I have been a resident of Whitemud Creek for my whole life. Growing up here & now purchasing a home with my partner. I share SOME concerns with my neighbours. I worry about the extra traffic on Ogilve Blvd & I do believe it would be great to have a school there. On the other hand, I believe a lot of my neighbours are fighting this for the wrong reasons. Affordable housing is a necessity & what HomeEd does is great. A lot of the comments I’ve heard over the years on this specific topic seem prejudiced and classist.

I was hopeful it would be a school or townhomes, just due to the uptick in traffic on roads that weren’t built for it. But the way my community has reacted (and let’s be real) this whole time, EVEN when it was going to be townhomes is upsetting. The entitlement some residents believe they have toward a City of Edmonton project is surprising as well.

I understand that inspite of our community input and assurances by the city, the site has now been sold to HomeEd who is not looking to develop the property as intended by the members of the community. I strongly oppose the RA7 zoning and would ask the city to reconsider and commit to develop the property as first intended. We prefer townhome-style units which would blend in better with the existing architecture and style of the community, as well as limit numbers of new community members and the resulting impact on traffic, parking and availability of community amenities.

We have been active community members in Ogilvie since 2005. My husband was involved in the initial work on behalf of the community for years before the approval. Lets be clear. No one in our community wanted it including us but our community worked with the city to
Find middle ground. To change this now is unacceptable Moreover, at no point do I remember any discussion of high rises. That zoning goes against all the work put in on surplus school sites in Ogilvie. So I do not accept any redirection to higher rise buildings. It does not fit. It isn’t consistent with the community and I believe goes against all
Spirit and intent of this community development. Our three ways in/out of community cannot handle that traffic. Row or townhouses is the only option if any development must occur.

We have been leaving in the neighborhood since 2008. Great place to have family. We would like to see re-zoning done as the RF5 – Row Housing Zone, which allows for low to medium density housing such as row houses or town houses and semi-detached housing, and not as proposed RA7.

I am a senior widow who has lived in the area almost 36 years.
The surplus school site is not suitable to house low rise apartments. Do not approve the site for RA7.

There is only one road in and out of the area and being next to a playground is a safety hazard for the children playing there. The congestion with all the extra cars driving and parking there are crazy.
Also no transit or LRT options to transport the people.

I would prefer that it be a seniors lodge.

All our schools in the area are full. Where are these extra children supposed to go?

Our community can’t support a RA7 zoning.

I strongly oppose the rezoning application of RA7. I’ve lived in the community for over 10 years, and have been involved in the City’s consultation on this since at least 2015. The City committed throughout that time that zoning would be RF5, and had only ever discussed lower density housing as being an option. At no time was RA7 zoning ever noted or considered in these engagements, which makes it appear the consultation (over several years and numerous face-to-face meetings), was not genuine.

Including RA7 with higher density will lead to congestion in our neighbourhood that does not have easy access to main routes, nor does it have transit for low-income resident needs. The schools in this area are already full beyond capacity (e.g. Riverbend Junior High has double the students that it was built for, and Lillian Osbourne high school already has a lottery system for the overcapacity for students to attend - requiring bussing students to Old Scona school). To bring in a high volume of families to this area is not consistent from good urban planning principles.

Further, zoning the land at RA7 would increase the population of our small community by about 1/3, all into one small parcel of land. This will create a massive increase in traffic, which is next to the parks where kids play –leading to significant safety concerns.

I urge the City to not approve rezoning of this land to RA7 and instead, revert to RF5 as was committed to during City engagements with the community for many years.

I strongly oppose the proposal to rezone the property to RA7. I live extremely close to the location and have concerns about congestion and safety. Please consider the lower density option of RF5. Thank you.

I am strongly opposed to the RA7 re-zoning being sought by HomeEd and believe that such zoning is not consistent with the assurances that have been made to this community over the years. It is completely inappropriate and unnecessary to have apartment style housing and commercial space in this community, and this is not what was promised to this community following years of public consultations and feedback. While community engagement was supposed to be sought and followed, the City and now HomeEd are quite simply ignoring such engagement and the needs and direction of the community. At most, an RF5 zoning which is suitable for row housing and townhomes is required. This is what was promised to the community based on our many meetings and feedback.

