SUPPORTS ITEM 5
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
RECOMMENDATIONS
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
strategy;
(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;
and
(iv) programs to provide for the service needs of new
residents.
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.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
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.
SUMMARY
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.
PURPOSE
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.
BACKGROUND
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
comment.
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
committees.
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.
DISCUSSION
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.
HOUSING
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.
ORIGINAL OCP: HOUSING
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.
ORIGINAL CITY CONCERNS: HOUSING
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.
GVRD OCP RESPONSE: HOUSING
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
unchanged.
UBC RESPONSE: HOUSING
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;
and
review the procedures for allocation of funds through the
University s faculty down payment assistance program.
CITY RESPONSE: HOUSING
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
re-wording.
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
process.
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.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ORIGINAL OCP: SERVICES
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.
ORIGINAL CITY CONCERNS: SERVICES
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
facilities.
UBC was asked to prepare an approach to providing required social and
community services for residents.
UBC RESPONSE: SERVICES
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."
CITY RESPONSE: SERVICES
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.
TRANSPORTATION
ORIGINAL OCP: TRANSPORTATION
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
mentioned.
ORIGINAL CITY CONCERNS: TRANSPORTATION
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.
GVRD RESPONSE: TRANSPORTATION
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 RESPONSE: TRANSPORTATION
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.
CITY RESPONSE: TRANSPORTATION
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.
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
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
Province;
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
* * * *