Calgary city councillors heard from the public on the next step of a controversial plan for the redevelopment of the Glenmore Landing commercial centre.

Councillors were presented with the Glenmore Landing Land Use and Design Framework, and the redesignation of special purpose lands to commercial community, multi-residential and high-density use.

Dozens of speakers participated in the public hearing on Tuesday afternoon, with both those for and against represented in a robust debate on the future of the RioCan-owned lands.

The initial plans for the project, located at 14 Street SW and 90 Avenue, are anticipated to include six towers built out over the next decade, with roughly 2,100 additional residents in the area.

Residents in the area around the Glenmore Landing development filled council chambers raising the alarm on a number of issues. These concerns have been well-documented in recent months, but include concern over the development’s proximity to the nearby Glenmore Reservoir water supply, shadowing of the buildings on neighbouring properties, aging infrastructure, destruction of ecologically sensitive land and the removal of parklands.

Area resident Tracy Cherniawsky questioned the transparency around the available information, and the need to be informed. She questioned claims this would help in making Calgary homes more affordable, plus create a parking nightmare.

“Now we live in a city that is continually changing and growing, and our city desperately needs affordable housing. However, let me be clear, building six towers in an affluent neighborhood will not be affordable housing. So, the claim that these apartment buildings will be helping with Calgary housing crisis, yeah, that’s not going to hold water,” she said.

“Oh, and as a side note, please note that people who do buy their homes in an affluent area, they don’t buy bikes to work. They own cars. At minimum, they have two cars per family, and you know that RioCan has promised to allot only a fraction of one parking stall per apartment.”

Glenmore Reservoir a ‘sacred place’

John Hutchins said he was raised in nearby Mayfair and recreated in the area around the reservoir. He said he’s opposed to the development because of the sheer magnitude.

“I always kind of thought there would be some development there. When we saw it was going to be multi-storey high rises, it just shocked everybody. There’s no need for that in that area,” he said.

“I’m a fifth-generation Calgarian, so I’ve seen all the changes in Calgary, and this is probably going be the most impacted, devastating change in the history of Calgary, because the Glenmore Reservoir is a sacred place. We cannot jeopardize this.”

Several of the speakers opposed to the development said more rigorous environmental studies are needed. They said that a completed Preliminary Natural Site Assessment isn’t enough, and that a more detailed Biophyiscal Impact Assessment (BIA) is needed.

(Note: A Biophysical Impact Assessment is required as a prior-to-release condition before any development.)

Heidi Green, director of development for RioCan, said they’ve been working over the past 19 months to gather “extremely valuable insight and feedback” from community members.

“We have thought about some big questions and completed critical analysis, as we always do with projects of this magnitude,” Green said.

“What has resulted is a responsible and appropriate plan that delivers critical housing in the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) area that is well supported by existing retail, natural outdoor space and established schools, hospitals and community areas.”

Green was asked why they didn’t come forward in a more graduated process, perhaps two buildings at a time, rather than the six initial buildings in one application.

“This is part of a bigger picture. We did enter into an agreement with purchase and sale, with the city for these lands, for which one of the conditions is to do a land use amendment for all for all parcels, for the entire piece of land,” she said.

“We often do this. It allows us to look at a site more cohesively, just to see how the individual parcels would work together.”

Transit-oriented development that’s been desired

Several speakers in favour of the Glenmore Landing proposal reminded both councillors and members of the public who spoke against the recent citywide upzoning, that they suggested redevelopment should be focused on transit-oriented development areas.

This site, while not directly connected to the LRT system, does have access to the MAX Yellow BRT line along 14 Street SW.  

Greg Miller said that developing on sites like this are consistent with the City of Calgary’s goal of sustainable development within the boundaries.

“We must find more sites like this within our city boundaries to build the homes we desperately need while respecting our environmental and financial footprint,” he said.  

“In short, if not here, then where? If not now, then when?”

Dr. Rajdeep Candola, a Calgary family doctor and Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary School of Medicine, said that he had a recent elderly patient who was distraught about a lack of housing.  He referenced the debate over citywide rezoning in his remarks.

“We heard during the debate over blanket rezoning that blanket rezoning is not the right way to deal with the lack of housing, that we should have transit-oriented development, that blanket rezoning won’t end up with low-income housing that’s truly needed,” he said.

 “Now we have the options on the table for transit-oriented development and for low-income housing, and now there is opposition to this. So, if you councillors oppose baseline zoning and low-income housing and transit-oriented development, the only reasonable conclusion isn’t that you have another solution, it’s that you’re just against housing.”

David Barrett, who spoke in favour of the development, used his professional background as a research scientist focused on water to debate the proposal’s merits. He said the impact on water quality should be focused on runoff capture and stormwater management on site. If done properly, it would mitigate most of the negative impacts.

“Additionally, this needs to be weighed against the alternative, relatively unconstrained growth at the edges of the city has a much greater deleterious effect on the environment as it reinforces auto-centric city design, it eats into environmentally-sensitive ecosystems and increases the overall footprint of the city,” he said.

Council had to suspend the item until Wednesday as there were other timed items at council on Tuesday. There were still 15 people slated to speak. It will resume Wednesday afternoon.