I have been an owner in this community for almost 30 years and over the last several have assisted the Whitemud Creek Homeowners Association Board with the surplus school site project, attending many hours of consultations with representatives from the City. From the beginning, owners have expressed serious concerns over the allocation of the surplus school site for affordable housing, given the severe lack of schools in our community rendering even local residents at the mercy of lotteries to attend the closest school, and the severe lack of green space and recreational areas in our community. It was made clear very early in this process that affordable housing in this particular area is not optimal from a variety of perspectives, including the lack of transit and other resources in this area, and the availability of several better options, for example by the Terwilligar Recreation Center right by a major transit hub.

Notwithstanding this well articulated position, which is supported by the facts and is not simply a desire to not have affordable housing options in our community, the City continued to proceed. We were told that the decision was made and that it would not be changed despite circumstances changing drastically over the years such that a new demand for schools now exists. To me, this represents and shortsighted and poorly conceived plan by the City to insert low income housing options on these surplus school sites regardless of whether they make sense or not almost a decade after being declared surplus.

During the consultation and engagement process, we were told repeatedly that the community's views were important and that we would be listened to. The owners made it clear that if the affordable housing decision would not be changed, then at least we wanted the best option for our community, which overwhelmingly was a senior's affordable housing development that would allow our seniors to age in place in our community. Such a development was to consist of townhomes that could be purchased, with 50% of those townhomes available at market rates. We were assured that the townhomes would be built in accordance with the community's architectural guidelines and that they would be indistinguishable from the existing architecture. We are now being told that HomeEd is seeking re-zoning for an affordable housing apartment complex with up to 100 units and that they will be rental units only. This is not what was promised to the community over the past several years.

In summary, it is important for the City to know that certain assurances have been given to our community over several years, and that this proposed project does not meet those assurances. The RA7 re-zoning must be rejected. Even an RF5 re-zoning should be reconsidered and the City should take stock of the current needs and options available to it for affordable housing - there are better uses of this land, and there are more and better options for affordable housing developments in areas that offer the infrastructure and support for those who require it. Even if some affordable housing is destined for this site, such housing needs to fit the needs of the community, and lower density townhomes with an option for ownership, suitable for seniors, would make the most sense.

I urge the City to consider what is in the best interest of the community and the City as a whole. As I understand it, the ratio for affordable housing has been exceeded. There is no urgency nor need to push through a solution that is not optimal and simply doesn't fit with today's facts and demographics.

We strongly oppose the rezoning application of RA7. If the project must be rezoned we would prefer rezoning to RF5. We live very close to the proposed sight and we do not want any commercial development. This would increase traffic and parking congestion. This will also impact the safety of our neighborhood children. The City keeps saying that they are consulting the residents and listening to them. It really doesn't feel that way and the response of the City to date to community concerns and requests indicates that the process is a sham. The City is just going to do what it wants without regard for its taxpayers. Please prove us wrong and do not approve rezoning to RA7.

We moved to the neighbourhood in 2019 because it was a lower density older neighbourhood.

We strongly oppose the rezoning to RA7. The builder and city have ignored the communities feedback and do not appear to be operating in good faith. It is much more appropriate to build a seniors residence in this space. RA5 is also a stretch but if done in conjunction with the community it may work.

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.

Finally the “sale” of the land itself is highly suspect given the buyers relationship with the city and the price paid.

Zoning for RAF7 won't fit the community and won't help to achieve success of the development. We strongly oppose RAF7 zoning. We believe RF5 zoning will be a better choice and will support RF5.

I objected to RA7 zoning category. Accept RF5

I have lived in the community of Whitemud Creek for over 10 years and think this multi-unit project is detrimental to our community. Why would you put a low income housing project into the middle of a middle to upper class community and the inhabitants have no real access to multiple bus routes, businesses, and necessary stores? You realize there is a gated community right across the street from this development! It is insane to build this project where you are proposing!

Furthermore, why not turn this into a senior's complex, like the community has asked / stated, on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, and been ignored. The community league board of directors have held and had numerous conversations about this project with multiple City of Edmonton representatives and our wishes have fallen on deaf ears every time.

We would prefer not to have this land used for any housing development however, if it is going to be used, we want it to be a seniors complex!

I oppose this project completely as I feel the City has no idea as to the impact this development will have our our community, other than to "check a box" of offering more affordable housing to citizens.

Beyond the above, this project, if pushed through, it should also be included in the community in regards to Community League fees, community architectural specifications, etc. and I have been told this is also not happening or being considered. We have a community league for a reason and ALL PERSON'S LIVING WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO OUR FEES, GUIDELINES, AND RULES. It is wrong that this project is excluding itself from our community league except to use the land. This is wrong!

I am happy to talk further about this issue with anyone connected to the City of Edmonton.

Marc Levers
Vice-President
Whitemud Creek Homeowners Association

Our family have lived on the Ogilvie boulevard since 2002. Our family do not want to be disturbed by more traffics on the road.
I oppose to the rezoning to RA7 development strongly and do not want to see any commercial units in our area. I believe the zoning change to RA7 does not really need to be done at this point as RF5 – Row Housing Zone is enough to accommodate the original agreement between our community and the City of Edmonton.
If the HomeEd would like to proceed this project, they should respect our community's original opinion sticking to the RF5 zoning. Otherwise, I believe the whole project should return to the square one. I would be willing to lift a blank paper against the development project in that case.
Please, keep the zoning of RF5 for the development and comply with the original suggestions of our community.
Thank you.

Removed by moderator.

All feedback that the community has provided has been ignored. All of these plans are absent of logic and forethought. As others have mentioned, you are giving away the land to the city itself while pretending that you put it up for sale. The current use of the land should have been considered before this stage was even reached. Although people said loud and clear what they considered acceptable in the area you did not hear them. I hope you can hear that RA7 is met with a strong opposition.
Where you would like to build, there currently is a ball diamond that is used by many in our community and outside of it. The small amount of green space that we have is always in use. What would be the impact of taking such a large portion of it and increasing our population significantly? Why is this not a concern? People who moved to this neighborhood valued the quiet nature of it, the safety of it, and the sense of community that everyone in it contributes to. In one quick action you are destroying that. We paid a premium to move into this area years ago instead of the high density new areas lacking schools. We bought an old house and have invested money in it. It turns out we are about to drop house value and end up with the same thing, we should have just bought in a cheap neighborhood. You have pushed our schools beyond capacity because you have densified other areas and allowed Glenridding into our catchment instead of building schools to meet the needs of the communities you keep building. Also because of this lack of city planning, children may not get into the high school they were zoned for and then have to separate from their long term classmates and commute to a school much outside our zone. This is not reasonable, you are only making this problem worse with every neighborhood you densify.
A short while ago the city decreased bus routes in the area, but now are building for low income population that likely some will need bus routes. Where would all of these people park? Parking has not been discussed but will also have an effect on residents in the area.
The more dense you make this development, the greater the impact on our community. Adding commercial to this would make this significantly worse. There is no need for commercial or high density apartments. We are strongly against RA7 zoning, even RA5 is a stretch. This is not a development that should be happening. This will destroy a wonderful neighborhood while ignoring the areas of the city that really could use something like this. There are so many buildings that could be revitalized and turned into this if you bought those instead. There are so many vacant lots that could be this. There are so many areas with much more green space than here. This area really needs more schools, not more people. This rezoning should be denied. The city should put the millions they were giving away in land and funding to HomeEd into schools and finishing the Terwillegar Dr project instead of stopping that. I consider this a mismanagement of taxpayer money, you work for the citizens and right now you are disregarding many citizens that contribute to your city financially, personally, and through employment of others within your city. There are many ways you could make housing affordable, this is not your only option. RA7 should not be considered.

We have lived in this community for over a decade and we oppose the RA7 rezoning.
The rezoning does not make sense. We have access to sufficient commercial space nearby already. Also, this change would increase traffic and increase the number of household by about 30 percent.
The neighborhood is changing with more young families moving in. This has increased the utilization of the green areas in the community (soccer and baseball fields) and now many of the schools in the area are implementing a lottery system as there are more students than what the schools can accommodate.
100 new units will increase traffic and overcrowd the schools even more.
I am also concerned about the fairness and transparency of the process and consultations. How is it possible the surplus school site land sold for only $10?

AB

My family moved to the neighborhood in August 2017. We absolutely love it the way it is and understand that the city has made a decision to sell this land.
However, as a licensed Realtor I can tell you the city of Edmonton never actually put the parcel of land up for sale as I would have received a notification that they were looking for a Realtor to sell it (you must apply to sell city land they are wanting to make public land). I also let a commercial Realtor colleague know that it's potentially going for sale and he never saw anything either. The fact that this land was basically donated instead of sold is quite surprising considering property values in Ogilvie Ridge.

I was also approached by an employee of HomeEd on a separate matter as they want to sell all of their single unit condos throughout the city of Edmonton to buy up individual buildings for their programming. I am glad that the proposed building, if it must be built, is for domestic violence survivors. However, I am thoroughly against an RA7 zoning as the only reason it would be applied for is for increased density. If they're saying it's "just in case", I don't believe that to be true because they are changing their business model from individual properties to higher density apartment buildings throughout the city. They WILL build an apartment building which will not fit in with the current density of our community. At most it should be RA5 or RA6 which allows for a fair amount of dwellings to be built on the property. As someone noted in one of the other comments, there was already development on Bulyea where the city sold off excess land. I did see that land go for sale openly and obviously it sold to a private developer. I truly question whether this property was actively for sale or a side agreement.

That being said, I'm glad that they moved the location of the development site, and they're obviously going forward with this project so I would strongly request that RA7 zoning is not allowed because the neighborhood was not built for that amount of a density increase. This isn't an instance of "not in my backyard", and it has to be done properly with Community consultation and listening to Edmontonians that live in that area.
Thank you.

The city first stated that there would be townhomes type buildings constructed in the area. Allowing commercial development on this site does not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. I support the reasoning to RF5 as there is enough commercial space within 5 minutes of this site.

Absolutely DO NOT WANT ZONE RA7. Absolutely DO NOT WANT SMALL BUSINESS ON THE LOCATION as that draws more traffic into our "now quiet" community. DO NOT WANT ANY DEVELOPMENT AT ALL as 100 units will increase traffic on Ogilvie Blvd immensely.

Since we have no choice of development, we want OWNERSHIP OF THE UNITS NOT RENTAL. Rental brings in transient tenants which often increase crime as well as overwhelm the few facilities that we have (tennis courts etc). Rental properties will also lower our property values and safety in the community. (I own rental properties elsewhere in Edmonton so am quite familiar with crime and loitering associated with rentals)

We have lived in Whitemud Creek for 21 years. Raised our children here.
We bought with the knowledge that the Whitemud Creek Park area remain as a PARK or SCHOOL ONLY. We bought knowing that we would be able to maintain property value, community facilities, character, calmness, and community safety. When buying a home, you always know that no matter what chaos happens in the rest of the world, one always has the safety and security of HOME. Now this DEVELOPMENT is TREATENING the PEACE AND SECURITY of our long standing community. This development is going to SEVERELY DISRUPT our WAY OF LIFE in Whitemud Creek.


We bought in this area with a specific population. Whitemud Creek only has 326 properties. Now to add 100 units will totally disrupt the character of our community. If we wanted to live in high traffic, high density housing; we would have bought in such an area. We do not appreciate the City of Edmonton changing the rules with in-filling.

We and our immediate neighbors are very disappointed that there is a development at all. We will be SEVERLY DISAPPOINTED IF REZONED TO RA7 as this will TRANSFORM OUR COMMUNITY NEGATIVELY.

In summary, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY AGAINST REZONING TO RA7 or similar.