Appendix A

Street Amenity Program

Public Process - Summary

Streets Administration Branch

City of Vancouver
Engineering Services

July 2001

Table of Contents

1.0 Background 1
2.0 Goals of the Public process 1

3.0 Public Process Methods 1
4.0 Learnings from the Public Process 2

5.0 Consultants recommendations 3

1.0 Background

The project team hired Context Research Ltd., in July 2000 to provide advice in the design and implementation of the public consultation process. This company has extensive experience in conducting such processes, and has been a major contributor in the development of the City's Public Process Guide. The public consultation process, involving focus groups, interviews with community stakeholder groups, public events and design criteria workshops, has now been completed. A report on this process has been submitted (limited distribution, on file in the office of the City Clerk). The following sections summarize the contents of this report:

2.0 Goals of the Public Process

The goals of the public consultation process were to:

a) Identify all issues and concerns which the public might have with regard to the proposal.
b) Adjust the proposal to accommodate as many of the concerns as possible.
c) Gauge overall levels of support or opposition for the proposal.

3.0 Public Process Methods

In order to achieve the three goals of the public consultation process, the project team embarked on a process which included:

a) Focus groups. Three focus groups were conducted by Marktrend Research (a market research consultancy). One focus group consisted of small business owners/managers, while the other two consisted of residents from the west and east sides of Vancouver. The primary goal of the focus groups was to identify the issues which concerned and interested members of the general public. Each focus group consisted of eight participants, so a total of 24 Vancouver residents and businesspeople were involved in this step.

b) Interviews with community stakeholder groups. Letters were sent to about 100 community groups including BIA's and Community Associations and major arts organizations. Follow-up meetings were arranged with 23 of the groups. The goal of these meetings was to solicit suggested changes to the proposal and to gauge the level of support or opposition to the proposal among organized groups.

c) Public events - first round. Two community forums were held, one at the Killarney Community Centre, and the other at the Croatian Cultural Centre. The goal of these forums was to offer individuals the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Attendance at these forums was very low, with fewer than ten attendees at both forums.

d) Public solicitation of input. An advertisement was run in local newspapers, listing the first round of public events and inviting attendance. It also provided alternative ways to find out about the proposal (e.g. the City's website) and to provide input.

e) Public events - second round. Three day-long events were organized at kiosks in local shopping malls. The goal was to attempt to talk to members of the general public who may not have heard about the proposal before, to identify issues and to gauge general levels of support or opposition. About 300 members of the public were interviewed through these events.

f) Design Criteria Workshops. Four focus groups were organized to develop suggestions for design guidelines. Each group was asked to comment on desirable and undesirable design themes, motifs, materials and ideas to determine whether there was any consensus on what was acceptable to people in Vancouver. About 30 members of the public were involved in these workshops.

4.0 Learnings From the Public Process

The Context Research Ltd. report provides a list of themes which were expressed repeatedly during the process:

a) A significant majority of the public supports the proposed coordinated street furniture and amenity program and also support the use of increased advertising on bus shelters to pay for it.

b) There was almost universal support for the idea of eliminating advertising on transit benches.

c) If neighbourhoods wish to take, or have already taken the initiative to address street furniture in their area, they should be able to opt out of this recommended program.

d) There needs to be a significant amount of variability in the design themes so that each neighbourhood can become and/or remain distinctive in its streetscapes.

e) The arts participants underlined the value of the free advertising program for reaching the public and the importance of maintaining this benefit in future agreements.

f) There was very strong support for multiple publication newsracks. It appears that the need for reducing the clutter created by newsboxes is high.

g) There is relatively little support for the proposed attended kiosks.

h) There is great interest in, but mixed feelings about, the proposed automated public toilets. There is much concern about the potential for inappropriate activities inside them, and for the potential for vandalism.

5.0 Consultants recommendations

The following recommendations were developed by the public process consultant in response to the information which was learned through the various events in the public process:

a) The City should negotiate with the successful contractor to provide the maximum number of options for the design of the street furniture and amenities. Although it will not be reasonable to develop a customized design for each neighbourhood in Vancouver, and almost all who had input understood and accepted this reality, there should be maximum choice in design and colour from which each neighbourhood might choose in the implementation phase of the project. At least four or five different design themes should be available.

b) The City should ensure a process whereby a neighbourhood can opt out of the program. If and when it opts out, it would then proceed independently to provide and pay for its own level of street furniture and amenities. Where it is clear that the neighbourhood wishes to opt out, it must then decide if it wishes to also opt out of advertising on bus shelters. If it decides to allow for theadvertising (the revenue side of the program), but not the private sector provided street furniture and amenities (the cost side of the program), then it should be granted an appropriate portion of the revenue to finance its own program. This will achieve the goal of the program that refers to equity across the city. If there is an option to opt out of the program, there should be guidelines which govern that option. These will include a willingness of some local agency (e.g. a BIA) to assume the responsibility for the neighbourhood street furniture and amenity program. Once that has been verified, the guidelines should call for a clear, complete and equitable process for opting out (e.g. a neighbourhood survey on both questions above). All of this should be part of the implementation phase of the program.

c) The City should consider negotiating with the private contractor for some continued level of public service type advertising on bus shelters. This may satisfy to some degree any concern about increased public advertising by acting as a mitigating measure.

d) As part of the option to opt out of the program, there should be the potential for a BIA to continue to contract with the City to manufacture, install and maintain street furniture on a "market-based decision" basis (as the Kerrisdale BIA has done in the past).

e) There should be public involvement in the implementation of the program.

f) The attended kiosk elements originally proposed in the draft program should be deleted from the proposal call. While they could be added in the future, there is insufficient support for them at present.

g) A very few public toilets should be considered in the initial proposal call, and they should be considered only in the highest need areas, where there is a maximum amount of pedestrian activity in the area and where there is sufficient room on the sidewalk to properly accommodate them.

h) To complete the public consultation process, copies of this report and the summary of the staff report that goes to Council should be made available to all groups interviewed during the process. Also, a letter outlining Council's decision on this matter should be sent to the same groups after Council has dealt with the issue. This type of follow up will ensure that those involved understand how their input has been used and what the result of their input has been.

Current contacts :

Rowan Birch Streets Administration Branch 873-7292
Reno Viswasam Streets Administration Branch 873-7885

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver