HTML Version (text and maps only)

March 2000

Southeast False Creek 
Policy Statement

Toward a Sustainable Neighbourhood and a Major Park in Southeast False Creek. (Adopted by Vancouver City Council, October 1999.)

---

Table of Contents

Introduction
Map
Vision

PART A - LAND USE

1. Residential Use: Location and Density
2. Residential Use: Household and Income Mix
3. Live-Work and Work-Live
4. Retail and Service Uses
5. Office Uses
6. Industrial and Interim Uses
7. Community Facilities
8. Social and Cultural Development

PART B - BUILT FORM

9. Height, Character and Heritage
   • Height Zone Map
   • Character Area Map
10. Views

PART C - OPEN SPACE

11. Parks and Public Open Space
12. Water Basin and Shoreline

PART D - TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION

13. Pedestrian Access and the Waterfront Walkway-Bikeway
14. Transportation and Streets
15. Parking and Loading

PART E - ENVIRONMENT

16. Energy Use
17. Water Management: Supply and Sewers
18. Waste, Recycling and Composting
19. Soils
20. Air Quality
21. Urban Agriculture

PART F - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & STEWARDSHIP

22. Economic Development
23. Stewardship

APPENDICES  
A - Principles of Sustainable Development for SEFC
B - Performance Targets for SEFC
C - Recommendations from the 1998 SEFC Design Charrette
D - Groups Consulted and Informed

---

INTRODUCTION

SITE
The Southeast False Creek (SEFC) study area comprises a total of approximately 36 hectares (80 acres) of former industrial land near downtown Vancouver.

The majority of the land in the study area north of 1st Avenue is City-owned. The study area also includes over 13.6 hectares (30 acres) of privately owned land, between 1st and 2nd avenues to the south and between 1st Avenue, Quebec Street, Terminal Avenue and Main Street to theeast.

The False Creek Inlet and Science World are to the north, the community of South False Creek to the west, the Mount Pleasant Industrial Area to the south and the False Creek Flats Industrial Area to the east. Other nearby communities which form the contextfor SEFC include False Creek North, Thornton Park and Citygate, Chinatown, the Downtown Eastside, Strathcona, Mount Pleasant and Fairview Slopes.

HISTORY
SEFC has been an industrial area since the late 1800s. Its industrial uses have included sawmills, foundries, shipbuilding, metalworking, salt distribution, warehousing and the city's public works yard (Cambie Yard). The original shoreline was near 1st Avenue and the land area north of it is comprised of fill from many sources, including the Grandview Railway Cut and ash from a former incinerator in the Cambie Yard. CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION

After assessing industrial needs in the city and giving a priority to housing near downtown jobs, Council approved the release of SEFC from the industrial land base in 1990. In 1991, Council directed that the residential development in SEFC should provide a significant amount of family housing.

In recognition of the need for the City to take a leadership role in protecting the environmental quality of our region, Council further directed that SEFC should be developed to incorporate principles of energy-efficient community design in its area plan and that the City should explore the possibility of using SEFC as a model for "sustainable development."

WHAT DOES "SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT" MEAN?
Projections indicate that the population of the world will surpass 10 billion people within the next 30 years. Our Common Future, a 1987 United Nations report on the environment and development, established that if we continue to develop with current practices, the earth will not be able to supply enough resources or absorb the waste and pollution for a population of this size. Global warming and climate change, energy and resource shortages, food shortages, and economic and social instability are the predicted results of not changing development and consumption patterns to a form which could be sustained into the foreseeable future. In Our Common Future, "sustainable development" was defined as:

"...development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD?

By planning a neighbourhood which reduces the consumption of energy and resources and the production of waste and pollution, we can create an urban neighbourhood in SEFC which is more sustainable. SEFC, as a sustainable urban neighbourhood, will integrate into its urban context while protecting and enhancing the social and economic health of its community, as well as the health of local and global ecosystems. A thoughtful meshing of social, economic and ecological considerations is needed to make an urban neighbourhood successful and once developed, for it to continue to function at sustainable levels of social and environmental performance. While much of Vancouver's large-scale inner-city planning has focused on ensuring that public and social amenities are created by development, SEFC brings the long-term on-site and off-site environmental benefits to the forefront.

PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK

1) Implementing Sustainability

SEFC should promote the implementation of sustainable development principles in an urban setting, and thereby contribute to improving the mainstream practices of urban development throughout Vancouver and the region.

2) Stewardship of Ecosystem Health

The development of SEFC should improve the ecological health of the False Creek Basin. It should recognize the need for conservation, restoration and management of local, regional and global ecosystems. Therefore, resource conservation and waste reduction measures should be implemented to a level that will meet the needs of present and future generations.

3) Economic Viability and Vitality

Development in SEFC should ensure economic viability without subsidy so the knowledge gained will be relevant to other development projects.

4) Social and Community Health

The development in SEFC should seek ways to strengthen social networks and enhance the quality of life for all in the neighbourhood. This can be achieved by creating a livable, complete community which: enhances cultural vitality and diversity; provides a wide range of accessible housing and employment choices; and encourages participation of residents and visitors in stewardship of the neighbourhood.

WHAT IS A POLICY STATEMENT?

A policy statement describes general planning principles that will guide future development of the site. It identifies the type and amount of development that will be considered through the later phases of planning and design. It also identifies and lists standards of necessary public amenities for the development, such as waterfront walkways, parks, public open space, community facilities, childcare needs and other neighbourhood and city-wide provisions.

Although this policy statement defines parameters of development, it is meant to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of detailed plans and options to be generated and evaluated during future planning phases. These will include the creation of the Official Development Plan, sub-area rezonings and subsequent development. This policy statement also embodies principles of sustainable urban development which can be used to guide decisions in the future around SEFC.

RESPONSIBILITY

The directions and actions proposed in this policy statement are far-reaching. They address all phases of development and extend past construction to the functioning of the community. As a result, the responsibility for meeting the proposed policies lies not only with the developer, but also with the City, the landowners, financiers, the public, senior levels of government, and ultimately, SEFC residents.

In this process, it is the developer's responsibility to challenge conventional thinking by progressing toward as many of the social and environmental objectives identified as reasonable within the limits of economic viability.

WHAT MAKES THIS POLICY STATEMENT UNIQUE?

This particular policy statement is unique in that it provides additional guidance in realizing the vision of a sustainable community. New sections have been added, and others redefined from previous policy statements, to address the ecological, social and economic aspects of a sustainable community. The report, Visions, Tools and Targets: Environmentally Sustainable Development Guidelines for Southeast False Creek, written by The Sheltair Group and published by the City in 1998, provides guidance on the ecological aspects of sustainable development for SEFC.

This policy statement addresses issues which span the entire development process and reach into the post-development stage. This comprehensive approach is typical of sustainable development initiatives. In order to establish certainty and stakeholder responsibilities for each stage, several policy categories have been established as follows:

• Official Development Plan (ODP) Phase Policies

These policies outline the issues which will be addressed during the ODP phase — the phase at which the general layout and concept plan is developed for the entire study area. An ODP is approved by Council as a by-law, securing development rights and public amenities for the area.

• Rezoning Phase Policies

These policies address development issues in greater detail, including street design, parks and public realm design, massing, urban design, form of development, design guidelines, and legal agreements. Rezonings are typically done for individual sub-areas which have been identified in the ODP. The Rezoning Phase Policies will apply to each sub-area rezoning as it comes forward.

• Development and Design Directives

These policies make recommendations for more specific building and landscape design directions, mainly applicable during the development and building permit phases.

• Post-Development Initiatives

These policies make recommendations on initiatives to pursue after development has been completed, in order to guide the operation and maintenance of this neighbourhood in a sustainable manner, as well as to encourage high levels of social, environmental and economic performance.

• Demonstration Projects

These policies highlight progressive initiatives which pose challenges in terms of regulations, economics, etc., but which are deemed to be very beneficial to the development of SEFC and to the city, as they explore more sustainable technologies and development practices.

It is important that the implication of policies for later stages of development be seriously considered during all stages of planning, so as to ensure that options to achieve these later policies are not foregone by decisions at the early stages of planning and development.

HOW HAS THE PUBLIC BEEN INVOLVED?

The policy statement phase began with Council's approval of the planning program in May 1997. Initially meetings were held with the adjacent communities, business owners and groups actively interested in the redevelopment of this site. An advisory group was established representing these and other interests. City staff drafted this policy statement with the help of an advisory group and consultants. Formal public review commenced in June 1998 with open houses, public workshops, and meetings with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, interest groups, senior governments and academics. Groups who have been closely involved are listed in Appendix D.

Return to Table of Contents

---

VISION

A VISION FOR SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK

SEFC is envisioned as a community in which people live, work, play and learn in a neighbourhood that has been designed to maintain and balance the highest possible levels of social equity, livability, ecological health and economic prosperity, so as to support their choices to live in a sustainable manner.

WHAT WILL SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK LOOK LIKE?

SEFC will be a mixed-use community on the False Creek waterfront with a focus on residential use. Recognizing its urban context, it will be developed at the highest density possible while still meeting livability and sustainability objectives. It is a community which is intended to move towards sustainable development and in doing so, provide a learning experience which can be applied at a much broader scale. It will be designed as a complete community with goods and services within walking distance, and will offer housing that is well linked by transit to nearby jobs.

The public realm in SEFC, including open space, parks, streets and pathways will connect all portions of the site and will create links to the adjacent neighbourhoods. Movement in SEFC will be accommodated on a fine network of paths and streets designed to emphasize priority for pedestrians, cyclists and transit.

A wide diversity of housing comprising 2,000 to 2,500 units for 4,000 to 5,000 people will be planned into the lands north of 1st Avenue, with family housing as a priority. Plans may also include housing for another 3,000 to 4,000 on the private lands in SEFC, and live-work space as a priority.

Community amenities and commercial-industrial space will provide opportunities for residents to live, work, play, learn and interact with their neighbours.

SEFC will have a diversity of built form, including high-rise, medium-rise, and low-rise buildings. Building height and density will be influenced by the site's context. At the eastern end of the site, higher buildings will adhere to a 1984 plan for East False Creek, which is already well under way with the Citygate development to the north. This area will be mixed-use, with commercial at grade and either residential or live-work units above. Near the Main Street SkyTrain Station office, commercial and institutional uses may be considered.

The building height established at the eastern end of the site will continue around the corner to both the City-owned and privately held lands. It will step down towards the centre of the site where an area of lower buildings and public open space will create a neighbourhood centre, including public use of the heritage Domtar Salt Building. A large area of park may occupy the western part of the site.

The built form should celebrate the heritage of SEFC while meeting both functional and economic needs of a modern mixed-use neighbourhood and its vicinity. The buildings should be designed to be healthy, livable and efficient in their use of energy, resources and water.

The SEFC neighbourhood will provide a wide variety of parks and recreational experiences along the waterfront, including the completion of shoreline improvements and the Seaside pedestrian-bicycle route. Parks and open space in SEFC will provide recreational and cultural opportunities to residents and visitors, as well as the space needed to meet ecological objectives, including wildlife habitat. Both private and community gardens will be encouraged.

In the interest of testing new technologies for application on a wider basis, demonstration projects in advanced technologies for renewable energy supply, water management, green building design and urban agriculture may be explored in some areas of the site.

Return to Table of Contents

---

PART A - LAND USE

The land-use patterns in SEFC, including residential, commercial, industrial, cultural and recreational facilities, will offer diverse opportunities for residents to live, work, learn and play in a livable neighbourhood. As a complete, mixed-use neighbourhood, SEFC will promote social interaction, community building, a prosperous local economy and reduced dependence on private automobile use.

1. Residential Use: Location and Density

1.1 ISSUES

1. What is the highest residential density that the site can support while achieving both environmental sustainability and a high degree of livability for all?
2. What density will ensure livability?
3. What density is appropriate, given Vancouver's commitment to managing regional growth by providing high-density residential development in the inner city?
4. What densities are suitable for households with children?
5. What neighbourhood character is appropriate for each sub-area in SEFC?
6. Where should higher densities be located to best integrate with the character of surrounding neighbourhoods?

1.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Livable Region Strategy recommends increasing housing close to Vancouver's downtown.
2. In 1990, Council adopted the Clouds of Change report which recommends:
   1. Increasing housing densities in and around Vancouver's Central Area; and
   2. Integrating work, residences and shopping in mixed-use developments.
3. In 1991, Council adopted the Central Area Plan which recommends:
   1. Creating highly livable neighbourhoods close to the downtown;
   2. Providing a choice of housing in these neighbourhoods; and
   3. Placing an emphasis on housing families with children in SEFC.
4. In 1996, Council approved the relocation by 1999 of an asphalt plant and aggregate handling operations away from the Cambie Yard.

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To optimize the density in SEFC so as to:
   1. Increase housing in Vancouver that is close to the downtown job base and linked to transit, thereby reducing commuter trips;
   2. Ensure a high standard of livability; and
   3. Achieve a reasonable rate of return on the City's investment in the land.
2. To provide a significant amount of family housing.
3. To create a mixed-use neighbourhood.
4. To increase the diversity of housing available in SEFC and in the city.
5. To develop SEFC at an appropriate density, taking into account the relationship between density, livability, economic viability and environmental quality.
6. To set densities in the sub-areas of SEFC so as to integrate with the adjacent context, recognizing that, over the next 50 years, the surrounding neighbourhoods will likely redevelop to higher densities. Existing densities include False Creek North at 3.0 FSR, Citygate at 3.75 FSR and South False Creek at 1.3 FSR.

1.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. While a wide range of housing types should be allowed throughout the SEFC site, some housing types should be located strategically as follows:
   1. Live-work spaces should be close to busy commercial areas and near to industrial sites and/or well-travelled arterial streets (see Live-Work Policies);
   2. Family housing, as part of identifiable neighbourhood areas, should be in ground-oriented developments and close to open space, schools, childcare centres, community facilities and other amenities designed for children; and
   3. Smaller suites should be in towers and/or in spaces above busy commercial areas.
2. Densities on the City-owned lands and on the privately held lands should be generally integrated within a single vision of SEFC as a complete community in use and form.
3. Densities allowed on the site should be consistent with those recently approved elsewhere in False Creek, providing that there is a high degree of livability and that they meet the City's Guidelines for High-Density Housing for Families with Children.
4. On the blocks between 1st and 2nd avenues, a new land-use zone should be created, in consultation with the property owners, which introduces residential and live-work uses and mixes with non-residential uses, including those already present. This zone should permit clean industrial uses and promote a mixture of land uses at a density that encourages redevelopment of those buildings needing replacement, but encourages the retention of viable, existing industrial buildings and uses.
5. Throughout all of SEFC, a fine grain of development should be encouraged by the sensitive design of the larger parcels and by the provision of some smaller parcels.
6. Housing should be located and designed to promote an active and safe public realm, which contributes to social interaction among residents and leads to a sense of community.
7. The density target for the lands north of 1st Avenue, between Quebec and Cambie streets, should be up to 204000 m² (2.2 million sq. ft.) of which:
   1. 186 000 m² (2.0 million sq. ft.) may be residential use; and
   2. 18 600 m² (200,000 sq. ft.) may be commercial or industrial uses.
      Cultural, recreational and institutional space should be excludedfrom these floor space totals.
8. The privately owned lands should be a mixed-use area. Existing clean industrial use is encouraged and can remain and/or be gradually replaced by retail and service, live-work or residential uses.
9. 1st Avenue should have live-work, commercial or industrial uses at grade.

Return to Table of Contents

---

2. Residential Use: Household and Income Mix

2.1 ISSUES

1. How do we create a stable community with a healthy mix of ages and incomes?
2. What is an appropriate range of household types and incomes for SEFC?
3. Will enough families locate in SEFC to make it practical to provide schools, childcare centres and other children's services?
4. Are there other groups for which special targets for housing should be set, such as young adults, people with disabilities, the elderly, or the hard-to-house?
5. What is the appropriate mix of market, rental and non-market housing to create a sustainable social community in SEFC?
6. What is SEFC's fair share of the responsibility to provide low-income and affordable housing?

2.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. Zoning for False Creek North, Coal Harbour and Citygate was approved with a minimum requirement that 25% of housing units be suitable for families with children, and that 20% of units be developed as non-market housing (half for families with children).
2. In Coal Harbour, a rental bonus of 0.5 FSR was included to encourage the construction of market rental units.
3. The City-owned South False Creek neighbourhood was developed as a community of approximately one-third lower income, one-third moderate income and one-third higher income households, including 25% family households. This was achieved by delivering about 50% non-market and 50% market housing, with funding provided by senior governments.
4. In 1989, Council approved the Guidelines for High Density Housing for Families with Children, which outlined community, project and dwelling unit criteria to ensure that higher density housing was designed to be as livable as possible for families with children.
5. In 1991, Council recommended that the provision of housing for families with children be a priority for SEFC.
6. In 1995, Council adopted CityPlan which recommended the development of new downtown neighbourhoods with a variety of housing forms, including affordable housing.

2.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To provide a variety of housing forms and costs in SEFC to accommodate a wide range of individuals, including youth, singles, couples, families with children, seniors, people with special needs, artists and others.
2. To increase the amount of affordable housing in the downtown, especially affordable family housing.

Rationale: Approximately 60% of GVRD households contain children and about 50% of downtown workers live in households with children. In Vancouver, 30% of households are "low income" and 36% of all children live in low-income families, with the highest rate in Mount Pleasant at 49%. Approximately 60,000 households in Vancouver are classified as "core-need," most of these are households with children.

3. To use housing to help develop a diverse and socially cohesive community in SEFC.

2.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. On the land north of 1st Avenue, sites should be reserved for non-market housing programs to build a minimum of 20% of the total units. These programs are to be funded by senior governments or by public-private partnerships that can achieve a similar result.
2. Two-thirds of the non-market units should be suitable for families with children. A portion of these units could be targeted to families with younger children and to single-parent families. The remaining one-third of the non-market units should focus on low- and moderate-income singles, seniors and persons with special needs. Funding needs to be provided from the provincial government to achieve this policy.
3. A minimum of 35% of the total units on the land north of 1st Avenue should be suitable for families with children. Consider using some DCL (Development Cost Levy) funds for this housing.
4. A variety of housing forms should be offered in SEFC, including cluster housing, row housing, and town homes, as well as mid- and high-rise apartment towers. Innovative forms of housing should also be explored, including rooming houses with small suites for singles and co-housing for families with children.
5. Housing types should be mixed throughout the study area to contribute to the social mix in SEFC.

Rezoning Phase Policies

6. A mix of tenures should be considered for the 20% allocation of social housing including non-profit, co-op, rental and life-lease.
7. Some housing types should be designed to be capable of supporting ground-oriented, home-based childcare enterprises.
8. Special-needs housing should be integrated into the community and linked to appropriate outreach services and facilities.

Demonstration Projects

9. The City should explore creative financial strategies to achieve affordable housing in the current climate of reduced senior government subsidies.
10. The City should investigate incentives for rental housing.
11. Aging-in-place communities for seniors should be considered, including congregate housing and licensed care.

Return to Table of Contents

---

3. Live-Work and Work-Live

3.1 ISSUES

1. How can SEFC be planned to encourage live-work and work-live?
2. What needs to be done to resolve issues surrounding different types of live-work and work-live?

3.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1995, Council approved Policies for Artist Live-Work Studios, allowing for the development of units which combine an artist studio space with a residential unit. This policy included three goals:
   1. To encourage the provision of artist live-work studios that are legal, safe, functional and affordable;
   2. To discourage the displacement of industrial and business service uses by artist work spaces in I, IC-1, IC-2 and M districts; and
   3. To address the need for on-site and off-site amenities, where warranted by population increases or amenity opportunities.
2. In response to private initiatives, the City commissioned a consultancy to investigate the design and code implications of live-work and work-live uses. Although the study Work-Live in Vancouver was completed, its recommendations were not implemented.
3. Terminology used to date for live-work and work-live policy discussions includes:
   1. Live-Work: The expectations of neighbours for quiet in the building or in the neighbourhood take precedence over the work needs of the unit.
   2. Work-Live: The work-related needs of the unit, with respect to noise, odour, employees and customers, take precedence over the neighbours' expectations for quiet.
   3. Commercial: This type covers the vast majority of home-based businesses, including consultants, professionals, personal services and office components of off-site companies.
   4. Industrial: This type covers businesses that involve goods production, equipment servicing, transportation and communication uses.
   5. Artist: This type includes craftpersons such as painters, musicians, ceramics, etc.

3.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To provide opportunities for all types of live-work and work-live developments in SEFC in order to accommodate the growing demand for live-work accommodation and to reduce commuting.

Rationale:An increasing number of Vancouverites work in their home. In 1991, about 6.7% of the Vancouver labour force worked out of their homes, nearly twice as many as 10 years previous (from Work-Live in Vancouver).

3.4 NEW POLICY

1. As a priority, the City should analyse the consultant study, Work-Live in Vancouver, and report to Council with by-law requirements necessary to ensure the inclusion of live-work and work-live uses in SEFC and other designated areas.
2. Artist and other types of live-work, work-live, and/or residential uses, should be considered in all areas of SEFC, especially in the mixed-use area between 1st and 2nd avenues.

Return to Table of Contents

---

4. Retail and Service Uses

4.1 ISSUES

1. What capacity do surrounding retail streets have, such as Main Street, West 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street, to provide retail services to parts of SEFC?
2. How much additional retail and service use should be included in SEFC?
3. What special concerns must be met to make retail and service uses economically viable — e.g., location, visibility, parking, etc?
4. Should specialized or destination retail and service use be provided on the waterfront?
5. How should the provision of adequate food-oriented retail, such as a major grocery store, be dealt with?
6. How can we encourage environmentally friendly business practices in SEFC?
7. Will increased retail and service use in this area have negative impacts on existing commercial uses in surrounding neighbourhoods?

4.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, recommends that retail be focused in several key downtown streets and areas, and that it be developed so as to contribute to the vitality of public streets.
2. Both the False Creek and Coal Harbour policy statements limit retail and service use to specified locations so as to animate streets, to link to nearby areas, to provide daily shopping close to home, and to provide interest along the waterfront.

4.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. Retail and service uses should be optimized and located so as to:
   1. Adequately serve many of the daily shopping and grocery needs of the new residents and of others coming from adjacent neighbourhoods;
   2. Provide employment opportunities for residents; and
   3. Ensure the harmonious integration of retail and residential uses.
2. Retail uses should also be located so as to contribute to other objectives such as:
   1. To create an interesting and animated public realm; and
   2. To increase social interaction.
3. Environmentally responsible business practices should be encouraged for retail and services uses in SEFC.

4.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The integration of retail and service with other uses, such as industrial or residential, should be encouraged where appropriate.

Rezoning Phase Policies

2. Retail and service uses should be permitted on portions of 1st and 2nd avenues. High-priority retail areas should be created near transit stops, the community centre, and other public activity centres and nodes.
3. Retail and service uses should be returned to the area between Main and Quebec streets south of Terminal Avenue, and they should be mixed with residential use.
4. Retail and service uses should be permitted north of 1st Avenue, where they will:
   1. Create and animate centres of public interaction;
   2. Provide links in the public open space network between key points, such as public facilities; and
   3. Provide interest and services in specific locations that are easily accessible along the waterfront walkway.
5. The development of adequate food-oriented retail, including a major food store, should be encouraged in or adjacent to SEFC, on a site which has good accessibility.
6. Retail with very large floor plates aimed at a regional market (e.g. big-box retail), other than a grocery store, should not be permitted in SEFC.
7. Strong pedestrian links should be encouraged, between the housing and the retail and service areas, to encourage walking and to discourage use of the automobile. (See Transportation Policies)
8. On the lands north of 1st Avenue, between Quebec and Cambie streets, up to 18600 m² (200,000 sq. ft.) of floor space should be considered for commercial and industrial uses. Cultural, recreational and institutional space should be excluded from these floor space totals.
9. The privately owned land between 1st and 2nd avenues should be a mixed-use area. Existing clean industrial use is encouraged and can remain, and/or be gradually replaced by retail and service, live-work or residential uses.
10. Commercial use should be encouraged at grade along 1st Avenue where it would complement commercial development north of 1st Avenue.
11. 2nd Avenue should have commercial or industrial use at grade.
12. The area on the eastern edge of SEFC, between Main and Quebec streets and 1st and Terminal avenues, should remain mixed use, retaining its current FC-1 zoning designation. Small adjustments to current zoning regulations should be considered to change retail, service and office capacity. The new zoning regulations will be decided as part of the ODP process.

Development and Design Directives

13. Consideration should be given to robust and flexible building design for commercial buildings which could accommodate a wide range of uses and be adaptable as SEFC evolves over time. This is especially important for the lower levels of buildings.

Post-Development Initiatives

14. Environmentally-responsible business practices should be encouraged in SEFC through education. (See Economic Development Policies)

Return to Table of Contents

---

5. Office Uses

5.1 ISSUES

1. How much office space should be provided in SEFC and where should it be located?
2. What percentage of the office space in SEFC should be local serving and how much should be general office?
3. How can the transportation loads associated with office uses and commuting be mitigated?
4. How can office areas provide social and environmental benefits to SEFC?

5.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The False Creek and Coal Harbour policy statements express some concern over increasing office supply in the downtown, but they do identify areas for future office development which are either logical extensions of the CBD or are areas which are not suitable for residential use.
2. The False Creek Flats Preliminary Concept Plan identified the area in the vicinity of the Main Street SkyTrain Station as suitable for new office development.
3. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, recommends:
   1. Office uses to be clustered in the downtown around transit; and
   2. Office uses outside the downtown should be primarily concentrated along Broadway.

5.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To provide adequate office space in SEFC to supply local commercial, residential and community uses.
2. To ensure that general office development in SEFC does not draw significant office capacity from Broadway or the downtown core, or contribute significantly to commuter traffic in and around SEFC.
3. To consider strategically locating office uses such that excess heat can be transferred to residential space.

5.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. General Office use should only be allowed on sites that are close to either the Main Street SkyTrain Station or to Cambie Street.
2. North of 1st Avenue, a limited amount of local-serving offices should be allowed in commercial nodes, in association with retail and service uses, as part of the 18 600 m² (200,000 sq. ft.) of commercial floor space allocated for this area.
3. Local-serving offices should not be allowed along or in close proximity to the waterfront walkway.

Rezoning Phase Policies

4. The development of local-serving offices should be permitted in the area bounded by Main and Quebec streets and by Terminal and 1st avenues. Small adjustments to current FC-1 zoning regulations should be considered to change retail, service and office capacity.
5. Local-serving offices should be permitted in the area between 1st and 2nd Avenues from Quebec Street to the Cambie Bridge.
6. Home offices, beyond home occupation status, should be considered in SEFC, possibly as a live-work designation.
7. The provision of smaller office spaces should be encouraged for social services that are not suited for grouping within a central community facility.
8. Commercial use, including office use, should be located at grade along 1st Avenue where it would complement commercial development north of 1st Avenue. 2nd Avenue should have commercial, including office, or industrial use at grade.

Return to Table of Contents

---

6. Industrial and Interim Uses

6.1 ISSUES

1. How can the City locate industrial uses in SEFC to promote a diversity of jobs on the site?
2. There are a number of clean industries in the block between 1st and 2nd Avenues, which provide jobs and add diversity and vibrancy to the area. How can we redevelop SEFC in such a way as to encourage these industries to stay?
3. How should SEFC integrate with new and old industrial uses in the False Creek Flats?
4. Should high-tech industry be encouraged in SEFC?
5. What does the GVTA have planned for its property at 1st Avenue and Quebec Street?

6.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1990, Council adopted a policy which classified SEFC as a "letgo" industrial area.
2. The False Creek Flats Preliminary Concept Plan encourages the development of high-tech, high-amenity industries on a substantial portion of the Flats, including Finning International's property.
3. Policy direction concerning industrial use in SEFC, put forward in the False Creek Policy Broadsheets, was deferred by Council in 1988.

6.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To preserve and encourage the creation of jobs in clean industries in SEFC, especially in the high-tech sector.
2. To encourage creative integration of industry with other land uses in SEFC to build a complete, mixed-use community.
3. To encourage appropriate interim uses which do not foreclose future development opportunities, but which contribute to the viability and sustainability of SEFC.
4. To determine a zoning designation for the private lands between 1st and 2nd avenues which will allow for redevelopment over time, but not replace viable clean industries.

6.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. Interim uses are allowed north of 1st Avenue, but they should be compatible with the anticipated permanent uses in the area. Interim uses that are difficult to move or high in capital investment should be discouraged, thereby avoiding lengthy tenure.
2. The Molson Indy Race Track should not be planned into the SEFC development. Any extension of Indy beyond the current termination date of 2001 should only be considered if development has not proceeded, and should include full public consultation prior to consideration by Council.
3. The waterfront walkway through SEFC should be installed as soon as possible. Should development of the area be postponed, a temporary walkway should be considered.
4. The density target for lands north of 1st Avenue should be up to 18 600m² (200,000 sq. ft.) of commercial and industrial uses.

Rezoning Phase Policies

5. Demonstration projects promoting sustainability and providing educational opportunities should be considered for interim uses in SEFC, provided they do not preclude the ease of future developments and are consistent with the development plan for SEFC.
6. 1st Avenue should have live-work, commercial or industrial use at grade.
7. 2nd Avenue should have commercial or industrial use at grade.
8. For the area between 1st and 2nd avenues, a new zoning designation should be developed in consultation with the property owners which continues to permit clean industrial use and moves toward a mixture of uses including residential and live-work. The density should be at a level which encourages redevelopment of those buildings needing replacement and encourages retention of viable industrial buildings and uses.
9. In conjunction with the Blueways initiative, opportunities should be investigated for small-scale, clean, waterfront industry in SEFC, such as small boat building.

Post-Development Initiatives

10. The City should use education to encourage environmentally-responsible industrial practices in SEFC (see Economic Development Policies) and should investigate establishing systems of "Industrial Ecology," where the waste products of one company's activity could be used as resources by another nearby company.

Return to Table of Contents

---

7. Community Facilities

7.1 ISSUES

1. Is the anticipated residential and working population of SEFC large enough to support its own array of community facilities?
2. Are some community facilities justified by demands not met in the adjacent areas?
3. Do the existing community facilities in adjacent areas have capacity to take on some of the needs generated by SEFC?
4. How shall the community facilities in SEFC be programmed to provide the necessary services for its residents, as well as to compliment the services provided by other downtown community centres?
5. How should the provision of community facilities be phased?
6. How can SEFC's facilities offer activities for youth, including places to simply "hang out?"
7. How can the public areas and community facilities be designed to maximize safety?
8. Is an additional school required or do existing schools and those planned for False Creek North have the capacity to accommodate children from the southeast shore?
9. Do healthcare facilities need to be provided in SEFC?
10. How should SEFC facilities support non-motorized boating?

7.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. Both the False Creek and Coal Harbour policy statements require a full range of community facilities and services to serve the needs of their respective populations.
2. CityPlan, adopted by Council in 1995, promotes the development of a sense of community in downtown neighbourhoods through the provision of accessible community-based facilities and services.

7.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To provide community facilities, services, school facilities and amenities in SEFC to serve new residents, and to increase the overall range of amenities available to visitors as well as residents of the neighbouring communities.
2. To ensure that community amenities are accessible to people of all age groups and to people with special needs.
3. To provide facilities which increase opportunities to access and enjoy False Creek and the waterfront.
4. To promote the learning of sustainable development principles, technology and practices through the design and programs of community facilities.

7.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A Services Plan or "white paper" for SEFC should be developed by City staff to determine an appropriate range of community facilities needed in SEFC to address the educational, social, health, recreational, and cultural needs of residents and employees, inclusive of all age groups and of those with special needs.
2. Community facilities and services should be developed concurrently with the residential units that they are intended to serve.
3. The City should investigate the possibilities of combining community and school facilities, in order to facilitate greater efficiencies in land use, energy and resources. Agreements with the School Board are needed to achieve this policy.

Rezoning Phase Policies

4. The Domtar Salt Building, located at 1st Avenue and Manitoba Street, should be converted to some form of public use.
5. The development of facilities to serve the non-motorized boating community should be encouraged in SEFC.
6. Development Cost Levies (DCLs) on the private lands in the study areas should be considered as a funding mechanism to contribute a share toward public amenities.
7. Childcare facilities should be provided to City standards for children of parents living or working in SEFC. These facilities should be a mix of larger traditional childcare centres and smaller home-based family operations spread throughout the site.
8. A cultural resource centre should be considered in SEFC, in conjunction with other community facilities, with a priority to programming for children and youth, community art making and/or environmental art and education.
9. The development of indoor and outdoor community meeting places that have a unique neighbourhood character should be encouraged.

Demonstration Projects

10. Public buildings in SEFC should be used, where feasible, as demonstration projects of advanced environmental design, in order to promote the widest possible education of residents and visitors on the special sustainable characteristics of SEFC.

Post-Development Initiatives

11. The City should work to establish neighbourhood facilities in SEFC, possibly in conjunction with a community centre, to provide for community and visitor education, community policing, environmental monitoring and community program administration.

Return to Table of Contents

---

8. Social and Cultural Development

8.1 ISSUES

1. How can the SEFC planning process encourage the development of a livable, strong, healthy community?
2. How can SEFC contribute to the overall social health of the City?
3. How can SEFC plan for active community participation by all generations — from children and youth to seniors?
4. How can life-long learning be encouraged in SEFC?
5. How can ecological issues and the unique environmental aspects of SEFC be highlighted for residents and visitors to encourage more environmentally sensitive lifestyles?
6. How can planning and design make for a safer neighbourhood in SEFC?
7. What can SEFC do to shoulder its fair share of the responsibility for supporting low-income and disadvantaged social groups in the city?
8. How can arts and culture support the well-being of both the individual and community?

8.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Central Area Plan (1991) established goals to include a mix of activities — quieter neighbourhoods mixed with more active areas to be focused on public streets where people shop, work and play. The downtown is seen as a place for people of all ages, abilities, income levels and ethnicities.
2. The Central Area Plan also identified a vision of housing for families as a priority for SEFC.
3. In 1990, City Council approved a series of priorities for cultural facilities, including an arts centre for children and youth, an arts resource centre (production, rehearsal and administration space) and artist live-work studios.
4. The Vancouver Arts Initiative (1995) includes a recommendation that staff review and report back on the availability and feasibility of developing a City-owned site on the south shore of False Creek as an arts resource centre.
5. CityPlan (1995) sets goals for:
   1. Accessible, community-based services such as health and recreation programs, social programs and libraries;
   2. Neighbourhood-based programs to promote safety and prevent crime;
   3. The encouragment of affordable housing;
   4. The promotion of art and culture to contribute to the city's identity, cultural heritage and neighbourhood character, as well as to citizens' learning and self-expression; and
   5. The provision of new and more diverse public places where people can relax, walk, bike, socialize, celebrate and play.
6. City policy requires that a major new development must provide community facilities and services needed by its population, including childcare, community recreation facilities, public art, schools and libraries.

8.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To plan and develop a neighbourhood which promotes a healthy individual and community life for a wide diversity of residents, both in SEFC and in the city as a whole.
2. To encourage the development of facilities and programs in SEFC which support culture, the arts and education.
3. To plan and develop SEFC in such a way as to celebrate the area's heritage in a variety of ways, such as building retention, public art, landscape design and program development.

8.4 NEW POLICY

The format of this section differs from the rest of the document, so as to reflect the importance of the social and community-oriented policies which will help support the social health of the neighbourhood and to present these policies coherently. At the end of each policy, the associated development stage is abbreviated in parentheses as follows: ODP Phase Policies (ODP); Rezoning Phase Policies (ReZ); Development and Design Directives (Dev); Post-Development Initiatives (Post); and Demonstration Projects (Demo). Note that some policies relate to, or are listed in, other sections of this policy statement. These cross-references are also noted in parentheses.

Families with Children

1. A range of affordable housing choices should be provided in SEFC. Funding from the Province will be necessary to build core-need housing (ReZ) (see Residential Use Policies).
2. Family daycare and new forms of childcare should be encouraged in SEFC (ReZ) (see Community Amenity Policies).
3. Child-friendly design should be encouraged throughout SEFC, to ensure children have a safe, supportive and stimulating place to learn, experience and grow (Dev) (see Parks Policies).

Youth

4. The City should encourage youth participation in SEFC planning to respond to youth-related issues (all stages).
5. The City should encourage youth-oriented community facilities, cultural activities and economic opportunities in SEFC (Post) (see Community Amenity Policies).

Seniors

6. The City should promote housing choices which facilitate aging-in-place (ReZ) (Demo) (see Housing Policies).
7. The City should encourage the development of community activities and facilities for seniors (Post).
8. All public spaces should be designed according to barrier-free principles (Dev) (see Parks and Open Space Policies).

Diversity

9. A healthy level of social diversity should be promoted in SEFC, addressing factors such as age, income, culture, gender, family type, education, occupation, housing tenure and health status (Post).

Arts & Culture

10. Cultural and community activities should be encouraged in public open spaces (Post).
11. Public art should be provided to City standards (ReZ).
12. The City should encourage public artist participation in the planning and design of the open spaces in SEFC (Dev).
13. Encourage ongoing community participation in shaping the SEFC neighbourhood through community public art projects (Post).
14. Links with adjacent cultural resources such as the Roundhouse Community Arts Centre, Science World and Granville Island, should be encouraged by the City (Post).
15. Development of affordable artist studios and artists' live-work should be encouraged (Dev) (see Live-Work Policies).

Heritage

(See Built Form and Parks sections for policies on promoting and preserving heritage in buildings and open space in SEFC.)

Education

16. Opportunities for interdisciplinary learning in the arts, science, the environment, health and wellness should be encouraged in SEFC schools and community facilities (Post).

Individual Well-being

17. Resident health and wellness should be encouraged by providing on-site recreational facilities, parks, waterfront walkways, bike paths, community gardens and access to the waterfront activities (ODP) (Post) (see Parks Policies).
18. Participation in educational, arts and cultural activities should be encouraged (Post).
19. Design guidelines for SEFC should be sensitive to safety and security concerns, so as to encourage comfortable use of the public realm (Dev) (see Parks and Open Space Policies).

Community Building

20. Resident participation in key decisions affecting the SEFC neighbourhood should be encouraged (Post).

Return to Table of Contents

---

PART B - BUILT FORM

Built form in SEFC, including building height, character, massing and views, should create identifiable neighbourhoods which accommodate a wide range of land uses and a diversity of residents. The buildings should be designed to use energy and water efficiently, to produce little waste or pollution, and to provide healthy places to work and live. The buildings should also be designed and oriented to enhance public open space and the site's ecosystems.

9. Height, Character and Heritage

9.1 ISSUES

1. How should the built form respond:
   1. To the overall context of the east end of False Creek, both now and in the future;
   2. To the waterfront;
   3. To the need for solar access to both buildings and open spaces for livability and energy efficiency; and
   4. To internal livability issues such as noise, privacy and private views?
2. For the residential area (which is primarily north of 1st Avenue):
   1. What types of buildings are appropriate?
   2. How will the blocks be divided up into sub-components to ensure an appropriate degree of comfort, identity, safety and security for residents?
3. What general and maximum building heights are appropriate:
   1. To integrate successfully with the surrounding neighbourhoods?
   2. To meet livability objectives including views and open space?
   3. To respond to the water?
4. How should the interface between the private and public realm be designed, particularly on the park edges?
5. How can the buildings be designed to enhance the health of the site's ecosystem?
6. What issues need to be addressed in SEFC to create more environmentally sensitive "green buildings?" Should guidelines for green buildings be developed and implemented?
7. How should the economic implications of green building technologies be addressed? Can full-cost accounting methodologies provide guidance in this area?
8. How can the architecture in SEFC be designed to both integrate into the city fabric and visibly demonstrate its unique "green" characteristics?

9.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1984, City Council approved the East False Creek Plan which recommended a number of towers at the eastern end of False Creek.
2. The 1990 development plan for False Creek North permits towers up to about 91 m (300 ft.). While building height does vary across the site, the towers generally allow for more open space than would a mid-rise building form. The taller buildings must conform to view corridors and generally be aligned with the existing street grid. Building heights typically step down toward the waterfront.
3. CityPlan, adopted by Council in 1995, promotes the development of neighbourhoods with unique character.
4. The City of Vancouver Heritage Policies and Guidelines establish:
   1. That buildings, landscapes, streetscapes and archaeological sites on the City's heritage register have heritage significance and their protection should be promoted; and
   2. That conditional uses, relaxation of regulations and density bonusing can be considered in order to retain heritage buildings.
   
   A protocol has been established for transferring density to make the retention of heritage buildings more economically feasible.

9.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To develop SEFC in accordance with environmentally sustainable building principles, including increasing energy and resource efficiency, maintaining ecosystem health and minimizing waste and pollution.
2. To develop SEFC buildings with appropriate massing and height characteristics so as:
   1. To balance the economic and open-space needs and benefits of height with the need for SEFC to integrate with the current and future characteristics of the adjacent neighbourhoods;
   2. To optimize solar access to buildings and open space;
   3. To take advantage of views from the site;
   4. To provide a diversity of housing; and
   5. To provide a street level scale and facade treatment which defines streets and is consistent with livability and safety objectives.
3. To develop SEFC so as to illuminate and celebrate the unique character of the site and its sub-areas.
4. To promote a fine-grained urban form that has a public realm which is active, interesting and safe.
5. To preserve and enhance the heritage character of SEFC in the design and programming of its buildings, landscape and public realm.

9.4 NEW POLICY

The format of this section differs from the rest of the document so as to better present and respond to the issues. At the end of each policy, the associated development stage is abbreviated in parentheses as follows:ODP Phase Policies (ODP); Rezoning Phase Policies (ReZ); Development and Design Directives (Dev); Post-Development Initiatives (Post); and Demonstration Projects (Demo).

Building Strategy

1. The City, with advice from the development, engineering and architectural communities, should develop a "green building" strategy for SEFC, which will also likely include guidelines. The primary objectives should be economic viability and the potential to transfer the strategy's elements to other developments in Vancouver and the region (ReZ).
2. Roof gardens should be conceived of as part of the site's ecosystem. They should be designed to offer green space for recreation, to accommodate urban agriculture, to provide habitat for native species and to reduce runoff.

Height

Building height should be allowed in a manner as generally set out in the proposed height zones map at right, noting that discussion will continue as part of the ODP process, where the maximum heights will be decided and set out in the ODP by-law.

For the lands zoned FC-1, between Quebec and Main streets, and Terminal and 1st avenues:

3. The urban design vision for this area should continue to be implemented in accordance with the East False Creek Plan, thereby permitting a series of towers up to 83.3 m (275 ft.) high near Terminal Avenue stepping down gradually in height toward 1st Avenue (ODP).

For the City lands north of 1st Avenue:

4. The building heights permitted in the East False Creek Plan should continue around the end of the Creek and extend on to the lands west of Quebec Street. Towers of up to 76.2 m (250 ft.) should be permitted, providing that they are designed to minimize shadowing on public open space and on the waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system. Streets should be defined by lower building forms and tower bases (ODP).
5. In the central portion of the site and along the waterfront, where large areas are dedicated to public use, the buildings should be low with heights up to 15.2 m (50 ft.) (ODP).
6. Recognizing that there are existing higher buildings to the west of Cambie Bridge, buildings on the western portion of the site should be of medium height, up to 45.5 m (150 ft.). Higher buildings should be located to the south, closer to 1st Avenue, to minimize the shadowing on public open space and on the waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system (ODP).
7. Solar access and shading should be an important consideration for shaping form and urban design. However it should not be the only consideration and must be balanced with other design objectives (ODP and ReZ).

For the private lands within the study area, between 1st and 2nd avenues:

8. Height and massing should be integrated with what is proposed on the City lands to the north as follows: (ODP)
   1. Higher buildings to the east of up to 76.2 m (250 ft.); and
   2. Medium heights to the west of up to 45.7 m (150 ft.).
9. All street edges in this area should be defined with lower building elements having a minimum height of two storeys along 1st Avenue and three storeys along 2nd Avenue (ODP).

Character

10. Several distinct neighbourhood character areas should be recognized across the study area (ReZ), including:
    1. The eastern end of the site — the area roughly bounded by Ontario, Main, 2nd and Terminal;
    2. The southern edge of the site, running along the blocks between 1st and 2nd Avenues;
    3. The western end of the site, close to Cambie Bridge and the South False Creek neighbourhood; and
    4. The central portion of the site.
11. Development guidelines should recognize differences in character of each sub-area, while seeking to unify the site as a neighbourhood with an overall distinct character (ReZ).
12. Where residential use is permitted along 1st Avenue, all buildings should have a strong sense of unit identification and entry. Buildings may be set back to permit landscaping (ReZ).
13. A fine-grained urban form should be maintained throughout the entire study area:
    1. through design; and
    2. by providing a variety of parcel sizes.
    
    Smaller parcel sizes will provide opportunities for more incremental developmentand for a wider range of designers to be involved in creating SEFC. Smaller parcels should be located, where feasible, in locations with high public activity and visibility (ReZ).
14. In all areas, particular attention should be paid to the interface and transition between public and private space. A high quality streetscape is essential for urban design continuity, for visual interest and character, for area definition, for a sense of landscape and for accessibility for all (Dev).
15. Residential streets should be defined by buildings, and units should be easily identifiable, with as many doors and windows from as many individual units as possible facing directly onto the street (Dev).
16. For industrial development, buildings should have little or no setback, and where possible, should incorporate windows which display the service or product of the business. There should be a strong sense of entry. Windows should be large and include displays (Dev).
17. The design of lower buildings along 1st and 2nd avenues should recognize the historical and industrial context of the area (Dev).
18. Towers should be designed with neighbourhood identity in mind. Care should be taken to ensure a slim appearance and tower tops should be stepped with distinct roofs (Dev).

Heritage

19. The rich heritage value of SEFC should be celebrated and enhanced where possible, by preserving and reusing existing industrial and historical buildings, and by reflecting the heritage character of SEFC in the design of the built form and of the public open spaces (ReZ).
20. The retention of privately owned, economically viable buildings with heritage merit should be encouraged. The City should explore methods to achieve this by supporting a mixture of use, including live-work, and by considering building code relaxations and the use of Heritage Density Bonuses (ReZ).
21. The City-owned Domtar Salt Building should be retained for community and/or cultural uses. If possible, it should remain in its historical context (Dev).

Return to Table of Contents

---

10. Views

10.1 ISSUES

1. What are the key views into, out of and around SEFC which need preserving? What are the key vantage points which should be examined?
2. Should northerly views of the water and mountains be preserved from all vantage points or just from the street ends? Should some views be saved and expanded as a trade-off for reducing others?
3. Should views from public places toward significant mountain features, such as The Lions, be protected?
4. What other objectives should be considered when making economic and environmental trade-offs associated with preserving views?

10.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The 1989 False Creek Policy Statement recommended that views of the water, mountains, and other landmark views from residences, public spaces, bridges and streets, should be considered when planning the False Creek Basin.
2. The 1984 East False Creek Plan addressed a northerly view down Main Street.
3. In 1989, Council adopted view protection guidelines to protect selected public views. Several view corridors extend over parts of SEFC, including one of the North Shore Mountains from Cambie Street near City Hall and another of the North Shore from Main Street at 6th Avenue. How these views are impacted by development is addressed on a site-by-site basis.
4. The 1990 False Creek North Official Development Plan included a view corridor from 10th Avenue and Cambie Street.
5. The Bridgehead Guidelines, adopted by Council in 1997, establish a 7.6-m zone east of the Cambie Bridge where no development is to take place. For another 7.6 m east of that zone, development is not to exceed three storeys. East of that zone, for an area extending to 200 m from the bridge, development is to be limited to a maximum of four storeys. For SEFC these regulations were intentionally conservative, recognizing that they might be amended following more in-depth analysis to be completed during the planning process.

10.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To preserve important views of the city skyline, the mountains and key landmarks from SEFC, as well as views over the site from key vantage points nearby.

10.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A view analysis should be completed for SEFC during the ODP phase to identify view issues and impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods, as well as on development options. The analysis should address both public and private views, with the objectives of preserving key views from public spaces and of providing for an equitable sharing of view opportunities amongst private developments.
2. Consideration should be given to important northerly views of the city skyline and of the mountains from along north-south streets, particularly from along Main and Cambie streets.
3. The bridgehead guideline, which imposes a four-storey height limit within 200 m of the Cambie Bridge, should be reviewed during the ODP process with consideration for SEFC's urban design and density objectives. Views to built landmarks, such as the Science World dome and the Plaza of Nations glass pavilion, should also be examined from vantage points both in and beyond the SEFC study area.

Return to Table of Contents

---

PART C - OPEN SPACE

Open space in SEFC will connect the housing to amenities and services, as well as to adjacent communities, thereby providing the context for public life in this neighbourhood. It will be designed in such a way as to promote social interaction, a diverse ecosystem, a high degree of neighbourhood livability and a healthy local economy.

11. Parks and Public Open Space

11.1 ISSUES

1. Where, in what amount, and in what configuration should parks and other public open spaces be provided to serve residents, workers and visitors in SEFC?
2. How should the parks in SEFC be designed and programmed to provide the necessary services to SEFC residents and visitors, as well as to add to the overall range of services offered to Vancouverites in downtown parks?
3. What kind of park spaces are suitable to meet recreational and ecological needs in a sustainable neighbourhood:
   1. small pocket parks?
   2. linear greenways?
   3. large playing fields?
   4. planned natural habitat areas?
   5. waterfront areas?
4. Should the park standards required in False Creek North and Coal Harbour be the same for SEFC or should they be different?
5. How can we maximize the biodiversity of the parks and open space in SEFC while reducing energy and water use in their maintenance?

11.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan, adopted by Council in 1987, set goals and recommendations:
   1. To acquire and develop park space in critical locations in the Mount Pleasant community;
   2. To develop pedestrian walkways, to add mini-parks to public rights-of-way and to supplement open space deficiencies in Mount Pleasant; and
   3. To develop a connection to Creekside Park next to Science World from the foot of Ontario Street, as well as to anchor the proposed pedestrian walkway planned for 2nd Avenue, west to Wylie Street.
2. In August 1989, a standard requirement of 1.11 hectares (2.75 acres) of park space per 1,000 residents was adopted for False Creek North development (ODP).
3. In September 1990, the same park standard was adopted for Coal Harbour but it included a proviso that the total area of park and public open space comprise at least 40% of the site (ODP).
4. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, established several goals for the downtown including:
   1. To enhance the Central Area by reflecting nature in urban design and by providing a strong connection to the magnificent natural setting; and
   2. To maintain and improve the City's environmental quality.

11.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To promote health and a good quality of life for residents and visitors in SEFC by providing park and open space in SEFC to meet the diversity of ecological and recreational needs, both passive and active, associated with a sustainable urban neighbourhood.
2. To develop parks in SEFC which provide the neighbourhood with a resilient ecological infrastructure, including space for urban agriculture, wildlife habitat and surface water management, in such a way as to require little or no fossil fuels, potable water or chemicals during maintenance.
3. To connect the parks and open space in SEFC to the network of parks and open space in surrounding neighbourhoods and nearby greenways.
4. To design the parks and open space to celebrate SEFC's unique heritage, to provide for cultural and artistic uses, and to ensure that all spaces and amenities are fully accessible and promote safety.
5. To ensure that SEFC park costs are allocated equitably.

11.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City supports a target for the SEFC study area of providing a minimum of 1.11 hectares (2.75 acres) of park space per 1,000 residents. Some of the park will be provided as part of an amenity package associated with comprehensive development planned in the lands north of 1st Avenue. DCLs (Development Cost Levies) applied to the privately owned lands in SEFC may also be used as a funding mechanism to provide park amenities.
2. Park space calculations should include areas dedicated to uses such as:
   1. A community centre and its site;
   2. Boating facilities;
   3. Outdoor performance spaces;
   4. A demonstration garden and smaller community gardens;
   5. Habitat areas, where they offer public amenities; and
   6. Surface runoff systems, providing they offer public amenity and do not significantly limit other uses of park land.
   
   Criteria for including park uses in the above target should include:
   1. Increasing public access to all public park space;
   2. Increasing public utility;
   3. Increasing public benefit; and
   4. Conserving areas for active use.
3. Park space calculations should exclude (in a manner similar to exclusions in False Creek North):
   1. The 10.7-m (35-ft.) required width of the walkway-bikeway along the waterfront; and
   2. A 7.6-m (25-ft.) wide setback area between buildings and the walkway-bikeway.
4. Parks in SEFC should be designed to not only address conventional objectives and uses of park space but also to profile environmentally sustainable principles.
5. Parks in SEFC should be located and designed to connect conveniently to other public open spaces, such as streets, greenways and bike routes, so as to link SEFC internally and to nearby neighbourhoods.
6. Smaller parks should be provided near residential buildings, as focal points for public life.
7. Heavily used areas of the parks and public open spaces in SEFC should be located and designed to optimize sun exposure during midday, from spring to autumn.

Rezoning Phase Policies

8. Parks should conveniently serve community facilities and housing in SEFC, and should include a wide range of active and passive uses that are appropriate for all age groups, especially children.
9. The unique industrial and cultural heritage of SEFC should be celebrated in the open space design. The artifacts salvaged from the Canron Building should be positioned in a prominent public space.
10. Enhancing the ecological performance of park space in SEFC should be a key objective for park design, including initiatives such as:
    1. Utilizing the park space to convey runoff to False Creek. These new urban stream systems should be designed, where feasible, to aid in increasing the quality of the runoff before it reaches False Creek; and
    2. Encouraging the provision of wildlife and bird habitat throughout the site, especially as linear corridors to provide continuity of habitat.

Development and Design Directives

11. Community gardens should be permitted in public parks where appropriate.
12. The Park Board should encourage the establishment of a demonstration garden in SEFC and other educational initiatives such as interpretive programs and exhibits in conjunction with other organizations.
13. The Park Board should develop the program for the parks in SEFC to focus primarily on the needs of SEFC residents.
14. Parks in SEFC should be designed in accordance with principles of universal access and barrier-free design. The principles of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) should also be considered in the park design guidelines.
15. A sense of publicness in the SEFC open space should be enhanced by establishing visual and pedestrian connections between open spaces, plazas, streets and the waterfront.
16. Integration of public art into the design of parks and public open spaces should be encouraged.
17. Some park space should provide opportunities for quiet reflection and spiritual rejuvenation.
18. The development of outdoor performance spaces for cultural and community groups should also be encouraged.
19. The Park Board should develop a strategy to reduce dependence on potable water and chemical applications in the maintenance of SEFC parks.

Return to Table of Contents

---

12. Water Basin and Shoreline

12.1 ISSUES

1. What types of water access are needed to meet the recreational needs of residents and visitors in SEFC and Mount Pleasant?
2. How can the design of the SEFC waterfront increase the ecological diversity and health of the site?
3. How can the objectives to increase the quality and quantity of habitat for native species be balanced with the variety of needs for water recreation?
4. Can the waterfront be designed to accommodate a large pedestrian and bicycle path system along with an intertidal marsh?
5. Should a priority be given to non-motorized recreational craft on the SEFC waterfront?
6. What implications does soil contamination have on waterfront design?
7. Should commercial areas extend to the waterfront from 1st Avenue?
8. Should industrial or residential barges be allowed as part of the SEFC waterfront?

12.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. Waterfront policy developed between 1972 and 1974 recommended balancing cut and fill along the existing shoreline, stabilizing the shore and maintaining irregular alignments.
2. Policies developed in 1981 and 1982 recommended maintaining the sense of a large expanse of water in False Creek.
3. Policies in 1987 recommend establishing the 1987 shoreline as the base to which cut and fill should be balanced.
4. The Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan (1987) recommended that a park be established at the foot of Ontario Street to allow Mount Pleasant residents convenient access to False Creek.
5. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, sets goals for the Central Area, including developing connections to Vancouver's natural setting and maintaining and improving the City's environmental quality.

12.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To maintain the extent of the water basin.
2. To enhance the recreational uses and ecological quality of the water's edge in SEFC.
3. To ensure that the waterfront zone is designed to be accessible and well linked with surrounding areas.
4. To ensure that any changes to the existing shoreline are beneficial to the aesthetic, recreational and ecological quality of False Creek.
5. To enable the SEFC development to support the uses of non-motorized craft in False Creek.

12.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The False Creek shoreline should be preserved in its current configuration, except where modifications result in increased recreational, aesthetic or ecological quality and diversity. Cut and fill should be balanced.
2. The SEFC waterfront should be planned to link closely with the rest of Vancouver's waterfront.
3. Any marinas or boating facilities in SEFC should cater to non-motorized craft.
4. The City should encourage the establishment of passenger ferry stops which are conveniently linked to land-based transportation and to other waterfront destinations in False Creek. Achieving this policy may involve discussions and agreements with ferry companies and the GVTA.
5. The waterfront design should be integrated with the overall water management strategy for SEFC, including surface-runoff management systems (see Water Management Policies).

Rezoning Phase Policies

6. The waterfront should be designed to be publicly accessible and a principal amenity space for both SEFC residents and for the city as a whole.
7. Active, water-oriented recreational opportunities in SEFC should be encouraged through provision of a pier along the waterfront, as well as facilities, possibly associated with a community centre, to accommodate non-motorized craft, such as kayaks, dragon boats, native canoes and small sailboats.
8. The waterfront opportunities identified by the City's Blueways committee should be considered, including opportunities for small-boat industry, small non-motorized boat moorage, storage for hand-powered craft and others.

Development and Design Directives

9. Primary seawall areas should be designed to be accessible to all, including people using wheelchairs (see Parks and Transportation sections).
10. The shoreline should be designed to offer a diversity of aesthetic experiences through the use of a range of materials and dimensions.
11. The heritage value of the SEFC waterfront should be highlighted in its design, including past industrial uses and the original location of the shoreline.
12. The water's edge, where feasible, should be planned and designed to increase the biodiversity, health and productivity of natural habitat. This may entail establishing naturalized areas, an estuary, marsh or other intertidal habitat. Achieving this policy may involve discussions and agreements with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
13. Possibilities should be explored to create a beach along or adjacent to the SEFC waterfront as a park amenity.

Post-Development Initiatives

14. Permanent barges, whether commercial, residential or industrial, should be discouraged in the east end of False Creek. However, when the water in False Creek meets swimming standards, the possibility of having swimming rafts should be considered.
15. To prevent combined-sewer overflow from entering False Creek, the City should continue to pursue sewer-separation work. This east end of False Creek should be given a high priority for these initiatives.

Return to Table of Contents

---

PART D - TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION

The transportation network in SEFC will greatly shape the neighbourhood's form and livability. Developing transportation and circulation systems, which focus on pedestrian and bicycle paths and transit linkages, is of primary importance in ensuring a livable and environmentally sustainable waterfront neighbourhood.

13. Pedestrian Access and the Waterfront Walkway-Bikeway

13.1 ISSUES

1. What north-south and east-west links between SEFC and its adjacent neighbourhoods should be reinforced by the pedestrian and bikeway system?
2. How should the waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system and other pedestrian paths connect to existing networks, including the Ontario and 1st Avenue bikeways?
3. How should the barriers that arterial streets pose to pedestrians and cyclists be addressed — specifically the barriers posed by Quebec and Main streets and by 2nd Avenue?
4. Does the location of the continuous walkway have to be along the water's edge? Some uses, such as commercial or ecological habitat, could provide variety on the water's edge and result in the walkway-bikeway being located slightly inland.
5. Should a consistent design treatment on the walkway-bikeway be pursued to foster unity, public identity and ease of maintenance, or can a balance between activity, diversity and continuity be struck? A variety of experiences can be created along the walkway-bikeway by different treatments and shoreline modifications which alter the shape and direction of the path.
6. How can the walkway-bikeway be designed to minimize conflicts between all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and in-line skaters?

13.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. Between 1972 and 74, the City committed to a policy of maintaining waterfront access around the entire Creek with pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Walkway widths and elevations are allowed to vary. A 7.6m (25-ft.) minimum walkway width was established in South False Creek.
2. Between 1981 and 82, the walkway-bikeway corridor was increased to include a 7.6-m (25-ft.) path width and a minimum 7.6 m (25 ft.) of setback area to buildings.
3. The Granville Slopes waterfront walkway was developed with a 7.6m (25-ft.) width.
4. In the early 1990s, the walkway-bikeway width in False Creek North and Coal Harbour was increased to 10.7 m (35 ft.).
5. In 1991, Council adopted the Central Area Plan which established goals and policies including:"Enhance the Central Area as a place where pedestrians move safely, easily, and comfortably on all streets and where walking, supplemented by transit and bicycles, is the primary means of moving around."
6. In 1995, Council adopted CityPlan, which puts the priority of walking, cycling and transit ahead of cars, and promotes the development of pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets.
7. In 1997, Council adopted the Transportation Plan which "...places pedestrians as the first priority in transportation planning."

13.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To complete the SEFC segment of Vancouver's waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system.
2. To enhance connections throughout SEFC and across the arterial streets to shopping and adjacent neighbourhoods, including nearby greenways and bikeways.
3. To offer residents and visitors in SEFC a variety of recreational experiences along the waterfront, while enhancing the ecological health of the water's edge.
4. To ensure access and safety for all users of the waterfront path system.

13.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A continuous public pedestrian-bicycle path system should be located at or near the water's edge in SEFC. It should be linked to the existing Seaside Route and designed to separate pedestrian and cyclist circulation as needed. The overall width of the walkway-bikeway, including the setback area, should be a minimum 18.3 m (60  ft.), except for variations to achieve other public interests and commercial, urban design and habitat enhancement objectives.
2. A diverse network of pedestrian and bicycle paths should be provided through the site and the adjacent neighbourhoods, linking the waterfront, the public parks, the community facilities, the local commercial uses, the passenger ferry system and the transit connections (especially to SkyTrain, the Cambie Street buses and future rapid transit on Broadway). Routes should be designed to be convenient and direct.

Development and Design Directives

3. Public access to the waterfront should be a primary objective (see Parks Policies).
4. The treatment of the pedestrian-bicycle system should reflect the overall objectives of achieving a major public presence on the waterfront, by incorporating a diversity of activities and opportunities for recreational use of the water, and by increasing the ecological health and diversity of the waterfront habitat.
5. Variations in design treatment should be permitted at points where other public or environmental objectives take precedence.
6. Safety and convenience should be ensured along all walkways-bikeways, in order to accommodate all users, including people with disabilities. This may require separation of the modes, particularly in high traffic areas such as along the waterfront.

Return to Table of Contents

---

14.Transportation and Streets

14.1 ISSUES

1. How can the transportation and street network in SEFC be designed and developed to emphasize pedestrians, cyclists and transit, while facilitating convenient access to destinations within the neighbourhood, the city and the region?
2. While road access to the site should enhance links with adjacent communities, what can be done to discourage through traffic? What traffic-calming measures are appropriate in SEFC?
3. How can the streets be designed to accommodate vehicles but also clearly demonstrate the priorities of walking and cycling? Can some other areas of Vancouver, such as South False Creek, Granville Island or Gastown provide guidance in the design of flexible, pedestrian-oriented streets?
4. What innovative street design principles, either untried or used in other parts of Vancouver, could be used in SEFC to achieve narrower, more pedestrian-friendly streets while accommodating service and emergency vehicles, and private automobiles?
5. Can 1st Avenue accommodate a commuter bicycle route?
6. What cyclist facilities should be provided in SEFC to promote cycling and who should pay for them?
7. Should there be designated bicycle lanes on SEFC streets?
8. What convenience, frequency and quality of transit service is required to increase the ridership of SEFC residents and visitors significantly above regional or city averages?
9. How will higher amenity streets and their maintenance be funded?
10. How should the design of streets in the predominantly residential areas differ from the streets designed to accommodate the traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses?
11. How can access to the waterfront for recreational activities be provided so as to preserve intertidal habitat areas as well as pedestrian and cyclist safety, access and convenience?
12. How can the road network in SEFC be designed to reduce crime?
13. Can a pedestrian ferry system serving SEFC be linked to transit?
14. Where should new pedestrian and traffic signals be provided?
15. How should the Downtown Streetcar integrate with street design in SEFC?

14.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1989, Council adopted the Mount Pleasant Traffic Management Plan, which recommended investigation of a major road connection from the Kingsway to Quebec Street, known as the "Quebec Connector".
2. In 1990, Council adopted the Clouds of Change policy which recommended that the City:
   1. Reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 20% of 1988 levels by 2005;
   2. Favour high-occupancy vehicles;
   3. Increase the ease and accessibility of bicycle transportation, through protected bicycle commuting routes and improving bicycle-transit connections; and
   4. Support telecommunication technologies which reduce the need for transportation.
3. In 1995, Council adopted CityPlan which recommends:
   1. Emphasizing transit, walking and cycling;
   2. Improving transit service;
   3. Providing better pedestrian and bicycle connections to neighbourhood centres;
   4. Providing more facilities for cyclists; and
   5. Discouraging automobile use.
4. In 1997, Council adopted the Transportation Plan which recommends:
   1. Encouraging alternatives to the car for neighbourhood transportation;
   2. Emphasizing walking and cycling in the downtown;
   3. Providing safe and convenient road crossings for pedestrians;
   4. Allocating more space for cyclists;
   5. Developing bike lanes as a top priority;
   6. Ensuring bikeways and cycling facilities are visible;
   7. Encouraging the provision of a high standard of bicycle facilities in commercial and residential developments;
   8. Improving the frequency, comfort and convenience of transit services;
   9. Increasing transit to the downtown;
   10. Allocating more road space to transit;
   11. Using smaller "community" buses and custom services where big buses are not warranted;
   12. Calming traffic in neighbourhoods; and
   13. Accommodating goods movement without increasing road capacity.
5. Two potential future transit corridors exist on the western edge of the site next to the Cambie Bridge. Rights-of-way for these corridors have been registered on the north side of False Creek, as part of 1993 sub-area rezonings in False Creek North.

14.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To provide for the access and mobility needs of residents and visitors in SEFC, in such a way as to promote neighbourhood livability, convenience, safety, and a modal shift from cars to pedestrians, bicycles and transit.
2. To ensure adequate access to businesses for customers and the movement of goods.
3. To ensure emergency access to all buildings and to public open space.
4. To ensure that, in meeting transportation objectives, other social, economic and environmental objectives are considered, especially in street design.

14.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A network of streets should be developed in SEFC, generally based on extending northward the existing street grid located to the south.
2. The City should develop the Downtown Streetcar system through SEFC, with linkages to Granville Island, the downtown, the SkyTrain station at Science World, and with other city and regional transit connections. Achieving this policy will require discussions and agreements with the GVTA.

Rezoning Phase Policies

3. As ranked priorities, the transportation network in SEFC should address pedestrians, bicycles, transit (including ferries), goods movement and then automobiles.
4. The design of the street network in SEFC should allow good vehicular penetration while discouraging through-traffic.
5. Walking and cycling should be encouraged by connecting pathways from all buildings in a safe, convenient way to transit stops, to community and commercial areas and to bicycle routes.
6. Streets should minimize paved surfaces where possible, to reduce impermeability, to reduce embodied energy and to encourage the calming of traffic.
7. Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be made to the waterfront path system, particularly across Quebec and Main streets and across 2nd Avenue.
8. East-west and north-south commuter bike routes should be incorporated in SEFC, with good connections to the Cambie Bridge, to Quebec and Main streets and to the Ontario and Adanac Bikeways.
9. Trip-reduction measures should be encouraged in SEFC. These may include promoting tele-commuting, providing live-work options and having builders supply fibre optics to residential buildings.

Development and Design Directives

10. Where appropriate, paving surfaces should be given treatments that effectively define spaces for pedestrians and bicycles.
11. The use of permeable paving materials should be considered.
12. Links across Quebec Street from the False Creek Flats should be encouraged so as to increase access to park and community facilities and to a potential school site. Long-term proposals which could increase traffic, such as the Quebec Connector, should be thoroughly analysed and discussed with the public before being considered by City Council.
13. 2nd Avenue should be made more pedestrian friendly.
14. Transit service improvements should come on stream at the same time as the occupancy of new developments. Achieving this policy will require discussions and agreements with the GVTA.
15. High levels of amenities for cyclists, both public and private, should be provided in all areas of SEFC. They should include bike racks and other "end-of-trip" facilities, such as showers and lockers.
16. The development of a pedestrian-friendly public realm should be encouraged, through street design, lighting, landscaping and furnishings.

Post-Development Initiatives

17. The City should promote efficient transit service in SEFC incorporating buses, streetcars and ferries. Transit connections between SEFC, the Broadway Corridor and the downtown should be encouraged. Achieving this policy will require discussions and agreements with the GVTA and the ferry companies.
18. Car co-ops and vanpooling initiatives should be encouraged in SEFC.

Return to Table of Contents

---

15. Parking and Loading

15.1 ISSUES

1. Should the minimum parking requirements in SEFC match those applied elsewhere around False Creek, or should they be lower?
2. What are the economic implications of lowering the parking requirements? To construction costs? To convenience and unit marketability?
3. Will a reduction in available parking reduce vehicle trips to and from SEFC?
4. Should resident and visitor parking in SEFC be provided in different ways than normal? In separate buildings?
5. How should the loading areas in SEFC be designed to integrate with the pedestrian-oriented public realm?
6. How can car co-ops be implemented in a wide-reaching and effective way?

15.2 EXISTING POLICY?

1. The Clouds of Change report (1990) recommends using parking limits and parking pricing as tools to reduce vehicle trips to employment and business destinations.
2. Parking requirements are determined during the rezoning stage, generally in accordance with the Parking By-Law.
3. For the major projects in the downtown, parking requirements have been assessed by land use and need, with reductions based on proximity to transit service.
4. Parking reductions are possible for mixed-use developments that can realize parking efficiencies, such as when various uses share the same spaces at different times of the day and week.

15.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To provide the minimum parking supply needed to adequately serve SEFC.
2. To locate and design parking in such a way as to contribute to neighbourhood livability and environmental health while maintaining a practical level of convenience.
3. To promote flexibility and adaptability in parking structures to allow for changes in use over time.

15.4 NEW POLICY

Rezoning Phase Policies

1. Minimum parking standards for SEFC should be based on a full assessment of the site's requirements. Consideration should be given not only to the target market, but also to: the proximity and availability of transit; planned trip-reduction measures; shared off-peak parking; and pedestrian and bicycle linkages from the site to adjacent neighbourhoods and the downtown.
2. On-street parking should be provided on most streets to increase parking opportunities and to serve as a traffic-calming measure.
3. Consolidated parking should also be considered, including that in above-grade parking structures, provided that the structures:
   1. Meet urban design objectives;
   2. Provide for active, pedestrian-oriented uses at grade level, such as retail and service;
   3. Integrate in an appropriate manner into the context in which they are located; and
   4. Are located so as to minimize the unnecessary intrusion of large numbers of cars into the site.
4. Where soils and water-table conditions impose onerous constraints, consideration may be given to excluding above-grade parking from density (FSR) calculations.
5. Some public parking should be provided to support waterfront amenities, particularly catering to those who use vehicles to bring bicycles or small non-motorized boats.
6. Short-term "drop-off and pick-up" parking and loading areas should be provided for residential, commercial and recreational uses, including waterfront uses.

Post-Development Initiatives

7. Transportation Demand Management plans should be promoted to further reduce traffic and parking demand. These plans should include measures such as car co-ops, carpooling, tele-commuting and employer-assisted transit programs.

Demonstration Projects

8. If above-grade parking structures are pursued for SEFC, their convertibility in the future to other uses should be considered in the way they are initially designed, addressing such issues as floor-to-ceiling height and other relevant features.

Return to Table of Contents

---

PART E - ENVIRONMENT

SEFC will be a neighbourhood which helps protect the local and global environment by using less energy and water, by reducing waste and pollution, by minimizing air emissions, and by maintaining healthy soils and habitats for plants and animals. Goals for environmental protection and enhancement, as set out in this section, have helped shape all policies for SEFC.

16. Energy Use

16.1 ISSUES

1. What sources of renewable energy can be utilized in SEFC? How can these sources be maximized?
2. What sources of non-renewable energy could be considered in SEFC? How can these resources be used more efficiently?
3. Should solar energy production be pursued in SEFC? Is current photovoltaic technology a worthwhile large-scale investment at this latitude and in our climate? If not, is this technology worthwhile as a demonstration project?
4. How should SEFC address the issue of diversified energy sources?
5. Should SEFC address future needs to expand provincial, regional and local energy infrastructure?
6. Can energy efficient "green buildings" be developed at a cost which can be recovered through operational savings over a reasonable period of time?
7. Can we plan and design SEFC to be able to take advantage of future environment-friendly innovations in energy technology?

16.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The City's Energy Utilization By-law requires all new buildings, except single family homes and duplexes, to meet ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which is a North American benchmark for energy performance in buildings.
2. The Clouds of Change report (1990) recommended that the City:
   1. Adopt energy-efficient land-use policies; and
   2. Implement an energy conservation bylaw for commercial and multi-family residential construction.
3. Council adopted Vancouver's Transportation Plan in 1997, which includes many recommendations to reduce energy consumption related to transportation (see the Transportation section of this policy statement).

16.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To utilize a range of strategies to significantly increase energy efficiency in SEFC buildings, infrastructure, transportation and open space, as compared to the efficiency of conventional development in Vancouver.
2. To explore and demonstrate, in conjunction with BC Hydro, innovative and renewable, non-fossil energy technologies in SEFC, especially those technologies which might have applications to other developments in the city.

Rationale: Consumption of fossil fuels depletes a non-renewable resource and releases toxins into the environment. Combustion of fossil fuels contributes to the global greenhouse effect and local air pollution. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has agreed to reduce its average annual emissions of greenhouse gases to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.

3. To ensure that energy supply systems in SEFC are reliable and can be adapted to take advantage of future energy technologies.

16.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. In consultation with BC Hydro and the developer, the City should develop an energy plan for SEFC, which may address issues such as:
   1. Renewable energy technology;
   2. Regulatory issues;
   3. Building and infrastructure design;
   4. Landscape design;
   5. Costs;
   6. Opportunities for collaboration with energy supply companies, senior governments and industry;
   7. Education for stakeholders; and
   8. Using City-owned buildings as sites for demonstration projects featuring advanced energy-efficient design.

Return to Table of Contents

---

17. Water Management - Supply and Sewers

17.1 ISSUES

1. How fast will growth in the region exceed the current capacity of its reservoirs to supply freshwater?
2. What are the environmental impacts of increasing our water supply?
3. How far should SEFC go to demonstrate methods of reducing water use?
4. Should greywater recycling systems be pursued? How much will greywater recycling systems cost to design, install, operate and maintain? What regulatory and liability obstacles exist with these systems?
5. Should rainwater collection and storage be pursued, as well as surface runoff management systems? What are the cost implications of such systems? What effects do soil contamination and the proximity to sea level have on the design of surface runoff management systems?
6. Should potable water be used for landscape irrigation? What methods are available to reduce water use in the landscape?
7. Should decentralized blackwater (sewage) treatment systems be explored? What additional capital and maintenance costs will be faced by pursuing a small sewage treatment facility in SEFC? How does the cost of decentralized sewage treatment compare to maintaining or upgrading the existing sewage infrastructure? Who would own and operate the system and who would be liable in case of accident or failure?
8. Would a decentralized blackwater treatment system in SEFC be more sustainable than the current centralized system?

17.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Vancouver Building Bylaw was amended in 1995 to include requirements for low-flow fixtures as a means of conserving water.
2. The Central Area Plan (1991) set a goal of maintaining and improving environmental quality in the Central Area.
3. CityPlan (1995) recommends that the City:
   1. Use incentives, education, promotion, fees and regulations to encourage individuals and businesses to help improve the environment and conserve resources;
   2. Reduce combined-sewage overflows by continuing to separate storm runoff and sanitary sewer systems; and
   3. Expand waste reduction and water conservation programs.
4. Vancouver has initiated demonstration and public education programs on water conservation and ecological landscaping. Included is a subsidy for rain barrels to intercept and store residential roof runoff.
5. Vancouver introduced a Source Control Bylaw to reduce discharges of contaminated waste into the sewer system.

17.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To investigate, and possibly implement, technologies and strategies in SEFC which do not significantly raise costs or diminish the quality of life, but which reduce the use of potable water in all types of land use.

Rationale: Reducing water consumption can reduce the need for costly infrastructure expansion, both for water supply and for waste-water treatment. Residential consumption accounts for approximately 50% of Vancouver's total potable water use. The average residential water use in Vancouver is 315 litres/person/day, including indoor and outdoor uses. Toilets, showers, laundry and kitchen uses account for two thirds of indoor water use.

2. To manage surface runoff in SEFC so as: to increase the quality of runoff reaching False Creek; to increase on-site amenities; to reduce the need for irrigation; to increase the habitat value of the open space; and to increase the opportunities for learning about the site's ecosystem, including the natural water cycle.

Rationale: Runoff from streets and other urban surfaces can contain toxins and tends to occur in peak flows during storms. Managing precipitation runoff on the surface, through a range of design elements such as swales and small reed ponds, can reduce the need for infrastructure, reduce erosive peak flows, and eliminate some toxins from runoff thereby delivering clean water to the receiving water body. Surface water management systems can be designed into parks.

3. To explore, and possibly implement, methods of dealing with liquid waste in SEFC in a manner which is feasible and meets economic, environmental, learning and livability objectives.

Comments: Decentralized liquid waste systems are available which will decrease loading on the City's and the region's sewer infrastructure. These systems may also provide the City with an opportunity to research the costs and benefits of alternative waste treatment systems, which may be useful in other developments. However, as these systems may incur additional costs, may duplicate existing systems and may not significantly increase environmental performance, both the City and GVRD should play a role in developing policy and criteria for this initiative.

4. To use SEFC as an opportunity to promote and further educate citizens in Vancouver on existing water conservation measures that the City has in place, including the rain barrel program and ecologically-based landscape design guidelines.
5. To reduce and control pollutants at their source, as much as possible and wherever feasible.

17.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City, in consultation with the developer and the GVRD, should develop a neighbourhood water management plan for SEFC. This plan may address issues such as:
   1. Reducing potable water consumption;
   2. Landscape irrigation;
   3. Surface runoff management within the site's catchment area;
   4. Water demand management;
   5. Water-use monitoring;
   6. Incentives;
   7. Efficiency of appliances;
   8. Greywater treatment and water recycling systems;
   9. Decentralized liquid-waste systems;
   10. Alternative sources of funding for new infrastructure;
   11. The liability and long-term operating costs; and
   12. Integration of this neighbourhood-level plan with the City's and the region's water management plans.

Return to Table of Contents

---

18. Waste, Recycling and Composting

18.1 ISSUES

1. Vancouver's landfill site has a limited capacity to store solid waste.
2. What initiatives can be pursued in SEFC to reduce the amount of solid waste destined for disposal?
3. How can waste be used as a resource in SEFC?
4. Can user-pay initiatives be promoted in SEFC to reduce waste production?
5. What initiatives can encourage responsible product stewardship for businesses in SEFC?
6. How can demolition and construction waste be best handled in SEFC?
7. How should hazardous wastes be dealt with in SEFC?
8. How can markets be found for waste products from SEFC?

18.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The GVRD Solid Waste Management Plan (1995) commits each municipality to a 50% per capita waste reduction over 1990 levels by 2000. To achieve these levels, a ban on organic materials may be implemented once suitable infrastructure is in place to deal with food waste. The City of Vancouver initiated a residential recycling program in 1989.
2. CityPlan (1995) recommends that the City:
   1. Use incentives, education, promotion, fees and regulations to encourage individuals and businesses to help improve the environment and conserve resources;
   2. Expand waste reduction programs; and
   3. Develop user-pay programs to reduce environmentally harmful actions.
3. Vancouver has a Blue Box recycling program in residential areas. In 1992, the City initiated a pilot apartment recycling program. Extension of this program to all multi-family buildings was approved in 1998.
4. As of January 1998, a solid waste utility was approved to create a user-pay system for waste management in the City of Vancouver.
5. The GVRD has developed construction waste disposal guidelines.

18.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To plan for a significant reduction in the amount of solid waste generated in SEFC, during the entire life cycle of the neighbourhood.

Facts: Approximately half of residential solid waste consists of packaging materials for household and business products. The second largest category of waste from conventional residential areas is organic materials (at approximately 30%), generated by food preparation and landscape maintenance. The remainder of the waste stream consists of paper products and other discarded household materials including small amounts of hazardous waste.

2. To divert as much of SEFC's waste as possible from landfills or incinerators, into recycling and re-use systems.

Facts: The GVRD reported that the per-capita annual production of waste was reduced from 860 kg/person/year in 1990 to 580 kg/person/year in 1996 as a result of implementation of recycling and education programs.

3. To divert from landfills as much demolition and construction waste as possible during redevelopment of SEFC.

Facts: A significant amount of municipal waste (up to 40%) comes from demolition and construction waste. Depending on the building method, residential and commercial construction can generate between 1.6 and 6.2 cubic metres of construction waste per 100 m² of floor space. Typically, 60% of construction waste can be recycled with cost savings to the builder. If demolished, the existing industrial buildings in SEFC offer excellent opportunities to salvage and recycle materials. GVRD waste specialists believe that up to 80% of waste materials generated during building demolition in SEFC could easily be redirected from disposal in a cost-competitive manner.

4. To minimize the amount of transportation needed to deal with solid waste and recyclable products from SEFC, and to maximize the local economic opportunities connected to dealing with SEFC waste.

18.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City should develop an integrated waste management plan for SEFC to minimize the amount of solid waste that is produced in SEFC or hauled off-site, during the entire life cycle of the neighbourhood. The plan should address issues and initiatives such as:
   1. Salvaging and recycling of construction and demolition waste;
   2. Centralized and decentralized composting systems for household, landscape and commercial organic waste;
   3. The extension of multi-material recycling programs to all multi-unit buildings in SEFC;
   4. Encouraging and enabling the use of recycled and salvaged building materials in SEFC buildings, where feasible, including materials from the deconstruction of existing buildings in the study area;
   5. Education and incentive programs to encourage reduction, reuse and recycling;
   6. Waste reduction systems and recommended voluntary practices for SEFC businesses;
   7. Use and handling of hazardous wastes;
   8. User-pay strategies for waste management; and
   9. The possibility of establishing privately owned recycling depots in SEFC.

Return to Table of Contents

---

19. Soils

19.1 ISSUES

1. Soil in the northwest portion of SEFC is contaminated with both hydrocarbons and heavy metals. What strategies can the City use to meet the provincial remediation standards in the most cost-effective manner?
2. What options exist for dealing with the contamination?
3. How should the costs associated with soil contamination be met? The proposed option is to use profit from development in SEFC to pay for the remediation, provided that the development density needed to generate such profit does not exceed the limits associated with achieving livability and environmental objectives.
4. How should the site's soils be managed in the future?

19.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The contaminated sites legislation of the Province, consisting of the Waste Management Act (1993) and the Contaminated Sites Regulation (1997), sets standards which must be met before the redevelopment of contaminated lands can occur. These standards take into account the negative effects of contamination on both human and ecosystem health.

19.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To use a range of strategies to deal with the contaminated soils in SEFC and in the most cost-effective manner.
2. To promote landscape practices which ensure healthy soils in the future.

Rationale: The soil forms the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems and can often contain nearly 50% of the species in an ecosystem.

19.4 NEW POLICY

1. Prior to consideration of a zoning by-law which would permit development in SEFC, the developer must prepare a remediation plan for dealing with the contaminated soils and obtain a certificate of compliance from the Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks. The plan should address the objectives of economic viability and environmental health.
2. The City should develop a plan addressing future soil management principles for SEFC, which also considers park maintenance. This plan may address issues such as:
   1. Planting design; and
   2. The use on site of composted organic matter from the maintenance of SEFC parks and landscapes.

Return to Table of Contents

---

20. Air Quality

20.1 ISSUES

1. How can SEFC address concerns about urban air quality, climate change and ozone depletion? How can harmful air emissions be minimized through the design of the development?
2. What airborne pollutants need to be addressed in both indoor and outdoor spaces?
3. How can SEFC address Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas reduction?
4. What effects are Vancouver's air emissions having on the region?
5. How can SEFC address the use of ozone-depleting chemicals?

20.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Clouds of Change policies (1990) addressed many issues of local and regional air quality, making many recommendations relevant to SEFC. Subject to further studies and costing, the City should:
   1. Take responsibility for the carbon dioxide emissions generated by its citizens, and by 2005, achieve a reduction of 20% from 1988 levels of carbon dioxide emissions;
   2. Phase out ozone-depleting chemicals;
   3. Promote a variety of measures to reduce transportation demand;
   4. Promote and assist the planting of trees on public and private property; and
   5. Promote public education and involvement in initiatives to reduce air emissions.
2. The Central Area Plan (1991) established the goal for the Central Area of maintaining and improving environmental quality.
3. CityPlan (1995) recommends that the City:
   1. Consider environmental impacts when making decisions on land use, transportation and the City's provision of services; and
   2. Participate in regional programs to improve drinking water quality, sewage treatment and air quality.
4. The Transportation Plan (1997) states that air pollution must be addressed on a regional and neighbourhood basis by focusing on alternatives to the automobile for transportation.
5. The regional Air Quality Management Plan calls for a 38% reduction of five major air contaminants by the year 2000.

20.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To develop SEFC in such a way as to minimize the emission of air pollutants, greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals, associated with the site's development and operation.

Facts: Greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide, methane and most importantly, carbon dioxide. CO₂ accounts for nearly 80% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and 80% of these CO₂ emissions come from burning fossil fuels. CO₂ sources in Vancouver are estimated to be:

• 36% from transportation use;
• 20% from residential use; and
• 20% from commercial and industrial use.

Facts: Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions damage the ozone layer which filters solar UV radiation. CFCs trap heat in the earth's atmosphere 20,000 times more effectively than carbon dioxide does. A CFC molecule takes about 25 to 30 years to reach the ozone layer and once there, destroys ozone molecules through repetitive chemical reactions for up to 60 years before the CFC molecule becomes inert.

2. SEFC should demonstrate ways that community planning and design can help Canada achieve its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Facts: Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has agreed to reduce its average annual emissions of greenhouse gases to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that carbon emissions must be cut by 50 to 80% by the middle of next century to stabilize climatic change processes.

3. To plan SEFC in such a way as to ensure that the interior air quality will also be healthy.

Rationale: Since Canadians spend nearly 90% of their lives indoors, interior air quality is an important health concern.

20.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City should create a neighbourhood air quality strategy for SEFC to minimize its contributions to greenhouse gases and air pollution where feasible. The strategy may address issues such as:
   1. Greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals;
   2. Transportation;
   3. Landscape design and maintenance; and
   4. Education of stakeholders.

Return to Table of Contents

---

21. Urban Agriculture

21.1 ISSUES

1. How should SEFC address concerns about food security?
2. Should gardens be used as spaces to encourage social interaction and community building?
3. Where in SEFC should garden spaces be located?
4. What role can urban agriculture play in the economic development of SEFC?
5. How can growing food in SEFC meet other environmental goals like reducing pollution and the use of energy and resources?
6. If urban agriculture is pursued in SEFC, what produce should be grown?
7. Should some of the public park space be allocated for private garden plots?

21.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1975, the provincial government passed the Agricultural Land Act, creating the Agricultural Land Reserve, which stops the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses.
2. Environmental health regulations forbid the keeping of agricultural animals in the city.
3. The Greenways Plan (1992) calls for Vancouver to become a "city of gardens" and for investigation into the possibility of urban agriculture being part of the programming of public spaces.
4. In 1995, the Vancouver Parks Board approved the development of community gardens.

21.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To establish clarity on the role that food production should play in the development of a sustainable city and neighbourhood.

Rationale: The total amount of arable land decreases every year in the world because of urbanization, desertification and erosion, while at the same time the world's population is increasing. With approximately 50% of BC's food supply coming from outside of the province (M. Quayle's 1998 report for the BC Government on agricultural policy), the decrease in agricultural land in other countries is of concern. Recognizing that a sustainable community is planned with long time horizons, these trends indicate that an urban food production policy would be beneficial. Further study is needed to establish clarity on the implications of food production in an urban setting.

2. To use urban agriculture and community gardens to assist in meeting other social, environmental and economic objectives in SEFC.

Rationale: Urban agriculture and community gardens can have many positive impacts on a neighbourhood including: improving soil productivity; increasing social interaction in the neighbourhood; providing an inexpensive way for individuals with low incomes to produce some food; increasing learning about nature in a city environment; and decreasing some of the energy consumed and pollution produced in providing food to city residents.

21.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. An urban agriculture strategy should be developed for SEFC by the City in consultation with the developer. This plan may consider issues such as:
   1. The city's role and responsibility in securing a food supply for its population;
   2. Opportunities and constraints with regard to urban agriculture which can be reasonably addressed in SEFC;
   3. Gardening opportunities on private land, on rooftops, and in public parks;
   4. Education for stakeholders; and
   5. Regulatory issues.

Return to Table of Contents

---

PART F - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & STEWARDSHIP

SEFC will be a neighbourhood which demonstrates understanding and care for its natural, social and economic systems to ensure that it will prosper for many generations. It is through stewardship that the long-range vision for SEFC will be realized.

22. Economic Development

22.1 ISSUES

1. Within the mandate of creating a sustainable community, how can we ensure that the SEFC development is economically viable?
2. How can we ensure that the sustainability initiatives undertaken in SEFC are transferable to other projects in Vancouver?
3. How should the costs of remediating contaminated soils be dealt with in this development?
4. What time lines should be considered when rationalizing the greater initial cost of environmental features against the long-term savings in operational efficiency?
5. What funding provisions can be made, within the City, with senior governments and with the private sector, to support demonstration projects?
6. How can businesses in SEFC be encouraged to engage in green business practices such as recycling, using materials made or harvested in a sustainable manner, etc? How can businesses stimulate markets for sustainable environment-friendly products and services? How can cradle-to-grave product stewardship programs be encouraged?
7. How can the neighbourhood economy in SEFC be strengthened through energy, resource and wealth circulation amongst on-site businesses?
8. How can stable and permanent jobs be established in SEFC?

22.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. CityPlan (1995) established a goal of a healthy city economy and included recommendations that the City:
   1. Encourage continued job growth at a rate that helps balance the number of jobs located in the city with the number of workers who reside there;
   2. Encourage employment which provides services to city residents to locate in the neighbourhood centres;
   3. Ensure that retail space in the city supports the creation of neighbourhood centres;
   4. Involve local businesses and residents in planning neighbourhood centres that offer a range of jobs and services close to home; and
   5. Establish an overall employment target for the city and consider how to attract jobs to neighbourhood centres.
2. The City and other levels of government have over a number of years considered social costs and benefits when financing the development of subsidized housing, arts and culture, institutions and health services.
3. Life-cycle costs are currently considered in the development and upgrading of the City's infrastructure.

22.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To make the SEFC community economically viable, recognizing the need to use full-cost accounting techniques where important social, environmental or economic benefits may be realized over a term which exceeds conventional development accounting practices.
2. To plan and develop SEFC to offer sufficient retail, commercial and (residential-friendly) industrial space to provide residents with opportunities for shopping and employment.
3. To encourage business practices in SEFC which are beneficial to society and to the environment.

22.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. Recognizing that SEFC will not be developed unless it's plan is economically viable, decisions on the sustainable development initiatives, on such aspects as infrastructure, soils and design, should be made with the intent that the new practices will be transferred to other developments in the city.
2. Full-cost accounting should be considered as a tool to assist in decision making in SEFC.
3. A seven year window should be considered reasonable to use in building development proformas to calculate how any extra capital costs can be recouped from operating efficiencies, when technology or design is used to achieve higher levels of efficiency and environmental performance.

Post-Development Initiatives

4. The City should look at applying the SEFC development policies which promote more environment-friendly development to regulations controlling other development in the city.
5. The linking of youth job-training programs to SEFC should be encouraged by the City, especially for jobs associated with the construction and operation of the site.
6. The possibility of establishing space in SEFC for a farmers' market should be investigated.
7. Cultural industries, such as film, theatre and TV production, should be encouraged to locate and/or remain in commercial and industrial areas in SEFC.

Demonstration Projects

8. The possibility for creating a SEFC neighbourhood economic development office in a City-owned facility (community centre) should be considered, to promote local economic health and environmentally responsible business practices.

Return to Table of Contents

---

23. Stewardship

23.1 ISSUES

1. How can the vision of sustainability for SEFC be preserved throughout the development process and after the neighbourhood has been built?
2. Who should be formally involved in advising the City on initiatives which increase the performance of SEFC in meeting its policy goals?
3. What criteria and constraints should govern the activities of those who may formally advise the City on SEFC?

23.2 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To ensure that the vision of SEFC as a sustainable community is maintained.
2. To encourage the education of residents and visitors, as well as the ongoing monitoring and fine-tuning of the SEFC neighbourhood's social, economic and environmental performance after development is complete.

23.3 NEW POLICY

1. The City should establish a stewardship advisory group to advise staff in securing and maintaining the vision for SEFC as a sustainable neighbourhood.
2. Such a group should:
   1. Have a range of interests and expertise amongst its members, including those of property owners and businesses, residents from the neighbourhood, and experts in the practical issues of sustainable development;
   2. Make recommendations to City staff;
   3. Be structured to become, over time, a neighbourhood association and/or a Neighbourhood Integrated Service Team (NIST).
3. The stewardship advisory group, in conjunction with City staff, should develop indicators to monitor the neighbourhood's performance after development is complete. The responsibilities of this group should include monitoring, evaluating performance and suggesting measures to City staff to achieve optimum levels of performance on sustainability objectives in SEFC.

Return to Table of Contents

---

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Principles of Sustainable Development for SEFC

The following list of principles was drafted with the assistance of the SEFC Advisory Group. These principles embody the spirit of sustainability.

1) Implementing Sustainability

SEFC should promote the implementation of sustainable development principles in an urban setting, and thereby contribute to improving the mainstream practices of urban development throughout the region.

2) Stewardship of Ecosystem Health

Ensure that the development of SEFC works to improve the ecological health of the False Creek basin. Recognize the need for conservation, restoration and management of local, regional and global ecosystems, by conserving resources and reducing wastes in such a way as to satisfy the needs of present and future generations.

3) Economic Viability and Vitality

Seek ways to achieve economic viability in developing SEFC so that the knowledge gained can be transferred to other developments. Create adequate and diverse opportunities for employment and investment in SEFC to ensure long term prosperity.

4) Priorities

Set social and environmental performance targets up front, with the intent of finding ways of meeting them in an economically viable fashion.

5) Cultural Vitality

Encourage vitality, diversity, and cultural richness in SEFC in a manner which respects the history and context of the site.

6) Livability

Promote livability and enhance the social and natural environment in SEFC by creating a walkable, safe and green neighbourhood which contributes to the well being of residents and visitors.

7) Housing Diversity and Equity

Promote opportunities for housing for a range of income groups along with social and physical infrastructure that is accessible to the whole community, especially to children.

8) Education

Encourage awareness and understanding of the principles of sustainability and how these are implemented on the site.

9) Participation

Encourage public involvement in decision-making processes.

10) Accountability

Promote accountability for decisions and actions by monitoring impacts and outcomes using post-occupancy studies and community consultation.

11) Adaptability

Promote adaptability and diversity by ensuring that SEFC is a community that, as it grows and changes, can renew and adapt itself effectively to new social and economic conditions, policies, programs, legislation and technology.

12) Integration

Promote the integration of SEFC into the city through planning, urban design, community involvement and through the provision of public amenities.

13) Spirit of the Place

Promote planning and development guidelines which celebrate the unique natural, social and historical context of SEFC.

14) Complete Community

Promote the development of SEFC as a complete community which enables its residents to live, work, play and learn within a convenient walking, cycling or transit-riding distance.

Return to Table of Contents

---

APPENDIX B - Performance Targets for Southeast False Creek

The following targets were recommended in the report Visions, Tools and Targets: Environmentally Sustainable Development Guidelines for Southeast False Creek, produced by the sustainable development consultant team under the lead of The Sheltair Group.

These targets have not been adopted by the City, but can be referenced in discussion and during development planning to identify technologically feasible, but generally aggressive, levels of performance.

Solid Waste Targets

• No more than 200 kg per person per year of solid waste is sent to disposal.
• No more than 80 kg per person per year of organic waste is produced by SEFC households, of which 100% of that waste is processed within the SEFC site.
• No leaves or organic debris are transported off the SEFC site.

Transportation and Accessibility Targets

• 100% of dwelling units are located within 350 m of basic shopping needs and personal services.
• A minimum of 60% of street area in SEFC is dedicated to walking, cycling and transit uses.
• 30% of dwelling units in SEFC are affordable to a population segment relative in income distribution and family size to those working in the downtown core and along the Broadway Corridor.
• 100% of residential units in SEFC are located within 350 m of transit service.

Energy Targets

• In multi-unit residential buildings, no more than 288 kilowatt hours per year of energy from non-renewable sources is used per m² of floor area.
• In office buildings, no more than 284 kilowatt hours per year of energy from non-renewable sources is used per m² of floor area.
• A minimum of 5% of the energy consumption in SEFC comes from renewable sources generated on site.
• 90% of all buildings in SEFC are connected to a district heating system.
• Buildings in SEFC have a maximum peak electrical demand of 33 watts per m².

Air Emission Targets

• Residents of SEFC travel no more than 3 392 km per year for daily shopping and commuting.
• No more than 1498 kg per year of carbon dioxide are emitted from transportation-related activity in SEFC.
• 25% of buildings are designed and built with basic features that minimize indoor pollutant levels.

Soil Targets

• A minimum of seven strategies are addressed to deal with contaminated soils in SEFC.

Water Targets

• A maximum of 100 litres of potable water is consumed per person per day.
• No more than 54% of the overall site is covered in impervious material.
• 25% of the sewage produced in SEFC is treated on site.
• A former creek near Columbia Street should be daylighted.

Open Space Targets

• A range of habitats for at least 30 species of birds are provided in SEFC.
• 60% of the open space in SEFC has significant habitat value.
• 25% of the roof area in SEFC is designed to carry plant life.
• 80% of the foreshore in SEFC has habitat value.
• 12.5% of the produce consumed by SEFC residents is grown on site.

Building Targets

• 75% of dwelling units and commercial spaces in SEFC have good solar orientation.
• 30% of the materials used in SEFC buildings are salvaged, reused or have recycled material and components in them.

Return to Table of Contents

---

APPENDIX C - Recommendations from the October 1998 SEFC Design Charrette

In October 1998, the City of Vancouver convened a design charrette, with financial and resource help from the CMHC, to explore some built-form implications of the policies presented in this draft. The aim was to test some of the policies for further refining.

The results of the work of the three charrette teams and a resource team, which supplied information to the design teams, will be available during the ODP process.

After completing the charrette, some of the participants offered suggestions on the policies presented in this statement, including:

• Existing parking standards and requirements need to be challenged.
• The renewable energy supply targets will be difficult to achieve if hydroelectric power is not classified as "renewable."
• Using marshes in the parks and open space should be pursued as part of a waste-water management plan.
• The amount of land area devoted to park, and its design and programming, will be one of the biggest issues. What types of public realm spaces will count as park? Do we allocate a certain amount of land area to park without defining the range of uses that that land needs to serve?
• Park space should be designed as part of the urban public realm, integrating the functions it serves.
• There is a relationship between the amount and type of open space and parks provided and the height of the built form.
• There will be many benefits to the project if the development can be planned to take place in an incremental fashion, where planners and developers can learn from early development phases and can then fine-tune subsequent phases.
• "Habitat Value" is a critical concept but it needs to be further defined and refined.
• Criteria needs to be established for what is meant by the policy to "clean" stormwater, as there are many meanings to "clean."
• The soils remediation strategy will be key to shaping the development in terms of costs, land use, location, and public perception of the neighbourhood.
• Urban agriculture is a serious issue, but there are many challenges presented in considering commercial agriculture within the city.
• The marketability of this development as a "green" project is a key issue.
• Evaluation and monitoring systems should be set in place to fine-tune the development. Flexibility needs to be planned in to ensure that such fine-tuning can take place.

Return to Table of Contents

---

APPENDIX D - Groups Consulted and Informed on the SEFC Policy Statement

• Landowners within the SEFC Study Area
• Neighbouring Community Groups including:

  Downtown Eastside
  Strathcona
  Mount Pleasant -several groups
  Brewery Creek Heritage Society
  False Creek South
  Citygate
  Grandview Woodlands
  Industrial Property owners

• Vancouver Park Board
• Vancouver Richmond Health Board
• Vancouver City Planning Commission
• Urban Design Panel
• City Youth Committee
• Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Blueways Advisory Committee
• Heritage Commission
• Community Arts Council
• School Board
• Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (GVTA)
• Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)
• BC Hydro
• Urban Development Institute (UDI)
• BC Construction Roundtable
• Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC)
• Planning Institute of British Columbia (PIBC)
• Vancity Credit Union
• Southeast False Creek Working Group (represents many groups)
• Environmental Youth Alliance
• Urban Heritage Trail
• University of British Columbia (UBC):

  School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP)
  School of Landscape Architecture
  School of Architecture

• Simon Fraser University (SFU) _ several classes
• Native Education Centre
• Recycling Council of BC
• Coast Foundation Society (housing)
• EcoCafe
• SPEC & environmental groups
• Ecodesign Resource Society
• Academics
• Many discussions with individuals, especially students
• Many others (large mailing list)
• Public Meetings
  

  End of document. Return to beginning.
  

  ---

  Comments or questions? You can send us e-mail.

  Last modified: March 10 2000
  (c) City of Vancouver