Given less than a month to review the Plans, EFCL did not have time to develop a formal position on the Plans prior to the November Public Hearings. Nevertheless, EFCL coordinated the input of several Community League representatives who analyzed the Plans and presented at the Public Hearing. (see EFCL website Resource Library for the presentation 081112 EFCL SUBMISSION PublicHearing.pdf )      They suggested a number of improvements:

1. Introduce growth targets. The shift to a more concentrated city with less reliance on the single occupant automobile is welcome.      The growth strategy calls for higher density in mature neighborhoods, downtown, and premium transit locations, and the phasing in of new neighborhoods so that development is contiguous.    However, there are no growth targets for these different areas, nor is there an emphasis on using existing or creating new community plans, thus the MDP perpetuates Edmonton’s reliance on an unfettered free market to define how our city will grow.

2. Coordinated land use and transportation planning is championed in both Plans, but neither makes it the rule. The Plans should clearly state that all future land use planning projects must have a parallel transportation planning component, and that all future transportation planning projects must have a parallel land use planning component.     To ensure ongoing integration, the Transportation Master Plan should be incorporated into the Municipal Land Use Plan.

3. Despite an attempt to coordinate land use and transportation, there remains a disconnect. The hub and spoke configuration of transit with Downtown as the centre is applauded. However, it does not recognize that a majority of jobs are outside Downtown, and the proportion of jobs outside Downtown will increase with the present Plan which creates additional industrial sites on the periphery of the City.

4. The Plans refer to documents with guidelines and principles which have not yet been developed or approved.   The Plans should be amended to include the overriding principles of external documents for ease of interpretation and also so they would require due process to change in the future.

5. A major objective of the Municipal Development Plan is to ensure healthy and livable communities, with a physical design where it is easy and safe to walk to shops and businesses, accessible and available facilities, services, parks and open space, community gathering spaces, housing choices and a mix of commercial and institutional destinations, affordable housing, a variety of transportation modes and active transportation networks for residents, and access to healthy food.     These are all important elements to include, but again the plan lacks targets or standards.   There is only one instance in which targets are set.   With regards to housing choices, policy 3.4.1.5 states, “Developing and planned neighbourhoods with no premium transit locations should not have more than 35% multiple units”. We recommended all neighborhoods, including Mature Neighbourhoods, be added to this policy.

6. In general Community Leagues support the housing goals of the MDP in terms of variety, choice and the need to help those experiencing difficulty in finding secure, safe, affordable homes.   However the policies of the MDP do not go far enough to ensure there is a stable supply of low cost housing in mature neighbourhoods.    The stock of affordable housing will continue to decrease as new developments demolish the current stock of older housing to build multiple-unit housing.    The policy to work towards achieving 5% development of affordable housing in multiple unit developments will likely not be sufficient to recover the number of lost units.     We recommend an additional “no net loss” principle for redevelopment which would ensure that the same number and type of units existing prior to any rezoning application must be replaced within the new development.

7. Community Leagues recognize the importance of community parks and community operated facilities. They contribute to a community’s unique identity, residents’ health and wellness, and serve best as a common gathering place where the spirit of the community can be hatched, nurtured and celebrated.    Thus we recommend that the Parks and Open Space objectives be amended by adding a policy that the current standard for neighbourhood public park space will be maintained.    Furthermore, there should be a policy in the MDP stating that if a municipal reserve site is disposed of, the proceeds from such disposition will remain with the original community.

Community Leagues are disappointed that Edmonton’s oldest community development institution is ignored throughout the Plans, and recommend that Community Leagues be recognized as major players in the planning process, and major players in the creation of complete, healthy and livable communities.

Speakers at the Public Hearing in November were generally in favor of creating a more compact city with an emphasis on decreasing automobile traffic. However, there were divergent views on how the undeveloped lands of Edmonton should be used.     The MDP designates large tracts of undeveloped land for new industrial areas. The vast majority of people at the Public Hearing, including the Downtown Community League, were there to lobby for saving agricultural lands in Edmonton, and the development of a local food security strategy.    On the other hand, residential land developers were in favor of mixed residential /commercial development.    Some builders asked for greater incentives and regulations for developing   eco-friendly, “green neighborhoods”.     What everyone seemed to agree on was the necessity for clear plans and policies. Community League representatives asked for Community Plans that would provide certainty and stability in their established neighbourhoods, and a guarantee that there would be control on urban sprawl in the developing areas of the city.