POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: January 21, 2000
Author/Local: TFrench/7041
RTS No. 1226
CC File No. 8026

Council: February 15, 2000

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of City Plans in consultation with the General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT:	UBC Comprehensive Community Plan

INFORMATION

The General Manager of Community Services submits this report for INFORMATION.

COUNCIL POLICY

On May 29, 1997 City Council supported the fourth and final reading by the GVRD of the Official Community Plan for Part of Electoral Area A, subject to certain agreements and commitments by UBC.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Comprehensive Community Plan now being prepared by UBC and on issues which may be of interest to the City.

BACKGROUND

The Official Community Plan for part of Electoral Area A was approved by the UBC Board of Governors, and adopted as an Official Community Plan by the Regional Board of the GVRD in July 1997. The Official Community Plan covers the University of British Columbia and the part of Pacific Spirit Regional Park along the foreshore, but does not coverthe University Hill residential area and the main part of Pacific Spirit Regional Park. Appendix A contains a map of the Comprehensive Community Plan Areas.

Throughout the Official Community Plan process, the City was mainly interested in:

… ensuring that much of the new housing serves UBC employees and students, to reduce commuting through Vancouver neighbourhoods;
… ensuring active UBC transportation planning, particularly traffic demand management and truck traffic management, to reduce impacts on Vancouver neighbourhoods;
… ensuring that parks, community services, and infrastructure services be adequately sized, appropriately phased, and funded in such a way that impacts on City taxpayer-funded facilities and services are avoided;
… ensuring ongoing consultation with the City on detailed area plans and development proposals; and
… reviewing the future governance of Electoral Area A

The agreement regarding implementation of the Official Community Plan called for “area plan(s) [which] would contain detailed land use plan and design guidelines, and servicing and transportation strategies. Area plan process would also produce zoning and or/other land use and development controls...”. Area plan(s) were to be done for 8 areas of significant non-institutional development or special sensitivity, and UBC staff were charged with doing the work.

UBC has prepared a draft Comprehensive Community Plan [on file with the City Clerk]. City staff liaises with UBC planners is through a Technical Advisory Committee. Staff on the Committee have been requested to comment on the draft Plan. The comments are also being forwarded to Council in this report, for information.

Other key implementation initiatives for the Official Community Plan are:

- Electoral Area A Governance Study

The City has been participating with the GVRD, UBC, and others in a study of governance options for Electoral Area A since 1996. Various reports on this process have been made to Council. The Governance Committee is currently completing its review. The results will be reported to Council.

- Strategic Transportation Plan

A wide range of initiatives on transportation demand management and trucking were to be undertaken by UBC, in some cases in cooperation with BC Transit [now Translink], the City of Vancouver, and other agencies. This has evolved into the UBC Strategic Transportation Plan, which has already been approved by the UBC Board of Governors, but not yet by the GVRD. City staff have some concerns about the proposed Strategic Transportation Plan which are being reported separately to Council.

DISCUSSION

As part of implementation of the Official Community Plan, UBC has prepared a Comprehensive Community Plan for the 8 areas of significant non-institutional development. The draft Community Plan mainly comprises general “principles”, sketch plans, and brief descriptions of building types and FSRs intended in these areas. While much of this is valuable, and consistent with the Official Community Plan, there are still significant missing pieces. No zoning or design guidelines are included. In addition, there are some proposals which require clarification, and/or amendment to the Official Community Plan.

City staff have prepared the attached comments on the draft Community Plan [Appendix B]. In summary, the following information and analyses are still needed, and when provided may alter the draft Plan:

- proposed unit numbers and sizes [e.g. ranges], distribution of non-market/market and rental/ownership, proposed development phasing; for each area and in an overview to show how consistency with Official Community Plan policies is achieved;
- information on the findings of the housing needs study, and how they relate to the housing proposed;
- rationale and impacts review for revised South Campus road network;
- clarification of transit terminal and routing intentions; adjustment of area plans to reflect these intentions;
- clarification of whether proposed relocation of the “village centre” commercial area from what is called for in the Official Community Plan is actually being pursued, or to be included as an option, or to be abandoned; and
- information on the sizes and phasing of the proposed parks and community centres, and how they meet Official Community Plan policies, including rationale and impacts review for the new proposed location of community centres.

Staff will be providing the comments to UBC for advice. While no action is required of Council at this time, if the concerns are not adequately addressed in the revised draft Community Plan, Council may need to take formal action in a few months time. Staff will report back when the revised draft Community Plan is submitted for City comments.

CONCLUSION

The draft UBC Comprehensive Community Plan reflects progress towards implementation of the 1997 Official Community Plan for part of Electoral Area A. UBC has chosen to undertake planning for all 8 development areas at one time. Staff review of the draft Comprehensive Community Plan indicates that, even allowing for UBC’s desire for more generality and less detail than the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement called for in area plan(s), the content of the draft Comprehensive Community Plan is not yet adequate to meet the City’s concerns as expressed at the time the Official Community Plan was prepared. There are significant omissions, as well as items that require clarification or consistency. A number of proposals seem to require amendment to the Official Community Plan, but that is up to the GVRD to determine.

UBC intends to revise the draft Comprehensive Community Plan based on comments received. When the revised draft Comprehensive Community Plan is completed, staff will review it and report to Council on its contents and any outstanding issues.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A ON FILE IN CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

APPENDIX B

City Comments on UBC Comprehensive Community Plan
Draft #1 (November 23, 1999)

1. Comprehensive Community Plan [CCP] Process and Current Status

The implementation agreement for the Official Community Plan [OCP] called for “area plan(s) [which] would contain detailed land use plan and design guidelines, and servicing and transportation strategies. Area plan process would also produce zoning and or/other land use and development controls...”. Area plan(s) were to be done for 8 areas of significant non-institutional development or special sensitivity.

The approach UBC has chosen to create and have adopted a CCP covering all 8 area plans at one time. The draft CCP was prepared by staff of the UBC Properties Trust [their real estate development arm] and the Campus Planning and Development Department. A number of consultants have also contributed to the draft CCP content.

As set out in MOU’96, the planning has involved 3 committees:
- UBC/GVRD Task Force: comprises 3 representatives each from GVRD Board and UBC Board, to oversee process and make recommendations to GVRD and UBC Boards. Councillor Jennifer Clark represents the City/GVRD on this Task Force.
- Technical Advisory Committee: comprises 6 staff from UBC Facilities/Planning, and 1 staff each from GVRD, UEL Administration, City of Vancouver, GVTA, and Ministry of Transport and Highways. Trish French is the City staff representative on this committee. Their role is to provide technical information to UBC staff and the Task.
- Advisory Planning Committee: established in November 1999, and comprises a rep each from: faculty, staff, students, 3 campus residential areas, the Musqueum Band, the Wreck Beach Association, and UEL, Dunbar, West Point Grey and Southlands neighbourhoods. Their role is to provide public input to UBC staff and the Task Force.

A public meeting was held on Campus on November 25, 1999 to present the draft CCP. The next step for UBC will be to develop a 2nd Draft CCP based on comments received. They hope to have this ready in late February or March, again to be publicly presented for review and comment. After this, a Final Draft CCP will be prepared to be presented to the UBC Board of Governors and GVRD Board for approval.

2. Importance of the CCP to City of Vancouver

As already noted, the CCP covers all 8 development areas. It contains less information than similar equivalent City major project Official Development Plans. This may result from UBC’s desire for flexibility, and from the challenge imposed by coming up with a plan for all 8 areas in a short period of time. Despite the MOU’96 requirement, zoning is not to be included in the CCP, and is presumably to be developed by UBC after CCP adoption. The CCP does refer to the idea of design guidelines, but it is not clear whether they will be part of the revised draft CCP or done after the CCP.

When completed, the CCP is to be endorsed by UBC Board of Governors and the GVRD Regional Board. Subsequently, the OCP, CCP, 1992 Campus Plan (and Strategic Transportation Plan [STP]) become the governing documents controlling development. Under the current governance structure, which looks set to stay in place, once the CCP is approved, UBC becomes the sole regulatory authority, as well as being developer. Once the CCP is adopted, the next opportunity for significant City influence will be when OCP is reviewed, 5 years from the date of its adoption, i.e. 2002.

It is therefore critical that the City is satisfied that the CCP is adequate to ensure that the commitments made in the OCP to address City issues are or can be fulfilled, and to allow for effective review of progress made when the OCP review comes up.

