Media release: CityHallWatch writes Premier protesting Vancouver’s lack of meaningful consultation on Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan

(Vancouver, June 11, 2013) Today CityHallWatch sent the following letter to Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, and Honourable Coralee Oakes, Min. Community, Sport, Cultural Development, protesting the City of Vancouver’s lack of meaningful consultation on Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan (Public Hearing June 11). Copies went to the heads of Metro Vancouver (GVRD) and to all mayors and councillors in the region. [Update as of 18-June-2013. The Premier has NOT acknowledged receipt of the letter. Reminders will be sent. See separate report of outcomes of the meeting on CityHallWatch. The Vision/NPA “developer axis” ignored public opposition and voted to adopt the RCS-ODP. Only Greens listened to public and voted against.]

Main points:

• The City of Vancouver has failed to conduct meaningful public consultation in its preparation to adopt a Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan (RCS-ODP), which goes to Public Hearing on June 11, 2013. A detailed list of examples is provided.
• CityHallWatch urges the Province to carefully monitor the situation, and to encourage the City to engage in meaningful consultation. 

Copy of letter:

Honourable Premier Clark and Minister Oakes:

As this matter ultimately falls under Provincial jurisdiction, we ask that you take note of our concerns indicated here. The City of Vancouver has failed to conduct meaningful public consultation in its preparation to adopt a Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan (RCS-ODP) at or soon after a June 11 Public Hearing. The RCS-ODP is an important land-use planning document with a time-frame of about thirty years, under the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136.

The April 16 staff report (page 8) to Vancouver City Council about the RCS-ODP states:

All plans and policies referenced in the Draft Regional Context Statement have been previously adopted by Council as part of other planning programs, which involved extensive public consultation. As a result, no additional public input was sought in preparing this Draft Regional Context Statement.

While the City may claim to be acting in accordance with statutory requirements of the Province in the processes leading up to adoption of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and the City’s RCS, we challenge the claim that the processes have involved “extensive public consultation” at critical stages and on critical components. Also, while the City claims to be complying with the letter of the law, many could challenge the City on its respect for the spirit or intent of legislation calling for public consultation.

The appendix lists several important new aspects of the RCS that have not involved meaningful public consultation.

In closing, we encourage the Province to – at the very least – carefully monitor the processes taken by the City of Vancouver relating to the Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan. (Many citizens are asking that the City reject the RCS – ODP at this point and refer the document back for meaningful public consultation.) Beyond that, we hope that you will use moral suasion to encourage the City to engage in meaningful consultation, particularly relating to land-use policies and decision-making, prior to adopting such important policies and plans. We would be happy to present greater detail on any of the statements in this letter.

Respectfully,
CityHallWatch.ca

cc. Mayor and Council, City of Vancouver
cc. Mayors and Councillors of Metro Vancouver municipalities (copied so that they can be informed of this background when the City of Vancouver RCS comes to the Metro Board for acceptance)
cc. Metro Vancouver Board Chair and Chief Administrative Officer

CityHallWatch.ca

 “Protesting the City of Vancouver’s lack of meaningful consultation on Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan (Public Hearing June 11)” (Letter to Premier Christy Clark, 10 June 2013)

APPENDIX – EXAMPLES OF INADEQUATE OR NON-EXISTENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The City states that “no additional public input was sought” on the Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan before referring it to Public Hearing on June 11, claiming it is based on existing policy that “involved extensive public consultation.” The City’s statements are not an accurate portrayal of the facts. In addition, the sole Open House, held on May 16, was only held after the draft RCS text was finalized. It was insufficiently advertised, its significance was not adequately explained to the public, and it was sparsely attended. Also, due to the City’s failure to communicate to the media and the public, media coverage of the Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan and Public Hearing has been virtually non-existent.

Here are selected examples of policies and content where public consultation has been inadequate or non-existent:

1. “Interim Rezoning Policy” (affecting zoning on all arterial streets) and Transportation 2040 (a transportation plan now being applied as a land-use plan): Policies and plans were approved without adequate public input and the public had only a few business days to review them before they went to Council for approval in the autumn of 2012.
2. New regional designations: The regional designation of certain areas in the RCS comes with provisions for Metro Vancouver, TransLink and the Province to have increased influence in land use authority. This shift in authority is a significant shift from previous regional plans. The RCS is a document by which the City defines what areas are open to more regional influence on land use authority, and should therefore involve extensive public involvement. Here are examples where there was no meaningful public process prior to referral to Public Hearing.
   • Metro Core: The downtown core of Vancouver was previously designated as a Metro Core in the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), but only as a square symbol on a map, and only approximately indicating location. In the RCS, it is demarcated by a precise, lot-by-lot, line that covers a much broader area, much larger than under the Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), which the RGS replaced. In the LRSP, the Metro Core only covered the downtown peninsula, east to Main Street, plus the False Creek Area to Burrard Street. In the draft RCS, the “Metro Core” has been expanded to cover the entire downtown peninsula (including the West End, Coal Harbour, Central Business District, Yaletown), Downtown Eastside, Strathcona, Fairview, and Mount Pleasant — east to Clark/Knight Street, north to Burrard Inlet, south to 16th Avenue, and west to Burrard Street. The full implications of this designation have not been explained publicly.
   • Oakridge Town Centre: The precise, lot-by-lot, designation of this as an area of regional importance is new and has not been adequately discussed with the public.
   • Cambie Street: The formal designation of Cambie Street in the RCS as a Frequent Transit Development Area (FTDA) has new implications for jurisdiction involving Metro Vancouver and the Province.
   • Broadway Corridor: The tentative designation as a future FTDA from Boundary Road to Blanca Street has implications that prematurely assume outcomes prior to public process.
3. Population projections: In the RCS, Vancouver is proposing to increase the city’s share of regional growth in population, housing units, and jobs. However, the City has failed to publicly provide any detailed analysis or data to justify the need for an increase beyond what Metro Vancouver has projected in the RGS.
4. Existing zoned capacity: This measure was used as a transparent indicator in previous Regional Context Statements to demonstrate what increased development was required to meet growth projections. The City has still failed to provide this vital data to the public as a basis for the RCS.
5. Unaccountable nature of TransLink: Under the RGS, TransLink is recognized as an “affected local government,” even though it is not directly accountable to the public. The role given to TransLink in the approval of Regional Context Statements gives TransLink tremendous influence in land use planning, especially in any regionally-designated areas close to transit. Therefore, any regional land use overlay of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas should have substantial public input before these regional designations are approved. The public has not been given such an opportunity. TransLink should not be given any substantial role in land use planning. It should be made more accountable to the public and more transparent, with jurisdiction limited to transportation planning, not land use.
6. Impacts on community planning: Four Vancouver neighbourhoods (Grandview-Woodland, Marpole, West End, Downtown Eastside) are currently undergoing long-term community planning processes, expected to guide development for the next 30 years, but the plans are not expected to be completed until the autumn of 2013. The neighbourhoods are concerned about the impact of approving the RCS ahead of their community plans and how the RCS will impact the creation and implementation of the community plans, as well as how broader regional objectives might over-ride the interests of each community. None of this has been adequately discussed publicly yet. There is no demonstrated community support for the RCS as proposed..

Reference:

• “Vancouver Development Plan Lacks Public Input” (Elizabeth Murphy, in the Vancouver Sun, May 24, 2013)
  http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2035/Vancouver+development+plan+lacks+public+input/8432633/story.html
• CityHallWatch carries many articles on these topics and issues.