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.
Heritage Revitalization Notes
(Diagram 2)* (Diagram 6)
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
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.
* * * * *