SD L BRARY
1270012
1
I
1 1266 :
Stakeholder Consultation Edmonton, Planning a
ani4P1 G
Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Builders° Report
• lillannInci. arid Development
LIBRARY The City of Edmonton
_ A • Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Builders' Report
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
. k
k
Introduction
Pg.1
Key Messages from Stakeholders
Pg. 3
Summary of Stakeholder Input Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw
Pg.5
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services Part Ill: Planning Enhancements
Pg. 6 Pg. 7
Stakeholder Group Reports Builders I
Pg. 9
Builders ll
Pg. 15
Appendices Appendix A Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings
Pg. 22
Appendix B Aggregate Data
Pg. 23
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
The City of Edmonton Planning and Development Department is reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw and considering new approaches to planning and development that would better meet the needs of citizens, builders and developers in Edmonton. In March and April, 1999, six roundtable sessions were held with the key stakeholder groups representing: communities, builders and developers (see Appendix A for Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings). Almost 100 individuals participated in the sessions, including 36 community members, 34 builders and 26 developers. Participants were selected as trusted representatives of their sector. The calibre of their input certainly reflected this. The roundtable sessions explored three main topics: the need to update the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw; proposed changes to improve customer service; and proposed planning enhancements to the bylaw. The questions asked of the participants were deliberately designed to be broad enough to elicit responses that not only gave specific guidance to the Department, but also gave overall direction to the Department regarding the re-working of the bylaw. As a result of the discussions, Planning and Development feels confident in making broad recommendations regarding the bylaw. Specific ideas were tested under three main headings, including: Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw
1. The idea of streamlining and updating the current Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Part II: Managing Land Use Development and Occupancy Services
2. The idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process. 3. The idea of using Parallel Processes in an effort to speed up and better coordinate the steps necessary for permits and approvals. 4. The idea of consolidating several appeal processes into a Single Appeal Centre. Part Ill: Planning Enhancements
5. The idea of a zoning process that sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than on type of use (performance-based). 6. The idea of changing the balance of certainty and flexibility in the planning and development process. 7. Rating the priority of proposed planning objectives.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Input was gathered through three primary mechanisms: 1) the OptionFinder' software package, which allowed participants to vote anonymously on specific ideas, 2) records of discussion, and 3) anecdotal data and observations. OptionFinder° provides each participant with a wireless keypad that allows them to have anonymous input on every issue. The electronic system allows participants to express a range of responses and see immediate results on a screen. These results are recorded as the meeting unfolds. In some cases, the group chose to discuss and vote on factors that would influence their vote on the proposed idea (1 to 6 above), before they voted on the proposed idea. In other cases, they chose to vote only on the factors and not on the proposed idea. The aggregate data presented in this report may not include input from all stakeholder sessions, since not exactly the same process of information gathering was used in all sessions. For a more detailed discussion of group input, see the Stakeholder Group Reports. This report is a preliminary summary of results from the roundtable sessions. Stakeholder input and key messages from stakeholders will be validated at a plenary session in June, 1999 and incorporated into a final Summary Consultation Report.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development II
k
•
Streamline the Bylaw. Most stakeholders support the need to streamline the bylaw,
making it more "user-friendly" and readable by keeping in only that which needs to be in the bylaw. There is no strong support from stakeholders for what they would call a comprehensive rewrite of the bylaw. People are comfortable with what they know, despite perceived weaknesses or flaws. They want an updated bylaw to build on the foundation in place. Improve Customer Service. Stakeholders want to see improvements in customer service,
including consistency of service and assistance in moving approvals through the system. However, they are less interested in how Planning and Development accomplishes these improvements. Promote Predictability. Stakeholders want predictability in the planning and permit process, rather than either more flexibility or more certainty. They would support a more flexible process if they could predict the outcome. Acknowledge Differences in Stakeholder Perceptions. The Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw
is designed to meet the needs and protect the interests of all stakeholders, despite significant differences in perception and need. Perceptions of the priority placed on "growth" and "development" vary considerably along a continuum, with community at one end and developers at the other end. Community representatives tend to view growth and development with suspicion, seeing it as a threat to quality of life. Developers and Builders, on the other hand, simply have a job to do and view that job as "value neutral." Base Performance Planning on Principles. The Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw must reflect
the vision, strategies and priorities of Plan Edmonton and should be grounded in a clear set of planning principles. This foundation will allow for adaptation to special situations and societal change, without the necessity of rewriting or amending the bylaw to accommodate these situations. Keep Council in the Planning Process. Most people want City Council to continue to
play a role in the planning process. However, they want Council to base its decisions on principles and other transparent guidelines that will support predictability
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
1c1
Emphasize Well-Supported Planning Objectives. There is significant variance across
stakeholder groups with respect to the importance of different planning objectives. Not surprisingly, Community representatives are more interested in objectives that promote and protect quality of life, while Developers rate as important those objectives that directly relate to their work. The objectives that received general support across stakeholder groups (90% or greater rated it of some or extreme importance) and, therefore, that provide a starting point for Planning and Development, include:
A Reinforcing older commercial strips; A Managing industrial growth and transition; A Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors;
A Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley). Keep Stakeholders in the Loop. All stakeholder groups - community representatives,
builders and developers valued the opportunity to participate and want a continued say in the Planning and Development process, while changes are being made to the bylaw or process. Based on direction from the roundtable sessions, concepts and proposals should be clearly defined and taken to a combined audience for confirmation.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
a
Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw 1. Need to Streamline and Update
Although all stakeholder groups discussed the need to streamline and update the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw and most agreed on the need for some revision, only one Builder and one Developer group voted on the idea. The majority of those participants (88%) agreed (31%) or strongly agreed (57%) with the idea of streamlining and updating the current bylaw (mean 8.53). Builder representatives agreed more strongly (mean 9.14) with the idea than did Developer representatives (mean 7.36). In general, all groups agreed that Planning and Development needs to build on the foundations already in place. There was no support to support a major "rewrite" of the bylaw. However, where Community representatives strongly agreed that the bylaw needs updating, Developer representatives questioned the need to revise the bylaw, indicating that the document as a whole works well. Most stakeholder groups identified the need to improve the readability and ease of use of the bylaw, noting that the bylaw needs to be more understandable to the lay person. Builder and Developer representatives suggested that the bylaw should be simplified by including only that which needs to be included. "Put the rest in policy," one group suggested. Builder and Community representatives agreed that the bylaw and application of the bylaw should be more consistent. Community representatives were more likely than other stakeholder groups to view the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw as a document that can protect the public interest and promote quality of life in the city. In contrast, Builder and particularly Developer representatives saw it as simply a set of regulations and guidelines about what they can and cannot do. Community representatives' primary concern was to ensure community input to the planning process. They want to adapt the planning process to allow for more notification of proposed developments and increased public consultation. In comparison, although Developer representatives agreed with the need for community input, they would like to see more controls on who can appeal and when appeals can be made.
II
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate The majority of respondents (59%) agreed (37%) or strongly agreed (22%) with the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process (mean 6.23). Slightly less than one in four (22%) disagreed with the idea. The strongest support for the idea came from Community I representatives (mean 7.55), while the weakest support came from Developer II representatives (mean 3.0). There was general agreement across stakeholder groups that the role of the Customer Service Advocate would need to be clarified and further developed before people would strongly support this proposal. Most stakeholder representatives suggested that the Customer Service Advocate should be a facilitator rather than an advocate, noting that "advocate" implies representing the customer and championing a cause. The title of the position should reflect the function. Community representatives were concerned that a Customer Service Advocate would weigh the process in developers' favor, while Developer representatives questioned the value of the service and the ability of different advocates to provide consistent customer service.
3. Parallel Processes The majority of respondents (74%) agreed (24%) or strongly agreed (50%) with the idea of using parallel processes in an effort to speed up and better coordinate the steps necessary for permits and approvals (mean 7.88). Only 5 participants (5%) disagreed with the idea. Builder and Developer representatives were slightly more positive about the idea (mean range 8.43 - 8.86) than were Community representatives (6.79 - 7.05). Community representatives were more cautious than other stakeholder groups about supporting parallel processes, concerned that it would mean reduced opportunities for community notification and intervention. In particular, they were concerned that parallel processes could "steamroller" the approval process and believed that community approval should be the "trip wire" that would enable parallel processes. Builder and Developer representatives saw parallel processes as a means of streamlining the process and making it easier to obtain permits and complete the appeal process. However, they believed that the use of parallel processes should be a choice, rather than mandatory.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development Ii
4.
Single Appeal Centre
There was no clear consensus on the idea of a Single Appeal Centre, with 31% of participants agreeing (18%) or strongly agreeing (12%), 29% disagreeing, and the remainder (40%) somewhat agreeing or remaining neutral (mean 5.28). The lowest level of agreement was among Community I representatives (mean 4.57), while the highest level was among Developer II representatives (6.08). These results do not include responses from Community II or Builder I representatives and, therefore, are more heavily weighted to the opinions of Developer representatives. The lack of clear support for a Single Appeal Centre was impacted by the limited number of options. No one wanted a single board, but they were eager for single access. Participants found consolidation of appeal process - rather than boards - more acceptable. A key factor for both Builder and Developer representatives was the make-up and appointment of the Appeal Board. Most wanted to know who would be on the board, how they would be selected and who would appoint them.
Part Ill: Planning Enhancements 5.
Performance-Based Planning
Two-thirds of participants (63%) agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (36%) with the idea of a zoning process that sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than on type of use (mean 6.88). The highest level of agreement was among Community representatives (mean range 8.07 - 8.23), while the lowest level was among Developer II representatives (mean 5.07). These results do not include responses from Builder I or Developer I representatives and, therefore, are more heavily weighted to the opinions of Community representatives.
6.
Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility
A small majority (54%) of participants agreed (41%) or strongly agreed (13%) with a planning approach that allows for greater flexibility (mean 6.11). One in five (20%) disagreed and the remainder (25%) somewhat agreed or were neutral. The highest level of agreement was among Community I representatives (mean 6.86), while the lowest level of agreement was among Developer I representatives (mean 4.10). Many stakeholder representatives were concerned that greater flexibility would mean less consistency and greater discretion on the part of planners. For that reason, Developer representatives favored a more certain and predictable process. However, most wanted some degree of flexibility. In particular, they wanted flexibility at the broad-brush stage of planning but preferred a set approval process. In comparison, Community representatives favored flexibility, but only if communities had significant influence on final decisions and if that influence was a certainty. City of Edmonton Planning and Development
rr1
7. Proposed Planning Objectives In general, Community representatives placed more emphasis on planning objectives that would protect the public interest and promote quality of life, while Developer and Builder representatives were more interested in objectives that related more directly to their business. Group ratings of specific objectives were as follows: a) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was of some (38%) or extreme (34%) importance to 72% of participants (mean 4.3). The highest importance rating was from Community II representatives (mean 5.42), while the lowest rating was from Community I representatives (mean 3.05). b) Reinforcing older commercial strips was of some (54%) or extreme (43%) importance to 97% of participants (mean 5.26). The highest rating was from Community representatives (mean range 5.73 - 6.15), while the lowest rating was from Developer representatives (mean range 3.5 - 4.79). c) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was of some (51%) or extreme (39%) importance to 90% of participants (mean 4.88). The highest rating was from Community representatives (mean range 5.31 - 5.45), while the lowest rating was from Developer I representatives (mean 2.4). d) Managing industrial growth and transition was of some (47%) or extreme (47%) importance to 94% of participants (mean 5.26). The highest rating was from Community representatives (mean 5.85), while the lowest rating was from Developer II representatives (mean 4.71). e) Conserving agricultural areas was of some (32%) or extreme (39%) importance to 71% of participants (mean 4.18). The highest rating was from Community representatives (mean range 6.14 - 6.46), while the lowest rating was from Developer representatives (mean range 1.4 - 2.36). f)
Conserving natural sites in tablelands (lands outside the river valley) was of some (36%) or extreme (55%) to 90% of participants (mean 5.23). The highest rating was from Community representatives (mean range 6.64 - 6.85), while the lowest rating was from Developer I representatives (mean 2.1).
g) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was of some (46%) or extreme (37%) importance to 83% of participants (mean 4.54). The highest rating was from Community representatives (mean 5.64 - 6.73), while the lowest was from Developer I representatives (mean 1.5). Note: Ideas 1-6 use a 10-point scale. •
For 10-point scales. the following groupings are reported: 1-3 = disagree; 4-6 somewhat agree; 7-8 = agree; 9-10 = strongly agree.
•
Planning objectives 7a-g use a 7-point scale. For 7-point scak the following groupings are reported: 1-2
no importance: 3-5 = some importance; 6-7 = entrrnze importance.
(Detailed tables and charts of all aggregate data can be found in Appendix B.)
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Li
•
ID
D
Builder I Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning Bylaw) 1. Need to Streamline and Update All Builder I representatives supported the idea of streamlining and updating the current Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw, with 11 participants (52%) strongly agreeing (selected 10 on a 10-point scale) and 10 participants (48%) agreeing (selected 7, 8 or 9). The most important factors that influenced Builder I representatives' opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw were that the revised bylaw be simpler and easier to use but not more restrictive. Twenty out of 21 participants (95%) agreed that the structure of the bylaw must provide for a simpler, more accessible process by having in the bylaw only that which needs to be in the bylaw (area development plans and overlays). In addition, 17 participants (81%) agreed that updating does not mean more restrictive. Two participants were neutral or undecided on this idea and one disagreed. Uniformity, flexibility and responsiveness were also important factors. Seventeen (81%) participants agreed that the bylaw should provide clear standards and guidelines that balance uniformity and flexibility, thereby limiting personal interpretation, and that the bylaw should be flexible and responsive to the affected areas and their local culture. A number of other factors were identified by Builder I representatives, however, there was no clear consensus on most of these factors, with less than 15 participants (75%) indicating agreement. These additional factors included: ▪ A comprehensive, city-wide bylaw (72% agreed, 19% were neutral or undecided); •
A bylaw that addresses the uniqueness of the City of Edmonton (66% agreed, 19% were neutral or undecided);
•
Relaxation of controls to produce a more responsive bylaw that would reduce the need to go to the appeal board (62% agreed, 24% were neutral or undecided);
•
Standardization of regulations in certain zoning areas, reducing the number of variations on the same theme (62% agreed, 24% disagreed);
•
Greater emphasis on increased density in the inner city rather than on urban sprawl (52% agreed, 24% disagreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
LI
Two factors, on which less than 50% of participants agreed, included: •
Relaxation of requirements when underground parking is included in the development (43% agreed, 38% were neutral or undecided);
•
A bylaw that is comparable and compatible with that of other Canadian cities in order to accommodate national developers (29% agreed, 52% disagreed).
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services
2. Customer Service Advocate
Although two-thirds of Builder I representatives (14 participants or 67%) supported the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, slightly less than half (48%) strongly agreed (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) and 4 (20%) disagreed with the idea. The lack of a clear definition and understanding of the role of the Customer Service Advocate were the most important factors that influenced participants' support for the concept. All participants (100%) agreed that there is a need to clarify the purpose and role of the advocate. There were also concerns about the cost of the service, with 17 participants (81%) agreeing that cost would be a consideration, and that the advocate not mean more bureaucracy (85% agreed). Participants suggested a number of roles or tasks for the Advocate that would make this position useful to them. These roles or tasks included: •
A liaison to ensure that required approvals are obtained in a reasonable and timely fashion (100% agreed);
•
An information source on the process (95% agreed);
•
Being positive, supportive and having a clear understanding of the process, including all factors that affect a development (96% agreed);
•
A facilitator/consultant (72% agreed, 15% disagreed).
However, the suggestion that the Advocate speak on behalf of the client, champion the customer's cause and support the development was rejected by a majority of participants (57% disagreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
hfl
There was no clear consensus on the question of when the advocate role should be enacted, with 43% of participants agreeing and 38% disagreeing that the Advocate would be involved only on large projects, and 24% agreeing and 53% disagreeing that every single project should have an Advocate. A final factor that would influence participants' support for a Customer Service Advocate - that an effective web page be part of the service - was supported by 43% of participants. Another 43% of participants were neutral or undecided, while the remainder disagreed.
3.
Parallel Processes
Builder 1 representatives were largely supportive of the ideas of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval. Over twothirds of participants (73%) agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale). Six participants (28%) were neutral or undecided (selected 5 or 6 on a 10-point scale). The key factor influencing participants' support for parallel processes was that the choice to use parallel processes not be mandatory (81% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided). There was also some agreement that some stages would have to be completed to kick in parallel approvals (62% agreed, 29% were neutral or undecided). Cost was also a key concern, with 17 participants (76%) agreeing that refunds should be given if one part of a project is not approved, and the same number agreeing that the cost of fees all at once could be onerous.
4. Single Appeal Centre
The most important factor that influenced participants' support for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre was that appeals be heard in a timely fashion. All participants (100%) agreed that the time it takes for appeals to be heard be of a reasonable length. Other factors that were supported by at least 15 participants (70%) included: •
The need to know who would make up the appeal board (76% agreed, 19% were neutral or undecided);
•
The impact of project size and scope on the appeal process (66% agreed, 24% were neutral or undecided).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
111
There was no clear consensus on what the purpose of the Single Appeal Centre should be, with 66% agreeing, 10% disagreeing and 24% undecided that it be an information source on the appeal process. Slightly fewer participants (57%) agreed that is should be an office that handles or processes all appeals on one project. Almost one-third of participants (29%) were neutral or undecided and 15% disagreed with this idea.
5. Performance-Based Process
As with other proposed changes, participants wanted more information about the proposed zoning process. The most important factors included: •
The need to understand the decision-making process that will be used (90% agreed);
•
The need to define and clarify the ability to measure impact (95% agreed);
•
The need for defined criteria for performance standards that is predictable, understandable and fair, and that does not allow too much flexibility (90% agreed);
•
The need for a reasonable and feasible level of proof and quantifiable information (91% agreed).
Participants were also concerned about how "impact" will be assessed, particularly how affected groups will be defined and to what extent their interests will be considered in decision-making. Sixteen participants (77%) agreed that the process for identifying the affected group(s) must be clear, if performance criteria are linked to the affected group(s). Four participants were neutral or undecided. The same number (76%) agreed that there is a need to ensure that the decision is in the best interests of the whole city and not just the affected/special interest group. Three participants (15%) disagreed.
6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility
The majority of Builder I representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Sixteen participants (75%) placed the balance closer to greater flexibility, while 5 participants (25%) placed the balance closer to greater certainty. Despite their support for greater flexibility, participants were concerned that greater flexibility would favor the City planners rather than the customer. Seventeen participants (81%) agreed that flexibility could mean that different financial or political circumstances would result in different actions by the community. Two-thirds of respondents were concerned about the discretion of the planning department if there were too much flexibility for interpretation (67% agreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Some participants were also concerned that too much flexibility could take away a community's ability to control what happens in its neighbourhood. However, there was no clear consensus on this point, with 43% agreeing, 25% disagreeing and 33% neutral or undecided.
7. Proposed Planning Objectives Performance or impact-based enhancements to the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw could be applied to achieve specific objectives for the City of Edmonton. Builder I representatives were asked to rate each of seven potential planning objectives on a seven-point rating scale, from no importance ("none") to extreme importance ("extreme"). These objectives are shown below in order of importance to Builder I representatives:
a) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 9 participants (43%) as being of extreme importance (selecting 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and by 11 participants (58%) as being of some importance (selection 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale for a mean of 5 .3);
b) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 8 participants (38%) as being of extreme importance and by 10 participants (53%) as being of some importance (mean 5.0);
c) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods was identified by 6 participants (29%) as being of extreme importance and by 13 participants (61%) as being of some importance. Two participants (10%) said it was of no importance (mean 4.9);
d) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by 7 participants (34%) as being of extreme importance and by 13 participants (62%) as being of some importance (mean 4.8);
e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 8 participants (38%) as being of extreme importance and by 11 participants (53%) as being of some importance. Two participants believed it was of no importance (mean 4.6);
f) Conserving natural sites in tablelands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 4 participants (20%) as being of extreme importance and by 15 participants (71%) as being somewhat important. Two participants believed it was of no importance (mean 4.1);
g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by only 2 participants (10%) as being of extreme importance and by 12 participants (57%) as being somewhat important. Seven participants (34%) believed it was of no importance (mean 4.1).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
in
Builder I representatives were also asked to rate each of the seven potential planning objectives on a five-point rating scale, from no flexibility to maximum flexibility. These objectives are shown below, from highest to lowest levels of preferred flexibility; •
19 participants (90%) preferred greater flexibility for reinforcing older commercial strips (mean 4.4);
•
19 participants (90%) preferred greater flexibility for encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods (mean 4.3);
•
17 participants (81%) preferred greater flexibility for improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors (mean 4.2);
•
13 participants (62%) preferred greater flexibility for managing industrial growth and transition, 5 participants (24%) were neutral or undecided and 3 participants (14%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.9);
•
14 participants (58%) preferred greater flexibility for managing suburban growth for sustainable development, 2 participants (10%) were neutral or undecided and 5 participants (24%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.6);
•
14 participants (58%) preferred greater flexibility for conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley), 7 participants (33%) were neutral or undecided and 2 participants (10%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.6);
•
12 participants (58%) preferred greater flexibility for conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley), 7 participants (33%) were neutral or undecided and 2 participants (10%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.6);
•
11 participants (52%) preferred greater flexibility for conserving agricultural areas, 4 participants (19%) were neutral or undecided and 6 (29%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.4).
Other Issues
Other issues were those identified by Builder I representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFindee process or that superseded the formal process. A key issue for Builder I representatives related to the idea of a performance-based planning process. Participants emphasized the need to make sure that the decision on a development is made in the best interests of the whole city, not just those of special interest groups. In particular, they wanted to know: Who makes the decision? How do you define affected groups?
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
kfl
Builders II Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning Bylaw) 1. Need to Streamline and Update
The factors that influenced Builder II representatives' opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw included: the need to simplify and improve the readability of the bylaw; the need for greater consistency, certainty and flexibility; concerns about the influence and discretion of decision-makers. With respect to simplifying the bylaw, the following factors were identified: •
The bylaw must be understandable to development officers (92% agreed). An equal number of participants agreed that the bylaw needs to be simplified and made more understandable to the lay person;
•
The bylaw should provide better examples or illustrations to serve as a guide for developing submissions (100% agreed);
•
The bylaw should be physically smaller, better indexed and better bound (85% agreed);
•
The bylaw should contain only the information that needs to be in the bylaw (93% agreed).
Factors related to consistency, certainty and flexibility included: •
The need for guidelines on matters of discretion to provide consistent interpretation and flexibility (84% agreed);
•
The need for certainty around timelines for obtaining building approval (85% agreed);
•
The need for some degree of certainty about what can be built on the property (77% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided);
•
The need to accommodate the ability for phasing a project (with increasing levels of detail as the development progresses) (100% agreed);
•
The need to accommodate new and emerging ways of dealing with development (84% agreed);
•
The need for increased flexibility in the layout of yards as a project develops (92% agreed);
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
•
The belief that front yard setback regulations should be flexible, depending on designs (76% agreed);
•
The desire for greater flexibility in order to give more consideration to innovative solutions to problems and issues (77% agreed).
Concerns about the influence or discretion of decision-makers included: •
The belief that we should move towards reducing the role of City Council in minor zoning issues and that Council should set policy, not manage it (92% agreed);
•
The need for clarity about the level of discretion that the development officer holds in order to minimize ambiguity and political intervention (85% agreed).
Specific changes suggested by participants included: •
Using trends (variances in discretion) as precedence by development officers (84% agreed);
•
The need to rethink everything on built form parameters (62% agreed, 31% were neutral or undecided).
Factors on which there was low agreement or no clear consensus included: •
The belief that bylaws should provide for changing uses of industrial or developed property (53% agreed, 46% were neutral or undecided);
•
The belief that precedence and trends should limit opportunities for appeal (54% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided, 23% disagreed);
•
The belief that competitors should not be a stakeholder in the appeal process (38% agreed, 38% were neutral or undecided, 23% disagreed);
•
The suggestion that DC5 should be recognized as a community negotiation tool (30% agreed, 54% were neutral or undecided, 15% disagreed);
•
The suggestion that there be uniformity of overlays throughout the city, with one overlay for the whole city (38% agreed, 31% were neutral or undecided, 31% disagreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
In
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate
Although the majority (61%) of Builder II representatives agreed with the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, less than half (38%) strongly agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale). One participant disagreed with the idea and 4 (31%) were largely neutral. The factors that most influenced the opinion of participants included: •
Concern about the ability of the Advocate to manage the workload, with 12 participants (93%) agreeing that the Advocate must have a manageable workload;
•
Interest in an advocacy process that would facilitate the crossing of borders between departments/jurisdictions, acknowledging the complexity of multiple jurisdictions (100% agreed);
•
Concern about the use of the term "advocate." Participants felt this might set up unrealistic expectations, suggesting the use of the term advisor instead (100% agreed);
•
The belief that there should be a choice about whether or not to use an Advocate, since the Advocate might limit one's abilities to advocate on his/her own behalf (77% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided).
Participants cautioned that it must be made clear that the role of the Advocate is to help the applicant meet the requirements in the most efficient and expedient manner and that this role should not be "oversold" (77% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided).
3. Parallel Processes
Builder II representatives were largely supportive of the ideas of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval. Over threequarters of participants (76%) strongly agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale), while the remainder agreed (selected 6 or 7). There was no disagreement. Although participants supported the idea of parallel processes, most believed that applicants should have a choice about using the parallel processes (85% agreed, 15% were neutral or undecided).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
ifi
Participants suggested that the process would be more effective if it began with a preliminary review of the file to determine whether or not the applicant is a candidate for the "fast track" and which parts of the process should be sequential and which should be parallel (100% agreed). Related to this factor was the need for a transparent and tangible test that would be used to determine when to apply the parallel process/model (85% agreed). Participants also suggested that the development of specialty services would increase the speed of response (100% agreed).
4. Single Appeal Centre
There was no clear consensus among Builder II representatives for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre, with 39% agreeing, 39% disagreeing and 23% neutral or undecided. The lack of clarity about the purpose and role of the Appeal Centre largely influenced the opinions of participants as indicated by the following factors: •
There is a need to clarify how the Appeal Centre would function (100% agreed);
•
There is a need to clarify implementation issues, such as who would appoint the board, what the criteria are for appointment, etc. (85% agreed, 15% neutral or undecided).
Participants were also concerned that a Single Appeal Centre or board would lack specific knowledge and skill to deal with the various appeals. All participants (100%) agreed that a Single Appeal Centre shouldn't mean that all appeals become homogenized or blended into one and that we shouldn't lose the integrity of each discipline. They also all agreed that "you can't build one size fits all policy" that doesn't fit anyone, both in fee schedules and technical issues. Most participants agreed with the idea of establishing a mediation secretariat alongside the Single Appeal Centre (76% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided). The suggestion that the Single Appeal Centre could act as a secretariat for a range of specialized boards was supported by slightly more than half of participants (54%), while 46% were neutral or undecided. Finally, the suggestion that building codes should be subject to local appeals was rejected by 46% of participants, while 46% were neutral or undecided.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
lin
5. Performance-Based Process Most Builder II representatives agreed with the idea of a zoning process that sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than on type of use, with 62% strongly agreeing (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) and 16% agreeing (selected 6 or 7). Three participants, or 23%, disagreed with the idea. Concern about how performance measures would be determined and what they might include were the key factors that influenced participants' opinion about the proposed zoning system. These factors included: •
The need to establish who would be the judge of performance, including who would establish criteria and measures (100% agreed);
•
The need to incorporate equivalency factors into performance measures (92% agreed);
•
The need for a clear understanding of community developed performance measures (standards/requirements must be clear) (84% agreed, 15% were neutral or undecided);
•
The need to recognize that in performance-based measurement there will be controversy and dissension (83% agree).
Participants also noted that neighborhood or community input and support would be vital to a performance-based process. However, only two-thirds (62%) of respondents agreed, 23% disagreed, and 15% were neutral or undecided.
6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility The majority of Builder II representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Ten participants (76%) placed the balance closer to greater flexibility (on a 10-point scale), while 3 participants (24%) placed the balance closer to greater certainty. Participants agreed that if a person sees an opportunity for innovation, they should have the flexibility to take action. They strongly disagreed with a process that would strengthen property owner rights and believed that individual rights should not dictate development decisions.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
fl
7. Proposed Planning Objectives Performance or impact-based enhancements to the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw could be applied to achieve specific objectives for the City of Edmonton. Builder II representatives were asked to rate each of seven potential planning objectives on a sevenpoint rating scale, from no importance ("none") to extreme importance ("extreme"). These objectives are shown below in order of importance to Builder II representatives: a) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 9 participants (69%) as being of extreme importance (selected 6 or 7 on a 7point scale) and by 4 participants (31%) as being somewhat important (selected 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale) (mean 6.1); b) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods was identified by 8 participants (61%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants (23%) as being of some importance. Two participants (16%) said it was of no importance (mean 5.4); c) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 7 participants (54%) as being of extreme importance and by 5 participants (39%) as being of some importance. One participant said it was of no importance (mean 5.4); d) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 5 participants (39%) as being of extreme importance and by 6 participants (46%) as being of some importance. Two participants said it was of no importance (mean 5.0); e) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by 6 participants (46%) as being of extreme importance and by 6 participants (46%) as being of some importance. One participant said it was of no importance (mean 4.8); f) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by 4 participants (31%) as being of extreme importance and by 7 participants (53%) as being somewhat important. Two participants (15%) believed it was of no importance (mean 4.5); g) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 2 participants (15%) as being of extreme importance and by 9 participants (69%) as being of some importance. Two participants (16%) believed it was of no importance (mean 3.8).
Other Issues Other issues were those identified by Builder ll representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFinderc process or that superseded the formal process. A key issue for Builder ll representatives was that the bylaw should reflect a common vision that people have for the City. As such, any development should be considered within the big picture, rather than on a piecemeal basis.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
F41
A . .
\
10
A
i As
Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings
# Participants
Planning and Development Representative
Date
Group
April 6, 1999 Afternoon
Developers I
12
M. Garrett
April 6, 1999 Evening
Community I
22
M. Garrett
April 7, 1999 Morning
Builders I
21
B. Kropf
April 7, 1999 Evening
Community II
14
B. Kropp
April 8, 1999 Morning
Developers II
14
B. Kropf
April 8, 1999 Afternoon
Builders II
13
M. Garrett
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
m
•
Aggregate Data Table 1 - Need to Streamline and Update Bylaw Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
0
0
0%
2
0
0
0
0%
3
0
1
1
3%
4
0
0
0
0%
5
0
2
2
6%
6
0
1
1
3%
7
1
1
2
6%
8
6
2
8
25%
9
3
1
4
13%
10
11
3 11
14
44%
32
100%
Total
o
0
Mean
21
0
9.14
0
7.36
8.53
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Need to Streamline/Update Bylaw 44%
25% 13% bob
3%
0% 0% 1
2
0°/0 4
5
3`)/0 17777M 6
60/0 7
8
9
10
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
F*1
Table 2 - Using a Customer Service Advocate Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
°A)
1
1
2
2
0
2
7
14
15%
2
1
1
o
o
o
2
4
4%
3
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
3%
4
0
1
2
1
0
2
6
6%
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
7%
6
1
0
2
3
0
0
6
6%
7
1
3
4
3
3
0
14
15%
8
8
22
5
3
2
1
21
22%
9
2
0
2
0
0
0
4
4%
10
6
3
3
2
2
1
17
18%
Total
22
14
21
13
12
14
96
100%
Mean
7.55
6.07
6.81
7.08
5.83
3.00
6.23
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Customer Service Advocate
City of Edmonton
m
Table 3 - Using Parallel Processes Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
')/0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
4
4%
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
4
0
1
o
0
0
0
1
1%
5
2
2
4
0
2
0
10
10%
6
4
2
2
1
0
0
9
9%
7
3
1
1
2
1
1
9
9%
8
6
3
0
3
1
1
14
15%
9
1
3
2
2
3
2
13
14%
10
4
1
12
5
4
9
35
36%
Total
22
14
21
13
12
14
96
100%
Mean
7.05
6.79
8.43
8.62
7.75
8.86
7.88
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Parallel Processes _36%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Table 4 - Single Appeal Centre Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
5
0
1
1
7
12%
2
1
0
o
0
1
2%
3
1
4
0
4
9
15%
4
1
1
1
0
3
5%
5
4
3
4
2
13
22%
6
4
0
1
3
8
13%
7
4
3
2
0
9
15%
8
0
1
0
1
2
3%
9
0
1
2
0
3
5%
10
1
0
1
3
5
8%
Total
21
13
12
14
60
100%
Mean
4.57
5.31
6.08
5.64
5.28
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Single Appeal Centre
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
P13
Table 5 - Performance-Based Planning Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
0
0
0
1
4
5%
2
0
2
1
2
7
10%
3
0
0
0
2
2
3%
4
0
0
2
0
4
5%
5
4
0
0
3
7
10%
6
o
0
1
2
3
4%
7
1
1
1
1
4
5%
8
6
3
3
2
16
22%
9
4
2
1
0
7
10%
10
7
6
4
1
19
26%
Total
22
14
13
14
73
100%
Mean
8.23
8.07
7.38
5.07
6.88
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Performance-Based Planning
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
KIA
Table 6 - Balance of Flexibility Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Scale
Dev 1
Build 2
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
3
0
1
3
1
8
9%
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
5
5%
3
1
0
2
0
0
3
6
6%
4
o
o
1
1
2
2
6
6%
5
2
2
1
0
0
0
5
5%
6
5
1
3
1
0
3
13
14%
7
5
4
4
2
0
1
16
17%
8
7
2
6
3
2
2
22
24%
9
o
o
1
2
0
0
3
3%
10
1
2
2
2
1
1
9
10%
Total
21
14
21
13
10
14
93
100%
Mean
6.86
5.93
6.67
6.85
4.10
5.07
6.11
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Balance of Flexibility 24%
1
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ai
Table 7a - Low-density residential in-fill Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
10
3
0
1
1
3
18
20%
2
2
0
2
1
1
1
7
8%
3
1
o
3
0
3
4
11
12%
4
0
o
3
2
0
0
5
5%
5
4
0
7
1
4
3
19
21%
6
1
1
0
2
0
2
6
7%
7
3
8
6
6
1
1
25
27%
Total
21
12
21
13
10
14
91
100%
Mean
3.05
5.42
5.38
3.90
3.64
4.30
4.86 _
Table 7b - Reinforcing older commercial strips Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
3%
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0%
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
9
10%
4
o
0
6
0
1
3
10
11%
5
10
2
5
4
4
6
31
33%
6
4
3
4
3
0
2
16
17%
7
7
7
5
4
0
1
24
26%
Total
22
13
21
13
10
14
93
100%
Mean
5.73
6.15
5.29
5.38
3.50
4.79
5.26
5
6
1 = No importance
7 = Extreme importance
Reinforcing commercial strips
1
2
3
4
7
Reinforcing commercial strips 27%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1041
Table 7c - Improving.. .major commercial nodes/corridors Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
')/0
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
7
8%
2
o
o
1
1
1
0
3
3%
3
1
2
1
0
5
2
11
12%
4
3
1
4
2
1
2
13
14%
5
10
2
6
4
0
1
23
25%
6
1
1
3
1
0
5
11
12%
7
7
6
5
4
0
3
25
27%
Total
22
13
21
13
10
14
93
100%
Mean
5.45
5.31
5.00
5.00
2.40
5.07
4.88
Table 7d - Managing industrial growth and transition Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2%
2
1
o
1
o
0
2
4
4%
3
o
1
5
2
0
1
9
10%
4
3
1
4
2
0
1
11
12%
5
4
2
4
2
8
3
23
25%
6
3
4
2
3
0
3
15
16%
7
11
5
5
3
2
3
29
31%
Total
22
13
21
13
10
14
93
100%
Mean
5.86
5.85
4.76
4.92
5.40
4.71
5.26
1 = No importance
7 = Extreme importance
Improving.. .commercial nodes 0
2G% 10% •
1
I .0
1Li If
2
3
17%
n
1I
4
5
6
7
4
5
6
7
Managing industrial growth
1
2
3
III
Table 7e - Conserving agricultural areas Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
0
5
0
8
8
21
23%
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
6
6%
3
3
0
8
3
2
0
16
17%
4
0
1
1
2
0
1
5
5%
5
1
1
3
2
0
2
9
10%
6
5
2
1
1
0
0
9
10%
7
13
9
1
3
0
1
27
29%
Total
22
13
21
13
10
14
93
100%
Mean
6.14
6.46
3.10
4.46
1.40
2.36
4.18
Table if - Conserving natural sites in table lands Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
°A)
1
0
0
1
0
5
1
7
8%
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
2%
3
0
0
7
0
4
4
15
16%
4
1
0
3
0
1
2
7
8%
5
2
0
5
4
0
0
11
12%
6
1
2
2
4
0
1
10
11%
7
18
11
2
5
0
5
41
44%
Total
22
13
21
13
10
14
93
100%
Mean
6.64
6.85
4.14
6.08
2.10
4.57
5.23
1 = No importance
7 = Extreme importance
Conserving agricultural areas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
4
5
6
7
Conserving natural sites
1
2
gil
Table 7g - Managing surburban growth Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
1
0
0
1
8
1
11
12%
2
o
o
2
1
1
1
5
5%
3
1
0
6
4
0
5
16
18%
4
2
0
2
3
0
2
9
10%
5
6
1
3
2
1
3
16
18%
6
2
1
4
2
0
1
10
11%
7
10
9
4
0
0
1
24
26%
Total
22
11
21
13
10
14
91
100%
Mean
5.64
6.73
4.62
3.77
1.50
3.86
4.54
5
6
1 = No importance
1
7 = Extreme importance
2
3
4
7
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
pi