Common Ground
These are compromise themes that speakers from different stances independently converged on — ideas with cross-stance support that could represent starting points for council action.
Empower Local Area Plans
Strengthen the legal authority, community integration, and strategic application of Local Area Plans (LAPs) to guide development and achieve community-specific density goals.
Explicitly advocates for a 'yes, and' strategy that combines both density types rather than choosing one over the other, emphasizing political negotiation for the 'sweet spot'.
Context: A hybrid approach combining both density around transit nodes and city-wide gentle density is necessary, with the exact balance ('sweet spot') being a political decision.
Replace blanket rezoning with local area plans.
Context: The City of Calgary should repeal blanket rezoning and replace it with local area plans (LAPs).
Return to or replicate successful aspects of past LAP processes.
Context: Prior to blanket rezoning, local area plans engaged communities, considered infrastructure, schools, and public transit access, and resulted in supported densification.
Return to careful planning and consultation methods like LAPs.
Context: Council knows that careful planning and consultation (like LAPs) are the correct methods for increasing density and affordable housing.
Streamline the local area planning process.
Context: Local area plans worked in the past and can be streamlined by this council for greater efficiency.
Implement LAPs in smaller, focused groups to ensure intelligent density and infrastructure alignment.
Context: Local area plans are a great approach, especially when implemented in smaller, manageable community groups, allowing for intelligent densification that considers existing infrastructure capacity (e.g., water mains).
Establish an accessible property register and a municipal acquisition program for these properties to ensure their retention and availability.
Context: The City should create a register of properties with accessibility modifications (similar to historic building registers) and proactively acquire them when for sale to preserve accessible housing stock for those in need.
Suggests that density increases can be acceptable if accompanied by proper thought and planning.
Context: Increasing density without proper planning inevitably creates more problems for the city to manage.
Suggests a conditional path for multiplexes if they undergo neighborhood consultation, gain support, and align with local area plans.
Context: Multiplex development should require neighborhood consultation, community support, and utilization of local area plans.
Conditional support for density increases if they follow a logical process including consultation and adherence to local area plans.
Context: Density increases are acceptable in some locations but must be implemented logically, with proper consultation, dialogue, and examination of local area plans.
Implies that problems can be mitigated or avoided through better planning processes.
Context: Proper planning can avoid issues such as lack of parking, increased traffic, overcrowded schools, and ailing infrastructure.
Suggests resolving the contentious issue through a direct public vote (referendum/plebiscite) rather than a council decision.
Context: The rezoning repeal proposal should be put to a referendum or plebiscite for all Calgarians to decide.
The suggestion of a referendum implies overcoming the accessibility barriers of council meetings for broader public participation.
Context: Council meetings pose a high barrier to entry for public participation, especially for heated topics, being held during workweeks, midday, and with short notice.
Seeks transparent use of funding, not its outright rejection.
Context: The concern is not about opposing external funding itself, but about ensuring that such funding does not secretly shape decisions without transparency and public awareness.
Proposes reversing decisions as a mechanism for rebuilding trust, contingent on legitimate and widespread concerns.
Context: Restoring public trust necessitates transparency, accountability, and a willingness to reverse decisions when legitimate and widespread concerns are raised.
Introduce a landlord and property manager licensing system.
Context: The city must implement business licensing for landlords and property managers to ensure new homes are safe and well-maintained.
Return to thoughtful, community-minded planning aligned with local area plans.
Context: The speaker supports a return to thoughtful, community-minded planning that aligns with local area plans.
Advocates for using local area plans that are smaller and tailored to specific community characteristics as an alternative.
Context: There is support for utilizing smaller, more characteristic-specific local area plans as an alternative to blanket rezoning.
Willingness to engage in discussions about local area plans as a method for future rezoning.
Context: The Rosemont community would be receptive to discussions about local area plans for future thoughtful rezoning.
Advocates for repealing blanket rezoning and instead using local area plans for site-specific development decisions.
Context: The speaker and her group desire to repeal blanket rezoning and then use local area plans to decide specific development types (e.g., sixplex, triplex) on a case-by-case basis.
Suggests returning to the local area planning process as a better alternative.
Context: The city previously utilized a comprehensive local area planning process that involved studying infrastructure, traffic, congestion, identifying suitable development sites, and community collaboration, resulting in measured, sustainable, and supported growth.
Explicitly asks to return to the former planning method.
Context: The city should revert to the previous local area planning process.
Suggests using LAPs as an alternative, more collaborative approach to planning.
Context: Local Area Plans (LAPs) have been shaped by community volunteers who spent hundreds of hours identifying appropriate places for growth.
Empower local area plans to give residents choices regarding density and development, while complying with the Municipal Governance Act.
Context: Local area plans should be utilized to empower residents with choices regarding development in their communities.
Implement resident choice via local area plans, but ensure a minimum density (e.g., duplex + 2 suites) to meet Housing Accelerator Fund requirements.
Context: Local area plans could offer residents choices for density, potentially with a baseline density (e.g., duplex plus two basement suites for four units) required to retain Housing Accelerator Funds.
Present residents with clear trade-offs between density, service levels, and taxation within local area plan discussions to guide decisions.
Context: Residents could be asked via local area plans whether they prefer higher taxes, service cuts, or increased neighborhood density.
Utilize local area plans to gather community feedback and gain explicit community approval for density, which would then lead to city-approved redesignation.
Context: Local area plans are important for gathering community feedback, and the speaker supports city-approved redesignation in areas where communities endorse density through these plans.
Improvements to bylaw enforcement.
Context: He previously gave conditional support for blanket rezoning almost two years ago, with the condition being improvements to bylaw enforcement.
Improve bylaw tools and processes.
Context: While bylaw staff do their best, their existing tools and processes are inadequate and require improvement.
Willingness to share specific ideas for improvement.
Context: He possesses concrete ideas on how to improve bylaw tools and processes.
Leverage LAPs for expedited approvals in areas with community support for density.
Context: Utilizing Local Area Plans (LAPs) to accelerate processes where supported would facilitate faster and better-located home construction.
While LAPs are effective, there is a need for faster alternatives or parallel processes for communities not in the LAP queue.
Context: The LAP process is very time-consuming and requires significant effort.
Develop broader guidelines for development in key areas to bridge gaps where LAPs are absent.
Context: High-level general rules around nodes, corridors, and mobility networks could provide certainty to builders and communities in areas without LAPs.
Differentiate process speed based on location to incentivize development in strategic areas.
Context: Implementing faster approval processes for development in preferred locations (corridors, near transit) compared to less preferred ones (cul-de-sacs) would incentivize developers to build where desired and get homes built quicker.
Focus on regulatory cost reduction via process streamlining to enhance affordability.
Context: Reducing regulatory costs through process improvements can make housing more affordable.
Request for a specific, comprehensive rollback of the bylaw to a previous stable state.
Context: If council decides to repeal the city-wide application of RCG, the land use bylaw should be reconstituted to its status prior to August 2024.
Retaining essential technical corrections during a bylaw rollback.
Context: If the land use bylaw is reconstituted, previously approved housekeeping amendments should be retained to maintain technical clarity.
Utilizing LAPs as a collaborative framework for land use decisions.
Context: Local Area Plans (LAPs) are effective tools for land use planning because they inherently foster collaboration among the city, industry, and community.
Utilize existing tools like Local Area Plans (LAPs) and foster collaboration to identify appropriate density locations, rather than blanket rezoning.
Context: Collaborative work between administration, communities, and industry can effectively use existing policies, tools, and engagement processes (like LAPs) to identify suitable locations for sensitive density in established areas.
Implement high-level, guiding rules for development in areas without LAPs, focusing on mobility networks, nodes, and corridors to provide predictability.
Context: CISPA would support high-level general rules (e.g., around nodes, corridors, mobility networks) to provide certainty to builders and communities about where applications are expected in areas currently lacking an LAP.