Underwhelming is how one Calgary city councillor describes an auditor’s report into public engagement on Local Area Plans, saying it didn’t dig deep enough into resident issues with the process.

The Local Area Planning (LAP) engagement process audit was presented to Calgary’s audit committee on June 5. It concluded that engagement processes were generally effective in design and operation, supporting ongoing engagement efforts for recent LAP projects.

LAPs are the planning document that guides future development in separate community conglomerations. Seven LAPs have been completed over the past several years, with more in the queue.

While the process has evolved substantially since the first highly contentious LAP was first discussed with the community and subsequently delivered, it’s still controversial among many communities.

Often, public engagement – or lack thereof – is cited as a friction point in the LAP exercise. As a part of that, residents have expressed frustration that their concerns about such issues as density in certain areas, heritage preservation, traffic, contextual fit, building heights, and parking are seldom heard and reflected in the final product.

The goal of the audit was to assess the efficacy of the LAP engagement process. The audit found that the process was largely effective in design and operation to support ongoing engagement on LAPs.  

“Program level processes were generally designed and implemented to mitigate risks that could negatively impact the effectiveness of the engagement,” their report read.

“Internal processes were aligned to relevant criteria/professional accepted good practice.”

The report read that the LAP process is structured into phases, with public engagement at each step. Feedback is sought and then incorporated into decision-making, and then communicated back to the public through What We Heard reports.  Recent LAPs have visually depicted the different iterations of the documents after the public engagement.

The audit report also said that lessons learned meetings are held after each LAP project phase to help foster continuous improvement.

The audit did highlight four recommendations, including the implementation of key performance indicators to evaluate engagement success. They also suggested improvements in the engagement feedback documentation process, including the use of automated transcription, rather than manual (accuracy).  Standardizing event risk management and completion of engagement assessment is also suggested.

Overhaul needed: Coun. Sonya Sharp

Ward 1 Coun. Sonya Sharp, who has been vocal about the need for change in the planning public engagement process, said she was “underwhelmed” with the report, saying the auditors didn’t ask the right questions.

“I also feel like there were two things that it did highlight. First of all, the city doesn’t actually follow its own engagement process, and second is that citizens feel that it’s a check box exercise,” she said.

Sharp said that Calgarians are talking about the lack of engagement. She cited that 70 per cent of people who participated in the citywide rezoning debate were opposed, yet city council went forward with it anyway.

“They feel like they don’t get heard, and that’s what this report actually solidified for me,” Sharp said.

There’s been considerable debate about how public engagement information is synthesized, beyond what’s heard at a public hearing. The audit report points out that the engagement process has been refined to reach typically under-represented groups in communities to improve the diversity in responses.

The contention is often that the loudest voices are portrayed as the majority, though it may not necessarily reflect the opinion of an entire Calgary community.  Further, city councillors have often said there’s a balance that must be struck between the city’s development goals and those of residents.

Ward 7 Coun. Terry Wong said that earlier this spring, when the Riley LAP was approved, residents immediately expressed concerns that the public engagement was a performative function.

“There’s a lot more that needs to be done… getting on the objectives of where the city wants to go, and truly understand this is about a collaborative consultation, as opposed to informative engagement,” he said.

Calgary city council approved $775,000 for a third-party review of public engagement processes. It was initially put forward by Couns. Sharp, Wong and Ward 10’s Andre Chabot back in October 2024.

Clearer communication a priority: city admin

Teresa Goldstein, director of community planning with the City of Calgary, said that through the audit, what’s become crystal clear to their unit is to make sure that they use plain language when working with residents on LAPs. Particularly when it comes time to submit feedback.

“One of the process improvements that we are continually looking for is how to make sure that that is crystal clear from the beginning,” she said.

“What we’ve begun to start doing is we will actually outline exactly that expectation in all forms of communication that is presented at a public open house. As an example, to say this is a time when we’re gathering your feedback, and then this, as an example, when we go back out to provide the draft, is a time when we’re asking you to comment.”

Ward 12 Coun. Evan Spencer said that he found the report encouraging and that the work the city is doing on engagement is meeting expectations.

“It does seem to strike me that it’s the expectation that lives in the community, and then also the practical realities that exist for planners to try and navigate through that expectation, in a very real sense, with the people that you’ve asked a partner, and then those watching the process as community members,” he said.

Spencer added that he appreciated the recommendation regarding the safety of all participants, including city staff, at engagement events that could involve difficult conversations.

Goldstein said the city prepares staff well for having difficult and emotionally-charged conversations.

“When they’re doing that, the rules of that type of engagement are are well spelled out when you come in,” she said.

“If it’s a physical location that we’re hosting, or if it’s online, the same so be that this is the expectations of behaviours in the room, both sides, like City of Calgary and with the public, and where that takes a left turn. We do have processes, and we are just going to continue to make those processes better.”