CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

CITY OF VANCOUVER
M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: July 10, 1998 FILE: 5340

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Dona Misiere, Committee Clerk

SUBJECT: CityPlan Community Visions Program:

Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Dunbar Community Visions

Ann McAfee, Director of City Plans, will give a report reference on the CityPlan Community Visions Program for the Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Dunbar areas.

The attached Policy Report dated July 9, 1998, refers.

:dm
att.

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

	Date: July 9, 1998
	Author/Local: PFrench/7041
	CC File No. 5340

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of City Plans, in consultation with CityPlan Department Heads Steering Committee

SUBJECT: CityPlan Community Visions Program: Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Dunbar Community Visions

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council adopt the Kensington-Cedar Cottage [KCC] and Dunbar Community Vision Directions, attached in Appendix A and B, as follows:

- Directions categorized as "Support" to be adopted as written
- Directions categorized as "Uncertain", for which a Revised Direction has been included, the Revised Direction to be adopted
- Directions categorized as "Uncertain", with commentary but without a revised Direction, not to be adopted but to remain in the text for information
- Directions categorized as "Non-support", not to be adopted but to remain in the text for information

B. THAT Council and Departments use the KCC and Dunbar Vision Directions to help guide policy decisions, corporate work, priorities, budgets and capital plans in these two communities.

C. THAT Council direct the Director of Community Planning to report back in the fall on an overall approach to implementing and monitoring the Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Dunbar Community Visions

D. THAT Council direct the Director of City Plans to report back in the fall on an adjusted Vision Program, with options for timing, staffing and resources to prepare Visions for other communities.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, B, C and D above.

COUNCIL POLICY

In June 1995 Council adopted CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver as a broad vision for the city. In July 1996, Council approved the CityPlan Community Visions Terms of Reference as the guide for preparing Community Visions, to bring CityPlan to the community level, together with funding and staffing to do Visions in two communities as a pilot project.

SUMMARY

The KCC and Dunbar Community Visions are complete, and meet the criteria set out in the Terms of Reference which Council adopted in 1996. The Vision Directions further the CityPlan Directions and reflect legitimate, broad community opinion about how to do so. Staff recommend the Vision Directions be adopted as described in Recommendation A.

Recommendation B instructs that the adopted KCC and Dunbar Vision Directions be used to help guide decisions affecting these two areas, starting immediately. However, recognizing that following up the Visions, which see into the future up to 20 years, will be a long term effort by both the City and community, Recommendation C proposes a report back on an implementation and monitoring strategy.

This report provides a preliminary overview of the Community Vision Program pilot. A full evaluation of the pilot project will be carried out, and Recommendation D calls for a report back to Council in the fall including options for timing, staff and resources to prepare Visions for other Vancouver communities. At that time, Council can decide whether and how they wish to have the program continued.

PURPOSE

This report presents the Kensington-Cedar Cottage [KCC] and Dunbar Community Visions for Council endorsement, and provides an overview of how the pilot program worked and initial implications for its continuation.

BACKGROUND

In June 1995 Council adopted "CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver" as a broad vision for the city. CityPlan treats a wide range of topics in a general way, and notes that next steps would require that communities directly participate in defining how CityPlan would be adapted to their areas. Therefore, in July 1996, Council approved the CityPlan Community Visions Terms of Reference [hereafter CCVToR] as the guide for preparing community visions, to bring CityPlan to the community level.

The mandate of the Community Visions is to "have communities, assisted by staff, develop visions that incorporate a wide range of community interests and describe common ground for moving in CityPlan directions. The program asks each community to implement CityPlan directions in a way and at a scale and pace that suits the community." [CCVToR]

In October 1996, KCC and Dunbar were selected through a public forum, and endorsed by Council, as the two pilot areas for Visions. While some preparation work was done earlier, community-based work began in January 1997. The program included initial outreach, a two-day Ideas Fair, and Community Workshops where ideas and options were generated by residents to address CityPlan topics. This material was transformed into the Choices Survey that went to all communities households, businesses and owners. The survey and responses then formed the basis for the Vision Directions now before Council, which have also been circulated in the communities, together with a colourful poster summary.

The Community Vision process in the two communities is now complete. The resulting Vision Directions and Survey Results are attached as Appendices A and B.

DISCUSSION

1. The Community Visions

Appendices A and B are summary documents that convey the Vision Directions and Survey Results. Each contains over 100 Vision Directions on the full range of CityPlan topics that will guide the communities for up to 20 years. They reflect how the communities will balance citywide and community concerns, and meet the challenges of the future. Only a flavour of the Vision Directions can be provided in this summary.

(a) Dunbar Vision

Dunbar has many valued qualities that its residents would like to be protected, including the green, quiet nature of its single family areas, and its village atmosphere. Reflecting this are Directions on design control for new single family houses, retaining older character buildings and areas, keeping rural quality of lanes, and protecting the natural areas in parks. However, not all change is unwelcome. Dunbarites see change focussed generally along Dunbar, with Directions on improving three neighbourhood centre shopping areas, improved design of mixed use development, and new types of ground-oriented housing along one or more of the arterials: Dunbar, 16th and 41st Avenues.

(b) KCC Vision

KCC residents also identified valued features that they want both protected and enhanced. Directions include maintaining single family areas; retaining older character buildings and areas; enhancing the parks; and protecting great views. However, they feel the need to address some negative trends, as well as to focus change. Many Directions aim to make the area cleaner, greener, and safer, with more livable arterial streets. Community development support is also called for, to help do more with volunteer effort. Directions identify four neighbourhood centre shopping areas which should be the focus of improvements. One of these already has a housing mix, and two more are seen as foci of some new ground-oriented housing. In the rest of the C-zoned stretches along arterials, more variation in mixed-use development, including housing types, is supported.

2. Adoption of Community Visions Directions

The Council-approved Community Visions Terms of Reference set out criteria which the Vision must meet to be considered valid, which can be summarised as:

· Furthering CityPlan: Visions should cover all CityPlan topics, and move the community in CityPlan Directions; and
· Reflecting informed community opinion: Visions should validly reflect broad community opinion and "common ground", based on informed participation.

(a) Furthering CityPlan

Appendix C describes in detail how Vision Directions carry out the 14 CityPlan Directions, below are a few highlights:

(i) The Visions:

- identify which shopping areas should be the foci for neighbourhood centres, and contain Directions on improvements, services, and housing.
- locate and describe new housing variety and capacity. Dunbar, whose zoning already allows about 1000 more apartments in its commercial areas, adds 50 to 100% more potential dwellings in the form of rowhouses, 4/6 plexes or duplexes, and secondary suites. If the higher level occurs, the neighbourhood’s housing demand to 2021 will be virtually met. KCC already has enough numerical capacity (6,000 units, mainly apartments) for its projected demand, but also proposes introducing more housing variety in the form of rowhouses, 4/6 plexes or duplexes.
- point to ways in which the communities want to improve arterial streets to make living with them more acceptable, while still recognizing their role carrying through-traffic.
- outline different approaches to facilities and services to suit the very different populations in the two communities.

(ii) City Perspectives Panel

The Terms of Reference called for a panel of people, widely respected from a city-wide and community point of view, to wear a "city hat", and provide commentary on how well the visions meet CityPlan directions. A seven person City Perspectives Panel was appointed by Council. Many of them attended workshops as observers. As a group, they provided commentary on the Choices Survey as to how the proposed Directions relate to CityPlan and regional plans for the information of community residents filling out the survey. The Perspectives Panel's comments on the resulting Vision Directions will be forwarded to Council separately.

(b) Reflecting Informed Community Opinion

The Terms of Reference called for the Visions program to seek common ground and the opinion of the broad community, not just a few people. There was to be a variety of ways for people to be involved, in an informed way. Appendix D provides information on the public participation in the Visions. Below are some highlights.

(i) Outreach and Awareness: A broad spectrum of tools and methods was used to make people aware of the program, recruit participants, and encourage responses, including:

- ads and media releases at key points in community newspapers, including non-English papers;
- delivery of 2 newsletters, Choices Survey, and completed Vision to all households, businesses, and absentee owners;
- media coverage and interviews, in English and Chinese;
- meetings with a wide variety of community groups
- displays and events such as Ideas Fair, mini-displays at community centres, and "travelling road show" related to the Choices Survey.

(ii) Information: Over 100 Factsheets were created with information about the community, the city, and the regional context. Workshops used these, plus specially-prepared materials [e.g. for housing: household type profiles, home affordability, sources of housing demand, growth projections, various housing prototypes, existing and potential housing in the community. For transportation, information on the existing situation and ideas from other communities regarding streets, truck routes, transit system, volumes, street design standards, traffic management, parking, and accidents]. The Choices Survey, which presented the draft Directions to the community for response, contained background material and "fact boxes" to allow an understanding of the origin and consequences of the Directions.

(iii) Workshops: For each community, seven widely advertised topic workshops open to anyone interested, plus special multi-cultural workshops in KCC, generated the ideas and options that became the Vision Directions. Workshop participants were numerous and diverse enough to generate a range of material. Dunbar had 164 participants, and KCC 185 [+ 37 in multi-cultural workshops]. Each community benefitted from over 1000 participant hours.

(iv) Choices Survey: A extensive survey was delivered to every household, business, and absentee owner to ensure broad opinion was heard:

- over 1600 responses (23%) in Dunbar, and 1200 responses (8%) in KCC, with respondents from every block in both communities (For a broad topic, multi-question survey like this, a general response rate of 5-10% is good);
- a random sample of respondents in each community, which substantiated the opinion of the general return;
- a return of 16% of the Chinese version surveys in KCC (27% of people have Chinese as home language); and
- a good match between respondents and community resident profile in owner/renter status, housing type, and age group.

(v) Community Liaison Groups: The Terms of Reference mandated the creation of a Community Liaison Group for each community, made up of a wide range of community volunteers, who were charged with: providing continuity through the process; "watch dogging" to ensure that community input from each step was carried through; advising on outreach; and generally advising staff. The Liaison Group was process-focussed--their job was not to edit community input, nor to select the preferred Directions.

The Liaison Groups were valuable throughout the program in helping ensure the "transparency", and thus the credibility, of the process. They advised on outreach and on timing, logistics and structure of the workshops; reviewed the workshop transcripts for accuracy; reviewed the draft Choices Survey to ensure that it embodied what the communities had said, and to assist in making it understandable to residents. They reviewed the survey results, and how staff had analysed them, as well as the "Vision at a glance" summaries that appear on the posters. Appendix D includes the Liaison Groups’ comments about their own role. They also provided evaluation of the program steps and components which will be helpful in the full program evaluation.

Each Liaison Group’s general comments on the Vision program will be forwarded separately, and presented to Council by a spokesperson.

Overall, staff feel that the KCC and Dunbar Visions meet the criteria of furthering CityPlan, and reflecting informed community opinion. Vision Directions move in the CityPlan directions on all the relevant topics, and take them to a greater level of specificity for each community. [In addition, the Visions are consistent with, and provide more local perspectives on other city initiatives such as, the Transportation Plan and Greenways Plan.] The program has also succeeded - beyond any other local planning program the City has ever undertaken - in obtaining broad, valid input, and is a legitimate reflection of community opinion. Staff therefore recommend Council endorse the Vision Directions, as outlined in Recommendation A.

3. Following up on KCC and Dunbar Community Visions

KCC and Dunbar Visions should begin to be used by Council and staff to guide programs and decisions affecting these areas. Recommendation B addresses this. Beyond this, however, the Vision Directions provide much that could be worked on. Some of the proposals require funding, more detailed consultation, and/or more detailed analysis before proceeding. The priorities for implementation will need to be discussed with the communities, as well. Recommendation C directs staff to report back in the fall on an overall approach to implementing and monitoring the Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Dunbar Community Visions.

4. Overview of Community Vision Program and Process

The question of whether to continue doing Visions in other communities will depend on whether the Visions are a useful way of extending CityPlan, given the time and resources involved, relative to other planning programs. The discussion below provides a brief overview of the program, with a recommendation that staff report back in the early fall on an adjusted Vision Program, with options for schedule, staffing and resources to prepare Visions for other communities.

(a) Visions' Usefulness

One criterion for success, not explicitly stated in the terms of reference, but underpinning the entire program, is that the Visions be helpful to the City in guiding funding, programs and other decisions for both the City and the community. Appendix D outlines some ways the two pilot Visions relate to current City programs.

To provide some highlights, the Visions:
- identify priorities specific to each community, e.g. cleanliness and maintenance in KCC, and rural lane character in Dunbar,
- show common issues, which might become a higher priority for city-wide work. e.g. the desire to improve mixed use [C-2] development,
- provide guidance for future planning and zoning, e.g narrowing down what types of housing forms to pursue, in what locations,
- show where the coordinated, multi-department attention should be focussed, e.g the Broadway and Commercial and Knight and Kingsway areas,
- provide insight on capital plan priorities, e.g. KCC requesting more in the way of facilities to serve its fast-growing population than Dunbar, which recognizes its good facilities,
- suggest adjustments to the way the City delivers some of its current programs, e.g. both communities supported more localized collection places for recyclables.

(b) Time and Resources

One of the purposes of the pilot program was to test whether the program [steps, budget, staffing and schedule] worked for two very different communities, and to inform changes we would make if doing a similar program again.

(i) Steps and Components: The seven step Vision process, and the defined roles for staff, community, Council and others, constituted a new approach to community planning. There were many innovations: the structured workshops, the Liaison Group, the City Perspectives Panel, the Choices Survey. The new process has generally been successful in achieving its goals. However, staff did find that they had to make some adjustments as the program developed - for example, the amount of material that was generated in the workshops meant that the Choices Survey was a bigger component than originally conceived. Staff plan to review the components in detail - some may be able to be adjusted for more efficiency, or substitutes may be found.

(ii) Program Scope: With respect to the size of areas that can be "visioned", we found that the program can successfully handle an area with the population and diversity of KCC [13,000 households, vs Dunbar's 7000 households in 1991]. The structure of the program

allowed smaller neighbourhoods within the area to create geographically-specific Directions for themselves, e.g. improvements to their own neighbourhood centres. At the same time, there was the advantage of dealing with bigger issues [e.g. arterials that run through a number of neighbourhoods] at the larger scale.

(iii) Budget: The budget [excluding existing staff] for the entire two community pilot projects was $595,000. This covered costs such as site offices; ads, newsletters, surveys and other publications; events; research consultants and overtime. While revisions made to the steps as the program progressed meant changes in how funds were spent, the program stayed within the overall budget. The amount spent in KCC was more than in Dunbar, because it has twice the number of households, as well as translation needs. The detailed budget records will allow very good estimates of budgets required for additional programs. Some program elements will not need to be repeated, but the budgets will need to reflect the size and complexity of the specific communities involved.

(iv) Staffing and Schedule: The original concept was to "fast track" Visions by concentrating a major staff effort over a short time frame. We found instead that more time was required, but less concentration of staff. In future, we estimate that it would take about 12 working months to prepare a Vision of similar scope and legitimacy, but with a somewhat smaller staff complement.

The difference in time required was mainly due to underestimating the invention and preparation time inherent in the new program, and the "turnaround" times at various points to allow for review by community, Liaison Groups, and staff. The city strike, summer and Christmas "community downtime" also added to the elapsed time. While the duration doubled - from 8 working months [9 elapsed months], to 16 working months, [18 elapsed months], the number of person-months of staff time only increased by about 32%.

If the Vision program were applied to areas approximately the population of KCC -and this would need to be discussed with the residents in some areas - there would need to be about 6 or 7 more Visions to cover the mainly single family areas that have had no planning. This could be accomplished in about 4 years if doing two communities at a time.

The Vision program requires a more thorough evaluation prior to Council decision whether to continue it, and in what form. Staff propose a detailed review, with a report on a revised process and options for completing vision programs in the remainder of the city as Recommendation D. Staff recognize there is considerable interest from communities in getting a Vision program soon. Consequently, several options will be developed for program process and timing.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

A number of the Vision Directions in each community address environmental goals including: neighbourhood centres and additional housing along transit routes; support for transit, bike and pedestrian measures; support for keeping and enhancing trees and planting, and for natural water percolation; support for measures related to recycling and energy conservation.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Vision Directions address the facilities and services needs for each community, as well as supporting City policies on SNRFs and non-market housing. Directions supporting ground-oriented housing will provide housing suitable for families. Directions regarding greening and parks, and those regarding traffic and transportation, will contribute to the qualities of open space, to safer streets, and to easier bicycling, which are also beneficial to families with children.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The CityPlan direction on City finances is to continue to be cautious about increasing spending, and to use CityPlan to re-direct funds. This direction was taken as a given during the Vision programs, including the workshops and Choices Survey.

Adopting the Vision Directions does not imply an increase to the City’s budget. The Visions will help to set priorities and to direct and reallocate funds to programs which achieve the Visions. This will happen over time, extending over the life of the Visions, 10 to 20 years into the future.

CONCLUSION

The Community Visions created for KCC and Dunbar through the Community Vision Program succeed in the task set by the Council-adopted Terms of Reference. They are "...visions that incorporate a wide range of community interests and describe common ground for moving in CityPlan directions...in a way and at a scale and pace that suits the community." When adopted, the Vision Directions will provide help provide guidance for both City and community action for up to the next 20 years. The process that created them was an experimental pilot project, and after a more thorough evaluation staff will report on ways to extend the program to other areas of the city.

* * * *

APPENDICES

A. Kensington-Cedar Cottage Community Vision: Vision Directions and Survey Results
B. Dunbar Community Vision: Vision Directions and Survey Results
C. Community Visions and CityPlan Directions
D. Participation Overview
E. Community Visions: Helping Guide Funding and Programs

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver