Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of the Community Services Group RECOMMENDS Approval of the forgoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no direct Council Policy. However, there are 3 existing relevant Council liquor license moratorium policies that must be considered during the application review process. These three moratorium areas are; Downtown Eastside. Gastown, and Downtown Granville South.

City Council on November 6, 1990, approved the following moratorium policy for the Downtown Eastside and Gastown:

On May 28, 1992, Vancouver City Council approved the following liquor licensing policy for the Downtown South:

PURPOSE & SUMMARY

This report provides Council with an update on the current Provincial Liquor Review, recommends Council approval of the proposed liquor application process for Person Capacity Increases for Class `A' Hotel lounges/pubs, Class `C' cabarets, Class `D' neighbourhood pubs, and Class `F' marine pubs, reaffirms the existing moratorium areas of Gastown, the Downtown Eastside, and Downtown Granville South by recommendingCouncil not endorse Person Capacity increases in either these areas or in neighbourhoods in the immediate vicinity, and establish fees for all applications eligible for further processing.

The provincial policy on Person Capacity Increases was approved by Cabinet in the late spring of 1999. On March 15, 2002 the Provincial Government announced significant additional changes to the provincial liquor licensing policies and regulations. Staff have few details concerning the implementation of these changes and the expected role of local governments in that process and are unsure what, if any, impact these changes will have on the Province's Person Capacity Increase policy for Pubs, Lounges and Cabarets or the Designated Food Optional seat policy for Restaurants. Staff feel that Council should proceed with this report as any provincial changes will likely take a number of months and it is unclear if this process will be affected by the most recent proposal.

A number of recommendations were made to the Provincial Government as a result of the Surich Provincial Liquor Review. During this review Council and staff acknowledged a number of key concerns to the Provincial Government. The three most significant concerns; the need to increase alcohol treatment and support resources, the total impact on policing costs and the responsibility of municipal government, still remain unaddressed by the Provincial Government.

In establishing the present one time only Person Capacity Increase policy, the Province did address another municipal concern: that there be municipal input into the review of such increases. As part of the Person Capacity Increase process and the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch's invitation to apply for the "bulk process" Person Capacity Increase, the City of Vancouver received 80 applications. An additional 5 applications were subsequently received for individual processing.

Staff informed all applicants in writing of the initial processing fee and the additional information required to process their applications. Staff then sorted the applications into a number of separate categories. These categories are reflected in recommendations "A" through "I". Staff are recommending that Council reaffirm the three existing Council Moratorium areas, the Downtown Eastside, Gastown, and Downtown Granville South by not endorsing any Person Capacity Increases in these areas (Appendix A, B, and C respectively). Staff are also proposing that applications in the two geographic areas directly adjacent to the moratorium areas, Chinatown/Strathcona (as shown in Appendix D) and Southeast Granville Slopes - Residential/Mixed Use Area (as shown in Appendix E), not be endorsed.

It must be stressed that the wording of the three recommendations reaffirming the existing moratorium areas would result in true moratorium areas within the very narrowly defined scope of the provincial person capacity increase process. That is, only existing businessesapplying for a capacity increase under the terms provided in the Surich Liquor Policy Review would be included in the reaffirmed moratorium areas and therefore denied the privilege to make such an application to the province and/or city. As a result, staff do not feel that an extensive public input process is necessary for the initial implementation of these true moratoria. Furthermore, the Provincial legislation requires the municipality to conduct a Public Hearing every year to formally renew each moratorium area (this requirement should be sufficient to address any need for subsequent public consultation, also the moratoria are consistent with the existing, broader Council Moratorium policy for each area.

Staff are proposing a modified Public Consultation and processing procedure (outlined in Appendix G) for those applications able to proceed as part of the Provincial Government's bulk process policy. Due to the liquor license policy developed for the much of the Downtown peninsula, staff are recommending that these areas be processed individually in the latter stages of this review, particularly the Theatre Row area. The complexity of the policy for Theatre Row and the history associated with the various applications in the District, compels staff to leave the review all applications in the area to the end of this process so that the report can be presented to Council as concisely and clearly as possible. Other applications not able to be included in the bulk process will be processed individually in accordance with the standard liquor license applications procedure (the standard processing fees would also apply).

BACKGROUND

On November 13th, 1998, the Provincial Government announced a thorough review of liquor regulations and policies which would be conducted by Mr. Joe Surich of Transformation Solutions. This initial review was completed in early 1999 with input mainly from the liquor industry along with a public consultation process focussed on Licenses and Municipal Government throughout the Province.

City staff had met with Mr. Surich on a number of occasions to provide input into the process and Council adopted 14 specific recommendation in January of 1999 which were subsequently forwarded to the Province. Two special Vancouver Liquor Licensing Commission meetings on April 27th and May 5th, 1999 also provided City of Vancouver public input which was forwarded to the Province.

The key concerns which were identified are:

Council also expressed support for:

The Surich recommendations were released on April 13th, 1999 and considered by Cabinet in the spring of 1999. The final document was changed in two key areas: municipal input was required for increased seating to fire capacity in pubs, lounges, cabarets and neighbourhood pubs, and straight drinking seats in restaurants. This change was very important as it provided an opportunity for local government to mitigate impacts from increased liquor license seating.

Over the past few years, the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch has been implementing the Surich recommendations. This process included a UBCM (LCLB) working group to provide comments and advice on the implementation process from a local government perspective. These recommendations are then forwarded to an Advisory Panel made up of industry representatives, LCLB, Mr. Surich and UBCM. To date, the following changes have been implemented:

These changes have generally been positive with the key change being the control of rice wine sales. This particular regulation has eliminated most of the problems related to rice wine sales in the Downtown Eastside. However, the $5 rule applied to food sales in conjunction with alcohol consumption has done little to reduce the number of restaurants operating outside their license classification.

Staff note that three significant concerns expressed by Council during the Provincial Liquor Review remain outstanding and unresolved:

All of the above concerns could place a serious financial burden for the City of Vancouver and its residents. The uncertainty surrounding the above concerns means that it is not possible to determine at this time the extent of this potential financial burden. Furthermore, staff are unsure what impact the provincial job cuts will have on license processing or the new enforcement program, including the status of the newly created positions.

On March 15, 2002 the Provincial Government announced significant changes to the provincial liquor licensing policies and regulations. Staff have few details concerning the implementation of these changes and the expected role of local governments in that process. Subsequently, staff are unsure what impact those changes shall have on the Province's Person Capacity Increase policy for Pubs, Lounges and Cabarets or the Designated Food Optional seat policy for Restaurants.

DISCUSSION

The two key current items of work for staff are the evaluation and reporting to Council of the DFO and PCI applications. In November 2000, the LCLB sent out notification to all affected licenses that they could apply for DFO and PCI but that a response was required by December 15, 2000 for the bulk process. This bulk process is a one-time expedited application procedure which would allow municipal government's to process applications in batches. The LCLB would then generally approve these applications if supported by a municipal resolution. These applications were then forwarded to the municipalities on January 17, 2001. To date, the city has received 85 applications ( 80 of bulk process and 5of individual applications) for person capacity increases and 55 applications for restaurant DFO seats.

Designated Food Optional Seats

Under the new regulations, existing restaurants may apply for an area allocated to DFO seating of 10% of the existing restaurant seating, up to a maximum of 20 seats. These seats may be used similar to pub seats with no food requirements and must be physically defined as separate from the general restaurant seats.

The LCLB sent out a notification in December 2000 to all restaurants with a liquor license in the province. Licensees were provided with a window of opportunity to apply in the City of Vancouver for DFO seating. These applications were then forwarded to Municipal Government.

There has been a limited response to this proposal as witnessed by the total of 55 applications received to date out of approximately 950 possible applications. Although these applications were received in early 2001, there has not been significant pressure from the industry to have these applications approved. Staff speculate that many restaurants operate as if they have DFO seating and therefore see little benefit in completing the application process. Furthermore, to date there has been little substantial enforcement against restaurants operating outside their license classification. Therefore, there is little incentive for restaurants to change their mode of operation or apply for the DFO seating. In fact, 15 applications have been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

Due to staff resources and, more importantly, the high probability that combining the issues would be extremely complicated and difficult to explain to the general public, staff recommend that the DFO and PCI applications not be processed at the same time. Staff suggest proceeding with the PCI issue first and upon completion, begin processing the DFO applications.

Person Capacity Increases

Under the new regulations, existing Class "A" Lounges/Pub, Class "C" Cabaret, Class "D" Neighbourhood Pub, and Class "F" Marine Pub establishments are able to make a one-time application to increase the existing liquor seating capacity to the lessor of the existing building capacity or by 50% of the existing liquor seating capacity. As stated previously, the LCLB notified all Licensees in these classes of the new regulations for capacity increases. The subsequent applications were then forwarded to Municipal Government in February 2001. The City has received the following applications:

All PCI applicants have been contacted and notified of the application requirements including the initial processing fee of $375.00. To date, 34 applicants have submitted most or all of the required documentation and the initial processing fee. Therefore, staff are able to proceed with a preliminary assessment of those applications.

Staff are presently evaluating the individual proposals and will be bringing these applications forward for consideration by Council in the near future. This work includes a comparison of the current liquor capacity against the occupant load from the Fire Department and the maximum patron capacity permitted by the Health and Building By-law regulations. Staff are requiring when applicable, new capacity certification based on today's bylaw. This task has proved to be very onerous as the records for many of the older establishments are either incomplete or out of date. In fact, in a few cases, it appears that the existing or revised fire capacity is less than the current liquor capacity.

Local Government Liquor License Moratorium Policy/Authority

As the authority for liquor licensing is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government through the Liquor Control Act, municipal governments do not have the authority to establish a moratorium on liquor licensing matters. True moratoriums can only be imposed if the provincial government passes that particular authority down to local governments.

Without this provincial authority, municipal governments can only create Council policy which defines a city position with respect to particular liquor licensing issues or applications. This policy could be in the form of a moratorium. However, even if an application is contrary to Council's moratorium policy the city would remain obligated to provide the municipality's opinion in the form of a Council Resolution. Therefore, any city initiated moratorium liquor licensing policy is not a true moratorium in that it will not stop liquor license applications from being submitted at some future date. Should Council chose not to comment on a particular application then the province may process the application without considering the views the city and all relevant Council policy.

The existing Council moratoriums on new liquor licenses or amendments to existing liquor licenses in Gastown and the Downtown Eastside are examples of Council initiated moratoria that do not have any associated provincial authority. As a result these moratoriums are in reality, simply Council policy stating that Council will not support these types of liquor license applications. This Council policy provides the framework for staff to review the proposal and make recommendations to Council on any subsequent application. Until the provincial authority to implement moratorium areas is granted to the municipalities, any Council initiated policy related to Liquor Licensing issues shall be open to challenge through the application process as staff do not have the authority to refuse acceptance of applications within the moratorium areas.

Provincial Moratorium Policy

It is important to note that the Provincial Liquor Review process allows Council to designate an area of the City as a high impact area and therefore establish a policy of refusing person capacity increase applications based on community impacts.

Should Council approve the creation of the moratorium areas in accordance with the provincial regulations, then the area would function as a true moratorium area within the narrow scope of these Person Capacity Increase (PCI) applications. Once the 60 day waiting period had passed the Provincial Government would not be able to accept any PCI applications from the establishments within that area. Consequently, the City of Vancouver would also not be obligated to accept any PCI applications from businesses within this area.

Council's approval of the three moratorium areas recommended in the report would only apply to the one time only Person Capacity Increase applications in these areas and not to any other type of application. However, Council's overall moratorium policy for each specific area would still apply to other types of applications.

Due to the existing Council moratoria for Gastown, Downtown Eastside, and Downtown Granville South, staff do not feel that a public input process is necessary for the initial implementation of the provincially recognized moratoria for these areas.

The provincial regulations require that the moratorium resolution be renewed annually through the municipal Public Hearing process. Unfortunately, this requirement places a significant burden on Council in terms of time and resources should Council wish to retain the formal moratorium (i.e. maintain the ability to refuse acceptance of these specific applications at both the municipal and provincial level). Again, the effectiveness of the true moratorium is limited by the fact that it only pertains to applicants seeking a Person Capacity Increase as proposed in the Provincial Liquor Review. However, there is still a substantialbenefit gained by setting Council policy on this issue and with respect to these areas, even if the provincial moratorium is not formally renewed.

Reaffirm the Existing Council Moratorium Areas of Gastown, the Downtown Eastside & Downtown Granville South

Staff recommend that Council reaffirm the existing moratorium areas of Gastown, the Downtown Eastside, and Downtown Granville South by NOT endorsing any Person Capacity Increase applications in these districts. The existing moratorium areas were primarily created to address the disproportionate number of social issues and the high concentration of liquor seats in the areas relative to the rest of the city. These issues are still relevant today. The growing residential component of these three areas only compounds staff concerns with increasing each area's permanent liquor licensed seating capacity.

Residential Neighbourhoods Adjacent to the Moratorium Areas

Staff are proposing that applications for the one time only Person Capacity Increases not be endorsed for the neighbourhoods adjacent to the moratorium areas [the Chinatown/Strathcona area (adjacent to the existing DTES and Gastown Moratorium Areas) and the Southeast Granville Slopes - Residential/Mixed Use area (adjacent to the Downtown Granville South Moratorium Area] because the rationale for establishing the adjacent moratorium policy area is also relevant to these areas. This staff position is only applicable to applications submitted through the PCI process and that all other types of liquor license applications (new or amendments to existing licenses) would not be affected by this policy.

Chinatown/Strathcona Area Adjacent to Gastown and Downtown Eastside Moratorium Areas

Staff are proposing that the area as outlined on the map included in Appendix D referred to as the Chinatown/Strathcona Area not be considered as suitable for Person Capacity Increases.

Staff are proposing this position against the Person Capacity Increase applications in the area be supported because of the following concerns /objectives;

Southeast Granville Slopes - Residential/Mixed Use Area adjacent to Downtown Granville South Moratorium Area

Staff are proposing that the area as outlined on the map included in Appendix E, referred to as the Southeast Granville Slopes - Residential/Mixed Use Area, not be considered as suitable for Person Capacity Increases.

Staff are proposing this position against the Person Capacity Increase applications in the area be supported because of the following concerns/objectives:

The problems associated with the incompatibility of these uses are a source of frustration for all concerned parties; area residents, club owners/operators, the Vancouver police Department, City Council and city staff. This incompatibility was one of the primary reasons for the creation of the Downtown Granville South Moratorium area. Many of these problems are a drain on city resources and not easily resolved. The best possible solution acceptable to all parties concerned appears to be the continued encouragement for the relocation of the clubs out of the emerging residential neighbourhoods.
Process for Person Capacity Increase Applications

Upon completion of the preliminary review of the applications to determine initial eligibility, staff have now grouped these applications for the purpose of making recommendations to Council.

The eligible applications have been grouped by geographic area (Appendix H) in order to assess the overall neighbourhood impacts (Refer to Appendix G for details on the proposed procedure). Staff are recommending that the following applications be processed as follows:

.

It should be noted that it is possible for any application to be included in one or more of the above categories. However, staff have chosen to list each application once and only in the most serious and appropriate category.

Proposed Public Consultation & Processing Procedure

Staff are seeking Council's approval on the proposed Public Consultation and Processing Procedure, described below, in order to efficiently review the Person Capacity Increase applications submitted for the `bulk process'. The following procedure is outlined in a flow chart provided in Appendix G and is generally outlined as follows:

To efficiently and effectively review all the Person Capacity Increase applications in a timely manner, staff are recommending that the City be divided into 9 separate processing areas (excluding the 3 recommended moratorium areas): Kingsway, Hastings/Grandview, Kitsilano, Marpole, West End, CBD, Chinatown/Strathcona, Southeast Granville Slopes -Residential/Mixed Use, and Theatre Row. See Appendix F for a map of these areas.

Staff are recommending that these neighbourhoods be processed in the following order:

Staff recommend starting with the Kingsway and Hastings/Grandview areas as this area has a cross-section of most liquor license categories and does not have a large number of applications. Staff feel that their combination will provide a reasonable, live trial run for the proposed procedure. The area is also beneficial given the relatively simple Council policies.That is, most applications could be assessed on their own merit and the results of each notification. Staff have applied the same rationale in determining the processing order for the remaining neighbourhoods. The downtown peninsula neighbourhoods are scheduled later, due to the level of liquor license Council policy that must be considered as part of the application review.

Upon completion of the Neighbourhood Notification, each application will be discussed specifically , have a separate distinct recommendation, and will be presented in the same report to Council. Excluded in the final report for each neighbourhood will be those applications required to proceed to a Public Meeting. These applications will require a separate report to Council.

Theatre Row

Staff recommend that the Theatre Row area applications be the last area reviewed/processed because of the complex liquor licensing policies for the district and the area's history for the existing liquor license approvals.

There are a number of policies for the Theatre Row District that will have a significant impact on staff review of these applications. Staff also feel that it may be possible to provide the Council update report on the Theatre Row Entertainment District at the same time staff comment on the Person Capacity Increase applications.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommend reaffirming the existing moratorium areas having considered current relevant Council policy for each particular area. The proposed public consultation and processing procedure should adequately gather the often divergent views of all the interested parties in a timely and cost effective manner, thereby permitting staff to assess each application on its on merits within the context of any relevant Council policy.

This report has been prepared to explain and develop "macro" policy to guide staff in the processing of the Provincial Government's Person Capacity Increase policy for the City of Vancouver. The concepts presented are analysing the PCI policy on a "global", city wide scale. It is not intended, nor would it be suitable at this point in time, to provide a forum by which applicants can argue the merits of their particular application in front of Council.

Finally, staff acknowledge the recently announced changes to Liquor Licensing by the Provincial Government but suggest that Council should proceed with the processing of this report for a number of reasons:

* * * * *

pe020221.htm

APPENDIX A

Downtown Eastside Moratorium Area

APPENDIX B
Gastown Moratorium Area


APPENDIX G

APPLICATIONS AS LISTED IN RECOMMENDATIONS A, B, and C - BY NEIGHBOURHOOD

NEIGHBOURHOOD

ESTABLISHMENT NAME

ESTABLISHMENT OWNER

ADDRESS

LIQUOR LICENSE CLASS

Kingsway

Club Paradise

594086 BC Ltd.

315 East Broadway

`C' Cabaret

 

Krazy Kangaroo Pub

Horusgo Enterprises Ltd.

7725 Champlain Crescent

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Silvertone pub

630348 BC Ltd.

2733 Commercial Dr

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood Pub

Corona Management Corporation

3728 Clark Dr

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Elephant Walk

Jak Investments Ltd. & Andrew Investments Ltd.

1445 East 41st Ave

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

Hastings/Grandview

Avanti's Pub

Avanti's Pub Inc.

1601 Commercial Dr

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

Kitsilano

Daddyo's

601539 BC Ltd.

1236 W Broadway

`C' Cabaret

 

Bridges

Jalm Holdings Ltd.

1696 Duranleau St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Granville Island Hotel - The Creek Brew Pub

Rayman Investments & Management Inc.

1253 Johnston St

`A' Pub

 

Darby D Dawes

Linked Investments Ltd.

2001 MacDonald St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Stamps Landing Neighbourhood Pub

Stamps Landing Neighbourhood Pub Ltd.

610 Stamps Landing

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Plaza 500

Plaza 500 Hotels Ltd.

500 W 12th Ave

`A' Pub

 

Bimini Neighbourhood Pub

Aztec Properties Company Ltd.

2018 W 4th Ave

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

Marpole

Fraser Arms Hotel

3716 Investments Ltd.

1450 SW Marine Dr

`A' Pub

 

Fraser Arms Hotel

3716 Investments Ltd.

1450 SW Marine Dr

`A' Lounge

 

Fraser Arms Hotel

3716 Investments Ltd.

1450 SW Marine Dr

`C' Cabaret

NEIGHBOURHOOD

ESTABLISHMENT NAME

ESTABLISHMENT OWNER

ADDRESS

LIQUOR LICENSE CLASS

Marpole (cont'd)

Coast Vancouver Airport Hotel

Vancouver Airport Hotel Limited

1041 SW Marine Dr

`A' Lounge

 

The Wild Coyote

Cruz Ventures Ltd.

1312 SW Marine Dr

`C' Cabaret

West End

Fountainhead Pub

The Fountainhead Pub Ltd.

1025 Davie St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Doll & Penny's Café

Doll & Penny's Café Ltd.

1167 Davie St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Oasis Pub

Oasis Restaurants Ltd.

1240 Thurlow St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Celebrities

Keran Holdings Ltd.

1022 Davie St

`C' Cabaret

CBD

Live Bait Yacht & Marine Pub

Coal Harbour Restaurant Inc.

1583 Coal Harbour Quay

`F' Marine Pub

 

St. Regis Hotel - Legend's

St. Regis Investments Ltd.

602 Dunsmuir St

`A' Lounge

 

Terminal City Club

Terminal City Club Inc.

888 W Cordova St

`A' Pub

   

Mark Warren James

337 W Pender St

`C' Cabaret

 

St. Regis Hotel - Gotham's Steakhouse

St. Regis Investments Ltd.

602 Dunsmuir St

`A' Pub

   

Allan Lai

88 W Pender St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Pan Pacific Vancouver Hotel

Tokyu Canada Corporation

300 - 999 Canada Pl

`A' Lounge

Theatre Row

Lennox Pub

O'Kool's Irish Pub Inc.

800 Granville St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

 

Commodore Ballroom & Restaurant

530077 BC Ltd.

870 Granville St

`C' Cabaret

 

Plaza Cabaret

The Plaza Cabaret Ltd.

881 Granville St

`C' Cabaret

   

490811 BC Ltd.

900 Granville St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

   

Pravda Enterprises Limited Partnership

952 Granville St

`D' Neighbourhood Pub

APPENDIX I

Chinatown/Strathcona Area Current Patron Capacity by Establishment

Source: License+ Business License Database 2002

pe020221.htm

APPENDIX J

Southeast Granville Slopes - Residential/Mixed Use Area

Current Patron Capacity by Establishment

Source: License+ Business License Database 2002

pe020221.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver