a (ib), nancy knight (nk) , matt parson (mp) in attendance: jan fialkowski, ... alternative, light...

U N A B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s M e e t i n g M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 1

University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors Meeting April 2011 Minutes

A.2

Present: Sharon Wu (SW) Chair, Prod Laquian (PL), Mankee Mah (MM), Erica Frank (EF), Ian

Burgess (IB), Nancy Knight (NK), Matt Parson (MP)

In attendance: Jan Fialkowski, UNA Executive Director Cathie Cleveland, UNA Administrative Manager John Tompkins, Editor, The Campus Resident Ralph Wells, UNA Sustainability Manager Glendon Scott, UNA Operations Manager Kera McArthur, C&CP Director, Communications and Public Engagement Chris and Susanne Finch, Hawthorn Place residents Mel Rowles, Hawthorn Place resident Maria Harris, Electoral Area “A” Director Jeff Busby, Manager of Project Planning, Translink

Meeting called to order at 5:05 pm Presentation to Rob Wood SW recognized Rob Wood on the occasion of his retirement from UBC Properties Trust. Rob was thanked for his support and assistance to the UNA over the years. UBC Line Rapid Transit Line, Jeff Busby Jeff presented on “Help shape rapid transit for the Broadway corridor to UBC, UBC Line Rapid Transit Study Phase 2 Design Guide March / April 2011”. Options under consideration include Bus Rapid Transit Alternative, Light Rail Transit Alternatives, Rail Rapid Transit Alternative, Combination Alternatives and Best Bus Alterative. The presentation also included Design considerations and Trade-offs. NK – “Best Bus Alternative” which is improved service on Broadway and parallel corridors (increased frequency, new routes, improving transit priority and amenities) would not be the best choice for UBC because of noise, capacity related to the terminal, and service around campus. UBC is sensitive to the potential impact to Westside neighbourhoods. ACTION: The UNA Board will submit comments to Translink. UTown@UBC, Kera McArthur Kera presented the new branding of IUTown@UBC and its history which started exclusively as the “market housing” and then the addition of on-campus institutional housing. UTown has come to mean all residential communities at UBC.



A.2

A. AGENDA AND MINUTES 1. Approval of Agenda

Moved by NK, seconded by PL; carried.

2. Approval of minutes With minor changes by SW, moved by NK, seconded by MP; carried.

3. Items arising from the Minutes a. Free, on-going activities on the UBC campus

Report received.

B. REPORTS 1. Standing Committees

a. Governance Committee, Prod Laquian Report received. The Governance Committee will be reviewing the timing of adding a fifth resident director to the Board and will bring a recommendation to the Board. ACTION: NK requested more information about reviewing the UNA electoral process.

b. Operations and Sustainability Committee Erica Frank i. Operations, Sharon Wu Report received. ACTION: MM and the UNA Executive Director will work with UBC Athletics regarding the programming of the proposed new softball diamond and other options in Nobel Park. ii. Sustainability – EF announced that the UNA is about to sign the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) codifying the sustainability efforts between the UNA and UBC. This MOU will go to the UBC Board of Governors (BOG) in June.

2. Executive Director Report, Jan Fialkowski Report received. ACTION: UNA residents to be asked, via the weekly email myuna announcements, to submit suggestions for community amenities if a new aquatic centre at UBC receives approval.

3. Campus & Community Planning Report, Kera McArthur Report received.

4. Alma Mater Society Report, Matt Parson The fraternities elected a new inter fraternity council 2 weeks ago. MP will assist the UNA in coordinating meetings with the fraternities council as the UNA wishes to continue building on the good relationship established last year.



A.2

5. Report from GVRD Electoral Area “A” Director, Maria Harris

Report received. ACTION: MH to be invited to the UNA O&S Standing Committee to speak on rapid transit to UBC.

C. NEW BUSINESS

1. Proposed Museum of Anthropology (MOA) Agreement

Moved by NK and seconded by PL, that the UNA Board of Directors accept the proposal from the

Museum of Anthropology (MOA) and enter into an agreement with the MOA that gives UNA residents,

upon presentation of their UNA Community Service Cards, unlimited free access to the museum for a

period of three years commencing immediately in exchange for a contribution to the MOA of $14,805

paid over a three year period.

ACTION: JF to add to the motion that the Board would like to see usage data.

2. School Bus Funding C&CP and the UNA Board will continue to support the funding, subject to budget, for the school bus until the new school on campus is completed. The Vancouver School Board (VSB) and UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT) have agreed to contribute for at least 1 more year. ACTION: JF to confirm the amount for the coming year.

D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Status Report of the Order in Council, Nancy Knight

No report; waiting for the Province to respond.

DELEGATIONS

1. Chris Finch (Hawthorn Place) reiterated concerns about the water/sewer invoices from UBC. Dave Woodson, Managing Director Building Operations, has offered to meet with UNA Joint Strata Councils to clarify the billing process. He has been requested to attend the Hawthorn Place Joint Strata meeting in May.

Mel Rowles expressed concern about the amount of “mark up” on the water bills by UBC.

ACTION: JF to investigate this further and report back to the UNA Board and strata chairs.

2. Chris Finch expressed concern about the complicated parking regulation system proposed by the UNA. SW indicated that the UNA will make it clear and simple as possible for the residents.

3. Chris Finch read the ESL Report and feels that the “hospice” issue was due to “failed consultation”.



A.2

Mel Rowles expressed frustration at the amount of time it is taking to organize a meeting for residents, C&CP and VP External Stephen Owen regarding the Land Use Plan (LUP) that will affect Hawthorn Place.

NK indicated that there are many active files all across the neighbourhoods and a wide variety of issues to be addressed; C&CP did not understand this as an urgent request.

E. FINANCIALS 1. UNA Draft 2 Year End Financial Statements, Jan Fialkowski

Received. A surplus $107,000 is anticipated; however there are still invoices anticipated.

F. FOR INFORMATION Received.

Public meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm.

1

UBC Line Rapid Transit Study

April 2011Phase 2 Update

Study Purpose and Timeline

Phase 2 Design and Evaluation Update

Getting Involved

Next Steps

UBC Line Update: Overview

Next Steps

Why Study Rapid Transit for Broadway to UBC?

A Collaborative Study

Study Sponsors:

Study Partners:

A.2 Attachment 1

2

Study Area Technologies: BRT, LRT and RRT

Evaluating the Alternatives

Economic Development

Environmental

Financial

Evaluating the Alternatives

Social and Community

Transportation

Urban Development

Deliverability

A.2 Attachment 1

3

SUMMER 2009 –SPRING 2010

Phase 1Identify shortlist alternatives

Phase 2Design developmentEvaluate the alternatives

Phase 3Design of preferred alternative, potential phasing, ti li f i l t ti

SPRING 2010 –LATE 2011 / EARLY 2012

TO BE DETERMINED

UBC Line Study Timeline

Public consultation

timeline for implementation

Stakeholder consultation

17 stakeholder meetings between June 2009 and April 2010

Study introduction

Evaluation process

Defining the need for rapid transit

Technologies under consideration

Phase 1 Consultation

g

Recommended shortlist of rapid transit alternatives

Public consultation May 2010

2,300 online questionnaires

240 comments submitted online

Five community workshops with 400 attendees

UBC Line Rapid Transit Study

Phase 2 Design and Evaluation

Seven Rapid Transit Alternatives

Bus rapid transit Rail rapid transit

A.2 Attachment 1

4

Phase 2 Design Concepts

Initial design concepts for comparative evaluation:

Is it in a tunnel, at street level or elevated?

Where are potential station locations?

For street‐level alternatives, where are they positioned within the street?

What are the impacts to the street?

Light rail transit Rail rapid transit

What are the impacts to the street?

We need input to help shape the design concepts and evaluation.

Design concepts will change with further study and public input

Phase 2 Design Concepts


Fitting BRT and LRT in the Street Impacts at Intersections

No Restrictions Left‐turn restrictions

Right‐in Right‐out

A.2 Attachment 1

5

Segment by segment Design Considerations & Trade‐offs

Is the alignment in a

tunnel, street‐level (and

where in the street) or

elevated?

How is the street shared

Travel time

Cost

Street impacts

Station access

How is the street shared

with other uses (e.g.

parking, sidewalk width,

travel lanes and turn‐

bays).

Where are the potential

station locations?

Ridership

Reliability

Accounts Criteria ConsideredEconomic Development Construction effects, taxes, goods movement

Environment Emissions reduction, noise and vibration, bio‐diversity, water environment, parks and open space

Financial Capital cost operating cost cost‐effectiveness

Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria

Bus rapid transit Light rail transit Rail rapid transit

Financial Capital cost, operating cost, cost‐effectiveness

Social and Community Health effects, low income population served, safety, community cohesion, heritage and archaeology

Transportation Transit users, non‐transit users, system access, reliability, capacity and expandability

Urban Development Land use integration, land use potential, property requirements, urban design potential

Deliverability Constructability, acceptability, funding and affordability

Account‐by‐Account

Results summarized on a 5‐point scale

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT

Summary Evaluation

SUMMARY EVALUATION

A.2 Attachment 1

6

Preliminary Conclusions & Next Steps

More technical work and public input needed before results are finalized. Initial conclusions include:

BRT does not have sufficient capacity to meet projected demand

Two design options have been evaluated for RRT and LRT between Main Street and Commercial Broadway:

RRT 1B (an extension of the Millennium line that serves Great Northern Way) performs better than RRT 1A (a stand‐alone system directly via Broadway)

Further study is required to determine whether LRT 1A (directly via Broadway or LRT 1B (via Great Northern Way) is stronger.

Preliminary Conclusions & Next Steps

• Design optimization is needed, which will affect evaluation results. For example BRT and LRT have some negative impacts on road users due to reduced

road capacity and intersection restrictions. These may be reduced through further design refinements.

• The evaluation was based on assumptions about population, employment and student growth and further refinements could affect forecast demand.

• Alternatives that generate the most user benefits are also the most costly. Tradeoffs between benefits and costs will need to be made in determining the right solution for the corridor.

Now: need input to shape the design and evaluation of the alternatives

Have we made the right design assumptions? What would you change?

Has the range of benefits and impacts been considered in the Evaluation?

What Input is Needed?

What advice would you give decision‐makers?

Future opportunities for input:

Input on the updated design concepts and final evaluation at the end of Phase 2

Detailed design of preferred alternative in Phase 3

For More Information

DESIGN GUIDE EVALUATION SUMMARY QUESTIONNAIRE


A.2 Attachment 1

7

March / April 2011: Consultation Events

Vancouver Masonic Centre March 30

UBC Ponderosa Centre March 31

Online at bepartoftheplan.ca April 4

Kits Secondary School April 5

Public Consultation Events

y p

10th Avenue Alliance Church April 6

Late 2011 / Early 2012: Public Information Sessions

Updated designs and final evaluation for public input

SUMMER 2009 –SPRING 2010

Phase 1Identify shortlist alternatives

Phase 2Design developmentEvaluate the alternatives

Phase 3Design of preferred alternative, potential phasing, ti li f i l t ti

SPRING 2010 –LATE 2011 / EARLY 2012

TO BE DETERMINED

Next Steps

Public consultation

timeline for implementation

Stakeholder consultation

Thank You

Thank You

Thank You!

Designs developed for each alternative

A.2 Attachment 1

8





A.2 Attachment 1

9



Evaluation Summary Economic Development

A.2 Attachment 1

10

Environment Financial

Social and Community Transportation

A.2 Attachment 1

11

Urban Development Deliverability

A.2 Attachment 1

12

46

A.2 Attachment 1

What is UTown@UBC?

> The residential community at UBC

> Vibrant, complete community

> A place of mind

> Pillars of ecological, social and financial sustainability

1

UBC Brand Attributes

> Bold

> Open

> Connected

> Adventurous

> Globally Aware

> Globally Respected

2

UTown@UBC Attributes

> Positive

> Vibrant

3

UBC Master Brand

��

Whitneyabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST

1234567890 .,/<>?;’:”[]{}!@

4

A.2 Attachment 2

live work learn together

UTown@UBC Wordmark

5

��

Elements of New UTown@UBC Brand


��

Whitneyabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST

1234567890 .,/<>?;’:”[]{}!@ ��

6

Community Grant Sign


this event is supported by a

UTown@UBC Community Grant

For information about UTown@UBC visit planning.ubc.ca/utown

7

UTown@UBC Co-branding


this event is supported by a

UTown@UBC Community Grant

For information about UTown@UBC visit planning.ubc.ca/utown

8

A.2 Attachment 2

Kids Fit

9


10

A.2 Attachment 2

a (ib), nancy knight (nk) , matt parson (mp) in attendance: jan fialkowski, ... alternative, light...

Documents