SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
P & E AGENDA
OCTOBER 19, 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: October 3, 1995
Dept. File No. WB
TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: Director of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Special Needs Residential Facility -
2618 Garden Drive -
Development Application No. DE400228
CONSIDERATION
THAT the Director of Land Use & Development be advised that
Council would favour approval of the proposed Special Needs
Residential Facility at 2618 Garden Drive, submitted under
DE400228, for the period of one year, subject to the naming of a
neighbourhood liaison person.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services submits the foregoing
for CONSIDERATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
On September 27, 1983, Council adopted the Special Needs Residential
Facility Guidelines for conditional use approval of a Special Needs
Residential Facility.
PURPOSE
This report seeks Council's advice regarding a development application
submitted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission
requesting permission to use the existing building on this site as a
Special Needs Residential Facility (Group Living) providing resident
care for a maximum of six youths aged 16 to 18 years of age. The
Director of Land Use and Development is seeking Council's advice on
the matter, in view of the significant negative response received from
neighbouring property owners.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site and surrounding zoning are shown on the attached Appendix A.
A Special Needs Residential Facility is a conditional approval use in
this RS-1S District.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed facility, which is funded by the Ministry of Social
Services, is to be operated by the Urban Native Youth Association as a
"safe house" for a maximum of six youths aged 16 to 18 years. The use
falls within the Special Needs Residential Facility (Group Living)
definition of the Zoning & Development By-law. Accompanying the
development application was a letter from the applicant (copies of
which were circulated to the neighbours with the notification letters)
describing in detail the proposed operation of the Special Needs
Residential Facility. A copy of this letter is attached as Appendix
B. The contents of this letter may be summarized as follows:
- The proposal is to provide a "Safe House" for youths of
aboriginal ancestry who have ended up on the streets due to
circumstances at home or in their community.
- It will be a voluntary placement for a maximum of six youths aged
16 to 18.
- The youths will stay a maximum of one week while they arrange,
with help from the staff members, contacts with appropriate
services and agencies that will enable them to get off the
streets.
- The house will be staffed 24-hours a day and will have at least
two staff on site all the time.
- Family Services has operated a similar type of facility, in a
residential area of Riley Park, for approximately 2 years without
causing problems for the neighbourhood.
- The Urban Native Youth Association runs a variety of programs for
youth, including the Aries Alternate School for street youth,
alcohol and drug counselling, and an outreach program. All these
services are provided at the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship
Centre, 1607 East Hastings Street.
NOTIFICATION
As part of the review of this development application, 95
neighbouring property owners were notified of the proposal. In
addition, a site sign was placed on the property. In response,
Planning staff received 69 individual letters of objection from within
the notification area, and 50 letters from outside the area.
Petitions containing a total of 86 names were also received.
A notification summary is included as part of Appendix A.
A summary of the neighbourhood objections is as follows:
- the short-stay nature of the facility will be disruptive;
- the youth may present a safety and security concern, particularly
for younger children and elderly residents;
- there may be an increase in vandalism, break-ins and car theft;
- one person mentioned lower property values; and
- several people believed there was another Special Needs
Residential Facility in the immediate neighbourhood, and that
another should therefore not be allowed. (This perception is not
accurate.)
COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL PLANNING
The Garden Drive application is for the City's second "safe house" for
youth, the first having opened two years ago on Walden Street, in
Riley Park. The safe houses are part of the continuing development of
services for street youth. The need for a house for aboriginal youth
was identified as a high priority by the Interministerial Street
Children's Committee.
Social Planning comments will address two issues: the choice of this
location in the context of the Special Needs Residential Facility
(SNRF) locational guidelines; and the program specifics that appear to
cause the most neighbourhood concern (the short-stay nature of the
program and the fear that the youth will be a bad influence,
disruptive and/or dangerous.)
Location: The Garden Drive site is in the extreme northeast corner of
Kensington-Cedar Cottage, north of the "cut". Kensington-Cedar
Cottage does have a high number of SNRF (20 homes), but there is no
SNRF north of the cut or in the adjacent areas of Grandview Woodlands,
Hastings-Sunrise or Renfrew-Collingwood, within a 5-6 block radius.
The location easily meets the SNRF distance guidelines. (Appendix C,
Map and Facility list.)
Some neighbours believed that there was another "group home" in the
immediate area and that the proposed home was therefore an unfair
burden. This has been checked and found to be a 2-bed resource which
does not require any City approval for its use. It is not a SNRF.
Program: On the question of the neighbours' concerns about disruption
because of the short-stay nature of the program, and because of the
client type, the best measure is to look at the operation of the
City's other "safe house" on Walden. It houses street youth on a
short-term basis and functions exactly as will the proposed house. It
is also in a single-family area and close to an elementary school.
The same concerns being raised about the present application were
raised about Walden Street. The Walden Street home is run by Family
Services and opened two years ago.
There has been no City renotification for Walden Street because it is
a Class "A" SNRF and did not require special approval. Family
Services staff report a good relationship and interactions with
neighbours. The staff have worked at this relationship by introducing
themselves and holding an open house before the facility opened, by
developing and maintaining a personal relationship with adjacent
neighbours and by paying attention to being "neighbourly". The
principal of adjacent General Brock Elementary School says that she
has found the facility staff helpful and has not heard of or
experienced any problems with the youth. The Police have checked
their files and do not perceive the home/residents as causing either
annoyance or criminal activity.
On the basis of the above information, Social Planning staff believe
that there is no reason why the Garden Street house should not be able
to develop a similar good relationship.
The Director of Social Planning is therefore recommending approval of
the application for one year, subject to the sponsor naming a
neighbourhood liaison person. In view of the anxiety about the
application, we are specifying some actions that we request the
society and liaison person to undertake:
- That the sponsoring society provide a letter for neighbours in
the notification area, giving off-site and on-site contact people
(and phone numbers), to whom neighbours can refer concerns.
- That once hired, the supervisor of the house introduce
him/herself to neighbours, and provide information on the
program.
- That the supervisor take a proactive role in developing and
maintaining personal contact with immediately adjacent
neighbours.
The Society has provided a letter attached as Appendix D agreeing to
the above-noted actions.
CONCLUSION
Planning staff note that there is significant community opposition to
the proposed Special Needs Residential Facility; however, the proposed
facility would help address an important social need.
The existing building conforms with all the regulations contained
within the RS-1S District Schedule. City Engineering staff have
conducted a parking impact study and have concluded that the two
existing on-site parking spaces will be adequate for the facility.
The proposed facility has been assessed against the Special Needs
Residential Facility Guidelines and responds to the stated
objectives. Planning, therefore, is supportive of the development
application being approved for a period of one year, subject to the
naming of a neighbourhood liaison person.
However, before making a decision on this application, the Director of
Land Use and Development is seeking any advice which Council may wish
to provide.
* * * * *