ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT


                                           Date: August 26, 1996
                                           FILE #


   TO:       Vancouver City Council

   FROM:     General Manager of Engineering Services

   SUBJECT:  Local Improvements - Projects to be Cancelled


   RECOMMENDATION

        THAT  the previously  approved projects  numbered Court  #575, Item
        #046  and Court #575 Item #058, as  described in detail in the body
        of this report be cancelled.


   COUNCIL POLICY

   Policies  governing the  Local Improvement  process are  set out  in the
   Vancouver Charter and Local Improvements Procedure by-law.  The projects
   dealt with in this  report, have gone through the legal  requirements in
   the process.


   PURPOSE

   At the June 11, 1996 Court of Revision, Council approved the above local
   improvement initiative projects.  Since that time  a late objection  has
   been received  for one  of the  projects, enough to  defeat had  it been
   received on  time. The other is one of four projects that provide access
   to  a school. Since the other three  projects were defeated at the Court
   of Revision there  is little benefit in proceeding   with the project at
   this time. 

   Project to be Cancelled

   Two projects which were approved at the June 11, 1996 Court of Revision,
   should be cancelled for the following reasons explained below:

   Court  #575, Item #046, Sidewalk  on Crown Street,  East Side, from 22nd
   Avenue to 23rd Avenue.

   This is  one of four projects  that would have provided  access from the
   residential  area  to  Queen   Elizabeth  Annex  Elementary  School  and
   Chaldecott Park. The three connecting sidewalk projects were defeated at
   the Court of Revision.  There are two owners on this  project and one is
   opposed. Therefore, this project should not proceed.

                                      -2-



   Court #575, Item  #058, Sidewalk on Laurel Street, East  Side, from King
   Edward Avenue to 24th Avenue.

   A late objection was received after  the Court of Revision date. If this
   had been received on time, two out of two owners would  have opposed the
   project and it would have been defeated.




                           *   *   *   *   *