HISTORY OF GLENMORE LANDING LANDS AND SURROUNDING PARKLANDS
Learn more about our history and the City of Calgary's prior stance on parkland protection at Glenmore Landing.
In the late 1970’s a company called Campeau Corporation owned 38 acres at the corner of 90th Avenue and 14th Street SW in Calgary.
​
Campeau Corporation applied to develop the lands for high rise towers and retail on 2 separate occasions. The City of Calgary denied both of these applications.
​
Campeau Corporation sued the City on the basis that the denials were based on an irrelevant consideration, that being the City’s insistence that the lands be park as part of the parks surrounding the reservoir.
​
The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court’s decision was that the City had from a planning procedural perspective relied on an irrelevant consideration, so the Court ordered the City to consider the application again. At that point, the City said it would expropriate and/or purchase the lands so they could be parklands. After significant negotiations, which went on for years, a settlement was reached between the City and Campeau Corporation. Pursuant to this settlement, Campeau Corporation was granted the right to develop a small regional shopping centre on 10 acres in an open “village” style, with height restrictions and with the intent that the centre would interface well with the surrounding parklands. The intent was also that the centre would not be visible from adjoining parklands or that such visibility would be minimized. The other part of the settlement was that the balance of the lands, being 28 acres and including the lands to the south, to the west and to the east of the shopping centre, were transferred to the City as parklands.
​
The subdivision, land use amendment and development files of the City show clearly that these lands were transferred to the City as parklands.
​
In addition, it was a condition to the approvals that an agreement, which the City calls the “Park Agreement”, be entered into between the City and the owner of the shopping centre (at that time Intrawest) stating that the lands to the south, to the west and to the east of the shopping centre would only be utilized as park and that the owner of the shopping centre would be required to maintain these parklands. The Park Agreement also states that no buildings can be built on these lands. The Park Agreement is registered at the Land Titles Office against the title to Glenmore Landing.
The Park Agreement also states that if the City uses any of the parklands for any of the express permitted uses referenced in the Park Agreement other than park, the remainder of the lands would carry on as parklands subject to the agreement. This is presumably how the BRT was built using some of these lands. This is further evidence that the parklands are not “surplus” as is discussed below.
​
Originally, we understand that these parklands were zoned “PE”. When the new Land Use Bylaw was implemented, the lands are now zoned C-SC, which is a zoning that refers to recreational and educational purposes. This zoning has as a permitted use “park”. The Land Use Bylaw defines park use to include lands used as park. The definition is not limited to lands zoned as “Municipal Reserve” as is being incorrectly advanced by some City officials.
​
In 2015, the City passed a “Notice of Motion” declaring that the parklands that are the subject of the Park Agreement are “surplus” and stating that negotiations would ensue with the owner of the shopping centre to develop these lands, including for social housing. The fundamental flaw in this Notice of Motion in our view is that it is based on the premise that development of the parklands (which cannot be developed) is limited by access.
​
The absurd and invalid nature of this Notice of Motion is in our view obvious on its face. Based on that Notice of Motion, the City has purported to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with RioCan to sell these lands to RioCan, subject to the zoning of the lands being changed to allow for the construction of high rise towers.
​
The City originally resisted our statements that the parklands that the City is proposing to sell to RioCan are park. However, the City has now recognized the problem in the process it has followed and has now advertised the sale of the parklands pursuant to section 70 of the Municipal Government Act. Notwithstanding this, rhetoric continues in which the nature of the parklands is misdescribed…the parklands are called “berms”, “grassy areas”, lands that are not “ecologically significant”, and “remnant parcels”. This rhetoric is misdescribing the parklands and is in our view not only incorrect but inappropriate.
​
We also have concerns as to whether the section 70 Public Notice that has been placed in the Calgary Herald adequately describes the proposed sale of the parklands in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Government Act and other applicable laws relating to consultations and disclosure.
legal
We question whether the meeting for the Infrastructure and Planning Committee has been properly called and can be properly constituted.
“I respectfully submit to the committee that this meeting has not been properly called and as a result cannot be properly constituted or called to order.
​
The public has not been made aware of this meeting and in particular that the public is able to speak at the meeting by way of a public notice. The two “Public Notices” that were placed in the Calgary Herald pursuant to section 70 of the Municipal Government Act do not refer to this committee meeting, are deficient and do not satisfy the legal requirements pursuant to the Municipal Government Act and otherwise at law to “advertise” the proposed transaction. “Advertise” has a meaning beyond the simple placing of a brief and incomplete notice in the newspaper. The Public Notices do not describe the proposed buyer. These Public Notices do not describe the transaction, do not describe the terms and conditions of the proposed sale, do not refer to a proposed closing date, and do not disclose the purchase price for the lands. In correspondence from the City, a land exchange was referred to. This is not described in the Public Notices. The agreement of purchase and sale as between the City of Calgary and RioCan is being withheld by the City and not disclosed, which is contrary to the Municipal Government Act. How can such an important document be kept secret and not disclosed to the public? The Traffic Impact Assessment and Preliminary Environmental Natural Site Assessment relating to the proposed redevelopment of Glenmore Landing is not being made available. How can the citizens of Calgary fully comment on the proposed sale of public park when such information is being withheld.
This meeting has not been properly called and cannot proceed as presently proposed.”