The Garneau Community League p.o.

Box 52009 Edmonton AB T6G 2(5

February 8, 2012

Mayor Mandell and Councillors Edmonton City Hall Dear Mayor Mandell and Councillors Subject: Bylaw 16271 The Garneau Community League has grave concern with the Administration's proposed Bylaw 16271 and is seeking City Council's assistance.
We request that the RF3 and MNO portions of Bylaw 16271 be referred back to the Administration to consult with The Garneau Community League on how they may be improved to comply with Council's direction in the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan.

The Garneau Community League supports both the Residential Infill Guidelines approved in 2009 and the idea of allowing 2 single family homes in lieu of 2 semi-detached homes where semi-detached homes are allowed. The infill guidelines complement the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw which continues to successfully transform our neighbourhood into an intensively developed but balanced mix of housing choices serving a full range of households. The Administration erroneously claims this bylaw merely implements the Residential Infill Guidelines. We have discovered it is much more far-reaching than that, to the point where it will destabilize the delicate balance that City Council and our community have worked toward for over 20 years. It is also directly contrary to Council's approved policies. The changes presented in the Bylaw are so complex and inter-related that it is impossible for citizens, even those experienced in planning and zoning, to adequately comprehend all the implications. We have been able, in the short period allotted and with no assistance from City staff, to identify only a few implications that we know are contrary to the GARP and which will create considerable uncertainty and conflict in future. These include removing the statutory restriction on fraternities, destroying the traditional tree lined streetscapes by allowing random siting of homes, reducing all single family lots to 7.5m in contravention of the guidelines' 10m (which Garneau has already accomplished), and converting the RF3 Zone from a low density housing district with a moderate amount of compatible multi-unit housing into a medium density multi-unit housing district. This latter issue also contravenes the Residentiallnfill Guideline that requires a core of single family homes be maintained in every mature neighbourhood. The

proposed RF3 Zone will eliminate completely the only enclaves of single family housing remaining in The Garneau. The Garneau Community League supports the City's objective of directing more growth to mature neighbourhoods and the gradual intensification of the area. For 20 years we have accommodated that precise growth, but in a deliberate and rationally distributed fashion, to the point where The Garneau is one of the most densely developed neighbourhoods in Edmonton. The Garneau has already does its fair share of satisfying the City's objective, and strongly objects to the Administration's unplanned and irrational attempt to undo what the City and the community have accomplished.
The Garneau Community League has not now nor in the past authorized EFCL to represent the interests or speak on behalf of The Garneau Community League on matters of planning, development and transportation that directly or indirectly affect The Garneau neighbourhood.

In attempting to understand why the Administration never informed The Garneau Community League about this project at any time during its 3 year term, nor notified us of hearings or public meetings, we were told by city planners that they don't have to inform or involve community leagues because they had informpd and involved EFCL. It is their opinion that EFCL speaks for all community leagues, despite ECCL's stated rejection of that opinion. Even our last minute very cursory review of the most re'i?nt (Feb. 11) version of the Bylaw was done only after we learned from a third party that thel : is a revised version. We specifically asked to be informed of any revisions, and the Administration refused. We know that Council seeks info/ned input, but that is impossible given the secretive and exclusionary process the Administration has chosen to follow.

Paul Cachia, President