I always remain open to improving policy.
The Single-Use Items bylaw was passed a year ago in January 2023. As the bylaw came into effect on January 16, 2024, Council started hearing from residents.
We received a significant number of emails from residents across Calgary (as well as some from outside the city) regarding the bylaw. The biggest frustration I read about was the need to ask and pay for a bag at drive-thrus. While other complaints were raised, this was singularly the most identifiable issue.
As Council asked questions of Administration and debated the issue, what I heard from my colleagues was that a waste diversion and reduction strategy was needed but that this bylaw in its current form was not the solution they were seeking. A full year has passed for my colleagues to work with Administration to bring forward specific concerns and changes to the bylaw, or present other options for waste diversion, however, that didn’t happen. I continually heard comments of willingness to explore a ‘new’ bylaw but specifically what that could entail were not articulated.
I was ready to support an amendment to the bylaw Councillor Mian had prepared. The amendment was to remove the charge on paper bags at drive-thrus. The single most often made complaint. However, Councillor Wyness brought a motion first to start the repeal of the bylaw and the passing of that vote resulted in the start of that process and the end of any amendments.
Why did I vote “No” to the repeal?
Based on what I heard from residents and my council colleagues, I did not believe that a repeal was the right direction. I believed an amendment was a smarter and more prudent move. Repealing and recreating a bylaw is a costly and time-consuming activity. The time and effort that went into the bylaw is now a loss of dollars. This is not good fiscal or policy management.
The advertising will be created for the bylaw repeal and likely come to Council for decision in May of this year. That vote will be held at a public hearing of council which means the public is able to come speak to the decision before Council. I commit to sharing this information as these details become known .
Primary tasks will include:
Additional opportunities/tasks may include:
The successful applicant will work alongside the Community and Communications Liaison as well as Councillor Penner and the other two ward office team members.
This is a six month contract to start to ensure good office culture fit. The position is full time at 35-40 hours per week with flexible hours that will require some evening and weekend hours. The Ward 11 office offers the ability to work both in-office or from home. Pay will be dependent of experience and accreditation but at a minimum of $33 per hour.
We are looking for an individual whose values complement our fun and high performing team.
You are motivated by supporting people build better communities. You’re interested in public service, politics, and policy, neighbourhood development, and communication.
You have experience working with people and building strong relationships. This may be paid work or volunteer work, or a combination of both.
Your communication experience may be paid, volunteer, or personal. Writing and connecting through words, graphics, images, and videos should come naturally to you whether you’ve had formal training or not.
You have a foundation of basic knowledge that will support your growth. Your base skill set should include:
How to Apply
Send the following to email@example.com with Social Media Coordinator in the subject line:
Application Deadline: February 5, 2024
Interviews: February 15-16, 2024
Target Start Date: Feb 20, 2024
For months I have heard from many members of the community, on all sides, that both support and do not support the sale of this land for the purpose of housing.
The question before us today is: should we uphold the previous direction of council to sell the land, specifically to the owner of the shopping centre, to create housing.
Many of the desires for certainty around a proposed development are not before us today and remain part of ongoing conversations and amendments which are subject to further public and administrative feedback. I acknowledge that this causes discomfort among the community at this stage in the process.
Ultimately the decision before us is, are the arguments against (sale of the lands) compelling enough to reconsider the previous direction of Council as well as previous Council investments, including the South West BRT?
The two main reasons I have heard for not disposing of the land are:
As our city grows, traffic congestion will increase. The roads in and through Ward 11 see more vehicles now than ever, and not due to population increases within the ward, but due to growth at the edges of our city. Unfortunately, population growth does lead to congestion, decision continuously as a council is to decide where to house people – on the outskirts where they have to drive further to get to amenities and often wait years for transit service, or near existing services and amenities including transit.
We continue to invest in modes of transportation other than car use. A dedicated BRT line was built directly adjacent to this property, predicated on the fact that the site had been identified for future housing use. The complaints that the BRT is under-utilized is the reason we need to follow through on that investment, by directly placing people next to the investments we’ve already made. This is smart spending and good policy.
