Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Director of Current Planning in consultation with the Director of Housing Centre and the Director of Social Planning

SUBJECT:

Proposed Rezoning of 1610-1660 Powell Street (Welcome Home Centre) - Major Planning Issues

CONSIDERATION

- OR -

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

APPLICABLE POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND BY-LAWS

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE

This report seeks Council advice on policy issues raised by a significant privately-funded initiative for addressing some of Vancouver's serious social problems. John Volken (United Furniture Warehouse) proposes to rezone this site from M-2 (Heavy Industry) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) for "Welcome Home Centre", an abstinence-based educational/vocational residential campus providing counselling, life skills training, education and employment-oriented rehabilitation for up to 150 people, primarily young adults, with employability, social, substance abuse and related problems.

The proponents first met with the City in August, 2000 to describe a preliminary concept and to learn about relevant City policies and approval processes. They subsequently purchased the site and submitted an initial proposal in March 2001. After considerable discussion with staff, the proponents submitted a more definitive rezoning proposal in February, 2002 (on file in City Clerk's Office). Staff are reporting it to Council for advice, even though it is not yet a rezoning application, because it presents the City with a dilemma, a difficult choice between competing City objectives in the face of a laudable commitment of private funding.

First and most fundamentally, because it proposes some residential use (including both Special Needs Residential Facility - Group Living and Dwelling Use), the proposal does not meet the criteria set out in the City's Industrial Lands Policies for the rezoning of industrial land. It would compromise a City objective to retain most of the city's industrial land base for industry and service businesses to meet the needs of port/river related industry, and city-serving industries.

On the other hand, the proposal represents an unprecedented privately-funded initiative for addressing some of Vancouver's serious social and substance abuse problems, and within the City's Framework for Action on drug and related problems. Nevertheless, and although it is still at the conceptual stage, the available information about the proposal raises several questions and potential concerns, irrespective of its proposed location, particularly about the ages and size of the student-client population, the staffing, and the program funding.

Two alternatives are offered for Council consideration, whether to consider the facility at this proposed industrial location, or elsewhere in the city. If Council is prepared to consider a rezoning application at this location, a minimum amount of industrial space and maximum amount of residential space are recommended. Two recommendations are also put forward to seek further information and analysis which would provide guidance to both the proponent and staff.

BACKGROUND

Rezoning Proposal: The site is a triangular city block in the Powell Street M-2 (Heavy Industry) District near the Burrard Waterfront. It is bounded by Powell Street, Commercial Drive, Pandora Street and Woodland Drive. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Site, Surrounding Zoning and Context

The site is presently developed with industrial buildings used for the wholesaling of marine and restaurant equipment. There is a floor area of 3 823 m² (41,150 sq. ft.) on the 5 358 m² (57,672 sq. ft.) site. This is a floor space ratio ( FSR) of 0.71, which is somewhat lower than the average of 0.90 in the surrounding Powell Street industrial area.

The existing buildings would be demolished for the construction of "Welcome Home Centre", a residential educational/vocational campus providing an abstinence-based, highly structured learning/ teaching/peer-mentoring program and environment for up to 150 people, primarily young adults, with employability, social, substance abuse and related problems. These "student-clients" would live in a highly-structured environment for up to two years and would be accommodated in dormitory-style group housing, with progression from six individuals per pod to individual accommodation. The program would be phased in over a five-year period, although the facility itself would be fully constructed at the outset.

The facility would have a total gross floor area of 11 612.5 m² (120,200 sq. ft.), including on-site student accommodation. This represents an FSR of 2.08. The proposed program area for education/vocational/trade training, recreation, dining/kitchen, would be arranged in one-and two-storey spaces surrounding a courtyard, and is stated to be 5 055 m² (54,416 sq. ft.),or 45 percent of total floor area, while administrative and circulation area is 2 337 m² (25,154 sq. ft.) or 21 percent. The student-client accommodation, provided in the upper five floors of a seven-storey building fronting Commercial Drive, and staff/visitor housing and a private residence for John Volken proposed on the seventh floor, would be 4 069 m² (40,640 sq. ft.), or 34 percent of total floor area.

Staffing of the program and facility is proposed to have three components:

1. Staff, both full-time and part-time, will include professionals in administration, medical, building mechanics, industrial, vocational and trades instruction, academics and other learning programs. The number of full-time equivalent staff is uncertain, and has ranged between 17 and 29, but also as high as 37 (a staff to student ratio of 1 to 4).

2. A peer-mentoring program will be staffed by students who will be teachers to one another. An expected part of student duties will include maintenance of the physical plant, kitchen and dining room assignments, library, gym, recreational and intellectual programs, intake, and all other aspects of program development and execution.

3. There will also be some volunteer staff, both full and part-time. Commitments will be sought from the Vancouver School Board, Vancouver Community College, Simon Fraser University and other educational institutions to allocate teachers to WHC.

WHC will be developed and owned by the John Volken Foundation. It will be operated by the Welcome Home Society with funding from the John Volken Foundation and Welcome Home Foundation. The capital cost of the facility is estimated at $23 million ($10 million from John Volken Foundation, $8 million from United Furniture Warehouse, and $5 million from private donations). The operating costs of WHC are estimated to be about $5 million per year, and will be met by the Welcome Home Foundation's endowment which it is anticipated will generate a revenue of $12 million per year. Revenues will also be generated by student training in on-site businesses producing marketable goods and services.

(More detailed information about the proposal is on file in City Clerk's Office.)

DISCUSSION

This laudable and unprecedented privately-funded initiative for addressing some of Vancouver's serious social and substance abuse problems raises two basic issues:

· first, the proposed location of an educational/vocational residential campus in a "heavy industrial" district presents a challenge with respect to Industrial Lands Policies which seek to retain most of the city's industrial land base for industry and service businesses to meet the needs of port/river related industry, and city-serving industries; and

· second, while the proposal lacks the information needed to assess the proposed program and facility relative to the Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines, the available information raises several questions and potential concerns, particularly about the ages and size of the student-client population, the staffing, and the program funding.

1. Proposed Location in an Industrial District

The development of Welcome Home Centre on an M-2 zoned site, because it includes a significant component of residential use, would require rezoning. (See Additional Background in Appendix A on zoning use terms, Zoning and Development By-law provisions, and Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines.)

The proposed rezoning to accommodate residential use does not meet the criteria set out in the City's Industrial Lands Policies (ILP). These policies have an overall objective to "retain most of the City's existing industrial land base for industry and service businesses to meet the needs of port/river related industry, and city-serving and city-oriented industries." To achieve this, rezoning will be considered only through City-initiated planning processes in specific areas (e.g., Hudson Street, East Hastings, Grandview Highway, and Marine Drive).
In those areas where rezoning can be considered, the ILP set out the following conditions to be addressed in the assessment of rezoning applications of industrial land for other uses:

(a) Compatibility of Proposed Land Uses with Existing Industrial Activity: The proposed development should not affect the operations of adjacent existing and potential future industrial activity in the area. The proposed development should not increase land values of surrounding industrial land.

(b) Land Use Suitability for Alternate Land Uses: The proposed development should comply with relevant planning policies, and not be affected by the operations of adjacent existing and potential future industrial activity in the area.

(c) Environmental Impacts: The proposed development should comply with relevant legislation concerning environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

The ILP contain several area-specific policies. In the Powell Street/Clark Drive area where the site is located, the policies seek to "retain all industrial lands for industrial use," keeping the zoned M-2 area for port support services. Rezonings are not to be considered in this area.

Figure 2. Powell Street/Clark Drive Area

The Powell Street industrial area, where vacancies are low, can be described as a having a broad range of industrial, city-serving and port-related businesses, including manufacturing, wholesaling and some warehousing. Port of Vancouver activities, in the Burrard Waterfront area north of Powell Street, have grown steadily through the years, and are expected to continue to do so in future. Because the port and activities related to it contribute significantly to the city and region's economic diversity, the port-serving or "port back-up" area south of Powell Street is therefore important not only for its industrial role but also a broader economic function.

The Industrial Lands Policies are quite clear and unambiguous that rezoning an industrial site, whether for residential or other non-industrial uses, should not be considered in this M-2 District. However, given the considerable potential benefits to the city of the proposed facility, staff did assess the proposed industrial location more closely. In this context, serious concerns about the current proposal were identified, as follows: (See Additional Discussion about Proposed Industrial Location in Appendix B.)

· the surrounding Powell Street area's unsuitability for residential use,

· the limited industrial nature of the vocational/trade and related school uses, and

· the facility's potential negative impacts on the surrounding industrial area.

In one observation from the Additional Discussion, most of the proposed school uses could be approved in this M-2 District to a maximum floor space ratio of 1.0, or 5 358 m² (57,672 sq. ft.) on this site. Employment-oriented rehabilitation, job readiness training, industrial vocational/trade training, apprenticeship and employment opportunities provided by businesses in the surrounding area could be beneficial for not only the student-clients at WHC but could also be a positive addition for the area. However, upon closer review the proposed vocational/trade school and industrial floor area, which includes dining facilities and food services area, education centre, and workshops for WHC businesses, amounts to 2 204 m² (23,725 sq. ft.), or just 20 percent of total facility floor area.

If a rezoning application is to be considered on this site, staff would recommend that the floor area for Vocational/ Trade and other School Uses be equal to or greater than the average floor space ratio of industrial development in the surrounding area (0.90). The specific educational content of WHC's program would also need to be identified, and also the apprenticeship, employment and business partnerships with businesses in the surrounding area and the provincial accreditation, or affiliation to accredited local educational institutions. The latter would likely need to be established and confirmed prior to business license issuance, as a condition of development approval.

Overall, staff conclude there is nothing in the Industrial Lands Policies or other City policies to support the proposed WHC in this industrial location, particularly its residential component. It would have to be a value judgement that the benefits of the proposed educational/vocational residential campus exceed the loss of a large industrial site and its economic and port-serving role. To this point in our assessment, staff believe there are better locations elsewhere for WHC, in commercial districts or "let-go" industrial areas.

2. Proposed Educational/Vocational Educational Facility and Program

The proposed Welcome Home Centre is described by its proponents as an abstinence-based educational/vocational residential campus providing counselling, life skills training, education upgrading, vocational/trade training, and employment-oriented rehabilitation for up to 150 people, primarily young adults, with employability, social, substance abuse and related problems.

WHC is proposed to play a role in the "continuum of care" called for in the "treatment pillar" of the City's Four Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver. (See excerpts from A Framework for Action in Appendix C.) As one of the four pillars (prevention, treatment, enforcement, and harm reduction), treatment refers to the continuum of interventions and support programs which enable individuals with addiction problems to make healthier decisions about their lives, move towards abstinence, and eventually resume their places in the community. These interventions and programs include detoxification, outpatient counselling and residential treatment, as well as housing, ongoing medical care, employment services, social programs, and life skills. As stated in A Framework for Action,

The proposed WHC program appears it will address that end of the treatment continuum in which employment and job-training, life skills training, and drug- and alcohol-free housing, are provided for individuals in and after recovery. In this context, the proposed WHC could be an appropriate addition to the range of facilities and programs in the city which address drug and related problems. The significant amount of private funding which would develop and support WHC is particularly welcome in view of the limited public resources which are available for addressing these problems.

Although the proposed WHC offers a positive and significant private sector response to the City's approach to drug and related problems, it is a challenge to assess the proposed program and facility relative to the City's Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines. (See Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines excerpts in Appendix A.)

First, WHC is not based on a specific model of education and rehabilitation for people with employability, social, substance abuse and related problems. The proponents state that WHC will have values, principles and approach similar to those of "intentional communities" addressing issues of addiction, criminal behaviour, alienation, and unemployability. The main examples they have identified and explored are Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco, the San Patriagnano community in Italy, and Phoenix House in Brooklyn. (Note: "Intentional communities" are places in which residents voluntarily commit to live by the social, spiritual, religious, political, economic or other rules and precepts of the community. Many intentional communities are generally self-sufficient, with limited individual and community ties with the rest of society.)

Second, the WHC proposal does not yet have all of the firm and specific information which staff would need to assess it. The proposal, which began as a general concept, has continued to evolve since it was first presented to the City, partly due to discussion with City staff and partly through the proponents' own ongoing exploration and concept development.

Based on the most recent and complete information available regarding the proposed WHC, staff have identified several areas of special interest and possible concern:

· demand for program in Vancouver: While the proposal includes components for which there is a demonstrated local need, e.g., supportive housing, life skills training etc., the proponent has not provided any data to demonstrate the need for, or local interest in, a model which requires individuals to make and keep very substantial commitments in order to access services.

· number of student-clients: The proposal to accommodate 150 student-clients has remained unchanged in discussion to date between the proponents and City staff. Based on City experience to date, albeit limited with respect to large facilities, staff have many questions and concerns about this relatively large number of client-residents, particularly in relation to their ages and number of staff. (See Additional Discussion of Proposed Program in Appendix D.)

· ages of the client population: The proponents first identified 19 to 24 year olds as the target client group. Through discussion with staff, a broader age range is now proposed to be served, but the emphasis would remain on 19 to 34 years olds. Staff have concerns about the proposed emphasis on young adults, particularly given the numbers of them which are proposed to be served.

· staffing: Information about the proposed WHC staffing has evolved but remains unclear to staff. (See staffing information on pages 5-6.) One concern is that many staff are proposed to be volunteers from other educational institutions such as the Vancouver School Board, Vancouver Community College, and Simon Fraser University. The difficult fiscal restraints under which these institutions operate, and their recent program cutbacks, raise some doubt about the numbers of volunteer teaching staff that WHC might anticipate.

· children: The proponents initially contemplated that WHC would accommodate clients with children, and proposed that it have an emergency shelter and a child daycare facility to serve the needs of this special population. They subsequently agreed that the challenges of an adult population would be considerable enough as it is, without adding further difficulties and complexities. It is now proposed that arrangements would be made for off-site care in the case of participants who have children. More information is needed about the kinds of arrangements contemplated.

· funding: WHC is proposed to be developed and operated with a large amount of private funding. The adequacy of this funding, particularly for ongoing, long-term operations, is a concern which is raised by the limited information at this conceptual stage about facility staffing. It is unclear how many staff will be paid and how many will be volunteers, particularly how many professional staff are expected to be donated from other institutions such as VSB, VCC, and SFU.

Staff are of the view that, should Council wish to further consider this proposal, additional information should be sought on the above-noted issues and concerns. Staff believe that it would be helpful and prudent, for both the proponents and the City, to further explore the need for/interest in the high criteria model being proposed, as well as the other program concerns before endorsing a particular proposed program and facility.

To the best of staff knowledge, there is no comparable existing program against which to measure the WHC proposal. However there are programs/facilities which have some of the same components and approaches. The experience of similar or comparable facilities in other cities should be consulted, regarding such elements as the ages and number of student-clients, the student-teacher ratio, and operating costs. It is recommended that a study of such facilities, including on-site interviews where appropriate, be undertaken prior to submission of any rezoning application (or development application, if a non-industrial location should be proposed). It is recommended that the study be funded by the proponents but that City staff be involved in the preparation of terms of reference and the selection of consultants. Possibly there might be staff participation in the study itself.

Overall, this proposal represents a new and significant initiative, and considerable private funding, for addressing some of Vancouver's serious social problems. Staff believe it merits serious discussion and further exploration.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The proponents have consulted with a broad range but limited number of businesses in the industrial area (Lafarge, West Coast Reduction, Ocean Fish, Aero Garment and Dafoe Machinery), educational institutions (VCC, VSB and Langara College), and service groups (Britannia Community Services, Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Greater Vancouver, Union Gospel Mission, From Grief to Action, Tradeworks, and Salvation Army among others). However, the immediate community has not yet been fully engaged in dialogue.

Some community organizations could be generally expected to support this proposal, depending on whether WHC would compete for scarce government funds or not. Industrial property owners and business operators might be expected to have a range of responses, some supportive and some not. As there might be some public misinformation about the proposal it will be helpful to have some public discussion as soon as it is feasible to do so.

If City Council is prepared to consider a rezoning application, a public involvement process should be initiated prior to formal submission of an application. It should include systematic consultation with industrial businesses and property owners, including the Port and CP Rail, social service agencies, and any nearby residents. Further discussion is needed between the proponent and agencies which will provide related services, educational institutions which will sponsor and staff some WHC programs, and businesses which will provide training and employment opportunities. The proponents will need to firm up a number and variety of commitments for proposed collaboration.

CONCLUSION

The proposed Welcome Home Centre, because it includes a component of dwelling use, would require rezoning of the M-2 zoned site at 1610-1660 Powell Street. Such a rezoning does not meet the criteria set out in the City's Industrial Lands Policies. Because of existing policy then, the proposed industrial location for this facility cannot be supported. Even in the absence of such policies, concerns would nevertheless be raised about the surrounding Powell Street industrial area's unsuitability for residential use, about the limited industrial nature of the proposed vocational/trade and related school uses, and about the proposed facility's potential negative impacts on the surrounding industrial area. A more suitable location, in a commercial or "let go" industrial district is preferable.

Staff are reporting this rezoning proposal to Council for advice, even though it is not yet been submitted as a rezoning application, and even though rezoning is not supported by City policies, for the special reason that it is a very significant privately-funded initiative seeking to address some of Vancouver's serious social problems. The proposed educational/vocational residential campus providing counselling, life skills training, education and employment-oriented rehabilitation for up to 150 people, primarily young adults, with employability, social, substance abuse and related problems, would fit on the continuum of care in the treatment pillar of the City's four-pillar framework of action on drugs problems in Vancouver. This laudable and unprecedented initiative is to be applauded.

This rezoning proposal thus presents a dilemma. In fact, the dilemma is doubly difficult. Not only is a choice between competing City objectives confronted, the prospect of successfully pursuing a social objective in the context of the City's Framework for Action is not assured. Although it is still at the conceptual stage, the available information about the proposal raises several questions and potential concerns, irrespective of its proposed location, particularly about the ages and size of the student-client population, the staffing, and the program funding.

Two alternatives are offered for Council consideration, whether to consider the facility at this proposed industrial location, or elsewhere in the city. If Council is prepared to consider a rezoning at this location, a minimum amount of industrial space and maximum amount of residential space are recommended. Whichever alternative Council chooses, two recommendations are also put forward to seek further information and analysis which would provide guidance to both the proponent and staff.

* * * * *


pe020725.htm

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
Zoning Use Terms and By-law Provisions

The proposed Welcome Home Centre (WHC), which can be described as a Residential Educational/Vocational Campus, combines various land uses that do not correspond to any single use term or fit into any single definition in the Zoning and Development By-law. While some of the land uses contemplated in this facility can be approved in development applications in the industrial districts, it is clearly evident however, based on the following review, that the combination of all proposed uses would require rezoning.

1. School Use: The educational component of the WHC facility and program is a varied one which encompasses several School use terms in the Zoning By-law:

These various types of School use could be combined, for CD-1 By-law purposes, into one term encompassing all the proposed areas of instruction, e.g., School - Vocational, Trade, Business, Arts, Self-Improvement, Elementary and Secondary.

In the M-2 District, a Vocational or Trade School is an outright approval use, and Elementary or Secondary School and University or College are conditional uses. Business School and Arts or Self-improvement School are permitted only in Light Industrial districts (e.g., M-1 and IC-1). Most of proposed School uses and floor areas could be considered and approved under existing M-2 zoning, but, being non-industrial uses, are limited to a floor space ratio of 1.0.

2. Dwelling Use: In some sense all the proposed WHC premises could perhaps be considered a school, and having ancillary dwelling use, like residential schools in the city such as Crofton House and St. George's. However, the counselling and 24-hour/7-day supervision and the client group served in the facility mean that WHC is fundamentally more similar to a Special Needs Residential Facility - Group Living. This land use is defined in Section 2 of the Zoning By-law, in the category of Institutional Uses, as follows:

Staff believe that this is the appropriate use term for the dormitory housing for 150 student-clients and the associated supervision, counselling, and life skills training which will be provided.

Special Needs Residential Facilities, of which there are four types (Community Care - Class A and - Class B, Group Living and Congregate Housing), are generally Conditional Approval Uses which may be approved by the Director of Planning or Development Permit Board in most residential and commercial districts. In so doing, Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines approved by City Council in 1983 must be considered. (See Guideline excerpts on the following page.)

Special Needs Residential Facilities are not permitted in industrial districts. This institutional/residential component of the proposed WHC facility, comprised of dormitory housing for 150 student-clients in five floors of a seven-storey building, would require a rezoning of the site. Without this residential component, the counselling, the provision of information and aid, and the activity space, corresponds in many respects to Social Service Centre use, which is permitted in industrial districts.

One small additional residential component of the proposed facility is the visitor housing and a private residence both proposed to occupy the seventh floor. This floor area would beclassed very simply as Dwelling Units. Dwelling Uses of any kind are generally not permitted in any industrial district, except for "dwelling units for a caretaker or watchman where this is essential to a business operation", and "residential units forming part of artist studios". Since 1996 the latter are permitted only in existing buildings, limited to an FSR of 1.0, and for rental tenure only. Artist studio developments are no longer being developed in city industrial areas. The rental artist studio building very near the site, at 1701 Powell Street, was approved through an appeal to the Board of Variance at the time that Artist Studio policies were still being developed, and its site remains zoned M-2.

Excerpted from Special Residential Facility Guidelines:

(1) n/a (in predominantly residential areas)

(2) In assessing an application for a special needs residential facility, the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Director of Social Planning, will take into account the existing mix of special needs residential facilities and client types in a local area. Additional facilities will be discouraged from locating in a local area or part of a local area where there is a concentration of several facilities located closer to one another than 200 metres. Further, a facility for a specific client type, with the exception of community care facilities for seniors or a congregate housing facility, will be discouraged from locating near concentrations of facilities serving the same client type.

(3) In assessing an application for a special needs residential facility, the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Director of Social Planning, will consider program characteristics such as staffing and supervision, hours of operation, client type, facility capacity, referral and intake procedures, length of stay, and amount and type of traffic generated and parking demands, and will consider physical characteristics such as the site area, distance between proposed facility and adjacent dwellings or other uses, existing traffic patterns on adjacent streets, and any other factors which may have a bearing on the compatibility of the facility with the surrounding neighbourhood.

(4) In determining the suitability of a location for a special needs residential facility, its relationship with other uses and community facilities in a neighbourhood will be considered.

* * * * *


pe020725.htm

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
Proposed Industrial Location

The proposed Welcome Home Centre, including as it does a component of dwelling use, would require rezoning of the M-2 zoned site at 1610-1660 Powell Street. Such a rezoning does not meet the criteria set out in the City's Industrial Lands Policies. Even in the absence of such policies, concerns would nevertheless be raised about the surrounding Powell Street industrial area's unsuitability for residential use, about the limited industrial nature of the proposed vocational/trade and related school uses, and about the proposed facility's potential negative impacts on the surrounding industrial area.

1. Area's Unsuitability for Residential Use: One of the principal reasons that the City's Industrial Lands Policies do not support the rezoning of industrial sites for dwelling use is that they are generally not suited for it. The proposed WHC location in the Powell Street area seems particularly unsuited for residential use:

· it is adjacent 24-hour/7-day port and rail operations; (The Port of Vancouver regularly receives numerous complaints from artist studio developments in the Alexander Street area, 2001 Wall Street, and 1701 Powell Street.)
· there is constant and heavy traffic on the Powell Street truck route;
· there is a rendering plant and a fish-packing plant nearby; (Considerable opposition confronted the proposed expansion of the Hallmark Poultry plant on the 1700-block Franklin Street, and Lafarge Concrete faces serious challenges in finding a suitable location within the M-2 district and sufficiently distant from residential development.)
· the area lacks the public services and amenities necessary for a residential population, although there is transit service, and Britannia Community Centre is five blocks away; and
· there are drugs and prostitution in the area.

The proponents state they are prepared to deal with such environmental issues as they say that other residential dwellings in the area do, and they are prepared to commit to a Good Neighbour Agreement. They also believe that the negative impacts of surrounding industrial activity are offset by the potential for industrial partnerships whereby young adults in WHC will be able to work and obtain training and experience. They are not so concerned about the lack of services and amenities and the presence of drugs and prostitution for the reason that WHC would be a residential community with 24-hour, 7-day supervision. Staff on the contrary wonder if young adults with social, substance abuse and related problems could be especially vulnerable to the area's negative environmental characteristics.

The possibility of as educational/vocational campus without a residential component, with WHC drawing its student-clients from housing in other more suitable location(s), has been discussed. The proponents state that on-site accommodation is the best way to ensureabstinence and to undertake a multi-pronged, and ultimately more effective approach to rehabilitation. Staff acknowledge that a commuting students could be more exposed to the risk of relapse.

If a rezoning application is considered, staff would recommend that floor area for Special Needs Residential Facility - Group Living not exceed the floor space ratio 1.0 for non-industrial uses in this M-2 District, that Dwelling Use for staff/visitor housing or private residence not be considered, and that any approval be subject to a Good Neighbour Agreement or Housing Agreement. Staff also believe that prior investigation should be undertaken of the location characteristics of similar facilities in other cities and the findings submitted with the application.

2. Limited Vocational/Trade School Floor Area Proposed: The Powell Street area could accommodate some of the proposed educational component of WHC, because School -Vocational or Trade and School - Elementary or Secondary are conditional approval uses in the M-2 District. However, the industrial or industry-related component of the proposed educational/vocational campus does not seem tangible and large enough to justify a location in an industrial district, given that large vocational/trade schools in the city have not found it necessary to locate in industrial districts.

WHC's proposed educational and training program is focussed on academic upgrading (high school certification), life skills training, job skills training, vocational and trade training, and employment readiness training. Three elements can be distinguished:

· the large kitchen and dining room, the laundry, and administrative areas will be learning/teaching centres as well as functional work areas. Kitchen and dining room staff (cooks, cleaners, and servers) will not only be in service to their fellow students, but will also be part of a vocational program in the food services industry; (Vancouver restaurants, chefs and colleges have shown interest in contributing time and energy to the program.)

· apprenticeship opportunities will focus on the industrial and service sectors, through partnerships with businesses in the surrounding area; (This is in a developmental stage, limited to expressions of interest, with details to be established later.)

· employment opportunities within the facility are proposed, primarily craft work; (Two major brand-name furniture companies have so far expressed interest in contracting WHC to supply finished products and component pieces for their inventory.)

The draft space program proposes 8 378 m² (90,180) sq. ft. of gross building floor area, or 75 percent of the total, for vocational and industrial activities. This is considerable, but much of the this floor area serves a dual function: its primary purpose (e.g., student-client accommodations) , and also a teaching/learning purpose. The functions and areas that might unreservedly qualify as vocational/trade school or industrial floor area include: dining facilities and food services area 685 m² (7,370 sq. ft.), education centre 822 m² (8,850 sq. ft.), and workshops for WHC businesses 697 m² (7,506 sq. ft.). This is a total of 2 204 m² (23,725 sq. ft.), or just a quarter of the what is stated to be vocational/ industrial space.

To assess whether or not it might be reasonable to support this limited amount of industrial and vocational/trade school space, it can be compared to the amount of development provided on typical sites in the surrounding industrial area. The average floor space ratio of industrial development in the Powell Street area is 0.9, representing 4 822 m² (51,900 sq. ft.) on this site; because up to a third of the floor area can be in non-industrial ancillary or support uses, there should be a minimum of 3 211 m² (34,560 sq. ft.) of industrial space.

This comparison indicates that the amount of vocational/trade school and industrial space in WHC should be increased by about 46 percent to match the level or intensity of industrial use in the surrounding area. The proponents indicate a willingness to consider adjustments to the proposed WHC program and facility to increase the industrial and vocational/trade component. Nevertheless, even when it is increased to match the prevailing FSR in the surrounding area, this component would remain small relative to the residential and non-industrial components which would be about three times the size, 8 944 m² (96,275 sq ft.).

Employment-oriented rehabilitation, job readiness training, industrial vocational/trade training, and apprenticeship and employment opportunities provided by businesses in the surrounding area could be beneficial for not only the student-clients at WHC but could also be a positive addition to the area. If a rezoning application is to be considered, staff would recommend that the floor area for Vocational/ Trade and other School Uses be equal to or greater than the average floor space ratio of industrial development in the surrounding area (0.90). The specific educational content of WHC's program would also need to be identified, including the apprenticeship, employment and business partnerships with businesses in the surrounding area and the provincial accreditation, or affiliation to accredited local educational institutions, which WHC would need to establish and confirm prior to development permit and business license issuance.

3. Negative Impacts on Surrounding Area: The proposed facility could erode the "integrity" of the surrounding Powell Street industrial area. The site is not on the edge of the area or in a transition zone, as for example the Lookout Facility at Yukon Street and 5th Avenue in the Mount Pleasant industrial area. Instead, it is well within an established heavyindustrial area, and therefore a residential vocational/educational campus has much more potential to impact a wide area of industrial activity.

Rezoning approval would have two immediate impacts:

· Land values in the area are lower and more vulnerable than those in light industrial areas and commercial areas. The purchase price of the site, at a cost of $2.7 million, or close to $50 per square foot, is high relative to surrounding land values.

· The existing industrial buildings on the site accommodate several businesses, including the wholesaling of marine and restaurant equipment (41,150 sq. ft.). The proposed redevelopment of the site for WHC would alienate it from typical industrial use.

Approval of the proposed rezoning would also risk establishing a "thin edge of the wedge", that is, an example and precedent that others might choose to follow either nearby or in other industrial areas. In this phenomenon, industrial property is optioned or purchased at a relatively low price, compared to residential and commercial land values, and then plea is made by the purchaser that it be approved for non-industrial use as a special exception or "one-off", like other exceptions which have been previously approved.

This could occur with rezoning approval of WHC. On the other hand, WHC might be a one-of-a-kind facility which would not attract other non-industrial developments to the area. It might also be fair to say that the proposed WHC is not a higher-value land use, unless we contemplate alternative uses of the facility should WHC eventually close. It can also be acknowledged that while WHC would remove some industrial suppliers and services from the site, it could replace them through its own operations, bringing some new industrial supplies and services to the area, as well as a labour force.

Potential negative impacts on the surrounding area are assessed with greater difficulty than the site's residential suitability and WHC's industrial orientation. There are both pros and cons which would require a more detailed assessment than can be undertaken on the basis of available information about the proposal.

* * * * *


pe020725.htm

Framework for Action: A Four Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver

Excerpts from a report dated April 17, 2001, by Don MacPherson, Drug Policy Coordinator (italics for emphasis)

On April 24, 2001, Council adopted the revised Framework for Action: A Four Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver as the basis for the City's continuing effort to work with the provincial and federal governments and the community to address the issue of substance misuse in Vancouver. The four pillars are:

· prevention - education about the dangers of drug use,

· treatment - a continuum of interventions and support programs that enable individuals with addiction problems to make healthier decisions about their lives and move towards abstinence - these include detoxification, outpatient counselling and residential treatment, as well as housing, ongoing medical care, employment services, social programs, and life skills,

· enforcement - activities against criminal behaviour carried out of the police, the courts, regulatory agencies and licensing authorities, and

· harm reduction - decreasing the negative consequences of drug use for communities and individuals, in recognition that abstinence-based approaches are limited in dealing with a street-entrenched open drug scene.

"Treatment refers to a series of interventions and supports that enable individuals to deal with their addiction problems, make healthier decisions about their lives, and eventually resume their places in the community. To successfully help an individual through this process, a continuum of treatment with multiple points of contact is required for treatment to be effective. Basic primary health care services are often the entry point for individuals into more specific drug treatment approaches. These include detox, methadone, outpatient and residential treatment programs, dual diagnosis programs, as well as programs for women, Aboriginal people, and other ethnic populations. A range of treatment options that target different populations is essential." (page 40)

"In addition, there must be services to support people before and during treatment, such as harm reduction programs, shelter and housing, as well as programs to support them after treatment, including ongoing medical care, employment, alcohol and drug free housing, supportive housing, and life skills training. Early intervention is a crucial aspect of any treatment system. The earlier that action is taken in an individual's substance misuse the better the change that the harm to the individual and the community will be minimized oreliminated altogether. The harsh reality for many who become addicted is that they are increasingly marginalized as treatment systems repeatedly fail to provide the support they need." (page 40)

"In Vancouver there is an urgent need for expanded treatment resources. Existing services are both inadequate and poorly coordinated. Currently, treatment services are spread between private and government agencies, and fragmented among health regions, mental health services, several provincial ministries, probation and prison services, and services delivered by school districts. These need to be streamlined and coordinated." (page 41)

"Evaluation and coordination of current programs is a critical first step to developing treatment services for people with addiction problems. But we must act quickly to determine what works, what doesn't, and what resources are needed to create a progressive and responsive treatment continuum." (page 41)

"Different drug use and consumption patterns must guide treatment strategies. Relapse is a part of the process for a great many individuals who move through treatment programs and this should be seen as part of the process rather failure." (page 41)

"As part of a continuum of care, any future housing developed in Vancouver must include projects that have the necessary support services to accommodate people with addiction problems before, during and after recovery." (page 43)

"In Vancouver, there are few services that deal with the most problematic addicts. In addition to long waiting lists, many programs require abstinence before an addict is granted entry. Often there is a cost involved, which users must pay out of their pockets. And if someone has a relapse, they are kicked out of the program and have to wait again before they are allowed to re-enter some programs. Drug users who experience relapse are often treated in a punitive way by treatment providers. Too often in the current treatment system individuals are set up to fail. This inevitably leads to increased harm to the community and individuals. In fact, relapse is a part of the healing process and needs to be clearly understood and supported by treatment providers. Assistance for those who relapse must be built into treatment and support programs." (page 16-17)

* * * * *


pe020725.htm

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
Proposed Program

The proposed Welcome Home Centre is a very significant privately-funded initiative seeking to address some of Vancouver's serious social problems. The proposed educational/vocational residential campus providing counselling, life skills training, education and employment-oriented rehabilitation for up to 150 people, primarily young adults, with employability, social, substance abuse and related problems, would fit on the continuum of care in the treatment pillar of the City's four-pillar framework of action on drugs problems in Vancouver.

This initiative is to be applauded. However, the proposal does not yet have all of the firm and specific information which staff would need to assess the proposed program and facility relative to the Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines. The proposal began as a general concept and has continued to evolve since it was first presented to the City, partly due to discussion with City staff and partly through the proponents' own ongoing exploration and concept development. Based on the most recent and complete information available, staff have identified several areas of special interest and possible concern. The two most significant ones are discussed in some detail here.

1. Number of Student-Clients and Local Demand: A first matter of considerable interest is the proposed number of resident student-clients (150) relative to their ages (19-34 years old) and the proposed staffing (between 17 and 29). While none of these variables by itself is necessarily a concern, the combination of many young people and relatively few staff which raises questions. A related question is whether there are sufficient numbers of Vancouver residents between the ages of 19-34 interested in such a program and who will stay enrolled in the program.

The proponents have identified several facilities which approximate what they have in mind for Welcome Home Centre:

· Delancey Street Foundation has 3 locations in the US. The main facility in inner-city San Francisco provides an "innovative and highly successful" rehabilitation program and substance-free structured environment for parolees and homeless people who wish to obtain job training/experience and change their lifestyles. It incorporates living quarters and workplaces in a self-supporting, mixed-use community for about 500 residents. Most are 30-40 years old, with 20-30 percent between 18 and 29 years of age.

· San Patriagnano (Italy) is situated in a rural environment, and almost a self-contained village with thousands of residents, including both young and middle-aged adults.

· The Orangewood Children's Foundation in California provides services mainly to 18-21 year olds, residing in dispersed residences, who have a variety of medical/social conditions including substance abuse.

· Phoenix House in Brooklyn, New York is a residential/educational facility for 240 men and women, in operation for three and a half years.

The Vancouver experience with large facilities, serving young adults, and based on the "intentional community" model of substance misuse treatment and rehabilitation, is limited:

· X-Kalay operated in Vancouver from 1967 to the late-1970's. It operated as a therapeutic community originally for First Nations men who were released from the BC Penitentiary and was later open to other non-Native men and women who needed addictions treatment, pre-employment training and work programs. The emphasis throughout was on younger adults. X-Kalay operated with a centralized training and service location, and scattered residences.

· The largest shelter in the city is Catholic Charities with 80 beds. The Portland Hotel on West Hastings, with 86 residents, is an example of housing serving adults with multiple social issues.

· The VanCity Place for Youth accommodated 50 young people but has been closed for renovations and conversion into a SNRF with 45 beds. Covenant House will replace St. James Community Services Society as the facility operator and will be more careful with the selection process to ensure that the services and support available in the facility better match the needs of the residents.

Staff information and experience indicate that small facilities for people with difficult problems are more successful than larger ones, especially facilities serving troubled youth. It is the proposed ages of WHC's student-clients which lead staff to be concerned about facility size. The proponents initially proposed a target client group in the 19 to 24 age group. After considerable discussion, they agreed that the program should be open to adults of all ages, but with an "emphasis" on the 19 to 34 age groups (70 percent aged 19-24, 15 percent aged 24-34, and 15 percent over 34 years).

The proponents have stated that they can't be everything for everyone, that young adults will be the emphasis because of a growing need in our society for more effective intervention inyoung lives going astray. While this focus is more challenging and riskier than serving older people, they believe it is more promising and will deliver greater benefits. Increasing an individual's employability and social integration is both more likely and more beneficial the younger the adult. Staff readily acknowledge that this intent to address the employability, social, substance abuse and related problems of young adults appears to be consistent with elements of the City's Framework for Action:

However, achieving effective early intervention with large numbers of young people and relatively few staff will be a difficult challenge. From what staff know happened at VanCity Place for Youth, and according to researchers who have examined youth facilities in North America, larger facilities with more than 50-75 residents confront potential pitfalls:

· difficulty in creating social interaction/community cohesion when participants interact only as acquaintances,
· the contagion factor (when a problem starts in one pod/floor, it can quickly spread to others and become a big problem),
· the unmanageability of larger numbers of high energy youth, and
· the unreadiness and unwillingness of many young people, whose body and mind have not yet been worn out by substance abuse, to address their issues, particularly in a total-abstinence setting.

The proponents acknowledge these risks but believe there is corresponding potential in a "critical mass" of student-clients, in a supervised residential setting and with peer-mentoring, to surmount and mitigate these risks and achieve an effective and successful program. Furthermore, they state that the proposed size will enable the program to have the economies of scale and to contain the full scope of elements and services necessary for an effective program. "Smaller might be better in some cases, but six people in a house watching TV is not the same as a place that can have classrooms, a gym, and an in-house newsletter." To succeed, WHC must be a community; a vibrant community needs variety; and variety depends on numbers.

The proponents see the size and scope of the program and facility as developmental and growing as its success is demonstrated, but they would be very concerned if program and facility size were absolutely limited to 50 or 75 student-clients. Staff and the proponent have discussed the possibilityof a phased development of the facility, beginning with an initial size of 35 to 50 student-clients. However, rather than phase the expansion and development of the facility, the proponents prefer to build the entire facility at the outset and phase its occupancy.

On the basis of available, albeit limited evidence, staff are not yet able to support the proposed facility size, irrespective of its location. Whether in a residential, commercial or industrial district, we believe that several smaller facilities are preferable to one large one.
The intentional community model may be proven with a broader population mix in other places, but staff have no evidence that WHC will be successful in its emphasis on young adults and the numbers of these it would serve in one facility. We do have evidence that a broad age range provides for a more effective environment.

If a more detailed proposal is to be considered, at this location or elsewhere, the experience of similar or comparable facilities in other cities should be consulted, regarding such elements as the ages and number of student-clients, the student-teacher ratio, and operating costs. Staff recommend that a study of such facilities, including on-site interviews where appropriate, be undertaken prior to submission of any rezoning application. It is recommended that the study be funded by the proponents but that City staff be involved in the preparation of terms of reference and the selection of consultants. Possibly there might also be some staff participation in the study itself.

2. Program Funding: The operating costs of WHC are estimated to be about $5 million per year and are proposed to be funded from the Welcome Home Foundation's endowment which is anticipated to generate a revenue of $12 million per year and contribute funding to this facility and similar campuses in other communities. It is also anticipated that student training and education in on-site businesses producing marketable goods and services will generate revenues.

The proponents acknowledge that the Welcome Home Foundation will continue to solicit corporate, church, foundation and private donations, and that WHC will apply for government funding which might occasionally be available for special and short-term purposes. However, the proponent submission states that "government funding will not be requested for core programming."

The proponents state it is a goal for WHC that it will be self-sustaining, practising the self reliance it will instill in its students. They acknowledge however that the Welcome Home Foundation will continue to broadly solicit corporate, church, foundation and private donations. They also acknowledge that WHC will apply for government funding which might occasionally be available for special, one-time and short-term purposes.

As a general observation, staff applaud the magnitude of private sector funding which is offered here, to address challenging social problems. However, some concerns are raised. It should be emphasized, first, that the City normally does not examine the capital or operating funding of developments which require rezoning or development permit. Financing is not a consideration in the decision-making of City officials on land use and development matters. However, there is exception for this in social and recreational and other public facilities which can be awarded a floor space ratio bonus. Such facilities are usually preserved in the public domain by registered agreement, and operated by the City or its delegates. In these cases, the calculation of a bonus will take account of the costs of continuing maintenance required for the facility and provided by the developer.

In the case of WHC, rezoning a site from industrial use to a higher-value non-industrial use has similarity to conferring a bonus. There is thus some justification in raising questions about program funding. Such questions are raised by the simple fact that government finances at all levels limit the resources they can bring to the wide range of social programs which are necessary in our communities. A consequence is that programs and facilities are in competition with one another for limited funds. The large size of the VanCity Place for Youth operated by the St. James Community Services Society and its shortfall in operating funds was one of the principal factors that led to its being handed over to Covenant House Society which could provide the operational funding. A significant factor here is that youth and young adults with addiction and related problems need a high level of support and services. The issue of operational funding will be equally important for Welcome Home.

It is not enough for the proponents just to say that they will cover the operating costs. First, we have to ask whether the proposed funding will be adequate. In particular, it is unclear how many staff will be paid, i.e., how many will be volunteers and how many professional staff are expected to be donated from other institutions such as VSB, VCC, and SFU. Second, we have to ask how reliable the proposed funding will be. It is unclear what would be the future status and role of the facility should private funding be reduced or terminated for whatever reason, or supplementary government funding be requested for the core program.

If a more detailed proposal is to be considered, at this location or another, staff recommend that the proponents provide an operating budget which identifies all expenditures and identifies the sources and reliability of funding. Otherwise, the VanCity Place experience could be repeated at three times the scale.

* * * * *


pe020725.htm

PROPONENT COMMENT

In a letter dated June 20, 2002, Bil Koonar, Director of The John Volken Foundation, comments as follows:

"The proponent believes the Welcome Home Centre offers the City of Vancouver an exciting opportunity to implement a program that will support individuals who have struggled, and continue to struggle, with a multitude of lifestyle challenges. The broad based Welcome Home Centre program concept evolved prior to the publicized need that was reflected in the City's "Four Pillar" approach to drug problems. The program model has not been fully articulated at this stage of development discussions. However, it is based on the experiences of abstinence based residential programs located in the United States and Europe.

An opportunity was presented to the proponent to secure property (1610 -1660 Powell Street) that seemed to meet the requirements deemed necessary for the successful implementation of the Welcome Home Centre project. The proponent took advantage of the timely opportunity to purchase the property with the understanding that it would be necessary to have the site rezoned. As well, the proponent realized the rezoning question would raise issues of a policy nature.

The situation is unique. There is no other program model within the Lower Mainland that is similar to the one proposed by Welcome Home. The proponent recognizes there will be a need to work with City staff and the community to interpret the philosophy and service model that will eventually define Welcome Home Centre in Vancouver. As well, the proponent appreciates that City Council will require additional information with respect to the clientele, range of services to be delivered, funding and experiences of those programs, with similar characteristics, that are located in other cities. The proponent is prepared to work with City staff to prepare a study that considers the experiences of other programs.

It is the hope of the proponent that City Council will be prepared to consider an application to rezone the property at 1610 - 1660 Powell Street (Consideration B). The proponent believes the results from the study will be extremely important, relative to the identification of the benefits that will be associated with the proposed program. If Council is desirous of approving Consideration A, we ask that the decision be deferred until after the proposed study to make a more informed decision. If Council is inclined to approve (B), we ask that recommendation (F) with respect to dwelling use be deferred until after the staff proponent study is completed. Further we ask that recommendation (E) also be deferred until after completion of the proposed study so as not to fetter City Council's discretion.

* * * * *


pe020725.htm


Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver