|
|
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING A(i)THAT Council indicate that it is not prepared to consider an application to amend the Sign By-law to allow a rotating abstract figure (or corporate logo) and an automatic changeable copy sign with third-party advertising on the skylight of the proposed Dance Centre (The Scotiabank Centre for Dance) at 1410 Granville Street, above the level of the Granville Bridge and the Seymour Street off-ramp, BUT THAT Council does support modest identification of the facility by way of a sign containing the name of the building on the skylight approved in principle as part of the form of development shown at Public Hearing;
A(ii)AND THAT Council indicate that its willingness to support or not support the building being named "The Scotiabank Centre for Dance" will be determined after Council has considered policies on corporate sponsorship.
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS A(i) and A(ii). He does not support an amendment to the Sign By-law because it is contrary to Council policy and will set a precedent for future exceptions. The City Manager is due to report back this fall on a policy for corporate sponsorship, including the naming of civic facilities. A decision on naming should await that policy.
Council policy, as reflected in the Sign By-law, does not allow:
1.roof signs;
2.rotating signs, except on a portion of Kingsway;
3.automatic changeable copy signs in the Bridge and Freeway Areas in which theDance Centre site is located; and
4.automatic changeable copy signs displaying third-party advertising.
Council has not yet considered policy on corporate sponsorship acknowledgement or signage associated with civic or publicly-funded facilities.
This report seeks advice on whether Council is prepared to consider an application to amend the Sign By-law to allow signage on the Dance Centre which significantly departs from the current objectives and regulations of the Sign By-law. Staff recommend against such Sign By-law amendments. The report also discusses concerns about parameters for naming such a facility, prior to Council establishing policies with respect to corporate sponsorship.
In March 1996, Council approved in principle a lease of 1410 Granville Street to the Dance Foundation for a term of 60 years at a nominal rate, subject to a series of conditions with respect to zoning, funding, operations and governance. Staff will be reporting back to Council with terms of a lease once the Dance Foundation has met these conditions. (The Dance Foundation is a registered non-profit society with the mandate to fund, construct and operate a Dance Centre.)
In April 1997, Council approved, at Public Hearing, rezoning the site to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit development of a dance centre. The rezoning was accompanied at Public Hearing by an amendment to the Sign By-law to assign the rezoned site to the Downtown District (DD) for the purpose of regulating signs. However, signage on the site is subject to the additional restrictions of the Bridge and Freeways Schedule of the Sign By-law due to the site’s proximity to the Granville Bridge.
The Dance Centre is proposed to be named "The Scotiabank Centre for Dance". The Bank of Nova Scotia has made a $2 million funding offer to the Dance Foundation. The Dance Foundation has advised staff that half a million dollars is offered unconditionally, the remainder is contingent on the Bank’s approval of signage for the site which gives Scotiabank advertising opportunity, as well as recognition. In addition to the name "The Scotiabank Centre for Dance", staff have been told that a minimum condition of the Bank is an automatic changeable copy sign on the side of the skylight above the level of the Granville Bridge and the Seymour Street off-ramp. The copy is to include both Bank and Dance Centre advertising. Illustrations of the proposed signage are included in Appendix A.
Because of staff concerns with the proposed sign, and the importance of the Bank’s funding to the Dance Centre, representatives of the Dance Foundation have asked staff to seek Council’s opinion, in advance of submitting a formal amendment application and waiting for it to be assessed and reported to Council. Staff agreed, in order to provide the DanceFoundation with the maximum amount of time to address alternative funding sources, should it be necessary.
Staff have met with representatives of the Dance Foundation to explain the sign regulations that will apply to the site when the zoning is enacted, and offer advice on what is being proposed. Although the design and content of the proposed signs is still being negotiated with Scotiabank, staff noted significant concerns with the following elements of the signage:
1.the location of signage on the skylight on the roof above the bridge ramps;
2.the inclusion of a rotating element, which on some sketches has included the Scotiabank corporate logo;
3.the inclusion of an automatic changeable copy sign in an area of the city where these are generally not allowed; and
4.the proposal to include Bank advertising in addition to Dance Centre advertising on the automatic changeable copy.
Staff are also concerned about new elements added to the skylight solely for the purpose of displaying signage. These are shown in the drawings attached as Appendix A and should be compared with the much more modest skylight shown in Appendix B that was approved as part of the form of development at Public Hearing.
The Sign By-law’s prohibition of roof signs is a regulation which staff and the Board of Variance consistently uphold. Staff note that while high-level facia signage is allowed on the walls of buildings in the Bridge and Freeway Areas, staff advise applicants that signage is not allowed anywhere in the city on roof-top elements which are added to a building for the purpose of displaying signage. With respect to the skylight approved at Public Hearing as an integral part of the building’s design, it is consistent to consider signage on the side of the skylight as not being contrary to the By-law’s prohibition of roof signs. However, any additions to the skylight, as shown in Appendix A, for the purpose of displaying signage would render the signs roof signs. Staff are firmly opposed to any amendments to the Sign By-law to allow roof signs as this will lead to many other requests for such signage, and negate Council’s efforts in the past which resulted in the removal of many unsightly roof signs, particularly adjacent to bridges. Staff support a modest identification sign on the side of the skylight shown at Public Hearing that would not need a By-law amendment.
Automatic changeable copy signs are not allowed in the Bridge and Freeway Areas so as not to detract from bridge views. While Council did approve creation of a site - specific sign schedule for GM Place, which, among other things, allowed automatic changeable copy signs above the Georgia Viaduct, the context was quite different, the signs are not on the roof, and third-party advertising is not permitted. Staff are alarmed at the prospect of a third-party automatic changeable copy sign directed at drivers on the Granville Bridge since it wouldrepresent a dramatic departure from Council’s sign and view policies. It could also be a hazardous traffic distraction.
Corporate Sponsorship Recognition:
The request from the Dance Foundation raises a second question, not yet covered by Council policy - What is appropriate or acceptable recognition for corporate contributions to projects which are substantially funded with public monies?
In preparation for a policy report on corporate sponsorship for the City, an interdepartmental staff group chaired by the General Manager of Community Services surveyed public opinion on this question. The survey indicated that while the public were prepared to consider naming a public facility after a corporation, it would only be under certain conditions. One clear condition was that the scale of the corporate contribution warranted the naming profile when it was compared to the contributions of the other financial partners, particularly public partners.
The Dance Centre project budget is $8.8 million. On the basis of the Dance Foundation’s reports to staff, and assuming conditions are met, the Dance Centre would receive at least $4.5 million dollars in public funding through three levels of government ($3.6 million from the Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Program, and $900,000 from the City of Vancouver). Other individual donations - at least one at $500,000 - have already been committed, and the campaign continues.
In the proposal before Council, it appears initially that the Dance Foundation will receive $2 million for naming the Centre after the contributing company. In this instance, Council would be faced with a question as to whether it is appropriate for such a facility to be so named if the corporation were to contribute approximately 23% of the project cost.
However, the Dance Foundation has indicated that in fact the "name" corporate sponsor has proposed to pay only $500,000 for the naming of the facility. The remaining $1.5 million is connected directly to the Dance Foundation’s ability to persuade Council to allow third-party commercial advertising on the roof of the building, an issue and a benefit separate from the naming itself. This leaves Council to consider whether corporate naming is acceptable where the corporation proposes to pay a little under 6% of the project cost, and considerably less than any one of the public contributors.
Beyond the immediate issue of naming, the corporation has put the Dance Foundation in a very difficult position. By "bidding" low on the naming opportunity and making the $1.5 million conditional in this way, the non-profit society is given little choice but to act on behalf of the corporation seeking concessions from Council that the corporation would not expect to succeed in getting for itself. This is a potentially problematic twist in the fund-raising marketplace which, if successful, could in future tend to discount the value of naming opportunities and lead to an escalation in demands on other non-profits to put more such concession requests before Council.
The non-profit sector is having to rely more and more on private-sector fund-raising. The non-profits are in a poor position to contain increasing demands which the sponsor imposes in return for contributions. While staff believe it is not possible to set absolute rules, the City could determine what it believes is a proper proportional value on a naming opportunity, clarify its recognition signage expectations, and make its own participation conditional accordingly. This could assist the non-profit sector in establishing a "floor" for the market value of naming opportunities, and perhaps help limit other demands on the non-profit organizations.
The City Manager will report back with recommendations on setting civic policy regarding corporate sponsorship and recognition for corporate contributions to projects that are substantially publicly funded, as well as other related issues, for Council’s consideration in the fall. Until such time, staff urge Council to refrain from formally acknowledging the proposed name for the Dance Centre.
An early draft of this report was provided to representatives of the Dance Foundation. They have advised staff that it is their opinion that if the Scotiabank monies are not received, fund-raising will be delayed to the extent that the deadline for the Federal and Provincial infrastructure donation will be missed and the project will be necessarily abandoned.
Staff have confirmed that the Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Program has granted reasonable requests for extensions to several non-profit projects in the past, including the Dance Centre. There is no indication that in future the management of the Program would respond in a manner which would force abandonment of the project.
While staff fully support the Dance Centre itself, staff have major concerns about the proposed signage including what could be a precedent-setting departure from Sign By-law objectives, the appropriateness of the signage from an architectural and urban design perspective, as well as impact on adjacent neighbourhoods and traffic safety. These will be explored more fully if an application is filed to amend the Sign By-law.
Further, staff have serious concerns in establishing an extraordinary precedent with respect to corporate advertising on publicly-funded facilities in advance of Council considering a civic sponsorship policy. Future corporate sponsors would almost certainly argue that this as a new standard.
To assist the Dance Foundation in deciding whether to pursue a formal application to amend the By-law, staff are seeking advice as to whether Council is, or is not, prepared to consider an application from the Dance Foundation to allow the type of signage proposed. Staff recommend against such an application.
* * * * *
![[City Homepage]](/graphics/footnava.gif)
|
![[Get In Touch]](/graphics/footnavb.gif)
|
|
|
|
(c) 1998 City of Vancouver
