. Yes. And I so it's it's interesting to me to see that you know realtors would be um advocating um Against or or for the repeal in that, like, doesn't this uh zoning provide more housing, I guess, uh for realtors to to for the industry to sell? Um so maybe just kind of speak about that. Sure, and I'll I'll use my own self as an example because I am a realtor buying and selling houses every day. We care about the communities that we serve, and as Anne-Marie brought up, we care about the certainty that our clients can expect when they buy into a community. Yes, is more inventory beneficial to our members at large for sure, but at what cost? And every realtor member that I've ever known in my 38 year career cares deeply about their clients. And so that certainty is a really big part of what we do or what we would like. So as a realtor, like um, so my parents are getting older and they're in a one of the donut communities, um, unable to find the the the downsizing in in their community, uh, have to look at places at the outskirts of the of the of the city. Uh is that it like are you are you experiencing that as a realtor? Most definitely. So if if we're looking at established communities in the inner city of Calgary, that affordability factor for seniors who are downsizing is definitely an issue. But I think that again, if we're talking about how those communities are developed, if we're looking at putting the density in those communities, there's a better way to do it. If we are still looking at putting them in areas that are higher traffic areas, that can lessen the cost of that new product. There's currently in my neighborhood in Oak Ridge a new development going in where the co op is, and it's going to be multifamily apartment style, both off market and market housing. If communities can support that, that actually solves the problem too. So these will be affordable for the owners that are selling their homes in my community. Um okay, I think I think that's all. Thank you. Did I answer your question? You did. Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Chair. Um, Mr. Wong, please. This may be the first time I've actually asked you to speak longer at council, but I I value your opinion, all of your presenters' expertise, statistics. This is what we need. And you're an expert at that, so I like to do I don't think you finished your presentation. If you have anything more to add, please do. Thank you. Thank you, Council McLean. And uh I'm a bit of a sidebar. When I was on the other side, I never knew. Yeah, I I exceeded my time now that I'm here. My goodness. Okay. Thank you. Let me just summarize by a couple of things. You've heard from our chair of the real estate board, you've heard from our economists, you've heard from realtors, you've heard from our urban planners, all the different rationalizations, realizations. But at the end of the day, when you get down to my statement, the choice is yours. The choice is as to where you go, how to go is yours. When you do that, you have to take all the variety of input that you've heard over the course of the last five, six days. You have to take a look at all the facts and evidence. But you have to also sort out back from reality, right? As well as some of those aspirations and wishes and hopes. One of the things that wasn't said before, or maybe said vaguely, for example, is that Calgary is going to be a population of two million by 2030. When you take a look at the actual demographics right now, number one, we haven't done a census since 2019. So a lot of the basis decisions have not been based on accurate data uh up to date data. But the projections right now for Calgary to be two million, the city of Calgary two million, is 2045, 2050. A metropolitan region, our economic region, yes, we're there, but we're not responsible for airdreen, okotoks, and balzac and places like that. You need to take a look at the facts of that population data. The other thing you need to take a look at, and I talked to Anna Marie about this. We talk about income and housing. Back when I came in Calgary, back in 1980, and I bought my first house, the income ratio to housing was about 2.3. So with 2.3 times the household income could buy you a house. Today it's five times, right? But you asked yourself the question, what was what was the differential there? What was the change there? The change was inflation pushed housing prices up, but inflation did not keep up with cost of living and the household income. So consequently, we're in this condemned conundrum about how do you resolve the social income challenge, affordability challenge, using things that you are in control with, and that is land development and marketplace, right? I'm not 100% convinced that council has all the tools to solve all the questions about affordability. So again, you're gonna hear from more speakers after that, talk to you about affordability and income and rents and their thing. There are certain things that we can do and we can stay within our lanes. The second part about staying within the lanes, and San Osante and Stephen Shaw Cost made reference, community land trusts. We have an abundance of city land that can be converted into city leases. Turn it over, build housing, 99 year leases. Taking that 30% of costs out of that property will create market housing to be sold, but again, at that without the land value. Those are things that are within your control, Council McLean. Those are things that you can do. Last thing I'm going to say is that we ought to say on council, you don't make sausage on the floor. Right? I agree. We don't make ham out of s you know, ham out of sausage either. As a former you know, when I was younger as a meat cutter, we made ham by carving up, you know, the pig accordingly. We didn't make ham by making sausage first. And that's what people want. They want quality housing, not sau sausage housing. Yeah, well said. And uh again, I thank you. It was very important for all of you to come down with uh A real expert opinion on real estate and and homes and what blanket rezoning uh would do or not do. So again, thank you so much for coming today. Councillor Kelly. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Lurie, if I could start with you just really quickly. Really appreciate your comments here today. If Calgary hasn't seen any proportional difference in missing middle housing, I kind of want to ask this question a little bit the opposite of how uh Councillor Tyres asked it before. If we haven't seen any increase in that, like why do you think that we're seeing so many of our neighbors come to advocate for the repeal of the zone that is enabling it? I think they're feeling it. Like they just feel that redevelopment. And I think that some people were um, you know, they were s I mean, people were complaining about this before. Uh let's be honest, like people in Eltador have had issues with this before any blanket rezoning came in. So I think it's just now more people are potentially seeing that. And we have to remember we had a record high number of starts. So so technically that number has risen, um, just in proportion, it hasn't changed. We just had a record high in both new communities and in the redevelopment. So I think it's just more different people are feeling it as opposed to communities that were already dealing with redevelopment for quite some time. Perfect, thank you. Uh and Ms. Diago, if I may. We've had a great conversation here over the past several days. Uh, local area planning is continually coming up, uh, so much so that I'm I'm I'm contemplating bringing forward a motion of some kind to uh to expedite that to do more. Just wanted to get your thoughts in terms of whether that would be a good idea or not. I've been present at hearings where people are talking about this issue, and I think it's a really good idea to reopen the discussion with the residents of communities. They know best what is going to be best for their neighborhoods, and it is very local. It's very specific. So if you have an LAP that constitutes, you know, two dozen communities, well, all of those communities are quite unique and distinct. So yes, I would welcome reopening that discussion for sure. That's great, thanks. I also uh uh I I appreciate the the the the presentation overall. Lots of really great ideas. Uh unfortunately, most of those ideas are not before us today. Um so I just wanted to get like really clear on this, if it if it's okay. Um we're talking about what should the base zoning be for low density housing. That's what's before us right now. So to be clear for all of us, are your members better served by that being RCG and HGO or by R1 and RC2? I think it depends on the community for sure, but um I you know we we are recommending a complete repeal without amendments. So to go back to the RC one and RC two. So your members are are are would prefer R1 and RC2 and that's why. Yes. Okay, thank you. That's it, Cher. Thank you. Councillor Atkinson. Um I'm not sure who this question would be for. It was during the uh the presentation uh but about tree canopy. S Steven Sano? Uh you can take it, Sano, if you want. Sure. Yeah. Okay, great Fair enough. So the tree canopy, we heard from a presenter this morning that was talking about how we've we are losing tree canopy, but we're also seeing that happen on single and semi-detached lots that are being rebuilt within the inner city. I'm wondering, we also heard that uh RCG has higher requirements in terms of trees being replanted than you have on semis and singles that come up new. Do you have any thoughts about uh equalizing that and helping our tree canopy in terms of new singles and semis that get built in the inner city? I'm not sure that um I I guess what I can say is that I know that uh the tree canopy is one of the most um influential factors in in the community's appeal. And so I I I know how important it is. I don't know that that there's any differentiation between um building infills uh versus building you know an RCG other than We know it's a fact that there just simply isn't any uh land available after you pave and provide for sidewalks and uh and other amenities on an RCG lot on an eight unit you know development. There simply isn't the the available land to to to replant trees. So I don't know, I hope that answers your question. Uh no, like RCG requires five trees to be planted after the building goes up that in a way that uh singles and semis do not. Uh so uh we actually have more trees getting planted on those sites after they're constructed that we don't see on singles and semis. And I'm wondering if you think uh we should maybe be looking at something equal for singles and semis that are being rebuilt in the inner city to help with that. I think that that's the notion I I think that notion has virtue. Uh yeah, I'll just add that uh I think in practice we're not that the evidence isn't there, but the notion certainly has virtue and I'll uh over to you, Stephen. Okay, great. Yeah, it it it the issue relates to coverage, uh, you know, lot coverage in a typical uh uh single at 45, uh versus uh if you get a double row of townhouses at uh 60 and and above, uh I don't know how you're gonna get trees in there. And and uh moreover, there's no room for the canopy uh you know to to actually grow. So uh you know that's a it's a bit that's a bit of a uh a falsehood. Uh you may be asked to plant more, but you certainly don't have room for the canopy to expand and provide you with The canopy space you debt at 45% coverage. However, to to your point, uh it would make sense to look at making sure that we continue to uh uh if you know to not lose the canopy. And to it's it's kind of interesting if uh when I when I did the the work on uh Uh garrison wood, we came up with a set of customized infrastructure standards that had sidewalks bent around uh bent around the tree so we could preserve the mature the mature canopy. Um that that was just that's one example of how you might be able to deal with it through customized infrastructure standards where you're redeveloping uh in existing areas and you want to preserve the canopy. Okay, thank you. Um there was a slide about social well being. Which of the two of you would be the right person to speak to on that? I I could speak to that. Um So my question is you you spoke to sort of the social well-being of homeowners and sort of their their loss potentially, the loss aversion, the uncertainty there. But we've actually had a lot of young people who are sort of feeling a lot of social unease and well-being by not really having a path to homeownership and not really seeing a future within Calgary. Did you uh study any of that in terms of your look at social well being within? Because you I know you represent both, you know, uh home sellers but also home buyers. And so first time home buyers who maybe are are feeling a little bit worried about their prospects for uh being able to purchase a house within Calgary. yeah, uh obviously we we've quoted in the paper, and you've got you've got our larger paper. We have uh you've got footnotes on the the more recent research. Um, it's interesting. We when we did the the Nose Creek area structure plan with the city, it was based on healthy planning principles and a whole series of uh of uh of uh items you could put into the plan that would uh that would improve uh health and well being. Uh uncertainty is is the a killer. That's that's stress. And that, and you're absolutely correct. It it it it weighs on both sides. And uh as as someone who had three jobs and a renter in my first house in Calgary. I I I know the the the pressure and the stress that that can put on one. Um uh so you know what what we're suggesting is uh that's why I I'm saying saying after you get an LAP that the community can sign off on, you go to land use because that creates your certainty. Uh certainty for for the existing residents, uh certainty for builders. Uh where we we might be doing a better job is uh again on on the uh public land trust is providing housing. uh at below market rates to to facilitate uh and to house the the younger uh generation that need that's that's starting out that's that that uh could could get into one of these houses to start out with before they they build some equity they they you know they they they move up they advance in their career and are able to move into market based housing so that you know that those are that that's the way you would address both of those uh the the uncertainty related to both of those uh cohorts Okay, thank you. Anne-Marie Flori, if I could. We're hearing sort of this idea to sort of sort of repeal, but I think you actually bring up a great point. Like we've seen only really 5.6%, 6% of this kind of product being built, right? It's not actually that significant. I guess I'm having a hard time with this sort of idea like. On the one side, it's having the most drastic impact. It is the world-ending problem that we need to deal with right now. But on the other hand, it's only 5.6%. Can you help me sort of rationalize this disconnect that I'm feeling? Well, and and I'm on the camp of yeah, it hasn't had that much of an impact. I mean, that's what the numbers are telling me. Um I and that's why I'm arguing that you have time. Like, why don't we plan it so that you give everybody certainty? So those people who are feeling that angst, um, you know, both for existing homeowners or people looking to buy in communities, have that certainty. That's the whole point. Um, it hasn't changed much yet. We still know we need that sort of product. Densification is going to happen as your city grows. We know this is going to happen. So why don't we just take the time and plan it in a way that gives everyone certainty? Um and and that and that's part of the argument is that we do know that this hasn't had that much impact yet. Um so why don't we just take that time to do things in a way that makes sense for everyone? I guess when I pair that up with your piece around this, we've seen a flat flattening of the prices. We not decrease, so we haven't necessarily created affordability by reducing the price in townhomes, but we've seen it seen it flatten. And if we hadn't been building those. Row homes. I mean, I I only took economics to a 203 in university, but like the basic idea, right? More supply, then it brings down the cost. Maybe doesn't bring down the cost because we actually haven't seen that many. But this flattening, had we not been building the town homes, we would have actually seen that product, which has been selling and whatever, increase in price. My reading that incorrectly. Okay, no, on the price side, that is not exactly what's happening. Um so so what I would say what we have been seeing, um, and again, it's hard to, we've only had one year of full data, so that's part of what we're looking at. Um, most of where the price adjustments have been happening to date have not been in the inner city, not in that city center. I know our mapping doesn't perfectly align, but our city center, we've actually seen prices rise for row homes for existing resale, in part because of the price spreads. So the challenge is in the inner city, in the city center, the new product is coming in at a higher price point. So let's say the row product is at $7.75. That's generally what the numbers that we're seeing at, you know, on the aggregate. Well, the row homes that are, let's say, not even five years old, we saw actually a stronger increase in price for those homes to bring it closer to the new home price. Whereas the lowest price stuff in the existing, so this under six, which is the typical for the resale, um, that stuff still saw price growth. Right. Because so, but in the other areas, so again, when I look at outside, so you added supply there, um, not enough to change the pricing point because of the relative spreads. But isn't that sort of saying that there is a demand for this? Like people have different choices about how they want to live, where they want to live, and that there is a demand for living inner city, and that demand is being met in terms of this townhome and this price point at a steady level by the amount of supply that has been coming on in this area, by be by the fact that we have sort of seen this level off and not huge vacancy rates in terms of the sales of that product. Well, the supply-demand ratios are actually very different depending on price points. So, what I've actually saw in some of the numbers in the city center is you have much more supply at the higher price point than the demand ratio. So one thing I look at sales to new listings ratio. You're at a 40% ratio for newer product that's higher priced, whereas you're at a 70% ratio for older product. So what that tells me is that there's a lot more demand for the affordable product than there is for the higher price product. So naturally, that supply will start to shift as market changes. So I think that's partly what we're starting to see is it's not necessarily supply will just start to slow. At some point, if the demand isn't there, you will see the starts start to slow because they can't sell them. So I think that is something that you always have to be aware of. Even in the surrounding, in kind of at the outskirt areas, that supply that's coming on, that new supply, that price spread isn't very different from the resale. So what we see happen is a lot more substitution effect into the new product versus the resale because the price spread is so much smaller. So the challenge in the city center or in our city center bubble is that the prices of the stuff that's coming in is so much higher that at some point the resale prices have to come up enough. To create that more demand from new builds. Until the market sort of levels off or whatever, right? So the market would take care of that in in theory in terms of swings. And I guess the other thing that your presentation really brought up is we have these ten year cycles, right? Basically in terms of of housing affordability. And and so the decision that we're actually making today Will actually not be felt. We'll have the housing starts that are already in the queue, those ones getting built, and but we'll really see those. I mean, it's by and large, we'll probably see it around 2035, is when it we see the next housing crunch. And I'm just wondering how you think that this decision today can make it so that we don't see the housing crunch that we saw in 2005, 2015, 2024, right? Like it's kind of on this cadence of every 10 years. So how do we how does the decision that we make today? Yes, we maybe have rounded that side of the of the curve, but how do we make it so that we level it off? Because every one of those times we have these huge price spikes, which just make housing that much unaffordable for people trying to get in. Right. And it's driven by migration and economic conditions. So I think that again, I'm in favor of like plan it out. You have local area plans where you can actually identify where everything's gonna be, you have time, and that way when it's time for builders to ramp up, it's easier for them to do so. They'll face less opposition, everyone knows what's happening in those areas, they've already identified it. It's like your new communities. You go into a new community, everyone knows exactly what you're getting. It'd be really nice if we could do the same thing in the existing communities where it's very clear. And if you set up that principle now, by the time that you know our next sort of spike comes, you're able to ramp up that demand much quicker, similar to what we almost do in new communities. Uh okay, thank you. This is good. Uh I'll on that note I'll go into LAPs maybe with uh Susanita uh Da Diego, please. Thank you. You were merely mentioning sort of this like long term stability, predictability, and sort of this focus on LAPs as providing this. Um you do you know, like have you done a lot of research into where we've seen townhomes and row homes being built across the city in your your research for this? So I I work in So many communities in the city. I do a lot of relocation work, so it takes me all over. I can tell you that in the new communities, you see where that multifamily is being built. The density is on the corridors. Even TASA, which is kind of inner city, that's where the density is, is in the corridors. If you're able to look at opening up the LAP discussion and look at each community and see where those corridors are, and that's where the density happens, I think that the residents in those communities, again, they'll have the certainty, they'll know where it is. And also for people who want to live in those communities, they'll know what they're getting themselves into and the certainty going forward. And I think that's probably anecdotally the most complaints that I get about blanket rezoning when I'm out in the communities is that you just don't know where those things are going to be built, and it's a it's a big fear. Are you quite familiar then with the LAPs that have been done to date? Uh, not with first hand experience. I couldn't speak to that. No. Yeah, I've just I've been looking at it. We've got South Shaganapi, Riley, North Hill, Westbrook, West Elbow, Chinook Heritage, and East Calgary International Avenue are all the ones that are done. And actually, if you take those and you map where we've built town homes and row homes, there are only two communities in this city that have that sit outside of LAPs that have actually seen any. Real townhomes or row homes. That's Boness and Bridgeland. Those are the only two communities that sit out outside of existing LAPs, places where we have planned the density. So I guess I'm having a hard time with this idea on the one side, we need to plan our density, plan our LAPs, land the density in this very planned sort of way. Every community that has had townhomes and row homes built in any sort of significant way within the last 10 years sits under an LAP currently existing. We are building out new ones in South McKnight, South Bow, and Kayburn. But those areas actually have not seen the density coming in yet. They will likely see the density coming in in a planned way as it comes. So I guess I'm having a hard time with this rectifying of like we need LAPs to land where the density comes, but we have LAPs where we have the density that has come in in terms of townhomes and row homes. The two almost overlap, except for those two communities of Boness and Bridgeland. Any thoughts on that? I'm not an expert in LAPs. That's not what I do. I buy and sell real estate and work with the realtors at my member board. If that is already in the LAPs and that's where the density is planned for, great. It's the inner city communities that are having this, you know, mid street, eight plex being built. These are the communities that I'm hearing from. These are the clients that I'm hearing from. They have no problem with density, it's just where it's happening in their community. How that relates to the LAP for that community, I'm sorry, I'm not my area of expertise. 'Cause they just seem to basically one hundred percent overlap. So we've done that exercise. We've told community they can look up any of these LAPs, they are standing LAPs, uh, but I guess the certainty has not sort of been provided in that so I think it's uh from what I've heard from other um presenters at these hearings is that uh a lot of the residents don't feel that they were fully consulted before these LAPs were created. And I think that's also the source of frustration. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Councillor Pantzovis. so much uh oops. Thanks so much. Several questions have been answered, so I'll try to make sure I don't uh duplicate. Um Mr. Stante, on the phone. Online. Um you you gave the presentation about what wasn't working, or excuse me, what didn't work with blanket rezoning. A lot of conversation has been uh from Calgarians about uh amendments, and I appreciate Krebs' position is no amendments, but if you were to build back something, what are some successes that Kreb observed in what was implemented uh two years ago? Well, I would say that they um what we recommend is it's a full repeal, followed by a structured plan to rebuild the LAPs across the city. And um you know we believe that that the LAPs are the the path forward. But in a more uh consultative way with communities. Um I think the mismatch that you're what that everybody's addressing, and if I can sort of read between the lines, you know, we have a we have a system where uh supply provide you know supply is provided on a slow curve. You know, and we only have a limited number of houses. If we did, if we pulled out all the stops, every builder in Calgary could only build so many houses per year in Calgary. And we have a system where immigration, for example, reach something like three times that. No matter the best intentions, we're never going to be able to achieve a supply match matching supply and demand. So you have to have planned growth, long term growth in communities, in consultation with communities, and preserving the nature and the and the character of these communities. So I'm not sure if I answered your question, but that's No, no. What about um a lot of committee members have said the benefit of blankary zoning was that uh approvals were accelerated so you didn't have to come to council, uh building could could save. Any thoughts there? Again, just looking if there was to salvage one of the hundred things that blanker zoning provided. Does Kreb have any saying they all should be thrown away, or is there a few gems we could pull out? Uh uh I I I wish there were, but we looked at all six goals of uh uh of the blanket rezoning, and in our paper, which I think everyone uh we provided a copy of our detailed paper, uh in in every case, for every one of those six goals, blanket rezoning worked in opposition to them. So uh and and specifically for uh streamlining of uh streamlining approvals, it it worked actually. in reverse. So we had more uh cases at STAB. So you really instead of uh you streamlined the front end but uh but you uh kind of loaded up the back end at the uh at the STAB process. I wonder if I might interject here. Being a planner of 50 odd years with the second largest architectural practice in the world, I I've had a bit of experience. I think, and this is this, and through the chair, this is uh this is uh getting back to a couple of the points. The the L LAPs are are the mechanism that one uses uh to identify uh the best locations for. Your higher density product. And invariably you want to be working collegially with the communities in a participatory versus a dictatorial manner in defining in defining your LAPs. But then what you want to do is you want to go to your land use redesignation as soon as you get an approved LAP, because then you've got certainty, and uh you could start to stimulate some more of that building because again you do have the certainty. The other thing that the removal of uh blanket rezoning will do. And when you do have an LAP with the land use in place, is you're not good you're not getting into a lot of spot rezoning, which is what is what tends to clog up council. If if you have a definitive LAP that has land use in place, you have far fewer issues that are going to be coming to council to be resolved because the community has uh the community has uh uh is on side, they've they've worked through the plan, they support the plan, you've got land use in place. Uh developers and builders know what they can do and where they can do it, and you you have solved a lot of your issues. The the the blanket rezoning. uh was was again, as I as I've explained, it's a sledgehammer when uh urban redevelopment requires a scalpel. Uh and and and so uh we've indicated and you know again I I've I've been through this mill a few times uh And the examples, some of the larger uh urban redevelopment projects I have done are Garrison Woods, Curry, Lincoln Park, Cory Park, and more recently Midtown Station. All of those we engaged with the community early on and had full support of the communities, bringing those master plans forward. And that is the key to having a relatively smooth process as you were moving forward, adding units and densifying. And I think The existing LAPs provide a reasonable starting point. They need to be refined. And again, followed up with an industry designation. Perfect. Mr. Maybe I'll just continue on there, Mr. Shawcross, about LAPs. I I'm in a word that maybe a third of my communities have LAPs and two thirds don't. So certainty, I agree with you 100%. We've heard a lot of that in the last week. So, how do you give certainty to communities when there isn't existing LEPs? If we went and used the LEPs as the guiding, should we go and get it across the city? How do your thoughts are? How do you bridge that, those areas that, as Councillor Atkinson said, there's several but don't have? How can we address that? Still provide certainty. But we still want our goals of gentle densification across the city. Well, that might be, you know, again, you may have to expedite that process. Uh expedite the LAP process. Uh and what if if or if they have if there are existing area redevelopment plans you can work with. Again, I I don't, you know, uh blanketing is is not is not a good method. Um uh it it it suggests you you really have to uh you you have to get you know have to get with with with the planning and the intensification in those communities. And and that that could be uh you may have to, as I said, fast track or expedite that that process in the communities where you're having where there are development pressures and uh where where you don't have an LAP in in place. Thank you so much. Ms. Lurie. Thank you. You know, interesting. A lot of conversations have come and said the 5.6% supply and demand. If you build it, trickle down, impact. And I know 10 years ago you you commented on an article, but that that sort of logic if you build it, every home is important. They come with compelling arguments and just simple supply and demand economics. What is the disconnect? Why does Kreb come to the saying no, that 5.6% does not have a material impact? And others say we need it. Absent the 5.6%, there would be. Whatever, price spiking, et cetera. So what's the what are we missing as as a community? Um well I think that the reality is if if there is a market demand for it, it will it will come. Like I mean the mar the prices will d drive that and the demand will actually happen. So you'll see the supply that will rise to meet that. I think sometimes the disconnect is you know there's a lot of talk over the filtering effect. Sorry, it was There's been a lot of talk over the filtering effect. So somebody moves out, it frees up, you know, another unit. Yes, that is true to a certain extent, but what we have to remember is that we went through a massive migration period. So what that did is it slows that impact. It's just because we had so many people come here at such a short time frame that you're not going to have that same impact in terms of the filtering effect. So that's one, that's where some of that disconnect is, is just because of the sudden change. When you go from under 20 to 60 to 80,000 migrants, that does it. The next aspect is sometimes there's a disconnect of what people want and what's available. And that's another challenge. And again, suitability. We have no problems building condos and higher density stuff. That's the stuff that's the most oversupplied right now. You know, it's just, it's it's not necessarily what people want. Um not to say that that's broad base. I mean, obviously somebody is still buying them, but that's where we're seeing the most oversupply. So, row homes, what we've seen is almost a shift in that less semis are being built in favor of more row. Um we do still have some pockets of the market where there's too much supply in row as well. It doesn't tend to be more in areas where they're building much more of it and where the price spread is much closer to the existing supply. So so I think some of the challenges is price point, where, and how much supply is being added. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Just trying to spread that needle. It maybe that along that line, you know, you've you've said it, hey, look, this didn't have a material impact on on supply, and it's referenced. Our own administration said 64 units completed to date, 64 of 25,784 under construction. But 4,500 are being enabled. So, have we had enough time? The argument people have said, give it another five years, come back, give it another two years, let it go through. You even said your own presentation look, most of the housing that came on today was approved prior to 2024. So help me just sort of thread that again is saying, do we need another two, three years just to check? From an economics perspective, from your area of expertise, two, three, four, five years, would it be detrimental, or let it let it go through and see if it actually has an impact? Because 18 months, it's it's short. It's short. Sure, but if market conditions are changing and there's less demand for it, then you might not see that show up in your numbers, anyways. Um I'd argue that a lot some of that supply growth is starting to slow now. So because of the changing market conditions. So again, you're saying, well, you might see more of it, you might actually see less of it. Um what I'm actually seeing currently play out in the market is the demand for detached is far higher. Um, in fact, that is one of the tightest markets. That market is starting to slip into much tighter territory than any other market. Um, so we're not seeing a lot of detached, we're not seeing a lot of semi. So even if you're saying this stays in place and we'll start to see over time more row, um depends on the demand preferences. But did not even say that. You know, there's folks that say but but RCG is the most flexible. So if the market changes and the builders they're smart men and women, they're gonna make an economic decision. So now they're only gonna build single family homes and just, you know, knock down the old fixer upper. So so do you think so so you think it it's a failed experiment, time to move on and go back to more I just think there's alternative ways to do it. Um I so so I think that's probably more um my my basis on that is I just think that you know the market will determine what they want. Um blanket rezoning was there's a lot of other tools that the city were doing that, you know, I applaud them for. There was great things that they were doing to try and achieve density. Um, you know, they do focus on transit oriented and looking at where it makes sense. I think that that's probably a better mechanism. Um and and that's why we were saying, well, just plan it out so that we know what's gonna happen. Help enable the market to actually develop it when it needs it. Um I and I just don't know if I feel blanket rezoning is gonna do that. I know there's a lot of talk over time. Um Yeah, honestly, as an economist, you don't know. Time will tell if if that's the case. I can't say offhand that no, it won't ever happen. But from what we've seen to date, I'm I'm just not seeing that. I'm actually seeing some of the starts levels are starting to slow for some of that middle product just because people still want their detached homes for the most part. Um and we're not even factoring in that leapfrogging that's happening in our surrounding areas. We're seeing a lot of development happen in Airdrie, Chestermere, Cochrane. Um so so if they're not getting the product that they meet in Calgary, it's not to say that they're not willing to go outside of these areas. They are also growing tremendously. Appreciate that. No, just again, just trying to hear the arguments and and your years of experience and expertise and knowledge just to help understand. Because they're they're compelling arguments, and you see the logic of just one more year, one more year, and and to hear the other side. And maybe for for who I I don't remember who spoke a bit about the um backyard suites and the garage suites. So so whichever of the panel, um, there's been a conversation right now, it's or and and I would just love the the you know the commentary in the context of gentle growth, provide certainty, market economics. If we were to make that subtle change to an end. And from OR, so allowing three on an R1 as an example. Thoughts. Would that have material impact? All the issues you you faced with blank rezoning, would they be addressed, or is this a a nuanced way, a subtle way to get the density? Well, in terms of secondary suites, that I did mention secondary suites, lane homes. Again, how many? I'm not an expert in that by any means, but what I can say is that really does tend to add affordability. That does tend to be more affordable rental. It also offers a lot of options for potential owners, you know, mortgage helpers, multi-generational living. Like the benefits are pretty significant with secondary suites and potentially lane lane homes. I would hate to see that disappear for many reasons, just because, again, I think that fills some of that niche. I mean, we know that even the new rental that's coming in tends to come in at a higher price point. We don't necessarily struggle with building rental that's in that higher range. How do we get some of that product in the lower range where again where you don't have a lot of supply? Can I ask the same question, Miss De Diego? It's the final. Just the AND. I think I think in your presentation you mentioned about that. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. Yeah, the AND versus OR for basement and garage, impact to market, impact to affordability, and so on, and from your client's perspective, from Krebs' perspective. I'm so happy that you asked me back. Thank you. Um I think and So I was watching the news the other day, and it was a profiling of family. I think it was in Brentwood, and they had a house where they built a Laneway home for their parents. And that helps multi-generational families. The grandparents were looking after the kids during the day. I know from, you know, we talked a lot about new home, new to the market buyers. I listened to a couple who I think they were both doctors, or one was a doctor and a lawyer, and they were talking about the affordability issue in Calgary. And even though they were working professionals, it was going to be perhaps be a struggle for them to purchase a property. That's where secondary suites come in very handy. If a neighborhood can support it, and if the lot sizes are large enough so that it doesn't become, you know, an overdensity issue, I think it's an and. It would be for me. Got it. So so that's interesting because you you you know, if you put it above a garage, it's already a building there. Yes. You know, so the density doesn't improve increase the um the the lock coverage and and things like that. But no no, I I I appreciate your commentary and thank you all. Right. And also uh just sorry as a um secondary suites uh are actually lower rentals than brand new uh inventory as well. So from an affordability standpoint it would be helpful. A much more targeted approach uh versus the look, thank you so much Kreb for the presentation, the data, and uh thanks for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Winez, please. Thanks. Miss Diego? D Diego? You back up? I I have one quick question. Um when you answered earlier, uh you said you wanted a repeal with no amendments. Are you happy with the built form of the definition of RCG right now? Uh so this isn't my area of expertise either, so probably um either Mr. Stante or his co author would be uh better to answer that question. But if we're talking about the difference between uh three units, uh I think it was three units, what was the amendment again? Removing zero lot lines, reduction of height, contextual setbacks. Right. So so the amendment was to change it to back to the way it was before, No, to improve because there's still zero lot line building in the way it goes back because and you're still gonna have four versus three. It just sounded like everyone's talking about uh repeal into R1. They're not talking about what's happening with the RCG definition that still exists on the books. And so that's where I'm curious because when you hear a lot of people talk, they're talking as if we when we repeal, RCG definition is no longer a choice of housing, but it still will remain on the by the bylaw because what's before council is a bylaw with definitions. right? And we're actually amending the RCG definitions off of what's before us. Right, and I think it goes back to I think the beginning of these hearings when when I think the amendment discussion began. I wasn't here that day, but um you know if it if it is a matter of an amending an amendment to take it to the three units rather than the four units, I think that that would be something that would um you know be appealing. Um yeah, I I can't speak for Krebs' position to that because we didn't look at amendments. But that's the foundation of what's before us because we're amending the bylaw from putting it everywhere. We're rebringing back definitions for single family duplexes with secondary suites. And those are all the rules that's before council. And so that I was just curious about your statement. So Yeah, I'm sorry I can't I can't help in that regard. When we were speaking about it uh um from Krebs perspective, it was before amendments were suggested. So um, you know, our our recommendation is to repeal without amendments. but but the amendments have always been there since the notice of motion was passed. And so, yeah, anyway. I'm probably not the right person to ask, sorry. Thank you. I believe that uh concludes this panel. We will move now to our next panel, and this will be likely the final panel before we go on break around 3 15 ish or so. Next uh panel is Sandra Mann. Denis Robinson, Philip Turnbull, Clyde Buchert, and Rob Zang. Alright, uh let's proceed. Sandra, we're ready for you. Go second. Okay, who is first up? Okay, please proceed. Hi, my name is Rob Zhang. I'm from Panel 45. Hello, Council members and Mayor. I'm here to speak in opposition to the repeal of blanket rezoning. I live in Ward 6 with my wife. I'm a mechanical engineer, and she's a registered nurse. We moved here from Winnipeg in 2023 in no small part to the fact that we knew we wouldn't be able to afford Toronto or Vancouver. The housing affordability, mountains, and economic opportunities of this city are what drew us to Calgary. We currently live comfortably in a detached home in Aspen Woods because we're fortunate enough to receive help with a down payment from our parents. Without that help, our house will be in much poorer shape, or we will live much further away from downtown where I work. We are grateful for this advantage, but I believe homeownership should be accessible for everyone that works hard. Many young people like me, like my wife and I, many young people like my wife and I have moved to Calgary for the opportunities this city offers. They all want a place to live, and the topic of housing is ever on our minds. If we want to have a strong economic base in the city, we have to make living here easier for the younger generation. Signs that the 2024 blanket rezoning is just starting to work. 4,500 new housing starts are enabled by rezoning. And I also took a little economics in university, and I learned that when you increase supply, the price falls. But in our case, where demand is high, the velocity of price increases on homes can flatten. While reduced demand from immigration cuts may play a role, limiting population growth is not a long term strategy. Housing is cheap in Detroit too. Calgary and Edmonton have been leading the country in housing starts in the last two years, and it's no coincidence. People want to come to the city to work, and it would be economically detrimental if we couldn't properly house them all. Calgary has been leading the country in economic expansion, tourism, and population growth. If we can also keep housing prices down, Calgary will be the greatest Canadian city of the 21st century. The only other way to provide housing without density is to do greenfield development, but that comes a lot of baggage. It means new paved roads, new water pipes, and new garbage truck routes. It means destroying the natural environment and putting more commuters to be stuck in traffic with. This inevitably leads to increased property taxes and more points of failure in our critical infrastructure. It also locks us into more car ownership with its myriad of problems. I don't want this to be the path that we set for our city because it'd be really expensive for all of us in the future. We don't even need to look very far for the results of failed housing policies. Toronto, Vancouver, and the entire state of California are stark examples. They've resisted change for decades, and now their cities are unlivable, especially for those living in poverty. The insane housing costs, commute times, have driven tens of thousands of people out of the metros. Those places have tried nothing and they're out of ideas. Calgary doesn't need to follow their path. Council members, I know many of you ran on a campaign of repeal, and you're gonna have to keep that promise, and I get it. What I hope to see from you is that you don't simply put things back the way it was. I hope you can compromise on things like duplexes everywhere, upzoning around C train stations, or a plexus on corner lots. Exclusionary zoning worked when the city had a population of 600,000 people. It's not working for us now and it won't work for us in the future. This is my first time speaking on council, so thank you for listening. I'm open to any questions as long as they're softballs. Thank you. Uh we'll go to Sandra next, please. Hi, I'm Sandra Mann, and I'm a resident of Brentwood at Board 4. I'm also a member of the Calgary Lines for the Common Good. And I've been here for a while, and I'm just super impressed at how well you counselors have been listening and really trying to understand what people are saying. And I really thank you for this opportunity to talk as well. First of all, I want to say that I am against repealing the blanket rezoning, but if you decide to do so, please have a replacement plan that addresses affordable housing, accessibility, reduces urban sprawl, and meets the criteria for federal funding. I've lived in Calgary for forty-six years and have witnessed tremendous change during that time. Our city has not just grown in size, but in diversity, and unfortunately in need. Through my work with the Calgary Alliance, I've joined many others who are committed to ensuring Calgary remains a compassionate, inclusive, and welcoming city. It's deeply troubling to me to see so many people without stable housing and those with mobility issues struggling simply to find shelter. When I first moved to Brentwood, my family lived in a single family home across the street from several apartment buildings. While I didn't get to know all my neighbors personally, I saw them caring for our shared spaces. Most of them are ranchers, clearing the snow, clearing the ice so melt water could flow and prevent dangerous buildup. In other words, they were great neighbors. Over the years I've seen three high-rise buildings constructed near us, and these buildings have just brought so much vitality to our neighborhood. We have so many more amenities these days, sandwich shops, coffee shops, game stores, doctors' offices, and the neighborhood feels more alive. There are more children playing in the parks, more families gathering outside, and there's a sense of joy when you walk through our neighborhood. Actually, it's a very fun place to live. Um Brentwood is especially suited for thoughtful increases in density. We're close to an LRT station and the University of Calgary. And uh before the apartment towers were built, my family often took in students because they couldn't find homes. The demands for homes were urgent then and remains urgent now. So for those reasons, I strongly believe that it is important to find ways to increase density in my neighborhood and other inner city neighborhoods. The infrastructure already exists, increasing density in a well-established neighborhood like Brentwood enriches the community rather than diminishes it. The alternative, continuing to expand the footprint of Calgary, comes at a significant cost. SPRA requires more roads, more vehicles, more transit lines, and more water and utility infrastructure. I guess it weakens the city, I think, uh in terms of a sense of cohesiveness. But I also want to highlight another concern that's paramount in my mind. I think it's critical for this council to ensure there are mechanisms for affordable housing for people who have disabilities and for those who have mobility issues. Like many of my friends, my age. People with disabilities in Alberta have already been hit hard by the provincial government, which has clawed back the $200 federal disability grant from those who spent their time to apply for it. And those who are currently receiving Alberta income for the severely handicapped AISH will be soon losing another $200 a month as the new Alberta Disability Assistance Program replaces AI for most recipients. This puts a huge financial strain on so many people with disabilities in Calgary. It's so challenging now to find an accessible home, and retrofitting one to be fully accessible is prohibitively expensive. I fear that more people with disabilities will join the unhoused population in Calgary if affordable, accessible homes are not made available. So my message to you, honored members of City Council, is please do not repeal this zoning legislation. And if you must, I urge you to do so, not to do so before replacing it, with a clear and effective plan, one that supports affordable housing, gives options for affordable disability access, preserves access to federal funding, and reduces the need for further urban sprawl. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to the city of Calgary. Thank you so much for being here with us. Let's go to Philip next, please. Um, I emailed some slides. Are you able to pull them up? Yep, please stand by. All right, thank you for your time, Mayor and Council. Uh my name is Philip Turnbull. I'm actually on panel 94, my slide is incorrect. Um, I've lived in Calgary for 20 years, and I've been in the Mount Pleasant community in Ward 7 for about 10 years now. First as a renter, and then I came back when we bought a house. Next slide, please. I'm going to speak to three things today my community, infrastructure, who you've heard from, and perhaps more importantly, who you haven't. Next slide, please. When I first started renting in Mount Pleasant, I paid about $1,500 a month for one of those old bungalows some speakers have referred to as affordable housing. It was a typical setup with a two-bedroom main floor and an illegal basement suite. So I took a look at RentFaster to see what I could get for the same amount today. And I found that several of the new RCG builds have rentals at rates that compare favorably to what I rented 10 years ago, and that's before you account for inflation. And what's important is these are actually built to current code and safe for somebody to live in. Don't get me started on some of the basement slums that I've lived in over my time. We've also seen rental prices decline in Mount Pleasant in the time period after RCG was implemented. For the free market enthusiasts, this simple, this is simply supply and demand. It's early days, but let's give this early trend some time to continue. Next slide, please. When I first moved to Mount Pleasant, it was a declining community. Many of the buildings were at the end of their life cycle. Peak population was 6,000 people in the late 60s. Mount Pleasant only hit that mark again in 2017. Next slide, please. Even in 2021, as the community's population was starting to grow, we had a different kind of missing middle compared to the rest of the city. 10 to 19 year olds were significantly below the Calgary average. We had no kids. Over the past years, that has changed as new families have moved into more affordable locations, and that makes the community more vibrant and exciting. Next slide, please. Now, some might say that that much growth must have been a burden. Sure, there's construction, it's inconvenient sometimes, but we live in an inner city community in the fastest growing city in the country. Of course, there's construction. And my four year old son loves watching all the big construction vehicles, so that's pretty fun too. So I invite you to reframe the so-called density burden as a positive. In the 10 years that I've been here, as the community has been redeveloping, it has gotten significantly more vibrant. We have new businesses on 4th Street that can be supported by a larger population, and I look forward to welcoming new ones. In fact, I'd love to see more commercial on 4th Street, but that's a topic for another hearing. As I mentioned earlier, we have more young families, makes things more fun and interesting. Now, of course, growth inevitably brings us to infrastructure. So next slide, please. I apologize, as this probably gives you some nightmares. Rezoning allows the city to raise more tax revenue and get the most efficient use of infrastructure investment. My friends in corporate finance would call these synergies. The feeder main break is clearly the most prominent, but recent reports from the city highlighted $49 billion in capital infrastructure needs over the next decade, with $18 billion in assets at poor or very poor condition, and a further $1.7 billion of those in poor condition that were deemed critical. A full repeal going back to RC1 and RC2 for the majority of the city is a recipe for large increases in property taxes or a continued infrastructure deficit and the next disaster 20 years from now. Continuing RCG zoning is fiscally prudent and a meaningful action you can take to address the infrastructure gap as it enables more effective use of your infrasting infrastructure spend. Next slide, please. Now, much has been made of how many submissions or speakers were for or against repeal, but let's remember that every one of us coming up to speak are the hyper-engaged and frankly the nerds. While this hearing is a marathon, in a city of 1.6 million people, those speaking represent less than 1%. The remaining 99% of the city haven't heard, can't be here due to personal or work commitments, or probably they're just thinking, huh, it's fine. In fact, Janet Brown's polling found clear support for RCG amongst youth and parents. The same people that are building or will hopefully be choosing to build their future in this city. Next slide, please. And even beyond that, you know who else isn't here to speak? It's people that will be moving here in the coming years. Even if they can't come to council today to give you their opinion on rezoning, they're coming, and they're going to need somewhere to live. So, in conclusion, rezoning for housing is working. We've had the most housing starts in the country last year. That's a huge achievement. And we need more years like that, just like that, to catch up. Don't throw that away, and send almost 90% of the city back to RC1 or RC2. I urge you to vote against repeal, and if not, to at least pause until a meaningful plan for reform is put into place. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Let's go to uh Denis next, please. So I had a presentation as well. Just wait for it. Great. My name's Denny Robinson. Uh my wife and I are homeowners in Banff Trail. We live quite close to the university. And I'd like to talk today about a slightly separate um line of thought, but um something I think is very important to this discussion. COSEAN bargaining solutions. Next slide, please. So I'm going to talk about what is COCIN bargaining. I'm going to explain my own experience with two HGO developments going up beside us, how we got a successful resolution there, what we can learn from that, what I think council can learn from that, and what I think that tells us about the path forward. Next slide, please. So here's Ronald Coase, he's a Nobel laureate, and he pointed out and mathematically demonstrated that there are ways to solve externalities that do not require government intervention. Private citizens, neighbors can contract together and solve problems of economic externalities, arrive at optimal solutions, and they can do that if there are clear property rights and low transaction costs. Next slide, please. So, what does this mean for dealing with in field development near somebody? What it means is that we need to think about the different types of externalities. More cars in the street, parking, that's a neighborhood wide issue. The shading from a rowhouse development on somebody's backyard, that's uh that's a neighbor's, a one to one issue. Our current system says go to the community association, go to the city, talk to the planner, let's have a fulsome engagement process to discuss all of these problems. That throws the immediate neighbor under the bus because they actually have extremely low transaction costs with the developer. They just need to talk one to one with them and say, I'll say yes if you can do some things for me. And if you can do enough for me that I don't want to roll the dice on blocking the development or not, that it's good enough, then we can come to an agreement. But as you heard from Mike Bohrkristol earlier, The current system makes it very hard for developers to actually engage directly. In fact, blocks them from hearing the comp comments in some places. Next slide, please. So what happened for in our situation? So that's the elm tree in the property adjacent to mine and my wife's. That's going to turn into an H go is 7 over 7. And my wife didn't want that elm tree to go away. So I said, okay, well, do you want me to go down? You know, I'm fairly familiar with these processes. I can be an absolute nightmare. Do you want me to cause problems and you know whatever? And she said, no, no, we we believe in housing. Let them build, but I want you to save the elm tree. So I engaged early. I, as soon as they bought the property, I figured out who owned it. I gave them a hard time. I want to talk to the architect. Once they actually hired one, I talked to the architect, I talked to the planner. And I went and I engaged our community association. And I said, Look, if you guys have concerns about this, that's fine, but we're the only lot adjacent, and I expect, you know, our needs to take to take primacy here. I was also civil. It was struck me throughout the process that you know there was almost a sense of fear from the people I was engaging with about how I was going to behave. Merely by being polite and being outcome-oriented, I got good solutions. And they, well, who knows if they cut it down or not, but assuming they're honest, they said they're saving the tree. In the DP, it says they're saving the tree. And whether planting true new trees in the lot, the one right beside, you know, my wife's patio there, they let her choose it. So it was a very satisfactory resolution. And by getting involved in the process early and using my familiarity with this, I was able to ensure, you know, there was no external influence that was undermining our interests in this negotiation. I did spend probably a hundred hours working all this out, so that it's not like there were low transaction costs, but We could do better. Next slide, please. So that's the conclusion, right? Neighbors of new developments lose out in a process which prioritizes wider neighborhood questions at the cost of individual homeowners. Next slide, please. So where are we? We're growing. The paper house is too expensive, and new development can impact neighbors. Your problem is not with the RCG based district. The most obvious and extreme problems here are the immediate impacts of the direct neighbors. The problem is not with the RCG district, but with the process that cuts them out of the bargaining and prevents them from reaching good solutions. Through conversations directly with the developer. Next slide, please. Okay, so that's what we learned. Next slide, please. And here's some questions you can ask me. Thank you so much for being here. Don't go far. We'll ask Clyde uh Buchert to jump in now. Clyde, are you with us? Okay. Thank you. Please go ahead. Um hello, esteemed members of council. Uh I am Clyde and I was born and raised in Calgary. I have family roots that are deeply interconnected with the city and its identity, and I'm also a very proud Calgarian. I love the city and plan to live and raise a family here as well. And I mentioned this to show that I have a vested interest in Calgary's growth and sustainability and to characterize who many are worried will affect their neighborhood's character. I am in full support of keeping the city blanket zoned to RCG. I work in the city as a programmer, I receive a good salary, and I'm considered a skilled laborer. But like many in my demographic, I am seriously struggling to find affordable housing. We have a housing shortage for many reasons, including stagnant wages, investments owning much of our property, and what is known as the missing middle or lack of medium density housing. Our zoning laws are Euclidean, which is inextricably linked to exclusionary practices. But Calgary zoning was also intended to protect property values and prioritize car usage. I want to discuss these points today. Is preserving home value worth as much as providing access to housing during a housing crisis? I disagree with that viewpoint, but even to its proponents, I would say research shows rezoning has no negative impact on home values. The city agrees with this based on its own market research, and increasing supply also causes rents to be cheaper. Advertising car usage also leads to many issues that others are mentioning, such as parking issues or urban sprawl. Continuing to build outward fuels our dependency on cars, gasoline, and necessitates parking. Alternatively, higher density housing leads to walkable areas, increased access to localized services, and lessens car dependency. Building outward is also environmentally devastating. Viewing the situation holistically, we have to consider building new roads, building new infrastructure, displacing wildlife, pavement causing air pollution, and not absorbing water, which leads to flooding. And finally, people living further out will be car dependent if they wish to access the rest of the city or services. Roads are also very dangerous, and this is all very expensive. Who pays for new roads or maintenance when they inevitably break down? It's passed back to the taxpayers. In Calgary, like most cities, denser populated areas bring in more tax for the city, which effectively means suburban areas are subsidized. Denser areas also cost less because they decrease the amount that needs to be spent per person. Fairing roads and services and even heating. One more point of note is that single family homes are comparatively very inefficient for heating. They're constantly losing heat from all sides. Mixed density and high density have better heat retention, which lowers our use of fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas during winters in Alberta. I just want to highlight this for the city council that declared a climate emergency. So I don't mean to demonize single family homes or cars. Funnily enough, I aspire to own a single family home and would love to purchase a car, but can't as it would be too expensive and push home ownership further out of reach. I can only choose one. But this leads me to my final concern I wish to address. I hear a lot of fear about adding new people to a community and destroying its character, which can be quite insulting to Calgaryans like myself or my friends or my family who just wish to own a piece of property. So I want to offer an alternative perspective. An urban advocacy group in Vancouver, Urbanarium, shared many designs for possible living and RCG type housing that promotes communal living. Things like green areas, communal areas, and vested interests in property promote cooperation and camaraderie. Density contributes to market targeting, promoting doctors, cafes, grocery stores, etc. to move into an area. This further contributes to access to services, walkability, and desirability for an area. RCG zoning is not a mandate. People who own single family homes will not be forced out. As mentioned before, some areas are not even financially feasible for RCG zoning or for RCG housing and are likely to remain single family areas. But rezoning standardizes and smoothens the process for developers. RCG zoning saves money for the city, lessens car dependency, helps the environment. But something that RCG zoning is not is a silver bullet. The housing crisis is a complex and multifaceted issue. Other North American cities have rezoned, and it hasn't been the perfect solution. This is due to things like mandatory parking minimums, design restrictions, and in larger buildings, outdated safety codes and mandatory staircases. I implore the city to consider these factors as well. Just as single family zoning was outdated and required updating, RCG rezoning should be monitored and updated, not regressively repealed without reasonable cause. With all that said, I am vehemently against repealing blanket zoning. I am against the proposed ban on mid-block row houses and their aggressive changes in the recent proposals. I want to be proud of Calgary, and for that we must grow sustainably. RCG zoning promotes sustainability for the environment, for our city's growing population, and for the city's finances at once. This is an extremely rare and beneficial combination that repealing would destroy. Please do not wound our city like this. Yeah. Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go now to questions for the panel. Councillor Pantozoulis. Thanks so much, Mr. Zhang. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming to present. And uh you said it's your first time presenting at City Hall. I hope it's not your last. You're very articulate and uh you expressed your opinion quite well. And I'm and I'm glad you came and brought up the area of Aspen. It's a wonderful neighborhood, a lot of single families, but I actually think it's one area that has proper city planning. Uh I know many folks that live in the seniors complex off 17th. It's true transit oriented development. And in fact, I don't know where you live specifically, but within 100 meters, you can live in a 12 plex, 12 story, a townhouse, uh, an estate home, a single family home. So I think it's it's epitomizes what Calgary needs and from planning. But obviously you live in the neighborhood and your lived experiences, it's not enough. So maybe I'd just love to reconcile that when we see proper planning, people know exactly where the 12 story is going on 17th, next to the high school, next to the C train. Why do you think a bespoke approach that Blanker is owning, where your neighbor could knock down their home and put up an Aplex makes more sense? How do I reconcile that given I believe that Aspen has a wonderfully thought out process and uh plan? All right. Aspen is a very nice neighborhood. My whole thing is I was able to afford, me and my wife were able to afford Aspen because our parents helped with the down payment. And we bought our house in 2023, and with the pre-approval that me and my wife were able to obtain, we were looking around $500,000. But in 2023, the housing market was going crazy, and houses in that price range were being overbid like crazy as well. So that's when parents chipped in and we thought we would get out of that price range and buy something more expensive where the competition was a lot less. And we live in like quite contentment in Aspen, we're quite satisfied with the neighborhood, but you know, it's not fair for people who don't have that advantage from you know the bank of mom and dad who can help them with that. And my in my opinion is that if we can do what we can to increase the supply, the prices will flatten and will eventually fall. And if we go back to the exclusionary zoning that the city and many other North American cities have had for decades, that's a big step backwards and it puts a lot of young people out of reach for homes. Yeah, I just think what if we replicated the density that we have just south of you on 17th Ave, where think of that uh 85th to 77th. You know, I'm assuming you live in a single-family home. Is that is that a fair? That's perfect. So I do you think blank your rezoning would help single-family home pricing? Um I think eventually we'll trigger down. What I've seen so far is that single detached homes have been the most resistant to price change, and the prices have come down the most in like one bedroom rental apartments, townhomes, and row homes. So if we do increase supply, I think eventually, you know, single family homes could be next for price flattening or price decreasing, which is what I want for younger people. you mentioned you're a mechanical engineer, and engineers are always gonna bring order over chaos. And and do you think the planning is a better approach where it's very clear for community where density is going to be versus a bespoke approach where an apex anywhere? What what's your what would be the best outcome? This is kind of like an LAP process. No, I was thinking what what we if we repeal, if we don't repeal blanket rezoning in areas like Aspen, we can C uh RCG remains, you can have a plexus, four and four, and and so on, sort of anywhere, versus right now, uh, if we went back to R1, which would generally be an aspen, the density would occur where the community has agreed on 17th Ave, that area. So if we go back to the way uh if we maintain where it is, you'll have density anywhere no matter what with no community input, versus if we go back, repeal, the argument is we go back to what we sort of planned. And you think maintaining now density anywhere is a better approach than a thoughtful. Yes. Yes. And I think that because if we go back to uh picking and choosing what neighborhoods should be densified, we're gonna be in this kind of hearing over again where the naysayer is gonna come say, Well, sure, I want thoughtful growth, but not here. This neighborhood doesn't make sense, like where I live. I want to put it somewhere else. And if we do this across the whole city, it's gonna waste a lot of your time, a lot of our time, a lot of the city's time. And that's a big patchwork approach, which I don't think will be conducive to. uh building more in the city. I think a blanket approach for the whole city is more or less is actually a little bit more fair this way because everybody gets hit at the same time and it'll be better for housing development. Thank you so much for time and I appreciate uh you coming down to City Hall. Thank Thank you for your questions. Thank you. I've jumped in. We got about five minutes or so until the uh break, but uh I'm up for Denis, please. I just want to go back to your second last slide. I didn't get a chance to read that if you could just walk us through that. I think it was about the learnings or Oh, yeah, summary of the presentation. So yeah. So what what did uh you and your partner learn through the experience? uh yeah, yeah, I I don't think much. Just that the I think most of the learnings were afterwards when we realized, oh. It's actually incredibly difficult to get the outcome we got without having a bunch of knowledge and a certain amount of persistence. You know, I'm willing to, you know, sort of implicitly threaten somebody on the phone that I'm going to be a bureaucratic nightmare if they don't, you know, deal with me in the way I want them to. And not everybody is necessarily willing to uh engage in that. You know, it can feel right, I was very polite about it, but not everybody's necessarily willing to, you know, do that kind of sharp bargaining. Um and I mean. I think I behaved well in this situation, right? They built they're building their seven over seven, they're gonna do okay, but also we got what we wanted. And so the question then is um how can you replicate that? Uh how can you Create a process that has a higher rate of replicating those successes for other people. And part of that, I realized when I heard Mike talking about how much of the comments they're able to see is breaking down the barrier between the immediate neighbor. So what I actually think should be happening is that there should be a separate process, that the engagement process is actually lighter for the broader community and should be focused on broader kind of community wide planning standards, but that there be a specific process for the immediate neighbors of anything under four stories and the immediate neighbors in one over. So and I mean orthogonally adjacent neighbors. I think diagonally, you you add diagonally if it's um. if it's like four plus stories, and where they get to um uh they get a notice and then they're allowed to have a 30-minute meeting with the developer and you create some kind of uh General outlines for the general public of what base level low-cost accommodations look like. So a member of the general public may not be aware uh about some of the things you could do with window placement, or uh they might be concerned about a balcony. I didn't know the solution to the balcony, but they just pointed out look, we can pull the railing back like six inches. And then unless you know they're hanging their, you know, it's like they're hanging their self out the balcony, they won't actually see into your because there'll be a privacy wall. Um So if you can create a piece of the process for that, uh some guidance for people to engage in it, and then separate it from the other piece of the process, lighten the responsibilities for engagement in the other part, because I I just don't think that whether there's been a couple extra cars parked on your street is nearly as impactful as whether or not somebody you know builds a large wall immediately adjacent to your garden. I think there are two, there's sort of an order of magnitude of difference in the level of impact. And uh once you once you get to that point, then you can start seeing you have to pilot it, but then you can start seeing if you can actually get uh people more comfortable with development. And if they're aware that that process is coming, that they can uh then use that to to like to have their needs matter, get better, better outcomes. Um There's a there's a sort of a a deeper problem in uh you know what I'm suggesting, which is what do you do when there isn't agreement in that case? Uh and I think that you can't just like give veto power to the neighbor, right? We didn't I didn't try to exercise veto power, even though maybe I could have, maybe I would have been success successful, maybe not. But what happens is it becomes when uh the DP comes to the this body, it becomes a um A factor, right? Did you do consultations with the two immediately adjacent neighbors? Uh was there a uh some requests? What were they? How did you meet them? And you know, did you get to a sign off of like, okay, that's good enough, or I asked for these three things I got to, so I don't love it, but that's where we are. And that it can then inform this body's uh decisions on what to do. Yeah, I'm I'm very much reminded or early in my council career. Uh there's uh Oak Ridge Cooper Development and there was a huge amount of community opposition for it, but we went back to basics and we looked at who was most acutely impacted. It was r single family homes abutting it. Deval Cooper came back to the table, said, All right, we're gonna taper that off. What's it gonna take for you to support it? And significant amount of reductions were provided there. But you found we found more community support when the most acutely impacted folks were treated with respect. Yeah, and and that's that's COSA's insight that uh not on not on the acutely impacted folks, but that the people are often willing to bargain and that it's actually the agency. Right. The private property stuff's already sorted out. We have very clear system private property rights in this, that's that's kind of what we're already working within, but it's the agent, it's the um the transaction costs. The does do does somebody need to lawyer up? Does it go through council and CPC and SDAB? And do we add costs and time to all the parts? Then you can't come to a resolution. But if you can push as much of that away and get to the heart of the problem, then you can actually get and it sounds like that's what happened at Oak Ridge, and that's what I think you should try to replicate in the um uh. Y you know, on a personal level, I actually don't think most of these things are a big issue, but if council has decided on political level that it is an issue for residents, then here's a way to better address the heart of the issue. My uh final question for you would be. I've heard from folks, and even through this uh public hearing, many people engaged in the local area plans that said, all right, uh, we're willing to make concessions, we're willing to make some levels of compromise. They came to the table, supported those LAPs, and then they felt subsequent land use amendments above and beyond what they had compromised and committed to really impacted their trust in the process, where they said on a go forward basis, why should they engage and why should they give a little bit if they knew that. Down the road, uh, the city would be taking more. Do you have a sense of how we could be acting to restore some of the trust and confidence in the process overall? Because I think many people are coming to us and speaking about the bill form, whether Naplex is appropriate here, lot coverage, but I'd say more deeply than that, through the public hearing, we've learned about the lack of trust and confidence that many Calgarians have in the decision making process. Okay, uh yes that's a really good question. Uh briefly about the LAPs. Uh so I participated uh to some extent in the South Shaganapi LAP, kind of in toward well, actually a lot, but towards the end of the process. Uh I didn't I wasn't immediately involved in it in the in the release. Just a moment, Council, can we have uh your general consent that we conclude uh this panel? Okay, sorry, uh proceed, Denny. Uh so Well, I I thought, I mean, what I heard during the South Shaganapi LIP process was that there were people who wanted less and people who wanted more and people who wanted in the middle, and we ended up with a lot of compromise and nobody being entirely, entirely happy. And maybe, you know, in these kind of planning processes, that's always where you're gonna end up. And if people go in with the expectation that, you know, they're gonna get