A significant amount of work has been done by UBC on the draft CCP, and much of what they have produced is valuable, and is consistent with the OCP. However, at this point, the draft CCP does not meet the requirements for area plan[s] set out in the MOU’96 - even allowing for the more comprehensive, less detailed approach which UBC has decided to take to the area plan(s). There remain significant omissions, outlined below, which City staff recommended be remedied.

3. Comments on Draft CCP

The comments below address only the issues of concern to the City of Vancouver, as raised during the process of developing the OCP, which require further work or clarification in the CCP. The current governance structure is assumed, with the City in its current role as an adjacent municipality.

The following topics are addressed: Housing; Road Network; Transit; Commercial Services; Parks, Community Centres & Library Services; and Infrastructure Servicing. In each case,the City’s interest is restated, OCP and MOU requirements are summarized, the CCP proposals briefly described, and implications and suggestions discussed.

(a) Housing

City Interest
The City’s interest is in ensuring that a significant proportion of the housing built at UBC serve UBC employees and students in order to limit increases in commuting to campus.

OCP
The OCP proposes a 2021 resident population of 18,000 [including residents in student accommodation], in 9600 households [dwelling units]. This involves building 7000 new dwelling units.

The OCP policies related to new housing include
… maintain student housing for not less than 25% of the students, as the student population grows;
… maintain not less than 50% of new market and non-market dwelling units to serve households where 1 or more work at or attend UBC;
… 20% of new dwelling units to be rental, of which not less than half to be non-market;
… 40% of new dwelling units to be ground-oriented housing;
… maximum average net FSR 1.2; maximum average 100 units/hectare. No individual site with net FSR greater than 2.8; and
… housing primarily 4 storeys or less. Maximum height 53 m.

MOU’97 notes that local area plan[s] are to give all parties and opportunity to see how the OCP policies work in practice; and that within the area plan[s] sites are to be identified for non-market housing, as is the practice in Vancouver.

CCP
The draft CCP is not consistent about which OCP policies, targets, and definitions are restated, and which are not. With respect to housing, the CCP does restate a number of the policies but does so inaccurately. Examples are “50% of units” rather than “50% of new units”, “20% of all units must be rental” “40% of all units must be ground oriented” rather than “new units”. Other significant policies are not cited.

The individual local area plans in the CCP describe the form of housing [e.g. townhouse, apartment] and densities [FSR]. The phasing and timing of developmentof the areas is touched on, but not consistently addressed. In some cases, intended types of residents are mentioned, but distribution of rental/ownership and non-market/market is not consistently addressed. No statistics are given on unit numbers and sizes. There is also no overall statistical summary of the housing in the 8 areas to enable comparison with OCP requirements.

UBC has had a consultant study on housing needs done. The CCP does not reference the study’s findings, although they would presumably influence the unit mixes and/or housing types, particularly in regard to for the goal of having 50% of new housing occupied by people who work at or attend UBC.

Implications and Suggestions
The area plan[s] required by the MOU’96 were the key instruments to ensure that the housing goals of the OCP could be met. The CCP must fulfill this role. The site planning exercises that have been done for the individual areas are a reasonable first step, but they are not sufficient to determine whether the taken as a whole, the CCP provides an framework within which the overall OCP housing targets and policies are achievable.

Specifically:
… OCP policies need to be accurately quoted;
… The distribution of rental/owned, market/non-market housing, unit size ranges and proposed phasing, etc., needs to be clear for individual areas and for the 8 areas taken together. This overview may result in revision of the area plans; and
… This information is also needed to assess whether the provision of parks and other community services meet OCP commitments.

(b) Road Network

City Interest
Many aspects of the internal road network at UBC are not of concern to the City, since they impact only internal traffic. However, where the network would affect traffic or truck distribution on City arterials, or transit feasibility, the City has an interest.

OCP
The OCP shows a road network that includes extending Wesbrook and West Mall as collector roads from W. 16th to S.W. Marine Drive, with a collector link between them to form a large grid through the South Campus residential and research areas.

CCP
The CCP proposes altering the collector network in a number of ways. The key change from the City point of view is in the South Campus. It is proposed to join Wesbrook to West Mall to each other in a large U rather than connecting them to S.W. Marine Drive. A dead-end collector in from S.W. Marine to serves the research area only. The concept is that busses, pedestrians and bikes would be able to get through from research to residential areas, but that shortcutting student traffic would not.

As a related note, in the STP, this road alteration is not shown in the maps related to traffic and trucking, but is indicated in the sections on transit and cycling. The following studies have not been done, to our knowledge:

… a detailed review of the transportation demand created by the South Campus development;
… a detailed review of the proposed street network;
… how transit fits; and
… impact of construction on truck traffic in the City.

Implications and Suggestions
The change to the collectors may alter the distribution of UBC-related traffic, especially trucks, on City arterials from whatever was anticipated in the OCP. At the OCP stage, trucking was a particular concern. Before endorsing the change, more information is needed on the relative impacts of the two schemes on traffic, trucks, and possibly also transit routings [see below]. UBC’s consultant’s projections of traffic distributions at intersections on campus does not address this.

(c) Transit

City Interest
The City’s interest is in maximising the usage of transit to UBC in order to minimize traffic impacts of commuting on Vancouver neighbourhoods. The transit proposals in the CCP and the STP have been altered from the OCP in a number of respects. The STP deals with the transit proposals in more detail, and is the subject of a separate report. The comments below are therefore limited to how CCP site planning accommodates or responds to the transit routes and technologies that are currently proposed.

OCP
The OCP calls for a transit terminal to be located in the vicinity of the current bus loop, and states that University Boulevard area is to be designed to accommodate high capacity transit, regular bus service, and campus shuttle. It also calls for regular transit to route through the campus, but does not show it going through the South Campus area.

CCP
University Boulevard area section mentions “transit is a key feature”, but neither text nor the site plan appear to include the OCP-mandated multi-mode transit terminal. The STP does not refer to a transit terminal, but shows a bus loop relocated to the corner of 16th and Wesbrook. This bus loop does not appear to be included in the plan for the South Campus local area.

The CCP transit map shows revised regular transit routes through campus, to try and achieve better coverage. The concept shown includes future extension of regular transit from S.W. Marine to Wesbrook through the “broken” collector noted above. However, the streets shown in the South Campus area plan do not seem to be designed to actually accommodate busses doing this.

Implications and Suggestions
Improving transit usage was a key issue for the City at the time of the OCP. Transit is an area of great uncertainty regarding technology, routings, and timing. The intent of the CCP and STP planning seems to be to keep options open to provide maximum eventual service. However, at present CCP and STP don’t seem consistent with one another, and the detailed area planning in the CCP does not appear to reflect future transit routings and terminals discussed in the OCP and STP.

(d) Commercial Services

City Interest
The City interest is that the commercial centres provide for the needs of the students, staff and new residents in order to reduce car trips, but that the size and scope of the commercial not be such as to significantly draw Vancouver residents away from supporting their own nearby neighourhood centres.

OCP
The OCP includes two commercial centres.
… at University Boulevard & East Mall [i.e. current bookstore/bus loop crossroads] a small, pedestrian-oriented commercial centre totalling 4500 mū ground floor retail is to provide “a focus for activity in the academic core” andmeet the “day and evening convenience needs of the university population”; and
… at 16th & Wesbrook, a “village centre” totalling 6000 mū ground floor retail area including a grocery store [of up to 3000 mū] is to “provide convenient day-to-day services for the future residential population”, presumably mainly the housing to be located in South Campus and Mid Campus. A complementary relationship was called for between the village centre and the community centre and school to be located in the South Campus area.

CCP
The CCP translates the University Boulevard node into a more linear street-oriented form along parts of University Boulevard. It also proposes relocating the “village centre” with its grocery store from W.16th and Wesbrook to Agronomy and Wesbrook, into the Thunderbird local area. It would change focus from serving mainly the new residents, to serving all the retail customers including UBC commuters and University Hill residents. However, the CCP text is ambivalent about proposing this relocation. The relocation also means that the complementary relationship which the OCP specified with the community centre and school is lost, and this has not been addressed.

Statistics on the amount of retail included in the proposed centres are not provided. While we assume that the centres shown meet the OCP requirement, we note that the background retail consultant research discusses as desirable/feasible the idea of expanding the retail space.

Adding to the uncertainty, the major retail development now being pursued by a private developer in the University Village was not anticipated the consultant study or the draft CCP. To some degree, this development will compete with the proposed commercial centres. This may necessitate a change to the commercial centres proposal.

Implications and Suggestions
At present the CCP is ambivalent about what is being proposed, partly as a result of uncertainty noted above. On the one hand, it might be better to wait until more is known. On the other hand, UBC wants to complete the full CCP at one time. If UBC wants to keep both options open, then they should both be included in the CCP. This will involve showing options for the local areas that are affected: University Boulevard, Thunderbird, and South Campus, and outlining how, when, and on what basis a decision would be made.

(e) Parks, Community Centre, Library Services, School

City Interest
The City had significant concerns at the OCP stage regarding adequate provision of parks and community facilities as new residents require them, in order to avoid impacts on City facilities and program impacts paid for by Vancouver taxpayers.

OCP
The OCP calls for:
… usable neighbourhood open space of 1.1 ha/1000 residents, to be reduced to not less than .5 ha/1000 persons based on resident access to appropriate UBC-owned open space and facilities;

… a community centre facility in the “village centre” at 16th & Wesbrook, sized on the basis of 0.15 mū per resident of Hampton Place and future housing area; located in the South Campus area associated with the village centre and the elementary school; phase 1 to be provided prior to the permanent population of these areas reaching 5000;
… library services to be responsibility of UBC [assuming current governance structure], but no new facility is specified;
… MOU’97 specifies that Blue & Gold Members [i.e. Hampton Place residents] are to be given access to library services, with 11.7% [at that time $35,000] of the UBC Services Levy as the source of funding. Services might be provided through UBC and/or Vancouver Public Library: some initial discussions had been held at that time; and
… an elementary school site of 3 ha. minimum, including playfields, to be located in South Campus area.

CCP
The CCP does not restate the OCP policies with regard to these items, which is inconsistent with its approach to the housing policies. The local area plans show various parks without noting their sizes. The role of existing UBC open spaces in meeting the park area requirements is not specified. In a change from the OCP, community centre facilities are shown in the Mid-Campus area, and seen as serving both new and existing residents [i.e. student residences]. The community centre which the OCP mandates for the South Campus is neither shown in the area plan, nor clearly noted in the text. It is not clear whether the commuting centre locations will serve the residents well. No information is provided on sizes or timing of either parks or community centres. This, together with the lack of housing statistics, makes it impossible to judge whether the CCP meets OCP objectives.

With regard to Library Services, their provision is not a CCP issue. Rather, they were to be the subject of further discussion between UBC and VPL. A school site is shown in the South Campus area, and there have been discussions with the School Board regarding timing and catchment area.

Implications and Suggestions
The key OCP policies should be restated in CCP, as a parallel to the housing policies that are restated. In addition, statistics are needed regarding how OCP requirements are met in terms of facility sizes, areas, who is being served, and phasing. This overview may result in revision of the area plans.

(f) Infrastructure Servicing

City Interest
The City had concerns that while the OCP made a commitment that infrastructure costs would not impact on the City, it contained no specifics on how this was to be done.

OCP
The OCP requires that a long term physical services strategy be prepared [sewer, water, solid waste, telephone, gas, steam, drainage, roadways, greenways, electricity, etc.]. It also commits that “development will pay its own way (including the costs of off-site facilities) and not impose costs on the external community”. MOU’96 originally called for the area plan[s] to address servicing needs.

CCP
UBC has had a Servicing Strategy for Water, Sanitary, and Storm done by Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. which proposes 5 year and 20 year plans for these three services, and estimates capital costs. The CCP contains a brief section outlining this study and its main directions. The other infrastructure systems are not dealt with.

Implications and Suggestions
Engineering staff have reviewed what has been included in the draft CCP on services, as well as the Aplin & Martin report. They feel the latter confirms Engineering’s 1998 estimates of the order of magnitude of capital costs of water and sewer services upgrades required ($15 million in each of the 5 and 20 year plans). The consultant report is limited to a study of capital costs, including costs for servicing future development in the 20 year plan which are proposed to be recovered through a development cost charge system. The consultant report does not cover maintenance and replacement costs, although it does propose a market value user service fee to recover these costs. Engineering staff note that the service upgrades defined will have a “ripple effect” on similar service upgrades required in the remainder of Pacific Spirit Park, and ultimately, upgrades to the GVRD, and potentially, City services. These ripple effect services should be defined. Engineering staff also note that they have not seen similar plans or estimates for other infrastructure items.

Comments or questions? You can send us email.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver