POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: June 9, 1999
Author/Local: PFrench/7041
RTS No.168

CC File No. 5340

Council: June 22, 1999

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of City Plans, in consultation with City Plan Department Heads Steering Committee
SUBJECT:	CityPlan Community Visions Program: Continuation

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council approve continuing the Community Visions Program, through the predominantly single family areas of the city, with adjustments to program steps, components, and schedule as described in this report; and that staff revise the CityPlan Community Visions Terms of Reference document to reflect these changes.

B. THAT Council approve combining the eligible areas into 7 Vision areas, as shown in Figure 2, doing 2 at a time in the order described in this report.

C. THAT Council authorize funding of $393,550 [as outlined in Appendix D] for 1999, with the sources of funding being $108,000 carried over from the existing Community Vision Program budget, and the remaining $285,550 to be funded from Contingency Reserve.

D. THAT the following amounts, as described in Appendix E, be added to future Planning Department budgets as project funding to complete the Vision Program in the areas outlined in this report:

YEAR	AMOUNT
2000	$473,800
2001	$461,280
2002	$499,200
2003	$456,750
2004	$205,750
2005	$85,490

E. THAT site offices not be established in communities during the Vision program, but that staff presence be maintained in other ways outlined in this report.

OR, alternatively, if Council wishes to continue to have Vision Program site offices in the communities:

CONSIDERATION

F. THAT Council authorize site offices to be established; and authorize funding for 1999 of $63,200 with the source of funding to be Contingency Reserve; and approve the site office funding in Appendix E to be added to Planning Department budgets in future years.

RECOMMENDATION

G. THAT the Director of CityPlans report in early 2001 on details of a program to “re-vision” the areas of the City which have older local plans in place and which are not to be covered by the Community Vision Program.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The General manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, B, C, D, E and G and submits F for CONSIDERATION.

COUNCIL POLICY

On June 6, 1995, Council approved CityPlan to provide directions for Vancouver. CityPlan proposed preparing plans for neighbourhoods based on CityPlan directions. In 1998, after completion of the Community Visions Program pilot project, Council adopted the resulting Community Visions for Dunbar and Kensington-Cedar Cottage, and requested staff report back on a program for further Community Visions.

SUMMARY

1. Vision Program: Pilot Evaluation and Program Adjustments

The purpose of the Community Visions Program, as set out in the Terms of Reference, 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.” The completed Vision is to provide guidance for capital plan priorities and for adjustments to City services to better reflect local needs and make more efficient use of limited resources; as well as guidance for the location and form of future development. The process leading to a Community Vision is to reflect broad community opinion and preferences.

An evaluation of the Visions Program pilot project in KCC and Dunbar was completed, with contributions from staff, the Community Liaison Groups, the City Perspectives Panel, public participants, and a consultant. It indicates that the program succeeds in its mandate, and suggests some improvements.

This report proposes [Recommendation A] the extension of the Vision Program to other suitable areas of the city (the mainly single family areas), with some program revisions including: more frequent newsletters and mini-displays for greater program awareness; more of a focus on local community issues during the early outreach; extension of the period during which workshops are held; and enhanced multicultural outreach. Citywide aspects of the program, including the City Perspectives Panel, would continue.

The time required for a Vision program, including preparation and endorsation, would be about 18-19 months, 3-4 months shorter than the 22 months taken by the pilot. The time savings results from many of the tools and formats having been developed and tested in the pilot program.

The structure of the staff team used in the pilot program was generally satisfactory, and is proposed to continue. The number of staff person/years required for each area would be less than the pilot.

2. Extending the Vision Program

The pilot experience has shown the Vision Program to be suited to those areas of the city which have not had planning previously - or if they have had planning, have not dealt with the issues around providing housing variety and land use, and remain mainly single family.
Staff recommend that the Vision program be extended into these areas of the city, continuing to do 2 Vision areas concurrently. The idea of having 3 or 4 areas going concurrently was investigated, but rejected due to the impracticality and cost of recruiting and maintaining the number of staff required.

An important decision concerns the size of future Vision areas. Doing separate visions for each of the 11 Local Areas would take too long, in our opinion. In addition, the areas vary a lot in population. Recommendation B is to do Visions in 7 areas, as shown in Figure 1, in the order noted in Table 3. Priority was determined using criteria for areas most in need of planning as developed by the 1996 public forum to pick pilot communities.

The additional funding required [beyond existing staff] for the full program [7 areas] is about $2.57 million. The bulk of this would be spent over the next 3.5 fiscal years. The total cost of the program is estimated at $5.31 million, including the value of existing staff. The 1999 budget request is for $285,550 from Contingency Reserve [Recommendation C]. Future years’ funds to complete the program are proposed to be included in Planning Department budgets. [Recommendation D].

Site offices were established in the pilot communities. After reviewing their effectiveness in meeting their objectives, relative to the cost and time involved, staff conclude they were not cost effective. Recommendation E is not to have them in future areas, but instead to have some staff presence in the community through other means such as regular presence at community centres, health units, supermarkets etc. However, we note that the Community Liaison Groups and some of the other active participants in the Vision pilot program support site offices as a tangible commitment by City Hall to planning and working with the community. If Council wishes to continue having site offices, Consideration F is provided.

3. Implementing Visions

Council has directed staff to report back separately on an implementation strategy for KCC and Dunbar Visions, and that report is being forwarded concurrently. Before recommending

continuing the Vision Program, virtually completing it by 2003, we have looked at whether timely implementation will be possible, within reasonable staff and funding limits.

Throughout the Vision pilots, we have emphasized that CityPlan mandates a continued cautious approach to City spending, with redirection of funds rather than significant increases. As a result, the pilot Visions are conservative in their expectations. Subsequent implementation discussions have confirmed that residents are realistic about the pace at which things are accomplished over the 20 year lifespan of the Visions.

With respect to KCC and Dunbar, substantial implementation can take place through existing programs, services and already-approved studies [e.g., Broadway and Commercial station area planning, C-2 review, traffic signal installation programs, bikeways, greenways]. In the concurrent report back, we are proposing 2 temporary staff to start in the last four months of 1999: one for overall vision implementation Vision; and one with engineering expertise to study several arterials on which a number of Vision directions focus [e.g. Clark/Knight, Dunbar Streets, Kingsway].

We have also looked at the longer term implementation as additional Visions come on stream. We have projected the detailed planning/rezoning studies [e.g., neighbourhood centres, housing-related initiatives], engineering studies, and demands on ongoing programs. We anticipate that with existing staff and programs moving onto these new items as others are completed, the major work items could be completed within about 10 years from now [i.e., within about 4 years of completion of Visions].

4. “Re-Visioning” Planned Areas

Finally, we note that for the areas of the city which have had local planning programs over the years, and which have already dealt with housing and land use and many other issues, a program as comprehensive as the Vision program is not needed. The possibility of “re-visioning” these areas is briefly described, with Recommendation G calling for a report back on the details in early 2001, once the Vision program extension is well underway.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the CityPlan Community Vision Program pilot project succeeded in meeting its mandate of bringing CityPlan directions to two areas of the city, and doing so with broad community awareness and support. Visions will provide guidance for City actions affecting capital plan priorities, local service needs, and future development.

Over the almost 30 year history of local community planning in the City, many areas have never received the opportunity to look at their long term futures. Decisions and priorities

have often been set on a “squeaking wheel” basis. The Vision Program provides the opportunity for these communities and the City to consider and balance their priorities, coping with change while maintaining what is valued. The Program will reach all these areas for the first time, and do so within a time frame of 4 to 6 years.

PURPOSE

In July 1998, Council directed the Director of City Plans to report back on an adjusted Community Vision Program, with options for timing, staffing and resources to prepare Visions for other communities.

This report contains sections on:

1. Vision Program Pilot Project Evaluation: Summary;
2. Vision Program Adjustments: Recommended Improvements to Community Process Steps and Components; Citywide Process; Schedule and Staffing;
3. Extending the Vision Program to Other Areas: With Options for the Number of Areas;
4. Implementing Visions; and
5. Revisioning Planned Areas: A Different Approach for Areas which have previously had comprehensive local planning.

BACKGROUND

In June 1995 Council adopted “CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver” as a broad vision for the city. In July 1996, Council approved the City Plan Community Visions Terms of Reference as a guide for preparing community visions. In June 1998, the Community Vision process for two “pilot” communities of Kensington Cedar-Cottage and Dunbar was completed, and their Visions were adopted by Council in July and September 1998, respectively. In July 1998, City Council asked for this report back on continuing the Community Vision Program. A separate report on an implementation strategy for KCC and Dunbar was also requested, and will be forwarded to Council in late Spring.

DISCUSSION

1. Vision Program Pilot Project Evaluation

The purpose of the Community Visions Program as set out in the Terms of Reference [Appendix A] 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.” It was also “developed as a program which could reach the whole city for the first time, in a systematic manner, within several years.”

The Overall Purpose, Ground Rules, and Product together describe the basic mandate of the Program. The Program Steps and Roles outlined in the Terms of Reference can be thought of as ways in which the mandate is to be carried out. The evaluation looked at whether the mandate was achieved, how well the steps worked, whether the roles were fulfilled; and suggests where improvements are possible.

Contributions to the evaluation were made by Vision staff team members, the Community Liaison Groups, City Perspectives Panel, workshop participants, and survey respondents. An outside consultant assisted in reviewing the public involvement aspects of the program, using as a context the City Plan Community Visions Program terms of reference and the overall City Public Involvement Principles. An Evaluation Brief, with accompanying data, as well as the consultant’s report, are on file with the City Clerk.

The evaluation covered three topics, and results are summarized below:

· Vision Content: As required, the Vision Directions cover all CityPlan topics, and move in CityPlan directions. They are based on ideas and input from community residents, who made informed choices on the issues and topics. The Vision product fulfills the expectations of being a set of “broad brush” directions which indicate the different priorities in the two communities, and will be useful in guiding decisions and actions by both the City and the community.

· Public Involvement: Public involvement met the mandate of legitimacy in breadth and depth. A range of methods were used: meetings with groups; newsletters and ads; the Ideas Fair, various open houses and “travelling road shows’; the intensive workshop series; and the Choices Survey. The Vision content was derived from the community input from the series of workshops that were open to all, had good attendance, and were well-rated by participants. The proposed Vision Directions were developed from the workshop material, under the review of the Community Liaison Group. The Choices Survey response ensured Directions reflect common ground and broad opinion in the community, rather than that of a small segment. The roles that were set out for community members, Community Liaison Groups, the City Perspectives Panel, and staff were generally accomplished. A number of themes for possible improvements came out of the evaluation including: more frequent communication, particularly about program mandate; more focus on particular community issues; even broader opportunities for input; and more ways for existing groups to participate.

· Process: The process steps and components, as adapted during the course of the program, generally worked. Some improvements were suggested, described below. Significant changes were made to the original schedule as the program progressed. They are reflected in the proposed schedule for the revised program.

2. Proposed Vision Program Adjustments

The proposed program adjustments assume the continuation of the program mandate, i.e., the Overall Purpose, Ground Rules, and Product as described in the Terms of Reference. The basic roles assigned to community members, the Community Liaison Groups, City Perspective Panel and staff are recommended to stay substantially the same. The following notes outline changes recommended to the community process; citywide process; schedule and staffing. There were also many other smaller suggestions for improvements that will be incorporated into the program.

a) Community Process Steps and Components

(i) Simpler Program Steps: For greater simplicity in describing the program to the public, the tasks will be grouped into 4 steps rather than 7 used in the pilot program: Step 1- Getting in Touch; Step 2 - Creating Ideas; Step 3 - Choosing Directions; Step 4 - Finalizing the Vision.

(ii) Increased Overall Awareness: Community awareness of the program prior to the Choices Survey was 62% in Dunbar, and 31% in KCC. To raise levels of awareness, more frequent newsletters will be published via local newspapers. “Mini-displays” in community centres and other locations will be coordinated with these publication dates. Both of these will reinforce the purpose and opportunities of the program, as well as what is being learned with regard to issues and ideas.

(iii) Initial Outreach and Fair: The early outreach and the Ideas Fair were seen as effective for creating awareness and attracting possible participants for later workshops. However, they could also be used to elicit specific community issues. The Fair was also too demanding of staff resources, too display-focussed, and too removed in time from the start of the workshop phase. In the revised program, the early outreach will be used as more of an opportunity for input on issues. A revamped “Fair” event will be included in the program, but will be more activity- and issue-based. It will be simpler and cheaper to execute; and be held closer to the subsequent workshops phase.

(iv) Extended Workshop Time: The workshops worked well, and received very good evaluations from participants. However, fitting 30 evening and weekend sessions into a two month period exhausted staff and some participants. In future, workshops will be held over a three month period, with transcribing occurring concurrently rather than subsequently, so the overall time is not extended.

(v) More Multicultural Outreach: Multicultural outreach was substantial during the KCC program, with multilingual staff and full translation of information being a key factor. The regular newsletters mentioned above will be appearing in the non-English press. In addition, more opportunities will be pursued to bring face-to-face mini-workshops to existing multicultural groups at their normal meetings.

(vi) Implementation Action Plan: Staff are currently working on an implemen-tation action plan with the 2 pilot communities, for report back to Council. In future programs, staff will investigate whether it is feasible to incorporate action planning into the main program without undue delay of the Vision.

b) Citywide Process

The Terms of Reference described a citywide process to be run concurrently with the community process. It had various purposes: providing a citywide perspective to the pilot communities; creating awareness of the Program beyond the communities; developing a sense of mutual accountability amongst communities; and providing inspiration, sharing ideas and developing tools.

A number of techniques were successfully used and should continue: events bringing the Community Liaison Groups together; mailed updates to groups outside the Vision communities; program brochures available in library branches; media releases, and segments on the Rogers TV program. The more frequent newsletters placed in local papers, described above, will also increase awareness of the program citywide.

The City Perspectives Panel did a good job in its role of bringing a citywide perspective to the community’s proposed directions well. Staff propose that the current Panel members continue to serve, if willing. Any new members, replacing those who do not continue, would be appointed by Council, as the current members were.

Citywide forums, originally conceived as possible events to share ideas or develop citywide tools, did not seem relevant during the pilot. Most City-wide initiatives [e.g.,

Greenways, Public Involvement Review, Financing Growth] undertake their own consultation processes. Visions staff have found that liaising with these programs is an effective way to get the CityPlan perspective incorporated, and to ensure that possible participants in the Vision communities are notified.

c) Schedule and Staffing

(i) Schedule: As shown in Table 1, the elapsed time required to complete the pilot Visions [22 months] was substantially longer than expected, but can be shortened somewhat in future programs [18-19 months]. For comparison, the time to complete local area plans, using previous processes, has varied, e.g., Marpole 18 months, Southlands 3 years, Hastings-Sunrise 5 years. The elapsed times shown in Table 1 include not only time in the community, but also preparation time at the start (staffing, data, maps, etc.), and time for Council endorsation at the conclusion, as well as summer months during which public activities are not conducted.

TABLE 1 - PROGRAM DURATION+ [ELAPSED TIME IN MONTHS]

	Original Estimate	Pilot Program	Revised Program
Preparation	3	4	3
Main Program in Community	9	17	15-16
Endorsation	2	1	to be included in Main Program
Total	14	22	18-19

+Assumes appropriate staff available. Assumes site office set-up not required.

In the pilot, it took more time than expected to create original tools and information for the workshops, to design and write the Choices survey, etc. Much of this invention will not be necessary the second time around. More time was also needed for effective communication with the community and Liaison Groups; and to handle the sheer amount of involvement, and volume of material that participants generated. These needs will not change. The 6 week civic strike contributed to lengthening the program. However, where the summer months occur in the program, this does effect elapsed time, since public events cannot be held then.

(ii) Staffing: Appendix B shows the total proposed staffing for the revised program: 1.5 senior planners managing the entire program, 3 staff for each community, [planner, planning analyst, and community resource person] and the equivalent of 4.5 others providing shared services (communications, event production, displays, graphics, data analysis, citywide elements, etc.).

The staff person-years for the pilot project was greater than anticipated (8.2 person-years per Vision compared to 6.5 expected). However, the revised program requires less staff than the pilot (7.2 person-years), because future programs can build from experience. In particular, the revised program will require less senior planner time than the pilot did.

Most of the required positions already exist in the City Plans Division. As in the pilot program, staff liaison from Engineering, Parks, and Housing will also be needed for advice and as ongoing links with their departments. The required additional staffing beyond existing positions is:

- upgrades for three existing Planning Assistant III positions to Planning Analyst level to reflect their increased responsibilities;
- a Community Resource Person (CRP) for each community, to assist with community outreach. Both CRPs in the pilot program were seconded from the Library [with backfill funding provided]; and
- a new communications person, in order to take on most responsibility for the newsletters, mini-displays, event production, ads and media, freeing up time from other staff.

Further discussion will occur with Human Resources regarding whether the community resource people should be temporary positions, or secondments; and whether the communications person should be a temporary staff position or on contract.

3. Extending The Vision Program To Other Areas

(a) Vision Program Extension

The Vision Program successfully creates a long range, multi-topic set of directions for the future of an area. It is most suited for taking the many topics of CityPlan into areas which have not had planning previously - or if they have had planning, have not dealt with the issues around housing variety and land use, and remain mainly single family. Staff are recommending that the Vision program be extended into these areas

of the city. [In the last section of the report, we discuss a different approach for areas which have already done a substantial amount of planning.]

Staff recommend continuing to do 2 Vision areas concurrently. The idea of having 3 or 4 areas going concurrently was investigated, but is not proposed. Recruiting and maintaining the number of suitable staff required would not be possible. The cost for these staff and the additional overhead would be too great, given fiscal constraints and the requirements of other planning programs.

(b) Number and Size of Vision Areas

An important decision is what size future Vision areas should be. Staff do not propose doing a separate Vision program for each of the 11 candidate local areas - 10 if the small South Cambie is combined with another area. To do each Local Area separately would take too long in our opinion. We investigated various options for combining local areas into fewer Vision areas, and recommend doing 7 areas as shown in Figure 1 and described in Table 2.

TABLE 2 - 7 MORE VISION AREAS: QUICK FACTS

Area populations	28,400 to 50,100; average 36,570 [plus West Point Grey at 12,900]
Approximate completion dates [assuming appropriate staff availability]	6 areas: mid 2003 [=94% of population] 7th area: early 2005
Program Cost: -new funds (excluding existing staff) -total cost (existing staff and new funds)	$2.575 million $5.31 million
Average Cost per Area: -new funds (excluding existing staff) -total cost (existing staff and new funds)	$367,860 $758,740
Optional Site Offices Cost: [7 offices]	$354,000

MAP 1

The pilot project involved two different area sizes: Dunbar at 21,400 residents and KCC at 42,400 residents. We found that with appropriate staffing and other resources, the program steps permit effective Visioning in areas with the size and diversity of KCC. For comparison, previous Local Area Plans have been done for areas ranging in population from 2550 [Southlands] to 41,000 [West End].

[Community residents raised concerns about KCC’s size in the pilot project. Appendix F contains more information regarding how community concerns about area size were met in the pilot project.]

(c) Order of Vision Areas

At a 1996 public forum to select the two pilot areas, participants developed selection criteria to assess which communities were most in need of Visions. They were those most challenged by:

- development pressures [e.g., population turnover, rezoning applications, house demolitions];
- transportation pressures [e.g., traffic volumes; truck volumes];
- being deficient in community services and amenities [park space shortage, child care shortage, shelter affordability issues, crime rate]; and
- diversity issues [non-English home language, income diversity, new immigrants].

Since the pilot was a test, there were also two “givens”: area groups had to be interested in being part of a pilot project; and there had to be one east side and one west side area. These two “givens” are no longer necessary, since the program is proposed to be extended to all areas within 4-6 years.

The four criteria are still relevant to judge the level of urgency for planning in the eligible local areas, and develop a ranking based on need. The basic rank order was then adjusted to take account of timing of transit station area planning, and the desirability of doing adjacent areas at the same time. The results are summarized in Table 3. A full report on the indicators and measures used to determine the order is on file with the City Clerk. It should be noted that all the measures were proportional to population or area, so the ranking on need was not affected by the size of the area.

TABLE 3 - AREA PRIORITIES

LOCAL AREAS		VISION AREAS
COMPLETED
1. Kensington-Cedar Cottage		Visions 1 & 2 (completed): - Dunbar - Kensington-Cedar Cottage
2. Dunbar
FUTURE
Local area rank order based on need	Adjustments	Recommended Vision Areas and Orders
3. Renfrew-Collingwood	do after station area planning	Visions 3 & 4: - Sunset - Victoria-Fraserview/ Killarney
4. Sunset
5. Victoria-Fraserview
6. Hastings-Sunrise		Visions 5 & 6: - Renfrew Collingwood - Hastings-Sunrise
7. S. Cambie		Visions 7 & 8: - S. Cambie/Riley Park - Arbutus/Shaughnessy/Kerrisdale
8. Riley Park
9. Killarney	put with adjacent Victoria-Fraserview
10.Arbutus Ridge
11.Shaughnessy
12.Kerrisdale
13.W Point Grey		Vision 9: - W. Point Grey Approach and timing may depend on decisions re: Electoral Area ‘A’ amalgamation and Jericho land claims

Two adjustments are proposed to the rank order based on need. Renfrew-Collingwood is proposed for visioning after transit station area planning is complete.

Station area planning is focussed within the walking area of the stations. It does not eliminate the need for Visions, which cover large areas and create broad directions for the long term future. However, it is not practical to expect the community members to participate in both programs at the same time. Our conclusion on this reflects our experience when the pilot project communities were selected: Hastings-Sunrise community groups said that they were not ready to be involved in the pilot because they were heavily involved in Hastings Park planning at the time.

Another adjustment proposed is pairing adjacent Vision areas. This will allow common issues [such as arterial impacts] and opportunities [such as shopping areas] to be better addressed. It will also mean that the staff with second language skills doing multicultural outreach work can work across boundaries in two areas.

West Point Grey ranks last in terms of the four criteria for need, and as such would be the last Vision area to be done. However, there are two significant “unknowns”-possible amalgamation with Electoral Area A, and possible Provincial or Federal initiatives to plan their Jericho sites. The timing of these decisions may mean that at some point Council will wish to reconsider planning timing, and perhaps also whether a different approach than Visioning is needed. This option remains open to Council.

(d) Program Budget

Appendix C details the total cost of the program for 7 areas. New funding required over the life of the program totals about $2.57 million, with the total cost including existing staff being $5.31 million. On a per area basis, new funds are $367,860 and total costs are $758,740. For comparison, estimates of past local planning studies costs range, e.g., Marpole Area Plan $273,500, Hastings-Sunrise Plan $710,000. [These estimates are for staff only, and the plans covered a narrower range of topics than Visions.]

Funds required for 1999 are $393,550 as per Recommendation C [details in Appendix D]. Unspent funds from the Community Vision Program budget have been carried over, so the balance required from the 1999 Contingency Reserve is $285,550.

Recommendation D is to add the required funding for the balance of the Visions Program to future Planning Department budgets. The project funds required for each pair of areas (which vary depending on area size) are laid out by year in Appendix E. While funds will be provided on an annual basis, they will be accounted for on a project basis by Vision area with carryover between years when Vision completion spares two years. These project budgets will thus be available so that work can be carried on without delay between areas.

(e) Site Offices

Based on site office performance, relative to the cost and set-up effort required, staff put forward Recommendation E: that site offices not be established in future Vision areas, but that community presence be maintained by other means. However, we also note that the idea of site offices was strongly supported by the Community Liaison Groups and others active in the program as a tangible commitment by City Hall to planning and working with the community. Consideration F is available if Council wishes to continue with site offices. Cost of renting and outfitting site offices averages $50,570 per area, totalling $354,000 for 7 areas.

If Council accepts staff’s recommendation not to continue with site offices, staff would pursue alternative ways of maintaining a presence in the community. One would be a regularly staffed planning inquiry desk for some hours each week, located within the community centre, health unit or other well-frequented location. This was done in Dunbar after the site office closed. Another would be more frequent “streeters” during the program with staff in shopping areas and supermarkets.

The following comments provide some background to the recommendation. Site offices were set up in storefronts in both pilot communities, and were open to the public half-days, four days a week. Staff worked in the offices between 50% and 75% of their time, with the rest spent at City Hall. For performing work functions -office work; holding small group meetings [up to 25 people]; serving as a staging area for larger meetings elsewhere in the community - a properly-sized site office like KCC’s worked adequately. The smaller Dunbar office - the only rental space available at the time - worked poorly. In terms of enhancing awareness of the program in the community through site office visibility, Dunbar worked well since it was in the main shopping area. The KCC location did not fulfill this function well: as in many large east side local areas, there is no single “high profile” shopping node. Neither site office had many public drop-ins. Both offices played a role in allowing staff to become more familiar with the community through proximity.

In considering this issue, we investigated using portables instead of renting storefronts, but concluded they would not be workable. Capital costs are cheaper, but high profile locations in retail areas would be rare, and would be costly to rent. Lower profile locations on city-owned sites such as community centres are possible, but would in most cases be “off the beaten track”. From a functional point of view, portables would be less than adequate for office work, holding small meetings, and as staging areas for larger events.

4. Implementing Visions

Council has directed staff to report back separately on an implementation strategy for the adopted KCC and Dunbar Visions. Several workshops have been held with those communities to develop an action plan, and a full report is being forwarded concurrently with this one. However, some general remarks about implementing these and future Visions may be helpful as a context when considering continuation of the Visions program.

One of the main reasons for doing CityPlan and the Visions was to help the City make choices for the future, and direct resources to meet the needs and priorities of the communities facing the challenges of change. Throughout the Vision process--in Community Liaison Group meetings, community workshops, Choices Survey, Vision document, and Council reports - three key messages have been emphasized:

- CityPlan and the Visions have a 20 year time horizon, and everything will not be accomplished in the next few years;
- the City is continually making decisions and taking actions in ongoing programs that affect communities, and these can be better informed through Visions
- CityPlan mandates the continuation of a cautious approach to city spending, with a redirection of budget allocations rather than significant increases.

Residents of the pilot communities want to see Visions put into effect, rather than “sitting on the shelf”, and want to work actively with the City on implementation. However, they are also realistic about how fast things can be accomplished given City resources, as well as the finite energy resources of community members. City staff, particularly in Planning and Engineering, which would be responsible for much of the implementation, are also concerned that implementation of Visions be achievable with reasonable staff and financial resources.
For the KCC and Dunbar Visions, substantial implementation can be achieved with existing resources. A number of the required studies or plans are already scheduled and resourced for 1999-2000. Examples are the Broadway and Commercial Station Area Planning, C-2 Zoning Review, development of city-wide traffic calming criteria, and revision of the lane paving petition process. Many other directions can be furthered through existing ongoing

programs and services. Examples are the installation of pedestrian-activated signals, and the installation of citywide and neighbourhood greenways. These programs will continue to make significant progress toward the Visions as time goes on. In the report back, we are proposing 2 temporary staff: one for overall Vision implementation, and the other for engineering expertise to undertake comprehensive study of several of arterials.

We have also examined the longer implementation needs for KCC, Dunbar, and future Vision areas as Visions are completed at the rate of 2 every 18 to 19 months. Based on the pilot experience, we project that each Vision will generate one or two more detailed planning or rezoning studies [e.g., neighbourhood centres or housing-related initiatives] and one or two arterial reviews. We envisage some of the planning staff we are using on 1999-2000 items can move on to these items, in some cases managing consultants doing the work. The engineering team we hope to have doing arterial studies for KCC and Dunbar would also move on to additional work in new Vision areas. These studies and reviews should be able to be substantially complete in about 10 years.

As far as ongoing programs and services are concerned, Future Visions will also identify directions that require attention. If, in the future, these demands add up to a significant increase over what would be provided by the normal rate of delivery - which has not been the case with the pilot communities - we will need to consider and report back on possible repriorizing of City resources.

5. “Re-visioning” Planned Areas

(a) Areas with Older Plans

Many Vancouver areas have had planning programs in the past, but the plans are now over 10 years old: parts of Fairview [’76]; Grandview-Woodland [79/80]; Marpole [’80]; West End [’86/87]; Southlands [’88]; Mt. Pleasant [’89]. Most of these areas already have met CityPlan directions: established neighbourhood centres; a variety of housing types and additional housing capacity; shopping area beautifications; and park and community centre improvements. However, there may be some CityPlan topics or geographic areas that were left out of their planning, or that need updating in light of subsequent community change.

The Vision program is broader than needed for these areas. Instead, staff feel that a “re-visioning” program may be appropriate. This could include the following basic steps, which would need to be accompanied by the appropriate forms of public involvement at each stage.

Phase 1 - Reviewing the Past:

- researching and assembling data on the community;
- assembling the existing “Vision” as it is stated in the existing plans and policies; comparing these to the overall CityPlan directions; identifying possible gaps - directions that were not covered;
- broadly reviewing the changes that have occurred in the areas since the planning, recent issues; previous community-based plans etc. and identifying possible new issues that may have arisen since the last planning was done; and
- setting the agenda for the Re-Vision, i.e., selecting topics or geographical areas where new directions should be created.

Phase 2 - Re-Visioning the Future:

- creating possible ideas, solutions, directions through workshops and/or other means;
- reviewing these broadly; prioritizing and selecting directions; and
- publishing the results and confirming the “Re-Vision” with City Council.

This type of process might be amenable to being conducted mainly by consultants working with residents, with the overall program under staff project management, provided clear terms of reference regarding the tasks and the public consultation are provided. As a very preliminary estimate, such a process might take a year and cost $200,000 in consultant fees and expenses per area, plus city staff time for project management. Recommendation G calls for the Director of City Plans to report back on details of this approach in early 2001, when the extension of the Vision program and Vision implementation are well underway.

(b) Areas More Recently Planned

Some areas have had planning within the last 10 years: Strathcona [’92], Kitsilano [‘93]; Oakridge [’95], Downtown South [’94]. Parts of the Downtown, the Downtown Eastside, False Creek and False Creek Flats are currently undergoing planning. Staff feel that when the Visions program is complete, consideration could be given to the appropriate approach to identifying any gaps in the long term plans for these areas.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Community groups in areas which might be affected by this report were sent a letter summarizing the report’s contents, noting how to get a copy of the full report, and how to appear before Council as a delegation if they are interested in doing so.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The funding requirements for the Community Visions Program are discussed under Program Budget on page 16 of this report.

CONCLUSION

The CityPlan Community Vision Program pilot project succeeded in meeting its mandate of bringing CityPlan directions to two areas of the city. These Visions have been adopted, and are already being used to guide city programs and decisions, with an overall implementation action plan to being generated with the help of KCC and Dunbar residents.

Over the almost 30 year history of local community planning in the City, many areas have never received the opportunity to look at their long term futures. Decisions and priorities have often been set on a “squeaking wheel” basis. The Vision Program provides the opportunity for these communities and the City to consider and balance their priorities, coping with change while maintaining what is valued. The Program will reach all these areas for the first time, and do so within a time frame of 4 to 6 years.

- - - - -

CITYPLAN COMMUNITY VISIONS TERMS OF REFERENCE
SUMMARY

The CityPlan Community Visions Terms of Reference, approved by City Council in July, 1996, lay out the purpose, ground rules, product, process (program steps), and roles for a program to bring CityPlan to the community level. This is a summary of the terms of reference.

Overall purpose:

- “The purpose of the program 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 suit the community.”

- “The program has been developed as a program which could reach the whole city for the first time, in a systematic manner, within several years.”

A. The ground rules are:

1. Visions must include all CityPlan topics.
2. Each community must consider information on CityPlan directions that define local, city-wide, and regional needs.
3. Vision options must be derived from community ideas, opportunities, and desires.
4. The consequences of Vision options must be described to the community while considering the “rights” of the neighbourhood and its “responsibility” as part of the city and region.
5. Visions options and the preferred Vision must move the community in CityPlan directions.
6. The process must provide a variety of ways to be involved that are meaningful to participants of various ages, cultures, interests, and parts of the community.
7. Participants and staff must respect all points of view and all community members, from residents, to owners, to business people.
8. The process must seek common ground.
9. The choice of a preferred Vision must reflect the feelings of the broad community, not a small portion.
10. The Vision must be delivered within the approved time and resource limits.

B. The product, a Community Vision, is defined as a “broad brush” set of directions, rather than a detailed set of by-laws or designs. It is designed to:

· Set directions
· Guide decisions
· Lead to actions
· Identify priorities for further work

C. Seven program steps are laid out in line with the ground rules and product. These steps include the detailed events, outreach, and communications that occur during the program. Although there were some changes to details as the process went along, the following summary is the general framework of what was intended and carried out:

1. Get in Touch - local activities and contacts
2. Share Ideas - Community Ideas Fair
3. Develop Options - Community Workshops
4. Create Alternative Visions - combine material from step 3 Workshops into Vision directions/options

5. Review Vision Alternatives -- through the community-wide Vision Choices Survey
6. Focus on a Vision -- use survey results to create the preferred (draft) Community Vision
7. Unveil the Vision -- feedback survey results and draft Vision to the community

· Present draft Vision to City Council for approval

D. The description of roles emphasizes the role of the community in creating Vision ideas, directions, and options, and in confirming and selecting the final Vision:

· Key community roles:
- Community members:
- Generate ideas, values, desires, and needs that create Vision directions/options
- Select the preferred Vision directions
- Community Liaison Group (CLG):
- Watch-dog the process
- Provide community advice to staff on outreach, communications, etc
- (The CLG in each community is a group of volunteers from different groups and places in the community)

· Joint community/staff role:
- Develop and describe Vision directions/options based on the broad community input (above)

· Key CityPlan staff roles:
- Manage the process
- Do outreach
- Facilitate events
- Provide background information and ideas
- Record/illustrate/document/distribute

· City Council role: Approve Visions.

· City Perspectives Panel role:
- Provide comments for the community on how well the possible Vision directions/options fit with CityPlan (panel of 7 people with range of expertise/interests; appointed by City Council)

Neither CityPlan staff nor the CLG is given the role of advocating a particular topic, interest, or solution, or selecting, deleting, or promoting material at the public workshops or in the survey.

COMMUNITY VISIONS PROGRAM - STAFFING REQUIRED
TO DO VISIONS IN 2 AREAS CONCURRENTLY

2 Community Staff Teams

Required Existing Staff New Staff Required

0.75 Planner III 0.75 0
2 Planner II 2 0
2 Planning Analyst 2* 0
2 Community Resource Person 0 2

Communications/Citywide/ Info Team

Required Existing Staff New Staff Required

0.75 Planner III 0.75 0
1 Communications person 0 1
1 Planning Analyst 1* 0
1.0 Graphics Tech 0.5 0.5
0.25 Planner II [data] 0.25 0
0.5 Planner 1 [data] 0.5 0

Other Department Staff**

Required Existing Staff New Staff Required

0.5 Engineer 0.5 0
0.1 Park planner 0.1 0
0.1 Housing planner 0.1 0

Total Staff Positions 8.45 3.5

Staff Cost***
Cost: Per Vision Area $390,880 $153,920.
Cost: Two Areas Concurrently $781,760 $307,840

* Temporary upgrade required from PAIII to Planning Analyst
** Participation by other departments’ staff in evening and weekend workshops is also required, and is resourced through the overtime allowance included in the program expenses budget.
** * Including salary and benefits

APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 1

COMMUNITY VISIONS PROGRAM - 7 AREAS
OVERALL PROGRAM FUNDING REQUIRED

I. FUNDING REQUIRED PER AREA (19 month program)

Existing Staff as per Appendix B $390,880

Additional Staff as per Appendix B
Planning Analyst upgrades1

1.5 x 19 mo x $499 $ 14,220

Community Resource Person2

1 x 19 mo x $3834 $ 72,850

Communications Person3

.5 x 19 mo x $5120 $ 48,640

Graphics Assistance4

.25 x 19 mo x $3834 $ 18,210

Subtotal: new $ for additional staff per area $153,920

Program Expenses
[outreach, advertising/newsletters, workshops, events,
surveys, publication etc.]
Community Process5 $204,940
Citywide Process $ 9,000
Subtotal: new $ for program expenses per area $213,940

Grand Total Per Area
All costs (existing staff, new staff, new program expenses) $758,740
New $ required (new staff, new program expenses) $367,860

II. FUNDING REQUIRED FOR 7 AREAS [mainly over next 4.5 years]
Existing staff ($390,880 x 7) $2,736,160
New $ for staff ($153,920 x 7) $1,077,440
New $ for program expenses ($213,940 x 7) $1,497,580

Grand Total for 7 Areas $5,311,180
New $ Required for 7 Areas $2,575,020

1999 COMMUNITY VISIONS PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST

1. 1999 STAFF AND PROGRAM EXPENSES6

for 2 areas concurrently

A. Additional Staff

9/19 x $307,840 [2 areas] $145,820

B. Program Expenses

Community Process
9/19 x $427,700 [2 areas] $202,600
Citywide expenses
9/19 x $18,000 [2 areas] $ 8,530
2 computers @ $3,300 [1 time purchase] $ 6,600
Van [1 time purchase] $ 30,000

Subtotal $220,730

TOTAL $393,550

Note: $108,000 of funds remaining in Community Visions Program budget have been carried over bringing the required 1999 new funds to $285,550.

2. SITE OFFICES [Optional] for 2 site offices

Capital [set-up]
2 x $10,000 $20,000
Operating
2 x 6 x $2800/mo $33,600
Furnishings [1 time purchase] $ 3,000
Computers [1 time purchase]
2 @ $3300 $ 6,600

TOTAL REQUIRED FOR 1999 SITE OFFICES,

IF APPROVED $63,200

COMMUNITY VISION PROGRAM - COMMENTS ON VISION AREA SIZE

For the Community Vision Program pilot project, two different size Local Areas were selected: KCC at population 42,400, with lots of diversity in background, income and household type; and Dunbar at population 21,400, with much less diversity. At the start of the pilot, there was concern from community groups in Cedar Cottage that the KCC area was too large to be Visioned. These concerns, and the experience in the pilot in resolving them, are described below.

I. Would there be adequate staff and budget, and what about equity relative to Dunbar which has half the population?

· We found that the staffing required in the two communities was similar, with some additional staffing demand KCC at key busy periods. We had the flexibility to put some additional staffing there when needed. The expense costs in the two communities were quite different, reflecting material distribution to larger numbers of households, and translation costs. The proposed staffing and budgets for future areas reflect these findings.

II. Would issues of concern to particular sub-areas be neglected? Or, would some ideas or directions important to one sub-area be “out-voted” by survey respondents living at some distance?

· Both the workshops and the survey allowed neighbourhoods within the area to create geographically specific directions. For example, the KCC Vision contains sections on Broadway and Commercial, Knight and Kingsway etc. At the same time, issues which cross neighbourhood boundaries, such as impacts of arterial streets, were better dealt with than with a smaller area.

· The concern about being “out-voted” was met in two ways: first, the survey permitted people to not answer questions that they felt did not concern them; and second, mapping of all survey responses was done to see whether there was geographical biasing responses. Interestingly, there were no instances of this. Even geographically-focussed directions garnered support throughout the broader area.

III. Would people participate in the workshops, surveys and other activities concerning an area bigger than their own individual neighbourhood?

· There was very good participation in both the workshops and the survey, in terms of diversity and geographical distribution. The proposed improvements to the process described in the report - frequent newsletters, additional sessions with multicultural groups etc. - will be used to build on the methods used in the pilot.

IV. Would using a particular area boundary for Visioning mean that area was going to be used for other purposes such as future planning for implementation, catchment areas for services, etc.?

· The Vision area will not determine the appropriate areas for other purposes. Some implementation actions require a small focussed area, e.g., planning for the Broadway and Commercial area related to the SkyTrain proposal; others might be linear, e.g., planning for the length of Dunbar Street; others might be citywide, e.g., review of the C-2 zoning. Catchment areas for services will be determined by the service agencies involved, as they are now.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver

1 Pl. Asst 3 St. 5 to Pl. An. St 3

2 equivalent to Pl Asst 3 St 3

3 equivalent to Pl 1 St 3

4 Gr. Tech. St 3

5 Community process costs per area vary from about $167,000 to $231,000 depending on population.

6 A full program in an area takes 19 months. Where appropriate, 1999 costs are estimated by pro-rating at 9/19 of full costs, and multiplying by 2 areas being planned concurrently. Other expenses are one time only, and have been so noted.