CITY OF VANCOUVER
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 4:30 p.m., in Committee Room No. 1,
Third Floor, City Hall, following the Standing committee on Planning and
Environment meeting, to consider the recommendations of the Committee.
PRESENT: Mayor Owen
Councillors Bellamy, Hemer, Kennedy, Kwan,
Price Puil and Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Chiavario (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Clarke (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Ip (Leave of Absence)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK: Nancy Largent
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Price,
SECONDED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report of the Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
March 28, 1996
The Council considered the recommendations of the Committee, as
contained in the following clauses of the attached report:
Cl.1 Liquid Waste Management Plan - Report Approval
Cl.2 Gastown Lighting
COMMITTEE REPORTS CONT'D
Liquid Waste Management Plan - Report Approval
(Clause 1)
MOVED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT Council advise the GVS&DD Board that the City of Vancouver
endorses the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan report entitled "Liquid
Waste Management Plan - Statement of Progress and Approach to Planning"
dated November 1995.
- LOST
(Councillors Bellamy, Hemer, Puil and the Mayor opposed)
Gastown Lighting
(Clause 2)
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT the recommendation of the Committee, as set out in Clause 2 of
the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED
(Councillors Kennedy, Kwan and Price opposed to B and C)
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Price,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOTIONS
1. Conveyance of Land for Municipal Purposes
MOVED by Cllr. Sullivan,
SECONDED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT WHEREAS the registered owner will be conveying to the City of
Vancouver for road purposes lands in the City of Vancouver, Province of
British Columbia, more particularly known and described as follows:
All that portion of Lot 890, except the South 10 feet now lane,
Town of Hastings, Plan 6675, Group 1, New Westminster District,
shown heavy outlined on reference plan completed on the 5th day of
February, 1996, attested to by J.W. Larson, B.C.L.S. and marginally
numbered LD 3267, a print of which is attached hereto.
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient and in the public interest to
accept and allocate the said lands for road purposes.
BE IT RESOLVED that the above described lands to be conveyed are
hereby accepted and allocated for road purposes and declared to form and
to constitute a portion of a road.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * * * *
Council adjourned at approximately 4:35 p.m.
* * * * *REPORT TO COUNCIL
STANDING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
ON PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
MARCH 28, 1996
A meeting of the Standing Committee of Council on Planning and
Environment was held on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., in
Committee Room No. 1, Third Floor, City Hall.
PRESENT: Councillor Price, Chair
Mayor Owen
Councillor Bellamy
Councillor Hemer
Councillor Kennedy
Councillor Kwan
Councillor Puil
Councillor Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Chiavario (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Clarke (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Ip (Leave of Absence)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK: Nancy Largent
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
meeting of February 29, 1996, were adopted as circulated.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Liquid Waste Management Plan - Report Approval File: 3753-5
The Committee had before it an Administrative Report dated February
27, 1996 (on file), in which the General Manager of Engineering Services
discussed the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District Draft
Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) submission to the province dated
November 1995, and recommended its
Clause No. 1 Continued
endorsement by City Council. The Draft LWMP Report (on file) outlines a
planning and decision making framework based on principles adopted in
the cost allocation agreement, and details a comprehensive LWMP approach
for the region setting out terms of reference, schedule and approach to
the next phase. It also updates progress on LWMP components including
secondary treatment projects, combined sewer overflow, residuals and
urban storm water management, infrastructure, maintenance and
replacement, and others.
Mr. Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering Services, felt the
proposed LWMP will provide an improved information database for the
decision making process.
Mr. Hugh McConnell, Manager, Sewerage and Drainage Department,
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), reviewed the LWMP with the
assistance of slides. A comprehensive process will involve all
stakeholders, especially municipalities, in finding regional solutions.
Regulatory issues and the process for approval of annual work plans were
also reviewed. Pending the Board's approval, the plan will be submitted
to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in May.
The Committee expressed concern over the projected $10 to $20
million cost. Messrs. Rudberg and McConnell responded that a technical
committee is being set up to look at the need for this work and how far
to go into it, and it will be closely monitored to ensure as much value
as possible. The proposed study should be good for at least five years
and will identify priorities and set direction for the next 20 years.
There is concern that if a study that the Ministry will regard as
adequate is not carried out, the region will leave itself open to being
mandated to undertake very expensive projects. In response to a query
whether the region is required to submit such a plan, Mr. McConnell
clarified the plan is being prepared under a Minister's order.
Some Committee members were prepared to endorse the LWMP. The
information will provide a useful assessment of the regions status and
costs will be controlled through the yearly budgeting process. The
information gained may well save considerable expense in the long run,
if it can be used to demonstrate that more stringent requirements are
unwarranted.
Clause No. 1 Continued
Other members were not prepared to endorse the LWMP. Numerous
studies have already been conducted and this considerable additional
expense should not be incurred until the results of large projects, such
as Annacis Island, are clear. If such a study is a requirement, it
should be cost shared by the Provincial Government. This is another
example of senior governments off- loading costs to the municipalities.
Members also commented that the GVRD should do more education to
make the public aware of its numerous successes.
The following motion by Councillor Kennedy was put and LOST (tie
vote):
THAT Council advise the GVS&DD Board that the City of Vancouver
endorses the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan report entitled
"Liquid Waste Management Plan - Statement of Progress and Approach
to Planning" dated November 1995.
- LOST
(Councillors Bellamy, Hemer, Puil and the Mayor opposed)
2. Gastown Lighting File: 8012
On April 14, 1994, as part of the 1994 Budget Management Program,
Council approved a proposal for savings of $41,000 in the Engineering
Operating Budget by either converting the existing Gastown incandescent
lighting to an energy efficient source, or alternatively, by assessing
the property owners the difference in operating cost between the
proposed and existing light source. This issue was controversial in the
Gastown community, and community input was subsequently obtained.
The Committee now had before it a policy report dated March 6, 1996
(on file), in which the General Manager of Engineering Services, in
consultation with the General Manager of Community Services and the
Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee (GHAPC), sought Council
direction on the use of an alternative light source in the Gastown
lighting fixtures and the assignment of maintenance costs, as follows:
Clause No. 2 Continued
A. THAT Engineering Services in consultation with Community
Services and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee
(GHAPC) prepare a long range lighting plan for Gastown,
including measures to reduce operating costs.
B. THAT staff proceed with the Council approved 1994 Operating
Budget cut of $41,000 per year for Gastown Lighting.
C. THAT the affected property owners be surveyed for report back
to Council on whether to:
- proceed with a lighting conversion from incandescent to a
fluorescent source at an estimated annual savings of
$41,000;
OR
- retain the existing incandescent lighting with the
estimated annual additional cost assessed against the
property owners through the local improvement process.
OR
D. THAT Council reverse its decision of April 14, 1994 to cut
operating funds for Gastown Lighting by $41,000 per year.
E. THAT Council adopt the following policy for the Gastown
lights:
"That incandescent be confirmed as the light source for the
Gastown fixtures with operating and maintenance costs to be
funded from Operating Funds".
The General Managers of Engineering Services and Community Services
recommended A and offered the choice between B and C or D and E for
consideration. GHAPC recommended A, D and E.
Clause No. 2 Continued
Ms. Susan Clift, Acting Assistant City Engineer, Electrical and
Utilities Division, noted the importance of this issue to the community
and acknowledged the work of the GHAPC Lighting Sub-Committee.
Recognizing the ambience of incandescent lights and their contribution
to the area, Engineering did not want to try to change them until
something acceptably similar was available. Ms. Clift drew the
Committee's attention to two light standards mounted in the room, one
using the existing incandescent, the other the proposed florescent
standard. Technical differences between the two light sources were
reviewed. At this stage of technological development, this is as close
in colour as possible; however, there is new technology each year with
may improve the similarities further.
Ms. Jeannette Hlavach, Heritage Planner, noted incandescent is the
authentic light source in Gastown. The community has put much hard work
into preserving the heritage character of Gastown's public realm. It is
felt the fluorescent light is colder, and would bring a different
character and ambience to the streetscape.
The following speakers urged the Committee to support D and E:
- Mr. Jim Lehto, Chair, GHAPC;
- Ms. Sue Bennett, Chair, GHAPC Lighting Sub-Committee;
- Mr. John Ellis, Gastown Business Improvement Society; and
- Ms. Mary Jewell, GHAPC Lighting Sub-Committee.
Following are some of the comments made in support of D & E:
- the heritage character of Gastown is very significant, and is
valuable not only to area business and residents, but to
Vancouverites in general as well as the tourist and film
industries;
- the issue is not just light bulbs and their costs, but how to
enhance the environment of the street and all that goes with it;
- it would be unfair to charge property owners for the additional
costs of incandescent light because there are already many
restrictions on development in the area, owners share special
costs for being part of the historic area, and the street
lighting is part of the public realm;
Clause No. 2 Continued
- while considering the Power Smart program in 1983, Council
decided that all historic beautification should remain
incandescent unless otherwise requested by the community, and
Gastown has certainly not requested a change at this time;
- there is considerable frustration in the community on having to
revisit the issue of incandescent light again and again;
- there was concern that some businesses in the area would not
want to pay more to maintain its historic character, and the
number of business and residents is so small that a very small
number of people could control outcome of this issue and undo
all the work which has gone into maintaining the heritage area;
- there may be other ways of achieving savings, or of making
additional money outside the question of fluorescent or
incandescent lights;
- it was noted the acorn fixture from the 1920s and the 79AR
fixture from the 1940s are still working fine, whereas the
antique reproduction fixtures from the 1970s have operating
problems;
- the change in Gastown lighting would make the area much less
attractive to the film industry which appreciates its look;
- seeing the two types of fixtures indoors, on far shorter poles,
without typical atmospheric conditions is not a fair comparison;
- what will happen if the technology of fluorescent light changes
in such a way that available lighting is less similar;
- the community believes the light must be appropriate to the
historic area, and while there is no question that the colour of
the proposed fluorescent light source is better, it is still not
the same as incandescent since there is far more to lighting
than simple colour rendition;
Clause No. 2 Continued
- an example of a change to fluorescent lighting in a heritage
interior, which completely changed the building ambience, was
cited;
- some peoples' health is unduly effected by fluorescent light;
- Vancouver has an international reputation for going further with
its heritage areas, and there is concern that other heritage
features are not standard and this change might prove to be the
thin edge of the wedge; and
- if the issue here is cost, the City should approach the
Provincial Government for contribution since this is a
Provincially designated area benefitting the entire region.
The Committee also received letters from the Vancouver Heritage
Commission dated March 28, 1996, and Heritage Vancouver dated March 27,
1996, supporting D and E (on file).
Some members felt there is a commitment to this area, and Council
should honour its commitment and retain the incandescent lighting.
However, the majority felt Council mandate to cut costs also needs to be
honoured, and it would not be inappropriate to go back to area business
and see if they are willing to contribute to the cost. Judging by the
examples presented, there is not a drastic difference in the appearance
of the two light sources.
The following motions by Councillor Hemer were put and CARRIED.
Therefore the Committee
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT Engineering Services in consultation with Community
Services and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee
(GHAPC) prepare a long range lighting plan for Gastown,
including measures to reduce operating costs.
B. THAT Staff proceed with the Council approved 1994 Operating
Budget cut of $41,000 per year for Gastown Lighting.
Clause No. 2 Continued
C. THAT the affected property owners be surveyed for report back
to Council on whether to:
- proceed with a lighting conversion from incandescent to a
fluorescent source at an estimated annual savings of $41,000;
OR
- retain the existing incandescent lighting with the estimated
annual additional cost assessed against the property owners
through the local improvement process.
(Councillors Kennedy, Kwan and Price opposed to B and C)
* * * * *
The Committee adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
* * * * *