Summary#

On September 15, 2026, Edmonton City Council referred Bylaw 21578 back to City staff instead of giving it readings. The referral directs staff to prepare amendments to the Central District Plan and bring the bylaw back to a future public hearing; the bylaw has not passed.

• The requested plan amendment would change the Westmount District Node boundary to align with St. Albert Trail in two stretches: between 116 Avenue and 115 Avenue, and between 114 Avenue and 112 Avenue.
• The motion says the Camsell site must remain within the Westmount District Node.
• The referral, moved by E. Rutherford and seconded by M. Elliott, carried 8 to 5. J. Wright, K. Tang, M. Janz, A. Salvador and A. Stevenson voted against it.
• The staff recommendation was to give the bylaw readings. Council instead referred it back.

What it means for you#

• People in Inglewood and the affected plan area: This decision does not approve medium-scale housing or change zoning. The bylaw’s detailed proposed changes are not included in the supplied material.
• City staff: They are directed to prepare the specified Central District Plan amendments and return the matter to a future City Council Public Hearing. The due date is to be determined.
• Residents and property owners: Council has not yet made a final decision on Bylaw 21578.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The material does not give a cost for preparing the plan amendments.

What is unclear#

• What zoning or housing changes Bylaw 21578 would make; the bylaw text and earlier meeting materials were not supplied.
• When staff must return with the amendments and bylaw.
• What the plan amendment would mean for specific properties beyond the stated boundary changes.
• The current plan and zoning rules, which cannot be verified from the supplied material.

Case for#

• The referral directs staff to revise the district boundary before Council considers the bylaw again, while keeping the Camsell site within the Westmount District Node.
• A possible argument for referral is that Council wanted the plan boundary addressed before deciding whether to give the bylaw readings.

Case against#

• Five councillors voted against referring the bylaw. The supplied record does not give their reasons, so it does not establish their substantive case against the referral.
• The referral leaves the bylaw unresolved, with no return date stated.