February 8th, 2013 Mayor Stephen Mandel Edmonton City Councillors

Hello Your Worship & Members of Council, You are in receipt of a letter signed by a broad selection of Community Leagues regarding Bylaw 16271, requesting that the proposed amendment to our citys zoning bylaw be referred back to civic administration for further work and consultation. The board of the Glenwood CL is in support of this request, and we may be considered a signatory to it as well. What is being proposed here is the single largest alteration to zoning in Edmonton since the current zoning bylaw and mature neighbourhood overlay were brought into place. Furthermore, you are certainly not strangers to the extensive discussions which took place during the drafting and approval of the Residential Infill Guidelines. On behalf of our membership, and in a sincere desire to advocate for the best possible future for our neighbourhood as it grows, densifies and redevelops, we hope that Council will support taking the time and giving this process, and these amendments, the breadth of consultation and discussion that they deserve. Creating a productive and progressively regulated development environment in mature communities and ensuring quality consultation to jointly set the stage for meaningful redevelopment which sensitively increases density and provides housing stock for a demographic which is currently choosing a suburban life is most assuredly no easy task. The devil, however, is in the details - how the guidelines which have been given community support are implemented in bylaw and In the way residents, proponents and the marketplace work together on both individual projects and long-term planning initiatives. We are requesting time and opportunity. Time to consult our membership and reach-out to the community at-large, to allow them to discuss these changes face-to-face with planners and developers. You as members of Council made a sizeable investment in our community in choosing to fund the Jasper Place Area Redevelopment Plan, a project that is now in its infancy. We are requesting time to work with stakeholders to study how this mass of proposed changes will affect long-term planning in our community, as well as our neighbours (Canora, our neighbour to the north-east with large parcels of RF2 zoning, being one example). Furthermore, whats being proposed here lacks feedback from market studies, or detailed analysis on how best to implement, without contravening, the Residential Infill Guidelines. In our conversations with neighbouring communities, weve seen a wide variety of opinions on issues such as the placement and design of front-car garages, site coverage and specifics on the splitting of 50 lots. These things

shouldnt be taken as opposition to redevelopment or change, but simply as meaningful conversation on development which should stand the test of time for decades. There is much to gain by referring this Bylaw back for further work and consultation. If theres a belief that communities have misunderstood the proposals, then give them time and access to administration in order to gain that understanding. If we are serious about creating meaningful density that truly combats urban sprawl, then provide administration with direction to conduct market research with those who are currently choosing to live outward in our city. Most importantly, the path to quality infill redevelopment, to a productive relationship between all stakeholders governmental, private, communal, etc - isnt through reduced consultation, accelerated mass bylaw amendments and simple assumptions. Its through face-to-face contact between all involved, in order to establish an environment in which all sides are willing to compromise for a beneficial end goal. We held a successful workshop this winter, the results of which the EFCL has reported on, where community members sat across the table from development representatives, and held an impressively beneficial discussion. The Glenwood CL had the opportunity to contribute to the Elevate Report and the Mayors Taskforce on Community Sustainability. Through which we saw a strong desire from all sides to discuss and collaborate on redevelopment opportunities and community plans. Its hard to see these progressive collaboration opportunities coming to fruition when consultation on zoning changes are limited, concerns quickly dismissed, and planning guidelines are haphazardly implemented in bylaw. The proposed amendments warrant discussion and review, not just to review their quality, but to debate what additions could be made - to implementing planning policy, to encouraging productive dialog between stakeholders, to meeting true market demands, etc. Give this process time, refer it back to administration and the various stakeholders for further work. It may take some time, and it may fall on the next Council for implementation, but we dont believe you or future decision-makers will be disappointed with that choice.

Sincerely, The Glenwood Community League Executive