Q&A: Mission's mayor says simpler bike path has proven more popular

Mission has learned from the backlash to its controversial 7th Avenue Greenway—and the lack of similar opposition to a second multi-use path to the north.

The city’s 7th Avenue Greenway, with its delineated bike lanes and proliferation of signs and curbs, triggered a wave of criticism from residents—and some members of council—after it was built. In contrast, another path built to the north along 14th Avenue that featured fewer formal obstructions and more-closely resembled a very wide sidewalk was more positively received.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Current to mark the halfway point of his term, Mission Mayor Paul Horn talked about the lessons learned from the construction of the two paths. We also asked him about development on the city’s waterfront, housing policies and fees, and the state of Mission’s hospital.

This is part of a series of mid-term interviews with the mayors of Fraser Valley communities. You can read the others here: Popove (Chilliwack) | Smith (Hope); interviews with the mayors of the valley’s other municipalities will be published later this fall.

Planning and strategies

FVC: It’s two years since the last election and two years to the next one. What would you say some of the achievements of your council have been over the last two years?

Horn: Well, in terms of completed projects and so forth, I think what we have managed to do is sort of create a number of different opportunities for people to get back out into the community through events like the Shine Bright; [we] restored the Canada Day event and our candlelight parade, and tried to make sure that we had a way for people to get back and connect with their community, coming out of COVID.

And then [there are] a number of improvements that you'll start to see in the community, and they'll continue over the next two years around particularly transportation or active transportation. So obviously, the multi-use paths on 7th and 14th [avenues], and the improvements in Centennial Park, the creation of a space in Centennial Park for our farmers market, and improvements at the Clark Theater are really huge things.

And then a few other things that have come home after many years, more than a decade of working: the We Paddle Together agreement, and the work we're doing with Leq'á:mel, Matsqui and Semá:th on not only the Heritage Park, but on two parcels of land that they're going to be developing on Lougheed Highway near the park itself, as well as the UFV project has been more than 10 years in the making—getting that newly revised School of Education at the UFV campus here is a huge thing.

The Community Wellness Strategy is a major undertaking for us. The Employment Land Strategy—just a ton of policy stuff that we needed to do. And here we were last year, sort of ahead of the game with the new DCCs and the community amenity contributions, then the very next year, the province asked us to do that again. But we have brought in a ton of new housing policies and housing incentivization programs, expediting building programs, building permits, expediting the planning process, expediting the neighborhood engagement process. The list is long, and there's still lots left to do.

The greenways

FVC: You mentioned the greenways on 75h and 14th Avenues. What has been learned from the reaction to the Seventh Avenue Greenway and how it was built and rolled out?

Horn: It's night and day, really, to take a look at what the design—how it resulted in community feedback on 14th. [It was] a much better design that I think everybody on council approves of as well. So I think you'll see any future multi-use paths be built more like the design on 14th Avenue—essentially the aesthetic of having something that's an extension of the current sidewalk, as opposed to the partitioned-off approach that was more conventional. So that's really what the lesson has been learned: as we're building those into the future, to incorporate that more popular design.

FVC: That's interesting because the 14th one, and I haven't been up there, but I've seen the photos, seems scaled back. It's like an older, more functional, but less-pretty—or less-engineered—design.

Horn: I'd say it's actually the opposite. When we approved the greenway, unfortunately for us, we hadn't yet completed the 14th Avenue Project. It was underway, and the visuals that we had did not really give us a great example of how it would actually look on Seventh Avenue. But as a result of that project, we really now can see it's just a lot more functional. Council has themselves gone out and actually used that Greenway as part of Bike-to-Work Week—both the Greenway and the 14th Avenue multi-use path—and [the 14th Avenue path] is just more enjoyable from my perspective, because you're not as closed-in when you're on it. If you're on the sidewalk, you're on the blacktop either way. If a delivery vehicle or something has to roll out of the way of traffic, they can do that. I like the planters and the partitioning off that we get on 7th but I don't like the fact that it's a bunch of little islands and it's a lot harder for people when they are getting in and out of driveways and so forth.

So I think the community has spoken loudly and said we prefer the design that we have on 14th Avenue. But both were options, and we now know which one proves out better for us.

FVC: That's why I meant in terms of the 14th one seemed to have fewer engineering pieces here and there. It was an echo to kind of how you might imagine [a path being built] a couple decades ago, but it seems like it's shown—and maybe I'm off base—the benefits that can come from doing less rather than more sometimes.

Horn: I agree with that. I would also say that the thing about the design on 14th is it has added functionality, and it's removed some of the impression that there's a loss of functionality, even though the parking is changed there, the bump outs that they have, have the same impact on reducing speeds and making the area more pedestrian friendly, but it does so in a way that is less-intrusive, more-aesthetically pleasing for people.

Neighbourhood planning

FVC: You’re doing an OCP update. There’s a lot going on there—I was just watching the video and it seems like you want to get that done by early next year, which seems a pretty ambitious timeline for the scale of that—

Horn: “No, it’s actually been in the works since the early part of this year. So it'll end up being, I think, 13 months of work. So for the scale of what we were talking about doing for the OCP, [that] is what we would normally expect. It's not a 10 year-review, it's a five-year.

But what I think people may be more interested in is the next steps, which is some neighborhood planning and some rural strategizing. So those won't be finished by next February. They'll be undertaken before we get there, but those are the next steps. So there really are three different next chunks that we're doing. You’re probably already aware of them, but I'll say them just for edification.

The first is that Lougheed corridor, where we're seeing a whole bunch of demand for mixes of uses between residential and commercial—so all the way from Nelson [Street] and Lougheed and all the way out to where Dewdney Trunk meets the Lougheed will be the first one. The second is the area around the hospital, largely from Wren Street, east to about a block east of Hurd and south of 7th. So where that hospital area is [will] be a healthcare-oriented neighborhood. And then third, we've said, not a neighborhood plan but a rural planning strategy is needed for all of our rural areas. Sometimes folks refer to them as our north areas, but they're not really entirely to our north. They include places to our west, such as Ruskin and Silver Hill and Keystone.

And really the idea there is not so much what we would technically refer to as a neighborhood plan, but a policy document that really guides the future and protects that rural choice for people in the future. So none of those things will be finished by February of next year, but we're just about to enter phase three of the OCP process, and that's been going on since January. So it'll be a little bit more than a year by the time we're finished with it.

FVC: So when it comes to land use planning, will there be holes or carve-outs within that OCP where you're saying, ‘Okay, we've shaped the larger OCP, now this is going to have to wait, and we're just going to focus on this little area?

Horn: Yeah, I think that's a good metaphor. It's more of a focus on those sections. So what I anticipate is, in the OCP, it will make reference to those other documents, and it'll say, essentially, if you are doing planning in these areas, you must comply with these documents that are referred to once they're completed. This particular OCP amendment, because it's a five-year [review], doesn't redraw all of our maps. That'll happen in the next one, but this, I anticipate, will utilize a map to say, along these areas, if you're developing in these areas, refer to these other documents.

FVC: Right, Abbotsford kind of did a similar thing with theirs, so I'm kind of familiar with that process, but that was a much larger 25-year plan versus an update.

The waterfront

Speaking of the plans, you guys adopted the waterfront plan a couple years ago now, but there hasn't been a ton of development—unless I'm wrong—in that area. When do you think things will change? Or do you already see them changing?

Horn: Thank you for reminding me. It's another thing that we managed to do in the last two years that I forgot to include in that long list.

I think people don't understand what the waterfront revitalization strategy will result in. I think that it's really important for people to understand that strategy. If you got into it, it never said that we would immediately purchase or begin developing land. It's a guideline or a set of strategies, including the data and evidence, for the private marketplace to work in cohesion with the municipal government and other governments, including First Nations and the province.

So you're right, there hasn't been a tremendous amount of building there. I would not have expected that there would be a tremendous amount of building there in the window that we've had. But what we have done, and there's two things in particular—three actually.

The first is that we began working on Mission Bridgehead, and having that development corporation really is one of the critical pieces for us in terms of how we are going to engage in those partnerships I just described. So that organization has been incorporated. We have now got our board of directors, and we're very imminently going to be hiring our first CEO. So that will be a big difference-maker in terms of that acceleration

The second one that's really important is the conversations we're having with the province, and no ministry has been more helpful to us than the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Down there [at the waterfront], we have to work with the Ministry of Forests with flood issues—we'll get to that in a moment— [and the ministries of ] Transportation, Indigenous Reconciliation, [and Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation].

There's a number of these different ministries, and the challenge that we've had is that it was nearly impossible to muster all of them in the room. But luckily for us, outgoing Minister [Rob] Fleming has been a real good listener on this one. He's helped us to have not only some coordination around transit-oriented and transportation-oriented planning down there, but to bring in other ministries.

So a lady by the name of Katherine Wickert has been helping us around this. So one of the biggest things is the South Mission Transportation Study. We really ended up getting an acceleration from them on something that has been going back 51 years. And that is: what is the intention around the movement of traffic around the Mission Bridge?

It was never meant to go over that Murray Glasgow overpass. It was meant to come up on the east towards where St Mary's’ entrance is. And so that is back on the table with the South Mission Transportation Study—and the idea of rerouting trucks on the and traffic on the west side as well. So that we're looking all the way down as far as Oliver [Street] with their help, and they began because of that, this year to improve a number of things.

So that's why we have the trucks being rerouted out of our downtown and the improvements being made at Murray and Highway 7, and at the same time [the junction at] Cedar, Highway 7, and Highway 11 is going through improvements. So those are subtle things that people might not necessarily perceive.

But we are in the midst of discussions with them about partnering on lands towards our TOA, because the whole thing is dependent on transit-oriented development. The whole thing requires us to centre multimodal transportation in proximity to the West Coast Express. So it's not going to be SkyTrain, but I anticipate it will be improved multi-high-occupancy vehicle lanes, dedicated rapid busses, and that sort of thing done there. That's all what's being incorporated right now. And unfortunately, because of interregnum [the pausing of normal government operations during an election campaign] I don't think we'll get to see the published study before the election is all completed, but we're that close.

And then the other thing that a lot of folks won't be aware of is we're also working with the Ministry of Forests on dike design. So with the province's help, we're planning for the Eastern Dike. What most people don't realize is that, essentially, east of Horn Street, the dike is not up the standard. That's why we have to erect a tiger dam whenever there's a threat of rising water. So we're improving the Lane Creek pump station with their help, as well as working on improving that dike. And that is a significant predicate to the development down there, because all development will need to be on the north side of a newly constructed dike to make sure it's safe there. So those are three things that I think are particularly the product of that Bridgehead, the southwest Mission transportation work that we're doing, and the dike design are all going on. And there may not be in the public view, but there's a lot of activity happening down there.

West Coast Express and transit

FVC: That’s a lot to get around to. You mentioned the West Coast Express. How worried are you—or are you worried—about all the talk around TransLink and the back and forth between the mayors and the province about the lack of funds for transit, and the fact that they have suggested that West Coast Express service could be affected?

Horn: Not particularly concerned at this time. I just looked at the calendar and realized that we were a few months before an election when that information was produced. And I also looked—if you pay attention to the methodology that was used, they looked at their budget to see where they could make cuts, and then they went and they said, ‘Here's much more money we need.’

And I think that is an important political approach, but it's one of many, and BC Transit and other Crown agencies are in similar situations. So we're focused right now on enhancing the bus service that will connect to our western communities and our eastern communities. We're really focused on enhancing the [Highway] 7 to 1 service so that it will augment West Coast Express. We haven't engaged in any conversation that gives us concern about the West Coast Express future.

FVC: Mission’s in a weird spot, because you have these transit conversations and a lot of that discussion gets occupied with Metro Vancouver and their transit situation. But then, because Mission is not technically a TransLink community, except for West Coast Express, there's a little bit of competition for those transit dollars between BC Transit and TransLink, it looks from the outside. You've spoken quite a bit about the need for more transit funding and is that something that still you think or how do you parse the issues?

Horn: I think you've said it: we don't need [just] more TransLink funding. We need more transit funding, more investment in transportation.

I just wrote a letter to the Premier and to the ministers of housing and transportation and education, because when it comes to the subject idea of housing, we all agree that we need to have more affordable and supportive housing, but how do you do that without building in all of the rest of the infrastructure that creates complete communities—and that includes healthcare, schools and transit and transportation?

So it's not really an either/or. I think it would be foolhardy for us to invest in some of our transportation resources without thinking about how we were squeezing problems into another area. And, by the way, you're right. We are a unique community. Abbotsford and Mission, as far as I know, are the only two communities that really have to worry about crossing the border from BC Transit operated services to TransLink operated services.

But we have more than one service that goes into that area: [Bus] 701, and West Coast Express. And what people don't realize with the West Coast Express is that Mission pays our share for that last 19 kilometers of train. We don't get help with that. So what we basically provide here in Mission is a regional service funded by the local taxpayer. And so it's different than anything that TransLink offers and so people from Agassiz and Chilliwack and Abbotsford and Hatzic Prairie who are using the West Coast Express, are essentially getting the same benefit in terms of a subsidy as a Mission resident would be, even though they're not paying into the tax pool.

Downtown development

FVC: You talked about kind of how this moves into development. What do you see the future for Mission’s downtown being? How do you think that will change over the coming years, both because of the demand for housing and the transit-oriented development area and just general growth and change

Horn: In the short term, I think people will have to experience that change, and there will be growing pains. One of the things that our traffic study showed is that we do have ample parking in the downtown, but what people may not be used to is walking a few blocks to get between their parking spot and the business they want to frequent.

Even if you looked at the distance—a person might park in a large urban parking lot to get to the mall, it compares, but people are not used to that. I think that the housing legislation may aggravate that on the north side of the railroad tracks for the immediate future, but in the waterfront strategy, you'll see the north side connect to the south side. The idea is for it to be integrated, much the way it was when I was a child. And at that time there really was no such thing as the downtown and the waterfront. It was all considered to be the waterfront or, sorry, the downtown.

What I said to some folks from the downtown business association recently is that, essentially, they have already got what many other developers are currently trying to produce, which is an integrated mixed-use development. And an increasing degree of this is happening, density on 2nd and 3rd and even on the second floors of many businesses on 1st and all the businesses on the first floor on First Avenue are going to benefit from that. So I think it's very much in keeping with the style of living that many people are moving toward. And as we add transit and make an even more robust ability for people to live without a car. I think you'll see it become a very attractive spot for folks who want to downsize or live car-free.

FVC: I grew up in Vernon, and when I grew up there, 30-40 years ago, there was a parkade downtown. We don't really see parkades anymore even as land is harder and harder to get. Is that one thing that's potentially on the horizon, or are those just too expensive to build these days?

Horn: I think there are some councilors who are interested in exploring that. Personally, I lean against that idea. I think the whole idea of being car-free is not only about our environment, but it's also about the incredibly expensive cost of infrastructure and parking lots couldn't be a better example. And the opportunity cost. So you mentioned Vernon. I'll use the example of New Westminster that dismantled 50% of their parkade because it was not only an eyesore and expensive and incredibly costly in terms of its amortization, but it was taking away prime land. And so I would certainly hope that we can avoid having a parkade anywhere in the downtown or waterfront that isn't underneath an existing or new building. That, to me, is how you do that. You ask developers to account for their own parking. And I think they recognize that that will be important.

Development charges

FVC: You guys recently passed a new amenity cost charge bylaw update—something like that—and it looks on the surface to increase various charges. I'm not sure if that's just because money is moving, or the reallocation of charges or not, but is it making it more expensive for builders to build?

Horn: It's considerably increased because we last reviewed it—we only have ever done it once, which is, I believe, 2008. So it was extremely outdated, and it was brought up in currency last year by us. It will increase again this year, and so will the development cost charge bylaw. Part of that is just because the cost of everything has gone up. Part of that is because the new provincial legislation identifies what we can cover in there, and there have been some changes. But for sure, it went up.

FVC: Do you worry that’s going to just be passed on to homeowners or homebuyers, as some economists have suggested about such fees?

Horn: Here’s the choice: It either gets passed on to the developer for a decision about what to incorporate in their price or not—and certainly there’s lots of debate from developers about whether or not that happens. Remember that houses are based on demand pricing, and so what the market will bear is what the market will charge, never mind what the cost is.

So typically, my bigger concerns would be these two things: if we add it, will it slow development? Not will it raise prices as much, [but] will it simply reduce margins to the point where people exit the market?

Because interest rates are decreasing, I worry about that less. They'll make the money up on that side. They're far more concerned about interest rates than they are about known costs. So once they know the ACCs, they can develop a pro forma and go from there. The only other choice is, if we don't do that, then we end up burdening existing taxpayers with significant increases to add to their infrastructure. Or they just live without the infrastructure. There's not enough spaces, for example, in swimming lessons, or they can't park when they go to use a local park.

So it's genuinely about making sure that that newcomer pays a portion to make up for the fact that they are creating new demand on our infrastructure and that there is a real bill for that. And so the aim is to try and have an accurate source of revenue for that bill.

FVC: We’ve talked about a couple of things, but all the parties make promises and potentially changes to policies. What do you hope to see talked about in this election campaign, or resulting after the election for Mission?

Horn: From my perspective, I really hope that we're having conversations about complete communities. So real plans. I think in the world, politically right now, we have gotten away from talking about policy. Financial policy, budgeting policy, infrastructure policy, and all of that is what I'll be listening to. Do any of the contestants in this election have an actual plan for how they're going to accommodate the incredible growth in our community and get ahead of the need that we have around health care, hospitals, transportation and other infrastructure?

And the other thing I listen for is, have we got a sense that we're going to be able to work collaboratively with other levels of government? We have been fortunate in the time I've been in office to have a ready connection to our MP and our MLAs. In a matter of a moment, I can be calling up and speaking to Pam [Alexis], Bob [D’Eith] or Brad [Vis], and they will get me information or act on what we need. And we've really benefited from that collaboration. So we're not just paying attention to October. We're paying attention to the federal election next year, and in terms of the atmosphere of collaboration, of partnership, we really want to make sure that continues. We've really benefited from it.

Health care challenges

FVC: You mentioned health care. How do you I guess, how pessimistic or optimistic are you that the issues at Mission’s hospital can and will be resolved?

Horn: If there's an upside to the challenges we've had with staffing at the ER over this summer, it's that we have been in frequent contact with Minister Dix, to the point where I'm chatting with him on weekends and so forth. And one thing that has become highly evident to me in those conversations is that he understands exactly where we are as a community.

He's visited the hospital. He sees for himself what needs it has in terms of space and in staffing. So I am optimistic, not only that we will see a vision for that campus, but for healthcare servicing in our community as a general rule. And we've had dialogue with the chair of the Fraser Health Authority, Jim Sinclair, and the CEO, Dr. [Victoria] Lee. And again, I think there's lots of signs there that they are interested and willing in having a conversation. We've worked with communities from Maple Ridge out to Agassiz, including First Nations and electoral areas, and we're working towards right now sitting down essentially and having a summit-type meeting with Fraser Health to talk about what's the plan for understanding the changes on the North Fraser—the demographic changes, the changes resulting from climate change—and what's the plan that's going to come out of any data that that process gives us.