Edmonton (Alta.) - 1999-2000 - CS5_Stakeholder consultation_comprehensive group report (1999-05-01)

SD L BRARY

127893

HI It III

1266

Stakeholder Consul ation Edmonton, Planning a

Y anM

Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Stakeholder Consultation Comprehensive Group Report

Planning and Development

LIBRARY The City of Edmonton

Choosing Dirac'Hone

Pllanrang and Developing Edmonton the Futue

StakehoMeT Consadtation Conmehenshge boup Reput

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

•

k

k

Introduction

Pg. 1

Key Messages from Stakeholders

Pg. 3

Summary of Stakeholder Input Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw

Pg. 5

Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services Part III: Planning Enhancements

Pg. 6 Pg. 7

Stakeholder Group Reports Community I

Pg. 9

Community II

Pg. 14

Builders I

Pg. 20

Builders II

Pg. 26

Developers I

Pg. 33

Developers II

Pg. 38

Appendices Appendix A Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings

Pg. 44

Appendix B Aggregate Data

Pg. 45

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

INTR•D Tle

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 H: 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 III: 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

ml

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

n

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

El

II II

± I.•

•

▪a•

L.

.

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

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

ml

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

LI

ID

A

: I

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

11

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 .

IR

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

f. 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 OptionFinderŠ 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

kfwi

Community II 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

kfl

•

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

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

in

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

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 OptionFinderŠ 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

kfl

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

Builder I Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning Bylaw) 1. Need to Streamline and Update All Builder I representatives supported the idea of streamlining and updating the current Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw, with 11 participants (52%) strongly agreeing (selected 10 on a 10-point scale) and 10 participants (48%) agreeing (selected 7, 8 or 9).

The most important factors that influenced Builder I representatives' opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw were that the revised bylaw be simpler and easier to use but not more restrictive. Twenty out of 21 participants (95%) agreed that the structure of the bylaw must provide for a simpler, more accessible process by having in the bylaw only that which needs to be in the bylaw (area development plans and overlays). In addition, 17 participants (81%) agreed that updating does not mean more restrictive. Two participants were neutral or undecided on this idea and one disagreed.

Uniformity, flexibility and responsiveness were also important factors. Seventeen (81%) participants agreed that the bylaw should provide clear standards and guidelines that balance uniformity and flexibility, thereby limiting personal interpretation, and that the bylaw should be flexible and responsive to the affected areas and their local culture.

A number of other factors were identified by Builder I representatives, however, there was no clear consensus on most of these factors, with less than 15 participants (75%) indicating agreement. These additional factors included: •

A comprehensive, city-wide bylaw (72% agreed, 19% were neutral or undecided);

•

A bylaw that addresses the uniqueness of the City of Edmonton (66% agreed, 19% were neutral or undecided);

•

Relaxation of controls to produce a more responsive bylaw that would reduce the need to go to the appeal board (62% agreed, 24% were neutral or undecided);

•

Standardization of regulations in certain zoning areas, reducing the number of variations on the same theme (62% agreed, 24% disagreed);

•

Greater emphasis on increased density in the inner city rather than on urban sprawl (52% agreed, 24% disagreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Two factors, on which less than 50% of participants agreed, included: •

Relaxation of requirements when underground parking is included in the development (43% agreed, 38% were neutral or undecided);

•

A bylaw that is comparable and compatible with that of other Canadian cities in order to accommodate national developers (29% agreed, 52% disagreed).

Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services

2. Customer Service Advocate

Although two-thirds of Builder I representatives (14 participants or 67%) supported the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, slightly less than half (48%) strongly agreed (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) and 4 (20%) disagreed with the idea.

The lack of a clear definition and understanding of the role of the Customer Service Advocate were the most important factors that influenced participants' support for the concept. All participants (100%) agreed that there is a need to clarify the purpose and role of the advocate. There were also concerns about the cost of the service, with 17 participants (81%) agreeing that cost would be a consideration, and that the advocate not mean more bureaucracy (85% agreed).

Participants suggested a number of roles or tasks for the Advocate that would make this position useful to them. These roles or tasks included: •

A liaison to ensure that required approvals are obtained in a reasonable and timely fashion (100% agreed);

•

An information source on the process (95% agreed);

•

Being positive, supportive and having a clear understanding of the process, including all factors that affect a development (96% agreed);

•

A facilitator/consultant (72% agreed, 15% disagreed).

However, the suggestion that the Advocate speak on behalf of the client, champion the customer's cause and support the development was rejected by a majority of participants (57% disagreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

There was no clear consensus on the question of when the advocate role should be enacted, with 43% of participants agreeing and 38% disagreeing that the Advocate would be involved only on large projects, and 24% agreeing and 53% disagreeing that every single project should have an Advocate.

A final factor that would influence participants' support for a Customer Service Advocate - that an effective Web page be part of the service - was supported by 43% of participants. Another 43% of participants were neutral or undecided, while the remainder disagreed.

3. Parallel Processes

Builder I representatives were largely supportive of the ideas of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval. Over twothirds of participants (73%) agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale). Six participants (28%) were neutral or undecided (selected 5 or 6 on a 10-point scale).

The key factor influencing participants' support for parallel processes was that the choice to use parallel processes not be mandatory (81% agreed, 14% were neutral or undecided). There was also some agreement that some stages would have to be completed to kick in parallel approvals (62% agreed, 29% were neutral or undecided).

Cost was also a key concern, with 17 participants (76%) agreeing that refunds should be given if one part of a project is not approved, and the same number agreeing that the cost of fees all at once could be onerous.

4. Single Appeal Centre

The most important factor that influenced participants' support for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre was that appeals be heard in a timely fashion. All participants (100%) agreed that the time it takes for appeals to be heard be of a reasonable length. Other factors that were supported by at least 15 participants (70%) included: •

The need to know who would make up the appeal board (76% agreed, 19% were neutral or undecided);

•

The impact of project size and scope on the appeal process (66% agreed, 24% were neutral or undecided).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

There was no clear consensus on what the purpose of the Single Appeal Centre should be, with 66% agreeing, 10% disagreeing and 24% undecided that it be an information source on the appeal process. Slightly fewer participants (57%) agreed that is should be an office that handles or processes all appeals on one project. Almost one-third of participants (29%) were neutral or undecided and 15% disagreed with this idea.

5. Performance-Based Process

As with other proposed changes, participants wanted more information about the proposed zoning process. The most important factors included: •

The need to understand the decision-making process that will be used (90% agreed);

•

The need to define and clarify the ability to measure impact (95% agreed);

•

The need for defined criteria for performance standards that is predictable, understandable and fair, and that does not allow too much flexibility (90% agreed);

•

The need for a reasonable and feasible level of proof and quantifiable information (91% agreed).

Participants were also concerned about how "impact" will be assessed, particularly how affected groups will be defined and to what extent their interests will be considered in decision-making. Sixteen participants (77%) agreed that the process for identifying the affected group(s) must be clear, if performance criteria are linked to the affected group(s). Four participants were neutral or undecided. The same number (76%) agreed that there is a need to ensure that the decision is in the best interests of the whole city and not just the affected/special interest group. Three participants (15%) disagreed.

6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility

The majority of Builder I representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Sixteen participants (75%) placed the balance closer to greater flexibility, while 5 participants (25%) placed the balance closer to greater certainty.

Despite their support for greater flexibility, participants were concerned that greater flexibility would favor the City planners rather than the customer. Seventeen participants (81%) agreed that flexibility could mean that different financial or political circumstances would result in different actions by the community. Two-thirds of respondents were concerned about the discretion of the planning department if there were too much flexibility for interpretation (67% agreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

al

Some participants were also concerned that too much flexibility could take away a community's ability to control what happens in its neighbourhood. However, there was no clear consensus on this point, with 43% agreeing, 25% disagreeing and 33% neutral or undecided.

7. Proposed Planning Objectives Performance or impact-based enhancements to the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw could be applied to achieve specific objectives for the City of Edmonton. Builder I representatives were asked to rate each of seven potential planning objectives on a seven-point rating scale, from no importance ("none") to extreme importance ("extreme"). These objectives are shown below in order of importance to Builder I representatives:

a) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 9 participants (43%) as being of extreme importance (selecting 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and by 11 participants (58%) as being of some importance (selection 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale for a mean of 5.3);

b) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 8 participants (38%) as being of extreme importance and by 10 participants (53%) as being of some importance (mean 5.0);

c) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods was identified by 6 participants (29%) as being of extreme importance and by 13 participants (61%) as being of some importance. Two participants (10%) said it was of no importance (mean 4.9);

d) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by 7 participants (34%) as being of extreme importance and by 13 participants (62%) as being of some importance (mean 4.8);

e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 8 participants (38%) as being of extreme importance and by 11 participants (53%) as being of some importance. Two participants believed it was of no importance (mean 4.6);

f) Conserving natural sites in tablelands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 4 participants (20%) as being of extreme importance and by 15 participants (71%) as being somewhat important. Two participants believed it was of no importance (mean 4.1);

g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by only 2 participants (10%) as being of extreme importance and by 12 participants (57%) as being somewhat important.

Seven participants (34%) believed it was of no importance (mean 4.1).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

al

Builder I representatives were also asked to rate each of the seven potential planning objectives on a five-point rating scale, from no flexibility to maximum flexibility. These objectives are shown below, from highest to lowest levels of preferred flexibility; •

19 participants (90%) preferred greater flexibility for reinforcing older commercial strips (mean 4.4);

•

19 participants (90%) preferred greater flexibility for encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods (mean 4.3);

•

17 participants (81%) preferred greater flexibility for improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors (mean 4.2);

•

13 participants (62%) preferred greater flexibility for managing industrial growth and transition, 5 participants (24%) were neutral or undecided and 3 participants (14%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.9);

•

14 participants (58%) preferred greater flexibility for managing suburban growth for sustainable development, 2 participants (10%) were neutral or undecided and 5 participants (24%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.6);

•

14 participants (58%) preferred greater flexibility for conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley), 7 participants (33%) were neutral or undecided and 2 participants (10%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.6);

•

12 participants (58%) preferred greater flexibility for conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley), 7 participants (33%) were neutral or undecided and 2 participants (10%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.6);

•

11 participants (52%) preferred greater flexibility for conserving agricultural areas, 4 participants (19%) were neutral or undecided and 6 (29%) wanted limited flexibility (mean 3.4).

Other Issues Other issues were those identified by Builder I representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFindee process or that superseded the formal process. A key issue for Builder I representatives related to the idea of a performance-based planning process. Participants emphasized the need to make sure that the decision on a development is made in the best interests of the whole city, not just those of special interest groups. In particular, they wanted to know: Who makes the decision? How do you define affected groups?

City of Edmonton Planning and Development.

Builders ll Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning Bylaw) 1. Need to Streamline and Update The factors that influenced Builder II representatives' opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw included: the need to simplify and improve the readability of the bylaw; the need for greater consistency, certainty and flexibility; concerns about the influence and discretion of decision-makers.

With respect to simplifying the bylaw, the following factors were identified: •

The bylaw must be understandable to development officers (92% agreed). An equal number of participants agreed that the bylaw needs to be simplified and made more understandable to the lay person;

•

The bylaw should provide better examples or illustrations to serve as a guide for developing submissions (100% agreed);

•

The bylaw should be physically smaller, better indexed and better bound (85% agreed);

•

The bylaw should contain only the information that needs to be in the bylaw (93% agreed).

Factors related to consistency, certainty and flexibility included: •

The need for guidelines on matters of discretion to provide consistent interpretation and flexibility (84% agreed);

•

The need for certainty around timelines for obtaining building approval (85% agreed);

•

The need for some degree of certainty about what can be built on the property (77% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided);

•

The need to accommodate the ability for phasing a project (with increasing levels of detail as the development progresses) (100% agreed);

•

The need to accommodate new and emerging ways of dealing with development (84% agreed);

•

The need for increased flexibility in the layout of yards as a project develops (92% agreed);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Fli

•

The belief that front yard setback regulations should be flexible, depending on designs (76% agreed);

•

The desire for greater flexibility in order to give more consideration to innovative solutions to problems and issues (77% agreed).

Concerns about the influence or discretion of decision-makers included: •

The belief that we should move towards reducing the role of City Council in minor zoning issues and that Council should set policy, not manage it (92% agreed);

•

The need for clarity about the level of discretion that the development officer holds in order to minimize ambiguity and political intervention (85% agreed).

Specific changes suggested by participants included: •

Using trends (variances in discretion) as precedence by development officers (84% agreed);

•

The need to rethink everything on built form parameters (62% agreed, 31% were neutral or undecided).

Factors on which there was low agreement or no clear consensus included: •

The belief that bylaws should provide for changing uses of industrial or developed property (53% agreed, 46% were neutral or undecided);

•

The belief that precedence and trends should limit opportunities for appeal (54% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided, 23% disagreed);

•

The belief that competitors should not be a stakeholder in the appeal process (38% agreed, 38% were neutral or undecided, 23% disagreed);

•

The suggestion that DC5 should be recognized as a community negotiation tool (30% agreed, 54% were neutral or undecided, 15% disagreed);

•

The suggestion that there be uniformity of overlays throughout the city, with one overlay for the whole city (38% agreed, 31% were neutral or undecided, 31% disagreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

pa

Part II: Managing Land Use - Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate

Although the majority (61%) of Builder II representatives agreed with the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, less than half (38%) strongly agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale). One participant disagreed with the idea and 4 (31%) were largely neutral.

The factors that most influenced the opinion of participants included: •

Concern about the ability of the Advocate to manage the workload, with 12 participants (93%) agreeing that the Advocate must have a manageable workload;

•

Interest in an advocacy process that would facilitate the crossing of borders between departments/jurisdictions, acknowledging the complexity of multiple jurisdictions (100% agreed);

•

Concern about the use of the term "advocate." Participants felt this might set up unrealistic expectations, suggesting the use of the term advisor instead (100% agreed);

•

The belief that there should be a choice about whether or not to use an Advocate, since the Advocate might limit one's abilities to advocate on his/her own behalf (77% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided).

Participants cautioned that it must be made clear that the role of the Advocate is to help the applicant meet the requirements in the most efficient and expedient manner and that this role should not be "oversold" (77% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided).

3. Parallel Processes

Builder II representatives were largely supportive of the ideas of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval. Over threequarters of participants (76%) strongly agreed with the idea (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale), while the remainder agreed (selected 6 or 7). There was no disagreement.

Although participants supported the idea of parallel processes, most believed that applicants should have a choice about using the parallel processes (85% agreed, 15% were neutral or undecided).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Participants suggested that the process would be more effective if it began with a preliminary review of the file to determine whether or not the applicant is a candidate for the "fast track" and which parts of the process should be sequential and which should be parallel (100% agreed). Related to this factor was the need for a transparent and tangible test that would be used to determine when to apply the parallel process/model (85% agreed).

Participants also suggested that the development of specialty services would increase the speed of response (100% agreed).

4. Single Appeal Centre There was no clear consensus among Builder II representatives for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre, with 39% agreeing, 39% disagreeing and 23% neutral or undecided.

The lack of clarity about the purpose and role of the Appeal Centre largely influenced the opinions of participants as indicated by the following factors: •

There is a need to clarify how the Appeal Centre would function (100% agreed);

•

There is a need to clarify implementation issues, such as who would appoint the board, what the criteria are for appointment, etc. (85% agreed, 15% neutral or undecided).

Participants were also concerned that a Single Appeal Centre or board would lack specific knowledge and skill to deal with the various appeals. All participants (100%) agreed that a Single Appeal Centre shouldn't mean that all appeals become homogenized or blended into one and that we shouldn't lose the integrity of each discipline. They also all agreed that "you can't build one size fits all policy" that doesn't fit anyone, both in fee schedules and technical issues.

Most participants agreed with the idea of establishing a mediation secretariat alongside the Single Appeal Centre (76% agreed, 23% were neutral or undecided). The suggestion that the Single Appeal Centre could act as a secretariat for a range of specialized boards was supported by slightly more than half of participants (54%), while 46% were neutral or undecided.

Finally, the suggestion that building codes should be subject to local appeals was rejected by 46% of participants, while 46% were neutral or undecided.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Ki

5. Performance-Based Process

Most Builder II representatives agreed with the idea of a zoning process that sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than on type of use, with 62% strongly agreeing (selected 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) and 16% agreeing (selected 6 or 7).

Three participants, or 23%, disagreed with the idea.

Concern about how performance measures would be determined and what they might include were the key factors that influenced participants' opinion about the proposed zoning system. These factors included: •

The need to establish who would be the judge of performance, including who would establish criteria and measures (100% agreed);

•

The need to incorporate equivalency factors into performance measures (92% agreed);

•

The need for a clear understanding of community developed performance measures (standards/requirements must be clear) (84% agreed, 15% were neutral or undecided);

•

The need to recognize that in performance based-measurement there will be controversy and dissension (83% agree).

Participants also noted that neighborhood or community input and support would be vital to a performance-based process. However, only two-thirds (62%) of respondents agreed, 23% disagreed, and 15% were neutral or undecided.

6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility

The majority of Builder II representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Ten participants (76%) placed the balance closer to greater flexibility (on a 10-point scale), while 3 participants (24%) placed the balance closer to greater certainty Participants agreed that if a person sees an opportunity for innovation, they should have the flexibility to take action. They strongly disagreed with a process that would strengthen property owner rights and believed that individual rights should not dictate development decisions.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

7. Proposed Planning Objectives Performance or impact-based enhancements to the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw could be applied to achieve specific objectives for the City of Edmonton. Builder II representatives were asked to rate each of seven potential planning objectives on a sevenpoint rating scale, from no importance ("none") to extreme importance ("extreme").

These objectives are shown below in order of importance to Builder II representatives:

a) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by 9 participants (69%) as being of extreme importance (selected 6 or 7 on a 7point scale) and by 4 participants (31%) as being somewhat important (selected 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale) (mean 6.1); b) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods was identified by 8 participants (61%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants (23%) as being of some importance. Two participants (16%) said it was of no importance (mean 5.4); c) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 7 participants (54%) as being of extreme importance and by 5 participants (39%) as being of some importance.

One participant said it was of no importance (mean 5.4); d) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by 5 participants (39%) as being of extreme importance and by 6 participants (46%) as being of some importance. Two participants said it was of no importance (mean 5.0); e) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by 6 participants (46%) as being of extreme importance and by 6 participants (46%) as being of some importance. One participant said it was of no importance (mean 4.8); f) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by 4 participants (31%) as being of extreme importance and by 7 participants (53%) as being somewhat important.

Two participants (15%) believed it was of no importance (mean 4.5); g) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 2 participants (15%) as being of extreme importance and by 9 participants (69%) as being of some importance. Two participants (16%) believed it was of no importance (mean 3.8).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Other Issues

Other issues were those identified by Builder II representatives that either were not addressed through the OptionFinder process or that superseded the formal process.

A key issue for Builder II representatives was that the bylaw should reflect a common vision that people have for the City. As such, any development should be considered within the big picture, rather than on a piecemeal basis.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

gq

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

al

•

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

•

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

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 gli

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);

9) 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 OptionFindee 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

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

•

There is a need to recognize trends in which the bureaucracy interacts with the public and politicians and, thus, affects 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.

II

•

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 II 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: •

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

cid

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% of 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

cri

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

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

CM

k

II

.

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

m

APPENDI_, 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

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

0

Mean

21

11

0

9.14

0

7.36

8.53

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Need to Streamline/Update Bylaw 44%

25% 13°/ 01:1/0 00/0 1

')/0

2

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

3% 0% 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Table 2 - Using a Customer Service Advocate Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

')/0

1

1

2

2

0

2

7

14

15%

2

1

1

o

o

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 Planning and Development

cri

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

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 Total Mean

4

1

12

5

4

9

35

36%

22

14

21

13

12

14

96

100%

7.05

6.79

8.43

8.62

7.75

8.86

7.88

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Parallel Processes

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Table 4 - Single Appeal Centre Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

%

1

5

0

1

1

7

12%

2

1

0

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

o

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

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

0

2

1

2

7

10%

3

0

0

0

2

2

3%

4

0

0

2

0

4

5%

5

4

0

0

3

7

10%

6

o

o

1

2

3

4%

7

1

1

1

1

4

5%

8

6

3

3

2

16

22%

9 10

4

2

1

0

7

10%

7

6

4

1

19

26%

Total Mean

22

14

13

14

73

100%

8.23

8.07

7.38

5.07

6.88

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Performance-Based Planning

22%

10% 5%

10%

10%

5%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

cE1

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

0

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

o

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

City of Edmonton Planning and Development .

1411

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

')/0

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

3

3%

2

0

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

1 = No importance

7 = Extreme importance

Reinforcing commercial strips 0

0, ' 3% 1

0 17%

10%

11%

3

4

5

6

7

4

5

6

7

0% 2

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

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

1 = No importance

7 = Extreme importance

Improving.. .commercial nodes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4

5

6

7

Managing industrial growth

1

2

3

IN

Table 7e - Conserving agricultural areas Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

%

1

0

0

5

0

8

8

21

23%

2

0

0

2

2

0

2

6

6%

3

3

0

8

3

2

0

16

17%

4

0

1

1

2

0

1

5

5%

5

1.

1

3

2

0

2

9

10%

6

5

2

1

1

0

0

9

10%

7

13

9

1

3

0

1

27

29%

Total

22

13

21

13

10

14

93

100%

Mean

6.14

6.46

3.10

4.46

1.40

2.36

4.18

Table 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

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

3

4

5

6

7

Conserving natural sites

1

2

Table 7g - Managing surburban growth Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

%

1

1

0

0

1

8

1

11

12%

2

o

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

7 = Extreme importance

26%

•

0

,r4=ZZO:

10% 5%

1

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

2

3

4

5

6

7