CITY OF VANCOUVER
M E M O R A N D U M
From: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: March 26, 1996
Refer File: 5053
To: Vancouver City Council
Subject: Nelson Park
Vancouver City Council held a special meeting to hear
delegations on Nelson Park on the evenings of December 12, 1995
and January 30 and February 1, 1996, then deferred its decision
to a future meeting. This matter has now been scheduled for
consideration at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 1996.
The following materials refer and are attached:
- Policy Report dated November 23, 1995, entitled Nelson
Park Site Land Use Study Report;
- Memorandum from City Manager dated November 28, 1995,
commenting on the Policy Report;
- Administrative Report dated November 20, 1995, entitled
Proposed Dr. Peter Centre;
- Letter dated December 5, 1995, conveying the Park
Board's action at its December 4, 1995 meeting.
Also enclosed for ready reference are the Minutes of the
aforementioned Special Council meeting at which delegations were
heard (limited distribution; on file).
CITY CLERK
NLargent:dmy
Att.
POLICY REPORT
BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT
Date: November 23, 1995
Dept. File No.
TO: Vancouver City Council
Vancouver Park Board
FROM: General Manager, Park Board
Director of Central Area Planning
Manager, Real Estate Services
Manager, Housing Centre
SUBJECT: Nelson Park Site Land Use Study Report
CONSIDERATION
A1) THAT options for future planning of the Nelson Park
site provide rental residential units equal in number
to those presently occupied by residents, and further
that this rental accommodation be provided in the
existing houses and that rental rates be consistent
with the BCHMC core need rental guidelines;
or
A2) THAT options for the future planning of the Nelson Park
site provide for the relocation of all or some of the
existing tenants to existing or newly developed housing
units elsewhere in the City.
The Director of Central Area Planning and the Manager of the
Housing Centre recommend A1.
B1) THAT the consultant's "Option 1: Heritage" (Diagram
2), providing for some additional parkland, be adopted
as the future direction for the redevelopment of the
Nelson Park site;
or
B2) THAT the "Revitalization Option" (Diagram 6), providing
no additional parkland, be adopted as the future
direction for the redevelopment of the Nelson Park
site;
RECOMMENDATION
C) THAT staff report back with an implementation strategy
for the City land adjacent to Nelson Park based on the
selected option, including the various sub-options as
described in this report.
COUNCIL/BOARD POLICY
In September 1994 City Council and Park Board approved the
terms of reference for the Nelson Park Site Land Use Study
(see Appendix A) and agreed to retain a consultant to
conduct the Land Use Study for the purpose of balancing
park, heritage and market objectives for the city land
adjacent to Nelson Park.
In November 1994, Christopher Phillips & Associates Inc. was
retained by the Park Board to undertake this study.
COMMENTS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF CORPORATE SERVICES
The focus of this report is on land use decisions and issues
relating to the existing tenants. However, there are major
financial issues which underlie the discussions. If the
site were vacant, it would have a total value of roughly $15
million. Any decisions which are made to retain heritage
houses and to maintain rental tenancies will significantly
diminish the value of the property. For example, under
Option #1, the land would have a total value of $3.75
million, and under the Revitalization Option, would have a
total value of $5.5 million.
We anticipate that the Park Board will argue for a full
market value reimbursement of the property. If Council
accepts that position, the challenge will be to obtain
funding to reimburse the Park Board. Under Option #1, this
would amount to $11.25 million, and under the Revitalization
Option, would amount to $9.5 million. Renovation costs for
the houses would be in addition, unless another agency
assumes this responsibility.
Since Park Board reimbursement will depend on whichever
option Council and the Board decide to undertake, that issue
could be addressed at a later date, and might be best dealt
with in the 1997-99 Capital Plan.
BACKGROUND
The Nelson Park Study was commissioned in order to determine the
future direction for the improvement and/or redevelopment of Park
Board and City holdings on the Nelson Park Site. Of the 36
properties in Block 23, 29 properties are owned by the City/Park
Board.
In recent years there have been two conflicting legal opinions
from Legal Services on the jurisdictional issue as to whether the
Park Board or City Council has dominant control of the site. The
most recent opinion suggested that although the properties were
acquired for park purposes, it is not a permanent park.
City buildings on the Nelson Park site contain 164 rental units,
which are mostly single rooms plus a few 1 or 2 bedroom units.
There are 96 tenancies in place, all on a month to month basis.
While rents are considered market for SRO-style units maintained
in a minimal state of repair, monthly rents approximate the
current GAIN (Guaranteed Annual Income for Need) maximum shelter
allowance for singles ($325 per month). The 96 households are
comprised of 84 singles, 11 couples and 1 single-parent with a
child. Of the 107 adult tenants, 40% are women and 60% are men.
Half are over 50 years of age. Almost 20% are over 70. Just
over half receive welfare or pension as their only source of
income. The remainder work full-time or part-time. About two-
thirds have lived at Nelson Park for over five years.
The site has 21 heritage buildings, 7 are category A, 13 category
B, and 1 category C. Two of the heritage buildings are privately
owned. There are two vacant sites (See Diagram 1, Existing
Conditions).
In the last 2 years, the City has not re-rented any of the units
becoming vacant, in order to more easily facilitate building
renovations and land use changes. Real Estate Services have
spent
some monies on maintaining the existing building stock, but not
to a standard which is consistent with the long term preservation
of these buildings.
It is also recognized that the current site zoning permits a
floor space ratio of 2.75. Only a small portion of the available
Floor Space Ratio is utilized in the current buildings. It is
recognized that there is a park deficiency based on the per
capita rate of provision, frequency of use, and access to
alternate parks in that part of the West End. Furthermore, the
Vancouver Park Board has park land assets, which are not
presently generating the park values for which they were
purchased.
The Nelson Park site was acquired over a 33 year period from 1951
to 1984. The total acquisition cost was $2,415,000, of which
$241,000 was raised by plebiscite debenture borrowing and
$2,174,000 came from general revenue. The majority of the
revenue funds came from rental income from the former bus depot.
In the past five years the Park Board has borrowed funds to
purchase and develop Park sites. When these funds were borrowed,
Council was advised that the eventual resolution of the Nelson
Park issue could be one of the potential means of repaying all or
part of this debt.
The Park Board owes the Property Endowment Fund Board
approximately $10.7 million. The majority of this debt relates
to purchases and development of Park sites along the Fraser River
and in the False Creek Flats.
DISCUSSION
Simply leaving the site and the buildings is not an acceptable
option. Residents would like some certainty, buildings continue
to deteriorate, and the Park Board needs to address emerging park
needs in the rapidly densifying Downtown Peninsula.
The consulting team in conjunction with the staff Steering
Committee initially generated about 17 options which were
narrowed down to 3 options which best meet the individual
heritage, park, or development objective while still meeting the
minimum requirements for all other study objectives (heritage,
market and non-market housing, parkland and daycare. See also
P.1 Appendix A).
These 3 options were presented to a Council/Park Board workshop,
Nelson Park residents, the general public, and various civic
advisory bodies. In addition, the consultants also presented
information on a "status quo" scenario in which all existing
buildings are retained and upgraded for continued use as rental
housing. The various options are included as diagrams 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
The public involvement program included the following:
- a meeting with Nelson Park residents on January 5 and June
1;
- an open house on June 17; and
- a public meeting on June 22.
In addition, staff and consultants met with the Vancouver
Heritage Advisory Commission, the Vancouver Planning Commission,
and the Urban Design Panel.
As part of the follow-up work following the initial public
consultation process, staff met with representatives from the
Nelson Park residents and Heritage Vancouver on October 26, 1995.
Public Response
A total of 149 questionnaires were collected from the open house
and the public meeting and the results are attached as Appendix
B.
By and large, there was little support for the creation of
additional park space and a lot of support for the retention of
as many heritage buildings as possible and the retention of
affordable rental housing within the block. When asked which
option the people preferred, 75% indicated a preference for the
status quo with appropriate building improvements.
About 16% of the respondents were from the Nelson Park site, 56%
lived within 5 minutes walking distance of Nelson Park, and 19%
were from other Vancouver areas, and the balance came from
elsewhere. It should be noted that during both the open house
and the public meeting, representatives of the Nelson Park
residents greeted most participants and issued information
pamphlets including suggested answers to the City questionnaire.
The residents also issued their own questionnaire.
About a dozen letters from individuals have been received. A
majority oppose the further expansion of the park. In addition,
letters have been received from the Friends of Mole Hill,
Heritage Vancouver, the hospital union and the administration
office of St. Paul's Hospital. Most of these letters are
supportive of the retention of most of the residential
accommodations and oppose additional park land. Appendix "C" has
the minutes of the public meeting.
The Vancouver City Planning Commission considered the matter at
several of its meetings and suggests that Council, Park Board and
School Board coalesce around a set of principles before choosing
among development alternatives. The VCPC submission is included
as Appendix "D".
The Urban Design Panel considered the three options. The panel
suggests the value of retaining part of the heritage buildings
and the need to retain Comox Street as an open street to
strengthen the recommended retention of all the heritage
buildings. On balance, the panel concluded that heritage values
were more important than the park values.
The Heritage Commission considered the matter on September 18,
1995 and resolved not to support any of the options, but instead
"would like to see further exploration of Option 1 (stressing the
retention of heritage resources) with the intent of preserving
all the existing buildings of heritage character".
Options for Consideration
Existing Residents:
During the public process, strong representations were made,
particularly, but not exclusively, by existing residents and
tenants advocacy groups, to provide for the accommodation of
existing residents on the Nelson Park site and in existing
buildings. It is also City housing policy to maintain and expand
housing opportunities for Downtown low-income singles, elderly
people on fixed incomes, and people with varying abilities.
Further, CityPlan supports the provision of new housing near the
Downtown and ensuring that this housing is suitable for people of
different ages and incomes. All the land use options developed
by the consultants could accommodate 96 affordable housing units.
This provision could be made off-site or on-site. On-site,
either in existing buildings or in a new building.
The off-site provision in a newly constructed building would cost
about $5.4 million in construction costs plus land costs. A new
building on-site would have the same construction costs, but land
values would likely be higher than a site say in the Downtown
South.
The consultants explored several ways of accommodating the 96
households currently living on-site;
œ Upgrading existing SRO-style units in existing houses on the
site;
œ Creating new small suites in existing houses on the site;
or,
œ Building small suites in a new purpose-built apartment on or
off the site.
Application of the B.C. Housing Management Corporate core need
rental guidelines will set a maximum household income above which
a tenant will pay market rent, and below which a tenant will pay
30% of income or the GAIN shelter allowance.
Since most of the 96 households (mostly singles and some couples)
cannot afford to pay much more than the GAIN shelter maximum
($325/month for singles), the most economic way of providing
replacement housing at affordable rents with minimum subsidy from
the City, is by modestly upgrading 96 existing SRO-style units in
existing houses on the site. In comparison to creating small
suites in existing houses, renovation costs would be less and
fewer existing houses would be used. This means more existing
houses could be developed as condominium units with a resulting
higher return to the City. The economic analysis in this report
was based on a mixture of self contained studios and SRO rooms.
Staff offer Council and the Board two choices for consideration:
A1) THAT options for future planning of the Nelson Park
site provide rental residential units equal in number
to those presently occupied by residents, and further
that this rental accommodation be provided in the
existing houses and that rental rates be consistent
with the BCHMC core need rental guidelines;
or
A2) THAT options for the future planning of the Nelson Park
site provide for the relocation of all or some of the
existing tenants to existing or newly developed housing
units elsewhere in the City.
The Director of Central Area Planning and the Manager of the
Housing Centre recommend A1.
Land Use Options
In response to public feedback pertaining to desirability of
retaining virtually all the buildings on site to preserve the
integrity of the block, the perceived sufficiency of parkspace
and Council's desire to see some financial return to the City,
staff have developed another option, the Revitalization Option.
This option is offered as a choice along with the consultant's
option 1, which favours the retention of heritage values, yet
meets the minimum park objective. The latter objective is not
met in the Revitalization Option.
The two options are more fully described below:
i) Consultant's Option 1: Heritage (Diagram 2)
ii) Revitalization Option (Diagram 6)
Option 1: Heritage
Of the three consultant's options, Option 1 emphasizes heritage
preservation to the largest degree, yet it meets the minimum park
objective of an additional two acres. This option retains all
the A and B category buildings and suggests moving only two from
their present locations. The two proposed to be moved are B
structures and are relocated as an adjacent pair from Comox
Street into a meaningful relationship to other heritage houses on
Pendrell Street. The one C category house is replaced by new
development. All retained heritage buildings would be
designated.
Proposed new development is scaled to respect the heritage
character of the block with a combination of infill buildings
along the lane which are smaller than the existing houses and of
apartment buildings on the Thurlow streetscape of a comparable
scale to the Strathmore Lodge (6 - 8 stories) on Bute Street.
The daycare requirements are to be included as two floors of a
new
development on the vacant site at Thurlow and Pendrell. All
existing occupied units can be accommodated in existing
buildings.
In this option Comox Street is closed, creating one additional
acre of park space, which would be contiguous with the existing
Nelson Park.
Revitalization Option
In this option, all but the daycare building are retained. This
option does not add any park space to Nelson Park. Residential
buildings to be retained could be converted for rental or
condominium development. For illustrative purposes a mixed
choice, with 96 rental units is shown.
Buildings to be retained for rental purposes should be
"renovated" to meet life safety code standards. Buildings to be
offered to the private sector are expected to be "rehabilitated"
to a much higher level of both internal finishes and external
heritage features, although not to a "restoration" standard (e.g.
Roedde House). The buildings are clustered on site as
illustrated. In general, the redevelopment pattern for the
market sites are three condominium units in a heritage house plus
1 unit in a coach house/garage structure. Four parking stalls
are provided on each site. The rental buildings have garden
space in the back. Shared underground parking proved
unattractive from a financial and marketing point of view. All
retained heritage buildings would be designated.
Sub options:
Under the Revitalization Option, staff have identified three
further possible sub options.
There is a question with regards to the possible demolition of
three unlisted buildings (1129 Pendrell, 1154 and 1146 Comox
Street). The demolition of these buildings would increase the
net, financial value of this option by about $675,000, but would
impact the heritage streetscape.
The second sub option involves the accommodation of the Dr. Peter
Centre. An inquiry by the Dr. Peter Aids Foundation to locate on
the Nelson Park site has been received. This facility would
include an adult day centre and a hospice facility for aids
patients. A separate report from the Medical Health Officer
describes the need for this facility further. The general
location in the West End and close to St. Paul's Hospital is
attractive to the organization, as well as the heritage and
residential character of the Nelson Park site.
The third sub option involves the retention or closure of Comox
Street. Comox Street is potentially a greenways route and its
closure may favour this use. Alternatively, retaining Comox
Street may have advantages for marketing the houses by improving
access and providing parking. As part of the implementation
strategy, the future of Comox street will be further evaluated.
Economic Evaluation
The value of the site, if vacant, would have a value of
approximately $15 million, or $500,000 per 33' lot as part of a
consolidated site.
If portions of the site are used for heritage housing or rental
housing, the values will diminish. The following examines the
values which might be realized for alternative uses.
The value of heritage houses rented out have the following values
assigned at different rent levels:
- Market rents $125,000 per lot
- GAIN rents - $ 25,000 per lot
- 50% market 50% GAIN rents $ 75,000 per lot
The value of heritage houses with infill could generate sales at
$250,000 per lot.
Table 1: Nelson Park Option Comparison
Heritage Revitalization Notes
(Diagram 2)* (Diagram 6)
Heritage Buildings
A's saved 7 of 7 7 of 7
B's saved 13 of 13 13 of 13
C's saved 0 of 1 1 of 1
Buildings moved 2 B's
Rental Units Included 96 96 Both options
include 96
units to be
provided on
site.
Total New Development 115,745 sq. 118,516 sq. Comox Street
Potential ft. ft. could also be
closed Under
Comox Street Closed Open the
Revitalization
Lane Open Open Option.
Additional Parkland 2 acres 0
Heritage Revitalization Notes
(Diagram 2)* (Diagram 6)
Economic Evaluation
Sale of Development Sites $3,000,000 $1,800,000
Sale of Heritage Houses $1,400,000 $2,700,000
with infill
Purchase of additional ($1,400,000) 0
sites
Capitalized value rental $3,350,000 $3,250,000
houses (96)
Less renovation costs ($2,600,000) ($2,250,000)
Total Net Revenue $3,750,000 $5,500,000
These figures are based on rental units being rented out 50% at
the GAIN rates and 50% at market rates.
*The number in this analysis vary slightly from those shown on
Diagram 2. The variance is the result of a more detailed
financial review conducted by staff in cooperation with the
consultants.
Friends of Molehill Views
Further to the presentation of the Revitalization Option to
representatives from Molehill, a second meeting (November 16) was
held during which the following reaction was expressed.
Representatives like the Revitalization Option because it retains
all the existing buildings on site. Furthermore, the creation of
96 rental units is much appreciated.
There is concern about the lack of affordable housing in the West
End, and residents believe that this site has the potential to
create more affordable rental housing. A second concern relates
to the effects of gentrification, which may start with the
introduction of the market condominium development on the Park
site.
Residents also express a desire to engage with the City in a
cooperative planning and development process, which would realize
the replacement strategy. The full submission of the Friends of
Molehill is contained as Appendix "E". In preparing this
submission, the Friends relied on staff presentations about the
report's content.
Park Board Compensation
All but one of the Park Board properties on the Nelson Park site
have been purchased over the period of more than 40 years with
Park Board funds. At the present time, none of these properties
are generating the park values which were anticipated to be
realized with the purchase. Therefore, it is necessary for the
City and Park Board to come to an arrangement on the compensation
for the disposition of foregone parkspace. This matter will be
subject of a future report.
Next Steps
Upon the selection of the preferred direction, further work will
have to be undertaken. This work includes, but is not
necessarily limited to the following:
¯ Development of a rental housing structure (co-op, housing
corporation, etc.).
¯ Designation of heritage buildings.
¯ Design development for retained buildings and additional
park space.
¯ Development of design guidelines and legal framework for
ensuring renovation by the private sector
¯ Consultation with tenants and development of on-site
relocation plan.
¯ Marketing strategy for remaining houses.
¯ Consideration of the possible closure of Comox Street.
¯ Further discussion with the Dr. Peter Foundation on the
feasibility of locating on Block 23.
¯ Development of compensation formula for forgone parkland.
¯ Finalizing location of daycare.
CONCLUSIONS
The Steering Committee has carefully evaluated the public input
received to date. Four land use options were presented and in
response a new land use option entitled "Revitalization" has been
developed. This option does meet most of the objectives of the
existing residential and heritage interests, but does not address
the park objective.
Should Council and the Park Board wish to continue to support
this objective, the Steering Committee recommends option 1 as a
viable alternative, which maximizes the heritage preservation
objectives as outlined in the original terms of reference.
Alternatively, should Council and the Park Board not wish to
pursue the provision of park space on this site, the Steering
Committee recommends the Revitalization Option.
Staff have also presented the Board and Council a choice for
accommodating existing tenants on site or off site.
* * * * *
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: November 20, 1995
Dept. File #: CC 28/95
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Medical Health Officer
SUBJECT: Proposed Dr. Peter Centre
INFORMATION
The General Manager of Community Services submits this
report for INFORMATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
There is no applicable Council Policy.
PURPOSE
The intent of this report is to inform City Council of the need
for and interest in developing an AIDS Day Centre with AIDS
residential care beds included and to provide information
regarding collaboration with the Dr. Peter Foundation to
accomplish this goal.
BACKGROUND
Of the approximately 8,500 to 9,000 British Columbians infected
with HIV, 85% of them live in Vancouver. In August 1995, 1523
Vancouver residents had CD4 counts (a surrogate marker indicating
the stage of their illness) of 500 or less which indicates they
could have moderate to severe symptoms of HIV/AIDS and often
require treatment. The capacity of Vancouver to provide adequate
AIDS care will be increasingly challenged as a result of the
increased number of individuals projected to yet become ill with
AIDS in the next few years . The problem is compounded by the
fact that those infected are living longer, and those impacted
most are the already more marginalized residents of the city.
An AIDS Day Centre would provide to those ill with AIDS
nutritious meals and healthy supplements, nursing care, IV and
other complementary therapies, physical rehabilitation therapy,
psychiatric support, substance abuse and harm reduction
counselling, support and respite for personal caregivers,
individual counselling, social events and gatherings, and a warm,
caring environment.
AIDS Day Centres currently operate in Seatle, New York, San
Francisco, and Los Angeles. Seattle's Baily-Bouschay House after
which the proposed Dr. Peter Centre is modelled reports that an
individual attending their Day Centre is four times less likely
to be hospitalized. Vancouver with the largest HIV/AIDS
population in Canada has no such health care centre. The number
of HIV infected individuals seeking inpatient care at St. Paul's
and Vancouver Hospital continues to grow. On any one day at St.
Paul's Hospital, there are now 30+ HIV/AIDS patients. There is a
three month waiting list for Normandy House AIDS residential care
beds. Many of those are waiting in acute care beds, some of whom
unfortunately die in acute care before getting an opportunity to
move to Normandy House. By 1998/99, just three years from now,
it is estimated that 26,000 bed days will be needed in B.C. for
HIV/AIDS patients, 4,000 more bed days than projected for 1995.
The overwhelming majority of those bed days will be required in
Vancouver.
Those providing AIDS care and AIDS organizations have been
asserting for a number of years that an AIDS Day Centre in
Vancouver to provide health care to persons ill with AIDS was a
necessary part of the continuum of health care services. In 1993
the Dr. Peter Foundation expressed interest in undertaking such a
project. A Steering Committee with representatives from the Dr.
Peter Foundation, Vancouver Health Department, St. Paul's
Hospital, B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, AIDS Vancouver,
B.C. Persons with AIDS Society, Greater Vancouver Mental Health
Services, and Lower Mainland Region Alcohol and Drug Program have
been working together to further the concept. An extensive needs
assessment during the fall of 1993 confirmed a need for and
support of an AIDS Day Centre.
Since then the Dr. Peter Centre proposal has been expanded to
include 20 AIDS residential care beds. Those 20 include a
proposed transfer of the already existing 10 AIDS beds at
Normandy House, a wing of Normandy Private Hospital near Arbutus
Village. AIDS organizations and user have consistently expressed
a desire to have the current 10 beds geographically nearer the
communities most affected by AIDS.
- 12 -
The Vancouver Strategic Plan for AIDS Care (1995 - 1998)
developed through a broad consultation process identified as high
priority the objectives of establishing an AIDS Day Centre and
more residential care beds.
DISCUSSION
The Nelson Park Site, just across Thurlow Street from St. Paul's
Hospital, is an ideal site for the proposed Dr. Peter Centre. St.
Paul's provides most of the province's AIDS care, and the
surrounding communities (the west end and downtown) contain the
vast majority of Vancouver's AIDS residents and general
practitioners specializing in AIDS.
The proposed design of the Dr. Peter Centre is consistent with
the residential and heritage content of the Nelson Park Site.
Seattle's Baily-Bouschay House is also in a residential
neighbourhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The Nelson Park Site would minimize the transportation necessary
for individuals going from their place of residence for treatment
and meals at the Centre; minimize the amount of transportation
required to take individuals from the Centre for tests at St.
Paul's and to nearby doctor's appointments; provide easy access
for caregivers and friends, and for out of town AIDS patients who
could stay at the Centre while undergoing tests at St. Paul's.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Dr. Peter Centre on the Nelson Park site supports a
number of social and health care goals:
- establishing such a centre responds to the collective input
of a broad base of consumer and community organizations and
health care providers;
- it is consistent with the direction in health care to
provide wherever possible care outside of a hospital, in a
non-institutional setting, and as close as possible to the
community needing the care;
- its proximity to St. Paul's has the potential for
operational efficiencies in shared services;
- it is consistent with a model of AIDS health care delivery
in other major cities affected by AIDS but will be a first
for Canada.
CONCLUSION
In summary the Vancouver Health Department in collaboration with
the Dr. Peter Foundation, other health care providers and AIDS
organizations have been working towards the development of an
AIDs day health and residential care centre in the vicinity of
St. Paul's Hospital. The Nelson Park site is considered ideal
for such a centre. It is important for council to be aware of
the planning to date as part of making decisions in relation to
the Land Use Study Report and the future of Nelson Park.
* * *