SD L BRARY
ID IlI1111 II
1270014
II
1266 .
Stakeholder Consu a on Edmonton, Planning a
fl
oni4
Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Community Report
Planning and Development
LIBRARY
The City of Edmonton
111
i ma •
\
.
Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Community Report
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
S
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 Community I
Pg. 9
Community ll
Pg .14
Appendices Appendix A Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings
Pg. 20
Appendix B Aggregate Data
Pg. 21
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
•
II
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 OptionFinderŠ 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
• •
II
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
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
ti
•
I . P
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.
11
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
VI
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).
9) 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 = someu ,hat agree: 7-8 = agree; 9-10 . strongly agree.
•
Planning objectives 7a-g use a 7-point scale.
•
For 7-point scales, the following groupings are reported: 1-2 = no importance; 3-5 =
JOItle
importance: 6-7
extreme importance.
[Detailed tables and charts of all aggregate data can be found in Appendix B.)-
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
II
Community I Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw 1. Need to Streamline and Update
The most important factor that influenced Community I representatives' opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw was the need to make the bylaw easy to read and useful to the lay person. All participants (100%) agreed with this statement, including 20 participants (91%) who strongly agreed. Other key influencing factors, where at least 18 participants (80%) agreed on a fivepoint scale, included: •
The belief that streamlining should not eliminate or rush the opportunity for community input (95% agreed);
•
The belief that the different needs of different areas and types of land use should be accommodated in the streamlined bylaw (100% agreed);
.
The need to simplify the process and make it easier for the lay person to understand and participate (96% agreed);
•
The perception that the bylaw needs to be updated (82% agreed).
There was some concern about the terminology. Participants felt that "streamlining" was a loaded term, that implied a certain approach to controlling development. Most participants (20 or 91%) agreed that "updating" describes the need to bring the document up-to-date and, therefore, is a less value-laden term than "streamlining." Related to this factor, was the belief that the intent of the bylaw should not be changed during the streamlining or updating process (68% agreed). However, almost one-third of participants (6 participants or 27%) were neutral or undecided about changing the intent of the bylaw, while one participant strongly disagreed with this statement. The belief that areas of overlap between the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw and other administrative guidelines should be eliminated was supported by 13 participants (59%). Five participants (23%) disagreed with this statement while the remainder were neutral or undecided (4 participants or 18%). Participants were largely neutral or undecided on the suggestion that changes to the bylaw should not affect requirements for parking, with 12 participants (55%) choosing the "fence," 5 (23%) disagreeing, and the remaining 5 (23%) agreeing or strongly agreeing.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Ii
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate Most Community I representatives supported the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, with 19 participants (82%) agreeing with the idea. Three participants (15%) disagreed while one remained neutral or undecided. Although participants largely agreed with the concept of a Customer Service Advocate, many were uncomfortable with the term "advocate," pointing out that "advocate" suggests that the individual represents a position (that of the customer). Most participants (21 or 96%) preferred the term "facilitator," suggesting that this term would describe the role of making the process easier. One participant strongly disagreed with this idea. Other factors that influenced participants support for the concept of a Customer Service Advocate or Facilitator included the belief among 20 participants that the customer served by the Advocate/Facilitator should include both the applicant for development and community representatives (91% agreed). Related to this factor was the belief among 21 participants that support for the proponent should be equally balanced by support for any opponents (95% agreed). Participants also identified a number of practical or operational considerations that would be necessary to support the concept of an Advocate/Facilitator. These included a greater emphasis on electronic communication between city employees who share responsibilities for planning (19 participants; 86% agreed), and the need for adequate employee time to take on the Advocate/Facilitator role (17 participants; 78% agreed). The suggestion that a set fee be established to cover all permits was supported by 9 participants (41%) and rejected by 10 participants (46%). One individual was neutral or undecided.
3. Parallel Processes Community I representatives were less likely to support the idea of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval, than they were to support the idea of a Customer Service Advocate. Only 11 participants (50%) strongly agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10 point scale), compared to 16 participants (72%) who supported the concept of an Advocate/Facilitator. Two participants were neutral or undecided while two participants disagreed with the idea of a parallel process.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Some participants questioned why the process was designed to be non-parallel in the first place, noting that, although parts of the process are dependent on other parts, they do not have to hold each other up. Participants felt that parallel processes could benefit the community by providing more information about a development early in the process. However, there was also a concern that a faster, more efficient parallel process could reduce time for community notification and input. There was some question about when a community is informed about the zoning for a commercial strip. For example, participants noted that community league presidents are never notified about developments or re-zoning and felt this was a problem.
4.
Single Appeal Centre
There was no clear consensus among Community I representatives for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre. Only 1 participant indicated strong agreement with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10 point scale), while 7 participants (34%) indicated disagreement with the idea (selected 1, 2 or 3 on a 10 point scale). The remainder, or 14 participants (62%), chose a more neutral or undecided position, with 5 participants (24%) leaning towards disagreement and 8 participants (38%) leaning towards agreement. Participants were particularly concerned about the composition of the "super board," noting that its members would have to have a very broad knowledge of diverse subjects. However, they believed that there was merit in a Single Appeal Board, as long as citizens had an opportunity to appeal decisions.
5.
Performance-Based Process
Community I representatives strongly supported the idea of a zoning process which sets
quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than type of use, with 18 participants (82%) agreeing with the idea. The remainder, 4 participants (18%) were neutral or undecided. Despite their agreement, participants were concerned that a performance-based process would allow for too much discretion on the part of decision-makers. They were also concerned that a performance-based process would favor developers at the expense of the community. Lacking a clear definition of the proposed process, they had a number of questions about how it might work, including: Does this mean judgement is made on the performance of the proposal? How can we be sure that the standards will be in synch with community standards?
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
In
6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility The majority of Community representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Two-thirds of participants (13 participants or 62%) placed the balance closer to greater flexibility, while only one participant placed the balance closer to greater certainty. Seven participants (34%) chose an equal balance, with two leaning more towards certainty and 5 leaning more towards flexibility. Participants acknowledged that greater flexibility would encourage investment and reinvestment but questioned how many neighborhoods actually need a "developer-friendly stimulus." Many noted that the city continues to develop at its outer edge, when innercity investment is more important.
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. Community 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 Community I representatives: a) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 19 participants (86%) as being of extreme importance (selecting 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale for a mean of 6.6); b) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by 18 participants (81%) as being of extreme importance (mean 6.1); c) Managing industrial growth and development was identified by 13 participants (62%) as being of extreme importance and by 7 participants (33%) as being of some importance (mean 5.8); d) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 11 participants (52%) as being of extreme importance and by 10 participants (48%) as being of some importance (mean 5.8); e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 12 participants (55%) as being of extreme importance and by 8 participants (40%) as being of some importance (mean 5.6). One participant believed it was of no importance;
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
IF
I.
Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by only 7 participants (30%) as being of extreme importance and by the remainder (14 participants or 70%) as being of some importance (mean 5.4);
g. Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was identified by only 4 participants (15%) as being of extreme importance and by 5 participants (25%) as being of some importance. Eleven participants (45%) said it was of no importance (mean 3.2). Other Issues Other issues were those identified by Community I representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFinder° process or that superseded the formal process. A key issue for participants was the ideological clash between communities and developers. There is a tension between the developer who wants to "get things going" in the city and the community which is suspicious of developers and their motives. Many community participants were concerned about continuing to develop at the edges of the city, when inner-city investment is also important. Participants perceived developers as resisting projects that are costly and/or hard to execute and, therefore, choosing to emphasize suburban development. Community participants want assurances that the City's planning and development standards are reflective of their community standards, and that the notion of "looking after" communities is entrenched in the municipality's thinking. An updated and streamlined bylaw should balance the interests of community and developers, promoting innovative and appropriate development that improves the quality of life for the citizens of Edmonton.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
k
▪ •
_a
.
. a
IP
;
Community ll Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw 1. Need to Streamline and Update The most important factor that influenced Community II representatives opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw was that the bylaw be conscious of sustaining the "life" of older communities and mature neighborhoods. All participants (100%) agreed with this factor. There was also a strong belief that all communities, whether new or mature, should have the ability to create and pursue a community vision, with 13 participants agreeing (93%). One participant was neutral or undecided about this factor. Other key influencing factors, where at least 11 participants (80%) agreed, at a principle or value level included: •
The belief that the bylaw should be consistently applied, including when property is city-owned (93% agreed);
•
The belief that the bylaw should be a public policy document that balances the need to facilitate development and the need to protect the public interest (93% agreed);
•
The belief that the bylaw should respect the individual, diverse needs of different areas of the city (93% agreed);
•
The belief that the size and scope of the project should be reflected in the requirements for public input (85% agreed).
Participants also made a number of practical suggestions for how the bylaw could be streamlined and updated to better meet the needs of communities. These included the need for: •
Parking regulations that are area/community specific and that reflect the reality of the area (93% agreed);
•
Bylaw and zoning requirements that are easy to understand (93% agreed);
•
A requirement that the public be notified about businesses moving into a developed space and public involvement in the process (100% agreed);
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
lEi
•
A set of community involvement standards that are consistently applied (93% agreed);
•
A process that links communities with a common interest or situation (86% agreed);
•
A total review of parking regulations (86% agreed);
•
A longer period of notification about proposed changes to the bylaw (86% agreed);
•
A set of planning principles on which the bylaw is based (79% agreed).
Factors or suggestions that were supported by less than 10 participants (70%) and for which there was no clear consensus, included: •
The need to have a bylaw that is visionary and allows the City to plan for the future (64% agreed, 14% neutral/undecided);
•
The need to have a clause for an interim process to revisit the bylaw and visioning process (64% agreed, 29% neutral/undecided);
•
The need for a bylaw that is more consistent and restrictive in allowing different types of development (64% agreed, 14% neutral/undecided, 21% disagreed);
•
The need for consistency throughout the bylaw, where now some regulations are very general while others are very restrictive (65% agreed, 21% neutral/undecided);
•
The need to align the bylaw with and implement the vision of the Alberta Roundtable on Environment and Economy (36% agreed, 57% neutral/undecided).
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate Only slightly more than half (8 participants or 56%) of Community II representatives supported the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, with only 3 participants (21%) strongly agreeing with the idea. Four participants (28%) disagreed while two remained neutral or undecided. Slightly more than half of participants (54%) strongly agreed that it would be more appropriate to determine if an advocate is necessary after the process is streamlined. Five participants were neutral or unsure, while one participant disagreed with this idea.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
in
Most participants were more comfortable with the concept of "facilitator" rather than "advocate." Nine participants (69%) strongly agreed that the job should be two-fold: an unbiased liaison and a facilitator. A slightly smaller number of respondents (8 or 62%) strongly agreed that the Advocate should be a facilitator/process master. Other factors that influenced participants' opinion about the idea of a Customer Service Advocate included concerns about who would pay for the advocate (73% agreed), and questions about whether or not the advocate would be available to opponents of a development. Eight participants (66%) agreed that an advocate should be available to an individual or community who wants to go to the Development Appeal Board. Participants suggested a few ways in which the role of advocate could be operationalized. However, there were varying levels of agreement with these ideas and no clear consensus. Suggestions included: •
Having an advocate that specializes in dealing with the common consumer (84% agreed, 15% were neutral or undecided, 15% disagreed);
•
Letting the size and scope of a project determine the need for a facilitator (38% agreed, 31% were neutral or undecided, 31% disagreed);
•
Providing a user-pay service or private service (15% agreed, 54% were neutral or undecided, 30% disagreed).
3. Parallel Processes Community II representatives were more likely to support the idea of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval, than they were to support the idea of a Customer Service Advocate. Slightly less than half of participants (48%) strongly agreed with the idea of a parallel process (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10 point scale), compared to 5 participants (35%) who supported the concept of an Advocate. Four participants were neutral or undecided while two participants disagreed with the idea of a parallel process. The factors that most influenced their opinion about a parallel process related to the vagueness and lack of certainty about this concept. All participants (100%) agreed (29%) that the parallel process should be clearly defined: how will it really work? They also indicated that efficiencies must not override planning principles (100% agreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
All participants strongly agreed that the process must include a final review of all components at the end of the process, so that it is seen as a whole and not as a series of parts. Participants also emphasized that the parallel process must not facilitate a "steamrollering" of the approval process (93% strongly agreed), and should contribute to full disclosure of a project's scope, intent and end product (86% strongly agreed). Participants were particularly concerned about protecting communities and the rights of communities in the development process. Most participants (86%) agreed that the parallel process must ensure that communities have an opportunity for intervention and right of first refusal. A strong majority (77% agreed) that the process would require a "trip wire" mechanism whereby community input would enable the process to proceed.
4.
Performance-Based Process
Community II representatives strongly supported the idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than on type of use, with 17 participants
(78%) strongly agreeing with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale). Three participants (14%) disagreed with the idea. Participants agreed that the type of use is not as important as the impact of use. However, they were concerned that a performance-based process could be too nebulous. There was a sense that a performancebased process would require more scrutiny and questioned at whose discretion judgements about performance would be made.
5.
Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility
Most Community II representatives (65%) supported a planning process with greater flexibility than one with greater certainty (21%), while 14% supported a process that balances certainty and flexibility. The key factors that influenced participants' opinions about certainty versus flexibility related to criteria for assessing projects and opportunities for community input. All participants (100%) agreed that the process must have defined parameters, criteria and outcomes, while 78% agreed that performance criteria could be different for different parts of the city (14% disagreed). Slightly more than three-quarters of participants (78%) believed that the process should enable predictability. Most participants (93%) would support a more flexible process that provided lots of notification and information about possible developments. Although most participants (78%) believed that those people who are directly affected should have the most input (21% disagreed), they also believed that everyone needs an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made (78% agreed, 14% disagreed). Related to these beliefs was the suggestion that impact must be clearly viewed from a broad base of all stakeholders (79% agreed, 7% disagreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
kfl
6. 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. Community II 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 Community II representatives: a) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by all participants (100%) as being of extreme importance (selected 6 or 7 on a 7- point scale for a mean of 6.8); b) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 10 participants (91%) as being of extreme importance (mean 6.7); c) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by 11 participants (84%) as being of extreme importance (mean 6.5); d) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 10 participants (77%) as being of extreme importance and by 2 participants (15%) as being of some importance (mean 6.2); e) Managing industrial growth and development was identified by 9 participants (69%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants (23%) as being of some importance (mean 5.8); f) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was identified by 9 participants (75%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants (25%) as being of no importance (mean 5.4). g) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 7 participants (54%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants 23%) as being of some importance. Three participants (23%) said it was of no importance (mean 5-3).
Other Issues Other issues were those identified by Community II representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFinder° process or that superseded the formal process. One issue identified by participants was recognition of the difficulty of setting rules that reflect the growing diversity of the city, while ensuring consistent and fair application of those rules across communities.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Participants identified the need to connect the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw to a vision of the type of city we want, reflecting the city of the future rather than of the past. This vision, said participants, should come from communities, not from developers. Linked to the idea of a vision was the suggestion that the bylaw should be based on a set of principles which would provide direction and guidance for developments unanticipated by the bylaw. There was a perception that the proposed changes favoured developers. Participants emphasized that the bylaw must be about public interest not about developer ease. In particular, participants were concerned that parallel processes might make it too easy for developers by allowing them to move forward before the community has a chance to review and, if necessary, oppose an application. In general, community participants want a solid bylaw that will protect public interest and promote positive development.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
in
•
k n
P
•
A ,,
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
Flil
'
S
Aggregate Data Table 1 - Need to Streamline and Update Bylaw Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
TOTAL
Dev 2
Dev 1
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
o
1
1
3%
7
1
1
2
6%
8
6
2
8
25%
9
3
1
4
13%
10
11
3
14
44%
32
100%
Total
o
o
Mean
21
0
11
0
8.53
7.36
9.14
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Need to Streamline/Update Bylaw 44%
25%
6%
3% 0%
0% 0% 1
%
2
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
3
4
60/0
3%
mwma 5
6
7
8
9
10
Table 2 - Using a Customer Service Advocate Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Scale
Build 2
Dev 1
TOTAL
Dev 2
%
1
1
2
2
0
2
7
14
15%
2
1
1
0
0
0
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 FT1
Table 3 - Using Parallel Processes Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
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
o
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Kil
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
o
o
o
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
PZ i
Table 5 - Performance-Based Planning Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
o
o
o
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
7
10%
6
o
o
1
3 2
3
4%
7
1
1
1
1
4
5%
8
6
3
2
16
22%
9
4
2
3 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
al
Table 6 - Balance of Flexibility Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
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
0
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
0
0
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
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
o
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
4.86
5.38
3.90
3.64
4.30
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
9
10%
4
0
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
4
5
6
7
4
5
6
7
1 = No importance
7 = Extreme importance
Reinforcing commercial strips
1
2
3
Reinforcing commercial strips
1
2
3
Table 7c - Improving...major commercial nodes/corridors Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
7
8%
2
0
0
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
o
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
6
7
7 = Extreme importance
1 = No Importance
Improving.. .commercial nodes
Managing industrial growth
2
3
4
5
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
o
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 71 - Conserving natural sites in table lands Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
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 0
0 17% 11%
10% •
1
1
-
.
Po ,.
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
4
5
6
7
Conserving natural sites
1
2
zi
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
0
0
2
1
1
1
5
5%
3
1
o
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
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
7 = Extreme importance
2
3
4
7