SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
MARCH 28, 1996
POLICY REPORT
PHYSICAL SERVICES
Date: March 6, 1996
TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services in consultation with
the General Manager of Community Services and the Gastown
Historic Area Planning Committee
SUBJECT: Gastown Lighting
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Engineering Services in consultation with Community
Services and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee
(GHAPC) prepare a long range lighting plan for Gastown,
including measures to reduce operating costs.
CONSIDERATION
B. THAT Staff proceed with the Council approved 1994 Operating
Budget cut of $41,000 per year for Gastown Lighting.
C. 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 cost assessed against the property owners
through the local improvement process.
OR
D. THAT Council reverse its decision of April 14, 1994 to cut
operating funds for Gastown lighting by $41,000 per year.
E. THAT Council adopt the following policy for the Gastown
lights:
"That incandescent be confirmed as the light source for
the Gastown fixtures with operating and maintenance costs
to be funded from Operating Funds".
COMMENTS OF THE GENERAL MANAGERS
The General Managers of Engineering Services and Community Services
RECOMMEND A and offer the choice between B and C OR D and E for
CONSIDERATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
There is no overall Council policy specifically pertaining to Gastown
Lighting. However, in reference to incandescent lighting in the context
of the Powersmart program, at its meeting of June 8, 1993 Council
resolved:
"THAT all other beautification and historically significant
lighting remain incandescent unless appropriate resident or
merchant associations request otherwise."
SUMMARY
As part of the 1994 Budget Management program, Council approved a cut of
$41,000 in the operating budget for Gastown street lighting. This cut
can be achieved by converting the lighting, or by property owners
funding the difference in cost to retain the incandescent lighting.
Community input is required as per the resolution of June 8, 1993, and
input was sought from the Gastown Business Improvement Society, the
appropriate merchants association and the Gastown Historic Area Planning
Committee, a Council appointed advisory committee. A committee was
formed of these groups and City staff to address this issue.
The committee viewed the alternative light sources suggested by
Engineering Services and concluded that they were not acceptable. The
committee further objected to the choices put before it and are
requesting that Council state that the incandescent lighting shall
remain at the City's cost.
Engineering Services suggests that most members of the public will find
the conversion acceptable and believe that a survey of the impacted
property owners is still appropriate. Alternatively, property owners
may choose to retain the incandescent and pay an annual cost
differential estimated at $471 per property.
PURPOSE
At its meeting of April 14, 1994, as part of the 1994 Budget Management
Program, Council approved a proposal for savings of $41,000 in the
Engineering operating budget by either converting the existing Gastown
lighting to an energy efficient source or, alternately, by assessing the
property owners the difference in operating costs between the proposed
and existing light source. It was acknowledged that this issue would be
controversial and that community consultation and a report back to
Council would be required before any action was taken.
The purpose of this report is to report back on the community input and
to seek Council direction on the use of an alternate light source in the
Gastown Lighting fixtures and the assignment of maintenance costs.
DISCUSSION
As expected and reported in 1994, the issue of alternative lighting
sources was controversial in the Gastown community. This report will
present some historical background to put this issue into context, will
outline a number of options to address the issue, and will finally ask
Council to decide on the appropriate course of action.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The beautification lighting as it presently exists in Gastown was
installed starting in 1971 as part of a much larger local improvement
beautification involving street works and underground wiring. There are
many other styles of lighting present in Gastown, however, this report
pertains to the Water Street area converted as part of the
beautification project started in 1971. The lights for which Gastown is
- 3 -
identified with, known affectionately as the "nineball" and the
"fiveball" for the number of globes arranged on two levels, are
reproductions of old Vancouver fixtures in use from 1912 to the 1940's
(see Appendix A). The fixtures are often featured in photographs used
in brochures and postcards promoting Vancouver.
In 1981, after Council approval and a community consultation process,
the Gastown fixtures were converted to a mercury vapour light source in
order to save on operating funds. Unfortunately, the testing was
limited in scope and once the entire street was converted, the effect
was not acceptable. There was strong public reaction, Council
subsequently reversed its decision and the lights were converted back to
incandescent. On September 15, 1981 Council resolved:
"THAT the mercury vapour lamps in Gastown be replaced with
incandescent, the City Engineer to report back on the most
economical way to maintain the appropriate level of lighting using
incandescent bulbs."
And further on December 15, 1981 Council resolved:
"THAT the City Engineer be instructed to undertake the lamp
replacement as set out in the City Manager's report dated December
9, 1981, with the costs to be included in the Department's 1982
budget."
The lights are still fitted with a 150 watt incandescent light source as
recommended in 1981.
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
The lighting in Gastown is now over twenty years old. Maintenance staff
have had serious problems in recent years with moisture intrusion and
filament vibration causing excessive bulb burn-out. Both staff and
property owners are frustrated with the performance of these lights as a
fixture should perform well for at least 40 years.
In 1994, Engineering Services sought and received $76,000 in Capital
funding to reseal each fixture and replace the rusted out wiring. When
completed this will help with the moisture problem for up to 10 years.
This work is on hold pending the resolution of this issue. In addition,
staff sought a solution that would be aesthetically pleasing, more
robust and less expensive to operate. In an informal process to test
public reaction, and in cooperation with the Gastown Business
Improvement Society, staff conducted small scale field trials using the
warm white fluorescent lamps for approximately two years. It was not
until the Budget Management process in 1994 that a formal response from
the community was sought.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
Community input was sought on this issue by setting up a committee which
consisted of members from the Gastown Business Improvement Society, the
Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee, Planning and Engineering
staff. The majority of committee members agreed to support conversion
to compact fluorescent lighting if it was found that this light source
offered a comparable likeness in quality to incandescent lights. One
member opposed a light source other than incandescent as a matter of
principle for the historic area.
In order to familiarize itself with the current lighting in Gastown, the
committee reviewed existing plans and photographic records. These
references reveal that twelve different lighting styles are present
throughout the Historic site. It is recommended that a long range plan
- 4 -
to cover all of the lighting in the Gastown Historic Site be conducted.
The committee visually tested a number of fluorescent type light sources
in the field and provided useful feedback. However, the majority felt
that while they were an improvement over high pressure sodium or mercury
vapour sources, they were still not close enough in colour to the
incandescent source to be acceptable in this particular application. An
additional test of a full block was recommended in order to avoid
duplicating the costly events of 1981 when the expected positive results
of a limited test did not hold true once the full street was converted.
Engineering reported to the committee that costs for this test would be
in the order of $14,000 and that approval would be required from Council
for this expenditure. The committee felt the results of the two
preliminary tests were sufficiently unacceptable that a further expense
of this magnitude was unwarranted.
Of major concern to the committee is being asked by the City to pay the
incremental costs of operating and maintaining the existing incandescent
lights. This committee feels that due to Gastown's historical status,
and the benefits and enjoyment to the public at large, the City should
be prepared to fund all costs, to ensure that Gastown retains its
special character. The proposal put forward at the 1994 budget
management review would limit the responsibility for maintaining the
historic lighting to less than 100 property owners.
This committee strongly recommends that Council state that it is their
policy to fund all extra operating and maintenance costs associated with
this heritage area as it was originally designated.
The committee feels the purpose as set out in the Budget Management
Program limited the scope of the committee to examine other cost saving
initiatives. During our discussions it was noted that some of the
maintenance costs could be the result of design and placement of the
fixtures. Engineering has received Capital funding to address some of
these problems but has put this work on hold. The committee would
endorse a motion to examine other avenues of cost savings. The
committee notes that in the past 20 years other original incandescent
fixtures have been removed from the Gastown Historic area. In 1987 the
original acorn top incandescent lights were removed in the unit block
and 100 blocks of Alexander without public consultation. The removal of
incandescent fixtures continues to be a source of conflict between the
community and Engineering Services.
In summary, the committee supports:
Recommendation A. to prepare a long range lighting plan for Gastown,
including measures to reduce operating costs. Consideration D. that
Council reverse its decision of April 14, 1994 to cut operating funds
for Gastown lighting by $14,000 per year; and Consideration E. that
incandescent be confirmed as the light source for the Gastown fixtures
with operating and maintenance costs to be funded for Operating Funds.
ENGINEERING STAFF COMMENTS
Engineering Services presented this proposal to Council in 1994 on the
basis that the beneficiaries of the Gastown beautification treatment
should be asked to fund operating expenses that are considered above a
reasonable standard of service, or alternately, agree to a reasonable
alternative.
The street lighting maintenance budget has been cut by 10% in the last 3
years and under these circumstances, improving the level of service has
been difficult to achieve. Furthermore, Engineering staff are
frustrated having to manage a system that is expensive to operate and
- 5 -
requires a high level of maintenance to keep running. It is proposed to
fund the conversion from incandescent to fluorescent ($65,000) at no
cost to the property owners. The payback period for the City is less
than two years. The expected savings of $41,000 per year is made up of
$32,000 in electricity and $9,000 in maintenance savings.
While it is recognized that the colour of the lighting in Gastown is of
importance to the well being of the community and contributes to its
ambience and commercial appeal, staff do not agree that incandescent
lighting is the only reasonable alternative. The proposed 2700K warm
white fluorescent compact tubes emit a colour very close to but not
exactly the same as incandescent lighting. Considered by many to be
warm and pleasant, this lighting is frequently used in indoor
applications as a power saving substitute. In a recent development on
Alexander Street the architect has purchased some Gastown fixtures for a
courtyard and is planning to install compact fluorescent bulbs in the
fixture.
The small elevators in City Hall were converted to this light source in
1992.
Victoria Experience
In 1994 the City of Victoria converted all of its downtown globes,
similar in design to the Gastown fixture to 18 watt warm white
fluorescent. The City Engineer is pleased with their maintenance
performance and reports that public acceptance is high. However, unlike
Gastown, these fixtures are not generally used as the only source of
light for both the roadway and pedestrians. The Vancouver proposal is
for 27 watt bulbs and are the only source of lighting for both roadway
and pedestrian needs. This difference in use and the increased
brightness of the Vancouver lighting makes comparison difficult.
Precedents for funding Incremental Costs
In 1991 the Chinatown dragon lights were installed as part of a local
improvement project. When the project was approved, the Chinatown
community argued that the decorative lights should be installed as
incandescent to enhance the brick work on the buildings. The
Engineering department argued that the cost of incandescent lighting was
very high and Council approved in principle that the property owners
should pay the cost differential between high pressure sodium lighting
and incandescent. However, there was a two year delay between this
Council decision and manufacture of the lights. In the interim, compact
fluorescent lighting came on the market and both the Engineer and the
community came back to Council with a proposal to use the new light with
the City picking up the costs. The dragon lights have been very popular
and will be re-lamped for the first time in 1995.
In 1994, a street work and lighting beautification for unit block
Alexander Street was approved by Council. The property owners voted to
install Gastown style 5 ball lights and were asked if they would prefer
fluorescent lighting or to pay an incremental premium for incandescent
lighting. These owners voted in favour of paying for incandescent
lighting.
HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS
The lighting in Gastown, along with other improvements to the public
realm, were designed to complement and support the "turn of the century
character" represented in the buildings. At least since 1977, and
intermittently thereafter, Council has been asked to consider ways to
reduce the costs associated with the special lighting in Gastown.
Council has, each time, ultimately decided in favour of incandescent
lights and having the City cover any additional costs.
- 6 -
Budget reductions are a reality. Serious consideration was therefore
given the new technologies in light source products, which would reduce
operating costs. However, none of the options presented by Engineering
are sufficiently close to the quality produced by the current
incandescent source. Therefore, the incandescent light sources should
remain.
Gastown is a special place for not only residents, but is also one of
the most visited tourist areas in Vancouver. The film industry has also
found the Gastown area a desirable movie making venue. The benefits of
keeping all the heritage qualities in this area are far reaching and
extend well beyond only the individual property owners. When there is
such a broad public benefit, the general public should cover the costs.
In an effort to address the unexpected costs of operating this lighting,
key questions are "why are the fixtures not meeting the performance
standards? Are there other ways to deal with the moisture and
vibrations problems and can we find a more efficient incandescent light
source?" In addition, an overall lighting plan for Gastown would serve
to provide a context for all future decisions. A lighting plan would
address the desired extent of the five and nine-ball fixtures and the
future of the few remaining incandescent lights. A plan would also set
up criteria and a process for reviewing new technological innovations.
In summary, the Heritage Planning staff recommend that the budget cut
for Gastown lighting be rescinded; that incandescent lights remain the
standard source; that any additional costs be paid for from general
revenue; that other ways to save expenses be examined and that an
overall lighting plan be developed.
CONCLUSION
Engineering Services staff have sought input from the community interest
groups in the Gastown area regarding the use of an alternate light
source.
The committee is strongly opposed to the choices put before it and asks
that Council reconsider its decision of April 1994. The committee
furthermore recommends that Council formally adopt a policy to ensure
that the existing incandescent lighting be retained and that all
maintenance and electricity costs be borne by the City.
Engineering and Community Services presents the following options for
Council to consider:
1. Rescind the 1994 Budget Management cut, retaining the incandescent
lighting with City covering all maintenance and electricity costs
and examine alternate ways to save operating costs on lighting in
Gastown; or
2. Proceed with the 1994 Budget Management cut, reporting back to
Council whether surveyed property owners prefer to retain the
incandescent lighting with the additional cost to be assessed
through the local improvement process, or proceed with the lighting
conversion to a fluorescent light source.
Option one is presented on the basis that Council may consider that
preservation of the incandescent light source in Gastown funded by the
City at large is appropriate, based on the heritage status of the
Gastown Site. Recommendations B and C support this option.
Option two is presented on the basis that Council may consider the
quality of light emitted by the alternate light source very close to
incandescent and acceptable. However, to determine whether this is
- 7 -
reasonable, it is recommended that property owners be surveyed on this
issue. Council may also consider that continued use of the incandescent
light source is above the City's standard level of service and more
appropriately funded by the Gastown property owners. Recommendations D
and E support this option.
* * * * *