P3
POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: October 8, 1996
Dept. File No. RH
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of City Plans in consultation with the Director of
Community Planning and the CityPlan Department Heads' Steering
Committee
SUBJECT: CityPlan Community Visions Pilot Project - Selection of Two
Pilot Communities
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Council endorse the recommendations of the October 5 CityPlan
Public Forum and select Dunbar and Kensington-Cedar Cottage as the
two communities for the CityPlan Community Visions Pilot Project,
based on the criteria approved by Council and additional criteria
developed at the Forum.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
On June 6, 1995, Council approved CityPlan to provide directions for
Vancouver. On July 30, 1996 Council approved the CityPlan Community
Visions Terms of Reference as the program guide for bringing CityPlan to
the local level, starting with a pilot project in two communities.
SUMMARY
Vancouver's adopted CityPlan provides directions for the city s future.
Council has approved, as one of the actions to implement CityPlan, a
Community Visions Program and a pilot project of two communities to test
the program. The Community Visions Program is a way of bringing CityPlan
to the local level, providing an opportunity for each community to
prepare a vision that moves in CityPlan directions in a way that fits
the community.
Several criteria for selecting the pilot project communities were
included in the Council-approved terms of reference for the Vision
Program. Many communities fit the criteria and expressed interest in
participating.
To identify two communities, staff held an all-day public forum on
Saturday, October 5. About 40 people from all parts of the city
attended, many representing community groups. Forum participants
took on a city-wide role rather than advocating for their own
communities. They started from the criteria already approved by Council
in the Terms of Reference and added a wide range of relevant criteria.
They then reviewed data to assess the eligible communities against each
of the criteria.
The recommended communities are Dunbar on the west and Kensington-Cedar
Cottage on the east. Both communities are predominantly single-family,
and neither has a comprehensive, area-wide plan. Both have community
groups interested in participating. The communities also have some
marked differences which make them a good pair for the pilot project. In
addition, each is facing transportation pressures: UBC growth adjacent
to Dunbar, and high traffic and truck volumes, and existing and proposed
transit routes in Kensington-Cedar Cottage.
Once Council has endorsed two pilot project communities, the planning
boundaries will be refined through consultation with community groups.
The two vision programs will begin in January 1997, and are scheduled to
complete the seven-step vision process by October 1997.
The Vision Program includes a city-wide process for people from across
the city to learn about and discuss the pilot project processes and
results. The October 5 forum was the first event of this city-wide
process.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to recommend two communities as pilot
projects for the CityPlan Community Visions Program.
BACKGROUND
In June 1995, Council adopted CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver. The
following January, Council approved release of a discussion paper
proposing an approach to bringing CityPlan to the local level, by
creating community visions.
After public review of the discussion paper and revisions to the
proposal, in July 1996 Council approved Terms of Reference for a
CityPlan Community Visions Program and a pilot project of two
communities to test the program. (Appendix A is an information sheet
describing community visions.)
Council also approved that, following consultation with community
groups, staff report back in October with a recommendation on two
communities to participate in the pilot project.
ELIGIBLE COMMUNITIES
The Terms of Reference state that eligible communities will be those
that meet the following initial criteria:
- areas that have not had a comprehensive area-wide plan; or
- areas that are predominantly single-family, so that all of the
CityPlan directions apply.
Many communities passed through this initial screen:
(map)
In addition, the Terms of Reference state that the areas should be in
different parts of the city, east and west, and interested in
participating.
COMMUNITY INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE PILOT PROJECT
CityPlan staff sent an invitation and survey to all identified community
groups in all eligible areas as a way of gauging community interest in
being in the Visions Pilot Project. Staff made follow-up telephone
calls to ensure a response from as many groups as possible. (Appendix
B-1 lists the community groups surveyed.)
Groups in several eligible communities were interested in having their
community be part of the pilot project. Groups in other communities are
interested in preparing a vision, but prefer to start later. There were
no groups responding "no." Those wishing to be first:
East: Kensington-Cedar Cottage
Renfrew-Collingwood
Riley Park
Sunset
Fraser Lands (part of two local areas: Killarney
and Victoria-Fraserview)
West: Dunbar
In some communities, more than one group expressed strong interest in
being part of the pilot project, while in other communities there were
fewer groups, or differences of opinion among groups. A summary is in
Appendix B-2. The full survey results are on file in the City Plans
Division.
OCTOBER 5 FORUM: OBJECTIVES
The criteria in the Terms of Reference resulted in many communities
being eligible for the pilot project, subject to community interest.
Given that more than two communities expressed interest, especially on
the east side, additional criteria and assessment were needed to narrow
the eligible communities down to two. To identify two communities for
the pilot project, staff held an all-day public forum on October 5 at
the Croatian Cultural Centre.
This was the first of the CityPlan Forums that are to accompany the
community visions. Their purpose is to provide for a sense of
cooperation and mutual accountability among communities. Recommending
communities for the pilot project was the first opportunity to put this
city-wide stream of the Vision Program into practice.
Although Dunbar was the only west side community in the "yes" category
before the forum, the forum was also a final opportunity for community
groups to offer to participate as pilot communities.
OCTOBER 5 FORUM: PUBLICITY AND PARTICIPANTS
Publicity about the October 5 forum was provided via the survey of
community groups and follow-up phone calls described above. As well, the
September CityPlan newsletter describing the forum was distributed to
the CityPlan mailing list and was available in libraries and community
centres.
Thirty-nine people participated at the forum. Many of those who attended
did so as representatives of community groups. People were present from
all eligible local areas, except Shaughnessy and South Cambie. Some
participants were also from communities in and adjacent to the Central
Area. A professional facilitator guided the process.
STRUCTURE OF THE DAY AND ROLE OF PARTICIPANTS
The participants were asked to take on a city-wide role rather than
advocate for their own communities. The structure of the day helped
people do this because of the way in which the tasks were defined. There
were two tasks:
- The first was to identify additional criteria to use in selecting
the two communities for the pilot project. This task was done by
completing the sentence "The two communities for the CityPlan
Communities Vision Pilot Project should be communities that..." The
task was done without reference to particular communities and
without looking at where communities stood in relation to each
other or to the criteria.
- The second task was to use the criteria to review the eligible
communities and make a short list. For this task, data was provided
by staff to measure each community. Each criterion was reviewed
separately, to facilitate an objective assessment of each
community. All the criteria were considered as a basis for
recommending pilot communities.
Each task was discussed first in small groups and then in a plenary
session for a wider consensus. Each small group was made up of
participants from a mix of local areas, and included a CityPlan staff
person as a resource.
A full record of the forum proceedings is on file in the City Plans
Division.
TASK #1: IDENTIFYING CRITERIA TO USE TO SELECT COMMUNITIES
The morning small group task was to identify additional criteria to use
in selecting the two communities for the visions pilot project. These
criteria were additional to the ones already approved in the Terms of
Reference and noted above: predominantly single-family or never had a
comprehensive plan; on both sides of the city, east and west; and
community interest. As part of this task, participants were also asked
to think about whether the criteria they were generating were ones that
could be easily assessed, and how they could be assessed. This would
later be used to generate a list of indicators.
During discussion at the plenary session, the participants, with the
help of the facilitator, were able to group all the suggestions and to
agree upon the following additional criteria to use to assess
communities:
- facing development issues
- facing transportation pressures
- deficient in community services/amenities
- provide a basis for learning about diversity issues.
A fifth criteria was also suggested:
- that the two communities for the pilot project be different from
each other (e.g., in terms of housing variety) in order to test the
pilot in different circumstances.
The morning plenary session concluded by generating a list of indicators
-- ways to assess each of the criteria. For those indicators for which
staff had data, charts were prepared over the lunch break for use in the
afternoon session. The table below lists the indicators used for each of
the criteria.
Since Dunbar was still the only west side community with groups
expressing interest in being part of the pilot project, Dunbar became
the west side pilot project community. The afternoon task was then
focused on selecting an east side community.
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING COMMUNITIES FOR VISION PILOT PROJECT
CRITERIA INDICATORS
CRITERIA FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE
Predominantly - % dwelling units in single-detached
single-family or - No comprehensive, City-approved plan
No comprehensive plan
On east and west sides - Generally east and west of Main
of city
Community interest - Response to community groups' survey
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FROM FORUM
Used where the criteria above did not pinpoint a single
community on one or both sides of city
Facing development - Rezoning applications
issues - Rezoning inquiries
- Population turn-over
- Capacity in commercial areas
- Demolitions of single-detached
dwellings
- Building permits - new
construction, commercial zones
- Transit stations (existing and
proposed)
Facing transportation - Transportation initiatives and
pressures proposals
- Traffic volumes
- Truck volumes
- Truck routes
Deficient in community - Low income households
services/amenities - Non-market housing
- Spending greater than 30% on
shelter
- Shortage of child care spaces
- Local park acres per 1000
population
- Community centres and libraries
- "Main St" shopping/neighbourhood
centres
- Crime rate
Provide a basis for - Home languages
learning about - Low income households
diversity issues - Rented dwellings
- Ages (under 19 and over 65)
- Household income ranges
- Immigration
TASK #2: ASSESSING COMMUNITIES ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA
The afternoon task was to use the criteria agreed upon in the morning
plenary session, and the data provided on each of the indicators, to
assess all the eligible and interested communities. The product of this
work was a suggested short list of up to two communities on the east
side of the city for the pilot project (with Dunbar as the west side
community).
Each small group discussion table was given a set of charts with the
data for each of the indicators. Again each table contained people from
a variety of local areas. Participants reviewed the data provided for
each of the criteria. They objectively ranked each community according
to the criteria.
FORUM CONCLUSION
Kensington-Cedar Cottage was identified as the pilot project community
on the east side, best meeting the four criteria identified at the
forum: development issues; transportation pressures; service deficiency
and service need; and diversity of population.
All four groups identified Kensington-Cedar Cottage on the short list of
two communities for the pilot project -- including the two groups
without a person from this local area. Three groups gave this local area
a priority #1 rating. The fourth group did not rank their two
short-listed communities.
Three groups also included Riley Park on their short list. One group
included Renfrew-Collingwood and Victoria-Fraserview.
Dunbar had already been identified as the west side community, because
it was the only west side local area with strong community group
interest in being in the pilot project. This also fulfilled the criteria
of the two communities for the pilot being different from each other.
The biggest issue raised at the forum was the number of east side
communities wanting to participate in the program, while only one could
be selected for the pilot project. Many people were uncomfortable about
having to make a selection among communities that they considered to be
in need of planning attention, and some would have preferred
recommending two east side communities instead of one east side and one
west side.
Other issues raised:
- The need to build upon grassroots community plans already in place
-- i.e., West Point Grey.
- The problem of some areas (e.g.,Fraser Lands) being a part of two
local areas, and thus not being fully included in either. This
issue will need to be considered when future communities are
selected for a Vision Program.
STAFF COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES
From the staff point of view, the two communities recommended by the
forum participants will make good pilot project communities for the
Vision Program. Both communities have active community groups, eager to
tackle planning issues. The two communities both are predominantly
single-family so that all the CityPlan directions apply. Neither has
ever had a comprehensive area-wide plan, although Kensington-Cedar
Cottage has had some project planning attention in some of its
sub-areas.
The communities also have some marked differences which make them a good
pair for the pilot project. Kensington-Cedar Cottage has 26 percent low
income households, while Dunbar has 9 percent. Kensington-Cedar Cottage
has 82 percent single-detached units, while Dunbar has 97 percent, the
highest in the city. Kensington-Cedar Cottage has twice as many rented
dwellings, and 29 percent non-market housing. Dunbar has no non-market
housing. Kensington also has over four times as much commercial-zoned
site area. Both have transportation issues, of different types.
Kensington-Cedar Cottage has the highest volume traffic and truck routes
in the city, as well as an existing, and proposed, transit route and
station. Dunbar is adjacent to UBC, feeling its traffic and development
impacts.
Regarding the proposed Broadway light rapid transit route, in order for
it to go ahead, the Province has asked all of the municipalities along
the route to have in place, by early 1998, plans for ensuring adequate
ridership. Planning and Engineering are jointly identifying the work
program and resource needs to address this and other transit route
issues. Staff will report to Council in the near future.
The CityPlan Department Heads' Steering Committee has discussed the
relationship of the transit line planning to the Visions Program. The
two programs are distinct, but will dovetail well together. A Community
Vision covers a much broader area and more comprehensive set of issues
than transit line planning. While transit line planning is linear,
passing through several communities, the Vision Program is
community-centred. In communities that will have the transit line
running through them, the transit planning program will need to
concentrate on the transit line design and mitigation measures in more
detail than would be possible through the vision process.
NEXT STEPS
After Council approval of two pilot project communities, information
will be prepared for the two communities and site offices will be
located. The two pilot project vision programs will begin step 1 in
January 1997 and are scheduled to complete the seven steps of the vision
process by October 1997.
In addition, once the two communities are selected, the boundaries for
planning and participation will be fine-tuned, in consultation with
local groups. For example, Dunbar is combined with part of Southlands
into one local area. However, Southlands already has a comprehensive
plan and, therefore, the vision program will likely concentrate on
Dunbar.
A process will also be put in place to evaluate the pilot projects as
they proceed.
CONCLUSION
Two communities need to be selected for the Community Visions Pilot
Project. The October 5 public forum proved to be, from the point of view
of CityPlan staff, a fair and objective way of identifying two
appropriate communities. Participants at the forum started from the
criteria approved by Council. The forum participants identified
additional criteria and usable indicators. They objectively assessed
the eligible communities against the criteria. Staff are satisfied that
Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Dunbar are good pilot project communities
for CityPlan Community Visions and look forward to working with groups
and individuals in these two communities. The process will include
visions for the two areas and opportunities for the two to meet together
and for people from across the city to learn about and discuss the pilot
project processes and results.
* * *