City Plan to go live before #yegcc Public Hearing at 9:30am today. Tune in via Image
City Administration up first, identifying 5 'Big City Moves' of Report - Greener as We Grow, A Rebuildable City, Community of Communities, Inclusive and Compassionate, Catalyze and Converge
Major crux of plan is focusing on development of districts, networks, nodes, and corridors to help overall mobility, decentralize commercial, and boost development in existing neighborhoods
Up front growth (to ~1.25mil pop) expected to occur in newest neighbourhoods & annexed land, but is planned to shift to central older communities as population goes to 1.5mil and beyond.
First speaker - Mick Graham w/ IDEA: concern over infrastructure costs downloaded onto developers providing infill developments in older existing neighbourhoods - hydrants large issue now, what about other infra like power grids in the future?
McKeen asks speaker how costs be addressed as development happens? Follows up re comparison to greenfield development.

Speaker mentions w/ focus on nodes and corridors, we can anticipate growth locations and clearer target areas. New model needed to not put all on one project.
Henderson asks if proposal strategies in first phase of plan address concerns enough.

Speaker has hesitancy that resources exist to wholesale upgrade given economic climate; mentions example of LRT expansion where upgrades don't seem to be happening in conjunction with it.
Banga asks about concerns of house price increases that generally come along with infill housing.

Speaker sees house pricing generally driven by land prices - increasing density (# of people on the lot) will help offset that. Built forms also don't match diversity of pop.
Banga asks if housing costs do increase, how will that affect new residents coming into Edmonton v. surrounding neighbourhoods.

Speaker talks about how other amenities of city help to attract people (e.g. River Valley)
Caterina asks for clarification if infrastructure costs on developers are affecting infill development. Sees infill targets of plan unreachable given current model and deficits.

Speaker sees money as needing to come from multiple avenues - other cities have managed w/ less.
Caterina asks if plan looks like choice is being driven up or down regarding where to live (central vs. suburbs)? Is it balanced or skewed?

Speaker thinks it does, while acknowledging business as usual isn't sustainable.
Next speaker up is Mike Kohl (UDI). Provides overall support of plan, but wants details done appropriately. Intensification will require community engagement, and heightened opposition. Infra costs an issue, maps indicating no growth area limiting potential.
Walters wants clarification on personal read of potential concerns of romanticizing infill too much, and more care needed on greenfield interpretation from UDI letter received.
Is providing more supply an increase of choice?

Speaker sees pricing come down with more development, but consumers are still preferring low density housing so need to make sure they're getting addressed too.
Walters asks about millenial buyers, assumptions if they're a homogenous group, and how they are being addressed.

Speaker sees ground oriented housing still in high demand and critical regardless of generation.
Nickel asks if pop forecast of 2mil is realistic in timeframe given current economic situation, and what risk is vs. regional neighbours.

Speaker sees it as a challenge given current place and time. If we can't achieve growth it's fiscally costly, and we can lose investment.
Costs and diversity can drive people out to neighbouring communities as well.

Nickel asks about what UDI wants to see re actions over aspirations & top 3 issues.

UDI wants continued engagement, as it'll be a Q of tradeoffs. Top 2 - Zoning Bylaw, Energy Transition
Iveson asks about regional growth plan as a floor/net to help mitigate competition - if plan is a good indicator or up for debate?

Speaker does not hear contention with plan in the market setting. Competition may be of low density's share so ensure policies not too restrictive.
Iveson asks if any consensus yet re pandemic's effects on market reality short-to-medium term?

Speaker does not see consensus yet, still under heavy speculation, risk, and uncertainty.
Cartmell asks about non-residential development in annexed lands, and how no-growth designation affects these sectors?

Speaker sees map language sending strong signal to investors. Wants to see language toned down to allow potential, but also sees potential in what's there.
Chris Nicholas (sp?) (UDI & MLC) speaks next. Also has concern over 'no-growth' wording that needs to be replaced. Plan needs to be an enabler for development, and not putting in place expectations the market isn't buying into.
Walters wants clarification on barriers seen today.

Speaker first mentions approval process efficiencies. For suburbs, main barrier is the market. Recognizes complexity of infill, but sees room for predictability.
Re competitiveness and choice, current analysis sees growth not happening in core. Walters asks if it's alright to settle with current trajectory. Speaker accepts aspirations of plan and not to settle, but also being more flexible to allow growth where it happens.
Nickel asks about choice - YEG doesn't have physical barriers (e.g. mountains) so what are top issues to be competitive w/ neighbours? Asks additional question for non-residential growth.

Speaker sees market dictating where we go. 'No-growth' designations a limiter to investment
Banga asks if designation of no-growth is counter-intuitive to Edmonton's request for annexation in the first place?

Speaker agrees. Sees it as prohibiting development, not restricting it.
Caterina asks about impacts of working from home may have in shifting development needs. Issues of development downtown if short-term (at least) if working pop is missing.

Speaker sees it possible, but early days to draw conclusions of CoVid effects.
Henderson asks about past issues of premature investment and how language & sequential designation may benefit not giving false hope via clarity.

Speaker sees aspirational document as not being the place to instill this order. Private does not look to gov't on where to invest.
McKeen asks if Downtown not as important as we grow given earlier comments?

Speaker clarifies it's not their position - membership involves many parties who are interested in Downtown development.
Iveson, re aspirations, provides anecdotes of past 'stretches' that ended up nearing achievement, so how that factors into concerns.

Speaker sees stretch as possible, but is worried that markers may prohibit growth reaching those stretches.
Next up is Michaela Davis (UDI), who speaks to issues with infrastructure costs on developers & concern on no-growth language (some things missed due to stream disconnection).
Melanie Hoffman speaks, raising concern over climate emergency, identifying Edmonton's declaration, and is hopeful on what is seen in the City Plan - (Brief interruption of steam again cutting tail end off)
Joe Yurkovich (Edmonton Mountain Bike Alliance) is next, identifying the popularity of trails in the River Valley. Sees no identification of the natural pathways/trails in the plan, and wants the plan to clearly identify these trails as an asset.
Henderson asks about tension of informal trails vs natural pristine desires, and how to best address this trade-off.

Speaker wants more participation in the process to help do things properly. Formalization & signage may help reduce the informal pop-up of trails.
Henderson brings up the potential of incidents, responsibility, and how formalization may restrict the trails to mitigate risk.

Speaker acknowledges may be some restrictions, but still overall better including maintenance.
Recess in effect until 1:30.
Back in session, first up is Paul Lanni (CHBA).

Speaks to more holistic neighborhood revitalization needed to help facilitate development. Greater certainty needed, though steps so far are positive. Mentions achievable climate goals, but more work needed on emissions strategy.
Next is Mariah Samji (IDEA). Supports plan, but key steps for implementation: infrastructure resources plan - standards & fee structure, update/retire old plans, financial impact study, and clear intentions for resource allocation. Requests infill target raised to 55%.
Knack asks re housing choices - is it all largely provided outside Henday?

Speaker agrees. To achieve, better & consistent sharing of infra costs needed, Follow up Q on progress of cost-share program, speaker gives update on success, but still needs to expand.
Knack asks what the significance of 55% v. 50% represents.

Speaker identifies a limited city budget means setting higher standard shows an intent to invest in more mature neighborhoods.
Walters asks for argument clarification.

Speaker verifies that there's financial savings investing in infill communities. Q again on 55 vs 50, speaker mentions setting the intent of reinvesting in older neighborhoods to help avoid shutdowns of infra like schools.
Walters asking about retiring older plans, it's place in roadmap and clarification on concerns.

Speaker concerned movement not being quick enough to meet goals, particularly in context of deficit and necessary cost sharing to hit targets.
Next up is Stephen Raitz, supporting plan and speaking on youth engagement. Finds plan meets many aspirations of area youth. Provides instances where young prof. flight happens to more expensive housing markets, but alternate transp. & options attract them to it.
Plan places more emphasis on infill, and helps with long-term costs of infra. v. continued sprawl. Not setting a strong message up front via plan means we risk continuing on with status-quo in future development.
Knack asks re engagement - Is there any concerns unaddressed?

Speaker not representing group as a whole, saw strong interest in non-auto transp. being encouraged. Youth wanted to see housing options available, living in different alternatives in varying communities.
Knack asks to confirm engagement not just core-area youth, and that outcome wanted to see choices more spread out.

Speaker confirms evaluation. Engagement occurred throughout city and participants were all over.
Next is Dr. Karen Lee (Housing for Health). Requests more on explicitly identifying links between the plan's big moves and it's goals. Asks for stronger health indicators integrated into plan goals, and stronger language of 'healthy' in other avenues (e.g. land use).
Re vulnerable pop. Dr. Lee also asks to ensure their health needs are being addressed as well in initiatives. Health strategies can concurrently address other goals in plan (e.g. walk-ability helping w/ health), so better cross-integration would be beneficial.
McKeen asks on involvement & clarification on if intent is on language. Follow up on if we can measure design effects on health.

Speaker was invited in the process to help out, confirms wants for stronger language, & identifies strong sufficient evidence available re connection
Re CoVid concerns, McKeen asks how that impacts push for densification.

Speaker mentions choice within a neighbourhood important. Need to look at distancing w/o making people socially isolated and inactive. Better health & food access helps to reduce infection susceptibility.
Next is Jeff Bisanz from Early Learning Council. Pleased to see integration of social aspects w/ transp. & land use.

There's a need childcare and learning early in planning stages. Pleased to see support is in plan, and wants to have involvement in upcoming zoning bylaw renewal
Esslinger asks what barrier needs to be tackled first for early learning & care.

Speaker mentions affordability as a huge issue, but in planning sphere, it may be helpful to have discussions on childcare early in development.
Next is Mike Mellross (Climate Innovation Fund). Supportive of a carbon budget's inclusion in the Plan - powerful in prioritizing environmental actions. Carbon accounting must occur concurrently w/ budget and provided to decision makers. Action plan key to execution.
Henderson asks on thoughts on carbon budget vs. individual actions/choices.

Speaker mentions budget coverage of community & corporations. Carbon accounting system a starting place, need to predict and measure the externalities into policy as well.
Next is Brian Torrance (Edm. Sport Council).

Inclusion of the word 'healthy' strong symbolism and pleased to see Healthy City as one of the major goals. Council in favour of 15min districts to help w/ overall activity, but want more mention and space for sport & rec.
Iveson asks further clarification re sport & rec whether it be included with specific intention in Plan.

Speaker agrees that they want to see it more intentionally placed, particularly in Community of Communities.
Sherri Shorten (Alberta Association of Architects) next. Wants stronger convergence between planners and architects and support of marketable solutions.

Henderson asks on Plan issues vs. next stage concerns. Speaker hoping more upfront support for next stage involvement.
Stephanie Clancy (Alberta Association of Architects) next. Reiterates desire for more involvement. Expectations directed by incentives and restrictions so upfront firmness & transparency helpful over guidelines & suggestions. Wants carbon budget & food production prioritized.
Next is Ashley Salvador (YEGarden Suites). Supportive of Plan and 15min districts. Concerned recent growth projected at boundary needs reinforcement that further expansion won't occur. Re infill target, wants increase to 55% or more rapid phase-in in order to start upgrades asap
Knack asks about density options between apartment housing and single-family homes. Who's buying in & what potential's there?

Speaker sees split between multi-generation living and rental income. Full 'missing middle' spectrum possible as viable alternatives & direction to head
Knack follow up on flag-lot divisions, and what demand is.

Speaker identifies multiple requests per month. Path isn't smooth but is in demand.
Next is Dave Buchanan (Paths For People), providing support behind the City Plan proposed, and who brings first panel to a close. Recess to occur until 3:45pm
Missed some of what was mentioned, so linking to more details of what Dave had to say here:
Next panel now up. First Speaker - Chelsea Donelon (Energy Transition) in support of Plan, wishes to see stretch targets as ensured outcomes, and hope for faster adoption of energy transition aims where possible.
Followed up by Shafraaz Kaba (Energy Transition) who reiterates importance of Plan in making all decisions climate decisions. Nodal communities an important approach in helping this approach.
McKeen asks about energy goals matching/aligning pandemic goals

Speaker points to example of inefficient mechanical ventilation systems being both bad for energy efficiency and or air quality. Improvement helps in both cases. Density and pandemic safety as not exclusive.
Next speaker is Tammy Pidner. Supportive of explicit calls for winter design in Plan. Outlines importance winter planning has in Edmonton given climate, and increased importance under CoVid pandemic conditions.
Christy Morin (Arts on the Ave) speaks w/ support over holistic approach integrating arts into walkability and other development aims. Speaks about difficulty and need for art, particularly w/ upcoming CoVid winter.
Next is Dr. Bob Summers. Supports Plan on how it concentrates attention spatially. Urban efficiency as a form unique to each city and including personal desires. Problem lies in how cities are iterative advancements that must contend w/ past legacies.
Tax dollar investment helps catalyze beyond new residents, but affects all users of the space. Concentration also avoids 'everywhere-ism' where attempts are made to do everything in all places to minimal benefit.
Walters asks for clarification on best approach Speaker sees the Plan performs.

Speaker reiterates benefit provided by amenities in densification (public investment) in conjunction with an opening of land-use bylaws to aid private development - mix of couple approaches.
Walters asks on role of City as potential developer instead of just public realm investment

Speaker prefers market based solutions, but mentions there have been successes elsewhere in the world. There are areas in YEG where initial development may be needed to launch development
Banga asks why costs should be burdened in existing neighborhoods different from greenfield.

Speaker talks of how greenfield benefits tend to skew exclusively to local residents, whereas benefits in core benefits city as a whole. Existing areas also more difficult to develop in.
Banga asks about shift of main city area from downtown to Whyte being independent of city involvement.

Speaker disagrees, speaks to neighbourhood driven push on city outside market forces to improve spaces now desired. Changes to bylaws helping catalyze 104 outside market.
McKeen asks clarification on benefit in core vs fringe & how plan compares abroad.

Speaker reiterates the benefit is more broadly shared, but does not wish to speak on precise allocation metrics. Sees Plan pushing YEG to a more attractive position, coming from behind.
Next is Kirsten Goa. speaks in major improvements over last Plan. Re housing choice, more is needed. Questions narrative on SFH marketing and consumer share. Need to meet community where they're at and actively engage for changes we can anticipate coming to help realize goals.
Henderson asks about reinvestment/change and providing benefit to existing residents.

Speaker reiterates risk inherent to change, and how some amenities are needed regardless of density aims. Providing public realm improvements as a means of improving social & health enviro.
Henderson on what language needed to make sure better involvement for existing res.

Speaker says need for parties to want to participate. Push for communities to get to root about what's loved and work on preserving and improving those aspects to help shape change.
Banga asks to clarify comments on market not being purely reaction to demand.

Speaker provides example of family that can't afford new house in current area, because options available at price point don't match need. Options available in suburbs only, which pushes to look there
Next is Elaine Solez (Friends of Scona Rec). Likes concepts that improve liveability and the 15min district. Aligns with org. push to for a community rec centre.
Jim Rickett (sp?) (Gold Bar Park Alliance) last in panel. Supports Plan's item 2.1.3 re. wastewater and utility development to manage risk of sewage trunk line.
Kicking off Opposition Panel - Jason Pisesky (Accessibility Advisory Committee).

Speaks to accessibility as not being an integral aspect of the Plan's development. Transit section missing para-transit as an unaccounted form of mobility network.
Re attracting talent, AAC wants stronger efforts to ensure existing talent is gainfully employed foremost.
Knack asks about presentations/involvement of AAC & follow-up on feedback over changes wanted.

Speaker did not find records outside of informal meeting with a single member. CoVid responsible for feedback issues, have not heard response re input.
Next is Tonia LaRiviere (AAC). Asks for added language to expressly outline efforts in addressing needs of persons with disabilities. Asks for language inclusion re accessible housing, poverty, stretch targets, and strategic measures.
Next is Linda Duncan. Sees an absence in addressing community leagues - a means of facilitating feedback and engagement. Concerned Strathcona/Mill Creek being reduced to a transit node affecting sense of community & boundary lines bisecting existing relationships going on.
Would like to see reference to past ravine advisory council work and documents. Would like stronger commitments to investing in environment aspects.
McKeen asks on what re community leagues desired.

Speaker asks for at least mention in overall history and helps set Edmonton apart in what has driven City forward.
Henderson asks re boundaries as fuzzy boundaries rather than hard lines.

Speaker concerned lines on a map become more definitive than a fuzzy boundary, and may raise issues around notification when development happens.
Next is Don Nikonetz (Site Engineering Technology). Speaks to limitations on private investors.
Banga asks what steps would like to be seen.

Speaker wants to see removal of population targets to help with private development and increase tax base.
Next is Janiline Hardstaff (Residential Working Group). Wants to see more support given to neighbours of infill development re safety and property damage. Provides example of instance where infill damaged adjacent property leading to further complications.
Last for the day is Dave Purewal. Owns a parcel of land affected by pop. milestones. Milestones restricts development into too far in the future affecting livelihood, and 'no-growth' areas pose a crippling restriction on development. Development should be more market based.
Panels wrap up for the day to continue 1:30pm Tuesday afternoon.
Back for #yegcc City Plan Day #2. Hearing kicks off w/ Paul (last name missed) who speaks to market driven approach. Provides example of Amazon's location choice for Leduc as YEg chasing business out. City missing out on industrial development around Airport w/ targets.
Talks about how developers should bring to the area they wish over population target thresholds. Demands removal of 'no-growth' language and removal of population thresholds.
Followed up by Iqbal Mahal (identifies as land owner along highway 2). Talks how families owning land in the area will be negatively affected in their investments. Limiting industrial growth by airport not fiscally responsible. Shares no growth & pop thresholds as opposition.
Caterina re 'no-growth', sees challenge w/ language, asks about issues elsewhere.

Speaker does not see issues w/ other aspects of the Plan.
Walters asks about statement area development would not have costs to Edmonton. Asks for analysis available on non-res vs. res development costs.

Speaker does not have analysis. Re $30bil figure, speaker is quoting an earlier speaker, not own analysis.
Re figure context, Caterina makes reference figure comes from earlier discussion outside of Public Hearing. Council adds in camera addition to hearing agenda re an earlier meeting.
Switching to questions of Admin, Henderson starts w/ investment piece re infrastructure, and how that works.

Policy direction designed to direct what informs future budget requests, so amenities, infra, etc. could be captured.
Henderson asks about change - asking a great deal from residents & how conversation is handled going forward.

Speaker says we'll have to work with communities, under city building process.
Henderson asks about districts and if they're hard boundaries. Asks what '15mins' means.

Speaker agrees boundaries are fuzzy. Used to plan central nodes/corridors, but edges are fuzzy. 15mins encumbers transit and active transportation over car metrics.
Walters asks about regional competition.

Speaker verifies that plan goes to Regional Board and exceeds the baseline.
Re 'No Growth', Walters asks about agricultural implications in no growth. Asks about growth strategy that occurred during annexation.

Speaker agrees RAMP influences what can be done. Acknowledges growth strategy was done, but lot has changed since so no ready figures for now.
Walters asks about suburban change and higher densities.

Speaker agrees modern suburbs much denser than older models and include broader mix of housing.
Knack asks about accessibility's raised concerns.

Speaker identifies a potential amendment addressing language requested to make accessibility and para-transit more clear. Have included a policy for later council review.
Knack asks if City Plan addresses major disruptive events, given example of CoVid during process.

Speaker feels Plan is strongly positioned given its flexibility, and that it extends to supportive directions around the Plan that help aid in that aspect.
Banga asks about preception of 'winning' and 'losing' areas around dividing into future growth and no growth.

Speaker identifies labeling as strategic development phase-in. No growth regarding when appropriate to bring on given the population milestones.
Banga asks if nothing can be done without milestones being met in 'no-growth' areas.

Speaker identifies that it would be a factor in prioritizing more minor plans, but applications would still be able to be submitted.
Nickel asks for comment on criticism plan is too aspirational and 2million person target.

Speaker stands by the numbers - that plan figures are milestones and timeline flexible. Still expects growth, albeit at lower/slower pace.
Nickel asks about infill target of 50%.

Speaker clarifies it is a sliding scale over the life of the plan - ramping up closer to 2mil pop (anticipated by around 2065).
Nickel asks about regional participation in growth plan and if Admin can guarantee their involvement.

Speakers cannot guarantee involvement of external actors, but cite mechanisms in regional board to minimize opportunities for it to happen.
Caterina follows with line of questioning, if it's dependent on the government of the day.

Speaker reiterated the Board is in charge over govt's. Iveson clarifies board decision goes to provincial level for enshrinement.
Caterina asks for clarification on change regarding the need of land for annexation at the time vs. 'no-growth' status now.

Speaker clarifies that the annexation phase plan and assumption at that time was already negotiated in a longer development plan to county and province.
Esslinger asks about wording to expand who is inclusive in support. Flags inclusion of 'at risk' to expand who is involved. Asks about gender-based violence's current placement in Plan being inadvertently gendered as a result. Asks about child care language.
Admin offers to work with Esslinger re language adjustments and placement.
McKeen asks about community league inclusion.

Speaker identifies 'community organization' in plan chosen to be more encompassing to include groups outside the league. McKeen asks for language to still put 'community leagues' as a prominent term
McKeen asks if Downtown given enough prominence in plan.

Speaker identifies many factors of the Plan to highlight growth and expansion. McKeen raises terminology concern on use of Downtown over Centre City in references.
Dziadyk asks about consultation w/ community leagues, & including reference to CoVID.

Speakers identify EFCL part of stakeholder group, & given draft document. Re CoVID, Plan's flexibility intended to cover CoVID, & tying too close to singular pandemic an issue for other events.
Dziadyk asks for clarity if Plan would have referenced CoVID if started at different time.

Speakers identify it would not include it.
Cartmell asks about implementation plans/ options regarding infrastructure.

Speaker identifies work starting on bylaw renewal, growth management, and policy simplification. Raises option for Council to raise a different capital plan regarding infrastructure.
Re stretch targets, Cartmell asks about infrastructure by district, and if it's something coming to Council.

Speakers identify these options are still being worked on for alignment, but also tied into other documents. Capital Plan target '23-'26, but could come earlier.
Iveson asks about budget alignment, and if current Plan better at uniting than previous series.

Speaker acknowledges current plan being singular not likely to diverge against itself. Becomes foundational to informing other economic plans and direction of City.
Iveson asks about definition of substantial completion, and lack of definition as issue for transitioning between stages.

Speaker identifies substantial completion is to be a separate definition intended to be developed in conjunction with council at a later time.
Walters asks clarification that annexation was part of provincial push to have 50 year land development supply. Questions if use of future growth term risks exacerbating development issues under piecemeal development.
Re sliding scale, Walters asks about 35% infill target under next 250,000.

Speaker identifies current greenfield developments underway as major factor in why up front target is where its at.
Nickel asks if development in no-growth land is a flat no-go.

Speaker clarifies that regular proposal and public hearing processes would proceed, however admin would give proposal non-support during hearing.
Nickel asks about current job figures & population figures outside city if Edmonton is at 2mil.

City currently ~70% regional jobs and Plan looks to maintain figure. Re pop. figures, the broader region forecasts does not propose as far out as City Plan.
Admin clarifying that Plan is on population milestones, so targets are not hard years (e.g. 2045, 2065), but population figures - making timeline dependent on growth rate.
Henderson asks about language of stretch goals allowing for targets to be missed based on their aspirational nature. Nervousness on interpretation of targets being tackled at 2mil vs. throughout plan

Admin proposes tightening by removal of stretch term and other minor edits.
Paquette asks about Plan hierarchy. Speaker clarifies Connect Edmonton is at top, followed by proposed City Plan. Admin identifies 3 main plans include mentioned two + corporate plan.
Paquette follows up w/ clarity on Council autonomy under plan for achieving targets.

Admin clarifies Council can move targets ahead should they wish, and are not hampered by the Plan.
Dziadyk asks about tree target against City's current assets.

Speaker clarifies 2mil. target not just public inventory - will include private additions as well. On public space, admin provides examples of street boulevards, plazas, etc. but would be under future parks planning.
Dzaidyk flags opening up option to remove height limitations around northern military base, but will need furture direction and action. Council moves to temporary recess.
Esslinger asks about making strategic measures more robust. Admin clarifies that's a future discussion.
Asks about flexibility of nodes & corridors. Admin clarifies plan can be altered if growth indicates plan is not going as proposed.
Banga asks if plan saw residential & non-residential growth separately. Asks if Plan shifts investment from Edmonton to neighbours

Admin identifies metrics were considered and accounted for together. Identifies regional partnerships on working together.
Banga asks if growth/no-growth boundaries as fuzzy as the 15min district boundaries.

Admin clarifies growth as anticipated, by decisions are separate and determined by Council.
Cartmell asks about market forces imposing different development pressures than 15min districts encapsulate.

Admin identifies policy levers that can be used to manage areas as council sees appropriate.
Cartmell requests more detail on disseminating Plan to residents so they are aware of what to expect in their neighbourhood.

Admin focusing on communication to ensure Plan is understandable. Re engagement, will be a part of land-use decisions under Bylaw.
Iveson asks about CoVID context while also planning beyond the pandemic, and if there's an issue with including CoVID in a context summary. Admin identifies no procedural error in inclusion.
Iveson asks about 50% mobility target if it specifies it's a must. Admin reiterates plan does not force persons into any mode of transit, but strives to provide options where people choose how to move.
Knack asks about pubic transit frequency, and how 15min districts can align with 20min bus intervals.

Admin identifies frequency as a national standard and can look at it further.
Knack asks to address concerns raised on 55% vs 50% for infill target.

Admin cites numbers were showing transition, but are not interim targets. Council to set targets and prioritize as they see given conditions of the moment.
Caterina asks on how 50% mobility figure arrived at, and if costs to scale based on existing transit costs.

Admin clarifies target not just transit, includes active modes. Factors full build-out of transit network.
Paquette asks if there's metrics on what to expect if Plan is not implemented.

Under business as usual, +$3bil in capital costs for buildout. Transit -$0.6bil. Operating transit -$0.03bil, roads costs slightly higher.

