Housing Committee

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT HOUSING COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Friday, April 22, 2016 1 pm 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 22, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Housing Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 22, 2016 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 February 12, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Housing Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 12, 2016 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Brock Carlton, CEO, Federation of Canadian Municipalities Subject: Perspectives on the changing federal role in affordable housing

4.2 Jane Dyson, Executive Director, Disability Alliance BC Subject: Pets in Housing

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. This meeting is held in conjunction with and may precede the MVHC Board meeting.

April 20, 2016 HOU - 1 Housing Committee Regular Agenda April 22, 2016 Agenda Page 2 of 3

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Stakeholder Feedback to Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and Proposed Responses Designated Speaker: Margaret Eberle That the Housing Committee:

a) Direct staff to finalize the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy incorporating proposed responses to the concerns discussed in this report, dated March 18, 2016, for consideration at the June 2016 Housing Committee meeting; b) Authorize staff to finalize the “Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy November 2015 Stakeholder Workshops – What We Heard” report dated January 2016, distribute it to workshop participants and post it on the Metro Vancouver website; and c) Direct staff to prepare recommendations requesting provincial and federal actions as specified in the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy for consideration at the June Housing Committee meeting.

5.2 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Don Littleford That the Housing Committee receive for information the report dated March 29, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Correspondence re Non-Profit Asset Transfer Program from Shayne Ramsay, CEO, BC Housing – 2016 Feb 18 6.2 Press Release re Coalition Calls on Federal Budget to Address Rental Housing Affordability in BC – 2016 Mar 21 6.3 Getting to Groundbreaking – Residential Building Approval Processes In Metro Vancouver - 2016 March 6.4 Correspondence re BC Rental Housing Coalition to Hon. R. Coleman - 2016 Apr 5

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

HOU - 2 Housing Committee Regular Agenda April 22, 2016 Agenda Page 3 of 3

Revised 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING That the Housing Committee close its regular meeting schedule for April 22, 2016 pursuant to Community Charter provision(s) Section 90 (1) (e) and (k) as follows: 90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district; and (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Housing Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of April 22, 2016.

Membership: Clay, Mike (C) – Port Moody Long, Bob – Langley Township Read, Nicole – Maple Ridge Jackson, Lois (VC) – Delta MacKay-Dunn, Doug – North Vancouver District Stevenson, Tim – Vancouver Buchanan, Linda – North Vancouver City McNulty, Bill – Richmond Stewart, Richard (M) – Coquitlam Coté, Jonathan – New Westminster Meggs, Geoff – Vancouver Villeneuve, Judy – Surrey Jordan, Colleen – Burnaby

HOU - 3 2.1

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT HOUSING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Housing Committee held at 1:03 p.m. on Friday, February 12, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Mike Clay, Port Moody Vice Chair, Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Linda Buchanan, North Vancouver City Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Councillor Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Councillor Bob Long, Langley Township Councillor Doug MacKay-Dunn, North Vancouver District Councillor Bill McNulty, Richmond Councillor Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Mayor Nicole Read, Maple Ridge Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Mayor Richard Stewart, Coquitlam (departed at 1:19 p.m.) Councillor Judy Villeneuve, Surrey

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: Don Littleford, Director, Housing, Planning, Policy and Environment Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Deanna Manojlovic, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 February 12, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 12, 2016 by adding “Data on Foreign Home Ownership” to Item 5.4 Manager’s Report; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Housing Committee held on Friday, February 12, 2016 Page 1 of 6 HOU - 4 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 November 13, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held November 13, 2015 as circulated. CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Tony Roy, CEO, BC Non Profit Housing Association Tony Roy, CEO, BC Non Profit Housing Association, provided members with a presentation on housing advocacy and the issues affecting non-profit housing, highlighting BC Non Profit Housing Association services, the BC Rental Housing Coalition, rental housing index, provincial housing policy update, provincial budget funding for social housing, asset transfer program, federal budget, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association federal policy and regional housing policy update.

Discussion ensued on: · Provincial government’s announcement committing $355 million towards affordable housing · services that BC Non Profit Housing Association can provide to assist non- profit organizations · role for Metro Vancouver in affordable housing · income thresholds for social housing · accuracy of homelessness counts · closed schools as a source of land for affordable housing development

1:19 p.m. Mayor Stewart departed the meeting.

Request of Staff Staff was requested to distribute Mr. Roy’s presentation to Committee members for their information, along with Mr. Roy’s contact information.

Presentation titled “Metro Vancouver Housing Committee” is retained with the February 12, 2016 Housing Committee meeting agenda.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Housing Committee held on Friday, February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 6 HOU - 5 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2016 Housing Committee Work Plan Report dated January 18, 2016 from Don Littleford, Director, Housing, Planning, Policy and Environment, seeking endorsement of the Committee’s priorities and work plan for the year 2016.

Discussion ensued on: · Metro Vancouver’s role in supporting municipalities to access the $355 million in provincial government funding for affordable housing · federal ministries with mandates related to funding housing · working with school boards to repurpose school land for affordable housing

Request of Staff Staff was requested to distribute to the Committee members for their information the mandate letters for the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Honourable Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.

Discussion ensued on the need to move forward quickly to pursue newly available federal and provincial funding to develop more affordable housing within the region.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board direct Metro Vancouver staff to: a) develop targets to increase the number of units of the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation and report back to the GVRD Board and the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Board with a proposed strategy for implementation; b) pursue new federal and provincial government funding to achieve these targets; and c) expedite the process to identify and prioritize sites available to achieve those targets. CARRIED

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 18, 2016 titled “2016 Housing Committee Work Plan” with the addition that staff report back at the next Housing Committee meeting with a school site analysis for repurposing school land for affordable housing. CARRIED

5.2 Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update and Approval Process Report dated February 2, 2016 from Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Regional Housing, updating the Housing Committee on key Regional Affordable Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Housing Committee held on Friday, February 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6 HOU - 6 Housing Strategy developments since November 2015, and requesting endorsement of the approval process.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee endorse the proposed approval process for the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy as outlined in the report titled “Regional Affordable Housing Strategy – Update and Approval Process”, dated February 2, 2016. CARRIED

5.3 Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Entity Activities Report Report dated January 11, 2016 from Theresa Harding, Manager, Community Entity, Homelessness Partnering Strategy, reporting on the 2015 activities of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Entity.

Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee receive for information the report dated January 11, 2016, titled “Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Entity Activities Report”.

Discussion ensued on the need to assess opportunities for accessing housing funding through the federal infrastructure budget of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Communities.

Members expressed concerns about the return of $1.6 million in unspent funds from the first and second fiscal years of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy Program as there is no provision to carry forward unspent funds to the following fiscal year or reallocate the funds to housing projects other than those meeting the Housing First criteria.

Amendment to the Main Motion That the Housing Committee amend the Main Motion by adding to the end of the Main Motion the following “; and direct staff to follow up with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Communities on accessing housing funding through the federal infrastructure budget.

That the GVRD Board send a letter of support on behalf of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Advisory Board to the Minister responsible for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy program, the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, requesting the return of the unspent funds as identified in the report dated January 11, 2016, titled “Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Entity Activities Report”.” CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Housing Committee held on Friday, February 12, 2016 Page 4 of 6 HOU - 7 Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was then called on the Main Motion as amended and it was CARRIED

The Main Motion as amended now reads as follows: That the Housing Committee receive for information the report dated January 11, 2016, titled “Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Entity Activities Report”; and direct staff to follow up with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Communities on accessing housing funding through the federal infrastructure budget.

5.4 Manager’s Report Report dated January 11, 2016 from Don Littleford, Director, Housing, Planning, Policy and Environment, updating the Committee on the MVHC Board and Committee dates for 2016, attendance at 2016 events, the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council call to action report, mixed income transit-oriented housing viability project, foreign ownership in the residential real estate market, Syrian refugee housing, and the 2016 homeless count.

Members offered comments about: · Metro Vancouver staff keeping apprised of the issue of foreign ownership in the residential real estate market · increasing the Housing Committee meeting schedule to monthly meetings for the remainder of the year

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee receive for information the report dated January 11, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”. CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Housing Committee held on Friday, February 12, 2016 Page 5 of 6 HOU - 8 6. INFORMATION ITEMS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee receive for information the following Information Items: 6.1 Housing Committee Terms of Reference, January 7, 2015 6.2 Coquitlam Housing Affordability Strategy – Adopted, December 2015 6.3 Backgrounder: A More Secure Canadian Housing Market, January 18, 2016 6.4 Metro Vancouver has role to play in affordable housing – Vancouver Courier, November 25, 2015 6.5 New Market Funds Launches Canada’s First Market based Affordable Housing Investment Fund – Press Release dated November 9, 2015 6.6 BC Housing to research housing affordability in B.C – Press Release dated February 5, 2016 CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Housing Committee conclude its regular meeting of February 12, 2016. CARRIED (Time: 3:49 p.m.)

______Deanna Manojlovic, Mike Clay, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees

17327890 FINAL

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Housing Committee held on Friday, February 12, 2016 Page 6 of 6 HOU - 9 5.1

To: Housing Committee

From: Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Regional Housing

Date: March 18, 2016 Meeting Date: April 22, 2016

Subject: Stakeholder Feedback to Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and Proposed Responses

RECOMMENDATION That the Housing Committee: a) Direct staff to finalize the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy incorporating proposed responses to the concerns discussed in this report, dated March 18, 2016, for consideration at the June 2016 Housing Committee meeting; b) Authorize staff to finalize the “Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy November 2015 Stakeholder Workshops – What We Heard” report dated January 2016, distribute it to workshop participants and post it on the Metro Vancouver website; and c) Direct staff to prepare recommendations requesting provincial and federal actions as specified in the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy for consideration at the June Housing Committee meeting.

PURPOSE To summarize feedback from Regional Affordable Housing Strategy stakeholders, outline proposed responses and to seek Housing Committee direction to finalize the Strategy and undertake related steps.

BACKGROUND The success of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy depends on the actions of government, the private sector and non-profit housing providers. The regional role supports member municipalities through the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy policy framework that helps set and implement land use, housing policy, and affordable housing incentives to meet local needs. As well, Metro directly provides a significant portfolio of mixed income rental housing units through Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC).

On February 12, 2016 the Housing Committee endorsed the proposed approval process for the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy as outlined in the report titled “Regional Affordable Housing Strategy – Update and Approval Process”, dated February 2, 2016. The next steps were for staff to summarize stakeholder and municipal responses and bring these to the April 2016 Housing Committee meeting in a report summarizing feedback received, noting concerns and providing responses.

It was envisioned that if there were significant concerns raised by stakeholders with the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy that required additional Housing Committee consideration and discussion, the Housing Committee could hold a dedicated workshop to work through these particular issues. However, it appears this will not be required.

HOU - 10 Staff reviewed stakeholder feedback, including concerns and recommended responses, with the Regional Planning Advisory Committee’s Housing Subcommittee on March 17, 2016 and revised the responses based on feedback received. Staff also took a report to the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) on April 1, 2016. RPAC indicated support for the proposed responses to the concerns identified.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED Phase two of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy stakeholder engagement process requested feedback from stakeholders on the August 2015 Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Draft Projected Increase in Housing Demand for Metro Vancouver 2016-2026, and Draft Performance Measures (References 1, 2 and 3). The following summarizes the different types of feedback received: • 64 participants attended two stakeholder workshops in November 2015; • 17 municipalities considered the Draft RAHS and provided written correspondence; • Seven community or industry stakeholders provided written submissions; and, • Metro staff met with TransLink staff January 18, 2016 to hear comments

Stakeholder feedback Overall, the stakeholder feedback indicates there is a high level of support for both the need for an updated Regional Affordable Housing Strategy to address serious housing affordability issues in the region, and the overall direction of the Draft RAHS as expressed by the five goals, 17 strategies and 94 actions. Participants appreciated the importance of the regional perspective and the collaborative approach on housing affordability issues, the fact that the Draft Strategy contains a breadth of policies, and that it incorporates regional housing demand estimates and performance measures. There was particularly strong support for the new emphasis on increasing the rental supply along the frequent transit network as expressed by Goal 4 of the strategy. There were also some areas of concern and these are described in more detail below.

Two stakeholder workshops were held in November 2015 and attended by staff from municipal members, community agencies, TransLink, the private and non-profit housing sector, industry associations, the provincial and federal governments, First Nations and health authorities. The objective was to obtain views on what is missing, needs improvement or needs more emphasis in the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Participants appreciated the chance to discuss these important issues with other stakeholders in group settings. Key findings from the workshops are presented for each of the five goals, and a sixth topic generated at the workshops, called “Communication, Education and Engagement” in Reference 4. This is entitled ‘Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Stakeholder Workshops - What We Heard’. Themes that emerged were: the perceived length and complexity of the development approval process and its impact on new purpose built rental supply; challenges with management of affordable housing obtained through the development approvals process; funding barriers and capacity limitations affecting the ability of the non-profit sector to develop new or redevelop existing affordable housing; and the desire for an expanded role for MVHC in creating new mixed income housing.

Mayor and Councils of member municipalities were invited to review and comment on the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Seventeen Mayor and Councils responded to the request for feedback. Staff reports considered how local affordable housing policies align with those proposed

HOU - 11 in the Draft RAHS and where there are areas of commonality or difference. Several municipalities provided comments and suggestions for improvement, while others received the Draft RAHS for information only. Reference 5 provides a summary of the municipal responses, including the type of input received and level of support for the Draft Strategy expressed in Council resolutions, where provided. Of the seventeen municipal responses, two Councils endorsed the Draft Strategy, six indicated general support or support for the Draft in principle, and nine Councils received the Draft for information and/or provided comments or recommendations. Reference 6 contains all municipal correspondence received. Again, most Councils noted support for the new transit orientation of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, as expressed by Goal 4. One of the areas of concern was the use of language that was viewed as over-stepping municipal jurisdiction, and this is addressed below.

Seven community agencies provided written responses to the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Some wished more emphasis on supportive and transitional housing, and ways to meet the needs of vulnerable renters, including the homeless. Staff held discussions with TransLink staff on their concerns with some TransLink actions, and have agreed upon an approach that recognizes TransLink’s interest in the type of residential density located close to the Frequent Transit Network while respecting their primary role as a provider of accessible transit and transportation services. Community and industry submissions are listed in Reference 7 and copies of these responses are provided in Reference 8.

Concerns and Proposed Responses Stakeholder feedback was reviewed and categorized as either: a) significant requiring discussion b) not significant, change will be made or c) not significant, change will not be made. A concern is categorized as significant if it affects a goal or a strategy, would have a significant financial impact for Metro Vancouver or its member municipalities, was expressed by many stakeholders or represents a significant departure from the direction of Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Note that many suggestions for improvement are categorized as b) not significant, and that changes will be made in the final RAHS. Of the comments received, eight concerns are considered significant and are discussed in detail here, along with a recommended staff response to address the concern. Table 1 presents these in order of appearance in the strategy, i.e. by goal area.

HOU - 12 Table 1 – Concerns and Recommended Response

Goal #, Concern Recommended Response Strategy #, Action # or Part a) Goal 1 An adequate supply of new housing, including Add New Strategy 1.2 (renumber remainder): Improve Missing rental housing, to meet demand is required to the clarity of the development approval process while Strategy keep prices from rising any faster than they are ensuring quality outcomes (although new supply does not guarantee affordability). The development industry is New municipal action: Enhance clarity around land concerned about the speed of the development use and density through neighbourhood or area approval process (due to the lack of supply of pre- planning and other means. zoned land). Regulatory requirements for approvals have increased over the past twenty years. The development community seeks clarity and cost certainty with a shorter approval process. b) Goal 2 Goal 2 – Preserve and expand the rental housing Modify Goal 2: supply. The aim is not preserving old rental stock per se, Expand the rental supply and balance preservation of as many apartments are well past their economic existing stock with redevelopment that supports lives and in good transit oriented locations. The tenants. primary concern is ensuring adequate rental supply to meet the needs of renters and ensuring Add language to Goal 2 introductory text to say that that tenants are supported/compensated through with efforts to ensure new rental supply is added, relocation due to redevelopment. Sustaining the purpose built market rental redevelopment is economic viability of existing stock for a time is a supportable in good transit locations ensuring that strategy while new stock is added. Protecting tenant dislocation is minimized with tenant relocation tenants from the disruption and costs associated policies, and relocation compensation is adequate. with needed redevelopment is a paramount concern. The RAHS text, strategies and actions presently reflect this conceptualization. c) Part Three Language for municipal actions is too prescriptive Modify to "Municipalities will consider" for example: Goal 1 to 5 e.g. "municipalities will". Metro Vancouver does Municipal not have the authority to require its member Municipal Actions: Actions municipalities to take specific action or enact Municipalities will consider, through plans, policies specific policies in relation to affordable housing. and programs: The Regional Affordable Housing Strategy should 2f. Offering incentives that help make development of accordingly be amended to include more flexible purpose built market rental housing financially viable policy language. (i.e. parking reductions, fee waivers, increasing density and fast-tracking).

Add new introductory section on roles and relationships.

Municipal actions to be grouped as a basket of measures.

HOU - 13 d) Goal 3 New MVHC, due to its relative size and strength, plans Retain present actions 3d, 3g, 3h MV and to expand its role to be more active in the MVHC Action creation of new affordable housing. It is well- New Metro Vancouver and MVHC Actions: endowed with existing properties for Explore new sources of equity capital for MVHC to redevelopment and expertise, but is limited by increase the supply of mixed income housing. the lack of seed capital. A new source of equity capital is the biggest gap and would assist MVHC in its expansion plans. There is some expectation that federal and provincial funding programs may be available to assist in filling this gap in the near future. e) Goal 3 Missing Action. Retain MVHC Action 3j Missing MV Management of units obtained through the Action municipal development approval process, New MV Action: Explore with municipalities, non- including through inclusionary policies, is an profits (including MVHC), the private sector and other ongoing issue. Municipalities do not have stakeholders, the need for and options for managing expertise in this area and wish to know who can the property, the tenants, the subsidized tenants and do this and at what cost. Many developers do not the agreements involved in affordable units gained want to manage them. MVHC does this on a through municipal policies, including consideration of limited basis as have some community agencies a model like A Regional Coalition for Housing in East and non-profits. There is a need for effective and King County. accountable rent subsidy program administration, and management of housing units gained through municipal practices such as rezoning, density bonuses and inclusionary zoning measures. f) Goal 3 Request to consider municipal waivers of property No support for property tax waivers but leave open Municipal tax for non-profit housing providers to assist with exploration of assessment practices which might Actions 3p, expiry of operating agreements. Senior reduce property tax burden, as “other measures” 3q. governments currently provide subsidy to non- below. profit housing providers to pay property tax. With expiry of operating agreements, non-profits will Combine Municipal Actions 3p and 3q. Work with non- become responsible for paying property taxes. profit and cooperative housing providers to address This could impact affordability for low income issues related to expiring operating agreements, tenants. Municipalities have an interest in including renewing municipal land leases, if applicable, ensuring these entities can continue to provide with suitable provisions for affordable housing, affordable housing for their low income tenants facilitating redevelopment at higher density and/or and can provide a range of support or facilitation other measures. roles. Municipalities could assist by providing relief from property taxes through ten year partnering agreements with non-profit housing providers. g) Goal 5 Goal 5 – End homelessness in the region. Retain Goal 5 as is. Questions have been posed around if this goal is Although aspirational and difficult to achieve it is a within municipal jurisdiction and/or is it too worthy end point. This goal is contained in the aspirational and unachievable. Language for Goal approved 2007 RAHS. It was endorsed by the RSCH in 5 could be more realistic, reflecting the lack of Sept 2014 as the vision for the draft Regional municipal authority and resources to tackle this Homelessness Plan. Metro and Municipal actions very significant and costly problem. contained within Goal 5 reflect the limited municipal and Metro roles and resources, and are focused on advocacy to senior governments and facilitation.

HOU - 14 h) Goal 5 Homelessness has been viewed as a regional issue New Metro Vancouver action: Missing since the adoption of the first Regional Homeless Participate with member municipalities, stakeholders action Plan in 2001. At the same time, many and key funders in regional coordination efforts municipalities view funding for homelessness as a around homelessness, as allowed under the HPS federal and provincial government responsibility. contract with the federal government. In the past, regional coordination was funded through HPS, but this is no longer eligible. Metro Several Metro Vancouver advocacy actions are Vancouver’s current role is only to deliver proposed for addition. Homelessness Partnership Strategy (HPS) funding on behalf of federal government. The Draft Regional Homelessness Plan Sept 2014 has not been completed or implemented. RAHS attempts to bridge this gap by incorporating advocacy and facilitating actions for Metro Vancouver and municipalities in Goal 5. There is currently no action describing how Metro Vancouver will engage with municipalities and other stakeholders regarding homelessness, if at all.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Housing Committee: a) Direct staff to finalize the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy incorporating proposed responses to the concerns discussed in this report, dated March 18, 2016, for consideration at the June 2016 Housing Committee meeting; b) Authorize staff to finalize the “Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy November 2015 Stakeholder Workshops – What We Heard” report dated January 2016, distribute it to workshop participants and post it on the Metro Vancouver website; and c) Direct staff to prepare recommendations requesting provincial and federal actions as specified in the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy for consideration at the June Housing Committee meeting.

2. That the Housing Committee suggest alternate direction to Housing staff on how to proceed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications at this time for Metro Vancouver. Once the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy is adopted, staff will prepare an implementation plan for Metro Vancouver actions that will consider staff and other resources.

Any financial implications for Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation envisioned by the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy will be considered separately by the MVHC Board prior to approval of any project or initiative.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report summarizes stakeholder feedback on the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy dated August 2015 and associated technical appendices. Overall, this input suggests there is a high level of support for both the need to refresh the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy to address serious housing affordability issues in the region, and the overall direction of the Draft RAHS as expressed by the goals, strategies and actions. Senior governments are expected to play a key role in implementing the strategy. Staff has identified recommended responses to address various

HOU - 15 concerns, which, if approved, will be included in the final Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. This will be brought to the Housing Committee for approval in June 2016. Alternative 1 is recommended.

References: 1) Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy August 2015 2) Draft Housing Demand Estimates November 2015 3) Draft Performance Measures November 2015 4) Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy November 2015 Stakeholder Workshops – What We Heard Draft January 2016 5) Municipal Correspondence Summary 6) All Municipal Correspondence on Draft RAHS 7) Written Stakeholder Submissions Summary 8) Written Stakeholder Submissions on Draft RAHS

6516361

HOU - 16 5.2

To: Housing Committee

From: Don Littleford, Director, Housing

Date: March 29, 2016 Meeting Date: April 22, 2016

Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Housing Committee receive for information the report dated March 29, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”.

Housing Committee 2016 Work Plan The Attachment to this report sets out the Committee’s Work Plan for 2016. The status of work program elements is indicated as pending, in progress, or complete. The listing is updated as needed to include new issues that arise, items requested by the Committee, and changes to the schedule (Attachment 1).

Provincial Budget February 16, 2016 The provincial government delivered the budget on Feb 16, 2016 which included several housing measures (Attachment 2). The pre‐budget announcement reported an investment of $355 million over five years to support 2000 units of new affordable housing for people with low to moderate incomes. These funds were/will be obtained through the non‐profit asset transfer program and will be disbursed through a BC Housing Request for Expression of Interest. A number of other housing measures were announced in the budget including:  Full exemption from Property Transfer Tax for newly built homes up to $750,000, and partial exemption up to $800,000  An increase in the Property Transfer Tax rate from 2% to 3% for the portion of fair market value over $2 million.  Collection of data on citizenship status for property transactions beginning summer 2016 to allow tracking of the volume of foreign investment in BC  Expansion of the home renovation tax credit to include persons with disabilities.

Provincial Request for Expression of Interest BC Housing’s Request for Expression of Interest for the first tranche of the $355 million is expected to be for $50 million and to be issued in late April 2016, with a closing date at the end of June.

Federal Budget March 22, 2016 The federal Budget 2016 announced $2.3 billion investment in affordable housing and homelessness over the next two years (Attachment 3). It also included a commitment to consult with stakeholders on the development of a National Housing Strategy to be implemented over the subsequent eight years. Over the next two years allotments include:  $504 million to double the Affordable Housing Initiative nationally  $200 million targeted to affordable housing for seniors

HOU - 17  $574 million to support energy and water efficiency retrofits to existing social housing  $90 million to support victims of violence shelters  $739 million to address housing in First Nations, Inuit and northern communities  $111 million to bolster the Homelessness Partnering Strategy  $208 million to a new Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund (over 5 years) and  $30 million to help providers maintain rent geared to income units. Details are yet to come on specific implementation measures.

Noteworthy is that the additional allocation for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy is the first increase by the federal government since 2000 and has been the subject of several communications from the GVRD Board to the federal government.

Exploration of School Sites for Affordable Housing Metro Vancouver Housing staff have been meeting with school district staff and discussing potential opportunities for co‐developing school sites with mixed income rental housing. The concept of building housing, educational and possibly child care facilities together in one location would make beneficial use of urban school sites in ideal locales. The alignment with the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy goal to reduce car use and parking requirements by developing walk able communities while lowering transportation and housing cost burdens would be welcomed by low and modest income families.

Stability in Vancouver’s Housing Unit Occupancy Study Released February 2016 The extent of vacant units in the city and the region is one of several topics of mounting interest in the discussion of housing affordability in the region but there is little information. The City of Vancouver’s interest in maximizing the rental housing supply prompted them to commission research on the extent of unoccupied dwellings in the city and region (Attachment 4). Using electricity consumption data collected from every home in Greater Vancouver between 2002 and 2014 and employing some analysis techniques, the research found the non‐occupancy rate across all City of Vancouver housing units to be flat at around 5% each year over the period. It also found that this rate is consistent with the rest of the GVRD, when adjusted for housing type. The number of non‐occupied units has increased in the City of Vancouver and is correlated with growth in the overall housing stock. Apartments exhibit the most non‐occupancy, with a rate of 7.2% in 2014, and this is 2% higher than in the rest of the GVRD.

Attachments Attachment 1 ‐ Housing Committee 2016 Work Plan Attachment 2 – BC Balanced Budget 2016 Backgrounder: New measures aim to improve housing affordability, February 16, 2016 Attachment 3 – Canadian Housing and Renewal Association Budget 2016 Highlights on Affordable Housing and Homelessness Attachment 4 – Stability in Vancouver’s Housing Unit Occupancy. Prepared for Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency February 2016 by Ecotagious Inc.

17615432

HOU - 18 5.2 Attachment 1

Housing Committee 2016 Work Plan April 1, 2016

2016 Key Actions/Priorities – Housing Policy Status

1st Quarter Provide update on HPS projects to Housing Committee in February Complete Receive Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update and Approval Process Complete Report ‐ February

2nd Quarter Stakeholder Feedback to Draft RAHS and Proposed Responses Report ‐ April Pending New federal housing stimulus announcement expected in Q2 – 2016; Develop Pending plan to respond quickly to any opportunity. ‐ April Provide final RAHS to Housing Committee to consider for adoption ‐ June Pending Launch call for proposals (2016‐2019 contract period) for HPS projects – new Pending online format – Information Item for Committee ‐ June

3rd Quarter (no Hsg Cte meeting)

4th Quarter Report on Rental Supply Coalition on joint platform for 2017 BC election. Ongoing Provide list of awarded HPS projects to Housing Committee ‐ October Pending Housing Policy 2017 budget approval ‐ October Pending Implementation plan for Regional Affordable Housing Strategy action items Pending (Metro Vancouver) ‐ October Demographic Trends in Regional Centres Research Report (Joint with Regional Pending Planning Cte) for information ‐ October Final ‘What Works for Purpose Built Rental Housing’ Report ‐ October Pending Interim results on Transit Oriented Mixed Income Development Viability Study Pending research (Joint with Regional Planning Cte) ‐ October Complete DCC Waiver bylaw changes with related work done by Pending Finance/GVS&DD – October

17162838

HOU - 19 5.2 Attachment 2 BRITISH COLUMBIA BALANCED BUDGET 2016

February 16, 2016

BACKGROUNDER

NEW MEASURES AIM TO IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Newly built homes priced up to $750,000 will be fully exemptfrom the property transfer tax when bought by Canadian citizens or permanent residentsas a principal residenceand lived-infor a full year. The measure aims to assistpurchasers and help stimulate the construction of moderately pricedhomes. Theexemption will savea purchaser up to $13,000, and provide an estimated $75 million in property transfer tax relieffor new construction in 2016-17. Partial exemptionsare availablefor new housing valued up to $800,000. Newly constructed housing eligible forthe exemption includes the first purchase of a new housing unit or a newlysubdivided unit. Thosewho buy land and build homes to beused as their principal residencecan also apply to receive a refund of property transfer tax rather than an exemption at the time of registration, if they complete construction and move in within a year of purchase. The program will be availableto buyersregardlessof how long they have lived in British Columbia, meaning those who move to B.C. to take jobs, start companies and build their liveshere will also benefit. The exemptionwill be availableto first-timebuyersand previousproperty owners alike. The New Housing exemption will be largelyfunded by increasing the property transfer tax rate to 3% on the portion of fair market value over $2 million. The 1% rate onthe first $200,000 of property value and the 2% rate on the value of a property between $200,000 and $2 million continue to apply.The new higher rate is expected to raise an additional $75 million each year—the approximate cost of the New Housing exemption.

Creating new housing supply is critical to improving housingaffordabilityin B.C.’sreal estate market. Relativelyhigh housing prices in B.C., and particularly in the LowerMainland, are driven by increased demand that has resulted fromB.C.’seconomic and population growth, as well as constrained geographyand a lack of availableland. The New Housing exemption is expected to benefit owners of about 22,000 new homes in 2016, many of which will be constructed in the Vancouverarea. Investments in affordable housing Budget2016 also includes measuresto provide more affordablehousing options for lower-incomeearners. Capital spending of $355 million overfiveyearswill support the construction or renovation of more than 2,000 affordablehousing units in communities acrossthe province.

HOU - 20 The Provincealsocontinuesto work in collaborationwith otherlevelsof governmentto support BritishColumbians’abilityto buy or rent at pricesthey canafford.Through the Community Partnership Initiativesprogram,BC Housing partnerswith municipalities, non-profitsocietiesand othercommunity-based organizationsto createaffordablehousing.The program arrangesconstructionor long-termfinancingfor non-profitsocieties,connectsstakeholdersthrough partnership referralsand providesadvice. Developing better data on cost drivers Proposedchangesto the Property TransferTaxActwill authorizegovernmentto collectnew information from ownerswhen they registertheir property. • Purchaserswill be requiredto identifythemselvesas Canadian citizensor permanent residents. • Individualtransfereeswho are not Canadian citizensor permanent residents willbe requiredto disclose their citizenship. • Corporationswill be required to disclosetheir directors’citizenship. • Transfereeswiil also berequiredto disclosewhetheror not they are holding the landas bare trustees when they registerand provideinformationon thesettlor andbeneficiariesof the bare trust. Citizenshipdisclosurewasrequiredwith land transfersuntil 1998.Thesechangeswill generatedata that will allowgovernmentto monitor the volumeof foreigninvestmentand use of bare trusts and assesswhat effect,if any,they haveon pricing. Balancingsupplyand demand in an era of strong net in-migrationfrom elsewherein Canada and around the worldrequiresa new focuson the efficientsupport of new housingsupplyat as lowa cost as possible. BC Housingwill conduct a study on thekeyfactorsaffectinghousingaffordabilityin BritishColumbia, which may then contributeto policy-makingacrossall levelsof government.

Governmentis alsoexploringwaysto make the componentsof the cost of newhousingmore transparent to home buyers,such as localgovernmentcostsand fees.The Provinceurgesmunicipalleadersand regional directors,who are responsiblefor planning, zoning and development regulation,to usethe broadertoolsat their disposalto support the Province’seffortsand further the creationof new housingsupply. Housing marketsin the Vancouverareahavehistoricallybeen expensivedue to the pressuresof supplyand demand. The populationof GreaterVancouver inparticular has increased70% sincethe mid-1980s,compared to 35% in the rest of Canada, and B.C. economicgrowth has averaged2.6% annuallysince2001,comparedto 1.9%in the rest of Canada. The 20-yeartrend of decliningmortgagerateshas made it easierfor buyersto carry their mortgagecosts. With increasingdemand and restrictedsupplyof single-familyproperties,pricesfor singlefamilyhomesin most areasof GreaterVancouverhaveincreasedbetween45% and 70% overthe pastfiveyears,whilepricesfor multi-familyhomeshaveincreasedbetween 15%and 40%. Any long-termmitigationof housingpricesand housing affordabilityin the LowerMainland must address adequatesuppiyof affordablenew construction,particularlymulti-familyhousing. Without an increasein housingsupply,there will simplybe more buyerscompetingin the samemarket, ultimatelydrivingpricesevenhigher.Increaseddensificationis a tool localgovernmentscan use to promote the constructionof affordablypricedhousingand offsetthe factorsdrivingprices,such as low interestrates, economicactivity,risingpopulation due to in-migration, andin the LowerMainland especially,a constrained geography. Media Contact: Jamie Edwardson CommunicationsDirector Ministry of Finance 250 356-2821

HOU - 21 5.2 Attachment 3

")'(+ # &$ $$ $$ ($!$% $%% * (& $&#$, (%%$!#3&%$$, (# & %><=B#&%/ (#%%$,$$%% #!.,$ 1 $ $#' &$ %%$$,"&% #/% &% %, $$$$&# %%$%##% !$'#* %# 5 # #$ %*# % !&#$& &% , $ !! #%& %*/ # &$ $ $ #%$&!!*, 0$( *$&#$/2 1 '$% # &$ (!# '%#%$&!! #%% % $( % $% #% $%%!# ( 0$ * $&$% (*/2 #!-,$ • '# %0$! (! % %( !$$/ % % & ( %# &%)$% !# #$%%$&!! #% #$%#&%&#,% '# % (! %$ #%3%# $=! % %* '$% % #$%#&%&# $ 5% # + #%%!&%# $%,(%# ($%(%#$*$%$,!# ' # &$ , !# %%)$% #$%#&%&# # %%$ % / • $= &$$!##* #$%#&%&# '$% %$ '#% )%%( *#$/ • $>('# %# %*#$ % '# %0$ 3%# #$%#&%&#! / %$!$,% $(# # #% &$. # # , # *- # &$'$ %*- *%%# ! $% % !%+ %! % % %#/ #!.,$

HOU - 22 • $!#% % '# %0$ $= % %$,&%><=B!# ! $$ % $ #$%#&%&# '$% %$% % 9?/@ '#'*#$/$ '$% %$(!)! # &$ 6 & $%#$ #'%$ ' 7,$&!! #%#*# #,# (&%&# ##% #$%#&%&#, !# ' & %*%#%$ #$#'/$ ## !%#?5%%#&%&# # &$ !$, %$ ( & ,9=/> ( '$% #$% % $, &% #%# & %$/ • &%><=B!# ! $$% '$%9>/? '#%( *#$,$%#% ><=B4=C/ %$ & %,9>/> #%$% '# %0$ % %% '$% $ #$%#&%&#, & 9C?E ##$% % $, &% #%# &$ / #!.-$ • $&#%%%$ '$% %$# $%%' % !%$ &$ $% #'$3# ,% '# %( $&%(%!# ' $ %##% #$, &$ %# & %$, *$% #$ % *#% ' ! % &$ %#%*/ #!..$ • $&!! #%% $%#&% ( # &$ & %$,%# '% #!# )$% # &$ ,$&#$% $&!! #% &$ #%*$& $# %$&!! %$, $&#$% $%#$, ! %' ,% '# %( '$%9A<@/@ '#%( *#$,$%#% ><=B4=C/$ #$$&!! #%$)!%% % #% =<<,<<< &$ $/ #!..$ • &%><=B!# ! $$% !# '9><<=B4=C, % $&!! #%% $%#&% ,#!# !% # &$ #$ #$/ & (!# '& #% '$% % # &$ %%', !# ' $ %##% #$( %#"&#% $%3%%$ '$% %$/$ '$% %$)!%% !!# ' &$ % $ # #% A,<<< (3 $ # &$ $6!/EE7

2 HOU - 23 #!(*.$ • #$$&# % &$ $ #$#',&%><=B!# ! $$% !# ' 9AA@/? '#%( *#$ ><=B4=C/ %$ & %,9@=B/B '#%( *#$( &!# '% &$ #%# #$ % #$$% &$ $ #$#'/ % 9=?C/C '#%( *#$( &!# '% #% &$ #! #% , $% (( &$&!! #%%# '% #%# % )$% &$ #$#' 6!/=?E7 #!(''$ • $&!! #%%$ $$#*#%# %$ # '% $,&%><=B!# ! $$% !# '9AC?/E '#%( *#$,$%#% ><=B4=C/$ '$% %(! #$$% #$ ##!#$$$ &$ & %$, ($ !# ' * #& #*&$, (# &%%* $%$ &$ # #6!/EE7/ #!(''$

• &%><=B!# ! $$% # %9?< '#%( *#$,$%#% ><=B4=C, % !%$!# '#$ % # %3#3% 3 # &$ $' $ &$ /$% $&!! #%( &!# ' %%$$ & % 3%#!!# $% !%$ &$ $% #'$3# ' !%# & $&%% $(%!# ' $,%##% #$ $% #$/ #!(''$ • &#% $%#&% ## % &$ ,&%><=B!# ! $$ % '$%9><=B4=C, # % &$ '% & ,% $%#*% #% &$ #! #% / • #% &$ #! #% ($ $&%(%$% #$ %$ # % &$ %%'% !# ' (3 $% $% & !%$ &$ ' !#$ #% $%#&% ( ## % &$ !# %$/!% 9A<< $( &'

3 HOU - 24 *# #'*#$/$ %%' &$&!! #%% $%#&% #% =<,<<< (# %& %$ '#'*#$/ #!('($ • &%><=B!# ! $$% '$% % 9===/D '#%( *#$,$%#% ><=B4=C, % $$ $$ #% # %#%*/ #!('($ • &%><=B!# ! $$% !# '9DE/E '#%( *#$, ><=B4 =C, #% $%#&% # '% $%#$ %# $% &$$ #'%$ *' /& (!# '& #% '$% % # &$ %%',!# ' $ %##% #$( %#"&#% $%3 %%$ '$% %$/$& !# % '$% %$)!%% $&!! #%% $%#&% ## '% '#?,<<<$%#$$!$ '#% )%%( *#$/ ! %& " " $#

4 HOU - 25 Stability in Vancouver’s Housing Unit Occupancy Analysis of Housing Occupancy in the City of Vancouver Using Electricity Meter Data Analytics

Prepared for the Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency

February 2016

Prepared by Ecotagious Inc. Suite 510 – 1111 Melville St. Vancouver, BC, Canada V6E 3V6 (t) 604.225.2012 www.ecotagious.com

HOU - 26

Ecotagious helps utilities and municipalities turn smart meter data into insights and energy conservation. In addition to helping municipalities develop housing policy, Ecotagious helps utility customers meet their energy savings targets which are put in place by regulators to keep energy prices low for consumers. Ecotagious’ software-as-a-service offering drives conservation by providing utilities' residential customers with a breakdown of their electricity and natural gas use by major appliance, and then providing relevant tailored recommendations on how to save electricity and natural gas. The results are industry-leading energy savings and residential customer satisfaction.

Ecotagious Inc. is a private company based in Vancouver, Canada. For more information, please visit www.ecotagious.com

February 2016 | 2 HOU - 27

Introduction

Every week seems to bring the publication of a new article on housing issues in Greater Vancouver. Many of these articles try to address topics related to the social discussion taking place in our community, such as housing affordability, low rental vacancy rates, non-occupied homes and associated impacts on neighbourhood vibrancy.

Vancouver City Council has expressed a desire to understand the extent of these issues. While research into some of these topics is starting to be undertaken and publicly released, very little information is available on housing occupancy.

Given the potential impact of housing occupancy on rental unit stock, associated vacancy rates, housing affordability and neighbourhood vibrancy, the City of Vancouver retained Ecotagious to undertake this study of the occupancy rates of residential housing units in the city and region. Ecotagious studied and analyzed anonymized electricity consumption data provided by BC Hydro and has included the results of that analysis in this report.

Electricity consumption data can deliver significant insights into housing occupancy because it is collected from every home in Greater Vancouver through a consistent methodology. However, the reader should be aware that there are limitations to the data and its analysis, and is encouraged to read the Methodology section of this report for more details. The reader is furthermore encouraged to:  Consider the information provided in this report as a single contribution to the literature on housing occupancy in the City of Vancouver,  Incorporate other sources of housing information to provide a more complete perspective on the issue,  Place more attention on the relative occupancy trends over time and less attention to absolute occupancy values at any given time presented in this report.

February 2016 | 3 HOU - 28

Key Findings

The analysis of electricity consumption data in the City of Vancouver (CoV) between 2002 and 2014 reveals:

 The Non-Occupancy rate1 across all CoV housing units has been flat (4.9% in 2002, 4.8% in 2014)

 The CoV’s Non-Occupancy rate is consistent with and tracks the Non- Occupancy rate for the rest of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (not including the CoV)

 The number of Non-Occupied housing units has grown from 8,400 in 2002 to 10,800 in 2014. This increase has been driven entirely from the growth in the overall housing stock

 Apartments, which represent 60% of CoV’s residential housing mix, are driving Non-Occupancy in the City at 7.2% in 2014

 The Non-Occupancy rate for Apartments has been consistently 2% higher in the CoV than in the rest of the GVRD

 Single Family and Duplex Housing Units show low and relatively stable Non- Occupancy rates of 1% between 2002 and 2014 o The CoV rate is in-line with the rate for the rest of the GVRD

 Similarly, Rowhouses also show low and relatively stable Non-Occupancy rates of 1% o The CoV rate is in-line with the rate for the rest of the GVRD

 All five of the city geographic sectors2 analyzed show similar rates of Non- Occupancy by housing type, with no significant divergence over time with the exception of the Downtown Peninsula that has seen a drop in Non-Occupancy from 6.9% in 2002 to 6.0% in 2014

 Non-Occupancy rates increase as the period of Non-Occupancy shortens from 12 months (4.8%) to 4 months (6.0%) to 2 months (10.3%) o The non-Occupancy rates for each of these periods has remained stable between 2002 and 2014

1 Non-Occupancy is defined as a housing unit that is not occupied for at least 25 days out of every month for a year. See the Methodology section for more details. Note that Non-Occupancy differs from Vacancy in that a Vacant housing unit holds no significant personal belongings while a Non-Occupied housing unit may either be Vacant or have significant personal belonging but no one residing there on a frequent basis. 2 The 5 city geographic sectors are the Downtown Peninsula, Northeast Vancouver, Southeast Vancouver, Southwest Vancouver and Northwest Vancouver. See map on page 23.

February 2016 | 4 HOU - 29

 An analysis of Non-Occupancy intensity (days per month that a unit is unoccupied) shows that there are 2x as many units that are unoccupied at least 15 days per month over 12 months as there are units unoccupied for at least 25 days per month

However, the findings are not comprehensive and bring forth additional questions that may warrant additional research using complementary sources of information.

February 2016 | 5 HOU - 30

Contents

3 Introduction

4 Key Findings

7 Background

8 Methodology

12 Results

30 Conclusion

31 About the Authors

31 Acknowledgements

February 2016 | 6 HOU - 31

Background

Housing occupancy can have a significant impact on rental unit stock, associated vacancy rates, housing affordability and neighbourhood vibrancy. Existing research into housing occupancy has been limited to date to a few oft-cited reports:

 ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ released in 2013 by the Urban Futures Institute report noted that the 6.7% of apartments in the CoV that were unoccupied was in-line with the rate of 6.2% in the Vancouver CMA and 7.0% average across all 33 CMAs in Canada3

 ‘Ownership, Occupancy, and Rentals: An Indicative Sample Study of Condominiums in Downtown Vancouver’ released in 2009 by Andy Yan at BTAworks noted that, based on the electricity consumption between January 2006 and December 2007 of a sample of Downtown condos, 5.5 – 8.5% of Downtown condos were unoccupied4

In order to gain additional insight into the issue of housing occupancy, the City of Vancouver commissioned this study with the primary research objectives of determining:

 The residential Non-Occupancy rate in the City of Vancouver over time o By housing type o By geographic sector within the City o In relation to the rest of the GVRD

 The number of Non-Occupied housing units in the City of Vancouver

 The Non-Occupancy rates by duration (e.g. 2 months, 4 months and 12 months)

 Whether there has been a change in the occupancy intensity of homes (i.e. occupied fewer days per month)

At the City of Vancouver’s request, BC Hydro kindly provided anonymized electricity consumption for residential units in the City of Vancouver and the rest of the GVRD.

The City of Vancouver retained Ecotagious to study and analyze the anonymized electricity consumption data provided by BC Hydro, and Ecotagious has included the results of that analysis in this report.

3 Urban Futures Institute, ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, 2013 (http://www.urbanfutures.com/foreign-unoccupied- pdf/). 4 Andrew Yan (BTAworks), ‘Ownership, Occupancy, and Rentals: An indicative Sample Study of Condominiums in Downtown Vancouver’, 2009 (http://www.btaworks.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/btaworks_condo_study_report_final2.pdf).

February 2016 | 7 HOU - 32

Methodology

Because every home in Greater Vancouver generates electricity consumption data and that data is collected in a consistent method and in a consistent format by a single organization (BC Hydro), residential electricity consumption data offers an opportunity to deliver insights on housing occupancy across the GVRD.

Occupied homes tend to use more electricity than non-occupied homes, and that electricity use varies significantly more from day to day than in non-occupied homes.

The graph below shows a home that is occupied from Day 0 through 160, followed by a period of non-occupancy through Day 250. The period of non-occupancy shows lower electricity consumption and lower variability in day to day consumption than the period of occupancy.

Graph 1: A typical home with extended periods of Occupancy and Non-Occupancy

Non-Occupied kWh per day per kWh

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Days

When identifying occupancy, the variability in electricity consumption is a more effective indicator than the average amount of electricity consumption over a given period.

The presence of electric space heating in a home, however, can confound the identification of occupancy. The graph below shows the electricity consumption by day of a home with electric space heating. As can be seen in the winter between Day 160 and 330, the electric space heating dominates the other daily loads on a consumption basis and on a day-to-day variability basis.

February 2016 | 8 HOU - 33

Graph 2: A typical home with Electric Space Heating

Electric Space Heating Load kWh per day per kWh

1 Jul 31 61 91 Oct121 151 181 Jan211 241 271 Apr301 331

While the electric space heating load is highly correlated with the outside temperature, it is highly variable on a day to day basis. In addition, the electric space heating load can vary significantly from home to home based on a number of factors, including the presence of other heating sources. For example, surveys run by Ecotagious show that in some jurisdictions between 50 and 70% of homes have multiple heating sources, e.g.:  A natural gas furnace for the primary suite and electric baseboard heaters for the secondary suite  A natural gas furnace for most of a single family dwelling and electric baseboard heaters for the new addition or the garage  A condo with electric space heaters supplemented by a natural gas fireplace

As a result, it becomes more difficult to remove the effects of electric space heating in order to identify occupancy during heating (winter) months.

To identify the Non-Occupancy rates presented in this report, Ecotagious applied its proprietary algorithms to the anonymized electricity consumption data provided by BC Hydro. The algorithm detects Occupancy by analyzing a number of factors, the most important of which is the variability in electricity consumption over time.

In defining Non-Occupancy, Ecotagious analyzed Non-Occupancy separately for periods of 2 months, 4 months and 12 months (see Graph 12). Based on the results of that analysis and the CoV’s focus on using the information to inform housing policy, the analysis was completed using 12 months as the period over which to evaluate Occupancy.

For the purposes of this study and in order to minimize the distortive impacts of electric space heating during the winter months on the ability to detect Non- Occupancy, Ecotagious defined a housing unit as Non-Occupied in a given year when that unit was unoccupied for each of the 4 months during the non-heating

February 2016 | 9 HOU - 34

season (August, September, and the following June and July). A unit was deemed unoccupied in a given month when the unit was unoccupied for 25 or more days in that month.

The selection of the threshold of 25 or more non-occupied days each month allows for cases of infrequent use of the home (e.g. a domestic worker coming in once a week – 4x per month) without identifying the home as Occupied. An example of infrequent use of the home during a period of extended non-occupancy can be seen in Graph 1 above where the period of non-occupancy is briefly interrupted by a small window of use.

An analysis of Non-Occupancy when defined as 15 or more non-occupied days each month has also been included in the report (see Graph 13).

In addition, newly built homes of all types can distort the aggregated Non- Occupancy rates as they may potentially remain unoccupied for a period of time while the home is being constructed, while the unit is being sold and before occupation. Therefore, to remove the potentially distortive impact of new builds on the Non-Occupancy rate, the first year of electricity data was removed for each home in the CoV data.

The analysis was completed:  From 2002 to 2014  For each of 5 geographic sectors within the CoV (as identified by staff at the CoV given the geocoding possible with the anonymized electricity consumption data; see map on page 23 for boundaries) 1. Downtown Peninsula 2. Northwest Vancouver 3. Northeast Vancouver 4. Southwest Vancouver 5. Southeast Vancouver  For each of the three major housing types that make up over 99% of the housing units: 1. Apartments: High-Rise and Low-Rise Purpose-Built Rental Units and Condominiums 2. Rowhouses 3. Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes Note: Other Home Types, representing <1% of the housing unit population, were not included in the analysis due to their small population

While electricity consumption data has significant benefits as a data source to evaluate non-occupancy, it also has some inherent limitations that should be noted. The Non-Occupancy rates identified by analyzing electricity consumption data can be impacted by a number of factors, e.g.: • Secondary suites in Single Family Dwellings will reduce the Non-Occupancy rate as suites often share the same meter as the primary suite, and therefore the unit will be identified as Occupied even if only one of the suites is occupied.

February 2016 | 10 HOU - 35

• The frequent presence of visitors/domestic workers in an otherwise unoccupied home may reduce Non-Occupancy rates. • The accuracy of the input data. Prior to delivery to Ecotagious, the electricity consumption data was kindly prepared by BC Hydro. That preparation included a number of processes, included but not limited to the manipulation of the data to account for missing data. Like any data cleaning and preparation activity, the process can introduce unintended errors into the algorithm processing that may increase or decrease Non-Occupancy rates. • The accuracy of the algorithm. In analyzing the high volume of electricity consumption data (big data) associated with this project in the combination of formats in which it was provided, Ecotagious selected algorithm processes that prioritized consistent application across the data sets. While this may result in lower accuracies in the absolute Non-Occupancy rate and count values, it results in more accurate relative longitudinal trends over time. • The analysis of non-heating season months only (August, September, and the following June and July) to determine 12 month Non-Occupancy will fail to identify any changes in winter-based seasonal occupancy changes (i.e. a change in occupancy isolated to heating months only). • The housing stock population used in the analysis is based on the population of BC Hydro accounts by home type in the CoV and the rest of the GVRD. This population does not include multi-unit dwellings that are metered in aggregate (e.g. one meter for multiple apartment units), therefore the number of apartment units presented in this report and used to calculate non-occupancy rates may be lower than the actual population of apartment units.

Due to the inherent limitations of the data and the analytics, the reader is encouraged to:  Place more attention on the relative occupancy trends over time and less attention to absolute occupancy values at any given time,  Consider the information provided in this report as a single contribution to the literature on housing occupancy in the City of Vancouver,  Incorporate other complementary sources of housing information to provide a more complete perspective on the issue, particularly information that may address the drivers of Non-Occupancy.

It should also be noted that the analytics used in this study are effective at detecting occupant-driven electricity consumption, and not necessarily Vacancy. A Vacant housing unit holds no significant personal belongings nor does anyone reside within it. Meanwhile, a Non-Occupied housing unit may either be Vacant or have no one residing there on a frequent basis but still hold someone’s significant personal belongings. Therefore, the term ‘Non-Occupancy’ has been used in this report in place of the more familiar term ‘Vacancy’.

February 2016 | 11 HOU - 36

Results

The analysis of electricity consumption data in the City of Vancouver (CoV) between 2002 and 2014 reveals:

The Non-Occupancy rate across all CoV housing units has been flat The Non-Occupancy rate across all housing types in the CoV was 4.9% in 2002 and 4.8% in 2014.

Graph 3: Non-Occupancy Rate in the City of Vancouver Since 2002 10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

All Units

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted above), inclusive. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 12 HOU - 37

Apartments, Single Family Dwellings and Duplex Housing Units make up over 95% of the CoV’s housing stock

Apartments continue to grow as a proportion of the total housing stock6 in the CoV, from 57% in 2002 to 60% in 2014. Single Family & Duplex Housing units contributed an additional 35% and Rowhouses made up 4.5% in 2014, with Other housing type units making up the remaining 0.5%. As a result of the small size of the Other housing category, it has not been included in the rest of the analysis presented in this report.

Graph 4: Housing Unit Mix in the City of Vancouver Since 2002 100%

80%

60%

40% % % of Total Units 20%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses Other

Note: Apartments include purpose-built rental units and condominiums. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized daily and monthly residential account smart meter data.

6 The housing stock population used in the analysis is based on the population of BC Hydro accounts by home type in the CoV and the rest of the GVRD. This population does not include multi-unit dwellings that are metered in aggregate (e.g. one meter for multiple apartment units), therefore the number of apartment units presented in this report and used to calculate non-occupancy rates may be lower than the actual population of apartment units. See the Methodology section for more detail.

February 2016 | 13 HOU - 38

The CoV’s aggregate Non-Occupancy rate is driven by Apartments

Apartment Non-Occupancy has remained relatively flat (7.7% in 2002; 7.2% in 2014), yet is significantly higher than the rates for Single Family & Duplex Housing Units, and Rowhouses.

Graph 5: Non-Occupancy Rate by Home Type in the City of Vancouver Since 2002 10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses All Units

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted above), inclusive. Apartments include purpose-built rental units and condominiums. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 14 HOU - 39

The CoV has a higher proportion of Apartments in its housing mix than the rest of the GVRD

Approximately 60% of the CoV’s housing units are Apartments, relative to 32% for the rest of the GVRD.

Graph 6: Housing Mix Comparison Between the City of Vancouver and the Rest of the GVRD (2014) 100%

80%

60%

40% % % of Total Units

20%

0% CoV Rest of the GVRD

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Units Rowhouses Other

Note: Apartments include purpose-built rental units and condominiums. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 15 HOU - 40

The CoV’s Non-Occupancy rate is consistent with and tracks the Non- Occupancy rate for the rest of the Greater Vancouver Regional District

As seen from the CoV data, Apartments have higher Non-Occupancy rates than other housing types. To compare the overall Non-Occupancy rate between the CoV and the rest of the GVRD, the Non-Occupancy rates for each of the rest of the GVRD’s housing types were weighted by the CoV housing mix and aggregated. The resulting normalized Non-Occupancy rate for the GVRD is presented below with the actual CoV rate.

When normalized in such a way for housing stock mix, the CoV and the rest of the GVRD show similarly stable Non-Occupancy rates between 2002 and 2014, with the CoV showing approximately 1% higher Non-Occupancy from 2002 through 2014.

Graph 7: Comparison of Non-Occupancy Between CoV and Rest of GVRD (Normalized for Housing Mix)

2% % % of Total Units

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Rest of GVRD (Normalized) City of Vancouver (Actual)

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted above), inclusive. Rest of GVRD includes Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Langley, Delta, North Vancouver, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Port Moody, White Rock, and Pitt Meadows. Rest of GVRD figures have been normalized to CoV housing mix. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 16 HOU - 41

The difference in the Non-Occupancy rate between the CoV and the Rest of the GVRD is driven by Apartments

As seen below, Apartments in the CoV have had Non-Occupancy rates 2% higher than seen in the rest of the GVRD since 2002.

Graph 8: Apartment Non-Occupancy Rate in CoV and Rest of GVRD Since 2002 10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Rest of GVRD City of Vancouver

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted above), inclusive. Rest of GVRD includes Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Langley, Delta, North Vancouver, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Port Moody, White Rock, and Pitt Meadows. Apartments include purpose-built rental units and condominiums. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

It should also be noted that Apartments are much less likely to be owner-occupied (33%) than other home types in the CoV (71%)7. And Apartments in the CoV are also much less likely to be owner-occupied than Apartments in the rest of the GVRD (48%). This correlation of higher Non-Occupancy rate in CoV Apartments with lower owner-occupancy may warrant further research.

The Apartment segment is in fact composed of two separate dwelling types: purpose-built rental units and condominiums. The purpose-built rental unit vacancy rate in 2014 was 0.5% in the CoV and 1.0% in the GVRD as a whole8. For illustrative purposes, if the purpose-built rental unit vacancy rates are assumed to be 0% over a 12 month period, the implication is that the Non-Occupancy rates for condominiums are 12.6% in the CoV and 7.3% in the rest of the GVRD9.

7 Source: Custom data from the 2011 National Household Survey (originated from Statistics Canada and provided by City of Vancouver). 8 CMHC Rental Market Report for Vancouver and Abbotsford-Mission CMAs, Fall 2014. 9 Calculated based on condominium unit population data from the 2011 National Household Survey (originated from Statistics Canada and provided by City of Vancouver).

February 2016 | 17 HOU - 42

The Non-Occupancy rates in Rowhouses in the CoV and the Rest of the GVRD are similar and stable

The Non-Occupancy rates in Rowhouses in the CoV and the rest of the GVRD have both been hovering near 1% since 2002.

Graph 9: Rowhouse Non-Occupancy Rate in CoV and Rest of GVRD Since 2002 5%

2% % % of Total Units

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Rest of GVRD City of Vancouver

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted above), inclusive. Rest of GVRD includes Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Langley, Delta, North Vancouver, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Port Moody, White Rock, and Pitt Meadows. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 18 HOU - 43

The Non-Occupancy rates in Single Family & Duplex Housing Units in the CoV and the Rest of the GVRD are similar and stable

The Non-Occupancy rates in Single Family & Duplex Housing Units in the CoV and the rest of the GVRD have both been hovering near 1% since 2002.

Graph 10: Single Family & Duplex Housing Non-Occupancy Rate in CoV and Rest of GVRD Since 2002 5%

2% % % of Total Units 1%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Rest of GVRD City of Vancouver

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted above), inclusive. Rest of GVRD includes Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Langley, Delta, North Vancouver, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Port Moody, White Rock, and Pitt Meadows. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 19 HOU - 44

The growth in the number of Non-Occupied housing units in the CoV is driven by the overall growth in the housing stock

The number of Non-Occupied housing units in the CoV has grown by 2,400 units, from 8,400 in 2002 to 10,800 in 2014. All of this growth has been driven by the growth in the housing unit stock, while the change in the Non-Occupancy rate (from 4.9% to 4.8%) has reduced Non-Occupancy by a modest 200 units.

Graph 11: Change in Number of Non-Occupied Housing Units (2002 to 2014)

12,000 2,600 (200) 10,800

10,000 8,400 8,000

6,000

4,000 # of # of Total Units

2,000

0 2002 Change attributed Change attributed 2014 to Housing Stock to Non-Occupancy growth Rate decrease

Notes: Non-Occupancy defined as no occupancy for 12 month period from August to July (ending the year noted

above), inclusive. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 20 HOU - 45

As expected, Non-Occupancy rates increase when the duration of the Non- Occupancy shortens

In defining Non-Occupancy, Ecotagious analyzed Non-Occupancy separately for periods of 2 months, 4 months and 12 months. Based on the results of that analysis and the CoV’s focus on using the information to inform housing policy, the analysis was completed using 12 months as the period over which to evaluate Occupancy.

Since 2002, the rates for:  Homes unoccupied for 2 months have been stable at 10%  Homes unoccupied for 4 months have been stable at 6%  Homes unoccupied for 12 months have been stable at 5%

Graph 12: Non-Occupancy Rate by Duration in the City of Vancouver Since 2002

12%

10%

4% % % of Total Units

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2 Month 4 Month 12 Month

Notes: 2 Month Non-Occupancy period based on analysis of June data. 4 Month Non-Occupancy based on analysis of 4 month period from June to August of each year, inclusive. 12 Month Non-Occupancy analyzed using August, September, and the following June and July to avoid the distortive effects of electric space heating on the analytics. Source: Ecotagious analysis of anonymized residential electricity consumption data from BC Hydro, 2015.

February 2016 | 21 HOU - 46

Twice as many homes Non-Occupied for at least 15 days per month than for at least 25 days per month

In defining Non-Occupancy, Ecotagious also analyzed Non-Occupancy separately for periods of 12 months when the unit was unoccupied for at least 25 days each month and at least 15 days each month. As expected, twice as many homes are unoccupied at least 15 days per month as are unoccupied at least 25 days per month. Both of these rates have been relatively stable since 2002.

Graph 13: Non-Occupancy Rates (12 Month) in the City of Vancouver Since 2002

12%

10%

4% % % of Total Units

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

15+ Days of Non-Occupancy per Month 25+ Days of Non-Occupancy per Month

February 2016 | 22 HOU - 47

Non-Occupancies rates by housing type consistent throughout City

The Non-Occupancy rates were analyzed for each of the 5 CoV geographic sectors (as identified by staff at the CoV given the geocoding possible with the anonymized electricity consumption data):  Downtown Peninsula includes Downtown and the West End  Northeast Vancouver includes Mt. Pleasant, Strathcona, Grandview- Woodland and Hastings-Sunrise  Southeast Vancouver includes Renfrew-Collingwood, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, Riley Park, Oakridge, Marpole, Sunset, Victoria-Fraserview and Killarney  Southwest Vancouver includes South Cambie, Shaughnessy, Arbutus- Ridge, Dunbar-Southlands and Kerrisdale  Northwest Vancouver includes West Point Grey, Kitsilano and Fairview

The analysis showed little variation in the Non-Occupancy rates by housing type between neighbourhoods. The highest Non-Occupancy rate was found in Northwest Vancouver Apartments where 9.4% of units were unoccupied in 2014.

Figure 1: Non-Occupancy Rates by CoV Neighbourhood by Housing Type (% of Housing Units in 2014)

February 2016 | 23 HOU - 48

Non-Occupancy rates relatively consistent over time throughout City

The analysis showed very little variation in the overall Non-Occupancy rates between 2002 and 2014, with the largest change being a drop in Non-Occupancy of 1% in the Downtown Peninsula (see Graphs 14-18 for additional information on change over time by housing type by geographic sector in the city).

Figure 2: Non-Occupancy Rates by CoV Geographic Sector for 2002 & 2014 (% of Housing Units)

February 2016 | 24 HOU - 49

Non-Occupancy in the Downtown Peninsula (dominated by Apartments) has dropped 1%

Apartments, which make up 98% of the housing units in the Downtown Peninsula, have driven a decrease in Non-Occupancy from 6.9% in 2002 to 6.0% in 2014. The Downtown Peninsula includes the West End and Downtown.

Graph 14: Non-Occupancy Rate by Home Type in the Downtown Peninsula Since 2002 10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses All Units

February 2016 | 25 HOU - 50

Apartments have driven a modest increase in Non-Occupancy in Northeast Vancouver

The overall Non-Occupancy rate in Northeast Vancouver has increased modestly from 4.1% in 2002 to 4.5% in 2014. The increase was driven by Apartments (6.4% in 2002; 6.8% in 2014).

Northeast Vancouver includes the neighbourhoods of Mt. Pleasant, Strathcona, Grandview-Woodland and Hastings-Sunrise.

Graph 15: Non-Occupancy Rate by Home Type in Northeast Vancouver Since 2002 10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses All Units

February 2016 | 26 HOU - 51

Non-Occupancy in Southeast Vancouver has been stable

The overall Non-Occupancy rate in Single Family and Duplex housing-dominated Southeast Vancouver has been stable (2.8% in 2002; 2.9% in 2014).

Southeast Vancouver includes the neighbourhoods of Renfrew-Collingwood, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, Riley Park, Oakridge, Marpole, Sunset, Victoria- Fraserview and Killarney.

Graph 16: Non-Occupancy Rate by Home Type in Southeast Vancouver Since 2002 10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses All Units

February 2016 | 27 HOU - 52

Non-Occupancy in Southwest Vancouver has been stable

The overall Non-Occupancy rate in Southwest Vancouver has been stable (3.6% in 2002; 3.4% in 2014). The Non-Occupancy rate of the relatively small population of Apartments, however, has decreased from 9.6% in 2002 to 8.6% in 2014.

Southwest Vancouver includes the neighbourhoods of South Cambie, Shaughnessy, Arbutus-Ridge, Dunbar-Southlands and Kerrisdale.

Graph 17: Non-Occupancy Rate by Home Type in Southwest Vancouver Since 2002 12%

10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses All Units

February 2016 | 28 HOU - 53

Non-Occupancy in Northwest Vancouver has been relatively stable

The overall Non-Occupancy rate in Northwest Vancouver (Fairview, Kitsilano and West Point Grey) has been relatively stable (7.5% in 2002; 7.4% in 2014).

Graph 18: Non-Occupancy Rate by Home Type in Northwest Vancouver Since 2002 12%

10%

4% % % of Total Units 2%

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apartments Single Family & Duplex Homes Rowhouses All Units

February 2016 | 29 HOU - 54

Conclusion

An analysis of residential electricity meter data in the GVRD, in combination with a number of other data sources, has determined a relatively stable Non-Occupancy rate within the City of Vancouver from 2002 to 2014, at which time it was 4.8%. More detailed analysis, included in this report, shows that the Non-Occupancy rate is in-line with that of the rest of the GVRD, and fairly uniform throughout the geographic sectors of the City. The analysis did show that Apartments, which represent 60% of the CoV’s residential housing mix, are driving Non-Occupancy in the City at 7.2% in 2014.

This report provides an extensive analysis of electricity consumption data on housing occupancy in the City of Vancouver, and the findings are consistent with those from other studies. However, the findings are not comprehensive and bring forth additional questions that may warrant additional research using complementary sources of information.

February 2016 | 30 HOU - 55

About the Authors

Bruce Townson is the CEO at Ecotagious and a topic expert on using data analytics to derive insights and deliver energy savings. Dr. Ryan Gandy is a Database Development Consultant at Ecotagious and a topic expert in database management. Dr. Roger Donaldson is a Data Science Consultant at Ecotagious, an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Mathematics at the University of British Columbia, and a topic expert on data analytics. Dustin Johnson is a Data Scientist at Ecotagious.

Acknowledgements

Our special thanks go to the following team members and their organizations for their contributions to this project:

 Cathy Rupp and Dennis Nelson, BC Hydro  Edna Cho and Matthew Bourke, Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency  Richard Sam, CMHC  Margaret Eberle, Metro Vancouver  Karen Hemmingson and Tammy Bennet, BC Housing

For more information, please contact Ecotagious at: (email) [email protected] (mail) Suite 510, 1111 Melville Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 3V6

To find out more about Ecotagious, visit us at www.ecotagious.com

February 2016 | 31 HOU - 56 6.1

HOU - 57 HOU - 58 Greater Vancouver October Shayne CEO, Thank Burnaby, Re: 1701-4555 Dear September a questions requested housing Understanding Metro meaningful Transfer that The An with 1. BC Shayne: Regional

metrovancouver SERVICES you Ramsay estimated BC Vancouver Use Housing sector 9, Committee proceeds BC specific below Kingsway 2015 Housing details 11, for • • • • on • • District Program V5H 4330 approach was future 2015. $500 AND behalf they information What Types expenditures; scattered families/seniors; Geographic Whether Population(s) provision; Role proportion. operating • will $500 4V8 on Greater Kingsway, truly Asset Avenue is would SOLUTIONS Million will to BC be Provincial of in Your the of of million appreciated. Vancouver BC invested Transfer Housing’s oaddressing to non-profit be the the new appreciate Burnaby, sites, money the Housing overview subsidies, Proceeds included on distribution process FOR Metro to in housing the Water direction $500 or in BC net Program be will A rent plans following: over new housing District Canada LIVABLE served, in of information proceeds from Vancouver million be loans of to a supplements; current this housing. of the future on and • used be Greater updating and V5H4G8 Asset funds REGION HOU housing providers next such important or targeted, if will Mandate for, is BC Housing you Vancouver a - Transfer across on two expected Housing 59 as • Housing combination and 604-432-6200 be could when affordability the homeless, years, vs. - made whether the Sewerage challenge. Committee e.g. Direction Regional Program private it provide Committee from initiatives Province; and can larger available .www.metrovancouver.org and homeless of there Committee expect the issues for-profit Drainage your Affordable multi-unit agenda. methods, Tel. BC and and Committee is for 604 is a written through Non-Profit a District File program at trends essential 432-6300 written your sector members risk, No.: buildings and • Housing Metro responses in presentation or grants, members in CR-11-01-HOU announcement policy for Fax the if Regional Housing Vancouver lower new so, 604 understand developing or non-profit Strategy. to 436-6960 in smaller, ongoing housing Housing income to Housing direct Asset have what the on Corporation Mr. Shayne Ramsay BCHousing Asset Transfer Program and Mandate Direction Page 2 of 2

2. Repurposing of BC Housing and Reliance on the Non-Profit Sector In your address you had indicated a major directional shift for BC Housing in regard to directly managed social housing units. With over 7000 units in the Province currently, the transfer to the non-profit sector is a significant mandate change. The Housing Committee feels they would benefit from more information in this regard.

Specifically, the expected transfer of BCHousing’s directly managed stock to non-profit housing operators raised questions as to whether the non-profit housing sector has the financial capacity to embrace this and the timeframe for this change. Committee members expressed concern that the (mostly small) non-profit housing organizations may be challenged to absorb the significant role that senior governments seem to be shifting away from.

In summary, the Housing Committee wishes to have a clear understanding of the role and responsibility for BC Housing in light of the affordable housing challenges and significant shifts underway in your organization. A response to the above matters will help the region finalize the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and local municipalities to refine Housing Action Plans in the near future.

Yours truly,

Don Littleford Director, Housing

DL/ME/jh

cc. Tony Roy, Executive Director, BCNPHA

11952529 HOU - 60 6.2

For Immediate Release

Coalition Calls on Federal Budget to Address Rental Housing Affordability in BC

Non-profit, municipal, co-operative housing sectors, along with private sector, seniors advocate, homelessness organizations and Aboriginal housing providers make key recommendations to Ottawa

VANCOUVER, BC (Mar. 21, 2016) - The BC Rental Housing Coalition is calling on the federal Liberal government to fulfill its encouraging election platform commitment to renew federal leadership in housing policy ahead of tomorrow’s budget.

Specifically, the Coalition wants new investments to be spent on three housing priorities in BC: creating new supply, supporting tenants to keep and access housing, and aligning housing with other areas of social policy, such as health and public transportation.

