ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: January 29, 1998

Author/Local:K. Dobell/7627

CC File No. 8107/3603/5651

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	City Manager, in consultation with the General Managers of Community and Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services
SUBJECT:	City Participation in Investigation of Gastown Collective Parking/Earthquake Upgrading

---

RECOMMENDATION

A.THAT the City agree to fund one half of the projected cost of the proposed investigation of the potential for a joint parking/earthquake upgrading solution for the north side of the unit block of Water Street, to a maximum of $15,000, subject to:

·470 ·confirmation of the availability of funding from the owners and or the Gastown Business Improvement Society, and·470

·470·an appropriate letter agreement between the proponents and the City.·470

·470·the City's share of funding to be provided in the 1998 Operating Budget.·470

B.THAT Council advise the proponents of the investigation that its financial support does not represent endorsement of any specific development proposal.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS

In making the above recommendation, the City Manager notes the continuing parking and earthquake upgrading issues in Gastown, where a combination of heritage restrictions and structural upgrading issues limit the potential for reuse ofthe heritage buildings. Collective, multi-property responses to these issues may offer greater economy and therefore a higher rate of upgrading, enhancing the area and improving earthquake preparedness. The proposed investigation would identify both technical and procedural/legal issues involved in joint development of a parking lot under several separate properties, providing the City with useful information about the potential of this approach.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no directly applicable Council policy. Council has policies in support of heritage preservation and has established by-laws that require earthquake upgrading on a change of use.

PURPOSE

This report provides a brief description of a proposed investigation of the potential for joint development of a parking lot and earthquake upgrading under four heritage properties on the north side of the unit block of Water Street, and recommends that the City agree to share one half the cost of the study, up to a maximum of $15,000. It should be noted that while the study would be conducted in the context of a specific development proposal, City participation would not represent an endorsement of that project, which would be dealt with through normal development approval processes.

BACKGROUND

In July of 1997, the City Manager’s Office was approached to consider recommending that Council cost share in a proposed investigation of development of common underground parking and some earthquake upgrading under all four heritage properties on the north side of the unit block of Water Street. One property is the subject of a current development proposal, which presented the opportunity to consider this option. The cost of the proposed study would be $30,000 for consulting services provided largely by the developer’s consulting team (for cost effectiveness) but external to the specific requirements of the development.

The City has participated in one study of joint above grade earthquake upgrading in Gastown in the past. That study, and other investigations, have suggested that economies could be achieved through joint programs. The City has maintained a continuing interest infacilitating and reducing the cost of earthquake upgrading, and in appropriate circumstances in the development of collective parking.

The project architect has prepared physical options that would include up to all of the heritage properties involved, and set out a proposal for further investigation of the engineering, planning and legal implications of such a project.

Subsequent to the July discussions, the four property owners met independently of the City and concluded that the study has merit.

However, they felt strongly that the City would have to be a participant in such a project if it were to be feasible, both in order to resolve regulatory and legal issues and as a participant through a local improvement process or other arrangement to make the work financially feasible. Given the nature of the investigation, they believe that the City should participate financially and through some contribution of staff time. They have committed to pay one half of the estimated cost of $30,000.

DISCUSSION

As described in the project proposal (on file in the City Manager’s Office), the City’s role would be to provide financial support and assist in identifying - and if possible, resolving - planning, code, and legal issues. In addition, the proponents would like the City to examine ways in which it could assist such a project if it proved feasible. (The General Manager of Engineering Services has noted that there is no requirement for additional parking in this immediate area for public purposes, and the proponents have been informed of this. However, other forms of support may be possible in view of the anticipated public benefit, such as low cost financing through a modified local improvement mechanism.)

The work would consist of geotechnical evaluation, investigation of existing structures, development of parking layouts, structural analysis, analysis of fire and life safety issues, and analysis of code and legal issues. The developer would contribute their analysis of the options to date, and pay a property owner share. The other three owners would contribute a property owner share. The Gastown Business Improvement Society would be asked to contribute a share equivalent to a property owner. The study would be conducted by the property owners, through an arrangement suitable to them, with the City contributing funding.

The analysis of this specific proposal may assist the property owners to achieve a solution to upgrading their buildings and providing parking. It would provide the City with information on the types of legal, regulatory, and financial issues which would be of value in assisting other owners to seek similar solutions. The opportunity to conduct this analysis in the context of real development proposal would generate more meaningful information than a theoretical analysis.

If approved, the source of funds for this proposal would be the 1998 budget for new and non-recurring items.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is no certainty that the information generated by this study would demonstrate that joint parking development and earthquake upgrading would be feasible, the information generated by the study will be of value in considering future options for creation of parking and earthquake upgrading in heritage areas. The joint effort proposed is a basic kind of public-private cooperation. The investment is relatively modest, and the City Manager, after consultation with other involved civic officials, supports City participation in the investigation.

* * * * *

(c) 1997 City of Vancouver