Overall about $3bil savings going with Plan.
Paquette asks if Plan is a 'single-shot' attempt. Admin clarifies Plan intended to be constantly evolving as needed.
McKeen asks clarification on costs.

$3bil on capital costs saved, operating costs +$0.1bil under Plan. Other advantages in emissions reduction, increased amenity development, social connection, increased spendable income for residents.
On housing options McKeen asks and gets confirmation on more options available. Admin sees percentage share increase to higher density, but still an overall mix and a growth of the middle form factor.
Re 8% savings figure, it relates to the tax levy requirement (5% for residential tax) long-term if Plan is adopted.
Nickel asks about engagement with city unions. Admin identifies no specific engagement on City Plan.
Nickel asks about Plan's attempts at de-risking for Edmontonians. Admin talks about how management falls under implementation of the Plan. Nickel asks for tangible identifiers - Admin reiterates the economic savings.
Walters asks about if history indicates Admin impedes suburban development w/ barriers. Admin cites ongoing suburban development & plans. Shifting to infill, identifies progress underway to bring infill timelines down.
Henderson asks about including ER in Plan language. Asks if language around energy can be strengthened. Admin identifies it's alignment w/ energy plan and can be tackled by Council under energy plan work.
Re arts and culture, Henderson asks about language to include addressing intentional space creation, and not just having the culture.
Banga asks on affordable housing, and if infill will affect availability.

Admin identifies that costs under infill and density not intending to increase cost, but that a particular built-form at a given price point may not be universally equal across the city.
Banga on accessibility asks how housing options made available to them under a build up model.

Admin identifies edits being made to match AAC's text requests, and better involvement in policy.
Knack on infill measurements, asks if enough direction in Plan given to ensure future Councils reach targets at proper pace.

Admin identifies crucial link is ensuring proper connection to budgets.
Iveson asks about full-cost accounting on natural asset language, and clarification on the benefits capture in the measured metrics.
Henderson asks about 109St & 99st categorization on corridor maps. Concerned 99st cannot handle implications of designation

Admin identifies the portion of 99st in question as a part of the Whyte Avenue node & contiguous wall. Contiguous aspect why 109st not flagged.
Henderson asks about University to West Edmonton bridge inclusion on mapping. Admin identifies as an end-state desire.
Henderson asks about implications with the removal of reference to mature neighborhoods. Admin identifies that it allows for planning without basing solely on household age figures.
Knack asks about neighbor disputes during development.

Admin identifies that the Plan as too high level to be addressing these items, and identify other potential avenues where this would be more focused on.
Knack on financial implications, asks about risks on mature neighborhoods on items such as school closures under business as usual, and if policy helps open direction to invest in established industrial areas.

Admin identifies that policy sets intent, but up to Council decisions
Council on recess until 7:00pm.
Iveson asks about if text of document strong enough to indicate maps as iterative and evergreen. Admin to include an embedded statement to ensure clarity.
Henderson, Esslinger, Paquette, McKeen, Knack ask for series of minor text adjustments based on earlier questioning. Walters asks amendment to change 'no-growth' definition on maps for better clarity. Iveson calls for quick recess to organize amendments for procedural purposes.
Debate occurring over Walters amendment definition for Future Growth and the degree use of population milestones limits development of fringe annex lands. Caterina voices hesitancy on 250,000 figure as still sterilizing land temporarily.
All requested amendments are adopted for consideration, and a call for new information is placed. 15min notice and recess in effect.
First up is Don Nikonetz. Provides info on alternative infra cost sharing framework. Iveson asks follow up on downstream effects of agreements.
Second is Chris Nicholas. Cautions on the 250,000 figure as still being prohibitive for greenfield development. Caterina asks if non-support from Admin sterilizes development. Speaker fears it does.
Knack asks about evergreen nature and perpetual adjustments assuages fears. Speaker rather it be open up front than going through later fight with map in effect.
Plan postponed to continue 9:30am tomorrow.
Dziadyk asks on use of 118Ave v. Alberta Ave for naming district. Feedback from Admin & Council that not all residents in the district identify with Alberta Ave name.
Walters asks about growth management plan, infra costs, and how engagement is going to occur.

Esslinger asks for clarity on corridor boundary. Admin will monitor and adjust over time.
Henderson asks about infra upgrades and taking advantage of upgrades while renewals occurring in neighbourhoods.

Admin identifies attempts are made, but up to EPCOR's budget & decisions. Plan may help as stronger bargaining position during discussions.
Caterina identifies $30bil infra upgrade costs figure coming from a 2010 audit. Henderson identifies figure was upgrade and renewal, and that some work from that was done. Admin identifies neighbourhood renewal program as addressing that deficit since 2008.
Iveson identifies figure included some new need growth projects and amenities. Overall has been chipped away considerably.
Iveson asks about map graphics, if buildings present identify any significance. Admin identifies is as an artistic flourish, Legal counsel agrees that it wouldn't be indicative of anything requiring denotation
Iveson asks about fine grain details and new secondary corridor identification. Admin identifies that these flesh out at more local level planning. This Plan effectively a helicopter level view - subsequent district plans will zoom in and flesh out exact specifics more.
Iveson asks about synergy with City Plan and University's alternate jurisdiction planning for non-academic buildouts. Admin identifies that Plan accounts for University's future options.
New information brings 9 speakers up. First is Kirsten Goa. Reiterates that the push during the previous MDP in high numbers is indicative of how much better current Plan is, given the lack of public attendance. Need to recognize change mgmt is still required going forward.
Next up is Mariah Samji. Speaks of growing desire to provide infill, to avoid business as usual, and reiterates steps made, but distances still to go re infrastructure upgrade cost sharing. Asks again that the infill target be raised to 55% from 50%
Mick Graham is next. Cautions that the proposed designation change from no-growth to future growth shifts back to status quo. Areas should be left undeveloped, and resources focused to infill and existing areas. Re neighbourhood renewal, does not see EPCOR priorities aligning.
Dr. Summers raises that new neighbourhoods do not fiscally pay for themselves. Regarding staging, the Plan does so appropriately and is helpful. Identifies staging pace can be changed by future councils if needed.
Walters asks about some financial balancing in non-res opportunities, and how future growth may allow these types of growth to continue.

Speaker agrees res is offset by non-res development. Wiser to attract non-res development by raising res tax rate to allow lower comm tax.
Henderson asks if paying for itself has more to do with density of neighbourhood than simple res/comm ratio.

Speaker clarifies density a factor in the system. Low density hampers proper system health, effectively creating non-viable situation. Density critical absent high taxes
Iveson asks about the 'ponzi scheme' fiscal strategy and how Edmonton is reaching it's cap for new growth to pay off previous debts.

To speaker, proposed Plan is a good measure to fix this issue, does not see growth of neighbouring municipalities strong enough to hamper YEG.
Iveson reiterates the neighbourhood v. neighbourhood cost efficiency. Identifies how Oliver pays for itself and subsidizes other areas many times over. Speaks to nuances of individual neighbourhood styles vs. overall fiscal health.
Banga asks for clarification that non-res taxes offset res taxes.

Speaker identifies that payout of non-res in taxes tends to exceed return of tax dollars, res reversed. Popularity to also drive down res taxes as a voting tactic.
Banga asks if its proposal changing no growth name makes things better.

Speaker does not see the definition change making a difference given the plan's outlining that is was not complete sterilization, but boundaries for orderly staging.
Banga asks if we are driving non-res opportunities away.

Speaker does not see business being driven away, just planned in a staged and orderly manner. Cautions opening everything up will create inefficiencies through piecemeal development.
Paquette asks on how to dispel the myth that density = slums.

Speaker identifies history where housing was so low, that reputation gained non-housing was for the less fortunate. Speaker identifies it's a generational divide as younger persons w/o buying power, condos not slums.
Paquette asks for great examples of densification and balancing walkability desires with sprawl sentiment.

Speaker talks about how density is the driving factor to making these walkable factors more viable. Speaks to directing resources and needing to develop spaces in YEG.
Paquette asks about traffic concerns and road widening, and induced demand.

Speaker mentions how reality is traffic in big cities. City Plan focuses on making walkable neighbourhoods to alleviate number of people using cars for trips.
Banga asks about 50% alternate travel figure given edmonton's climate.

Speaker identifies we are halfway there already under climate and a limited transit system. Speculates it's likely some of Edmonton's dense neighbourhoods already nearing that figure.
Banga asks for clarity on 'limited transit system'.

Speaker talks about the massive deviation between transit times and driving times in YEG, and how other cities have managed to bring spread down making it more enticing.
Iqbal Mahal is next. Concerned adjustments not sufficient enough in no-growth/future growth areas. Restriction can hamper housing supplies, which will also affect housing affordability. Asks the 250,000 figure be lifted to let investors plan out in the immediacy.
Paul Grewal is next. Reiterates 250,000 limit shuts down investors. Economics will push people into Beaumont and Leduc, who will still use the infrastructure coming into YEG, but be outside the tax base. Still wants staging clause to be lifted.
Iveson confirms speaker is involved in ownership of land in question. Asks about plans pre/post annexation.

Speaker identifies intention was for sooner development and monetization than in the Plan. Supported annexation, but wants ability to capitalize if a boom hits again.
Iveson speaks to the city's need to fill in areas where infrastructure already extended, that to cover costs there needs to be substantial completion before moving out even further. Asks if speaker can understand situation.
Speaker feels Plan is holding hostage a corner of the City that is developing faster than other areas in order to await YEG to grow as a whole.
Banga asks about best solution for City given there is old infrastructure needing overhaul regardless of development.

Speaker sees solution as needing to be infill/greenfield mix. Old infra costs balloon as problems discovered, vs. greenfield which is cheaper.
Speaker talks of lost productivity as people wait longer in density. Sees greenfield development as able to work without these issues.
Kamaljit Benipal is next. Talks about investment opportunities looking around the Airport area, but outside YEG due to land costs. Opportunities coming independent of pop, so sees them being chased out by 250,000 pop. target and asks for removal, or that ind & comm be exempt.
Walters clarifies change to future-growth from no-growth is to already encapsulate opportunities for non-res development around the Airport area and not limited by thresholds.
Banga asks about how remote development factors into notion people like to live near where they work.

Speaker identifies areas of development in the vicinity that can be reached in 15 min.
Next is Hani Barzegar (sp?) (HIBCO). Speaks as an investor that wants to invest in core areas, but worries about signals encouraging greenfield development.
Last is Dave Purewal. Also asks that pop targets not be used for outskirts. Appreciates change from no-growth to future growth, but does not want 250,000 figure to exist. Fears it creates developer uncertainty and raise prices if development is skewed to infill development.
Public Hearing closes with no new amendments. Council to begin deliberation on Plan and amendments as proposed.
Recess until 1:30pm.
To first reading, Caterina thanks Admin and stresses plan's importance. Likes the show of support and amendments made for opposition. Hopes developers still continue to plan going forward. Has become more pleased since start of hearing.
Henderson mentions mixed feelings based on the lofty outlook and time-frame of plan. Need to keep reminding we're not building our city, but the next generation's City. Has some impatience that the vision should occur faster than projected.
Henderson hopes support is given into the plan so that they themselves can enjoy the city being outlined. Applauds the vision and wants to hold challenging conversations short term to help the plan going forward.
Banga offers thanks to Admin and speakers. Agrees with the stress on the regional context, but as a representative of ward residents worries land development plans skew too far away from greenfield.
Banga worries limits are counter-productive to affordable housing claims. Feels plan does not address neighbour concerns during infill development strong enough. Does not agree with pop thresholds and worries of land sterilization. Cites it as the tipping point for non-support.
McKeen references a trip to local node and hopes to see this type of development encouraged throughout YEG. Thanks admin, participants, & public. Talks about holistic aspects req'd in community and attracting new residents.
McKeen comforted in hearing expressions valuing the end of homelessness. References wanting to hear how younger Council members (spec. Iveson) view the Plan.
Esslinger is excited by the engagement, and recognizes the youth involved will see the fruit of the plan, even if Council members do not. Is hopeful Plan will construct a city that makes life easier through mobility and values.
Esslinger cites pandemic a realization how quickly world can change, and hopefully flexibility allows us to address these changes. Sees the Plan as for the people and by the people. Some tweaks may be needed, but overall voices heard of support.
Hamilton thanks project team. Does not see the Plan as needing an argument, as we've had a lengthy conversation over many years to define the City going forward.
Paquette speaks being impressed with the Plan, and its collaboration with the people of Edmonton. Plan is sensible, & reduces tax burden over time. Increases ability to live/work/play in neighbourhoods, raising the sense of home.
Paquette on rapid change, sees the principles of the Plan as consistent for guidance, regardless of the world around, and finds comfort in it. Seconds Henderson's wish to see these aims come to fruition now. This has always been about family, & grateful Plan promotes these values
Walters continues Paquette's gratitude to those involved in Plan. One concern is over number of directions against capacity, but priority will be for Councils of the future. Speaks of previous plans opposition given the lack of core prioritization. Plan answers these concerns.
Walters credits improvement of newer greenfield development, and hopes we can now move to core improvements. Thanks Mayor setting up regional framework to allow Plan to occur without worry of competition. Value of amendment to aid non-res growth in periphery.
Walters talks of need for imagination to achieve aspiration, and feels the Plan helps in achieving a better City. Will enthusiastically support.
Dziadyk thanks admin and participants. Thinks Plan is an overall good, and recognizes future Councils can amend as situations require. Initial concerns were addressed through PH process and amendments. Will be supporting.
Cartmell thanks the project team. Talks about sense it's anti-climactic given the length and involvement in the process to where nothing really comes as a surprise. Stresses the details in implementation is where the work really begins, and what is looked forward to. Will support
Iveson honors the work gone into the Plan. Offers apology to Admin's treatment during yesterday's Hearing. Thanks input from all parties involved.
Iveson sees there being no longer a regional race to the bottom, and the Plan as leading in bringing the region along. Plan is a recognition to grow smartly. Expresses deep pride in how the work done is made for the benefit of his kids and future generations.
Knack speaks of past attempts limiting choice for Edmontonians. Speaks to the value in creating the Plan together, of giving alternate transportation equal support. Values the emphasis of choice within our boundaries. Sees the best time to begin building community is now.
Knack echoes the sentiment to not wait for the buildout, and give people better quality-of-life immediately. will support.
11 - 2 first reading & second reading. Banga & Nickel opposed. Plan paused to go through regional evaluation before return for final reading and possible adoption.
Subsequent motion raised by Dziadyk to write crown to remove height restrictions around airport lands to city's North. Henderson asks if it can extend beyond height limitations as well.
Paquette asks administration on built-form restraints. Admin speaks of some limitations imposed and differentiation between helicopter and airplane approaches.
Dziadyk raises cell towers as potentially affected as well. Motion passes reading unanimously.
Walters raises subsequent to address infrastructure cost sharing measures and Growth Management Framework. Passes.
New subsequent on infill and neighbour protection measures. Discussion over toolbox options. Admin recognizes potential start to ongoing conversation. Iveson cautions on jurisdiction issues over neighbour-to-neighbour disputes.
Iveson cautions on pinning to City Plan given the jurisdictional landmines moving action beyond compliance and education. Worries more may not be under City's power.
McKeen asks about City's onus given it's approval of given development. Legal sees no legal obligation given parameters of development granted for the site boundaries.
Admin stresses education and information of rights still best approach in these disputes. Will need to work with province to advocate expanding tools if looking to go further.
Walters on subsequent acknowledges complicated nature and speaks of capacities and the feedback loop creating more avenues where progress was made. Sees this as pooprtunity to further address issues. Motion to bring back an update passes reading unanimously.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jerreck Connors

Jerreck Connors Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!