Kishone Tony Roy, CEO of BC Non-Profit Housing Association, said: “If the Liberal government delivers on its election commitment, it will be the first meaningful new federal investment in rental housing in over 20 years. Therefore, the Coalition, which represents nearly all aspects of the rental housing system – is providing evidence-based recommendations to ensure the investments have maximum positive impact for the people who need it most.”

Thom Armstrong, Executive Director of the Co-op Federation of BC, added: “Delivering on commitments laid out in the election platform is a vital first step to tackling housing affordability in BC and addressing homelessness – both issues highlighted earlier this month by the United Nations as requiring urgent attention in Canada.”

David Silva, Interim CEO of Aboriginal Housing Management Association, echoed: “These recommendations are supported by the Aboriginal community, who are over represented among those in need of safe, affordable and health housing.”

More specific recommendations from the Coalition include:

1) Creating new Supply: BC needs 80,000 units of new rental housing by 2021, of which 25,000 should be subsidized housing for households that cannot afford market rents. 1 The Coalition is calling on Ottawa to:

· Meet its platform commitment to provide GST rebates on new rental development and investigate other tax incentives to stimulate the development of private rental housing. · Target new housing infrastructure funding by need, rather than population. This means that communities in BC experiencing significant homelessness and critical levels of overspending on housing should be prioritized for new developments.

1 BC Non-Profit Housing Association - Rental Housing Need and Demand projections.

HOU - 61 · Require the BC government to match contributions for all new federal housing infrastructure funding with cash, land or in-kind support in order to maximize impact. · Support the creation of a $250 million social Finance Infrastructure Fund that will leverage a regional network of impact investment funds to provide financing for housing development and other durable social infrastructure.

2) Support Tenants: Over the next decade more than 20,000 units of social housing will lose their subsidies in BC. This includes federal rent subsidies for 4,000 low-income co-op households. The Coalition is also calling on the federal government to:

· Immediately work with the BC government to fund a rent subsidy program for low-income co-op and non-profit residents at risk of losing their homes. · Repair deteriorating rental housing units in BC to prevent further loss of existing stock. · Increase investments in the Housing First approach to end chronic homelessness.

3) Align Housing Policy: Economic development, transportation, health care, immigration, refugee services, aboriginal affairs and other areas of social policy are all intimately linked to housing. The Coalition is encouraged that federal ministers have been mandated to work collaboratively across these portfolios and seeks further collaboration moving forward.

David Hutniak, CEO, LandlordBC, says: “As private sector landlords, we are hopeful that the federal government will look to the success of a past program, Rental RAPP, and provide landlords with funding to pay for structural repairs, life safety repairs or new energy efficient heating. With all the aging rental stock we have today, which also happens to be the most affordable, it would be a fantastic program to reintroduce. This funding is easily deployed and would also create an immediate boost to the economy by providing work for contractors and purchase orders for suppliers.

Garth Davis, CEO, New Market Funds, confirmed: “The rental crisis is clearly not being solved by the invisible hand of the market and it is too big a problem for government alone. However, the federal government can take the critical first step in providing public funds, appropriately leveraged by private capital, in building vital community infrastructure where ownership ultimately resides in the community, ensuring a healthy long-term affordable rental stock.”

BACKGROUND:

The BC Rental Housing Coalition encompasses nearly all of the umbrella associations in the province that provide, advocate for, or develop rental housing including:

o Aboriginal Housing Management Association o BC CEO Network o BC Non-Profit Housing Association o BC Seniors Living Association o BC Society of Transition Homes o Co-op Housing Federation of BC

HOU - 62 o Inclusion BC o LandlordBC o Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation o Tenants’ Rights Advisory Centre o Urban Development Institute o Vancity credit union

· In 1993 the federal government stopped funding new social housing commitments, ending three decades of strong financial support for low-income tenants. · Federal tax incentive programs to stimulate the private rental market ended in 1984. · Homelessness costs Canadians $7 billion per year. · BC’s rental housing industry contributed $12.25 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2013.

- 30 –

For further information, or to schedule an interview, please contact:

Dean Pogas, Communications Manager, BC Non-Profit Housing Association 604 363 6590 [email protected]

Fiona Jackson Communications Director, Co-operative Housing Federation of BC 604 879 5111 (ext. 139) [email protected]

HOU - 63 6.3 March 2016- 01

Residential Building Approval Processes In Metro Vancouver Year 2: Focus on WoodFrame Apartments

HOU - 64 Table of Contents

Laying the Groundwork Amenities G2G year two: Focus on Woodframe Apartments 4 What are they? 24 Purpose and outcomes of Getting to Groundbreaking 5 CACs: What are they and how are they calculated? 25 Supplying housing for a growing region 6 Home builder experiences with CACs 26 Ratings of best practices 7 CroftPoint outdoor and indoor amenitiy spaces 27 Additional best practices 8 CroftPoint community amenity spaces 28 Moving toward a crowded or a vibrant region 9 CroftPoint parking and transportation facilities 29 Role of woodframe apartments in the regional housing supply 10 CroftPoint special requirements 30 Map of housing stock showing share of apartments 11 Consultation Municipal innovations in residential processing in 2015 12 Neighbourhood change and new development 31 Municipal planning and the private sector 13 Home builders on consultation 32 Municipal uniqueness and regional cohesion 14 What happens with public consultation feeback? 33 Overview of the residential approvals process 15 The public voice in residential development 34 Why do residents support or oppose new 4-storey apartment buildings? 16 Conclusions 35 Processing CroftPoint Case Studies Application scenario and methodology: CroftPoint scenario 17 Glossary of best practices 36 Placing CroftPoint in our communities 18 Case Studies: Amenities that extend the suite 37 Variations in process timing for CroftPoint 19 Case study 1: Amenities that serve the community 38 Explaining variations in fees and charges for CroftPoint 20 Case study 2: Amenities for all ages 39 Metro Vancouver Average Fees and Charges by Type, CroftPoint Scenario 21 Case study 3: Sharing amenities 40 Causes of delays in home building approvals 22 Notes and References 41 Impacts of delays in home building 23 Acknowledgements 42

HOU - 65 3

What’s New in this G2G Report?

• Highlights best practices in residential development approvals processes • New recommended best practices from municipalities and home builders • Updated 3 year average trends in new home construction and estimated housing demand • Approval process and cost details for a typical 4-storey woodframe apartment building development scenario we call “CroftPoint” • Focus on the role of amenities in desirable higher density living • Explores approaches to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) • New efforts in public consultation • Results of a representative sample survey of Metro Vancouver residents' attitudes and voice in new apartment development

HOU - 66 4 G2G Year Two: Focus on Woodframe Apartments

Getting to Groundbreaking (G2G) examines the building approval process which are perceived by home builders as fair and straightforward. from the perspectives of municipalities and home builders in order to identify differences and similarities in practice. G2G relies upon the active • Survey results indicate public sentiment toward a typical participation of these groups, as well as development industry stakeholders woodframe apartment development scenario is evenly split. Those and Metro Vancouver. The ﬁndings contribute to improved working who oppose, however, are more likely to strongly disapprove. relationships, time and cost saving measures, and identiﬁcation of best practices. This phase of the project focuses exclusively on woodframe • Of 11 municipalities reporting, 4 indicated opposition would exist apartment buildings. for their chosen location of our case study development.

In this second round of the project, we again surveyed municipalities and • Amenity space in apartment buildings offers more than just onsite home builders throughout Metro Vancouver. We undertook a review of recreation. We provide case studies to ‘extend the suite’. existing housing stock and development patterns with respect to apartments, conducted a comparative analysis of development approvals • Public consultation methods are evolving. Contributors reported policy, and surveyed residents on their opinions towards development. on recent improvements to their process. The report includes Lastly, we gathered feedback from municipalities about the development empirical recommendations provided by both home builders and approvals cost, processing time and procedure, and potential outcomes of a municipalities for improved engagement. simulated case study 4-storey apartment development proposal. • We checked in with municipalities and home builders on the best Our key findings point to a number of best practices, as well as positive practices they recommended to us in our 2014 report. The messages that serve to better inform development processes and feedback and the new best practices are on pages 7-8. contribute to information sharing and process transparency. The findings are summarized as follows: By 2041, Metro Vancouver will need nearly one-half million new homes for more than one million new residents. Existing land use • Application, processing, and development fees vary considerably across designation identifies only 15% of the metro land base for residences; the region. We have aggregated these fees into a regional average for therefore new housing development requires infill and densification. comparison. We found an average of $100,000 can be saved when land In each year of 2013 – 2015, apartments accounted for more than is pre-zoned for apartment buildings. 50% of all new residential units in the region, making both the quality of these developments and their integration into the existing urban • The development approval process can be shortened by an average of 15 network critically important to ongoing liveability within the region. weeks if it is proposed on land that is already zoned for apartment use. New legislation in BC allows 6 storey woodframe buildings, allowing The approval process can be again shortened if building permits are more intensive use of a housing style that has cost advantages for processed concurrently with the development application. homeowners, builders, and municipalities alike.

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING • Homebuilder feedback on the negotiation of community amenity As the metro region reaches the tipping point of more than 50% contributions (CACs) is polarized. There appear to be instances of overall apartment stock, we discuss the importance of land use negotiation styles within the region that are contradictory to best planning, communication, public engagement, and transparency of practices recommended by the Provincial government, and others policy and process towards acceptance of change and its HOU - 67 contribution to a cohesive and livable region.

5 Purpose and Outcomes of Getting to Groundbreaking

Purpose of G2G Who should read this report?

1. Examine the residential building approval process from the This G2G report was steered by an advisory group perspectives of municipalities and home builders. consisting of members of the home building industry, the GVHBA, Urban Development Institute, municipalities, Metro 2. Identify differences, similarities, and best practices among Vancouver, and others. The research, data analysis, and municipalities and home builders in the approval process. In writing was conducted by researchers at the Simon Fraser 2014, our focus was on townhouses; for this report we turn University Urban Studies Program. out attention to wood frame apartments. We present the results of the 2015 research into processes, experiences, and policies in residential building Expected Outcomes of G2G approvals processes. It is intended for a wide audience of people with an interest in housing in Metro Vanouver, 1. Promote best practices in building approval processes including: amongst municipalities and home builders, leading to improved working relationships supporting the public interest. • Home Builders • Mayors, councillors and municipal staff 2. Identify ways to reduce unnecessary time and cost in • Regional, provincial and federal governments residential development approvals without sacriﬁcing quality • GVHBA and UDI outcomes. • Housing journalists • Housing researchers 3. A better understanding of steps in the development • Housing advocates and other interested groups approvals process and improved transparency of process • Members of the public across municipalities, home builders, decision makers and the public region-wide. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING

HOU - 68 Supplying Housing for a Growing Region 6 By 2041, Metro Vancouver will need nearly half a million new homes to house more than one million new residents.

Our regional population is growing at a rate of 3,000 new residents per demand with new housing construction. New Westminster, Port month [1]. We are responsible for accommodating this influx with homes Coquitlam, Delta, White Rock, West Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, Langley that meet residents’ needs in a way that preserves and enhances quality City and Coquitlam are at or close to meeting their estimated of life. Municipalities and home builders are key actors in this effort and demand. A group of municipalities, Surrey, Langley Township, need to work together to implement plans, identify best practices, and Burnaby, Maple Ridge, North Vancouver District, and Port Moody, are encourage the best housing outcomes possible. building less than their estimated demand.

The large graph below shows the 3 year average net housing growth for The insert chart shows that, from 2012 – 2015, housing growth each of the municipalities, as well as the estimated housing demand by across the region was less than estimates for housing demand. One municipality [2]. We see that Vancouver, Richmond, and North Vancouver way of interpreting this is that the region has fallen short of meeting City are the three municipalities that are outpacing their estimated housing demand estimates. An alternative interpretation is that housing demand is less than what was projected [3].

5000 5000

20,000 4000 Net Housing Growth 4000 Metro Demand Estimates 10,000

Region-wide net housing growth 2012 - 2015 [3] 3000 0 3000 2012 2013 2014 2015

2000 2000

2012-15 Average Net Housing Growth Annual Housing Demand Estimates NET GROWTH IN HOUSING UNITS NET

1000 1000

0 0 LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING

DELTA CITY SURREY BURNABY RICHMOND DISTRICT COQUITLAM VANCOUVER PORT MOODY WHITE ROCK MAPLE RIDGE LANGLEY CITYPITT MEADOWS WEST VANCOUVER PORT COQUITLAM NORTH VANCOUVER NEW WESTMINSTERNORTH VANCOUVER LANGLEY TOWNSHIP

Figure 1. Net housing growth and housing demand estimates [2] HOU - 69 Ratings of Best Practices 7

In our 2014 report, we identiﬁed 10 Best Practices in development approvals that were recognized by both municipal sta and home builders. This year, we revisited these to ask municipalities to rate the relative importance of the practices and to ask home builders to rate municipal performance on each. The following chart represents averaged ratings from municipal and home builder survey respondents [4]. While good correspondence exists for the practices of pre-application meetings and predictable fees and charges, work remains to build a partnership and "team-based" approach (See page 36 for a Glossary of Best Practices). How important is it? How are municipalities doing? Municipalities Home Builders

Improving public engagement

Providing clear policy

Providing pre-application meetings

Providing predictable fees and charges

Building efﬁcient patnerships for development

Having ﬁle champions and coordinated teams

Offering concurrent processing

Enforcing completeness of applications

Empowering municipal staff LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING Providing accessible and complete information online

NOTE: You can ﬁnd deﬁnitions of the Best Practices on page 36. HOU - 70 8 Additional Best Practices

Home Builders’ Priority Best Practices In addition to what we identiﬁed in 2014, home builders and municipalities who responded to our survey for this report Checklist for application submission. volunteered other procedures that they recognized as best practices. Ability to utilize third party lawyers to prepare legal documentation and templates for legal agreements. In these two lists we can see, based upon the different priorities offered by home builders and municipalities, that Option for Certiﬁed Professionals at the Building Permit stage. work is needed in order to improve practice. Availability of phased permitting.

Municipalities’ Priority Best Practices

Design Review Group of relevant city staff that reviews At the same time, the best practices still may be shared by development proposals comprehensively. municipalities and home builders. For instance, municipalities noted a priority in pre-zoning land for Pre-zoning land for multifamily development in target areas. multifamily development. This practice is widely supported by home builders as well. Convergences like this will be Developing zoning that allows for a greater mix of investigated in the future work of G2G. housing typologies. Inviting stakeholders or members of the public to participate in small groups to provide input, facilitated by staff.

Pre-establishing design requirements in the OCP, with

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING substantial community input.

HOU - 71 Moving toward a crowded or a vibrant region 9

Between 2011-2041, our region will The residential development grow by an estimated one million approvals process is one people. Whether that growth component of layers of process constitutes crowding a region that and policy with which to address Transportation is already “full” or contributing new the expectations of municipalities, and Roads vitality and strength to our existing developers, and the public 8% Agricultural patchwork depends considerably regarding new developments. 19% on land use, infrastructure, and amenity planning. Municipalities are responsible, through the development Figure 2 shows that, based upon approvals process, for making Commercial designated land uses in the region, sure new residential development 1% less than 15% of the region’s land proposals are in context. This is Industrial base is available for residential particularly important in a growing 6% Protected uses. Much of this is already region where new housing is being Land Institutional developed, meaning that most new built into existing neighbourhoods. (watershed, 2% natural areas) dwellings will require infill 39% Open and development and densification The addition of infrastructure and Undeveloped within existing neighbourhoods. amenities associated with new 9% developments is often taken for Quality of life in our region benefits granted. When appropriately from a robust regulatory scheme planned for and implemented, Residential Ports 15% and planning framework. To however, these shared facilities 1% achieve this requires planning at can improve livability and provide the neighbourhood, city and social, economic and regional scale, for short and environmental benefits by long-term policy outcomes. These improving mobility, reducing Figure 2. Land use proportions in Metro Vancouver [5] planning processes provide aggregate housing costs, avoiding opportunities for municipalities sprawl, and contributing towards and residents to engage in big community vibrancy.

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING picture, long term thinking.

HOU - 72 10 Role of woodframe apartments in the regional housing supply

Figure 3 shows the majority of new housing across the region is in the form storey ‘CroftPoint’ scenario presented in this study - are also promoted by of apartments. While we do not know from this data what proportion of many municipal plans as a means to increase density and improve these new apartments are high or low-rise, we do know this distinction has neighbourhood livability, particularly along transit corridors, in town a critically important relationship to the desirability of apartment buildings, centres, and in mixed-used neighbourhoods. A growing number of Metro their public acceptance, and ultimately their livability. The growing Vancouver households are finding apartment living provides excellent proportion of multifamily buildings in the region suggests public demand opportunities to reap the benefits of a more urban lifestyle. These include for this type of housing is increasing. improved access to jobs, amenities, services, and public transit, alongside reduced commute time and automobile dependency. In fact, wood-frame Wood frame buildings, as opposed to concrete and steel, offer an edge on apartment buildings 5- and 6-stories tall are now accepted in BC, Alberta, affordability because of lower building material cost, estimated by the Ontario and Quebec, with the new National Building Code and National Fire Building Industry and Land Development Association at 8-15% cost Code also to reflect allowances for these types of buildings. In BC, the first savings. Because they are lighter weight than concrete, such wood frame province to permit 5- and 6-storey wood-frame buildings in 2009, more than buildings can bring additional savings in sub-grade structure and ground 250 such buildings are complete or close to it, province-wide [6]. preparation work required. Wood frame apartments - such as the four

20,000 3% 4% 4% 3% 7% 8% 9% 11% 14% 17% 16% 21%

29% 28% 31% 10,000 34% Semi-detached Suites NEW HOUSING UNITS NEW Town House 62% 63% 63% 55% Single Family Apartment

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING 0 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 3. Change in Housing Type Mix and Housing Completions, Region-wide, 2012-15 [7]

HOU - 73 11

Map of housing stock showing share of apartments [8]

This map depicts a region in which ground-oriented housing still predominates 60% of the region’s housing stock overall, but with the share of apartments increasing across the map as well. Pockets of the region, such as New Westminster and the City of North Vancouver, already have over 60% apartments within their housing stock. Between 2012 – 2015, only Delta, Langley Township, Maple Ridge, the District of North Vancouver, Surrey, West Vancouver and White Rock built a majority ground-oriented housing; the other 11 municipalities shown on the map all built a majority of apartments in this period. Across the region as a whole, the share of apartments built just barely edged out the share of ground-oriented units built, at 51% to 49%.

NEW HOUSING TYPE AS % OF ALL HOUSING BUILT (3 yr avg. 2012-14)

WEST DISTRICT OF NORTH 51%49% VANCOUVER VANCOUVER

54% 46% 46% 54% COQUITLAM

% Apartment 22% CITY OF NORTH 52%48% Ground-Oriented 78% VANCOUVER PORT 7% MOODY 4% PORT 93% COQUITLAM 96% VANCOUVER BURNABY PITT MEADOWS MAPLE RIDGE UBC APARTMENTS AS % 57%43% 23% 44% 34% 31% OF ALL HOUSING STOCK 56% 27% 66% 77% 69% 73% NEW WEST MINISTER 80% RICHMOND

60% 40% 60% SURREY CITY OF 40% DELTA LANGLEY 27% 22% 22% TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY 73% 20% 78% 78% 31%

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING 69% 0% 33% WHITE ROCK 67%

HOU - 74 Getting to Groundbreaking (G2G) examines the building approval process from the perspectives of municipalities and home builders in order to identify differences and similarities in practice. G2G relies upon the active participation of these groups, as well as development industry stakeholders and Metro Vancouver. The ﬁndings contribute to improved working relationships, time and cost saving measures, and identiﬁcation of best practices. This phase of the project focuses exclusively on woodframe apartment buildings.

In this second round of the project, we again surveyed municipalities and home builders throughout Metro Vancouver. We undertook a review of existing housing stock and development patterns with respect to apartments, conducted a comparative analysis of development approvals policy, and surveyed residents on their opinions towards development. Lastly, we gathered feedback from municipalities about the development approvals cost, processing time and procedure, and potential outcomes of a simulated case study 4-storey apartment development proposal.

Our key ﬁndings point to a number of best practices, as well as positive messages that serve to better inform development processes and contribute to information sharing and process transparency. The ﬁndings are summarized as follows:

• Application, processing, and development fees vary considerably across the region. We have aggregated these fees into a regional average for comparison. We found an average of $100,000 can be saved when land is pre-zoned for apartment buildings.

• The development approval process can be shortened by an average of 15 weeks if it is proposed on land that is already zoned for apartment use. The approval process can be again shortened if building permits are processed concurrently with the development application.

• Homebuilder feedback on the negotiation of community amenity contributions (CACs) is polarized. There appear to be instances of negotiation styles within the region that are contradictory to best practices recommended by the Provincial government, and others

12 Municipal innovations in residential development processing in 2015

As shown in the table below, municipalities documented a wide array of innovations that they adopted in 2015 with a view to improving upon the efﬁciency and effectiveness of their residential development approval processing. Diverse contexts sometimes guide what innovations will and will not work in different municipalities. A number of the innovations listed below promise to reduce time from application processing time, without sacriﬁcing the quality of the review.

Langley Township Increased the frequency of public hearings.

Delta The electronic ﬁeld inspection project gives staff the tools needed to issue inspection reports for single family development in the ﬁeld, in real time.

Maple Ridge Council approved resources for two new development staff positions.

Port Moody New and updated development information guide brochures for all types of applications.

Organizational change to move Development Engineering Department into Development Services Department to better integrate Port Coquitlam development functions.

White Rock Implementing an electronic permitting and application processing system across departments.

In response to historically high volumes of applications, Council voted to raise rezoning and other fees and use the proceeds to hire Vancouver additional staff. Council adopted priority community amenity projects for each city quadrant, sometimes eliminating need for a case by case amenity Burnaby negotiation as part of the city’s Amenity Density Bonus Program. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING

HOU - 75 13 Municipal planning and the private sector

Municipalities cannot achieve their planning goals working alone. Housing built by private sector companies accommodates 95% of our region’s residents [8]. With the constraints, limits, and challenges of ﬁnding Figure 4. Does the wood frame apartment housing you built in 2012 - 2014 meet the following suitable housing that meets household needs in the planning goals? (N=19) [10] Metro Vancouver region, we surveyed home builders on whether the apartment housing they built in 2012-14 meets key needs identiﬁed in regional and municipal Housing for Persons with YES - 59% NO - 41% plans. In addition to goals related to green building, Disability these goals also correspond to those of the Metro Vancouver Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (2015): Pupose Built Rental YES - 36% NO - 65%

• Expand the supply and diversity of housing to meet a variety of needs Increasing Density near • Preserve and expand the rental housing supply Transit YES - 71% NO - 29% • Meet housing demand estimates for low to moderate income earners • Increase the rental housing supply along the Frequent Transit Network [9]. Diversity in Housing Stock YES - 47% NO - 53%

As Figure 4 shows, the majority of home builder respondents (71%) are building apartments that increase Green Building Certiﬁcate YES - 29% NO - 71% density near transit, where transportation and housing affordability can be optimized and pressures of growth on the transportation system can be minimized. A Percentile 0 20 40 60 80 100 majority (59%) are building accessible apartments (for those with disabilities and mobility challenges) which also well serves the aging demographic of the

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING population. Some are building purpose-built rental housing (36%), adding new housing forms to the neighbourhood (47%), and seeking green building certiﬁcation (29%). HOU - 76 14

Municipal uniqueness and regional cohesion

Diverse local conditions and histories, different political opportunities, geographic constraints and sensitivities, and a collaborative regional governance system all point toward the lack of a one-size-ﬁts-all approach to land use regulation in Metro Vancouver. Municipalities reported a number of factors that impede or aid an efﬁcient new residential development process – some factors do both in different instances.

Municipal uniqueness does not mean that we can’t work toward better coordination; indeed, our context necessitates such coordination. G2G is based on the expectation that better, more open and explicit communication can improve outcomes in diverse municipal contexts. The table summarizes the responses we got from municipalities when we asked what factors make them unique when it comes to processing applications for wood-frame apartment buildings. Generally, the unique factors on the left were mentioned as factors limiting new development of this kind, and those on the right were mentioned as factors facilitating it. However, with better communication and an improved partnership approach, we can envision turning some of the factors currently seen as limiting into more constructive elements of the municipal residential development process.

Unique features mentioned by Metro Vancouver municipalities

Limiting Factors Facilitating Factors

Limited staff capacity at peak times Strong internal communications in the municipality

Active groups, citizens and elected ofﬁcials take an interest in new development Key reviews can be undertaken early and up-front in the city Collaborative approach, delegation of authority Suburban or rural character

Age of municipality Prezonings and incentive programs mean rezonings often not required

Allowing applicants to apply for permits at the same time (concurrency) Lack of public acceptance of higher densities LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING

Lack of municipal expertise in higher density forms of housing Standardized and all-inclusive fees and charges

HOU - 77 15 Overview of the residential approvals process

The residential development approvals process involves many considerations, a range of demands for input and expertise from different groups within municipalities, including elected officials, as well as other experts and regulators, the development industry, and the public. While many specific steps vary amongst municipalities, Figure 5 presents an overview of the general steps involved in the residential development approval process for a typical apartment project and the different roles envisioned for applicants, municipal staff, municipal elected officials, and members of the community.

Public Hearing LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING

Figure 5. Schematic of Development Application Process HOU - 78 16 Why do residents support or oppose new 4-storey apartment buildings? [12]

SUPPORT

Community amenities will be provided with the building

The building design complements its surroundings Development is needed to improve the neighbourhood Figure 6 shows that the addition of More housing is needed in the neighbourhood needed community amenities is the Parking is sufficient to service new residents most significant reason driving Detailed information was provided about the development members of the public to support Price point of units fit the neighbourhood Social housing is included in the building the development of a new 4-storey New ground level retail will come with the building apartment building, over other Living units will be rental apartments reasons to oppose this Living units will be condos development. My personal involvement in previous planning processes

The developer or agent contacted me about the development

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

OPPOSE

Development is not needed to improve the neighbourhood Insufﬁcient parking to service new residents Opposition is driven most strongly Detailed information was not provided about the development by a sense of development not The building design does not complement its surroundings Price point of units does not ﬁt the neighbourhood being needed for the

More housing is not needed in the neighbourhood neighbourhood to thrive, concerns The developer or agent contacted me about the development about parking space, and a sense Social housing is included in the building that not enough information was Living units will be rental apartments made publicly available or that the Living units will be condos building's design was not a good New ground level retail will come with the building

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK LAYING My personal involvement in previous planning processes ﬁt. Community amenities will be provided with the building

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6: Strength of opposition or support on a scale of HOU1 – 10. - 79(N=500) 17 Application scenario and methodology

CroftPoint Development: Four-storey, wood-frame case study application scenario

• Land may require rezoning (RZ) depending on the neighbourhood • Development permit and subdivision (lot consolidation) is required • 27,500 sq.ft. (0.25 ha), no dedications • Proposed 4-storey wood frame apartment building, 60 units yield • Total square footage is 55,000 sq.ft. (5100m2), 2.0 floor space ratio (FSR) • 12 units (2 BR + den); 12 units (2 BR); 36 units (1 BR + den). Average size of 779 sq ft (72m2) • Building construction costs assumed at an estimated regional average of $180/sq.ft. ($1936/m2): $9,900,000 • Off-site infrastructure estimate includes adjacent roadworks, water/sewer/sanitation, sediment control, stormwater management and off-site landscaping: $630,000 • On-site landscaping cost estimate: $145,000 • Corner site with two frontages, rear laneway access, and an existing adjacent building at the property line

Year 2: Residential building approval processes In addition to the scenario, we surveyed home builders and in Metro Vancouver. Focus on four-storey municipalities about their experiences and thoughts on best practices, challenges and priorities in policies and regulations related woodframe appartment buildings to housing development in the 2012 to 2014 period [13].

To understand the development approval process of four-storey wood Study Limitations frame apartments in Metro Vancouver, we created a hypothetical application scenario for a project called CroftPoint. Municipalities were asked to provide the typical timing of steps, fees, charges, design The generalizability of these ﬁndings is somewhat limited by our small requirements, amenity requirements, additional incentives and sample. While results of the home builder survey should not be regulations involved in processing this four-storey apartment building. disaggregated to individual municipalities, they are indicative of experiences at the regional scale during the past three years. Other data PROCESSING CROFTPOINT PROCESSING The same scenario was presented to all municipalities in the survey. used in this report is drawn from our survey of 12 municipalities, a

representative public survey, and published housing data. In all scenarios, CroftPoint would be located within a growing area of multifamily apartments not far from the city centre or town centre in each municipality. HOU - 80 18

Placing CroftPoint in our communities [14]

Municipalities were asked to locate the CroftPoint development where they considered most appropriate. Municipalities locate DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER NORTH VANCOUVER apartment developments like this ANMORE CITY OF NORTH BELCARA in speciﬁc places in order to take VANCOUVER advantage of favourable zoning PORT and Ofﬁcial Community Plan MOODY goals PORT COQUITLAM UBC PITT BURNABY COQUITLAM VANCOUVER MEADOWS MAPLE The following, shown by the stars RIDGE NEW in this map, were the WESTMINSTER municipalities' selections: Langley - Yorkson Delta - 56 St., between 14B and 16 SURREY Ave, Tsawwassen Maple Ridge - Town Centre RICHMOND LANGLEY New Westminster - Victoria Hill TOWNSHIP Port Moody - Moody Centre DELTA

Port Coquitlam - Downtown LANGLEY White Rock - apartment area CITY Vancouver - RM zone TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION Burnaby - Royal Oak Surrey - Edge of City Centre WHITE ROCK Pitt Meadows – Harris Road

SURREY METRO REGIONAL CITY CROFTPOINT PLACEMENT URBAN CONTAINMENT METRO

PROCESSING CROFTPOINT PROCESSING Corridor CENTER CENTRES BOUNDARY BOUNDARY METROPOLITAN GENERAL URBAN MUNICIPAL CORE BOUNDARY

HOU - 81 Variations in Process Timing for CroftPoint 19

CroftPoint requires a series of administrative steps and political and the development permit process considers questions of building decision making in order to realize application completion. This form and character. Because the function and form of a development includes submission of applications for rezoning, subdivision site are closely interrelated, these aspects of approval can usually be (consolidation), development permit, and building permit, along with considered together, adding efficiency without sacrificing care. Council consideration and approval. Municipalities have different procedures for how these stages of application review are processed, At the building permit stage, where questions of engineering and including when components of the application can be submitted or construction are finalized, 7 of 10 municipalities indicated that a reviewed, when they are considered by Council, and whether they can building permit application could be processed concurrently with a be reviewed concurrently or sequentially. development permit application. The concurrent processing of a building permit, across our sample of municipalities, represents a The overall timing of steps in the development application process time savings of 4 to 36 weeks depending on the time required for across municipalities varies considerably, from a total of 22 to 64 processing. A building permit could never be issued until all weeks, with an average across 10 municipalities of 40 weeks (Figure development approvals were complete. Three municipalities 7). For municipalities able to locate CroftPoint on a site where indicated that a building permit application could not be made until rezoning would not be necessary, a substantial time savings is seen. the development application was complete, which in these cases The average application timeline without rezoning was 29 weeks, added anywhere from 7 to 12 weeks to the development timeline. whereas with a rezoning it was 15 weeks longer, 44 weeks (Figure 8). The concurrent processing of building permits represents a considerable time savings, given the potential total time of Concurrent processing of the rezoning and development permit application processing and the additional time necessary to review a components of applications was consistent across the sample of building permit [15]. municipalities. The rezoning process considers questions of land use

50 70

60 40

50 30 40

WEEKS 30 20

20 (AVERAGE) WEEKS (AVERAGE) 10 10 PROCESSING CROFTPOINT PROCESSING

0 0 Min Average Max Rezoning No Rezoning Figure 7. Average, Minimum, and Maximum Time Required to Figure 8. The Difference Rezoning Makes to Process CroftPoint Application (N=10) HOU - 82 CroftPoint Processing Time (N=10)

Explaining variations in fees and charges 20 for CroftPoint

When looking at the timing of process steps in different municipalities, the clearest trend is that for those municipalities able to locate CroftPoint on a site where rezoning would not be necessary, namely Port Coquitlam, New Westminster, and Vancouver, processing $30,000 time would be reduced drastically. The other cost of processing, the fees and charges that accompany the applications, are presented in $25,963 Figures 9 and 10. For CroftPoint, once again, these fees vary. This $25,000 variation is necessary because of differences in governance, challenging terrain, environmental risks, pace of growth and future growth trajectories, as well as community visions and plans. $20,000 For CroftPoint, as shown in Figure 9, municipal fees and charges per unit varied from a low of $7452 to a high of $25,963. The average cost of fees and charges in the reporting municipalities in Metro $15,000 Vancouver was $13,144. Note that because 3 municipalities (New $13,144 Westminster, Port Coquitlam, and Vancouver) located the project in an area where rezoning would not be required, their reported fees and charges omitted a rezoning fee. Also, a majority of municipalities $10,000

responding indicated that other unspeciﬁed charges may apply, $7,452 which could not be accounted for here.

$5,000 The impact of these costs on home buyers depends on a host of factors and in many cases does not relate directly to the price of the new housing. Fees and charges may affect the rate of development $- over the long term. It can be noted in Figure 10 that the total LOWEST METRO AVERAGE HIGHEST proportion of fees and charges that application submission fees represent, across all municipalities, is less than 13%; the more Figure 9 . Highest, Lowest and Average Fees Per Unit, CroftPoint [16]

PROCESSING CROFTPOINT PROCESSING substantial cost of development is in servicing costs and associated development cost charges 54% of the total.

HOU - 83 PROCESSING CROFTPOINT Figure 14.Metro Vancouver Average Fees andCharges by Type, CroftPoint Scenario $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 Figure 10. Metro Vancouver Average Fees andCharges by Type, CroftPoint Scenario $- $161,969.87 $233,936.61 $85,436.52

} $15,000 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ Other Fees Total DCC/DCLs Building Permit Development Permit Subdivision Permit Rezoning $8,032 $1,758 $5,371 HOU - 84 carrying costsresultingcarrying from timesavings. through rezoning. This isinaddition to the reduced municipalities where the development wouldneedto go of $144,392fortheproject, compared to those without triggering arezoning wouldcreate acostsavings with aprezoned locationavailable to placeCroftPoint Figure 11showsthat,onaverage, thosemunicipalities CroftPoint project wouldincur, onaverage, intheregion. Figure 10showsthetotal fees andcharges thatthe $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 Metro Vancouver Average, CroftPoint Figure 11.Difference inTotal Fees With andWithout Rezoning, $- without Rezoning Average Fees with Rezoning Average Fees 21 22 Causes of delays in home building approvals

Applicants encounter delays at different points in the approvals process. In this year’s survey, we heard that off-site servicing of roads and easements caused the most unexpected delays, followed by work involved with ensuring conformity with municipal plans. This is shown in Figure 12 below.

Figure 13 below demonstrates that development proposals predominantly require revisions and resubmissions across all permit types. This too is a costly piece of the puzzle, for all parties.

Figure 12. Causes of delays: When municipalities review your plans, where do you encounter Figure 13. Resubmission “churn”: After initial submission, how many full resubmissions did you the most unexpected delays? (N=32 projects) make per permit type, for an average wood-frame apartment project between 2012-2014?

Landscape Plan Review (e.g. landscape pedestrian access) 18 Planning Conformity (e.g. zoning, design guidelines, building massing, floor area calculations) Building Elements Review (e.g. architectural design, exterior building material, green features)

Off-site Servicing (e.g. easement and road widening) 12

Plan Review and Administration (e.g. labels, notes to be added)

# of Projects On-site Servicing (e.g. grading, parking, recycling) 6

Others

0 5 10 15 20

Instances of unexpected delays in projects 0 PROCESSING CROFTPOINT PROCESSING OCP Amendment Rezoning Subdivision DP BP

No resubmissions 1+ Resubmissions

HOU - 85 23 Impacts of delays in home building

In last year’s report, our research showed that 30% of home Figure 14. During 2012-2014, did either the TIMING or the FEES in the municipalities where builders responding to our survey felt that they were you worked cause you to (N=32): absorbing more costs, and/or lowering profit margins, due to municipal processing times, fees and charges – and that LEGEND: T=TIMING F=FEES % RESPONDENTS the impact of the time spent in the process was more significant than the impact of the fees and charges Have lower profit margins themselves. This year’s survey results mirror this, with 26% of respondents reporting this same trend. T F 25.6%

Postpone land acquisition

T F 17.9%

Change the type of housing built T F 12.8% Based on a review and in consultation with the Reduce home building activity overall development industry, the City of Vancouver T F 15.4% “determined that it will need to raise fees for rezoning, among other fees, 329%, over a period Build homes in a different municipality of years, in order to reflect the cost of T F 7.7% processing the rezoning. The response of home Acquire land but postpone development builders was that “the fee increases would be T F 5.1% acceptable if the proceeds were used to hire Utilize a development incentive more staff to speed up the application process. T F 5.1% --Vancouver Sun, Nov 17 2015 Increase project starts ” T F 2.6% PROCESSING CROFTPOINT PROCESSING

HOU - 86 24 Amenities: What are they?17

Amenities fall within two categories: public and private. Private What makes a good amenity? amenities are non-commercial common spaces or facilities that are for use by all residents of a multi-unit development on privately It is important to municipalities seeking to maintain quality of life to owned property (typically common property owned by a strata require amenity space and combine this with other public amenities corporation, as defined by the “Strata Property Act”). They may be available throughout the community. In a context of adding new outdoors or indoors, and often include exercise rooms, housing and densifying existing neighbourhoods, a good amenity playgrounds, shared patios, and other multi-purpose spaces. extends the living space beyond the suite. In our survey, several Amenity space excludes public streetscape improvements that municipalities noted high levels of acceptance amongst builders of may be required of a developer, such as separated sidewalks, their desire to see quality amenities provided with new developments. decorative street lighting, bike lanes, and street trees or boulevard When is an amenity not an amenity? plantings. Municipalities raised concerns about a trend in recent apartment A minimum amount of amenity space is typically required by a developments to provide very small sized or limited amenities along municipality as a component of a rezoning. Certain amenities, like with a cash-in-lieu contribution. Another concern, held by those that cater to generations and families, are considered municipalities and builders alike, is that amenities may be required or essential components of liveable multifamily developments and intended for one group, like children, whereas it would better meet may be specifically required. Other amenities may be at the demand if more suited for a different group, like seniors. discretion of a developer, but could considerably increase the market desirability and livability of a particular development. Homebuilders raised concerns that larger and more elaborate amenity space design can compromise affordability of the development or be Public amenities are distinguished as being available to and underutilized. Residents want amenities that are large enough to be benefitting any resident of the community. They include facilities useful, suited to the needs of their household, and that do not cost such as public parks, recreation and/or senior’s centres, day cares, more to maintain than the value they get from having them. Where

AMENITIES libraries, greenways, public art, affordable housing, and other civic private amenities are sometimes provided as cash-in-lieu, such cash facilities. Public amenities are funded, in part, through Community contributions are not to be confused with CACs. More discussion and Amenity Contributions (CAC) and are described on the next page. examples of private amenities are provided on pages 37-40. .

HOU - 87 25 CACs: What are they and how are they calculated?18

Community Amenity Charges (CACs) are agreed upon between developers and municipalities and are levied at the time of rezoning. They are used to fund public amenities that cannot be paid for through Development Cost Charges. CACs are a cash contribution made by an applicant, levied at the time of ﬁnal adoption of a rezoning by-law. An increasing number of municipalities in Metro 14% Vancouver are utilizing this tool, in addition to other density bonus 27% options, to help fund public amenities, as described on the previous page, that are required with urban growth to reduce the impact of densiﬁcation on the community and taxpayers. 27%

The ﬁrst G2G report identiﬁed that home builders are looking for 14% certainty and transparency with respect to CACs. In 2014, the 18% Province of BC released a guide intended to inform municipalities in the application of CACs. Of the four common approaches to obtaining amenities, this guide recommended three: Adopting an “affordability by design” approach to zoning bylaws

1. Adopt an ‘affordability by design’ approach to writing bylaws, Using density bonus zoning meaning including design and zoning speciﬁcations that make Setting target with willingness to negotiate at time of rezoning

more affordable housing forms possible. Negotiating CAC’s based on lift AMENITIES No Answer 2. Use density bonus zoning, tied to developer contributions for density in desired zones. Figure 15. Home builders' experience with the approach taken by municipalities to calculating CACs 3. Set targets for CACs, which are open to negotiation at time of rezoning. Responses from home builders about their experience with CACs in their 4-storey woodframe apartment projects during 2012-14 indicate that a range of practices and approaches are in operation. The guide recommends against a 4th option of negotiating CACs The largest proportion of home builders who paid CACs, 27%, based upon an intent to capture the expected proportion of land value experienced a density bonus approach. A smaller proportion, 14%, ‘lift’ from rezoning, reasoning that this approach may negatively encountered a negotiation based upon extraction of a portion of land affect land costs and ultimately housing costs. value “lift,” the method that is not favoured by the provincial guide.

HOU - 88 26 Home Builder experiences with CACs

When asked their experience with CACs in the municipalities where they worked in 2012-14, home builders did not object to paying for some amenities. Instead, they reacted negatively to CAC negotiations that they perceived as unclear, unfair when compared with the way other projects were treated, and lacking clear objectives. Others applauded their experience with Community Amenity Contributions because they were transparent, fair, and clearly matched to community needs. It is clear, as demonstrated by the feedback below, that experiences of the negotiation of CACs vary widely across the region.

Extremely frustrating and opaque. The process appears to be intended to extract as much as possible from each development “with no consideration to an overall strategy or objectives. ‘Land It is so bad I would not even bother to try. lift’ calculations are commonly applied, but use of this methodology is denied when the application is before Council. It “ ” appears to be a deliberate attempt to “pull the wool over the eyes” of Council. Fairly straight forward. Not a lot of ” negotiation and seems relatively fair AMENITIES “ across the board. “Brain numbing. Irritating. Frustrating.” ” The density bonus process is fair and transparent. No problems encountered. “ They are done as per unit charge by ” neighbourhood and they are ﬁxed and known, “ the way it should be done.

HOU - 89 ” 27 CroftPoint: Outdoor and indoor amenity spaces

For CroftPoint, most municipalities indicated that they would exercise flexibility with regard to amenity procurement. Of the 3 municipalities that speciﬁed an outdoor amenity space requirement, Maple Ridge, Port Coquitlam, and Delta, the range in requirements was wide, as depicted in Figure 16. For those four municipalities that speciﬁed an indoor amenity space requirement, shown in Figure 17, there was also a wide range.

Maple Ridge 3025 sq.ft

Delta Requirement CroftPoint Site Surrey 1937 sq.ft 27,500 sq. ft 14, 466 sq. ft Port Moody 1700 sq.ft Port Coquitlam Requirement CroftPoint Building 2260 sq. ft Footprint 13,750 sq. ft Maple Ridge Requirement Port Coquitlam 646 sq. ft 1291 sq.ft AMENITIES

Figure 16. Outdoor amenity space requirements in some municipalities Figure 17. Indoor amenity space requirements for CroftPoint in some municipalities

HOU - 90 CroftPoint Community Amenity Spaces 28

Community open space and public amenity facilities are often encouraged to connect a new development like CroftPoint with the surrounding community. These amenities are separate from the CACs described on Page 25. While most municipalities expressed a flexibility in what they would require, some municipalities are developing policies to encourage certain qualities and features in community amenities to ensure that these meet their community needs.

MUNICIPALITY AMENITIES

Plaza space may be provided that is publicly accessible. Onsite pedestrian Surrey connections may be provided.

Pedestrian connectivity paths, street furniture, community gardens, Langley contributions to park facilities, public art, public access rights of way, "green links.“

Not required, but provision of pedestrian connectivity, public bike racks, public seating Delta areas would be accepted/encouraged where appropriate. New Westminister Pedestrian paths and benches are the most common community amenities provided.

AMENITIES Community amenities requested would depend on particular circumstances but could include Port Moody greenways, parks, public access rights, rights of way, public art, affordable housing.

HOU - 91 29 Figure 18. Bicycle and motor vehicle parking stalls required for 60 unit CroftPoint development CroftPoint parking 60

Surrey 12 72 and transportation

90 facilities Langley 9 How we travel from home to work and to school, and to shopping and recreation, is another key feature of 90 Delta livability in our region. When housing unit density is 12 low, it becomes cost prohibitive to operate an efﬁcient public transportation network. Translink 90 estimates the population threshold required for cost Maple Ridge 12 effective frequent transit service to be 50-55 people per hectare (20-22 ppl/acre). On the other hand, the

77 cost of building a single parking space for an apartment building, on average, is $20,000-$45,000. New West 12 Higher parking requirements, which are a necessity 75 where transit service is inadequate, are therefore a signiﬁcant contributor to housing unaffordability: low population density and car dependency are directly 90 Port Moody related to higher costs of housing and 12 transportation. AMENITIES 83 By 2041, regional growth projections indicate that Port 12 approximately 40% of residents will still live outside Coquitlam the Frequent Transit Network. This reality is 60 reflected in the diversity of parking requirements for CroftPoint for the municipalities listed here [19]. 72 White Rock 18 Residents Parking

60 Visitors Parking

Vancouver 75 Bikes

0 20 40 60 80 100 HOU - 92 30 CroftPoint special requirements

Figure 19. Special Requirements for CroftPoint development Municipal planning creates liveable places by leveraging policy requirements in order to bring value Sustainability Checklist Green Building District Energy Tree Replacement from new residential developments to Pitt Meadows the public’s beneﬁt. Regulations in place for sustainability and green Port Moody 2:1 building technologies, adaptable

White Rock 2:1 design, and tree replacement, among other things, chart a course for a North Vancouver Lower Lynn District Canyon community that will thrive into the future. At the same time, the 2:1 + Street Delta variation in these approaches,

Port Coquitlam alongside other objectives, can cause confusion and challenge the Maple Ridge establishment of best practices that serve the region’s interests as a North Vancouver All Multi- City family whole.

30 per acre Langley Township In the selection of special requirements that appears here, a Richmond Alexandra common tree replacement standard Surrey AMENITIES recognized by Port Moody, White Surrey Centre Rock, Delta, and Surrey is a minimum Multiple Vancouver ratio of 2:1. In terms of the other special requirements listed here, 7 2:1 West Vancouver municipalities ﬁnd a sustainability checklist to be useful and have measures in place to encourage district energy systems. Six have speciﬁc green building requirements.

HOU - 93

Neighbourhood change and new development 31

Community opposition to apartment development is Figure 20. Resident rating of support for a new 4-storey apartment building in their neighbouhood considered to be a major barrier to growth of this (1: very opposed - 10: very supportive [20]) housing type. We know that neighbourhood change can Ratings create opposition. Reasons vary, but resistance could be speciﬁc to the type of change proposed, or more Very Opposed : 1 22% generally towards the pace of change. 2 6% Sometimes vocal opposition creates space for better solutions to neighbourhood concerns and broader 3 8% needs. Other times, community opposition can block projects that could create quality livability and density. 4 5% This can lead to development patterns, such as development in greenﬁeld and car-dependent locations, 5 9% 50% OPPOSED

which work against the region’s long-term interests and 50% SUPPORT livability. 6 10%

7 13% Figure 20, tabulated from a representative survey of 500 Metro Vancouver residents, demonstrates that public 8 13% sentiment for and against development of a new 4-storey wood frame apartment building is split with 9 5% 50% of people opposing such a project to some degree, and the other 50% supporting it to some degree. Those Very SupportIve : 10 9% who are opposed, however, express stronger feelings about their opposition than those who are supportive. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

CONSULTATION Similarly, we asked municipalities whether the CroftPoint development 14% proposal, placed in the area of their choice, would be likely to generate Yes 36% community opposition. As Figure 21 shows, in 4 of 11 municipalities 27% responding, the answer was “yes”, whereas in 7 of 11 communities, No 64% opposition was unlikely to be generated. As described in the following pages, community concerns must be managed appropriately.

27% Figure 21 . Would CroftPoint be likely to generate community opposition if proposed here? HOU - 94 Home builders on consultation 32

Figure 22 . Does your company have a clear policy, process, or guide for Figure 23. Did your company handle public consultations in-house or did you public consultation? (N = 17) employ a third party consultant for wood-frame apartment building projects betwen 2012-2014?

N/A

9 YES 8 NO Both In-house

3rd Party

14%

Just over half of home builder respondents had a formal company results from questionnaire they distributed, plan to address guide on public consultation. Advice received by G2G from home issues and concerns identiﬁed. Encourage a wide range of public builders and municipalities about effective public consultation participation, both those in support and those with concerns, to includes: attend the public hearing.

• Undertake early and ongoing consultation beyond the minimum • Take a flexible approach to consultation, adapting. to the situation requirement, even before a formal application is submitted. that arises. This could mean, for example recognizing a need to Engage directly with community groups. Encourage both those switch from informal to formal presentations or dialogue. who do and do not support the development to attend the public hearing. • Be responsive to expressed concerns, recognizing the essential CONSULTATION nature of the public consultation. • Require applicants to provide detailed records of information meetings that they host, including meeting record, analysis of • Make effective, multi-channel use of electronic communications, including website, email notices, and social media

HOU - 95 33 What happens with public consultation

feedback?

Different municipalities make different requirements of home builders when it comes to collecting public input in residential development approvals. While provincial legislation requires that municipalities provide a public hearing [22] for any rezoning process, many municipalities recommend or require much more extensive public feedback opportunities than this. Additionally, many home builders voluntarily include increased consultation opportunities for the public. Figure 23, on previous page, shows that, of 22 home building projects considered, slightly more than half handled public consultation in-house and slightly less than half hired a third party consultant for this work. Figure 25 shows that most reported back to the municipality in a summary report.

Figure 25. How is information you collect during public consultations passed on to the municipality?

Attendance of municipal Figure 24. What happens to information presented at representatives an open house ? In person meeting with planning staff

Sta Submit copies of feedback

Submit meeting minutes Open Applicant Public House Communication through emails and letter to council

CONSULTATION Report by third-party meeting facilitator

Council Report summaries

Dissemination dependant on municipality or project

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

#Projects HOU - 96 34 The public voice in residential development

In a survey conducted by the Township of Langley, of 17 municipalities in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, 88% of respondents said that they provided other channels for public feedback into development proposals, beyond the legislatively required public hearings for rezoning or community plan amendments. Based upon our G2G research, a minority of municipalities in the region have a formal policy to guide efforts in public consultation. Existing policies include the District of West Vancouver’s Corporate Policy on Public Involvement (2004), the City of Surrey’s Consultation Principles (2011), and Delta’s Public Information Meetings for Development Applications Policy (2014). Recognizing the need for more effective public engagement, municipalities are taking a closer look at how to improve this aspect of planning for new housing. Efforts include the following:

Municipal e ors to improve public engagement [21]

Public Engagement Task Force (2015) New Westminister Enhancing community public engagement and encouraging greater civic participation.

Mayor’s Open Government Task Force (2015) Maple Ridge Increasing citizen participation, engagement and collaboration in addressing community issues, increasing transparency.

Langley Township Public Engagement Standing Committee (2015) Implemented a survey of other municipalities on public engagement best practices.

Mayor’s Engaged Task Force (2012) CONSULTATION Vancouver “Enhancing how the City engages with citizens … improving the way the City consults with citizens on policy.”

Delta Public open houses held to engage and inform on municipal issues (2015); TalkDelta and other social media channels used. Citizens’ Committe on Open Government recommended actions for a more transparent and responsive government (2015). Pitt Meadows

HOU - 97 35 Conclusions This G2G report focused on the development of woodframe apartments. In that they are working on to improve the residential approvals process. our growing Metro Vancouver region, half a million new homes are needed between 2011-2041 to accommodate expected population growth. While the CroftPoint Scenario housing sector booms in a few municipalities, our region as a whole has not met estimated housing demand for the period of 2012 – 2015. We also need Our municipal survey presented municipal development planners with the to scrutinize carefully whether the right types of homes are being built to CroftPoint development proposal. CroftPoint is a simulated case study, house our population, with the planning, infrastructure and amenities to 4-storey woodframe apartment building. We asked municipalities where ensure that they are contributing to a thriving, liveable region. they would recommend locating it, how long the process of obtaining permits and approvals would be, what fees and charges would be Since 2013, most new homes being built in the region are apartments. imposed, and what parking, amenities and other special requirements Apartments can offer an appealing housing form, increasingly attractive for would accompany this development. We report on the variability in a growing group of the region’s residents. Whether new apartments treatment of this development proposal here. Because apartment contribute positively to existing neighbourhoods depends a lot on the development proposals can sometimes face opposition from the existing neighbourhood plan and process surrounding their development. residents, we also asked municipalities about how they engage and consult with their publics on such projects, and we report on some of the A Partnership of Municipalities and Home Builders work underway to improve public consultation.

In this context of growth, the role of municipalities and home builders at the Survey Insights front end of the development process is crucial, beginning from the time that a development application is submitted at the front desk of city hall, Our home builder survey sought insight into the experiences of builders of until the time that a building permit is issued. It is during this period that the woodframe apartments over 2012-2014. We include the same themes outcome of the development is largely determined: how it fits into the covered in the municipal survey, from the home builder perspective: existing neighbourhood, how it is serviced by roads, transit, green space, experiences negotiating special requirements and community amenity and other essential infrastructure, what the design of the building will charges, public consultation practices, where they experience delays and include in terms of unit size, characteristics and qualities, and what what the impact is of these delays. We also profile a number of unique amenities will accompany the homes. The approach taken to resolving these amenities projects that highlight what can be done to diversify the nature crucial questions, and the costs, fees and charges associated with the and quality of amenities offered by home builders in our region. process, all determine the quality and the cost of the outcome. Looking Ahead Identifying Best Practices G2G was designed to focus on best practices and typical municipal Each municipality in our region manages the residential development approval processes for different types of development scenarios through approvals process differently because each has a unique context and plan the G2G report. The specific housing types include: for its future. Nevertheless, G2G is collecting best practices in this process • Townhouses (2014) that are recognized by home builders and municipalities alike. In this report, • Wood frame apartment buildings (2016) we asked home builders and municipalities to rate best practices identified • Single family homes in our 2014 report as well as suggest new best practices and innovations • Highrises HOU - 98 Glossary of best practices 36

The following are Best Practices in development approval processes, identiﬁed through our research into needs from both the municipal and builder sides.

Accessible and Complete Information municipalities should use an application Municipal Staff Empowerment: Delegation Online: This includes information about checklist and refuse to accept incomplete of authority to staff to interpret policy, find process, web-based application tracking applications. context-specific solutions, and manage the and other open data technology review process. applications, and a single point of Concurrent Processing: Concurrent review reference for all fees and charges. of different stages of the development Effective Partnership: All parties benefit application (e.g. rezoning and development from occasional development forums Pre-Application Meetings: Successful permit), when planned for carefully, can hosted by municipalities to educate pre-application meetings feature good add efficiencies. applicants on unique processes and needs. preparation, the “right” people in the room, Sharing practices enables a culture of and laying out a feasible set of File Champions and Coordinated Teams: collaboration and continuous improvement. expectations and timelines. A single point of contact or file manager for both municipality and applicant team Policy Clarity: Providing Official Predictable Fees and Charges: helps with accountability, due diligence, Community Plan, zoning bylaw, housing Clarity about how fees and charges are and flow of information. development plans and housing policies calculated and applied adds certainty to that are unambiguous will assist builders the development planning process. Better Public Engagement: Providing to make applications that meet the desired neighbours and interested groups with objectives. Complete Applications: Applicants must up-front and accessible information and ensure professional attention to detail and opportunities for feedback on proposed completeness. For fairness and efficiency, development.

HOU - 99 Case studies: Amenities that extend the suite 37

Background

One concern about high density living is the lack of space and amenities Home builder respondents to our survey, identified some innovative amenities traditionally found in detached homes. As the region is confined by physical that have proven to be popular with residents. Separated suites for guests of boundaries and experiences population growth, building indoor and outdoor as tenants are frequently well-used and appreciated in buildings. These suites well as community amenities can help to expand the definition of high-quality allow residents to host out-of-town guests. For residents with pets, some living in higher density buildings. include a space to groom and wash their dogs and cats. Also, as municipalities and communities work to increase the accessibility of local and fresh food, Some common amenities found in apartment buildings or on site include home builders are responding with amenities like garden plots. meeting rooms, reception rooms, study spaces, gyms with exercise equipment and space for yoga, play rooms, lounges with kitchens, theatre rooms, guest suites, and outdoor patios with shared barbeques.

Lounge with billiards table in the clubhouse - The Grove, Surrey Guest suite for visitors - Harvard Gardens, Surrey Outdoor terrace with barbecue zone - The Grove, Surrey

HOU - 100 38 Case Study 1: Amenities that serve the community Heywood on the Park, North Vancouver Lynn Valley Church, District of North Vancouver Heywood on the Park, located in the City of North Vancouver, is a 67-unit In a joint partnership with Marcon Developments Ltd., Lynn Valley United market residential building with commercial-retail space on the ground-level. Church leveraged its land in order to replace its deteriorating church and to The original property straddled MacKay Creek situated inside Heywood Park. In build a new four-storey apartment building. As the project required a rezoning order for the proposed development to move forward, rezoning the C-2 General from “Institutional” to “Comprehensive Development Zone 75, land use” a Commercial Zone to a Comprehensive Development Zone was required. Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) package was negotiated to include amenities to beneﬁt the wider community. The CAC package included: Through discussions with the City, Marcon Construction Ltd. and PC Urban Properties Corp. came to an agreement in which the home builders would donate a part of their property divided by MacKay Creek to the municipality, • Four accessible rental apartment units to be owned by the North Shore overall expanding Heywood Park. In exchange, the home builder received a Disability Resource Centre smaller piece of land located on the southern edge of the building site. In • The construction of a new daycare to replace the existing facility that was addition, the home builder agreed to upgrades that would further beneﬁt the located inside the church community at large. The upgrades included: • Funds for public art • Restoration and protection of the Hastings Creek riparian area. • New park entry and landscape improvements along Marine Drive

• Drainage improvements • Selective removal and replacement of existing trees • Removal of an old vehicle bridge • Removal of invasive plants • Restoration of Mackay Creek

The environmental remediation work and the land donation to the City constituted the home builder’s community amenity contribution.

MacKay Creek Restoration - Heywood on Heywood on the Park, North Vancouver Lynn Valley Church Development, Turnkey Child Care Facility as a part of the the Park, North Vancouver District of North Vancouver Lynn Valley Church Development, HOU - 101 District of North Vancouver

Case Study 2: Amenities for all ages 39

Amenities for all ages The G2G home builder survey identiﬁed children’s play areas as one of the most common outdoor amenities found in wood-frame apartment building projects. Such spaces are great for children, but do not always serve the recreational needs of other age groups. Below are examples of spaces that have been identiﬁed as popular with residents from a range of ages.

Harvard Gardens, Surrey

This master-planned community’s club house by Polygon features amenities that are suitable for all Giant chess set - Harvard Gardens, Surrey ages. For example, there is a giant outdoor chess set surrounded by benches. This recently completed amenity has proven to be a popular with older adult residents. Another amenity that is expected to be in high-demand is the grass court in which residents Table tennis table in the games room - Harvard Gardens Surrey can modify the flexible space for various activities; such as bocce. Additionally, amenities like table-tennis located inside the clubhouse have been widely-used by residents of all ages.

The Grove, Surrey

Beyond the playground amenity for children, the Grove in Surrey constructed a floor hockey rink complete with a viewing area and penalty box. This Gymnasium - Harvard Gardens, Surrey amenity has been frequently used by children but has also been booked regularly for adult tournaments and friendly games.

HOU - 102 Hockey rink - The Grove, Surrey

Case Study 3: Sharing amenities with tenants and 40 the wider community

Generally, project amenities serve the residents of speciﬁc buildings or groups of buildings but below we highlight how sharing amenities more broadly can lead to wider beneﬁts for the community and neighboring residents with potential cost and maintenance savings overall.

The Gardens, Richmond

In most projects, amenity club houses are limited to resident use. However, in the case of Townline's 'The Gardens', a master-planned development with ﬁve, four-storey buildings, amenities are extended to retail The Gardens by Townline gives amenity access to retail tenants and their staff. tenants. The club house which features an indoor gymnasium, ﬁtness centre and a bicycle end-of-trip facility with secure bike storage, showers and change rooms can be accessed and used by 'The Gardens' commercial tenants and their staff. The end-of-trip amenity has made commuting by bike more feasible.

The Grove, Surrey

The Grove by Townline is a 141 park homes project in Clayton, Surrey. The clubhouse features an indoor floor hockey court, theatre, ﬁtness room, lounge with kitchenette and a terrace lounge with a BBQ grill. Residents of The Grove also have full access to the neighbouring Clayton Rise development’s clubhouse, Outdoor terrace and floor hockey court are just two of the many amenities accessible to residents of The Grove. also built by Townline. The Clayton Rise clubhouse has a

ﬁtness centre, movie theatre and heated pool. Residents of the two developments pay for the use of just one clubhouse via their strata fees and can enjoy the amenities of both. HOU - 103 41

Notes and References 1. Metro Vancouver 2011. Metro 2040. (Table A.4).(Updated October 30 2015). excluded due to small size and limited 4-storey woodframe developments. Home builder participants were drawn from members of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association 2. Net housing growth is housing completions minus demolitions, from Metro Vancouver, 2015 Housing and Urban Development Institute, who had built at least one 4-storey woodframe apartment building in Data Book (http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planing/ PlaningPublications/MV_Housing_ the period 2012-2014. In total we received 17 responses that reflected work on 32 such projects Data_Book.pdf). Housing demand estimates from Metro Vancouver Regional Planning, Nov 2015, Projected across Metro Vancouver. Companies of a range of sizes and capacities were represented. Increase in Housing Demand for Metro Vancouver and Municipalities 2016-2026 DRAFT. Housing demand estimates are projections prepared for planning purposes, not intended to be used as targets. Also, because 14. Base map from Metro Vancouver 2011. Metro 2040. most residential development today is multifamily, net completions can vary dramatically from year to year due to the nature of the development process. Does not include completions of purpose-built rental housing 15. Based on application process timing estimates provided by 11 municipalities for the CroftPoint units. scenario application. Assumptions included no delays and results attainable for similar projects in the 2012-14 period. 3. Metro Vancouver 2011. Metro 2040. (Table A.4) and Metro Vancouver Regional Planning, Nov 2015, Projected Increase in Housing Demand for Metro Vancouver and Municipalities 2016-2026 DRAFT. 16. Fees and charges based upon calculations provided by 12 municipalities and calculations made by the research team from published fees information for two additional municipalities (North Vancouver 4. Presented on a 7-point scale of aggregated and weighted “extremely important,” “very important,” and City and District), for the CroftPoint scenario application. Assumptions included no variances. “somewhat important,” and “extremely well,” “quite well,” and “moderately well” ratings from municipal and home builder respondents, respectively. 17. The Strata Property Act [SBC 1998] is available online. Langley Township provides a useful example of action to ensure amenities respond to live community needs. In 2014, Langley passed an 5. Metro Vancouver 2006. Generalized Land Use by Municipality. Age-Friendly Strategy, which has shifted its amenity procurement priorities toward age-friendly design and considerations, whereas previously they had required Child Friendly Amenity Areas. The BC 6. Sustainable Prosperity. 2015. Creating complete, compact and energy-efficient communities in BC: how Housing Design Guidelines and Construction Standards (2014) provides certain general guidelines for fiscal tools can be an opportunity for local governments. Ottawa. http://www.sustainableprosperity. private amenity provision. ca/sites/default/files/publications/files/BC_report.pdf. CMHC. 2016. Mid-rise residential wood construction. Article 1 - Feb 2016. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hoficlincl/observer/load 18. Development Cost Charges (DCCs) (Development Cost Levies within Vancouver) are permitted by er.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=319238 Provincial legislation in order to recuperate the costs incurred in providing new infrastructure. DCCs can be spent on a restricted range of items, specifically water, sewer, drainage, roads and parks. DCCs 7. Metro Vancouver, 2015. Housing Data Book. New housing units are more than what appears in Figure 1 are a fixed rate charge established by by-law and are levied as part of a subdivision or rezoning. The because Figure 1 data account for demolitions while Figure 3 does not. provincial guide related to the application of CACs by municipalities is: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. 2014 (Mar). Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing community 8. Metro Vancouver 2015 Housing Data Book. planning, public benefits and housing affordability. Victoria, BC.

9. Metro Vancouver. 2014. Metro Housing Strategy Update Discussion Paper. 19. Density estimate calculated per gross hectare. Actual achieved density with the FTN in 2011 is 61.8 persons, combining employment and population density. Translink. 2013. Backgrounder #7: Urban 10. Metro Vancouver. Aug 2015. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update, Revised Draft. The Metro Vancouver Centres and Frequent Transit Corridors. New Westminster. http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update also includes a fifth goal, End homelessness in the region, which ments/plans_and_projects/regional_transportation_strategy/Backgrounders/Urban_Centres_ is not something we are able to contend with in the context of this report. and_Frequent_Transit_Corridors_Backgrounder.pdf#search=%22frequent transit network background%22 Metro Vancouver. Sept 2012. The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study. 11. Green building demonstrated by Metro Vancouver. Aug 2015. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update, http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlaningPublications/ Revised Draft. The Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update also includes a fifth goal, End AptParkingStudySummaryBooklet.pdf homelessness in the region, which is not something we are able to contend with in the context of this report. 20. From survey described in footnote 12. N=500 12. Survey conducted by Mustel Group for SFU Urban Studies, using a panel of 500 respondents constituting a representative sample of Metro Vancouver residents. Data are weighted by age within 21. New Westminster: http://www.newwestcity.ca/city_hall/committees/committee-meeting gender within community, where “community” consists of the following groupings of municipalities: -schedules/2014-committee-meeting-schedules-and-minutes/articles/4356.php, Maple Ridge: City of Vancouver and UBC; North Shore; Burnaby and New Westminster; Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, http://www.mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/4774, Langley Township: http://www.civicinfo.bc. Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows; Richmond and Tsawwassen; and Delta, the Langleys, Surrey and White ca/302n.asp?newsid=6131, Pitt Meadows: http://www.pittmeadows.bc.ca/assets/Committees Rock. The margin of error for the total sample of 500 is +/- 4.4% at the 95% confidence level. /F.1%20Small%20file%20size%20-%20Pitt%20Meadows%20Open%20Government% 20Final%20Report%20with%20Appendix.pdf 13. Municipalities within Metro Vancouver participating in this research were Burnaby, Delta, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Port Moody, Richmond, Surrey, Township of Langley, 22. A public hearing is a opportunity for elected officials to hear from members of the public about proposed land Vancouver and White Rock. North Vancouver City and District, District of West Vancouver and Coquitlam use changes. Legislation requires that a public hearing be held for a rezoning or Official declined to participate. Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island, Lion’s Bay, Tsawwassen First Nation and UBC wereHOU - 104 Community Plan amendment. 42 Acknowledgements

Getting to Groundbreaking was initiated by the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association (GVHBA). To ensure rigorous, unbiased and reliable research, GVHBA engaged the Simon Fraser University Urban Studies Program to lead G2G research. SFU researchers are guided by an advisory group that includes staff from the City of Surrey, City of Vancouver, and Township of Langley, home builders, Metro Vancouver, GVHBA, the Urban Development Institute (UDI), and Urban Analytics. The project is funded by the federal government MITACS-Accelerate research internship program, with the GVHBA and UDI as private sector partners, and has received funding from the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia and BC Housing.

This project has been designed and implemented as a partnership between the G2G Report Writing and Editing: Meg Holden, Sophie Fung and Daniel Sturgeon , Simon Fraser University Urban Studies Program home building industry, the region’s municipalities, and other government and Graphic Design: Vinu Subashini Rajus research interests. A hallmark of our effort is its iterative and consultative Photo Credit: Julia Hulbert approach across the spectrum of participants in the residential development G2G Research Team 2014-15: Sophie Fung, Meg Holden, Jacint Simon, Daniel Sturgeon process. We hope the result is a timely, constructive contribution to answering G2G Advisory Group Members 2014-2015: Eric Aderneck (Metro Vancouver), Michael Ferreira (Urban Analytics), Jeff Fisher (Urban complex questions around providing housing in our region. We hope to Development Institute), John Greer (City of Vancouver), Deana Grinnell (Canada Lands Corporation), Jean Lamontagne (City of stimulate more informed debate about how to build the homes and Surrey), Ryan Lucy (Morningstar Homes), Mark Sakai (GVHBA), Ramin Seiﬁ (Township of Langley), Kevin Shoemaker (Polygon communities that our growing region needs, and to seek new information and Homes) fresh perspectives in order to develop more creative solutions.

We thank all the municipalities and home builders who contributed to this, our second round of research and reporting. Participation demands valuable time, as well as trust in the project. We hope this 2016 report does justice to your contributions and rewards your willingness to face the friction of debate around this piece of the housing puzzle. We hope to be able to count on continued and growing participation in constructive and informed dialogue into the future.

HOU - 105 6.4

220-1651 Commercial Dr. Vancouver, BC V5L 3Y3 WWW.BCNPHA.CA

April 5, 2016

The Honourable Rich Coleman Deputy Premier Minister of Natural Gas Development Minister Responsible for Housing P.O. Box 9049, Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9E2

RE: Invitation to meet with the BC Rental Housing Coalition

Dear Minister Coleman,

On behalf of the private, non-profit, municipal and co-operative landlords in BC as well as renters and developers, I am writing to request a meeting between you and members of the BC Rental Housing Coalition at your convenience.

This diverse coalition of rental housing stakeholders has been meeting and examining housing policy for over a year and have found agreement on a number of measures we can work together on to increase the supply of rental and affordable rental housing and support tenants.

Housing affordability is now the number one issue in British Columbia, and as new federal, provincial and municipal funding streams and programs are being developed, there are new opportunities for a strengthened affordable housing sector. We believe this presents an excellent opportunity to have a dialogue with you about your vision for the province and our shared positions on various housing issues.

We would be honoured to discuss these issues with you in more detail, and look forward to a positive and constructive dialogue. We are available at your convenience. BC Rental Housing Coalition Members Sincerely, Aboriginal Housing Management Association BC CEO Network BC Non-Profit Housing Association BC Seniors Living Association BC Society of Transition Homes Co-op Housing Federation of BC Kishone Tony Roy Inclusion BC CEO, BCNPHA LandlordBC Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation [email protected] Tenants’ Rights Advisory Centre 778-945-2151 Urban Development Institute Vancity Credit Union

HOU - 106