Ward 11 has amazing park spaces and I remain committed to investing in them and the people who are working within their neighbourhoods to revitalize these spaces. Parks look and feel like many things, and yes, when and where appropriate I will continue to advocate for the protection of park spaces as it aligns and balances with all of our objective and goals. What I want for parks are places where people can gather in community, meet their neighbours, or find solace from the busyness of our lives. These lands are not that. And as we choose where to invest our park dollars towards creating better community spaces, there are many other spots across Ward 11 that come to mind long before these lands.
Wildlife matters and appropriate habitats are critical to their co-habitation alongside humans. The lands in question offer little variety by way of fescues, trees, or diverse habitat. Re-wilding the space to something more diverse would aim to encourage wildlife to live between a parking lot and massive roadways. This does NOT support true protection of wildlife.
We are needing to continuously balance the inevitable growth of our city against all undeveloped land – Is the trade-off we are willing to make, to forgo these 5 acres adjacent to services and amenities for more growth on the edge of our city to accommodate a growing population? Our policies talk about growth in all communities, and I have always been honest and truthful that I support this goal.
Densification is a part of our climate strategy. Placing people next to transit and amenities is part of our climate strategy. As councillors we have to look at numerous policies and strategies, and all their objectives in a holistic manner in order to balance providing housing while protecting biodiversity.
The proposed sale is not against either our Biodivercity or Climate strategies:
From our Biodivercity strategy it reads: Seen through a more holistic lens, development offers an opportunity to meet both environmental and urbanization needs, which are ultimately connected to social and economic goals and the general welfare of Calgarians.
Our climate strategy reads: Allow a greater mix of housing types and support uses throughout all parts of Calgary to facilitate complete communities and reduce dependency on private vehicles.
It is not comfortable to stand here and respond to many members of the community and say that the evidence you’ve presented isn’t compelling enough for me to not support the disposition of this land. That when I look at the data and facts before me and include my own use and knowledge of the lands, that I do not agree. This doesn’t mean that I haven’t heard you or that I do not appreciate your concerns and the work you’ve down to ensure your voice is heard. What it means is that on the balance of the evidence against our many policies, including climate, that I disagree with those opposed.
As always, I commit to working through each step and continuing to provide information to residents. The land use application is undergoing review and edits and I know many are eager to discuss this further, nothing is a done deal.
I encourage my colleagues to support the position of administration to receive this report for information and to forward it to council for decision on the disposition at that time.
You can watch the recording of Kourtney’s remarks to move to debate (at time stamp 6:10:55) along with the agenda, related materials and full video here:
Summary of Public Advertisement Feedback and Request for Approval – Ward 11 (1630 90 AV SW & 8945 14 ST SW), IP2024-0065 - Infrastructure and Planning Committee - January 10, 2024 (escribemeetings.com)
January 12 UPDATE:
December 22 UPDATE:
October 23 & 25 UPDATES:
October 10 UPDATE:
October 2 UPDATE:
RioCan posted the following update and details of an upcoming information session for community members on their website Home - Glenmore Landing (community-developmentinfo.com):
Since we submitted our initial Outline Plan, Land Use Redesignation and Draft Plan of Subdivision in Spring 2023, we have been working with the City of Calgary to refine our applications and as we continue to do so, we want to re-engage with community members and tenants for further feedback. We want to share what we heard from you and how we have addressed your comments in our applications.
We’re hosting an Information Session for community members! Use the link to sign up for a timeslot on our Eventbrite webpage. Registration is required – no drop-ins will be accepted.
Eventbrite Registration: glenmorelanding.eventbrite.ca
Information Session Details
Date: October 25, 2023
Time: 10am – 8pm
Location: Heritage Park – Gasoline Alley Mezzanine (Second Floor). Elevators available.
Please note: Timeslot registration is on a first-come-first-serve basis to manage attendance, reduce long lines, and to ensure we can discuss the project with all attendees. Eventbrite reservations will be checked at the door. 90-minute free parking available with plate registration.
September 15 UPDATE:
We received the following update from RioCan:
"RioCan has received valuable feedback from the community on the proposed development at Glenmore Landing and understand that the site is an important feature for surrounding neighbourhoods. We will be returning for further engagement on October 25th to share project updates with the community and revisions made to the Land Use application, including but not limited to the lowering of building heights. We understand that there are outstanding questions or concerns with respect to traffic and parking and are in the process of or committed to completing the necessary studies to ensure this redevelopment is feasible. All this and more will be shared with the community at our next engagement session."
Visit Home - Glenmore Landing (community-developmentinfo.com) for more information and updates from the developer.
July 28 UPDATE:
Kourtney’s Responses to Common Concerns re. RioCan Glenmore Landing Redevelopment
Thank you to everyone who submitted comments on the proposed RioCan Glenmore Landing Redevelopment and shared those comments with the Ward 11 Office.
The feedback received as part of the engagement process will inform ongoing conversations between Kourtney, the developer, RioCan, and City Administration in acknowledging and addressing the project challenges and opportunities of the project.
The officially submitted comments are being compiled and documented by Planning and have not been shared with us yet. We can state that comments we have heard thus far that relate to such matters as building height, intersection safety, and construction staging timelines are of critical importance.
Compiled feedback and further project information should be available in the fall and as we know more, we will share with the community as well as update the project info page on Kourtney’s website where you can find current information to date.
Kourtney will continue to consider community feedback while evaluating the proposal based on its merits and drawbacks, in conjunction with city-wide policies and goals.
Please find Kourtney’s response to each of the summarized common concerns received by the Ward 11 Office. These common concerns have been shared with both RioCan and City Planning for respective comment/response.
You can also watch a video of Kourtney discussing these points
Kourtney’s comment on the proposed development by Glenmore Landing
My role at this time is to continue to consider community feedback while evaluating the proposal based on its merits and drawbacks, in conjunction with city-wide policies and goals.
Overall, I welcome residential development at the RioCan site. It has long been identified as a potential residential growth area. The City continues to try and accommodate the need for new homes across the city without sprawling outwards, and this site is well situated to offer new residents access to established services such as transit, schools, shopping, and recreation.
The initial proposal is not without its flaws and there is much still to be determined and agreed upon. City Planning and I continue to encourage RioCan to refine their proposal and as those amendments are completed, to return to the community for further engagement which will likely occur in fall 2023.
Comment: “The proposed building heights are too high.”
I’ve expressed concerns with the shadowing directly to RioCan and will evaluate their changes as they come forward based on comments from the public and my own observations on the project.
The shadows, sun glare, and privacy concerns of the proposed heights, - particularly of the East towers, are well warranted. I will continue to work with RioCan on heights that are contextually sensitive to the existing community and naturalized areas while still allowing for a viable development.
Comment: “There is not a need for (affordable) housing in this area.”
Affordable Housing is needed throughout Calgary.
This including market rentals, below market units, and dedicated seniors housing. The towers to the West, along 90th avenue are continually sought after and full, indicating good market potential in this area.
It is important that we welcome housing in all forms across the city to accommodate incoming and existing Calgarians.
Affordable Housing, as we commonly use the term, in Calgary refers to units that are rented at below market rate, often managed, and provided through a non-profit housing provider though not in all cases.
The application would be what is deemed mixed-market, meaning the units would be of both below and at market rates.
Comment: “There will be a loss of parking.”
The plan does not propose to take away any existing parking from the site. However, this seems to be an issue requiring clarity from RioCan and I have/will ask for them to communicate to the community.
There is an area of currently underused parking which the developer plans to use for construction staging East of Safeway. The parking lot currently does not fill as there are regularly open spots on the east side of the property. Further, housing on the site will need to provide for a ratio of new parking for their residents and guests which aligns with City policy and will be part of the final land-use agreement.
As a private site, parking for uses such as access to the reservoir pathway are not required to be contemplated in the review. The site is under no obligation to provide free parking for pathway users. That said, this is a reality and RioCan is aware of this benefit their site offers to Calgarians.
Comment: “This will create an increase in traffic that creates an unsafe environment.”
More homes and businesses do indeed bring more traffic. Applications of this size require a traffic impact assessment provided by the applicant which reviews the number of units/proposed population, access by emergency vehicles, commercial truck traffic, along with pedestrian and cycling movement. This will all be part of the ongoing conversations and is standard in the development process.
A site such as this is contained service-wise and with proximity to transit, walking, and cycling should alleviate some of these pressures.
The intersections and access points on site will be reviewed for function and this application provides an opportunity to look towards enhancing these intersections to provide better pedestrian and cycling crossings along with traffic pattern improvements.
I am committed to ensuring this work is completed as part of amenity upgrades that coincide with the development.
Comment: “90 Ave and 14th Street need upgrades due to the ring road connection, so this development is not compatible”
At this time 90 Ave continues to be reviewed for vehicle count, speeds, and safety. There have been upgrades such as lights and overhead pedestrian crossing signals in the past 12 months which have been due to advocacy from our office upon hearing residents’ concerns. Our understanding is that no further upgrades to 90 Ave pertaining to the ring road connection are planned. Administration is the lead on traffic and roads and will be able to offer further information in the coming months.
Comment: The area schools cannot handle the population increase.
Schools in the area are not at capacity. The site is within walking distance to multiple elementary schools and two junior high schools.
Comment: Businesses will be lost.
RioCan’s business model relies upon occupancy in their units be it residential or commercial.
I will defer to RioCan to comment on why compromising the relationship with their tenants is not in their best interests and how construction will be mindful of the need for businesses tenants to stay operational during the construction. No businesses are being moved or displaced to accommodate construction. A more populous area better supports commercial activity, in particular grocery stores.
Additionally, residential towers present the opportunity for further businesses to be part of the site to complement other uses.
Comment: “The construction will take too long.”
Project of this scale regardless of location take time. Per above, RioCan will be looking to protect their existing assets to ensure the site is operationally viable. Thus, mitigating construction disruptions will be critical for them.
I am mindful that the construction could impact the multi-use pathway on the South side of the site, and we will be working to ensure the pathway stays open throughout the duration of the build.
Comment: “This will eliminate green space and impact wildlife.”
The wooded green space to the North is not contemplated for redevelopment. We know this area supports wildlife so I will be discussing this further with RioCan and Admin and asking for mitigations to concerns such as light pollution, sun glare, and sound during and after construction.
The grass berms being proposed to use for construction are not significant in terms of ecology. Tree loss will be compensated according to city policy and new greenery can be part of the requirements in any development permit. I will be asking Administration and RioCan to update their communication to clarify these points.
Comment: “This will negatively impact water quality in the reservoir and/or the ecology of the area around the reservoir.”
There are no indicators that this site could or would impact water quality through development.
Water quality of the Glenmore reservoir is primarily affected by rainfall, runoff, pollutants from users, and upstream activity along the Elbow.
The naturalized areas surrounding the site could be affected by shadows hence why I will be discussing this further with RioCan and Administration to minimize impacts to plant and animal life.
Comment: “This development will negatively impact property value of nearby homes and communities.”
Redevelopment alone does not decrease property values. However, I am concerned about impacts of shadowing affecting property values should they not be corrected which I have addressed with the applicant for change.
Comment: “The increase in density will result in an increase in crime in neighbouring communities.”
Density alone does not increase crime rates and the inference that those residing in the buildings would either be the criminals or attract criminals is not rooted in any fact. There are no evident examples in Calgary where housing has increased crime.
Comment: Regarding climate and carbon mindful builds “Will there be solar, electrical charging stations, bird-friendly windows to prevent collisions? Air purification? Heating methods? Etc”
These are NOT land use application considerations and would have to be discussed at the development permit stage.
May 22, 2023
The RioCan Glenmore Landing redevelopment project (LOC2023-0130) is in the public engagement phase led by the developer, RioCan. The engagement focuses on exploration, feedback gathering, and working through conceptual design ideas.
At this stage, it is important for community members to engage in this process and be aware of available information and resources to provide informed feedback, comments, and questions. The role of Councillor Penner is to consider the feedback from individuals and nearby organizations based on this engagement process. Currently, comments we are hearing predominantly relate to effects on traffic, parking, and understanding of affordable/subsidized housing and density.
The Ward 11 office was aware of the open-houses hosted in Palliser, Bayview, Pumphill (PBP) and the Haysboro community associations (CAs) and we had opportunity to attend and observe at these events. These open-houses are a good avenue to learn about the proposal and provide constructive comments directly to the developer. Councillor Penner met with RioCan prior to these open-houses and looks forward to follow-up conversations to discuss the information that was shared, and the summarization of feedback heard from attendees and Community Associations.
Important information and resources about the project:
At this time, the Ward 11 Office will continue to receive community feedback and help share information (as above) and be in communication with City Administration as they steward the process of this development application, as well as remaining in contact with the developer RioCan to stay informed of the process timelines. The role of Councillor Penner at this time is to consider community feedback while evaluating the proposal based on its merits and drawbacks, in conjunction with city-wide policies and goals.
Below is a summary of the timeline and process of the development with the City:
First pre-application submitted.
Council Notice of Motion passed directing Administration to work with RioCan (applicant/owner):
2016 – 2022, Negotiations held between RioCan and the City’s Real Estate & Development Services (REDS)
2019, Second pre-application reviewed by Administration, mostly a technical review regarding servicing/infrastructure
2022 (Fall), Purchase & Sale Agreement struck between RioCan and REDS. PSA has clause that land use must be approved by Council by early 2024.
2022 (Fall), Third pre-application reviewed by Administration, mostly Q&A re: technical components and process expectations for a formal application
2023 (March), Fourth pre-application reviewed by Administration, including master plan concept for short term and long-term redevelopment. Master plan concept was also reviewed by UDRP mid-March.
2023 (April), Applicant-led engagement/outreach with surrounding communities and interested parties. Administration was not involved in the engagement.
2023 (May), Planned submission of outline plan and land use amendment (LOC) application to City by applicant.
2023 (July 6), Public comments due
2023 (Fall), Plan for redevelopment goes before Calgary Planning Commission
It is important to make the distinction between similar terms in the development process:
Land sale – is about the sale of the City-owned lands.
Land use – refers to how the City may prohibit, regulate and control the use and development of land and buildings in the municipality.
Important upcoming dates:
January 10 – Land sale at Infrastructure and Planning Committee (IPC) meeting.
Committee will review the terms of the sale (this may be done in closed session which is common for such deliberations) and answer the question of whether this land should be sold for redevelopment. The Committees decision will then be forwarded to Council for consideration and final approval at the January 30th Regular Meeting of Council.
The public will have opportunity to speak to the item on January 10. Note, the matter before Committee is the sale of the land, not the development, and as such, comments must be specific to the land sale and not the proposed land use application. You can register to speak at Public Submission to City Clerks (calgary.ca). The opportunity to speak is open until the public hearing is closed on the item. If you receive an automated message about speaking or having missed a deadline, please know you will be accommodated. I have worked with Councillor Sharp to ensure the item will be the first of the day. Committee starts at 9:30am and is held in Council Chambers.
January 30 – After Committee makes a recommendation about the proposed land sale it will go before Council at a Regular Meeting of Council for final approval.
Since the opportunity for public comments is accommodated at the earlier January 10 committee meeting, there is no public opportunity to speak at Jan 30 Council meeting.
Depending on the outcome of the land sale, the next step would be for the land use application to go before Council at a yet to be determined Public Hearing of Council. The public will have the ability to speak to Council on the proposed land use at this meeting of council, the details of which will be shared once available.
Having heard from many residents, I know there are outstanding questions with respect to a few items. You can review my previous responses to past common concerns here. I am pleased to state that after a lot of discussion with the applicant and City Administration, most of these are known and, having been assessed by the Detail Assessment Review Team (DART), can be shared below. Others will continue to be answered if the application progresses to Council for the land use application and further to Administration for a development permit application.
(Italicized Answers Provided by Administration)
With Respect to Environmental Concerns
Utilities & Water Table
The servicing strategy for the Outline Plan has not yet been provided, however, the site will need to tie into the existing storm system on 14 ST SW, which feeds into the Bow River at outfall B1. It will not feed into one of the existing outfalls into the Glenmore reservoir. The risk of stormwater being directed to the reservoir for this redevelopment is considered to be low.
No overland drainage will be permitted to leave the plan area and discharge to parks and open spaces, except in conformance with an approved Stormwater Management Report (which will provide further details on how the project will contain stormwater run-off from the development site).
In general terms groundwater will need to be managed around any foundations proposed within the site and would be collected as part of the overall onsite stormwater management. Downtown also has a high groundwater table and in those locations the expectation is that buildings are designed to manage groundwater in an appropriate fashion to protect the building and minimize any offsite impact. This would apply to this location too. There was no submission or a requirement for a submission for predictive modelling for groundwater.
The Glenmore Reservoir itself falls geographically within the Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone (KWBZ), and the proposed development is approximately 230m away from the zone boundary. The KWBZ extends along the entire Elbow River reach that is upstream (west) of the Glenmore Dam, including the Glenmore Reservoir. In the screenshot below, the KWBZ is highlighted in purple.
Reservoir Water Quality
Recreational use on the Glenmore Reservoir needs to be carefully managed to ensure future water quality is maintained. It is expected that with increased development near the Reservoir, there will be a corresponding increase of use. Bylaw regulations remain in place for the Reservoir which includes: no pets in water, on boats or on ice; pets must be on leash at all times in the Glenmore Park and on the shore of the reservoir, no stand-up paddle boards, no swimming in the reservoir, no inflatables, and no power motors.
I am consistently in touch with the water management team to discuss use of the reservoir. As drinking water quality is our first priority, I am confident the team will continue to monitor use. No single application will put pressure on the use of the reservoir, however a naturally growing population may. Those who walk or wheel around the reservoir, both existing and future, need to ensure they’re respecting a healthy park and pathway environment.
There are no indications that building in proximity to the reservoir will affect the water quality.
The TIA is ongoing with further analysis underway to look at various improvements to serve the phased redevelopment and density proposed. Although it may appear the area is constrained, there are several improvements to the network that can provide efficiencies to suit the density. The design treatments and negotiations for those improvements, including relevance under this proposed density, are ongoing along with the overall site design proposal. This work is a critical piece in the process to ensure the future development will integrate cohesively with the existing surrounding residential and commercial area.
Regarding the scope of the TIA, the existing site (as the traffic generator), future density on site, and the surrounding residential areas have been scoped into the traffic modelling within the network. This includes volumes and active mode activity created by the proposed development. Additionally, design review includes what is termed as background traffic for a specific horizon or future that includes 2039, for instance. This allows for the projection of capacity and potential improvements necessary to serve the affected roadways, pedestrian and transit connections, and associated network improvements. Additional link forecasts are included which are beyond the site boundary and a sensitivity analysis (surrounding area redevelopment) to ensure interconnecting development is acknowledged in the forecasted future impact to the network, whether auto based, transit, or pedestrian.
At this time, as the question most immediate before us is should the land be sold yes or no, further comments about traffic will be saved for the land use application stage when final details about population projections will be presented.