SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 5
CS&B AGENDA
APRIL 24, 1997
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: March 12, 1997
C.C. File No. 8012-1
TO: Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services in consultation with
the General Manager of Community Services
SUBJECT: Gastown Lighting
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT staff proceed with implementing the 1994 Operating Budget
Management cut of $41,000 per year by converting the Gastown
Style Lighting to a fluorescent source.
B. THAT $80,000 be approved for the conversion work to be funded
from the Street Lighting Capital account #20/34/3062/999.
GENERAL MANAGER S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services notes that this report
requests Council to make a tradeoff between two sets of objectives.
On the one hand are cost to City taxpayers and general conservation
of the environment through energy savings. On the other hand are
area ambiance and heritage authenticity. The savings in costs and
the benefits to the general environment are undisputed. Ambiance
is largely a matter of taste, and authenticity is arguable. While
the Gastown-style lamp standards are historically accurate of the
dominant period represented in Gastown, they were never actually
used in Gastown itself until its contemporary restoration.
Further, contemporary incandescent light bulbs do not replicate the
colour temperature of the carbon filament bulbs used during the
historical Gastown era. Both public and private restorations
involve degrees of authenticity and full replication is seldom, if
ever achieved. On balance, and noting that any decision is
reversible over time simply by unscrewing incandescent bulbs or
compact fluorescent fixtures from their identical sockets, the
General Manger of Community Services RECOMMENDS A and B.
The General Manger of Engineering Services RECOMMENDS A and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
At its meeting on March 28, 1996 Council resolved:
That staff proceed with the Council approved 1994 Operating Budget cut
of $41,000 per year for Gastown Lighting and
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 costs assessed against the property owners through the
local improvement process.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the Gastown
Lighting survey conducted on the affected property owners and to seek
Council approval to proceed with converting the lights to a warm white
fluorescent source.
BACKGROUND
As part of the 1994 Budget Management Program, Council approved a cut of
$41,000 in the operating budget for Gastown street lighting. As
outlined in the March 28,1996 report to Council, this cut can be
achieved by either converting the lighting to an alternate light source,
or by property owners funding the difference in electricity costs to
retain the incandescent lighting.
Community input was sought from both the Gastown Business Improvement
Society and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee. A lighting
committee made up from members of these two groups along with staff from
Heritage Planning and Engineering Services was formed to address the
issue. The committee viewed the alternate light sources suggested by
Engineering Services and concluded that they were not acceptable. The
committee further objected to the choices put before it and requested
that Council state that the incandescent lighting shall remain at the
City s cost. A full account of the committee s position was outlined in
the report of March 28,1996.
Engineering staff suggested that most members of the public would
consider the quality of light emitted by the alternate light source
close enough to incandescent to be acceptable and presented a sample for
Council to view in Committee Room #1. Council resolved that a survey of
the affected property owners was appropriate for further public input.
TEST SITE AND SURVEY RESULTS
On August 28, 1996, ten Gastown style lamp standards located in the
eastern portion of the 300 block of Water Street were fitted with warm
white fluorescent bulbs At the same time a survey was mailed to the
owner of every property with a Gastown style light on the street. A
sample of the survey is attached as Appendix A. A total of 259 surveys
were sent out with 60 surveys returned, for a response rate of 23%. Of
those that responded 59, or 98% voted in favour of converting the
lighting at no cost to the property owners as displayed on the Water
Street test site.
A sample of typical comments on the survey follows:
My property taxes are already too high.
Will I see a reduction in my taxes after the conversion is paid
for?
Keep the lighting levels as low as safety needs require.
Ensure that the fluorescent replacements closely match the
existing incandescent light.
Thanks for the environmentally sound initiative.
The fluorescent light replacements on the 300 block of Water Street have
remained in place since August 28, 1996 and have not generated any
complaints to Engineering Services from the public at large. This would
indicate that, for most people, the new lighting is reasonably close to
incandescent in quality and presumably aesthetically acceptable.
INPUT FROM THE HERITAGE COMMUNITY
The Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee (GHAPC) continues its
ongoing interest and input and has provided comments on this report that
are attached as appendix B. The Vancouver Heritage Commission, Heritage
Vancouver and the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture have
also provided their input as attached in appendices C, D, and E
respectively. The following sections summarize the positions of these
groups and responds to some of the concerns and suggestions.
GHAPC reiterated its objections to the proposed conversion on the basis
of historic authenticity, the burden of distributing this cost over a
relatively small number of property owners and a responsibility to
maintain heritage standards for the public sector. GHAPC further
suggested that alternate sources of funding are sought for the $41,000
per year.
The Vancouver Heritage Commission stated its objections on the basis of
historical inaccuracy, questions about the actual cost savings and the
appearance of a double standard between the public and private sector
for heritage conservation. The Commission has further suggested
investigation of alternate cost saving measures.
Heritage Vancouver has also objected to the conversion on the basis of
different standards being applied to the public and private sector for
heritage conservation and has indicated that projected savings as
advertised by B.C. Hydro s PowerSmart have not been realized by some
users.
The Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Small Business, Tourism
and Culture commented that the converted lights in the test area are by
contrast harsher than the existing lighting. Again the issue of a
double standard was mentioned.
ENGINEERING SERVICES STAFF COMMENTS
In response to the comments on the B.C. Hydro PowerSmart program:
The City currently pays $51,600 every year to B.C. Hydro to power the
Gastown style street lights. The expected savings in electricity
payments after the proposed conversion to B.C. Hydro is $42, 000 per
year. The City s own experience with the PowerSmart program in 1993
with converting 40,000 mercury vapour lights has resulted in the
expected savings of $600,000 per year. However, since the PowerSmart
Roadway Lighting program ended over a year ago, the Gastown conversion
is not associated in any way with PowerSmart, nor were any calculations
of savings done by B.C. Hydro staff.
The estimated Gastown electricity savings have been calculated by City
staff and are based on the difference in power consumption ratings for
the two types of light sources and the rate that the City currently pays
Hydro for its street lighting power. Each 150 watt bulb will be
replaced with a 28 watt bulb. The higher cost of fluorescent bulbs is
expected to be offset by a reduction in trouble shooting and relamping
costs for no net change in maintenance costs.
The Vancouver Heritage Commission has asked that staff investigate
alternate ways to save maintenance costs on the incandescent lighting in
order to avoid the need for the conversion The following alternatives
have been considered:
a. Reduce moisture intrusion by resealing all the fixtures.
b. Reduce affect of vibrations from traffic through a damping
material at the base of the bulb
c. Relocate some of the poles farther away from the street edge.
The City already intends to reseal the fixtures and has funding set
aside for this purpose. The work was delayed pending the outcome of the
conversion proposal so that the two initiatives could be done together.
This work is required regardless of the lighting source to extend the
life of the wiring, connections and poles and prevent future increases
in maintenance. Adding a damping material at the base of every bulb
could be done at the same time for a small incremental cost. The cost
of this work is estimated at $73,000. If this strategy does result in a
longer life for the bulbs there could be savings of up to $8,000 per
year.
It should also be noted that if the conversion does proceed, the new
compact fluorescent bulbs would be installed using the current lamp
bases, which permit a return to incandescent, should alternate funds
become available in the future.
Relocating the poles is not advisable as it will adversely affect the
lighting at the centre line of the roadway and it will not appreciably
reduce the affect of vibrations. It further would have a very high cost
associated with each relocation (up to $6,000 per pole).
Heritage Vancouver expressed an interest in using a more vibration
resistant incandescent bulb as well as a shock absorbing attachment.
The City already uses an extra long life and heavy filament bulb in
Gastown. The bulbs are rated for 7,500 hours but our experience is that
they do not last any longer than 5,000 hours.
The public realm elements in Gastown are important in contributing to
the historic character of the area and were chosen carefully when
constructed in the early 1970's to enhance the surrounding buildings.
However, these elements have always been reproductions of the original
street scape and many material substitutions were made to provide
Gastown with working streets rather than function as a museum exhibit.
For example, brick pavers were placed in the roadway instead of the
original tar covered wood blocks and modern incandescent bulbs were used
in place of the original carbon filament bulbs. (or the even earlier and
briefly used gas lights). Given that most of the public realm elements
in the Gastown streets are neither authentic nor historically accurate
for the location, there has always been a double standard or different
treatment of the right-of-way from the privately owned buildings in
Gastown. The original objectives of the 1973 Gastown beautification
project; to provide a safe, reliable and aesthetically pleasant street
environment that enhances the historic district were met with these
reproductions and will still be met with an aesthetically acceptable
alternate light source..
HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS
The fluorescent test area in Gastown has confirmed previous observations
that the fluorescent light is whiter and cooler than the old
incandescent lights. If the conversion proceeds, it will have an effect
on the nighttime appearance of the entire historic district. The effect
will extend beyond the tangible appearance of the light. The City will
have lost the only remaining concentration of incandescent lights within
the city limits - a loss of character, as well as technology. It will
also make it more difficult for staff to argue persuasively for owners
to meet standards of historic authenticity on privately owned property.
If changes to Gastown s lighting are to proceed, it should be in the
context of an overall lighting plan, as requested by Council in March
1996. A lighting plan would determine the extent of Gastown style
lights and the fate of the few remaining original fixtures, as well as
set guidelines for the overall quality of the light. Council is
requested to delay decision on any conversion until the lighting plan is
completed. Should the conversion take place before the lighting plan is
completed, it is important to note that the conservation principle of
reversibility would be achieved, as the base of the light fixtures is
not being changed. If the funds are eventually found, or there are
significant improvements in incandescent technology, the light fixtures
could be changed back.
CONCLUSION
On March 28, 1996 Council instructed staff to proceed with both a long
range lighting plan for Gastown and to implement the 1994 operating
budget management cut. Further input from the property owners was
requested in order to determine whether to proceed with a lighting
conversion to a fluorescent light source or to retain the existing
lighting with the estimated annual cost assessed against the property
owners. In reporting back on this input we find that property owners
are fully supportive of a conversion, are not willing to fund the cost
of retaining the existing lighting and find the appearance of the
alternate acceptable. However, the heritage community is concerned
with the proposal on the basis that incandescent lighting is the only
historically authentic light source for Gastown and that this change
creates a double standard for heritage conservation between the public
and private realm.
Council is asked for approval to proceed with the lighting conversion on
the basis that the property owners are not willing to fund the retention
of the existing lighting and the acceptability of the aesthetics of the
alternate.
* * * * *