Edmonton (Alta.) - 1999-2000 - CS6_Round 1 stakeholder consultation, final report (1999-07)

SD LIBRARY

127321

II

1111 1 1 1266

Round 1 Stakeholde Edmonton. Planning

Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Round I Stakeholder Consultation Final Report July 1999

Plannmp and D-cnts4opment

LI3RARY Edmortnn

The City of

Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future Round I Stakeholder Consultation Final Report July 1999

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

•

k

L

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

Builder I

Pg. 20

Builder II

Pg. 27

Developer I

Pg. 34

Developer II

Pg. 40

Next Steps

Pg. 46

Appendices Appendix A Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings

Pg. 48

Appendix B Aggregate Data

Pg. 49

Appendix C Decision Factors - OptionFinder() Results

Pg. 59

Appendix D Glossary of Terms

Pg. 84

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

NT.' Ts 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 designed to be broad enough to elicit responses that not only gave specific input to the Department, but also gave overall direction to the Department regarding the re-working of 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 U: Managing Land Use, Development and Occupancy Services 2. The idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process.

3. The idea of using Parallel Processes in an effort to speed up and better coordinate the steps necessary for permits and approvals.

4. The idea of consolidating several appeal processes into a Single Appeal Centre.

Part Ill: Planning Enhancements

5. The idea of a zoning process that sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than on type of use (performance-based).

6. The idea of changing the balance of certainty and flexibility in the planning and development process.

7. Rating the priority of proposed planning objectives.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

1

Input was gathered through three primary mechanisms: 1) the OptionFinder° software package, which allowed participants to rate anonymously their level of agreement or disagreement on ideas, 2) records of discussion, and 3) anecdotal data and observations.

In some cases, a group chose to discuss and rate factors that would influence their position on a proposed idea (1 to 6 previous page - factors were not identified for idea 7), before they rated their agreement with the proposed idea. In other cases, they chose to rate only the factors and not the proposed idea.

Participants rated ideas 1 to 6 on a 10-point scale from which responses have been grouped and reported as follows: 1-3 = disagree; 4-6 = neutral/undecided; 7-8 = agree; and 9-10 = strongly agree. Factors identified by the group were rated on 5-point scales where responses have been reported as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral/undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. Finally, planning objectives (idea 7) were rated on 7-point scales, where responses have been reported as 1-2 = no importance, 3-5 = some importance, and 6-7 = extreme importance.

The aggregate data for each idea presented in the Summary of Stakeholder Input may not include input from all stakeholder sessions, since not exactly the same process of information gathering was used in all sessions. Where all groups did not respond, the report identifies those areas where specific groups did not respond. For a more detailed discussion of group input, see the Stakeholder Group Reports beginning on Page 9.

This report is a summary of discussions from the roundtable sessions and the June 7 stakeholder session. The June 7 stakeholder session included eight people representing Builders and Developers, and seven Community representatives. While most participants felt that the document accurately captured their contributions, others requested further clarification of terms used in the consultation process and additional time to consider the summary of their group's report. Participants also indicated their wish to receive the summary reports from all stakeholder groups. In response, a glossary of the terms was added as an appendix in this report, and a second and final session was held June 29, 1999. At this meeting, representatives of all stakeholder groups discussed the key themes that will go forward to City Council in July, 1999. A summary of these themes can be found in the Next Steps section on Page 46 of this report.

OptionF inderŠ is an electronic system which provides each participant with a wireless keypad that allows participants to express a range of responses and see immediate results on a screen. These results are recorded as the meeting unfolds.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development'

11

A I

•

•

Streamline and Update the Bylaw. Most stakeholders support the need to review the

bylaw, in order to make it more "user-friendly" and readable. There was no strong support from stakeholders for what they would call a comprehensive revision of the bylaw. People are comfortable with what they know, despite perceived weaknesses or flaws. They can accept an updated bylaw that builds on the foundation already in place.

In particular, they want to see in the bylaw only that which needs to be in the bylaw.

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. The concept of a customer advocate was not supported - but there was greater acceptance of a "facilitator" to improve customer service.

Adopt Parallel Process, Where Appropriate. Stakeholders support the use of parallel

processes, if they streamline the planning process and make applications more straightforward. However, support from Community is conditional on ensuring community participation and approval in the process. Builders and Developers want the use of parallel processes to be a choice, rather than mandatory. Some stakeholder representatives recommended the development of a plain language document to explain development processes to the community.

Encourage Predictability. Stakeholders want predictability in the planning and permit

process, rather than either more flexibility or certainty. They would support a more flexible process if they could have an impact on and predict the outcome.

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 each individual situation.

Keep Council in the Planning Process. Most people want City Council to continue to

play a role in the planning process. However, they want Council to base its decisions on principles and other transparent guidelines that will support predictability.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

11

Emphasize Well-Supported Planning Objectives. There is significant variance across

stakeholder groups with respect to the importance of different planning objectives.

Community representatives tend to emphasize planning objectives that promote and protect quality of life, while Developers and Builders rate as important those objectives that directly relate to their work. The following objectives received general support across stakeholder groups (90% or greater rated them of some or extreme importance):

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 process of revising the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw.

Acknowledge Differences in Stakeholder Perceptions. All stakeholder groups agreed

that the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw must be designed to meet the needs and protect the interests of a range of stakeholders, despite significant differences in stakeholder needs and perceptions about the planning process.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

•

k

. •

0

a

Part I: Updating the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw 1. Need to Streamline and Update Although all stakeholder groups discussed the need to streamline and update the Land •Use (Zoning) Bylaw and most agreed on the need for some revision, only one Builder and one Developer group indicated their agreement or disagreement with the idea. Other groups specifically chose not to formally express their views on the question because of concerns about the lack of clarity around the terms "streamline" and "update". The majority of those participants (88%) who did formally express their opinions 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).

All groups generally agreed that Planning and Development needs to build on the foundation of the bylaw already in place. There was no support for a major rewrite of the bylaw. However, 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 planning department employee to provide service and information to customers 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).

However, there was agreement across all 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 the term "advocate" implies "advocating for" 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 individual staff in such a role to provide consistent customer service. Developer II representatives felt that the role of a Customer Service Facilitator be the responsibility of each planner and not a new position

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 to obtain 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 therefore suggested that community input be sought before any parallel process was to begin.

Builder and Developer representatives saw parallel processes as a means of streamlining the process and making it easier to obtain permits and complete the appeal process.

However, they believed that the use of parallel processes should be a choice, rather than mandatory.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Ii

4.

Single Appeal Centre

There was no clear consensus on the idea of a Single Appeal Centre, with 31% of participants agreeing (18%) or strongly agreeing (12%), 29% disagreeing, and the remainder (40%) remaining neutral or undecided (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.

No one wanted a single board, but they were eager for single access to various appeal processes. Participants found consolidation of appeal processes - rather than of boards more acceptable. A key factor for both Builder and Developer representatives in their concern about a single appeal board was the make-up and appointment of its members.

Most wanted to know who would be on such a board, how they would be selected and who would appoint them.

Part Ill: Planning Enhancements 5.

Performance-Based Process

Two-thirds of participants (63%) agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (36%) with the proposal 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 preferred a planning approach that allows for greater flexibility (mean 6.11). One in five (20%) preferred an approach with greater certainty and the remainder (25%) chose an equal balance. The highest level of support for flexibility was among Community I representatives (mean 6.86), while the lowest level of support 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 City planners. For that reason, Developer I representatives favored a more certain and predictable process. However, most wanted some degree of flexibility. In particular, they wanted flexibility at the conceptual stage of planning but preferred a project approval process that allowed greater certainty of outcome. In comparison, Community representatives favored flexibility, if they had significant influence on final decisions and if the ability to exert influence was a certainty.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

id

7. Proposed Planning Objectives 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 supportive of objectives that related more directly to their business. Group ratings of proposed 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).

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).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

•

. . a

IN

L.

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 or strongly agreed on a five-point scale, included: •

The belief that streamlining should not eliminate or rush the opportunity for community input (9% agreed, 86% strongly agreed);

•

The belief that the different needs of different areas and types of land use should be accommodated in the streamlined bylaw (23% agreed, 77% strongly agreed);

•

The need to simplify the process and make it easier for the lay person to understand and participate (14% agreed, 82% strongly agreed);

•

The perception that the bylaw needs to be updated (14% agreed, 68% strongly agreed).

There was some concern about the terminology. Participants felt that "streamlining" was a term that could imply a certain approach to enabling development. Most participants agreed (23%) or strongly agreed (68%) 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 (18% agreed, 50% strongly agreed).

However, almost one-third of participants (six participants or 27%) were neutral or undecided about changing the intent of the bylaw. One participant strongly agreed that the intent should be changed.

The idea that areas of overlap between the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw and other administrative guidelines should be eliminated was supported by 13 participants (14% agreed, 45% strongly agreed). Five participants disagreed (14%) or strongly disagreed (9%) with this proposal while the remainder were neutral or undecided (18%).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Participants were largely neutral or undecided on the idea that changes to the bylaw should not affect requirements for parking, with 12 participants (55%) choosing the "fence," five disagreeing (9%) or strongly disagreeing (14%), and the remaining five agreeing (5%) or strongly agreeing (18%) that parking requirements not be affected.

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

Most Community I representatives supported the idea of using a staff person to facilitate customer service - someone who would provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process (41% agreeing and 36% strongly agreeing). Three participants (15%) disagreed while two (9%) remained neutral or undecided.

Although participants largely agreed with this concept, many were uncomfortable with the term "Customer Service Advocate," pointing out that "advocate" suggests that the individual represents a position (that of the customer). Most participants (5% agreed, 91% strongly agreed) preferred "facilitator," suggesting that this term would better describe the role of a person responsible for helping customers navigate the planning process. 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 applicants for development and community representatives (23% agreed, 68% strongly 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 (27% agreed, 68% strongly agreed).

Participants also identified a number of practical or operational considerations that would be necessary for them to support the concept of an Advocate/Facilitator. These included a greater emphasis on electronic communication between City employees who share responsibilities for planning (27% agreed, 59% strongly agreed), and the need for adequate employee time to be an effective facilitator (14% agreed, 64% strongly agreed). The suggestion that a set fee be established to cover all permits, was supported by nine participants (14% agreed, 27% strongly agreed) and rejected by 10 participants (23% disagreed, 23% strongly disagreed). One individual was neutral or undecided.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

3. Parallel Processes Community I representatives were less supportive of the idea of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval, than they were of the idea of a Customer Service Advocate/Facilitator. Only five participants (23%) strongly agreed with the idea and nine (41%) agreed. Six participants (27%) were neutral or undecided while two participants (10%) disagreed with the idea of a parallel process.

Some participants questioned why the process was not a parallel one 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 proposal 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 under the current process. For example, participants noted that community league presidents are never notified about developments or re-zoning, and this group identified this as a problem.

4. Single Appeal Centre There was no clear consensus among Community I representatives for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre. Only one participant (5%) indicated strong agreement with the idea, four (19%) agreed with the idea, while seven participants (34%) disagreed with the idea.

The remainder, or nine participants (43%), chose a more neutral or undecided position.

Participants were particularly concerned about the composition of any single "super board," noting that its members would have to have a very broad knowledge of diverse subjects. However, they did not reject the idea of a Single Appeal Board, as long as citizens had an opportunity to appeal decisions.

Part Ill: Planning Enhancements 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 agreeing (32%) or strongly agreeing (50%) with the idea. The remainder, four 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 City decision-makers. They were also concerned that a performance-based process would favor developers at the expense of the communities' interests.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

In

Lacking a clear definition of performance-based planning, Community I representatives 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?

6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility The majority of Community I representatives supported the idea of a planning process which 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 (selected 5 on a 10-point scale) and five leaning more towards flexibility (selected 6 on a 10-point scale).

Participants acknowledged that greater flexibility would encourage investment and reinvestment but questioned how many neighborhoods actually need a "developmentfriendly stimulus." Many noted that the City continues to develop at its outer edges, when inner-city investment is more important to them.

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 sevenpoint 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 (mean 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 seven 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);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by 12 participants (55%) as being of extreme importance and by eight participants (40%) as being of some importance (mean 5.6). One participant believed it was of no importance; f) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by only seven participants (30%) as being of extreme importance and by 14 participants (70%) as being of some importance (mean 5.4); g) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was identified by four participants (15%) as being of extreme importance and by five participants (25%) as being of some importance. Eleven participants (45%) said it was of no importance (mean 3.2).

Issues 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. However, there was significant concern that inner-city reinvestment would mean greater density. Specifically, when one participant asked, "/s the only way to attract reinvestment in mature neighborhoods to allow higher density?" a response of "yes" from Planning and Development directly affected their support for planning objective "a", with half rating it of no importance.

Moreover, 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 planning and development standards are in synch with community standards. 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

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 agreed (14%) or strongly agreed (86%) 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 (7%) or strongly agreeing (86%). One participant was neutral or undecided about this factor.

Other key influencing factors, where at least 11 participants (80%) agreed or strongly agreed, were: •

The belief that the bylaw should be consistently applied, including when property is City-owned (14% agreed, 79% strongly 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 (7% agreed, 86% strongly agreed);

•

The belief that the bylaw should respect the individual, diverse needs of different areas of the City (36% agreed, 57% strongly agreed);

•

The belief that the size and scope of the project should be reflected in the requirements for public input (21% agreed, 64% strongly 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 (14% agreed, 79% strongly agreed);

•

Bylaw and zoning requirements that are easy to understand (21% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

A requirement that the public be notified about businesses moving into a developed space, and allowance for public involvement in the approval process (43% agreed, 57% strongly agreed);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

•

A set of community involvement standards that are consistently applied (21% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

Planning and approval processes which link communities that have a common interest in the impact of the project (29% agreed, 57% strongly agreed);

•

A total review of parking regulations (36% agreed, 50% strongly agreed);

•

A longer period of notification about proposed changes to the bylaw (43% agreed, 43% strongly agreed);

•

A set of planning principles on which the bylaw is based (36% agreed, 43% strongly 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 (14% neutral/undecided, 14% agreed, 50% strongly agreed);

•

The need to have an ongoing process defined in the bylaw to ensure the bylaw and visioning processes are revisited at appropriate intervals (29% neutral/undecided, 14% agreed, 50% strongly agreed);

•

The need for a bylaw that is more consistent and restrictive in allowing different types of development (14% strongly disagreed, 7% disagreed, 14% neutral/undecided, 7% agreed, 57% strongly agreed);

•

The need for consistency throughout the bylaw, where now some regulations are very general while others are very restrictive (14% disagreed, 21% neutral/undecided, 29% agreed, 36% strongly agreed);

•

The need to align the bylaw with and implement the vision of the Alberta Roundtable on Environment and Economy (7% strongly disagreed, 57% neutral/undecided, 7% agreed, 29% strongly agreed).

Part II: Managing Land Use, Development and Occupancy Services 2. Customer Service Advocate Only slightly more than half (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 five participants (35%) agreeing and three participants (21%) strongly agreeing with the idea. Three participants (21%) disagreed while three remained neutral or undecided

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

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.

Most participants were more comfortable with the concept of "facilitator" rather than "advocate." Nine participants (69%) strongly agreed that the job should be an unbiased liaison and a facilitator. A slightly smaller number of respondents (eight 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 (7% agreed, 64% strongly agreed), and questions about whether or not the advocate would be available to opponents of a development. Eight participants agreed (7%) or strongly agreed (50%) 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 a customer service representative could be operationalized.

However, there were varying levels of agreement with these ideas and no clear consensus. Suggestions included: •

Having an facilitator that specializes in dealing with average citizens/consumers (15% strongly disagreed, 15% were neutral or undecided, 31% agreed, 38% strongly agreed);

•

Letting the size and scope of a project determine the need for a facilitator (23% strongly disagreed, 8% disagreed, 31% were neutral or undecided, 23% agreed, 15% strongly agreed);

•

Providing a user-pay service or private service (15% strongly disagreed, 15% disagreed, 54% were neutral or undecided, 15% strongly agreed).

* Note: The number of individuals (N) who voted on each factor ranged from 12 to 14 on this question.

Please refer to Appendix C — Decision Factors to determine N on each factor

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, with eight participants (28%) agreeing or strongly agreeing (28%) with the idea of a parallel process. Five participants (35%) were neutral or undecided while only one participant (7%) disagreed with the idea of parallel processes.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

irii

The factors that most influenced their opinion about parallel processes related to the lack of definition of the concept at this stage. All participants agreed (29%) or strongly agreed (71%) that the parallel process should be clearly defined: how will it really work?

They also indicated that efficiencies must not override planning principles (36% agreed, 64% strongly agreed).

All participants strongly agreed that any design of parallel processes must include a final review of all components at the end of the process, so that the project 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 their rights throughout the development process. Most participants strongly agreed (86%) that the parallel process must ensure that communities have an opportunity for intervention and right of first refusal. 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. A strong majority (7% agreed, 71% strongly agreed) agreed that public input should be sought before any parallel process was to begin.

Part ill: Planning Enhancements 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 12 participants agreeing (28%) or strongly agreeing (57%) with the idea. Two 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 the concept of a performance-based process was "too nebulous" at this stage. There was a sense that a performance-based process would require more scrutiny and questioned at whose discretion judgements about performance would be made.

5. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility

Slightly more than half of Community II representatives (57%) supported a planning process with greater flexibility than one with greater certainty. Three participants (21%) wanted greater certainty, while the remainder (21%) supported a process that balances certainty and flexibility.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

ir1

The key factors that influenced participants' opinions about certainty versus flexibility related to criteria for assessing projects and opportunities for community input. All participants agreed (14%) or strongly agreed (86%) that the process must have defined parameters, criteria and outcomes, while eleven participants agreed (7%) or strongly agreed (71%) that performance criteria could be different for different parts of the City (7% disagreed, 7% strongly disagreed). Slightly more than three-quarters of participants agreed (21%) or strongly agreed (57%) that the process should enable predictability.

Most participants supported a more flexible process that provides adequate notification and information about proposed developments (7% agreed, 86% strongly agreed).

Although most participants believed that those people who are directly affected should have the most input (14% agreed, 64% strongly agreed, 7% disagreed, 14% strongly disagreed), they also believed that a broad range of community members need an opportunity to be heard before a decision (7% agreed, 71% strongly agreed). 79% of participants strongly agreed that impact must be clearly viewed from a broad base of stakeholders.

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 performance-based 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 (mean 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 65); d) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by 10 participants (77%) as being of extreme importance (mean 6.2); e) Managing industrial growth and development was identified by nine participants (69%) as being of extreme importance (mean 5.8);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

f) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was identified by nine 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 seven participants (54%) as being of extreme importance and by three participants (23%) as being of no importance (mean 5.3); * Note: The number of individuals (N) who voted on each objective ranged from 11 to 13 on this question.

Please refer to Appendix C — Decision Factors to determine N on each objective.

Issues Participants recognized the difficulty of setting rules that reflect the growing diversity of the City, while ensuring consistent and fair application of those rules across communities.

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 a broad range of developments, even those unanticipated by the bylaw.

There was a perception that the proposed changes strongly favored developers.

Participants emphasized that the bylaw must be about public interest not about developer ease.

In general, Community participants want a sound bylaw that will protect the public interest and promote positive principle-based development for the future.

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 14 participants (66%) strongly agreeing and seven participants (34%) agreeing.

The most important factors that influenced Builder I representatives' opinion about the need to streamline and update the bylaw were making the revised bylaw simpler and easier to use, but not more restrictive. Twenty out of 21 participants agreed (24%) or strongly agreed (71%) that the structure of the bylaw must provide for a simpler, more accessible process by including in the bylaw only that which needs to be there (area development plans and overlays). In addition, 17 participants agreed (14%) or strongly agreed (67%) that updating does not mean more restrictive.

Achieving uniformity, flexibility and responsiveness were also important factors in any revisions to the bylaw. Seventeen (81%) participants agreed (33%) or strongly agreed • (48%) 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 cultures.

A number of other factors relative to a bylaw update arose in discussions, 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 (24% agreed, 48% strongly agreed, 19% neutral/undecided);

•

A bylaw that address the uniqueness of the City of Edmonton (33% agreed, 33% strongly agreed, 19% neutral/undecided);

•

Relaxation of controls to produce a more responsive bylaw that would reduce the need to go to the Appeal Board (29% agreed, 33% strongly agreed, 24% neutral/undecided);

•

Standardization of regulations in certain zoning areas, reducing the number of variations on the same theme (38% agreed, 24% strongly agreed, 24% disagreed);

•

Greater emphasis on increased density in the inner-city rather than on urban sprawl (33% agreed, 19% strongly agreed, 5% disagreed, 19% strongly 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 (14%agreed, 29% strongly agreed, 38% neutral/undecided);

•

A bylaw that is comparable and compatible with that of other Canadian cities in order to accommodate national developers (24% agreed, 5% strongly agreed, 33% disagreed, 19% strongly disagreed).

Part II: Managing Land Use, Development and Occupancy Services

2. Customer Service Advocate Two-thirds of Builder I representatives (67%) supported the idea of a Customer Service Advocate/Facilitator to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, with 14 participants agreeing (43%) or strongly agreeing (24%). Five participants (25%) were neutral or undecided, while two (10%) disagreed with the idea.

The lack of a clear definition and understanding of the role of the Advocate were the most important factors that influenced participants' support for the concept. All participants agreed (9%) or strongly agreed (91%) that there is a need to clarify the purpose and role of such a person (would they be a facilitator rather than advocate). There were also concerns about the cost of the service, with 17 participants agreeing (14%) or strongly agreeing (67%) that cost would be a consideration in their support, and that the Advocate/Facilitator not mean more bureaucracy, with 18 participants agreeing (14%) or strongly agreeing (71%).

Participants suggested a number of roles or tasks for the Advocate/Facilitator 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 (19% agreed, 81% strongly agreed);

•

An information source on the process (24% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

Being positive, supportive and having a clear understanding of the process, including all factors that affect a development (29% agreed, 67% strongly agreed);

•

A facilitator/consultant (24% agreed, 48% strongly agreed);

However, the suggestion that the Advocate/Facilitator speak on behalf of the client, champion the customer's cause and support the development was rejected by a majority of participants (33% disagreed, 24% strongly disagreed, 19% neutral/undecided).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

There was no clear consensus on the question of when the Advocate/Facilitator role should be enacted, with 43% of participants agreeing (24%) or strongly agreeing (19%) and 38% disagreeing (19%) or strongly disagreeing (19%) that the Advocate/Facilitator would be involved only on large projects. Less than one in four agreed (10%) or strongly agreed (14%) that every single project should have an Advocate/Facilitator; twelve participants disagreed (24%) or strongly disagreed (29%).

A final factor that would influence participants' support for a Customer Service Advocate/Facilitator - that an effective web page be part of the service - was supported by 43% of participants (10% agreed, 33% strongly agreed). Another 43% of participants were neutral or undecided, while the remainder disagreed.

3.

Parallel Processes

Builder I representatives were largely supportive of the idea of using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval, with 15 participants agreeing (6%) or strongly agreeing (67%). The remainder (27%) were neutral or undecided.

The key factor influencing participants' support for parallel processes was that the choice to use parallel processes not be mandatory (81% strongly agreed). There was also agreement that some stages would have to be completed before the concept of parallel approvals would kick in (43% agreed, 19% strongly agreed, 29% neutral/undecided).

Cost was also a key concern, with 17 participants agreeing (24%) or strongly agreeing (57%) that refunds should be given if one part of a project is not approved, and the same number agreeing (38%) or strongly agreeing (43%) that the cost of all payable fees at once could be onerous.

4. Single Appeal Centre

Builder I representatives could not give support to the idea of a Single Appeal Centre without more information on a proposed model. There was no clear consensus on what the purpose of the Appeal Centre should be, with 14 participants agreeing (33%) or strongly agreeing (33%) that it be an information source on the appeal process; five participants (24%) were neutral or undecided. Slightly fewer participants agreed (24%) or strongly agreed (33%) that it 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.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

The most important factor that influenced participants' support (or lack of support) for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre was that appeals be heard in a timely fashion.

All participants agreed (19%) or strongly agreed (81%) that the time it takes for appeals to be heard must be reasonable. Other factors that were supported by at least 15 participants (70%) included: •

The need to know who would make up the appeal board (24% agreed, 52% strongly agreed, 19% neutral/undecided);

•

The impact of project size and scope on the appeal process (38% agreed, 38% strongly agreed, 24% neutral/undecided).

Part Ill: Planning Enhancements 5. Performance-Based Process As with other proposed changes, participants wanted more information about the proposed performance-based planning process before indicating their support or lack of support. The most important factors which would influence their support included: •

The need to understand the decision-making process that will be used to implement performance-based planning (14% agreed, 76% strongly agreed);

•

The need to define and clarify the ability to measure impact of use (24% agreed, 71%);

•

The need for defined performance standards that are predictable, understandable and fair, and that do not allow too much flexibility (19% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

The need for a reasonable and feasible level of proof and quantifiable information in evaluating impact of use (24% agreed, 67% strongly 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 agreed (29%) or strongly agreed (48%) 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 agreed (14%) or strongly agreed (62%) that there is a need to ensure that the final decision is in the best interests of the whole city and not just the affected/special interest group.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility Two-thirds of Builder I representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Thirteen participants (63%) placed the balance closer to greater flexibility, while three participants (15%) placed the balance closer to greater certainty. Five participants (24%) favored a process that balances certainty and flexibility.

Despite their support for greater flexibility, participants were concerned that greater flexibility would favor the City planners rather than the customer. Seventeen participants agreed (38%) or strongly agreed (43%) that flexibility could mean that different circumstances would result in different actions by the communities - and lead to pressures for inconsistent decisions community by community. Two-thirds of respondents were concerned about the discretion of the planning department if there were too much flexibility for interpretation (38% agreed, 29% strongly agreed).

Some participants were also concerned that too much flexibility could take away a community's ability to control what happens in its neighborhood. However, there was no clear consensus on this point, with nine participants agreeing (19%) or strongly agreeing (24%), five disagreeing (14%) or strongly disagreeing (10%), and seven neutral or undecided (33%).

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 performance-based 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 nine participants (43%) as being of extreme importance and by 11 participants (58%) as being of some importance (mean 5.3); b) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by eight 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 neighborhoods was identified by six participants (29%) as being of extreme importance and by 13 participants (61%) as being of some importance (mean 4.9); d) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by seven participants (34%) as being of extreme importance and by 13 participants (62%) as being of some importance (mean 4.8); City of Edmonton Planning and Development

e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by eight participants (38%) as being of extreme importance and by 11 participants (53%) as being of some importance (mean 4.6); f) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by four participants (20%) as being of extreme importance and by 15 participants (71%) as being somewhat important (mean 4.1). g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by two 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).

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).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

P4.1

Issues Builder I representatives 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

Builder 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 within the bylaw; addressing concerns about the role and discretionary powers of decision-makers.

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

The bylaw must be understandable to development officers (15% agreed, 77% strongly agreed). An equal number of participants agreed (38%) or strongly agreed (54%) 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 (38% agreed, 62% strongly agreed):

•

The bylaw should be physically smaller, better indexed and better bound (31% agreed, 54% strongly agreed);

•

The bylaw should contain only the information that needs to be in the bylaw (31% agreed, 62% strongly agreed).

Factors related to consistency, certainty and flexibility included: •

The need for guidelines on matters of discretion or flexibility to provide consistent interpretation (38% agreed, 46% strongly agreed);

•

The need for certainty around timelines for obtaining building approval (23% agreed, 62% strongly agreed);

•

The need for some degree of certainty about what you are actually able to build on the property (15% agreed, 62% strongly agreed);

•

The need to accommodate the ability for phasing a project (with increasing levels of detail as the development progresses) (31% agreed, 69% strongly agreed);

•

The need to accommodate new and emerging ways of dealing with development (46% agreed, 38% strongly agreed);

•

The need for increased flexibility in the layout of yards as a project develops (38% agreed, 54% strongly agreed);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

•

The belief that front yard setback regulations should be flexible, depending on designs (38% agreed, 38% strongly agreed);

•

The desire for greater flexibility in order to give more consideration to innovative solutions to problems and issues (23% agreed, 54% strongly 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 (23% agreed, 69% strongly agreed);

•

The need for clarity about the level of discretion that the development officer holds in order to minimize ambiguity and political intervention (23% agreed, 62% strongly agreed).

Specific changes suggested by participants included: •

Using trends (variances in discretion) as precedence by development officers (46% agreed, 38% strongly disagreed);

•

The need to rethink everything on built form parameters (8% agreed, 54% strongly agreed, 31% neutral/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 (15% agreed, 38% strongly agreed, 46% neutral/undecided);

•

The belief that precedence and trends should limit opportunities for appeal (23% agreed, 31% strongly agreed, 23% neutral/undecided, 23% strongly disagreed);

•

The belief that competitors should not be a stakeholder in the appeal process (15% agreed, 23% strongly agreed, 38% were neutral or undecided);

•

The suggestion that DC5 should be recognized as a community negotiation tool (15% agreed, 15% strongly agreed, 54% neutral/undecided);

•

The suggestion that there be uniformity of overlays throughout the City, with one overlay for the whole City (15% agreed, 23% strongly agreed, 31% neutral/undecided).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

PT1

Part II: Managing Land Use, Development and Occupancy Services

2. Customer Service Advocate

A majority (8 participants) of Builder II representatives agreed (46%) or strongly agreed (15%) with the idea of using a Customer Service Advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process. The remaining five participants (39%) were neutral or undecided.

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

Concern about the use of the term "advocate". Participants felt this might set up unrealistic expectations, suggesting the use of the term advisor instead (38% agreed, 62% strongly agreed);

•

Concern about the ability of the Advocate/Advisor to manage the workload, with 12 participants agreeing (15%) or strongly agreeing (77%) that the Advocate/Advisor must have a manageable workload;

•

Interest in an Advocate/Advisor that could facilitate the crossing of borders between departments/jurisdictions, acknowledging the complexity of multiple jurisdictions (38% agreed, 62% strongly agreed);

•

The belief that there should be a choice about whether or not to use an Advocate/Advisor, since this person might limit one's abilities to advocate on his/her own behalf (8% agreed, 69% strongly agreed).

Participants cautioned that it must be made clear that the role of the Advocate/Advisor is to help the applicant meet the requirements in the most efficient and expedient manner and that this role should not be "oversold" (15% agreed, 62% strongly agreed, 23% neutral/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, with twelve participants agreeing (38%) or strongly agreeing (53%) with the idea and one participant remaining neutral or undecided.

Although participants supported the idea of parallel processes, most believed that applicants should have a choice about using the parallel processes (31% agreed, 54% strongly agreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development I1

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 (23% agreed, 77% strongly 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 (31% agreed, 54% strongly agreed).

Participants also suggested that the development of specialty services would increase the speed of response (38% agreed, 62% strongly agreed).

4. Single Appeal Centre The lack of clarity about the purpose of the role of the Appeal Centre at this stage largely influenced the opinions of Builder II representatives for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre.

There was no clear consensus, with four participants agreeing (31%) or strongly agreeing (8%), four participants (31%) disagreeing, and four (31%) remaining neutral or undecided.

The following factors impacted this lack of consensus: •

There is a need to clarify how the Appeal Centre would function (23% agreed, 77% strongly agreed);

•

There is a need to clarify implementation issues, such as who would appoint the board, what are the criteria for appointment, etc. (31% agreed, 54% strongly agreed).

•

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 agreed (23%) or strongly agreed (77%) that a Single Appeal Centre shouldn't mean that all appeals become blended into one process and that the integrity of each discipline should not be lost. They agreed (23%) or strongly agreed (77%) that "you can't build one size fits all policy" that doesn't fit anyone, both in fee schedules and technical issues.

Most participants supported the idea of establishing a mediation secretariat to work with the appeal process (38% agreed, 38% strongly agreed). The suggestion that a Single Appeal Centre could be a secretariat for a range of specialized boards was supported by slightly more than half of participants (23% agreed, 31% strongly agreed), while 46% were neutral or undecided.

Finally, the suggestion that building codes should be subject to local appeals was rejected by 46% of participants (23% disagreed, 23% strongly disagreed), while 46% were neutral or undecided.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Part Ill: Planning Enhancements 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 nine participants agreeing (31%) or strongly agreeing (39%). One participant (8%) disagreed with the idea, while the remainder (23%) were neutral or undecided.

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

The need to establish who would determine access and performance, including who would establish criteria and measures (46% agreed, 54% strongly agreed);

•

The need to incorporate equivalency factors into performance measures (46% agreed, 46% strongly agreed);

•

The need for a clear understanding of community-developed performance measures (standards/requirements must be clear) (46% agreed, 38% strongly agreed);

•

The need to recognize that in performance-based measurement there will be controversy and dissension (46% agreed, 38% strongly agreed).

Some participants also noted that neighborhood or community input and support would be vital to a performance-based process. However, only two-thirds of respondents agreed (54%) or strongly agreed (8%), while three participants (23%) disagreed.

6. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility

The majority (68%) of Builder II representatives supported a planning process that provides for greater flexibility rather than greater certainty. Two participants (16%) preferred greater certainty, while the remainder (two participants or 16%) preferred a balance of certainty and flexibility.

Participants agreed that if a person sees an opportunity for innovation, they should have the flexibility to respond. 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

gu

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 performance-based 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 II representatives:

a) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by nine participants (69%) as being of extreme importance and by four participants (31%) as being somewhat important (mean 6.1). b) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was identified by eight participants (61%) as being of extreme importance and by 3 participants (23%) as being of some importance (mean 5.4). c) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by seven participants (54%) as being of extreme importance and by five participants (39%) as being of some importance (mean 5.4); d) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by five participants (39%) as being of extreme importance and by six participants (46%) as being of some importance (mean 5.0); e) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by six participants (46%) as being of extreme importance and by six participants (46%) as being of some importance (mean 4.8); f) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by four participants (31%) as being of extreme importance and by seven participants (53%) as being of some importance (mean 4.5); g) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by two participants (15%) as being of extreme importance and by nine participants (69%) as being of some importance (mean 3.8).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

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

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

KM

Developer 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 8 participants agreeing (27%) or strongly agreeing (36%) with the idea.

A number of factors influenced their support of this idea, including the need for clarity, flexibility and speed in the planning process. In particular, participants identified the following factors: •

The need to clarify entrenched rights of the landowner (17% agreed, 83% strongly agreed);

•

Enhancing clarity and flexibility in order to help people do business (17% agreed, 75% strongly agreed);

•

The need to update and make the bylaw current, although the document as a whole works well (25% agreed, 50% strongly agreed);

•

The need to update the bylaw to address requirements for big retail development (17% agreed, 50% strongly agreed, 33% neutral/undecided).

However, participants also raised questions about streamlining and updating the bylaw: •

Do not start from scratch and throw out 20 years of learning in this City (17% agreed, 75% strongly agreed);

•

What's broken? Why fix it? No one has defined the problems that need to be addressed (17% agreed, 42% strongly agreed, 25% neutral/undecided);

•

Changes to the bylaw cannot substitute for common sense. The administrator still plays a key role in approvals (33% agreed, 67% strongly agreed);

•

This focus should be on streamlining the existing bylaw, not on a total rewrite (33% agreed, 58% strongly agreed);

•

Streamlining for whom? The applicant or the clerk? We want something that will create less hassle for customers (25% agreed, 42% strongly agreed, 33% neutral/undecided);

•

Rewriting the bylaw may lead to detailed technical issues; everyone will have unresolved issues they want addressed. (50% agreed, 25% strongly agreed);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

E:t1

•

There is the potential that new proposals will create new problems and undermine the foundation and philosophy developed over many years (50% agreed, 17% strongly agreed, 25% neutral/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 (17% agreed, 33% strongly agreed, 33% neutral/undecided);

•

Anything that will speed up the process will be good (25% agreed, 33% strongly agreed, 17% neutral/undecided);

•

It may cost too much to achieve effective land use bylaw change (42% agreed, 8% strongly agreed, 25% neutral/undecided);

•

This looks like a way to justify planning jobs (17% strongly agreed, 17% neutral/undecided, 33% disagreed, 33% strongly disagreed).

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

There was no clear consensus on the idea of a Customer Service Advocate/Facilitator to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process, with seven participants agreeing (42%) or strongly agreeing (17%), four disagreeing (34%) and one neutral or undecided.

One of the factors that influenced participants' opinions included concerns about the people who would fill the Advocate/Facilitator role: •

A selection process would be needed to get good people (50% agreed, 50% strongly agreed);

•

Concern that there are not people in the City system who can deal with all of these planning approval aspects (25% agreed, 42% strongly agreed, 17% neutral/undecided).

Participants also identified a number of concerns or suggestions about the role of the Advocate/Facilitator: •

There will be pressure on the Advocate/Facilitator to follow City protocol and guidelines rather than provide the best help to the applicant (42% agreed, 42% strongly 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 (25% agreed, 33% strongly agreed, 33% neutral/undecided);

•

Need to define what particular problems an Advocate/Facilitator would address (33% agreed, 33% strongly agreed, 17% neutral/undecided).

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/Facilitator: •

This person would be of value if the individual can make decisions (33% agreed, 58% strongly agreed);

•

The Advocate/Facilitator would benefit people who deal with the City infrequently (17% agreed, 58% strongly agreed);

•

There is benefit to a one-stop person who would walk you through the application.

This would promote the economic initiative of the City (33% agreed, 33% strongly agreed).

Finally, participants indicated that all of the proposed changes will be irrelevant if there is not a fundamental change in the current efficiency and effectiveness of the approval system (50% agreed, 33% strongly agreed). However, there was no consensus on the suggestion that consultation after approval and the right of anyone to appeal after approval must be changed (25% agreed, 17% strongly agreed, 33% neutral/undecided).

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 nine participants agreeing (16%) or strongly agreeing (58%) with the idea.

However, there was some concern that they would have to spend a lot of money up front in order to accommodate the parallel processes.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

4. Single Appeal Centre Although more Developer I representatives agreed with the idea of a Single Appeal Centre (17% agreed, 25% strongly agreed), than disagreed (8%), the largest number were neutral or undecided (49%).

Much of the ambivalence towards the Single Appeal Centre was 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 before giving it their support.

Part Ill: Planning Enhancements 5. Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility* Half (50%) of Developer I representatives favored a zoning bylaw with greater certainty than one with greater flexibility (30%), while two participants preferred a balance of certainty and flexibility. However, this reference was for greater flexibility at the conceptual and planning stages, after which they preferred a project approval process that allowed for greater certainty of outcome (30% agreed, 50% strongly agreed). They also wanted consultation to happen earlier in the process (30% agreed, 40% strongly agreed, 30% neutral/undecided).

A key factor influencing participants' opinions 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 (18% agreed, 64% strongly agreed);

•

There is no need for zoning applications to go to Council if they conform to the statutory plan (18% agreed, 55% strongly agreed);

•

Statutory plan and land use zoning should happen at the same time wherever practical (20% agreed, 50% strongly agreed, 30% neutral/undecided).

*Note: The number of participants who voted on this question and factors ranged from 10 to 11.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

torA

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 performance-based 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 Developer I representatives:

a) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by two participants (20%) as being of extreme importance and by eight participants (80%) as being of some importance (mean 5-4); b) Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighborhoods was identified by one participants (10%) as being of extreme importance and by seven participants (70%) as being of some importance (mean 3-9); C) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by eight participants (80%) as being of some importance and by two participants (20%) as being of no importance (mean 3.5); d) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by six participants (60%) as being of some importance and by four participants (40%) as being of no importance (mean 2.4); e) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by five participants (50%) as being of some importance and by five participants (50%) as being of no importance (mean 2.1). f) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by one participant (10%) as being of some importance and by nine participants (90%) as being of no importance (mean 1.5). g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by two participants (20%) as being of some importance and by eight participants (80%) as being of no importance (mean 1.4).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Issues Participants questioned the need to update and streamline the Laud Use (Zoning) Bylaw and planning process. They felt that the current bylaw and the planning department "work pretty well at the moment." 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 unsatisfactory customer service within 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 specific decisions in response to public opinion rather than on what is best for the City as a whole over the longer term. In general, they believe that the philosophy of growth is not clearly accepted by municipal politicians or the public.

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

Developer 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 agreed (7%) or strongly agreed (93%) that there needs to be an understanding about whether the bylaw is a base document or a "living, breathing process." Related to this 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 (14% agreed, 71% strongly agreed).

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 (14% agreed, 79% strongly agreed);

•

The bylaw needs to be user-friendly, understandable and clear (7% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

The bylaw must be specific, clear, precise and legally functional (29% agreed, 57% strongly agreed).

The largest number of factors referred to external forces or influences that should be considered when updating and streamlining the bylaw. However, there was less agreement or no clear consensus on many of these factors. External factors or influences included: •

The bylaw should not try to drive social or technical trends but, rather, should reflect and respond to them (14% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

Market forces should be a prime consideration in the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw (7% agreed, 50% strongly agreed, 29% neutral/undecided);

•

Market demand should be one of the trends taken into account in planning/land use (36% agreed, 43% strongly agreed);

•

Changes in how people use land or operate in the City should be taken into account in updating the bylaw (57% agreed, 14% strongly agreed, 14% neutral/undecided);

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, how the bylaw is enforced (21% agreed, 21% strongly agreed, 29% neutral/undecided);

•

Trends which impact land use planning need to be broadened to include market, community cycles, controls, globalization, citystates and trans-nationalization (43% agreed, 7% strongly agreed, 28% disagreed or strongly 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 nine participants (61%) disagreeing, and three participants remaining neutral or undecided. 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 strongly agreed (86%) that the term "advocate" must be clarified and offered a number of ideas or suggestions, some of which received limited support: •

The role should be facilitative (21% agreed, 43% strongly agreed, 29% strongly disagreed);

•

The Advocate/Facilitator should have delegated decision authority and accountability based on a rationale (29% agreed, 36% strongly agreed, 36% neutral/undecided);

•

The role should apply to development permits (36% strongly disagreed, 29% neutral/undecided);

•

The role should apply to the planning process (50% strongly disagreed, 21% neutral/undecided);

•

The coordination/facilitation role should be performed by a non-planner (36% disagreed, 36% strongly disagreed, 14% neutral/undecided).

Most participants questioned the need for an Advocate/Facilitator, strongly agreeing (93%) that improving customer service should be part of the job and that they do not need an advocacy role in the planning department. Related to this perspective was the idea that the City should provide defined, base-level service to every customer through every staff member (21% agreed, 71% strongly agreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

tii

A key factor was concern that the service would not be consistent: •

Treatment must be consistent by all planners (7% agreed, 93% strongly agreed);

•

Advocates/Facilitators should have appropriate expertise to deliver consistency when dealing with the general public (7% agreed, 86% strongly agreed);

•

Treatment and levels of services must be consistent for all customers (21% agreed, 57% strongly agreed).

Although there was no clear consensus, some participants agreed (7%) or strongly agreed (36%) that there must be an appeal process for reappointment of an Advocate/Facilitator in the case of conflict (29% strongly disagreed, 29% neutral/undecided).

3. Parallel Processes Almost all Developer 11 representatives agreed (14%) or strongly agreed (78%) 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 agreed (7%) or strongly agreed (93%) that parallel processes should improve timing. They also agreed (18%) or strongly agreed (79%) that a parallel process would provide flexibility without affecting other applications, allowing each application to stand on its own merit.

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 (21% agreed, 71% strongly agreed);

•

There must be some logical/strategic sequence to the phasing of the processes (7% agreed, 79% strongly agreed);

•

Within the process, the application should only require as much detail as necessary for that phase of the process. Detailed plans should not be necessary before it is appropriate (7% agreed, 79% strongly agreed);

•

The planning coordinator must be doing their job to ensure everything is coordinated (14% agreed, 64% strongly agreed);

•

There should be a discount on application fees if you submit applications for parallel processes (29% agreed, 50% strongly agreed).

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

cpi

4. Single Appeal Centre

There was no clear consensus among Developer II representatives for the idea of a Single Appeal Centre, with four participants agreeing (7%) or strongly agreeing (21%), five disagreeing (36%), and five remaining neutral or undecided (36%).

The primary factor that influenced participants' opinions of a Single Appeal Centre was that there is no evidence that a single body would provide greater efficiency and effectiveness than is provided under the current system (7% agreed, 93% strongly agreed). There was also a concern that one appeal board could hinder or extend the development time frame (21% agreed, 79% strongly agreed).

Concerns raised about the composition of the Single Appeal Board was also an important factor, with 13 participants agreeing (7%) or strongly agreeing (86%) that they would need to know the make-up of the appeal board before supporting or rejecting such an idea.

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 (43% strongly agreed, 29% neutral/undecided);

•

Should be a single administrative centre that does the paperwork related to appeals (29% agreed, 21% strongly agreed, 36% neutral/undecided);

•

Should be a central board where all appeals are dealt with at once (14% agreed, 21% strongly agreed, 21% disagreed, 29% strongly disagreed).

Participants suggested that any single appeal process draw from 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 agreed (7%) or strongly agreed (50%) that politicians should be removed from the appeal process (29% neutral/undecided).

Part III: Planning Enhancements 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 four participants agreeing (21%) or strongly agreeing (7%), five disagreeing (35%), and five remaining neutral or undecided (35%).

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'

cm

6.

Balance Between Certainty and Flexibility*

There was no clear consensus of among Developer II representatives for a planning process that allows for greater flexibility rather than certainty, with four participants preferring greater flexibility, five preferring greater certainty, and five preferring a balance between certainty and flexibility.

A key factor in participants' support for a more flexible process is a belief that flexibility should not mean ambiguity All participants agreed (42%) or strongly agreed (58%) that there is a need to define a measurement process and standards. Most agreed (17%) or strongly agreed (75%) that the rules on flexibility must be clear and 10 participants agreed (25%) or strongly agreed (58%) that flexibility must be supported by defined, rationale standards or criteria/guidelines. Most participants agreed (25%) or strongly agreed (58%) that specific zoning categories in which flexibility could be applied should be defined.

There was some concern that flexibility leans towards inconsistency, so that people do not know what they can or can't do (33% agreed, 50% strongly agreed). Some participants wanted the ability to choose between certainty or flexibility (25% agreed, 17% strongly agreed) but an equal number (42%) were neutral or undecided. A small majority agreed (33%) or strongly agreed (25%) that there must be balance between flexibility and certainty on the effects of the initial development (25% neutral/undecided, 17% disagreed).

There was also a high level of agreement for the need to be able to identify parties directly affected by a proposal and how they are affected (33% agreed, 42% strongly agreed).

Participants also agreed that there is a need for a process to amend the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw so that it could respond to changing situations and accommodate the future. Most participants agreed (17%) or strongly agreed (75%) with this factor. *Note: Only 12 participants voted on the factors.

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 performance-based 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 Developer II representatives:

a) Improving land use and design compatibility of major commercial nodes and corridors was identified by eight participants (57%) as being of extreme importance and by five participants (35%) as being of some importance (mean 5.1);

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

fEi

b) Reinforcing older commercial strips was identified by three participants (21%) as being of extreme importance and by 11 participants (78%) as being of some importance (mean 4.8); c) Managing industrial growth and transition was identified by six participants (42%) as being of extreme importance and by five participants (35%) as being of some importance (mean 4.7); d) Conserving natural sites in table lands (lands outside the river valley) was identified by six participants (42%) as being of extreme importance and by six participants (42%) as being of some importance (mean 4.6). e) Managing suburban growth for sustainable development was identified by two 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 neighborhoods was identified by three participants (21%) as being of extreme importance and by seven participants (50%) as being of some importance (mean 3.6); g) Conserving agricultural areas was identified by one participant (7%) as being of extreme importance and by three participants (21%) as being of some importance..

Ten participants (72%) believed it was of no importance (mean 2.4).

Issues 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

Next Steps 1. Report to Council - July 1999 The stakeholder roundtables in March and April and discussion sessions June 7 and 29 were used to solicit comments and input on directions for Edmonton Planning and Development's project to renew the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw and bring it into line with the Municipal Development Plan—Plan Edmonton. The department has listened to the stakeholder representatives who participated in discussing some preliminary ideas, and will reflect their comments as it proceeds to revise and update the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw.

The Report to Council will include the following key themes:

a) The current bylaw will be streamlined and updated rather than rewritten.

•

Ensure broad-based community objectives are being met.

•

Ensure a fair process that links matters of law (bylaw) and matters of policy (City and community plans).

b) Parallel processes will be considered, where appropriate.

•

Parallel processes should be optional and a matter of choice for the applicant.

c) Redefine the idea of a Customer Service Advocate to one of a Facilitator - and include stakeholder input in defining this position. d) The idea of a centralized appeal board will not be pursued. Current appeal processes will be reviewed for efficiencies. e) Select two objectives for performance-based zoning approach: •

Managing industrial growth and transition.

•

Encouraging low-density residential in-fill in mature neighbourhoods (encourage investment in the inner-city).

2. Phase Two Consultation - Fall 1999 This round of consultation will invite stakeholders to provide input into the specific regulatory changes proposed in a new bylaw.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

3. Public Hearings - 2000

A public hearing will offer a third opportunity for input from stakeholders and the public before final reading of the revised bylaw.

4.

Council Approval of Bylaw Changes - 2000

Following the public hearing, Council will debate further amendments and vote on the bylaw. It is anticipated that Council will pass the new Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw by the fall of 2000.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

A -

. .

k i a

A

Schedule of Stakeholder Group Meetings

# Participants

Planning and Development Representative

Date

Group

April 6, 1999 Afternoon

Developer I

12

M. Garrett

April 6, 1999 Evening

Community I

22

M. Garrett

April 7, 1999 Morning

Builder I

21

B. Kropf

April 7, 1999 Evening

Community II

14

B. Kropf

April 8, 1999 Morning

Developer II

14

B. Kropf

April 8, 1999 Afternoon

Builder II

13

M. Garrett

City of Edmonton Planning and Development Eli

•P N

Aggregate Data Table 1 - Need to Streamline and Update Bylaw Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

1

0

0

0

0%

2

0

0

0

0%

3

0

1

1

3%

4

0

0

0

0%

5

0

2

2

6%

6

0

1

1

3%

7

1

1

2

6%

8

6

2

8

25%

9

3 11

1

4

13%

3

14

44%

32

100%

10 Total

o

0

Mean

21

0

11

9.14

0

7.36

8.53

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Need to Streamline/Update Bylaw

1

%

2

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

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

%

1

1

2

2

0

2

7

14

15%

2

1

1

0

0

0

2

4

4%

3

1

0

0

0

2

0

3

3%

4

0

1

2

1

0

2

6

6%

5

1

2

1

1

1

1

7

7%

6

1

0

2

3

0

0

6

6%

7

1

3

4

3

3

0

14

15%

8

8

2

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 1411

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

4

1

12

5

4

9

35

36%

Total

22

14

21

13

12

14

96

100%

Mean

7.05

6.79

8.43

8.62

7.75

8.86

7.88

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Parallel Processes

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

0

1

3

5

8%

Total

21

13

12

14

60

100%

Mean

4.57

5.31

6.08

5.64

5.28

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Single Appeal Centre

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Table 5 - Performance-Based Process Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

%

1

0

0

0

1

1

2%

2

0

2

1

2

5

8%

3

0

0

0

2

2

3%

4

0

0

2

0

2

3%

5

4

0

0

3

7

11%

6

0

0

1

2

3

5%

7

1

1

1

1

4

6%

8

6

3

3

2

14

22%

9

4

2

1

0

7

11%

10

7

6

4

1

18

29%

Total

22

14

13

14

63

100%

Mean

8.23

8.07

7.38

5.07

6.88

1 = Strongly Disagree 10 = Strongly Agree

Performance-Based Planning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Table 6 - Balance of Flexibility Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

l'ho

1

0

3

0

1

3

1

8

9%

2

0

0

1

1

2

1

5

5%

3

1

0

2

0

0

3

6

6%

4

o

o

1

1

2

2

6

6%

5

2

2

1

0

0

0

5

5%

6

5

1

3

1

0

3

13

14%

7

5

4

4

2

0

1

16

17%

8

7

2

6

3

2

2

22

24%

9

o

o

1

2

0

0

3

3%

10

1

2

2

2

1

1

9

10%

Total

21

14

21

13

10

14

93

100%

Mean

6.86

5.93

6.67

6.85

4.10

5.07

6.11

1 = Greater Certa.nty 10 = Greater Flexibility

Balance of Flexibility 24%

17%

0

1

2

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Table 7a - Low-density residential in-fill Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

%

1

10

3

0

1

1

3

18

20%

2

2

0

2

1

1

1

7

8%

3

1

o

3

0

3

4

11

12%

4

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

Low-density residential in-fill 21%

20% 12%

:°.

,.

••

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

Table 7b - Reinforcing older commercial strips Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

Dev 2

TOTAL

%

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

3

3%

2

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0%

3

1

1

1

1

3

2

9

10%

4

o

o

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

7 = Extreme importance

1 = No importance

Reinforcing older commercial strips Trin

0 17% 11%

u u/0

10% .,•, ,,,,,,• v%%

2

3

4

3% 1

5

6

7

Table 7c - Improving.. .major commercial nodes/corridors %

TOTAL

Dev 2

Dev 1

Build 2

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Scale 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

6

7

Improving.. .commercial nodes

1

3

2

5

4

Table 7d - Managing industrial growth and transition Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

TOTAL

Dev 2

%

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

2%

2

1

o

1

o

o

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

7 = Extreme Importance

1 = No importance

Managing industrial growth 1% Z b u/o 1U'Io

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

gn

Table 7e - Conserving agricultural areas Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Scale

Build 2

Dev 2

Dev 1

%

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

o

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

Conserving agricultural areas

1

2

3

29%

5

4

7

6

Table 7f - Conserving natural sites in table lands Scale

Comm 1 Comm 2 Build 1

Build 2

Dev 1

TOTAL

Dev 2

')/0

1

0

0

1

0

5

1

7

8%

2

o

o

1

o

o

1

2

2%

3

o

0

7

0

4

4

15

16%

4

1

0

3

0

1

2

7

8%

5

2

0

5

4

0

0

11

12%

6

1

2

2

4

0

1

10

11%

7

18

11

2

5

0

5

41

44%

Total

22

13

21

13

10

14

93

100%

Mean

6.64

6.85

4.14

6.08

2.10

4.57

5.23

7 = Extreme importance

1 = No importance

Conserving natural sites

16% 8%

12°/

2%

2

3

4

5

11%

6

7

Table 7g - Managing suburban 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

1

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

7 = Extreme importance

3

4

5

6

7

APPENDIX C Decision Factors — OptionFinderŠ Results Community I Factor

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

1. What is your response to: The idea of streamlining and updating the current zoning bylaw?

A. Changes should not affect 5 22 3.0 3 2 12 1 4 requirements for parking B. Streamline as much as possible, 5 22 4.8 0 0 0 5 17 but ensure that the different needs of different areas and land uses are accommodated C. Make the bylaw easily readable 5 22 4.9 0 0 0 2 20 and useful to a lay person D. Simplify the process and make it 5 22 4.8 0 0 1 3 18 easier for Joe Public to understand and participate in the review process E. Streamlining should not eliminate 5 22 4.8 0 0 1 2 19 or rush the opportunity for community input F. The bylaw needs to be updated 5 22 4.5 0 0 4 3 15 G. Streamlining is a loaded term 5 22 4.5 0 1 1 5 15 because it implies a certain approach to development control. Updating describes the need to bring the document up to date.

I.Areas of overlap exist between this 5 22 3.7 2 3 4 3 10 bylaw and other administrative guidelines should be eliminated if they exist J. The intent of the bylaw should not 5 22 4.1 1 o 6 4 11 be changed during the "streamlining" or "updating" 2. What is your response to: Using a customer service advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process?

A. If there is support for the .

5 22 4.5 1 0 0 6 proponent, there should be equivalent support for any opponents B. City should make sure that there is 5 22 4.3 1 1 3 3 adequate employee time to support the advocate role if this role is instituted 5 22 3.0 5 5 3 3 C. A set fee would have to be established that would cover all various permits. This fee should not be increased 4.6 0 0 2 5 D. The customer should not just be 5 22 the applicant for development.

15 14

6

15

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

59

Community representatives should be customers too.

E. Greater emphasis upon electronic communication between city employees would be helpful

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

5

22

4.4

1

0

2

6

13

a

Factor

F. The term "advocate" suggests that this person would represent a position. The term "facilitator" would describe the role of making the process easier

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

5

22

4.8

1

0

0

1

20

3. What is your response to: Using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval? No factors discussed.

4. What is your response to: The idea of a single appeal centre? No factors discussed.

5. What is your response to: The idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than type of use? No factors discussed.

6.0n the scale below, where would you like to see the balance of flexibility rest? No factors discussed.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Community,11 Factor

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

1. What is your response to: The idea of streamlining and updating the current zoning bylaw?

10 1 0 3 0 5 14 4.6 A. The bylaw and the zoning requirements must be easily understandable 5 4 3 0 2 14 4.9 5 B. Needs to be consistency— some are very general and some are very restrictive — content. Level of detail is the same throughout 9 2 3 0 0 5 14 4.5 C. Size and scope of project should be reflected in the public input requirements 7 4 2 1 4.1 0 5 14 D. Need to have a bylaw that is visionary/plans for the future 4 2 7 4.0 1 0 14 5 E. Needs to have a clause for an interim process for revisiting of the bylaw — revisit the visioning process 7 2 5 0 0 14 4.4 5 F. Parking regulations must be totally reviewed 11 1 2 4.7 0 0 5 14 G. Parking regulation should be area/community specific and reflect reality in the area 3 10 0 1 0 5 14 4.5 H. Needs a set of community involvement standards that are consistently applied 4 8 1 1 4.4 0 5 14 I.Needs to be a process where communities which have a common interest or situation are linked in some manner 6 6 2 0 14 4.3 0 5 J. Needs to be more/lengthier clear notification of proposed changes 4 1 8 1 0 14 3.5 5 K. The bylaw must align with and implement the vision of Alberta Roundtable on Environment and Economy 8 1 3 1 4.1 1 14 5 L. Approval for a project is conditional upon the community response 12 1 0 1 0 4.6 5 14 M. The bylaw should not be 100% oriented towards facilitating development but also be a public document stating public policy protecting the "public interest" 8 1 5 0 0 14 4.5 5 N. The bylaw should respect the individual diverse needs of the areas of the city 12 2 0 0 0 14 4.9 5 0. The bylaw should be conscious of sustaining the "life" of older communities/mature neighborhoods

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

P. Consistency of application of bylaws - even city owned Q. A requirement for businesses moving into developed space should have a notification and public involvement process

5

14

4.7

0

0

1

2

11

5

14

4.6

0

0

0

6

8

City of Edmonton Planning and Development ili

Factor

R. All communities — new and mature — should be enabled to have and pursue a community vision S. The bylaw should be more consistent and restrictive in allowing types of development T. The bylaw needs a set of planning principles on which the bylaw is based

Frequency of Responses 3 4 2

5

Scal

N

Mea

1

5

14

4.8

0

0

1

1

12

5

14

3.9

2

1

2

1

8

5

14

4.2

0

0

3

5

6

2. What is your response to: Using a customer service advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process?

1 5 14 4.2 1 0 3 A. Need to understand who would pay for advocate 2 2 7 0 5 13 2.8 B. Should be user-pay or provided by a private services 4 3.8 2 0 2 C. Should have an advocate that 5 13 specializes in dealing with the common consumer 1 0 5 0 D. Determine if an advocate is 5 13 3.9 necessary if/after process is streamlined 1 0 2 2 E. Should be a facilitator/process 5 13 4.2 master 4 5 13 3.0 3 1 3 F. Size and scope of project should/could determine the need for a facilitator 1 0 1 2 13 4.4 G. Job should be two-fold — unbiased 5 liaison and facilitator 1 4.1 1 0 3 5 12 H. Advocate should be available to an individual or community group to go to development appeal board

9 2 5 7 8 2 9 7

3. What is your response to: Using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval?

13 1 0 4.9 0 0 5 14 A. Must not facilitate "steamrolling" of the approval process 12 2 0 0 4.7 0 14 B. Must ensure that there is an 5 opportunity for intervention — right of first refusal 0 0 5 9 5 14 4.6 0 C. Efficiencies must not override planning principles 10 1 1 0 2 14 4.4 5 D. Would require a "trip wire" mechanism — built into process.

Community input into triggering/enabling parallel processes 12 1 1 0 0 14 4.8 5 E. Parallel process should contribute to disclosure of project

City of Edmonton Planning and Development LIAJ

scope/intent/end product F. Parallel process should be clearly defined — how will it really work?

G. The process must include a final review of all components at the end of the process — look at it as a whole not a series of parts

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

5

14

4.7

0

0

0

4

10

5

14

5.0

0

0

0

0

14

Frequency of Responses Factor

Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5 e n

4. What is your response to: The idea of a single appeal centre? No factors discussed.

5. What is your response to: The idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than type of use? No factors discussed.

6.0n the scale below, where would you like to see the balance of flexibility rest? No factors

discussed.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

a

Builder I Factor

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5 n e

1. What is your response to: The idea of streamlining and updating the current zoning bylaw?

5 21 3.6 0 5 3 8 5 A. Standardization of regulations from certain areas. In certain zoning areas there are too many variations on the same theme 5 21 3.8 1 2 5 6 7 B. Relaxation of controls — more responsive — would be very positive (would reduce the need to go to the appeal board) 5 21 4.1 1 1 2 8 9 C. Land-use bylaw needs to be flexible and responsive to the areas and the local culture 5 21 4.4 0 1 3 3 14 D. Updating does not mean more restrictive E. Relaxation of requirements when 5 21 3.4 2 2 8 3 6 underground parking is included in development 7 4 5 1 F. Land-use bylaws should be 5 21 2.6 4 comparable and compatible with other cities in country — accommodate national developers G. Land use bylaw should address 5 21 3.8 1 2 4 7 7 our situation as a unique city — focus on the uniqueness of the City of Edmonton 1 H. Bylaw should increase emphasis 3.3 4 5 7 4 5 21 on increased density in inner city rather than urban sprawl 2 2 7 10 I.Clear standards and guidelines that 5 21 4.2 0 balance uniformity and flexibility — avoid occurrence of personal interpretation 15 4.6 0 1 0 5 J. Structure of the bylaw must provide 5 21 a simpler, more accessible process — only have in the bylaw what needs to be in the bylaw (area development plans, overlays) 4 5 10 21 4.0 1 1 5 K. Must provide a city-wide comprehensive bylaw 2. What is your response to: Using a customer service advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process?

