Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: Director of City Plans, in consultation with
City Plan Department Heads Steering Committee
SUBJECT: CityPlan Community Visions Program: Continuation
 

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDERATION

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

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

b) Citywide Process

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

c) Schedule and Staffing


pe990708.htm

  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

3. Extending The Vision Program To Other Areas

(a) Vision Program Extension

(b) Number and Size of Vision Areas

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

(NOTE FROM CLERK: MAP NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM - ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK)

(c) Order of Vision Areas

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

(d) Program Budget

(e) Site Offices

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:

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

(b) Areas More Recently Planned

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.

* * * * *


pe990708.htm

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

Community Resource Person2

Communications Person3

Graphics Assistance4

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

A. Additional Staff

B. Program Expenses

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

TOTAL REQUIRED FOR 1999 SITE OFFICES,

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?

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?

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

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.?

* * * * *


pe990708.htm


Comments or questions? You can send us email.

[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver