LDA 17-0668 Decoteau NSP

I am not in support of the NSP or the amendment to the ASP.

This NSP has been planned without ongoing landowner engagement. As well, the affected land owners were not consulted when the Emerald Crescent concept was planned, a concept that has not been endorsed by Council. The City has a duty to consult with landowners during the preparation of this plan. When the Decoteau ASP was being reviewed there was a loud outcry from residents in regards to the designation of wetlands and then Councillor Ed Gibbons encouraged residents to get involved at the NSP level, but it seems the City has decided that this would probably be too contentious and therefore the preparation went ahead with the hopes that these concerns would just go away. Simply posting the plan online and asking for comments does not fulfill the City's duty to consult and engage the affected landowners.

This plan also does not conform to the Municipal Government Act which is the overriding legislation that must be adhered to when land is being planned. The majority of the lands designated as ER are seasonal marshes that don't qualify as ER. There is also no buffering allowed around wetlands. This fact has been documented in numerous publications and has also been acknowledged by the City of Calgary many years ago.

Lands are to be planned according to the MGA legislation, on a parcel basis to ensure that no one landowner is unduly impacted. There are areas within this plan that qualify as ER but haven't been designated as such. This implies that there has been a selective and unsupportable attempt to single out certain landowners in an attempt to devalue their lands.

The City has spent over 6 million dollars buying eighty acres of land in this area to "preserve" wetlands. If the City could just designate ER, why did they spend 6 million dollars? Will other landowners be compensated accordingly?

Tree stands do not qualify as ER and if the City wants to preserve them then the only designation applicable is CR for which compensation must be paid.

Until the City finds a way (possibly through a Zoom meeting) to answer questions, allow access to the technical reports, and address the inconsistent planning this application needs to be put on pause.

We will also be asking that Municipal Affairs review this plan before adoption to ensure that it conforms to all applicable laws and regulations.

I am the owner of the land identified as lot 23 on page 8 and 9 of the draft NSP. In reviewing the plan I note that a significant amount of my parcel is designated as an environmental reserve and parkland. I am unable to ascertain exactly how much of my land will be designated in this manner under the NSP but it appears to be well over 50% of the land area. As a result the development potential of my lands will be significantly impacted by the NSP.



Related to the foregoing, I am unable to ascertain based on the materials provided the relative percentages of land dedications amongst the affected land owners. I would be interested to see how this breaks down as it seems clear to me that myself and other owners of smaller tracts are disproportionately affected by this plan in terms of land dedications. I understand the desire to preserve natural areas but there needs to be a balancing of this with the rights of a land owner to benefit from their ownership rights in the future. As a result of this plan I believe that the development potential of my land has been significantly reduced.



Pursuant to the foregoing, I would request a full breakdown of relevant percentages of land dedication by owners in relation to the total surface area of the affected under the NSP. I believe that the above numbers will show I will be carrying a disproportionate amount of the burden to provide municipal reserves.

I have responded to your request for public input to Northwest Decoteau Plan and would not support this plan. The City should be weighing the rights of various property owners when coming up with this plan. As a landowner I am being disproportionately harmed by this plan and some of the burden on environmental or municipal reserves should rest with others. Typically, there are large land developers engaged in the process and they should be the ones charged with some of this. Historically, there have been landowners that have filled in low areas and sloughs; therefore creating changing the water flow.

Two of these properties are currently owned by the City of Edmonton.

This plan does not address compensation for landowner for such things has Environmental Reserves, Municipal Reserves and Non Environmental Reverse (only City owned property).

Please stop building neighborhoods with long winding roads and dead end streets(cul de sacs). It is such a deterrent to walkability. Build in grid like patterns will make it easier for navigating streets on foot. Also, “town centres” should be at the center as the term indicates and not at the edge of the neighborhood. Easier access on foot instead of walking around in circles through the neighborhood to get to basic amenities. Maybe call it neighborhood centres instead. It’s not a town you are building, although neighborhoods in this city is built more like islands where there are no proper flow and connection with its neighbours. The ridiculous fencing around neighborhoods really does not help with walkability. Just more isolation. Commercial and residential needs to be better connected and integrated. Keep streets short and narrow to deter speeding. More sidewalks and wider sidewalks please.

Overall, I simply cannot support any new greenfield development in this city. However, this NSP is actually fairly well done, though it should be as it's the main transit and commercial hub for the entire ASP. I particularly like the town centre design concepts as proposed (assuming residential is left included). Despite the positives, this neighbourhood will undoubtedly increase personal vehicle usage despite its proximity to transit and will (obviously) contribute to our sprawling border and infrastructure. And this is for the densest, most transit oriented area of the larger ASP. We should carefully consider the ramifications of continued sprawl for all proposed greenfield development, and should demand incredibly high standards from new development given the social, economic and environmental impacts new sprawl has on the city.

Edmonton should not be planning for future sprawl as it simply enables developers to build that sprawl. It should focus its precious resources on facilitating infill development in Edmonton's established communities.

Glad to see new schools and green areas in these plans. We need new public schools in the area, especially a new high school given the families that will be living in this new area and the exiting families in the neighborhoods close by. I would ask the City to please consider main road planning for 50th street, 34 street, and Ellerslie road as these roads are not currently able to handle the increase in traffic (Ellerslie road needs to be doubled and 34 street needs to be properly paved and doubled).

Don't Agree with ASP for the District activity park (DP) Location and the portions of the land used in the assigned Lots.

In the ASP for DP is taking a larger portions of the lots where's district activity park (DP) is mapped.
Why not assign the whole Lots for DP, instead of leaving small portions of the land to the owners to develop, that will be difficult to find developer or sale these Lots and will stay for long time without development.

I think it should be more central and not facing major road (ellerslie Road).

Don't Agree with ASP for the District activity park (DP) Location and the portions of the land used in the assigned Lots.

In the ASP for DP is taking a larger portions of the lots where's district activity park (DP) is mapped.
Why not assign the whole Lots for DP, instead of leaving small portions of the land to the owners to develop, that will be difficult to find developer or sale these Lots and will stay for long time without development.

I think it should be more central and not facing major road (ellerslie Road).

Agree to NSP

I really like the diversity of housing and the park integration. I have a few concerns. Will development along the arterial roads be oriented towards those streets? I think they should be to support stitching together communities, and making the arterial road more comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists. I also hope there are design guidelines for the commercial in this community to limit parking in front of development, making sure development is transitional and can support people right at the onset of development. I am a bit concerned about the street network, and more details should be shown. It is important to ensure a grid like network, with frequent street connections. Streets should be logical, and main streets should be numbered. I really hope this neighbourhood opens up to adjacent communities, not closing itself in. I think there should be minimal development acing away from arterial streets, and grid like active connections to the arterial roads. I hope the City will start considering city wide design guidelines, to ensure all development meets its sustainability goals. New communities can be great too. I see a lot of this in this application.