POLICY REPORT
LICENSING

Date: April 7, 1999
Authors/Local: M.Gordon(7665) & G. Gusdal (6461)
RTS No. 0644
CC File No. 2611

Council: April 13, 1999

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Chief License Inspector, in consultation with the Co-Director of Planning (Central Area Planning), the Acting General Manager of Community Services, the Director of Social Planning and the Chief Constable
SUBJECT:	Proposed Provincial Liquor License Regulations - City Response

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the City Manager and the Chief License Inspector prepare a brief for presentation to the Province's Review of Liquor License Regulations which highlights the issues of consensus and concern as identified in this report including the following:

i. the pressing needs to increase alcohol treatment and support resources before increasing the availability of alcohol,

ii. that the province initiate public meetings for broader public involvement in the proposed new liquor license regulations and procedures, and

iii. clarification of a number of the proposed recommendations and the potential for down loading the processing of liquor license applications to the municipalities.

B. THAT Council endorse in principle the following recommendations of the Provincial Consultant's Liquor Review report:

1. Simplifying licence approval so processing time will be close to six to 12 weeks, instead of up to 18 months.

2. Allowing wineries to serve wine and food without having to apply for multiple licenses, as industry recommended at the 1998 Premier's Summit.

3. Deregulating advertising by adopting the federal code and eliminating the need for pre-approvals by the Province.

4. Eliminating regulatory policies that serve no public health or safety purpose, such as regulations governing the number and size of televisions in bars.

5. Enabling local governments to recommend one-year moratoria on new licenses to address over licensing that arises when local economies and demographics change.

6. Requiring all liquor servers to be trained in Serving It Right, and requiring them to pass a closed book exam.

7. Developing a system to prevent the sale of cheap drinks.

8. Regulating and licensing U-brews and U-vins to make sure customers produce the liquor and to prevent bootlegging and consumption by minors.

9. Creating a separate independent review to study the increase regulation of high potency alcohol products (e.g., rice cooking wine, ginseng brandy and other potables). [Review commenced March 1, 1999].

C. THAT Council support in principle the following recommendations subject to further discussion and clarification with Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB):

1. Reduce the 10 license types to two: an "A" license for businesses that mainly serve liquor and a "B" license for those that mainly serve food.

2. LCLB will consider evidence of community impacts before renewing a license.

3. Creation of a clear schedule of graduated penalties, with fines and/or suspensions leading to license cancellation for serious infractions (such as service to minors and over service) and more timely and efficient appeals on enforcement decisions, so that bad operators cannot avoid penalties or operate with impunity during lengthy appeal processes.

4. Existing (other than restaurants) establishments (not new applicants) will be given more flexibility as to hours of operation, but only with municipal input.

5. There will be a mechanism to extend closing times for cabarets to 4:00 a.m. without liquor service, with the approval of the municipality.

D. THAT Council does not endorse the following recommendations as contained in the consultant's report as the recommendations are contrary to existing Council policy:

1. Allowing credit card sales in government liquor stores and opening a limited number of these stores on Sundays, primarily in high tourist areas.

2. Limiting the size of restaurant holding areas and allowing restaurants to have a small number of designated drinking seats.

E. THAT Council does not endorse the following recommendations as contained in the consultant's report:

1. Permitting existing bars, pubs and cabarets (within limits) to increase their capacities to the building occupancy limit with no local government input.

2. Eliminating the 14 hours a day service limitation.

3. Permitting existing patio seats to not be deducted from inside seating in hotels.

4. Further consideration of allowing potential access in straight drinking establishments to minors accompanied by parents or guardians until 9:00 p.m. (particularly in significant tourist areas) if no adult entertainment is provided in the establishment.

F. THAT Council request clarification and additional information from the consultant or the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch on the following recommendations:

1. Local government input will inform LCLB licensing decisions.

2. LCLB will develop new systems to make it easier for local governments to provide input.

3. In licensing decisions, factors that are likely to impact on the local community (such as size, hours or operation and types of entertainment) will be considered through advice from local governments.

4. Eliminate discrepancies between building capacities and licensed capacities, new establishments will be required to build to their liquor capacity.

5. Simple tests will be applied to ensure that restaurants operate as restaurants and not as bars. A "reverse-onus" enforcement program will place the onus on restaurants to demonstrate that they are operating as restaurants and not as bars.

6. Enabling School Boards to veto any new liquor license within 150 metres of school grounds.

G. THAT Council reaffirm its position with respect to Council policy on the following issues that were not specifically addressed in the consultant's report:

1. Non-support for the licensing of billiard hall establishments.

2. Non-support for active games or gambling in restaurants.

3. Non-support for the licensing of casino and gaming establishments, including those located on First Nations Land.

4. Taxation revenues generated by liquor sales be used to monitor and enforce liquor regulations and for treatment and social services related to liquor abuse.

5. Require licensed vessels to also be licensed by the Coast Guard.

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager RECOMMENDS approval of A, B, C, D, E, F and G.

COUNCIL POLICY

On January 14, 1999, Council approved the following directions for consideration in the review of Provincial liquor license regulations:

1. Increased regulation of high potency alcohol products (e.g., rice cooking wine and ginseng brandy).

2. Greater flexibility in the transfer and conversion of all license categories.

3. Enter into discussions with the LCLB on the feasibility of a later closing time for cabarets, noting that alcohol service would conclude at 2:00 a.m.

4. Trial or probationary periods for new and amended licenses.

5. Coordination of provincial licensing with City of Vancouver business license suspensions/closures.

6. Requiring the availability of hotel rooms as a condition of a hotel's pub/beer parlour license.

7. The capability to invoke a 24-hour liquor license suspension within seven days from the date of an infraction.

8. Changes to the hours of cabarets to allow them to be open earlier with conditions.

9. Regulations which are tailored to specific areas (e.g., Vancouver's downtown entertainment district).

10. Require licensed vessels to be also be licensed by the Coast Guard.

11. No changes to the licensing regulations of restaurants, until improved enforcement procedures are in place.

12. Reaffirmed its position with respect to Council policy on the following issues:

a. support for regulation of U-brews and U-vins,
b. non-support for the licensing of billiard hall establishments,
c. non-support for active games or gambling in restaurants,
d. non-support (at that time) for the opening of liquor store outlets on Sunday and statutory holidays,
e. non-support (at that time) for the use of credit cards at liquor store outlets, and
f. non-support for the licensing of casino and gaming establishments, including those located on First Nations Land.

13. Taxation revenues generated by liquor sales be used to monitor and enforce liquor regulations and for treatment and social services related to liquor abuse.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report recommends a response to the draft conclusions of the Province's review of liquor license regulations.

Liquor licensing is of concern to Council because it both represents a significant source of employment and is important for tourism, and it imposes a variety of costs on the City and on neighbourhoods. There are direct costs to the City for police services, including policing of closing times for late night establishments, drinking drivers and crime. Late-night noise affects residential neighbourhoods. Alcohol abuse has both social and health costs which affect individuals, families, neighbourhoods and employers.

The City's January 1999 recommendations to the review of liquor licensing emphasized the need for improved enforcement of license provisions, increased City input into license approvals and enforcement, revamping the hours of operation in cabarets, including the consideration of earlier and later closings of establishments, regulations tailor-made for particular districts and increased flexibility for the transfer of licensed seats to other districts.

The Province's review offers some recommendations which will significantly simplify licensing procedures. However, many recommendations need further discussion and clarification in order to determine their effects on the City. Some are of great concern because they are contrary to City policy, they increase the availability of liquor without addressing the longstanding deficiency in treatment/support resources, and appear to reduce the City's ability to develop area plans that include planning for types/concentrations of licensed establishments.

The key concerns outlined in this report are:

· increased availability of alcohol in a province which has longstanding deficiencies in treatment/support resources for people who are currently affected by alcohol abuse.

· need for broad public consultation.

· The ability of existing bars, pubs and cabarets to increase their capacities to building occupancy limits, with no local government input. Staff estimates that Vancouver's 45 existing cabarets could add 1,800 seats under this provision. The largest increases would be in Gastown and South Granville. This provision also eliminates the City's moratoriums for Gastown, DES and Granville South and throws into doubt the City's ability to implement the Entertainment District or other community plans which include planning around licensed establishments.

· The provision for designated drinking seats in restaurants. Staff estimates that this could result in approximately 4000 additional seats in restaurants which currently have holding bars and approximately 10,000 additional seats in restaurants that do not presently have holding bars. Staff are also concerned that patios could be used as straight drinking seats.

There are also concerns about how enforcement will take place. New enforcement procedures are noted, but no reference is made to improved coordination with the City.

The City should reiterate its opposition to the use of credit cards in liquor stores, Sunday openings of stores and expanded off-sales for all liquor products from an increased number of licensed establishments.

The regulation of high potency alcohol products is the subject of a current separate review and staff will report back on this when there are conclusions.

BACKGROUND

In November 1998 the provincial government initiated a review of liquor license regulations "to reduce red tape and boost business and tourism in the province". On January 14, 1999, Council responded with recommendations for consideration by the review (see section on Council policy, above). The Province's consultant completed his review at the end of January after further consultation with the industry. A summary of the recommendations of the review was released on March 25, 1999.

In responding to the Provincial review, there are three general areas of concerns which staff believe the City needs to address:

· The fact that the recommendations will increase seats and off-sales of liquor in a province which has long standing and severe deficiencies in detox, recovery and support services for people who are currently affected by alcohol abuse.

· An inadequate consultation process. One month is currently allowed for municipal consultations. Only a summary of the proposed recommendations is currently available. There is no provision for community consultation.

· While staff believes the City should support a number of the recommendations, some of which further Council policy, there are concerns with a number of the proposed recommendations and the potential down loading of processing to the municipalities.

Increased availability of off-sales is also recommended. However, details are limited and the City's brief should recommend that off-sales be limited to beer and wine and not expanded to hard liquor, at this time. Otherwise, there is a potential for a complete range of alcohol to be available from many licensed outlets.

These issues are discussed below.

DISCUSSION

Social costs and the lack of resources

The recommendations would allow existing establishments to increase seats to building capacity, and would increase off-sale capacity and designated drinking seats in restaurants. Given the total inadequacy of existing alcohol treatment resources, increases in availability are a concern. As noted in the liquor review background information: " The consumption of alcohol brings with it significant social and health costs for the society as a whole." These costs are well defined and include excess health care costs, reduced labour productivity, law enforcement expenditures, social welfare costs, fire losses and traffic accidents.

In a comparative national study from the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse using 1992 data, B.C. had the highest per-capita illicit drug-related costs in Canada. But British Columbia's total costs for alcohol are 4.5 times higher than those for illicit drugs, amounting to $943 million. The law enforcement costs alone were $142.9 million for alcohol and $56.3 million for illicit drugs. On a per capita basis (over 15 years of age), in 1992, alcohol abuse cost $272.

Adjusted for 1999 dollars, the annual cost of alcohol abuse for Vancouver's population would be about $132 million (442,000 people 15 and over @ $300)

The City's Background Paper on Drug Treatment Needs in Vancouver (July 1998) recommended the immediate addition of detox beds, recovery beds, counselling and job training programs, alcohol and drug-free long term housing, and a Lower Mainland strategy for drug-related services. To date, none of these additional resources to meet existing needs has been secured.

Consultation Process

To date, only a summary of the recommendations is available. This limits the ability of municipalities to respond. There is currently no provision for community consultation in the provincial plans.

Staff recommends that in addition to ensuring that the City's brief to the consultant cover questions relating to effects on community, the City request the Province to include community consultation prior to approving recommendations or allow the City of Vancouver the time to conduct our own public hearings on the proposed changes to the liquor license regulations before the report is finalized.

Review Recommendations

The consultant's information package which outlines the report's recommendations for liquor license regulation changes and a revised local government input process is vague and lacks the detail necessary for staff to provide Council with definitive answers on the probable impact of these changes on the City and its citizens. Some of the recommendations appear to address the purpose of cutting red tape and are of interest to the City, since liquor-related businesses are important for employment and tourism. Reducing the Provincial approval time for licenses could hasten staff's ability to comment realistically on the total impact of premises in a given area. The City pre-site clearance process has not been a time-consuming part of the existing licensing process. However, it is unclear if the "red-tape" is actually being cut or merely lowered down the jurisdictional line of authority to the municipalities.
Supportable Recommendations with no existing Council Policy

There are several changes proposed that Council has not reviewed and, thus, there are no clear Council directions for these issues. However, staff feels the following recommendations are positive changes to liquor licensing policy:

a. simplifying licence approval so processing time will be close to six to 12 weeks, instead of up to 18 months;

b. allowing wineries to serve wine and food without having to apply for multiple licenses, as industry recommended at the 1998 Premier's Summit;

c. deregulating advertising by adopting the federal code and eliminating the need for pre-approvals by the province;

d. eliminating regulatory policies that serve no public health or safety purpose, such as regulations governing the number and size of televisions in bars;

e. enabling local governments to recommend one-year moratoria on new licenses to address over-licensing that arises when local economies and demographics change;

f. requiring all liquor servers to be trained in Serving It Right, and requiring them to pass a closed book exam;

g. developing a system to prevent the sale of cheap drinks.

Recommendations consistent with Council requests

A few of Council's requests approved in the January 14, 1999 report appear to be included in the consultant's recommendations. The specific recommendations are:

h. regulating and licensing U-brews and U-vins to make sure customers produce the liquor and to prevent bootlegging and consumption by minors;

i. creation of a separate independent review to study the increase regulation of high potency alcohol products (e.g., rice cooking wine, ginseng brandy and other potables).

Recommendations that may be consistent with Council requests but require further clarification

A number of other recommendations appear to address some different Council directions from the January 14, 1999 report, but there is insufficient information in the Consultant's summary and stakeholder's agreement to clearly determine implications for the City. These recommendations are:

j. reducing the 10 license types to two: an "A" license for businesses that mainly serve liquor and a "B" license for those that mainly serve food.

It is conceivable that this change could address a number of previous Council's requests for changes to the Provincial Liquor Licensing Regulations but would depend upon how this new licensing system would be structured. Unfortunately, these details are unavailable at this time. However, assuming a "best case" scenario, the following policies could possibly be accommodated through this new system. The above recommendation appears to address the following three Council endorsements:

i) greater flexibility in the transfer and conversion of all license categories,

Theoretically, if all the licenses are the same, either "A" or "B," then the municipality could endorse the relocation of a license with amended conditions to the license as a requirement of the transfer. For example, a troublesome existing license in a residential area that has conditions attached to the license that requires it to operate as a Cabaret under today's standard could be approved for transfer to another location but only if the license conditions are amended to require it to operate similarly to a Neighbourhood Pub. Or, under similar logic, the aforementioned license could have their "Live Entertainment Endorsement" removed as a penalty for infractions or negative impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

ii) requiring the availability of hotel rooms as a condition of a hotel's pub/beer parlour license, and

Again, this may be possible under a one license system.

iii) regulations which are tailored to specific areas (e.g., Vancouver's downtown entertainment district)

Without details of how the system is to be implemented it is difficult to determine if this would be possible.

However, assuming a "worst case" scenario, all existing licenses may be able to maximize their operations in terms of seats, hours and entertainment with little or no local government input. It could also mean significant down loading of processing to municipalities, particularly Vancouver given the number of establishments in the City. As well, it may result in severe differences in types of licensed premises between adjacent municipalities.

k. LCLB will consider evidence of community impacts before renewing a license.

This recommendation could possibly address the Council request for i) trial or probationary periods for new and amended licenses. But without further clarification it could potentially result in a significant amount of work for the City if the municipalities are required to review each license before the renewal date. There are approximately 1500 provincial liquor licenses issued in the City of Vancouver for all license categories.

l. There will be a clear schedule of graduated penalties, with fines and/or suspensions leading to license cancellation for serious infractions (such as service to minors and over service) and there will be more timely and efficient appeals on enforcement decisions, so that bad operators cannot avoid penalties or operate with impunity during lengthy appeal processes.

These two recommendations may possibly address the following Council directions:

i) more timely and effective enforcement of regulations, and

ii) the capability to invoke a 24-hour liquor license suspension within seven days from the date of an infraction.

The stakeholder's agreement referred to simple tests to ensure restaurants operate as restaurants not as bars and a "reverse-onus" enforcement program to place the onus on restaurants to prove that they are operating in accordance with their license. It is unclear if the "reverse-onus" would be applied to all license holders. It is also uncertain if the "reverse-onus" will withstand a legal challenge. Traditionally the burden of proof has always been the responsibility of the regulating authority. If the reverse-onus results in more effective enforcement, then this may be positive. The review is silent on calling for increased coordination with local governments in enforcement and the City's brief should reiterate the need for it.

m. existing straight-drinking establishments (not new applicants) will be given more flexibility as to hours of operation, but only with municipal input.

Appears to address the Council policy requesting;

i) changes to the hours of cabarets to allow cabarets to be open earlier with conditions.

However, this is an across the board change to all license categories and it is unclear how this change will be implemented. Would the municipality be able to set separate conditions on the earlier opening hours, such as the requirement that food must be served? If every existing license is eligible to amend their hours, the city would be quickly overwhelmed with applications to amend their liquor license. There is presently a combined total of approximately 500 Class "A" Lounge/Pub, Class "C" Cabaret and Class "D" Neighbourhood Pub licenses in the City of Vancouver. If it is assumed that only half of these licenses wish to amend their hours of operation, then under the present pre-site clearance processing system it would require over three and a half years to have these applications brought before the Vancouver Liquor Licensing Commission. This figure is based on the Commission meeting 11 times in a year and reviewing six applications per meeting, excluding all other business.

n. There will be a mechanism to extend closing times for cabarets to 4:00 a.m. without liquor service, with the approval of the municipality.

Appears to address the Council policy requesting that staff;

i) enter into discussions with the LCLB on the feasibility of a later closing time for Cabarets, noting that alcohol service would conclude at 2:00 a.m.

Again, further discussion and clarification are necessary before any consideration should be given to implementing this recommendation. There are significant policing concerns, specifically relating to deployment of resources, that must be addressed before definite closing time is set. Staff are optimistic that this is a step forward but are concerned about the level of municipal input as this will determine the amount of staff time required for processing and may also result in a substantial impact on some residential areas. Revamping the hours of closure for late night licensed facilities needs to be pursed cautiously due to the high costs of providing police resources when bars and cabarets close. Later closures may yield benefits if it results in patrons exiting the bar in smaller groups that have less impact than the large crowds which currently exit cabarets between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m. However, staff recommends that the extension of hours be limited to certain establishments, with adequate enforcement (including coordination with local governments and police forces) and a mechanism for quickly rolling back hours if establishments have a high impact on surrounding neighbourhoods. The review does recommend that local governments should have input into changes of late night closing.

Recommendations that contradict existing Council requests

Several recommendations in the report are in direct conflict with existing Council policy. These recommendations are:

o. allowing credit card sales in government liquor stores and opening a limited number of these stores on Sundays, primarily in high tourist areas.

Council policy, which was reaffirmed in the January 14, 1999 report, is,

i) non-support (at that time) for the opening of liquor store outlets on Sunday and statutory holidays, and
ii) non-support (at that time) for the use of credit cards at liquor store outlets.

Staff acknowledges that given today's technology many credit cards are accessible through an individual's bank card. However, there are significant social and policing issues that should be addressed before any consideration is given permitting the direct use of credit cards in liquor stores. Staff also recognize that there may be a need for some Sunday openings to meet tourist expectations but recommend caution and that municipal support be required before any liquor store begins Sunday openings.

p. The size of restaurant holding areas will be limited, and restaurants will be allowed to have a small number of designated drinking seats.

Council policy is that there be:

i) no changes to the licensing regulations of restaurants, until improved enforcement procedures are in place.

The formula presented in the stakeholder's agreement shows 10 percent of licensed seats to a maximum of 20 seats and all existing holding areas grand fathered, and this has staff very concerned. It appears that the proposed regulations would allow restaurant holding areas to operate as "defacto bars." This could cause problems for neighbourhoods where restaurants evolve into primarily liquor serving establishments. Staff recommends that the brief call for further study of this proposal before implementation. Indicated below are initial figures of the potential impact this recommendation may have on the City.

	# of Rest.	Total # of Seats	# of Holding Bar Seats	# of Patio Seats
Restaurants w/ Holding Bars	181	22,266	3,912	5,001
Restaurants w/out Holding Bars	840	81,526	N/A	not tabulated at this time
TOTALS	1021	103,792	3,912	Unknown

Restaurants with Holding Bars; The proposed changes could result in an immediate increase of approximately 4003 straight drinking seats spread throughout the city. Staff recognizes that in some cases these seats have been operating as straight drinking seats already. However, the existing regulations still required food service, eventually, in these seats.

Restaurants without Holding Bars; There are 840 existing liquor licensed restaurants that do not have any holding bar facilities at present with a total of 81,526 seats. If 10 percent of these seats can be used for straight drinking seats, which would equal approximately 8,000 seats or if each license was able to maximize their straight drinking seats at 20 seats per license, that would equal 16,800 seats. It should be noted that this is unlikely given the small size of a number of the licensees.

In conclusion we are looking at a potential increase of straight drinking seats in the restaurant industry alone within the City of Vancouver of approximately 12,000 to 20,800 seats. It is possible that a large number of these seats are on patios which would further impact the community.

Non-supportable recommendations that have no specific Council policy

A number of recommendations are being suggested by the consultant that could have a significant negative impact on City resources and the quality of life for those citizens living in close proximity to existing and new licensed establishments. There are no Council policies directly related to these recommendations but the proposed changes may have implications for some existing policies. Specifically, the present moratoriums on increases in liquor licensing (e.g., seating capacity and hours of operation for existing establishments or new licensed establishments) will be adversely affected by these recommendations. Therefore, staff are recommending that Council instruct the consultant that it does not support the changes as indicated below:

q. Existing bars, pubs and cabarets will be able (within limits) to increase their capacities to the building occupancy limit with no local government input.

This recommendation will, with a single stroke, eliminate the moratoriums in place on existing establishments for the Gastown, Downtown Eastside and the Downtown Granville South areas and our attempt to develop Community Planning initiatives. The `limits' being proposed by the consultant, as noted in the stakeholder's agreement, are: "capacity increases to the lesser of the building occupancy limit or the current liquor capacity plus fifty percent (50%)". A blanket, across the board, overnight change of this magnitude will have an enormous negative impact on city resources especially police resources but there will also be social costs and neighbourhood impacts, particularly in the moratorium areas. Furthermore, there are two essential problems with how the increases are to be calculated. The first is that a building or tenant space occupancy is calculated in at least three different ways.

The Fire Marshall's Occupancy certificate is not the only figure that should be considered by the consultant. Occupancy is also calculated based on the Health and Building Bylaws. It is the lowest of these figures that will determine the maximum occupant load. It should be noted that staff are concerned about the discrepancies which often occur between these figures and the proposal refers to the "building occupancy".

The second point is that a recent change in the B.C. Building Code and B.C. Fire Code which deleted the occupant load category "Licensed Beverage Establishments". This means that the occupant load of a licensed space is now reviewed as if it is an assembly use only, without any additional safety factor recognizing the consumption of alcohol in the premises. Apparently this change should not affect ground floor uses but will have an effect on second floor liquor license uses.

A quick example of the potential impact of this recommendation would to apply this formula to the 45 existing cabarets in operation at this time in the City. The result would be the creation of, approximately, an additional 1,888 seats with no municipal input. This is the equivalent of having over five full size (350 seats each) cabarets open up in the city over night. The largest increases are in the areas of Gastown and the South Granville.

r. Eliminate 14 hours a day service limitation.

Staff are unsure if this will result in increased hours of operation. That is, will a bar be able to close their doors at 1:00 a.m. and reopen the bar a few hours later that morning, say at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.. The social implications of this change are significant, particularly for bars operating in the Downtown Eastside.

s. Existing patio seats not to be deducted from inside seating in hotels.

Staff does not have any figures confirming the number of patio seats within the city that may be affected by this change. This may result in an increase in hotel seats depending on how this item is implemented. Will the seats be movable indoors or does it mean that the patio seats can be occupied at the same time all the indoor seats are occupied? These are questions that would need to be answered before staff feels this recommendation could be supported.

t. If no adult entertainment, the issue of potential access to minors accompanied by parents or guardians until 9:00 p.m. (particularly in significant tourist areas) will be considered at a later stage.

Until additional information is provided on how this change would be implemented staff recommends that it not be supported at this time.

Recommendations which require further clarification before staff can fully evaluate the potential impact on the city

Staff feels the following report recommendations require additional information and clarification before a position can be placed before Council:

u. Local government input will inform LCLB licensing decisions.

v. LCLB will develop new systems to make it easier for local governments to provide input.

w. In licensing decisions, factors that are likely to impact on the local community (such things as size, hours or operation and types of entertainment) will be considered through advice for local governments.

x. School Boards will be able to veto any new liquor license within 150 metres of school grounds.

The review appears to indicate that there should be increased municipal involvement in licensing throughout the province. The existing city `pre-site clearance' process is more extensive than most municipalities and could be impacted. The review notes that local government input will inform provincial licensing decisions and will focus on:

· the primary focus of the establishment (liquor versus food service);
· the size of the establishment;
· hours of operation; and
· type of establishment.

Staff recommends that the City's brief reiterate our proposal for requiring municipal pre-site clearance and endorsement for medium and high impact proposals (see Appendices A and B for a description of low, medium and high impact proposals). This would only exclude lower impact proposals such as small restaurants which primarily serve food, have no entertainment, early hours and no holding bars.

y. To eliminate discrepancies between building capacities and licensed capacities, new establishments will be required to build to their liquor capacity.

How will this be accomplished and enforced? What will happen when improvements are made in the future that result in a greater capacity?

z. Simple tests will be applied to ensure that restaurants operate as restaurants and not as bars. A "reverse-onus" enforcement program will place the onus on restaurants to demonstrate that they are operating as restaurants and not as bars.

Staff recommends that before licensing regulations for restaurants are eased, the above `simple tests' and the `reverse-onus' enforcement program be thoroughly reviewed and implemented. It is also suggested that the `reverse-onus' enforcement program be tested through the court systems.

Council policies that have not been addressed by the Consultant's report

The following Council policies have not been addressed by the consultant's report:

1. Non-support for the licensing of billiard hall establishments.

2. Non-support for active games or gambling in restaurants.

3. Non-support for the licensing of casino and gaming establishments, including those located on First Nations Land.

4. Taxation revenues generated by liquor sales be used to monitor and enforce liquor regulations and for treatment and social services related to liquor abuse.

5. Require licensed vessels to be also licensed by the Coast Guard.

CONCLUSION

On numerous occasions the City has requested a review of Provincial liquor licensing regulations to deal with an extensive number of issues.

The current review has been undertaken over a very short period with little opportunity for input and feedback for municipalities and the public. Staff have had a very difficult time assessing the proposal given the lack of information provided by the consultant. It is therefore recommended that Council request a public consultation process, an appropriate increase in alcohol treatment and support resources and further clarification of the proposals put forward by the consultant prior to the final report to Provincial Government as outlined in this report.

----

APPENDIX A

2. Medium Impact application would require public notice of application.

LCLB will notify school board of an application within 150 metres of school ground.

Local government will complete a template provided by LCLB indicating whether:

· the property is zoned for that use
· the location is within 150 metres of a school
· traffic or parking is an issue
· there are public buildings or social facilities nearby
· there are other licensed establishments nearby (and if so, what types, how many, and whether there are any impacts on the community)
· population density or trends warrant the existence of a new establishment at that location
· in considering the above factors and having regard to eocnomic and social issues within the community, local government supports the application

Types of applications that could fall into this stream:

· large restaurants
· small restaurant with live bands
· small straight-drinking establishments with early closing hours and no entertainment

Process:

· applicant picks up application package from provincial government office
· package includes required wording and duration of public notice
· type of notice (signage or newspaper ads) is up to local government
· package includes a template for local government input
· applicant is responsible for getting template signed by local government, and including it in his or her application to the branch
· template can be signed by local government staff
· assessment process is up to local government
· LCLB must be satisfied that processes were fair and reasonable

APPENDIX B

3. High Impact application would require public notice of application.

LCLB will notify school board of an application within 150 metres of school ground.

Local government will complete a template provided by LCLB indicating whether:

· the property is zoned for that use
· the location is within 150 metres of a school
· traffic or parking is an issue
· population density or trends warrant a new establishment at that location
· there are public buildings or social facilities nearby
· there are other licensed establishments nearby (and if so, what types, how many, and what impacts do they have on the community)
· in considering the above factors and having regard to economic and social issues within the community, local government supports the application
· local government believes that the majority of residents within a reasonable distance support the application
· a description of the process(es) used to determine the views of residents

Types of applications that could fall into this stream:

· any size restaurant with games or entertainment that encourage patrons to stay for much longer than the time it takes to eat (e.g., dine and dance, karaoke, billiard halls, etc.)
· large straight drinking establishments
· straight drinking establishments with live or adult entertainment or late closing hours

Process:

· applicant picks up application package from provincial government office
· package includes required wording and duration of public notice
· type of notice (signage or newspaper ads) is up to local government
· package includes a template for local government input
· applicant is responsible for getting template signed by local government, and including it with his or her application to the branch
· local government chooses assessment process, and provides info on process used
· LCLB must be satisfied that the processes were fair and reasonable

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver