CITY OF VANCOUVER
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, October 19, 1995, at 5:20 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, Chair
Councillors Bellamy, Chiavario, Clarke, Hemer,
Ip, Kwan, Price, Puil and Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Kennedy (Leave of Absence)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE:
Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK: Nancy Largent
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of the Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
October 19, 1995
The Council considered the recommendations of the Committee as
contained in the following clauses of the attached report:
COMMITTEE REPORT (CONT'D)
Report of the Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
October 19, 1995
Cl.1 Transit Priority Program
Cl.2 Special Needs Residential Facility
2618 Garden Drive Development
Application No. DE 400228
Transit Priority Program
(Clause 1)
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the recommendations of the Committee, as set out in Clause 1
of the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED
(Councillor Price opposed to Recommendation E)
Special Needs Residential Facility
2618 Garden Drive Development
Application No. DE 400228
(Clause 2)
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the recommendation of the Committee, as set out in Clause 2 of
the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
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. Hemer,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * * * * * * * *
The Council adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
REPORT TO COUNCIL
STANDING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
ON PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
OCTOBER 19, 1995
A meeting of the Standing Committee of Council on Planning and
Environment was held on Thursday, October 19, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., in
Committee Room No. 1, Third Floor, City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Owen, Chair
Councillor Bellamy
Councillor Chiavario
Councillor Clarke
Councillor Hemer
Councillor Ip
Councillor Kwan
Councillor Price
Councillor Puil
Councillor Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Kennedy (Leave of Absence)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE:
Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK: Nancy Largent
Recorded Vote
Unless otherwise indicated, votes of the Committee on all items are
unanimous.
1. Transit Priority Program File: 5551-2
The Committee had before it an Administrative Report dated
September 18, 1995 (on file), describing a proposal by the Vancouver
Regional Transit Commission to coordinate a region-wide transit priority
program, including details on types of transit priority measures and
their benefits, suggested legislative changes and funding arrangements.
Many of the ideas contained within the Transit Report are consistent
with regional and city policies, and the General Manager of Engineering
Services, in consultation with Chief Constable, recommended support for
the proposal with reservations as reflected in recommendations A through
E of this report. These included Council retaining the right to approve
and implement individual projects in the City, public consultation,
establishment of a staff Advisory Committee, and a recommendation that
B.C. Transit police not enforce traffic regulations in the City.
Mr. Wayne Pledger, Transit Engineer, reviewed the proposal and
recommendations, stressing that Council should retain the right to
approve and implement individual projects in Vancouver. Staff have
difficulties with an expanded role for Transit police, and the City has
sufficient resources to support its own By-Law. If further resources
are required the Province should be requested to fund additional City
police. Community consultation is also not addressed by the Transit
proposal as part of the implementation process. With these caveats, the
B.C. Transit proposal is otherwise a good idea toward meeting City and
Regional goals.
Mr. Pledger also drew to the Committee's attention an October 18,
1995 communication from Mr. John Whistler (on file), Chair, Bicycle
Advisory Committee, addressing the shared use of HOV lanes with
cyclists. It is the Bicycle Advisory Committee's position that cyclists
can safely share any HOV lanes that may be implemented in the City of
Vancouver. The Committee requested the opportunity to further review
this issue, in particular when plans are made for specific HOV lanes.
Mr. Harley Glesby, South Granville Merchants Association, addressed
traffic measures for South Granville referenced in the B.C. Transit
proposal. The parking situation in South Granville is already a
problem, and if the measures envisioned were implemented it would cause
serious depletion of parking resources with a severe negative impact on
area businesses. Alternative routes were proposed.
Clause No. 1 Continued
Mr. Bryan Pratt, Granville Street area businessmen, reiterated
concerns about parking in the South Granville area. A considerable
portion of adjacent parking has recently been designated resident
parking only without consultation with the merchants. Mr. Pratt favored
a friendly streetscape over a quasi-freeway on Granville Street.
Ms. Deianna Armitage, Marpole area resident, noted businesses in
the Marpole area have been badly impacted by the implementation of an
HOV lane. Noting there may be a ripple affect from any measures taking
place on Granville, Ms. Armitage requested broad community consultation
including the Marpole area before creating new problems elsewhere.
In response to queries, Mr. Pledger assured the Committee that no
measures outlined in the B.C. Transit proposal are final at this stage.
Mr. Pledger also responded to questions concerning the public
consultation process and the recommendation not to use B.C. Transit
Police.
The Committee felt it would be necessary to deal diligently with
B.C. Transit with respect to the Transit Priority program, but was
prepared to support the recommendations of the General Manager of
Engineering Services. The rapid growth of Downtown and the suburbs, the
expected increase in traffic to the airport, and other factors make it
essential to create a process which can address the coming changes. The
majority of members also felt it would be inappropriate to have a City
By-Law enforced by the B.C. Transit Police, particularly since the City,
unlike other municipalities, owns its own streets. The public
consultation process was viewed as critical, and must be genuine and
broadly based. It was suggested placement of shelters and the need to
provide for garbage created by bus stops should also be reviewed.
The following motions by Councillor Clarke were put and CARRIED.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT Council support the proposal that BC Transit co-ordinate
a program leading to the implementation of transit priority
measures in the Region, while retaining the right to approve
and implement individual projects in the City.
Clause No. 1 Continued
B. THAT the General Manager of Engineering Services report back
to Council for approval of individual projects as they proceed
including process, community consultation, cost sharing and
implementation arrangements.
C. THAT the consultation process include residents and commercial
businesses directly affected by any bus/HOV lane proposals.
D. THAT BC Transit be requested to form a Staff Advisory
Committee, including representatives from the GVRD and member
cities, to review and advise BC Transit on project priorities,
cost sharing and other matters common to the proposed Program.
E. THAT BC Transit and the Attorney General be advised that City
Council does not support BC Transit Police enforcing traffic
regulations in the City.
(Councillor Price opposed to Recommendation E)
* * * * * * * *
The Committee adjourned at 3 p.m. and reconvened immediately in the
Council Chamber to hear the remaining item.
* * * * * * * *
2. Special Needs Residential Facility
2618 Garden Drive Development
Application No. DE 400228 File: 4653-2
The B.C. Housing Management Commission has requested permission to
use the existing building at 2618 Garden Drive as a Special Needs
Residential Facility (SNRF) providing short term, voluntary resident
care for a maximum of 6 street youths of Aboriginal ancestry, aged 6 to
18 years. The Committee had before it an Administrative Report dated
October 3, 1995 (on file), in which the Director of Land Use and
Development sought Council's advice on the matter in view of the
significant negative response received from neighbouring propertyowners.
Clause No. 2 Continued
The existing building conforms with all regulations contained
within RS-1S District schedule and on-site parking would be adequate.
The Garden Drive location would be the City's second "Safe House" for
youth; a similar house on Walden Street, in Riley Park has been opened
for two years without causing significant problems for the
neighbourhood. A Safe House for Aboriginal youth has been identified as
a high priority by the Inter-Ministerial Street Children's Committee.
This proposal also meets the SNRF guidelines including location
guidelines. Therefore, the Director of Land Use and Development was
supportive of the development application being approved for a period of
one year, subject to the naming of a neighbourhood liaison person.
Ms. Lynne Rippon, Manager of Development Applications, confirmed
this application meets the requisite guidelines and offers sufficient
parking. However, given the neighbourhood opposition, the Director of
Planning is seeking Council's advice.
Ms. Anne Kloppenborg, Social Planner, discussed the background as
the application, noting there are no short term facilities available for
youth other than the Walden Street Safe House previously referenced.
The Walden Street facility is identical to the proposed Garden Drive
facility, and the same concerns were raised prior to its approval
including concerns for young children, vandalism, crime, traffic
concerns, neighbourhood disruption etc. These fears have not been borne
out by subsequent complaints, and the police have no concerns regarding
this Safe House after two years of operation. Ms. Kloppenborg believed
Garden Drive could also operate without causing problems and expected
the new facility would maintain a pro-active role and two-way
communication with the neighbourhood.
The following speakers appeared in support of the application:
Mr. Jerry Adams, Urban Native Youth Association
Mr. Jerry Mignault, Ministry of Social Services
Mr. Christopher Graham, Co-Ordinator of the
Walden Street Safe House.
Mr. Bert Isaac, Urban Native Youth Association
Outreach worker.
Clause No. 2 Continued
Following are some of the reasons put forward in support of the
application:
- 70-80% of street youth are Aboriginal and this program is
very badly needed;
- This is a voluntary program for youth wanting to get off
the streets, and it is neither a detention home nor a
half-way house;
- The proposed facility will assist motivated youth to move
from the streets safely and to obtain needed referrals
and caregivers;
- This proposal was initiated approximately 4 years ago by
a committee made up of young people, youth workers and
the Ministry of Social Services, and the youth have had
input into the concept and many of the regulations;
- The Walden Street Safe House has been a very successful
program and has integrated well into the neighbourhood;
- Particulars of the proposed Garden Drive and the Walden
Street operations were described;
- These kids are being abused and are in need of help.
The following opposed approval of the application:
Mr. Glen Sherman, Garden Drive Action Initiative (GDAI)
Ms. Josie Forshaw, GDAI
Mr. Peter Fox, GDAI
Ms. Clemie Hoshino, GDAI
Mr. Hikmat Alsayagh, GDAI
Mr. Bev Sherman, GDAI, brief filed
Mr. Mike Olson, GDAI
Ms. Barbara Storch
Ms. Winnie Chow
Mr. Shek W. Yu
Mrs.Peter Fox
Clause No. 2 Continued
Following are some of the reasons put forward by opponents of the
application:
- The speakers generally concurred with the need for a facility
of this type, but objected to its placement in this particular
neighbourhood;
- The Walden Street operation may be similar to that proposed
for Garden Drive, but the neighbourhoods and sites are not
comparable;
- This facility is expected to operate 24 hours a day and there
will be consequent traffic, noise, neighbourhood disruptions,
disturbances of the peace late at night, and similar concerns;
- Concerns were expressed for the peace of mind and safety of
elderly residents and children living the area;
- Garden Drive is a well established, community-minded
neighbourhood with a high degree of mutual trust and a high
proportion of resident owners;
- There are already pressures on the neighbourhood from another
facility located at 2212 East 11th Street, as well as the
proximity of the Skytrain Station;
- Because of its 24 hour short-term nature, this program should
be placed in a more commercial area, perhaps a house on a
corner adjacent to businesses or other day uses where there
would be less likelihood of disturbance;
- The new vision of an ideal City captures a small town feel of
ideal neighbourhoods where people all know each other, which
is presently an apt description of Garden Drive, a very stable
family-oriented neighbourhood. Up to 300 children a year may
be brought into the neighbourhood by this facility who will
have to walk through the neighbourhood in order to get to
Skytrain and will disrupt the neighbourhood's character;
- There may be other street youth turning up, who are not
committed to the program, but are hanging around their
acquaintances who have left the street;
- Other houses located adjacent to group homes have been
vandalized;
- The Youth Detox facility located at 2212 East 11th expresses
similar objectives to those of the Garden Street proposal, and
has resulted in disruption to the neighbourhood;
Clause No. 2 Continued
- The Walden Street site differs from the Garden Drive site in
that there are more rental accommodations in the area and the
facility only borders on one other residential property, the
lot is larger, and there is more square footage, making it a
better location. In addition, Walden Drive has more direct
access to closer transit;
- Security and the sense of community trust will be diminished;
- It would be unfair to give only a 1 year interim approval
because expenses will be involved to utilize the building for
this purpose, therefore, the time to say no is now;
- There have been negative changes to the neighbourhood since
the advent of Skytrain, including many young panhandlers,
garbage piling up, and other concerns related to Broadway and
Commercial Drive. This previously safe neighbourhood feels
under siege;
- 95% of the neighbours are opposed to the facility and it
should not be forced upon the neighbourhood.
Ms. Kloppenborg and Dr. Penny Parry, Child and Youth Advocate,
responded to a variety of questions from the Committee. In general,
looking at the history of group homes across the City, there have been
no more complaints associated with areas having group homes than other
areas of the City. Typically the experience has not been problematic.
With respect to complaints regarding 2212 East 11th Avenue, staff were
not aware of its location in the neighbourhood until this process began.
It is a legal use under the zoning and no public process was required.
The model followed by Youth Detox houses was described. This facility
has two beds; some of the disturbances cited in connection with the
house actually pertained to a basement suite tenant. The police have
not received complaints concerning such houses on a regular basis;
however, there is no coherent method for funnelling all complaints to
one place. Ms. Kloppenborg, Dr. Parry, and Mr. Graham responded to
various queries regarding the operation of Safe Houses which would
address concerns raised by the delegations. It was also noted that
there are bus routes between 1 and 1 1/2 blocks from the proposed site,
and not all trips to and from the neighbourhood would involve the long
walk to Skytrain.
The Committee was sympathetic to concerns raised by the
neighbourhood but was confidant the Safe House would not cause the
problems envisioned. There are numerous Special Needs Residential
Facilities of all kinds in all types of neighbourhoods throughout the
City, and past practise has shown that they do not cause the
Clause No. 2 Continued
expected problems. Council must balance the needs of different sectors
of society, and this facility would meet a serious need, and provide
opportunities for kids who would not otherwise have choices. Therefore,
the Committee expressed willingness to support the application.
The Committee also acknowledged that difficulties have been created
in the neighbourhood by the Skytrain Station. Council is monitoring
this situation, and is not prepared to accept the deterioration of the
neighbourhood as a consequence of its presence.
Inlight of the neighbourhood's concerns, the Committee felt it
would be appropriate to approve the application for a 1 year term, as
usual, and also to obtain a status report from staff following 6 months.
The following motion by Mayor Owen was put and CARRIED. Therefore,
the Committee
RECOMMENDED
THAT the Director of Land Use & Development be advised
that Council would favour approval of the proposed
Special Needs Residential Facility at 2618 Garden Drive,
submitted under DE400228, for the period of one year, subject to
the naming of a neighbourhood liaison person, and that staff
provide a status report on the facility after 6 months.
* * * * * *
The Committee adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
* * * * * *