2
CITY OF VANCOUVER
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, July 25, 1996, at 4:50 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, Chiavario, Hemer, Ip,
Kennedy, Price, Puil and Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Clarke (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Kwan (Leave of Absence)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK TO THE COUNCIL: Nancy Largent
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
VARY ORDER OF AGENDA
The order of agenda was varied to deal with unfinished business
first.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Reorganization of the Information
Technology Function File: 1006-3
Councillor Puil noted that at the Standing Committee on City
Services and Budgets Committee meeting earlier this day, the Committee
had not made a decision on recommendations before it dealing with
reorganization of the Information Technology function. To correct this
oversight, it was
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT the recommendation of the Corporate Management Team, as
contained in the Administrative Report dated July 8, 1996, be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
July 25, 1996
Council considered the recommendations of the Committee, as
contained in the following clauses of the attached report:
Cl. 1: Demolition of Nuisance/Dangerous
Building: 331 East 38th Avenue
Cl. 2: Billboards (Proposed Amendments to
the Sign By-law)
Cl. 3: Apartment Recycling Program
Clauses 1 and 2
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the recommendations of the Committee, as set out in Clauses 1
and 2 of the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Apartment Recycling Program
(Clause 3)
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the recommendation of the Committee, as set out in Clause 3 of
the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED
(Councillor Chiavario opposed)
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF 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 4:55 p.m.
* * * * *
REPORT TO COUNCIL
STANDING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
ON PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
July 25, 1996
A Regular Meeting of the Standing Committee of Council on Planning
and Environment was held on Thursday, July 25, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. in
Committee Room No.1, Third Floor, City Hall.
PRESENT: Councillor Price, Chair
Mayor Owen
Councillor Bellamy
Councillor Chiavario
Councillor Hemer
Councillor Ip
Councillor Kennedy
Councillor Puil
Councillor Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Clarke (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Kwan (Leave of Absence)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK: Nancy Largent
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of June 27, 1996 were adopted as
circulated.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Demolition of Nuisance/Dangerous
Building: 331 East 38th Avenue File: 2701-5/5111
On July 9, 1996, City Council declared the building at 331 East
38th Avenue to be a nuisance and dangerous to public safety, and ordered
it demolished. The property owner did not address Council prior to this
decision, but subsequently requested an opportunity to be heard.
Peter Sweeney, Building Inspection Supervisor, passed around
photographs of the burned-out building (on file) and described its
condition. Mr. Sweeney also briefly reviewed the history of orders
against the building.
Clause No. 1 (Cont'd)
Jack Sedlacek, Orio Holdings Ltd., property owner and long-time
neighbourhood resident, reviewed the situation from his perspective.
Although the building is unsightly, Mr. Sedlacek did not feel it
constitutes a danger to the public, noting it has been properly secured.
Nor has the building been abandoned; there is a workshop in the building
and an automobile on the site. Financing has been obtained with the
intention of completely repairing the building. Mr. Sedlacek apologized
to the neighbourhood, but felt most complaints have originated with a
particular neighbour who wishes to obtain the property for development
purposes. Mr. Sedlacek also objected to the 14-day order to demolish as
far too short.
Responding to queries, Mr. Sweeney advised a 30-day order would be
sent. He also explained the timing and procedures involved, and
confirmed that if a substantial development permit application were
received in the interim, staff would report back to Council.
Committee members familiar with the site felt the building is in
deplorable condition, and the Committee was not prepared to retract the
demolition order. The following motion by Mayor Owen was put and
carried. Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
THAT Council reiterate its motion of July 9, 1996 as follows,
after amendment of B to read 30 days rather than 14 days:
A. THAT Council declare that the above building is a
nuisance and dangerous to public safety, pursuant to
Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
B. THAT Council approve the attached Resolution and order
the Registered owner of the property to remove the
building and all demolition debris from the site within
30* days of a copy of the resolution being served
pursuant to Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
C. THAT in the event of the failure of the owner to comply
with the order of Council as set forth in paragraph B,
Council further orders and hereby authorizes the City
Building Inspector to have the building and all
demolition debris removed at the expense of the owner.
Clause No. 1 (Cont'd)
D. THAT the City Clerk be directed to file a 336D Notice
Against the Certificate of Title to the Property at 331
East 38th Avenue in order to warn prospective purchasers
that as a result of the condition of the building and
Council's resolution, the purchaser could suffer a
significant expense if the By-law were enforced against
him.
*Underlining denotes amendment
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. Billboards
(Proposed Amendment to the Sign By-law) File: 2851
The Committee had before it a Policy Report dated June 28, 1996 (on
file), in which the Director of Land Use & Development recommended
referral of two alternative Sign By-law amendments dealing with
billboards to Public Hearing. The first option presents revised
regulations which would continue to allow new billboards in the City.
The second option would prohibit new buildings, and is favoured by
staff.
The General Manager of Community Services also recommended referral
of both alternatives, which are reflected in Recommendations A and B of
this report.
Pat Johnston, Planner, recalled that Council previously deferred a
staff recommendation that new billboards no longer be permitted in the
City. Staff are still recommending no more new billboards. However,
should Council not choose this alternative, staff have also drawn up
improved, simplified regulations in consultation with the billboard
industry. Ms. Johnston reviewed the new regulations and their
rationale.
The Committee noted a number of delegations representing the
billboard industry, and questioned whether they should be heard in light
of Council's usual policy not to hear speakers when there is a
recommendation to refer to Public Hearing.
Clause No. 2 (Cont'd)
Rick Scobie, Director of Land Use & Development, felt it would not
be inappropriate to hear delegations. The report under discussion
proposes to amend the Sign Bylaw rather than the Zoning and Development
By-law, and deals not with an application from a member of the public,
but with a staff initiative. Mr. Scobie also provided clarification
respecting the extent to which Council may entertain revisions to
matters before it at a Public Hearing.
The Committee noted that even though it is the Sign By-law, the
proposed amendments are to be dealt with at a Public Hearing. Also,
staff initiate amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law. The
City Manager added there is also a concern about notification, since
there may well have been broader representation at this meeting had the
matter been duly advertised.
Because of these concerns, the Committee decided to remain
consistent and not hear speakers at this time. However, the Director of
Legal Services was requested to provide an opinion clarifying the
question of whether delegations may be heard prior to Sign By-law
referrals. The Director was also asked to comment whether the same
strictures concerning discussion, etc. apply to Council members as would
apply in the case of a Zoning By-law referral.
The following motions by Councillor Puil were put and carried.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare an amendment to the Sign By-law to no longer
permit new billboards in the city, and that the By-law be
referred to a Public Hearing, together with the
recommendation of the Director of Land Use & Development
to approve the amendment; and
B. THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare an amendment to the Sign By-law generally in
accordance with Appendix A:
i) to simplify and clarify the regulations which permit
billboards in the city;
ii) to not allow billboards on eight CD-1 zoned sites
near False Creek and Coal Harbour;
Clause No. 2 (Cont'd)
iii) to not allow billboards near residential premises in
Downtown South and Burrard Slopes, and to provide
for removal of billboards as residential
redevelopment occurs in these areas; and
iv) to not allow billboards on Robson Street east of Jervis
Street;
and that the By-law be referred to a Public Hearing.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. Apartment Recycling Program File: 3758-3
The Committee had before it a Policy Report dated July 15, 1996 (on
file), in which the General Manager of Engineering Services recommended approval of a city-wide Apartment Recycling Program. The program is
designed to provide apartment dwellers with a similar level of service
as the Blue Box Program, with service delivered by the civic work force,
phased in over a three-year period. Submitted for consideration, but
not recommended, was an option instructing staff to report back on
contracting out a portion of the Apartment Recycling Program.
Commenting on the proposed source of operating funds, the General
Manager of Corporate Services cautioned that the Provincial Government
has not yet passed legislation to enable user fees for Solid Waste. If
such legislation is not approved, Council may have to consider funding
the program through property taxes.
John Evans, Solid Waste Management Engineer, reviewed the history
and principles of the Apartment Recycling Program with the use of visual
aids. The first phases, now completed, utilized mini-depots and a 150
building pilot project. It is now proposed to extend recycling service
to all apartment buildings. Mr. Evans estimated three thousand of the
seven thousand multi-unit buildings can be served with Blue Boxes;
proposed procedures to serve the remainder in two phases were described.
Mr. Evans also commented on the need for a public education program to
ensure the success of any recycling program.
Clause No. 3 (Cont'd)
Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering Services responded to
queries regarding tendering. While it is Council's decision whether to
utilize the civic work force for this program or contract out, Mr.
Rudberg did not recommend the latter. The projected user fee for a
City-run program is based on zero revenues, and appears comparable with
commercial rates. An overhead slide was shown comparing Vancouver's
projected rate with those of several Lower Mainland municipalities.
Mr. Rudberg and Mr. Evans also answered questions regarding
revenues from recyclables, development of markets, and the need for
improved senior government legislation concerning recyclables and
household hazardous waste.
Grant Wright and Richard Woo, Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. (brief
filed), reviewed the company's experience in the recycling field. While
confirming that apartment dwellers want recycling service, they urged
the Committee to defer a decision on the Engineering Services'
recommendations to explore other alternatives such as tendering. If a
City-run program proceeds, Vancouver residents will have to pay
considerably more than Laidlaw would charge for the same services. In
addition, there would be no capital costs to the City if Laidlaw
provided the service, and it would take less time to become fully
operational. Laidlaw's service has been well received by the
municipalities which use it, and the company is active in education and
promotion of recycling.
Queried regarding the apparent discrepancy between figures provided
by Laidlaw and those on his overhead slide, Mr. Rudberg explained it is
difficult to provide exact comparisons between municipalities' costs
because services are not identical. With respect to the discrepancy,
Mr. Rudberg noted the price quoted by Laidlaw is the haulage price which
it charges the municipality cited as an example, and does not include
the municipality's own charges, which may include administration,
education, etc.
Doug McNichol, C.U.P.E. Local 1004, supported a City-run program,
utilizing dedicated public sector employees who provide effective and
efficient service. The program would provide opportunities for older
workers to transition to less stressful work as well as for
rehabilitation. Council has been asked to privatize collection service
in the past but has always declined to do so.
Clause No. 3 (Cont'd)
Jonathan Pearson, West End Recycling Committee (brief filed), did
not believe the Engineering recommendations would achieve the goal of
50% reduction of total waste. The matter should be deferred for two to
three months to permit a more comprehensive approach to alternative
solutions. Further study should address lack of a long-range plan to
achieve 50% reduction; cost-benefit analysis from a citizen's
perspective; and community-based initiatives. Mr, Pearson also felt the
mini-depot program should be expanded and promoted.
Joe Arnaud, West End resident, supported City-managed and operated
apartment recycling. However, he felt it would be unrealistic to charge
housekeeping units $28 per unit based on the volume of waste produced.
Mr. Arnaud did not have a favourable view of user fees in general, and
suggested that if more revenue is needed, single-family residences be
charged for extra garbage cans.
The Committee felt Mr. Arnaud had a point with respect to
housekeeping rooms and their waste volumes, and suggested Engineering
consider it. Mr. Rudberg commented that user fees will make people more
aware and willing to conserve, as intended with the solid waste utility.
The Committee felt it has an obligation to the taxpayer to
demonstrate that recycling charges are competitive, and that the public
is receiving the best and most efficient service. In order to ascertain
this, the Committee agreed to tender the service. The civic work force
may certainly tender as well, and may prove the best tender.
The following motion by Councillor Hemer was put and carried.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
THAT the General Manager of Engineering Services report back
on an option to contract out a portion of the Apartment
Recycling Program.
- CARRIED
(Councillor Chiavario opposed)
* * * * *
The Committee adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
* * * * *