City of Calgary planning approval process

[JoeUrban]

I'm assuming there are a bunch of people on the board who would have more detailed info on the city's planning approval process than I do so I thought I would pose the question here.
I'm specifically interested in the development permit approval process where land use changes aren't required.

The city shows this graphic to cover the various steps.

I've modified this to add the blue boxes. I guess my question is who exactly is doing the 4 steps I've boxed in blue? Is it just the file manager, or are there city depts or committees that do some of the rest, and who would those be?

 

[MichaelS]

It depends on the scale of the development being submitted. There are 4 streams of applications I think. I am less familiar with Streams 1 and 2, but think of them like new signs, etc.... Very minor stuff. Stream 3 are larger applications, but still relatively minor (new infill houses for instance). Significant develompent permits, such as new buildings (row houses and up) are typically Stream 4.

Streams 1-3 are handled by planning service technicians I think and done entirely through the planning department. Stream 4 is handled by CPAG, the Corporate Planning Applications Group. The File Manager is the planner for the file, but it is reviewed by representatives from Development Engineering (utilities, etc...), Transportation and Parks. The blue boxes in your diagram are a collaborative process by all 4 groups reviewing the application.

Very basic overview, and I stand to be corrected on the lower stream applications, but this is how my understanding of it is.

 

[JoeUrban]

It depends on the scale of the development being submitted. There are 4 streams of applications I think. I am less familiar with Streams 1 and 2, but think of them like new signs, etc.... Very minor stuff. Stream 3 are larger applications, but still relatively minor (new infill houses for instance). Significant develompent permits, such as new buildings (row houses and up) are typically Stream 4.

Streams 1-3 are handled by planning service technicians I think and done entirely through the planning department. Stream 4 is handled by CPAG, the Corporate Planning Applications Group. The File Manager is the planner for the file, but it is reviewed by representatives from Development Engineering (utilities, etc...), Transportation and Parks. The blue boxes in your diagram are a collaborative process by all 4 groups reviewing the application.

Very basic overview, and I stand to be corrected on the lower stream applications, but this is how my understanding of it is.

Thanks that helps and yes rowhousing and up is definitely my interest. Ok so it sounds like the file manager is essentially the project manager when it comes to moving the application through the stages. I guess what I need to find more about is if the file manager does the initial review and the detailed review, or if someone more junior does the initial and the file manager the detailed, or file manager does the initial and a group does the detailed.

Also curious who exactly makes the final decision/signs off.

 

[MichaelS]

File manager does both the initial and detailed review. As does (or at least, should) the entire CPAG team. However, if the initial review by the file manager shows there is something critical lacking from the application (requested technical study not provided), they may bounce it back to the applicant without bringing it to CPAG, just to save everyone some time.

The final decision technically rests with the File Manager, but should be a group consensus. If one of the 4 team members has an aspect that has not been addressed, the file will stay on hold/not-approved until the necessary changes are met. However, as is often seen and debated on this forum, conflicts arise between departments (transportation and planning being two that often have friction), and a solution will need to be negotiated. But in the end, it will rest with the file manager, but with a very healthy dose of input from the other reps.

 

[JoeUrban]

So it sounds like when it comes to purely land use components for the parcel + general city development policy, the file manager is the decider, with the rest of the team more about the mechanics of the city interacting with it. Do you know if any scenarios where someone above the file manager would be required to sign off?

 

[MichaelS]

Well for land use, Council is the ultimate decider. The administration simply makes a recommendation based upon the evaluation, but Council ultimately makes the decision through a public hearing (where anyone is entitled to speak for or against the change). This is legally mandated within the Municipal Government Act.

For development permits, the ultimate sign off is the the chief development officer I think (senior member of administration that really just has the title but relies on staff review/decisions) unless the project is of a scale that requires going to Calgary Planning Commission. In that case, similar to a land use that goes to Council (which also go through CPC, but again, CPC just provides a recommendation to Council on land uses), the administration recommendation is brought to the Planning Commission, where they are the ultimate decision authority.

And... there is one more route for development permits. The REAL ultimate decision authority is the development appeal board. Regardless of who makes the decision (CPC or Administration) the decision can be appealed to the SDAB, where arguments for/against said decision are presented, and SDAB makes a ruling. Their ruling is binding, and can overturn administration and CPC decisions. If you don't like the decision out of SDAB, you really have no recourse. You can go to the court of appeals in Alberta, but only with the argument that SDAB overstepped their jurisdictional authority I think, not arguing they made a mistake within their jurisdiction.

 

[JoeUrban]

Do you know what scale would typically go to CPC, assuming no LUA? (sorry for the million questions)

 

[MichaelS]

Happy to answer the questions. It is a complicated process, and the more people understand it, the better our society is in my opinion (very broad reach I know, but helping everyone understand better why Calgary looks like Calgary can only be positive in my mind).

In terms of criteria that goes to CPC, I am not 100% sure. As a rule of thumb, anything of significance that we talk about on this forum, typically will go. That said, there are some that don't go, which I am surprised at. This one for instance has been approved (currently in advertising, so decision by administration has been reached and within the window of someone being able to appeal the decision) without going to CPC:

Calgary | West Tenth 1400 | 24m | 7s | Trimount

DP has been submitted a while ago for the NE corner of 10th Ave and 14th Street SW: https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/?find=DP2019-5501 A sign is up for the development permit, that has a rendering on it:

skyrisecities.com

And then, sometimes I see items on the agenda for CPC and think, really? That has to go to CPC?

If there is a specific file you are curious about, it is probably best to reach out to the file manager (contact info should be available on the development map) and ask if it is going to CPC or not.

 

[Disraeli]

Well for land use, Council is the ultimate decider. The administration simply makes a recommendation based upon the evaluation, but Council ultimately makes the decision through a public hearing (where anyone is entitled to speak for or against the change). This is legally mandated within the Municipal Government Act.


And... there is one more route for development permits. The REAL ultimate decision authority is the development appeal board. Regardless of who makes the decision (CPC or Administration) the decision can be appealed to the SDAB, where arguments for/against said decision are presented, and SDAB makes a ruling. Their ruling is binding, and can overturn administration and CPC decisions. If you don't like the decision out of SDAB, you really have no recourse. You can go to the court of appeals in Alberta, but only with the argument that SDAB overstepped their jurisdictional authority I think, not arguing they made a mistake within their jurisdiction.

Correct and it wouldn't technically be an appeal. It would be a judicial review application to a superior court (the ABQB in Alberta). The court would determine whether the decision maker was outside the jurisdictional authority of the enabling legislation. Limited remedies available for judicial review and pretty difficult to be successful in the context of the MGA. Same goes for Council decisions on land use.

 

[JoeUrban]

File manager does both the initial and detailed review. As does (or at least, should) the entire CPAG team. However, if the initial review by the file manager shows there is something critical lacking from the application (requested technical study not provided), they may bounce it back to the applicant without bringing it to CPAG, just to save everyone some time.

The final decision technically rests with the File Manager, but should be a group consensus. If one of the 4 team members has an aspect that has not been addressed, the file will stay on hold/not-approved until the necessary changes are met. However, as is often seen and debated on this forum, conflicts arise between departments (transportation and planning being two that often have friction), and a solution will need to be negotiated. But in the end, it will rest with the file manager, but with a very healthy dose of input from the other reps.

Well for land use, Council is the ultimate decider. The administration simply makes a recommendation based upon the evaluation, but Council ultimately makes the decision through a public hearing (where anyone is entitled to speak for or against the change). This is legally mandated within the Municipal Government Act.

For development permits, the ultimate sign off is the the chief development officer I think (senior member of administration that really just has the title but relies on staff review/decisions) unless the project is of a scale that requires going to Calgary Planning Commission. In that case, similar to a land use that goes to Council (which also go through CPC, but again, CPC just provides a recommendation to Council on land uses), the administration recommendation is brought to the Planning Commission, where they are the ultimate decision authority.

And... there is one more route for development permits. The REAL ultimate decision authority is the development appeal board. Regardless of who makes the decision (CPC or Administration) the decision can be appealed to the SDAB, where arguments for/against said decision are presented, and SDAB makes a ruling. Their ruling is binding, and can overturn administration and CPC decisions. If you don't like the decision out of SDAB, you really have no recourse. You can go to the court of appeals in Alberta, but only with the argument that SDAB overstepped their jurisdictional authority I think, not arguing they made a mistake within their jurisdiction.

Me again.

Another question about the approval process.
Sometimes an application goes to council with a recommendation to not approve by CPC.
In what scenarios does the planning dept stop negotiating with an applicant and sends a proposal that does not meet the department's asks to CPC leading to the not approval recommendation? For example if a detailed team review is sent to the applicant who responds that they aren't going to make any of the recommended changes or not many of them, what would trigger the application to be sent to CPC anyway?

 

[MichaelS]

Each case would be unique, but the one you outline above is probably a pretty good generalization of it. Each application is entitled to a decision, so it can be brought forward with a refusal. In some instances, this is due to a fundamental disagreement over what policy requires, etc..., leading to the applicant and city being unable to come to an agreement. On the one hand, it is sort of a good sign, in that the applicant is serious and committed to their project at least.

I feel like oftentimes (I don't have solid numbers on it by any means), if there is a wide gap between what the city requires and what the applicant is willing to do, and if there is solid rationale behind the City's requirements, you will typically just see the application whither and die. Not movign forward, but just sit waiting on an applicant response that never really comes.