POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: September 5, 2002
Author/Local: Michael Naylor/7237

RTS No. 02917

CC File No. 8023

P&E: September 19, 2002

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment
FROM:	Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT:	East Fraserlands Planning Program - Status Report

INFORMATION

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

COUNCIL POLICY

· East Fraserlands Planning Program, approved May 28, 2002
· CityPlan, approved May 1995
· Regional Context Statement ODP, approved September 2000
· Victoria Fraserview-Killarney Community Vision, approved January 2002
· Fraser Lands: Land Use Report, approved November 1987
· Industrial Lands Policies: Fraserview, approved March 1995
· Waterfront Pedestrian / Bicycle Pathway Widths Policy, approved March 1997
· Cost Recovery Policy
· City-Wide CAC Policy
· City Non-Market Housing Policy

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report provides information on the status of the current planning program for the East Fraserlands and outlines key questions to address as the process moves into the next phase. The first phase has included a review of existing policy, development of organizing principles, an initial public consultation, and an exploration of options for a street network and open space system.

At this stage, important matters which need to be dealt with prior to drafting a Policy Statement and Illustrative Plan include:

11. Land use options must be explored which vary the scale, physical form and location of commercial uses ranging from purely local-serving to varying degrees of destination-oriented.
12. Destination-oriented commercial conflicts with existing policies. Proposals for commercial other than local-serving must include a rationale for why it should be considered and an economic analysis of its impact on existing commercial centres.
13. The land use options must include a focus or hub which brings together the commercial and community functions in a neighbourhood centre.
14. The urban structure must present a dedicated street frequency and pattern, as well as block size and scale, that meets the City's servicing and urban design requirements with regard to vehicular and non-vehicular accessibility, sun exposure and definition of the public realm.
15. Concepts developed to date lack the degree of urbanity necessitated by the densities proposed for the site. Plans must present a more urban treatment of the land uses, the street network and the open space configuration. Conversely, if a more suburban approach is sought, then density expectations should be adjusted.
16. Park land area presented so far in the concepts falls short of the City standard based on the proposed density.
17. Public amenities, including childcare facilities, an elementary school, public art and a neighbourhood meeting space, should be included in the plans at a level of service commensurate with the proposed density and with other non-downtown projects (Collingwood, Arbutus). Within the public amenities provision should be a strategy to address service deficiencies of the existing Fraserlands neighbourhood.
18. Recognizing that the site is challenged to provide full public amenities, options which explore a reduced provision should be accompanied by options which demonstrate full service or density expectation should be adjusted.

These eight items sum up staff policy direction for the next stage on the key issues. These must be addressed as we move forward into the subsequent phase of policy and plan development. Decisions about land use, density and amenity provision cannot be made without presenting a range of choices that explore variations of these items.

The next phase will include exploration of further options to fulfill the above directions, determination of what public amenities are needed to serve the density targets, discussions with outside agencies including Translink, refinement of principles and development of draft policies for the site. Various consultancies are ongoing and will feed critical information into the process on soils, sustainability and land economics.

Figure 1 - East Fraserlands Planning AreaBACKGROUND

In May 2002, Council approved a work program for the East Fraserlands (area shown in Figure 1). The work is funded within the Cost Recovered Planning Program, under which the area's two largest landowners, Weyerhaeuser and City of Vancouver (represented by Real Estate Services), contribute toward the City's costs. These owners are referred to jointly in this report as the "proponents."

The East Fraserlands comprise 110 acres currently zoned M-2 and M-1B industrial. Existing City policy states that the lands are to remain in industrial use for as long as a wood products mill was operating on the Weyerhaeuser property, but that land uses would be reviewed when the mill closed. The mill has now been permanently shut down and the site is being cleared.

When the existing Fraserlands on the riverfront west of Kerr Street was being planned for residential use in the 1980s, the expectation was that the new community would likely expand to the east when the mill was gone. Current City policy does support residential use east of Kerr Street, as well as local-serving commercial uses. Policy also supports light industrial uses which are compatible with residential.

PLANNING PROCESS

The planning program for the East Fraserlands is scheduled to run from July 2002 to about March 2003. Anticipated are Council approval of a Policy Statement for the site and an Illustrative Plan which indicates an urban structure for the area as well as land use and density parameters. Rezoning could follow, however the current owners are likely to leave that to future owners as neither of the proponents intend to be the developer.

The planning work is occurring in two phases, both of which involve public consultation and reporting to Council. The first round of public process occurred in July with four open houses held at Champlain Mall, Champlain Heights Community Centre and at two locations in the existing Fraserlands. At the open houses, about 1,000 people viewed illustrative materials and spoke to staff and the owners' representatives. Over 150 comment sheets were filled out. Public comments are summarized within this report. (See the display materials in Appendix A.)

This report also describes how the concepts for the site have progressed to date and represents the culmination of Phase One of the process. The next phase needs to expand land use options and to test built forms against the urban structure to better understand how the proposed densities can work and how parks and the other public amenities can be provided.

More public consultation will occur in January, prior to a final report to Council scheduled for March with the Policy Statement and Illustrative Plan. In the meantime, detailed analysis and workshops with the proponents will focus on key matters outlined above and further described below.

DISCUSSION

This discussion is divided into a number of topic areas which relate to key elements of land use and urban structure. Each is discussed in the context of existing policy, proposals for the site, public reaction, progress made and directions for continuing work.

Change from Industrial Use

When the existing Fraserlands development was planned in the 1980s, it was anticipated that residential development would also likely be undertaken to the east of Kerr Street when the mill closed. Residential use for the area is supported by numerous policies. Nonetheless, continued industrial use is still an option which is also supportable. The current zoning (M-2 and M-1B) is consistent with City policy, as would be some of the other industrial schedules applied to this site. Light industrial uses, such as those permitted in the I-2 Schedule, might be suitable as they would be compatible with adjacent residential. Soindustrial zoning may be an option if a portion of the site is found unsuitable physically or economically for residential use.

Historically water-dependent industries have located along Vancouver's Fraser River frontage. These industries, like the mill, have been disappearing and some of the vacant waterfront sites have received new water-related industrial uses while others have not. Log booming operations are expected to continue in the river adjacent to East Fraserlands, but the land is not expected to see major water-based industry return. While the loss of these employment-generating activities is of concern, the major advantage is that the waterfront becomes available for public recreational use and as a high-amenity setting it can support multi-family residential use. There may also be other forms of employment-generating commercial or semi-industrial water-related activities which could occur on the site and that co-exist with public access and housing in a way that heavy industrial activities do not, such as boat repair, small-craft marinas and riverboat tour operations. In the next phase of planning the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) will be engaged in a discussion about the appropriate uses and treatments for the riverfront.

Residential Use - Type, Form, Height, Density

Residential use is supported on the East Fraserlands site by regional, city and local-area policies. The Liveable Region Strategy calls for new housing to be accommodated within existing urbanized areas. Vancouver has been achieving this objective in part through redevelopment of former industrial lands and by supporting new development which reinforces neighbourhood centres. At the local level, residential use is supported on the East Fraserlands site by the recent Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney (VFK) Community Vision.

The VFK Community Vision also states that a variety of housing types other than single-family housing should be considered for the site. Regional policy calls for a balance of apartments and ground-oriented housing throughout the region. Vancouver has been very successful at providing apartments, but less so with ground-oriented multiple-family units. The East Fraserlands, with the size of its land area, its neighbouring lower density areas and its distance from downtown, is viewed as a prime location to maximize ground-oriented housing within an overall mix of types.

Housing that serves a variety of age groups, tenures and income levels is also sought in the East Fraserlands. Housing types need to provide for families with young children, for families with teenagers, for singles and for mature households. Parameters could be placed on unit sizes or bedroom counts for some portion of the total units to achieve this mix, although this has not been determined yet. As a major project, a certain number of housing units in the East Fraserlands will be expected to be set aside for non-market tenure. City policy calls for expanding opportunities for low- and modest-income housing with priority given to families with children and seniors in need, and to the mentally ill and physicallydisabled. The proportion of non-market units has yet to be determined. (City practice for major projects has been 20% for non-market housing, however, it is recognized that the objective must be reviewed in the context of this project's ability to pay through ongoing and independent economic review.)

The form of the housing is expected to vary as it does in the existing Fraserlands where there is a range from rowhouses to low-rise apartments to 14-storey towers. Other forms are also being explored such as towers with rowhouse podiums and stacked townhouses. Examples of all these forms of housing were presented to the public at the July open houses and the proponents' proposed tower heights of up to 20 storeys. Public opinion is divided on the acceptability of towers. Those who accept tower forms tend to do so only if the towers are mixed with other ground-oriented forms. The height range in the existing Fraserlands is acceptable to many, while others support only low-rise forms. Tower forms will continue to be explored in the planning process as part of a range of housing forms that include maximizing ground-orientation. Further consideration of towers will include a view impacts analysis and illustrations of what they would look like on the site. These items were also requested by the open house participants.

Tower forms are seen as a potential way to add density to the site and to maximize the amount of land area for new parks. Density may also be critical in achieving a sufficient population base to support community facilities, such as a school, childcare facility and public meeting space, and to support local commercial services like convenience retail. A population of about 3,000 people in the existing Fraserlands has not been sufficient to prompt development of a proposed school site or of zoned retail space at Kerr Street, or to achieve ridership targets for transit service. An important objective with densities proposed for the East Fraserlands is to provide enough critical mass such that amenities and services can be feasibly provided.

Densities proposed by the proponents range across the site, generally with 1.5 FSR south of the rail tracks and 2.0 FSR to the north of the tracks. These densities are somewhat higher than the multi-family areas surrounding the site. The existing Fraserlands ranges from 0.75 to 1.45 FSR and Champlain Heights averages about 0.8 FSR. The proposed densities would result in about 9,400 new residents added to the area.

Public reaction to the proposed density and to the addition of 9,400 residents was varied. Many understood the need to create a critical mass to have local services, but there was much concern about the transportation needs and impacts of so many additional residents. Transit service is extremely poor to the existing area and there were many concerns about additional auto traffic. The next stage of the planning will explore population size and type as it relates to required traffic and transit management, as well as public amenities. Staff will also engage Translink in a discussion about serving the site, as transit is critically important given the proposed densities.

Density figures will continue to be discussed as potential housing forms are examined, as transportation options are explored, and as the correlation between population and service provision is further scrutinized. Many of the outstanding questions with regard to housing will be answered by the next stage of work.

Commercial Use

The VFK Community Vision states that, if residential use is planned for the area, commercial use should also be provided to serve the whole of the Fraserlands, but not the broader community. Retail zoning was approved for the west side of Kerr Street when the existing Fraserlands was rezoned in 1989, however it has yet developed. Lack of a critical mass of population is generally thought to be the reason why - there are only about 3,000 people in the existing development. The Community Vision process examined the lack of services in this area and concluded that adding upper-floor residential use to the retail sites could serve as an incentive for development. The Community Vision also calls for retail use to be located on the east side of Kerr Street, so that a full shopping street can be created.

The proponents' concept for commercial use is to provide a destination commercial centre that uses the river as a draw. Such a centre would attract people from a wide area, including Burnaby, and have much greater commercial floor space than would be needed to serve a local population (up to 250,000 sq. ft. is proposed). This would be half the size of the commercial component of Oakridge Centre and more than double the size of Champlain Mall. The proponents' initial proposal is that this centre would be located on 20 acres in the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to Boundary Road. It could consist of a supermarket (±50,000 sq. ft.) and two to three "anchor" stores of 25,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. (for example, automotive, hardware, household goods, etc.). The balance would be made up of smaller retail and service uses, and of upper-floor offices for medical/dental and other professionals. This commercial centre is essential from the proponents' perspective for the economic viability of the larger land use plan.

There are significant concerns about this proposal from a policy perspective. Firstly, the Community Vision reinforces the existing shopping areas within VFK, with Champlain Mall as the major one for the Champlain area. There is a fear that the addition of a competing centre would have a negative economic impact on those existing areas. Secondly, within CityPlan, the shopping activities are preferred to be located within neighbourhood centres (particularly if there is a supermarket), where community activities also occur (community centres, libraries, etc.). And these neighbourhood centres are to be highly accessible to the population they serve by foot, by bicycle and by transit, as well as by car. Thirdly, the City of Burnaby is currently reviewing a proposal to provide large-scale retail outlets to serve the Big Bend area at Byrne Road.

Local-serving retail in the East Fraserlands is necessary and supported by policy. Given theproponent's proposal, we are now looking at whether a local-serving commercial component could be expanded to include a destination aspect. A supermarket, for example, is recognized within the Community Vision as an important anchor for a neighbourhood centre. The proposed population for all of the Fraserlands (approximately 13,000) is not enough to support a full-size supermarket on its own. So, if a supermarket were included as part of a neighbourhood centre, then it would have to draw from a wider area and be in part destination-oriented.

The location of the proposed destination commercial at the far east end of the site is also an issue. If it were to serve as the neighbourhood centre for the East Fraserlands, it would be beyond walking range for most of the population. An advantage cited for its location is that it has good auto access to arterial streets such that the destination traffic would not travel into the residential areas. This is an important consideration, as a large concern for those attending the open houses was the outside traffic generated by a destination-oriented centre. However, this concern may be addressed by other means. Public opinion varied on the type and location of commercial use, but having local-serving retail is strongly supported. Many expressed a desire to have a supermarket.

The goal in the next stage of planning is to further explore the possibilities for aspects of the commercial component to be destination-oriented while providing for the local-serving functions in an integrated, mutually reinforcing arrangement which will need to be carefully assessed relative to potential impacts on nearby neighbourhood shopping areas. The essential characteristics of a neighbourhood centre need to be brought into the planning, particularly the notion of locating community amenities alongside commercial services in an easily accessible "hub." There is clearly a link between the full-service neighbourhood commercial and social centre and the amount of residential density that is justifiable.

Urban Structure

Concepts for the street network and open space system are currently being developed by the staff and proponent team. Good planning practice is to seek a street frequency and block size that facilitates pedestrian access, and that meets servicing and urban design requirements. Important urban design considerations are that the built form within the street grid defines a street edge (or street wall), that it provides adequate sunlight to the building faces and that the public, private and transitional spaces are clearly readable as such. The current concepts illustrate grid patterns that may meet these requirements, however they need to be further developed with a built form analysis. This will be undertaken in the next stage.

One policy concern with regard to the street networks in the concepts viewed thus far is the "publicness" of the rights-of-way. The network must be composed of adequate vehicular and non-vehicular paths that are dedicated public rights-of-way. The network should not be reliant on private streets and driveways or on public access agreements over private lands to achieve the frequency and accessibility requirements. A dedicated street structure also facilitates the evolution of the area over the long run and gives maximum flexibility for changing infrastructure needs as the city evolves. In developments without adequate dedicated routes, such as in the existing Fraserlands, there is often ambiguity over what is public and what is private, and frequently when public pedestrian routes are provided there is a lack of continuity in those routes from one development parcel to the next. The public, private and transitional areas should clearly read as such. Having dedicated public streets is the best way for the City to ensure that occurs on a large site that will be built over a long period of time. It is particularly critical in a waterfront neighbourhood that residents not immediately adjacent to the water feel they have easy access to this prime amenity.

Another pivotal aspect of the urban structure for the next stage of work is the notion of a "centre" or "heart" for the new community. This could take the form of a neighbourhood centre which combines commercial-retail services with community amenities like a daycare centre, a nearby school, a community meeting room and an important outdoor civic space (a square or a plaza on the riverfront, for example). This notion was well supported at the open houses. Many people indicated that they wanted a neighbourhood centre to be located at or near Kerr Street so it could serve the existing development.

Parks and the Riverfront Walk

For the existing area residents, parks are an important aspect in the planning for the East Fraserlands. There is universal agreement that the riverfront should be for public recreational access and that the existing path system should be completed between the Kerr Street Pier and Burnaby's Foreshore Path. Many people expressed a desire to see naturalized areas along the river, the preservation of wildlife habitats and the daylighting of streams across the site. Overwhelmingly, people insisted on the new development providing new park based on the City's park standard (2.75 acres per 1,000 residents).

The current range of concepts being reviewed for the site illustrate various approaches to park provision - a central park on the riverfront, a linear park along the rail right-of-way, and corridor parks with daylighted streams that connect the river to the uplands. All of these ideas have merit and they will be given further consideration as the plans evolve.

One concern about parks is that the amount of park area illustrated in the concepts falls short of meeting the park standard based on a potential population of 9,400. The amount of park to be provided is related to the density for the site and both will fluctuate as the plans are further developed and as building forms are tested. The southeast corner of the city is generally well served by many acres of park land, however due to topography and the nature of park development, these areas serve the Fraserlands in a limited way. Further in-depth planning is required to properly assess the park and recreation supply and demand, and to integrate these findings into the project, noting that the existing Fraserlands did provide parkper the park standard. If community services and amenities cannot be adequately provided, it may be appropriate to limit the proposed development to a population increase that can be serviced.

Community Facilities

While the existing Fraserlands neighbourhood is well served by parks and the riverfront path, it is lacking facilities in all other areas. A proposed school has yet to be built. There is no public community space available to hold a meeting or to program recreational activities. No childcare facilities exist despite the presence of many families with young children. At the open houses many people expressed concern over this lack of facilities. Some said that, apart from the riverfront walk, there was nothing to draw people together in their neighbourhood.

For these people, the prospect that new development on the East Fraserlands could bring community amenities was quite promising. Some said that new development should not occur until facilities are provided. They are supportive of residential use east of Kerr Street if it means that community facilities could finally be provided.

Depending on the final population size, a full community centre, may not be required, but indoor recreation services might be provided through a combination of community facilities including school, neighbourhood house, childcare, library, etc. School needs will have to be re-assessed and perhaps a larger school provided on a new site. Childcare facilities should be provided.

Specifics about the community facilities have yet to be worked out. Public amenities should be included in the plans at a level of service commensurate with the proposed density and with other non-downtown projects (Collingwood, Arbutus Lands). Within the public amenities provision should be a strategy to address service deficiencies of the existing Fraserlands neighbourhood.

In the current concepts for the site, locations for the community facilities have not been explored in any detail. As part of the notion of a vibrant neighbourhood centre, there is a desire to see community amenities co-located with commercial services in a "hub." The next stage of work will begin to look at such combinations.

The economic challenges facing the site may require a balance between what facilities are needed and what can be feasibly delivered. The challenge is also to ensure that new residential development does not generate significant additional costs for the general tax base or leave the needs of the community unmet.

Heritage

The East Fraserlands site was home to a wood products mill for nearly a century. It was formerly known as the White Pines Mill. In its last form, the mill was comprised of a haphazard assembly of tin-roofed structures, vaulting conveyor systems and enormous timber storage buildings. These structures have now all been removed to make way for the site clean-up.

None of the structures had received heritage review or were on the Heritage Inventory, although the Heritage Planner felt that a conveyor structure may have merited designation. A loading crane on the waterfront was also identified as meriting heritage recognition. In response to staff advice, the crane has been preserved and is planned to become a public realm feature for the new development. Large hour-glass shaped rollers from the sawmill have also been salvaged so they too can be used in the public realm, as bollards for example.
While much of the mill has been removed from the site, it is hoped that some aspects of the site, and of the assembly of structures on it which were photographically recorded, can be an inspiration for the design of the new development. The relationship of the mill to the waterfront, particularly the decks that existed there, was a noteworthy feature that provided a wonderful prospect of the river and afforded exciting views both upriver and down. Carrying such memories forward into a design is a significant way to imbue the new community with a sense of place. Policies currently being developed for the East Fraserlands will reference the heritage aspects, ensuring that the future design efforts give them due recognition.

Economic Review

Consultants have been engaged to provide economic commentary on development concepts. Their analysis, at several intervals during the study, will assist determining the economic viability of land use and density policies, and the ability of these concepts to provide desirable amenities. An initial overview provided by the City's consultant is attached as Appendix B.

PROPONENTS' COMMENTS

Since Council's approval on May 28, 2002 of the Work Program and Budget for the planning of the East Fraserlands, City staff and the proponent team (Weyerhaeuser and City Real Estate Services) have engaged in a series of lively debates on a wide range of issues. To date, there has been tension in the process as some have wished to explore options which are not considered viable by the proponent team.

The debate continues on several key aspects of the project, as follows:

Commercial Context: The proponent team does not see the East Fraserlands as being the southeast corner of the city. Rather, in our opinion, the area should be viewed as the centre of the north shore of the Fraser River corridor of Vancouver and Burnaby. The proposed commercial centre at Boundary Road has the potential to be an exciting, river-focussed entrance to Vancouver, while providing important goods and services for the people who work in the Big Bend area of Burnaby - currently 5,000 jobs, but estimated to be 12,000 to 15,000 jobs within ten years. The residential components of the project could also provide housing close to their workplace. The proposed location of the commercial centre at Boundary Road would also minimize the traffic crossing the residential portion of the site.

The proponent team also supports limited commercial at the foot of Kerr Street to service the needs of the residents of the Fraser Land(s) - noting that the current resident population has not provided the critical mass necessary to support the development of the presently available commercial site on Kerr Street.

Amenities, Parks, and Infrastructure: We welcome the addition of the economic consultant to the project team. The attached introductory remarks from the economic consultant echo our concerns regarding the project's economic viability. As we have indicated previously, the application of "full City standards" for amenities, parks, and infrastructure to the East Fraserlands renders the project economically unviable - unless, of course, Council wishes to provide a significant "top-up" contribution. We understand that this was done on a limited basis in the Arbutus Lands and Collingwood Village projects.

As we move forward to a consensus Illustrative Plan and Policy Statement, we will need to have a more precise understanding of how the City standards for amenities, parks, and infrastructure are to be applied to the East Fraserlands. The proponent team is cautious about raising unrealistic expectations in the community or elsewhere as to the amenities, parks, and infrastructure package that might be achievable from the project.

The current direction of staff in pursuing a "downtown" urban pattern is a worry. In our view, such a block pattern is inconsistent with the street pattern established in Champlain Heights or the Fraser Lands. We believe that the desired degree of "publicness" can be

achieved through access agreements, easements, and rights-of-way - that is, something less than full dedication.

We look forward to working with City staff to resolve these complex issues.

CONCLUSION

This information report culminates the first phase of the planning program for the East Fraserlands. Existing policy has been reviewed, the public has been consulted for preliminary comments and initial concepts for the site have developed. Some key issues have arisen which have been presented here and will become the focus of the next stage of planning work. Later in the fall a draft Policy Statement and Illustrative Plan will be developed for public review in January 2003 and for Council's consideration in March.

* * * * *

LINK TO APPENDIX A AND B

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver