SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 1
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: September 10,1996
Dept. File No. AMcA
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of City Plans in consultation with the
General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Official Community Plan for Part of Electoral
Area "A" UBC
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT Vancouver City Council advise the GVRD that the City has
the following concerns with the Draft UBC Official Community
Plan:
i. Section 4.1.16 (b) Future Housing Areas: whereby
proposed housing targets provide inadequate assurance
that efforts will be made to house faculty, staff, and
students, thereby reducing commuting through Vancouver
neighbourhoods;
ii. Section 4.2 Access and Section 4.3.1 Long Term
Infrastructure and Servicing: whereby the lack of
specifics about actions to reduce commuting by
automobile, manage truck traffic to and from the campus,
and pay for servicing costs provide no assurance that
off-site impacts from development will be adequately
addressed; and
iii. Section 4.1.16 (f) Useable Neighbourhood Open Space,
Section 4.1.18 Community Centre, and Section 5.1 Staging:
whereby the provision of open space and the staging of
community facilities provides no assurance that the needs
of residents will be provided for in an adequate and
timely manner, possibly resulting in demands on City
services.
B. Given that the City s concerns may be addressed through a new
governance process, THAT Vancouver City Council recommend to
the GVRD that enactment of the OCP be withheld until a new
governance system is in place and Council is in a better
position to assess whether the City s interests will be
adequately addressed through the implementation process.
C. THAT, in further preparation of the OCP and related documents,
the recommendations of the Task Force on Transportation Access
to UBC and UEL be incorporated to the greatest extent
possible, with particular reference to the following issues:
i. preparation of an access plan demonstrating a firm
commitment by UBC to a strengthened Transportation Demand
Management program and implementation of a U-Pass system,
with analysis of the measures required to accommodate the
OCP housing and job targets with no net increase in
vehicle traffic;
ii. development of a goods and construction management plan
to more equitably distribute truck trips, and to explore
other options for disposal of excavated and demolition
material, such as removal by barge or on-site disposal;
and
iii. creation of a more complete community in the OCP area,
with zoning, economic, and unit-size criteria established
so as to support University-oriented population, and
basic commercial and recreational facilities provided
on-site.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
On January 17, 1995, Council approved the provision of fire protection
and related services by Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services to the
University of British Columbia and the University Endowment Lands.
On January 31, 1995, Council agreed to continue the City s policy of not
pursuing amalgamation with the University Endowment Lands. However, if
the Province and/or UEL residents request amalgamation, the City
welcomes the inclusion of the UEL within its boundaries provided the
City is compensated for any costs incurred.
In March, 1995, Council requested that UBC be charged for the GVS&DD
sewer services that it uses.
On October 17, 1995, Council requested the GVRD ensure that the Official
Community Plan for UBC address City concerns about traffic, services,
and consultation on plans and development proposals.
On March 14, 1996, Council supported a study of governance options for
Electoral Area "A" including the legal financial and technical
implications of development programs contemplated in the existing and
proposed official community plans.
SUMMARY
In October, 1995, at the start of the GVRD process to prepare an
Official Community Plan for the University of British Columbia lands,
City Council provided advice on issues the City wished addressed through
the UBC-OCP process. A draft OCP has been forwarded to the City for
comment. (Summarized in Appendix A.)
Appendix B outlines a comparison of Council's requests and the Draft
OCP. In summary:
- Proposed housing targets, combined with the absence of specific
traffic management demand actions, provide no assurance the OCP
will act to minimize traffic movement to and from UBC through
Vancouver neighbourhoods; and
- The OCP states that "development will pay its own way." Since no
specifics are provided, there is no assurance new development will
pay appropriate levies for the use of regional and city services.
For example, open space provisions are less than City standards and
construction of the community centre is based on a threshold of
5,000 people. This means that there may be demands on City
services.
Given these issues, and in the absence of an agreed process for the long
term governance of the OCP area, staff recommend advising the GVRD of
the City's continued concerns and, as noted in the Conclusions of this
report, amendments to the OCP needed to gain support from the City.
Final approval of the OCP by the GVRD Board should await decisions
emerging from the governance study.
PURPOSE
This report provides Council with comments on the City s interests in
the Draft Official Community Plan for the University of British Columbia
portion of Electoral Area "A" and a recommended response to the GVRD
Public Hearing on the Plan, to be held on October 15, 1996.
BACKGROUND: PLANNING PROCESS
Electoral Area "A" includes the University Endowment Lands (UEL),
Pacific Spirit Regional Park, and the University of British Columbia
campus. The Official Community Plan reviewed in this report covers the
UBC campus and two foreshore lots which lie north and west of the campus
and are part of Pacific Spirit Regional Park. (See maps Appendix C.)
UBC has begun developing market housing at Hampton Place and has
expressed interest in developing about 30 percent of the campus for
housing for 15,000-18,000 people. The revenue from development will be
used to establish an endowment for the University. To guide this
development, the Minister of Municipal Affairs asked for an Official
Community Plan for the UBC area.
In December 1994, the UBC Board of Governors approved a Memorandum of
Understanding to work with the GVRD to develop an Official Community
Plan for the UBC area. The OCP planning process was managed by the
GVRD, with consultant assistance. City representatives sat on the
Planning Advisory and UBC-GVRD Steering Committees (Councillor Clarke)
and the Technical Advisory Committee (Director of City Plans).
During the plan preparation process, concerns were raised about how the
adopted Plan will be administered. Usually an elected Council adopts an
Official Community Plan and considers applications for rezoning and
development after due process, including hearing from affected citizens.
The UBC situation is unusual because:
- areas for potential development under the OCP are owned by one
landowner, the university;
- the decision-making body for the OCP area is the University s Board
of Governors which is an appointed body; and
- the landowner could initiate and approve developments.
On March 8, 1996, City Council supported a study of governance options
for Electoral Area "A". The University has agreed to limit new
development for two years or until such time as the issue of governance
is resolved. Councillor Clarke has been appointed to the GVRD-UBC
Steering Committee for this study.
BACKGROUND: CITY'S INTERESTS
On October 17, 1995, Council considered a staff report describing the
City s interests in the OCP process. Council asked the GVRD to ensure
the UBC Official Community Plan addresses the following issues:
- traffic movement through Vancouver to and from the UBC campus;
- payment of appropriate levies by UBC for regional/city services;
- adequate planning, provision, and funding of facilities and
services to meet the needs of present and future residents and the
community as a whole;
- environmental implications of new development; and
- provision for consultation with adjacent residents on detailed area
plans and development proposals.
The issue of traffic to and from the University was of sufficient
concern to generate a Citizen Task Force on Transportation Access to UBC
and the UEL. The Task Force received submissions during January through
May 1996, and submitted its report to Council on May 28, 1996.
The Task Force's 53 recommendations included targets for traffic
reduction; traffic calming measures; improved transit services;
transportation demand measures; and actions to support walking, cycling,
and transit. Council received the Task Force report and forwarded it to
UBC and the GVRD as a statement of community expectations for
consideration in the UBC OCP.
DRAFT OFFICIAL UBC COMMUNITY PLAN
A Draft Official Community Plan for UBC has been formally referred to
the City of Vancouver, as an adjacent municipality, for comment prior to
the GVRD Board Public Hearing in October. When adopted by the GVRD, the
OCP will be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval
and will form the basis for all new development at UBC.
The Draft OCP contains: a Regional Context Statement; Goals and a
Vision; Policies for Land Use, Access, and Servicing; and an
Implementation section. The OCP Goals are to meet the GVRD's Livable
Region Strategic Plan and to help sustain UBC's mission by utilizing its
land resource to build an endowment to support academic activities.
The key directions in the OCP are attached as Appendix A.
The following comments focus on the OCP as it may relate to the City of
Vancouver. Specifically, the City is interested in the potential
off-site impacts resulting from an eventual community of 18,000
residents, 32,000 students, and about 17,000 employees of the University
and related research facilities and services. In effect, the University
area could become a town with a daytime population similar to New
Westminister.
The four areas of most interest to the City are:
- traffic impacts to and from the UBC area and the actions the OCP
proposes to reduce traffic by facilitating a jobs-housing balance
and through Transportation Demand Management;
- environmental issues, in addition to those associated with traffic;
- impacts on City services and the actions the OCP proposes to ensure
new housing is supported by appropriate services; and
- provisions for ongoing consultation with the City and adjacent
communities on detailed area plans and development proposals.
These issues are addressed in the following sections.
TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED HOUSING PROVISIONS
Today the 402 hectare UBC campus houses 7,300 students and 1,400
permanent residents. There are now about 15,000 employees and 32,000
students on campus. By 2021, the OCP proposes that there will be a
total of 18,000 residents (including those in student accommodation) and
17,000 employees on campus. The Plan does not project the total number
of students, though it is understood the numbers will remain similar to
today. In other words, the resident population is expected to double
while the number of students and employees remains fairly constant.
The Livable Region Strategy encourages more housing to locate on the
Burrard Peninsula to minimize sprawl and the pollution and congestion
associated with commuting. The UBC OCP meets this broad objective by
providing accommodation for an additional 9,300 people.
The City of Vancouver has a further objective to minimize automobile
commuting through the city to and from UBC. There are several ways to
do this. These include: providing housing on campus which meets the
needs of faculty, staff, and students; offering viable alternatives to
car travel; and implementing Transportation Demand Measures. This
section describes how the Draft OCP addresses transportation issues.
Reducing Commuting Through Housing Initiatives
The OCP sets as a target to accommodate 18,000 residents by 2021. By
2021, there could be 49,000 people working and studying on campus.
City studies suggest that every new unit that is occupied by a
non-university household could result in 6 to 10 new trips per day to be
accommodated on city streets. The number of trips is dramatically
reduced if the new residents work on campus and have access to nearby
commercial and recreational facilities. This means that actions the OCP
proposes to house, on campus, people who work at UBC are important to
reduce commuting.
The OCP sets as objectives to provide housing for:
- a diverse range of housing types and tenures; and
- a "significant" proportion of market and non-market housing serving
people who work on campus or attend university.
These goals are to be assessed during subsequent area planning processes
and reviewed five years after adoption of the OCP.
While these housing goals are noted in the OCP, there are few details to
suggest how these goals will be achieved and how their success will be
measured. For example, the term "significant" is not defined other than
to require:
- 20 percent of new residential dwellings be rental housing of which
not less than half (10 percent of new units) will be non market
housing that may include staff, faculty, cooperative, social or
other special housing needs. (By comparison, on the South Shore of
False Creek, the City provided sites for 45 percent of units to be
non-market rental or cooperative housing. The City currently
requires 20 percent of units to be non-market housing in mega
projects);
- 40 percent of new residential dwellings will be ground- oriented
housing; and
- Maintain the existing ratio of 25 percent of student housing units
for full time undergraduate students. (At present 7,300 students
are housed on campus. The staging plan notes that no change is
expected in the resident student population to 2006. No comments
are made with respect to 2021, other than to note the 25 percent
undergraduate student ratio will apply. There is no provision for more student housing if the number of graduate students increases.)
Today, housing is provided for 15.5 percent of people who work and study
at UBC and associated research facilities. The OCP makes no specific
provisions for a "significant" portion of the new housing to be provided
at prices affordable to households on faculty and staff salaries. If
the required minimum of 10 percent of new housing is targeted to
faculty, staff, and students, then the proportion of housing for people
working and studying on campus could be as low as 17 percent.
In other words, it appears from the Draft OCP that it could be possible
to house an additional 9,300 people on University lands and meet the
"letter" if not the "spirit" of the OCP with almost no reduction in
commuting to campus. Indeed, commuting will be increased (albeit
reverse commuting) if new residents work off campus.
Viable Alternatives to Car Travel
The OCP goal for the "on-campus" access system is to provide convenient
movement that favours pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users through
greenways, traffic calming, and provisions for shuttle bus, pedestrian,
and bicycle networks. The OCP provides for a cross-area Greenway to
link uses and destinations. The general alignment is shown. Details of
the on-campus access system, including funding provisions, are to be
developed as part of area plans.
Probably the best step that could be taken to encourage the use of
alternative modes of travel on campus is to shorten the distance between
the housing and the campus and other community facilities. If the
campus and the commercial/recreational facilities are located within a
convenient 5 to 10 minute walk home, then residents will be more likely
to walk or cycle.
The OCP states that managing "off campus" access to UBC will require
inter-jurisdictional cooperation. UBC will need to work with the UEL,
City of Vancouver, and Ministry of Transportation and Highways in
planning and paying for bicycle and pedestrian services. Other actions
are for the GVRD and UBC "to support" BC Transit initiatives such as
the extension of higher capacity transit services to UBC. The OCP notes
many actions are outside UBC's responsibilities.
Reducing Commuting through Transportation Demand Management
The OCP states that UBC will "need to continue a vigorous campaign to
restrain single occupant vehicle use" by:
- endeavouring to schedule classes to reduce peak demands on transit;
- developing, communicating, and pursuing a transportation demand
management plan that includes managing parking costs, reducing the
amount of commuter parking, and adopting policies that favour
higher occupancy vehicles; and
- providing opportunities for telecommuting.
No targets are set to measure whether the general OCP directions are met
and no specific action plans are proposed. For comparison, it is worth
noting that the University of Washington agreed to reduce peak period
trips as a condition of recent expansion. The University of Washington
adopted a U-Pass system, which uses parking revenues to subsidize
transit improvements, and places a transit pass in the hands of all
students (thereby reducing the marginal cost of transit use to zero).
The U-Pass system resulted in an overall reduction of 6 percent in
vehicle travel to the campus, concentrated in peak hours. The OCP does
not commit to a similar system for UBC.
The planning and funding of actions to increase pedestrian safety and
protection in neighbourhoods on route to UBC will be a concern if trips
to or from UBC increase. The OCP makes no specific provisions for
off-site funding to mitigate transportation impacts.
With respect to targets, the City is currently developing a
Transportation Plan. A draft plan is circulating for public comment.
The draft City Transportation Plan proposes targets for trips to UBC
which would see a reduction in the number of cars travelling to UBC
during peak periods, increases in the number of occupants per vehicle,
and an increase in transit, walking, and biking. When the City s
Transportation Plan is completed, the City may have additional
recommendations to the ongoing GVRD-UBC OCP process.
OCP Response to the Vancouver Transportation Access Task Force
Recommendations
The recommendations of the Vancouver Task Force on Transportation Access
to UBC and UEL were presented to Council in a report dated May 28, 1996.
The Task Force report was forwarded to UBC and the GVRD for inclusion in
the OCP. Following this, the report and recommendations were released
for public discussion. To date no further feedback has been received
regarding specific issues that were presented.
Several Task Force recommendations were specifically directed to the
OCP. These asked that the OCP include:
- a full-service, centrally-located transportation depot for
Electoral Area "A";
- reductions in the number of parking spaces, elimination of free
parking, and establishing parking rates in relation to the cost of
transit;
- a statement that revenues generated from parking operations be
dedicated to alternative transportation modes;
- restrictions on development of secondary industry to ensure that it
is environmentally friendly and does not generate heavy truck
traffic;
- provisions for the proposed bicycle routes and greenways to be
built and maintained as a priority in the operating budget;
- explicit statements about proposed traffic calming measures; and
- a target of at least 25% of future housing being for faculty,
staff, and students.
Generally, the OCP does not provide the level of detail required to
assess whether the Task Force recommendations will be addressed. Where
the OCP is specific:
- The OCP provides for a central transportation depot, as proposed by
the Task Force; and
- The proposed target of 10% of new housing for faculty staff and
students is less than the 25% target proposed by the Task Force.
Other issues with respect to Transportation sections of the OCP and the
Task Force include:
- Truck travel is not mentioned. Seattle and Portland report that
their universities have developed construction management contracts
that regulate the routes used by trucks in accessing their sites.
Concerns in the adjoining residential areas are reduced as a
result. At present UBC does not have a similar arrangement, and
some access routes carry a disproportionate share of the trucks.
Because of UBC's location on the peninsula, all trucks must pass
through City streets, and the volumes of construction traffic,
particularly excavated material, have been excessive.
- The overall impact on traffic volumes: Clearly any new community
will generate some increase in travel, but there has been no
analysis of the amount, the extent to which it can be attenuated
through good design, nor the extent to which University traffic can
be reduced to offset the increase. The Task Force report proposed
two measures by which overall traffic levels could be assessed --
first, that vehicle movements be frozen at 1993 levels, and second,
that there be a reduction of 30 percent in traffic.
When evaluating the Universtiy of Washington U-Pass system it was
found that trips generated by students at peak times were reduced
up to 30 percent. Other trips showed little or no change. In total,
the reduction was 6 percent. While a 30 percent reduction would
represent a powerful long-term objective, it is not likely
achievable within the current planning horizon. In the short term,
staff note that a more realistic goal may be establishing as a
target, to not exceed the vehicle volumes now travelling to UBC.
The University of Washinton, due to its location in the centre of
the city, favours modes such as bicycling, transit and walking.
Due to its location on a peninsula, UBC does not have the same
geographical benefits. Nonetheless, similar reductions in vehicle
traffic may be achievable at UBC in the long term. The OCP does
not contain any analysis of whether the reduction from a U-Pass
system would be adequate to offset
the expected growth in population. UBC should submit an analysis to
indicate how large an improvement can be achieved, and to what
extent this would mitigate the increased travel resulting from a
new community.
Implementation of a well-instituted system similar to the
University of Washington's U-Pass would aid in reducing the use of
the private vehicle as a mode of transportation for students
attending UBC. The corresponding increase would need to be
accommodated either through alternative modes of transportation,
such as transit, or through additional student housing. This
increase in transit use would necessitate an increase in the
number of buses and perhaps new routes to UBC. The allocation of
resources to new routes servicing UBC would need to be determined
by BC Transit.
- Jurisdictional issues: The Task Force made recommendations on
policing and administration of off-campus roads and infrastructure.
These issues are not addressed in the OCP, and indeed are probably
beyond its frame of reference. However, they will need to be
addressed by the City, GVRD, and the Province as development of the
community proceeds.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS
On October 17, 1995, when considering the terms of reference for the
OCP, Council asked that the OCP address environmental implications. The
draft OCP sets as a goal to protect environmentally sensitive areas.
For example, there are policies to, where possible, protect and manage
significant trees. Further details are to be developed through area
plans.
On broader sustainability issues, the OCP notes that servicing plans
will need to address issues of energy conservation. The only specific
environmental action is to limit further development in the North Campus
(area of the Museum of Anthropology) unless supported by a hydrological
study.
PHYSICAL SERVICING PROVISIONS
The City has a long standing concern that development on the University
lands pay its way and not impose costs on other areas including the City
and GVRD. For example, in March, 1995, Council addressed the issue of
UBC receiving sewer services from the Greater Vancouver Sewer District
without appropriate payment. This issue is still not resolved.
In October, 1995, Council expressed concern about the possible impacts
new development at UBC might have on the demand for City services.
Specifically, Council members observed that UBC should be treated in a
similar fashion to other mega projects where community amenities are
identified and provided early in the development process.
The Draft OCP sets as a goal, under the section on infrastructure and
physical services, that "development will pay its own way (including the
costs of off-site facilities), and not impose costs on the external
community." Having said this, there are few specifics of how this will
be done and no details on mechanisms to pay for service impacts on the
City. Interestingly, sewers, a topic of recent contention, are not
specifically identified in the list of services which require planning.
GVRD staff advise this is an oversight which will be rectified.
COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVISIONS
The proposed community service provisions do not reflect City practice.
Open Space: The OCP sets neighbourhood open space for use by residents
at 0.5 hectares (1.23 acres) per 1,000 residents. This is half the
usual City requirement for mega projects which is 2.75 acres per 1,000
residents. The OCP is also unclear about whether existing fields will be
seen to satisfy some of the .5 hectare/1,000 requirement.
In discussions, the rationale provided for the reduced amount of open
space is the adjacent Pacific Spirit Park. City staff note that on
sites near larger parks, where the developer has had access to lower
priced land (e.g. False Creek), the 2.75 park ratio has been maintained
to provide for recreation near homes. The UBC OCP requires 40 percent of
the units to be ground-oriented, presumably to encourage families.
Since it is unlikely that Pacific Spirit Park will be an acceptable
alternative children's play space, by City standards the area will be
under serviced for park space.
Community Facilities: City practice is to require the provision of
community facilities before or concurrent with residential development.
The OCP offers mixed messages on the issue of community facilities.
The OCP includes Short- (to 5 years), Mid- (5 to 10 years) and
Long-range (10 to 35 years) staging plans. In the short- and mid-range
the emphasis is on housing development, infrastructure servicing, and
planning for new transit. Plans for the long range include provision of
community facilities including a community centre, greenway, and school.
In the section on "Neighbourliness Objectives" the OCP says that
community services "will be staged concurrent with residential
development." In the "Service Section," the OCP requires that the first
phase of the community centre be provided prior to the permanent
residential population exceeding 5,000 people. The Staging Plan sees
the community centre, greenway, and school being provided "after about
10 years and up to possibly 35 years". This raises the issue of
accessibility to services in the interim. The OCP is not specific about
resident access to campus facilities.
The OCP does not provide for a major community amenity associated with
the redevelopment and available to the general public, as requested by
Council. The only related reference is to UBC maintaining its role in
managing (presumably existing) regional amenities, such as recreational
and cultural facilities.
Schools: The Vancouver School Board operates two schools on the
University Endowment Lands. Currently there are a few students living
in Hampton Place and attending Vancouver schools. The OCP provides for
an elementary school site.
The number of elementary and secondary students living in the new
housing will depend on the size, cost, and type of units constructed.
The OCP sets as a target 40% of new units being ground-oriented. While
these will likely be suitable for family housing, occupancy will depend
on housing cost. The Vancouver School Board has received a copy of the
OCP for review and comment.
Retail Services: The City's 1995 report proposed that "retail
development limits be tied to the daily needs of campus users and
residents." A "Village Centre" for the "day-to-day needs of residents"
is noted on the OCP site plan. The village centre can have a maximum of
6,000 m2 of ground floor commercial space. Commercial space is limited
to the first two stories providing for up to 12,000 m2.
As currently written, a grocery store can occupy "about half the
permitted commercial area." Staff have discussed this with the GVRD,
since the way the OCP is worded, it appears that a grocery store could
be 6,000 m2. Staff understand that the wording will be amended so the
grocery store can occupy "about half of the permitted ground floor
commercial space." This implies a store of about the size of a small to
mid-size Safeway.
GOVERNANCE PROVISIONS
The OCP makes only passing reference to future cross boundary issues in
noting that "UBC will need to participate in consultative processes with
other agencies, interests, and jurisdictions." This is because a study
is underway to consider governance options.
To manage the OCP prior to agreement on governance, the GVRD and UBC
have signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The memorandum establishes a
six-person Task Force, comprised of three members from each board,
supported by GVRD and UBC staff. Councillor Clarke sits on the Task
Force on behalf of the City. The Task Force will remain in place until
June 30, 1998, or until new governance arrangements are in place. The
Task Force will oversee and coordinate:
- participation by UBC and the GVRD in a governance study for
Electoral Area A;
- interim arrangements regarding UBC land use decisions;
- completion of the OCP with resolution of any outstanding issues;
- area planning processes, resolving any issues that arise;
- input of Advisory Planning and Technical Committees; - ensuring that area plans are in conformance with the OCP and meet
UBC's objectives; and
- recommendations to the GVRD Board and UBC Board of Governors with
respect to matters regarding planning and development within their
respective jurisdictions.
This is a broad mandate to manage the OCP and area planning processes.
Under the arrangement, once an area plan is adopted, the UBC Board of
Governors is responsible for approving Development Permits. The
development approval process is described in the Memorandum as a
"largely technical exercise addressing such issues as detailed site
planning, building elevations and massing, and landscaping."
The process does not define how decisions are made if the GVRD Board and
the UBC Board of Governors cannot agree. Presumably the wording of the
OCP will play a significant role in establishing parameters for
assessing whether area plans meet the intended objectives. This being
the case, the low targets for housing accessible to faculty, staff, and
students and the absence of servicing and transportation details are a
cause for concern. While the interim process provides for City
representation on the Task Force and on a Technical Advisory Committee,
experience with the OCP process suggests that this is not sufficient to
ensure City concerns are adequately addressed.
CONCLUSIONS
In October, 1995, at the start of the OCP Planning process, Council
outlined a number of issues for the OCP to address. At this point, with
the Draft OCP completed and referred to Public Hearing, it is hard to
identify any instances where the City's concerns have been addressed in
a satisfactory way. (See Appendix B.)
Throughout the UBC OCP process there have been differences of opinion
about the amount of detail needed in the OCP to account for the unique
situation of UBC. The GVRD and UBC have maintained that the level of
detail is appropriate for an OCP. They note that a number of the
recommendations made by the City s West Side Transportation Task Force
-- particularly those related to funding implementation -- are usually
dealt with in subsequent area, capital, and operating plans.
Leaving these details to subsequent plans is not an issue when area and
funding plans are considered through due public process including
approval by an elected Council. This is not the case here. However,
with a governance study underway, UBC is asking that an OCP be adopted
so that area planning can proceed. Implementation is to await the
outcome of the study.
It is difficult for staff to advise Council to support the Draft OCP
when there are clearly areas where the City's interests have not been
addressed and it is unclear what process will eventually be put in place
to address these concerns. Specifically, there is no evidence in the
OCP that adequate attempts are being made to address the problems of:
- Commuting to and from the university: The City has considerable
experience providing housing near jobs. On City lands we have
shouldered the difficult task of providing housing opportunities
for people often with very limited means. In the case of UBC, the
task is less onerous. Specifically, the City is seeking some
assurance that the majority of housing will be accessible and
affordable to people employed as faculty and staff by the
University. Commuting will be reduced if people who work at UBC
can afford to live on campus.
There will still be those who need to commute. The OCP's statement
that UBC "will need to continue a vigorous campaign to restrain
single occupant vehicle use" is insufficient assurance in the face
of uncertainties around governance.
To gain City support for the OCP, UBC needs to provide a better
indication of steps they propose to take to reduce commuting,
provide for transportation alternatives and/or compensate the City
for costs associated with mitigating the impacts of commuters.
- Offsite impacts on City services: With service payment issues
(such as those associated with the provision of sewers)
outstanding, lower than City park standards, and the provision of
community services based on a threshold of 5,000 people, the OCP
provides no assurance that new development will provide adequate
services for residents and "pay its own way." This raises concerns
that, as an outcome of the University maximizing its endowment,
City taxpayers could end up sharing library, recreation, and other
services with new residents at UBC and, in effect, subsidizing
development at UBC.
To gain City support for the OCP: UBC needs to reconsider park
standards and service phasing to provide for the needs of their
residents, clearly articulate specific amenities resulting from the
new development which will benefit the community as a whole, and
provide assurances on payment for the use of any City services.
Some of these problems may be resolved, over time, if the governance
study proposes a model which ensures adequate public input and
accountability through the implementation phases of the OCP. However,
it is premature to judge the outcome of the governance study.
Consequently, the City can offer advice on sections of the OCP which
continue to raise concerns and recommend to the GVRD that, following
Public Hearing, final approval of the OCP await the conclusion of the
governance study and clarification about how implementation will
proceed.
* * *
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
SUMMARY OF KEY DIRECTIONS IN THE UBC OCP
GOALS:
The OCP Goals are to meet the GVRD's Livable Region Strategic Plan and
to help sustain UBC's academic mission by utilizing its land resource to
build an endowment to support academic activities.
REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT
To respond to the Livable Region Strategic Plan the OCP proposes to:
- protect Green Zone areas;
- build a complete community;
- increase transportation choice; and
- contribute to a compact metropolitan area.
The OCP seeks to accommodate, by 2021: 9,600 households, including 2,800
in ground-oriented housing; 18,000 residents including residents in
student accommodation; and 17,000 jobs. For comparison, today the 402
hectare campus serves 32,000 students, and houses 7,300 student and
1,400 permanent residents. There are about 15,000 jobs on campus today.
In other words, the resident population is expected to double while the
number of students and jobs remains fairly constant.
KEY PROPOSALS FOR GREEN AREAS
- Development of areas adjacent to Pacific Spirit Park will respect
the Pacific Spirit Regional Park Management Plan.
- A continuous greenway will extend through the OCP area to promote
linkages.
- Where possible significant tree stands will be maintained.
KEY PROPOSALS FOR UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC CORE
- The area is mostly for academic and institutional uses.
- Development should respect a 53 metre hight limit.
- Further development of the North Campus will not be permitted
unless supported by a hydrogeological study.
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
KEY PROPOSALS FOR UNIVERSITY COMMERCIAL USES
- A pedestrian oriented commercial centre will be developed near the
transit centre at University Boulevard and East Mall.
- Commercial uses will be oriented to the needs of the university
population and individual businesses are intended to be small
scale.
- The area will be designated to accommodate high capacity transit,
regular bus service, and the campus shuttle bus.
KEY LAND USE PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE HOUSING AREAS
- Housing will provide a range of types, unit sizes, densities,
tenures, and therefore prices to ensure a significant proportion of
future housing will be accessible to those who work on campus or
attend UBC.
- 20% of new residential dwellings will be rental housing, of which
not less than half will be non-market housing that may include
staff, faculty, cooperative, social, or other special needs
housing.
- 40% of new residential dwellings will be ground-oriented housing.
- Any increase in the undergraduate student population should be met
with a proportional increase in student housing to maintain the 25
percent ratio of student housing to full time undergraduate
students.
- The average floor space ratio will be 1.2 net area to a maximum of
100 units per net hectare. No site will have a FSR greater than
2.8 net area. The maximum height is 53 metres.
KEY PROPOSALS FOR SERVICES
- A mixed use village commercial core is designated at the southwest
corner of 16th Avenue and Westbrook Mall.
- Useable neighbourhood open space for residential use will be
provided based on an area to population standard of 0.5 hectares
per 1,000 residents.
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
- The first phase of a community centre will be provided prior to the
permanent residential population exceeding 5,000 persons.
- An elementary school site of not less than 3 hectares will be
provided.
- Development will pay its own way and not impose costs on the
external community.
- The provision of social and community services will be the
responsibility of UBC (assuming the current governance structure)
either directly or on the basis of agreements with appropriate
agencies.
KEY PROPOSALS FOR ACCESS
- The GVRD and UBC will need to support initiatives to increase
transit accessibility.
- UBC will need to continue a vigorous campaign to restrain single
occupant vehicle use.
- Principles of traffic calming will be applied in the residential
areas and academic core.
- The access system is to be designed to be less auto-dominated and
is to be more favourable to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit.
KEY PROPOSALS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
- UBC will need to participate in consultative processes with other
agencies, interests, and jurisdictions.
- The OCP includes Short- (to 5 years), Mid- (5 to 10 years) and
Long-range (10 to 35 years) staging plans. In the short and mid
range the emphasis is on housing development, infrastructure
servicing, and planning for new transit. Plans for the long range
include the provision of community facilities such as the community
centre, greenway, and school.
Appendix B
Page 1 of 2
COMPARISON OF CITY REQUESTS AND OCP RESPONSE
On October 17, 1995, Council expressed the City's interests in the OCP
and asked that the OCP address the following City concerns:
1. Minimize traffic movement to and from UBC through:
- Request: provide housing appropriate for students, staff, and
other workers.
Response: OCP requires that 10% of housing will be non-market
that may include faculty, staff, and students. There are no
other provisions to ensure housing is affordable to campus
workers.
- Request: the OCP include significant traffic demand management
policies.
Response: the OCP states that UBC will need to continue to
develop a traffic management demand plan. No specific actions
are identified.
- Request: to reduce travel through the city to the UBC area,
limit retail development to daily needs of campus users and
residents.
Response: a village centre, to a maximum of 6000 m2 of ground
floor area, is proposed to meet local needs. Half can be a
grocery store with the rest as small uses.
2. Pay appropriate levies for the use of regional services.
Response: the OCP states that development will pay its own
way (including the costs of off-site facilities) and not
impose costs on the external community. No specifics are
provided.
3. Plan for and adequately fund additional demands on City services
(e.g. roads, traffic control improvements, schools, recreation
facilities and services).
Response: the OCP provides for some open space, a school site,
and community facility. The provision of social and community
services will be the responsibility of UBC. The open space
provisions are less than City standards. The community centre
must be provided prior to a permanent population of 5,000
people meaning there may be some demand on City services.
The OCP makes no provision for off site traffic control
improvements.
Appendix B
Page 2 of 2
4. Provide specific amenities that will benefit the community as a
whole.
Response: The OCP makes no provision for new amenities for
those who do not live in the area. The OCP notes that UBC will
need to maintain its role in managing its regional amenities
such as recreational and cultural facilities.
5. Provide for consultation with adjacent residents on detailed plans.
Response: The OCP states that UBC "will need to participate
in consultative processes with other agencies, interests, and
jurisdictions." An interim process is proposed until a
governance study is completed. The interim process provides
no clear assurance that City interests will be addressed.
6. Address environmental implications. Response: The OCP sets as a goal to meet environmental
objectives. There are few specifics.