Infill Development Discussion

[outoftheice]

The crazy thing with that is I think most 'pro-housing' voted in favour of the RCG redesign thinking that they were somehow helping, when in reality they are essentially creating an un-buildable form.

 

[lemongrab]

Reverting blanket rezoning is not the real issue at hand. Council is also trying to slash RCG typology from 4+4 to 3+0 based on density calculation (75 UPH v 60 UPH) and interpretation of Unit (vs suites)

This will effectively eliminate new family-sized rental housing in Calgary's established communities.

The moment you need to increase your living situation from 2-bed to 3-bed, you're forced to the suburbs.... unless you have $1m for a new infill.

Was this in the Dec. 15 meeting? I saw the 75 to 60 change, but I didn't catch the interpretation of units/suites? I presume this is the motion:

The crazy thing with that is I think most 'pro-housing' voted in favour of the RCG redesign thinking that they were somehow helping, when in reality they are essentially creating an un-buildable form.

Assuming this was the motion arising above that was edited on the fly, I believe Chabot suggested that it was just a starting point to be further refined at the public hearing in March. Which doesn't make sense to me as this sounds pretty darn prescriptive and would mean they'd be editing it on the fly again in March.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it certainly doesn't seem like the thoughtful process to replace blanket rezoning with something better and more strategic like they promised.

 

[TooBizzy]

The crazy thing with that is I think most 'pro-housing' voted in favour of the RCG redesign thinking that they were somehow helping, when in reality they are essentially creating an un-buildable form.

Funny too how all the anti-R-CG folks voted against it, they see it as bad for them strategically.

I think the play is to go to the Public Hearing and pitch these as mutually exclusive. Either you make R-CG more incremental from the current built form to H-GO, such that it would be politically palatable enough to remain everywhere - or you go back to regulating it like nuclear waste, with special Council approval required each and every time, while keeping it viable.

Otherwise developers will see that it's the same LOC process to get R-CG as it is to get H-GO or M-CG, and they'll just go for those.

 

[lemongrab]

Funny too how all the anti-R-CG folks voted against it, they see it as bad for them strategically.

I think the play is to go to the Public Hearing and pitch these as mutually exclusive. Either you make R-CG more incremental from the current built form to H-GO, such that it would be politically palatable enough to remain everywhere - or you go back to regulating it like nuclear waste, with special Council approval required each and every time, while keeping it viable.

Otherwise developers will see that it's the same LOC process to get R-CG as it is to get H-GO or M-CG, and they'll just go for those.

I had hoped that this was where things might head, but it seems clear that at least 8 votes are set in stone (but probably more). I think the RCG revisions will be for a new framework/strategy to approach the missing middle, but it seems the first attempt towards a new framework failed.

I had to go back and check because it was hard to follow the motions arising without looking at the minutes. After they passed the preliminary RCG tweaks the final motion arising was this - Schmidt leads by acknowledging it was written by Farkas

So a lot to unpack there, but I think you can boil it down to: direct admin to figure out a framework alternative to blanket rezoning, and make sure we keep access to funding like HAF.

Earlier in the meeting Farkas said:

“Federal officials confirmed that compliance with the Housing Accelerator Fund is assessed based on housing outcomes, not the use of any single zoning tool. Blanket rezoning was not identified as a legal requirement of the HAF contribution agreement,” he told councillors.

Farkas said he “explicitly” asked Minister Champagne about the elimination of citywide rezoning from the Land-Use Bylaw, and the minister told him that they supported “a flexible approach that respects local decision making.”

But LWC seems to share my sense that the matter isn't fully settled.

“We are aware of Calgary’s proposal and are reviewing the details, but we’ve said both publicly and in conversations with the City of Calgary that we expect municipalities to fulfill the agreements they signed with the federal government in order to get access to federal funds,” read the emailed statement from office spokesperson Renée LeBlanc Proctor.


“If a partner’s agreed upon commitments aren’t met or are reversed, this puts their HAF funding at risk.”


Government sources have also told LWC that a final decision on Calgary’s HAF funding hasn’t yet been made.


The HAF funding agreement does reference exclusionary zoning and making changes related to broad upzoning allowing more housing choice.


The mayor also said that he spoke with provincial officials, who expressed support for a local approach.


“They pledged to forcefully advocate for and defend Calgary’s interests with the federal government, should council choose to proceed in that direction, including with respect to maintaining HAF funding,” Farkas said.


Farkas said that, technically, the HAF agreement involves the province and the federal governments.

I would speculate that the motion above that failed was probably an important step in fully satisfying the feds. I imagine we will still get there eventually, but I'm not taking anything for granted with this council. And then the provincial element adds another layer of interest...the UCP might love to have a grievance like this against the feds...