Zoning Bylaw Renewal Update (October 2023)
On Monday, October 23rd, 2023, Edmonton City Council approved a new Zoning Bylaw in an 11-2 vote. I voted in favour of the new Zoning Bylaw and this post will detail some of the most common feedback I heard over the last 5 years as well as my reasons for supporting this bylaw. Before I go into those details, I want to share information so that people can fully understand the context leading up to this decision.
If you have never read Edmonton’s City Plan, this is a great place to start. This is the foundational document that provides the direction for our city. There are a few key features of this plan that should be known. The first is that the City Plan states we will not annex any additional land so all future growth will only occur in our existing boundaries. The second is that we are looking to build more complete communities where people have more choice in where they live and how they move.
If you want to learn more about the work leading up to this decision, please read through this post and the other information linked in that post. I appreciate that some may not have gotten involved in the process as outlined in the link above which is why the Public Hearing process was so important. It provided an additional opportunity to share their feedback on the proposed Zoning Bylaw.
Common Themes of Agreement
I’ll start by sharing the common themes that I heard that most seemed to agree on: environmental standards and affordability. While the Zoning Bylaw cannot solve every issue, the desire to see higher environmental requirements (ex: EV chargers, making homes solar ready, etc.) and some mechanisms to better help ensure affordability was quite evident. The debate was not about whether these changes should be made but when the changes should be made. Those in opposition wanted to see a delay on the Zoning Bylaw to embed those changes in at the beginning whereas those in support wanted to see us move forward with the Zoning Bylaw and bring back those additions in future amendments.
In fact, there was a motion made by my colleague Councillor Karen Principe to refer the Zoning Bylaw back to our City Administration for 6-12 months to do further engagement on the following topics:
Heritage preservation and protection
Energy efficiency
Aging in place
Separation of services such as supervised consumption sites
Adequate green space for the population.
The motion to refer back was defeated in a 2-10 vote. One of the main reasons I did not support this motion was I felt that for all of the bullet points, there was general agreement from speakers in favour and in opposition so I wanted to see us take action versus taking another 6-12 months talking about taking action on items the vast majority of people support taking action on.
For example, with heritage preservation and protection we know that in order to properly address that, council needs to approve funding to complete the Heritage Management Strategy. If we generally agree as a city that we need to do more with heritage preservation, I'd prefer to debate the motion that will result in action this November instead of waiting up to a year to then have the exact same debate. That is a similar situation for all the remaining bullet points.
Divergent Perspectives
There were perspectives shared that had divergent perspectives. A good example of this was for a small group of people who expressed that these changes were coming from the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. They felt that these changes were going to be used to restrict their freedom. That position was at odds with a much larger number of people in opposition who felt these changes allowed for too much freedom for new development in our communities. I’ll touch on this point in more detail later but I think that it’s absolutely fair to say that the new Zoning Bylaw is more permissive than before.
Over the years, and we saw a similar situation during the Public Hearing, we heard from a smaller group (approximately 10-20%) who do not want to see any change or increase in density in their community. That is not unexpected and while I’ve always disagreed with those who don’t believe there should be any changes, I have appreciated the chance to engage with those who share that view.
A reason I have struggled with the perspective of not supporting any change is because our neighbourhoods have been changing over the decades. Almost every mature community in Edmonton has seen a large population drop when compared to 50 years ago. Considering our city’s total population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, it makes the population drop in mature communities even more stark.
What I found most interesting is talking to those residents who have been in the city for the last 50 years and what they remember of their communities. We heard examples of what life was like then from people in the Public Hearing. It was more common to have a wide variety of local businesses within the community that people could more easily access. It was more common to have a local school full of children who lived in the community. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, we’ve seen less of that in many communities due to the shrinking population.
That’s one of many reasons that I could not agree with the perspective that we shouldn’t see any change. To add to that, I supported the City Plan because I wanted to see us stop growing out and paving over premium agricultural land. We’ve actually seen the entire Edmonton region develop a new growth plan that preserves over 250 quarter sections of premium farmland and saves us over $5 billion in infrastructure costs to serve what was previously planned to be new development.
Not changing means continued higher tax increases since outward growth costs more and results in the most significant environmental impacts. I’ve rarely found people who are ok with this which is why most of the work I’ve done over the years related to land use has been to try and change how we grow.
Although limited, there were still far too many people who clearly stated that they do not support apartments or renters in their community. While that accounted for a small percentage of people, it was enough that I want to call it out. I know that some people have their own negative perception about people who live in apartments and/or people that rent but I would suggest that is not based on actually engaging people who live in different housing types.
For example, in my family, every one of my immediate family members rent and live in an apartment with the exception of one family member who rents a basement suite. If you took the time to get to know my family members you would know that they are actively engaged in their community and city. Chances are, they are a lot like your family members regardless of whether they rent or own and regardless of whether they live in an apartment or a single detached home.
My challenge to anyone who incorrectly assumes that people that rent or live in apartments aren’t as connected to the community: talk to them. When I knock on doors across the ward, I find that there is no difference between people living in different housing types and whether they rent or own. People want a good life for themselves and their families. People want to be connected to their community. People want to have access to great public services and amenities. People want to have different housing options. People want to choose how to move throughout the city.
So even though it didn’t account for a large portion of the population, it cane up more than I would have expected and I think it’s important to speak to it.
Public Feedback
A larger number of people in opposition to the Zoning Bylaw do support change and they see the need for their communities to evolve. I already mentioned that most people in opposition specifically asked for greater action on climate change and affordability. When I received that feedback leading up to, and during, the Public Hearing, I would often ask people if they had any specific feedback about the proposed changes. In fact, I had a number of one-on-one meetings, one-on-one walks in a community, hour-long phone calls, group meetings at people’s homes, etc. so that I could make sure I fully understood any specific feedback.
As I was summarizing all the calls, emails, meetings, etc. in advance of the Public Hearing, and asking for additional information, I found that most of the additional responses did not cover specific concerns in the draft bylaw (ex: height, setback, site coverage, permitted uses, etc.). That aligns with much of what we heard during the Public Hearing, including some groups in opposition that had been involved in the process for quite some time. The points broadly came back to the environmental concerns and affordability. I found that to be quite beneficial because it meant when there was very specific feedback, it allowed us to focus our questions of City Administration on certain aspects of the Zoning Bylaw.
Some of the biggest specific concerns that were raised were related to the landscaping requirements. There was an excellent presentation by the Scona District Community Council on different changes we should make and a subsequent motion by Councillor Janz will examine those proposals they shared during the Public Hearing.
This wasn’t the only area where a subsequent motion was made to look at further refinements to address feedback from those with concerns. We had feedback related to height, site coverage, public notification of approved development permits, and utility infrastructure capacity. For height, I did make a motion that would re-examine how we address height in this zone and to look at an option that would be more contextual in nature. Here is the wording of the motion I made:
“Height change to (RS) Small Scale Residential Zone
That Administration provide a report on draft amendments to Committee on subsection 4.1.6 of section 2.10 of Charter Bylaw 20001 to consider:
A maximum building height of 8.9m for a single family home when adjacent to an existing bungalow.
A maximum building height of 10.0m for all other residential uses in the RS Zone when adjacent to an existing bungalow.
A maximum building height of 12.0m in the RS Zone when adjacent to a home with a height of 8.9m or more.”
Unfortunately, this motion was defeated in a 6-7 vote. I should note that there will be a 1 year check-in to review all aspects of the Zoning Bylaw and there was a separate subsequent motion put forward by Councillor Erin Rutherford that was approved to look into ways to try and prevent a massive single detached home.
For public notification of approved development permits, I put forward the following motion which was approved by council:
“That Administration provide a report detailing the following:
Related to the Section 20.2 “Class A Permitted Development” notification requirement of Zoning Bylaw 12800, the total number of individual mail outs and the associated cost for administering said mailouts for the past three years (2021, 2022 and 2023).
Opportunities and options to introduce new notification requirements for Development Permits for Permitted Development in Redeveloping Areas as depicted in The City Plan.”
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that even if someone is approved to build a home within the approved rules and regulations, that the abuting property owners should still receive a notice so they can understand what will happen.
For utility infrastructure capacity, we were given clear information when asking questions of EPCOR. During the public debate, I asked if we have capacity if density were to double overnight in our mature communities. The short answer was yes and that’s because back in 1970s the utility infrastructure was built assuming usage of 350L per person per day. Now the usage is 120L per person per day. On top of that, back in 1971 it was 3.5 persons per household and now it is 2.2 persons per household.
Another approved motion related to this was made by Councillor Jennifer Rice: “That Administration provide a memo on how to plan infrastructure improvements that will be needed as a result of implementation of the new Zoning Bylaw (Charter Bylaw 20001).” While we received clear information about our utility infrastructure capacity, it’s great to have additional information on a topic that was raised often.
To close the loop on climate resilience/climate change, a detailed report was already coming back but further direction has been provide to help inform the report. Here is the motion put forward by Councillor Ashley Salvador that was approved unanimously by council:
“That Administration provide, as part of the report on Climate Resilience Planning and Development Framework, as identified in Attachment 8 of the June 20, 2023, Urban Planning and Economy report UPE01636, an outline of scope of work, including specific timelines, for integrating climate action throughout the planning continuum. This should include how climate adaptation and mitigation can be further embedded in the Zoning Bylaw as part of the post Zoning Bylaw Renewal Work Plan, including but not limited to solar and EV readiness, in alignment with the Community Energy Transition Strategy and Climate Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan.”
Whether the Zoning Bylaw is the right tool or other Council policy, I know that Edmontonians seemed quite united about taking more significant action and I’m excited to see the city-wide support for this.
As affordability was also raised, two motions were approved by City Council. One by Mayor Sohi:
“That Administration engage with post-secondary organizations, housing developers, youth, student groups and other stakeholders to identify opportunities to increase the supply and affordability of housing options for students and youth in Edmonton.”
And one by Councillor Keren Tang:
“That Administration provide a report on the status of City Policy C601 - Affordable Housing Investment Guidelines and the target of 16 per cent affordable units of all units in each neighbourhood, as well as information about current and additional measures that may be taken to increase affordable housing in areas where access is limited.”
With the exception of a policy called inclusionary zoning, I don’t believe the Zoning Bylaw can appropriately address affordability as the Zoning Bylaw is more about what can be built on a lot, not who the home is going to be built for. Inclusionary zoning is a tool that might allow council to consider a certain percentage of affordable housing for certain developments. We already have a report on this scheduled to come back at the end of the year. There is some discussion that the provincial government may look to remove the ability for municipalities to use this tool.
Dispelling Myths
Not all of the feedback that we received was accurate. Two of the main points that were not accurate is that there are no development rules and there is no ability to appeal. There are still maximum heights (10.5m), site coverage (45%), setbacks, dwelling count, etc. but in many cases, the new rules and regulations are an expansion of the current rules. Similarly, the ability to appeal certain variances has not been removed but since there are more permitted uses in the standard residential zone, there are likely to be fewer variances than before.
I heard from some that thought approval of a new Zoning Bylaw would allow a 6-8 storey building to be built next door. That is not true. As noted above, the maximum height in mature communities is increasing from 8.9m (two and a half storeys) by 1.6m (approximately 5.25 feet) to 10.5m (three storeys). Why there is some confusion is that there is a separate body of work underway called District Planning. The previous link has a lot of good information about what that work entails and how you can get involved in the engagement process.
Why I Supported the New Zoning Bylaw
Pace of Change
Change is rarely quick, especially in regards to how quickly the built form in our communities change. In my home community, there’s been one apartment-style condo built in the last 30-40 years. Even though row housing has been permitted across from school/park sites, on arterial/collector roads, and on many corner lots since around 2009, I’m aware of 18 new row housing units that have been built in the last decade in my home community.
This is not a unique situation. When you examine permit numbers for new developments in mature communities, the pace of change is slow. Another important example to highlight is regarding 6-unit developments on a standard 50’ lot. Under the current Zoning Bylaw, it is permitted to develop a 6-unit development in the form of a semi-detached home with 2 basement suites and 2 garden suites. That has been permitted for about 5 years and yet, we’ve seen fewer than 20 of these 6-unit developments across the city.
A final example to share when discussing the pace of development is using the community of Grovenor and 19 other communities currently zoned RF3. Of our current zones, the RF3 is the most comparable to the new RS Zone. It allows for a mix of housing types (single detached homes, semi-detached, row housing, and small scale apartments).
The RF3 zoning has been in place for many of these 20 communities for 43 years. Walking through Grovenor between Stony Plain Road and 106th Avenue, it looks very similar to the other mature communities in the city. You will see the occasional 4 unit home in the middle of a block but it feels very similar to many of the other mature communities in Edmonton that have older and newer housing.
Housing Diversity for All
A question I often ask people who have lived in their community for a long time is, “If you woke up tomorrow and couldn’t maintain your single detached home, where would you move if you still wanted to live in the same community?” For those in mature communities like mine the answer I often get is that they wouldn’t be able to because the common housing types are older bungalows, newer two-storey homes, and older walk-up apartments without an elevator. If you live in the west half of Glenwood or west of 170th Street, the answer is often quite different because in those communities it’s common to have single detached homes on a regular lot, single detached homes on a narrow lot, semi-detached homes, row housing, courtyard housing (ex: Horizon Village, The Shores, Park Place, etc.), apartments, condos, and seniors residences (ex: independent living and supportive living).
That housing diversity doesn’t just support people aging in the community at an older age but it supports younger Edmontonians to be able to choose different housing options if they want to stay in the same community as their family. We heard that during the Public Hearing from younger Edmontonians who are still living at home with their family and are looking for greater independence but might appreciate still being close to home.
Newer Communities
If you live west of the Henday, you might have noticed that I haven’t written a lot about the changes and how these changes might impact you. In short that’s because while there are some changes proposed, this really won’t impact anyone for decades until the homes are redeveloped. And even when that does happen, there is already a wide mix of housing options so the type of change that might occur in a few decades is likely to be minor.
It’s also important to note that most newer communities in Edmonton are already double or triple the density of most mature communities. That higher level of density was achieved through greater housing choice thanks to a Zoning Bylaw that allows for more flexibility outside the Henday. While I support the City Plan’s goal not to annex any additional land, I’m glad we are using land in these new communities more efficiently. That helps local businesses and it keeps a thriving school population.
I still encourage anyone living in new communities to get familiar with your Neighbourhood Structure Plan (NSP). Those plans help guide where you can expect to see low density, medium density, high density, commercial development, park and school sites, etc. And if you are planning to move to a new community, please read those plans carefully so that you aren’t surprised when a development proposal that aligns with the plan is approved. Finally, don’t rely solely on the person selling you your home to give you that information. While they might have the best intentions, it’s better to read it for yourself so there are no surprises.
Supporting Local Businesses
Something that didn’t get much attention at all during the Public Hearing or in the years leading up to this discussion is the changes to commercial and industrial zones. I appreciate that those changes might not directly affect each person but the changes are going to allow greater flexibility for businesses to thrive.
I enjoyed a particular description from one speaker who talked about the idea of micro-businesses. There are examples like this in our city but it’s less common than it was 40 or 50 years ago. This idea allows for a very small scale local spot. We see that with a small photography studio, a tiny cafe, or a one person massage therapy business. While some of these options can already occur under a Home Based Business, this will provide some additional flexibility to let more entrepreneurs start small that can then hopefully grow into something bigger using our new commercial or mixed use zones.
Affordability
Edmonton is considered the most affordable major city in Canada. This is not an accident. Edmonton has had more flexible zoning regulations when compared to most other major cities in Canada and that flexibility, particularly in the suburbs, made it easier to create different housing options that were more affordable.
In mature communities, affordable homes are more sporadic. In communities where we almost exclusively see skinny homes or duplexes replacing an older single detached house, those skinnies or duplex homes can be more expensive than the home they replaced. Where higher density options are available (ex: row housing being built in mature communities), the prices are often comparable with the older homes that it replaced.
Younger Voices Speak Up
This Public Hearing and the correspondence I received leading up to the Public Hearing was something that I've never seen or heard before in the last decade, and likely ever in our City’s history. While more and more people under 40 are getting involved in the civic process, I’ve never seen so many people speak up in such a united way when it comes to housing. That’s likely because we’ve never seen a situation like this before.
Younger people across Canada are very pessimistic about ever being able to own a home. Even though we have already noted that Edmonton is the most affordable major city in Canada, it’s still very hard for those under 40 to purchase a home considering the high interest rates and rising housing costs. It’s no wonder that all federal political parties are actively pushing each other to try and do more to address housing affordability. It doesn’t matter where you are on the ideological spectrum, housing affordability is what people are demanding and that is what we heard during our Public Hearing.
The Edmonton Student Alliance, which represents all post-secondary students across Edmonton, told us how students are struggling even to find affordable rental housing options as our vacancy rate is extremely low and projected to fall below 2% in the near future. We heard how 200 U of A students have had to live in their cars or abandoned buildings and how 400 students consider their current housing situation to be unsafe.
I’m not used to getting regular emails and calls from those under 30 when it comes to almost any major city issue but times are different and they cannot remain silent because this is about being able to have somewhere to call home.
I realize that for those who have had their own home for a long time, the idea of change can be hard and I don’t want to minimize that. But we also cannot ignore those who don’t see a future for themselves because they don’t know how they will ever be able to find housing that works for their needs. This new Zoning Bylaw won’t suddenly fix everything, but it will certainly help provide a more positive outlook for those hoping to one day have a home of their own in whatever form they want.
Closing Thoughts
Although there are still many other areas to cover, and I’ll host a separate virtual Community Conversation to cover those additional areas, I want to offer a few final thoughts.
First, I need to thank our City staff who spent the last 5 years working on this. While there was never going to be a scenario where everyone agreed with every change, I really appreciated how the Zoning Bylaw continued to evolve over the years thanks to feedback from Edmontonians. It’s never easy to try and create rules and regulations when you have so many different perspectives but considering how few people had specific feedback on the draft regulations and instead focused on what they felt was missing, that’s a good indicator that much of what is in the new Zoning Bylaw is a step in the right direction.
I want to thank the City Clerk’s office for managing what was likely the longest Public Hearing ever. They worked tirelessly to keep people informed and to support council as we wrote different motions. Those long meetings are tough but they made it look easy.
A huge thank you to all my colleagues. The vote to approve the new Zoning Bylaw was not unanimous but each member of council brought their own unique perspective as well as the perspectives of those they represent. That allowed us to make more informed decisions and I am fortunate to get to work with such a great group of people.
Finally, I want to thank all Edmontonians who were part of this process. No matter when people got involved in the process, we saw the direct result of people’s feedback. That doesn’t mean that every person got what they wanted as that’s impossible when you have different opinions. But it turns out that on some of the most important issues, people had far more in common than not.
Change is hard, even for those that are more open to it. The new Zoning Bylaw, which will take effect on January 1st, 2024, is not perfect and it never will be. But I think it is absolutely much better than what we have. The current Zoning Bylaw was created over 60 years ago and it was designed to be exclusionary. Now we have a new foundation. One that was designed with all people in mind because people are what make a community and city great. This Zoning Bylaw will continue to evolve because our city will continue to evolve. I cannot wait to welcome more neighbours into our communities because that will only help make our communities more vibrant.
