Summary#

Calgary City Council approved two bylaws at third reading on April 21, 2026, by a 14–0 vote. Bylaw 10P2026 amends the Southeast Industrial Area Structure Plan; Bylaw 38D2026 changes the land-use rules for 6020 – 94 Avenue SE, in Section 23, Ward 12. The stated goal is to allow a materials recycling facility at the industrial site.

• The site’s Direct Control district stays Direct Control, but now includes a Materials Recycling Facility as an additional discretionary use (a use that still needs development-permit approval).
• The site is 7.37 hectares (18.21 acres) and is operated by Calgary Aggregate Recycling Inc.
• The facility could process materials such as soil, contaminated soil, non-hazardous hydrovac material, aggregate, gravel, concrete and construction debris into recycled products.
• The development permit application for the facility is still under review. The land-use approval alone does not approve that permit or settle site design and access details.

What it means for you#

• Calgary Aggregate Recycling Inc.: The land-use rules now allow the company to seek development-permit approval for a Materials Recycling Facility at this site. The City has not yet approved that permit.
• Nearby businesses: The land-use decision does not settle details such as site access, parking or design; City staff say those will be reviewed at the development-permit stage.
• Other Calgarians: The decision does not directly change citywide taxes, fees or services.

Money#

City staff report no anticipated financial impact to the City.

• The materials give no cost estimate for the development-permit review or the company’s operations.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not give the full site-specific guidelines added through Bylaw 38D2026 or the final development-permit conditions.
• The timing and outcome of the development-permit review are not stated.

Case for#

• City staff say the change could let the site process construction and other materials into products for construction, road maintenance and other uses, while diverting waste from landfills.
• City staff say processing materials on site could reduce emissions by reducing the need to transport waste elsewhere. The applicant’s presentation also claims a 93% emissions reduction compared with traditional disposal and mining operations.
• City staff say the change could support the existing industrial operation and jobs.

Case against#

• A letter received by City staff did not object to the land-use change but raised concerns about the vehicle entrance and street safety, traffic and parking, and dust and debris.
• The land-use approval comes before the development-permit decision. The site-specific response to access, parking and dust concerns therefore remains unclear.
• City staff report that equipment and operations, including a recently built soil reuse facility, had been introduced at the site without planning approval. The permit review’s outcome is not yet known.