Hi,
We do not support the RA7 zoning and would support the RF5 zoning. We have attended ALL the previous engagements which were held during the past 4 or 5 years and it was NEVER discussed that this school surplus site be designated as more than Townhomes or Seniors complex. There is no reason that this site would be suitable for a commercial complex with high density apartments above.
We are especially disappointed in the way the city has communicated to the community by deceiving us with their deception and lies. We, the Community, have acted in good faith and would appreciate the City do so as well!!!

First concerns are from the potential residents that may live in and need the reduced housing costs. This location does not provide them access to affordable groceries (Walmart, Superstore) and amenities near by (walking distance), also train system and bus system in the area is minimal. Healthcare offices are full and not taking new residents. There are no supportive services (food banks, child support services, etc) near by. Residents will need to pay HOA fees, schools are not walking distance. For low income families, this location does not provide the necessities close by that they may truly need.
Second, as a homeowner in the area, it is deeply concerning that the look and feel of our neighboorhood could change. We specifically worked hard as business owners to earn and live in a community that is safe, clean, quiet and respected. Our fear is that this could increase traffic in our community, increase potential crime, lower the value of our homes and the desire for other families to purchase in our neighbourhood. It could also put increased pressure on the small schools in the area.
Third - Was there fair competition for a private organization to propose a building plan that could be profitable? HomeEd is being fulling funded by the City of Edmonton - allowing them the ability to complete this project that a private company would not have been offered. Has HomeEd shown how this project will breakeven or "pay back" tax payer dollars being placed into this project? Did the City of Edmonton offer subsidies to private developers to allow them the ability to see the long term advances to this site and be a fair competitor with HomeEd?
Fourth - how will HomeEd be held accountable for the longevity of the project? Ensuring visual appearance is upheld and follows HOA rules all other residents have to follow. Ensuring that residents are employed, providing citizens to the City, paying rent and if not removed from the premise, etc.
We hope that consideration for Seniors living or having units purchased vs. rented would be reviewed. We also hope plans for traffic and additional vehicles are factored in. Reducing vehicles on the street and keeping the number of units as minimal as possible.

As 35 year residents of Whitemud Creek, we strongly oppose the proposed rezoning to RA7. We have concerns regarding increased traffic in a relatively quiet neighborhood and the negative impact it will have on parking in the surrounding area.

I live in Ogilvie and do not support the City's effort to develop this property for RA7 (low-rise apartments). The City’s priority to convert park spaces into low rise condos is unsettling. Kids need outdoor spaces to play in, and the Ogilvie ball diamond and soccer field are heavily utilized. We should promote green spaces for all to enjoy.
Additionally, RA7 low-rise apartments will significantly increase traffic and will negatively impact parking (our park boulevard will turn into a parking lot). We moved to this community to enjoy the park areas and we pay higher taxes to live here.
The City has asked the community multiple times about building on this site, and over and over again, the community has advised that we do not want an apartment building on this small plot of land.

I live in Ogilvie and support the City's effort to develop this property, but I do not support rezoning to RA7 (low-rise apartments).
This is currently a quiet street, with a large park area on it. Adding a low-rise apartment will significantly increase traffic and will negatively impact parking.
I would support a zoning designation of RF5 (Row Housing).

I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning of the site at Ogilvie Ridge to RA7. I have been actively involved from the beginning when the City was considering selling the school site and working with members of our community to determine the best project fit for the community. The City has asked on numerous occasions what the community would support for a housing project and continues to push forward with a proposal that has changed so many times and only seems to meet the needs of the planners - not the the residents of the community. I have no trust in what any of the feedback from the community will have or be used for. Words like "we appreciate your feedback", "your feedback will inform the planning analysis" and "the entire process gathered to date was to gain an understanding of community perspectives to ensure all factors are taken into consideration". The community has spoken often and adamantly about their views. If the City is sincere in its request for input from the community , then they have to respectfully listen to these tax payers.

Hi, I have just moved to Ogilvie Ridge last month and am quite disappointed to hear the current status of this development. I'm very opposed zoning to RA7 which is too high density for the area and creates added safety concerns for children using the park. Also this will create excess traffic in an area that doesn't make sense to support that amount of density...and has the feel of a last-minute change rooted in trying to extract more profit out of something that might not been a sound investment as originally conceived.
I support zoning to RF5 to the extent it is better than the RA7, in general this whole project should be revisited given that the plan is changing and stakeholder engagement with residents seems to not be landing with those proposing and the project. It is clear from the comments there are serious concerns and very minimal support for this project in general and the current zoning is not helping in providing further assurance to the community that the feasibility/approach of the project is being reasonably considered.

Having this amount of additional human activity close to known wildlife corridor also does not seem appropriate. I have run in that adjacent field since I was a little kid and it was great since it was large and peaceful and quiet not sure why the community would want to potentially ruin literally one the nicest parts of the area by jamming as many people as possible there - especially with high density rentals in a space that clearly does not adequately support that type of housing.

I think the City underestimates the value in having these green spaces and generally low-density areas that people purposely want to live in for that very reason since it's quiet and peaceful which are desirable features of an area and really what the community was originally sold as and intended to provide. Ultimately, this looks on paper like an attempted bait-and-switch from what was originally planned, proposed and approved - and if permitted, will serve as an on-going example of the loopholes and inconsistencies in such projects as they progress. The City's credibility is on-the-line with this in terms of future similar developments and it would be crucial to be reasonable with residents in relation to what was originally/planned/consulted around vs. what actually ends up in within neighborhoods based on the various changes from the outset of the project. The City should aim to point to this project as a example of where public engagement is appreciated and aligned with rather than the opposite where the residents feel tricked.

In general, would reiterate that overall while the idea of balancing density within communities is well-intentioned, its often botched in the implementation and the city should re-visit the need for this development as a whole given the clearly strong opposition and valid concerns noted. Otherwise, it will have the optics of a clear bait-and-switch and will hamper future similar projects in more appropriate existing areas.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.

Resident of Ogilvie Ridge for 21 years. Strongly oppose zoning to RA7. Support zoning to RF5.

Jingbo

I have been a resident of Ogilvie Ridge for 21 years. I strongly oppose zoning to RA7. Would support zoning to RF5.

Shaohua

We have lived in Ogilvie Ridge since 1998 and moved here for the quiet open spaces. We wanted to live in a neighborhood that was low density, quiet with large trees and some green space. We are completely opposed to any City approval to change the zoning to RF7 and only approve RF5. Having Commercial in this building will impact our neighborhood exponentially with too much traffic and no need for this when commercial space is in abundance around us. And having 100 Rental units in an apartment style building is worse than anything the City has tried to ram down our throats since this all started in 2015. This community is over 300 tax payers and as our homes are worth more than the average the City will loose money as our home assessments will go down as well. Add this to the cost of putting in the infrastructure under this proposed site plus the cost of this structure, as Homeed is City owned. We as the tax payers, will also carry the cost burden for this endeavor, that 99% of the community doesn't want.

I have lived in the community for over 10 years and have kept informed on the proposed affordability housing project. In previous community engagement, the community indicated it was in support of townhouses or lower density housing if the project went ahead. There was also a preference for ownership and seniors housing. Zoning should not allow for apartments buildings or commercial development which would overload a relatively small parcel land with a large building and not fit in with the community. The only zoning option should be RF5, keeping the zoning to RF5 would go a long way in gaining community support which the city of Edmonton says is so important to such housing developments.

An increase in traffic is concern since either way out of the community through playground zones, and being located on a hill makes for traffic to travel faster into the Ogilvie playground zone. I can attest as i live on the corner and every year there are cars crashing into trees or community walls at the bottom of the hill. The bus route is very underutilized b/c it is better served for getting around in the SW than elsewhere in the city. Bike paths only run east west which don't really get you anywhere where jobs or services might be located. I question traffic models suggesting that an increase in housing density doesn't translate into substantially more car trips per day. Like it or not car travel is on the only viable mode of transportation in and out of the community.

The city can try to spin it however they want, but the park is pretty much ruined by the development. If a soccer field is somehow kept ( i have my doubts), there is practically no green space left for free play/leisure. The park size will be significantly reduced and will slope towards the road which wraps around the park. Not to mention, townhouse complex or apartment will be hulking overtop of park users since it is being built on one of Edmonton's few hills.

As mentioned by previous post, the park and transmission line corridor provides deer and other animals access in and out of the nearby whitemud ravine.

Affordable housing money from tax payers is likely better served elsewhere in the city. The land is small which explains why HomeEd is now seeking rezoning which was not mentioned or proposed during previous community consultations. If the development is to proceed keep it to townhouses or lower density housing that at least requires some ownership not high turnover rentals.

A resident here for 17 years. Strongly oppose RA7.

The alternative RF5, low density townhouse row house owned, not by rent, could be the option.

There is already traffic safety issues here on Rabit Hills Road and Buylea Road merge into Terwilegar Drive after the major development is complete. The RA7 is going to make things worse.

Resident Howard

We strongly oppose RA7 zoning. Traffic safety already is an issue when the Tewillegar Drive revamping project is complete. Commercial development and small retail are not going to work as we already have Magrath Heights mall nearby, and Buylea Mall nearby. City should leave some land for playground that kids can play, residents to walk.

The only possible option will be RF5, low density townhouses that will be owned, not rented, while leaving sufficient land for trail and kids play.

Howard

We very strongly oppose RA7 zoning because the increase in housing units by 1/3 would introduce traffic safety concerns and strain the existing infrastructure.
We are strongly opposed to any commercial component. It is not needed as there is adequate commercial space nearby, and our roads were not designed to accommodate in and out vehicle access to a commercial area. There is a multi use path adjacent to the site, which is heavily used, and increased traffic would impact safety. There is additional adjacent land used for baseball and soccer, that would also be negatively impacted.
After years of multiple meetings, the community agreed to townhouses with ownership. Now, the change in direction makes the whole consultation process appear disingenuous.
We are in support of RF5 zoning with ownership.
MT Reynolds

We have been living in this neighbourhood since 1989. It is one of the most quite and liveable area of the city. Community has flourished over the years and is a source of social connection and sense of belonging.

We strongly oppose the rezoning of this area to RA7. The City Council and planners have ignored communities feedback and appear to bulldozing their decision without any consideration to traffic congestion, etc.. It would be more appropriate to build seniors residences and row housing. Please reconsider your decision and the community would be very much appreciative. Thanks

In all case, any additions to the community should be both subject to the rules and regulations of the community league and the whitemud creek homeowners association.

Schools in the area are at capacity and have implemented lotteries for entrance. Adding 100 units to the neighbourhood will add to the problem. The addition of retail spaces are entirely unnecessary in this area and again will substantially increase traffic in the area beyond what it can support.

I have lived in Ogilvie Ridge only 5 months and am very disappointed in hearing of this project being put into the small green space very near to my house. I would definitely prefer seniors housing made here even though a school is what it should be due to lack of schools in this community.
I oppose the rezoning of RA7 because it would guarantee that Home Ed will build apartment buildings. We do not want these built here. I would be more agreeable to town homes with the community esthetics considered.
I hope that city council and Home Ed take a second look at how they are dealing with the community and will learn from this. We want to work with you so please do not approve this rezoning.
With lack of public transit on Ogilvie Blvd I do not see how these new renters will be able to get to work or the grocery store. How will they transport their children to schools outside this community? Has parking been discussed?
I have seen in west Edmonton apartment buildings for sale. Would this not be a better solution for the city to spend tax payers money on by improving those buildings for renters? On main bus routes and close to amenities why would this not be part of the conversation?
I will attend the session in January and hope that my fellow community members will also attend.
I hope the City and Home Ed really listen to our concerns. It is the right thing to do.
Juanita O

We live in this neighbourhood more than 35 years.
We strongly objected to RA7 zoning category. RF5 may be acceptable.

I am strongly in favour of this zoning. Our city is growing and we have the choice of either continuously developing at the extremes our our city limits or creating gentle density in our current neighbourhoods. A four-storey complex with commercial space on the ground floor is an excellent example of how to add to mature neighbourhoods while remaining consistent with the 15-minute city plan. This is especially true as this location offers an excellent east-west cycling pathway through the power lines and is just a short ride to the 119th cycling corridor.

It is unfortunate many of my neighbours oppose this project due to fears of traffic congestion, given that this is a near guarantee if such projects are moved to the outskirts of the city. By building gentle density, we are encouraging our community members to live closer to where they work and play, rather than guarantee they will be driving from communities well outside the Henday. As well, Ogilvie and Hodgson has a peak-hour bus that runs directly on this street. I take it weekly and would be pleased to see more of my community members using it. Especially with the development of the rapid bus transit lane on Terwilliger.

I am also confused about the concerns that this project will remove outdoor spaces. I walk this path nearly every day, and I am well aware that there is more than enough room to continue both the baseball and soccer leagues in the same areas. This feels especially important, given these spaces are only extensively used 1-2 days/week and only in the summertime.

I do agree with another community member below who identified the importance of paying community league fees. That is excellent feedback and both the city and developers should consider this as part of the projects' goals.

I want to reiterate that we have two choices as citizens in any growing city: we build single family housing at the outskirts of the city which are heavily subsidized by our taxes and cost our city an inordinate amount of maintenance per citizen, or we accept gentle density projects like this. There is no option where we do not build more housing.

I do, however, agree that there should be a higher emphasis on school and senior housing development. Which is why I have sent emails to provincial MLAs, because both are provincial budget items, not municipal.

It is unfortunate that City Council continues to destroy sport fields and green spaces in mature communities and replace them with high-density developments. Previously, City Council was proactive in ensuring that outdoor spaces were provided to allow our youth and all residents opportunities to be active. This space is used EXTENSIVELY to support active living in the Whitemud community as well as in many surrounding communities. It is shortsighted to eliminate outdoor spaces for recreation and sport as these activities provide many positive benefits and enhance the physical and mental health of all individuals.

This space is also a wildlife corridor for animal travel which allows them access to food and water. The proposed development will interrupt connections used by the numerous animals in the Whitemud ravine. Has the City investigated the impact that a housing development will have on nature and this wildlife corridor?

We strongly oppose this development and the rezoning to RA7. The HomeEd application does not reflect the community feedback provided to the City of Edmonton. Additionally, there is not a sufficient infrastructure to support the development. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and the City will consider the negative impact that the development of surplus school sites is having on Edmonton communities by not leaving them as greenspaces!

The land was designated school site fundamentally. I believe building a school on that site would have been a very good idea as the community really needs it for their children. I do not understand why and how the City of Edmonton came up with the idea of housing instead of building a school there at the first place. I am really unhappy with the project of building a residential place in the baseball diamond. Can we reconsider on the project itself?