Pulling Back the Curtain - Area Plan Park System Planning - September 30, 2022
From your first parks planning course at Practitioner University...
Overall Blog Overview
My return to the academy 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 blog will be 1600-2000 words or less (I hope). 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. Oh, and by the way, I have opinions that may or may not be popular with others. So let’s get started!
Todays Blog
This edition of the blog will focus entirely on the land use change planning for the transformation of peri-urban areas (i.e., fragmented mixed urban and rural landscapes) into more dense and comprehensively planned urban landscapes that includes roads, utilities, residential, parks, commercial, industrial, institutional, etc. lands. In Alberta that means an Area Plan document must be developed, reviewed and approved by elected officials and administrators, with input from the general public. The size of area plans will vary. Examples in Edmonton include Riverview ASP in 2012 (1500 hectares) Pilot Sound in 1981 (1000 hectares), and Kaskitayo in 1973 (1200 hectares). Each of these plan areas may be further refined into smaller plan areas building on the larger plan. Within each of these area plans is a park system that augments and builds on the existing municipal park system. Area Plans are approved from a policy perspective based on the parks master plan of the day.
The Area Plan Review and Approval Process
The area plan review process typically requires development of an application for review based on information requirements of the municipality, policies of the local municipality, internal review and support by administrators, preparation of a council report, and a public hearing prior to decision-making by elected officials in public. This blog will focus on public and behind the scenes actions that occur during the area development and process with specific reference to park system planning. First, allow me to reiterate how I marry institutional theory to parks decision. making.
The Underlying Institutional Context of Parks Services
Identifying a park system in a new area plan is like assembling a puzzle. Puzzle parts include legislation (i.e., 10% of the gross developable area, review timelines), policy application and interpretation (i.e., joint use, park typologies park master plans, park development roles and responsibilities), current and future recreation trends and needs, current and future economic trends, small and large “P” political factors, geomorphological conditions, land ownership, local cultural settings and expectations and unique site considerations. It is also a very human process to implement that relies on the knowledge and interpersonal relationships between administrators and functional area expertise (e.g., planning, parks, engineers), consultants and community non-governmental organizations (e.g., Urban Development Institute, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues).
Another integral piece of that puzzle, arguably more important from a parks perspective, is how park spaces are constructed, programmed and maintained after the area plan approval concludes. In simple terms, you have to know how the area plan park services will be executed prior to approval of the plan itself.
In Edmonton, since the early 1980s the City provides a base level of development (grade, level, seed, community garden space, trees, sports fields and a park sign), cost shares a second level of development (e.g., playgrounds, lighting, plazas, walkways, etc), and the community provides the vast majority of funds for enhanced level of development (e.g., community halls). Once amenities are available, community volunteers run minor sport programs, act as coaches, team managers, transportation coordinators, flood outdoor ice rinks, organize and run festivals, etc. In this way, community social actors are invited into parks and recreation service delivery to transform spaces identified in area plans into community places. The type and extent of organized kinetic engagement of the community in parks service delivery described above is unlike any other municipal service, and is found in multiple if not most jurisdictions.
Over time, internal staff (e.g., recreation coordinators, planners, landscape engineers, maintenance staff, project managers, etc) and community social actors (e.g., residents, community leagues, other non-governmental organizations) form into a “park institution” who collectively deliver parks services. Park planners from this institution participate in area planning processes armed with knowledge from this group; they have one leg in the parks institution and the other in the land use institution. These actors often act as interpreters between the two.
The Area Plan Starting Point - Before the Starting Point
The area plan starting point is not the application. For some years in advance, economic interests acquire land by purchase or securing options on lands near existing approved and developed urban neighbourhoods. At this point these economic interests are speculators, and may be using resources from outside the province to purchase land from locals (e.g., farmers or others). Also at this point, they have no right of development into anything other than what is approved at that time. Most of this land is zoned agricultural. This group of actors are in essence constitute the land use planning institution with overlapping actors with the parks institution.
The development of the proposed Area Plan prior to application is a discussion between landowners, bankers, planning consultants, elected officials, and city planners located in a Planning Department. Planning consultants typically have good working knowledge of municipal strategies, polices and practices that inform landowners decision-making in terms of the content of the plan. Typically developers are meeting concurrently with elected officials to begin their lobbying efforts for their new plan. These meetings are not minuted nor shared publicly. Moreover, there is no legal obligation or requirement to engage with the general public prior to application.
Planning Process Steps
Application
Planning applications are available on-line. Prior to submitting the application(s), consultants for developers meet with the planning department to identify needed studies to be included with the application. Typical studies include transportation impacts/assessments, servicing impacts/assessments, natural area impacts, park and school impact assessments, cultural heritage assessments and others. Once the application and studies are submitted after a substantial fee paid, the documents are circulated within the administration. Today this information is electronically submitted and tracked.
Studies Impacting Parks
The two most critical studies for the parks function are the natural area assessment and park impact assessment. Park impact studies identify the planned park network/system evaluated based on the park classification system found in the current parks master plan to provide structured and unstructured, active and passive recreational programs and activities. The park impact analysis describes in text, maps and graphics the program, size, location and configuration of park sites across the proposed urban landscape, including the planned locations of indoor recreation (and school) facilities. Ecologists assess the natural area network in terms of the quality of the information, and confirm or suggest changes on the sites to be preserved. School board planners assess the proposed education delivery system based on their own assessments of student generations and proposed school locations. In Alberta that means public, catholic and francophone school networks. The amount of land dedicated as municipal reserve for park, school and natural areas is limited to 10% of the gross developable area of the plan area for all three of these public land uses. Unstable lands can be dedicated to the municipality as environmental reserve over and above the 10%.
Engineering requirements tend to dominate writ large the physical design of the area plan, including parks. Roadways can act as physical barriers in local recreation and school service delivery, and can significantly impact natural areas connectivity, but also facilitate access to larger “drive to” recreational opportunities. Access to servicing (i.e., water, sanitary, storm, electrical, telephone, internet) are necessary to develop school and park sites. Natural areas are currently dependent on the existing grades and overland water flows. Consequently, park, school and ecological planners are keenly interested and must review the proposed transportation and servicing strategies for impact on their park, school and natural area site retentions.
Plan Review - Practice Reflections
My practice experience over time told me that park, school and natural area land needs will likely exceed the (Alberta) 10% municipal reserve entitlements. Additional lands can be purchased at market value, however, in practice developers and economic interests will push for no more than 10%, if not less. My advice is to stick to the legislation and policy (i.e., in Alberta 10%) and reduce park, school and natural area retentions accordingly.
Developers will invariably propose some relief, deviation or unique interpretation of legislation, policies, standards and practice to address the physical requirements of their development area, their financial development strategy, the wants and needs of landowners, or combination thereof. There is no requirement for the developers to share their financial strategy or profit margins. This can make it difficult for administrators to explore the impact on developers of requested policy, policy relaxations or interpretations to access their request if it impacts downstream parks service delivery.
Front line planners may be faced with somewhat of an information vacuum. The application in front of you may have been subject to behind the scenes discussion or direction from developers, senior administrators or elected officials particularly if the proponents are seeking a variance from policy or standards. This is likely more true for larger planning organizations. You may or may not have been informed of a discussion.
My practice experience tells me that park planners are junior partners municipally to the hard infrastructure functions, not to mention the economic interests of developers. This is never verbally stated or written: in fact the opposite is true. But when push comes to shove, parks needs are often bent. I wish I had a nickel for every time I was asked: “Is that a want or a need.” It is important therefore to establish good on-going internal and external working relationships through transparency, education and frequent contact with non-park planners and engineers to draw them into the parks institution. This is particularly true as we move to more on-line application and review processes with skype or facetime meetings.
Plan Application Knowledge Dissemination
Once the plan is ready for public review as determined by Planning Department, signage(s) are placed on the property of the proposed land use change. This sign is often composed of a map, legal/planning jargon, and includes the phone number contact of the City file Planner.
All impacted landowners are sent mailed notices. The mailing radius is defined by local municipalities and can be expanded. A city council report prepared by planning department planners is provided 4 days before review by elected officials at a public hearing. The public hearing is the opportunity for the public to speak directly to elected officials in a public setting, each with 5 minutes to speak. The time to speak can be extended by elected officials. In Edmonton, the developer hosts a public meeting to describe the plan. City Planners are there to take notes and answer questions that may inform the council report. A public meeting is not required by provincial legislation.
There is no requirement in provincial planning legislation for contradictory perspectives to be summarized in council reports, although they can be. Council reports tend to be short and written largely in planner and legal speak, although effort is made to speak in plain english (grade 8 level). Often at council a fuller report is available as an appendix when it arrives at Council.
Plan Approval
Elected officials have the option to accept the plan as proposed, accept with amendments or reject the plan outright. Three votes are taken to approve an area plan on the day of the public hearing. The first vote is to close the public hearing. The second is to approve the area plan but must be a unanimous vote. If the vote is unanimous, a third vote can be taken on the same day for approval. If the vote is not unanimous, the file returns to the next council meeting for a final vote where a majority vote is required for approval. Despite public neoliberal narratives to the contrary, municipal councils are not required to approve any file, nor any proposed future land use in the file: they must only ensure the process has been fair.
Area plans in Alberta do not require approval of the provincial government, but must be consistent with broad province wide legislation and policies. Surprisingly, early communication (i.e., prior to application) with the general public is not mandated by legislation, although municipal governments may ask that it occur. Planning legislation does not mandate knowledge dissemination in the community, only that it occur to whatever elected officials decide. Elected officials are given flexibility to meet evolving needs of the community. My bias - planning legislation is only as good the people who implement it. There are examples in Edmonton where the City and Province have gone behind closed doors to approve land use changes inconsistent with planning legislation public engagement requirements (i.e., surplus schools). Negative public reaction to those actions were both loud and sustaining: an unforced error but a political neoliberal policy win.
Parks Are Like Icebergs
An area plan is a land use vision for the future. Approval of these plans occur 10-25 years before a neighbourhood is built out (i.e, Kaskitayo Area/Outline Plan), based on the projected recreational needs identified in a parks master plan. Consequently, the area plan represents a starting point, subject to modification. Modifications to public lands must therefore fully engage community partners in recreational service delivery, recognizing that programs and services offered are based on a systems context, not a site context. This broader context invariably complicates a site review. Site reviews are typically the setting for land use change processes. My bias - there is no such thing as a parks planning emergency. Take the time necessary to understand recreational, ecological and educational needs of the community.