2 of 80

Transcription

1 1 of 80

2 2 of 80

3 3 of 80

4 4 of 80

5 5 of 80

6 6 of 80

7 7 of 80

8 8 of 80

9 9 of 80

10 10 of 80

11 11 of 80

12 12 of 80

13 13 of 80

14 14 of 80

15 15 of 80

16 16 of 80

17 17 of 80

18 18 of 80

19 Planning, Development & Assessment Report to Council C February 01 Page 1 of 2 LYNX RIDGE ANNEXATION COMPENSATION FUNDING SUMMARY/ISSUE Budget request for funding to comply with Order in Council 486/2004 requiring The City to compensate the MD of Rocky View for loss of property tax revenues resulting from the annexation of Lynx Ridge to the city. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION No previous Council decisions or direction has been provided regarding the Lynx Ridge annexation. However, in the recent MD of Foothills annexation, Council approved funding to compensate the MD of Foothills for the loss of property tax revenues. Compensation in this regard is common in annexation processes. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Approve the payment of $687, by The City to compensate the MD of Rocky View in accordance with Order in Council 486/ Approve a one-time increase of $688,000 to Operating Program #616, Land Use Planning & Policy, to make the payment. The funding to come from Mill Rate Stabilization Reserve. INVESTIGATION On 2004 October 19 the Province of Alberta issued Order in Council 486/2004 annexing the Lynx Ridge area to the City of Calgary. The purpose of the annexation was to address serious environmental concerns with respect to a failing septic system for the residential development in this subdivision. The Order in Council specifies a number of conditions. The City of Calgary must provide a connection from its sanitary sewer system to the wastewater system being constructed in Lynx Ridge pursuant to an MD local improvement bylaw. The City must pay to Rocky View an amount equal to five times the 2004 property taxes for municipal purposes. The 2004 property taxes for municipal purposes amounts to $137, The five-year property tax total is therefore $687, Landowners in Lynx Ridge are also afforded property tax mitigation; the Lynx Ridge properties must be taxed using The City s tax rate or Rocky View s tax rate whichever is lower for a period of 15 years to the end of It should be noted the City Manager sent a letter to the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs on 2004 October 8 expressing concerns with these conditions as well as the irregular annexation boundary. Further clarification of the conditions was provided by Municipal Affairs however the requirements remain as in the final Order in Council (Attachment). IMPLICATIONS General The financial and other conditions in this Order in Council may affect negotiations with the MD of Rocky View related to The City s ongoing comprehensive annexation application. Social The Lynx Ridge site-specific annexation results in primarily urban residential development being annexed to the city. As such, there is unlikely to be any social ramifications resulting from the municipal boundary change, i.e., lifestyle impacts. Environmental The annexation will result in this area being serviced with City sanitary sewer, which will solve a serious environmental and health concern with the existing septic sewer system. Economic (External) The annexation brings approximately 88 hectares of land into the city. It includes residential development, a golf course and clubhouse. Last date edited: 07/18/18 10:03 AM GM (D.Watson), Acting Director (P.Cochrane), Author (T. Creelman) C:\Users\awick\Desktop\OMNI JULY 18, 2018\LAW REBUTTAL\TAB A-2.doc 19 of 80

20 Planning, Development & Assessment Report to Council C February 01 Page 2 of 2 LYNX RIDGE ANNEXATION COMPENSATION FUNDING BUDGET IMPLICATIONS There is no budget allocation in 2005 to fund the compensation payment. It is proposed that the 2005 Operating Program #616, Land Use Planning & Policy, be increased one-time by $688,000 to make the payment. The funding to come from Mill Rate Stabilization Reserve. The annexed area will impact upon City services. There are ongoing and future residential development applications in accordance with the existing land use designation resulting in processing and inspection requirements by The City. Moreover, The City assumes jurisdiction over public roads in the area. The extent of these impacts to City budgets is unknown at this time. RISKS The risk in not approving the compensation funding is to be in contravention of the provincial Order in Council. ATTACHMENT Order in Council 486/2004 Last date edited: 07/18/18 10:03 AM GM (D.Watson), Acting Director (P.Cochrane), Author (T. Creelman) C:\Users\awick\Desktop\OMNI JULY 18, 2018\LAW REBUTTAL\TAB A-2.doc 20 of 80

21 21 of 80

22 22 of 80

23 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 Alberta Municipal Government Board Drayton Valley (Town), Re 1999 CarswellAlta 1829 In the Matter of the "Municipal Government Act" (the Act) In the Matter of an intermunicipal dispute lodged by the Town of Drayton Valley D.L. Shelley Presiding Officer, F. Martin Member, R.A. Bishop Member Counsel: J. Agrios, for Town of Drayton Valley D. Haldane, for Municipal District of Brazeau No. 77 J. Murphy, for D.C. Energy Services Corporation Heard: December 21, 1998 Judgment: January 18, 1999 Docket: MGB 018/99 Subject: Public; Civil Practice and Procedure; Property; Municipal Related Abridgment Classifications Municipal law XVIII Planning appeal boards and tribunals XVIII.2 Practice and procedure XVIII.2.a Notice XVIII.2.a.ii Of appeal Municipal law XVIII Planning appeal boards and tribunals XVIII.2 Practice and procedure XVIII.2.e Adjournment Headnote Municipal law --- Planning appeal boards and tribunals Practice and procedure Notice Of appeal Municipal law --- Planning appeal boards and tribunals Practice and procedure Adjournment D.L. Shelley Presiding Officer: Background 1 The Town has appealed, pursuant to Section 690 of the Act, the M.D.'s adoption of two statutory plan bylaws. The bylaws under appeal are the Municipal Development Plan ("the MDP") and the 50th Street East Area Structure Plan ("the ASP"). The appeal was further refined by the Town when it advised that the issues under appeal were related to the ASP in its entirety, and solely to the two-mile urban fringe of the Town within the MDP. The Town has further qualified the two-mile urban fringe, to exclude any areas across the river. 2 After filing the appeal pursuant to s.690, the Town gave notice of its intent to annex certain lands from the M.D. The area covered by the notification generally coincides with the two mile fringe area of the Town. Issues 3 23 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 1

24 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta Whether the Town's appeal of the adoption of the MDP and the ASP by the M.D. should be adjourned pending the outcome of the annexation proceedings? 2. Whether the Town can raise concerns in its Notice of Appeal that were not raised prior to second reading of the bylaws? 3. Whether the Town's original Notice of Appeal provides adequate reasons and, if not, whether the Town should be required to identify the specific provisions of the bylaws under appeal? Legislation Referenced Municipal Government Act 4 Part 4, Division 6 (Annexation), sections (reproduced at Appendix "C") 5 Part 17, Division 11 (Intermunicipal Disputes), sections 690 and 691 (Appendix "C") 6 Judicature Act, section 8 (Appendix "C") Review of the Arguments and Decisions on the ISsues 7 The Board considered the submissions of the Town and the M.D. With regard to Issue 1, the Board also heard from counsel for an affected landowner. 1. Whether the Town's appeal of the adoption of the MDP and the ASP by the M.D. should be adjourned pending the outcome of the annexation proceedings? Summary of the Town's Argument - Counsel for the Town stated that if the annexation is successful, then the issues raised in the appeal regarding the MDP and the ASP would be moot. If the annexation was successful, the Town would have the ability to ultimately repeal the MDP and the ASP. Counsel for the Town urged the Board to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings involving the same lands. Counsel suggested that the Board be governed by principles similar to those in section 8 of the Judicature Act. Counsel estimated that the annexation application would be ready to proceed before the Board in March or April of He conceded that if the Board was of the view that the annexation would take longer than this, the application for an adjournment should fail. Summary of the M.D.'s Argument - Counsel for the M.D. argued that an adjournment would be contrary to the provisions of the Act which sets out separate procedures for annexation and intermunicipal disputes. The existence of two procedures means that the two disputes can run concurrently. The M.D.'s position was that a multiplicity of proceedings does not exist because the issues to be determined are distinct, the procedures are distinct, and there is no potential for conflicting orders. Counsel for the M.D. reviewed the procedure for annexation set out in Part 4 Division 6 of the Act. Counsel noted that there are no time frames in the annexation sections, and argued this was because the Legislature envisioned an annexation application taking some time to work through. Counsel contrasted that with sections 690 and 691, which he argued are designed to have intermunicipal disputes heard promptly. The M.D. stated that section 690 (4) is the reason for the difference, because it suspends the operation of the provisions under appeal. This suspension has the effect of putting development on hold, and affects the rights of landowners to develop their lands. Summary of the Affected Landowner's Argument - D.C. Energy Services Corporation is the owner of 80 acres of land in the fringe area. Counsel advised that his client has an application before the M.D. that has been held up by this appeal. Counsel argued that the annexation and intermunicipal disputes are two separate processes which 24 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 2

25 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 can operate concurrently. Counsel took the position that the tradeoff for certainty in planning and development is an expeditious process. Counsel opposed the adjournment. He submitted that it should only be granted if no party would be affected by the delay, and that his client was an example of a landowner who was so affected. Board's Decision and Reasons - The Board denies the Town's request to adjourn the intermunicipal dispute until after the annexation appeal is determined. The Board is of the view that the Act clearly sets out a procedure for intermunicipal disputes and sets out a different procedure for annexation. Annexation and intermunicipal disputes have their own sets of issues and time frames within which the matters are to be heard. Intermunicipal disputes are intended to proceed expeditiously, given the suspension of the bylaws by operation of section 690 (4), and the resulting affect on landowners. 2. Whether the Town can raise concerns in its Notice of Appeal that were not raised prior to second reading of the bylaws? Summary of the M.D.'s Argument - The M.D. took the position that the Town may only appeal those issues of which it gave the M.D. notice prior to second reading of the bylaw. Counsel for the M.D. stated that the purpose of this requirement was to allow the M.D. an opportunity to address or resolve the concerns prior to second reading. The M.D. is of the view that it cannot have taken steps to resolve concerns of which it had no notice, and by its silence the Town has represented that its concerns are limited to those of which notice was given before second reading. The M.D. argues that only full disclosure will satisfy the objects of the Act, because the objective is to encourage municipalities to resolve their concerns. Counsel for the M.D. urged the Board to find that on appeal the Town was restricted to the matters set out in their letter of August 12, 1998 (which appears at Tab 7 of Exhibit 1). Summary of the Town's Argument - Counsel for the Town submitted that the letter of August 12, 1998, together with the letter of May 29, 1998 (which appears at Tab 6 of Exhibit 1) very clearly identifies the Town's concerns. The Notice of Appeal merely elaborates on the points raised in the two letters. In his written Argument (Exhibit 4), Counsel for the Town drew the Board's attention to sections 690 (1) and (2). Counsel submitted that the requirements for a Notice of Appeal are different from the notice of concerns and, if it was intended that the two documents contain the same level of detail, then the wording of sections 690 (1) and (2) would have been the same. Counsel for the Town argued that section 690 (5) gives the Board wide jurisdiction to answer the question of whether a statutory plan or bylaw is detrimental and to make an order accordingly. The Town's position was that section 690 (5) does not limit the Board to dealing with only the matters raised in the notice of concern. Board's Decision and Reasons - The Board accepts the Notice of Appeal and the amended Notice of Appeal. The Board finds that it is not precluded from hearing the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal, as amended. In other words, the Town is not restricted on this appeal to those issues raised in its notice of concern. The Board is unable to support the argument made by the M.D., because it found the M.D.'s interpretation of section 690 required too much reading into the legislation. The Board was of the view that there was nothing in section 690 (1) and (2) that tied the notice of concerns to the Notice of Appeal. The Board found the Town's argument regarding section 690 (5) to be persuasive, and in line with the Board's view that the legislation be given a fair and liberal interpretation. The Board was of the opinion that the legislation would have to specifically restrict rights of appeal, to the matters raised before second reading in the notice of concern, before it would be prepared to interpret the section more restrictively. 3. Whether the Town's original Notice of Appeal provides adequate reasons and, if not, whether the Town should be required to identify the specific provisions of the bylaws under appeal? 25 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 3

26 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 Summary of the M.D.'s Argument - The M.D., in its written materials, argued that the Notice of Appeal stated conclusions and often restated sections of the Act, rather than provide reasons as required by section 690 (2). The M.D. took the position that the Notice of Appeal should show why a particular provision of the bylaw caused detriment. Counsel argued that the Notice of Appeal must show a cause and effect relationship between the provisions of the bylaw and the alleged detriment. Counsel gave as an example the Notice of Appeal prepared by the City of Edmonton respecting bylaws passed by the Municipal District of Sturgeon (found at Tab 13 of Exhibit 1). In his oral argument, Counsel indicated that he was not asking for the Notice of Appeal to be struck but, rather, asking the Board to require the Town to (i) identify those sections of the MDP and ASP which the Town alleges are detrimental, and (ii) to summarize the detriment in a fashion similar to Tab 13 of Exhibit 1. Counsel stated that requiring the Town to identify the sections and the alleged detriment at this juncture is in line with the spirit of the legislation, would allow the parties to see if common ground exists, and would enable the M.D. to prepare for the hearing by knowing which witnesses to call. Summary of the Town's Argument - Counsel for the Town maintained that the Notice of Appeal, as amended, sets out the reasons why the MDP and the ASP have a detrimental effect on the Town. Counsel argued that the level of detail requested by the M.D. is more appropriate for written argument submitted on a hearing of the merits of the appeal, and that this application was premature. Board's Decision and Reasons - The Board finds that it is reasonable, at this point in time, to order the Town to (i) identify the specific sections of the MDP and the ASP which the Town sees as detrimental, and (ii) provide a summary of the way in which each section results in detriment to the Town. The wording of section 690 (2) and (4) suggests that specific provisions be identified in the Notice of Appeal, but does not clearly require or limit the parties to them. The Board agrees with the M.D.'s position that requiring the Town to go through this process will separate the issues that may be resolved between the parties from the remainder to be decided by the Board at the hearing on the merits. In addition, it will serve to clarify the issues and allow the parties to effectively prepare for the merit hearing. The Board recognizes that the Notice of Appeal found at Tab 13 of Exhibit 1, is a good example, and suggests the Town may wish to use it as a guide. Information Exchanges and Scheduling 8 Board Order MGB 269/98 scheduled the merit hearing for February 16, 17, 18 and 19, 1999, and set out time lines for information exchanges. Counsel for the Town advised the Board that the Town Manager, a central witness, will be out of the country from February 1 to March 15, 1999, and requested that the merit hearing be rescheduled. Counsel for the Town undertook to provide, and did provide, available dates to the Board Secretariat. Decision Summary 9 The Board directs as follows: 1. The request to adjourn the intermunicipal dispute lodged by the Town, until after the determination of the Town's annexation request, is denied. The merit hearing of the intermunicipal dispute will reconvene in the Town of Drayton Valley at 10:00 a.m. on March 17, The hearing is scheduled for March 17, 18, 22, and 23, The Notice of Appeal and the amended Notice of Appeal are accepted, and the Town is not restricted on this appeal to those issues raised in its notice of concern. 3. The Town shall provide the M.D. and the Board with further particulars of the appeal by 4:30 p.m. on February 1, The further particulars must (i) identify the specific sections of the MDP and the ASP which the Town sees as detrimental, and (ii) provide a summary of the way in which each section results in detriment to the Town. 26 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 4

27 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta Subject to a further order of the Board, the Town, the M.D., affected landowners and any other intervenor/ interested party, shall adhere to the following schedule and timelines for notification and exchange of information: a) The Town shall submit to the Board at its Edmonton office and to the M.D. at its office, by no later than 4:30 p.m. on February 16, 1999, all factual information, statement of issues, legal argument and witness/expert witness lists for distribution. Included with the expert witness list shall be full written resumes or curriculum vitae for each expert. The Board will distribute this material to landowners, who have advised the Board that they intend to make a submission, and to those parties requesting intervenor status; b) The M.D. shall submit to the Board at its Edmonton office and to the Town at its office, by no later than 4:30 p.m. on March 2, 1999, all factual information, statement of issues, legal argument and witness/expert witness lists for distribution. Included with the expert witness list shall be full written resumes or curriculum vitae for each expert. The Board will distribute this material to landowners who have advised the Board that they intend to make a submission, and to those parties requesting intervenor status; c) Rebuttal, if any, to a response shall be provided at the time of the hearing of the related issue or issues; and d) Landowners who have advised the Board that they intend to make a submission, and intervenor/interested parties, after having received the Town material submitted to the Board on February 16, 1999 shall, if they so choose, submit to the Board at its Edmonton office, by no later than 4:30 p.m. on March 2, 1999, all factual information, statement of issues, legal argument and witness/expert witness lists. Included with this list of expert witnesses shall be full written resumes or curriculum vitae for each expert. The Board will distribute this material to the parties. 5. Subject to any adjustment necessitated by the balance of convenience determined by the Board at the time of the hearing, the order of presentation at the hearing will be as follows: a) Town's presentation and witnesses. i. Cross-examination by the M.D. of each witness following evidence in chief. ii. Cross-examination by each intervenor of each witness following evidence in chief. iii. Questions from the Board. iv. Questions arising from the Board's questions. b) M.D.'s presentation and witnesses. i. Cross-examination by the Town of each witness following evidence in chief. ii. Cross-examination by each intervenor of each witness following evidence in chief. iii. Questions from the Board. iv. Questions arising from the Board's questions. c) Landowners' presentations and witnesses, if any (order of presentation as deemed convenient by the Board). i. Cross-examination by the Town of each witness following evidence in chief. ii. Cross-examination by the M.D. of each witness following evidence in chief. iii. Questions by the Board. 27 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 5

28 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 iv. Questions arising from the Board's questions. d) Intervenors' presentations and witnesses, if any (order of presentation as deemed convenient by the Board). i. Cross-examination by the Town of each witness following evidence in chief. ii. Cross-examination by the M.D. of each witness following evidence in chief. iii. Questions by the Board. iv. Questions arising from the Board's questions. e) Legal arguments by the M.D., landowners, intervenors and the Town. f) Closing submissions by the M.D., landowners, intervenors and Town. g) Rebuttal submissions by M.D., landowners, intervenors and Town. 6. Any application for a change to the schedule set by this order of the Board shall be in writing. If the Town and M.D. wish to postpone the schedule of events in order to either pursue negotiations arising from the notification of annexation or an alternative dispute mechanism, the Town and M.D. must jointly make such a request. In all other matters, prior notification must be given to all parties prior to submission to the Board of any such application. With an application for change, an administrative panel of the Board will be convened to hear argument from the parties to the matter. 7. Formal notice of the directions of the Board for exchange of information and reconvening of the hearing will be by copy of this order, which will also be forwarded to all landowners identified by the M.D. APPENDIX "A" PERSONS WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE OR MADE SUBMISSIONS OR GAVE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING: NAME CAPACITY M. Hamdon Mayor, Town of Drayton Valley M. Deol Town Manager, Town of Drayton Valley J. Agrios Solicitor, Town of Drayton Valley K. McKenzie Planner, Town of Drayton Valley D. McQueen Deputy Mayor, Town of Drayton Valley K. Porter Manager, Municipal District Brazeau No. 77 R. Matthews Development Officer, Municipal District of Brazeau No. 77 D. Haldane Solicitor, Municipal District of Brazeau No. 77 M. Schwab Reeve, Municipal District of Brazeau No. 77 K. Gwozdz Planner, Municipal District of Brazeau No. 77 J. Murphy Solicitor, D.C. Energy Services Corporation APPENDIX "B" I. DOCUMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND MADE AVAILABLE AT THE HEARING: NO. ITEM 1. Written Submission of the M.D. of Brazeau (Dec. 1/98) 2. Written Submission of the Town of Drayton Valley (Dec. 1/98) 3. Written Response of the M.D. of Brazeau (Dec. 9/98) 28 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 6

29 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta Written Response of the Town of Drayton Valley (Dec. 9/98) 5. Map of the Development Areas Proposed for Urban Development by M.D. of Brazeau: Letter, dated August 14, 1998, from Bart Guyon, Reeve of the M.D. of Brazeau to Mayor Thomas McGee of the Town of Drayton Valley 7. Letter, dated June 29, 1998, from Mayor Thomas McGee of the Town of Drayton Valley to Reeve Bart Guyon of the M.D. of Brazeau. Municipal Government Act APPENDIX "C" 690(1) If a municipality is of the opinion that a statutory plan or amendment or a land use bylaw or amendment adopted by an adjacent municipality has or may have a detrimental effect on it and if it has given written notice of its concerns to the adjacent municipality prior to second reading of the bylaw, it may appeal the matter to the Municipal Government Board by (a) filing a notice of appeal with the Board, and (b) giving a copy of the notice of appeal to the adjacent municipality within 30 days of the passing of the bylaw to adopt or amend a statutory plan or land use bylaw. (2) When appealing a matter to the Municipal Government Board, the municipality must state the reasons in the notice of appeal why a provision of the statutory plan or amendment or land use bylaw or amendment has a detrimental effect and the efforts it has made to resolve matters with the municipality that adopted it. (3) A municipality, on receipt of a notice of appeal under subsection (1)(b), must, within 30 days, submit to the Municipal Government Board and the municipality that filed the notice of appeal a statement setting out the actions it has taken and the efforts it has made to resolve matters with that municipality. (4) When the Municipal Government Board receives a notice of appeal under this section, the provision of the statutory plan or amendment or land use bylaw or amendment that is the subject of the appeal is deemed to be of no effect and not to form part of the statutory plan or land use bylaw from the date the Board receives the notice of appeal until the date it makes a decision under subsection (5). (5) If the Municipal Government Board receives a notice of appeal under this section, it must decide whether the provision of the statutory plan or amendment or land use bylaw or amendment is detrimental to the municipality that made the appeal and may (a) dismiss the appeal if it decides that the provision is not detrimental, or (b) order the adjacent municipality to amend or repeal the provision if it is of the opinion that the provision is detrimental. (6) A provision with respect to which the Municipal Government Board has made a decision under subsection (5) is, (a) if the Board has decided that the provision is to be amended, deemed to be of no effect and not to form part of the statutory plan or land use bylaw from the date of the decision until the date on which the plan or bylaw is amended in accordance with the decision, and (b) if the Board has decided that the provision is to be repealed, deemed to be of no effect and not to form part of the statutory plan or land use bylaw from and after the date of the decision. 29 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 7

30 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 (7) Section 692 does not apply when a statutory plan or a land use bylaw is amended or repealed according to a decision of the Board under this section. (8) The Municipal Government Board's decision under this section is binding, subject to the rights of either municipality to appeal under section (1) The Municipal Government Board, on receiving a notice of appeal under section 690, must (a) commence a hearing within 60 days of receiving the notice of appeal or a later time to which all parties agree, and (b) give a written decision within 30 days of concluding the hearing. (2) The Municipal Government Board is not required to give notice to or hear from any person other than the municipality making the appeal, the municipality against whom the appeal is launched and the owner of land that is the subject of the appeal. Application 113 This Division does not apply to the annexation of land (a) from an improvement district to another improvement district, or (b) from a special area to another special area. Restriction on annexation 114 No order that annexes land to a municipal authority may be made if the land to be annexed is not contiguous with the boundaries of the municipal authority. Annexations of same land 115(1) A municipal authority may not initiate or proceed with more than one proposed annexation at any one time concerning the same land. (2) A municipal authority may not initiate or proceed with a proposed annexation when the municipal authority is proceeding with an amalgamation, unless the annexation is of the type referred to in section 103(2). Initiation of annexation 116(1) A municipal authority initiates the annexation of land by giving written notice of the proposed annexation to (a) the one or more municipal authorities from which the land is to be annexed, (b) the Municipal Government Board, and (c) any local authority that the initiating municipal authority considers would be affected by the proposed annexation. (2) The notice for an annexation must (a) describe the land proposed to be annexed, (b) set out the reasons for the proposed annexation, and 30 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 8

31 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 Direct negotiations (c) include proposals for (i) consulting with the public about the proposed annexation, and (ii) meeting with the owners of the land to be annexed, and keeping them informed about the progress of the negotiations. 117 The municipal authorities from which the land is to be annexed must, on receipt of the notice under section 116, meet with the initiating municipal authority to discuss the proposals included in the notice and negotiate the proposals in good faith. Report on negotiations 118(1) On conclusion of the negotiations, the initiating municipal authority must prepare a report that describes the results of the negotiations and that includes (a) a list of the matters agreed on and those on which there is no agreement between the municipal authorities, (b) a description of the public consultation processes involved in the negotiations, and (c) a summary of the views expressed during the public consultation processes. (2) The report must be signed by the initiating municipal authority and by the municipal authorities from which the land is to be annexed that are prepared to sign and must include a certificate by the initiating municipal authority stating that the report accurately reflects the results of the negotiations. (3) A municipal authority that does not sign the report may include in the report its reasons for not signing. Disposition of report 119(1) The initiating municipal authority must submit the completed report to the Municipal Government Board and send a copy of it to the municipal authorities from which the land is to be annexed and any other local authority the initiating municipal authority considers would be affected. (2) If the initiating municipal authority indicates in the report that it wishes to proceed with the annexation, the report becomes the initiating municipal authoritys application for the annexation. General agreement on proposed annexation 120(1) If the initiating municipal authority wishes the annexation to proceed and the Municipal Government Board is satisfied that the affected municipal authorities and the public are generally in agreement with the annexation, the Board must notify the Minister and all the local authorities that it considers would be affected by the annexation and anyone else the Board considers should be notified that (a) there appears to be general agreement with the proposed annexation, and (b) unless objections to the annexation are filed with the Board by a specified date, the Board will make its recommendation to the Minister without holding a public hearing. (2) If no objections are filed with the Board by the specified date, the Board must 31 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 9

32 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 (a) consider the principles, standards and criteria on annexation established under section 76, and (b) prepare a written report with its recommendations and send it to the Minister. (3) If objections are filed with the Board by the specified date, the Board (a) may investigate, analyze and make findings of fact about the annexation, including the probable effect on local authorities and on the residents of an area, and (b) must conduct one or more hearings in respect of the annexation and allow any affected person to appear before the Board at a hearing. No general agreement on proposed annexation 121 If the initiating municipal authority wishes the annexation to proceed and the Municipal Government Board is not satisfied that the affected municipal authorities or the public are in general agreement with the annexation, the Board (a) must notify the Minister and all the local authorities that it considers would be affected by the annexation, and anyone else the Board considers should be notified, that there is not general agreement with the proposed annexation, (b) may investigate, analyze and make findings of fact about the annexation, including the probable effect on local authorities and on the residents of an area, and (c) must conduct one or more hearings in respect of the annexation and allow any affected person to appear before the Board at a hearing. Notice of hearing and costs 122(1) The Municipal Government Board must publish a notice of a hearing under section 120(3) or 121 at least once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in a newspaper or other publication circulating in the affected area, the 2nd notice being not less than 6 days before the hearing. (2) The Municipal Government Board may determine the costs of and incidental to a hearing and decide by whom and to whom the costs are to be paid. (3) Section 502 applies to a decision of the Board relating to costs under this section. Boards report 123 After one or more hearings under section 120(3) or 121 have been held and after considering the reports and representations made to it and the principles, standards and criteria on annexation established under section 76, the Board must prepare a written report of its findings and recommendations and send it to the Minister. Contents of report 124(1) A report by the Municipal Government Board to the Minister under this Division must set out (a) a recommendation on whether or not land should be annexed to the initiating municipal authority or other municipal authority; 32 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 10

33 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 (b) if it is recommending annexation, a description of the land, whether there should be revenue sharing and any terms, conditions and other things the Board considers necessary or desirable to implement the annexation. (2) If the Board does not recommend that land be annexed in its report, the Board must provide the report to all local authorities that it considers would be affected by the annexation. Annexation order 125 The Lieutenant Governor in Council, after considering the report of the Board, may by order annex land from a municipal authority to another municipal authority cm-26.1 s125;1996 c30 s5 Annexation order without report 126 Despite sections 116 to 125, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may by order annex land to a municipal authority cm-26.1 s126;1996 c30 s6 Contents of order 127 An order to annex land to a municipal authority may (a) require a municipal authority to pay compensation to another municipal authority in an amount set out in the order or to be determined by means specified in the order, including arbitration under the Arbitration Act, (b) dissolve a municipal authority as a result of the annexation, and (c) deal with any of the matters referred to in section 89. Public utilities 127.1(1) In this section, utility agreement means an agreement approved by the Public Utilities Board in which a municipality grants a right to a person to provide a public utility in all or part of the municipality. (2) An annexation of land does not affect any right under a utility agreement to provide a public utility on the annexed land unless the annexation order provides otherwise. (3) This section does not apply to a right to provide a natural gas service if the right is subject to section 22 of the Gas Distribution Act c24 s18;1998 c26 s13 Annexation refused 128 If an application for an annexation of land is refused, the Minister must notify the initiating municipal authority of the refusal and the initiating municipal authority may not make another annexation application concerning the same land for a period of one year after it receives notice of the refusal. Judicature Act 8 The Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in every proceeding pending before it has power to grant and shall grant, either absolutely or on any reasonable terms and conditions that seem just to the Court, all remedies whatsoever to which any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled in respect of any and every legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them in the proceeding, so that as far as possible all matters in controversy between the parties can be completely determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning those matters avoided. 33 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 11

34 Drayton Valley (Town), Re, 1999 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 1829 End of Document Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 34 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 12

35 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D CarswellAlta 2175 Alberta Municipal Government Board Edmonton (City), Re 2007 CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4197, [2008] A.W.L.D In the Matter of the Municipal Government Act being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 (Act) In the Matter of an Appeal brought pursuant to Section 690 of the Act by the City of Edmonton (City) respecting Bylaw adopted by Strathcona County (County) on May 29, 2007 Counsel: B. Sjolie, J. Grundberg, for County P. Smith, for City D. Thomas Presiding Officer, J. Noonan Member, L. Lundgren Member Judgment: November 1, 2007 Docket: MGB 130/07 Subject: Public; Tax Miscellaneous; Property; Municipal Related Abridgment Classifications Municipal law XX Municipal tax assessment XX.12 Practice and procedure on assessment appeals and objections XX.12.c Jurisdiction and power XX.12.c.ii Board or tribunal Municipal law XX Municipal tax assessment XX.12 Practice and procedure on assessment appeals and objections XX.12.d Procedural requirements XX.12.d.iii Time for appealing XX.12.d.iii.B Miscellaneous Municipal law XX Municipal tax assessment XX.12 Practice and procedure on assessment appeals and objections XX.12.g Miscellaneous Headnote Municipal law --- Municipal tax assessment Practice and procedure on assessment appeals and objections Jurisdiction and power Board or tribunal Municipal law --- Municipal tax assessment Practice and procedure on assessment appeals and objections Procedural requirements Time for appealing Miscellaneous Municipal law --- Municipal tax assessment Practice and procedure on assessment appeals and objections Miscellaneous Table of Authorities Cases considered by D. Thomas Presiding Officer: Babiuk v. Calgary (City) (1992), 133 A.R. 21, 4 Alta. L.R. (3d) 390, 95 D.L.R. (4th) 158, 12 M.P.L.R. (2d) 197, 1992 CarswellAlta 134 (Alta. Q.B.) considered 35 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 1

36 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Rex (2002), 212 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 287 N.R. 248, [2002] 5 W.W.R. 1, 166 B.C.A.C. 1, 271 W.A.C. 1, 18 C.P.R. (4th) 289, 100 B.C.L.R. (3d) 1, 2002 SCC 42, 2002 CarswellBC 851, 2002 CarswellBC 852, 93 C.R.R. (2d) 189, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 (S.C.C.) considered Bridgeland Riverside Community Assn. v. Calgary (City) (1982), 1982 CarswellAlta 82, 19 Alta. L.R. (2d) 361, 135 D.L.R. (3d) 724, 37 A.R. 26, 18 M.P.L.R. 180 (Alta. C.A.) considered Drayton Valley (Town), Re (1999), 1999 CarswellAlta 1829 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.) considered Gettel Appraisals Ltd. v. Hinton (Town) (2001), 2001 CarswellAlta 2361 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.) referred to Peterson v. Khokhar (2007), 78 Alta. L.R. (4th) 294, 2007 CarswellAlta 1136, 2007 ABQB 523, 45 C.P.C. (6th) 258, 424 A.R. 397 (Alta. Master) referred to SES Equities Ltd. v. Alberta (Linear Assessor) (2001), 2001 CarswellAlta 2335 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.) referred to Sturgeon (County), Re (April 2, 1998), Doc. MGB 77/98 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.) distinguished Tolofson v. Jensen (1994), [1995] 1 W.W.R. 609, 22 C.C.L.T. (2d) 173, 100 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1, 32 C.P.C. (3d) 141, 7 M.V.R. (3d) 202, 26 C.C.L.I. (2d) 1, 175 N.R. 161, 120 D.L.R. (4th) 289, (sub nom. Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon) [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022, 77 O.A.C. 81, 51 B.C.A.C. 241, 84 W.A.C. 241, 1994 CarswellBC 1, 1994 CarswellBC 2578 (S.C.C.) considered Statutes considered: Interpretation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. I-8 Generally referred to Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-26 s. 6(5) referred to Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26 Generally referred to s. 488(1)(j) referred to s. 616(m.1) "mediation" referred to s. 617 considered s. 622(3) referred to s. 631 referred to s. 632(3)(a)(iv) referred to s. 690 considered s. 690(1) considered s. 690(2) considered s. 690(3) referred to s. 690(4) referred to s. 690(5) referred to s. 691 referred to s. 691(2) considered D. Thomas Presiding Officer: Section 1: Background to the Appeal 36 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 2

37 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Overview 1 On May 29, 2007, the County passed Bylaw , which repealed and replaced the County's Municipal Development Plan (MDP). The City, on the view that Bylaw is detrimental to it, filed an appeal under section 690 of the Act with the MGB, thereby staying the operation of parts and provisions of Bylaw claimed to be detrimental until the MGB determines the appeal. 2 The County raised a preliminary issue that the MGB did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter for the following reasons: the content of the Notice of Appeal does not comply with the legislation and so is a nullity, not all of the issues were mediated and one of the issues had already been resolved yet is now alleged to be detrimental. Further, a new issue is being raised in this appeal, which was not the subject of the mandatory mediation process. 3 The second issue that arose was a request by the City for an adjournment. The City requested that the hearing be adjourned until the sooner of the release of the Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan or January 31, The County opposed this request, arguing that the City did not meet either the circumstances set out in the MGB's Procedure Guide or the common law test for an interim injunction barring the MGB from taking further steps upon this appeal. 2. Timelines 4 In December of 2004 the County began reviewing its MDP, which had been adopted in The City initially raised issues with the County's draft MDP in March 2006 and requested mediation to attempt to resolve these issues. The parties proceeded to mediation, but were unable to come to a resolution, with the exception of one issue which the County claims was resolved and the City claims was only conditionally resolved. After the unsuccessful mediation, the City received notice that the County was going to proceed with the second and third reading of Bylaw which would replace the existing MDP. The City gave the County written notice of its objections prior to the second reading of the Bylaw as required by section 690 of the Act. 5 Bylaw received third reading on May 22, 2007, and was endorsed on May 29, The City filed its Notice of Appeal on June 28, Section 690(1) of the Act requires that an intermunicipal dispute appeal must be filed within 30 days of the passing of the Bylaw. There is no dispute that the subject appeal was filed with the MGB within this timeline, along with the appropriate statutory declarations. 3. Mediation 6 Section 690(2) requires municipalities to explore the use of mediation. As a result, the parties engaged in mediation prior to the City filing this appeal. The goals of the mediation were expressed as follows: To demonstrate significant progress and likely success to the County by May 8, 2007 Resolution of the issues by June 19, 2007 Endorsement of the resolution by County Council by June 26, 2007 To avoid the appeal process. 7 The four major issues under consideration in the mediation were: West of Highway 21 Area Concept Plan Areas north and south of Highway 14 Heavy industrial separation and risk management 37 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 3

38 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Intermunicipal referral and notification processes. 8 On May 15, 2007 the County communicated two proposed amendments to the City in relation to the Transition Urban Reserve Policy Area. The County's position is that the amendments incorporated the changes the parties agreed upon during mediation; hence this issue was no longer in dispute at the time of the filing of the appeal. However, the City maintains that the amendments do not in fact reflect the mediated agreement, and that there is no resolution of this issue. None of the other issues that were mediated were resolved. 9 Appeal item number 6 deals with the establishment of new urban growth areas. The County argued that it was not notified of this item prior to the second reading of Bylaw and that this item was not the subject of mediation. Therefore it cannot be part of this appeal before the MGB even if the other appeal items are to be heard. 4. Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan 10 On June 12, 2007 the Province announced the terms of reference for a Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan (CRIGMP). The project is expected to result in a Regional Growth Management Plan and a Regional Growth Management Structure Development. According to the News Release, the scope of the Plan is as follows: This initiative will develop i) a regional growth management plan and ii) create a management structure to implement it. The planning for core infrastructure and services will focus on economic development, utilities (water/ wastewater, waste management, electricity, pipelines, environmental management) and transport (railways, highways/roads, airports, public transit). The social infrastructure and services to be reviewed include elements in the areas of workforce, housing, education, health care, emergency services, policing and social services. The plan will integrate both the core and social infrastructure and services planning needs. 11 With respect to land use planning, the following elements are to be integrated: Assess current land use plans against likely growth scenarios, core and social infrastructure and service needs and environmental impacts. Develop an integrated land use plan Develop an implementation plan. 12 The Plan is to commence in June 2007 and be completed by January Implementation of the Plan is slated for spring The City requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis that this project will greatly affect and be greatly affected by the County's new MDP. Section 2: Legislation 13 The MGB considered the following legislation in making its decision in this appeal. Municipal Government Act 14 Section 488 of the Act sets out the MGB's jurisdiction to hear intermunicipal disputes. 488(1) The Board has jurisdiction (j) to decide intermunicipal disputes pursuant to section of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 4

39 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Section 690(1) of the Act provides that a municipality may appeal an allegedly detrimental statutory plan of an adjacent municipality to the MGB. 690(1) If a municipality is of the opinion that a statutory plan or amendment or a land use bylaw or amendment adopted by an adjacent municipality has or may have a detrimental effect on it and if it has given written notice of its concerns to the adjacent municipality prior to second reading of the bylaw, it may, if it is attempting or has attempted to use mediation to resolve the matter, appeal the matter to the Municipal Government Board by (a) filing a notice of appeal and statutory declaration described in subsection (2) with the Board, and (b) giving a copy of the notice of appeal and statutory declaration described in subsection (2) to the adjacent municipality within 30 days after the passing of the bylaw to adopt or amend a statutory plan or land use bylaw. 16 Section 690(2) and (3) require both the appealing municipality and the other municipality to file statutory declarations regarding mediation. 690(2) When appealing a matter to the Municipal Government Board, the municipality must state the reasons in the notice of appeal why a provision of the statutory plan or amendment or land use bylaw or amendment has a detrimental effect and provide a statutory declaration stating (a) the reasons why mediation was not possible, (b) that mediation was undertaken and the reasons why it was not successful, or (c) that mediation is ongoing and that the appeal is being filed to preserve the right of appeal. (3) A municipality, on receipt of a notice of appeal and statutory declaration under subsection (1)(b), must, within 30 days, submit to the Municipal Government Board and the municipality that filed the notice of appeal a statutory declaration stating (a) the reasons why mediation was not possible, or (b) that mediation was undertaken and the reasons why it was not successful. 17 Section 690(4) and (5) provide that a statutory plan under appeal is of no effect from the time the MGB receives the Notice of Appeal until it makes a decision under subsection (5). Subsection (5) requires the MGB to determine if the statutory plan is detrimental to the appealing municipality. 690(4) When the Municipal Government Board receives a notice of appeal and statutory declaration under subsection (1)(a), the provision of the statutory plan or amendment or land use bylaw or amendment that is the subject of the appeal is deemed to be of no effect and not to form part of the statutory plan or land use bylaw from the date the Board receives the notice of appeal and statutory declaration under subsection (1)(a) until the date it makes a decision under subsection (5). (5) If the Municipal Government Board receives a notice of appeal and statutory declaration under subsection (1) (a), it must decide whether the provision of the statutory plan or amendment or land use bylaw or amendment is detrimental to the municipality that made the appeal and may (a) dismiss the appeal if it decides that the provision is not detrimental, or 39 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 5

40 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D (b) order the adjacent municipality to amend or repeal the provision if it is of the opinion that the provision is detrimental. 18 Section 616 defines terms used in Part 17 of the Act, including mediation. 616 In this Part, (m.1) "mediation" means a process involving a neutral person as a mediator who assists the parties to a matter that may be appealed under this Part and any other person brought in with the agreement of the parties to reach their own mutually acceptable settlement of the matter by structuring negotiations, facilitating communication and identifying the issues and interests of the parties; The MGB also reviewed the overall purpose of the planning part of the Act to identify the context and purpose in which section 690 is set. 617 The purpose of this Part and the regulations and bylaws under this Part is to provide means whereby plans and related matters may be prepared and adopted (a) to achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of human settlement, and (b) to maintain and improve the quality of the physical environment within which patterns of human settlement are situated in Alberta, without infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that is necessary for the overall greater public interest. 20 Any action of the MGB must be consistent with the Provincial Land Use Policies. 622(3) Every statutory plan, land use bylaw and action undertaken pursuant to this part by a municipality, municipal planning commission, subdivision authority, development authority or subdivision and development appeal board or the Municipal Government Board must be consistent with the land use policies. 21 The Act provides for a specific type of statutory plan whose objective is to deal with intermunicipal planning issues. In this case however, there is no Intermunicipal Development Plan. 631(1) Two or more councils may, by each passing a bylaw in accordance with this Part or in accordance with sections 12 and 692, adopt an intermunicipal development plan to include those areas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities as they consider necessary. (2) An intermunicipal development plan and (a) may provide for (i) the future land use within the area, (ii) the manner or and the proposal for future development in the area, and (iii) any other matters relating to the physical, social or economic development of the area that the councils consider necessary, (b) must include 40 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 6

41 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D (i) a procedure to be used to resolve or attempt to resolve any conflict between the municipalities that have adopted the plan, (ii) a procedure to be used, by one or more municipalities, to amend or repeal the plan, and (iii) provisions relating to the administration of the plan. 22 In the absence of the existence of an intermunicipal development plan the Act provides that the municipal development plan must address these intermunicipal planning issues. 632(3) A municipal development plan (a) must address (iv) the co-ordination of land use, future growth patterns and other infrastructure with adjacent municipalities if there is no intermunicipal development plan with respect to those matters in those municipalities, In hearing an intermunicipal dispute, the MGB must hear the appeal and make a decision within certain timelines. These timelines are set out in section 691, which also determines who must be notified of the Appeal, and who the MGB is required to hear in making the decision. 691(1) The Municipal Government Board, on receiving a notice of appeal and statutory declaration under section 690(1)(a), must (a) commence a hearing within 60 days after receiving the notice of appeal or a later time to which all parties agree, and (b) give a written decision within 30 days after concluding the hearing. (2) The Municipal Government Board is not required to give notice to or hear from any person other than the municipality making the appeal, the municipality against whom the appeal is launched and the owner of the land that is the subject of the appeal. Provincial Land Use Policies Order in Council 522/96 24 The Provincial Land Use Policies provide direction as to the relationship between adjacent municipalities and efforts required to achieve intermunicipal planning. 3.0 Planning Co-Operation Goal 25 To foster cooperation and coordination between neighbouring municipalities and between municipalities and provincial departments and other jurisdictions in addressing planning issues and in implementing plans and strategies. Policies Municipalities are encouraged to expand intermunicipal planning efforts to address common planning issues, especially where valued natural features are of interest to more than one municipality and where the possible effect of development transcends municipal boundaries. 41 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 7

42 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D In particular, adjoining municipalities are encouraged to cooperate in the planning of future land uses in the vicinity of their adjoining municipal boundaries (fringe areas) respecting the interests of both municipalities and in a manner which does not inhibit or preclude appropriate long term use nor unduly interfere with the continuation of existing uses. Adjoining municipalities are encouraged to jointly prepare and adopt intermunicipal development plans for critical fringe areas; these plans may involve lands which are in both of the adjoining municipalities. 3. Municipalities are also encouraged to pursue joint use agreements, regional service commissions and any other joint cooperative arrangements which can contribute to such intermunicipal land use planning. Section 3: Issues 27 In order to decide this matter the MGB must examine the following issues and sub-issues. Preliminary Issue: Notification 28 Who needs to be notified of the hearing dealing with the MGB's jurisdiction? 29 As a preliminary matter, the MGB first gave consideration to the need for notifying affected parties of the dispute regarding the MGB's jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Section 691(2) requires that an affected owner of land that is subject to an appeal must be notified. 30 The MGB found that further notification on the question of jurisdiction is not required until the MGB has determined that an appeal is properly before it and has delineated which lands are subject to the appeal. Issue 1: Compliance of the Notice of Appeal with Section Did the City's Notice of Appeal meet the criteria set out in section 690 of the Act? a. Is the City's appeal void of reference to specific provisions in Strathcona Municipal Development Plan? b. Does the City's appeal lack sufficient explanation as to the detriment claimed? Does the Notice of Appeal have to contain all the detailed argument and evidence of the City? c. Were any of the matters in dispute resolved through mediation? Was the issue related to the Transitional Urban Reserve Policy Area resolved through mediation? d. Is the issue of the "future urban growth centre in close proximity to the City of Edmonton boundary" a new issue? Can a new issue be heard on appeal? e. Are the requirements for filing an appeal on an intermunicipal dispute substantive requirements or procedural requirements? If substantive, did the City's appeal meet the requirements? If procedural, did the City's appeal meet the requirements? Issue 2: The Adjournment Request 2. Should the request for an adjournment be heard by the MGB in the absence of notice to affected landowners? Should affected landowners have the opportunity to speak to the request for an adjournment? Section 4: Summary of the County's Position on Issue 1 Issue 1: Compliance of the Notice of Appeal with Section 690 Compliance with Section of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 8

43 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D The County submitted that the MGB's jurisdiction is created by, and limited to, the provisions in section 690 of the Act. This provision outlines five conditions precedent and two further statutory requirements that must be met before a valid appeal exists. In the County's view, the City did not meet the following mandatory requirements: The Notice of Appeal did not refer to specific provisions in the MDP; The Notice of Appeal did not state reasons why any provision was detrimental, The County did not receive written notice of the issue of "future urban growth centre in close proximity to the City of Edmonton boundary" prior to the second reading of the Bylaw and this issue was not mediated, The Notice of Appeal included an issue already resolved through mediation. 32 The County contended that the MGB should interpret section 690 strictly; arguing that where a right to appeal is purely statutory, jurisdiction to hear the appeal is contingent upon strict compliance with the legislation. In support of a strict interpretation of section 690, the County referred to the Interpretation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. I-8 (Interpretation Act), Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 (S.C.C.) and the MGB decision in Sturgeon (County), Re [(April 2, 1998), Doc. MGB 77/98 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.)] (MGB 77/98). The County argued that these decisions supported its position that section 690 should be read in the context of the objective of the Act, which is to balance orderly development against individual rights and the public interest. Moreover, the draconian effect of launching an intermunicipal dispute appeal weighs in favour of a strict interpretation of the legislation. 33 The County also argued that there must be strict compliance with section 690, as its rules are substantive rather than procedural. In support, the County cited Tolofson v. Jensen (1994), 175 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), which found that a statutory right should be considered a substantive right unless it is beyond question that the intent was to create a procedural right. The wording of section 690 is mandatory. The requirement to state the specific provision along with the reason why it is believed to be detrimental is substantive, as it goes to the very issues under appeal. Additionally, citing Peterson v. Khokhar, 2007 ABQB 523 (Alta. Master) in support, the County argued that where imperfect compliance goes to jurisdiction, the imperfection or irregularity cannot be cured. 34 The County maintained that substantial compliance was not sufficient. In support of this conclusion, it argued that there is no provision in the Act which would allow for substantial compliance, or compliance with some but not all of the requirements of section 690. In the County's view, if the Legislature had intended for substantial compliance to be sufficient, it would have included a provision to that effect. 35 Specifically in the context of municipal law, the County cited Babiuk v. Calgary (City) (1992), 133 A.R. 21 (Alta. Q.B.), for the proposition that the failure to meet mandatory requirements is not an irregularity, but is "substantial and fatal non-compliance" which invalidates the petition. The Court in Babiuk was considering section 6(5) of the former Act which dealt with a petition to the City of Calgary demanding a plebiscite. 36 In response to the City's contention that any imperfection in the Notice of Appeal was imperfect compliance and could be amended, the County distinguished the case of Bridgeland Riverside Community Assn. v. Calgary (City), [1982] A.J. No. 692 (Alta. C.A.). In that case a new plan was submitted based on the input provided by stakeholders during the appeal process and the Court held that the amended plan for development was properly before the appeal board. Here, the issue is whether the Notice of Appeal met the mandatory requirements in the first place. 37 From these authorities, the County concluded that in order to have a valid Notice of Appeal, the applicant must comply strictly with all the mandatory requirements of section 690. SES Equities Ltd. v. Alberta (Linear Assessor) [2001 CarswellAlta 2335 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.)] (MGB 003/01), Sundre (Town) v. Mountain View (City), Board Order 539- M-88/89 Gettel Appraisals Ltd. v. Hinton (Town) [2001 CarswellAlta 2361 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.)] (MGB 030/01), the 43 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 9

44 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D County argued that filing a Notice of Appeal that does not meet the statutory requirements within the limitation period results in the loss of the right of appeal. No Specific Provisions 38 The County remarked that the Notice of Appeal does not point to any specific provisions in the MDP. The County noted that the Legislature had made certain changes to the legislation regarding the launching of an intermunicipal dispute. One of these was the inclusion of the word "provision", which is used both in defining the requirements of the Notice of Appeal, and in determining the powers of the MGB, but was not used in the corresponding sections of the previous legislation. For example, the MGB may now find that a provision of a statutory plan is detrimental. The purposeful inclusion of this word indicates the intention of the Legislature to require an applicant to list the specific provisions it objects to in its Notice of Appeal. The City did not do so in its Notice of Appeal, and thus did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section The County pointed out that if the City's intention was to appeal the entire MDP, the appeal would be irrational. The County's border extends forty kilometres east of the City where it could not possibly have a detrimental effect on the City. If, on the other hand, the City intended to appeal specific provisions of the MDP, then it failed to articulate which provisions it is appealing. This failure renders the Notice of Appeal a nullity. No Detriment 40 The County maintained that the Notice of Appeal does not identify the detriment to the City arising from the impugned MDP. Instead, the Notice of Appeal raises speculative concerns of a vague and uncertain nature. Quoting the MGB decision in Sturgeon (County), Re (MGB 77/98) as authority for the test of what constitutes a detriment, the County demonstrated that the threshold test for detriment had not been met. 41 In addition, the County argued that the City's appeal was premature as there is provision in the new MDP for a joint planning study in which the City will have ongoing opportunities to resolve issues that arise from the MDP. 42 The County alleged that the City's real reason for filing the appeal was to prevent the County's MDP from coming into effect until after the CRIGMP is completed, and not because the newly adopted MDP has a detrimental effect on the City. In the County's view, this is an abuse of process. New Issue on Appeal 43 The County argued that the issue of "future urban growth centre in close proximity to the City of Edmonton boundary" was new to the Notice of Appeal. A provision can only be appealed under section 690 if there has been written notice to the municipality before second reading of the Bylaw and if there has been an attempt to mediate the issue. In this instance, the County had not received the required notice nor mediated the issue. The County argued that allowing the issue to be heard would be prejudicial to the County since it had not had the ability to address this concern either prior to the passing of the Bylaw or through mediation. 44 In response to the City's use of Drayton Valley (Town), Re [1999 CarswellAlta 1829 (Alta. Mun. Gov. Bd.)] (MGB 018/99) as authority for the proposition that a new issue can be raised on appeal, the County submitted that the issue of whether mandatory mediation was a prerequisite to the appeal was not considered in that decision. Additionally, that decision considered the previous legislation which did not require mediation. Thus, the case is not determinative of the issue in this case. 45 The County argued that section 690 should be read in conjunction with the intent of the Legislature. One of the purposes of the Act is to allow democratically elected officials to govern. Here the County has passed the MDP through its elected officials. Allowing the City to amend its Notice of Appeal after the fact is to interfere with the democratic process without allowing an opportunity for redress. Here, the City is attempting to raise a new issue - one that has 44 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 10

45 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D not been considered by Council. To allow this issue to be heard would circumvent the democratic process, by-passing Council. 46 The County took the position that the Notice of Appeal could not be subsequently amended, as was suggested by the City. That argument is discussed below. Issue Resolved Through Mediation 47 The County argued that the City was barred from raising Issue One (Transition Urban Reserve Policy Area), as it had already been resolved through mediation. The County pointed out that the City's own documents confirm that issue was resolved. The resolution of the matter was contingent upon two text amendments to the MDP which, according to the County, were made. To allow this issue to be heard, in the County's view, would be contrary to the intent of the Legislature and an abuse of process. Section 5: Summary of the City's Position on Issue 1 Issue 1: Compliance of the Notice of Appeal with Section 690 Specific Provisions 48 The City submitted that a review of the Notice of Appeal in its entirety shows that the City did list the provisions in the MDP along with the detriments caused by these provisions. In response to the County's contention that it is necessary to list specific provisions, the City countered that there is no specified form for the Notice of Appeal and as a result, the entirety of the document should be reviewed to determine whether the requirements have been met. Additionally, some of the City's objections to the County's MDP involve a lack of provision in the MDP. Clearly, in such cases no provision can be enumerated. 49 In response to the County's assertion that no geographic limits were specified in the Notice of Appeal, the City stated that geographic limits are not a mandatory requirement under section 690. Further, the geographic limits can be derived from the areas under dispute that are outlined in the Notice of Appeal. Description of Detriment 50 In the City's view, the County's objection with respect to whether or not the Notice of Appeal described the alleged detriment to the City goes to the merits of the matter rather than whether a detriment was alleged. The County's submissions on this issue centred on whether the City would meet the test for detriment that has been determined by the MGB. The Notice of Appeal states the detriment to the City caused by the MDP, which is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 690. New Issue on Appeal 51 In response to the contention that the issue of new urban growth centres is a new issue not dealt with in mediation and thus is not validly part of this appeal, the City noted that its letter of February 7, 2007 specifically raised the matter of new urban growth centres, and that their location and impact was to be part of the Joint Planning Study by the parties. Moreover, this was a matter for which the City had sought mediation. 52 Mediation was expected to extend until June 19, 2007, but was prematurely terminated without addressing all issues. Similarly, the Joint Planning Study has not continued or addressed this issue. Given the timing of the County's new MDP, the City has been obliged to file the appeal on all issues for which they have given notice that have not been resolved. 53 The City submitted that the MGB should follow its decision in Re Town of Drayton Valley (MGB 018/99). This decision, although before the amendment to the MGB to require mediation, determined that the legislation does not limit an appeal to the issues set out in a letter of concern. It must be presumed that the Legislature was aware of the Drayton 45 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 11

46 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Valley decision when amending the Act, yet chose not to amend the Act to require that appeals be limited to issues set out in a Notice of Appeal. Thus, the fact that an issue was not mediated does not mean that it cannot legitimately be appealed if set out in the Notice of Appeal. Mediated Issues 54 With respect to Issue One which the County claims was resolved through mediation, the City asserted that no resolution had taken place. The City explained that a tentative agreement was reached on this issue, but that it was conditional on the adoption by the County of two text amendments. These amendments, along with other changes agreed to during mediation, were not adopted by the County; thus the issue remains unresolved. Moreover, the City took the position that this issue was not being mediated in isolation from other issues and should not be so isolated in the context of this appeal. The conditional resolution was a compromise made by the City in anticipation of continuing mediation and continual give and take on other issues. If the City had known that the County intended to cut mediation off before other issues could be dealt with there would have been no agreement, whether conditional or unconditional, on this issue. Although the Act mandates mediation, it does not go so far as to limit the issues that can be raised on appeal to those that are not successfully mediated. Strict vs. Liberal Interpretation of Section The City stated that in filing this appeal it was protecting its rights by complying with the mandatory deadline for filing, a right specifically provided by the Act. The City raised legitimate concerns about the effect of the County's MDP on the CRIGMP, which is a relevant consideration for the MGB. This does not amount to an abuse of process. 56 The City concluded by stating that while its position is that it has fully complied with section 690, the County's objections to the Notice of Appeal amount to no more than imperfect compliance with section 690. In the absence of incurable prejudice, imperfect compliance does not nullify the Notice of Appeal. In support of this argument, the City quoted from Bridgeland Riverside Community Assn. v. Calgary (City), [1982] A.J. No. 692 (Alta. C.A.). For the Notice of Appeal to be considered a nullity, the prejudice must result from a defect in the Notice of Appeal, not from the appeal itself. Any prejudice alleged by the County as resulting from the stay of the MDP would be caused by the appeal itself, not by any defect in the Notice of Appeal. The County has failed to show how any defect in the Notice of Appeal prejudices the County. Further, while the City recognizes the MGB's concern with the draconian effect of the appeal, in this case the County already has an MDP. This situation is distinguishable from that in Sturgeon (County), Re (MGB 77/98), as the effect of an appeal is not to leave the County with an inoperable planning system. Any concerns the County has with the Notice of Appeal are properly addressed through the provision of particulars, and will be addressed through the MGB's disclosure process. Section 6: The Parties' Positions on Issue 2 57 The City and County agreed that the adjournment request should not be heard until all affected landowners had been notified of a hearing date. Section 7: Findings 58 Upon hearing and considering the representations and the evidence of the parties shown on Appendix A, and upon having read and considered the documents shown on Appendix B, the MGB finds the facts in the matter to be as follows. 1. The Notice of Appeal sufficiently identifies provisions of the MDP under dispute. 2. The Notice of Appeal sufficiently identifies detriment alleged to be suffered by the City as a result of the MDP. 3. Mediation or attempted mediation is a mandatory requirement under section 690(1) of the Act, but failure to mediate one issue under appeal, where mediation has been sought but not effected prior to the mandatory deadline for filing an appeal, does not preclude the MGB from hearing that issue. 46 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 12

47 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Whether the Transitional Urban Reserve Policy Area was settled in mediation or was conditionally settled as one part of an overall intended settlement is an issue reviewable by the MGB. 5. The affected landowners have the right to notice of the adjournment request. Section 691(2) requires notification to an affected landowner of any proceedings once an appeal is before the MGB. Section 8: Decision 59 On September 21, 2007 the MGB issued an oral decision rejecting the argument of Strathcona County that the MGB lacked jurisdiction to hear the intermunicipal dispute filed by the City of Edmonton. This confirms the directions from the decision on September 21, The Notice of Appeal filed by the Applicant City of Edmonton complies with section 690 of the Act and the MGB has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 2. The adjournment request is postponed until October 18, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 3. The County is to provide the MGB with a list of affected landowners. The MGB will notify the affected landowners of the October 18, 2007 hearing by regular mail. 4. Notice of the October 18, 2007 hearing will also be posted by advertisement in the County's local newspaper. 5. If the adjournment request is denied, the merit hearing will proceed on December 6, 7, 12 and 13, 2007 at a location to be determined. The exchange dates will be as follows: Section 9: Reasons a. Submission of the City of Edmonton on November 1, 2007; b. Submission of the County of Strathcona and Affected Landowners on November 14, 2007; c. Rebuttal of the City of Edmonton on November 30, All submissions are due at the MGB offices at 4:30 p.m. on their due dates. 60 On September 21, 2007 the MGB issued an oral decision rejecting the argument of Strathcona County that the MGB did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the City of Edmonton. This order provides the reasons for this decision. Notification of September 21, 2007 Hearing 61 After receiving the notice of appeal filed by the City of Edmonton, the MGB received the response of Strathcona County challenging the jurisdiction of the MGB to hear the appeal. The MGB then provided notice to the City and County that on September 21, 2007 it would hear their arguments with regard to the question of jurisdiction raised by the County. 62 If the MGB had ruled in favour of Strathcona County, no further notice to any affected landowner would have been required and the appeal would have not proceeded any further. Since the MGB has accepted jurisdiction over the appeal, notices to affected landowners have and will be provided at each further stage during the appeal process. 63 This does not preclude any other party who may wish to raise a jurisdictional question from doing so at any of the future hearing dates. General Overview 47 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 13

48 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D In general, Strathcona County urges the MGB to take a strict compliance approach to the interpretation of Section 690. The MGB is not convinced by the County's arguments that such an approach would achieve the purposes of the Planning Part of the Act and specifically section 690. In the Sturgeon County Dispute (MGB 77/98) the MGB explored the question of jurisdiction and the scope of an appeal pursuant to section 690 of the Act in considerable depth. The legislative history of the evolution of section 690 is documented in MGB 77/98, and need not be repeated in these reasons. The MGB focuses instead on the conclusion that was reached at that time, which is reproduced below: Clearly, the scope of appeal, broad to begin with under s. 44 of the Planning Act, has been further broadened by s. 690, in both geography and time. This enhancement of the jurisdiction of the Board, enabling it to look beyond municipal boundaries for detrimental effect, would appear to be an appropriate adjustment to the legislation, commensurate with the phasing out of regional planning in the province. 65 Notwithstanding, this previous decision, the MGB re-examined the purpose of the Planning Part of the Act in relation to section 690, the purpose of section 690 itself, the Provincial Land Use Policies and the arguments of the parties. The argument of Strathcona County did not convince the MGB that it should abandon the broad approach taken in MGB 77/98. In interpreting section 690, the MGB also focussed on the purpose and intent of the Planning Part of the Act as expressed in section 617. Section 617 states that the purpose of this part is to "...achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of human settlement...without infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that it is necessary for the overall greater public interest." This statement of intent shows the delicate balance that planning seeks to achieve between the public interest and individual rights. The use of land can have long term impacts, not only on the environment and infrastructure within the municipality, but also within adjacent municipalities. While recognizing the autonomy and right of every municipality to engage in its own planning processes, the Legislature also recognizes that these planning processes can have significant impacts on neighbouring municipalities. In the absence of any regional planning system, section 690 offers the last opportunity for an adjacent municipality to protect itself from a perceived detriment resulting from neighbouring planning decisions and creates the last forum in which alleged inter-municipal planning issues can be debated and disputes resolved by an independent adjudicator. While the initiation of an appeal pursuant to section 690 is a serious matter, loss of the right to appeal provided by that section is no less serious. 66 In this context, the MGB finds that the strict compliance approach to interpreting section 690 suggested by the County does not further the purposes described above in light of the specific facts of this case. The principle of statutory interpretation enunciated in Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 (S.C.C.), states that words are to be read contextually and in their grammatical and ordinary sense and in harmony with the scheme and objects of the Act and the intent of the Legislature. As outlined above, the impact of an MDP on adjacent municipalities can be significant and long term. Given the gravity of the potential consequences, the Act provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that attempts to balance the interests of all parties. To read the Act narrowly and technically is to ignore the greater context of planning and the context of that scheme in the current legislation. The MGB notes that planning differs from other areas under the MGB's jurisdiction; in particular, tax assessment. Several MGB decisions submitted by the County in support of strict compliance are assessment appeals. Tax assessment, however, resides in a very different legislative context from that of planning. The MGB has noted in previous decisions that the Act mandates that assessments be completed on a yearly basis. Hence, the related legislated timeframes contemplate a yearly cycle. Given this context, the MGB in the past has concluded that the intent of the Legislature is for strict compliance with those timeframes to ensure that the municipalities can meet their mandate for yearly assessments. It should be noted that even in an assessment context, the MGB has permitted appeals to proceed when there is substantial compliance. The loss of the right to appeal is significant, and interfering with the right to appeal should not be done lightly. 67 In planning, the context is entirely different. While tax assessment has a significant impact on the party assessed and the municipality's operating budget for the particular year, planning has wide spread and long term effects. Equally, the effect of an appeal setting aside certain planning bylaws or provisions in bylaws could have a significant impact. The 48 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 14

49 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D MGB finds that it is appropriate to read each provision with regard to this fine balance and thus prefers a broad and purposive approach to a narrow and technical one. 68 The MGB is of the view that this conclusion is also supported by an examination of the Provincial Land Use Policies Order in Council 522/96. Section 622 (3) of the Act requires that the MGB act consistently with these policies. Policies 1, 2 and 3 place considerable responsibilities on neighbouring municipalities to achieve intermunicipal cooperation in land use planning initiatives. The MGB was not convinced that refusing jurisdiction on the grounds of the strict compliance approach argued by Strathcona County would be consistent with these policy directives. To eliminate the final opportunity to achieve the intermunicipal cooperation sought by the Provincial Land Use Policies, albeit in an adversarial context, would not be consistent with these Policies. 69 The Act provides neighbouring municipalities with a number of planning tools to achieve the objectives of intermunicipal cooperation. The first significant planning tool is the "Intermunicipal Development Plan", but the parties have not availed themselves of this significant opportunity. The Act requires that in the absence of such a planning tool, the local Municipal Development Plan must address intermunicipal planning issues and establish a process whereby a neighbouring municipality (Edmonton) can raise its concerns to Strathcona and mediation can be engaged in to resolve disputes. It is clear that Edmonton provided Strathcona with notices of its concerns and mediation was used in this case. Unfortunately, the results were not satisfactory to Edmonton. Accordingly, Edmonton exercised its right to access the final forum in which the problem could be resolved: a hearing before the MGB. 70 The MGB agrees with Strathcona that the appeal filed must be focused and provide sufficient explanation of detriment and provide an indication of what parts of the Bylaw or provision or provisions are related to that detriment. However, the MGB was not convinced that the City's Notice of Appeal was void of an explanation of detriment or failed to identify the provision(s) from which detriment was alleged to result. The MGB now examines these matters in the following part of its reasons. Identification of Specific Provisions 71 The MGB finds that the Notice of Appeal set out issues with enough detail that it is clear from reading it which provisions in the MDP are alleged to be detrimental. To conclude that the word "provision" in the legislation must mean enumerated sections or clauses is an overly restrictive interpretation, especially in light of the fact that there is no prescribed form of appeal. The word "provision" can also be read to mean something that is "provided for". So, for example, if an MDP made provision for an Industrial Fringe Area, there could be several clauses or sections that dealt with that "provision". Common sense dictates that so long as the challenged clauses can be readily identified from the provisions listed in the Notice of Appeal; the requirement of 690(2) is met. While the Notice ideally should set out specific clauses in the impugned bylaw, on the facts of this particular case the impugned provisions are sufficiently identified. The MGB examined each issue in the Notice of Appeal reproduced below and observed as follows: 1. The Transition Urban Reserve Policy Area does not specify any particular land uses. The MDP gives a vague definition of the possibilities of this area that are unsatisfactory to the City of Edmonton. This will create uncertainty with relation to future land uses that are adjacent to the City of Edmonton. 72 There is sufficient direction in the above statement to communicate to the MGB and the County the provisions under appeal and the nature of the issue being raised. The MGB concludes from the above statement that the provisions under appeal are all those included within the Transition Urban Reserve Policy. 2. The area termed "Rural/Urban Transition Policy Area" does not specify particular land uses but the growth management objectives reference "the inclusion of higher density cluster development that will include mixed use residential components". This conflicts with other policies that require "transitioning between urban development in the City of Edmonton and the less densely developed lands and /or environmentally sensitive lands within this policy area. The subject area abuts the Transportation and Utility Corridor and is only 0.5 miles from Edmonton's east 49 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 15

50 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D boundary. These conflicting references to density impede the City in planning for any potential impacts because the land use, both type and intensity is uncertain. (Emphasis in original) 73 The MGB is also satisfied that reason two provides sufficient reference to the provisions within the Rural/ Urban Transition Policy Area. The MGB does not find the reference to be ambiguous. Rather, it is directed to specific provisions. 3. The Agriculture - Small Holdings Policy Area does not protect the Beaver Hills Moraine located further east as it claims due to the amount of land fragmentation still allowed. This Policy Area will allow for prematurely fragmented lands which will have the effect of hindering future land use planning of the City of Edmonton. 74 Again the MGB is satisfied that reason 3 is directed at the provisions of the Agriculture - Small Holdings Policy Area. It is clear to the MGB which provisions are referenced. 4. The MDP does not address the issues of separation and transition between the City of Edmonton's existing and planned heavy industrial area in Clover Bar and potential incompatible development in Strathcona County. This may mean that heavy industrial lands within the City of Edmonton boundary may not have an adequate transition zone within the Strathcona County boundary and may thus may be precluded from achieving the intend use for which they have long been planned. 75 This statement does not identify a specific set of provisions but instead identifies an absence of provisions. The MGB follows the reasoning set out in MGB 77/98 (the Sturgeon dispute) in which the MGB concluded that detrimental impact was the result of the totality of the plan or bylaw. As well, MGB 77/98 speaks to the problem of addressing detriment when there is an absence of provisions: It seems only reasonable that if the detriment can be expunged by amending the plan or bylaw through adding a new provision rather than repealing existing provisions, then that remedy is one the Board should have recourse to. (p. 51, MGB 77/98) 76 MGB 77/98 concluded, and the MGB agrees, that detriment may have to be resolved by addressing a lack of provisions. The provisions of a bylaw can be insufficient to address specific intermunicipal planning issues that are anticipated to impact the neighbouring municipality because the land is located adjacent to it. This further convinces the MGB that the narrow and technical approach urged by the Strathcona would not achieve the objects of the Act and the Provincial Land Use Policies, that is, the resolution and achievement or orderly land use patterns. 5. Intermunicipal referral arrangements that were thoroughly negotiated were changed unilaterally. This will mean that the City of Edmonton may not be allowed to meaningfully participate in future decisions. 77 Although the above does not list the specific clauses in the Bylaw that address referrals, it is clear to the MGB that the reference is to all provisions addressing referral arrangements. 6. Despite the announcement from the Province of Alberta directing a Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan, the MDP locates a future urban growth center in close proximity to the City of Edmonton boundary. The effect would be an avoidance of the possible future Growth Management Plan to be implemented. 78 Again the MGB finds sufficient reference to provisions in reason number 6 of the appeal. Number 6 is directed to those provisions that deal with future urban growth centres. 79 Having reviewed in detail all six points of the filed appeal, the MGB agrees with the County that the appeal does not reference specific clauses in the MDP. However, there is sufficient detail in the Notice of Appeal to direct the MGB, 50 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 16

51 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D Strathcona County and any affected landowners to the provisions with which the City is concerned. The MGB is satisfied that the level of detail provided for in the six reasons for appeal is sufficient to meet the requirements for section The MGB would also like to note that the parties have been in discussions and mediation regarding these issues for some time. Without speaking to the issue that the County alleges is new to this appeal, the County should be familiar with the City's concerns. Details and argument about the issues will come through disclosure. Thus, this interpretation of section 690 results in no prejudice to the County. Detriment 81 The MGB disagrees with the County regarding whether or not the City has alleged detriment. It appears that the County is disputing the validity of the allegations of detriment rather than the issue of whether detriment is alleged at all. In order to appeal to the MGB, section 690 stipulates that a perceived detriment to the appealing municipality must be stated in the Notice of Appeal. There is no language that suggests a threshold test to determine whether the detriment is valid; it is enough that the appealing municipality allege detriment. In this case, the Notice of Appeal does allege perceived detriment. In reason 1, the detriment alleged is that of "uncertainty with relation to future land uses". Reason 2 alleges that "These conflicting references to density impede the City in planning...". Similarly, in reason 3, it is alleged that the Agriculture Small Holdings Policy Area will "have the effect of hindering future land use planning". A plain reading of the Notice of Appeal shows that the detriments alleged are uncertainty in the City's planning, as well as impeding and hindering the City's planning and growth. "Uncertainty, "impeding" and "hindering" all have negative connotations that could be considered detrimental; however, in deciding this issue, the MGB is not commenting on whether "uncertainty", "impeding" and "hindering" actually are detriments. The MGB notes that in Sturgeon (County), Re (MGB 77/98), the MGB found that "uncertainty" was a type of detriment that could be alleged. Issue Resolved through Mediation 82 In relation to the County's position that Issue One was resolved through mediation, it is evident from the submissions of parties that there is no consensus as to whether this issue was actually resolved. The City was of the opinion that it was still a live issue and, as such, had the right to list it in its Notice of Appeal. Further, the City stated that the conditional resolution was a compromise that the City made in anticipation that the mediation would continue and other issues would be resolved through mutual give and take. The City drew the MGB's attention to the fact that the County refused to continue with mediation before the other issues could be dealt with, and argued that it would be unfair to allow the County to take advantage of having done so by barring this single issue from being heard with the others on appeal. The MGB sees merit in the City's argument. In the face of conflicting evidence as to whether this issue was resolved or conditionally resolved or remained ultimately unresolved, and in recognition of the fact that mediation is a process of mutual compromise in which one party can be unfairly disadvantaged if the process is abruptly truncated, the MGB finds that all issues relative to Bylaw that are the subjects of dispute between the parties, without exception, should be thoroughly examined in this appeal. Issue on Appeal not Mediated "New Issue". 83 While the MGB agrees that mediation is a mandatory requirement under section 690, the MGB does not agree with the County that the failure to mediate a single issue in the Notice of Appeal prohibits the MGB from hearing that issue. The County made a number of submissions regarding the intent of the Legislature in amending this legislation to include the requirement to mediate. Included in these submissions were several extracts from Hansard, as well as other policy documents. While all of these sources concur that the intent was to require mediation between the parties before launching an appeal with the MGB, none of these sources, including section 690 itself, speaks to the mediation of specific issues. 84 Section 690(1) permits a municipality to launch an appeal with the MGB if it "is of the opinion that a statutory plan...has or may have a detrimental effect on it", has given notice to the municipality before second reading of the bylaw 51 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 17

52 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D and "is attempting or has attempted to use mediation to resolve the matter". It further requires the applicant to provide a statutory declaration stating "a) the reasons why mediation was not possible, b) that mediation was undertaken and the reasons why it was not successful, or c) that mediation is ongoing and that the appeal is being filed to preserve the right of appeal." It does not follow from the requirement for a statutory declaration regarding mediation that the Notice of Appeal is restricted to mediated issues only. 85 With respect to the lack of notice, it is clear from the evidence that the County knew of the City's concerns regarding future urban growth centres prior to the second reading of Bylaw The MGB notes that the letter of February 7, 2007 raised concerns over the location and impact of new urban growth areas and sought their inclusion in mediation. That mediation was interrupted or that the Joint Planning Study did not move resolve this concern cannot stand as a bar to raising it as an issue in an appeal, given the statutory deadline for filing the appeal. The City has fulfilled the requirement of section 690(1) by filing a statutory declaration explaining why mediation was not successful. Given that there is no provision limiting the Notice of Appeal to mediated issues, the MGB finds that the so called "new issue" is properly before it. 86 The MGB again turns to examining the interpretation of section 690 in the context of the whole of the Act, the Planning Part of the Act and the Provincial Land Use Policies. 617 The purpose of this Part and the regulations and bylaws under this Part is to provide means whereby plans and related matters may be prepared and adopted (a) to achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of human settlement, and (b) to maintain and improve the quality of the physical environment within which patterns of human settlement are situated in Alberta, without infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that is necessary for the overall greater public interest. 87 In order to achieve the purpose of the Planning Part of the Act the MGB is convinced that it must examine the appeal filed by the City of Edmonton in its totality. The purpose as it is set out anticipates a difficult task involving a sensitive balancing of interests as acknowledged in previous MGB decisions. Such a task is better served by a broad, purposive interpretation of section This is not be confused with a fact scenario where an appealing municipality provides no notice of concern prior to second reading of a bylaw or introduces a whole slate of new concerns after mediation has been attempted, effectively blindsiding the responding municipality. Such conduct would clearly be an abuse of process and outside the boundaries established within section 690 of the Act. After reviewing the totality of the City of Edmonton statutory declaration and the six statements the MGB is satisfied that there has been neither mischief nor abuse of process. Issue 2: Adjournment Request 89 The MGB finds that the affected landowners should receive notice of the adjournment request, and have the ability to speak to it. Section 691(2) of the Act states that the MGB does not have to give notice to, or hear from, anyone other than the appealing and affected municipalities and the owner(s) of the land(s) affected by the appeal. 90 It is clear that the landowners that are affected by this appeal did not yet receive notice of the request for an adjournment. As these parties are required to receive notice and be given the opportunity to be heard, the MGB finds that adjournment issue cannot be heard until all parties have been properly notified. Thus, the hearing of the adjournment request will be postponed until October 18, The County will provide the MGB with a list of affected landowners. 52 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 18

53 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D The MGB Secretariat will notify the affected landowners of the October 18, 2007 hearing by mail. Additionally, an advertisement will be placed in the County's local newspaper to ensure notification of all affected landowners. 91 In the event that the adjournment request is denied, the MGB finds it expedient to schedule hearing and exchange dates for the merit hearing. After consultation with the parties, the MGB orders that the merit hearing will take place December 6, 7, 12 and 13, 2007 at a location to be determined. Submission dates will be as listed in the Decision portion of this Order. 92 No costs to either party. APPEARANCES APPENDIX "A" NAME CAPACITY B. Sjolie Legal Counsel for the County J. Grundberg Legal Counsel for the County P. Smith Legal Counsel for the City APPENDIX "B" DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY THE MGB: NO. ITEM 1 September 7, 2007 submission by the County Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue: Invalidity of Edmonton's Appeal 2 September 14, 2007 response by the City Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue: Invalidity of Edmonton's Appeal 3 September 18, 2007 rebuttal by the County Rebuttal to the Edmonton's Response to Strathcona's Submission Re: Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue 4 September 7, 2007 submission by the City Disclosure of the City of Edmonton in support of an Application to Adjourn or Postpone Hearing of its Appeal of Strathcona County Bylaw , the Strathcona Municipal Development Plan 5 September 14, 2007 response by the County Response to the City of Edmonton's Adjournment Request 6 September 18, 2007 rebuttal by the City - Reply of the City of Edmonton to Submissions Strathcona County in Opposition to the Application of the City of Edmonton for a Postponement of the Merits Hearing 7 Strathcona County Municipal Development Plan Bylaw June 28, 2007 letter from the City - Re: City of Edmonton Notice of Appeal of Strathcona Municipal Development Plan 9 June 29, 2007 letter from the City - Re: Counsel for the City of Edmonton Appeal of Strathcona County Municipal Development Plan 10 July 9, 2007 letter from the MGB - Re: Notice of Appeal Intermunicipal Dispute Strathcona County Bylaw Strathcona County Municipal Development Plan 11 July 17, 2007 letter from the County (J. S. Grundberg) - Re: Edmonton's Notice of Appeal filed respecting Strathcona's MDP (1-2007) 12 July 26, 2007 letter from the County (J. S. Grundberg) Re: Edmonton's Notice of Appeal filed respecting Strathcona's MDP ( ). The County's Statutory Declaration 13 July 27, 2007 letter from the County (J. S. Grundberg) Re: Edmonton's Notice of Appeal filed respecting Strathcona's MDP ( ) informing the MGB that legal counsel for the two parties "are endeavoring to come to an agreement with respect to a proposed schedule." 14 August 3, 2007 letter from the County (J. S. Grundberg) Re: Edmonton's Notice of Appeal filed respecting Strathcona's MDP ( ) "to advise of Strathcona's position respecting procedural issues." 15 August 7, 2007 letter from the City (P. Smith) Re: MGB Appeal City of Edmonton v. County of Strathcona MDP Bylaw to clarify the geographical areas referred to in the City's Notice of Appeal. 53 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 19

54 Edmonton (City), Re, 2007 CarswellAlta CarswellAlta 2175, [2008] A.W.L.D. 4181, [2008] A.W.L.D August 8, 2007 letter from MGB Re Intermunicipal Dispute Section 690 Municipal Government Act Strathcona County Bylaw , Strathcona County Municipal Development Plan advising the municipalities of the August 24, 2007 Hearing. 17 MGB Decision Letter 136/07 confirming "the oral instructions of the MGB from the preliminary hearing held on August 24, 2007". 18 August 24, 2007 Preliminary Hearing Transcripts 19 September 19, 2007 letter from the City (B. Sjolie) Re: Intermunicipal Dispute Section 690 Municipal Government Act Strathcona County Bylaw Strathcona County Municipal Development Plan issues to be raised "prior to the hearing on September 21, 2007". End of Document Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 54 of 80 Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 20

55 55 of 80

56 56 of 80

57 57 of 80

58 58 of 80

59 59 of 80

60 60 of 80

61 61 of 80

62 62 of 80

63 63 of 80

64 64 of 80

65 65 of 80

66 66 of 80

67 67 of 80

68 68 of 80

69 69 of 80

70 70 of 80

71 (Consolidated up to 53/2018) ALBERTA REGULATION 187/2017 Municipal Government Act OFF-SITE LEVIES REGULATION Table of Contents 1 Definitions 2 Application generally 3 General principles 3.1 Transportation infrastructure general principles Levy Bylaws 4 Principles and criteria for determining methodology 5 Principles and criteria for determining levy costs 5.1 Additional principles and criteria to apply to transportation infrastructure 6 Additional principles and criteria to apply to s648(2.1) facilities 7 Additional principles and criteria to apply to s intermunicipal off-site levies 8 Consultation 9 Annual report Levy Bylaw Appeals 10 Who may appeal 11 Appeal period 12 Form of appeal 13 Consolidation of appeals 14 No stay of levy Sale of Facilities 15 Consultation on proposed sale 16 Proceeds of sale 17 Repeal 18 Coming into force Definitions 1 In this Regulation, 71 of 80

72 Section 2 OFF-SITE LEVIES REGULATION AR 187/2017 (a) facilities includes the facility, the associated infrastructure, the land necessary for the facility and related appurtenances referred to in section 648(2.1) of the Act; (b) infrastructure means the infrastructure, facilities and land required for the purposes referred to in section 648(2)(a) to (c.1) of the Act; (c) levy means an off-site levy referred to in section 648(1) of the Act; (d) stakeholder means any person that will be required to pay the levy when the bylaw is passed, or any other person the municipality considers is affected; (e) transportation infrastructure means the infrastructure and land referred to in section 648(2)(c.2) required to connect or improve the connection of a municipal road to a provincial highway. AR 187/2017 s1;53/2018 Application generally 2 A municipality, in establishing a levy (a) for the purposes of section section 648(2)(a) to (c.1) of the Act and any land required for or in connection with these purposes, must apply the principles and criteria specified in sections 3, 4 and 5, (a.1) for the purposes of section 648(2)(c.2) of the Act and any land required for or in connection with these purposes, must apply the principles and criteria specified in sections 3, 3.1, 4, 5 and 5.1, (b) for the purposes of section 648(2.1) of the Act, must apply the principles and criteria specified in sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, and (c) for the purposes of section of the Act, must apply the principles and criteria specified in sections 3, 4, 5 and 7. AR 187/2017 s2;53/ of 80

73 Section 3 OFF-SITE LEVIES REGULATION AR 187/2017 General principles 3(1) Subject to section 3.1, the municipality is responsible for addressing and defining existing and future infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and facility requirements. (2) The municipality must consult in good faith with stakeholders in accordance with section 8. (3) All beneficiaries of development are to be given the opportunity to participate in the cost of providing and installing infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and facilities in the municipality on an equitable basis related to the degree of benefit. (4) Where necessary and practicable, the municipality is to coordinate infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and facilities provisions with neighbouring municipalities. (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Regulation, the levy is of no effect to the extent it directs the Government of Alberta to expend funds, to commit to funding transportation infrastructure or arrangements to undertake particular actions or to adopt particular policies or programs. (6) A municipality cannot compel an applicant for a development permit or subdivision approval to fund the cost of the construction of infrastructure, transportation infrastructure or facilities to be funded by a levy beyond the applicant s proportional benefit. (7) A municipality and an applicant for a development permit or subdivision approval may enter into an agreement whereby the applicant agrees to fund the entire cost of the construction of infrastructure, transportation infrastructure or facilities to be funded by a levy, subject to terms and conditions agreed to by both parties. (8) An agreement made under subsection (7) may include provisions for the reimbursement of the cost incurred or payment made in excess of the applicant s proportional benefit of the infrastructure, transportation infrastructure or facilities together with interest calculated at a rate fixed by the municipality for the amount of the cost of the infrastructure, transportation infrastructure or facilities until all land in the benefiting area for the specific infrastructure, transportation infrastructure or facilities is developed or subdivided. AR 187/2017 s3;53/2018 Transportation infrastructure general principles 3.1(1) The municipality, in consultation with the Minister responsible for the Highways Development and Protection Act, is 3 73 of 80

74 Section 4 OFF-SITE LEVIES REGULATION AR 187/2017 responsible for defining the need, standards, location and staging for new or expanded transportation infrastructure. (2) All transportation infrastructure constructed must adhere to the standards, best practices and guidelines acceptable to the Minister responsible for the Highways Development and Protection Act and are subject to that Minister s approval. AR 53/2018 s5 Levy Bylaws Principles and criteria for determining methodology 4(1) A municipality has the flexibility to determine the methodology on which to base the calculation of the levy, provided that such methodology (a) takes into account criteria such as area, density or intensity of use, (b) recognizes variation among infrastructure, facility and transportation infrastructure types, (c) is consistent across the municipality for that type of infrastructure, facility or transportation infrastructure, and (d) is clear and reasonable. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(c), the methodology used in determining the calculation of a levy may be different for each specific type of infrastructure, transportation infrastructure or facility. AR 187/2017 s4;53/2018 Principles and criteria for determining levy costs 5(1) In determining the basis on which the levy is calculated, the municipality must at a minimum consider and include or reference the following in the bylaw imposing the levy: (a) a description of the specific infrastructure, facilities and transportation infrastructure; (b) a description of each of the benefitting areas and how those areas were determined; (c) supporting studies, technical data and analysis; (d) estimated costs and mechanisms to address variations in cost over time of 80

75 Section 5.1 OFF-SITE LEVIES REGULATION AR 187/2017 (2) The municipality may establish the levy in a manner that involves or recognizes the unique or special circumstances of the municipality. (3) The information used to calculate the levy must be kept current. (4) The municipality must include a requirement for a periodic review of the calculation of the levy in the bylaw imposing the levy. (5) There must be a correlation between the levy and the benefits to new development. AR 187/2017 s5;53/2018 Additional principles and criteria to apply to transportation infrastructure 5.1(1) In calculating a levy imposed pursuant to section 648(2)(c.2) of the Act, the municipality must take into consideration the following: (a) supporting traffic impact assessments or other applicable technical studies; (b) statutory plans; (c) policies; (d) agreements that identify (i) the need for and benefits from the new transportation infrastructure, (ii) the anticipated growth horizon, and (iii) the portion of the estimated costs of the transportation infrastructure that is not covered by the Crown that is proposed to be paid by (A) the municipality, (B) the revenue raised by the levy, and (C) other sources of revenue; (e) any other relevant documents. (2) In addition to the principles and criteria set out in sections 3, 3.1, 4 and 5, the additional criteria set out in subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply when determining a levy for transportation infrastructure of 80

76 MGB FILE NO. IN THE MATTER OF INITIATING MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY 17/IMD-003 AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 690 OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT, R.S.A CHAPTER M-26 WITH RESPECT TO ROCKY VIEW COUNTY BYLAW NO. C , OMNI AREA STRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF CALGARY ROCKY VIEW COUNTY DOCUMENT CITY OF CALGARY EVIDENCE REBUTTAL TO ROCKY VIEW COUNTY SUBMISSIONS THE CITY OF CALGARY David Mercer/Hanna Oh/Henry Chan 12 th Floor, 800 Macleod Tr SE Calgary, AB T2G 2M3 FILED BY Phone: File No. P of 97

77 INDEX TO EVIDENCE OF THE CITY OF CALGARY TAB TRANSPORTATION Rebuttal Submission 1 Response to Rocky View County July 6, 2018 Submission dated July 16, APEGA Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents 3 City of Calgary Anticipated Population and Jobs for years: 2028, 2038, 2048, 2076 for Omni area from Forecasting Toolbox 4 Rocky View County Anticipated Population and Jobs for years 2028, 2038 for Omni area: from Rocky View County input to the ongoing Integrated Calgary North Region Transportation Study, May 2018, by ISL Engineering and Land Services TAB EMERGENCY SERVICES - Rebuttal Submission 1 Calgary Fire Department (CFD) Rebuttal to WATT Consulting Group s Review of the Submission by the City of Calgary 2 Rourke Haggith - Resume TAB PLANNING - Rebuttal Submission 1 Rocky View County Circulation Comments for East Stoney Area Structure Plan dated May 4, City of Calgary Response to Rocky View County Response to East Stoney Area Structure Plan dated April 6, of 97

78 CITY OF CALGARY TRANSPORTATION REBUTTAL INTRODUCTION 1. Rocky View County submitted materials in an attempt to show that the City s concerns regarding development in the Omni ASP area have; (i) been addressed, (ii) that the City s concerns are based on overestimating traffic impacts, or (iii) underestimate build out rates of development that do not typically occur in the County. After reviewing these materials, the City still contends that the build out of the Omni ASP will detrimentally affect The City of Calgary s Transportation Network. 2. The City utilized an engineering consultant, CIMA+, to draft a response letter entitled Response to Rocky View County July 6, 2018 Submission dated July 16, 2018 which rebuts many of the County s comments regarding the original CIMA+ report. In additon, the County alleges that the original study was flawed and overestimated traffic impacts and as such, that there were no transportation impacts. In addition, the County alleges that and specifically identifies the significant reductions to Omni and Conrich ASP trip generation and related impacts on east west streets connecting to the City (tables 1 and 2). The CIMA+ response letter clearly shows that even using County reduced suggested land uses and trip generation rates, significant congestion will be generated and significant transportation infrastructure will still be required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the build out of the Omni ASP. The City of Calgary reviewed the CIMA+ response letter, methodologies and conclusions and agrees with the findings. The City of Calgary further confirms that the letter was completed by qualified professional transportation engineers in Alberta, and that all methodology and analysis follow transportation industry standards to identify transportation impact of development. Response to Rocky View County July 6, 2018 Submission dated July 16, 2018 ( CIMA+ Response Letter ) [TAB 1] 3. It is clear to the City that development of the ASP lands will result in usage of City transportation systems beyond the capacity of the system without any practical or current mitigation commitments from Rocky View County. The detriment to the City is reasonably likely to occur and to have a significant impact on the City. There are three main areas of Transportation-related detriment: Failure to mitigate traffic impacts of the Omni ASP on City of Calgary transportation systems: ASP-generated traffic uses will still strip the capacity of the City s transportation system without any commitment on the part of the County to mitigate Omni ASP traffic issues. Even analyzing County suggested land use types and trip generation rates yields severe congestion on the City mobility network and causes the need for large pieces of expensive transportation infrastructure to be built well in advance of City anticipated timing to mitigate the impacts of the Omni development. Failure to mitigate significant City-funded capital costs of transportation infrastructure required to support the Omni ASP: the significant traffic generated by development contemplated in the ASP will compel the City of Calgary to fund significant capital costs of transportation infrastructure to support the Omni ASP without any practical commitment on the part of the County to contribute to the funding or construction of the required infrastructure. The majority of the infrastructure needed is not contained within the County s existing or draft offsite levy bylaws, there has been no 1 3 of 97

79 commitment from any Omni ASP landowners to fund any of the infrastructure and so it is likely these large costs will fall back on the City. Failure to mitigate traffic safety issues: traffic generated by development contemplated in the ASP has the potential to lead to significant congestion and potentially a large increase in motor vehicle incidents, which will result in the reduction of traffic safety on City transportation systems without any commitment on the part of the County to mitigate ASP-related traffic safety issues. 1.1 CITY RESPONSE TO COUNTY S SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES PREPARED FOR OMNI AND CONRICH DEVELOPMENT 4. The County provided multiple technical studies that were needed to ensure that the types of development proposed in the Omni ASP and nearby Conrich ASP could be accommodated with an efficient future road network. Each study is responded to in the following sections and City concerns and inconsistencies between each is identified. 5. The City of Calgary does not agree with the County Transportation Response page 6, paragraph 22, that the results of the Conrich Network Analysis show that the future daily traffic volumes generated at full build out of the Conrich ASP can be accommodated as development proceeds. The City s review of the Conrich Area Network Study was one of the primary reasons behind the City of Calgary Appeal of the Conrich ASP. Trip generating potential and potential traffic impacts on the City mobility network and potential large infrastructure costs were a main concern. This study identified the true impact of the build out of the Conrich ASP and omitted analyzing the impacts of City streets and intersections. As identified in the original CIMA+ study, the traffic impacts of the Conrich ASP require many large potentially City funded transportation infrastructure projects in the $100 s of millions range to be constructed, and no commitment has been provided by the County to fund or mitigate these traffic impacts or improvements. 6. As a part of the Conrich ASP settlement between the City and County, the Municipal Government Board directed that the City and County undertake the 84 Street NE Study. It should be noted that the study has not yet been completed, as evidenced in the City letter to the County of March 7, 2018 stating that the study was sufficiently complete for the purpose of the City s review of the East Stoney Outline Plan but that much work still needed to be done and follow up discussions between the County and City and landowner partners would need to happen prior to the City approving the study. The City was surprised that Watt Consulting had updated recommendations of the study without further discussions with the City when it was sent a copy in June No follow-up on the 84 Street NE study has been provided by the County either. As the study and recommendations are not finalized, important details of street cross-section, intersection improvements are still to be finalized between the City, the County and landowner partners. The City is concerned that the County is providing an incomplete study to support the Omni ASP when important technical details are still to be determined. The City is interested in continuing discussions on the study to finalize all relevant technical details that relate to potential infrastructure design and potential costs for 84 Street NE. County Transportation Response [84 th Street Study, TAB E] 4 of 97 2

80 County Transportation Response [March 7, 2018 letter from Tom Hopkins to Rick Wiljamaa,TAB S] 7. The 84 Street NE study also does not take into account the full impact of County development for the Omni ASP as evidenced by the County Transportation Response on page 8 paragraph 25 that the full build-out of the Omni ASP with a 20% reduction for transit and multi-modal. As the County has stated later in the County Transportation Response on page 18, paragraph 65 the County plans for the worst case scenario, which does not account for alternative modes of transportation as their impact in the rural area is not significant and there is a need to understand the network requirements in the event regional transit is not available. As the intent of the study was to develop long term functional design of 84 Street NE, underestimating or reducing the full impact of the Omni ASP would affect overall design volumes which were used to develop the functional design recommendations. If full Omni ASP build out volumes were used within the study, it is likely that design recommendations; including cross-section and intersection improvements could change significantly and more infrastructure and costs may be required to support the build-out of the Omni ASP than were identified in the study. County Transportation Response [March 7, 2018 letter from Tom Hopkins to Rick Wiljamaa,TAB S] 8. The second study identified in the Conrich ASP settlement was the East Stoney Trail Infrastructure Analysis. As stated in the County s Transportation Response page 2, paragraph 5 the City believes this to be an important future joint study between the City and County. Discussions have occurred between County and City staff as recently as the end of June 2018 and the City is committed to continuing these discussions to further the terms of reference and start the project in the future. The City was surprised by the County s statement about commitment, as recent discussions were a form of reestablishing a commitment to the project moving forward. The City had asked the County throughout the review of the Omni ASP to progress significantly with the project prior to approval of the Omni ASP to address the significant traffic impacts of both ASPs and address infrastructure staging and funding. Unfortunately, this future study does not address the City s concerns with County traffic impacts, staging and funding of large potential transportation projects as was the City s hope as a part of the Conrich ASP settlement. 9. The main transportation study for the Omni ASP, was the Omni ASP Structure Plan Network Analysis with related technical memos from September The City had major concerns with this study and it was the primary reason for the appeal of the ASP. As part of the City review of the ASP, the City had identified major issues with the study and the majority of infrastructure that would be affected from the CIMA+ study as specific concerns, beyond the County s assertion the City is only concerned about the McKnight/84 St intersection. As identified in table 1 of the CIMA+ response letter, traffic volumes for the build out of the background Conrich ASP lands were reduced significantly from the Conrich ASP Network study (33987 vehicle trips per hour to PM vehicle trips per hour). As well, in table 2, east-west trips generated by Conrich and Omni were reduced from PM vehicle trips per hour (from Conrich ASP for Conrich traffic only) to PM vehicle trips per hour for County assumptions of build out of both Conrich and Omni ASPs. In table 1, even between the Omni ASP scenario 1 to the technical memo a few months later, the Omni trip generation was reduced from PM vehicle trips per hour to Pm vehicle trips per hour. From the Conrich study to the 84 street study and related memos, the traffic impact of the Conrich ASP has been approximately halved and 5 of 97 3

81 the full impact of build out of both ASPs has been reduced by approximately Pm vehicle trips per hour. As noted in the CIMA+ report, the County has reduced traffic volumes generated by both the Conrich ASP and the Omni ASP significantly. However, the Omni study does not take into account the full impact of development of the ASPs nor does it accurately reflect the timing of or the specific need for major transportation infrastructure that is required to mitigate the severe congestion that would be created by the build out of both ASPs. As such, the City does not agree with the County s conclusions on page 5, paragraph 15 of its Transportation Response that a safe and efficient road network can be designed to accommodate the land uses proposed in the Omni ASP. Both the original CIMA+ report and the CIMA+ response letter confirm that the build out of the Omni lands has significant traffic impacts and that the County has significantly reduced traffic impacts of the the Omni development through the various studies that have been provided. CIMA+ Response Letter, page 2,3, tables 1 & 2, [TAB 1] 10. The 84 Street NE/McKnight Interchange Functional Planning Study (County Transportation Response, Tab K) was undertaken as a follow-up to recommendations from the 84 Street NE study. The City was surprised to see that the project started in February 2018, as the City was not informed that the project was started by the County, even though it ties directly to the joint 84 Street NE study and the City only became aware through this appeal. Unfortunately, this study used the same trip generation assumptions from the 84 Street NE study that underestimated the impact of the Omni ASP and artificially reduced traffic volumes that were used as the basis of the functional design. It is beneficial that the County undertook the study to identify the potential cost of intersection improvements. However, the volumes used underestimate the impact of the ASP and may underestimate the full scope of improvements required and related costs to construct and could greatly overestimate the time until the infrastructure is needed compelling the City to participate in funding the infrastructure that was never envisioned by either the City or the County prior to Omni and Conrich ASPs. Further, the CIMA+ response letter also identified that the analysis is only limited to the one intersection and does not analyze the impacts on the Stoney Trail/McKnight Bv interchange and intersections or impacts to the east on City streets. As such, this study both underestimates traffic impact of the ASP (potentially under sizing needed infrastructure or overestimating when the infrastructure is needed) and omits analysis of other potential City funded infrastructure. 11. As noted within the CIMA+ response letter (Tab 1) tables 1 and 2, the various studies that have been completed in support of the Omni ASP have reduced combined traffic volumes generated by the Omni and Conrich ASPs by over PM vehicular trips per hour of an original impact of both of approximately PM vehicular trips per hour. It should be specifically emphasized that these vehicular trips generated are per hour in the PM peak, not per day. 84 Street NE, which has been identified as a local arterial street, has a typical daily capacity of approximately vehicles per day. As a result, even the overall reduced hourly trip generation of the ASPs of over Pm vehicles trips per hour would exceed the expected daily volumes on such a street. There is a combined reduction of County traffic impact of just less than half of full impacts shown in the Conrich ASP Network Analysis and the Omni ASP Network Analysis for each. As such, this large volume reduction through the various studies does not account for the full impact of the ASPs as stated. In addition, it greatly overestimates the time until large Omni ASP related 6 of 97 4

82 infrastructure is needed and may not even identify the full scope of infrastructure needed to support the ASP traffic impacts. CIMA+ Response Letter tables 1 and 2 [TAB 1] 12. Rocky View County submitted two reports which reviewed and critiqued the City technical reports in response to the City s original transportation evidence. The first report; Review of the Submission by the City of Calgary prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated June 29, 2018 (County Transportation Response, Tab B); was not stamped by a Professional Engineer in Alberta nor was a permit to practice number or stamp affixed to the report as per APEGA practice for authenticating professional documents (APEGA Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents). The second report, Review of Submission by the City of Calgary related to Omni Development would increase Motor Vehicle Collisions prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated July 3, 2018 (County Transportation Response, Tab C) was stamped by a professional engineer in Alberta but did not have a permit to practice number or stamp affixed to the report. As such, the City is concerned with and questions the quality of content and engineering opinions contained in both reports as the authoring engineer and or the engineering company have not authenticated both reports as per standard engineering practice in the province and have not taken responsibility for the engineering review and opinions included. APEGA Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents [TAB 2] 13. The County submitted multiple technical reports in support of their claims. However, the quality and value of some of these reports are questionable and do not demonstrate that the County has mitigated the traffic impacts, large capital infrastructure costs and or traffic safety issues generated by the build out of the Omni ASP, due to the following: One of the studies is not completed, nor have the conclusions been agreed to by the study partners and the study reduces potential Omni ASP traffic impacts based on transit/active modes that the County has stated that they do not have, illustrating they are underestimating the impacts of County development. County Transportation Response [ 84 th Street Study prepared by Watt Consulting Group dated May 17, TAB E] Multiple studies do not take into account and/or greatly reduce the traffic impacts of both the Conrich ASP and Omni ASP; thereby greatly underestimating the traffic impacts and trigger points for potential infrastructure needed to support the build out of both ASPs and do not represent or include the full traffic impact of the Omni ASP (and even the Conrich ASP) and some omit or do not include the impacts of County development on City infrastructure that would also be needed to support the traffic generated by the ASPs. County Transportation Response [ 84 th Street Study prepared by Watt Consulting Group dated May 17, 2018, TAB E] County Transportation Response [ McKnight Blvd/84 St NE Interchange- Functional Planning Study prepared by Watt Consulting Group dated July 3, 2018, TAB F] 5 7 of 97

83 County Transportation Response [Technical Memorandum: Trip Generation and Densities prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated September, 2017, TAB H] County Transportation Response [ McKnight Blvd/84 th St NE Interchange- Functional Planning Study Proposal prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated February 14, 2018, TAB K] A couple of the reports do not follow engineering practice in Alberta for authenticating professional documents and the City questions the recommendations and opinions if the Engineer or firm did not take responsibility for and authenticate the document as per typical practice. County Transportation Response [ Review of the Submission by the City of Calgary prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated June 28, 2018, TAB B] County Transportation Response [ Review of Submission by the City of Calgary related to Omni Development would increase Motor Vehicle Collisions prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated July 3, 2018, TAB C] 1.2 FAILURE TO MITIGATE OMNI ASP TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON CITY OF CALGARY 14. The CIMA+ response letter (Tab 1) responds to many of the comments within both the County Transportation Response and Watt technical review with regards to land use, trip generation and build out assumptions from the original CIMA+ study. One of the County s assertions was that City development will trigger upgrades in advance of the Omni ASP. To support City growth, the City s regional transportation model (RTM) has identified long term growth of City development. This is specifically identified in the CIMA+ response letter, Appendix 1, where the City of Calgary anticipated transportation projects are listed for the years 2028, 2038, 2048 and 2076 from the City s regional transportation model (RTM). As can be seen from these plots, without the Omni ASP, the City would not be anticipating the need for any of the major infrastructure noted in the original CIMA+ study until at least The McKnight Bv/84 St interchange has not been anticipated at all within the City s long term plans (2076). It should be noted that these long term infrastructure plans are based on long term city development and additional information provided by the County for surrounding areas that were provided in It should also be noted that the Conrich and Omni ASPs have been specifically identified to trigger the need for major infrastructure in advance of being triggered by City development. A good example of this is from the Omni ASP Network Study where the ultimate Stoney Trail/Airport Trail interchange is recommended to be in place before 2030, where the City anticipates it being required by 2048 or later. CIMA + Letter, Appendix 1 [TAB 1] 15. The County alleges that land use and trip generation assumptions in the original CIMA+ report are flawed and not reasonable for what the County normally sees (County Transportation Response, Review of the Submissions by the City of Calgary prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated June 29, 2018 pages 2-4). The CIMA+ response letter (Tab 1), responds to most of the comments about land uses and trip generation and then 8 of 97 6

84 further compares County suggested trip generation from table 5 to trip generation from the original CIMA+ study to reflect County realities. Comparing the County suggested land use mix and trip generating potential of Pm vehicular trips per hour to the trip generating potential of 30% of proposed land use from the original CIMA+ study at approximately 4950 PM vehicular trips per hour. As the 4950 Pm trips still cause significant congestion and require all of the major infrastructure that was identified in the first study. As such, the CIMA+ letter identifies that even using County suggested land uses and trip generation rates for the Omni ASP creates significant traffic detrimental impacts on surrounding City streets and would require significant infrastructure to be constructed to mitigate those impacts. As previously identified, the Omni ASP Network study greatly reduces the traffic volumes generated by the build out of both the Conrich and Omni ASPs. The Omni ASP Network Analysis has not recommended upgrades that will accommodate the ASP traffic. 16. The County stated at pages 2-4 of its Transportation Response that the City s assumptions of build out are not in line with typical County build out. The original CIMA+ study assumed a build out of 10 years based on Genesis intent to build out and the County states build out should be years. The City would suggest that the traffic impact and detriment to the City would be the same either way and could not be anticipated by the City and would be directly caused by the Omni ASP build out. Looking at TAB 3: City of Calgary Anticipated Jobs and Population for years 2028,2038,2048, 2076, looking at land use assumptions from the City RTM for the area representing Omni ASP (TZ 2151 and 2152), from information from the County prior to the ASP, the City had anticipated approximately 274 jobs and 44 people in 2028 and 530 jobs 46 people in By 2076 Omni was expected to have 688 jobs and 80 people. It should be noted that land use assumptions for Omni area were provided by the County prior to the ASP and align with densities and land uses assumed for Omni within the Rocky View County Plan. These land use assumptions are the basis for determining long term infrastructure needs that the City would anticipate that would include the Omni ASP area growth as referenced above. City of Calgary Anticipated Population and Jobs for years: 2028, 2038, 2048,2076 for Omni area from Forecasting Toolbox [TAB 3] 17. In contrast, from a recent intermunicipal project, at TAB 4: the Calgary North Regional Transportation Study, the County had provided to the consultant their anticipated assumptions of 2388 jobs and 20 people in 2028 and 4388 jobs and people in 2038 for the Omni area. As can be seen, the City assumptions for build out of Omni in 2076 are 3.5 times lower for jobs than assumed by the County in 2028 and 6.5 times less than County assumptions for Clearly, the County intends for the Omni area densities to greatly exceed those shown in the County Plan and exceed the City s long term (year 2076) anticipated growth in jobs by over 6.5 times by As the City RTM land use assumptions and City growth link directly to anticipated transportation infrastructure needs and timing (as in the appendix of the CIMA+ response letter at Tab 1), it is clear that whether Omni build outs in 2028 or 2038, that it will have a significant detrimental impact beyond the City development growth that could not be anticipated by the City. Rocky View County Anticipated Population and Jobs for years 2028, 2038 for Omni area: from Rocky View County input to the ongoing Integrated Calgary North Region Transportation Study, May 2018, by ISL Engineering and Land Services [TAB 4] 9 of 97 7

85 18. In combination with unanticipated growth in the Omni area as identified above, the significant reductions in combined ASP traffic volumes by almost half on a PM peak hour basis that were shown in supporting technical studies identified in section 1.1 of this rebuttal, it is likely that the growth of the Omni and Conrich ASPs will likely trigger major infrastructure much sooner than the stated 20 year build out of the area and would push the need for most of the infrastructure ahead by decades from when it would be assumed to be needed and would more closely align with infrastructure needed in the CIMA+ study and CIMA+ response letter. 19. Specific transportation improvements that would be needed, even using the County s suggested land uses and trip generation identified in the CIMA+ response letter, would be required to support build out of the ASP include: Stoney Trail & Country Hills Bv NE interchange ultimate upgrade Stoney Trail & Airport Trail NE interchange upgrade and connection to 84 Street intersection Airport Trail NE street connection, west of 60 Street to Metis Trail NE Stoney Trail flyover with 64 Avenue NE and connection to 84 Street intersection Construction of 84 Street NE from Country Hills Boulevard to McKnight Boulevard, as per draft 84 Street NE study Stoney Trail & McKnight Bv interchange ultimate upgrade 8 10 of 97

86 Map 1: Existing and Future Transportation Interchanges Intersections Streets McKnight Bv and 68 Street NE interchange McKnight Bv and 84 Street interchange Many intersection and turn movement improvements to support Omni ASP 20. The majority of the above infrastructure is not anticipated to be needed for growth of the City, and County Plan densities and growth within the Omni ASP and Conrich ASP areas until 2048 or later as identified in the City s anticipated transportation projects in Appendix 1 of the CIMA+ response letter (Tab 1). The Conrich ASP Network study (County Transportation Response, Omni Area Structure Plan Network Analysis prepared by Watt Consulting Group, dated August 1, 2017, Tab D) identifies that the Airport Trail / Stoney Trail ultimate interchange will be required prior to 2030 which would be approximately 20 years earlier than anticipated or planned for by the City. Overall, some of the projects needed to support the Omni ASP, like the 64 Ave flyover and McKnight Bv/84 Street 11 of 97 9

87 interchange have not been anticipated until 2076 or not envisioned at all within anticipated projects but could be triggered in next 10 to 20 years, bringing some infrastructure forward by 3 to 4 decades or identifying new infrastructure that was never envisioned and could not be anticipated to be needed by City growth or densities in the ASP areas that align with the County Plan. 21. There has been no commitment from Rocky View County to mitigate the majority of these excessive and severe traffic detrimental impacts that would be generated by the build out of the Omni ASP on the City of Calgary transportation system even if full build out was to occur within 20 years, as the severe traffic impacts of the ASPs have been underestimated in County technical studies and infrastructure may be needed much sooner than anticipated by the City. The County has not mitigated the significant traffic impacts of their development on the City of Calgary and will require major transportation infrastructure to be constructed which is likely to fall on the City to construct and pay for. 1.3 FAILURE TO MITIGATE OMNI ASP CAPITAL COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON CITY OF CALGARY 22. As noted previously in the City s original transportation evidence, the City s current Transportation Offsite Levy bylaw is intended to cover the costs of major transportation infrastructure that would be needed to support City growth and the growth assumptions provided by other jurisdictions in the Calgary region. The County originally provided land use assumptions for the Conrich and Omni ASP areas that aligned with the County Plan and were used as a part of their analysis with the City s RTM to identify projects required by development impacts and trigger points for when they would be needed. The current offsite levy bylaw and infrastructure lists are based on assumptions for land use identified in the City of Calgary Anticipated Population and Jobs for years: 2028, 2038, 2048,2076 for the Omni area from the Forecasting Toolbox (TAB 3) for the years 2028,2038, 2048 and 2076 within the Omni ASP and Conrich ASP. The infrastructure that is identified in the bylaw is assumed to be required as per the anticipated projects lists contained within Appendix 1 of the CIMA+ response letter (TAB 1). The offsite levy bylaw calculations do not assume the full build out of the Omni ASP and Conrich ASP, as per the technical studies identified within section 1.1 of this rebuttal. As such, the levy does not account for the full Omni infrastructure lists identified in the CIMA+ response letter, as it only identifies those projects that are needed to support City growth, regional growth provided by other jurisdictions and specifically the County Plan densities of the two ASPs (which are much less and impactful than the land uses and traffic impacts identified in County supporting studies in section 1.1 of this rebuttal or within the original CIMA+ study or CIMA+ response letter. As such, the offsite levy would not be able to fund the infrastructure required by Omni ASP build out. 23. The County states that any infrastructure required to support the Omni ASP would be either funded by: (i) off-site levy bylaw, developer pays with payback, (ii) future intermunicipal off-site levies or (iii) through future cost sharing studies like the East Stoney Transportation Infrastructure Analysis. As identified in the CIMA+ study, the build out of the Omni ASP could potentially compel the City to fund between $60 Million and $240 Million of infrastructure and the City is concerned that the County s existing methods of funding cannot address or cover these costs. 24. As identified in section 1.2 of this rebuttal, many transportation infrastructure improvements would be required to support the build out of Omni ASP lands. It is both not clear whether the County can fund any of the needed projects with their existing or 12 of 97 10

88 draft offsite levy bylaws or whether any Omni or Conrich landowner will commit to funding any of the major infrastructure. As such, it is very likely that the City of Calgary will suffer detriment in being compelled to fund the many improvements required to support the ASP, as outlined in the CIMA+ study as well as the recently identified interchange at McKnight/84 st (estimated cost of $42 Million) and to advance future capital cost spending ahead of what would be anticipated by the City, potentially by decades. County Transportation Response [ 84 th Street Study prepared by Watt Consulting Group dated July 3, 2018, TAB F] 25. The County submitted their current Transportation Offsite Levy Bylaw (c County Transportation Response, Tab T) to support claims the County could use the levy to fund some of the infrastructure. Reviewing the bylaw, the majority of the Omni ASP infrastructure are not included and levy funds would not be able to be spent on them. The only Omni related project that is included is the McKnight Bv widening expansion project (between Stoney Trail and 84 St) at $5.5 Million. Of the $60-$240 Million worth of needed infrastructure identified in the CIMA+ study, none of it is included within the current bylaw. It should be noted that the McKnight/84 St interchange is not included so the potential infrastructure costs could be increased to $102 to $282 Million and are not included within the current County levy as a funding source. It should also be noted that 84 Street NE costs are not included within the bylaw and costs to the City for 84 Street improvements could be higher than originally identified. It is clear that the existing levy bylaw does not contain most of the Omni ASP infrastructure and would not be able to be used as a funding source to mitigate the impacts on the City that would be caused by the traffic impacts of the build out of the Omni ASP. 26. The County also submitted the draft Regional Transportation Offsite Levy Bylaw (c County Transportation Response, Tab U). The City understands that the bylaw was presented at County Council last week and was given first reading with a tabling until after consultation is completed. The City was very surprised that the County was presenting a regional transportation offsite levy withiout engaging the City prior to the Council hearing and earlier in this appeal process. There is a major risk that the passing of the draft bylaw could compel the city to change its transportation offsite levy bylaw. Especially since there are no plans to do so in the near future. Any disruption to The City s levy programme represents a significant risk to the City. 27. The County contends that the draft bylaw will help alleviate the City s concerns regarding potential capital costs related to county development. Reviewing the draft levy bylaw, an additional Omni related project has been added; a cost share of $ Million for the McKnight Bv/Stoney Trail interchange that the City estimated as a $30 Million project previously. As such, the draft bylaw may be only able to cover a small portion of potential City funded overall infrastructure costs but potential cost of $ Million to $ Million are not contained within the bylaw and would not be able to be used as a funding source. As such, neither the existing transportation offsite levy bylaw or the draft regional transportation offsite levy bylaw can fund this significant potentially City funded infrastructure that would be caused by build out of the Omni ASP and the County has added potential risk to the City that it must revise its own transportation offsite levy bylaw if the draft regional transportation offsite levy bylaw is considered. All of which creates a great deal of uncertainty and risk for the City. 28. The County stated that infrastructure could also be funded by developers. No Omni ASP or Conrich ASP landowner has committed to fund any of these improvements. As such, 13 of 97 11

89 the City is concerned that County offsite levy bylaws and/or developers cannot or will not fund any of this infrastructure increasing the potential for the City to fund the infrastructure that would support the build out and mitigate the traffic impacts of the build out of the Omni ASP. 29. The County also stated that potential solutions could be intermunicipal offsite levy bylaws or the East Stoney Trail Infrastructure study and that there is lots of time for the County to work with the City to address major infrastructure needs in the Omni area, including staging, cost sharing and funding. The City is interested in investigating these joint studies but they will take some time to complete and do not offer a real solution to funding of this infrastructure to support the Omni ASP. As noted previously, the County has continuously reduced the traffic impacts of Omni and Conrich developments so much that the needed infrastructure and capital costs identified could be required even before the year period and the City is concerned that the County is relying on future potential studies/bylaws that rely on the City to cost share, instead of providing practical funding mechanisms for the County to cover the major costs of infrastructure related to their development in the ASP. The City contends that the County has not mitigated the significant infrastructure cost detriment that they claim they have through levy bylaws or developer funding. All of the options offered are speculative at best. The City detriment risk would not be mitigated. 30. At a minimum, $82.75 Million of potential City-funded major transportation capital projects will be needed to support the Omni ASP. This expense would result in significant detriment to the City and Calgary ratepayers for infrastructure that is needed because of County development. The County has not specifically committed to fund these projects and does not have existing means of covering these costs either through offsite levy bylaw or by developers funding the infrastructure. As identified in section 1.1 and 1.2 of this rebuttal, the County has not taken into account the full impact of their development in their various studies which will likely trigger the need for most of the noted infrastructure ahead by decades into or before the year range without a clear funding source that could support and fund the needed infrastructure. 1.4 FAILURE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES FROM ASP ON CITY OF CALGARY 31. Rocky View County has submitted two reports (Watt technical review, and Review of MVC s at Tabs B and C of its Transportation Response) referencing traffic safety as it relates to the Omni ASP in response to the City s concerns about traffic safety related to the Omni ASP build out. Both reports were identified within section 1.1 of this rebuttal, as the City is concerned with both and the quality of content and engineering opinions contained in both reports. This concerns stems from the fact that neither the authoring engineer nor the engineering company have authenticated both reports as per standard engineering practice in the province and have not taken responsibility for the engineering review and opinions included. 32. The CIMA+ response letter (Tab 1) responds to the questions in the Watt technical review referencing traffic safety as it related to potential traffic safety issues related to Omni ASP traffic volume increases. The CIMA + response letter identifies that severe congestion will still be likely and probable even if using county suggested trip generation rates and as such traffic safety related statements tied to severe congestion and traffic volume increase 14 of 97 12

90 would still be valid that were identified in the CIMA+ study. As such, the traffic impacts would be so great that there would be a potential increase in traffic incidents and reduction of traffic safety on City streets caused by the build out of the Omni ASP with no mitigation identified by the County. 33. Responses to the questions within the Review of MVC report are provided within the City Emergency Services Rebuttal, as the analysis was carried out by the Calgary Fire Department. The City contends that the City MVC report shows a relationship between increased motor vehicle incidents within a kilometre of larger shopping centres (as proposed in Omni area) and shows that the Omni ASP could have the potential for increases to motor vehicle incidents on City streets and infrastructure related to the build out of Omni, beyond the traffic safety issues caused by large increases in traffic that were identified above. 34. There has been no commitment by Rocky View County to mitigate the potentially large increase in incidents and reduction of traffic safety for Calgary drivers associated with the build out of the Omni commercial lands, nor are there any specific policies within the ASP to address potential increased traffic safety issues caused by the Omni ASP build out. 35. Given that these issues have not been addressed by the County, any mitigation measures or traffic safety related infrastructure improvements, and any emergency services response to increased motor vehicle incidents, would likely fall to the City in addition to the probable capital costs identified in section 1.2 of this rebuttal By enacting the ASP as is, development in the County has the very real potential to reduce the traffic safety on City streets and inflict extra capital and operating costs on the City to mitigate and/or respond to these serious traffic safety issues. SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION REBUTTAL AND DETRIMENT TO CITY OF CALGARY 36. To summarize, Rocky View County, through their transportation Response and supporting documents has not demonstrated that the County has addressed transportation detrimental impacts on The City of Calgary. The City of Calgary has further demonstrated through this Transportation Rebuttal and supporting documents that the development proposed through the Omni ASP creates significant impact and detriment to the City of Calgary s transportation systems. These detriments to the City are both likely and probable as a part of the Omni ASP approval. 37. It is clear to the City that development of the ASP lands will result in usage of City transportation systems beyond the capacity of the system without any practical or current mitigation commitments from Rocky View County to address the impacts on the City. The detriment is reasonably likely to occur and to have a significant impact on the City. There are three main areas of Transportation-related detriment: Failure to mitigate traffic impacts of the Omni ASP on City of Calgary transportation systems: ASP-generated traffic uses will still strip the capacity of the City s transportation system without any commitment on the part of the County to mitigate Omni ASP traffic issues. Even analyzing County suggested land use types and trip generation rates yields severe congestion on the City mobility network and causes the need for large pieces of transportation infrastructure to be built well in advance of City anticipated timing to mitigate the impacts of the Omni development of 97

91 Failure to mitigate significant City-funded capital costs of transportation infrastructure required to support the Omni ASP: the significant traffic generated by development contemplated in the ASP will compel the City of Calgary to fund significant capital costs of transportation infrastructure to support the Omni ASP without any practical commitment on the part of the County to contribute to the funding or construction of the required infrastructure. The majority of the infrastructure needed is not contained within the existing or draft offsite levy bylaws, there has been no commitment from any Omni ASP landowners to fund any of the infrastructure and so it is likely these large costs will fall back on the City. Failure to mitigate traffic safety issues: traffic generated by development contemplated in the ASP has the potential to lead to significant congestion and potentially a large increase in motor vehicle incidents, which will result in the reduction of traffic safety on City transportation systems without any commitment on the part of the County to mitigate ASP-related traffic safety issues of 97

92 INDEX TO CITY OF CALGARY TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTING MATERIALS TAB 1: Response to Rocky View County July 6, 2018 Submission dated July 16, 2018 TAB 2: APEGA Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents TAB 3: City of Calgary Anticipated Population and Jobs for years: 2028, 2038, 2048, 2076 for Omni area from Forecasting Toolbox TAB 4: Rocky View County Anticipated Population and Jobs for years 2028, 2038 for Omni area: from Rocky View County input to the ongoing Integrated Calgary North Region Transportation Study, May 2018, by ISL Engineering and Land Services of 97

93 16 July 2018 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng. Acting Manager, Transportation Development Services The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Stn. M Calgary, AB T2P 2M5 Subject: Response to Rocky View County July 6, 2018 Submission Y/Ref. CTYPO O/Ref. CA Mr. Hopkins, We have completed our review of Rocky View County s July 6, 2018 submission to the Municipal Government Board and have summarized our responses and follow up comments in this letter. An overarching theme through the comments relates to which traffic volumes best represent the volumes that are expected to be generated by build out of the Omni ASP area. To facilitate responding to each of the comments, we have summarized key traffic volumes for each of the studies. Table 1 is a summary of the total trip generation associated with the Omni ASP area for each study scenario. Table 2 includes two-way, afternoon peak hour post development traffic forecast for each of the east-west routes between Calgary and Rocky View that will be impacted by development in Omni. The location for these volumes is between the Stoney Trail east ramps/limits and 84 th Street for each road. This information is relevant since it provides an overall indication of both Omni generated traffic and future background traffic that has been incorporated into analysis. Comparing the volumes at these locations also provides an indication of the forecast traffic assumed to be using Calgary s road system. These summaries highlight important differences that should be acknowledged and considered when comparing the various traffic forecasts. 300, Street NE, Calgary AB T2E 7H7 CANADA T F cima.ca 18 of 97

94 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Table 1: Omni and Conrich Trip Generation for Different Study Scenarios Plan Area Report Title Author Date Total Afternoon Peak Hour Trips (vehicles per hour) Conrich Conrich Area Network Study Watt February 18, ,987 Conrich Technical Memorandum (regarding Omni ASP) - 100% scenario Watt September 25, ,154 Conrich Technical Memorandum (Regarding Omni ASP) - 70% scenario Watt September 25, ,208 Omni Omni ASP Network Analysis - Scenario 1 Watt August 1, ,965 Omni Technical Memorandum Watt Undated; (Tab H.7 in Omni Technical Memorandum Watt September 14, 2017 Omni Technical Memorandum Watt September 25, ,458 Not Reported Not Reported Omni 84 th Street NE Study of Alignment, Classification and Access Management Watt May 17, 2018 Not Reported Omni McKnight Boulevard and 84 Street NE Interchange Functional Planning Study Watt July 3, 2018 Not Reported Omni Omni Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study - 100% scenario Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study - 30% scenario CIMA+ May 22, 2018 CIMA+ May 22, ,339 4,602 cima.ca 19 of 97

95 Table 2: Forecast Afternoon Peak Hour Two-Way Traffic between Calgary and Rocky View by Route and Scenario Author Title Date Description/Assumptions Country Hills BV Airport TR 64 AV McKnight BV Total WATT Conrich Area Network Study 1-Feb-15 - Conrich development only WATT Omni ASP Network Analysis - Scenario 1 1-Aug-17 6,499 3, ,242 18,611 3,438 7,317-11,065 21,820 WATT Technical Memorandum - Scenario 5 14-Sep Rocky View County Traffic Forecasting Model - Post-Development -Network Assumptions Per Section 2 -Land Use Assumptions Per Section 1 1,914 2,776 2,762 5,847 13,299 WATT Technical Memorandum - Scenario 6 14-Sep Post development with 20% reduction for Transit -Network Assumptions Per Section 2 -Land Use Assumptions Per Section 1 1,942 2,662 2,682 5,612 12,898 WATT Technical Memorandum - Scenario 7 25-Sep Rocky View County Traffic Forecasting Model - Post-Development -Network Assumptions Per Section 2 -Land Use Assumptions Per Section 1 2,558 3,775 2,325 7,129 15,787 WATT WATT Technical Memorandum - Scenario 7A 84 Street NE Study of Alignment, Classification and Access Management 25-Sep May Post development with 20% reduction for Transit -Network Assumptions Per Section 2 -Land Use Assumptions Per Section 1 2,471 3,616 2,299 6,939 15,325 Assumptions approved by Rocky View County 2,505 3,999 2,428 7,516 16,448 CIMA+ OMNI ASP Appeal - Transportation Network Study 22-May % Forecast 5,820 6,477 3,040 9,757 25,094 CIMA+ OMNI ASP Appeal - Transportation Network Study 22-May % of Development Forecast 3,978 3,294 2,311 6,989 16, , Street NE, Calgary AB T2E 7H7 CANADA T F cima.ca 20 of 97

96 Comments on the July 6, 2018 Rocky View County Response and June 29, 2018 letter regarding the Review of the Submission by the City of Calgary from Watt Consulting Group follow. Rocky View County Transportation Response Point 11, which refers to Stage 1 including full build-out of the Conrich area and full build out of the Janet area. Note that in Table 1, the total Omni generated traffic volume used in the August 1, 2017 Omni Network Analysis is 16,965. When comparing the volume crossing between Calgary and Rocky View County in Table 2, the increase in afternoon peak hour volume between the Conrich Network Analysis and the date Omni Network Analysis is 3,209 vehicles per hour. This represents 19% of the total volume using these routes. In comparison, the CIMA+ report assumes, based upon City of Calgary forecast model information and a knowledge of the area, that 65% of inbound traffic and 51% of outbound traffic generated by the Omni area would use these routes. It appears that between the Conrich ASP and the Omni ASP Network Analysis dated August 1, 2017, trip making between Rocky View and Calgary was reduced, and the reason is not explained. Point 12, which refers to Stage 2 analysis indicating build-out of the Conrich and Janet areas according the information provided by the County, plus reduced ratio of net to gross developable area. It is assumed that the report which addresses the Stage 2 analysis is the Watt Technical Memorandum dated September 14, 2017, which is included in the County s July 6, 2018 submission under Tab H. 2. This memo indicates that the expected percentage build out by 2040 of Conrich is 8% and 15% for Janet based on Rocky View County. As Table 2 indicates, forecast afternoon peak hour volumes crossing between Rocky View and Calgary are 13,299 for Scenario 5 and 12,898 for Scenario 6, which assumes 20% of trips are by transit. Since no transit service is planned for this area, further comparison focusses on Scenario 5. Notably, crossing volumes are reduced by 5,312 compared to the Conrich Network Analysis (which includes no traffic from Omni) and 8,521 compared to the Omni Network Analysis. This reduction in forecast volumes on these City of Calgary roads is significant, and suggests that the analysis in this memo does not fully reflect the potential impact. The Conrich and Janet ASP s are approved, and do not contain policy that would limit development to these levels of the potential build-out within these or any time horizons. Use of an expected percentage build out for background traffic, while providing information useful for some planning purposes, this does not provide the best information for assessing the feasibility of full build out of a plan area or the worst-case impacts. County administration do not have explicit mechanisms to limit development or the timing of development in these areas to an amount less than what is allowed under the ASP s and City By-laws, as indicated in the Network Analysis documents produced for each ASP. Rocky View County Council is the development authority for land use re- 300, Street NE, Calgary AB T2E 7H7 CANADA T F cima.ca 21 of 97

97 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng designations, and even if County administration recommends deferral of development approval until infrastructure funding is resolved, Council can still approve the development, thereby impacting the City of Calgary. Use of the Stage 2 analysis produces significantly lower volumes on City of Calgary roads than the August 1, 2017 Omni Network Analysis, and does not accurately reflect levels of development that could be realized in the area. This analysis is not appropriate for evaluating the impact on City of Calgary infrastructure. Point 14, which notes that significant wetlands exist in the area, and will cover up to 115 hectares (284 acres) of land and indicates that less land would be available for traffic-generating uses than in the City s CIMA+ traffic report. In CIMA+ s Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study dated May 22, 2018 o o The ratio of overall site size to floor area for approved commercial developments in Rocky View County were determined using data from the County s web site. Details of sites choses and approval dates are summarized in Table 2-2 of the CIMA+ report. Specific features of the sites were comparable to the Omni area, including creeks, municipal reserve and historical resources. This ratio was applied to commercial development in the Omni area. For industrial development, ratios of developable area to total area were similarly determined from approved Rocky View development identified on the County s website, with the findings summarized in Table 2-3. Sites for this comparison were within the Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) boundaries, the Shepard Regional Drainage Plan Area, or had significant wetlands. However, if the County and County developers elect to use smaller ratios of developable area to gross area, it should be noted that Table 1 of this letter indicates that in CIMA+ s Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study dated May 22, 2018, 30% of the afternoon peak hour trips generated by the forecast land use for Omni equal 4,602 trips. In comparison, the Watt Technical Memorandum (undated) predicts a total of 10,458 afternoon peak hour trips. The analysis of the 30% development level, summarized in Section including Tables 3-9 to 3-12 (pages 54 to 60) of the CIMA+ report indicate that significant infrastructure upgrades will be required due to the number of trips generated from 30% of the development. Trips generated from 30% of the development are lower than the total trip making predicted in the undated Watt Technical Memorandum that incorporates the lower ratios of land coverage. Therefore, the selection of developable land ratio, generating trips within the ranges considered in either analysis, still has detrimental impacts on the City s road network. cima.ca 22 of 97

98 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 15, which summarized the findings of the Omni Network Analysis. This point does not refer to a specific version of the Omni Network Analysis. In reviewing the documents provided, most of the recommendation appear in the Watt Technical Memorandum dated September 14, 2017 or the undated memorandum under Tab H. 1. of the Rocky View County submission. As indicated in Table 1 and Table 2 of this letter, these conclusions are based on lower volumes of background traffic and post development traffic than would be reflected by full build out. As noted in comments in this letter on point 11, point 12 and point 14, these conclusions align with partial build out of development in the approved Conrich and Janet areas. As development rates are not confined to the conditions assumed in the forecasts, the conclusions do not accurately reflect the potential impact on the City of Calgary. Point 16, regarding the requirement to submit a TIA and meet technical conditions required by the TIA ensuring that required road infrastructure is in place in support of development. Mechanisms are in place to require the submission of a TIA and to require development agreements as a condition of approval of subdivision applications, however there is no explicit requirement that specific infrastructure identified by the City as required will be included in those agreements. Further, the capital cost of most of the improvements identified by the City (see Table E-1 of CIMA+ s Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study dated May 22, 2018) are in the 10 s of millions of dollars and beyond the funding capability of most developers. Point 17, regarding designation of Highway Commercial Uses. Implementation of the Highway Commercial areas in the Omni ASP does not guarantee reduced traffic generation of the plan area. The undated Watt Technical memorandum included in Tab H. 1. of the County s submission indicates expected traffic generation for a mix of uses allowed under the ASP and expected to be developed in the area. TABLE 1: TRIP GENERATION HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AS PER INFORMATION FROM THE ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, included in this Watt memo, indicates that a mix of uses totalling 183,000 square feet of building area, would generate 696 total trip ends during the afternoon peak hour. This equates to 3.80 afternoon peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. In comparison, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition (the same source cited in the Watt memorandum) provides an afternoon peak hour rate of 3.71 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, the trip generation for the mix of highway commercial uses is slightly higher than the ITE Shopping Centre rate which would apply to the other commercial uses in the area. cima.ca 23 of 97

99 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 18, indicating that the technical studies prepared for the Omni ASP demonstrate that the longterm network is achievable, and that the ASP outlines the requirements to ensure network functionality as development progresses. Tables 1 and 2 of this letter indicate significant reductions in background traffic and Omni development generated volumes used in progressively more recent Watt reports. The term longterm, and associated assumptions for development in approved ASP areas (Conrich and Janet), plus traffic volume estimates vary significantly from report to report. This statement that the longterm network is achievable is not clearly supported based upon the analysis provided. The ASP identifies requirements to submit Transportation Impact Assessments (TIA s) and to consult with the City of Calgary, however neither the ASP nor other By-laws or policies ensure that infrastructure is in place. As the development authority for the land uses is Rocky View County Council and the approval authority for the significant infrastructure improvements required to be funded is the City of Calgary Council, each which are free to adopt recommendations that do or do not align with recommendation from their respective administrations, there are many risks associated with this model. Point 22, stating that the results of the Conrich Network Analysis were incorporated into the Omni Network Analysis to ensure functionality of the road network for both areas. As the comparison in Table 2 of this letter indicates, forecast afternoon peak hour volumes between Rocky View County and the City of Calgary increase by just 3,209 vehicles, despite the corresponding Omni Network Analysis and memos indicating trip generation of between 10,458 and 16,965 vehicles per hour in that time period. Although 100% of the additional trips are not expected to travel along these routes, the expected distribution and route assignment is expected to be more than 19% to 31%. Based upon City of Calgary transportation forecast modelling for Conrich and reasonable adjustment of these assumptions for Omni, these routes are expected to carry 65% of the inbound and 51% of the outbound traffic in the afternoon peak hour. Further, subsequent analysis indicates further reductions in volumes which are not ensured by any policy in the ASP, resulting in volumes crossing between Rocky View and Calgary that are lower than those forecast in the Conrich analysis. This leads to uncertainty about the conclusion that a road network that can function for both areas. Point 25, regarding the description of build-out scenarios for the 84 th Street study. Table 2 of this letter includes afternoon peak hour volumes crossing between Rocky View and Calgary from the May 17, th Street Study of Alignment, Right-of-Way, Classifications and Access Management. As the table indicates, total traffic forecast to cross between Rocky View and Calgary for this study is lower for the 84 th Street study than either the Conrich Network Analysis or the Omni Network Analysis dated August 1, cima.ca 24 of 97

100 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 27, regarding the 84 th Street study providing guidance of evaluation of development applications in the ASP area, and the City being provided the opportunity through the circulation process to review the TIAs and work through concerns. As illustrated in Table 2 from this letter, traffic volumes generated for the 84 th Street study area could be higher than those used in the 84 th Street study, since there is no specific policy in the ASP that restricts development to the amount that will fit within the infrastructure identified through the 84 th Street study. Point 29, regarding the assumption that the Conrich ASP will be fully built out and the Omni and East Stoney ASP s will be 80% built out for the 84 th / McKnight Study. Forecast afternoon peak hour volumes crossing McKnight Boulevard are included in Table 2 of this letter for the 84 th Street study and each of the other reports included in the County s submission. Based upon the McKnight Boulevard & 84 th Street NE Interchange Functional Planning Study dated July 3, 2018 by Watt Consulting Group, (Tab F in the County s submission), the two-way afternoon peak hour volume on McKnight Boulevard between 84 th Street and the Stoney Trail east ramp totals 6,644 vehicles. This is 4,421 vehicles per hour less than the 11,065 vehicles forecast for this location in the Conrich Network analysis, and is also less than the volumes forecast in any of the other studies. Point 30 refers to the 84 th / McKnight study as recommending an appropriate ultimate configuration for the 84 th / McKnight intersection. As described in the previous point, the volumes forecast for this study use only 60% of the volumes for the section of McKnight just west of 84 th Street compared to the August 2017 Omni Network Analysis. No evaluation of the August 2017 Omni Network Analysis volumes, previously referred to as the worst case scenario, was included in the report. The evaluation is limited to this one intersection, and does not indicate the impacts on the Stoney Trail interchange ramp terminal intersections, or other intersections west of Stoney Trail in the City of Calgary. The proposed improvement would provide significant east-west capacity at this one location, however the ability for other intersections in the City of Calgary to accommodate additional volumes, and improvements required to accommodate the additional volumes, are important to the overall evaluation and have not been provided. Point 31 refers to the County s confidence in the 84 th / McKnight study, the 84 th Street study and the Omni Network Analysis provide sufficient evidence that the road network in the area can upgraded to accommodate development in the Omni and Conrich areas. There is concern that due to the successive volume reductions used in the analysis for the more recent studies, as illustrated in Table 1 and Table 2 from this letter, and statements in the Rocky cima.ca 25 of 97

101 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng View County July 6, 2018 submission that refer to the Omni Network Analysis without specifying the date or scenario analyzed, that this confidence is misplaced and presents a risk to the City of Calgary that analysis results could be misinterpreted and applied inappropriately to the detriment of the City of Calgary. Point 37, first bullet, stating that the City ignores the fact that the Omni Network Analysis takes into account existing and planned development capacity and that planned City Development will trigger upgrades in advance of the Omni development, second bullet indicating that the CIMA+ report uses incorrect assumptions, fourth bullet stating policies and implementation mechanisms. Table 1 and Table 2 from this letter indicate that the 84 th Street Study and McKnight Boulevard & 84 Street NE Interchange Functional Planning Study include lower trip generation for the Omni development and lower background traffic from Conrich and Janet than the Omni Network Analysis dated August However, the lower traffic forecast studies are the studies used by the County to draw conclusions about the improvements required. The CIMA+ report was developed based upon assumptions that consider already approved development in the County (see notes on point 14), and further analyzed the impact of two development scenarios: 100% of Omni and 30% of Omni. The total Omni based trip generation for Omni generates less traffic than any of the studies completed for the County, as summarized in Table 1. The 30% development scenario indicates significant unfunded improvements are required to support 30% build out of the Omni area, and with those improvements constructed, traffic congestion is expected. Further, the CIMA+ report was completed by a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (P.T.O.E) and Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) and further reviewed and endorsed by a second CIMA+ P.Eng. plus a P.Eng. at the City. City development that will use this network is the East Stoney Area Structure Plan, located east of Stoney Trail between Airport Trail and the alignment for 64 th Avenue NE. This development is expected to include approximately 1,850 residential units, an elementary school, a middle school and approximately 29,000 square feet of commercial area. Total trip generation for the afternoon peak hour is estimated to be approximately 2,000 trips. Analysis indicates that only developer funded improvements will be required to accommodate this development. Referring to Table 1 of this letter, the East Stoney Area Structure Plan makes up a small percentage of the total traffic volumes generated by developments in Conrich, Omni and East Stoney. Two of the ramps in the future Airport Trail interchange (southbound to westbound and eastbound to northbound) will benefit Cornerstone, and the McKnight & 68 th Street upgrade from an intersection to an interchange will benefit this surrounding industrial area in Calgary, however neither of the improvements are anticipated to be needed before 2040 at the earliest. cima.ca 26 of 97

102 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 40, stating that the Omni Network Analysis and subsequent studies take into account projected traffic and recommend upgrades that will accommodate additional traffic. Comments provided on Points 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30 and 31, plus Table 1 and Table 2 in this letter, explain the concern that projected development has not been adequately taken into account by the County. Point 41, regarding CIMA+ s build-out traffic timeline assumptions for the Omni ASP Prediction of timelines for build out of area structure plans is not an exact science, since development relies on developers allocating resources in the area. The marketing materials on timelines for development indicated on a website managed by the major landowner in the Omni area, Genesis, provides and indication of their intent to proceed with development as early as possible. For the infrastructure projects indicated in Table E-1 of the CIMA+ Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, in addition to not being accounted for in the City s 4-year and 10- year capital plans, review of the City of Calgary s Forecasting Toolbox, which takes into account a 60-year planning horizon indicates that none of the projects that are anticipated by the City are expected to be built before the 2040 to 2048 time frame (22 to 30 years from now). The link to this resource is below. Excerpts from this source for the periods: 2016 to 2028; 2029 to 2039; 2040 to 2048 and 2048 to the Long-Term Scenario are included in Attachment 1 of this letter. Therefore, the problem for the City of not having funding for the projects could persist for as long as 30 years, which is longer than the timeframe envisioned in the Omni ASP (page 20). Point 42 introduces the Watt Technical Review Comments on this memorandum are included in a separate section below Point 43 indicates that the CIMA+ report indicates that no traffic is assigned to some routes. 84 th Street & Highway 564/Country Hills Boulevard eastbound right turns and westbound left turns o trips have been assigned to the eastbound and westbound left turn and are illustrated in Figure 3.5A of the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, th Street & Townshop Road 250/McKnight Boulevard eastbound left turn and westbound right turn cima.ca 27 of 97

103 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng o Figure 3.5D of the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 illustrates trips assigned to the eastbound left turn o It is correct that no trips were assigned to the westbound right turn. Trips destined from Omni to the East Stoney area are assumed to use other routes due to the heavily congested conditions expected at McKnight Boulevard and 84 th Street at full build out. The analysis indicates that each of the intersections along 84 th Street would be over capacity at full build out and at 30% of build out, therefore adjustment of distribution patterns to assign more traffic to this movement is not expected to change the outcome of the analysis. The CIMA+ report does not appear to show traffic being generated by the OMNI development driving north on 84 th Street NE and Range Road 285 although this is a logical connection to Highway 564 o o o The report did not illustrate volumes assigned to Range Road 285 since it is under the County s jurisdiction, however the analysis does assume that this road will be used to support the Omni development. Trip distribution for the plan area was developed based traffic patterns in the City of Calgary forecast run for Conrich, summarized in Table 3-6 of the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report. Based upon the City s regionally based forecast model, there was no evidence of travel to and from the north via Range Road 285. For the afternoon peak hour, 4% of inbound trips and 10% of outbound trips were assigned to travel north via Country Hills Boulevard, Stoney Trail and other routes north from there. For Omni, it was assumed that this proportion travelling north via Country Hills and Stoney Trail will increase to 7% of inbound trips and 15% of outbound trips due to the area being closer to Balzac and Airdrie. If improvements are made to Range Road 285 through and north of the plan area, a portion of these trips may divert from the route they have been assigned to. However, this would result in some of the 7% of inbound and 15% of outbound trips choosing Range Road 285 instead of Country Hills and Stoney Trail. Therefore, there may be a small reduction of volumes at the intersection of 84 th Street and Country Hills Boulevard/Highway 564. This intersection is shown to be significantly over capacity at full build out and at 30% build out, therefore a reduction of a portion of 7% and 15% of inbound and outbound trips respectively would not change the conclusions summarized in Table E- 1. cima.ca 28 of 97

104 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 44, regarding differences in land use assumptions, such as drive through and high turnover restaurants in the highway commercial land uses. It is noted that based upon Table 1, the total trip generation for the Omni area based upon the Omni Network Analysis dated August 1, 2017 is higher than the trip generation in the CIMA+ Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report Further, the assumption that there could be drive through restaurants and high turnover restaurants is in no way prohibited by ASP Policy and these uses are typical in other highway commercial type areas found on other secondary highways in Alberta. It is noted that the CIMA+ report concluded that even at 30% of the forecast trip generation for the Omni area, the full package of City infrastructure projects would still be required to support the development. Point 45, regarding use of the Genesis marking materials for their Omni lands as an indication of built form and development rate. As noted in Point 14, if development is reduced to 30% of the full build out (ie a 70% reduction of development and trips) assumed in Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report, the resulting impacts still require the package of infrastructure projects indicated in Table E-1, therefore reduction of developable area by 20% would not change the result As noted in Point 41, even if development is over 20+ years rather than 10, the same detriment of infrastructure requirements coming ahead of the City s anticipated schedule for constructing them is expected Point 46, regarding net developable area and build out schedule Addressed in Point 45 Point 47, regarding assumption about land use in the CIMA+ report vs. the County s experience, and the Watt analysis resulting in volumes that are approximately 30% less than those found in the CIMA+ analsyis As indicated in Point 45, development volumes 30% of those analyzed result in a detrimental impact for the City, which is 70% less than the full development volumes predicted by CIMA+. A reduction of trips generated by the Omni development by 30% would still result in the improvements summarized in Table E-1 of the CIMA+ report being required. Point 48, regarding assumptions made in the City s background traffic forecast. The background forecast completed using the City s EMME transportation forecasting model, and included in Appendix A of the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 cima.ca 29 of 97

105 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng report was a custom model run developed to support the City s review and mediation of the Conrich Area Structure Plan and does not reflect the City s intention to construct these improvements by this date. It was developed as a method of testing whether construction of these projects would accommodate the Conrich development. It was determined by the City and CIMA+ to be a suitable basis for estimating future background traffic for the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report. The information in the City s on-line forecasting toolbox indicates the City s current plans for future infrastructure projects in this area. As noted in the comments on Point 41, none of the infrastructure projects listed in Table E-1 are anticipated to be constructed by the City before The major infrastructure project package assumed for future background conditions reflects the maximum number of crossings and interchanges that are possible for east-west trips crossing Stoney Trail. The Omni development would necessitate additional intersection lanes and longer storage lanes for turning movements at key intersections along 84 th Street NE. Point 52 refers to the County undertaking more analysis than the City did when sharing the East Stoney ASP, and states that it is inaccurate to suggest that the County failed to consider and fully address impacts on the City s Transportation Infrastructure As indicated in Point 37 (final bullet), the size of the East Stoney ASP is relatively small and clearly defined compared to the Omni and Conrich areas, and the impacts minor. The Omni area has a much larger range of possible development scenarios than East Stoney, and because of the broader number of options for development, analysis of multiple scenarios is prudent in order to develop a feasible transportation plan for the plan area. As is evident from the County s July 6, 2018 submission, multiple iterations of the network analysis were undertaken. However, as evident from Table 1 and Table 2, the effect of each subsequent analysis was to revise the input assumptions to that the total traffic forecast by the area was reduced to a level for which a package of infrastructure projects could be developed. Policy statements were added to the ASP, however as noted in comments on Point 17 regarding Highway Commercial uses, the policy as written does not ensure lower trip generation potential for the plan area. Nor do the policy additions ensure that County funding sources will be available to contribute fairly to improvement costs. The City appealed the Area Structure Plan and commissioned the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report because its concerns had not been addressed through the ASP review process. cima.ca 30 of 97

106 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 56 states that the East Stoney ASP and Cornerstone ASP will have impacts on the County. The magnitude of the East Stoney ASP is discussed in the comments on point 37. No major infrastructure projects are required to support this development. The Cornerstone ASP has no impacts on Rocky View County infrastructure as the development is fully within the City, west and south of northeast Stoney Trail. ASP development can be serviced within the plan area and within the City, with very little traffic demand to/from the County. Any future travel into Rocky View County would depend on development in Rocky View attracting traffic from this area, and other areas of Calgary. In that case, the Rocky View County tax base would benefit from the development in their jurisdiction paying property taxes to the County, which could contribute to the County s tax base for funding any required road upgrades to serve that development. Point 57 indicates that the ASP encourages alternative modes of transportation such as the use of a public or private transit system and infers that this makes provisions to reduce automobile usage within the Omni area. While policy statements encouraging alternative modes of transportation can be part of an effective plan to reduce automobile usage, on its own it is unlikely to be effective. Policies that require specific measures and identify funding responsibilities and sources would also be required for effectiveness. Points 63 and 64 provide an excerpt from the City s East Stoney ASP regarding transit routes that provide direct and convenient connections within the Plan area, to and from the Primary Transit Network, and infers that this statement addresses a future LRT connection The intent of the statement in the East Stoney ASP is not to infer that the LRT will be extended to the East Stoney ASP area, but rather that a future transit service between the East Stoney area and the existing Whitehorn or Westwinds Station is planned when available funding and competing priorities permit. Map 5 of the East Stoney ASP illustrates these potential connections, and when read with the excerpt in Rocky View County s Point 64, clarifies the intent. Point 66 states that the Omni Network Analysis and related studies demonstrate that the future transportation network is viable and can be implemented throughout the planning process as local plans are prepared. The content of this letter points out various problems with the analysis, coordinated approvals of land use planning and infrastructure construction, and the lack of clarity of plans and policies in the Omni ASP. cima.ca 31 of 97

107 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Point 77 states that the County maintains that the transportation infrastructure improvements required in the northeast quadrant of Calgary are related to City development. Analysis conducted for the Cornerstone ASP and East Stoney ASP did not indicate the need for any of the projects identified in Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report Table E-1. Background traffic indicated in the CIMA+ report is from the Conrich ASP area in Rocky View County, and significant infrastructure improvements will be required to support build out of that plan area. The City receives no property tax nor off-site levy benefits from development in the Conrich area, therefore any funding for these improvements would be drawn from off-site levies from City of Calgary developments and the general tax base for City of Calgary. Point 83 indicates that all infrastructure costs related to site development in the Omni area is the responsibility of developers or is collected through off-site levies. The approved Rocky View County Off-Site levy bylaw was consulted during the preparation of CIMA s Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report, and the projects included in Table E-1, which identifies unfunded infrastructure, include neither projects that are of a scale to be funded by developers nor are they included in the County s bylaw. Therefore, there is no evidence that a source for Rocky View County funding contributions has been established Point 86 refers to an interchange not serving the Omni ASP exclusively, but benefitting City of Calgary areas including Cornerstone, Northeast Community A and East Stoney. Although it is unclear which interchange is being referred to in this statement, it is notable that these City developments do not trigger the need for any of the projects listed in Table E-1 of the Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report. The improvements become required when the Conrich area and the Omni area, build out. Following development in Conrich and Omni, trips may be made between these areas of the County and the above noted areas of the City, however without Conrich and Omni developing, there would be insufficient traffic between the areas to necessitate the projects. There is an expectation from residents, developers and business owners in Calgary that funds collected through property taxes and off-site levies would be allocated to benefit areas that are funding the improvements. In the case of development in Omni and Conrich, off site levies and property taxes would be paid to the County, which would then have funds available to build the required infrastructure. cima.ca 32 of 97

108 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng Review of the Submission of the City of Calgary, Watt Consulting, July 3, 2018 Comments on Land Use on Pages 2 and 3 of letter Land uses and development sizes in the CIMA+ Omni ASP Appeal: Transportation Network Study, May 22, 2018 report were developed based upon a review of similar approved sites in Rocky View County, and based upon specific land uses referenced in the ASP itself, as summarized in Tables 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 of the report No specific limitations on development that would ensure smaller or lower trip generating developments are evident in the ASP, therefore it is reasonable to assume that this, or even a higher level of development, could meet the requirements of the ASP. However, even if development levels are lower than assumed in the CIMA+ report trip generation, a sensitivity analysis detailed in Section of the report indicates that the package of infrastructure projects would be required if the Omni development built out to 30% of the full level of development analyzed (ie a 70% reduction in trip generation). Reductions in trip making due to the different assumptions identified in the Watt Consulting letter amount to less than a 70% reduction in trips, therefore these changes in assumptions would not change the outcome of the analysis. Comments on total trip generation on page 4 of letter Table 1 of this letter provides a similar comparison Comments in the point above regarding land use indicate that with even lower levels of trip generation, the impacts still result in the need for the package of improvements identified in Table E-1 Comments on Traffic Distribution This is a repeat of Point 43 from the Rocky View County Transportation Response and the details are addressed under the Point 43 heading of this letter. Comment about missing laning information at intersections and statement that signal timings were not optimized Appendix E of the CIMA+ report includes the traffic signal analysis (Synchro) reports for all scenarios analyzed in the study and those reports each include a line with graphics indicating the lane configuration used for each intersection in the analysis. Traffic signal timings phasing and timings were optimized for each intersection in each scenario. cima.ca 33 of 97

109 34 of 97

110 Attachment 1: City of Calgary Expected Transportation Infrastructure Projects 300, Street NE, Calgary AB T2E 7H7 CANADA T F cima.ca 35 of 97

111 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng City of Calgary Expected Transportation Infrastructure Projects Projects Anticipated between 2016 and 2028 near Northeast Stoney Trail Source: update/anticipated-project-list/anticipated-projects-map-2016-to-2028.pdf cima.ca 36 of 97

112 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng City of Calgary Expected Transportation Infrastructure Projects Projects Anticipated between 2029 and 2039 near Northeast Stoney Trail Source: update/anticipated-project-list/anticipated-projects-map-2029-to-2039.pdf cima.ca 37 of 97

113 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng City of Calgary Expected Transportation Infrastructure Projects Projects Anticipated between 2040 and 2048 near Northeast Stoney Trail Source: update/anticipated-project-list/anticipated-projects-map-2040-to-2048.pdf cima.ca 38 of 97

114 Mr. Tom Hopkins, M.Eng., P.Eng City of Calgary Expected Transportation Infrastructure Projects Projects Anticipated between 2048 and the Long Range Scenario near Northeast Stoney Trail Source: cima.ca 39 of 97

115 Attachment 2: City of Calgary Authentication Page 300, Street NE, Calgary AB T2E 7H7 CANADA T F cima.ca 40 of 97

116 41 of 97

117 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 January 2013 The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta 42 of 97

118 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 FOREWORD APEGA publishes practice standards and guidelines for the purpose of educating its members and the public about matters of professional practice. Practice standards and guidelines are not intended to be short courses in engineering or geoscience. In general, these documents are produced to meet the following objectives: To assist APEGA members in performing their professional role in accordance with the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act and the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulation under the act. To help the public understand the role of APEGA members and the responsibilities members have when performing their professional services. This practice standard is a revision of the previous document published in April Although the regulatory requirements regarding authentication of professional documents have not changed, the revised practice standard provides additional information on stamping procedures and management of engineering and geoscience documents. Questions or suggestions concerning this document should be addressed to: Ray Chopiuk, P.Eng. Director of Professional Practice APEGA 1500 Scotia One, Jasper Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4A2 rchopiuk@apega.ca 43 of 97 i

119 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 CONTENTS Foreword... i Contents... ii 1. Overview Scope Purpose Definitions Professional Responsibilities and liability Professional member's responsibility Permit holder's responsibility Liability Authentication Process Professional stamps Permit numbers Professional documents requiring authentication Authentication procedures Document Management Approving and issuing documents Retention of professional documents Document ownership and use of other professional members documents Dual stamping Electronic Documents Stamp Image Hand-written Signature Image Digital Signature/Certificate Storing Electronic Documents...17 Appendix...18 A-1 Supervision and control...18 A-2 Excerpts from the Act, Regulations and by-laws of 97 ii

120 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v OVERVIEW The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act and the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulation under the Act govern the practice of engineering and geoscience in the province of Alberta. APEGA is the authority that administers that legislation, including matters concerning the use of professional members stamps. Essentially, Alberta law requires every professional member who performs a task that is within the practice of engineering or geoscience to authenticate (stamp, sign and date) all final documents prepared or reviewed by the member as part of that task before the documents are issued. The requirement applies equally to an employee working for an employer or to a consultant working for a client. The stamp and signature signify that a licensed professional member of APEGA has accepted responsibility for the engineering or geoscience work represented in the authenticated document. A stamp is only issued to an individual who is qualified to practice engineering or geoscience in some capacity. The stamp is not a warranty or a guarantee of accuracy, however. Other pieces of legislation (e.g., acts, regulations, codes, etc.) in addition to the EGP Act also require certain documents to be authenticated. Client and contractual requirements for authentication of documents are to be consistent with the regulatory requirements for authentication. No one can request a professional member s stamp on a document where there is no regulatory requirement for the stamp. The resolution of any disputes falls within APEGA s jurisdiction. 1.1 Scope This is a standard of practice for use of the professional stamp when authenticating engineering and geoscience documents. The procedures outlined apply equally to documents that are prepared by employee professionals for use by their employers in house and to documents that are prepared by professional members or permit holders for use by external parties. 1.2 Purpose This standard is meant to assist professional members in complying with the statutory requirements for authenticating professional documents. It is also intended to provide guidance concerning proper use of the stamp and advice on matters related to handling professional documents, such as revisions, storage, transmittal, etc. 1.3 Definitions For the purposes of this standard, the following terms and definitions apply. Act The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. 45 of 97 1

121 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 Association The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGA). As-built or as-acquired document A document that reflects the installed, fabricated, constructed or commissioned condition of an item or project based on information provided by another party and not verified by the professional member. In the geophysical community, such documents are referred to as as-acquired, e.g., an as-acquired realignment of a seismic line. Authentication Application of the professional member's stamp, signature and date. Discipline A specific field of practice within a profession, e.g., electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc. Engineering document A document that expresses engineering work, typically as a result of an analysis or design process, e.g., engineering drawings; specifications and design requirements; instructions; design notes and calculations; reports based on engineering judgment that document recommendations, opinions, evaluations, certifications, condition assessments, analysis or verifications. Final document A professional document issued to another person on which that person is permitted to rely, for the intended purpose of that document, e.g., a tender document might not be complete for construction purposes, but it is final for tender purposes. Documents provided for review or comments are not considered to be final documents. Geoscience document A document that expresses geological or geophysical work, typically as a result of an interpretation, analysis or design process, such as seismic programs, maps, crosssections and reports. Integrity (of professional documents) The ability to verify that the information contained in the document has not been changed since the document was authenticated, and that the medium used provides stability and the required longevity to the information. Issued (or issuing) Issuing a document means providing a document that a professional member has stamped and signed (authenticated) directly. For the purposes of interpreting this practice standard, providing someone with a copy of an authenticated document is not considered to be issuing the document. 46 of 97 2

122 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 Permit holder A partnership or other association of persons or a corporation that holds a permit under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. Permit number The number issued by the Association to a permit holder entitled to engage in the practice of engineering or geoscience. Person A corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or other organization, as well as an individual. Professional document An engineering document or a geoscience document in any form or medium (e.g., paper, mylar, electronic, etc.), Referred to in the Act and Regulations as document of a professional nature. Professional member A professional engineer, professional geologist, professional geophysicist, professional licensee (engineering), professional licensee (geological), professional licensee (geophysical) or licensee entitled to engage in the practice of engineering or geoscience under the Act. Record drawing/document A professional document prepared by the professional member to record design changes to an initial design for which he or she has accepted responsibility and which represents the final design of the project. Typically issued or retained as verification that on-site conditions are in accordance with the final design. Regulations Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulation Stamp The stamp issued by the Association to a professional member, in the form of a rubber stamp, an embossing seal or an electronic file. 2. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITY 2.1 Professional member's responsibility A professional member is responsible for practicing in accordance with the Act, Regulations and the Code of Ethics. A professional member shall only apply his or her stamp to professional documents he or she has prepared or to professional documents that were prepared under his or her supervision and control. In the case of professional documents prepared by someone 47 of 97 3

123 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 else, a professional member shall only apply his or her stamp to the documents after thoroughly reviewing the documents and accepting professional responsibility for them. A professional member is responsible for maintaining custody and control of his or her stamp at all times. The professional member shall apply the stamp personally or he or she may allow the stamp to be applied by a person acting under his or her direct control. A professional member shall personally sign the documents to which his or her stamp has been applied. Someone who fails to authenticate a final document that he or she prepares and issues, or someone who authenticates and issues a document prepared by another person without performing a thorough review, is in violation of the Act and Regulations and the Code of Ethics. A professional member shall only use the stamp while registered with the Association and while having the right to practice. A professional member shall return the stamp to the Association when required to do so. 2.2 Permit holder's responsibility A permit holder is corporately responsible for the integrity of its projects. A permit holder is responsible for putting in place a system that enables professional practice to be carried out by professionals having the training and experience in the fields of the profession contained in the document. The organization is responsible for putting sufficient quality control procedures in place to preclude errors or omissions in the technical content of a professional document so that the result is a complete and accurate document. A permit holder is responsible for carrying out its business in accordance with the APEGA Code of Ethics. A more extensive discussion of the responsibilities of professional members (permit holders and individuals) is contained in APEGA's Professional Practice - A Guideline. 2.3 Liability Liability is a legal responsibility for some harm or loss caused to another person. APEGA has no authority to determine legal liability. The jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning liability rests with the courts. Not authenticating a professional document does not relieve a professional member from any legal liability that might arise as a result of the work contained in a document that the professional member prepared and issued. A court could find a professional member, a permit-holding employer, or both, liable whether or not such a document was authenticated. Authentication merely serves as a means to identify the professional member who accepted responsibility for the document. 48 of 97 4

124 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v AUTHENTICATION PROCESS 3.1 Professional stamps Authentication of a professional document shall consist of applying the professional member's stamp to the document, signing the document and indicating the date when the document was stamped. The Act and Regulations do not provide for any other form of authentication. A document showing only a phrase such as, Original stamped by is not an authenticated document. The member's signature should appear beside or across the stamp without obscuring the member's name. The date should appear below the stamp and shall be in a format that is not ambiguous. For example, is ambiguous, as is Permit numbers The Regulations also require that when a permit holder is carrying on the practice of engineering or geoscience, professional documents shall also show the permit number issued by the Association to the permit holder (section 49). The permit number should appear in the proximity of the professional member's stamp. For example, it may be part of a title block on a drawing, map or cross-section. The significance of the number should be obvious. Someone unfamiliar with the professions would not necessarily interpret "P1234", by itself, as a permit number. The number should be accompanied by words such as "APEGA Permit" or "APEGA Permit to Practice". No signature is required to accompany the permit number. Where two or more permit holders produce different components of the same document, all permit numbers shall appear on the document. The presence of a permit number indicates that the permit holder is registered and entitled to engage in the practice of engineering or geoscience. Permit numbers are not required on documents issued by professional members who are self-employed, i.e., who do not belong to a permit holder. Note: The Regulations no longer require the APEGA permit stamp to be applied to professional documents, only a permit number. The permit stamp may still be used as a means of applying the permit number, however. Permit holders may employ the permit stamp as a means of quality control, if they wish. 49 of 97 5

125 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v Professional documents requiring authentication Documents destined for outside Alberta Professional members practicing in Alberta occasionally prepare final documents for use outside Alberta. Strictly speaking, all such documents must be authenticated, in accordance with the Regulations, since the practice of engineering or geoscience takes place in Alberta. However, jurisdictions outside Alberta may have authentication requirements of their own and Alberta authentication is not recognized (e.g., other provinces in Canada and foreign countries). In such cases, if a professional member applies a professional stamp that he or she obtained from the jurisdiction where the documents will be used, then the APEGA stamp and permit number do not need to be applied. If the jurisdiction has no authentication requirements, then the APEGA authentication should be applied. What to stamp The Regulations require a professional member to authenticate all final documents of a professional nature that he or she has prepared or reviewed (section 54) or reproductions or copies of the documents (sections 3, 6 and 8 of the Act). A professional member's authentication indicates that he or she has accepted professional responsibility for the documents. The Act and Regulations refer specifically to several kinds of documents that require authentication, including: a plan, drawing, detail drawing, map, geological cross-section, geophysical cross-section, specification, report or other document or a reproduction of any of them (sections 3, 6 and 8 of the Act and section 54 of the Regulations). Final means a document that is intended to be relied on by others. Final also means final for the purposes intended. For example, engineering drawings submitted for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals might not contain all the details required for construction, but those drawings are considered final for approval purposes and must be authenticated, with a clear indication of their restricted purpose. The content of a document determines whether it is a professional document. An engineering document is a document that expresses engineering work carried out by a professional member who is licensed to practice engineering. Geological and geophysical documents are defined similarly. The Regulations do not differentiate between documents prepared by a consultant for a client and those prepared by employee professionals for use internally by their employer. Forms for government or regulatory authorities that specifically require a professional s stamp (e.g., schedules under the Alberta Building Code) shall also be authenticated. 50 of 97 6

126 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 What not to stamp Professional documents that are provided to someone only for review and comment (drafts) are not considered to be final and should not be stamped. When the review is completed and the decision is made as to the content of the document that will be issued, the document will then require authentication. Documents that do not contain work of a professional nature should not be authenticated (e.g., contracts, checklists, cost estimates, construction schedules, progress claims, payment verifications, correspondence, brochures, etc.). Occasionally, legislation other than the EGP Act requires that a task be done by certain qualified persons that are specified in the legislation. Where they are included with persons from other occupations, engineers or geoscientists should not stamp any documents required by the legislation unless the work is clearly of a professional nature (i.e., engineering or geoscience). Documents that reflect the installed, fabricated, constructed or commissioned condition of an item or project based on information provided by another party, and that has not been verified by the professional member, should not be authenticated. This practice standard defines such documents in the engineering profession as as-built drawings. In the geophysical community, such documents are commonly referred to as asacquired, e.g., an as-acquired realignment of a seismic line. Technical journal articles, conference papers, magazine articles, slide presentations, etc., are considered to be informative pieces prepared for general information. They are not considered to be final documents on which someone would be expected to take action. Such items should not be authenticated. 3.4 Authentication procedures Single Discipline Documents In the strictest sense, the Regulations could be interpreted as requiring all professional members who jointly prepare a document to each authenticate the document. Where a professional document has been prepared by more than one professional member in the same discipline, it may be authenticated by each of them, although this is not a requirement. The document shall be authenticated by at least one professional member, preferably the individual responsible for coordinating the work of the team, or by the supervisory individual if he or she was sufficiently involved in overseeing the work. The decision as to who will authenticate a professional document should be made prior to any work on its preparation. 51 of 97 7

127 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 Multi-Discipline Documents A professional document that contains components that have been prepared or reviewed by professional members of different disciplines shall be authenticated by a professional member who is able to accept responsibility for the work related to each of those disciplines. The responsibility of each professional member who authenticates the document should be clearly indicated on the document. As-built and record engineering drawings As-built drawings, as defined here, are drawings that have been prepared or marked up by someone other than the authoring engineer, e.g., a contractor or other persons not under the direct supervision and control of the engineer. The drawings are intended to represent the on-site conditions that are not shown on the original drawings. Changes to the engineer s design may have been initiated by someone else to accommodate site conditions. If the engineer is not in a position to accept responsibility for the content of as-built drawings, they should not be authenticated. Recognizing that the Regulations allow a professional member to stamp a drawing or other document prepared by another person, if the engineer is in a position to thoroughly review the changes and accept responsibility for them, the engineer may stamp the marked-up as-built drawing as being representative of actual on-site conditions if he or she has verified that is the case. Record drawings, as defined here, are drawings prepared by the engineer to record design changes for which he or she has accepted responsibility. The changes may have been made by the engineer previously through authenticated change orders, directives, etc., and those changes are subsequently being incorporated into one representative drawing along with the original design elements, representing the final design for the project. Since the engineer is responsible for the content of record drawings, he or she is required to authenticate them. If the record drawings are being used as a means to verify that construction has been done in accordance with the design, the engineer will have had to have spent a sufficient amount of time on site (frequent visits or continuous presence) before being able to provide such an assurance. The engineer should determine in advance whether the client requires such verification. As-acquired documents Typically used in reference to geoscience documents such as seismic programs, asacquired information is another party s representation of what occurred in the field. Geoscientists should not stamp as-acquired documents, e.g., a realignment of a seismic line by a geophysical contractor from that initially laid out by a geophysicist. If the geophysicist can verify the realignment and is willing to accept responsibility for the realignment and record that, he or she can issue an authenticated record document. Change orders, directives, field instructions Recognizing that such changes could be small, numerous or issued verbally, change orders, field instructions, etc. that affect the design in an authenticated document must 52 of 97 8

128 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 be authenticated prior to being implemented, but if that is not reasonable or practical, then the changes should be clearly communicated, documented and then authenticated in a timely fashion. Timely fashion will need to be interpreted in the context of the particular work being done. For example, the effects of several instructions could be incorporated into an authenticated drawing during a subsequent design drawing revision or preparation of a record drawing. Design Notes, Calculations and Geoscience Interpretations Design notes, calculations or geoscience interpretations (e.g. cross-sections, stratigraphic interpretations, etc.) are usually considered to be the property of the professional member for his or her own use. If the design notes, calculations or interpretations are issued to another person, either in accordance with the scope of the project or by agreement, the cover, title or signature sheet shall be authenticated in a manner that clearly indicates acceptance of professional responsibility for the notes or calculations without needing to authenticate each page. Design notes and calculations should be prepared in a format which records the names of the responsible professional members, designers and checkers and the dates on which their work was performed. Calculations and design notes that are kept as part of the member s work file for his or her reference do not need to be authenticated. Engineering Testing Laboratory Reports Reports issued by testing laboratories prepared by or under the supervision of a professional member as appropriate shall be authenticated by him or her whenever such reports go beyond the tabulation of test data (e.g., composition of material, breaking stress, etc.) and proceed to: Interpret the data to draw conclusions as to the characteristics of the material or device, or parts thereof. Express engineering judgment in the form of recommendations derived from the results of the test. Present design work in the form of plans, specifications, and other instruments involving the practice of engineering. Geoscience Documents Requiring Authentication (examples) Note: Transitory interpretations which are subject to review and frequent modification, used internally within an organization, would not be considered to be final documents requiring authentication. Resource or reserve reports Final reports (of any kind or length) based on geoscience judgment, documenting recommendations, opinions, evaluations, certifications, condition assessments, analysis or verification. Maps Final maps that represent geoscience interpretation such as, but not limited to, isopach/isocore maps, pore volume estimate maps, structure contour maps, 53 of 97 9

129 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 stratigraphic interpretations, surficial geology maps, bedrock maps and resource or reserve distribution maps of any kind Including derived information, e.g., structural depth equivalent, predicted porosity, lithology, etc. Maps shall be individually authenticated if they are not part of a bound report. Final Drilling programs/prognoses or completion plans Including assessment of potential lost circulation zones, high pressure zones, high acid content, etc. Seismic programs Including changes to such programs, field survey design documents, design assumptions, data processing parameters Mine plans Oilsands, coal mining, including reclamation plans. Manuals Manuals based on engineering or geoscience work prepared for direction and guidance of others shall be authenticated using the same principles of quality control and professional responsibility as apply to other professional documents. Preliminary documents Preliminary documents that are issued for some restricted purpose where someone may rely on those documents shall be authenticated. The documents shall include a notation clearly identifying their intended purposes or limitations, e.g., not for construction, for tender purposes only, "for budget purposes only", "for site planning only", as appropriate. Reports A report of any size or format shall be authenticated by authenticating the cover, title or signature sheet without having to authenticate each page. Reviewed Documents The Regulations allow a professional member to authenticate a document representing engineering or geoscience work that was prepared by another person. Before applying his or her stamp and signature to the document, the professional member is required to thoroughly review the document, performing sufficient checks, calculations, research or other work that will enable the professional member to accept responsibility for the document. The professional member's authentication will be regarded in the same manner as if he or she was the original author. The professional member should describe, either in notes or attached documents, the extent of the review. Revisions Authenticated documents occasionally need to be revised during the course of a project or as part of a new project. Revising a professional document constitutes professional 54 of 97 10

130 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 practice. To ensure that professional members are not unknowingly accepting responsibility for work they did not do, it is important that documents, once authenticated, are not modified without undergoing an appropriate revision process. A professional document that has been revised shall be authenticated in a manner that clearly indicates the revising professional member's acceptance of responsibility for the revisions and the effects of those revisions. Care should be taken in documenting the revisions to clearly identify the boundary of professional responsibility between the original and revised documents. When revision of a document authenticated by another professional member is required for an ongoing project, the original authenticated document should be retained. The professional member revising the document should apply his or her stamp and signature to the revision, clearly identifying the changes and who is responsible for them. When revision of a document (particularly a drawing) authenticated by another professional member for a completed project is required for a new project, the following procedure should be used: The document used as the basis of the new work should be clearly identified by a note, drawing method (e.g. lighter or ghosted lines) or an identifying mark as work previously done by others; the original stamp and signature should not appear; the professional member revising the document should add his or her stamp and signature, clearly identifying the revisions and who is responsible for them. Sets of plans, drawings, detailed drawings Each drawing which is in a set of plans or drawings, and which can be used individually for its intended purpose, shall be authenticated. Shop or Fabricator drawings Several kinds of drawings might be referred to as shop drawings or fabricator drawings. The fabricator commonly prepares such drawings after he or she reviews the drawings and specifications supplied by a professional member. Authentication requirements are as follows: Fabricator general arrangement drawings Drawings that specifically describe the location of structural members, connections and components to be supplied by the fabricator, and that may be reproducible copies of the drawings provided by a professional member on which the fabricator's information is noted, are not considered to be design drawings and therefore do not require authentication. Fabricator detail drawings Drawings produced by the fabricator to provide information needed by shop personnel to fabricate or assemble the items are not required to be authenticated since they do not contain any fabricator's engineering design. 55 of 97 11

131 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 Fabricator design drawings Structural elements or special connections that have been designed specifically for a particular application by a professional member acting for a fabricator shall be authenticated. Fabricator proprietary items Drawings for proprietary items (such as open web steel joists) shall be authenticated by the professional member who prepared them. Standard connections A professional member may specify that standard connections be selected from industry handbooks. Although the connection drawings do not require authentication, the professional member responsible for their selection shall authenticate the specification. Erector drawings Drawings or documents produced by the erector to address temporary loading, temporary bracing, falsework and erection sequence instructions shall be authenticated. Software Computer software programs developed by a professional member that involve the practice of the professions constitute professional documents and are required to be stamped. These include, for example, programmable logic controller (PLC) code, application, modeling and simulation programs. The original version or modifications of the program or code (either written or electronic) shall be authenticated. Packaged software programs may be authenticated by including a separate sheet in the package showing the name and version of the program along with the professional member s stamp, signature and date. For the electronic version of the software program, a member s professional stamp, signature and date should appear in the equivalent of the About feature under the Help tab commonly found in most software programs. For PLC (programmable logic controller) code or DCS (distributed control system) code, a professional member s stamp, signature and date should appear on a print-out of the code or a graphical representation of the code, either in paper or electronic format. Similarly for firmware, the stamp should appear on a graphical presentation of the firmware (e.g., SAMA diagram, cause and effect diagram, process control narrative, etc.). Specifications Specifications that contain engineering or geoscience decisions shall be authenticated if the specifications are not part of a drawing or other authenticated document, e.g., a specification for concrete strength that does not appear on a foundation design, as a building industry example. As another example, in the area of equipment certification, the Occupational Health & Safety Code requires an engineer to authenticate specifications which includes written instructions, procedures, drawings or other documents relating to equipment, supplies and work processes or operations. 56 of 97 12

132 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 Not every page of a multi-page set of specifications needs to be authenticated if the cover, title or signature page of the specification bundle is authenticated. Standard drawings A professional member might be asked to prepare a design drawing that is intended to be used in more than a single instance. The decision whether or not to authenticate such a standard/generic drawing can only be made by the professional member who prepared the drawing. If it is not possible to sufficiently limit or specify the conditions under which the drawing can be used, the drawing should be left unauthenticated. A professional member who subsequently uses an unauthenticated standard drawing is responsible for determining that the drawing is suitable for the current purpose and for its authentication. Translated documents Occasionally a professional member is required to provide a professional document in a language other than his or her own. Typically, the professional member will have the document translated into another language. An issue arises where the professional member is not able to read the translation and is unable to determine whether the translator has correctly translated the document. Translation errors possibly could become construction errors. In such instances, the professional member should employ the services of a certified translator and obtain a written declaration that the translated text is identical in meaning to that of the original. If the translator is not certified by a recognized certification body, the translator s declaration should be notarized. The professional member can then authenticate the original and translated documents. 4. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 4.1 Approving and issuing documents Professional members should have a formal process for preparing, authorizing and issuing professional documents. The process should include the following procedures, as a minimum: Checking to ensure that a document is complete for its intended purpose and that it accurately expresses the output of the professional member s design or analysis; Verifying to ensure the document meets the requirements of the work as expressed by codes, standards, APEGA guidelines and contractual requirements; Approval by a professional member who acknowledges that the document meets professional standards and accepts responsibility for it by stamping, signing and dating it. 57 of 97 13

133 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 The Act states that a member is to apply his or her stamp (accompanied by a signature, as per the Regulations) to either of the following: a final document, or a reproduction (copy) of a final document. The party to whom a final document is issued is entitled to receive an original stamp and signature on either an original document or on a reproduction of the original document. A reproduction is considered to be a photocopy, fax, PDF, etc. Where an originallystamped/signed document has been provided, or is not required to be provided, providing reproductions of stamped documents is acceptable. 4.2 Retention of professional documents There are no requirements in the EGP Act, Regulations or APEGA s by-laws for retaining professional documents. However, copies or originals of authenticated documents are usually kept for reference purposes or for defence against legal claims. A professional document kept in case of possible legal action should be retained at least until the period of professional liability expires. The Alberta Limitations Act that came into force on March 1, 1999 provides for a total maximum time of 10 years to discover an injury and make a claim. Within those 10 years, the claim must be made within 2 years from the date that the necessary basis of a claim was discovered. Depending on circumstances such as the nature of the work involved, the likelihood of litigation might suggest that the retention period could be shorter. Members who have professional liability insurance should also consult their insurers about their requirements for document retention. Documents that are retained should be stored in a manner that maintains their integrity and prevents unauthorized use of the documents or the professional stamps and signatures that appear on them. Copies of documents that have been issued to clients should be identified as archival documents to the effect: This copy or document is for record purposes and shall not be revised. Employee professionals might ask if they can keep copies of the documents that they prepared or authenticated. Employers may choose to allow that, but they are not obligated or compelled to provide copies, or to allow employees to take copies, since the documents are the property of the employer not the employee. 4.3 Document ownership and use of other professional members documents Copyright in a professional document belongs to the author. Professional members must not use someone else s document from a completed project as the basis for a new project without the consent of the author. In The Canadian Law of Architecture and Engineering, the authors distinguish between the ownership of drawings, specifications and other documents and the ownership of copyright. They say "the ownership of drawings and related documents refers to the ownership of the drawings themselves, and is governed by the contract between the architect or engineer and the client. The ownership of copyright, on the other hand, refers 58 of 97 14

134 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 to the ownership of the expression of the idea embodied in the drawings and the right to reproduce that expression. Architects or engineers who create the copyright work retain copyright in the work unless they expressly assign it to another." 1 Professional members as independent contractors Where a professional member or permit holder is in the position of independent contractor providing services to a client, the professional is not considered to be the client's agent for such purposes. Documents created by professional members only to help them in performing their professional duties are theirs. Unless a contract between the professional member and the client specifies otherwise, documents prepared for the client at the client's request belong to the client once the client has paid for them. However, the copyright in the documents is owned by the professional member and the design, for example, cannot be reproduced by the client without the professional member's consent, subject to any agreement between them to the contrary. Professional members as agents of their clients or employers Professional members might act as agents for their clients for different reasons. They could represent the clients in negotiations with contractors, authorities having jurisdiction or other professionals. Based on the reference noted below, it appears that: Drawings and documents prepared for the client by the professional in that capacity belong to the client. Documents provided by the professional member to an authority for project approval on behalf of the client belong to the client. Similarly, professional members who are employees would be considered agents of their employers, not independent contractors. With regard to copyright, where work is performed under a service contract or under employment, the copyright belongs firstly to the employer unless there is an agreement otherwise. Matters of copyright should be discussed prior to commencement of work, and it may be appropriate to seek legal counsel. The information above is not to be construed as legal opinion or advice. 4.4 Dual stamping Some clients may have a requirement for two consulting professional members to stamp a document such as a design drawing, e.g., a design engineer and a checking engineer. Dual stamping is not a requirement under the Regulations. One engineer s stamp is sufficient if the engineer is in a position to accept responsibility for the drawing. That would not preclude the client from including in its contract with the consultant the provision for another engineer to review the original engineer s work. As recognized in the Regulations, a professional member is allowed to review the work of another person and stamp that work after a thorough review. The designer and the checker would thus both bear responsibility for the design drawing that they authenticated.. 1 Beverley M. McLachlin, Wilfred J. Wallace, and Arthur M. Grant, The Canadian Law of Architecture and Engineering, Second edition, (Vancouver, BC: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 1994), of 97 15

135 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS It is acceptable for a professional document to be prepared, authenticated and issued solely in electronic form. The following authentication requirements must be met: The document must show the image of the professional member s stamp. The document must show the image of the professional member s hand-written signature. The document must show the date on which the professional member stamped and signed it. The document must incorporate a digital signature/certificate obtained from APEGA. In keeping with Section 4.1, the party to whom a final electronic document is issued is entitled to receive a document incorporating a digital signature/certificate. However, electronic copies of authenticated documents may be provided to someone without the copies themselves incorporating a digital signature/certificate if copies are acceptable to the recipient. Copies are not the actual authenticated documents, they are only copies. If a copy is not acceptable, then an electronic document that has been signed using the APEGA digital signature will need to be issued, or a wet stamped and wet signed paper document will need to be issued. For example, if a professional member stamps and signs a paper document and issues that authenticated document, the professional member can provide copies of that authenticated document in electronic form (e.g., a PDF) without a digital signature/certificate. This is considered as being no different from providing copies in hard form (e.g., paper photocopies, mylars, etc.) without a wet signature and stamp on the copies. In other words, if receiving a document by fax is acceptable to the recipient, then receiving a PDF of the document by should also be acceptable. 5.1 Stamp Image The Regulations stipulate that, A professional member or licensee shall not acquire a stamp or seal from any source other than the Registrar. Scanning another member s stamp and altering the image to insert a new name is not acceptable. A professional member may obtain an electronic stamp in only one of two ways: by requesting an electronic stamp (computer file) from APEGA, or by scanning the imprint of his or her own manual stamp obtained from APEGA. The image of an electronic stamp must correspond in all aspects to the original stamp issued by APEGA in order to preserve its characteristics. The size of an electronic stamp image must be sufficient to ensure the elements of the stamp are legible. As with the manual stamp, the professional member shall ensure that access to the electronic stamp remains under his or her control to prevent unauthorized use. The 60 of 97 16

136 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 stamp shall be applied by the professional member or by a person acting under the member's direct control. 5.2 Hand-written Signature Image The image of the professional member s hand-written signature may be obtained by the member scanning his or her signature. It must appear with the stamp and the date on which the document was stamped and signed. 5.3 Digital Signature/Certificate The term digital signature refers to a mathematical technological process using asymmetric cryptography to demonstrate the authenticity of a document. It does not mean the visual image of a hand-written signature. The digital signature and certificate for authenticating an electronic document may only be obtained from APEGA. Ordering information is available on APEGA s website. Since the visual image of a written signature is capable of being copied, the secure digital signature is required for documents that are issued electronically. The digital certificate verifies that the document was signed by a professional member of APEGA and that the content of the document has not changed since it was signed. The member must not disclose to anyone the personal security codes enabling use of his or her digital signature. 5.4 Storing Electronic Documents Authenticated electronic documents that are retained for reference or liability purposes should be stored in a manner that maintains their integrity. If that is not possible, the electronic documents should be stored without stamps and signatures and hardcopy versions retained instead. 61 of 97 17

137 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 APPENDIX A-1 SUPERVISION AND CONTROL The Act restricts the practice of engineering or geoscience to professional members or to persons who are under their direct supervision and control. For the purpose of this practice standard, an adequate supervision and control system is defined as a system which permits a professional member to accept professional responsibility for the results of the engineering, geological or geophysical tasks performed by others working under a professional member's supervision and control. Judging the adequacy of a supervisory and control system is an exercise in risk management. No system will guarantee perfect results. However the following factors, if properly considered, could increase the probability of satisfactory work. The training and experience (knowledge) of the supervisor. The training and experience (knowledge) of the persons performing the tasks. The reliability of the persons performing the tasks. The degree of technological novelty of the tasks. The degree of complexity of the tasks. The number of discrete tasks and technical disciplines being controlled. The physical distance between the supervisor and the persons performing the tasks. The communication system between the supervisor and the persons performing the tasks. The formality of the approval process. The schedule within which the tasks should be accomplished. The ultimate criteria for judging the adequacy of a supervision and control system is the quality of the completed work as represented by the final documents. 62 of 97 18

138 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 A-2 EXCERPTS FROM THE ACT, REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS A-2.1 Who may use a stamp and permit number The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act spells out who is allowed to apply the professional stamp or the permit number and under what circumstances it may be applied. Engineers 3(2) No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder entitled to engage in the practice of engineering, shall affix the stamp or seal of a professional engineer or licensee or the permit number of a permit holder or allow that stamp, seal or permit number to be affixed to a plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification or other document or a reproduction of any of them unless (a) (b) that plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification, other document or reproduction was prepared by or under the supervision and control of, and the stamp, seal or permit number is affixed with the knowledge and consent or in accordance with the direction of the professional engineer or licensee to whom or the permit holder to which the stamp, seal or permit number was issued. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder may affix a stamp, seal or permit number, as the case may be, to a plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification, other document or reproduction prepared by other persons if the professional engineer, licensee or permit holder completes a thorough review of and accepts professional responsibility for that plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification, other document or reproduction. Geoscientists 6(2) No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional geoscientist or a licensee or permit holder entitled to engage in the practice of geoscience, shall affix the stamp or seal of a professional geoscientist or licensee or the permit number of a permit holder or allow that stamp, seal or permit number to be affixed to a map, geoscientific cross-section, specification, report or other document or a reproduction of any of them unless (a) that map, geoscientific cross-section, specification, report, other document or reproduction was prepared by or under the supervision and control of, and 63 of 97 19

139 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 (b) the stamp, seal or permit number is affixed with the knowledge and consent or in accordance with the direction of the professional geoscientist or licensee to whom or the permit holder to which the stamp, seal or permit number was issued. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a professional geoscientist, licensee or permit holder may affix a stamp, seal or permit number, as the case may be, to a map, geoscientific cross-section, specification, report, other document or reproduction prepared by other persons if the professional geoscientist, licensee or permit holder completes a thorough review of and accepts professional responsibility for that map, geoscientific crosssection, specification, report, other document or reproduction. Professional Licensees 83.2(1) No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional licensee (engineering), shall affix the stamp or seal of a professional licensee (engineering) or allow that stamp or seal to be affixed to a plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification or other document or a reproduction of any of them unless (a) that plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification, other document or reproduction was prepared by or under the supervision and control of, and (b) the stamp or seal is affixed with the knowledge and consent or in accordance with the direction of the professional licensee (engineering) to whom the stamp or seal was issued. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a professional licensee (engineering) may affix a stamp or seal to a plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification, other document or reproduction prepared by other persons if the professional licensee (engineering) completes a thorough review of and accepts professional responsibility for that plan, drawing, detail drawing, specification, other document or reproduction. 83.3(1) No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional licensee (geoscience), shall affix the stamp or seal of a professional licensee (geoscience), or allow that stamp or seal to be affixed, to a map, geoscientific crosssection, specification, report or other document or a reproduction of any of them unless (a) that map, geoscientific cross-section, specification, report, other document or reproduction was prepared by or under the supervision and control of, and (b) the stamp or seal is affixed with the knowledge and consent or in accordance with the direction of the professional licensee (geoscience), as the case may be, to whom the stamp or seal was issued. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a professional licensee (geoscience) may affix a stamp or seal to a map, geoscientific cross-section, specification, report or other document or reproduction prepared by other persons if the professional licensee (geoscience), as the 64 of 97 20

140 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 case may be, completes a thorough review of and accepts professional responsibility for that map, geoscientific cross-section, specification, report, other document or reproduction. A-2.2 How the stamp and permit number are to be used The Act also addresses how the stamp and the permit number are to be used. 78(1) A professional member, licensee or restricted practitioner shall, in accordance with the regulations, (a) sign documents or records, and (b) stamp or seal documents or records. (2) A permit holder shall affix its permit number on documents or records in accordance with the regulations. 86.2(1) Sections 78 apply to a professional licensee as if the professional licensee were a professional member. Stamp From the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulation: 54(1) A stamp or seal issued to a professional member or licensee must at all times remain under that person's direct control and must be applied by the professional member or licensee, or by a person acting under the professional member's or licensee's immediate and direct control, to all final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature (a) that were prepared by the professional member or licensee or under the professional member's or licensee's supervision and control, or (b) that were prepared by another person in circumstances where the professional member or licensee has thoroughly reviewed them and accepted professional responsibility for them. (2) No person shall permit a stamp or seal to be physically located in a manner that would allow its use by a person other than the professional member or licensee to whom it was issued. (3) When a stamp or seal is applied, the professional member or licensee to whom it was issued shall ensure that the stamp or seal is accompanied with that person's signature and the date on which the stamp or seal is applied. 65 of 97 21

141 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 (4) A stamp or seal may be applied to the cover page or final page of reports or documents in a manner which clearly indicates acceptance of professional responsibility for the reports or documents, without being applied to each page. (5) A professional member or licensee shall not acquire a stamp or seal from any source other than the Registrar. (6) A professional member or licensee shall only use a stamp or seal while that person is registered pursuant to this Regulation. (7) Stamps and seals are the property of the Association and a person in possession of a stamp or seal shall surrender it to the Association on demand. (8) A professional member or licensee may, with the approval of the Registrar, apply a computer generated facsimile of the stamp or seal if that person otherwise meets the requirements of the Act and this Regulation. 66 of 97 22

142 APEGA January 2013 Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents v3.1 Permit Number From the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulation: 49 When the practice of engineering or geoscience is carried on by a partnership, corporation or other entity pursuant to a permit under section 48, all final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature must (a) be signed by, and stamped or sealed with the stamp or seal of and (i) (ii) the professional member or licensee who prepared them or under whose supervision and control they were prepared, or in the case of plans, specifications, reports or documents that were prepared by other persons, the professional member or licensee who thoroughly reviewed and accepted professional responsibility for them, (b) show the permit number issued to the partnership, corporation or other entity under section 48. A-2.3 Surrender of the stamp The by-laws of the Association outline the circumstances requiring return of the stamp to APEGA. 35 Professional members, licensees, permit holders, certificate holders, and registered professional technologists shall surrender to the Registrar, forthwith upon development of any of the following eventualities, any seals, stamps and certificates that have been issued to them: (a) temporary withdrawal of the professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder, or registered professional technologist from practice of the profession for a period estimated to exceed 1 year; (b) resignation of the professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder, or registered professional technologist from the Association; (c) the suspension or cancellation of the professional membership, license, permit or certificate. 67 of 97 23

143 City of Calgary Anticipated Population and Jobs for years: 2028, 2038, 2048,2076 for Omni area from Forecasting Toolbox : Toolbox.aspx?master=old OMNI ASP LANDS shown in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & City of Calgary Anticipated Jobs OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97

144 City of Calgary Anticipated Jobs OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97

145 City of Calgary Anticipated Jobs OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97

146 City of Calgary Anticipated Jobs OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97

147 City of Calgary Anticipated Population OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97

148 City of Calgary Anticipated Population OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ 2152] 73 of 97

149 City of Calgary Anticipated Population OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97

150 City of Calgary Anticipated Population OMNI ASP LANDS in Transportation Zones (TZ): TZ 2151 & TZ of 97