Cycling Infrastructure, Non-Basement Suite Basement Suites and the Free Market all in one Coquitlam Council Meeting
This week we had our first Council meeting with our newly elected council. It was impressively efficient. Questions were asked by Council and answered by staff, most items passed unanimously – nothing particularly contentious.
Two items did stand out for me. The first was a proposal for a development variance permit to build a house on a piece of property in the northeast that is precariously close (I think) to a salmon bearing stream. When I first read the staff report I was not too comfortable with the proposal and had placed a big fat question mark on the report – my shorthand for ‘undecided’. When some of my colleagues started to ask questions about the zoning for the property we were repeatedly informed that this zone did not permit a secondary suite. One of my Council colleagues noted that there was a kitchen in the drawings for the basement which caught my attention. I then began to scrutinize the drawings even further and noted that there was a parking allocation next to the house that was labelled ‘Suite Parking’ – aha!
I was disappointed that a developer/builder would try to ‘slip’ this by us. Unfortunately this proposal was referred back to staff - I was prepared to reject the entire proposal – my big fat question mark turned into a big fat “X”.
The second issue was the staff recommendation to ask developers to include bicycle parking with commercial developments and designated bike storage in multi-family residential buildings. For me, this recommendation reflects our commitment to increase the number of cycling trips made in our city. We have been working on an updated Transportation Plan and there is a strong commitment to increase the mode share for cycling trips in the city (which will free up road space for goods movement and those unable to cycle – a good thing for motorists and consumers). The question asked at Council is whether or not we should permit market forces to dictate these changes.
Interesting question. I do think that if we build and facilitate structures that can help people get out of their cars, then we all benefit. When we develop a transportation plan looking to shift how we travel, then we need to have some ideas on how to facilitate this shift. We have so many multi-family dwellings being built in Coquitlam right now and retrofitting is so expensive. Why would we wait when we know that change is a comin’? We also know that the market response is a delayed response. My preference is to support and encourage some of these changes so that we are ahead of the curve rather than behind it. What do you think?
And…what if Council permitted the market to do its thing and that development permit application I mentioned earlier in my post…the one to have two units of housing (the one where the builders pretended that there was no basement suite planned) located right by that fish-bearing stream? hmmmm….not sure I trust the market on this one.
[...] Glad to have another Coquitlam councillor regularly blogging, and not just to “social media up” for an election run. Terry O’Neill this week writes about his opposition to compelling new residential buildings in Coquitlam to provide bike storage. The rebuttal comes from our long time blogging councillor Selina Robinson. [...]
Tri-Cities Christmas Fun and Bikes in Coquitlam
December 15, 2011
I hope that what follows doesn’t come off as a finger-wagging platitude, but rather reaffirms your commitment to good political leadership that will contribute to the common good.
“Letting the market decide” is what politicians should NOT do. The market is driven by individuals whose only goal is to profit financially. I think that it is an indisputable fact that this laissez-faire policy has got our world into a whole lot of trouble. The only way that the market will move us toward a more environmentally sustainable healthy world, is if there is a profit incentive to do so. For example, I doubt if construction companies would bother with seismic standards if they weren’t mandated by policy. I believe that green standards are every bit as critical to our well-being. Holding the market accountable to people’s general well-being in a beneficial way is exactly what we need strong political leadership for. You provide the incentive, either through (in the case of green construction) building codes or tax policy.
As for the bicycle issue: I recently parked my bike at a colleague’s Coquitlam high-rise so we could car-commute to work together. Mine was the only bike on the rack. I don’t see a need to mandate already-established developments to build bicycle parking, but I do see value in writing a building code that requires it in new development. At the construction stage, the cost of providing secure, sheltered bike parking would be relatively low, and easily absorbed by the buyers.
Now. About bike lanes…
Jim Watson (@CaptainSuburb)
December 30, 2011
I agree with you Jim about the market – being driven by profitability, the market is not necessarily interested in doing what is in the best interest of the community especially as we think out into the future. The market is very short-sighted so we need to make sure that we are bringing a future oriented lens when we make decisions.
Glad to hear that your friend’s highrise has a bike rack….not all high-rises do and the intention of the changes is not to retrofit, but to ensure that any future buildings accomodate this growing mode of transportation.
And as far as those bike lanes…. I would like to believe that Coquitlam Council does see this as a priority. We have supported the draft Strategic Transportation Plan that is seeking to increase the mode share of cycling trips made in our city – once we adopt the final version I would expect to see some shift in how our transportation dollars are allocated to support the necessary infrastructure. Stay tuned. (and Happy New Year).
selinarobinson
December 30, 2011