SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
VTC AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: September 11, 1996
File No. 3501-1
TO: Vancouver Traffic Commission
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Public Involvement Process
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the communication guidelines attached as Appendix A be
followed for public input for future neighbourhood traffic
projects.
COUNCIL POLICY
All street improvement projects require posting an advance notice sign,
discussion with affected residents, and submission of a design report
prior to project approval.
Projects that alter circulation in neighbourhoods are to be installed on
a temporary basis for 6 months, with follow-up survey.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present communication guidelines for
Commission's review and approval, to ensure that future processes
provide ample opportunity for public discussion.
BACKGROUND
Vancouver residents have indicated a strong and growing desire to become
involved in transportation projects. At one time, residents were
uninvolved in such discussions; the degree of involvement has progressed
through information and consultation, to full participation. Processes
such as City Plan and the Transportation Plan provide opportunities for
citizen involvement at a city-wide level. To deal with more localized
projects, the City has adopted elements like advance notice signs, open
houses, and public surveys. However, there is no clear indication of
when and how such measures should be applied.
Furthermore, in some cases, efforts by staff to accelerate a project to
completion have resulted in a process that allowed too little time for
full public discussion, or involved too small a group of residents. The
public's desire to become involved varies greatly from project to
project; while it is difficult to anticipate the degree of involvement
at the start, the process must allow sufficient opportunity for
discussion to take place.
DISCUSSION
In order to define a public process that provides information to
residents and allows sufficient time for discussion, I have prepared an
outline of the steps and timetable that should be included in future
processes. This outline is attached as Appendix A. The essentials of
the proposal are as follows:
- for larger projects, notices would be distributed over a broad
area, after notifying both the Commission and neighbourhood
representatives;
- 6 weeks should be allowed for discussion and feedback, in case
additional meetings or revised proposals are needed. This would
allow for a public meeting of the Commission, if necessary;
- residents would be notified of the process to be followed, and
would be offered a copy of the Commission report when it is
prepared;
- other opportunities to notify affected residents, such as newspaper
advertisements or school newsletters, may also be pursued; and
- for smaller projects, the notification area should be large enough
to reach everyone affected. Because of the opportunity to meet and
resolve issues in smaller groups, the process may be less formal.
Approval of these guidelines will provide clear rules for future
processes to follow. They should provide ample time and opportunity for
informed discussion to take place. One consequence of this is that
processes may take longer to resolve, and the wait to begin addressing
newly identified issues may be greater. However, this wait will be
worthwhile if the result is a more productive discussion and more
complete resolution. The guidelines also provide considerable
flexibility to respond to the varying needs of individual
neighbourhoods.
The proposed guidelines for public participation processes are submitted
for the Commission's discussion and approval.
* * * * *