SD LIBRARY
1270013
111111 II III
Stakeholder Consulta Son Edmonton, Planning a
1266
PING
Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Developers° Report
Planninci and Development
Llt3RARY The City of Edmonton
313.1a .E3 E373 19992000d
Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Developers' Report
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
•
Pg .1
Introduction
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 Developers I
Pg. 9
Developers II
Pg. 14
Appendices Appendix A Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings
Pg. 20
Appendix B Aggregate Data
Pg. 21
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
Ill
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. OptionFinderŠ 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
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
11
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
•
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 Ill
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 III: 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
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 scales, the following groupings are reported: 1-2 = no importance: 3-5 = some 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
Developers I Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning Bylaw) 1. Need to Streamline and Update
In general, Developer I representatives agreed with the idea of streamlining and updating the current Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw, with 9 participants strongly agreeing (54% selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) or agreeing (18% selected 5 or 6 on a 10-point scale). A number of factors influenced their support of this idea, including the need for clarity, flexibility and speed. In particular, participants identified the following factors: •
The need to clarify entrenched rights of the landowner (100% agreed);
•
The addition of clarity and flexibility that helps people do business would be good (92% agreed);
•
The need to update and make the bylaw current, although the document as a whole works well (75% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided);
•
The need to update the bylaw to address requirements for big retail development (67% agreed, 33% were neutral or undecided).
However, participants also questioned the need to streamline and update the bylaw: •
Do not start from scratch and throw out 20 years of learning in this city (92% agreed);
•
Changes to the bylaw cannot substitute for common sense. The administrator still plays a key role in approvals (100% agreed);
•
The focus should be on streamlining the existing bylaw, not on a total rewrite (91% agreed);
•
Streamlining for whom? The applicant or the clerk? We want something that allows changes with less hassle (67% agreed, 33% were neutral or undecided);
•
Rewriting the bylaw may lead to detailed technical issues; everyone will have some old issue to solve (75% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided);
•
What's broken? Why fix it? No one has defined the problems that need to be addressed (59% agreed, 25% were neutral or undecided, 17% disagreed);
City of Edmonton Planning and Development il
•
There is the potential that new proposals will create new problems and lose the foundation and philosophy we have developed (67% agreed, 25% were neutral or undecided).
Some participants identified factors that were not strongly supported by the group or for which there was no clear consensus. These factors included: •
The existing bylaw is similar to other city bylaws. Minor changes in the process that support flexibility and speed would be the most valued (50% agreed, 33% were neutral or undecided, 17% disagreed);
•
Anything that will speed up the process will be good (58% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided, 25% disagreed);
•
It may cost too much to achieve the land use bylaw change (50% agreed, 25% were neutral or undecided, 25% disagreed);
•
This looks like a way to justify planning jobs (17% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided, 66% disagreed).
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate
Although a slightly higher number of Developer I representatives (7 participants or 59%) agreed with the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information through the permit and approval process, the levels of strong agreement (34% selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) and strong disagreement (34% selected 1, 2 or 3) were the same. Thus, there was no clear consensus in the group. One of the factors that influenced participants' opinions included concerns about the people who would fill the Advocate role: •
A selection process would be needed to get good people (100% agreed);
•
Concern that there isn't anyone in the City that can deal with all of these planning approval aspects (67% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided, 17% disagreed).
Participants also identified a number of concerns or suggestions about the role of the Advocate: •
There will be pressure on the Advocate to follow City protocol and guidelines rather than provide the best help to the applicant (84% agreed);
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Hil
•
There is little need for a generalist role in the application process. We would prefer an emphasis on specialists (58% agreed, 33% were neutral or undecided);
•
Need to define what particular problems a Customer Service Advocate would address (66% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided, 17% disagreed).
However, there was no consensus on the suggestion that there are already consultants that fill the Customer Service Advocate role (50% agreed, 34% disagreed, 17% were neutral or undecided). Participants also identified specific benefits that could be offered by a Customer Service Advocate: •
The Advocate would be of value if the individual can make decisions (91% agreed);
•
The Advocate would benefit people who deal with the City infrequently (75% agreed, 17% disagreed);
•
There is benefit to a one-stop person who would walk you through the application. This would promote the economic initiative of the City (66% agreed, 25% disagreed).
Finally, participants indicated that all of the proposed changes will be irrelevant if there is not a fundamental change in the approval system (83% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided). However, there was no consensus on the suggestion that consultation after approval and the right of anyone to appeal after approval must be changed (42% agreed, 33% were neutral or undecided, 25% disagreed).
3. Parallel Processes The majority of Developer I representatives agreed with the idea of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approvals, with 9 participants (74%) agreeing. However, there was some concern that they would have to spend a lot of money up front in order to accommodate the parallel processes.
4. Single Appeal Centre Although more Developer I representatives agreed with the idea of a Single Appeal Centre (42%) than disagreed (8%), the largest number (50%) were neutral or undecided. Much of the ambivalence towards the Single Appeal Centre comes from the belief that the current appeal process does not have any real problems. They also questioned the composition of the board, asking, "where can you find people who can deal with all the aspects (of appeal)?" Participants wanted evidence that a Single Appeal Centre would be more effective.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
111
5. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility The majority (70%) of Developer I representatives favored a zoning bylaw with greater flexibility than one with greater certainty (30%). However, this preference was for greater flexibility at the broad-brush stage, after which participants' believed there should be a set approval process (80% agreed, 20% were neutral or undecided). Related to this was the need for consultation to happen earlier in the process (70% agreed, 30% were neutral or undecided). A key factor for participants was the need for greater certainty once the development conforms to the statutory plan: •
There should not be consultation after the statutory plan decisions are made. Conforming uses should proceed with certainty (82% agreed);
•
There is no need for zoning applications to go to Council if they conform to the statutory plan (73% agreed, 18% were neutral or undecided);
•
Statutory plan and land use zoning should happen at the same time wherever practical (70% agreed, 30% were neutral or undecided).
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. Developer I 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 Developer I representatives: a) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by 2 participants (20%) as being of extreme importance (selected 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and by 8 participants (80%) as being of some importance (selected 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale) (mean 5.4); b) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods was identified by 1 participant (10%) as being of extreme importance and by 7 participants (70%) as being of some importance. Two participants (20%) said it was of no importance (mean 3.9); c) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 8 participants (80%) as being of some importance and by two participants as being of no importance (mean 3.5); d) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 6 participants (60%) as being of some importance. Four participants (40%) said it was of no importance (mean 2.4); City of Edmonton Planning and Development
in
e) Conserving natural sites in tablelands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 5 participants (50%) as being somewhat important. Five participants (50%) said it was of no importance (mean 2.1); f) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 1 participant (10%) as being of some importance. Nine participants (90%) believed it was of no importance (mean 1.5); g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by 2 participants (20%) as being somewhat important. Eight participants (80%) believed it was of no importance (mean 1.4).
Other Issues Other issues were those identified by Developer I representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFinderŠ process or that superseded the formal process. Participants questioned the need to update and streamline the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw and planning process. On the one hand, they felt that the current bylaw and the planning department "work pretty well at the moment." On the other hand, some participants were cynical, viewing the process as a "make work" project for the planning department. Similarly, participants questioned the need for a Customer Service Advocate, believing it would simply be an attempt to offset the poor customer service that exists in the department. Participants believed that there must be a fundamental change in the way development is viewed and approved in Edmonton. They noted that public views of growth and development influence Council, which makes decisions in response to public opinion rather than on what is best for the city. In general, they believe that the growth philosophy is not clearly accepted by municipal politicians or the public. An associated issue was that of public consultation. There was concern that public consultation is not as democratic as it claims to be and that by allowing anyone to appeal, the "public" voice is often that of special interest groups. There was a general feeling that consultation must have a clear endpoint, from which developers can proceed with confidence: "you shouldn't get to keep kicking the cat."
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
kid
Developers II Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning Bylaw) 1. Need to Streamline and Update
The factors that influenced participants' support for streamlining and updating the bylaw can be grouped into three broad categories: purpose of the bylaw, content and readability, and external influences. All participants (100%) agreed that there needs to be an understanding about whether the bylaw is a base document or a "living, breathing process." Related to this factor was the idea that the bylaw should reflect the "vision" of the City of Edmonton, by linking the vision of the Municipal Plan to the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw, and should enable the achievement of that vision (85% agreed, 15% disagreed). Factors or suggestions related to content and readability included: •
Only put in the bylaw what has to be in the bylaw. The rest should be put in policy (93% agreed);
•
The bylaw needs to be user-friendly, understandable and clear (78% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided);
•
The bylaw must be specific, clear, precise and legally functional (86% agreed).
The largest number of factors referred to external factors or influences that should be considered when updating and streamlining the bylaw. However, there was less agreement or no clear consensus on most of these factors. External factors or influences included: •
The city should not try to impact trends but, rather, should reflect and work with societal and technical trends (85% agreed, 14% disagreed);
•
Market forces should be a prime consideration in the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw (57% agreed, 29% were neutral or undecided, 14% disagreed);
•
Market demand should be one of the trends taken into account in planning/land use (79% agreed, 14% disagreed);
•
Changes in how people use or operate in the City should be taken into account (71% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided, 14% disagreed);
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
in
•
There is a need to recognize trends in which the bureaucracy interacts with the public and politicians and, thus, how the bylaw is enforced (42% agreed, 29% were neutral or undecided, 28% disagreed);
•
Impacting trends need to be broadened to include market, community cycles, controls, globalization, city-states, transnationalization and other trends that impact planning and land use (50% agreed, 21% were neutral or undecided, 28% disagreed).
Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate Developer II representatives strongly disagreed with the idea of using a Customer Service
Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, with 46% strongly disagreeing (selected 1 on a 10-point scale) and another 30% disagreeing. Only two participants (16%) agreed with the idea. The factors that influenced participants' opinions about the idea of a Customer Service Advocate included beliefs that the service is not needed, concerns about consistency of service, and lack of clarity or agreement about the role of the Advocate. Most participants questioned the need for an Advocate, agreeing that improving customer service should be part of the job and that they do not need an advocacy role in the planning department (93% agreed, 7% disagreed). Related to this perspective was the idea that the City should provide defined, base-level service to every customer by every staff member (93% agreed, 7% were neutral or undecided). A key factor was a concern that the service would not be consistent: •
Treatment must be consistent by all planners (100% agreed);
•
Advocates should have appropriate expertise to deliver consistency when dealing with the general public (93% agreed, 7% was neutral or undecided);
•
Treatment and levels of services must be consistent for all customers (78% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided, 7% disagreed).
Most participants agreed (86%) that the term advocate must be clarified and offered a number of ideas or suggestions, some of which received limited support: •
The Advocate should have delegated decision authority and accountability based on a rationale (64% agreed, 36% were neutral or undecided);
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
al
.
The role should be facilitative (64% agreed, 36% disagreed);
•
The role should apply to development permits (35% agreed, 36% disagreed, 29% were neutral or undecided);
.
The role should apply to the planning process (28% agreed, 50% disagreed, 21% were neutral or undecided);
•
The coordination/facilitation role should be performed by a non-planner (14% agreed, 72% disagreed, 14% were neutral or undecided).
Although there was no clear consensus, some participants agreed (43%) that there must be an appeal process for reappointment of an Advocate in the case of conflict (29% disagreed, 29% were neutral or undecided).
3. Parallel Processes Almost all Developer ll representatives (93%) agreed with the idea of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval. Only one participant (7%) disagreed. Participants strongly agreed that parallel processes should streamline timing (100% agreed). They also agreed that parallel processes would provide flexibility without affecting other applications, allowing each application to stand on its own merit (93% agreed, 7% were neutral or undecided). Participants identified a number of factors that would ensure the effectiveness and value of parallel processes. These included: 4,
The number of processes in which you participate should be optional (93% agreed, 7% were neutral or undecided);
•
There must be some logical/strategic sequence to the processes (86% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided);
•
Within the process, the application should be only as detailed as set out in the process. Detailed plans should not be required before it is appropriate (86% agreed, 7% were neutral or undecided, 7% disagreed);
•
The planning coordinator must be doing their job to ensure everything is coordinated (78% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided, 7% disagreed);
•
There should be a discount on application fees if you submit applications for parallel processes (79% agreed, 7% were neutral or undecided, 14% disagreed).
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
kt4
4. Single Appeal Centre There was no clear consensus among Developer II representatives for the idea of a single appeal centre, with half agreeing (selected 6 to 10 on a 10-point scale) and half disagreeing (selected 1 to 5). One in three participants were more neutral or undecided on the idea (selected 5 or 6). The primary factor that influenced participants' opinion of a single appeal centre was the need for a single body to demonstrate greater efficiency and effectiveness than is provided by the current system (100% agreed). There was also a concern that one appeal board would not hinder or extend the development time frame (100% agreed). Concern about the composition of the appeal board was also an important factor, with 93% or participants agreeing that they would need to know the make-up of the appeal board and that the makeup of the board and appointment process would be critical. In particular, they suggested that the appeal board should utilize a pool of people with specific expertise so that appropriate boards could be put together, depending on the nature of the appeal. A small majority of participants (57%) agreed that politicians should be removed from the appeal process (29% were neutral or undecided, 14% disagreed). Some participants suggested specific roles for the appeal centre, however, there was no clear consensus on these roles: •
Should be a pure clearing house for filing appeals (57% agreed, 29% were neutral or undecided, 14% disagreed);
•
Should be a single administrative centre that does the paperwork related to appeals (50% agreed, 36% were neutral or undecided, 14% disagreed);
•
Should be a central board where all appeals are dealt with at once (35% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided, 50% disagreed).
5. Performance-Based Process There was no clear consensus on the idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact rather than on type of use, with 56% disagreeing (selected 1 to 5 on a 10-point scale) and 44% (selected 6 to 10) agreeing. Approximately one-third (35%) clearly disagreed (selected 1, 2 or 3), while only one in five (21%) clearly agreed (selected 8, 9 or 10). The remaining participants were more neutral or undecided (42%). Participants were concerned that performance-based criteria could result in enormous subjectivity, making the process too open to interpretation and intervention.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
IFI
6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility There was no clear consensus among Developer II representatives, with equal numbers supporting a process with greater certainty and a process with greater flexibility. A key factor in participants' support for a more flexible process is that flexibility cannot mean ambiguity. All participants agreed that there is a need to define a measurement process and standards, while most agreed (92%) that the rules on flexibility must be clear and that flexibility must be supported by defined, rationale standards or criteria/guidelines (83% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided). Most participants (83%) agreed that specific zoning categories in which flexibility could be applied should be defined (17% were neutral or undecided). There was also a high level of agreement for the need to be able to identify truly affected parties and how they are affected (75% agreed, 17% were neutral or undecided). There was some concern that flexibility leans towards inconsistency, so that people do not know what they can or can't do (83% agreed, 8% were neutral or undecided, 8% disagreed). Some participants (42%) wanted the ability to choose between certainty and flexibility (42% were neutral or undecided, 17% disagreed), while some (58%) felt there must be balance between flexibility and certainty on the effects of the initial development (25% were neutral or undecided, 17% disagreed). A final factor was the need for an amendment process for the land use bylaw that would recognize and provide for the need to deal with changing situations and to accommodate the future (92% agreed, 8% disagreed).
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. Developer 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 Developer II representatives:
a) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 8 participants (57%) as being of extreme importance (selected 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and by 5 participants (35%) as being of some importance (selected 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale) (mean 5.1); b) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 3 participants (21%) as being of extreme importance and by 11 participants (78%) as being of some importance; C) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by 6 participants (42%) as being of extreme importance and by 5 participants (35%) as being of some importance (mean 4.7); City of Edmonton Planning and Development
In
d) Conserving natural sites in tablelands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 6 participants (42%) as being of extreme importance and by 6 participants (42%) as being somewhat important (mean 4.6). e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 2 participants (14%) as being of extreme importance and by 10 participants (71%) as being of some importance (mean 3.9). f) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods was identified by 3 participants (21%) as being of extreme importance and by 7 participants (50%) as being of some importance (mean 3.6); g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by 1 participant (7%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants (21%) as being somewhat important. Ten participants (72%) believed it was of no importance (mean 2.4).
Other Issues Other issues were those identified by Developer I representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFinder° process or that superseded the formal process. Many participants questioned the need to update and streamline the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw, saying, "it doesn't need fixing." In general, participants believed that the current bylaw is functional and works well. Another key issue was that of political involvement in the zoning process. Participants questioned whether Council should continue to make zoning decisions and expressed a desire to move towards de-politicizing the zoning process.
City of Edmonton Planning and Development ILI
Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings
# Participants
Planning & Development Representatives
Date
Group
April 6, 1999 Afternoon
Developers I
12
B. Kropf
April 6, 1999 Evening
Community I
22
M. Garrett
April 7, 1999 Morning
Builders I
21
B. Kropf
April 7, 1999 Afternoon
Community II
14
M. Garrett
April 8, 1999 Morning
Developers II
14
M. Garrett
April 8, 1999 Afternoon
Builders II
13
B. Kropf
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
P-111
APPENDIX B
Aggregate Data Table 1 - Need to Streamline and Update Bylaw Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
°A)
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
14
44%
32
100%
Total Mean
o
o
21
0
9.14
11 7.36
0
8.53
1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree
Need to Streamline/Update Bylaw
City of Edmonton Planning and Development '4l
Table 2 - Using a Customer Service Advocate Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2
Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
1
2
2
0
2
7
14
15%
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
4
4%
3
1
o
o
o
2
0
3
3%
4
o
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
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
City of Edmonton
p4
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
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1%
5
2
2
4
0
2
0
10
10%
6
4
2
2
1
0
0
9
9%
7
1
1
2
1
1
9
9%
8
3 6
3
0
3
1
1
14
15%
9
1
2
2
13
14%
4
12
5
3 4
2
10
3 1
22
14
21
13
12
35 96
36%
Total
9 14
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
100%
Table 4 - Single Appeal Centre Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Dev 1
Build 2
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
5
0
1
1
7
12%
2
1
0
0
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
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
m
Table 5 - Performance-Based Planning Scale
Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Build 2
Dev 1
Dev 2
TOTAL
%
1
0
0
0
1
4
5%
2
2
1
2
7
10%
3 4
o o o
o
0
2
2
3%
0
2
0
4
5%
5
4
0
0
3
7
10%
6
0
0
1
2
7
1
1
1
1
3 4
4% 5%
8
6
3
2
16
22%
9
4
2
3 1
0
7
10%
10 Total Mean
7
6
4
1
26%
22
14
13
14
19 73
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
100%
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
o
o
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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
City of Edmonton Planning and Development
Ili
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
0
3
0
3
4
11
12%
4
0
0
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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o%
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
4
5
6
1 = No importance
7 = Extreme importance
Reinforcing commercial strips
1
2
3
7
Reinforcing commercial strips
1
2
3
Kt/
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
0/0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2%
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
4
4%
3
0
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
1 = No importance
7 = Extreme importance
Improving...commercial nodes
1
2
3
4
5
Managing industrial growth 27% 21%
20°/
7n/0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pii
Table 7e - Conserving agricultural areas Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1
Scale
Build 2
Dev 1
TOTAL
Dev 2
%
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 7f - 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
o
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
7 = Extreme importance
1 = No importance
Conserving agricultural areas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Conserving natural sites 27°/ 21%
20%
7n/0 1
2
3
4
5
6
....................... ....................... .......................
7
Fll
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
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
1 = No importance
1
7 = Extreme importance
2
3
4
5
6
7