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
Page 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.
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
Page 2
University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors Meeting April 2011 Minutes
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.
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
Page 3
University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors Meeting April 2011 Minutes
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”.
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
Page 4
University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors Meeting April 2011 Minutes
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
Light rail transit Rail rapid transit
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
Light rail transit Rail rapid transit
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
Designs developed for each alternative
Designs developed for each alternative
Designs developed for each alternative
Designs developed for each alternative
A.2 Attachment 1
9
Designs developed for each alternative
Designs developed for each alternative
Evaluation Summary Economic Development
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
live work learn together
�����������������������
Whitneyabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
1234567890 .,/<>?;’:”[]{}!@ ��������� ����������
6
Community Grant Sign
live work learn together
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
live work learn together
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