P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
                                            MAY 29, 1997

                                 POLICY REPORT
                                URBAN STRUCTURE

                                            Date: May 23, 1997
                                            Dept. File No.  AMcA
                                            CC File No.: 8026/1101

   TO:       Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

   FROM:     Director of City Plans in consultation with the General
             Manager of Engineering Services, Manager of the Housing
             Centre, and the General Manager of Parks and Recreation.

   SUBJECT:  Official Community Plan for Part of Electoral Area "A" UBC


        A.   THAT Vancouver  City Council support fourth  and final reading
             of  the  Bylaw  840-1996,  Official  Community  Plan  for  UBC
             (November 1996  draft), subject to agreements  being signed by
             UBC to commit to preparation and implementation of:

             (i)   an         effective         U-Pass-type         system;

             (ii)  a comprehensive transportation management 
             (iii) a  program to  implement the  goal that  in addition  to
                   student  housing,  not  less  than  50%  of  market  and
                   non-market housing serve  university-related households;
             (iv)  programs  to  provide  for  the  service  needs  of  new

        B.   THAT  Vancouver City  Council advise  the  GVRD that  the City
             rescinds the motion  of September 26,  1996, whereby the  City
             recommended  that enactment of the OCP be withheld until a new
             governance system is in place.


        The General  Manager of  Community Services RECOMMENDS  approval of
        the foregoing.


   On March  25, l997,  Council  supported the  terms  of reference  for  a
   governance  study  for  Electoral Area  "A"  and  asked staff  to  do an
   analysis  of  the costs  and revenues  associated  with an  option which
   involves the inclusion of all or part of Electoral Area  "A" in the City
   of Vancouver.

   On  September 26  and October  10,  1996, Council  advised  the GVRD  of
   concerns with the Draft Official Community Plan (OCP) for Electoral Area
   "A" and  recommended that enactment of  the OCP be withheld  until a new
   governance system is in place. Concerns focused on the potential offsite
   impacts  (traffic,  service  demands)  of new  development  on  adjacent
   Vancouver neighbourhoods.


   The  preparation of  an Official  Community Plan  for the  University of
   British Columbia area has resulted in issues concerning off-site impacts
   associated with  new development.   During  the past  year the  City has
   proposed a number of housing, transportation, and service initiatives to
   improve the neighbourliness of new development.

   Revisions to the OCP, as outlined  in the November 1996 draft, meet most
   of the City s concerns. The revised targets require the new developments
   to offer  housing opportunities for  people who  work and study  at UBC.
   This will  minimize commuting.  Transportation measures are  proposed to
   encourage transit use and discourage single occupant vehicles. Standards
   for  open space and provisions for access to UBC  recreation and library
   facilities should  provide for the  recreational needs of  new residents
   until such time as additional facilities are built on site.

   An OCP  is a strategic  document to set  policy directions.  It includes
   targets and livability criteria.  It does not include the  detailed land
   use and funding plans to implement the new community.  These details are
   worked out  after an OCP  is approved.   In a usual  municipal situation
   this is  not a cause for  concern. Further policies, plans,  and budgets
   are considered by an  elected Council, whose members are  accountable to
   the  public.  In the  case  of  the UBC  area,  no  such public  process
   currently  exists.  Consequently  issues  have  been  raised  about  how
   implementation will proceed. This provides some cause for concern.

   The UBC Board of Governors has made a submission to the GVRD Board which
   outlines  commitments the University will  make to implementation of the
   OCP.   Staff support  most of  the proposals with  the exception  of the
   revised  housing goal (Section  4.1.14) and  the proposed  definition of
   ground-oriented housing which  provides more leeway  in design than  one
   might  expect  for  family-oriented  units. Staff  understand  that  the
   University s submission  will become  part of  the signed  Memorandum of
   Understanding attached to  the OCP. Agreement  to the commitments  which
   minimize  commuting and  impacts on  City services  are critical  to the
   City s support of the OCP.

   Assuming that commitments to proceed  with implementation of housing and
   transportation targets are included  as an attachment to the  OCP, staff
   recommend  that  Council  support  approval  of  the  revised  OCP.   In
   implementing the  OCP it is  important that UBC  do so in the  spirit of
   creating  a   complete  community  which  respects   its  neighbours  by
   minimizing the off-site impacts of new development.


   This  report  provides comments  on the  City s  interests in  the Draft
   Official Community Plan for the University of British Columbia s portion
   of Electoral Area  "A" and  a recommended  response to  the GVRD  public
   meeting scheduled for June 19, 1997.


   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 (see Appendix A) to respond to  plans for  a major
   new housing development.  In 1996, a draft OCP was circulated for public

   On October 10, 1996,  Council advised the GVRD of concerns  with respect
   to the  Draft Official Community  Plan for UBC.   Specifically, the City
   was concerned about off-site impacts. Issues raised included:

   i)   Proposed housing  targets provided no assurance  that efforts would
        be  made to  house  people who  work or  study  on campus,  thereby
        reducing the traffic impacts  associated with an eventual community
        of  18,000 residents,  13,100 jobs, and  an associated  student and
        visitor population;

   ii)  The lack of  specifics about  actions to  reduce commuting,  manage
        truck traffic to and from the campus,  and pay for servicing costs,
        provided no  assurance that off-site impacts  from development will
        be   adequately  addressed.  Council   requested  an   access  plan
        demonstrating  a   firm  commitment   by  UBC  to   a  strengthened
        Transportation Demand  Management Program and  implementation of  a
        U-Pass system; and

   iii) The provision of open space and the staging of community facilities
        provided  no assurance that the needs of residents will be provided
        for in an adequate and timely manner, possibly resulting in demands
        on City services.

   In  summary, the  City  was seeking  the  creation  of a  more  complete
   community in the OCP area, with zoning, economic, and unit-size criteria
   established  so as  to support  the university-oriented  population, and
   basic commercial and recreational facilities provided on-site.

   Given these concerns, Council  recommended that enactment of the  OCP be
   withheld until a new governance system  is in place and Council would be
   in  a better  position to  assess whether the  City s interests  will be
   adequately addressed through the implementation process.

   Following  Council s input, and  comments received  from the  public, on
   November  1, 1996,  the  GVRD Board  amended  the draft  OCP to  include
   provisions for:

   50% of new housing to serve UBC related households;
       reducing single occupant vehicle travel by 20%; and
       increasing open space and/or access to community facilities.

   With these  amendments, the GVRD Board gave third reading to the OCP and
   requested  that UBC provide further information on ways to address these
   issues prior to fourth and final reading.

   To  respond  to these  requests, UBC  hired  consultants to  address the
   issues  of services,  housing, and  transportation.  Working committees,
   including  residents and experts, and public meetings helped to redefine
   the  University s  obligations to  the proposed  OCP.   City  staff from
   Engineering,  Planning, Housing  Centre, and  Parks participated  on the

   On May 22, 1997,  the UBC Board of Governors provided  a response to the
   GVRD.  A copy of the University s response is attached as Appendix B.


   Throughout the OCP process, the three areas of most interest to the City
   have been:

       new housing and traffic impacts to and from UBC;
       impacts on City 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.  Each section
   outlines the original  OCP proposals, the City s  October 1996 response,
   the GVRD s revisions  to the  OCP, the University s  response, and  City
   comments on  the current OCP proposals for  housing, community services,
   transportation, and governance.


   The University s prime objective  for new development is to  generate an
   endowment to support education.  Broader OCP objectives include creating
   a   complete   community   and   contributing  to   the   GVRD   "growth
   concentration" area.


   The OCP set as a target to accommodate 18,000 residents by 2021.

   The OCP set as objectives to provide housing for:
       a diverse range of housing types and tenures;
       s "significant" proportion of market and non-market housing serving
        people who work on campus or attend university;
       20%  of new housing  be rental of  which not  less than half  to be
        non-market housing;
       a ratio of 25% of student housing to full time undergraduates; and
       40% of housing to be ground-oriented.


   The absence of a definition of "significant" and no requirement that the
   non-market units  house UBC  students/workers resulted in  concerns that
   new housing could contribute to commuting, albeit as a reverse flow.


   The GVRD Board  revised the OCP to  set as a  goal that, in addition  to
   student  housing, not  less than  50% of  market and  non-market housing
   serve households where  one or more members work or  attend UBC. UBC was
   requested to  respond as to how  this could be achieved.   Other targets
   with respect to rental,  non-market and ground-oriented housing remained


   UBC  accepts the  revised  (50% target)  but  notes that  these  housing
   policies  are  without precedent  elsewhere. They  will  not be  easy to
   achieve  and the  consequences  could be  a  reduction in  the  expected
   endowment of between $97 and $130 million.

   UBC proposes  that  the 50%  of new  market and  non-market units  serve
   households  where  one or  more members  work at  or  attend UBC.   This
   definition appears to include student housing in the 50% target and is a
   significant change  to the existing  draft OCP  which indicates  student
   housing is in addition to the 50% target.

   UBC  proposes   some  changes  to   the  definitions  for   student  and
   ground-oriented housing and to  procedures for reviewing progress toward
   achieving  the OCP. Generally the modifications do not change the intent
   of the OCP.

   In addition to agreeing to the targets, UBC proposes to:

       create  a Housing  Advisory Committee, including  students, faculty
        and existing residents, to assess housing demand at UBC;
       create  a   Planning  Council  of  experts   to  recommend  overall
        development concepts for local area plans;
       create  a design team to plan additional full time student housing;
       review  the   procedures  for  allocation  of   funds  through  the
        University s faculty down payment assistance program.


   By supporting  the 50% target for  housing people who work  and study on
   campus  and by  identifying  actions to  implement  the target,  on  the
   surface, UBC has responded to the  concerns the City raised with respect
   to minimizing commuting.

   There  are some  questions  about  how  the  specific  wording  will  be
   operationalized.  On one hand it could indeed result in at least half of
   the households having an active connection to UBC.

   On the other hand, the wording could  be interpreted in such a way as to
   result  in minimal opportunities for non-students to live on campus. For
   example,  if  the new  student  housing is  built  at the  same  pace as
   non-student  housing, then,  none  of the  non-student  housing need  be
   occupied by someone who works or studies at UBC.  This is not consistent
   with  the  intent of  the  current wording  of the  OCP,  which excludes
   student  housing  from the  50% target.  As  well, if  "completed units"
   includes existing  student  and faculty  housing,  as the  proposed  new
   wording  for the  last  paragraph  of 4.1.14  could  imply, 90%  of  the
   existing housing is already  occupied by faculty and  staff.  UBC  could
   build out the rest of its  property without further commitments to house
   university-related households. Hopefully, this is not the intent of  the

   Because  of the ambiguity of the proposed UBC wording, staff recommended
   that Section 4.1.14 of the OCP remain as it is presently worded: The OCP
   sets as a goal  that, in addition to student housing,  not less than 50%
   of  market and  non-market housing  serve households  where one  or more
   members work or attend university on the UBC campus.  Further  detailing
   of  implementation  can  proceed  through  the  proposed  Area  Planning

   UBC is  proposing some amendments  to the definition  of ground-oriented
   housing. If amendments are made, they should respect the basic intent of
   ground-oriented housing, that is to provide
   accommodation suitable for families with children.



   The  OCP  set  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.

   City practice is to require the provision of community facilities before
   or concurrent  with residential development.  The OCP proposed  that the
   community centre, greenway, and school be provided "after about 10 years
   and up to possibly 35 years." This raised the issue  of accessibility to
   services in the interim. The OCP was not specific  about resident access
   to campus facilities.


   The  City expressed  concerns that  the OCP  provided no  assurance that
   resident needs  would be met  on site. This  could result in  demands on
   adjacent City library, community centre, and park services.

   GVRD OCP RESPONSE   The  GVRD  Board  amended   the  draft  OCP  to  require   that  useable
   neighbourhood open space be  1.1 hectares (2.75 acres) per  1000 persons
   which could  be reduced to not  less than 0.5 hectares  per 1000 persons
   based  upon  resident access  to  appropriate UBC-owned  open  space and

   UBC was asked to  prepare an approach  to providing required social  and
   community services for residents.


   UBC has agreed to the 1.1 hectare standard. The University  is proposing
   a  variety of actions to provide community services.  These actions will
   be funded from the current UBC Services Levy charged to all residents of
   Hampton Place. The actions include an option for providing some funds to
   the  Vancouver Public  Library  to  provide  services to  Hampton  Place
   residents.  UBC will create a Hampton Place/UBC Joint Steering Committee
   to  advise on service implementation.   One appointee  will be "familiar
   with municipal structure and management."  


   The revised open  space ratio  reflects City standards.  There is  still
   some ambiguity around how the reduction in open space will be negotiated
   "based upon  resident access  to UBC open  space and facilities."   This
   will  need to be addressed  by the proposed  Hampton Place/UBC Community
   Services  Joint Steering Committee. It is also unclear whether the money
   proposed to be set aside to develop a future community  facility will be
   sufficient   to  build  and  operate  the   facility.  With  respect  to
   implementation, there  are also concerns about  the proposed Committee s
   makeup which includes only  one municipal service provider. At  the very
   least, both the Vancouver Public Library  and the Park Board should have
   repre-sentatives on the Committee.

   The Draft  OCP sets as a  goal, under the section  on infrastructure and
   physical services, that "development will pay its own way and not impose
   costs on the  external community." Having said this, there  are still no
   specifics of how  this will be done and no  details on mechanisms (other
   than for libraries) to pay for service impacts on the City.

   For  example, the  OCP discussions  have not  addressed the  City s long
   standing  concern about UBC  receiving sewer  services from  the Greater
   Vancouver  Sewer District  without  appropriate payment.  This issue  is
   still not resolved. The  proposed governance study should address  these
   long standing concerns.



   The OCP stated that UBC  would "need to continue a vigorous  campaign to
   restrain single occupant vehicle use".   No targets were set  to measure
   whether the general OCP  directions were being met. Truck travel was not


   The lack  of specifics  on transportation was  one of the  main concerns
   expressed by the City.  Council requested specific measures to result in
   an overall reduction of 20%  in 24 hour vehicle  travel to and from  UBC
   and the UER community.


   The GVRD amended the OCP to establish a target to reduce single occupant
   vehicle travel from 1996 levels  by 20%.  The GVRD Board  requested that
   UBC  undertake a comprehensive planning  process to address transit use,
   truck travel, parking, and transportation demand management.


   UBC agrees to  pursue the goal of  reducing SOVs by 20%.   UBC will also
   pursue  a complementary goal of  increasing transit ridership  by 20% by
   the  five year  OCP review. UBC  proposes a number  of actions including
   committing $250,000 per year toward a U-Pass system and working with the
   City to address truck traffic.


   As UBC  notes, implementation  of the  20% reduction in  SOVs will  be a
   major challenge  which no other agency  in the region is  being asked to
   achieve. Support by UBC for implementing a U-Pass system is encouraging.
   However,  a detailed business case, indicating the markets to be served,
   services required, cost of the system, and pricing structure has yet  to
   be worked out. Experience at the University of Washington, where parking
   fees  and fines contribute $3.6  million annually to  the U-Pass system,
   suggests  that the funds allocated  for this proposal  by UBC ($250,000)
   may be far short of what is needed to implement a viable system. 

   It is unfortunate  that work over the past six months has not provided a
   more  comprehensive plan  which better  addresses the  various elements,
   data  requirements  and monitoring  programs  necessary  to achieve  the
   transportation targets.   Nevertheless,  UBC is proposing  to develop  a
   comprehensive  transportation management strategy that will address ways
   to achieve a  20% reduction in Single Occupant Vehicles.   The UBC Board
   of  Governors  has  identified a  number  of  measures  to achieve  this
   including the  implementation  of a  U-Pass-type  system,  significantly
   increasing transit  to campus  (and emerging  residential  areas in  the
   South  Campus precinct),  reducing  the parking  supply, and  increasing
   parking rates.  These, and  other on-campus and  Regional Transportation
   Demand Management  measures, coupled  with  successful implementation of
   the  proposed housing strategy (to offer housing opportunities to people
   who work or study on campus and would otherwise need  to commute) should
   go a long way to achieving the transportation targets.


   In 1996, when the  Draft OCP was considered, the City expressed concerns
   about the implementation  process. At  that time the  concern was  that,
   once the OCP was signed, further actions would  be proposed and approved
   by  the UBC Board  of Governors with  no easy  process for input  by the
   City. For this reason, staff recommended, and Council adopted, a request
   to  the GVRD to defer  approval of the OCP until  a governance study had
   been completed.

   While the concerns have  not been fully resolved, three  changes provide
   some comfort:

       Agreements have been  signed by UBC and the GVRD  to proceed with a
        governance  study.   The  request  is  awaiting  approval from  the
       A revised Memorandum of Understanding on how the OCP implementation
        will proceed has been signed and will likely be further adjusted to
        reflect UBC s commitments to implement the OCP provisions; and

       Original  concerns  about  implementation  have  been  resolved  by
        requiring  that the preparation of Area  Plan include detailed land
        use   plans,  design   guidelines,  servicing   and  transportation
        strategies,  zoning and development controls.   These Plans will be
        produced through a process which involves both UBC and the GVRD and
        both Boards are involved in the Final Area Plan Approval process.

   These actions provide some  assurance that the City will  have continued
   input into the process of implementing the OCP.


   Amendments to the OCP, requested by  the City, have been included in the
   OCP  and UBC  has, by  and large,  agreed to  the housing,  service, and
   transportation targets.   Many issues have yet to be  resolved about how
   the  OCP will  be  implemented.   These  issues are  more  appropriately
   addressed  through the next step,  Area Planning.   Staff recommend that
   Council support approval of the revised OCP and seek assurances from UBC
   that further work to implement the housing, transportation,  and service
   targets  will  be  undertaken in  the  spirit  of  providing a  complete
   community  which  respects its  neighbours  by  minimizing the  off-site
   impacts of new development.

                               * * * *