SUPPPORTS ITEM NO. 1
   SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
   MAY 13, 1997

                                 POLICY REPORT
                                  ENVIRONMENT

                                           Date: April 21, 1997
                                           C.C. File No. 3142

   TO:       Vancouver City Council

   FROM:     Director of Environmental Health

   SUBJECT:  Urban Noise Task Force


   RECOMMENDATION

      A.   THAT Council receive the Urban Noise Task Force report    City Noise  and thank the Task Force members for their   work      in
           producing the report;

      B.   THAT Council adopt those recommendations designated by   staff
           as being readily implementable and supportable;     require
           reports back from staff on those with resource 
           implications,  or  which  require  amendments,  legal  input   or
           further consultation with  impacted segments; advocate for action
           by  other levels  of government  or  external agencies  where the
           recommended action is outside of the City s    mandate;      and
           refrain  from  endorsing those  recommendations which  staff have
           indicated are unsupportable;

      C.   THAT Council  endorse the  approach proposed  in  this report  to
           establish sector-specific work teams, consisting of 
           appropriate City and Vancouver Health Board staff and at least
           one member  of the  Task Force,  to refine  and prioritize  those
           recommendations  approved by  Council with detailed  reports back
           on implementation by October 31,   1997.


   CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

        The  City  Manager  notes  that  the  City  Noise  report  is  very
        ambitious, both  in its scope and  scale and in its  urgency.  Time
        lines provided  in the Implementation section ambitious, especially
        given  the other competing  activities drawing on  City staff time.
        More  significantly,   in  this  period  of   unprecedented  fiscal
        restraint,  the  opportunity  does  not exist  to  supplement  City
        resources  so as  to accelerate  what will  otherwise be  very slow
        progress on the report s  recommendations. The report will generate
        very high expectations which we will be unable to meet.  

        Some  sense of priority,  both within the  scope of  the report and
        against other City  objectives needs to  be realized.   We need  to
        those noise impacts  which are clear and pressing  health concerns.
        We need  to distinguish  the pathological  from the aesthetic,  the
        persistent and unacceptable from those  noise issues which might be
        more occasional and tolerable.   Without some sense of  priority in
        context  with  other issues  (health  and non-health)  the  City is
        facing,  the  proposals  contained in  the  report  may  take on  a
        priority beyond their relative importance.

        To  some,  noise may  be viewed  as  an inescapable  consequence of
        civilization and urbanization, requiring some control but also some
        considerable acceptance.    It  is because  of  this  reality  that
        dealing with noise in  Vancouver will be a balancing  act.  Livable
        neighbourhoods  clearly require some  quiet (and even  that will be
        difficult to achieve  in areas of mixed use and  heavy traffic) but
        the moderation of noise will also need  to be harmonized with other
        livability objectives such as:

        -    creating  a  safe, attractive  and, where  appropriate, lively
             public realm;
        -    encouraging affordable housing and historic character; and
        -    ensuring  efficient  access  to  the  city  for  commerce  and
             recreation.

        Finally, the level and cost of additional regulations is an obvious
        concern  and  was cautioned  against  in  the Council  report  that
        created  the  Task  Force.    All additional  regulations  must  be
        justified by  benefits which unambiguously  exceed the costs  - the
        challenge will be in measuring these costs and benefits.

        The  City  Manager  submits   Recommendation  A  for  approval  and
        Recommendation B and C for consideration.   


   COUNCIL POLICY

   City Council established the Urban Noise  Task Force in March of 1996 to
   establish a strategic response to urban noise issues.

   The City, through  the Noise  By-law and Motor  Vehicle Noise  Abatement
   By-law, establishes standards and limits for noise  emissions to protect
   its citizens from adverse noise impacts.      
   SUMMARY

   The Urban Noise  Task Force has,  in  City Noise , provided  Council and
   the  City with  a challenging  and ambitious  set of  recommendations to
   address Urban Noise into the next millennium.  Staff have endeavoured to
   place these  165  recommendations  in the  context  of  health  impacts,
   competing   priorities,   resource   constraints    and   jurisdictional
   restrictions and,  by so doing, ensure  that the work of  the Task Force
   will   come  to  fruition.    Staff  have  categorized  the  Task  Force
   recommendations as  either Supportable  Outright, Report  Back Required,
   Advocate   Externally   or  Unsupportable   and   have  recommended   an
   implementation team process.

   PURPOSE

   This report presents Council with the Final Report of the Urban Noise
   Task Force together with an initial response from City staff on the 165
   recommendations contained with the  City Noise  report.

   BACKGROUND

   In  March  of  1996 Council  established  the  Urban  Noise Task  Force,
   appointing ten citizen  representatives and two Council liaisons.   Over
   the  past year  the Task  Force has  completed the task  set out  in the
   initial terms of  reference, produced a  draft report in  the summer  of
   1996, commissioned  a  public opinion  poll on  noise issues,  solicited
   public input through the media and  at two October public workshops  and
   refined the report into the final version dated April, 1997. 

   DISCUSSION

   The scope and magnitude of the recommendations presented in  City Noise 
   have  the potential of dissuading the City from seriously addressing any
   but the  most obviously supportable recommendations.  Staff suggest that
   what  is  needed is  a structured  prioritization  of work  around those
   recommendations  which address  tangible health  and livability  impacts
   from urban noise.

   To this  end staff have  provided, in  Appendix A, some  suggestions (in
   Staff Recommendations  column)  as  to  actions Council  might  take  in
   addressing  each of the 165 recommendations.  These recommendations fall
   into four basic categories.

   Support: Staff have evaluated these  recommendations and feel that  they
      can  be supported  outright  since  they either  reflect current  City
      policy or  they  are  motherhood   in nature  and do  not require  any
      additional  resources.    In some  instances  they  may  require  some
      re-prioritization of  existing work or  later implementation dates  to
      allow them to be fit into work programs.

   Report Back:  These recommendations, although generally supportable will
      require reports  back to Council on  legality, feasibility, costs  and
      resource  implications  as  well  as  predicted  impacts  on   certain
      stakeholder groups.   Staff have attempted  to minimize  the number of
      items requiring reports back to Council.

   Advocate:   In those  instances where the  mandate for  action lies with
      another  level of  government,  government agency  or  external  body,
      staff have recommended  that Council communicate with the  appropriate
      organizations as advocates for the recommended action.

   Non-support:  In a minority of cases, staff have recommended non-support
      for  the  recommended  action.    Rather  than  generalize  about  the
      rationale for  non-support, staff  have summarized  below the  reasons
      for not supporting 23 of the Task Force recommendations.

   DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS

   Departmental comments  were provided by Engineering, Community Services,
   Police, Environmental Health and  Park Board based on the  January, 1997
   draft report.  In general they reflected some common themes:

   -  Given constrained or shrinking budgets, only  the most urgent of these
      items  will be addressed.
   -  The ambitious timelines set out in  the Implementation section will be
      hard  to achieve  given the  competing initiatives  already tugging on
      staff resources.
   -  Many  of  the recommended  actions  proposed  by  the  Task Force  are
      already in  place,  although perhaps  not  at  the level  or  priority
      placed on them by the Task Force.
   -  A number  of the recommendations are  outside of  the official mandate
      of the City and, if necessary, are best done by others.
   -  Council  adoption of  some of  the recommendations,  especially  those
      where the  City either  does not  have the  power or the  resources to
      implement them, will unnecessarily raise public expectations.

   Engineering:  

   Many of the traffic-related  and operational recommendations impact most
   directly  on the resources of the Engineering Department.  The following
   summarizes the General Manager of Engineering Services  comments:

   -  Use   of  mediation   should  be   limited  to  neighbour-to-neighbour
      problems.
   -  Restrict traffic noise  standards to new construction.   Consideration
      should be given to acoustical design on arterial streets.
   -  Noted that the Neighbourhood Transportation Branch was established  to
      deal with traffic calming issues in neighbourhoods.
   -  The question was raised  as to who pays  and who benefits when traffic
      noise mitigation is proposed or installed.
   -  With  respect to ensuring  that roads  are smooth  for noise reduction
      reasons, the current preventive  maintenance programs of  cracksealing
      and  road  patching would  have  to  be  abandoned in  favour  of more
      expensive alternatives  such as  full width  overlays, at  significant
      extra  costs. Given decreasing budgets the priorities  have been "safe
      and serviceable rather than quiet".  
   -  Engineering Services  has an ongoing  program of trial  implementation
      of  new road  surface  materials,  including a  stretch of  rubberized
      asphalt which has been shown to  be quieter than traditional surfaces.
      The trend,  however,  is to  more  durable  mixes which  are  coarser,
      generating slightly more tire noise.
   -  Concerns expressed   about the  reliance and proliferation of  signage
      and questions the merit  of signs advising about  engine brake use and
      designated truck  routes.    Educational approaches  through  industry
      groups are preferred.
   -  Concerns expressed  about the proposed  revisions to downtown  garbage
      pickup area and its impact  on the ability of city crews to empty bins
      and clean lanes.
   -  Engineering is  already implementing  quieter   technology for garbage
      bins.  (This should be promoted to the private sector)
   -  The notion of  single garbage contractors  servicing specific areas of
      the  downtown  has  been  raised  previously  for  other  reasons  and
      vehemently opposed by the private contractors.
   -  Engineering   has  experimented  with  alternate  warning  methods  to
      replace audible  back-up beepers and  found problems with  reliability
      and safety concerns.
   -  Significant concerns were expressed about the  impact on City services
      from  the  proposed  restrictions  on  Gardening  equipment  use   and
      Construction  activity.  (NOTE: The  existing  by-law  sets  different
      limitations for  work on the street,  whether it is  work done by  the
      City or  by utility companies.   This was  done in  recognition of the
      public benefit of this work, the need to get in and out  of the street
      quickly and the short-term nature of the work on the street.)
   -  Concerns  were  expressed about  the  availability  of  "silenced"  or
      sound-treated equipment for city use and the added costs.  

   Community Services:

   The  General Manager  of  Community Services  provided concerns  related
   mostly to land use and development-related issues:

   -  With respect to the City giving  consideration to acoustic aspects  in
      land use development,  staff pointed out  that in some  zones this  is
      already in place but that this is not consistent throughout the  city.
      Nor is there consistent follow-up or  enforcement of acoustical design
      requirements  and the  City  lacks in-house  expertise  on  acoustical
      measures.    An option  might  be  to  require  developers to  provide
      certification   that   acoustical   requirements   have   been   fully
      implemented.
   -  Support for  mediation in principle, provided  it is  limited in scope
      and costs are minimized.
   -  Support  voluntary designation of  Soundmarks and Acoustic Sanctuaries
      provided the already full Heritage work program is not impacted.
   -  Support  enhancing  public   access  to  noise  information  and   the
      encouragement  of  voluntary  compliance  through  common  sense   and
      respect  (actually talking  to  one s neighbour  before  phoning  City
      Hall).
   -  Support  the   tightening  of   noise   standards  for   entertainment
      facilities  consistent  with  the  Downtown  Liquor  Licensing  Policy
      review.
   -  Concerns   expressed  about   the  added   work  of   developing   and
      implementing traffic noise impact assessment procedures.
   -  Concerns expressed about  the proliferation of berms/sound fences  and
      the  creation of   walled communities ,  which  might also  impact  on
      safety initiatives such as the CPTED.
   -  Concerns  expressed  about busker  limitations  and  the  creation  of
      "busker police" (Note: Police are  already spending time responding to
      complaints about overly loud street musicians)
   -  Lawnmower/leafblower restrictions  are likely  unworkable unless  City
      establishes  a   lawnmower  police .   Promotion of  common  sense and
      common courtesy  can  be much  more  effective  and less  costly  than
      difficult to enforce regulations.

   Police:

   The comments from the Police department basically indicated that many of
   the initiatives (13.16,  13.19, 13.20, 13.22,  13.23, 14.3, 14.6,  22.1,
   27.1,  36.2, 36.3)  are ongoing  enforcement issues  and are  dealt with
   normally on a complaint basis as priorities permit.
   The  recommendations directed  to  the Police  Department are  basically
   enforcement issues.  Many symptoms of urban noise enforced by police are
   more effectively dealt with at other levels.  For example, noisy exhaust
   systems are better dealt with through metered testing at stations rather
   than on  street enforcement.   The police support the  initiative of the
   Task  Force and the  intent of the  report towards improving  city noise
   levels.  The amount of time that the police can allocate towards any one
   recommendation is restricted by workload  and a prioritization of police
   resources.

   The specific comments included:

   -  In section 14 of  the report there  is an indication that Police  have
      noise meters.  For clarification, the Police do not have noise  meters
      for traffic noise enforcement.
   -  The  Police  would  welcome  the  sharing  of  data  on  problem noise
      properties with other City Departments
   -  With  respect  to house  alarms,  the  City  has  a Charter  amendment
      request before  the province  on this  issue.   It would be  useful to
      monitor what Richmond is doing in this regard.

   Park Board:

   The  General Manager  of Parks  & Recreation  notes that the  report has
   covered an extensive  area of influences on the amount  of noise present
   in  the  City  and  made many  practical  recommendations  for  positive
   improvements  to the problem.  Where there are recommendations to change
   or  restrict present activities, there should be an identified budget to
   ensure the transition.  Specific comments included:

   -  The designation of  acoustic sanctuaries  should  only be done if it s
      consistent with the building use.
   -  The  intent  to designate  all  parks  as  quiet  would preclude  many
      activities  currently utilizing these parks and is  not supported. Any
      increase  in the number  of these  designated parks  would require the
      approval of the Park Board after a community involvement process.
   -  The  potential conflict between  noise barriers  and the principles of
      CPTED (open and visible park space) was identified.
   -  The  issue  of licensing/approving  buskers  on  Park  Board  property
      should be left with the Park Board.
   -  The use of private  radios in Park Board facilities has seldom been  a
      problem and a prohibition is not warranted.
   -  Meeting  the   intent  of  restricted   times  for  lawn   maintenance
      activities  at  Golf  Courses  will  be  very  difficult.     Existing
      exemptions should be continued.
   -  Chain saws are used by the  Park Board on a regular basis, not just in
      emergencies.  Proposed restrictions would be  unworkable and the  need
      for special permits would add to the administrative burden.   Vancouver Health Board:

   The Noise  Control  Officer has  expressed  concerns over  the  inherent
   conflict  that  accompanies mixed  use  development,  especially in  the
   downtown core.  The expectations of new residents to these areas need to
   be somehow tempered to recognize the fact that they are not living  in a
   purely  residential  community  and  may  need  to  accept  a   somewhat
   compromised  level  of  noise.   The  City  continues  to  approve   new
   residential uses in  close proximity  to noisy commercial  uses such  as
   night  clubs and entertainment areas.  Initiatives such as live/work and
   work/live  also have  the potential  of generating  significantly higher
   levels of noise complaints.

   The  Environmental  Health  Division   supports  exploring  the  use  of
   mediation as  a means of  reducing the  demand for regulation  and legal
   action.    The  experiences  of Edmonton  and  Portland s  Neighbourhood
   Mediation Centre should be investigated and the mediation option pursued
   as an option rather than an adjunct to regulation.

   Many of the recommendations proposed by the Task Force will entail major
   revisions to  the Noise By-law.   When these amendments are  reported to
   Council,  the  Division will  take  the  opportunity  to  bring  forward
   additional suggested  or necessary  changes not  already covered  by the
   Task Force.

   The Division  supports the  notion of  progressive  enforcement and  the
   increased use of tickets to  deal with noise offences.  The  Division is
   also  prepared  to  ensure  that  evening  quick  response  coverage  is
   available for noise complaints of an emergency nature.

   IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION

   Implementation of  the  recommendations accepted  by Council  will be  a
   challenge given the number and complexity of initiatives. Therefore,  it
   is  recommended  that  the  adopted  recommendations  be  packaged  into
   sector-specific groups,  consistent with the major  chapter groupings of
   the report, for  implementation purposes.   For those actions  requiring
   further  work  and a  report  back to  Council, it  is  recommended that
    implementation teams  be formed  around the major topic areas  and that
   these  teams consist of the appropriate City  and VHB staff and at least
   one member  of the  Task Force.   These teams  would be  responsible for
   refining the specific proposals,  gathering the necessary information on
   costs  and resource implications and preparing a report back to Council,
   through the City/VHB  staff person, by October 31, 1997.   At this point
   it is suggested  that there be  no more than  four implementation  teams
   focusing                on               Traffic/Transportation/Signals;
   Home/Recreational/Maintenance;    Industrial/Construction   noise    and
   Education. The  Director of  Environmental Health should  be responsible
   for overall coordination of implementation plans.

   FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

   Staff have evaluated the  recommendations of the Task Force  against the
   reality  of  no  additional resources.    Adoption  of  items that  have
   inferred   cost   or   staffing   implications   will  necessitate   the
   identification of external or new sources of funding to support them.
    
   SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

   Noise is recognized by the City and the City  Noise report as a stressor
   and a  public health issue.   Reduction in overall  noise and individual
   noise events has been shown to have a beneficial effect on the health of
   individuals and the well-being of society. 

   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

   If, as the City Noise report states, noise is the  silent  environmental
   issue of the  1990s, then the proposed activities set  out in the report
   should contribute to the  amelioration of the sound environment  and the
   reduction  of the  negative  impacts  of  urban  noise  on  the  natural
   environment.

   CONCLUSION

   The Urban Noise  Task Force  has provided Council  with a  comprehensive
    wish list  or  blueprint of initiatives that could be  taken to improve
   and  protect  Vancouver s soundscape  and  the  aural and  psychological
   health of our residents.   A well-thought out implementation  program is
   needed  to ensure  that  the  majority  of  these  initiatives  come  to
   fruition.


                                   * * * * *