0 3 21 4.3 3 0 5 A. Shouldn't mean more bureaucracy 4 3 0 21 4.5 0 5 B. Costs would be a consideration 1 9 2 21 3.5 2 5 C. An effective web page should be part of the service 5 2 6 5 21 2.6 5 D. Every single project have an

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

15 14 7 3

advocate E. Advocate only on large projects F. Need to clarify the purpose and role of the advocate G. Advocate should be a facilitator/consultant

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

5 5

21 21

3.0 4.9

4 0

4 0

4 0

5 2

4 19

5

21

4.0

1

2

3

5

10

a

Factor

H. Advocate should speak on behalf of client/champion your cause/support your development I.Advocate should be an information source of what the process is J. Making sure that the required approvals are made in a reasonable timely fashion — liaison K. Advocate must be positive/supportive/ has a clear understanding of the process the developer has to go through — all the factors that affect the development

Frequency of Responses 2 3 4

Scal e

N

Mea n

1

5

21

2.6

5

7

4

2

3

5

21

4.7

0

0

1

5

15

5

21

4.8

0

0

0

4

17

5

21

4.6

0

0

1

6

14

5

A. What is your response to: Using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval?

A. Costs of fees all at once could be onerous B. Would there be refunds if one part of the project is not approved C. There needs to be some stages that should be done to kick in parallel approvals D. Should be a choice not mandatory

5

21

4.2

0

0

4

8

9

5

21

4.4

0

0

4

5

12

5

21

3.7

0

2

6

9

4

5

21

4.5

1

0

3

0

17

1

4

5

11

0

0

4

17

0

5

8

8

1

8

6

6

2

5

7

7

2

6

5

7

4. What is your response to: The idea of a single appeal centre?

A. Need to know who would make up 5 21 4.2 0 the body of the board B. The length of time to get the 5 21 4.8 0 appeals heard — needs to be timely C. Different levels of different projects 5 21 4.1 0 (size/scope) D. Need to understand when appeals 5 21 3.8 0 become referred — what projects are turned down and why they are turned down. When will they be referred to an appeal body?

E. Should be an information source 5 21 3.9 0 on the appeal process F. Should be an office that 5 21 3.7 1 handles/process all appeals on one project

5. What is your response to: The idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than type of use?

4.7 0 0 2 3 16 A. Need to know the decision making 5 21 process

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

a

B. The ability to measure must be defined and clear C. If performance criteria are linked to affected group, how do you define the affected group

5

21

4.7

0

0

1

5

15

5

21

4.2

0

1

4

6

10

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

wi

Factor

D. Make sure that it is in the best interest of the whole city and not just the special interest group E. The level of proof/quantifiable information must be reasonable/feasible F. Clearly defined/predictable/understandable/fa ir criteria must be attached to performance standards — can't be too flexible

Frequency of Responses 2 3 4

N

Mea n

1

5

21

4.2

1

2

2

3

13

5

21

4.6

0

0

2

5

14

5

21

4.6

0

0

2

4

15

8

6

4

5

8

9

6.0n the scale below, where would you like to see the balance of flexibility rest?

5 21 3.9 2 5 A. Concern about discretion of 0 planning department if there is too much flexibility for interpretation 3 5 21 7 B. Area redevelopment plans should 3.3 2 not be so flexible that the community has no control over what happens in their neighborhood 5 21 4.2 C. Concern about the degree of 0 0 4 flexibility over the city. Different financial or political circumstances will provide different actions by community

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

5

Scal e

Builder II Factor

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

1. What is your response to: The idea of streamlining and updating the current zoning bylaw?

A. Require flexibility that would give 5 13 4.0 2 0 1 3 7 more consideration B. Land use bylaw needs to 5 13 4.1 1 0 1 6 5 accommodate new and emerging ways to deal with development C. Require some degree of certainty 5 13 4.4 0 0 3 2 8 of what you are actually able to build on the property D. Requires certainty around 5 13 4.5 0 0 2 3 8 timelines for obtaining building approval E. The bylaw needs to be simplified: 5 13 4.5 0 0 1 5 7 more understandable to the lay person F. The bylaw must be understandable 5 13 4.7 0 0 1 2 10 to the development officers G. Bylaw should have guidelines on 5 13 4.2 0 1 1 5 5 matters of discretion to provide consistent interpretation/ flexibility must not be open to personal interpretation H. Bylaws should provide for 5 13 3.9 0 0 6 2 5 changing uses of industrial/developed property I. Recognize DC5 as a community 5 13 3.2 2 0 7 2 2 negotiation tool J. the bylaw should be smaller, better 5 13 4.4 0 0 2 4 7 indexed, and be better bound K. There should be uniformity of 5 13 3.1 3 1 4 2 3 overlays throughout the city — one overlay should do for the whole city L. Bylaw should provide better 5 13 4.6 0 0 0 5 8 examples or illustrations to serve as a guide for developing submissions M. Don't have content in the bylaw 5 13 4.5 0 1 0 4 8 that doesn't need to be in the bylaw N. Should accommodate the ability for 5 13 4.7 0 0 0 4 9 phasing (with increasing levels of detail as the development progresses) of development 0. Front yard setback regulations 5 13 4.1 1 0 2 5 5 should be flexible depending on designs P. Everything on built form parameter 5 13 4.0 1 0 4 1 7 needs to be rethought Q. Must be clear on what the 5 13 4.5 0 0 2 3 8

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

development officer's level of discretion truly is — minimize ambiguity and political intervention R. Trends (variances in discretion) will be used as precedence by the development officer

5

13

4.2

0

0

2

6

5

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

wi

Factor

S. Precedence and trends should limit appeal opportunities T. Competitors should not be a stakeholder in the appeal process U. Increased flexibility in the layout of yards as a project develops V. Movement towards reducing the role of city council in minor zoning issues. Council should set policy not manage it

Frequency of Responses 2 3 4

Scal e

N

Mea n

1

5

13

3.4

3

0

3

3

4

5

13

3.2

2

1

5

2

3

5

13

4.4

0

1

0

5

7

5

13

4.6

0

0

1

3

9

2. What is your response to: Using a customer service advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process?

A. There should be a choice of using 5 13 4.5 0 0 3 1 or not using the advocate —the advocate might limit abilities to advocate on your behalf B. The advocacy process should 5 13 4.6 0 0 0 5 facilitate the crossing of the "borders" of the departmental jurisdictions — coordinate the process recognizing the complexity of multiple jurisdictions C. Advocate must have a 5 13 4.7 0 1 0 2 manageable work load D. Must be clear the advocacy role is 5 13 4.4 0 0 3 2 to help you meet the requirements in the most efficient and expedient manner — don't oversell the service E. Use of the term advocate might set 5 13 4.6 0 0 0 5 up expectations — use another term — advisor

5

9

8

10 8

8

3. What is your response to: Using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval?

A. There has to be transparent and 5 13 4.4 0 0 2 4 7 tangible tests as to when to apply this model B. Preliminary review of the file to find 5 13 4.8 0 0 0 3 10 out if you are a candidate for fast track and which parts should be sequential and which parts should be parallel C. Applicants should have a choice of 5 0 0 2 13 4.4 4 7 using parallel process D. Develop specialty services that 0 5 13 4.6 0 0 5 8 would increase speed in response

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

tki

Factor

Scal N Mea

1

4. What is your response to: The idea of a single appeal centre?

2.5 3 5 13 A. Building codes should be subject to local appeals 13 4.4 0 5 B. Need to clarify implementation issues: who would appoint board, criteria for appointment, etc.

4.8 0 5 13 C. Need to clarify how it would function 13 3.8 0 5 D. The appeal centre could act as a secretariat for a range of specialized boards 5 13 4.8 0 E. Can't build one size fits all policy that doesn't fit anyone — both in fee schedules, technical issues 5 13 4.8 0 F. An appeal centre shouldn't mean that all appeals become homogenized or blended into one- shouldn't lose the integrity of each discipline 0 5 13 4.2 G. Establish a mediation secretariat to go along with the appeals

Frequency of Responses 3 4 2

5

3

6

0

1

0

2

4

7

0

0

3

10

0

6

3

4

0

0

3

10

0

0

3

10

0

3

5

5

5. What is your response to: The idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than type of use?

13 3.3 1 2 1 2 7 5 A. Neighbourhood or community input would be vital — you would need their support 6 7 0 0 5 13 4.5 0 B. Need to establish who is the judge of the performance — who would establish criteria, establish measures 6 5 13 4.2 0 0 2 5 C. Need to have understanding (standards/ requirements must be clear) about community developed performance measures 1 6 5 1 5 13 4.1 0 D. Need to recognize that in performance-based measurement there will be controversy and dissension 6 1 6 4.4 0 0 13 5 E. Equivalency factors should be incorporated into performance measures 6.0n the scale below, where would you like to see the balance of flexibility rest? No factors discussed.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Developer I Factor

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

1. What is your response to: The idea of streamlining and updating the current zoning bylaw?

A. This process should focus on 5 12 4.5 0 0 1 4 7 streamlining of the existing bylaw; not a total rewrite B. What's broken? Why fix it? No one 5 12 3.8 1 1 3 2 5 has defined the problems that need to be addressed C. This looks like a way to justify 5 12 2.3 4 4 2 0 2 planning jobs D. Potential that new proposals will 5 12 3.7 1 0 9 6 2 create new problems and lose the foundation and philosophy we have developed E. Anything that will speed up the 5 12 3.6 1 2 3 2 4 process will be good F. If we can add clarity and flexibility 5 12 4.7 0 0 1 2 9 that helps people do business, that would be good G. Rewriting the bylaw may lead to 5 12 3.9 0 1 2 6 3 detailed technical issues...everyone will have some baggage to solve H. Streamlining for who? The 5 12 4.1 0 4 3 0 5 applicant or the clerk? We are looking for something that allows changes with less hassle I.It may cost too much to achieve the 5 12 3.2 1 2 3 5 1 land use bylaw change J. Changing the bylaw will not 5 12 4.7 0 0 0 4 8 substitute for common sense. The administrator still plays a key role in approvals K. The existing bylaw is similar to 5 12 3.7 0 2 4 2 4 other city bylaws. Minor changes that support flexibility and speed would be the most valued.. .changes in the process L. There is a need to update...too 5 12 4.2 0 1 2 3 6 many things are not current.

However, the document as a whole works well M. Need to update to address 5 12 4.2 0 4 0 2 6 requirements for big retail development N. Do not start from scratch and throw 0 5 12 4.7 0 1 2 9 out 20 years of learning in this city 0. Need to clarify entrenched rights of 5 12 4.8 0 0 0 2 10 the landowner

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Ed

Factor

Frequency of Responses Scat N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

2. What is your response to: Using a customer service advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process?

5 12 3.3 2 2 2 2 A. There are already consultant that fill the customer service advocate role 5 12 3.8 1 4 3 B. There is little need for a generalist 0 role in application process. Would prefer an emphasis upon specialists 5 12 3.8 1 2 4 1 C. Need to define what particular problems a customer service advocate would address 5 12 1 4 3.8 0 3 D. There is benefit to a one-stop person who would walk through applications. Would promote the economic initiative of the city 4 5 12 4.5 0 0 1 E. There used to be a one-stop . process. You did not have to deal with all the departments. The advocate would be of value if the advocate can make decisions F. All of these changes will be 5 12 4.2 0 0 2 6 irrelevant if there is not a fundamental change in the approval system 3 G. Consultation after approval 5 12 3.3 0 3 4 (advocate has worked through process) and the right of anyone to appeal after approval must be changed H. Concern that there are not people 5 12 3.8 1 1 2 3 in the city that can deal with all of these planning approval aspects 1 12 4.1 1 1 2 I.Benefit to people who deal with city 5 infrequently 4.5 0 0 0 6 J. Selection process would be needed 5 12 to get good people 12 4.1 1 0 1 5 K. There will be pressure on the 5 advocate to follow city protocol and guidelines rather than provide best help to the applicant

•

4 4 4 4

7

4 2

5 7 6 5

3. What is your response to: Using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval? No factors discussed.

4. What is your response to: The idea of a single appeal centre? No factors discussed.

5. What is your response to: The idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on impact of use rather than type of use? No factors discussed.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Factor

Frequency of Responses Scal N Mea 1 2 3 4 5

6.0n the scale below, where would you like to see the balance of flexibility rest?

5 A. Flexibility is valuable (including 10 4.3 0 0 2 consultation) at the broad-brush stage: context for quarter section.

Afterwards, should be a set approval process B. Consultation must happen earlier 5 10 4.1 0 0 3 in the process C. There should not be consultation 5 11 4.4 1 0 1 after the statutory plan decisions are made. Conforming uses should proceed with certainty D. There is no need for zoning 5 11 4.2 0 1 2 applications to go to council if they conform to the statutory plan E. Statutory plan and land use zoning 5 10 42 0 0 3 should happen at the same time wherever practical

3

5

3

4

2

7

2

6

2

5

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

LU

Developer II Factor

Scal

N

Frequency of Responses Mea 1 2 3 4 5

1. What is your response to: The idea of streamlining and updating the current zoning bylaw?

5 14 3.9 1 2 0 5 6 A. Market demand should be one of the trends taken into account in planning/land use 5 14 3.6 2 0 2 8 2 B. Changes in how people use or operate in the city should be taken into account 14 3 1 1 3.1 3 6 5 C. Impacting trends needs to be broadened to include market, community cycles, controls, globalization, city-states, transnationalization and other trends that impact planning and land use — more comprehensive 5 14 3.3 1 3 4 3 3 D. Need to recognize trends in which the bureaucracy interacts with the public, politicians and as a result how the bylaw is enforced 1 13 5 14 0 0 0 E. An understanding should be 4.9 developed about whether the bylaw is a base document or a "living, breathing" process 10 5 14 4.4 1 1 0 2 F. The bylaw should be developed to reflect the "vision" of the City of Edmonton — it should strategically enable that to occur. The vision of the Municipal Plan etc. must be connected to the land use bylaw 10 1 1 0 2 5 14 4.4 G. City should not try and impact trends but rather reflect and "work with" societal and technical trends 1 4 8 5 14 4.3 1 0 H. The bylaw must be specific, clear and precise and legally functional 11 1 0 0 2 14 4.6 5 I.Only put in the bylaw what has to be in the bylaw and put the rest in policy 2 1 10 14 4.4 1 0 5 J. The document needs to be user friendly — understandable, clear 4 1 7 0 2 5 14 3.9 K. Market forces should be a prime consideration in the land use bylaw 2. What is your response to: Using a customer service advocate to provide service and information throughout the permit and approval process?

0 2 0 0 14 4.4 5 A. The term advocate must be clarified 4 2 5 0 5 14 2.9 B. The role should apply to development permits 0 3 2 7 5 14 2.4 C. The role should apply to planning

12 3 2

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Ed

process D. The role should be facilitative E. The coordination/facilitation role should be performed by a nonplanner

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

5 5

14 14

3.4 2.2

4 5

1 5

0 2

3 0

6 2

Factor

F. Improving customer service should be part of the job — don't need an advocacy role in the planning department G. Treatment and levels of service must be consistent for all customers H. Treatment must be consistent by all planners I.Should have appropriate expertise to deliver consistency in dealing with the general public J. Should have delegated decision authority and accountability using rational K. The city should provide defined base level service which should be provided to every customer by every staff member L. Must be an appeal process for reappointment of advocate in the case of conflict

Frequency of Responses 3 4 2

5

Scal

N

Mea

1

5

14

4.7

1

0

0

0

13

5

14

4.3

0

1

2

3

8

5

14

4.9

0

0

0

1

13

5

14

4.8

0

0

1

1

12

5

14

4.0

0

0

5

4

5

5

14

4.6

0

0

1

3

10

5

14

3.2

4

0

4

1

5

3. What is your response to: Using parallel processes to speed up and better coordinate steps necessary for permits and approval?

1 2 9 5 14 4.4 0 2 A. Have to have a planning coordinator doing their job to ensure everything gets coordinated 1 13 5 14 4.9 0 0 0 B. Process should streamline timing 11 1 0 0 2 14 4.6 C. Must be some logical/strategic 5 sequence 11 1 1 1 14 4.6 0 5 D. Within the process, the application should be only as detailed as the process has set it out to be. Detailed plans should not be required before it's appropriate 3 10 5 14 4.6 0 0 1 E. Should be optional, how many processes you want to administer/participate in 11 0 1 2 14 4.7 0 5 F. Flexibility provided without affecting other applications — each application stands on its own merit 1 4 7 1 14 4.1 1 5 G. Discount on application fees if you submit applications for parallel process 4. What is your response to: The idea of a single appeal centre?

1 0 0 4.8 5 14 A. Need to know about the make up of the appeal board

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

1

12

B. Should be a single administrative centre that does the paper work related to appeals C. Should be a central board where all appeals are dealt with at once D. Should be a pure clearing house for filing of appeals

5

14

3.5

1

1

5

4

3

5

14

2.8

4

3

2

2

3

5

14

3.8

1

1

4

2

6

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

IA

Factor

E. A single appeal body would have to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness F. One appeal body cannot hinder or extend the development time frame G. The make up of the board or appointment process is critical — should utilize a pool of people that have specific expertise to deal appropriately with appeals H. Take the politicians out of appeal process

Frequency of Responses 3 4 2

5

Scal

N

Mea

1

5

14

4.9

0

0

0

1

13

5

14

4.8

0

0

0

3

11

5

14

4.9

0

0

1

0

13

5

14

3.8

2

0

4

1

7

5. What is your response to: The idea of a zoning process which sets quantifiable standards on . impact of use rather than type of use?

5 12 4.6 0 0 5 7 A. Need to define a measurement 0 process and standards 5 12 4.4 0 2 3 B. Flexibility must be supported by 0 7 defined, rational standards or criteria, guidelines 4 5 5 12 4.0 1 0 2 C. Need to be able to identify truly affected parties — who is really affected and how 5 12 4.2 0 1 1 4 6 D. Flexibility leans toward inconsistency — people need to know what they can or can't do 5 12 1 0 2 9 E. Land use bylaws need an 4.6 0 amendment process to recognize/provide for the ability to deal with changing situations, to accommodate the future 3 2 12 3.2 2 0 5 F. Need the ability to choose between 5 certainty or flexibility 5 12 4.4 0 2 3 0 7 G. Define specific zoning categories in which flexibility could be applied 0 1 2 9 5 12 4.7 0 H. The rules on flexibility must be clear 1 3 4 3 3.6 1 5 12 I.There must be balance on the effects of the initial development 6.0n the scale below, where would you like to see the balance of flexibility rest? No factors discussed.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

Glossary of Terms These are not definitions to be used in a bylaw, but common definitions using sources such as the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Advocate:

A person who supports, argues for or speaks in favour of a person, project or position.

Certainty:

An absolute conviction.

Conserve:

Keep from, or minimize, harm, damage, or depletion, especially for later use.

Encourage:

To urge or advise (a person to do); to foster; to be favourable towards; to assist or promote.

Facilitator:

A person who seeks to make a process, pursuit or event easier, more convenient, free of impediments.

Flexibility:

Willing or disposed to yield to influence or persuasion, or to adapt to circumstances; not rigid.

Improve:

Alter or produce something in such a way that it is made better.

Predictability: Likely to behave or achieve an outcome in a way that is easy to predict.

Reinforce:

Strengthen or support, for example, with additional personnel, information or material or by an increase of numbers or quantity or size.

Revise:

Re-examine and improve or amend.

Rewrite:

Write again or differently; present or depict in a new or different light.

Streamline:

Make an organization, process or term simpler, more efficient or better organized.

Update:

Revise to bring up to date with corrections or additions; to make a something current or modern. •

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

The Planning and Development Department defines the following terms: Customer Service:

Providing assistance and advice to citizens who require contact with Planning and Development personnel and/or processes.

Manage:

Control or guide the operation or performance of a person, thing or procedure to achieve a desired end state or result.

Performance-based: Achieving compatibility of land uses and defined outcomes by regulating site planning, building design and on-site activities.

City of Edmonton Planning and Development

cb-1