Land Use Change Processes are from Mars, Place Telling Processes are from Venus - Part II Practice Examples (January 17, 2023)
...Should the goal of process be "access to process (Mars)" or "agency to influence outcomes of process (Venus)"?
Vlog Overview
My return to the academy (in 2014) to earn a PhD after 32 years of parks practice uncovered many practice realities extensively studied by researchers. This dual lens gives me a unique inside (practice)/outside (research) perspective (and visa versa) to bridge the two worlds. Each vlog will have a short video presentation followed by some key notes. I will use lots of “I” and “me” to personalize my experiences, with lots of examples. I will share park development policy and practice decision-making using an academic lens (i.e., institutional theory).
My practice experiences were in the Edmonton region in the 1982 to 2014 period. My PhD studies and teaching were acquired in the 20014-2019 period. I have opinions that may or may not be popular with my planning brothers and sisters, or elected officials. The vlog provides an informed perspective, but mine and mine alone based on my experiences and research. While I cannot provide specific direction per se for your jurisdiction, my discussion and information may leave you with questions to ask about your own activities and processes. So let’s get started!
Todays Ice Sculpture: Land Use Change Processes Are from Mars, Place Creation Processes are from Venus - Part II Edmonton, Alberta Rezoning Practice Examples
In my previous post of January 5, 2023, I focussed on the challenge of place story telling in land use change processes using a journal article by Dr. William Stewart (2006). He encouraged research into the social processes that allow or enable place story telling in land use change processes. See information below on four applications, the latter three are park applications.
Immediately below is a video summary of the key points to think about when engaging the community in place making or place change processes. Generally speaking, a Mars process is not conducive to community place story telling, while Venus may be if the stars align.
Edmontons Land Use Change Process Steps (Mars)
There is a multi-step process to initiated by economic interests to review and approve or reject proposed land use changes through area plan and zoning bylaw amendments. These process are also applied to scenarios where public lands are sold and redeveloped for private development purposes.
A. Landowner Due Diligence. Working with banks, economic interests acquire titled property based on its potential redevelopment into more profitable urban landscapes. Consultants (i.e., planners, engineers, etc.) contracted to economic interests are simultaneously developing supportive impact studies (i.e., transportation, parks, utilities, servicing, etc.) to support the plan amendments and bylaw amendments application. Also during this time, it is common for economic interests to discuss their future plan and rezoning amendments with elected officials.
It should be noted that the applicant is under no obligation to rationalize an application or position based on his or her development financial pro forma, nor is the administration allowed to ask for such documentation.
B. Area Plan and Rezoning Application. Economic interests direct consultants (i.e., consulting firms who employ engineers, planners, landscape architects, etc.) to prepare area plan and zoning bylaw applications to the standard required by the municipality for consideration for review and approval. Alignment with the existing municipal development plan, strategic directives, policies, area plans or bylaws are not required per se, but typically are align or are not far off.
These first two steps may take multiple years based on land owner and market needs. The broader community has no inherent or legally defined right to hear about the application before submission.
C. Application Circulation (knowledge dissemination). Once the application is received and deemed complete for administrative review, city land use planners circulate it to internal and external social actors, mail public notices to residents within a designated area deemed impacted by the application (i.e., in Edmonton 60 metres), and install a sign on site (see picture above). A contact and phone number is provided for follow up. The internal review input is based on functional area responsibilities (i.e., parks, transportation, schools, protective services, etc) and their associated strategic directives, plans, policies, standards and practices. Often economic interest social actors (i.e., landowners, developers, consultants) are sharing their proposed changes with elected officials in discussions not typically minuted. Edmonton has made great strides in recent years in automating the circulation process to help facilitate the review processes.
D. Administrative Position. The circulation comments are received from internal and external social actors. The land use planners weigh areas of support or non-support with the proposed land use change, mediates between issues and social actors, and establish a corporate position. Applications which align with City strategies, plans and policies are reviewed more quickly than others. The applicant can then decide to take the proposal to council with or without support of the administration, and may further lobby elected officials. If the applicant chooses to go forward to council, some jurisdictions may ask that a public meeting to be hosted by the proponents prior to a public hearing. If so, city staff will attend to answer questions and hear the public discourse that occurred at the meeting.
E. Administrative Position and Knowledge Dissemination. A council report is prepared by the land use planning function based on a format adopted by the municipality, often with a action position (support, support with amendments or non-support). Provincial planning legislation does not predetermine or define report formats, information inclusion or the readability of council reports. The council report is provided at the council meeting itself and included on council agendas available on the internet typically less than a week before the meeting. The proponent must also advertise the application and public hearing in local newspapers (next). Discordant internal or external opinions or positions are not required to be included in the council report, but may be, or may be raised by the administration at the public hearing but not summarized in the report. Similarly alignment or mis-alignment of policy may be or may not be raised by the administration and included in the council report, or discussed at the public hearing. The council report is the single most publicly available source of information on the file.
F. Public Hearing. A public hearing is scheduled at the convenience of the applicant, the land use planners and the Office of the City Clerk. Anyone can attend a council meeting, and is often covered by the local media with and without television cameras and voice recorders. A public hearing is held where anyone can register to speak publicly and directly to elected officials at council defined meeting times during the work day and evenings. The meeting opens with the administration presenting the application and report, followed by a short presentation by the proponents (i.e., landowners, planners, engineers). All of these actors are known to each other and elected officials. The public hearing is formally opened. While there are no speaking time limits per se on the length of the public hearing, each public speaker is asked to limit their input to five minutes, but is not infrequently extended by elected officials. The public can offer opinions or raise questions for the elected officials to consider, but cannot directly question the administration or proponents. After all speakers have been heard, the public hearing is closed, and voting can commence.
It is fair to say that while consultants, administrators and elected officials are comfortable speaking in public settings with cameras rolling or reporters taking notes, the same less true for the general public who arrive at a public hearing.
G. Application Decision-Making. Elected officials can approve, approve with amendments, send the application back to the administration for further discussion or reject the application entirely. Policies, standards and practices can be unilaterally waived by elected officials. Research has shown that a public hearing is not a great place for social actors to negotiate with each other and arrive at a consensus position.
The municipality is under no obligation to approve or not approve requested land use change, but are required by legislation to render a decision in reasonable timeframes. The City of Edmonton estimates that submission to decision process may take anywhere from 4 months to a 1 year. More complex applications may take longer.
1. Molson Brewery District (A Venus Sighting I?)
This file process was a privately owned industrial/ commercial site land use change redevelopment where a local community league got extraordinarily actively engaged in process review achieving limited benefits in outcomes.
The review process followed standard elements noted previously (i.e., application, application notices, application review, corporate position establishment, public meeting and public hearing). The planning consultants for the project did discuss the proposal prior to submission with the community. The Oliver Community League (NGO), with savvy political and technical planning skills as well as file review knowledge from inside the corporation, made a concerted effort to influence the outcome by holding their own site development workshop, that was later shared with the developer and elected officials. The league pushed for more historical building preservation and additional residential development. Nevertheless, the administrative position was aligned with the position of the developer. A public hearing was held, and elected officials also sided with the developer. The city and developer agreed to a historical designation for the retained portions of the building. The City provided funding to partially offset the cost of restoration. The council report did not share discordant internal perspectives, which was later the subject of an unsuccessful community league initiated law suit.
My take - A Venus Siting - this process was dependent on the exemplary proactive actions of the local community league to create a different multi-use heritage building focussed place story, negotiations with the developer (i.e., site development alternative) nor the public hearing facilitated a substantially different outcome. In the words of the league representatives - while there were limited concessions, the approval represented a lost opportunity for the community and city to achieve, to a greater extent, existing policies related to increased residential density development, and heritage architectural building preservation. Instead commercial land development was a greater focus of the economic interests.
2. Blackmud Creek School and Park Site Process (A Venus Sighting II?)
The entire site was owned by City of Edmonton and had been developed, programmed and maintained with and for the community since the 1980s, including the vacant building school envelope.
The standard land use change process was followed (i.e., application, public notices, internal and external social actor reviews, corporate position establishment, council reporting and public hearing). However, that process was preceded by the development of quantitative and qualitative recreational need assessment (1994-2006 surplus school site review process) with the community. This is a form of owner due diligence. This extra process added review time for the entire site review process (i.e., added to the 4 months to one year timeline). For a more detailed discussion of this extra process, review the video next.
The parks function of the administration did not agree that retention of the vacant school building envelope site was necessary to accommodate the recreational needs of the community based on the recreational need assessment developed and shared with the community. As such the land was surplussed to recreational needs and the standard land use change process was activated. Elected officials sided with the administration. The plan amendment, rezoning and reserve removal were approved which allowed the land to be sold and redeveloped for private single family residential housing.
My Take - A Venus Siting - the preceding surplus school review process accommodated enhanced knowledge creation and dissemination, and negotiation with the community outside of council chambers. Because it was public land, the administration activated the local community league who were integral to the development of the need assessment. The process gave the community social actors a voice, but they were disappointed in the outcome. They also still had the opportunity to be part of the standard land use change process referenced above.
3. Blue Quill Neighbourhood School and Park Site 2006 and 2009 Processes - (A Galaxy Beyond Mars?)
The entire site was owned by City of Edmonton and had been developed, programmed and maintained with and for the community since the 1980s, including the vacant building school envelope.
An extra process was added to the review of the 2006 Blue Quill site. By the early 2000s elected officials and some administrators felt the community engagement in the review of school building envelope land processes took too long and created Nimby reactions. Between 2004 and 2006, the Mayor of Edmonton, a former developer, and most of his council colleagues successfully lobbied the Province of Alberta behind closed doors to allow Edmonton to waive public engagement on site rezoning and redevelopment, contrary to provincial legislation. The province agreed to this amended process (i.e., in an-order-in-council from the Provincial Cabinet) on a “one-off” basis for review of the 2006 Blue Quill and 19 other surplussed sites. The agreement indemnified the City from any legal recourse and made the amended process legal. Administratively, the review processes were now managed by the land management planners of the City rather than the parks function. The land management planners of the City did not activate the community to be engaged in process. A single council report for twenty sites with some critical missing information arrived at council on November 25th without public notice and was approved on December 12th.
In 2009 another portion of the Blue Quill site was part of another batch of 20 sites surplussed by school boards. The more standard process noted earlier was used, but absent the policy defined recreational need assessment used for park land sites. The second portion of the BQ site was reviewed as part of a package of 8 sites but not until 2012. Two public meetings were held for review of 8 sites simultaneously. Mailed public notices, site signage, two public meetings and a public hearing informed the community of changes. A plausible but inauthentic and ambiguous narrative supporting the land use change was provided by the Administration and elected officials. A contentious 18 hour public hearing occurred both for and against the amendments absent need assessments and process concerns. Council supported the land use change, but agreed to reconsider the site location. (Note: the site consolidation was suggested internally, but rebuffed by land management planners). The 2006 and 2009 site were later consolidated into a single larger site in 2015, and developed by 2018.
The press unfairly characterized the opposition to the land use changes as Nimbyism (i.e., acting in your own self interest). Elected officials and administrators did not correct them. Research has shown that community reactions may also be related to poor process, or a sense of a broader loss to the community writ large (Eranti 2017). It was likely all three.
My Take - A Galaxy Beyond Mars - The 2006 process was fundamentally flawed because it included a two year opaque process between elected officials designed to specifically exclude community engagement (i.e., not legal but made legal). The 2009 process was only better because it followed the standard process and legislation, but still excluded the recreational need assessment, which facilitates place story telling. Administrators involved in the process said there was no intention to change course for the 2009 sites despite community opposition. In both file cases, the administration combined multiple sites. The use of omnibus reporting expedites the review process, but mitigates against place story telling from community social actors in any setting. Moreover, as noted earlier and in previous vlogs, the use of public hearings to develop consensus on land use change is fools gold (Farkas 2013; Hristic and Stefanovic 2013).
Part III of this vlog (next), will reflect on Parts I and II, and make suggestions to enhance place story telling in land use change processes.
Bobs Takeaways
Land use change processes create winners and losers, and the legislative structure tends to prioritize needs of economic interests. If you are a land use planner that wants achieve equity in participation, ask yourself the following questions about the process you are managing?
Were all community social actors/stakeholders at the table?
Do you feel grounded in the lived experience writ large in the community? Have you taken advantage of functional area staff (e.g., circulation file responders) to tap their knowledge of the neighbourhood?
When, how, with what information was shared with community social actors? Is the information accurate, open to interpretation? Was all key information shared? Not shared? If not, why not? Have you shared competing or overlapping needs?
Where physically is the community social actors asked to tell their place story, and is it conducive to reflection and discussion?
Did community social actors have time to reflect on their lived experiences and develop their place narratives? Time to compare different narratives with one another?
Community actors reading this vlog could ask themselves similar questions about their experiences in processes.
Journal References
Eranti, Veikko. “Re-visiting NIMBY: From Conflicting Interests to Conflicting Valuations.” The Sociological Review 65, no. 2 (2017): 285-301. doi. 10.1177/0038026116675554.
Farkas, Kerrie, R.H. “Citizen (In) Action: The Limits of Civic Discourse in City Council Meetings.” Critical Discourse Studies 10 (2013): 81-98. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2012.736702.
Hristic, Natasha Danilovic and Nebjosa Stefanovic. “The Role of Public Insight into Urban Planning Process: Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness.” Spatium International Review 30 (2013): 33-39. doi: 10.2298/SPAT1330033D.
Previous Related Vlogs
Land Use Change Processes are from Mars, Place Telling Processes are from Venus - Part I Place Story Telling Defined (January 5, 2023)