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. * * * * *