everything they want, then that expectation is inevitably gonna be broken because we talk about what the community wants, but the community is a lot of people and they don't want all the same thing. And so there's gonna be compromise within that. Uh, on stuff that's non-LAP compliant, uh, I would have a hard time speaking to that. I'm not familiar with any developments in the South Shaganapi LAP that are not LAP compliant. There may be some, but I'm I'm not familiar with them. Uh I have noticed the council has voted down a couple of land use amendments that were LAP compliant, H goes in Hillhurst, and so I think that that's you know the same concern, but on the other side. But on on trust, there's actually a deeper question. And The question of trust has been framed as we wanted you to do something, and we believe we had a majority that wanted you to do that thing, and you didn't do it, and that's a violation of trust. Uh and I actually think that's the wrong way to think about it. First of all, uh I mean other speakers have talked about the polling data, it's much more complicated than the, you know, whatever you get from the blanket hearing, the blanket rezoning hearing, whatever you pull out of the comments there. But The way I like to think about uh the reason we have problems with trust in government right now is that the trust in government doesn't flow from disagreement with a specific policy decision. It flows from a general observation of failure to execute and implement. So uh when you talk about trust in government in Calgary, I mean there's a big drop after the Watermane disaster. There are a ton of things that in the last 20 or 30 years in Canada, government has gotten appreciably worse at doing and delivering on. So I think if you want to solve trust in government, it's actually not about engagement, it's at improving the quality of execution within government organizations. So Green Line gets built on time and on budget. Uh the roads get fixed and the procurement process and the capital spending get improved so that people drive on roads that are of adequate quality. The water system gets maintained better, the leakage rate goes down, uh, and and 311, I actually think 311 is probably pretty good, but there's a perception that it's maybe not the greatest, maybe it has room for 10% improvement. So all those execution things are, I think, what create like a broad level of distrust and frustration in government. And then all the specificities of the of the policy compromises that are inevitable part of a city of two million people with all the, you know, disagreements within a democracy. Become far less salient and concerning to people if the core um function of government and the execution on that is perceived to be uh effective. And the the final thing I'll say on that is I think folks are doing a little bit better than uh they maybe recognize. I understand last election was contentious, but uh I knocked on over 10,000 doors, uh 9,000 of them in Ward 6, and the number one thing I heard was not any of the policy issues we're discussing today, but well. Maybe something could be better, but actually things are pretty good. Or there's an election on, oh, I hadn't realized. Yeah, I I guess stuff's good. Well, maybe now that I think about it, X or Y. And number two is property taxes. And the property taxes are deeply connected to the trust. People, especially in Ward 6, don't mind paying property taxes if they trust that the organization using them is executing on spending them to good effect. Like, you know, there's some very large homes in Ward 6, very wealthy people. And it's like, yeah, sure, 10, 20, 30k, whatever, I'll pay it. But you have to actually do useful things with it. I'm not gonna pay for uh blue rings, is the example everybody gives. I think that was quite old now. But you know, I I don't want money wasted, but I'll pay a lot if it's spent well, and I won't mind. Do uh does that answer your question? It does. I'm gonna go over to Councillor Schmidt, please. Or Deputy Mayor. I actually rescinded my RTS. Oh, you did? Okay. All right, uh colleagues, that is it for this panel. We're gonna come back uh reading panelists from 99 onwards, and then we're gonna alternate back to names that we had uh previously called earlier. So we'll let's be back here at 350. Sorry, uh point of procedure. Is there any chance we can go back and see if anybody here still wants to speak before we go further? Or we just I believe we need to change out the staff. We need to take our break now. after the break, sorry. Uh after the break, we'll come back, we'll fill the panel from 99 onwards. Those are names that have not uh been called yet, and then we'll alternate back and forth with uh the the previous panels that we had called up to. I believe it was 66 that we had left off on. Okay. Thank you, Mayor, on the roll. Councillor Dolly Wall, Here. Councillor Jameson, Councillor Councillor Jamison was at you remote. Thank you. Yes, it is. Yeah. Councillor Johnston, Here. Councillor Kelly, Present. Councillor McLean, Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, Present. Councillor Clark, Present. and Mayor Farkas. I'm here. Thank you, Mayor. All right. First panel is gonna be uh counting up from uh panel 99, and then after this panel, we'll go back and do a catch up panel uh from 66 onward. Uh on 99, do we have Nora McGregor with us? On 100, Philip Barber. Yes, Nora McGregor is here. Thank you, Nora. Please stand by. Do we have Autumn Malsbury Bog? Kenton Manning? Stan Ingham? Thank you. Come on up, Stan. Cher Cheryl Sellinger. Come on up, Cheryl. On 101, Heather Sherman. Sylvia Kowalowski. Sir, was that you, Heather? Thank you. Thank you. Please stand by. On 101, Sylvia Kowalisky. Jan Jan Schreider. Come on down, Jan. Alright, this will be the first panel. Nora, Stan, Cheryl, Heather, then Jan. Nora, why don't you start us off, please? Sure. My name is Nora McGregor. I'm a resident of uh Board Three and I've been living here since um 2003. And during that time, um we were one of the most northern communities and we've seen a lot of city sprawl going north this year. Northwest, north north, and northeast. And um yeah, I just want to thank you, thank the um Counselors and mayor for the opportunity to speak. My position is I'm not in favor of repealing blanket rezoning. The more we sprawl outwards, the more expensive development gap. We need to make far more roads, more transit, more utility corridors, emergency services, et cetera, et cetera. The other option, of course, is densification, which the blanket rezoning. Is meant to achieve. Once we lose valuable watershed and wetlands, native species, et cetera, we just can't bring them back. So I would like to see less sprawl and more densification. And so I am not in favor of repealing blanket rezoning. I assume that council will need to make some changes to the blanket rezoning bylaw to make it. more workable for inner city Calgarians. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go to Stan, then Cheryl next. Stan, please go ahead. Okay. Hello, Mayor Fargus, and greetings to the council. My name's Stan Ingham, and I live in Canyon Meadows, which is part of War 13. I'm on panel 100. I'm here to support the repeal of the City of Calgary blanket rezoning bylaw in its entirety. Amendments to The land use bylaw to allow the blanket rezoning was against the wishes of the majority of Calgarians when it was first introduced. Now, the thing is, I'm not against it. I'm not against densification. I'm not against having the zoning, rezoning. But what we are facing is that there are people out there that feel that this is all about affordability, and it clearly is not an uh a point with this rezoning. I am flexible to changes in our neighborhood, but I am against an haphazard approach that is being applied. Houses or changes in redevelopment need to be planned and implemented thoughtfully. The current strategy that we have with the blanket rezoning is all about densification. It lacks clear citywide planning. Local inputs can provide guidance and a more orderly development in the process of densification, but what ends up happening is the developers or the people or what's being built are the largest possible structure. Allowing the maximum amount of usage units to be developed on the land that is provided. Treetop canopy lossage, loss of habitats for insects, birds, animals, shadowing in neighborhoods, increase in pressure infrastructure, safety issues, everything like that is really an afterthought or not even considered in this blanket rezoning. Let's see. In many of the uh inner cities, uh inner city developments that are meant for diversification, we are seeing three-story structure or three-level structures with no provisions for the handicap or the mobile impaired. And guess what? We're all getting older. So, how are we gonna get around when they take away all the bungalows and say, no, no, no, we only have these three story structures that you have to climb up and down the stairs? Planning, um, what I would like to go and suggest so blanket rezoning, the decrease in number of lots available for the ownership is suitable only for the fit population. These limitations are in addition to the issues surrounding affordable housing. What I'd like to suggest is an amendment to allow for greater involvement. In the process of reviewing, approving, and appealing any proposed developments. This can happen only if this blanket rezoning is repealed in its entirety. This suggestion is plans that are developed by the public with the interests of the community and the city in mind are a good beginning. This suggestion is focused on reducing the time for approval for the application, which is a plus for the developers. And because of the better communication during the process, a plus for the public. The outcome is a win-win situation. Addressing conflict at the end of the process after development has been appealed is going to be a costly and time consuming process to both parties. Repealing the blanket rezoning necessary for the for the implementing of land. Okay. If a lot cannot be subdivided and the unit will be uh the unit will have to be a rental unit. It's not going to be sold. Time's up. Thank you so much. Just time, but so appreciate you being here with us. All right. We'll go over to Cheryl and then Heather after that, please. Oh, you have it up quickly. All right. Okay, so I'll start. Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Cheryl Sellinger. I hold a master's degree in public policy and have over a decade of experience in affordable housing, research, and policy. But I come here today as a homeowner and a mom. I'm here to share our story, an actual example of what the redevelopment process looks like for an average homeowner in Calgary. Next slide, please. My husband and I are long-term residents and homeowners in Ward 7. We have three kids who were born and raised here. Those kids are now teenagers who are becoming young adults. We don't know where our kids will end up, but living in Calgary is expensive. Anyone who's had to look for a place to live in the last five years can tell you homeownership is out of reach for a lot of people, and the cost to rent is skyrocketing and fraught with uncertainty. We want to future proof and create some flexibility and security for our kids and for us as we age. We think the best opportunity for this is with the land we own that our current house sits on. Next slide, please. We're on a 50 foot lot, currently zoned RCG. That zoning means we have way more choice with what we can do with our land than we did previously, where the only thing we could have was either a semi detached or a single family with a basement suite. Maximum two units on the lot in either case. We want to create some options for our family. We're not looking to maximize what is currently allowed and instead would like to build a semi-detached with basement suites plus one backyard suite over the garage. This would meet our families' needs and critically enable us to pay for it all when we subdivide and sell the other half of the semi. This is not a money making opportunity. We will be in the hole on this. But we think it's the most affordable long term solution. Next slide, please. This is something we've been thinking about for years, but until the 2024 rezoning came through, it was too murky and too risky. We're not planners or in the development industry, and the prospect of seeking a land use redesignation was scary. The rezoning gave us the certainty and clarity we needed to take the next step, because the next step is incredibly expensive. I don't think people understand the cost and risk of simply submitting a development permit application, let alone the actual construction. We're almost $10,000 and hours upon hours into the process just to get up to the DP stage. The list of requirements is long. The amount of expertise needed to understand the zoning, regulations, local area plan, everything is immense. And being able to pull all together in a development proposal is best left to the experts, not us. We don't have those sorts of skills. The only way for us to get through it was with help from architects, builders, and other professionals, but that costs money, lots of money. We never would have risked these expenses and time without the certainty in the zoning. This is because of the expected opposition. We live in a great neighborhood and have good relationships with our neighbors and across our community. We know that everyone wants what's best for us. Still, we 100% expect opposition because ultimately everyone wants what's best for them as well. I don't blame them. This is why society relies on governments to consider what's best for everyone, to take in all the evidence and look at the trade-offs, to understand the big picture and find the best possible policies. Just a point of clarification, because I don't want to throw anybody under the bus here, I don't take issue with the planning department or their processes. They're simply implementing council's decisions. So as you consider this item, please understand that in our very real world example, every single restriction and requirement you add makes development less feasible. Next slide, please. I hope there is room for reasonable compromise on this issue. I don't support going back to the old zoning. Among many other issues, it would mean people like us would never build or adapt our homes for our needs. Calgary needs a variety of housing at different price points. As part of the solution, you need homeowners like us building things like this. On the other hand, people have reasonable concerns about the 2024 districts and regulations. I think the proposed amendments before you are a reasonable compromise, and I mostly support them. The one change I would ask you to consider would be allowing a basement suite and a laneway suite or a backyard suite in the same development versus one or the other as proposed. Thank you very much for your time and good luck with your decision. Thank you for being here. We'll go to Heather on 101, then Jan after that. Heather, please go ahead. Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of Council. My name is Heather Sherman. I am in my late thirties. Today I speak on behalf of myself and my husband. Thank you for this opportunity. We are professionals residing in an inner city community in Ward 8. For the reasons that follow, we are in support of a full repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw, a reset of the zoning designations to what they were prior to the blanket rezoning bylaw. And a return to thoughtful community-based planning. Prior to moving to our current community, we lived in Marteloup. In the span of approximately five years, the block we lived on underwent a significant transformation. Bungalows that had stood for decades were demolished, large mature trees were cut down. New trees that were planted appeared to struggle to flourish. Reflecting on this morning's discussion, I question whether the ongoing removal and replacement of decades-old mature trees with saplings that may or may not thrive will be sufficient to preserve Calgary's tree canopy. There came a time when Marteloup was no longer suitable for our growing family. Among other things, we desired a larger yard, more privacy, and a quieter street. In 2022, we chose to move to our current community in part because of its park like historic nature. We made the decision to purchase our almost 100-year-old home with some certainty regarding community character based in part on how the community was zoned at that time. Consistent with the statement of the Calgary Real Estate Board, we believe that blanket rezoning significantly reduces certainty for individuals and families who have chosen or are looking to enter Calgary's housing market. This is in part due to the disproportionate impact that blanket rezoning has on historic established neighborhoods. The policy neither recognizes nor protects the unique nature of these neighborhoods. For example, in newer master plan communities, we understand that houses are often grouped by type, which creates certainty for people who live in or choose to move to these areas. In contrast, allowing eight unit complexes to be constructed mid block in established communities. With limited, if any, input from neighbors, has the potential to create significant uncertainty and place undue strain on utilities and schools. Further, it is our understanding that blanket rezoning has not effectively addressed Calgary's housing affordability challenges. We have seen modest, relatively affordable homes and rentals demolished and replaced by higher priced developments. We understand that blanket rezoning increases redevelopment pressure everywhere at once and incentivizes demolition over renovation, accelerating the loss of lower cost housing. We are not opposed to densification, however, it must be pursued strategically and thoughtfully with stakeholder input. The Calgarians that participated in the historic 2024 public hearing on rezoning for housing overwhelmingly opposed blanket rezoning. That opposition was reiterated in the 2025 municipal election by electing a council majority that campaigned on repealing blanket rezoning. We respectfully request full repeal of the bylaw and a return to thoughtful community based planning. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Jan to wrap up the panel. Good day. I think I'll sort of presentation. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, hi, I'm Jan. I live in Ward 8. And when I was thinking about what I wanted to talk about, it occurred to me there are so many things pertaining to rezoning that can be addressed. And the one thing I uh focused on was what makes Calgary City worth living in. And I think you've seen the next picture quite a couple of times. Can you go to the next one? I think that one has been shown quite frequently. Uh to make Caribbe worth living, or to make Caribbee an amazing city. You need affordable houses, you want low taxes, you want great services. And well, where are we at with that? So if you can go to the next one, I think you've seen that as well because it's from the City of Cairi website, and it shows that on the taxes front we're doing quite well. I mean, tax in Caribbean obviously everyone would love to pay less, but we're doing quite well. Next one, please. Then on the housing start side, I mean that has been discussed. Earlier today, so I don't want to go too much into it, but we are seeing that the amount of missing middle that is being constructed is increasing. Next one. And we're also seeing that we get at least a leveling out, if not even a decrease, in prices. And next one, that the CREB is forecasting that prices may even drop further, or at least they stay stable, which I suppose, in light of the last years, is also quite a win. Next one. And on the services side, I mean there are quite a lot of projects that are ongoing to improve the city. We've got the repair of the water main feed, we've got the green line improvement or green line implementation, and we've got the new arena that is being built, that's being set up. And well, you need a good tax base in order to make sure all of these projects are paid for, right? I think last week there was a presentation on the fiscal conservative case for increasing density. I think that was on Wednesday. And for that person made very good points. Next one, please. So, all in all, it seems like we are on a good track between the taxes, the services, and the affordability, at least in terms of the trajectory. Next one, please. So, what's the problem actually? And I think the problem is that we are on a good trajectory in terms of the city, but what about the communities? What about the neighborhood? What makes a neighborhood worth living? What makes you come back from a long day of work and you put into your driveway and you think, well, That's an awesome place to live. That is my home. And I think that is where people have anxiety about what is going up. There was a woman here this morning. I think it was Joyce from Banff Trail. I think she just made it, she just nailed it. She was talking about how she saw that there was sloppy work in adjacent houses, how she had concerns about the safety, about access of emergency vehicles to other buildings, which then led her led to anxiety from her or in her that if there were ever a fire, that this would burn down the neighborhood. And that is obviously a problem. And that can't stand. So I'm wondering if we were to repeal blanket rezoning and we would have this added layer of a hearing on zoning change and all of the input from the community and a building proposal would come up, like that 12 plex that she was referring to, what would that change? Or are all of these concerns in terms of how do we need to build buildings to have proper access to for emergency crews? How do we need to build buildings and how do we need to inspect buildings that there's no sloppy workmanship? How do we ensure that there's proper canopy, proper tree coverage? Isn't that all part of well, what does our GC allow? And not what is blanket rezoning? So that is that those were kind of my thoughts this morning, which I would like to the council to dive in further. Now, actually, I do work myself a bit in problem solving and uh solution implementation. I work in as a quality manager in oil and gas. And one thought I would want to leave you guys with is don't let perfect stand in the way of good. The blanket rezoning has had benefits to the community. And with the implementation, there are new challenges. But these challenges they need to be overcome. And that's also part of the process. If you think about the hockey club up north, the Edmund Noilers, they aspire to win the Stanley Cup one day. But and they've been made it to the playoffs for the past four rounds, and they failed to win it four times in a row. But they're not kicking out Dreisidel or McDavid. They're not making a complete 180 and walk everything back. They are looking at improving what they have. And also, I would like you to so a lot of people, I'm gonna wrap this up after this one. So I hear a lot of people talking about common sense solutions and what I think are common sense solutions are solutions with a Proven track record of effectiveness. And there are quite a lot of cities who have gone through that process that Calgary is currently going through, especially for example, Austin or Auckland in uh in New Zealand. And in Austin, um you can look for the newspaper articles from 2022 and then compare them to 2025, and they have exactly the same conversations. If you look at a 2022 article. We unfortunately are just at time, but uh please don't go far in case there may be questions. Awesome. Thanks. That concludes this panel. Over to Councillor Atkinson, please. you. Um Cheryl Sellinger, please. Yeah. Hey, thank you for coming and sharing. It's a great perspective that we haven't had a lot of within the presentations. We've heard a lot from the development industry, builders, architects, that sort of side of things. But for homeowners who are sort of venturing into this sort of world, I just wonder if there's anything that you've experienced on the process side. And I know you maybe don't know the difference of what you'd be going through if it was a semi-detached or a single necessarily with what you've gone through for RCG, but if there's anything that could make it so that more current homeowners ha see this path and sort of don't run into the many roadblocks that you were sort of speaking to in your presentation. Anything that we can do on our side for the process? Yes, um, I wouldn't say I've hit roadblocks. Um, I think it was more that. When the zoning came, before the zoning came in, I knew that we could only build a semi-detached or a single attack or single detached with a basement suite. Those are the only two options. We were RC2, right? And so, you know, I have some some background in this world, but going through this process has really opened my eyes to um how complex it it really is and how not difficult, but uncertain. And so when the rezoning came in and it was like, okay, now you can do all these other things, that opened our world. And we always, all we ever wanted to do was create enough housing for our kids. Our oldest is 18 now. He has some disabilities and will probably be living with us for a while, but he's an adult. And so we don't want him, you know, living in our basement trying to get on with independence for years and years and years. So when the rezoning came up and there was an option to do something different, that didn't mean we had to go through a land use redesignation or whatever else, because as I understand, that adds months and months and months to the process and a lot of uncertainty. You know, there was no way we were we're not rich. We weren't gonna lay out thousands of dollars just to see if we could do something. You know, this way we know we're pretty certain to do something and Our our architectural firm has been godsend and they've been so patient and wonderful with us, educating us along the way and figuring out what we can do and you know, helping us along. But there was no way we were going to go through that process without knowing that we were going to be able to build sort of what we want to build. Yeah. It's great. It's such a just a different perspective and just sort of shows something that we haven't heard. Thank you so much for sharing that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, please. And Cheryl, I'll ask you a couple questions. I'll stick with your personal experience there because you mentioned that you were going, you expect that you might get some pushback from neighbors. And we heard a presentation on the panel before yours about sort of the relationship between a neighbor and somebody who's going to develop. So I think just hearing how you might approach that issue with your neighbors would be helpful for us. Yeah, and I actually I was watching that and I I loved his um perspective and I think a solution like that could be really helpful. I sort of see like I sort of see councils being the 10,000-foot view, right? You guys set the direction, decide on what's getting built where. And then dealing with your immediate neighbors and trying to find solutions there is the micro, right? And I we're already, you know, we submitted our application, and you know, something was a little different than I expected, and immediately started chatting with my neighbors to be like, okay, I know that sunshine's going to be an issue for you guys. I know you use your back deck a lot. We're gonna look at making some adjustments to move this because I knew as soon as they saw it, they were going to be calling me up saying, Oh, this is kind of a problem, right? And so we want to work with them. They're our neighbors, they're our they're our kids' best friends, things like that, right? This is our community. So working with neighbors that are immediately impacted, I think, is a really good solution, but having all of Calgary or all of your community or like through a local area plan getting to decide what is where, I I feel like it's a bit inefficient. I think that council should be setting a broad direction that benef that's beneficial to the whole city and then you work with your close neighbors to make it work. And which gets back to our role as governance and not sort of the the micro of each issue. Um on that point though, something that's come up a lot in this that we kind of keep floating back to is that a lot of what you're discussing there is actually not related to the actual land use. It is the process outside of land use. And so it sounds to me. Like the suggestions that you're making are signaling to us that things outside of the land use process need to be looked at and not the land use process itself. Because things like shadowing and trees setbacks, those aren't necessarily the land use issues. So it it tell me if I'm right that it sounds like the issues that you're identifying are not actually the land use issues because those things could arise with a single family home as well. I think for us, we were always going to work with our neighbors, no matter what the situation, what we were building. But we had a type of thing that we wanted to build, and that thing wasn't even allowed under the previous land use. So that's land use redesignation. That's months, that's a lot of uncertainty, that's a lot of people commenting and reviewing that, right? The application that we went in, because we went in with a laneway suite, is discretionary. So people are looking at it, but we could have gone in with contextual and still gotten duplex with basement suites. And there would have been a lot of relief in that, right? There's a lot of certainty in that. It really reduces the risk that okay, this can get done no matter what, right? In the very least, at the end of the day, we're going to end up with at least that, and that's going to help meet our family's needs. But without that, you know, if we're if we're trying to ask for land use redesignation, that's a hu that's a way bigger risk. Then what happens, because this is something we also, I don't think, discuss enough. For you in your personal situation, if you go down this road and then your application ends up getting denied, what happens to you? Well, here's where our architects have been Helping me guide, helping guide me along the way because I wasn't even, you know, again, coming sort of from this sector, it's really been eye-opening about what you can do and what you can't do, and at what stage it's discretionary and contextual and this and that, right? And so I don't actually know, right? Like we've we're we're submitting something that um we think is completely there's a component of it that's completely permitted, there's a small component that's discretionary. But I think because the use is allowed, it's a go-ahead that we then work with. But I I don't know for sure. Um, but I do know that we're avoiding a more complicated process. If the if the rezoning went back to RCD, RC2, we wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot pole. We would never have gone in with an application like this. And then just touching on you it your resume sounds like you have expertise in the affordable housing sphere. And we have heard Several arguments. It came up with Kreb and it came up with some others on previous days that we should be focusing on affordable housing and not this. So, and truly afford like non-market below market housing. Do you see this and that being in conflict with one another? Um well first I'll say I don't have my my professional hat on, so I'm not speaking for my organization or my employer, but um from what I know, right? So we have non-market affordable housing and we have housing affordability, right? And I think you understand that non-market affordable housing is expensive to build and requires some government support. And in a city and in a country where you know we we struggle with things like nobody wants their taxes to rise, we have other huge expenses going on, infrastructure expenses, people are loath to spend money, spend the money that's needed on non market affordable housing, truly. The investments need to be made there, but there's a place for for the market to to play a role. There's a place for the market to deliver. And if we're talking free market, I mean there's lots of room there. But just creating more supply of any type isn't necessarily going to Improve affordability to the people that need it the most. As you've heard lots, I'm sure, during this hearing, there are price points at different product types, right? And so I think a lot of people are arguing, hey, we're seeing these $700,000 townhouses go up, that's not affordable, this isn't improving affordability. But things like basement suites and laneway suites certainly have a lower price point than a lot of these other products. They they have a lower price point than new apartments coming on the market, right, for rent. And so I think there's room for the market to play a more significant role in delivering market affordable product, but you guys have to let it happen. And If you know if we're not sort of enabling some more secondary suites and more laneway suites and some smaller products and different types, the market can't deliver. Like I'm saying, there there are so many hurdles in my way to delivering these sorts of things that it's not going to happen. So then I think maybe more pointedly, as governors of this organization, can we feasibly do both things at once? Address affordability and address affordable housing. That's that's a big question. I I mean I do think that all cities need to make investments in non-market affordable housing. I think it's critical. It's going you're going to get savings in other areas, right? Policing, judicial, everything else. Most of those savings currently go to the provincial government who's delivering health care and things like that. But in working with working across governments, there's a solid case to be made that building non market affordable housing is way cheaper than the alternative. And it's it's it's just um fiscally responsible, right? It just makes sense. But I don't think Calgary can do it. g can deli can solve all those problems with that alone. I really do think you need to get market delivered affordable housing. Thank you. And then Mr. Schreider, you you ran out of time. You were raising some interesting points, and if there was just anything else you wanted to add, you were getting towards your common sense kind of solutions. So just if there's anything else you wanted to add on, you're happy to give you the time. I was actually just trying to uh yeah, I was just wrapping this up and just saying, well, a lot of cities have gone through the very same process. And if you really look at the newspaper articles from Austin, you see exactly or very similar conversations about uh people are concerned about parking situations, people are who worried that this is a ploy from developers, uh, people are unsure unsure about community engagement and What solutions did they come up with and are there solutions that apply to Calgary as well? And these conversations have been going on in Austin, they've been going on in Auckland as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan implementation, and those are just great examples where things worked, things didn't work out. So we don't need to reinvent the wheel. That's kind of my point. And then just from your own perspective, you know, briefly, um you mentioned you live in Ward 8. Yep. And so then I would expect that you're seeing some of this change. So How have you experienced the change that you're seeing around you? So I live on 20th Street, uh close to 55, so pretty far in the south of Ward 8. There, and I'm not impacted a lot myself with where my wife and I live. So I can't really speak to that. I do see that there's a lot of development along that street, a lot of townhouses coming up. So I do believe that I can understand why people are concerned. And I would like for the council moving forward to figure out what are these concerns that are actually related to land use and not to the actual zoning, what the zoning allows to build. to address the root of the issue. Um yeah, that's it. Thank you. I am done. Thank you. Councillor Shabot, please. Thanks for Ms. Sherman? Or Schreider. Schreider. Oh, no, sorry, wrong person. I'm looking for the lady who spoke before that. Heather Sherman? Ms. Sherman. Are you still Heather Sherman here. Uh so Heather, were you speaking in opposition or in favor of repeal? Yes. Okay. And was there anything that you uh didn't get a chance to say because you might have run out of time, or do you feel like you pretty much said everything you had to say? Thank you very much for asking. I completed my statement. Okay, thank you. Um now my question is now for Ms. Sellinger. Thank you for being here. So if if I understand you correctly, you've gone through a development permit process and based on RCG, but you said that if it had gone back, you wouldn't be able to because there was a something that didn't meet the requirements of RCG, or I mean RC2, but isn't that sort of what you're building? Semi detached with a basement suite? Um okay so we're we're on a 50 foot lot so on our lot um we would be under RC2 we would be allowed two units. Um so that can be in the form of either a semi-detach so uh whatever you guys call them, duplexes, right? Or a single family with a basement suite, which is what we are currently in. We have a single family house on that whole lot. Or semi detached with a basement suite on each. No, that's not that wasn't allowed under RC2, I don't think. That's allowed. The only thing that's not allowed is one is both a backyard suite and a basement suite. Under RC2, yeah, so I could have put four in RC2 on a 50 foot lot. Yes? Okay, that's news to me. Councillor Shabot? I apologize for jumping in, but I think from admin we're getting a crossing of the head. So there might be some uncertainty on whether that's allowed or insure. But we can get back to you. Okay. Well that was that was the subject of an amendment recently because RC2 didn't allow basement suites in the past, but that bylaw was amended to allow basement suites on RC2 properties. Anyway, so I'm not going to get into the merits of the bylaw. But you do have an application that's in the works now? I do. And I I guess the other thing, even if the if the basement suites were allowed, then I don't think the backyard suite was. And that's kind of an important part of our development as well. However, I think there is something that's being proposed specifically to make an amendment to allow both. Oh okay. Which so you would be supportive of that amendment if that were put through. So even if we did go back um it through that process, it would still allow both. Absolutely. Yeah. You would support that land that type of land use? As long as I can get a semi detached with basement suites and one garage suite, and then I can subdivide and use the other half to pay for this whole thing, I'll be happy. Yeah, it's certainly something we can discuss later on, but uh uh thank you for giving us your perspective here today. Um Mr. Ingham. Ingham? I I'm not sure if you were finished. No, I I wasn't finished. Um I was going to talk about um the uncertainty if you don't repeal everything. In its entirety, there's going to be a lot of confusion both for the general public and for the developers, contractors, or whatever. So that uncertainty will lead to a lot of appeals. And we're starting to see that right now is a tremendous increase in the number of appeals. The problem with it is that, as been pointed out before, there has been A lack of knowledge on the public side. And when we go through this appeal process, what happens is that we are at a distinct disadvantage of not knowing things that apply or don't apply. And things like sh um shadowing, um trees, canopies, and everything like that. That has nothing to do with this blanket rezoning. And what ends up happening is that the general public. Pushes gets kind of pushed to one side because often it does not follow the checklists that they have to approve any type of development. And these developments, again, are not are not really affordable for the public, and nor does it really address the missing middle. Okay. So the original land uses around RCG before the blanket zoning included a lot of different elements that were subsequently amended, including front yard setbacks as one example. And so the front yard setback, is that something that was something that you were concerned with? Or That's one of many things that were were discussed in a particular development that was in our neighborhood. And the size of the structure and so on like that, being totally out of characteristics, out of character with all the surrounding buildings in that area. so I'm not sure exactly what's gonna happen as far as the full repeal or whether some of the other amendments are gonna uh be approved because there are some other suggestions under recommendation number four. I think you spoke to that, and again, not a lot of certainty in regards to the interpretation of some of those. So From your perspective, do you think that's something that should be maybe relegated to some further debate prior to um or maybe public consultation, development industry consultation, prior to um actually going towards either approving or not approving those recommendations? Yeah, um I would agree with you, but I would get rid of the rezoning first. Okay, go back to the old system and then start bringing in this new. Way of doing business, in particular the consultation with the with the community, because after all, they are the ones that know what fit, what doesn't fit, they're the ones who have to live with the results. Yeah, no, there's quite a few amendments that are being proposed there, and I'm not sure the development industry's signed off on all of those either. Yeah. Um I think for the most part the community would likely be supportive of some of those amendments or most of those amendments. I'm sure that there will be lots of it, but let's get rid of this because the longer it's it's gets sustained, the more complicated it's going to become, because then it's going to be very difficult. What is implemented, what's not implemented, how can we develop with the changing situations. So it's easier to just take everything off the table, go back to the old system, but revisit this and get a new process going with the proper amendments. Okay. All right. Thanks for being here. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. So we're going to go back to calling uh the some of the previous panels as we're alternating. We ended off on panels. Sorry, who is speaking? Panel 100. Autumn Mullesbury Bog. I was panel 100, but I couldn't unmute in time. What is your name? Autumn Malsbury Bogue. You'd called my name for panel 100, but I couldn't unmute in time to answer. Sorry, could you uh repeat uh your name? It just kind of came out muffled. Autumn Mullesbury Bogue. Okay, autumn, uh, please stand by, you'll be the first up. One second. Okay. All right, uh do we do we have uh anyone from panel 66 with us? Uh yes, I'm here from panel sixty-six. My name is Sonia. Johnson. Okay. Thank you, Sonia. Please stand by. On 67, do we have Jacob Dak or David Jacobs? Yes, I'm here. All right, David, please stand by. Do we have anyone from panel 68 in the chamber online? Okay, we have one person with us. Please come on down. Do we have anyone from do we have Alaya Routstein from 69? Okay. Do we have anyone from panel 70? Okay. Sorry, Mayor Farkas. I'm on panel seventy-three and I'm calling in from abroad. Uh I'm wondering if I could speak now. I've been trying to call in, it's difficult with the time change. Thank you. Who's speaking? This is Risa Dasaw. I was panel seventy-three. All right, Reza, please uh stand by. You'll be our final uh panelist for this. All right, uh let's start off, please, with Autumn from 100, please. Good afternoon. My name is Autumn Mullesbury Bogue. I am director at large with Ward 14 Parkland Community Association. However, these are my own opinions I'm representing today. I'm having deja vu here as I'm once again speaking before council on the same topic. I am in favor of a full repeal with no amendments back to RC1, RC2 zoning and restarting engagement properly with residents. I have hoped this new council will choose to really hear the public, although I'm sure many have given up trying to be heard. I'm disappointed by the confusing wordings surrounding this hearing as well as the terrible timing over school spring breaks, and had it not run long, I would have missed it completely as I just returned from other country. One thing I think we can all agree on is the conflict that this has created between Calgarians and their neighbors. And the distrust of Calgarians towards council and city administration is incredibly sad for our city overall. It was claimed to increase affordability, but it has done the opposite. I know of people whose long term affordable rentals their homes have been sold off with nowhere to go. I have not seen a single development where the new units with a fraction of the land have sold for less than the original home and full land parcel. It creates landlift on all properties, whether they develop or not. It creates further commoditization of the housing market, the very things the National Housing Advocate has warned against. That is the opposite of creating affordability. It creates parking disputes as we don't have the mass transit infrastructure or climate to suddenly switch to a car free lifestyle. The Calgary Real Estate Board today presented very clearly, showing the numbers proved that upzoning has made housing more expensive and out of reach, not more affordable. It creates further strain on aging infrastructure that has been neglected and is already struggling with the current population in these neighborhoods. My neighborhood frequently has water lines breaking and electrical transformers catching fire. I know the city has a tax problem and this need for more tax revenue is not the reasoning used to appeal to the public with blanket up zoning. But why is the city simply giving away windfalls of profit from landlift of densification and not capturing for the good of all Calgarians to offset some of the downsides? Vancouver negotiates community amenity contributions with each free zoning that targets a capture of 75% of the increase in land value to be returned back to the city to benefit the public instead of instead of a windfall for the developer. Quoting the City of Vancouver, community amenity contributions, CACs, are in kind or cash contributions provided by property developers when City Council grants development rights through rezoning. CICs help the city build and expand facilities like affordable housing, parks and open spaces, childcare facilities, community facilities, community centers, libraries, transportation, and public realm. Arts and Culture Spaces. CACs are in addition to their DCC development cost charge, similar to our off site levies. And their DCCs tend to be more than triple our single and semi levies and quadruple our multi unit levies. Repealing blanket upzoning does not remove opportunities for well thought out appropriate densification, but returns the onus to the developer to ensure it is appropriate and respectful of the neighborhood and not the other way around. Rubber stamping applications and leaving the fallout to neighbors and the FDAB is a dereliction of basic duties of city planning. In Ward 14 alone, there are examples of approved plans that have exceeded basic lot coverage limits and certainly don't consider the recommended good neighbor guidelines. Also approving a commercial business in a residential home right across the street from a commercial mall that has a vacant spot from the exact same business. In Ward 11, has anyone seen what is going up on the corner across from Lord Beaver Book High School and the busy day here on the other corner at a very chaotic and dangerous traffic location? Multi-unit slot homes with no parking, where is logic and reason? I grew up in government subsidized housing. Trust me, I first under firsthand understand this need. True affordable housing can be built where it is properly planned for from the start and on lower cost land in your communities and along C train routes such as Heritage Station, the development plan in the industrial area near Chinook Mall. It's already been proven blanket upzoning only hurts affordability. A new plan should not even be considered until a proper updated census is completed. You can't plan based off five-year-old data with explosive growth. Please fully repeal this poor and damaging excuse for legitimate planning. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go to Sonya on 66, then David after that. Please go ahead, Sonia. Thank you, Council. My name is Sonia, and I reside in Ward 11. I'm here to oppose the repeal on RCG zoning. I believe this is my fifth time speaking to counsel about housing. I go all the way back to the contentious guidebook and LAPs. And yes, despite the sudden love in for LAPs, I've heard during this meeting, they were very contentious. None of these documents changed any zoning, but they were about housing, amongst other things. It's hard to believe that we'll be right back where we started should the up zoning be repealed. But here Sonia, sorry to interrupt you. Are you on speakerphone by chance or could you speak just a little bit uh closer? Uh you're coming off kind of muffled here in the chamber. Oh, am I okay, sure. Would you like me to start again or was I clear enough? Uh you can continue. Thanks. Okay. None of these documents changed any zoning, but they were about housing, amongst other things. It's hard to believe that we'll be right back where we started should the up zoning be repealed. But here we are. There's been lots of good data presented over the past week, and I hope that counselors take the time to really understand the data. There's a lot of emotion in this debate for obvious reasons, but it's your job to look at what's best for all Calgarians, present and future, and to use real numbers and not emotion to make a decision. I've lived in Calgary two separate times over my life. I moved here as a child from Montreal in 1980 and after several relocations, moved back here to raise my two children in 2007. As a child, I lived in Lake Bonavista. My house was huge compared to my home in Montreal. The trees were small, but I loved my new friends hiking with my family and hanging out at the lake and dancing to Xanadu in those huge basements. It was awesome. It wasn't Montreal, which I missed, but it I had new friends, new adventures were to be had here. Even though my mother complained that there was nowhere to get a good croissant coffee, they loved it here too. Fast forward 25 years and my children are starting kindergarten in Southwest Calgary. The city had changed so much, and in 2007, Calgarians felt like this was the greatest place on earth, despite all of the changes that had occurred in the 25 years previous. And it was great. Different, but great. For one thing, good croissant and coffee were everywhere, and vegetarian and vegan restaurants too. My kids walked to school, tore around the neighborhood on their bikes and go karts. We had drinks on friends' patios and decks and met new people and had new experiences. Fast forward 19 years later to 2026. My husband commutes to work on his bikes. New cycle tracks have helped with this. My kids take the BRT to the university if they need to. Calgary has changed so much since we moved here in 2007. People are coming from all over the planet. They come for different reasons, many of them because they see Calgary as a safe haven where they can raise their families and contribute to their community, city, province, and country, an opportunity they might not have in their previous home. These newcomers will change the city, as newcomers to a new place have done for millennia. They will bring their food, their stories, their cultures, whether they be from Ethiopia or Toronto. We need housing, affordable housing, purpose built rental, below market, POD, all of it. There's no question about this. We have a housing problem and a climate problem which needs solving. Change is often messy and disruptive, but always necessary. Nothing lasts forever, including the quote, idyllic neighborhoods I and many others have cherished. But change must must come. Flip that feeling of loss to a feeling of gratefulness for what we have been fortunate enough to have had. But to hang on to the past is a fool's errand and always has been. The changing dynamics of the world will make our neighborhoods and cities different and I believe better. I notice as I speak I've not once mentioned my house, a mid-century bungalow which we lovingly renovated in homage to the era it was built. We love the house, but it's a house. In the end, it's the characters that make your community, not the character, which, after hundreds of presentations, is yet to be defined. Newcomers will share walls and yards and have smaller patios and stoops, and they will love this place, as we who have been here slightly longer have loved it. We will love that we have shared our space and provided homes for those who otherwise would not have been there because we'll be lucky to have those people too. Counsel, I'm here to implore you not to take a step backwards, but to move forward. Do not repeal the zoning. Move forward to ensure we are all able to have a place to call home. This will make Calgary a better place to live for all of us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to David on 67, and then after that, uh the presenter in person here. Yes. Good good afternoon, Council. My name is David Jacobs. I um panel sixty-seven. Uh ward I'm in ward thirteen and I'm on the Shawnee Evergreen Planning and Development Board. I'm here to speak about blanket rezoning, not for or against, but rather talk about some of the misconceptions and misinformation I've heard throughout this and the previous blanket rezoning public hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with Council. Clearly, a much different council, but it's the same group of concerned Calgarians. I'd like to share my observations. Coming at the end, you get to hear a lot of people. So here's some of my observations. The majority of presenters agree we need more housing. How we achieve that is the question at hand. Do we build out or do we build up? Well, it's not going to be up or out. It's likely a combination of both. But you've already heard that from many people. And I believe the Calgary Real Estate Board did an excellent job of telling us how the market has changed since blanket rezoning was originally approved. There is less demand and more supply. I've also heard from a number of people that increased density. equals increased taxes. But it was that was said by many presenters, but it was never suggested that the increased cost by those new infills and residents will add to the cost of the city's infrastructure, parks, and schools. So let's just not look at increased taxes alone. And we also have the discussion about the have and the have nots. Governments around the world have tried for centuries To address these issues and have not succeeded. And I don't think the City of Calgary will succeed there either. Remember how years ago Calgary was going to end homelessness within 10 years? Well, how has that worked out for us? I would like to go on to talk about for profit and subsidized or non market. We live in the capitalist economy, and I have no qualms. With developers and people making money. That's what's been driving Calgary's and Canada's economy for years. But let's recognize that the bulk of the drop-in center clients and new immigrants will never be able to afford even the lowest rental rates, including utilities, that was supposed to be generated by increased supplies. Clearly, we need more subsidized housing, whether it be a drop in shelter. or a government institution or specialized housing choices. Many of the clients that used to be housed in something like the Michener Center got more than shelter, they got services. I think we need to go back to that model again. And I do not accept what has been said by many presenters that the repeal of blanket zoning eliminates housing choices. I believe City Council and other level, with the help of other levels of government, have many tools to provide housing to meet the range of affordable and subsidized housing needs. Now is the time to explore other solutions that might be more productive and less offensive. So I want to talk about blanket versus targeted zoning. Blanket zoning, if you consider it planning, then it's lazy planning. One size fits all does not address the needs of housing or the locations that people need. Blanket rezoning is a shotgun approach, whereas targeted zoning through responsible planning addresses the various housing needs, affordability, and specific location requirements. Student housing next to secondary institutions, more drop-in facilities, and government facilities with services, those are what are needed, not a row house or a basement suite in the middle of suburbia that won't address those housing needs. In my opinion, blanket rezoning is an abdication of city administration, that's planning, engineering, and transportation, to manage and control growth. The for-profit marketplace will determine where growth will occur based on their profit requirements, not housing needs, affordability, or infrastructure capacity. City Hall must take a leadership role and determine where the most cost effective housing can be built with the least intrusive impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you, David. There are just a time approaches. Would be to locate increased density adjacent to public transit modes. Thank you so much, David. Uh please uh hang on the line in case there may be follow up for you. Thank you. We'll now go to our speaker here in the chamber if you don't mind introducing yourself and stating which panel you're on. So hi, my name is Lindsay McLaren. I'm panel 68. So good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of council. Thanks very much for this opportunity to participate in the deliberations. My name is Lindsay McLaren. I live in Ward 7 in the community of Montgomery in the Northwest, where I have been a homeowner for over 20 years. I work at the University of Calgary, where I teach public health and the social determinants of health. And I'm here today to respectfully ask counsel to vote no to repealing the rezoning bylaw. Housing and city livability are inextricable and they are immensely important to the health and well being of our communities. We live in a context of rising cost of living, unsustainable pressures on our environments, and weakened community connections. Housing policy sits at the nexus of these issues. And must foreground priorities like affordability for all Calgarians, including young people, being thoughtfully located near existing services and amenities like schools, places of work, grocery stores, rec centers, and parks, and limiting harms to the environment. The 2024 rezoning bylaw took us a step in the right direction in that regard. Allowing for densification rather than making it difficult, blocking it, allowed us to start to meet the needs of a growing population in a way that suits a wider range of budgets and living arrangements, respects our natural environments, especially at the edges of the city. Saves money on infrastructure costs, which are greater if we build out than if we build up, allows us to provide more opportunities for active and public forms of transportation. I was excited when Calgary started to talk about rezoning, and I felt very proud of Calgary for taking that important step of passing the bylaw back in 2024. I'm disappointed that we're back in this place now. From a personal perspective, I will say that it breaks my heart to see the development occurring on the edge of the city, where natural environments are destroyed to permit building out, and where those residents really have no choice other than to drive, when we could be addressing both social and ecological concerns and enhancing the livability for all Calgarians by investing in existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. I myself don't like to drive. I prefer to get around mostly by bike. In addition to people like me who are privileged enough to choose that, there are many people in Calgary who can't drive because of costs or age, etc. Collectively, we make up an important contingent of Calgary's population. And although I appreciate improvements that have been made to cycling infrastructure, it could be so much better for all people, including drivers. And this would only be supported by maintaining the important rezoning step taken with the 2024 bylaw. In my neighborhood of Montgomery, there is densification going on very near to my house, and I really don't see any significant downsides. As others have said today, there is a vibrancy that comes with having more people with diverse housing needs in our community. And in fact, as I stated in response to the consultations prior to the 2024 bylaw, I wish those kinds of housing options had been in place when my husband and I first moved to Montgomery over 20 years ago. We would have been all over them. So in summary, for reasons of affordability, community, environment, and overall quality of life in Calgary, I very much support saying no to repealing the rezoning bylaw and dedicating efforts instead to improving it. And I urge and support members of council in doing the same. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to Barbara, please, on 70. have uh an overhead here. Um good afternoon, uh Mayor and Council. Um I'm with uh uh again Barbara Jessiman I'm Livin Boness and I'm on panel uh Seventy. okay there we go uh all right thank you okay that's better um this is my fourth time at the mic in the past two years defending my home my neighborhood my community and my city against arbitrary and misguided zoning measures Along with thousands of fellow Calgarians, I took part in the previous public hearing. The vast majority of us said no to blanket rezoning. The majority of city council unfortunately said yes. A significant number of Boness residents opposed a 12 unit row home complex on the corner of 69th Street and 45th Avenue. Council voted 10 4 in our favor. Our victory was short-lived, however. The developer waited a while, then came back with an even larger 12-unit plan, and it's well underway. And that's it right here. In addition to this development, it will be twinned by a 16 unit complex on the lot next door over here. The owner, a longtime friend and neighbor, decided to sell his privacy and quality of life. Already diminished by the intense activity next to him, and he'll be leaving Boness. A mid block infill, more row homes and suites is under construction on 70th Street. And that's another 12 units. These three developments will inject a total of 40 new residences within a block and a half, where there were once three. Two more of these city sandwich boards have recently appeared in front of two more homes on 70th Street. Looks like we're in for a population explosion. A significant number of us took exception to a five story, 50 unit residential complex being built on a neighborhood park and playground. We lost and the park is gone. Over the last two years, developers have been busy. They seem to have a particular fondness for boness. Countless homes have been leveled to accommodate an array of mind-numbingly similar row homes, town homes, and duplexes. Has this demolition construction frenzy produced that promised affordable housing? That missing middle? One real estate site lists 96 properties for sale in Bonas. Some older homes, a few marketed on their development potential. Apartments, and a few mobile homes. There are 25 new construction listings. The least expensive, $666,000 for a triplex. Duplexes range from $830,000 to $250,000. For single family offerings, $1,360,000 to just under $2 million. Affordable for whom? Communities have become commodities. Assemblages of properties to be bought and sold and exploited for maximum profit. What has been the human cost of blanket rezoning? The house next door turned into a pile of rubble after two hours of being worked over by a backhoe. The family that lived there gone, who knows where. The impact of having a towering multi unit infill set up shop next door. Your property devalued, your privacy gone. The loss of friends and neighbors, a park, a community garden, all the small deaths leading to the larger death of a much loved boness. What about us? The folks who worked hard often sacrificed for home ownership, raised families, made friends, felt a sense of belonging, of safety and security. We have become pawns. Bit players in the chess game of politicians, big money, and special interest groups. This mostly new mayor and council have an opportunity, indeed, a responsibility, to halt the ravages of blanket rezoning before even more damage is done. Repeal, no amendments. We said no last time. Please do the right thing this time. Thank you. Thank you so much, Barbara. We'll now go to Reza to uh conclude this panel, please. 173. Uh thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. Um my name's Risa Dasaw, and I support a full repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw without amendments. I want to focus my comments on one central issue, the loss of meaningful public participation, and how that connects to broader impacts on affordability, land value, and taxation. Prior to blanket rezoning, residents had two meaningful opportunities to participate in the planning process. First, at the land use redesignation stage, there was formal notice and a public hearing at council. Where residents could speak directly to whether a change in land use was appropriate. Second, at the development permit stage, residents could comment on the specifics of the proposal and its necessary appeal. Following blanket rezoning, that first and most important stage was removed. Put plainly, the point in the process where residents could influence whether a land use change should occur was eliminated despite major public opposition. Public input still exists, but it is narrower and occurs later, where fewer aspects of the discretionary development project can be meaningfully influenced. Contextual development applications, not at all. Planning has become a technical review by administration as opposed to a hearing with direct public accountability. The blanket rezoning policy is described as citywide, but the impacts are not evenly distributed. In practice, redevelopment is concentrated in certain neighborhoods, raising questions about fairness and planning balance. If the intent is to build public trust in planning decisions, it is difficult to reconcile that goal with a system where the most consequential decision is made without a site specific public hearing. I'd like to illustrate this through my own experience in Elbow Park in Ward 8. Across the street from my home, a corner lot was purchased and consequently subdivided into three parcels. In a neighborhood historically characterized by single detached homes, this was a significant change. The bungalow sold for approximately $1.65 million in 2023. Following rezoning, it was discussed at a value exceeding $2.8 million prior to any construction. That represented over a million dollars in value created before a single home was built. While part of that increase reflects higher density, it also reflects reduced approval time and reduced risk from removing the rezoning step. If a land use redesignation was still required, the land would likely transact at a lower value due to uncertainty and delay. Removing that step shifts land from conditional to effectively pre approved, and that certainly is capitalized into value. The cost savings that supply might create could be real, but so is the upward pressure on land value. This causes a tension with affordability. The policy may support affordability over the long term by increasing supply, but in the short term it increases values and works against affordability locally. The benefits are theoretical and long term. The cost increases are immediate and real. When the permit development permits were posted across from my home, there was strong opposition, but no direct engagement from the file manager, and comments were summarized but not substantially addressed. After approval, I requested the decision rationale to assess whether I could appeal and was told I needed to file a SOAP request. Given the 21 day appeal window, this creates a barrier to participation. In effect, the process asks residents to exercise a right of appeal without timely access to the information needed to make an informed decision. The appeal process itself is highly technical and creates an imbalance between applicants with consultants speaking on their behalf and residents with limited guidance. Property assessments are based on market value and development potential. When zoning increases that potential, land values can rise even before redevelopment, shifting tax burden onto existing homeowners. I understand the city's overall tax requirement does not change, but individual homeowners can see a higher relative tax burden. I would also note that as a directly affected property owner of a corner lot, I have not received any specific notice that amendments affecting my property are being considered apart from the notice of appeal that I of repeal that I got through the mail. Thank you so much. If you don't mind uh just speaking one more sentence. Um I just say I um I respectfully ask Council to vote for a full repeal without amendments and to undertake a transparent and consultive process to determine an appropriate path forward. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh that concludes our panel. We will go now to questions. Uh Councillor Shabot, please. Well, I'm gonna uh first go to Mr. Jacobs. You uh sounded like you hadn't finished your presentation. I was hoping uh you'd be able to do that. Thank you. One of the things I'd like to point out is the city owns an awful lot of land around LRT stations. And over the years I've worked on four LRT TOD plans, and nothing has changed on them. They're still parking lots, not mixed use communities. And I believe most presenters, for and against, would support developing on the LRT nodes. Now, many speakers have said you have a difficult decision to make. I disagree. I think it's very simple. Do the planning. Determine where you can provide the greatest range of housing without overloading parking, transportation, and service capacities. Provide certainties to the neighbors. Work with your communities and citizens to develop local area plans with proper interfaces between existing and proposed developments. And I would also say why don't you look at your successes in converting downtown office space into housing for hard to house at affordable prices? That was City Hall leadership. And financial subsidization. Also accept that much of the increased housing may need subsid subsidies. And recognize that the private sector will only will not satisfy your housing needs. And let's start implementing TOD around LRT stations. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um, Ms. Dessa is there Is there anything else you wanted to say? Yeah. I mean you had your concluding statement there, but was there something else that you maybe wanted to add to your presentation if you had had the opportunity? Well, I Um I would suggest sorry. that Thank you, uh Mr. Mr. Jacobs. The the question was directed by Councillor Shabot to uh Ms. Deza. I was just gonna say that you know the public voice has been lost in this whole process. It is extremely frustrating to go through any of this um process. There is nobody seems to want to. even this reply to you, you it's like you're talking to yourself. And uh maybe your points are not valid, but you know, it's quite a dismissive process when you pay a lot of money. Uh we pay a ton of money in property taxes. And it just grows without transparent and an accessible process, it just undermines public confidence and trust in what's happening. So I really encourage you to repeal, create trust, And work on a solution where communities are involved. People know their communities. Nobody wants people to be homeless. Everybody wants people to have a home. So I just hope that y'all have the courage to step back and say, I think we've maybe overstepped and we do need planning. We know that there's an instrument infrastructure issue. When I asked about our home that has pipes from 1954. And now they're adding there are about nine homes being constructed on our house to subdivide it. So I know that we're not town house uh uh houses, but in an area like Elbow Park where the land cost is high, you're not gonna find townhouses. What you're gonna find is people subdividing the land to make their money. Like they they're gonna s build houses and try and sell them for three point five million or And it's really taking away the chance for young families to come in to a start at home and build up. Life is about start and work your way up and hopefully you you know and and nobody wants to be at council. We all just want to live our life and unfortunately we're being dragged into this because it affects something that's fundamental to everybody, which is their home. So um I hope that you'll listen to Calgaryans and um uh vote to repeal. So thank you. Thank you for that concluding statement. Ums uh was it just just Simon? Yes. So from your perspective, full repeal, and what about the amendments? Now start all over again. Right, from okay You can add things. I'm afraid that if you start tinkering with amendments, uh things will get really complex. Uh they they don't need to be. Again, go back to the way things were before the the zoning bylaws, and then given all the input that you've had from hundreds of people as to specific needs, uh the the the homeless, the lack of affordable housing, transportation, the draw on aging infrastructure, surely you can come up with. Really far more thoughtful, more nuanced ways of approaching uh the issue of housing all of us. Yeah. So forgive me for s asking, but a lot of the recommendations are actually looking at uh decreasing the intensity of use of even of the RCG under the definitions. But at this point, you think it should just go back and have greater consultation with the community, including the development industry, to look at what's the best path forward. Well, I think the development industry is doing very well. It's homeowners who have been hit hard. And especially in Boness. Have any of you driven through Boness recently? It does not look like Boness anymore. Okay. Thanks for that. Uh Ms. McLaren. Uh thank you for being here. Um I guess my question for you is you you're not supportive of the idea of repealing completely. I'm not sure I quite heard whether or not you'd be uh amenable to consider uh maybe um uh Going back and adjusting it as opposed to a full repeal as a potential option. So we are living in a state of intersecting social and ecological emergencies, and so what I'm interested in seeing is City Council taking bold steps to address these things in a meaningful way. I feel that the blanket rezoning was such a bold step. So, as such, I would not be interested in any kind of partial version of that. I think I think retaining the blanket rezoning is really important. Now, based on what I've heard today and also Friday, You know, is is the blanket rezoning perfect? No. Is it sufficient? No. So I think the blanket rezoning plus improvements to deal with the things that come up repeatedly around, for example, affordability, around the tree canopy, around kind of I guess the consultation process, et cetera. So some of the things that we've heard over the last, well, not just this public hearing, but previous public hearings, was that the the blanket zoning being applied citywide is not necessarily appropriate in some locations where there's some places it makes absolutely no sense. There's no um transit in close proximity, there are no amendments. Councillor Shabot, I'm gonna ask you not to engage in debate. No, I'm trying to set the stage for the answer from the um anyway, so there was debate as to whether or not it was applicable or made sense citywide. And so the blanket zoning imposed that throughout the entire city. And some of the discussions looked at more planned strategic focus type uh density uh as a maybe an alternate. And do you think maybe there's something in between there, maybe as a hybrid that would be uh maybe better to apply? I I'm skeptical because again, I think the blanket, the beauty of the blanket rezoning is the blanket part of it. There's an equity element embedded in it through the blanket aspect. This could happen anywhere in the city, which I think is the way it needs to happen. We see in other cities how you know certain types of housing can end up being concentrated in certain areas because it's determined to be, you know, desirable. But then, you know, these areas sometimes get shut off from the rest of the city. They become, you know, they become a site where people living in certain social and economic conditions are all in one place. And so this is this is highly problematic from an equity point of view. So I do think the beauty is in the blanket. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anyways, I appreciate you coming and you providing your perspective. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor McClain, please. Actually, uh I was Councillor Chabot beat me to it. I was gonna ask Mr. Jacobs if he had more to say, but he's already said it. Thanks for coming, David. He's an expert in planning and lives in my words. So thanks again, David, for coming. Uh that's it. Thank you, Council McLean. That uh concludes this panel. Colleagues, we have time for one more panel. We'll go back to calling names that previously hadn't been called. Do we on 101 do we have Anna Strasser with us? Hello, I'm here, Anna Strasser. Thank you, Anna. Please stand by. Um Mayor Parker, sorry. Unfortunately, I can't speak to you across the bar like this, if you don't mind uh communicating with the clerks and we'll uh uh be able to track your correspondence. On 102, do we have Ellen Smith with us? Thank you, Ellen. Uh please stand by. And I believe we have the remainder of Palinol 102, is that right? Do we have with us Kayla, Jessica, Lindsay, and Kate? Great, come on down. You'll uh round us off as the uh final panelists. So this panel will be Anna on 101, Ellen on 102, then Kayla, Jessica, Lindsay, and Kate from 102. Alright, Anna, why don't you start us off, please? Thank you. Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Anna Strasser and I am a homeowner in Ward 14. I've lived in Calgary for 25 years and I've lived in the Northwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast. I represent myself, my husband, and my two university age daughters. As I reflect on the various speakers of the hearing, I think it's fair to say that everybody wants affordability and that most people are okay with some form of densification. Where the disagreement comes in is whether or not blanket rezoning is the way to reach the housing and affordability goals. I support the full repeal of blanket rezoning to the previous zoning. I don't think that we can simply hope that housing, affordability, accessibility, these complex issues will be a side effect of blanket rezoning. We need a thoughtful, planful, data-informed strategy. I would like to see better data. I believe we're using census data from 2021, and of course, we're now post-COVID. We've had a couple of years of record immigration and migration. How can we plan when we don't actually know our starting point? I think we need to better understand our infrastructure. We can't just assume that it can handle the density. Water, power, sewage, roads. We need accurate, trusted data to make data informed decisions. I think that we need a Focused and specific plan for housing affordability and accessibility. I think we should look to things like shared ownership housing, quite common in Europe, where an individual or a family will own a portion of a home and a housing association or a nonprofit owns the other portion. This creates an entryway for young families into the housing market. I think we could also look to long-term leased lands, where also common in Europe, you might have a 99-year lease. So the city would lease out the land, you could build affordable housing, and you have a savings because you've semi-removed the cost of land. I think we should look to purpose-built rental housing, cooperative housing. I heard somebody last week talking about accessibility accessibility and visitability and the things that are required through building codes, and I understand that has a provincial and federal component to it, but I think the idea of kind of targeting specific issues will get better results. So I believe that there has to be a better way and a more targeted way to address housing affordability and accessibility. Blanket rezoning seems to inflate land prices and therefore housing prices. This has been previously spoken to, and I can say for all of the infills in my community and surrounding area, they are all more expensive than the home that they replaced. I think that we need to leverage LAPs with genuine consultation. I think we need targeted densification, transit corridors, major roads, potentially corner lots, uh vacant land, mixed use development. I think we need incentives for secondary suites. I think we need a phase densification strategy. I think we need to set targets, collect data, evaluate the ro results, and adjust as needed. So in Closing. In closing, please repeal blanket rezoning. and the chaos that is Has created. There has to be a better way. Please do not throw away decades of city planning. Please address housing and affordability directly, not as a side effect of blanket rezoning that seems to benefit developers more than anyone else. Please don't rush to some in between or hybrid option. Do the full repeal. Please take the time to prepare a thoughtful and strategic plan. Please follow through on election promises to fully repeal blanket rezoning. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to Ellen on 102. Hi, thank you for allowing me to speak today. Um again, my name is Ellen Smith, and I live in Ward 8 with my husband. We have three small kids, and we've been living um in our current neighborhood since uh 2019, 2020. Uh, we came from Altidor. We got married and built a beautiful single-dached home in Altador. Um, within five to six years, we had decided to start trying for a family and quickly realized that the neighborhood was starting to shift. It wasn't just single-deteched homes anymore. In fact, we were on the 49th Avenue cul-de-sac and 16th Street, and we had a massive townhome complex spring up in our backyard, which changed the complete feel of our entire neighborhood. In fact, I think there were more people living in that townhome complex than on our entire street in the entire cul-de-sac. And with that happening, we made the really tough decision to uh sell our home that we loved, that we never planned to leave, and move to another neighborhood. Um We're happy where we are. We have a lot mostly single family homes here. The kids ride their bikes, they're young, they play with the neighbors. I'm not worried about them getting hit by a car or with a lot of extra traffic. And I would really like it to stay that way. Again, we're in Ward 8, and I am in support of a full repeal of blanket rezoning. And that's all I have to say. Thank you so much for your time. Yeah. Thank you so much. We'll go next to Kayla, then Jessica, please. Okay. Thank you, Council, for the opportunity to speak against the repeal of RCG zoning. My name is Kayla Brown, founder and architect at Bold Workshop Architecture. I'm joined today by my colleagues and collaborators, Lindsay, Jessica, and Kate. I currently serve on Council's Advisory Committee on Housing, but I'm speaking today on behalf of myself and my company with the generous support from the Alberta Real Estate Foundation and BEA Calgary. Next slide. I'm going to walk you through our Inglewood project and why we swapped it from RCG to HGO and what we learned through that permitting process. Lindsay will then explain our proposal for a pathway to permitted use for all housing types and all densities. Jessica will then outline specific reform ideas to RCG that will help architects and developers build better housing that fits within the neighborhood context. And Kate will explain how you can introduce our proposal with the LAP process and provide some thoughts on how to create outcomes based design criteria. Next slide. We're currently developing A 16-unit infill housing project in Inglewood called New Monica. It's on a non-standard and oversized site with two frontages along New Street and St. Monica Avenue. Our site is located near the Ninth Ave Corridor up on the screen with strong access to transit, commuting paths, commercial staples, and a mix of existing housing types. This is an area that is both desirable for Calgarians to live and a suitable candidate for increased density. Next slide. We began designing the project in 2023, assuming we would proceed with the RCG land use. After attempting to work within the constraints of the district, we realized that this wasn't optimal for our site. Prescriptive design criteria in RCG limits flexibility, restricts innovation, particularly on these non standard sites, and lacks clear contextual design expectations. Determining the appropriate land use for higher density housing happens at the pre application stage. You then proceed with the current land use or land use redesignation, and then you go to council for a vote. We ultimately decided to change our land use to HGO for greater certainty of approvals and flexibility in housing types. Next slide. During this process, we learned that feasibility is fragile when using the RCG land use. The permitting process results in a product that is more expensive for the end user due to delays and uncertainty. RCG doesn't allow the flexibility to achieve the highest and best use of the site without compromising on contextually responsive design. Furthermore, the risk of discretionary use creates unpredictability and risk. To prepare and receive our land use redesignation from initial pre app inquiry to approval, it took 12 months with priority status. The CPC process adds significant delays, and we support the elimination of its involvement in mid density housing delivery. And if you want to know more, ask me questions. Next slide. Despite the fact we were given priority status, our development permit took 12 months for approval. If a permitted use application is complete and compliant, the permit must be issued. Instead, for our application, we received a discretionary review of a permitted use application with 101 comments and minor bylaw infractions. Our permitted use project then got appealed and delayed by the SDAB process, which further added cost and delayed our project an entire season. My job is to design and deliver housing for people and communities, and I spend too much of my time and money dealing with red tape. Next slide. So what did we learn? HGO is a stronger district because its reduced prescriptiveness gives us more flexibility to design buildings that respond to context. While our lot was appropriate for HGO, many standard lots are not, and they are best suited for RCG. To address public concerns about contextually inappropriate RCG development, we need to introduce flexibility and housing types into the district. To reduce housing costs, we need to streamline approvals so permits are fast and predictable. Calgary is predicted to grow to two million people. Our neighborhoods are not going to look the same forever, nor were they meant to. We need to provide diverse housing options, increase housing supply, and increase certainty for both developers and neighbors so that we all understand where and how our city is going to grow. The issue at stake today is not whether we allow density, it's whether we have a clear and predictable way to deliver it. For people like us who design and develop these projects, for the current and future residents, we need to find a clear and thoughtful way forward. We have a proposal that, based on our experience, can help address some of the issues that we've seen with RCG unfold in our city. Thank you. And I'm going to hand it over to. Jessica. Hi. I'm Jessica Stolbert, an architect at Bold Workshop Architecture. Thank you for this opportunity to speak against the repeal of blanket RCG zoning. Building on what we've learned through direct project experience, we're proposing an adjustment to the RCG framework. This proposal has three components. One, a clear baseline, two, a defined pathway to permitted use approval for all housing types, and three, a structured approach to increasing density. Next slide. The first step is to simplify and clarify the base conditions of RCG. This would keep RCG as the base land use, but with a small adjustment that makes it similar to the prior RC2 zoning. This is something that we believe can and should be implemented today. This change keeps federal funding intact and would not require another hearing. We propose that the existing density of 75 units per hectare and the lot coverage maximum relative to unit count remains as is. So for a standard 50 by 120 foot lot, the maximum density is four units. However, in order to address neighborhood concerns of too much density being built in inappropriate areas, we propose removing secondary suites as a defined use, as they don't currently count towards density. The intent of the current framework was to enable four equivalent units of housing. Secondary suites exceed that baseline and are not required to meet density targets. The classification of secondary suites also introduces complexity into the permitting process with conflicts between city regulations and building and safety codes, as well as longer timelines. Next slide. Crucially, these units must be able to take the form of any residential typology for this policy to be effective. For each typical lot, these could be configured as a single house, a house with a basement unit with separate access, a side by side with a laneway unit, or a small multi unit building such as a double duplex, townhouses or row houses. Next slide. The project you see here and on the following slides are examples of thoughtful infill housing projects that are not currently allowed in RCG zoning. Components two and three of our proposed framework are further changes to RCG to allow more flexibility in the resulting built form. These changes shouldn't be decided on during this hearing as they'll take time to evaluate and refine to ensure a successful framework. So the second component is a clear and consistent pathway to permitted use approval. This starts with all forms of housing being treated consistently and fairly with no housing configuration being prohibited. All residential types, including single family homes, are initially treated as discretionary uses by default, so they are evaluated under the same criteria. For developments of up to four units, parking remains at a one to one ratio with adjustments for specific conditions. This establishes a clear and stable foundation. Next slide. Projects that meet newly defined performance and contextual criteria at the pre-application stage are then recategorized as permitted use and are eligible for priority processing, while all others proceed through discretionary review. This creates a system where expectations are clear and outcomes are known in advance by developers, architects, and importantly, members of the community. And by allowing multiple housing types to be delivered within the same framework, we enable a broader range of options within established neighborhoods, supporting different household sizes, life stages, and financial capacities. Next slide. The third component introduces a structured location-based approach to density. Higher density modifiers are tied to proximity to transport, nodes, and corridors with increases aligned to local area plans or main streets and implemented as of right. As proximity increases, permitted density increases and parking requirements decrease. This creates a density gradient that aligns growth with existing infrastructure and services. It's an extension of the nodes and corridors approach, but with more jurisdiction to ensure this targeted density is actually realized and more thoughtfully implemented. Next slide. Taken together, these adjustments establish a framework that maintains balanced density, supports housing diversity, aligns growth with city planning, and reduces uncertainty in the approval process. This creates a system that is both flexible and predictable. Thank you for your time. I'll pass it over to Lindsay to discuss the proposed permitted use pathway in more detail. Thank you. Please coming up. Hi, I'm Lindsay Andres, also an architect at Bold Workshop Architecture and founder of VEA Calgary. Thank you for the opportunity to speak against the repeal of RCG zoning. I will be presenting the part of our proposal that determines permitted versus discretionary uses. Currently, under RCG, the use is prescribed in the land use bylaw with all higher density options categorized as discretionary. We are proposing a pathway to permitted use for all housing types that follow an outcomes based framework. Next slide. Today we have a framework that tells you what to build. Setbacks, heights, unit counts, but it doesn't reliably deliver what people actually care about. Tree canopy, privacy, shadowing, or street character. An outcomes based framework flips that. So it defines the results that must be achieved and allows flexibility in how to achieve them. We already do this with the energy code. We regulate performance, not just form. We are proposing a similar approach for land use. Next slide. Instead of relying only on fixed rules like maximum height on all lots and discretionary interpretation, we define what successful outcomes look like and evaluate projects based on how well they meet those outcomes. Within this framework, the pre application stage becomes a key decision point. Projects are evaluated under the bylaw, including a new set of enhanced performance criteria. If a project is complete and compliant, no matter the housing type or density, and satisfies contextual performance criteria, it is automatically recategorized as permitted use. Otherwise, it proceeds through the discretionary process for further review. Projects requiring further refinement or relaxations receive appropriate scrutiny and appeal risk. Projects that meet or exceed expectations don't clog up the system. What we are proposing is a shift from a rules-only zoning system to a performance-based system with a clear permitted pathway where good projects are fast-tracked and only complex or non-compliant ones require discretionary review. Next slide. To illustrate how this works in practice, I'll briefly reference our new Monica project. Rather than replicating existing buildings or building to the maximum size allowed by our land use designation, we recombine elements from the community into new forms that are familiar but not identical. Next slide. Instead of asking whether a project matches a specific typology, we asked, does it borrow from the existing built form, such as texture and colors seen in the surrounding houses? We adopted community built forms like front wood steps, arched windows accented with bold frames, and gabled roofs with dark shingles from the contextual built form along the street. Next slide. We asked, does it manage scale and massing appropriately? At New Monica, our building height is consistent with the single family homes across the street, even though we could have built as high as 12 meters. We increased the setbacks from the minimum 1.2 meters to range between three and seven meters. While we could have built up to an FAR of 1.5, we designed a project at an FAR of one to be more consistent with the massing in the neighborhood. Finally, we asked does it contribute positively to the street and the public realm and consider the impact to the neighbors? At New Monaco, we sized the windows smaller where they could be and position them to prevent unnecessary overlook into the neighbors' houses. We conducted a shadow study and adjusted setbacks and building height to avoid casting shadows into backyards. Next slide, please. Under this proposal, projects that meet these types of criteria would move directly into the permitted pathway. This approach reduces timelines and therefore costs for applicants, provides a clear framework for administration, reduces discretionary applications for council, and gives residents greater clarity on how neighborhoods will evolve. Ultimately, it creates a system that is more transparent, more predictable, and better aligned with the housing outcomes that we are trying to achieve, while also improving how new development responds to its context. The current prescriptive regulatory system reduces my ability as an architect to design projects that fit into the existing neighborhood context. And I'll pass it on to Kate McGregor. Thank you. Thanks, coming up, Kate. Hi everyone, thanks for having me here today, Council, to give me the opportunity to speak against the repeal of RCG. I'm Kate McGregor. In addition to some of the other roles, I have I'm the president of XYC Design. Next slide. Reducing baseline RCG to four units without the secondary suites requires that we're able to increase density above 75 units per hectare in some areas. How can we plan for this effectively? Local area plans already identify where and how growth is intended to occur along transit corridors near nodes and key main streets. On this map, you can see zones highlighted for more density along important corridors like 16th Avenue. I want to look at a small portion in the dashed line of this map, for an example. Next slide. So per the LAP on the left, everything in the lightest pink, which are primarily RCG zoned residential parcels, is capped at three stories. But everything in there is painted with the same brush. So at point one, houses the back onto Confederation Park, they're allowed to have the same density as point two, houses one block away from 16th Avenue that will have a 12-story building planned immediately behind them. We proposed that a density gradient whereby sites closer to transit and services would be eligible for higher density and lower parking ratios. So the map on the right illustrates how this might manifest with medium density in RCG in teal and high density in RCG in purple. In areas without LAPs, the same approach could be applied using established neighborhood main streets and transit corridors. This creates a consistent citywide system where density is predictable, location based, and aligned with existing planning policy rather than negotiated on a site by site basis if RCG is repealed. Next slide. At the core of ensuring this additional density is thoughtfully implemented is our proposed outcomes-based design criteria, which would expand on an existing city contextual design policy and be developed and tested by industry professionals and embedded in the city's statutory documents. Residents want quality projects that improve the build character of their area and to avoid cookie cutter designs, low quality builds, or units that are packed so tight that they don't get any sunlight. We've categorized the contextual concerns that we've heard and have started developing a proposed metric for each. Next slide. I want to caution that this is a proposed way forward and that I recommend council works through a motion arising or a later motion. I do not recommend making these detailed changes from the council floor. And I know that this is a lot of text to take in right now, but it gives you an indication of the research that we are continuing on with our ERIF grant. So first, larger projects must deliver a meaningful number of units and a mix of types, supporting housing supply and unit diversity. Second, projects must manage massing height and lot coverage to respond to proximate buildings while incorporating recognizable architectural elements from the context so new development relates to its surroundings. Third, projects must minimize shadow impacts and overlook through appropriate building placement, window design, and setbacks, ensuring access to light and privacy for neighboring properties. This will be measured and proved by shadow studies and window alignment studies. Fourth, light density parking requirements are calibrated based on proximity to nodes and corridors with higher density and reduced parking in well served areas. Projects that meet these would become permitted use and eligible for priority processing. Projects that do not would continue under the current discretionary review process. Next slide. I want to end my presentation on a personal note. This house, now the location of Civic Tavern, is the home my grandma grew up in. So over her life, she saw the beltline and the entirety of Calgary change significantly. But I never heard her complain about any of that. I only saw her try to work to make our city a better place. Neighborhoods are not meant to be stagnant. They are meant to grow and change with us. The city of 85,000 in 1939, when this photo on the left was taken with my grandma up there on the balcony, is not the same city that is 1.6 million people today, and we cannot expect today's neighborhoods to be exactly the same when our city grows to a predicted 2 million people in the next decade. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but the framework that we have proposed here is number one, don't repeal RCG. To address the concerns over inappropriate density in inappropriate locations without sacrificing housing choice, remove secondary suites and make all housing types viable. Number two, adopt a pathway to permitted use governed by outcomes-based criteria. The current regulatory process is prescripted, and this blocks architects from making things contextual. In addition, discretionary use applications increase complexity and delay projects, and that cost gets added in to the final cost of the product. Number three, increase density targets and reduce parking requirements where it makes sense to do so, near established main streets, transit corridors, and high intensity nodes. Our proposal connects design quality, proximity to transportation and services, and a reliable and simplified approvals process for greater certainty, allowing a path for projects to move forward faster, while giving Calgarians and council greater confidence in how our neighborhoods will evolve. Thank you. You're just a time, if you don't mind a concluding sentence is fine. Uh it all the content was delivered on. Perfect. All right, uh, Councillor Kelly for this panel, please. If you could come back up, Miss McGregor, I will let you finish from where you were with the full, please. Sure. We know that fully developing and implementing this framework will require a lot of work and a future public hearing, which is daunting after we've all been spending so much time contemplating this. But the effort to get required to get this right for all of us who have spoken and listened in these processes and for our future fellow Calgarians should not prevent progress. Thank you for taking the time to hear our proposal. Please do not take a step backward in voting to repeal RCG. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um I will maybe direct my first question here to Miss Stolbert. Is that correct? Stolbert. The reason why I'm going to direct it to you first, and you do feel free to redirect to any of your colleagues there. But uh you are the one who said specifically that like we recognize that this is not before you right now, and we don't want you to do this here. We want you to do it later. Um what I really normally when we've had a few of those, when we've had presentations like that, I'm like. Then do it later and we'll talk about it later. But what I really appreciated about this is that you put something forward in front of us that actually does address the issue that we are debating here today. Um and recognizing the fact that it's not an option that's on the table for us right now, but it could be better. Um what I really appreciated about this whole thing is how innovative it it was in terms of the approach to planning. And so my question to you, through you, you choose, um, is have you shared this with our administration? And if so, what was the response? I mean Kate and Kayla can probably talk to this better, but we had started to talk to some of the members of council to get input because with having such a bold different idea, we wanted to run it by some others to make sure we weren't way out there and get some initial input to make sure that what we were proposing is possible and feasible. But it was City Admin, right? That's correct. Yeah. So I inquired about if it was possible and that's all I wanted to know. And I was told something like this would be, so I was happy with that. I would be very happy to meet with you and to facilitate a larger conversation about this because this is the kind of thing we need to have a little bit more of a conversation about. It's um taking away from sort of the rules based way that we have right now. Um what I I I I mean I'm entering into debate, I suppose, so I'll just say that uh I'd love to have a conversation here because this is innovative, different, and will require a little bit more. So please do reach out. I'd love to have a little bit more of a conversation about this. Um Because there's something really interesting here. You are have maybe I'll I'll ask sort of a a f uh a final question here in terms of have you read the Calgary plan? Have you uh taken a look at the draft of the zoning bylaw? The new ones? Correct. A long time ago. A while ago, yeah, before it Yeah, a while ago. The reason why I ask is because I think that our opportunity to do something like this may be there. Yes. So uh if you could so if you could reach out to have a conversation and uh would you be willing to read those before we meet? Yes, of course. That'd be great. Thank you so much. I just wanted to clarify too, so because there were the three components, it was number two and three we are proposing as being something that could be implemented later as they're more complex. But the first component, which is um Is there a specific slide number that clerks could go to that you could show that? It's not, it doesn't really help the visual. But it was about how with keeping RCG as a blanket rezoning to address concerns about too much density, because we agree, I mean, eight units on a 50 by 120 lot is a lot for many people. So by removing the secondary suites from the zoning and not having that be added to the density, because even though secondary suites don't count towards density, you're still doubling the number of units and people on the site. So by removing that, it's you're able to keep the RCG blanket rezoning in place and it should address a lot of those concerns. And that's something we think could be implemented tonight. I will give this look a look through in a little bit more detail as we move towards there, but um in the meantime, thank you so much. All right. Uh we have two requests to speak. Um may I have uh general consent to extend the uh start of our dinner break to conclude this panel. All right. Um seeing that, thank you, colleagues. Uh I should also mention that uh around six o'clock or just a little bit after, we're gonna go on our break from six to seven fifteen. So there's not an opportunity for any uh members of the public to be called additionally from now until at least uh 75. All right, uh Deputy Mayor Schmidt, please. Um just whoever feels like answering this one, but uh why permitted use? But perhaps in the interest of time, one of you feel that whoever feels the most interested in answering that question. Permitted use? Because So why why the focus on that? There's a certain there's more of a certainty around the timeline and the risk around appeals is decreased. So with a discretionary use, I mean, particularly as the discretionary use now applies to the higher density options. Those are almost always at risk of appeal. And they also allow, there's a framework in the land use bylaw under discretionary use, where there's a whole bunch of different sections that the plans can be scrutinized against. And what that does is it introduces a bunch of discretionary comments to be inserted into the project that you must consider and you must address. Whereas permitted use, it doesn't have that same sort of framework in the land use bylaw. So if you are complete and compliant, particularly in HGO, I'm going to speak to HGO. If you're complete and compliant and you provide a housing type, whatever shape or form that it is, it's permitted, it's allowed. And so what that does is it allows the unit types and the form of the building to take whatever shape it needs to to serve the site and the project the best. And within discretionary use, there's just a bunch more of requirements that are pretty prescriptive that you need to work through that don't necessarily serve the site and the end user and the community the best. And I think that our slide, at least for our project, that that slide that shows the comparison between RCG and HGO, the two site plans, is the best way to show that. Does that make sense? Yes. And and with the framework of sort of what you're proposing here, and given how much we've heard about. Concerns around community engagement and input. So, how how would your system not only create certainty for the builders of the final product, but would there still be certainty for the community about understanding and also knowing what's what's happening in their neighborhood and having that that sort of certainty about? The contextuality, parking, all those types of things. Yeah, I think that what we're proposing offers a clearer manifestation of how these things will be treated. What we're really doing through this research project is attempting to quantify everything that we have heard on both sides of the both sides of this aisle of like providing housing choice, providing the best use of the site, making sure that these things are contextual and that they're not cookie cutter developments. And so what we want to do is to develop and test a series of metrics that can be applied that can actually sort of address these concerns before we get to the point of applying. So it would come earlier in the process. It would it's sort of a way to understand because most of the complaints we've heard about these things are there's a lot of repetition in what we've heard over this hearing, over the past RCG hearing, over our own projects, and we've got a sort of comprehensive list that's even longer than that table that I put up there. And what we are attempting to do in this process, and what we're hoping to do, is to be able to provide actual metrics as to what is a permissible shadow that you can cast and what is not a permissible shadow, and what is an acceptable level of tree canopy coverage, instead of do you have to keep all the old trees or can you replace them with three new trees? And so instead of just saying that you need three trees, we're going to say that you need a percentage of tree canopy. Instead of saying that you need a certain height, we're going to say that you can't cast a shadow over a certain percentage of lots next door. And so it doesn't allow for more community consultation earlier in the process on a specific basis, but it does tighten up how projects need to respond to these things with a more serious set of criteria that is performance based instead of prescriptive. And a lot of the requirements like in that big table that we've created are contextually based. So I'll give an example. If you are in a community and you see only Bungalows, and you were to overlay our criteria onto what could be developed next, you definitely are not going to get a three-story building. Because once you apply the criteria in relation to the context and you respond to the context, you're not getting a three-story building. And so I think a big part of what we're seeing is like you can do this, and you can do this four-pack, front-back, basement suites, the whole deal, absolutely everywhere. And there's not a set of contextual design criteria that, say, for example, you would find in a contextual single family home or a contextual semi detached home. So what we want to do, and part of what I spoke to about some folks at city administration, is in the I spoke to the land use bylaw team in particular, and they suggested you could develop this contextual criteria for this scale of housing, and that would be where. part of the system would live and then another one would be a more robust row house guide. So Does that make sense and answer your questions? Yes, it does. And then final question, perhaps for our benefit, given that we're here talking about the current rezoning and the future of the bylaw, could and and you did touch on it and and Councillor Kelly mentioned that some of this would be more forward looking, but is there a very brief summary one of you could give about which aspects of this may be relevant to what's before us today? I think uh the most the sort of the first stage of this would be to remove the secondary suite option and consider all housing types equally. So uh you know what would have been considered a backyard suite as a secondary suite becomes a unit. It's just a unit. It's just a unit, and if you want four units, you can have four of whatever you want on that property. And as a baseline, you have to park one to one. One-to-one. I think some of the projects that were in Jessica's presentation would be good to look at. So, for example, this is compliant in Edmonton, but it's not compliant here because we're stacking dwelling units. And you can't have stacked dwelling units in RCG. But like, what does it matter? It's just the same shape as what's above. And then if you go to maybe three slides prior, this is a great project. I've seen it in person. It's two stories on the main and the basement. That's a full dwelling unit. And then above, second and third, that's a full dwelling unit. So in areas where you already have, and you can see the context, in areas where you would already have three-story and two-story homes, this would be compliant, but it's not under RCG. But these are great projects. And they it looks like a house. And this would be in our framework compliant and permitted because it's just four units. It's a 25 by 120, 25 by 120 together, that's 50 by 120. You've got four units. That was a good summary. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Over to Councillor Atkinson to take us home. Great. I'm loving a lot of things you're talking about. Stack density. These are, yeah, great initiatives. A piece that I'm having a harder time with is the idea of removing the uh secondary suites because we've heard from many presenters, we just heard from Kreb earlier today, like these are providing some very affordable units within the inner city that we are actually quite a bit more affordable than the rental units that we're seeing built as purpose built rentals. Can you help me with? Yeah. That friction. All we're proposing is that they are counted as units. So if you want to have a basement suite because your kid is going to university next year and wants a sort of like a separate living area within your own home, you can take up one of those units with a basement suite. Or if you live on a 25-foot lot, then like absolutely two units. It's just that the suite is no longer classified as a suite, which claw actually causes problems down the road when you're at building permit and safety code stage. And so just having that clarity simplifies the application process and it takes care of some of the density problems. But if you don't combine that with making any of these types of houses, essentially just treating any type of house as a unit, you run into all of these things where, like, oh no, I can't do basement suites anymore, or oh no, I can't have a stacked dwelling, which you know we can't have, but this is a beautiful project, and we would love to design some of these. And for example, a backyard suite. One of the reasons why we've rezoned to HGO on our Inglewood project is because we wanted two units over the garage and we wanted that to be attached to another building. And you can't do that in RCG because a backyard suite is a very narrow definition, and then you have to have, I think it's 5.5 meters, you would know, between the backyard suite and another building. But what does it matter? Right. Like it doesn't matter. And so in our project, we had the same number of you s units and suites as we would have with RCG, but because we got the flexibility with HGO, they could take whatever shape or form they wanted, and the doors could face in and we could stack them and we could put two over a garage and attach it to another building and save all these mature trees. The uses are just very, very restrictive for um. Yeah, creative people and if you want to innovate. Yeah, the RCG build form is just very prescriptive. Yeah. Um Which you talked a lot about your your one project there, the new Monica, and how you did things like changes in height and setbacks and floor area ratio, all of these sort of accommodations towards community. And we've been hearing a lot today specifically around this idea of trying to meet your neighbors, especially those within direct vicinity, where they're at, and sort of to help. Was this were these accommodations part of that responding to blowback from community or sort of like uh the push and shove of like consultation with community? And did they answer like the problem? And you were all sales up and away you go? I uh a little bit like in particular the the massing um was very responsive to our neighbors. Our neighbors on the front northeast side very supportive of the project, so we stuck the mass of the building, the larger mass on their side. And at the back side, the neighbor on the east was very supportive of our project, so we stuck the mass of our building on their side, and then our neighbor at the back at the east was not, so we saved like these 30-meter-tall trees that you know are in between our building and her space. And yes, she agreed that that was a much better outcome for her than the RCG outcome. And so, yes, and then also I would say that good architects do what we do regardless, because that's what good design is, and that's what good architects should do. So while we just do this stuff because we think it's the most appropriate thing for the site, and we like to design contextually appropriate buildings, good architects will do that anyways. Fair, fair. And did you have then reduced pushback? No. No. Okay. It was both. It was both. We you know what we had we had a mix. We had a we had a mix of people, because we're we're we're down from the cove, which has got a lot of multifamily in there. And so we've got a real mix of like people that um can't afford to live in Inglewood, that really, really want to find a place to live, and then we've got people that don't want it to change. There's a real mix, and I think we had support and um non supporters pretty equal on both sides, I'd say. That's actually, I think, really important to this conversation. That you didn't get just suddenly everyone on board and whatever. Absolutely. Is that there is opposition as a part of change. And even when you make your height not go to three stories, and even when you change your floor area ratio, and even when you set your setbacks, right? I think that's a a great thing for for me to sort of understand the tussle of this. Yeah, and and we also forty-five percent law coverage, so everyone. There you go. 45% lock coverage. Interesting. Good to know. Finally, I guess just we are in this conversation around RCGHO, and you did sort of go into your yours was not really nodes and corridors, but it was kind of. It was like an expansion of nodes and corridors, but you are at your baseline, sort of saying RCG district as the baseline that is everywhere, just to clarify. Um we would like to see RCG uh Transform into something that is closer to the flexibility allowed by HGO. HGO is explicitly transportation based, and so that doesn't make sense for a base zoning for the entire city. And we think that there is a step backward to avoid by making RCG work for what it's meant to work for. And it can function more like HGO if you do, you know, if you're not prescriptive about the housing types that can be considered units. If you're reducing the density by eliminating the secondary suites and giving that back in flexibility as to how these things can manifest, you know, I think that's a step forward instead of resurrecting seven land use districts that we don't need. And what we're proposing with the the four units in total is actually very similar to RC2. It's just not um discretionary and prescriptive. Whatever you want, you have to follow obviously safety code regulations and some the criteria and the bylaw and the outcomes design. Which actually maybe just brings up one final thing. You that flexibility is great, but also a big part of This sort of middle missing middle housing has been its ability to be built. Yes, it's more prescriptive, but it that also adds to its ability for the development industry and for local builders to build it quickly and sort of have certain build forms that we've sort of seen get built up quickly. Do you think that we can achieve that with this sort of flexibility? Not everyone's going to hire great architects to do their build. We're just got to also build housing. Is that achievable with the things that you're talking about? With a pathway to permitted use it is. Great. Thank you very much. All right, uh Councillor Shabot, please. You're not quite off the hook yet. Sorry. So if I'm interpreting what you said accurately, uh, you're suggesting that 75 units per hectare needs to be revised as long as you count every single unit. No, it does not need to be revised. 75 Don't you you remove secondary suites. It it stays as the as a as a unit as opposed to a suite. uh yeah, so right now it's calculated as seventy five hectares for a unit, but then you get four extra second add ons. 150. Don't count. So it's actually 150 if you count. If you're H go, yeah. If yeah, if you're counting it as all units, yes. Okay, so based on what I've heard, and it sounds like you guys put a lot of thought into this, but uh it's it's not a simple make this amendment and have it go through because it'll trigger a new public hearing. So in this process, uh to kind of implement all the things that you suggested, um, what do you see as the best best path forward? You still want to retain the RCG, but then there's a lot of things associated with it currently. If it goes back, it'll go back to Permitted, but with all of the other parameters around it, how do we how do we bridge that gap? Essentially, is where I'm I'm going with this question. You have any ideas on that? For the second part or the first part? Either or all of the above. Because currently it's it's discretionary. If it goes back, it goes back to permitted use, right? Well, a semi detached is a permitted use. Yes, but are but uh the RCG zone itself will go back to a permitted use. While it still has to go through a land use if it goes back, it'll go back as a as a permitted use if you get the land use. Currently, it's permitted everywhere, but it's discretionary. Trying to figure out a way to sort of bridge the gap between the two and not retain the discretionary uh element out of all this, but trying to move more towards a permitted element. Um I'm I'm sorry, it's kind of a weird question, but a little bit of a. I Isn't Sorry, I'm not sure if this will completely answer your question, but It's not necessarily that there's going to be a gap to bridge. I mean, initially we need to maintain the blanket RCG zoning because going back and then having to proceed, it's going to make the path to where we need to be much longer than it already is. So keeping the the blanket RCG and then by just making that adjustment where The sec there's no secondary suites, so you can only have the four units. So that's kind of where we're starting. It's like it doesn't change what's currently considered permitted or discretionary. It doesn't change anything about the current blanket rezoning except how density is calculated on RCG essentially, because you don't have the secondary suites. And then it opens us up to make these further adjustments, which are a much longer process, and that's when you need like the additional hearings. So it's not that there's a gap, it's it's making that small adjustment now so it's easier to move forward and progress. so if we go for four by right. What you're saying, right? Four by right as an interim solution. I I'm not sure that it'll won't require a new public hearing because what we're talking about here is not that. And so even just that alone, going to four by right, counting every unit, I believe will also trigger a new public hearing. that what was advertised for my right? For the initial public hearing? For this one. For rezoning for housing. But rezoning is to go back to what it was previously, which is not four by right. But keeping if we don't repeal RCG, we're keeping how it is now. There was already an amendment brought up about revising density. So that was already a motion that was advertised as something that would be addressed tonight. So it's kind of a different way to address that change in density. So rather than lowering the density as was proposed to be addressed tonight, it's changing how the density is calculated essentially. So I don't it I don't believe it's different from what's already being Anyways, there's like a there's a A to P on recommendation number four with a whole bunch of amendments that uh obviously need to be um considered through all of this. Do you think moving forward with all those amendments or considering any and all of those amendments is the right path forward to do today or is do you think there needs to be more consultation on some of those? I mean if I don't th I the the the big amendment that was proposed is lowering the density for RCG. And if we're gonna move forward, I d I I Correct me if you feel differently, but I don't think that's the right step to take because then it kind of hinders the ability to make further adjustments and then it might require another change to density. So based on the amendments that have been proposed, we would say keep RCG as a blanket rezoning. And if no other amendments are brought in tonight, then it still opens us up for bringing in all of these amendments in the future when more time is allowed. Possibly with the next bylaw. When we do the next slide, bylaw review. So do you think maybe in between now and then would be a good chance to to discuss all of these proposals that you brought forward today? Okay, thanks. No further questions for me. Thank you. All right, Council, we will be back. Oh. Councillor McLean, all right. I'm usually the last one to get between dinner. You're gonna be dinner. But a quick question, I guess, what you're saying Sorry, that was inappropriate. I was called out earlier for for chirping from the chair. Proceed, uh Councillor McLean. I gotta fix. I theoretically have an unlimited time limit. Yeah. Or seven minutes rather. Go ahead. I I from what I'm getting, I guess you could just answer what you're suggesting and being in in your field, the biggest obstacle to building more homes and and lowering the cost is the permitting the time and the fees. Right? That's a really, really significant part of it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That that's what I really think we all really gotta focus on. We can't do it with this bylaw, this is zoning and stuff, but I think that's what comes next. I think that's what comes next to try to get the really ex uh accelerating the timelines to build and costs. I think that's one of the major components that as uh council and administration you guys have the control over on how that manifests for people that are out there building housing. So Excellent. Thanks for coming down. oh thank you. All right. Anybody else? All right. We will be back at 7 30. When we get back at 7 30, we're going to do a catch up panel with uh panel 70 onwards. And then we're going to alternate back to the panelists that we hadn't called from 103 onwards. Madam Clerks, please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Jamison. Okay, Councillor Johnston. Yeah. Councillor Kelly. Uh present for both myself and Councillor Jameson. And Councillor Kelly. Councillor McLean. I'm here. Councillor Pantozopoulos. Councillor Schmidt. Councillor Tyres. Councillor Ward. Councillor Wyness. Noted Remote. Councillor Ewell. Here. Councillor Atkinson. Councillor Chabot. Present. Councillor Clark. Present. Councillor Dollywall. Here. Thank you. Mayor Farkas. I am here. Thank you, Mayor. All right, we are going to assemble a panel from 70 onwards from names that we had called previously, and then after this panel is concluded, we're going to go to 103 and onwards. All right. Do we have on 71 Blair Cosgrove with us in the chamber online? Mark McWilliam. On 72, Vernon Yu, Connor McGibney, Patrick King, Christopher Villa Corta. Right, please come on down. Please stand by. On 73, Patrick Mahaffey. On 74, Charles Toth, Bistran Opachik, or Brett Turner. Uh Brett Turner is here. Thank you. Please stand by, Brett. Everyone, please make sure to mute if uh you're not the person speaking. On 75, uh Ray McVee, June Heisler, Harkumal Kalan, or David Vera. Thank you. Come on down, David. On 74 76, rather, Mihail Sarbu, Ray Vizina. On 77, Mary Manilato, Karen Lorto, or Kelly Zarnke. On 78, Faiza Fuse, George Clark, or Jody Petrowich. Jodi is here. Thank you, Jody. Please stand by. On 79, Madison Cox, Delaney Lamont Green, Jideep Binder, Gerald McRae, or Darryl McCrae, sorry. On 80, Dean Steinman, Thomas Eric Coyle, Tristan Chang, Mahad Rizane, or Sean Evans. Is that you, Sean? Okay. Come on down. And then on 81, Kendra Wanamiker, Steve Bentley, or Betty Burke. So is that you, Kendra? Okay, come on down. Alright, so that'll be our panel. And that's six. So we have uh one person in the chamber I didn't catch their name, then Brett, then David, Jody, Sean, and Kendra. Uh maybe for the person I I didn't catch their name, you can please approach. And if you just don't mind introducing yourself. Yep. Just on the far left, yeah. Thank you so much. If you don't mind just introducing yourself uh with your name and panel number. Uh absolutely. Uh Christopher Villa Corta Lopez from uh Ward Ten, uh panel seventy-two. Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you. Uh I actually want to start by uh apologizing for my earlier interruption. So thank you and uh thank you all the counselors and the mayor for taking this large task uh meeting people. Uh what I'll I'll say is uh was said previously it's a very challenging environment to be in and we're we're trying as hard as we can to adhere to the procedure, but you know we fully recognize that it can be kind of an intimidating setting. So thank you so much as well to you and everybody else uh who's been uh bearing with us. Thank you. I also want to thank the staff. You guys are absolutely amazing. One, not just because you helped me, but uh you guys are the fastest slideshow slingers in the West. So great job. Um so uh I am grateful for this opportunity and I uh and uh a chance to contribute to a better city, to a better Calgary, uh, and share with everyone my perspective and experience. Uh, as a born and raised Calgarian. Uh growing up in Calgary, I have formed many wonderful memories. A good childhood uh where I was connected to the city, and everything was close and accessible. Uh here in this council uh we are all surrounded by people with uh from different walks of life. Uh some Calgarian lifers like myself, some migrated here, but all of us have good memories uh here. One particular memory I want to share to highlight the opportunity that this city gives its citizens is uh I grew up under the um poverty line for most of my childhood with a single mother and my grandmother. And despite that, my quality of life thanks to the city was pretty good, I would say. Uh I had an opportunity once, thanks to my school in the city, to attend an uh orchestra just right over there at the Theater Calgary, and we got there uh by train. My cousin and I met our classmates, attended this orchestra for the first time, and then we were able to just hop back onto the city transit, back home, uh, and we were able to experience some Calgary culture that day, and there was enough time for some um high s uh teenage shenanigans along the way, too. So I am very grateful for living here in Calgary, and I know everyone here has great memories, and I want to take this opportunity to reflect and go into a little bit of nostalgia. So, for 10 seconds, I promise. Think about a memory. Of being here in Calgary. As I look around, I do see some genuine smiles. So you must have fantastic memories. And I think we can all agree that Calgary is a great place. And what I want to express today is that Calgary is big enough to share these Calgary moments, these experiences, with other people. And that there is a great cost of hoarding these memories and being trapped by nostalgia. And this cost is just too high. I have seen the city grow, and I have seen farms lost as a result. I had difficulties accessing Calgary's parks as my family moved further outwards. Our endless expansion comes at the cost of our water infrastructure, something we are all too painfully aware of. It comes at the cost of our transportation, emergency response, and various natural ecosystems like wetlands. It stretches our tax dollars and how far it goes. And it will also impact the memories our children will form here in Calgary. Expansion isolates, alienates our youth, and Calgary has so much to offer them. Building outwards is like stretching a rubber band, and one day it will snap. What I asked today, knowing full well that many people ran on reappe uh repealing the blanket zoning policy, is to reconsider because uh or at the very least replace the policy uh before we get rid of it. We were all taught very young about sharing with others. We have a lot to share: opportunities, memories, and a great quality of life with dignity. If we believe as I do that Calgary is a wonderful place to live, then let's share it. More people are coming. People we invited from outside the city, outside the province, outside the country. And more people will be born here in Calgary as well. So instead of stretching our resources, let's share this great city responsibly, sustainably. Do not repeal. Please. reconsider, or at the very least, replace. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Brett on 74, then David on 75 after that. Hello, council. Am I coming through okay? Yes, uh please go ahead. Fantastic. I want to uh first begin by expressing how encouraged I am with you guys. I've been following along here for several days now, and I'm really impressed with the questions being asked and the engagement you've had with uh panelists thus far. I think you guys are doing a great job. Um I have 20 years of experience in the Calgary real estate sector. I own and operate a large real estate sales firm and also a residential property management company. Combined, we do about 1,500 housing transactions per year between rental and resale. I'm also a developer. I've recently completed two 10-unit rental projects in Calgary, one in Spruce Cliff and the other in Shaganapi. I've got 30 more units on the way, 10 in Haysbarrow and 20 in Acadia. I'll also add that none of my projects are on an RCZ RCG zone parcel. More on this a little later. I spoke in support of blanket rezoning at the last public hearing because we badly needed more supply. But now, several years later, I can see that it was a bit of an overreach, and I would now consider myself a centrist on this topic. Combined with action by the federal government, uh blanket rezoning has made a real difference with respect to rental affordability. I can tell you that rental rates on all unit types are down by several hundred dollars per month from peak levels. But when you drive or walk through the communities and experience the new build forms and action, it's just not quite right. So we need to work to find harmony. Blanken rezoning has sparked a needed debate on density, and it has gotten many community associations to finally come around to allowing density in their neighborhoods. You've heard it time and time again from the CAs. They say they're not opposed to density, but want it done the right way. But when this council has pressed them for practical solutions, they just aren't often sure what to say in response. I believe that the answer lies not in repealing the bylaw, but rather amending it ever so slightly. We don't need any massive change, just the guts to make small moves that when market factors and development economics are taken into consideration will make all the difference. Repealing it entirely would send us back to square one. The last three years and two historic public hearings would have been for nothing, and the debate will rage on. You guys can be heroes by amending the bylaw in a smart way rather than repealing it. And I have two practical solutions to propose to council today. The simplest and most elegant solution is to keep RCG as the base zoning. However, amend the bylaw to make basement suite development a discretionary use on projects of five dwelling units or more. This simple change will be the magic bullet that we're looking for. The reason we've seen such a prolific uptake of rental developments is not because of blanket rezoning, but also because of changes made at the federal level in the name of affordability. How construction is financed has not been discussed much at all throughout this hearing, but understanding it is a key to understanding why this has become so contentious and became a ballot box issue at the last election. CMHC Insured Financing allows developers to build rental projects with only 5% down, and the insured financing allows low interest rates, which makes new construction rental developments economic. By making basement suites discretionary, it would add just the right amount of risk to the development community to weed out the fly by night developers who seek only to build rental products with little equity and then resell the whole project later to an end user. Discretionary use would also introduce an opportunity for community engagement for residents to have a say in eight or tenplex projects being built on RCG, and for the city to take into account the concerns being raised for parking, laneway access, and the amount of other rental units nearby before granting a permit. This increased risk will see many developers move on to other build forms. I'm also here to tell you that four unit rental projects are not economic for development. So the development community would now pivot towards row townhouses being brought to the market for retail sale to owner occupiers. This is an entirely different class of real estate and one we need more of. Having the guts to keep RCG would also enable side-by-side infill development, which is more likely to occur when there aren't a lot of rental eightplexes nearby. Four unit townhouses and side-by-side infill developments are homeowner demographics and entirely different from what we've seen in the last two years. I think the established communities could live at this density as one new townhouse would be very close in price to the old homes they're replacing, and there'd be four or less units contributing to parking congestion. This simple amendment, going from permitted use to discretionary on projects of five dwelling units or more on RCG, ticks all of those boxes. Now, if that won't fly, then I would ask council not to roll RCG all the way back to RC1 and instead roll it back to RC2. Almost every former R1 community can handle side by side infill development. People are upset because their communities went from having a single family home to having to deal with an eight unit rental development. That's a shocking change and probably went too far. But if we build out more infill style homes that are widely accepted in some of the best communities in Calgary, we can accommodate more density and make meaningful progress on housing. My second recommendation is to instruct planning and development to get more aggressive with the allocation of H GO land use. This is what I look for as a developer because H GO was designed assigned to areas that make sense for rentals. Close to transit, shopping, and you can go up a little higher to build bigger units. Thank you so much. Brett, you're just at time, but uh please don't go anywhere. There may be a follow up for you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh we'll we'll go now to David on 75, then after that, Jody on 78. Please go ahead, David. Thank you. Mayor and counselors, thank you for uh giving me a voice here tonight. Um my name is David Vera. I live in Killarney, Ward 8. And um I am an architect in the city. I uh studied architecture in Halifax and moved to Calgary in 2003. Um I wanted to uh take a slight angle to this um discussion and just talk about a couple projects that I've worked on that I feel are working. So my first project, I call it Four Villas. A client was really interested in a kind of Scandinavian style design. And this one's located in Montgomery at uh 5228 21st Avenue Northwest. And the appeal period just ended last Thursday. Um, and according to the SDAB, there's no appeals on this project, which I consider a win. I think what's interesting about it, or what we've what the client has asked me to do, was uh only provide two secondary suites instead of four. Um so essentially, uh you know, people were tonight we're talking about unit counts on the site. There would be six units on on this parcel. And we provided um you can go to the next slide actually. You can go, and we provided um four parking stalls at the back in a in a garage. Um so for this project in particular, I would have to say that the process was actually quite smooth with the neighbors and um. Of course, with my clients, really, really nice to work with. There, um, I I did a renovation to their house and uh they own this uh rental property um and they wanted to redevelop it. So working really closely with them and um on on something that you know they care about and um is beautiful. Um there were some discussions over the you can go to the next slide. There were some discussions about what makes a property, you know, what people complain about at properties. And I have to say, just living on 33rd in Kalerney, there's quite a few um fourplexes that are going up. HGO, just on the corner of 26th. I have to say they're not very beautiful buildings. And I'm not trying to be like a snotty architect or anything. I just feel like when you do something that's designed and thoughtful and contextual, People don't think about it. They don't complain about it and they don't appeal them. So even though this is a six unit, there's no no appeals to the project. And maybe Montgomery's uh forward thinking, um, it probably also helped that there is a new secondary suite that's under was under construction, it's probably near near complete now. That's about the same size. So, in terms of mass, you know, these these um if we can design these units in a way that's kind of fitting to the neighborhood, um, yeah, people just don't complain. The hardest thing I had to deal with during the process was actually dealing with the development process. And not particularly with a planner, but mostly different bylaw questions and dealing with mobility in terms of how big the bike locker should be. Why can't I use a product for a bike locker? A lot of issues dealing with the slope. It's a fairly steep slope site. So you know you slope up to the back, and then you have to keep going up some stairs to get to your garages at the back. And you'll see that there's a slope across the entire front area, but we had to just slope 2% to the property line. So then we were forced to do these retaining walls, but they wouldn't allow us to do a concrete retaining wall. So they were trying to tell us to turn our stairs. So we negotiated kind of back and forth, and then we were able to put like some stonework to kind of like feather that down. So for me, that was actually the most kind of stressful portion is dealing with the planning department in that sense. You can go to the next slide. This is just a view. You can see the semi detached on the neighbor, and then our our building just sticks out just a little bit further past it. So when it comes to the massing of these buildings, they could be similar to what semi detaches are already at in a certain sense. They're actually getting bigger and bigger. I think people just want more. Area. Always try to convince clients like just go small and design it nicely. Go to the next slide. Actually, you can go to the slide after that. My next project I want to talk about is on 19th Street in West Hillhurst and 6th Avenue, where it turns into Fifth Avenue, right across the street from the Community Association Building. Thank thank you so much. You're you're just at time, but uh if you don't mind, just a final sentence to conclude. Oh no, that's okay. I'll I'll continue if people uh ask questions. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to David now, then Jody after that. Oh, whoops. Oh my gosh. I apologize sincerely. Uh Jody, it's uh your turn, and then uh Sean after that. Good evening. My name is Jodi Petrovic. I'm on panel 78. I am in favor of a full repeal to blanket rezoning without amendments. I am a proud millennial and would never consider one of these stack row houses. My generation grew up with grass Garden. and the ability to have two people in an entranceway. We want single detached homes with the ability to have our parents and friends for dinner. But with stack houses, parking close enough for them to safely walk is beyond challenging. It's been two years, folks, and I still haven't found that half car you outlined in 2024. It's simple. One stall per unit needs to be the minimum in residential areas. Full stop. This bylaw has successfully divided our communities. Your lack of engagement across all stakeholders reflects this. Listen to what has been presented. To be perfectly honest, why would I invest in a residential home with zero assurance that you won't change the rules when I'm in the stick of a mortgage? The uncertainty of what will be built on green space or beside you in Calgary is too high. What you are doing to longtime property holders and seniors is deplorable, and what could be seen as expropriation without compensation. You ignore that my generation grew up in these communities and seem to only seek the narrative that is aligned with your goals. Some of us, believe it or not, like to cut grass. Level up to the destruction of trees and the canopy. Ironic, there was a story last week on the city giving 10,000 trees away when we when we're sacrificing these magnificent 50 plus year old established healthy ones. If a property owner touches a broken branch on a city boulevard tree, you come at them with significant penalties, yet you're witness to the destruction of these grand dames with legacy owners, and the cost falls to property owners due to redevelopment damage that you approved. I appreciate the need for density, but not your approach. In 50 years, when you are all long gone and we are left with this mess, who fosters the tax burden then? We will. Be responsible and look beyond this development for your profit model. Look deep within yourselves. Is this truly what you seek for kids and grandchildren? I am part of the future talent pool that Alberta seeks. Why should I stay when you refuse to listen to us? Responsible density is possible, you know it. I urge you to be better. Repeal without amendments. Thank you so much. Uh we'll go now to Sean and then Kendra after that. Uh good evening, Mayor and Counselors. Thank you for your time. My name's Sean. I'm on panel 80. I am a homeowner in Ward 7, and I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed repeal of citywide RCG zoning. So I first moved to Calgary when I was four years old. Growing up, my family lived in a range of housing types, starting with a fourplex in Boness, then a duplex, a townhome in Ranchlands, and later a single family home in Tuscany. As an adult, I left for school but eventually came back with my wife to buy a townhome in Mount Pleasant. Through all of it, I really appreciated having all of those options as our family moved through different stages of life and different financial circumstances. I don't think there's anything fundamentally incompatible about those different housing forms, and I would love to live in a city where they could exist side by side rather than sorted into their own separate corners. What concerns me probably the most about repealing universal upzoning is that it takes us back to a system where those options are arbitrarily limited. So once again, the vast majority of the city will be effectively reserved for one specific kind of housing. And everything else has to fight its way through a slow, expensive, and uncertain approval process. One where the only people with the time and incentive to show up typically are the nearby neighbors who generally are strongly opposed. Meanwhile, people who do support more housing in the city. Generally, can't be expected to show up to these dozens of individual hearings, as that just isn't feasible for everybody. I acknowledge the validity of concerns about universal upzoning, things like tree canopy, privacy, parking, neighborhood character, these things do matter. But these are design and development issues, and I don't believe that the blunt instrument of zoning law is the right tool to address them. I want Calgary to be a city that allows flexibility, inclusion, and opportunity through its housing policy. And as such, I oppose the repeal of citywide upzoning. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you so much. We'll go to Kendra on 81 to wrap us up. Hello, Council. No doubt you've been waiting for me, for I'm the boogeyman that so many speakers have warned about. I'm the one who dwells in the townhome on the corner, who can ruin community culture simply by existing within it, who can drive up housing prices while lowering housing prices. Last time I was here, I tried to calmly yell math at you to explain why rezoning was important for affordability in our city now and in the future. Experts from city planners, environmental conservationists, homelessness, transit, and free market capitalists agree. This is a necessary but not sufficient tool on this path. I'm not an expert in these things. I'm a researcher by trade. So when I felt this growing problem in my life and I saw it in those around me, I looked at what the experts were saying. To save you from poorly regurgitated stats and facts that hopefully you already know, I thought I would share why this is so important to me. I grew up in Montgomery. It felt like a community in decline at the time. Schools were at risk of closing, homes were boarded up. I volunteered a lot as a kid, hundreds of hours. Community cleanups, planting trees, delivering newsletters, concession, casinos, you name it. Sure, I was a dumb pair of helping hands, but I got to watch people who genuinely care about their neighborhood slowly make it better. And as it got better, density came with it. Our neighbor's bungalow was replaced with denser housing. It blocked some sunlight, there were more cars on the street, and it was wonderful. Children were running through the yards, new businesses opened. It's where I got my very first job. And recently I met someone who told me that while they were visiting Calgary, they stayed in Montgomery and they loved it so much they moved to this city. So I feel that density didn't ruin my neighborhood, it helped save it. Later in my life, I fell in love with a very handsome man who wanted to do his PhD in Toronto. We lived outside of downtown in a shoebox apartment. Getting around was difficult. Driving and parking were expensive, traffic was a nightmare. Transit was under service, unreliable, and stuck in that very same traffic. We usually rode our bikes, but after a few close calls navigating between protected bike lanes, it was also not ideal. Not being able to navigate a city is deeply isolating. Alas, my very rich husband, or sorry, my very handsome husband was not very rich. I'm gonna allow that spontaneous applause. Um so one night I stayed up late crunching the numbers, and even if we were able to save all of this money for a down payment on a house, we wouldn't be able to afford the month monthly mortgage payments on a Toronto mortgage. Um, I looked at renting a two-bedroom apartment. Um, but even that was a financially risky decision in Toronto. I gave up hope of owning a home and starting a family that night, at least in Toronto. That's the path Calgary's on if we do not build a smarter city. After our time in Toronto, we did move back to Calgary. We were able to buy a townhome. It meant everything to me. After years of renting, I could hang a picture, own a pet, and think about starting a family. It was hope, it was stability. This missing middle housing means everything to me. I hope that my voice has been part, a small part of the chorus telling you how important this problem is to solve. I believe that every Councillor knows that, though perhaps you prioritize it differently than I would hope. I've heard that there is a clear majority on this issue, but if you are just counting us like beans, why ask us to speak at all? Housing advocates are talking about whether people can avoid homelessness, gain independence, and build a life. Opponents are talking about shadows, bins, and parking. We can solve those. I don't understand how you can look me in the eye and say, but there's more of them. I see a twinkle in some of your eyes. I believe you believe there is a third magic path that will save you from this difficult decision. Perhaps some of you plan to repeal this now and work towards a solution later. But I caution you. It's always easier to pose an imperfect one, a solution, than to deliver one. If your hearts are set against this updated base district, then I plead that you do not support this now, but build a solution and come back to the public with it. Because I worry when I hear I support density, but often this becomes a moving goalpost, a promise that a perfect solution is just out of reach. I've not heard of a credible alternative. Local area plans, transitory development, nodes and corridors, we already have all these tools. They're not replacements. I'm happy to expand on why I think these are shortcomings for each, but I'll focus on LAPs for time. I'm more engaged in my community than most people my age, and that has been true my entire life. And I say this with deep respect for those who volunteer in the community, but I've gone into these spaces to be a dissenting opinion, and it is terrifying. Community associations can become insular. By segmenting this problem into smaller and smaller factions, you increase the difficulty to support housing broadly across the city. I've taken multiple days off work to support rezoning. How could I possibly do this on an individual parcel scale? Finally, if communities can't agree to enough growth within the plan, then what? If you force them, it feels like the plan was a foregone conclusion. If you do not, the LAPs failed to deliver the housing required. I hope that you vote no on this repeal and the disjoint amendments that would weaken RCG unless you come back with a plan. Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go to Councillor Chabot for questions for the panel. I can't remember which presenter it was. The first or no, this gentleman over here didn't get a chance to finish. Your presentation, I believe, if you don't mind. Sorry, forgive me for forgetting your name. David. Thanks. That'd be an easy name to remember. Yeah, I'll quickly run through this one. And I wanted to, this is not this is an MCG site just for clarity. So the density is 111 units per hectare. But we ended up designing it in a way that made it look like row housing just to make it digestible to the community. Very interesting location, no back alley. So we had some things to contend with on that one. We did one initial design, 10 units, no basement, so they were all on grade. And we did it like a U shape, but the neighbors at the back really didn't like it. I met with them at their house and kind of spun the 3D model around. Until I thought they liked it, and then they they appealed the project because working with um the planning department, um David Down uh gave some really good advice, but we ended up pushing the building out of the property or out of the setback. Um city was willing to allow us to do that, but that's what we got appealed on. So um we waited six months and then we we came back with this design. So we kept, we tried to not have any bylaw relaxations at all. And again, I worked with the neighbors on the back, the three neighbors at the back and one on the side. I met in their homes and again spun the computer or the model in the computer to help them understand. And at that point, the ARP was being approved for 19th Street. And this is now zoned for four stories. So then no one appealed it when we went for DP because this. Sorry? You could have been allowed to go higher. Yes, I would have been allowed to go higher. So yeah, the neighbors really like this design after that. So yeah, and what's interesting about this one is now we have basements and there's six units with three secondary suites, but the secondary suites are two stories each. So you go into the main floor and then you can get into the basement for your second story, or you take a set of stairs up. There's nothing in the in the building code that restricts you from having just a single story for a secondary suite. And one thing I just wanted to add to a previous presenter, I think it was bold. They were talking about units. I think that's a very interesting conversation because for a lot of these projects, um people want to own these homes, right? So if you move into like a garage suite, you'll never own it because it's owned by the owner of the parcel. Um it's a rental, it can only be a rental. And same with a basement suite. Um if you have a semi-detached house, two basement suites. It can only be a rental. So when you start doing like the row housing, then there's a way to kind of break it apart and turn them into kind of condos, but but at a at a nice scale where people can walk out and have their gardens and um and I always put trees in front of all my projects. Uh when I was a student, um my first boss he said, if you want to be a good architect, just learn how to draw a tree. And uh I've I've done it ever since. I think it it helps. So um yeah. So this project was not RCG, it was what MCG MCG. 111? MCGB 111. And so that would have allowed you to put secondary suites underneath each unit. Um technically, I mean we were allowed 12 units with this project size, but the problem is that we didn't have a back alley. Right. So we we were really restricted because we had to get a waste and recycling vehicle into the site, turn around and back out. So we're using Moloch bins, which is another great product out there. I was hoping the city would someday start collecting them. And originally it was planned to be um slab on grate, and but you went with the full basement. Yeah. Like as soon as they they got it peeled and lost, then they were like, okay, how can we how can we rethink this project and not lose kind of area because they're already going down in density by doing Initially 10 instead of 12. Now we were at six with the three secondary seats. So Well, I'm trying to rationalize this example with the r cg blanket zoning insofar as support, oppose, modify. for me, I would modify. But living on in Kalarni and seeing how dense they actually are. In school, we were we were taught about contextual, that's how we designed. So you you research your site, you figure it out, you talk to your neighbors, you see what they're living in. That's how you build a community. With the blanket rezoning, a lot of times it feels like you know, you pull out a tooth and then you add a tooth that doesn't fit. So, you know, I might get a lot of hate mail for this one, but I feel like just there's ways to do it where people will not appeal, and I don't think people actually mind density. Um but I think what they do mind is large obtrusive buildings that have horrible materials, no trees, and just not good for their for their street. Like um if you do a good job in the design, people don't complain. Having David Down on your team probably helped. Yeah, he's awesome. Yes, thanks. No further questions. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson, please. Actually, don't go away there yet, David, if I could. It's interesting to hear your your story about it potentially going higher and suddenly people so maybe actually what we need to do in all this is just uh zone at 20 meters. And everyone gets the exception to 10 and suddenly everything's okay. Um you just quick you you mentioned something about single story basement suite, just really quickly uh when you're talking to Councillor Chabot there. Can you just expand on that? Uh I was saying that the building code allows you to do more than a single story for a secondary suite. There's nothing in the code that per that prevents you from doing a two story secondary suite. Gotcha. Yeah, towards the form-based uh stuff that we were hearing earlier before the break. exactly. I got it. Perfect. Thank thank you. Just a quick clarification there. And then I'll go to uh Kendra uh Wanamaker please. I love the joy that you brought to this presentation. I also like hearing from folks who are living in these townhouses. I think that that's a really important perspective that we're not hearing enough of, and uh really appreciate you bringing it. And I really like you talking about your journey from being a renter to a homeowner, because I think that that really is a crux of what we are dealing with in this. Uh, and you talked about hanging a picture on the wall and not having to worry about it, owning a pet. These is like simple pleasures that people who own versus renting are often afforded. And I just wondered if you you you sort of then got into, you've got to get to your your notes, but if you can speak, uh there's not, we don't get to hear from many folks that are have recently been in this transition and made the leap from being a renter into a homeowner, and especially in one of these houses. Can you expand on that a little bit and and sort of your experience transitioning between the two worlds? Yeah, I think you know, living in Ontario in the rental industry, they have a lot more protections that we don't have in Alberta. I know that's not a city issue, but it just makes owning a pet more difficult because. You're not protected in that way. But I found the transition to townhome really nice because I had this built-in community of five pe uh five families that I got to meet and you know we gardened together and they're deeply involved with the community and got me immediately deeply involved in the community association. So it was nice to have that built in community. Um and we shovel each other's walks and mow each other's lawns, and it's just been a very nice uh way to live. I love that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm good. Thank you so much. That concludes this panel. We'll begin assembling a new panel of names that have not been called yet. And we left off on panel 103. So we're gonna call five names. If you're in the audience or uh on the line, please chime in or give me a wave. Uh 103, do we have Beverly Redman, Allison Banks, Aaron Redman? Kevin Hayes or Sean Coley? Sean? Come on down, Sean. On 104, do we have Dominic Messenchuk? Lori Holdenreed? Nadine Burge Cumming? On 104, Brian Magdy. Alison Bank is on the line. Okay, Allison, please stand by. Do we have Tom Spenceley? 104. Was that you, Tom? 105, uh Karen McKherson. Come on down, Karen. 105, Elliot McNiven, Laura Comden, Deanna Dubbin, Michael Reed. Michael, come on down. 106, Ariana Kippers, Kelly Pratt, Carolyn Fisher. Okay, come on down, Carolyn. Robert Curry, Katherine Holgate. Okay, come on down, Catherine. And I'll just finish 106 and 107. Do we have Austin Surson or Ross Strong? Brian Magdi from 104. Sorry, could you please repeat your name? Brian Magdi, panel 104. All right, Brian, please stand by. Alright, this one's a little bit bigger, but we'll roll with it. We have Sean from 103, Allison 103, Karen 105, Michael 105, Carolyn 106, Catherine 106, and Brian 104. So, Sean, uh, why don't you start us off? Yeah, greetings, council. My name is Sean Cawley. I'm a resident of Inglewood and I've been a home builder since 2012. I dipped my toe in missing middle homes back in 2012, and then the Great Flood came, and all of my homes immediately sold, and I was launched as a new builder. I think that that first townhouse project was perhaps the most difficult thing I had ever done. And I had a lot of regrets about what happened and how to make it better, and I decided not to do townhousing anymore for quite some years. I did I was more of a missing middle hobbyist. It was my favorite form to work in, but also the most difficult and precarious. Now, with all this experience, I think I have tens of thousands of hours of running my job sites. Is it easier now or is it harder? Well, I can tell you it's much, much harder. And the risk is now so so significant that I'm counseling the young aspiring builders who have grown up on HGTV and YouTube celebrities to avoid the middle and go right to. Single homes. And so if you look at uh, I have a long portfolio of many exceptional homes. Um, my Bridgerland project, unfortunately, three years later, you'll notice the red line. That's where the sidewalks go. There isn't any. This is the this this home faces um village ice cream, and there's many, many people waiting in summer for their ice cream, looking across at my weeds and lack of sidewalks. I have two security deposits on the sidewalks. In order to get an indemnified contractor, I need to pay a third security deposit. And all of the contractors are angling to recoup my deposits as part of their compensation for the sidewalks. And they want to charge me more for 110 foot run of sidewalks than I paid for three homes basement foundations, which included nine foot tall walls, eight inches thick, versus a four foot by four inch thick. city sidewalk. And I have since taken out a multi-million dollar insurance policy to build my own sidewalks. But we weren't able to we weren't able to build them last year. So enough about the sidewalks. Um next slide please. When you get into the housing ladder, what we have is Policies that make it much, much easier and faster to build single homes. So if you look at Calgary's most famous home, which isn't in Calgary, it's that large mansion on the highway. And then you then you have the uh apartments. So the large corporations that are building these apartments have plenty of resources to you know put up the hundred unit buildings that um that they need to do to survive. So the rest of us are operating somewhere in the middle, and if you look at the amendments that have been proposed, you're simply taking a saw and cutting out the middle rungs. So I don't think repeal is the answer. I think modification is the answer. And we've heard many good ideas on modification, but what we really needed was the city to put resources into a new building bylaw. I think the 2007 building bylaw is quite obsolete, and um it was obsolete when I started in this field, and it's even more obsolete now. Next slide, please. We go to what is it like to build a threeplex? So I have built quite a few threeplexes. Myself and the uh Builders Association president, uh, we used to compete for these lots, and we would always be uh trying to buy them in Kalarney. So when you do a threeplex, The object is to create as much value as possible. Now, Unit one, the value is uh in the form of it's it's really lost in fees, the DSSP, the dreaded DSSP, and the sidewalks. Now, unit two, the value is lost in your time and your appeals and your likelihood of losing the appeal and all the risk associated. So then you're just down to creating value from one unit. So what you should really do then is just build one unit. So there's simply not enough value created in a threeplex to sustain the administrative overhead of a house building company, even a small boutique one with very few or no employees. Next slide, please. So we go to the last semi detached project I was able to build and sell below $1 million each. So that was in Parkdale, quarter one, 2022. This project isn't possible any longer to due to cost escalation. So I could still build the identical project. I simply couldn't sell it for under $1 million. So we would be into the $1.2 million range, which is getting quite quite expensive for a semi detached product. And that leads us to my Inglewood business, which is my primary focus, which is building single homes. So I've built a bunch of these single homes. The city assessed value is around $1.75 million. And if you look at the property tax, Utilities, down payment needed, carrying cost is around $7,500 to purchase these. So you I I put into the Google what was household family income needed to qualify to purchase these, and you would need a 300K annual household income basically forever. So that is becoming a little bit too much. But Thank you so much. You're just a time, uh maybe a final sentence to conclude. All right. so if you look at all the um next slide, all the amendments that have been proposed, they simply all add cost. Thank you so much. Thanks. We'll go now to Allison on 103, please. Project, it's Tom Spenceley. I'm actually online and I hope I can still speak. Is that okay? Uh no, we're calling on Allison now, please. No, but at the end or after, I don't mind. Uh we've just assembled this panel. If I could uh return to calling names following the assembling of this panel, we'd like to speak with Allison on panel 103. That's fine. Thank you, Allison. Can you please go ahead? Um, yes, hello. Hello. My name is Allison and I am a resident of Board 14, and I am opposed to the repeal of blanket rezoning. So I am a young Calgarian and I am knowingly living in an abusive environment. I am Trapped in that environment because I cannot afford to move out. Rents are too high. Homeownership is incredibly difficult to attain. It's years and years away. And with the repeal of blanket rezoning, I believe that it will take me longer to move out of the environment that I knowingly live in. So many Calgarians have similar situations to mine. There were 6,415 reported cases of domestic violence in 2025. In 2025, in Calgary, a 7% increase from 2024. Only an estimated one in five cases are actually reported. When we include non-physical forms of abuse and children who witness violence or abusive behavior in their home, this number goes up so much more. And the more expensive housing is, the harder it is for people like me and for other Calgaryans to leave those kind of situations. It creates a sense of desperation, a feeling of being trapped. I have thought about moving into a former meth lab because that would be more affordable for ho in terms of housing. And yes, there everything is unaffordable. And with a blanket rezoning, I've seen rates for rent go down, and that made me feel a sense of hope. And in general, I am just scared. And I know other people are feeling similar fears. And yes, I am I am aware that some people are concerned about things like parking spaces. But I hope the council makes a balanced choice. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go now to Karen on 105. Thank you. Hello, Mayor, members of Council and Administration. I want to thank you all for your time, the extra hours that you've dedicated to the process. And I just want to acknowledge that it takes commitment to support democracy. I really appreciate it. I'm here representing Be the Change YYC, which is in Ward 7. We're a grassroots outreach organization serving unhoused Calgarians. In addition to an overdeveloped sense of fairness, I work in the sector for a personal reason. My son Sam died in 2001 after struggling with trauma, addiction, and for a time with homelessness. I do this work because I don't want other families to go through the same kind of loss. From my experience as an MLA, I know what it looks like when political will translates into positive outcomes for people. Only a lack of attention for an issue means people have to wait even longer for favorable outcomes. At Be the Change, we're on the streets four times a every week, and we see firsthand how difficult it is for people to survive without stable housing. People like a young man I'll call Shane. In his twenties, living with a brain injury, he collapsed in our parking lot just a block from here last winter. If Shane had stable housing, he could take his medication regularly, manage his condition, and avoid almost dying in frigid weather. But instead, we see people left to survive in conditions that make their health worse and their situations more unstable. And the research is unambiguous. A peer-reviewed Calgary study published in the Canadian Public Policy Journal found that for every dollar invested in stables supportive housing, the downstream savings to health and justice systems range from over $1 to nearly $3. Homelessness is expensive. Instability is expensive, and we pay for it either way. The question is whether we pay less in housing or much more in emergency rooms, police calls, and human suffering. Even when people are doing everything they can, the wait list for housing can be three to four years. That's the reality. And right now, more than 6,500 Calgarians are on the wait list for affordable housing. And there are thousands of Calgarians couch surfing, using shelters to stay warm, or living rough. Every tool that increases supply matters. Blanket rezoning is not a complete solution to help end the housing crisis, but it is one of the tools that helps increase housing supply, including more multi unit housing, more secondary suites, and more attainable rental options. We need more housing options in our city, not fewer. From what we at Be the Change see every day, reducing options only increases pressure on people, on communities, and on emergency systems. Calgary has expanded housing before. Between 2008 and 2018, Calgary's 10 year plan to end homelessness housed nearly 10,000 people through coordinated, sustained effort. And that happened because leaders made deliberate choices to increase housing options, not reduce them. This is a moment like that. City Council has the tools to help address what we are seeing on our streets. I think repeal would be an easy vote, but what I'm asking you to do is the harder thing to stay at the table, make amendments that address legitimate concerns, and find the tools that help make that are helping people like Shane find a way home. Thank you so much for being here. We'll go next to Michael, please, on 105. Good evening, Mayor and Counselors. My name is Michael Reed. I'm the Director of Development for the Alboya Britannia Community Association, and I support the repeal of the blanket up zoning uh bylaw. I'm here to talk about the Calgary planning process and Calgary slowing population growth. I'm a professional engineer and I know effective, rigorous planning is critical for the CES success of any project. Proper housing planning is the process that the developers use to decide what they can build, where, and how, while balancing regulations, design, economics, and community impact. It is controlled by the Calgary Municipal Development Plan, which sets out the regulatory framework for how Calgary will grow. It establishes the strategic direction related to housing forms, types, and affordability. It mandates that 50% of the growth in Calgary should be in the developed areas of Calgary. And I agree with this. We need to put more housing in the in these critical areas, but the growth should be well planned and completely well thought out and comply to the municipal development plan. The MDP requires that the planning process must follow local area plans, land use bylaw, including housing zones, the land use redesignation process, and the planning application. Prior to Blanket Up Zoning, we had a successful planning process. The zoning redesignation hearing was often a key component in the planning process. It required the developer to generate a clear description of what was planned. This could be scrutinized by the administration, council, and residents at the public hearing. I believe this increased the quality of the projects being reviewed. However, when blanket upzoning was approved, the planning process was shifted from the city to the developers. This is a new planning process. The developers decide what, when, where to build as long as it complies with the land use bylaw rules. This is, and they respond to economics and profitability. This isn't a criticism, this is just how the system works. But development becomes random, less coordinated, less predictable, less aligned with infrastructure, less aligned with community texture context, and it doesn't basically comply with the municipal development plan. You have heard of many examples of how this new planning process has resulted in negative impacts. And I won't go into those. It is fundamentally a poor planning process. We should return the planning process to what was working before the blanket up zoning bylaw was passed. I'd like to now talk a little bit about Calgary's growth. This table shows the total population growth in percentage growth per year from the Calgary and Regional Economic Oaklet from 2025 to 2030. It shows that Calgary's population growth was below 2% prior to 2022, but then spiked at 6%, almost three times higher in 2024. Perhaps this drastic forecast growth influenced the panic and fixation that we needed many more row houses immediately to meet the expected demand increase. However, since 2024, growth has significantly declined, and we'll be back to a much lower growth rate of about 1.3% by the year 2028. We can stop panicking. We don't need the massive number of new growhouses. We will need less. So, in conclusion, I would say that blanket upzoning has not delivered affordability. It has weakened the planning process. It was driven in part by a temporary spike in growth. We need a planning approach that is coordinated, policy driven, and aligned with real affordability outcomes. I urge you to repeal the blanket upzoning bylaw. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go to Carolyn on 106, then Catherine after that. Hi. Hello, Mayor Farkas and Councillors. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to Calgarians today and this week and last week. My name is Carolyn Fisher. I live in Ward 7, Capitol Hill. I'd like to oppose the repeal of blanket RCG zoning. For the record, I own a 1950s bungalow. There's a two story infill next door, actually several, plus several fourplexes on my street. It's fine. Row houses have not ruined my quality of life, nor the character of the neighborhood. Our schools are busy, our community associations are lively, the parks are hopping, and we get to ski in the Confederation Golf Course. So I'm glad to get to know of the people and the families and the kids who have moved into the neighborhood. I'm the landlord of a registered basement rental suite. By trade, I'm a children's book author illustrator, and my husband drives a bus for city transit. We would never be able to afford a home in Capitol Hill now, but luckily for us, we bought 28 years ago. Because prices were lower, we had the privilege of choosing our neighborhood, a place that was walkable and bikeable and close to transit, and grocery, and parks, and schools, and work. Over the decades that we've lived in our home and rented our suite, hundreds of people have applied to live in our basement, not just students, but families and young working people and more. Some have been so desperate for housing that they have offered to pay three months' rent upfront. If zoning is repealed, then many lots will be restricted to single family dwellings. I can see from my years of experience that there are students and young professionals and older workers and single parents and empty nesters for whom a single family dwelling does not meet their needs. If blanket zoning is repealed and only single-family dwellings are allowed to be built in neighborhoods, and if single family dwellings cost $750,000 plus, as they do in my neighborhood, then only well off people or homeowners like me who were lucky enough to buy a long time ago will live here. So you're leaving out whole swathes of Calgarians who do not have the means to buy a single family dwelling and possibly not the means to speak at this hearing. So, what about the young people? Where will Gen Z and millennials live? What about teachers and nurses and massage therapists and social workers? What about people who don't drive? Does it serve Calgary for the person who cleans the hospital or takes care of toddlers or cuts our hair to have to take a two hour bus ride to get to and from work and school? RCG zoning promotes fiscal efficiency. As people are able to gently densify existing neighborhoods, With a variety of forms that are walkable and bikeable and close to work and school, then transportation emissions and traffic jams go down. As well, smaller multifamily row homes built on RCG lots have smaller carbon footprints. Not everybody needs nor wants to live in a big house. I ask City Council to protect RCG zoning by repealing your incentivizing sprawl at the cost of providing the missing middle housing in the places where Calgarians really need it. We want a resilient, vibrant city with a variety of home forms to serve all ages and backgrounds, not just now, but for generations. Thank you. And I have one more note, which is that I noticed that Cheryl commented that she would like to be able to develop a backyard suite and a basement suite in her lot. And I would like to make a vote for that too, because I hope to have a multi generational household at a time when my teenager gets older and my husband and I would like to age in place. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much. We'll go to Catherine now on 106, please. Yeah. Good evening. Yes, it's been a long day, I'm sure, for all of you. Um I'm here. I support the full repeal of the rezoning that had been passed. Now, my recollection is that there was some urgency. Oh, thank you. My recollection is that there was some urgency when council pushed it through. Moving counter, because of the government money that was available. I don't think that's the reason we should make our decisions. I think people choose their neighborhoods for a variety of reasons, including the location, the nearby amenities, the prices, the character of the neighborhood, and in some cases for investment potential. And I believe that the rezoning impacted people differently depending on the reason of their purchase. Those who bought with the intention possibly of an increase in value, for example, on 17th Avenue, which borders on my community, Glendale, their houses have gone up dramatically in value. Those who bought because they liked the R1 zoning and liked the space and liked getting to know their neighbors and living in a really like a little small community where we actually celebrate one another's birthdays, we know everybody in the neighborhood. It's a very pleasant neighborhood. But already there have been bungalows torn down and multifamily units built. And I understand the one on 17th Avenue where three houses were replaced with a 100-unit apartment because 17th Avenue is busy. But what is the impact of that on our parking and our infrastructure, the water? I mean, we've had a lot of water main problems in Calgary, and especially in the older neighborhoods. You know, one area within Glendale has twice since Christmas had broken water mains and had to go get water. What's going to happen when that 100-unit apartment building is actually rented and occupied? I don't think there's been enough consideration to the parking issues where there's one parking unit for one parking space for every two units, and also the water and the sewer services, as well as the canopy, because all the trees are gone. Okay, now when when the zoning changed, as I said, it changed, it had different impacts for different people. For many people, it's almost like an expropriation. When you take away someone's house, you compensate them. When you take away the quality of the property and the home that was most important to them, and it goes, it it takes something away as well. And there's no way to compensate people for that. The character of the neighborhood is lost. Someone else had mentioned earlier about all the people that are moving. It's happening in all of the older communities that were our one, that have single family houses. People are moving out because they're afraid of what's happening. Now there were some very interesting presentations this afternoon that I listened to. Um one of them one lady talked about the equity element of blanket rezoning. I have to disagree with her. I think that they bec Equity that would have been equitable had everybody had the same original starting point. But because an R1 zoning is very different than certain other areas of the city, the blanket rezoning really hits the R1 neighborhoods far more than it does the ones that already allowed for more redevelop for more development. Okay, I also was very impressed by the presentation by the lady architects this afternoon. I thought the idea, the contextual idea is very important, and I've heard several people tonight mention that. So I'm not opposed to density. In fact, um the Glendale Community Association at the time of our local area plan, which was thrown away when the new blanket rezoning came in, but it had proposed to have density on the peripheral roads, on 45th Street, on 17th Avenue, on 26th Avenue, and they had done calculations and recommendations that this sort of a development could reach the objective of density without changing all the single-family residences within the community, and without changing the con just the texture of the community. So I've heard people say, oh, but you know, actually, I was at a public hearing earlier for our ward, and there were these young people coming in and saying, but I should be able to buy a home in the neighborhood I grew up in. I certainly my children certainly couldn't have afforded that, and I wouldn't, I wouldn't have expected to as a child. It's fairly normal for young people to buy their first home. Thank you so much. Just a time, but uh maybe a final sentence to conclude. I'm just saying that people don't always get their ideal home the first time round. I don't think any of us got exactly what we wanted the first time or in the location we would have preferred. Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll go now to Brian on 104 to wrap this panel. Brian Magdi, panel 104. I am in favor of fully repealing blanket rezoning, resetting the zoning to what it was before blanket rezoning, and engaging with Calgaryans to develop local area plans to guide thoughtful growth. I appreciate this opportunity to address Mayor Farkas and City Councilors to express my viewpoint. Thank you. I also spoke at the public hearing approximately two years ago and at that time stated that I was in opposition to blank of the blanket rezoning. I first moved to Calgary a little over 42 years ago. I have lived in many housing forums apartments, a condo, townhomes, and several single family homes. I've also lived in various communities throughout Calgary. The choices I made depended upon my needs, wants, and personal situation over the years. I currently reside in the community of Alboya in Ward 8. With blanket rezoning, there are no longer any communities or neighborhoods in Calgary that are zoned predominantly for single family dwellings only. This is saying that no one should have the choice to live in a planned low density neighborhood, regardless of their preference and desired lifestyle. Notably, it has eliminated certainty of use in past RC1 contextual dwelling districts and has many residents on edge in anticipation of forthcoming densification of their neighborhood and streets. I recognize the need for various types of housing forms, and I agree that it is critical that these options are made available for the citizens of Calgary. I also agree that densification is a key component in Calgary's housing strategy. However, I believe that blanket rezoning is not an effective and efficient solution. It is important that a solution is developed that allows Calgary to continue to offer a diverse range of housing alternatives while still promoting greater density. A more effective approach is targeted data-driven planning, concentrating density along transportation, transit corridors, and activity center nodes, supported by detailed multi community local area plans. Calgary is a terrific city and is ranked as one of the most livable in the world. I would like to see it remain that way. I believe that not repealing blanket rezoning will have a long term negative impact on the quality of life and choices of lifestyles offered in Calgary. I reiterate that I am for the proposed repealing of blanket rezoning and urge you to vote for to vote to repeal it as you have similarly heard from other concerned and caring citizens of Calgary. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. This uh concludes this panel. Before I go to Councillor Clark to start us off, uh Uh real quick, uh who is the gentleman who spoke? Uh saying they were just a a second or two late uh for me calling 103 through 106. So it was me. All right, Tom, uh please stand by. You'll be on our next panel, but it might be a while after uh some of uh the questions from council here. Uh secondly, uh Sorry, sorry, uh panel one oh one, panel one oh one, Sylvia Kowalevsky on the phone, could you could you repeat that name? Sylvia Kowalevsky one oh one. Okay, we will see if we're able to accommodate you tonight. Uh I can't promise based on uh the alternation of the panel, but uh we will do our best. Thank you. I'm on panel 96. I know that there are other callers on the line who are also hoping to see. I know I guys, I opened the door, but uh we just have to conclude this panel. We're not calling or assembling uh other panels. I just wanted to hear from one that one specific uh gentleman. We just for fairness here, we have to go in the order that uh they're called. So with that, um I again and we're and again, uh just out of fairness, I know there's a it's this is a challenging environment for us given that we have many hundreds of people who are signed up, but not all the names uh were there. So again, uh thank you so much. Uh Tom, please stand by for the uh the next panel. Uh secondly, uh Allison, uh Karen, I just wanted to say thank you uh so much for sharing your personal stories. And uh I think your participation as well as others really emphasize that what we're talking here, housing speaks to home, speaks to family, speaks to many other challenges that we're experiencing in the community right now. And just wanted to take a moment to to remind you and everybody else that's present or might be watching. Today, through the proceedings, that uh we can all call the distress line at any time uh for help. The the number is 403-266-4357 or 266 help, and that help is available 24 hours. So again, I I didn't want that comment to uh slide without the the recognition and and thank you for your vulnerability, Karen, for for being here and sharing uh what you did. Uh we're gonna go over to uh Councillor Clark, please. Sir. Sir Uh I just wanted to speak with Mr. Codley. Good evening, sir. Thank you for joining us here. You were just kind of cut off there towards the end of your presentation. I just want to make sure that you had the opportunity to conclude. Um well if we go to my final slide, I was just gonna Mentioned some of the trade-offs and um the how R1 areas have the largest lots that I would most like to build in and the R2 areas have too much development and I was chased out of Killarney for that reason. It was just overwhelming. And then if we eliminate basement suites, we cut out the market-driven most low-cost rentals. And that's that would be a huge loss to the rental market. And for me, I don't purchase homes on nodes and corridors. I only purchase homes where my clients want to live, and my clients want to live in the heart of communities, and they're willing to pay tremendous amounts of money to pay to live in the heart of the community. And so that's where I am sort of obligated to build where they want where they wish. To work, and if everyone points to these abandoned gas stations, and it I find that to be bad faith negotiation because you're bargaining with a gas station, but you're not bringing any capital to clean the gas station. And if you have a community with 500 homes on it and you say, well, let's go to the gas station that's abandoned and put 100 homes, we've increased the density of our community by 25%, so now we're good for the next generation. So that's the kind of I think unaccountable comment that we're getting in the inner city. And when we look at the brown field, every time we we do a news for all community outside of the ring road, we delay each brownfield project by another few years. You're speaking my language. I think Brownfield is very much the next step for us. Oh, sorry, go ahead. So the final one is a a 1,000 square foot home on a 6,000 square foot lot in the best neighborhood. Isn't really a good use of our land. And I would really like to push for some R1 reform if we go back to R1, where I could build a cottage cluster on the R1 areas, and maybe that would be acceptable to the neighbors. Could you describe a cottage cluster? I would try to build four cottage style homes on one lot with a shared garage, but I would try to do them in a ways that the building department would object to and the project would die at the planning stage. Yeah, we're hearing a lot of that actually through the hearings. Um I believe you came forward as a neutral party or what was your standing on this issue? I'm opposed to a full repeal, and I would like to see technical modifications with a technical working group, including the Builders Association, and any change to the building bylaws need to be tested for cost benefit. So a little bit more engagement with the uh the industry itself, engaging with these policies. I think you'll find that the Inner City Builders Association has uh the builders on it who have the most experience building in the middle form. Yeah. Very good, sir. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh Ms. McPherson. Hello. Hi. It's been a while. Nice to see you. Thank you so much for your time, of course. And the mayor has already thanked you for providing us with some human insight. I wondered as we approach this work, I mean, the decision in front of us, you've already highlighted, it's it's quite big and and there's a lot of dynamics, and what's the most courageous thing we can do? Either way, uh non market housing has to become a priority in our pursuit of the future of the city. And I wondered if you just had any feedback about that from your position, how we could better support that uh as part of blanket rezoning or on the other side of this decision? I I think there's a whole array of different kinds of housing that would really help alleviate the suffering of people who are unhoused. Transitional housing, supportive housing, and accessible housing, you know, both low cost as well as physically accessible. A lot of the folks that we serve do suffer with some sort of disability or do live with a disability. So making sure that people are going to be successful and not to have a whole lot of constraints, putting housing first rather than a behavior on behalf of the person that needs to be housed. I think all of those are really important. As well as tools like the blanket rezoning. The more housing stock that's available, the less pressure there is on the lower levels, and the fewer people we see knocked into homelessness because the market has simply become too expensive for them. Yeah. And we've seen those individuals come forward over the course of this hearing, right? I mean, sort of advocating for themselves with no uh there's no real chance of them accessing this kind of housing, but its very existence they think sort of protects them or creates a better sense of security for their place and their and their housing. So yeah, it's very interesting. Thank you very much for being here. My pleasure. Thank you, Councillor Panzopoulos, please. Thank you so much, Ms. Holgart. Holgate? Catherine? Oh, hi. Thanks. Thanks so much. Really appreciate your presentation. Particularly around the commentary. I wanted to uh commentary around if we were to build On 17th, on 26th, on 45th in your community, that that would be sufficient to meet the goals and objectives that were identified. Can you just expand on that? Who told you that? Where did that information come through? Oh, the community association submitted that plan at the time of the local area plan. Yeah. And then the local area plan was shelved because of the rezoning. And it was submitted to the city, but apparently it wasn't considered. Okay. You m you made a comment that you were told by somebody that that's what I heard that if we were to have that density on 17th, 26th, 17th, and 45th, thank you. 20 17th, 26th, and 45th, that that would meet the density objectives. Um so was that through communications or did the community association do that analysis? Now the community association did it. They submitted it to the city and they submitted it as part of the local area plan. Perfect. So Actually, there's a board member from the community association who might have more information if you need it. Absolutely, you know, I definitely will at uh at the break for sure. Uh so the experience of the LAP, obviously, that was the community supported, that's where density made a lot of sense. Uh, if we had to pick and choose on those, I'll call them nodes and corridors or the density, 17th, 26th, 45th. Glendale, that's that's where it makes sense for you and your your name. Yes, they already have heavy traffic. You know, it's it's not the same character as the other parts of the community. Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Thank you so much for that presentation. I definitely will take you up on that offer at the break. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kelly, please. Uh thank you, worship. Um, is Banks. Are you still on the line with us? Is that you, Miss Banks? Hello. Thank you very much. Um I really want to thank you for sharing your presentation with us today. I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I listened very carefully to what it was that you had to say, and I'm wondering if we might be able to follow up with you. And if so, if you'd be willing to reach out to the women in my office at uh ward4 at calgary.ca to see what we might be able to do to assist. Maybe. We'll see. That'd be ward four at calgary.ca. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Banks. All right, uh, this concludes that panel. And we had called uh up to from 103 through 106. We're uh for our upcoming panel, this is likely to be the last one for the evening before we break for 9 30. And because tomorrow and Wednesday are occupied with other predetermined council business, uh Thursday at 9 30 a.m. will be the continuation of this public hearing. So we we'll need a motion to that effect uh before we break, but just for the members of the public. Who might be on the line or here in person? This will be the the final panel for tonight. So we have uh Tom Spenceley there from from 104. He'll be the first in there. Uh I'm going to go back to it was panel 81 that we ended off on. Do we have Brooklyn Jansis Jansen with us from 82? Bonnie Petrovic? Al Chapel. Yes. Bonnie, is that you? Bonnie. Yes. Okay, Bonnie, please stand by. Do we have Anita Showa from 83? Bill Woodward? John Williams? Come on down, John. David Cumming. 84. Clint Sugar. Mark Gottlieb. Here. Was that you, Mark? This is me, yes, Mark. Thank you, Mark. Please stand by. 84, Mariana Salazar. 84, Cornelia Weeb. I'm here. Thank you, Cornelia. Please stand by. And then we'll accommodate one more. Do we have Darren Polansky? Dylan Proctor. You're online, thanks. Sorry, was that you, Darren? Yes, it was me. Thanks. Thank you very much. So this will be Our final panel for the evening. It'll be Tom, then Bonnie, John, Mark, Cornelia, then Darren. Alright, Tom, why don't you jump into it? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I do apologize for earlier when I pushed the wrong button to say I was present. But uh nevertheless, uh I'm Tom Spenceley and I'm a resident of Ward 8. And for the record, I am for uh uh repealing this uh uh making this uh zoning problem go away, although I think after having heard a lot of the correspondence throughout the day and in general, I do believe that it might be advantageous to put some of these uh new uh or these existing ones in the bylaw around the uh various uh uh LRT stations and and um and so forth where there's high density. Invading into uh or putting Multifamily housing in in neighborhoods is not necessarily the best plan, but you've heard all the reasons why that's the case. One of the strong points I want to drive home is a fact, and it's been stated a few times throughout the day, is that we went through this two years ago, and we heard all the same old stories back then, and then council voted it uh in despite that, and there was a a lot of fanfare of people against it. After which the a number of counselors said wait till the next election see what happens. Well we did and we saw what happened. Many of the people who were causing or were voting for this were gone and many of the people that are support are supporting the thing are gone and many who are against it are on council now. I really hope that the people in council who are for it, because you do represent the majority, still stick to your guns because As I heard in an earlier correspondence today, there's a certain trust that people put in people to abide by what they say they're going to do, and I believe they should. And so that's point number one. The other point I want to raise deals with that of not so much city council, but the people in the planning department from the administration side. We've had meetings called where they say they want us to get into a one of the various um uh meeting places or auditoriums or whatever down in the in the uh either at our Mount Royal facility or the one down the uh down the hill. And they want to tell us, they want to look for our input and how we think things should be uh how the how we can make this better for everybody in the city. They're not interested in input. You get down there and they simply dictate this and they simply tell us what they want to do. They're not interested in hearing what you have to say. Point number two is that they They now, or they've, as you know, with the Banff Trail issue, uh they actually changed the re the designation of the particular area under question so that you couldn't build a single family home there. It all had to be multifamily. Moreover, they go around in our particular area, not that it's all about us here in Mount Royal, but the thing they've gone down and said, Look, we're going to change the designation of one particular property to direct control because we don't want to have to deal with the issue of restrictive covenants, even though we've had one in place here for 110 years. So the problem is if you're going to try and make changes, it's best done with a stick and or with a carrot and not a stick and work with people because anybody will entertain things. But I don't believe that uh that the way that the planning people are working are necessarily in our best interest. They're self serving. The last point, of course, is when they make announcements that I believe council should be making, or in particular the mayor. when they suggest that the city is um going to lose their federal grants if we don't go ahead and repeal the law or rather carry on with the law and not repeal it and or the bylaw rather. So again um a little bit like the the uh the tail wagging the dog it's it's it's inappropriate and it needs to be brought into focus. So in summary I'm not totally against doing stuff in a limited basis, but I don't think we need to destroy any neighborhood and and of course in particular neighborhoods that have um historic value. But that that's selfish and I don't need to make it all about our area, but in areas in general. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much for being with us. We'll go to 82 with Bonnie, then 83, John, after that. Please go ahead, Bonnie. Thank you, Mayor Parkas. Uh apologies, I'm full of head cold, so I'm pretty nasally. My name is Bonnie Petrovic. I live in Ward 4. I'm in favor of repealing blanket rezoning without amendment and requesting a return prior. I'm not a subject matter expert. I am, however, a long time proud property owner of what has seemingly become the targeted family bungalow. I raised my daughter in this home. And I'm and and I am age able to age in place, yet as time passes, I feel this is not your plan for me. There were many common themes across the presenters this week I would like to highlight. Just four themes in the closing hours of this hearing. Number one, caring. I'm on panel 82. Uh every single individual that came before me made the time, had the energy to do this again, or could navigate your system to get themselves on the presenter's list. All with passion, articulate, and meaningful dialogues. That is impactful caring across all. A characteristic of this city that I moved to in 1983 that hasn't disappointed me. Number two, affordability. As identified in the 2024 plan, was not a result of this specific bylaw. Non market housing on the scale required to make an impact in our city was never realized at the same rate as Tower Plexes for profit. You know it. There needs to be more work done on that side of this. Whatever it looks like. Um, and that's been that's resounding. That's not just a Calgary problem, that's a Canada wide problem. Number three, trust. I believe the most important theme of the week, a word to keep circling the wagon again and again. The people of Calgary are counting on you to follow through on this repeal. No smoke and mirrors, rather action to pledge. Personally, as the week progressed, I struggled with whether or not to be Uh whether or not being present at this proceeding would be meaningful. I feel more than if you felt the same in their absences as their names were called. And as I watched the news last week to hear a few of you speak to your interests to revisions, revisions not openly communicated before this hearing and not repealing as pledged in the election, my heart sank. There is more on the table here than mid block development folks. I made a deliberate decision to buy the home I'm in 42 years ago because of a certain set of rules and restrictions. I trusted that contract was binding. I have found the past two years extremely stressful every time I see a for sale sign. I never used to worry about coming home. And now I have lost trust that you are true stewards of the communities that you represent. I was trusting in you to follow through on the election position. You have been given a chance to reset the bar, yet I can clearly see and hear this is not the shared objective by all. And finally, number four, density. You've heard it from Calgarians. We are aligned on the need for density, just not your approach. I heard over and over increases to density need to be strategic, balanced, thoughtful, and deliberate, respecting the unique qualities of each community. And I appreciate the city's operating budget is based on ratepayers, and you need more of them, but you each know there are other ways to achieve this. Changes to the TOD, encouraging enhanced commercial residential bills on the TOD and commuter arteries, like the recent co op number two on 16th Avenue, as an example. In closing, I think most politicians would be concerned about the message from the people impacted and say, what I am doing is clearly not resonating with my stakeholders. So it's time to do something else. It's why we are all here. I urge you to repeal without amendment, pause, and come back. Together, we are stronger and we can do much better for Calgary. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go to John next, please. And then Mark after that. Thank you. I believe there's some visual aids. I'm not sure if they're available, but you can just keep cycling through them as I present. My name is uh John Williams. I'm panel 83, I'm a Ward 4 resident. Uh Mayor Farkas and Council, thank you for the opportunity to present. It's very important that we participate in our democracy, and I appreciate having the opportunity to do so. I am uh a born and raised Calgarian. I'm very proud of Calgary as a city and I believe in constant improvement. I'd have to say we haven't seen constant improvement in the last few years, and we need to do better. Before I start, I took exception to the mandatory endorsement statement as a condition of participating in this statutory public hearing. This requirement is constitutionally vulnerable, legally questionable, inconsistent with democratic norms. I'm optimistic with our new mayor and council. We have 10 new members, and I uh I feel much, much more comfortable with what we uh are moving forward with today compared to what we were left with before. This is a massive improvement. Over our former two mayors. I'm just gonna jump in and ask that I've been asking presenters to really just stay focused on the policy, not go after any individuals. Let's just get to the merits of the the blanket rezoning repeal as proposed rather than bring in commentary on identified individual individuals, please. Fair enough. I hope to see this council take full control of this oversized administration and to see that the tail no longer wags the tail, the dog. You guys are in control. Own it. Do it for your uh your fellow Calgarians and let's do it right. We can't be bowing to the federal government in Ottawa either. That was a disaster. Don't let them dictate what happens in our city because Ottawa sure as tech doesn't know what Calgary needs. Now on to blanket up zoning. This is not just a simple planning issue. This is about democracy, ethics, integrity, and the future of Calgary. You've inherited a decision, probably the worst decision in the history of this council. A decision that was imposed, not earned, a decision that went directly against what Calgarians clearly and overwhelmingly said. Today is your opportunity to consider fixing it. This was a democratic failure. Let's be very clear about the public record. The first hearing, which I participated in, had over 100 hours of in person presentations, over 730 speakers presented in person. Roughly 65 to 70 percent of those people were clearly opposed. Nearly 90% of written submissions were opposed as well. That was not a divided public, it was overwhelmingly opposition. Yet the policy was approved anyway. Why? This is unacceptable. That's not how democracy works. This is a complete disregard for Calgary taxpayers. Public hearings are not a box to check. They're meant to mean something. This was a slap in the face to Calgarians. Let's look at some of the core principles. It's not about growth. Calgarians support growth and reasonable growth. This is about how growth is forced onto communities. This policy removed the voice of communities and citizens. It removed future hearings. It removed meaningful input. It replaced participation with pre approval. And that is a fundamental shift away from democratic planning. Good planning is careful. We actually had it. That's why we have the Calgary we have. It was destroyed by blanket up zoning. It's contextual. It represents neighborhoods, history, culture, and community. Blanket up zoning does none of that. It destroys all of the above. It applies one rule across the entire city, and we know that doesn't work, regardless of infrastructure, regardless of character, regardless of impact. This is not planning. This is uncontrolled deregulation. Let's look at the infrastructure reality. Our infrastructure has already strained. Problems have intensified exponentially with negligence on the care of our feeder main and water mains. No inspections, no maintenance. We have seen a catastrophic failure of this feeder main. We can't afford any more messes like this several times. The electricity grid. If we want to put charging stations for vehicles and more houses, the grid cannot handle this. Who's going to pay for this? Parking or the complete lack thereof. Calgarians have more cars per capita than most cities in North America. That's not going to change anytime soon. No climate emergency hoax or ridiculous climate policy will ever change that. Calgarians are the way they are. Traffic congestion, pressure on services, roads destroyed with all the installation of deep services. I invite you to come for a ride down my road in Winston Heights. And if the wheels stay on your car, I'd be pretty impressed because it's pretty bad. And this is becoming quite prolific. Somebody's got to pay for all that. The policy accelerates density everywhere with no guarantees of upgrades. The infrastructure system to support that growth is not necessarily going to be there. The cost will fall on the taxpayers. Let's look at the community impact. Look what's actually happening on the ground. Homes are being replaced, not with family housing, but with density at all costs. Two homes become four, four become six, six become eight, and eight become twelve. And what do we lose? We lose the fabric of our very city that makes Calgary one of the best places to live in this world. Let's not change this. The fabric that makes Calgary the most livable city in the world is what we had. It was the concise and clear and delicate planning that we built this city that we're proud of. And trees. Thanks, John. You're just at time. Maybe a final sentence to conclude your thoughts. And I've got a couple of solutions to offer somebody who wants to offer. So look, it's on you guys to fix this. And let's rebuild the trust. We can tear this down, we can rebuild it with a lot further, you know, involvement with the community. And let's do it right. There's no one stop fix, but let's do it properly. Thank you so much. We'll go next to Mark on 84, then Cornelia after that, please. Please go ahead, Mark. Thank you. Good evening, your worship, and members of council. My name is Mark Otlieb, and I am advocating on behalf of my wife and myself. Thank you for bringing this issue to the fore so quickly. We strongly support the full repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw without amendment. My wife and I have lived in Valley Ridge for more than 25 years. We, like most home buyers and renters, bought our home, our forever home, not only because of the house, but the community, its character, location, and beauty. I doubt that we would have bought the house if it was located elsewhere, much less in a hodgepodge of less than thoughtful development. Our homes and communities are the most fundamental and profoundly important investments most of us will make in our lives. In light of the major land use and social policy changes brought about by the bylaw, it should not have been considered in the absence of a binding referendum, if permitted by the province, or if not, a plebiscite. Instead, with the inducement of $244 million from the federal government, previous council passed the bylaw in defiance of a significant visible and vocal majority of Calgarians. That is not democracy. A lack of due diligence and good judgment have marked previous councils from the Green Line to persistent water feeder main problems to blanket rezoning which the last council should have foreseen would end up here not even two years later. About five years ago, our then neighbor applied for a development permit to build a backyard suite consisting of a double car garage with living quarters on top. Our street was zoned RC2. In our view, and the view of many of our neighbors, the development would have degraded the character and functionality of our street. It also would have set a terrible precedent. We opposed the application. I don't believe any of our neighbors supported it. I was one of the people spearheading the opposition. The city's planning department was very respectful in our dealings. It listened to our concerns, it gave us due process. Ultimately, it denied the application. From what I've heard during this meeting, due process seems to be missing in the application of the blanket rezoning bylaw. Had my neighbor's application been made today, I suspect, to my chagrin, it may have had a greater chance of success. My research suggests that Calgary's population is expanding by 60 to 90,000 people a year, and for prices to come down, we must build 30 to 50,000 units a year. In typical years, we build 12 to 18,000 units annually. There are two roadblocks to increasing our annual build of residential units. In 2025, Calgary had about 5,300 job vacancies in trades-related occupations. That's almost one in four job openings. Labor shortages remain one of the biggest constraints on construction. The other problem is that we live in a capitalist society. Governments should have capped the price of residential units a long time ago. Without price control, we have supply, demand, cost, profit, and greed. My wife and I bought an apartment condominium in Glenbrook in 1978 for $40,000. A friend just sold her plain Jane Half Duplex in Mount Pleasant for $735,000. My understanding is that a brand new fourplex also often sells for between $400,000 and $500,000. Hardly affordable for many. Dotting the landscape with scramble development and the attendant problems of structure, aesthetics, and function is not the answer. My research has revealed that we have a restrictive covenant register on title to our property and other properties on our street that only allows one single detached home. The bylaw seeks to vitiate the restrictive covenant. I echo panel 25's Brian Weatherall's comment about the promise that had been broken by the passage of a bylaw. As restrictive covenants run with the land, if a development application was made to build multifamily dwellings on a single lot on my street against which the covenant on my property has been registered, I would help organize a joint or class action for an injunction to prohibit the build and for damages. I think this is already being done in some Calgary communities. Thank you very kindly for me for permitting me to speak today. We respectfully ask Council to restore our trust in this government by repealing the bylaw and by not advancing the proposed amendments, which in sum don't mitigate our concerns. Thank you once again. Yeah. Thank you so much. Uh we will go now. I was panelee before, but missed calling in. We will conclude this panel and we'll see if we have uh time before the 9 30 uh hard stop. I apologize. We are procedure bylaw calls for us to end our proceedings at 9 30. We will go now to Cornelia, please, on 84. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Cornelia Weeb. I live in Ward 8, and I am speaking today in support of repealing blanket rezoning, no amendments, full repeal. I want to start by sharing why I'm speaking today. I ran as a municipal candidate in the last election. Here in Calgary, and while I'm no longer on the ballot, I feel a continued responsibility to represent and share the voices of the residents I spoke with, specifically in Ward 8, the majority of whom supported candidates like me, whose platform priority was to repeal the blanket rezoning bylaw. I believe those voices deserve to be heard in this conversation. Over the course of the campaign, I had the privilege of speaking with thousands of residents. The number one identified priority was to repeal blanket rezoning. What I heard repeatedly from Ward 8 residents was not opposition to change, but concern about how this change was being implemented. Blanket Rezoning introduced a one size fits all approach across communities that varies significantly. Each neighborhood has its own context, its own infrastructure, character, and with that, residents who have made long term investments there. Residents highlighted they felt the engagement process lacked meaningful consultation. There was a sense that decisions were being made to communities rather than with them. That disconnect has real consequences, not just for planning outcomes, but for trust in local government. We can do better. And more importantly, we can rebuild trust. Because at the end of the day, this is not just about zoning. It is about governance. It's about whether residents feel heard, respected, and included in decisions that shape their daily lives. When the majority of Ward 8 voters supported candidates who prioritized repealing this bylaw, that is not something we can overlook. It is a clear, democratic signal. It tells us that the mandate of voters is to repeal blanket rezoning. As someone who ran for office, I take that seriously, and that's why I'm speaking today. To carry forward the voices of those Ward 8 residents who made it clear through their participation and their votes that repealing the blanket rezoning bylaw was priority number one. Their engagement did not end on Election Day, and neither should the consideration of the issue they rallied around. In closing, I ask that this council take the first step towards rebuilding trust with Calgarians and fully repeal the blanket rezoning bylaw. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go now to round off the panel 85, Darren, please. Hi, thank you, your worship. My name is Dar Darren Pelanski. I'm a registered architect. And I've worked in the residential sector here in Calgary for, I guess, uh just about 18 years. Um, I'm a resident of Ward 6. Uh, I oppose repealing blanket rezoning. Uh, until there is a uh clear path forward with a plan to ensure development that can keep pace with growth. And address the public concerns about quality, I believe it should remain in place. Just kind of at the risk of going off my script here, I just kind of want to make a comment. I've been I've been listening to a lot of uh commentary over the past week, and there's kind of a common uh theme that's popping up from the public, and that's that's a concern about quality and quality about the built form. And I think what's missing from this process is uh Is essentially that is a discussion, not a discussion, but a framework about the build form, the quality, and what the what actually is built on site in relation to its massing. And you know, I believe the architects at Old Workshop earlier today did a very good job articulating how a framework could be set in place to mitigate some of the concerns that the public might have about established neighborhoods and densification. Back to my script. I'm currently working on a research project between the relationship between housing and access to transit in suburban areas. And I think there's some clear connections between that and this discussion about growth in established communities. Like every zoning allows incremental context sensitive densification in established communities. It does not guarantee affordability, but enables more housing choice and supply, which we need. It helps us use infrastructure we've already paid for. Roads, utilities, amenities, and schools, rather than expanding outward and building new. Many established neighborhoods have underutilized infrastructure, especially roads built for higher volumes than they carry today, schools facing declining or aging populations. I recently defended an SDAB case in the established community of Cambury Heights or a semi detached home with lower suites. This project undertook public engagement process with the community association, and the owner had discussions with the neighbors. You know, there was discussion earlier about engagement would suggestively eliminate the need for SDAB or somehow would would reduce the pressure on that process, but despite engagement and communication with the neighbor, they simply just didn't want something built next to them. So in the end, they ended up appealing it. There was concern from these neighbors about single family character of the neighborhood. Even though the neighborhood had multifamily in it since the 50s. There's actually essentially just a general misunderstanding of what RSCG actually allows, and some claimed high density developments would spread throughout the community. When in fact we were just proposing a low density semi detach with some sweets. An individual who simply wanted to provide units for his extended family while still living in his home. Today, 76% of Calgarians live in autocentric suburbs. That's 1.4 million people and about 480,000 dwelling units in the autocentric suburbs. 10 years from now, we could grow to 1.6 million people and 820,000 dwelling units in an autocentric in the autocentric neighborhood. Also, today 78% of workers commute by car. That's 680,000 vehicles, but in 10 years that could grow to 840,000 vehicles. We cannot stop or slow suburban growth, however. We can reduce the onus placed on new road construction and life cycle maintenance by allowing densification in our established neighborhood. Calgary is already planning tens of billions of dollars in new suburban infrastructure over time. 20 billion is allotted for new neighborhoods. That does not include life cycle maintenance, and this money is paid by all Calgaryans through taxation. Robots is coming either way at our current rate. 400,000 more people are predicted to arrive in Calgary in the next 10 years. That's roughly 150,000 new homes needed, and 110,000 of those will be in the auto-centric suburbs. The question isn't not if we grow, it's where and how we efficient and how efficiently we grow. Not everyone can or should live in an established neighborhood, but stopping gentle density pushes more growth outward, increases the cost, traffic, and infrastructure burden that everyone pays for. We should allow balanced development across the entire city. If council chooses to repeal, it must replace with something meaningful. Faster, more predictable land use approvals, uh dwellings and permitted use, um uh you know, looking at parking requirements again, and a more focused development permit appealing. Thank you, sir. You're you're just a time, but Perhaps a final sentence to conclude your thoughts. uh perfect. I think um that's you know what, that's fine. I just encourage council to take your time, study the impacts carefully, and fully understand the interconnectedness between housing and infrastructure, traffic improvement, and financial responsibility. Thank you. Yeah. All right. There was somebody who spoke up on panel 84, but we had missed them. What's your name? Yes, it's Clint Shirker. Okay, Clint, uh just one moment, please. Uh colleagues, we are at our stop time. Uh is there anyone who is willing to propose a motion to suspend? Is Madam Clerk is a suspension of the procedure bylaw to allow us to conclude this panel? It's to modify the time of recess to commence at the conclusion of either this panel or a new panel or whichever council would like to do. Okay, colleagues, uh I suggest that uh we push a couple minutes late tonight to allow us to hear from Clint and to finalize the questions uh from counsel for the panel. So if you vote yes to this, we will continue for I'm guessing 15 to 20 minutes more. Uh if you vote no to this, then the uh we will sort of end our proceedings uh right here. This motion, I believe, requires a two-thirds vote in order to pass. That's correct. So this is on the screen. Is there any of you who would like to move this motion? This is moved by Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Chabot. Uh on this, uh Councillor Johnston, you have a request to speak? Sorry, I'm just checking the schedule for tomorrow. We have uh regular council at 9 30 tomorrow, right? That's right, yeah. Yeah, I'm gonna say let's finish this sooner than later tonight, but because we have to be back tomorrow morning early. So Okay. All right, uh the motion's on the floor, Council uh Let's uh push through and accommodate uh one more. I'd urge you to support this, but obviously you don't have to. Uh Are we okay? I'm gonna do a voice vote. You probably guys everyone doesn't have east cry vote. Uh are we all in favor? Any opposed? Councillor McLean is opposed. And that motion is carried. So uh Clint, it's your lucky day, my friends. We've made a very rare exception for you, sir. So make make your time count. You got five minutes. Although that's a limit, I'll say. This should just be a couple minutes. My name is Clint Shirker. I represent myself. I support repealing the blanket rezoning. I'm gonna start by reading what I presented in April 2024. I'm a 50 year resident of Calgary and 32 year resident of the community of Lake Bonavista in Ward 14. I attended Calctor Damon's April 9th open house at the Lake Bonavista Community Center, where he faced great opposition to the blanket rezoning from the attendees. I'm here in an attempt to persuade other couchers to vote no to the proposed blanket rezoning. I lived in Lake Bonavista in my teens and early 20s before moving away from my parents' home. I've lived in apartments and starter homes in other communities, and when the time came to be more established, I chose to return to Lake Bonavista and it's our one single family dwelling zoning. If I wanted to live in a community with condominiums, rural houses, and multiple family dwellings, I would have bought a house in such an area. I paid a premium to buy in Lake Bonavista, which was historically zoned as R1, but was somehow changed to RC1 in the 2010s, which I'm kind of okay with. I'm deeply opposed to blanket rezoning to RCG, and especially deeply opposed to rezoning my community to RCG. As an ex technician, this all reminds me of something that works in theory but fails in practical application. The group has come up with a plan that works in theory, but failed to take into consideration the extreme changes it is making to historically R1 communities. Please vote no on blanket rezoning. So that's what I said in 2024. However, after 736 speakers with 458 against blanket rezoning, 224 for blanket rezoning, and 51 neutral, the city council voted 96 to pass blanket rezoning. This left many people scratching their heads, but fortunately the present council is readdressing the blanket rezoning. I'm now a 52 year resident of Calgary, 34 year resident of Lake Bonavista, and still deeply opposed to blanket rezoning of RCG. Please repeal the decision on this point made by the previous council. That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go to questions from council members. I think Deputy Mayor, your first second. Yes, I I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the speakers. It's not a question. I just wanted to note that we have been indicating to speakers that attacks on individuals or previous counsels is not appropriate. There were some other examples of this in the last panel of accusing administration of you know things bordering on corruption or criminal activities. And I just think that we need to call that out as well because that's not appropriate. Administration acts. on the direction of council and they do the work that they're directed to do and those aspersions don't contribute towards making a decision on this policy. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm going to consider that a point of privilege and well taken. Okay, I have a point of privilege as well. Over to okay, Councillor Johnson on point of privilege. Yeah, this is uh the rawest form of democracy, and I feel people should have a right to come and express themselves. Um I don't think I've heard anything outrageous. Um and it's up to the chair to determine if it's out of line or not. Um and so at this point I haven't heard anything up until this point, and I encourage uh members, but again, it's up to the chair, but Uh, we're all adults here. We can handle their freedom of expression to come here and uh yeah, I at this point I haven't heard anything egregious, so Thank you. Councillor Johnson, I'll just note that we don't really have a point of rebuttal or the opportunity. If you feel a rule has been broken, please use point of order. If you feel the the rights of the body or your you individually have been violated, please use point of privilege. I'll go over to Councillor Kelly, please. Thank you, worship. Mr. Williams. Yes sir. Hey, neighbor. Hello, neighbor. How's it going? Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to note the fact that you ran out of time just as you were getting to your recommendations, which I'm assuming is kind of the most important part. So I'd like to uh I'm wondering if you would be willing to share with us uh your recommendations, please. Absolutely happy to do that. Um, you know, and this is uh comes from a conversation I had with Mr. Shane Wenzel, a good friend of mine, and a former mayor, gentleman before the last lady, so we'll be uh fair here, has essentially, from what I understand, created a policy that adds $90,000 per door for construction. Now, how does that make Houses affordable. So there's a way we can do that. And I have uh a note from Mr. Wenz on what we can do and do better to remove that cost. But when it comes to solutions, you know, there's there's a few things. Densification has become a failed one-size-fits-all ideological solution. But there's lots of different options. We got lots of land in Calgary. So let's use it effectively and let's be calculated in where we densify, because it doesn't just fit anywhere. So what about uh the city taking some land? And I know they're gonna do this when they uh took over midfield years ago, which still sits there empty. And perhaps um Have some land you can lease to people so they can bring in modular homes and they can have a place for their family with a yard and it's affordable because you take that land acquisition cost out of it. And there's also the opportunity to do some well thought out and well-planned container home villages. They're ideal for singles and couples and people that are currently homeless, and and everybody always has this NIMBY. We don't want affordable housing in my neighborhood. Well, where do we put it? So greenfield development makes sense where we can build the um appropriate infrastructure around there, have transit, and get these people to to work and do this thing efficiently. Because I think over, I think in Northeast, I can't remember where it is, um, I think the lions have some little houses there. And I can't remember what neighborhood that is, and and I think uh Harrison might be in your area. Like, why are we not doing more of that? You know, it uh people may not want it in their backyard, but it's a great opportunity. We've seen on uh YouTube and TikTok and all these things, these container homes, and we can move these things in quickly and people can build them up quite affordable, and uh they can be actually quite temporary as well. So there's an option there. And the other thing is why does Calgary have to grow? We're a unique city, I believe we're probably one of the largest in areas in North America as one physical entity or corporation, and so the cost of keeping going out, out, out. is astronomical, yes, but it's also not reasonable to densify just anywhere and everywhere. So, what about building a sister city? You know, we could take Chestermere Lake and we could extend it and make a giant lake going further north. Having a lake there would actually create a microclimate that would actually do something to fix the hail problems in Northeast, potentially. But building a sister city could be another great option. And there's lots of opportunity there, there's lots of land. And you know, pre-planning towns and satellite communities is not that hard. And we can always bring in transportation from their buses and that sort of thing. There's lots and lots of opportunities, but we've got to start thinking outside of the box instead of just jamming things in there because we're not New York and we're not Toronto, we're not Vancouver, and we don't want to be. That's why we're in Calgary. That's why we are that one of the best cities in the world to live, because we have family spaces. We have backyards and front yards where people can actually spend time congregating and getting to know their neighbors. When you meet on the sidewalk, it just doesn't work. And building community is something that's very important to the fabric in Calgary because I remember the days you could leave your doors open and everybody was everybody knew everybody in the block and we gotta bring that back. And the uh the outright blanket up zoning is hindering that process by jamming in Density at all costs. And let's do better. Let's make Calgary stronger. Let's think outside of the box. Let's look at some of these smaller homes. Let's look at some of these trailer parks. You know, what tell me what's going on with Midfield? It's still sitting there empty today. We had to move these people out in a hurry and uproot these people, and they were homeless. And it's been sitting there for what, 10 years now? It's insane. So I just urge council to think outside of the box, and it's it's a relief to see we have a council that's willing to listen and work towards solutions. But remember, this didn't come as a result of democracy. It was jammed down our throat as Calgarians because it was overwhelmingly obvious people didn't want it. We can tear it down, start again. Doesn't mean we're stuck with R1, R2 forever going forward. But let's be mindful. Let's be neighborly. Let's do what works for every specific community. You got all the people in the world willing to participate. This is great. This is what I love about Calgary. They're the first ones to volunteer and get involved and to make a difference. Let's involve them and let's rebuild this and let's make it bigger, better, and greater without sounding like Donald Trump here. But like I know we can do much greater and we can make Calgary much better. But at what expense? Let's not do it at the expense of community. Let's not do it at the expense of family. Let's just do it right. Thank you very much for the ideas, Mr. Mr. Williams. Really, really appreciate it. Happy to connect with you offline. Happy to give you an update in terms of Midfield Park and exactly where it's at and what I've learned since taking this over. You mentioned that you had a letter there from Mr. Wenzel. Happy for you to send it over to my office, but uh did you want it entered into the corporate record? You know what? What I'll do is I'll commit to just putting it onto paper and I'll send it to every Councillor's office and to the mayor's office just so they have it, because obviously if there's something the city can do better, obviously there's a fiduciary responsibility because we want to lower our cost of housing in this city, and uh that's one thing we can probably do is create more efficiencies. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. That's it for me, Rishi. All right. Councillor no. Madam Clerk, would you be willing to recap what we've done with ourselves over the last six days? I'd love to, Mayor Farkas. So all the way up until 9 30 tonight, council has heard from 64 members of the public. Sorry, today. Today council has heard 64 members of the public, and altogether over the last couple of days, 351. Do you have a sense of how many outstanding registered speakers that uh we haven't heard from? Approximately 200. Uh close to 200, Mayor Farkas, but um registrations have also been trickling in this evening, so those aren't completely unaccounted for yet. And uh our schedule is tomorrow with a pretty loaded regular meeting. And Tomorrow's agenda for the regular meeting of council is quite extensive. There's 27 items on the consent agenda, I believe, a number of notices of motions as well as a number of committee reports. It's a Wednesday, I believe, pretty similarly with the Community Development Committee. that's correct. Wednesday is the community development committee, and there's some large items on that agenda as well. Based on that, uh, Council Kelly, are you willing to move uh the appropriate motion for us to resume our public hearing on Thursday at 9 30 a.m.? And that'll be a recess of this meeting. All right. That is uh up on the screen, seconded by Councillor Pantasopolis. Uh all in favor? Any opposed? No one is opposed. That uh councillor Shabot is opposed. All right, Councillor is Shabot is opposed, and that motion is carried. Uh I will see you on Thursday for this meeting, and I will see you tomorrow for the other meeting.", "num_speakers": 77, "consolidated": true, "metadata": { "source_file": "2f70075c-e38f-4376-b0f0-da4209271ddc.json", "original_segment_count": 4272, "consolidated_segment_count": 985, "max_gap_seconds": 150.0, "reduction_percentage": 76.94 }, "file": "/tmp/tmp29p_y6ll/0e27337b-8aef-4120-98ba-d423eb22af68.mkv", "language": "en", "refined_by": "gemini" }