HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-19 Workshop Agenda and ReportsCorporation of the District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP A GENDA
April 19, 2004
9:00a.m.
Blaney Room, i' Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this
meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council
for debate and vote or refer the item back to stafffor more information or
clarfIcation.
REMINDERS
April 19
Closed Council Meeting 10:00 a.m.
Committee of the Whole 1:00 P.M.
April 20
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
ADOPTION OF THEAGENDA
MINUTES - April 5, 2004
DELEGATIONS
3.1 Sheltair Group - Population and Demographics Report
3.2 GVRD, Multi Drop Recycling Depot Proposal, Nancy Knight and Paul Remillard
(2:30 p.m.)
UNFINISHED AND NEWBUSINESS
4.1 Salvation Army Funding
Council Workshop
April 19, 2004
Page 2 of 3
4.2 Official Community Plan Review Status Report
Staff report dated April 13, 2004 providing an update of the status of the OCP review
to April 2, 2004. (Report to be circulated separately)
4.3 Tracking System Update (see attached information)
CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 UBCM Executive and First Nations Summit Task Group, Funding for 2004
Program
Memo dated April 1, 2004 providing information on Community to Community
Forums
BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
ADJOURNMENT
Checked b'.
Date. i9 ; / i, 7-064
....,. .........
Council Workshop
April 19, 2004
Page 3 of3
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to
one or more of the following:
personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position
as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the
municipality;
personal information about an identifiable individual who is bein& considered for a municipal award
or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
labour relations or employee negotiations;
the security of property of the municipality;
the acquisition. disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
liti2ation or potential liti2ation affecting the municipality;
an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the
municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privile2e, including communications necessary
for that purpose;
information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be
prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act;
negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are
at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm
the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(1) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
a matter that, under another enactment, is such that. the public may be excluded from the meeting;
the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection
of subsection (2)
the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations,
where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
*
.Cffporation of the District of Maple Ridge
CLiP K " 1 )j 1995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9
Telephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: (604) 467-7329
iN4.A1PLE R.IL)CE APR - 5 2004 E-mail: enquiries@mapleridge.org . . .....
Incorporated 12 Sep ernber, 1874 www.mapleridge.org
-
April 1, 2004
Mr. Paul Remillard VIA FAX: 604-451-6180
GVRD - Contracted Services
4330 Kingsway
Burnaby BC V514 4G8
Dear Paul:
Re: Ridge Meadows Recycling Society - Multi-Drop Depot Proposal
Our File No.: E06-017-005.8 & E01-072-001
Thank you for your letter of March 25, 2004 responding to the District's request to amend our
license agreement to provide for a multi-drop facility on the Ridge Meadows Recycling Depot
site. While we understand the GVRD's concerns on the clear demarcation of product stewardship
responsibilities, the District is seeking permission to site a multi-drop facility to provide
increased customer service and divert environmentally damaging products from the GVRD's
Transfer Station.
By way of background, the proposal was initiated by Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
(RMRS), a not-for-profit community society who operate the depot. It is the District's position
that based on ProductCare financially undertaking the service, the product stewards are not
relieved of their responsibility. As has been expressed previously by us in discussions, RMRS's
request to provide the service on the licensed property (which is licensed at market rent rates) is
based on a full cost recovery from the product stewards with the potential for recoveries that
would offset the cost of recycling services and activities. This approach is intended to divert
potentially environmentally damaging products from the receiving environment (i.e. the GVRD
transfer station) in a customer convenient and cost-effective manner and is consistent with
similar facilities in the region.
Because we would like further clarification on the GVRD' s position, I would like to invite
GVRD staff to a Council-Staff meeting at 9:00am on April 19, 2004 to provide a brief
presentation on its position on multi-drop and other product care facilities and for us to discuss
options to secure improved service levels by product stewards consistent across the region.
.12 32-. "Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens"
100% Recyded Paper
Mr. Paul Remilard
April 1,2004 PaRe2
Should you have any questions or wish to arrange for presentation equipment, please feel free to
contact me at 604-467-7496.
urs truly,
rew ood, MEng., PEng.
Municipal Engineer
AW:bec
cc: Mayor & Council
Jim Rule, CAO
Frank Quinn, GM: PW&DS
Terry Fryer, Municipal Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: April 15, 2004
SUBJECT: Corporate Tracking System - Council Action Items for Staff
Attached is the list of Council Action Items for Staff as of April 15, 2004.
I would be please to provide an update on any of these issues at Monday's Workshop.
J.L. (Jim) Rule
ChieVAdministrative Officer
JLR:sr
attach.
q*5
MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12 September. 1874
Corporate Tracking
System
April 15, 2004
Council Action Items for Staff
Number Issue for Discussion Comment Staff Time Status
Responsible Frame
Administration
C-04.200 Town Hall Meetings Town Hall Meetings on Core and Transportation Jim Rule! June 2004 S
Frank Quinn
C-04.20 Economic Economic Development Commission - Renaming Jim Rule 2004 S
Development
Commission -
Rename
C-04.202 2003 Litigation - The Chief Administrative Officer is to obtain an Jim Rule Mar 2004 IP
Fourth Quarter Report update from the Manager of the Pitt Meadows
Airport on the litigation with JJM Construction.
C-04.203 Emergency Exercise A recommendation is to be made to the Justice Jim Rule Mar 2004 S
"Operation Institute to include positive comments on an
Floodgate" Report exercise at the beginning of their critique rather
than at the end.
Staff is to meet with Mission emergency Jim Rule April 2004 5
program personnel.
C-04.204 OCP Update Council, through the Mayor, is to write to the Jim Rule Mar 2004 S
Agricultural Land Commission requesting that
their review of agricultural soil be completed by
the promised date of April 1, 2004.
Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services
Municipal Hall Complete Municipal Hall Phase 2 seismic Mike Murray Oct 2004 IP
C-04.300 Renovations upgrade and renovations
Family and Youth Council Workshop - 2004-01-26 - Staff is to Sue Wheeler 2004 5
C-04.301 Services - Program provide Council with a comparison of the service
comparison programs in the community for Family and
Youth before and after the changes are
completed by the Fraser Health Region
Corporate and Financial Services
C-04.400 Committee Database - Council Workshop, November 10, 2003 - the Terry Fryer Mar 15 2004 1
Circulate to Council committee database has been circulated to
and staff Council and staff and is waiting for further
feedback at a future Workshop
C-04.401 Arrange MLA Council Workshop - October27 - TransLink Terry Fryer April 2004 IP
Meeting - January Update, Mayor Scott Young - Municipal Clerk is
2004 to arrange a meeting with the Council of Maple
Ridge, Port Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows
Council Action Items for Staff
April 15, 2004
C = Council Action Items
P = Policy Items
G = Goals from Business Plans
iPage 1
Completed
in Progress ip
Scheduled S
'Number Issue for Discussion Comment Staff Time Status
Responsible Frame
C-04.402 Meeting with Maple Council Workshop - October 27 - TransLink Terry Fryer Apr 30 2004 IP
Ridge, Port Coquitlam Update, Mayor Scott Young - Municipal Clerk is
and Pitt Meadows re to arrange a meeting with the Council of Maple
transportation issues Ridge, Port Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows
C-04.403 Voluntary OT by Determine amount of voluntary overtime John Leeburn Oct 312004 IP
Staff Report provided by municipal staff.
C-04.404 Council Meeting Amend procedure bylaw in conjunction with Terry Fryer April 30 IP
Procedural Bylaw changes to the Community Charter. 2004
Review
C-04.405 Seminar for Council Schedule this seminar on Roles/Responsibilities Terry Fryer July 31 2004 IP
on Roles!
Responsibilities
C-04.406 Building Bylaw Council Workshop, December 1, 2003, Item 3.1 Paul Gill Apr30 2004 IP
liability issues - Staff is to provide Council with information on
how liability issues affect individual taxpayers.
C-04.407 Downtown Core Staff is to prepare resolutions on the two Terry Fryer Mar 9 2004
Negotiation Update approval processes for Council's consideration at
the March 9, 2004 Council Meeting.
C-04.408 City of North E-mail January 15, 2004 from;B.A.Hawkshaw, Terry Fryer Mar22 2004 1
Vancouver, Bill 85: City Clerk, providing information on a resolution
BC Hydro Public calling on the BC Government to repeal Bill 85,
Power Legacy and hold consultations with British Columbians about
Heritage Contract the future of BC Hydro and our Province's
Act, December 2003 electricity system and reverse all legislative,
regulatory and contractual measure which give or
potentially give control of BC Hydro and its
assets to the private sector.
It was the consensus of Council that the letter be
received for information and no further action
taken.
Letter to be sent to City of North Vancouver.
C-04.409 City of North E-mail from B.A. Hawkshaw, City Clerk, Teny Fryer Mar22 2004
Vancouver, Lions providing information on resolutions pertaining
Gate Hospital and to Provincial health care services.
Public Health Care It was the consensus of Council that the letter be
System received for information and no further action
taken.
Letter to be sent to City of North Vancouver
C-04.410 British Columbia Letter dated February 24, 2004from Jerry. Lloyd, Terry Fryer Mar22 2004 1
Aviation Council, President & Chief Executive Officer, requesting
Airfare Add-ons that a letter of support to make air travel more
affordable be sent to the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Transportation.
It was the consensus of Council that the letter of
Council Action Items for Staff
April15. 2004
C = Council Action Items
P = Polic',' Items
G = Goals from Business Plans
2Page2
Completed I
In Progress IP
Scheduled S
Number Issue for Discussion Comment Staff Time Státus &
Responsible Frame
support requested in the letter be. sent. .
A letter of support is to be sent to the Prime .
Minister and the Minister of Transportation.
C-04.41 1 2003 Annual Report The fmalized 2003 Annual Report is to be Paul Gill / Apr 2004 IP
circulated to Council with a pending list of major Brenda
projects in progress attached to the report and for Graham
discussion purposes, be accompanied by the
Corporate Tracking System Report
C-04.412 Youth Justice and Lola Chapman and Insp. Fraser MacRae are to be Paul Gill Apr 302004 IP
Advocacy Association invited to attend a meeting of Council to provide
Lease Payment an update on the Youth Justice and Advocacy
Association. The local MLAs are to be invited to
attend the discussion.
C-04.413 Draft 2003 Annual The finalized 2003 Annual Report is to be Paul Gill! Apr30 2004 IP
Report circulated to Council with a pending list of major Brenda
projects in progress attached to the report and for Graham
discussion purposes, be accompanied by the
Corporate Tracking System Report
C-04.414 RZ/077/02, 11673 240 Action Notice Council 2004-03.23 Terry Fryer IP
Street, RS-3 to CD-I - A meeting is to be arranged with School District
93 and P-I 42 to discuss development patterns.
Public Works and Development Services
C-04.500 ALR - report on how Council Workshop, November 10, 2003 - Staff is Frank Quinn Mar22 2004 /
to proceed with to prepare a report providing recommendations
applications on how to proceed with applications for
development on lands excluded from the ALR
but outside of the urban boundary.
C-04.501 Town Hall Meeting Council Workshop - Information on topics to be Frank Quinn June 2004 IP
on Transportation on discussed at the June, 2004 Town Hall Meeting
website are to be available on the web site and the public
is to be provided with an opportunity to submit
questions in advance of the meeting.
C-04.502 Town Hall Meeting Council Workshop - The Ministry of Highways, Frank Quinn June 2004 IP
on Transportation - TransLink and ICBC are to be invited to
invite MOH, participate in the June, 2004 Town Hall Meeting.
TransLink and ICBC
C-04.503 TransLink - Fraser Council Workshop - A letter to be sent to Frank Quinn .Feb 19 2004 /
River Crossing TransLink stating that the northern route of the
Alignment . Abernethy Connector within the Agricultural
- Land Cornrnissions band is-acceptable .... ... . .
Council Action Items for Staff
April 15, 2004 V
C = Council A ction Items
P = Polk-v Items
G = Goals from Business Plans
3Page 3
Completed .P
In Progress IP
Scheduled S
'Number Issue for Discussion 1 Comment Staff Time Status
Responsible Frame
C-04.504 TransLink - Fraser Council Workshop - Staff is to arrange a Frank Quinn Apr 30 2004 IP
River Crossing meeting with TransLink, Langley, and Maple
Alignment Ridge to obtain an update on the status of the
Albion Ferry and to clarify the status of the
diversion of funds subsidizing the Albion Ferry
to the Fraser River Crossing.
C-04.505 Burning at Council Workshop - Staff is to prepare a report Frank Quinn June 15 2004 IP
Development Sites providing information on alternative clearing
methods for development sites and information
on whether any other communities in the Lower
Mainland permit burning.
C-04.506 Staffing for Council Workshop - Staff will give an update at Frank Quinn Jun 30 2004 IP
environmental issues a future date on how environmental issues will
be handled within the District as a result of
staffing changes in the Planning Department.
C-04.507 RZI003/03, 24350 Committee of the Whole - Staff is to provide Frank Quinn Feb 102004
104 Avenue, information at the February 10,2004 Council
Inclusion into Sewer Meeting on the relationship between the Fraser.
Area "A" Sewerage Area and Sewer Area "A."
C-04.508 Meeting with MLA's Council Workshop - A letteris to be sentto the Frank Quinn Feb 12 2004
MLA's requesting that the decision not to
include plastic milk containers in the refund
system be reconsidered.
C-04.509 Fraser River Crossing, Council Workshop - Information from Lions Frank Quinn Jan30 2004 1'
Environmental Bay on the estimated cost of a covered roadway
Assessment, Fred is to be provided by staff to Fred Cummings.
Cummings
C-04.5 10 Application COW 2004-01-19 - Checklists, similar to those Jane Jan 19 2003 1
Checklists for Public Hearing, are to be prepared for the Pickering
various application processes that can be
undertaken with respect to the development of
property.
C-04.51 I Fraser Sewerage Area COW 2004-01-19 - Sewer Area A reports will Frank Quinn Feb 12004 1
report regarding include reconciliation with the Fraser Sewer
reconciliation with Area
Sewer Area "A"
C-04.5 12 Household Hazardous Council Workshop 2004-01-26 - A letter is to be Frank Quinn Mar26 2004 uI
Waste Program - sent to the MLA's identifying gaps in
letter to MLA's stewardship programs for household hazardous
waste programs.
Update— Feb 17:
C-04.513 Transportation -
Maple Ridge and
Maple Ridge-Mission Council Meeting 2004-
Staff from Maple Ridge and Mission are to meet
Frank Quinn Mar 11 2004 IP
Mission staff meeting to review transportation initiatives of mutual
interest
Council Action Items for Staff
April 15, 2004
C = CouncilAction Items
P = Policy Itenzs
G = Goals from Business Plans
4Page 4
Completed I
In Progress IP
Scheduled S
Number Issue for Discussion - - Comment Staff Time Status
Responsible Frame
C-04.5 14 Amendments to Staff is to incorporate amendments related to Frank Quinn June 2004 IP
Business License adult-oriented businesses into the overall review
Bylaw No. 2542-1978 of the Business License Bylaw. Consideration is
to be given to changing the name of the Bylaw to
the Business License and Regulations Bylaw and
to include in the definition section the rationale
for charging different fees for different
businesses.
C-04.5 15 RZ1032/03, 11 176 Staff is to determine if anything further can be Frank Quinn Mar 31 2004 IP
Gilker Hill Rd., RS-3 done to ensure the development includes visitor
to RM-1 parking.
C-04.5 16 BC Federation of Action Notice Council 2004-03-23 Frank Quinn May 2004 IP
Labour, New Safety Mr. Bill Harper spoke of the concerns of the BC
Standards Act and Federation of Labour with new provincial
Regulations legislation governing safety standards. He asked
that Council give consideration to a resolution to
write a letter to Minister Murray Coell and to
meet with local MLA's to express opposition to
this legislation.
It was the consensus of Council that staff be
directed to prepare a report on the new Safety
Standards Act and Regulations. Staff is to
prepare a report on the new Safety Standards Act
and Regulations.
C-04.517 Nanaimo Bylaw re Action Notice CoW — 2004-04-05 Brock May 152004 IP
Liquor Sales Staff is to prepare information on the control of McDonald
liquor prices at licensed premises.
Council Action Items for Staff
April 15, 2004
C = CouncilAction items
P = Policy items
G = Goals from Business Plans
5Page 5
Completed I
in Progress IP
Scheduled S
3Q -C)—O7
APR — 52004
__ C_MT 4i
UNI Action: cOEi
MUNICIPALITIES
&5eM
FIRST
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
NA11O.NS SUMMIT
IMPORTANT iNViTATION TO ALL
BC FIRST NATIONS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
to: Local Government Mayors, Chairs, Administrators & BC First Nations Chiefs
and Administrators
From: UBCM Executive and First Nations Summit Task Group
Date: April 1, 2004
RE: FUNDING NOW AVAILABLEFOR 2004 PROGRAM
The Union of BC Municipalities and First Nations Summit are pleased to announce that
funding for local government and First Nation regional Community to Community
Forums is available again this year with renewed financial support from the provincial
and federal governments. This is an exciting opportunity and we invite you to
respond by organizing an event in your area.
A Community to Community Forum is an event bringing together First Nation and
local government community leaders for the purpose of encouraging dialogue and
understanding on areas of common responsibility and issues of mutual interest.
Creating opportunities for dialogue is vitally important for improving government to
government relationships that can meet both present and future community challenges
and goals.
The Application Kit on Regional Community to Community Forums & Information
Brochure are attached (also available at www.civicnet.bc.ca and www.fns.bc.ca) and they
provide:
Information on how to plan and organize an event;
Guidance on how to apply for funding (to cover up to 50 percent of the total costs),
including, a sample application and budget..
Applications must be received by the UBCM Office by June 11, 2004 and events must
be held by December 31, 2004.
Please make copies of this circular & distribute them
to
Council/Board Member & Staff
5:1
Community to
Community Forum
Application. Kit
FZR'I.t NtNS Su:MlI1
UNION OF
BRrrlsl-1
COLUMILA
MUNICIPALITIES
APRIL 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
What is a Community to Community Forum? 2
Applying for Community to Community Forum Funding 3
Approval Process
Planning an Event
Submitting Your Final Report
Appendix A - Sample Application
Appendix B - Sample Final Report
5
6 11
7
9
10
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 1
1. What is a Regional Community to Community Forum?
Background
In January 1997, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and the First
Nations Summit (FNS) jointly-organized the first province-wide Community to
Community Forum. This event brought together First Nation and local government
community leaders from around BC to discuss common goals and opportunities for
joint action. Its success was due to a spirit of goodwill and an open exchange of
concerns, ideas, and constructive viewpoints. There was consensus among the
participants that Community to Community Forums at regional and local levels
should be encouraged.
It was recognized that financial support would be one of the key factors in local
governments and First Nations getting regional Community to Community Forums
off the ground. Since 1999, through this program federal and provincial government
funding has been provided to support over 70 regional Community to Community
Forums held in communities across the province. This year, the federal Department
of Indian Affairs (BC Region) and the provincial Ministry of Community, Aboriginal
and Women's Services have again provided funding to UBCM and the FNS for the
purpose of providing modest grants to First Nation and local governments that
successfully apply.
Description
A regional Community to Community Forum is a jointly organized meeting between
elected leaders from neighbouring First Nation and local governments. The events
bring together members of municipal councils and/or regional boards, with First
Nation band council members and other community leaders.
Purpose
The goal of a regional Community to Community Forum is to increase
understanding and to improve overall relations between First Nation and local
governments. A Comm..unity to Community Forum provides a time and place for
dialogue on issues of mutual interest and concern. These issues may relate to
economic development, land use planning, natural resource management, service
delivery and other areas of common responsibility or interest.
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 2
To qualify for funding under this program, a Community to Community Forum
must work toward the following objectives:
Community to Community Forum Objectives
• Educating and informing the participating governments about current issues in
relationships between the First Nations and local governments;
• Providing a forum for dialogue on a specific concern or topical issue;
• Strengthening relationships and fostering future cooperative action, by building
stronger links between First Nations and local governments at the political and
administrative/staff level; and
• Determining opportunities for future collaboration and joint action.
2. Applying for a Community to Community Forum Grant
Funding provided through UBCM and the FNS for a regional Community to
Community Forum will be modest. At a minimum, the applicant must provide 50
percent of the total costs for the forum in cash or in kind. Note that UBCM and the
FNS will invite applications from First Nations and local governments two to three
times during the funding year, providing updated application deadlines each time.
Who is eligible?
Any municipal, regional district or First Nation government (e.g. Band or Tribal
Council) may apply for funding for a regional Community to Community Forum.
First time and repeat applicants (those who received funding in previous years) are
eligible. It should be noted that the Community to Community Forum program is
not connected to the treaty process, and therefore First Nations need not be in the
treaty process in order to participate or apply.
Application Process
To be eligible, a First Nation or local government must:
A. Have a partner community confirmed
To be eligible for funding, the neighbouring government must have committed to
participating in the event, ("neighbouring" may mean in the vicinity of, but not
necessarily immediately adjacent to).
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 3
B. Submitting an Application
Applications can be submitted to the UBCM office any time beforeTune 11, 2004, and
should include the following information:
First Time Applicants* I Repeat Applicants
• A preliminary description of the event, • Date of last forum (involving all or
including objectives (see page 3); most of the same communities)
• Improvements in the First Nation -
local government relationship since
previous event, (e.g. activities
undertaken as a result of earlier forum)
• A preliminary description of the event,
including objectives (see page 3) plus
how this event will build on the results
of the previous event;
LJ Names of participating local
L Suggested date (to be held before I government(s) and First Nation(s);
December 31, 2004); and J Information on the commitment and
• If the application includes more than
one event (up to a maximum of 3), a
rationale for multiple events and
description of each should be
provided;
• Names of participating local
government(s) and First Nation(s);
• Information on the commitment and
participation of partner community;
Li Intended product or deliverables (e.g.
plans for future meeting dates, projects
for future joint action/collaboration,
other next steps).
• A budget (see 'C' below)
• Plans to meet program communication
requirements (see 'D' below)
participation of partner community;
Li Suggested date (to be held before
December 31, 2004); and
Li Intended product or deliverables (e.g.
plans for future meeting dates, projects
for future joint action/collaboration,
other next steps).
Ii A budget (see 'C' below)
Li Plans to meet program communication
requirements (see 'D' below)
* Please see Appendix Afor a sample application for first time applicants.
C. Submitting a Budget
The itemized draft budget should indicate approximate amounts needed for meeting
space, refreshments/meals, preparation of materials, consultant(s) for organization/
facilitation services, contingency, etc. If this application is for more than one event,
itemized budgets are required for each separate event, (applications with up to three
events will be accepted). The budget should also provide a figure for the total
amount of funding requested. At least 50 percent of the total costs must be covered
by the applicant in cash or in kind. Note that a list of facilitators in available from
UBCM and FNS on request.
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 4
D. Program Communication Requirements
State in your proposal your plans for:
• Public communications to increase awareness of the event, which may include the
media; and
• Report-outs on Community to Community Forum at meeting of full Band
Council, Municipal Council and/or Regional District Board
When an application is received, it will be reviewed by UBCM staff to ensure it is
complete. The application will be forwarded to the UBCM Executive and First
Nations Summit to consider for approval and a response will be provided as soon as
possible.
Send Applications to:
Regional Community to Community Forum Program
do UBCM, #60-10551 Shelibridge Way, Richmond, BC V6X 2W9
or send as an e-mail attachment to: earmstro@civicnet.bc.ca
3. Approval Process
The FNS and UBCM hope to encourage as many Community to Community forums
as possible in regions across the province, within the confines of the available
funding. While we do not anticipate a greater number of applications than total
funds available, a number of steps will be taken to ensure funds are spread as far as
possible:
Consolidation - In some cases, where several forums are proposed in the same
region, we may ask that the groups combine efforts and hold one forum for that
region.
Regional Equity - Consideration will be given to ensuring regional equity in the
allocation of funds.
Advice - Where requested, the UBCM and FNS offices will provide advice to
applicants on their application and event.
Once a regional Community to Community Forum application is approved, 50
percent of the total UBCM/FNS contribution will be sent to the applicant as well as
Information Brochures describing the program, which we ask you to distribute at
the event. The event must then be held within the proposed timeframe. Upon
completion of the event, the applicant will be required to complete and submit two
hard copies and an electronic copy of a Final Report summarizing the event (see
below) in order to receive the remaining 50 percent of approved funding.
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 5
4. Planning an Event
Length and Format
A day-long event may be preferred to allow participants sufficient time to meet one
another and work together to generate ideas and plans for future activities. In
situations where the participants do not know one another at all, an "ice-breaker"
event may be useful, such as an introductory dinner or reception.
The 1997, 2001 and 2003 province-wide Community to Community Forums jointly
organized by UBCM and the First Nations Summit, were structured around
presentations by speakers who provided participants with their views and specific
experience in relation to local government/First Nations relations. With these
presentations as a common basis for proceeding, small group discussions followed.
During these discussions, participants identified and examined priority issues related
to their inter-governmental and inter-community relationships.
Topic Ideas
Possible topics for discussion during a regional Community to Community Forum
are listed below. This list is illustrative only and is not intended to be prescriptive,
nor to limit the types of issues that could be discussed at regional forums.
SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
• Harmonization of services • Harmonization and communication
• Capacity building • Future needs assessment
• Cost effectiveness • Joint development opportunities
• Joint planning and coordination
LAND USE AND RESOURCES STRUCTURING THE GOVERNMENT
• Access to resources TO GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP
• Environmental protection • Joint Council meetings
• Land use planning and management . • Regional representation
• Sustainability • Protocols and other agreements
• Dispute resolution
COMMUNICATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• History and awareness. . Improving the regional and local
• Staff to staff communications economies
• Joint interests and initiatives
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 6
For informatiOn and ideas on different theme areas which could be the focus of a
forum, see the UBCM website www.civicnet.bc.ca , (choose "Featured Policy Topics",
"Aboriginal Affairs"). The following documents will be of particular interest to those
planning events:
• Final reports from many recent regional Community to Community Forums held
throughout the province.
• Final reports from the 2001 and 2003 Province-wide Community to Community
Forum jointly organized by UBCM and FNS. The 2001 Final Report contains a
Toolkit, with case studies and a listing of ideas and opportunities generated by
conference participants on many of the topics named in the boxes above
• Resources related to building effective relationships between First Nations and
local governments.
C. Organization and Facilitation
Experience shows that a major challenge in organizing a Community to Community
Forum is finding adequate staff time and resources. Many previous applicants have
found that contracting the services of a professional facilitator/event organizer can
assist in planning and convening the forum, as well as writing the final report
needed to satisfy the requirements of the program.
A list of experienced facilitators is available from the UBCM and FNS offices.
5. Submitting Your Final Report*
In order to receive your final disbursement of funds, the Final Report summarizing
the event must be submitted to the UBCM (two hard copies plus an electronic copy
sent by e-mail attachment). The Final Report is an important instrument for the
federal and provincial governments to measure the success of their contribution to
this program. If a facilitation/organization consultant assists with the forum, she or
he can also be contracted to prepare this report.
A Final Report must include:
• an outline of the objectives of the forum;
• a list of all First Nation, local government and other participants in attendance;
• a summary of the issues discussed and/or presentations made at the event;
• the recommendations, achievements, plans or "next steps" resulting from the
meeting; and
• a financial summary.
* Please see Appendix Bfor a sample final report.
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 7
B. An Appendix to the report should include:
• background (e.g. participants, planning process, context, goals);
• agenda;
• session summaries or minutes, including highlights of opening remarks,
• key statements, etc.;
• documents tabled;
• media releases and press coverage and other public communications; and
• actual or planned dates for report-outs on Community to Community Forum at
meeting of full Band Council, Municipal Council and/or Regional District Board.
DEADLINES FOR FIRST ROUND APPLICATIONS it
Applications to be sent to UBCM office: from April 1 to Tune 11, 2004
Events to be held before December 31, 2004
If you have any questions about applying for regional Community to Community
Forum funding that are not answered in this guide, please contact:
At UBCM: Alison McNeil : (604) 270-8226 FAX: (604) 270-9116
E-MAIL: amcneil@civicnet.bc.ca
At FNS: Cohn Braker: (604) 990-9939 FAX: (604) 990-9949
E-MAIL: cbraker@fns1bc.ca
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 8
APPENDIX A
Sample Application First Time Applicants (For Demonstration Purposes Only)
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF BEVERLY HILLS, B.C.
PROPOSAL FOR A REGIONAL COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY FORUM:
DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
As this event will be the first time for local government and First Nations community leaders within
the RDBH to meet as one group, an "ice breaker" dinner is proposed. The main objective of the first
Community to Community Forum is to establish communication between First Nations and local
governments in our region. Included will be discussion on areas of common concern, activities and
functions (how we operate), and protocol for effective communications (between both elected officials
and staff). It is also an opportunity to share history, to lay a foundation for future discussion on more
specific items like service delivery and land use planning, and to prepare for the post-treaty
relationship.
PARTICIPANTS
Local Government (elected officials and staff):
RDBH District of Blackford
City of Pleasantville District of Elkwood
City of Streetsville Town of Beverly
First Nations:
Chief of the Redwood Tribal Council, Chief John Wood, has verbally advised that the Council would
participate. It is intended that the invitations would be extended to all band councils in the region.
The Tribal Council has also indicated they will assist with preparation of the agenda.
DATE
A date has not yet been finalized, but we have tentatively planned for June 15, 2002. This would
allow sufficient time to prepare a specific agenda and for participants to prepare presentations.
INTENDED PRODUCT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Opening the lines of communication will be the first step towards building a cooperative working
relationship. It will establish the principles for the relationship and should lead to future meetings.
Both the local governments and First Nations will be more aware of how entities function and will
understand their goals and values. The proceedings of the event will be recorded in a report which
will be sent to UBCM upon completion. A news release was sent to our local newspaper, The Town
Crier after the event. The First Nation, municipal and regional district participants have the event
scheduled on their respective council/board agendas for participants to provide a report on the results.
BUDGET
Dinner for 75 people at $25/person $ 1,875
Room rental for following day $375
Facilitation Services 1,500
Preparation of materials- printing costs for information materials 500
Photo displays and video presentation 550
Audio/Visual equipment rental 100
Final report production 300
Contingency 150
TOTAL - 5,350
TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED (50%) $2,675
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 9
APPENDIX B
Sample Final Report - First Time Applicants* (For Demonstration Purposes Only)
FORUM OBJECTIVES
Clear objectives, whether they are formal or informal, are essential to the successful planning
and implementation of a Community to Community Forum. Please use this section to
describe the goals the organizers had for the forum and a short analysis of whether those
objectives were achieved. This information gives a valuable overview of the success of the
forum and can be used to plan future forums.
PARTICIPANTS
Funding eligibility relies on the support and participation of at least one neighbouring First
Nation. Your final report must include a list of the participating elected officials from First
Nations and local governments. A full list of individual participants should be included.
ISSUES DISCUSSED
Include a summary of the issues discussed at the forum including any prepared materials
(reports, info pack, etc.), presentations and open discussion topics. It may be useful to include
a copy of the agenda for the forum, as well as any minutes recorded at the event..
RECOMMENDATIONS/OUTCOMES
The Community to Community Forum program hopes that the events funded lead to the
development of open communication, joint ventures and cooperative working relationships. It
is hoped that the relationships established at your forum will continue and evolve. In this
section, record any recommendations, resolutions, achievements, plans or "next steps" that are
a result of the forum. These may vary from informal agreements for holding similar annual
events to formal agreements concerning any of the issues discussed, (e.g. Protocols, MOUs,
etc).. Include plans by participating First Nations and local governments for reporting out to
their respective councils or boards.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Include a summary detailing the actual costs of your Community to Community Forum.
Ensure you outline the contributions, in cash or in kind, of the organizers and participants.
Note that submission, of receipts is not-required.
ATTACHMENTS
Include any other relevant information, including background information, agenda,
documents tabled, and media releases and coverage.
*A1I Applicants: Remember to submit two hard copies plus a copy sent by e-mail attachment to
the UBCM office at earmsto@civicnet.bc.ca .
Community to Community Forum Application Kit 10
Fzsr NcTXOMS SUMMIT
UNI7cr
Brnsn
COLUMBIA
MuNIcIPALrns
Information on the Regional
Com unity
to
Community
Forum
Program
"It is the age-old concept of give and take,
compromise, respectfulness and treat-
ing each other as equals that creates
the framework for successful relation-
ships and countless opportunities for
future partnerships".
Participant
What is a Regional Community to
Community Forum?
Description
A regional Community to Community Fo-
rum is ajointly organized meeting between
elected leaders from neighbouring First
Nation and local governments. The events
bring together members of municipal coun-
cils and/or regional boards, with First Na-
tion band council members and other com-
munity leaders.
Background
Through the Regional Community to Com-
munity Forum program, federal and provin-
cial government funding has been provided
since 1999 to slupport over seventy regional
Community to Community Forums held in
communities ccross the province. This year,
the federal Department of Indian Affairs (BC
Region) and the provincial Ministry of Com-
munity, AborginaI and Women's Services
are again pro'iiding funding to the Union
of BC Municipalities and the First Nations
Summit for the purpose of providing mod-
est grants to First Nation and local govern-
ments that suEcessfully apply. 11
Purpose
The purpose of a regional Community to
Community Forum is to increase under-
standing and to improve relations between
First Nation and local governments. A Com-
munity to Community Forum provides a
time and place for dialogue among elected
leaders on issues of mutual interest and con-
cern. These issues may relate to economic
development, land use planning, natural re-
source management, service delivery and
other areas of common responsibility or in-
terest.
Community to Community Forum
Objectives
• Educating and informing the participat-
ing governments about current issues in
relationships between First Nations and
local governments;
• Providing a forum fordialogue on a spe-
cific concern or topical issue;
• Strengthening relationships and foster-
ing future cooperative action, by build-
ing stronger links between First Nations
and local governments at the political
and administrative/staff level; and
• Determining opportunities for future
collaboration and joint action.
Who can Apply?
Any municipal, regional district or First Na-
tion government (e.g. Band or Tribal Coun-
cil) may apply for funding for a regional
Community to Community Forum. First
time and repeat applicants (those who re-
ceived funding in previous years) are eligi-
ble. It should be noted that the program
provides up to fifty percent of the total cost
of the event. A copy of the Application l<it
is available on the UBCM and FNS websites
at: www.civicnet.bc.ca and www.fns.bc.ca .
Approval Process
The FNS and UBCM hope to encourage as
many Community to Community forums as
possible across the province, within the con-
fines of the available funding. While we do
not anticipate a greater number of applica-
tions than total funds available, a number
of steps will be taken to ensure funds are
spread as far as possible:
Consolidation - In some cases, where sev-
eral forums are proposed in the same region,
we may ask that the groups combine efforts
and hold one forum for that region.
Regional Equity - Consideration will be
given to ensuring regional equity in the al-
location of funds.
Advice - Where requested, the UBCM and
FNS offices will provide advice to applicants
on their application and event (including a
list of known facilitators).
If you have any questions about applying
for regional Community to Community Fo-
rum funding that are not answered in this
Information Brochure, please contact:
At UBCM: Alison McNeil : (604) 270-826
FAX: (604) 270-9116
E-MAIL: amcneil@civicnet.bc.ca
At FNS: (olin Braker: (604) 990-9939
FAX: (604) 990-9949
E-MAIL: cbraker@fns.bc.ca
March 23, 2004
Attn: You may know of individuals or organizations that meet award criteria
Nominations for Excellence in Health Promotion Awards
BC doctors honour the outstanding efforts of individuals, companies and community
organizations whose work has made a positive impact on the long-term health and safety of
British Columbians. Nominations are now open for the 5th annual Excellence in Health
Promotion Award presented by the BC Medical Association (BCMA).
Through this award, the BCMA Council on Health Promotion annually recognizes the
achievements of both an individual and a corporation or community organization.
Award recipients have contributed toward improvements in health and safety through clearly
identified actions, initiatives or increased public awareness. Businesses must have been
operating for at least one year in BC and individuals must be BC residents. Self-nominations are
accepted in both categories.
Some past award recipients:
• Glenna Ayerst, the driving force behind a group of agencies that made bike helmets
mandatory on BC roads.
• Lidia Kemeny, founder of the Safe Start Program, Canada's first and only childhood
injury prevention program.
• Workers' Compensation Board for taking action aimed at protecting workers from
second hand smoke in the workplace.
• City of Port Moody for its leadership in becoming the first Canadian municipality to pass
a bylaw enforcing helmet use by skateboarders, and for creating a bike trials park that
provides stunt-mountain biking enthusiasts with a place to practice jumps, tricks, and
manoeuvres. Few bike parks exist in North America - all but this one are located in
mountain resort areas.
The deadline for nominations isMay 3, 2004. For nomination forms and more information
contact Linda Munro at 604-638-2881, e-mail lmunro@bcma.bc.ca , or visit www.bcma.org .
About the Council on Health Promotion
Recognizing a need to address health issues affecting British Columbians, the BCMA
established its Council on Health Promotion (COHP) in 1957 to focus on long-term and topical
issues related to community health promotion. Dr Heidi Oetter, past president of the BCMA,
serves as Chair of COHP.
Excellence in
COLU MB IA Health Promotion Awards MEDICAL
Purpose
This award recognizes the special efforts of individuals and companies or organizations working to improve the
health and safety of British Columbians. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and to collaborate with
others to promote health and wellness around the province. The BC Medical Association aims to foster and
encourage further health promotion activities.
Criteria
The nominee(s) must have:
• Demonstrated a concern for health and safety through specific actions and/or initiatives
• Exemplified creativity and initiative in taking action to improve and protect health and safety
• Brought about changes with the potential for positive, long-term improvement in the protection of health and
safety in BC
Award Categories
Individual: Honours an individual in BC that has contributed to the improvement or protection of health and safety
in the province through actions, initiatives or increased public awareness.
Corporate/Community: Honours a company or community organization in BC that has contributed to the
improvement or protection of health and safety through actions, policy initiatives or increased public awareness.
Eligibility
Individual Award
Nominees must:
• Be a resident of BC
• Consent to being nominated
• Sign the nomination form
Submitting a Nomination
Corporate/Community Award
Nominees must:
• Be a BC-based business or community organization
• Have been operating in BC for one year or more
• Consent to their nomination
• Sign the nomination form
• Both self-nominations and nominations made on behalf of a person or company/organization are acceptable.
• One completed nomination form must accompany each entry.
• There is no limit to the number of entries, and no entry fee.
• Nominations should be submitted by May 3, 2004 to: BC Medical Association
Attention: Council on Health Promotion
#115 -1665 West Broadway,
Vancouver, BC V6J 5A4
Selection Committee
A volunteer committee of representatives from health, business and community organizations reviews the
nominations and selects the winning submissions. Each entry will be judged against the degree to which it meets
the awards nomination criteria.
V
Excellence in
Health Promotion Awards
BRITISH
COLUMBIA
MEOtCAL
ASSOCIATIOPJ
Nomination Form
These awards annually recognize one individual and one company or community organization working to improve
the health and safety of British Columbians. Nominees must have demonstrated a concern for health and safety
through specific actions or initiatives. These actions must show ingenuity and creativity, and have resulted in
changes with the potential for positive, long-term improvement. Nomination deadline is May 3, 2004.
Name of Nominee:
Nomination Category: El Individual Award 0 CorporatelCommunity Award
Nominee Nominator (If different from nominee)
Address: Name:
Address:
Phone:
Fax: Phone:
E-mail: Fax:
Contact Person:
(For Corporate nominations)
Signature of Nominee:
How did you hear about this award?
Submission Requirements
Your submission should include
1. Completed nomination form, including the signature of either the person being nominated, or a
representative of the company or organization being nominated.
2. Profile of the health promotion initiative including (no more than 10 pages)
Reason for the health promotion initiative
Goals.and objectives
Outcomes or results
Target audience or beneficiaries
3. Any relevant examples of materials related to the health promotion work being nominated
Please submit your completed nomination to:
British Columbia Medical Association
Attention: Council on Health Promotion
115— 1665 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6J 5A4
Fax: (604) 733-7317 E-mail: lmunro@bcma.bc.ca
FOR 11E417
,4thve c fd,e aid Y~fA
2004 MOVE FOR HEALTH DAY:
,4c,'ye Ch,fdrej-t AA d Ye'
April 5, 2004
Hello,
May 10, 2004 is Move for Health Day in British Columbia. The World Health Organization launched this worldwide annual event
in 2002. This year's Move for Health Day theme focuses on children and youth.
The 2004 Move for Health: Active Children and Youth initiative is intendedto encourage individuals and organizations around
the world to promote physical activity as a means to healthy living and to highlight the benefits of active living, especially for
children and youth.
We, themembers of a group of organizations promoting physical activity in BC, encourage you to consider adopting the
attached proclamation and support local initiatives that encourage the children and youth in your communities and
organizations to Move for Health!
As British Columbians gear up to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, 2004 Move for Health Day: Active Children and Youth
provides a good jumping off point for encouraging a legacy of increased good health through physical activity for BC's
children and youth.
We are committed to working together to increase awareness of the benefits of physical activity in BC. We believe that by
working together we can achieve a common goal —to improve the health of British Columbians —young and old.
Local representatives of our provincial partners have received a 2004 Move for Health Day package. We hope that you will
connect with them to promote 2004 Move for Health: Active Children and Youth in the media and throughout your community.
To review the materials in the kit please visit www.bcrpa.bc.ca/resources
Together Let's Move For Health!
HealthyLi
BCRPA SportMedBC
(
i
1m
?
Know who to turn to
BRITISH COLUMBIA rai L LUNG ASSOCIATION
PbU HIth A,odtoflof BC OSOOI AWO,,fl s P 0 Il T B C ° - ............
FOR
2004 Move For Health:
,4chve CI,ddre mr-d YoifI,
DECLARATION FOR MAYORS AND LOCAL POLITICIANS
May 10, 2004
,4cifre Ct,Ydree'i Apd VoS
WHEREAS the World Health Organization has selected Move for Health Day: Active Children and Youth to be observed around the
globe on May 10, 04; and
WHEREAS physical activity affects the lives of all people in Canada and around the world; and
WHEREAS compelling scientific evidence has demonstrated that physical activity plays a key role in promoting optimal health and
development in children and youth and in preventing disease, disability and premature death in everyone; and
WHEREAS two-thirds of Canadians are not active enough to benefit their health; and
WHEREAS there is virtually no human condition that cannot be improved by increased physical activity; and
WHEREAS physical activity builds and maintains a healthy body and promotes well-being and decreases feelings of anxiety and
depression; and
WHEREAS Canada's Physical Activity Guide recommends that everyone accumulate 30 to 60 minutes of moderate physical activity
most, or preferably all, days of the week; and
WHEREAS World Health Day provides an opportunity to focus local, national and international attention on the necessity and
benefits of physical activity; and
WHEREAS federal and provincial/territorial governments have recognized that physical inactivity is a major health concern in
Canada, and that individual, community, national and global collaboration is essential to educating and raising awareness of
physical activity hence promoting 2004: Move for Health Day: Active Children and Youth in Canada;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, , (Mayor, Councillor) of , do hereby
declare that __(city, municipality, community) will observe Move for Health Day: Active Children and Youth on May
10, 2004. I urge all citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of the
importance of physical activity, and to join local, national and global efforts to improve accessibility to physical activity for all our
citizens.
• bémographic Analysis and
Population & Housing
• Projection for Maple Ridge
April 19 2004
In The Sheltair Group
Presentation Outline
• Population and Housing Profile
• Population Drivers
• Housing Constraints
• Assumptions •
• Sensitivity Analysis
• Key Results
Questions
Tho ThoIo - Oop
Total Population, Maple Ridge
1971-2001
H
,
Tho Shofto- eoop
Increase of Population of GVRD
Municipalities, 1991-2001
I -
L
' •'
Tho ShoITo Oop
Average Compound Growth Rates,
Maple Ridge & GVRD, 1971-2001
1
e''wl
Th Th i 00up
Population by Selected Age Groups,
2001
• •
L_• -, -• -•, •
- •MoFldgoDGVR
Tho Shoftn c.-oup
-- .- 1
Average Household Size, 1971-2001
H U
Iho SWI.Ir Groop
MOkHD
Tho SP,oftfr op
Dwellings by Structural Type, 2001
LJ.J. . .
Tho Shlafteir Croup
Key Findings from
2001 Profile and Trends
• Rapidly growing population
• Rising share of multi-family residence
• Housing affordability is an issue
- For renters -
- For homeowners
• Secondary suites are an issue
• Demand for Seniors housing increasing
Tho Shofteir Croup
• Percentage of Population by Selected 2. Population Dnvers Age Groupings, 2001 and 2031
- -- -Population growth-
Changing age composition of population - - - -
Declining average household size
Other Drivers
Amenities I
New Fraser River Crossing
Olympics LL I
-Regional Economy and Livability • • . .
Differential Housing Pnces
-Macroeconomic Forces: . . . . .
Th Shoft.1,.op Th ,oI .op
Population Pyramid, 1976
ThoSh.ftGoTp
Population Pyramid, 2001
H . ... .
H
T—----
Tb. Croup
Projected Natural Increase &Net Migration,
Maple Ridge LHA, 1986-2031
HT --.:iii
Tho
Population Pyramid, 2031 3. Constraints
• Availability of Residential Land
Out of direct control:
.Transportation Bottlenecks
•Risiñg Energy Prices
•Increased Housing Costs
t -op The SheltaIr Croup
3
2001 Dwelling Stock and Housing
Capacity by Type
H .
RaIadon.atntptioa o 20% .1 doth,had hornet hevin ,oaoad.ry aeltac
The thettok o..p
4. Assumptions
• General Methodology
- Intensive review by GVRD
• Review of existing projections
- Clayton Research
- BC Stats PEOPLE 28
- Hudema and TyPlan Projection
- GVRD Growth Management Scenario 4.0
• Household Size
- Steady decrease
The ThoIt,h oop
Review of Existing Population and
Housing Projections
i .......
- .-
--'1
w11n Rate Rye
The TheIteh oep -
Projection of Average Household Size,
2001-2031
The Thaltoir ITtep
Alternative Futures
Pro ectionstjinv2e:
- . A Base Case for land use designation, and -
• A Base set of assumptions about population factors
• A Base set of assumptions about external context
.Many choices, many futures
.Finding robust trends allows better choices
"predictions are hard,
especially, about the future." - Neils Bohr
ma Shettofr oup
Key Assumptions
in the Base Case projection to 2031
__._Base-Case-population-projection1s -basedoir
PEOPLE 28 projection for Mapte Ridge LHA,.
• Capacities based on existing OCP designations
- assume infitl and new development to capacity
- no redevelopment to higher densities
• Assume:
- parkland remains fully intact
- any lands taken out of ALR developed to low
residential densities
- commercial and industrial lands remain unavailable
for residential development
Thy Sheltair Crmp
-- 4
5. Sensitivity Analysis
• Tests to see how the results are affected
by changes in key assumptions
• We tested 4 assumptions
- Changes in housing capacities
- Changes in the population growth rate
- Changes in average household size
- Changes in share of detached houses
with secondary suites
Tho S otta Group
Housing Capacity Sensitivity to
Housing Assumptions
• ? :
• Pflh' C'! I. .a. I.
Data excilido,; W—d.ryi.uIte.
II,,. :awIunt Ixo.:p
Population 2031, Sensitivity to
Housing Capacity Assumptions
iTT iL
ma Shatta- D-o.p
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis
• Housing capacity reached by 2031 under
almost all of the sensitivity analyses for the
Base Case
• Projections are sensitive to assumptions land
use designations
• Share of detached houses range from 42%
• (Redevelopment) to 58% (Urban Reserve)
ma mattofr D-oap
6. Key Results, Base Case (1)
—.-Population-reaches -9300in2021 T
Population ages significantly
- An almost tripling of seniors
- Share of population 55 years and older
increased to 34% from 18% in 2001
- A decline in number of children and young
adults
- Proportional decline of adults between 25 to
44 years
Tho ShoItob Qop
Key Results, Base Case (2)
•. No critical shortage at. present. ..
• Housing capacity reached just after 2021
• Single detached capacity reached by 2016
• Share of detached homes declines to just.
over 50% of dwellings
mx mxtt&r D•o.;p
5
Projections of Dwellings by Base Case% of Households by
Structural Type, 2001-2031 Structural Type, 2001-2031
H
I
Jjc Ln-.
-L - -
ma S ta Ioap ma maft&r oap
Capacity Constraints for
Single-detached Houses, 2001-2031
1io Shook Croup
Capacity Constraints for Other
Ground-oriented Units, 2001-2031
- ..'.J
Sholt,ir Croup
Summary of Results
• Population growth will be constrained by
housing capacity beyond 2016
• Significant increased demand for ground-
oriented units and apartments
- Falling average household size
- No more people under the age of 19 than at
present
Housing supply options will be considered
in detail in the Housing and Residential
Lands Policy Review
ma S5,b- Dop
Recommended Further Research
Update the Base Case if major charges are made
to residritiäl capacities as part of OCP review
• Review forth-coming GVRD employment
projections, relate to population and housing
projections -
• Research how much capacity could be - -
accommodated by secondary suites
• Explore detailed needs for seniors housing -
ON ma maaw c-onp
Demographic Analysis and
Population and Housing Projection
for Maple Ridge,
2001-2031
Prepared for:
District of Maple Ridge
March 2004
Prepared by:
The ShWtairCru4p flPlWU
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Executive Summary
The District of Maple Ridge is in the initial stages of reviewing its Official Community Plan (OCP),
last updated in 1996. A key component of the present review is to update the District's
population and housing projections. This work will provide the District with important
demographic and housing information that can be used to inform policy and decision making for
land use planning, housing, transportation planning, and delivering municipal and other
government services.
This report presents a profile of population, households, and housing in Maple Ridge, a
population and housing projection to 2031, and a sensitivity analysis of the results of the
projection.
Population Profile and Historical Growth
According to the population count from the Census of Canada, the population of Maple Ridge
was 63,169 in 2001, up 30% from 48,422 in 1991 (Figure 1). Between 1971 and 2001, the
compound annual population growth rate was 3.2%. In comparison, the GVRD had a compound
annual population growth rate of 2.1% over the same period. Maple Ridge has outpaced the
GVRD in population growth in each 5-year period from 1971 to 2001.
Figure 1: Total Census Population Count, Maple Ridge, 1971 -2001
In 2001, the median age of the District of Maple Ridge was 36.7 years, slightly less than in the
GVRD (37.3 years) and that of the Canadian median (37.6 years). The percentage of the
population aged 65 years and older was 11 % in Maple Ridge, which is slightly lower than in the
GVRD (12%) and much lower than in BC (16%).
As with the GVRD and BC, there is a bulge in the population due to the Baby Boom generation,
who were between 35 to 54 years of age in 2001. There is also a second smaller bulge
corresponding to the Baby Boom Echo, which consists of the children of the Baby Boom generation,
who were predominantly between 5 to 19 years of age in 2001. The District of Maple Ridge has
a higher portion (3U7o) ot its population 19 years of age and yuuiiyercompared -to-the-GVRD - -
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
(24%). This can be attributed to the general appeal of the District to families in their child-
rearing years. The proportion of the population aged 20 to 34 years is significantly lower in
Maple Ridge (18%) compared to the GVRD (22%). This may be explained by some people in
this age group leaving the community due to a lack of post secondary educational opportunities in
the vicinity as well as potentially fewer employment opportunities for young adults.
Maple Ridge has a much lower share of visible minorities (8%) than either the GVRD (37%) or BC
(22%), reflecting the large share of people of European origin in the community.
Housing Profile
According to the census, there were 22,590 occupied private dwellings in Maple Ridge in 2001.
Approximately 65% of these dwellings were single-detached homes, which is a much higher share
than in the GVRD (43%) or in BC (55%), reflecting the family-oriented nature of Maple Ridge.
However, there has been an increasing trend towards other housing options over the last 25
years, as the share of single-detached homes has decreased from 79% in 1976 to 65% in 2001.
Based on household maintainer rates from the census for 2001, single-detached housing is the
preferred dwelling type for maintainers in all age groups. This remains true even though the
propensity for people to live in apartments significantly increases for those maintainers over 55
years of age.
Maple Ridge is primarily a community of homeowners with 78% of househOld's owning their
home, compared to 61% for the GVRD and 66% for BC in 2001.
Housing start activity was particularly high in the District between 1985 and 1994, when an
average of approximately 790 units were added each year. Between 1995 and 2002, the
number of housing starts has slowed to an average of close to 560 units per year.
Maple Ridge has a much higher share of one family households (at 75%), compared to the GVRD
(64%) and BC (66%). This difference reflects the family-oriented nature of the municipality. The
average household size in Maple Ridge has steadily declined from 3.3 in 1971 to 2.76 in 2001.
This decline, which parallels trends in most other Canadian communities, is related to changing
family structures, delayed marriages, and other socio-economic factors. As a result of declining
household sizes, housing in the district has been growing at a faster rate than population over the
last three decades.
Housing affordability is an issue for both renters and homeowners. In 2001, almost 24% of
homeowners spent 30% or more of their gross income on housing. The housing affordability issue
is even more pronounced for renters in Maple Ridge where 34 1/c, of this group spent 30% or more
of their household income on housing in 2001. Homelessness is also an issue for some people in
Maple Ridge. A one-night survey conducted by the GVRD in January 2002 counted 62
sheltered and street homeless people in the municipality, one of the highest rates among
municipalities in the GVRD.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Population and Housing Drivers and Constraints
Different forces exist that can either "drive" or "constrain" the population and housing growth in
Maple Ridge. Drivers that may positively influence population and housing growth over the next
three decades include:
• natural increase of population in Maple Ridge;
• net migration to Maple Ridge;
• changing age composition of population in Maple Ridge;
• availability of amenities in Maple Ridge and differential housing prices;
• declining average household size;
• the GVRD population growth rate;
• transportation infrastructure investments, including the Fraser River Crossing;
• 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Winter Olympics; and,
• macroeconomic forces, such as low interest and mortgage rates.
Constraints that may limit or slow population and housing growth in Maple Ridge over the next
three decades include:
• availability of residential land supply;
• transportation bottlenecks;
• higher energy prices;
• increased housing costs; and,
• macroeconomic forces.
Of these constraints, the municipality has a direct influence over housing capacities. Based on the
land use designations in the current Official Community Plan, there is a total capacity of
approximately 35,100 dwelling units in the district, excluding the capacity of the urban reserve
and secondary suites. The remaining total capacity is approximately 12,400 units as of 2001.
The capacity for single-detached homes is estimated to be about 20,400 units, which means that
there is only capacity to develop an additional 5,800 units.
Population and Housing Projection
A base case population and housing projection was developed using conservative assumptions
and the existing Official Community Plan land use designations. The projection is based on data
from reputable sources, including Statistics Canada and BC Stats.
The base case population projection is derived from the BC Stats PEOPLE 28 projection for the
Maple Ridge Local Health Area. The District of Maple Ridge was factored outfrom the rest of
the local health area to obtain a base case population projection for Maple Ridge. Using this
approach, the population for the District of Maple Ridge is projected to be 108,900 in 2031,
representing a compound annual growth rate of 1.67% from 2001. However, the current housing
capacity in Maple Ridge, including secondary suites, is insufficient to accommodate this projected
population. Applying current capacity constraints results in the district's housing capacity being
reached just after 2021 and the capacity for single detached homes being reached between
2011 and 2016. Under these conditions, the population would reach 93,700 in 2021. If no new
capacity is made available, the population will decline to an estimated 88,200 in 2031 (Figure
2) due to an anticipated decline in average household size. The average household size for
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates Iv
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
private households is projected to decline from 2.76 persons per household in 2001 to 2.23 in
2031. It is possible that the District would change its housing capacity to levels different than in
the current OCP due to changes in policy. In light of this possibility, two scenarios with different
housing capacities are explored in a sensitivity analysis.
Figure 2: Base Case Population Projection and Occupied Dwellings, Maple Ridge, 2001 -2031
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
0 Population QOccupied Dwellings (Private)
Under the base case conditions, the total number of private dwellings, including secondary suites,
increases to a maximum of 39,200 units. Due to the declining average household size, the
number of dwelling units will increase at a faster rate than the population. Under this projection,
the annual compound growth rate between 2001 and 2021 will be 1.75% for the population
and 2.5% for housing. Until capacity is reached, the population is projected to increase by an
average of approximately 1,400 people per year, and the number of dwellings by an average
of 740 private dwelling units per year.
In the base case projection, housing stock composition is expected to change towards higher
density units. The following dwelling stock changes are projected between 2001 and 2031:
• single-detached units will decrease from 65% in 2001 to 52% of the dwelling stock by 2021;
• ground-oriented units, which include secondary suites, will increase from 19% in 2001 to 30%
of the dwelling stock in 2031; and,
• apartments will increase from 16% in 2001 to 18% of the dwelling stock in 2031.
The base case projection indicates that the median age of the population will increase markedly,
from 36.7 years in 2001 to 44.6 years in 2031. The BC Stats projection for the Maple Ridge
ocal Health Area indicates that the proportion of the population 65 years of age and older is
expected to increase from about 11% in 2001 to 21% by 2031 (Figure 3). By 2031, all of the
Baby Boomers will be 65 years of age and older. Including those 55 years of age and older,
this proportion is expected to increase from 18% in 2001 to over 34% by 2031.
91200 93,700
89,200
66,300
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates V
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
The majority of this older population will continue to live independently in private residences;
however, there will be increased demand for greater housing choices overall including:
• home care services
• assisted living
• congregate residences
• care homes, and
• retirement residences.
Figure 3: Base Case Percentage of Populafion by Selected Age Groupings,Maple Ridge Local
Health Area, 2001 and 2031
25%
22%
20% fl 20%
14% • 16% 14%15% 15/o 13% 1:3% : 13% 12%
CO
5% __
Ages 0-14 Ages 15- Ages 25- Ages 35- Ages 45- Ages 55- Ages 65- Ages 75+
24 34 44 54 64 74
Source: Census of Canada and BC Stats P.E.O.P.L.E. 28 Projecflon 102001 92031
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted in conjunction with the base case population and housing
projection to better understand how the results vary due to changes in key assumptions about the
housing capacity, the population growth rate, the average household size, and the percentage of
single-detached homes that have secondary suites.
The key variable that the District can control is the amount of residential land available for
certain types and densities of housing. Three main policy options explored in the sensitivity
analysis were 1) to keephousing capacities in line with current OCP designations, 2) to allow
development in the Urban Reserve which would make available up to an additional 7,550 units of
capacity, and 3) to encourage redevelopment in existing urban areas which could increase the
capacity by approximately 6,100 units under assumptions made by the consultant team. In all
cases, it was assumed that the Agricultural Land Reserve remains intact.
The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that under the base case population growth rate of
1.67%, the population in 2031 will fall between 88,200 and 108,900 depending on the housing
capacity assumptions (see Table 1). A higher growth rate of 2.5% will result in the population in
2O3llalling between 88,200 and 109,500 depending on the capacity assumptions.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
The housing capacity is reached or almost reached by 2031 in all of the variations examined in
the sensitivity analysis. At a 2.5% population growth rate, housing capacity would be reached by
2021 or 2026. The housing capacity for single-detached homes is projected to be reached
between 2011 and 2016 in the base case projection. A decision to make land available in the
urban reserve would extend the supply of single detached houses beyond 2021. However, a
declining average household size suggests that housing options other than single detached homes
or at least smaller houses will be in demand particularly later in the projection period. A slower
population growth rate would also extend the time single detached houses capacity is reached.
T..kI 1. Pnriiila+nn Racd on Vnriations in Growth Rate & Housina Capacity Assumptions
Assumed Housing
Capacity
Compound
Annual
Population
2021 2031 Period Single-
detached Housing
Capacity Reached
Period Total
Housing
Capacity
Growth Rate Reached
Using capacities based Base case 93,700 88,200 2011-2016 2021-2026
on land use designations
in current OCP
(1.67%)
2.5% 94,200 88,200 2011-2016 201 6-2021
Including Urban Reserve
capacities
Base case 93,700
(1.67%)
108,900 2026-2031 After 2031
2.5% 108,600 109,500 2021-2026 2021-2026
Including potential Base case 95,600 99,500 2006-2011 2026-2031
capacities from
redevelopment of
(1.67%)
2.5% 106,100 99,500 2006-2011 2016-2021,
existing urban area
The time it takes to reach housing capacity is highly sensitive to assumptions regarding average
household size as well as the share of single-detached houses that have secondary suites. With
all other factors being equal, lower average household sizes would result in the housing capacity
being reached sooner than in cases with higher household sizes. Similarly, a higher share of
secondary suites would extend the length of time it takes for housing capacity to be reached.
Under the base case population growth rate, the share of single-detached houses declines from
65% in 2001 to a level between 42% for a redevelopment option and 58% for the Urban
Reserve option in 2031.
Under all scenarios, there will be a significant increased demand in the coming decades for
apartments and ground-oriented units such as row houses. Demand for apartment units will in fact
exceed the available capacity based on the existing land use designations or if the Urban
Reserve were made available. As the redevelopment option increases the supply of ground-
oriented and apartment capacity, it may be more suitable than the other scenarios from the
perspective of meeting future housing needs. The District will be conducting a Housing and
Residential Lands Policy Review in 2004, which will explore these issues and policy options
related to housing capacity in much greater detail.
Population and housing growth in Maple Ridge will ultimately be affected by internal decisions
made by the municipality, particularly regarding the choices that the district makes about the
availability of land for residential development for certain types of housing. Therefore, we
recommend that a revised base case population and housing projection be prepared if a major
change in policy regarding residential capacities is made as part of the OCP review process.
This revised base case projection should be included in the District's updated OCP.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates VII
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSu rn mary ...............................................................................................ii
Tableof Contents................................................................................................viii
Listof Tables and Figures......................................................................................x
1 . Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Background. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Scope............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
RegionalContext........................................................................................................................................................... 1
DataSources.................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Process............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Structureof the Report................................................................................................................................................. 3
2 . Population and Housing Profile and Trends ..................................................... 4
PopulationProfile .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
ARapidly Growing Population............................................................................................................................... 4
Population Predominantly of European Origin but Becoming More Diverse................................................... 8
Recent Migrants Originate Primarily from Elsewhere in BC............................................................................. 10
HouseholdProfile ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Average Household Size Continues to Decline................................................................................................... 11
Maple Ridge is a Community with a High Portion of Family Households...................................................... 12
HousingProfile............................................................................................................................................................ 14
A Stock of Predominantly Single-Detached Homes But with Increasing Housing Diversity......................... 14
Housing Starts Continue to Favour Single-Detached Homes............................................................................ 15
Housing Affordability an Issue for Many Renters and Homeowners............................................................... 16
Homelessness a Reality for Some .......................................................................................................................... 18
Shortage of Certain Types of Rental Accommodation...................................................................................... 18
Secondary Suites Fill an Affordable Housing Market Niche............................................................................ 18
Seniors Housing Increasing in Maple Ridge and Greater Vancouver............................................................. 19
New Housing Preferences and Seniors Housing Preferences............................................................................ 20
CMHC Consumer Intent to Buy A Home Survey Results for 2001 and 2002............................................... 20
Seniors Housing Preferences. ................................................................................................................................. 21
Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 22
3. Forces Shaping Maple Ridge's Population and Housing Growth ...................23
Drivers..........................................................................................................................................................................23
PopulationGrowth...................................................................................................................................................23
Changing Age Composition of Population.........................................................................................................24
Declining Average Household Size. ...................................................................................................................... 25
New Fraser River Crossing and Other Transportation Infrastructure In vestments........................................25
Olympics...................................................................................................................................................................26
RegionalEconomy and Livability..........................................................................................................................26
Amenities and Differential Housing Prices. .......................................................................................................... 27
MacroeconomicForces...........................................................................................................................................27
Constraints...................................................................................................................................................................28
Availability of Residential Land Supply...............................................................................................................28
Transportation Bottlenecks.....................................................................................................................................29
LnergjPfices.29 -
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
IncreasedHousing Costs ................................................................................................................... . .................... 29
Base Case Population and Housing Projection, 2001 -2031 ...........................30
Review of Existing Population Projections.............................................................................................................30
BaseCase Projection................................................................................................................................................. 33
Assumptions................................................................................................................................................................. 33
DataSources............................................................................................................................................................... 33
Methodology...............................................................................................................................................................33
Limitations....................................................................................................................................................................3 4
Base Case Population Projection Results...............................................................................................................35
Population Projected to Reach 93,700 in 2021...............................................................................................35
Population Ages Significantly Reflected by an almost Tripling of Seniors....................................................35
A Decline in Number of Children and Young Adults.........................................................................................36
Proportional Decline of Adults Between 25 to 44 Years of Age....................................................................36
BaseCase Housing Projection Results....................................................................................................................38
Housing Capacity Reachedjust after 2021 and Capacity for Detached Homes Reached by 2016.........38
Share of Detached Homes Declines to Just Over 50% of Dwellings.............................................................38
SensitivityAnalysis.....................................................................................................................................................40
Changesin Housing Capacities.............................................................................................................................40
Changes in the Population Growth Rate..............................................................................................................41
Changes in Average Household Size...................................................................................................................41
Changes in Share of Detached Houses with Secondary Suites.........................................................................42
ResultsOf Sensitivity Analysis...............................................................................................................................42
Summaryand Conclusions........................................................................................................................................45
Further Research .............................................................. ................................ 46
Recommendations for Further Research.................................................................................................................46
BibIiograph ........................................................................................................47
ppendix aô - Glossary ........................................................................................ A.1
Appendix B: Housing Trends and Preferences Workshop..................................B1
Appendix C: Results from CMHC Consumer Intent to Buy A Home
Survey, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, 2001 and 2002* ............................. Cl
Appendix D: Detailed Results of Base Case Population Projection ...................Dl
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
List of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Estimated Housing Capacity by Geographic Area ............................................................28
Table 3-2: Estimated Total and Remaining Housing Capacity by Structural Type based on
Current OCP land use designations (excluding Urban Reserve)......................................28
Table 4-1: Comparison of Existing Population Projections for District of Maple Ridge...................30
Table 4-2: Average Household Size in Maple Ridge, 2001 and Assumptions for 2031................42
Table 4-3: Projected Population Based on Variations in Growth Rate & Housing Capacity
Assumptions, 2021 and 2031.................................................................................................43
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Total Census Population Count, Maple Ridge, 1971-2001 ...............................................4
Figure 2-2: Increase of Population of GVRD Municipalities, 1991-2001 ............................................5
Figure 2-3: Average Annual Population Growth Rate Over 5-year Census Periods. ........................ 5
Figure 2-4: Median Age of Population, Maple Ridge and Selected Jurisdictions, 2001..................6
Figure 2-5: Percentage of Population by Selected Age Groupings, Maple Ridge and GVRD,
2001 ..............................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2-6: Population Pyramids for Maple Ridge, 1976 and 2001 ...................................................8
Figure 2-7: Percentage of Population by Ethnic Origin (multiple responses), 2001 ..........................9
Figure 2-8: Total Visible Minorities by Selected GVRD Municipality, 2001......................................10
Figure 2-9: Average Household Size, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 1971-2001 ..................................11
Figure 2-10: Household Size Distribution, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001 .......................................12
Figure 2-11: Family and Non-Family Households by Type, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001 ........12
Figure 2-12: Dwellings by Structural Type, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001 ....................................14
Figure 2-1 3: Housing Starts by Type, Maple Ridge, 1998 to 2002 ..................................................15
Figure 2-14: Housing Starts, Maple Ridge, 1981-2002 .......................................................................15
Figure 2-15: Percentage of Households by Tenure, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001 .....................16
Figure 2-16: Percentage of Owner Households Spending 30% or more of Gross Income on
Housing, Maple Ridge and Selected Jurisdictions, 2001 ..................................................17
Figure 2-17: Percentage of Tenant Households Spending 30% or More of their Gross Income on
Housing, Selected Jurisdictions, 2001 ...................................................................................1 7
Figure 3-1: Projected Natural Increase and Net Migration Rates, Maple Ridge Local Health
Area, 1986-2031 .....................................................................................................................24
Figure 3-2: Historical and Projected Median Age, Maple Ridge Local Health Area, 1986-2031
...........................................................................................................................................25
Figure 4-1: Comparison of Population Projections for Maple Ridge, 2001 to 2021 /2031 ..........32
Figure 4-2: Base Case Projection of Population and Occupied Dwellings, Maple Ridge, 2001-
2031 ............................................................................................................................................35
Figure 4-3: Base Case Percentage of Population by Selected Age Groupings, Maple Ridge,
2001 and 2031 ........................................................................................................................36
Figure 4-4: Population Pyramids for Maple Ridge, 2001 adjusted for Census Undercount and
2031 Projection.........................................................................................................................37
Figure 4-5: Base Case Projection of Private Households by Structural Type, Maple Ridge, 2001-
2031 ............................................................................................................................................38
Figure 4-6: Base Case Percentage of Dwellings by Structural Type, Maple Ridge 2001-2031 ..39
Figure 4-7: Assumed Housing Capacities Under Various Development Options for Sensitivity
Analysis.......................................................................................................................................41
Figure 4-8: Population in Maple Ridge in 2031 Under Three Housing Capacity Assumptions
(showinWextremei dilges froiui Sensitivity-Analysis).44
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates X
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
1. Introduction
Background
The District of Maple Ridge is in the process of reviewing its Official Community Plan (OCP), which
was last reviewed formally in 1996. This report, a component of the present review, is an update
of the District's population and housing projections. This work will provide the District with
important demographic and housing information that can be used for land use planning,
transportation planning, housing planning, and delivering municipal and other government
services. The population and housing projections will provide the planning context for the rest of
the OCP review process.
A key reason to update the population and housing projections is that the data in the 1996 OCP
are out-of-date. The historical population and housing data in the 1996 OCP are mainly based
on the 1991 Census of Canada data, with some data also provided for interim years up to 1995.
This data does not accurately reflect the significant growth and change witnessed in Maple Ridge
since 1991.
Scope
The scope for this report is limited to district-wide demographic analyses and population and
household projections. It does not address the spatial allocation of population and housing. The
geographic scope of the project is the District of Maple Ridge. The District of Pitt Meadows and
the local Indian reserves are outside the geographic scope of this analysis.
The population and housing projections are provided in 5-year increments from 2001 to 2031.
The baseline year is 2001, which coincides with the last Census year when detailed population
and housing data was obtained. The year 2031 is the end-year for the projection.
Regional Context
The District of Maple Ridge is situated within the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).
Developments and policies affecting the whole region also affect Maple Ridge. The GVRD's
regional growth strategy, called the Livable Region Strategic Plan, contains several policies which
affect the type and rate of population and housing growth in Maple Ridge, namely:
Focusing growth in Regional Town Centres
Focusing growth within the Growth Concentration Area, and
Protecting the Green Lone.
First, the Livable Region Strategic Plan identifies Maple Ridge as being the location of one of
eight designated Regional Town Centres in the region. The Regional Town Centres are intended
to offer a mix of jobs, shops, services, and housing in close proximity and be well served by
public transit. A regional town centre provides a growth stimulus to the municipality and can
foster more intense residential development.
Second, the Livable Region Strategic Plan identifies the District of Maple Ridge as lying outside
the designated "Growth Concentration Area", which comprises the Burrard Peninsula, the
Northeast Sector communities, and North Surrey / North Delta. An objective of the regional
growth strategy is to have 70% of the GVRD's population living within the Growth Concentration
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Area by 2021(compared to 65% in 1991). Areas inside the Growth Concentration Area are
intended to have more rapid growth supported by infrastructure such as rapid transit.
Population growth in Maple Ridge may be slower than would otherwise occur without the regional
growth strategy in place, because the municipality is located outside the Growth Concentration
Area.
Third, the Livable Region Strategic Plan has a policy initiative to protect the Green Zone. The
Green Zone includes major parks, natural features, forest lands, and lands in the Agricultural Land
Reserve. Maple Ridge has significant areas that are within the regional Green Zone. Lands
designated as Green Zone determine, in part, the amount of land that is unavailable for
residential development.
As part of developing a regional growth strategy, each participating municipality is required to
include a Regional Context Statement in its OCP as required under the BC Local Government Act.
The Regional Context Statement indicates how its OCP would become consistent over time with the
regional growth strategy. The District of Maple Ridge has included a Regional Context Statement
in its 1996 OCP that describes this regional context and linkages to the regional growth strategy.
Data Sources
The current and historical data used in this report are primarily based on data from Statistics
Canada from the Census of Canada and is supplemented with housing data from the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The population projections are primarily based on data from BC Stats, which conducts population
projections for the province, regional districts, and local health areas in BC. Additional data from
Statistics Canada, BC Stats, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District are used to develop the
housing projections.
Housing capacity estimates, which are used in conducting the housing projections, are based on
the District of Maple Ridge's OCP land use designations.
Process
This project was undertaken by The Sheltair Group in conjunction with Kelly & Associates between
November 2003 and March 2004. The District of Maple Ridge provided data, resources, and
input for the project, and reviewed and commented on the draft report.
A Housing Trends and Preferences Workshop was held on December 9, 2003 to obtain input from
those knowledgeable about housing market trends and preferences in order to:
• better understand the specific short- and medium-term housing market trends in Maple
Ridge as it pertains to housing demand;
• identify potential issues and concerns regarding future housing supply and demand in
Maple Ridge; and,
• to obtain qualitative information to supplement or fill in gaps in data sources.
The agenda, list of participants, and discussion questions from the workshop are included in
Appendix B.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Structure of the Report
The report is organized into three sections following this background section:
Section 2 provides a demographic, household, and housing profile of the District of Maple Ridge.
Section 3 identifies various forces that can speed or slow population and housing growth in Maple
Ridge.
Section 4 documents the base case population and housing projection, describes the methodology
used and limitations of the projection, and includes a sensitivity analysis of the results to changes
in key assumptions.
The report concludes with suggestions for further research.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
2. Population and Housing Profile and Trends
Population Profile
A Rapidly Growing Population
According to the census population count, 63,169 people were living in Maple Ridge in 2001,
which represented a population increase of approximately 30% over the last decade 1 . In
comparison, the size of the population in the GVRD increased 24% over the same time period.
The population in Maple Ridge has grown rapidly over the past three decades, with the
population increasing more than 150% in the 30-year period from 1971 to 2001 (Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1: Total Census Population Count, Maple Ridge, 1971 -2001
From 1991 to 2001, Maple Ridge had the eighth fastest population growth rate in the GVRD
(Figure 2-2). Of the 21 municipalities that comprise the GVRD, all of the municipalities with the
fastest growth rates are located east of the Pitt River, south of the Fraser River, or in the
Northeast Sector (i.e. Tn-Cities and Anmore and Belcarra).
Between 1971 and 2001, Maple Ridge experienced a strong compound annual population
growth rate of 3.2%. In comparison, the GVRD had a compound annual population growth rate
of 2.1% over the same period. In each 5-year period from 1971 to 2001, Maple Ridge has had
a faster population growth rate than the GVRD.
In 1971, Maple Ridge comprised 2.2% of the GVRD's total population. In 2001, this share had
increased to 3.2%. Between 1991 and 2001, 3.8% of the GVRD's population growth occurred in
1 BC Stats also prepares annual municipal population estimates. BC Stats estimated the population in Maple Ridge to
be 66,269 in 2001. The difference is primarily due to the census undercount of population, which in 2001 was
estimated at 4.0% in B.C. For the purpose of the population profile, this section of the report uses census data. For
th&popilationrojectin, the Lfl7Sttb1ii puthYn1'cJr2001_is used. -
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge. In comparison, a 4.1 % share of the GVRD's population growth occurred in Maple
Ridge between 1971 and 1981, and a 4.8% share occurred in Maple Ridge between 1981 and
1991.
Figure 2-2: Increase of Population of GVRD Municipalities, 1991 -2001
100%
90°k
- 80%
g 70%
° 60%
• 50%
40% - 30.5%
I ':
Ito +•
Source: Census of Canada
Maple Ridge's population growth rate has varied considerably over the last three decades
(Figure 2-3). Maple Ridge's fastest growth spurt occurred between 1986 and 1991 when it
experienced an annual compound population growth rate of 6.1% - more than double the
regional average. Maple Ridge's growth rate has declined to 3.0% between 1991 and 1996
and to 2.4% between 1996 and 2001. The decline in the population growth rate from 1996 to
2001 is reflective of the broader decline in population growth rates in BC and in the GVRD.
Figure 2-3: Average Annual Population Growth Rate Over 5-year Census Periods,
D:.1 ..l &WPfl 1071..9flfll
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 5
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
An Aging Population
In 2001, the median age of the District of Maple Ridge was 36.7 years, meaning that half of the
population was younger than this age and half was older. The median age of the population
provides a useful indicator of how a population ages over time and for comparison with other
jurisdictions. The median age of Maple Ridge is slightly less than that of the GVRD at 37.3 years
of age, as well as the Canadian median of 37.6 years of age. The two municipalities in the
GVRD with the oldest median age are White Rock at 50.9 years of age and West Vancouver at
47 years of age (Figure 2-4).
Figure 2-4: Median Age of Population, Maple Ridge and Selected Jurisdictions, 2001
The median age of the District of Maple Ridge has increased considerably over the last 25 years.
In 1976, the median age of the District of Maple Ridge was 28.6, or over 8 years less than its
level in 2001.
The breakdown of the population by age cohorts, or age groupings, is a useful way to
understand the age structure distribution of the population. Figure 2-5 shows the percentage of
the population by selected age cohorts for Maple Ridge and the GVRD. The District of Maple
Ridge has a high portion of its population aged 0 tol 9 years (30%) compared to the GVRD
(24%). This difference is likely attributed to the general appeal of the District to families in their
child-rearing years.
The proportion of the population aged 20 to 34 years is significantly lower in Maple Ridge
(18%) compared to the GVRD (22%). This may be explained by the lack of post secondary
educational opportunities in the District as well as potentially fewer employment opportunities for
young adults. In addition, other locations with more urbanized amenities may be more desirable
than Maple Ridge for people in this age category.
The proportion of the population aged 35 to 44 years is higher in Maple Ridge (19%) than in the
GVRD (18%). The proportion of the population aged 45 to 64 years is similar between Maple
Ridge (15%) and the GVRD (15%). Finally, the proportion aged 65 years and older was 11% in
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 6
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge compared to 1 2% for the GVRD. Both these statistics are slightly lower than the
overall proportion of the Canadian population that is 65 years of age and older (13%).
Figure 2-5: Percentage of Population by Selected Age Groupings, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001
Q. EE rE ___ __________
15% • :_m F-lULl -
__________
I'E IILiJ1tIiIIla
0-19 years 20-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65 years
and older
Source: Census of Canada Q Maple Ridge El GVRD
Another way to show the changing size, age, and sex distribution of the population is through
population pyramids. Figure 2-6 includes two population pyramids that show how the population
in Maple Ridge has changed over the last 25-year period. The increased area of the pyramid
indicates how the total population has grown over time from 1976 to 2001. For each 5-year
age cohort, the size of the cohort is larger in 2001 than it was in 1976.
The bulge at the bottom of the population pyramid for 1976 represents the Baby Boom
generation, which was 10 to 29 years of age at that time. The population pyramid for 2001
shows how this generation has aged. In 2001, the Baby Boom generation was 35 to 54 years of
age. The second smaller bulge below the Baby Boom represents the Baby Boom echo, consisting
of the children of the Baby Boom generation. In 2001, the Baby Boom echo were predominantly
between the ages of 5 and 19.
As with most population distributions in Canada, the majority of people over the age of 65 are
females because of their higher life expectancy compared to males.
Between 1976 and 2001, the proportion of the population aged 65 years or older has remained
relatively constant (between 10% and 11 %). However, this is anticipated to increase significantly
in the coming decades as the Baby Boom generation ages into the 65 and older age category.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 2-6: Population Pyramids for Maple Ridge, 1976 and 2001
5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Source: Census of Canada I S Male •Female
5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Source: Census of Canada and BC Stats 1 0 Male • Female
Population Predominantly of European Origin but Becoming More Diverse
The population of Maple Ridge predominantly consists of people of European origin
complemented with people of a diversity of other ethnic origins. Approximately 83% of the
population was Canadian-born compared to 73% for the GVRD. Of the foreign-born residents,
about three-quarters had immigrated before 1991.
The top eight ethnic origins in 2001, in descending order according to size were:
• English
• Canadian
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
• Scottish
• Irish
• German
• French
• Dutch, and
• Ukrainian.
Figure 2-7 compares and contrasts the proportion of the population according to various ethnic
origin groups in Maple Ridge with those in the GVRD. The graph shows that the top eight ethnic
origins listed above are much more prevalent in Maple Ridge than in the GVRD. It also shows
that the proportion of the population that are Chinese, East Indian and Filipino is much lower in
Maple Ridge than in the GVRD. For example, 17.7% of the GVRD's population is of Chinese
origin, while only 2.2% of Maple Ridge's population is Chinese. Similarly, 7.2% of the GVRD's
population is East Indian whereas only 1.9% of Maple Ridge's population is East Indian.
Figure 2-7: Percentage of Population by Ethnic Origin (multiple responses), 2001
40%
a
30%
25%
!. 20%
0 0 l5io
10%
CL
o 0%
.' . ., '
,# /
Source: Census of Canada FlaMaple Ridge El GVRD
Figure 2-8 shows the proportion of visible minorities in the District of Maple Ridge in relation to
the GVRD and other municipalities in the region. In the GVRD, approximately 37% of the
population was a visible minority in 2001. In comparison, only 8.1% of the population was a
visible minority in the District of Maple Ridge - the third lowest amongst the municipalities in the
GVRD. This low proportion reflects the high portion of people of European origin living in the
District, which are primarily Caucasian. Aboriginals comprise 2.5% of the population in Maple
Ridge (excluding the population from the Katzie Indian Reserve).
a
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 2-8: Total Visible Minorities by Selected GVRD Municipality, 2001
70% o
60%
1 0 50%
CL 40% 37 %
a
30%
22% 21% 20% 19% o 20% a 11% 9% 8% 7% 7%I .' 10%
0% I
0
0 .S. - c) f
ó4 O° d'
qO '
Source: Census of Canada
Recent Migrants Originate Primarily from Elsewhere in BC
Between 1996 and 2001, approximately 47% of the population of Maple Ridge moved. These
moves may be motivated by changing housing needs, such as the desire to move to a larger or
smaller home, to change housing tenure, to meet changing needs at different life stages, and to
respond to changing economic and employment situations. Of the population that moved, just
under half moved to a different residence within Maple Ridge. Of the people who moved to
Maple Ridge from outside the municipality, just over 80% came from elsewhere in B.C., 10%
came from another province or territory, and just under 10% came from outsideCanada. In
contrast, the source of new migrants to the GVRD between 1996 and 2001 was 50% from
elsewhere in BC, 15% from elsewhere in Canada, and 37% from international places of origin.
The proportion of recent immigrants currently residing in Maple Ridge is lower than in the GVRD,
but does show a trend toward increasing ethnic diversity. Just under 1,100 recent immigrants
located to Maple Ridge between 1996 and 2001, representing less than 2% of the population in
2001. In contrast, the GVRD attracted a much higher share of recent immigrants moving to
Canada between 1996 and 2001 at about 9% of the total population. The top five countries of
birth of immigrants between 1996 and 2001 that moved to Maple Ridge were from South Korea,
Taiwan, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Iran. This trend represents a move away from the
large presence of people in Maple Ridge originating from European origin. During the same time
period, the top five countries of birth of recent immigrants to Greater Vancouver were China,
Taiwan, India, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the Philippines.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Household Profile
Average Household Size Continues to Decline
The average household size of private dwellings in the District of Maple Ridge has steadily
declined from 3.3 persons per household in 1971 to 2.76 in 2001 (Figure 2-9). This trend
parallels the declining average household sizes experienced in the GVRD, BC, and Canada over
the last three decades. The declining average household size reflects changing family structures,
delayed marriages, declining birth rate and other soclo-economic factors.
Figure 2-9: Average Household Size, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 1971 -2001
3.50 3.30
).13 3.12
• 2.92 2.89 2.86 3.00 28)
.59 EjJjJj i"il 0.00
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Source: Census of Canada 0 Maple Ridge E3 GVRD
Maple Ridge has a much higher average household size than the GVRD at 2.76 compared to
2.59 for the GVRD. This reflects the fact that Maple Ridge is a family-oriented community with
larger family sizes and a higher portion of single detached homes compared to the GVRD.
Single detached homes have the highest average number of persons per household and the
proportion of single detached homes relative to other dwelling types can affect the average
household size number.
Maple Ridge has a much lower share of single person households compared to the GVRD. In
2001, approximately 21% of households in Maple Ridge had only one member compared to
28% in the GVRD (Figure 2-10). Maple Ridge and the GVRD had a similar share of two-person
households in 2001 (31% and 30%, respectively). Approximately 49% of households in Maple
Ridge had three or more members compared to 42% for the GVRD. Again, the higher proportion
of households having three or more members in Maple Ridge is consistent with the family and
children-oriented nature of the community.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 2-10: Household Size Distribution, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001
- 35%
31%3%
- 30% 20% - 2897/0
25% 21%[
[IJ
20% -( i'% •1
- 4%4%
L1
1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4-5 persons 6 or more
persons
Source: Census of Canada [Maple Ridge DGVRD
Maple Ridge is a Community with a High Portion of Family Households
Maple Ridge has a much higher proportion of one-family households compared to the GVRD. In
2001, 75% of households in Maple Ridge were one-family households compared to 64% in the
GVRD (Figure 2-11).
Figure 2-1 1: Family and Non-Family Households by Type, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001
100%
90%
- 80%
70%
60%
50%
á 40%
0
30%
20%
10%
0%
One-family households Multiple-family Non-family household:
households
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Just over 2% of households in Maple Ridge were multi-family households compared to slightly
over 3% in the GVRD. Approximately 23% of households in Maple Ridge were non-family
households compared to 33% in the GVRD. A non-family household refers either to one person
living alone in a private dwelling or to a group of two or more people who share a private
dwelling, but do not comprise a census family.
Maple Ridge has a similar share of couple families and lone-parent families as in the GVRD.
Approximately 85% of families in Maple Ridge were couple families compared to 84% for the
GVRD. In 2001, 16% of families in Maple Ridge were lone parent families compared to 15% in
the GVRD.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 13
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Housing Profile
A Stock of Predominantly Single-Detached Homes But with Increasing Housing Diversity
The dwelling stock of Maple Ridge is predominantly comprised of single-detached dwellings. In
2001, approximately 65% of dwellings in the district were single-detached homes compared to
43% in the GVRD (Figure 2-1 2). This is likely due to the relative affordability of land prices in
Maple Ridge and the availability of land designated for single-detached homes.
Figure 2-12: Dwellings by Structural Type, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001
70%
60%
• 50%
CL 0 40/0
e .. —
Id 30%
0
' 20%
f 10%
Q. 0% - -
Single- Semi- Apartment, Row house Other Movable Apartment, Apartment,
detached detached detached single- dwelling fewer than five or
dwelling dwelling duplex attached five storeys more
house storeys
Source: Census of Canada Maple Ridge 0 GVRD
Rowhouses2 comprised 12% of the district's dwelling stock compared to 7% in the GVRD. Low-
rise apartments made up 13% of the stock in Maple Ridge compared to 25% in the GVRD. Less
than 3% of the dwelling units in Maple Ridge were high-rise apartment compared to 12% in the
GVRD. Less than 8% of the district's dwelling stock were semi-detached dwellings, apartments in
a detached duplex, other single-attached houses or movable dwellings.
been the increasing proport ion of families living in housing forms other than single detached
houses.
2 See the glossary in -
In 1976, 79% of the housing stock in Maple Ridge were single-detached homes. Over the past
25-year period, the district has seen a trend towards other housing choices, particularly low-rise
apartments and row houses. This trend is consistent with other areas in the region where there
has been a shift towards a broader mix of dwelling types. The result has been an increased
share of other ground-oriented and apartment units. Another trend experienced in the region has
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 14
O '70
25%
12% 13° i2% 0
4 2%2% 0% 0% 1 % 1 %
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Housing Starts Continue to Favour Single-Detached Homes
Between 1999 and 2002, over 90% of the new housing starts in the District were single-detached
homes, dwarfing housing starts for all other structural types (Figure 2-1 3).
Figure 2-13: Housing Starts by Type, Maple Ridge, 1998 to 2002
700
600 0 Low-rise apt
condo
500 -
URow
D 400 - In
condominium
300 _____ r DSemi-detached
o 200
1
10:
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Housing start activity was particularly high between 1985 and 1994, during which time an
average of 790 units were added annually (Figure 2-14). Housing starts peaked in 1987 at
1,175. Between 1995 and 2002, the average number of housing starts slowed to 560 units per
year. Most recently, housing starts climbed to 650 units in 2002.
Figure 2-14: Housing Starts, Maple Ridge, 1981-2002
1,400
I 1,175
>- 1,200
955
878 838
6071R 800 700
167
200 jJ o
C'.
Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge is Primarily a Community of Home-owners
In 2001, homeowners resided in 7 7.5% of the occupied private dwelling units in the District of
Maple Ridge (Figure 2-1 5). The rate has remained relatively stable over the last ten years.
Figure 2-1 5: Percentage of Households by Tenure, Maple Ridge and GVRD, 2001
100%
90%
g 70%
60%
50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Owned Rented
Source: Census of Canada Maple Ridge D GVR
In comparison, homeowners inhabited 61 % of the occupied private dwelling units in the GVRD.
The higher share of owner-occupied dwellings in Maple Ridge may be partially attributed to the
large proportion of single-detached homes in the District and the relative affordability of land
prices. These dwellings are more likely to be inhabited by homeowners than other dwellings.
Housing Affordability an Issue for Many Renters and Homeowners
Housing prices in Greater Vancouver are consistently among the highest in Canada. Housing
affordability is an issue for both homeowners and renters in the region as a whole, including
Maple Ridge. In 2001, almost 24% of homeowners spent 30% or more of their gross income on
housing (Figure 2-16). This was about the same level as in the GVRD. This portion of income
spent on housing is a useful proxy of housing affordability. It is related to the definition of core
housing need developed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A household is in
core housing need if it cannot find somewhere to live that is in reasonably good condition and is
big enough for their household without spending more than 30% of their income. Households who
choose to spend 30% of more of their income on housing would not be considered in core housing
need. When a household that is in core housing need spends 30% or more of their income on
housing, this leaves less disposable income for other expenses such as food, clothing, and
transportation.
80% 77.5%
61.0%
-
390%
40%
22.5% -
'-
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 16
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 2-16: Percentage of Owner Households Spending 30% or more of Gross Income on
Housing, Maple Ridge and Selected Jurisdictions, 2001
30%
25% 26%
25°! 23°/ 4% 24/n 24%
:T
0
210!22%23%iI 11I
Pitt Port Moody White Rock Langley Port Burnaby Maple GVRD Coquitlam Vancouver Surrey
Meadows Township Coquillam Ridge
Source: Census of Canada
Almost 38% of tenant households in Maple Ridge spent 30% or more of their gross income on
housing (Figure 2-1 7). This was much higher than in the GVRD, where 34% of renters spent 30%
or more of their gross income on housing. Affordability continues to be an issue despite the fact
that housing is more affordable in Maple Ridge relative to many other municipalities in the GVRD.
Figure 2-17: Percentage of Tenant Households Spending 30% or More of their Gross
Income on Housing, Selected Jurisdictions, 2001
45% -
40% -
0
25% -
C
20% -
o 15%- 0) 0
0
5%-
0%---
Port Pitt Langley Coquitlam Burnaby GVRD Surrey Vancouver Port Maple While Rock
Moody Meadows Township Coquitlam Ridge
Source: Census of Canada
41%
38u/,
- 30%
31% 32%
fiWFh!RIII 10%
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Home/essness a Reality for Some
Homelessness in the GVRD is not only an issue for metropolitan areas such as Downtown
Vancouver or the inner city. It also affects outlying areas such as Maple Ridge. Typically,
homeless people do not get counted in the census, making it difficult to accurately quantify the
magnitude and trends in size of this population. The existence of a homeless population in the
community reflects the fact that housing affordability is a significant issue for lower income
groups.
In January 2002, the GVRD conducted a one-night count of the homeless across the Lower
Mainland. Based on the responses, there were 62 homeless people living in Maple Ridge. While
not all the homeless were counted, it does provide a useful proxy. Of these, 25 were 'sheltered
homeless' and 37 were 'Street homeless'. According to the survey, the 'sheltered homeless' are
those people without a home who spent the night in emergency shelters. The 'street homeless' are
those who did not stay in shelters, either staying with friends or sleeping outside.
Many of homeless people in Maple Ridge have temporary accommodation. In 2001, the Ministry
of Human Resources sponsored 6 emergency shelter beds (cold, wet weather conditions) with the
ability to increase this capacity to 10 beds if needed. These beds are provided through the
Salvation Army's Mountain View Community Church. A Homelessness Coalition is also doing work
in the community with homeless people.
Shortage of Certain Types of Rental Accommodation
According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's rental market report, the Maple
Ridge and Pitt Meadows area has very few bachelor suites and very few apartments with three
or more bedrooms. Similarly, there are few two-bedroom townhouse units in the District. The lack
of these affordable types of rental housing may contribute to the issue of housing affordability.
This may also help explain why the District has a much lower proportion of its population aged 20
to 34 years. People in this age range tend to have a high propensity to rent and to reside in
smaller sized dwellings.
Secondary Suites Fill an Affordable Housing Market Niche
Another important source of rental accommodation is secondary suites and temporary residential
units for blood relatives. Secondary suites increase the affordability of single-detached homes
for homeowners and provide affordable accommodation for renters. As of November 2003, the
District had 28 registered secondary suites and 87 suites with pending applications. In 1999,
Maple Ridge began to allow secondary suites in certain single-family zones, with the requirement
that the homeowner resides in the building.
Based on discussions at the housing trends and preferences workshop held in December 2003
(Appendix B), the estimate of the actual number of secondary suites was much higher with there
being at least 1,000 to 1,500 secondary suites. In a GVRD municipal inventory of secondary
suites conducted in November 2000, they estimated that there were between 760 and 3,410
secondary suites in Maple Ridge based on data available for neighbouring municipalities.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Seniors Housing Increasing in Maple Ridge and Greater Vancouver
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimated that in 2002 the Maple Ridge and
Pitt Meadows area had 170 units in congregate residences, 416 units in care homes and 439
units in retirement residences. Congregate care residences are independent living units with
housekeeping, laundry and common meal services. Between 1998 and 2002, the number of
congregate residences tripled in Greater Vancouver. Housing for seniors also includes options
such as home care, independent living and assisted living.
The demand for seniors housing is anticipated to increase as the population in Maple Ridge and
Greater Vancouver ages over the coming decades, as described in subsequent sections of this
report.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 19
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
New Housing Preferences and Seniors Housing Preferences
The following section describes housing preferences for two segments of the housing market in
Maple Ridge. The first subsection presents the results of a survey of prospective new home
buyers. The second subsection, describes the housing choices and preferences of seniors in
greater detail.
CMHC Consumer Intent to Buy A Home Survey Results for 2001 and 2002
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Consumer Intent to Buy a Home Survey
is used to explore housing preferences and attitudes for Maple Ridge. The purpose of the section
is to help better understand who is considering buying in Maple Ridge and what type of home
are they considering purchasing. Last completed in 2002, this is a survey of approximately
4,000 households in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area of which approximately 10% had the
intent to buy a home over the next 6 to 12 month period. Custom data was obtained for those
respondents considering to buy a home in Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows. The results given in this
report were based on an aggregate of 2001 (18 respondents) and 2002 data (12 respondents).
Due to the small sample size, the data should be interpreted only as a rough proxy for actual
housing intentions.
Key findings from the CMHC survey include:
• Over 80% of the respondents who had the intent of buying a home were seeking to purchase
a single detached home
• Approximately 63% were looking to buy a pre-owned home
• Over 63% were looking for a home in the $200,000 to $350,000 price range
• 60% were thinking of buying a home that was larger than their current residence while 20%
were seeking a smaller home, and the remainder were looking for a similar sized home
• 50% were looking for a home between 1,600 and 2,500 ft 2 in size
• Almost 25% were looking for a home greater than 2,500 ft 2 in size
• 29% indicated that the most important reason why they were thinking of purchasing a home in
the next year was to change from renting or want to build equity or are looking for a home
as an investment
• 23% indicated that the need for a larger or better home or upgrade was the most important
reason why they were thinking of purchasing a home
• 19% indicated that they no longer require a large home as the main reason for purchasing a
home
• 6% indicated that the most important reason for purchasing a home was because they wanted
acreage
• 87% of respondents were between 25 to 54 years of age; 40% were between 35 and 44
years of age
• 67% were married or common-law
• 35% had two people currently in their household and 58% had 3 or more persons currently in
their household, and
• 53% were owners and 47% were currently renters.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
The survey results reinforce the perspective that Maple Ridge is attracting family-oriented
households seeking affordable housing. The survey results also reflect the fact that lifestyle is an
important reason for people to move to Maple Ridge. This is indicated by the large proportion
of survey respondents looking for more expensive housing or homes with a large floor area.
Detailed results from the CMHC survey are included in Appendix C.
Seniors Housing Preferences
Due to the increasing portion of seniors that are anticipated to comprise the 2031 population in
Maple Ridge, some additional information is included for seniors.
Maintainer rate data indicate that the majority of people that are 55 years of age and over still
prefer to live in single-detached homes. However, the propensity to choose to live in apartments
increases significantly and reaches a peak for those that are 75 years of age and older.
The majority of seniors live in private dwellings. In a report prepared by the Urban Futures
Institute entitled Housing British Columbia 's Seniors in the Next 30 Years, over 98% of the
population aged 55 to 74 live in private dwellings in 1996. At 75 years of age and older, this
falls to 89% of this age group living in private dwellings.
The proportion of the population that do not live in private dwellings live in whatthe census terms
a 'collective dwelling'. 'Collective dwellings' include institutional, service collective, and communal
dwellings that are shared as result of need or imposition in the case of a correctional facility. Of
the seniors that live in collective dwellings, 92% lived in institutional collective dwellings which
include hospitals and care facilities in 1996. As the seniors age into the 65 and the 75 and over
categories, the propensity to live in collective dwelling increases from about 1% to 11%. The
Urban Futures Institute indicates that the most significant growth in seniors collective dwelling
accommodation demand will be for living in care facilities and seniors residences.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have identified that the average age of senior's
living in apartments is 723 years of age. The average age for congregate care is 83.5 years
of age. The average age for personal care, intermediate care, extended care and multi-level
care is all between 82.8 years of age and 84.6 years of age.3
The top "push" reasons identified by CMHC for seniors moving include:
• Change in health or physical strength (28.5%)
• Difficulty in looking after residence (20%)
Des ire:.to bewithothers of the same age (21 -%)
The top "pull" reasons why seniors move as identified in a CMHCsurvey include:
• Quality of the unit (40%)
• Attractiveness of the project (39%)
• Proximity to facilities and services (36%)
• Services available for premises (36%)
• Recreational facilities and services (31%)
Cited in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations Senior Housing Market Survey - Metro Vancouver 2001.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
• Friends or relatives live nearby (27%)
• Children or relatives live nearby (27%)
The key "pull" factors over which the district has significant influence over is the proximity to
facilities and services and the availability of community recreational facilities and services. The
development of more complete communities can make daily living much easier and convenient for
seniors.
A detailed analysis of housing demand for this segment of the market would need to take these
finding and trends into consideration.
Summary and Conclusions
Maple Ridge has experienced rapid growth over the last 30 years, more than doubling in
population to over 63,000 people. This population increase is associated with a transition to a
more urban centered community, although Maple Ridge still retains its agricultural roots.
According to the District of Maple Ridge 2003 Community Survey, people currently living in
Maple Ridge enjoy the smaller community size, rural character, access to the outdoors, community
spirit, and appreciate the recreational and other amenities offered in the community. These
attractive features, combined with relatively, lower housing prices, are a strong draw especially
for younger families.
Maple Ridge has a much higher proportion of young families and children than Greater
Vancouver. In addition, Maple Ridge's ethnic profile is dissimilar from the rest of Greater
Vancouver with a much smaller proportion of visible minorities.
Maple Ridge is not just a bedroom community for other municipalities in Greater Vancouver.
Approximately 37% of the labour force both lives and works in Maple Ridge, which is very high
for outlying communities.
Although single-detached houses are the dominant housing style, its share of the total housing
stock has been declining over the last 25 years in favour of higher density development. This
change has largely been precipitated by smaller household sizes, higher land costs, and
affordability issues. The mix in new housing has created a more diverse community in terms of
residential homes.
There is a housing affordability issue in Maple Ridge, particularly with rental accommodation, that
is similar to other municipalities in Greater Vancouver. Maple Ridge also has a number of
homeless people, reflecting the issue of affordability in the region.
There has been a trend towards increased specialized housing for segments of the senior's market
in Maple Ridge and the GVRD, including the development of congregate residences, care homes,
and retirement residences. For example, there has been a tripling of congregate care residences
in the GVRD between 1998 and 2002.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
3. Forces Shaping Maple Ridge's Population and Housing Growth
Different forces exist that can either promote or limit the population and housing growth in Maple
Ridge. Drivers are forces that have a positive influence on population and housing growth.
Constraints are forces that have a negative or limiting influence on population and housing
growth.
Drivers
The following key drivers will have a significant influence on the population and housing growth in
Maple Ridge over the next three decades.
Population Growth
There are two components of population change in an area:
• Natural Increase - the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths,
which is in part a function of the age structure of the existing population
• Net Migration - the amount by which the inflow of migrants exceeds the outflow of migrants,
which is strongly influenced by many factors such as employment opportunities, cost of living
and lifestyle choices in the receiving area and at the original location of migrants and at the
provincial, national, and international scales
The future population of an area is calculated using the following formula:
Future Population = Current Population Estimate + Natural Increase + Net Migration
Natural Increase
According to the latest BC Stats Population projection (PEOPLE 28) for the Maple Ridge Local
Health Area, natural increase will be positive (excess of births over deaths) until the year 2026
(Figure 3-1). In contrast, the GVRD is expected to have a negative natural increase by between
2011 and 2016. The District of Maple Ridge has a higher fertility rate and higher proportion of
children compared to the province as a whole.
Net Migration
As with the GVRD, net migration is expected to be the driving force of population change in
Maple Ridge. It is anticipated that there will be a positive net migration to the District over the
next three decades. There is much more uncertainty about net migration than net natural increase.
The net migration to the region also affects the net migration to the District.
Net migration, particularly from international sources, can not only change the size of the
population, but its age and ethnic mix in the community.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 2
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 3-1: Projected Natural Increase and Net Migration Rates, Maple Ridge Local
Health Area, 1986-2031
Changing Age Composition of Population
The population's changing age composition is an important driver of future housing demand in
Maple Ridge. The median age in the District was 28.6 years in 1976. By 2001, the District's
median age had increased over 8 years, to 36.7 years. According to the BC Stats population
projection for the Maple Ridge Local Health Area, the median age for the local health area is
anticipated to increase to 44.6 years by 2031, reflecting an aging population in the area (Figure
3-2). The District of Maple Ridge's median age is expected to closely reflect that of the Local
Health Area. In 2031, Maple Ridge will still have a younger population than that which exists
today in West Vancouver and White Rock (median ages of 47 and 50.9 in 2001, respectively).
The BC Stats population projection for the Maple Ridge Local Health Area indicates that the
proportion of the population 65 years of age and older is expected to increase from about 11 %
in 2001 to 21% by 2031. Including those 55 years of age and older, the proportion is
expected to increase from 18% in 2001 to over 34% by 2031. The proportion of the population
under the age of 25 is expected to decrease from 35% in 2001 to 23% by 2031. Finally, the
proportion of the pbpulàtion in the 25-44 age range is expected to decline from 2001 levels, but
this change is not anticipated to be as pronounced as the other age categories.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 3-2: Historical and Prolected Median Age, Maple Ridge Local Health Area, 1986-2031
Declining Average Household Size
The average household size has declined from 3.3 in 1971 to 2.76 in 2001, reflecting trends in
family composition and a decline in the birth rate. The average household size in Maple Ridge is
projected to continue to decline, primarily as a result of changing family composition. The
declining trend means that households will be growing at a faster rate than the population over
the next three decades. This means that the demand for new housing would increase even if the
population did not grow. In addition, the decline in average household size suggests a shift
towards an increased share of smaller homes and other ground-oriented units and apartments to
better match the declining average household size.
New Fraser River Crossing and Other Transportation Infrastructure Investments
The New Fraser River Crossing and the proposed Abernethy Connector, which are anticipated to
receive certification by March 2004, will likely have a positive impact on population and housing
growth in Maple Ridge. Expected to open in 2007 at a cost of approximately $600 million, the
New Fraser River Crossing will improve north-south traffic flow, thus reducing travel times across
the river by 20 to 30 minutes or more. The Abernethy Connector would provide an alternate
east/west route through Maple Ridge to the crossing.
A study prepared by Hudema Consulting and TyPlan Consulting 4 has reviewed the impacts of
bridges on population growth in various jurisdictions across North America and the Lower
Mainland. This review indicates that population growth is generally accelerated as a result of
bridge construction. A similar impact is anticipated to occur in Maple Ridge with the construction
of the New Fraser River Crossing.
' New Fraser River Crossing Project Socio-Community and Socio-Economic Comparative Assessment, Hudema
Consulting and TyPlan Consulting Ltd, 2003
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Transportation constraints have had a negative effect on population growth in Maple Ridge. The
current constraints are with north-south movement across the Fraser River and with east-west
movement across the Pitt River. The addition of the New Fraser River Crossing will remove to
some extent the constraint regarding north-south movement. The Hudema and TyPlan study
indicated that the bridge is expected to significantly impact accessibility, visibility, availability
and demand for land. This in turn will create induced population growth and development.
According to this study, of all adjacent municipalities, Maple Ridge is anticipated to experience
the largest impact on population growth. In fact, out of the four most affected municipalities,
Maple Ridge is estimated to receive almost 50% of the additional 20,000 to 25,000 people
attributed to the bridge construction.
The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority anticipates that the bridge will be tolled to
recover some of the costs of the $600 million investment. This toll is not accounted for in the
Hudema and TyPlan study. Due to its dampening effect, this toll will likely be more restrictive to
population and housing growth than the study indicates. While the bridge will be a boon to those
already living in Maple Ridge, the toll on the bridge could well be a factor in the decision of
others to move to Maple Ridge as it is an additional expense of living in the district.
Other future transportation improvements, such as additional lanes across the Pitt River or the
potential twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, may also have a positive impact on population
growth by promoting east-west movement into and out of the District.
Olympics
In 2010, Vancouver and Whistler will be hosting the Winter Olympic Games. A study on the
Winter Olympic Games5 and the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre expansion
estimated an economic impact of 126,000 to 228,000 person years of employment and $6.1 to
$10.7 billion dollars in economic activity. These figures include direct, indirect and induced
incremental economic impacts. While the main impact will be in the Whistler-Vancouver corridor,
there will be some smaller spillover effects to other parts of the Greater Vancouver, including
Maple Ridge. In particular, the Olympics are expected to significantly stimulate the construction
industry.
The Olympics and Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre expansion will support
employment growth and provides an extra boost to provide underlying strength to both
population growth and housing demand in Greater Vancouver. It is anticipated that the impact
on Maple Ridge would be much less than the areas where Olympic venues and being built or
upgraded or the communities in between Vancouver and Whistler.
Regional Economy and Livability
The attractiveness of Greater Vancouver as a place to live and do business impacts population
and housing growth throughout the region. In a 2003 quality of life survey by Mercer Human
Resource Consulting 6, Greater Vancouver was ranked second overall amongst world cities after
Zurich, Switzerland. The image of Greater Vancouver as a place with high livability and quality
of life is likely to impact population growth over the coming decades. The attractiveness of
Greater Vancouver makes it a desirable place for companies to locate, and for migrants from
"Economic Impact of the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games: An Update" final report prepared by InterVistas
Consultin for the Minister of State for Community Charter and Olympic Bid, November 2002
6 Overall Rankings - Qua Ity Ot Lite urvey timawRes-ouree-C-onsulting.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 26
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
elsewhere in Canada and internationally to live. These positive growth impacts spill over to
outlying municipalities, such as Maple Ridge.
The metropolitan economy has a significant influence on employment in the region, which affects
all municipalities. The resiliency and success of the economy in Greater Vancouver and BC,
relative to Alberta and eastern Canada, plays a large role in attracting migrants from within and
outside Canada.
Amenities and Differential Housing Prices
Maple Ridge has an image of a livable community in the Lower Mainland. In particular, the
District has many amenities that make it a desirable place to live, including high quality
recreational facilities. In the District of Maple Ridge Strategic Plan Community Survey (March
2003), residents attributed several factors for why they enjoyed living in Maple, including:
• Small town feel of the community
• Rural character
• Access to the outdoors and recreational facilities, and
• Affordability of housing.
Another driver is the differential housing prices between Maple Ridge and other municipalities in
Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District. Currently, housing prices are much
more affordable in Maple Ridge relative to most other municipalities in the GVRD. The
magnitude of this..differential can spur growth in Maple Ridge.
Macroeconomic Forces
There are many other forces that affect housing demand, including low interest rates and
mortgage rates. As Maple Ridge is primarily a community of homeowners, interest rates and
mortgage rates will have an impact on demand for new housing. These are influenced in turn by,
macroeconomic forces such as the state of the Canadian, U.S., and world economies.
Macroeconomic forces can also affect immigration rates and patterns.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Constraints
The following key constraints are likely to limit or slow population and housing growth in Maple
Ridge over the next three decades.
A va/lability of Residential Land Supply
A key factor that the District of Maple Ridge can influence is the amount of land available for
residential development. According to the current OCP designations, the total housing capacity
for the District is approximately 35,100 dwelling units. The current capacity is lower than that
from the 1996 OCP levels of 41,700 based on revised estimates by the District. Capacity from
certain areas, such as Silver Valley, were estimated to be lower than identified in the 1996 OCP.
Currently, there are approximately 22,580 occupied private dwelling units in Maple Ridge. At
current OCP designations, the remaining available capacity in the District is for 12,560 units.
However, these capacity figures do not include the urban reserve. If this land area were
included, the capacity would increase by approximately 7,750 dwelling units, to a total capacity
of 42,750 units. The majority of the District's housing capacity is located within the designated
urban areas. These housing capacity figures do not include secondary suites.
Table 3-1: Estimated Housing Capacity by Geographic Area
Estimated Capacity
based on OCP land use Existing Units, Remaining
designations 2001 Capacity
(total units) (total units) (total units)
Urban Areas 31,130 18,770 12,360
Rural Areas 4,010 3,610 400
Subtotal 35,140 22,380 12,760
Urban Reserve 7,750 200 7,550
TOTAL 42,890 22,580 20,310
The key capacity constraint for the District is its availability of land for single-detached houses
and other ground-oriented units. There is capacity for a total of 20,400 single detached houses
and 7,600 other ground-oriented units. The District is fast approaching its capacity for both
these housing types. In fact, there is remaining capacity for less than an additional 6,000 single
detached houses and for just over an additional 3,000 other ground-oriented units.
Table 3-2: Estimated Total and Remaining Housing Capacity by Structural Type based
on Current OCP land use designations (excluding Urban Reserve)
Estimated Capacity
based on OCP land Existing Units, Remaining
use designations 2001 Capacity
(total units) (total units) (total units)
Single detached houses 20,380 14,650 5,730
Other ground oriented units 7,630 4,380 3,250
Apartment units 7,140 3,560 3,580
TOTAL 35,140 22,580 12,560
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
The large number of streams and floodplains in the District also acts as a constraint on the housing
capacity in Maple Ridge. Policies to protect these areas limit the housing capacity for the District.
Ironically, policies to protect streams and other natural habitat also act as a population driver
since the high environmental quality is a major attraction for people who live or want to move to
Maple Ridge.
Availability of residential land supply acts as a constraint not only at the municipal level, but also
at a regional one. The availability of land, particularly for single-detached homes, in Greater
Vancouver can influence the influx of people to Maple Ridge.
The GVRD's livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) designates Maple Ridge as a regional town
centre. In addition, it designates Maple Ridge as being entirely outside the growth concentration
area. Overall, growth may be less than expected in the absence of the growth concentration
area designation. Even so, there will likely be growth in Maple Ridge regardless of this policy
constraint because of limited land availability for development in the GVRD.
Transportation Bottlenecks
Another constraint that is likely limiting the population growth in Maple Ridge is transportation
bottlenecks, particularly associated with the Pitt River Bridge. While the new Fraser River
Crossing will significantly improve north-south transportation, east-west moving traffic may still be
a constraint. This could influence people's choices of where to live, particularly if they need to
commute to employment locations west of the Pitt River.
Energy Prices
An external constraint on growth in the District is the potential increase in energy prices. It is
anticipated that over the next three decades natural gas and gasoline prices will rise significantly
in North America. These higher energy prices will affect the costs for space and hot water
heating, which will likely increase the relative cost to maintain a home, particularly for residents of
single-detached homes. Higher gasoline and transportation fuel prices may also affect the
attractiveness of Maple Ridge for people who commute long distances. In essence, rising energy
prices raises the total living costs associated with outlying areas such as Maple Ridge, thus
constraining the demand for housing.
Increased Housing Costs
Rising housing costs have resulted in recent years because of higher insurance costs, a shortage of
skilled labour in various trades such as construction, and increasing prices of building materials.
All of these factors affect the affordability of the housing market and can therefore constrain
housing demand.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 29
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
4. Base Case Population and Housing Prolection, 2001-2031
Review of Existing Population Projections
This section reviews three existing population projections for Maple Ridge, each of which reflects
different assumptions about the growth of the municipality (Table 4-1). These projections range
from 95,700 to 108,000 for the year 2021.
Table 4-1: Comparison of Existing Population Projections for District of Maple Rid
Baseline Compound Population Population
Year for Average Growth (2021) (2031)
Projection Rate
Growth over 1971 3.21% N/A N/A
last 30 years (1971 to 2001)
1996 OCP 1991 3.00% 122,900 N/A
Projection (1996 to 2021)
GVRD 1996 2.05% 97,200 N/A
Growth (1996 to 2021)
Management
Scenario
Projection
(version 4.0)
Hudema 1996 and 2.47% 108,000 N/A
Consulting 2001 (2001 to 2021)
and TyPlan
Consulting
Projection
(with
expected
impact from
Fraser River
Crossing)
BC Stats 2002 1.86% 95,700 108,900
PEOPLE 28 (2001 to 2021)
Projection 1.67% (2001 to
for Maple 2031)
Ridge*
* The BC Stats PEOPLE 28 orolection was for the Manle Ridae Local Health Area and factored
to the District of Maple Ridge by The Sheltair Group:
The BC Stats PEOPLE 28 population projection was prepared in 2003 and is the only one that
extends to 2031. This projection was for the Maple Ridge Local Health Area, which includes
By comparison, the population projection contained in the 1996 Official Community Plan was 122,900 for the year
2021. This projection is excluded frqmiurther_anaJysisbecaus.eJLsJioLbasedon-an-age-cobor.t-sur-viva1-mode1-or
model of net migration, and the housing capacity figures used in that analysis are out of date.
ge
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 30
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, and the local Indian reserves. The District of Maple Ridge was
factored out from the rest of the Local Health Area to obtain a population projection solely for
the municipality. Using this approach, the projected population for Maple Ridge is 108,900 in
2031, representing a compound growth rate of 1.67% over the projection period. The
population size is projected to be 95,700 in 2021 based on the projection. The BC Stats
projection is based on an age cohort survival model and includes a model of net migration to the
local health area. The BC Stats projection also provides a breakdown of population by 5-year
age cohorts, which shows how age composition changes over the projection period. According to
staff from the GVRD, the latest BC Stats P.E.O.P.L.E. projection does account for the new Fraser
River Crossing.
The GVRD's Growth Management Scenario 4.0 projects that the District's population will reach
97,200 by 2021, representing a compound growth rate of 2.05% since 1996. The GVRD is
planning to update its Growth Management Scenario in 2004 and to extend its forecast to 2031.
According to the GVRD, the Fraser River Crossing was included in the Growth Management
Scenario 4.0.
In comparison, the population projection from Hudema and TyPlan is for 108,000 people in
2021, which represents a compound growth rate of 2.47% from 2001 to 2021. This projection is
almost 13,000 higher than the BC Stats and GVRD projections. Hudema and TyPlan were
retained by the Fraser River Crossing project to conduct a comparative Socio-Community and
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed Fraser River Crossing. As part of this project,
a study was conducted to examine the induced population growth resulting from the proposed
crossing. The authors of the study contend that population growth will be faster than the rate
projected by the GVRD's Growth Management Scenario 4.0 because of the benefits of improved
access, new jobs in construction, commercial growth and development resulting from the project.
Hudema and TyPlan adjusted the GVRD projection upwards by approximately 4% based on an
analysis of empirical population changes associated with the Mission Bridge (1973), the Iron
Workers Memorial Bridge (1960), the Highway 90/91A and bridge (1 986/89), and from a
literature review of transportation projects in North America.
It is believed that the Hudema and TyPlan population projection does not account for several
critical parameters:
• According to GVRD staff, the GVRD Growth Management Scenario 4.0 projection and the
BC Stats P.E.O.P.LE. already account for the bridge in their population projection. The BC
Stats population projection shows a relatively high short-term population growth rate
followed by declining growth rates past 2011. This is consistent with our view that the
bridge would affect short term growth rates in the municipality, but in the long-term there
would be no major difference in the population growth of the municipality.
• The Hudema and TyPlan population projection does not take into account housing capacity
constraints. It is our view that the population growth rate will likely decline as housing
capacity is reached. While new capacity can be made available through increases in
residential density in the Official Community Plan and zoning bylaws, it is expected that
these changes will be moderate over time. Therefore, population growth rates will likely
be lower than the levels experienced over the past 30 years.
• The bridge is to be tolled, unlike the bridges considered in the Hudema and TyPlan
analysis. The toll will likely constrain population growth and affect locational choices of
households considering moving to Maple Ridge.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 4-1: Comparison of Population Projections for Maple Ridge, 2001 to 2021/2031
108,900 in
1 I E 2031(BC Stats
yPIan
120,000 Historical
Population Growth
100,000 —U - (BC Stats)
66,300 in
2001 —U- BC Stats PEOPLE
C 80,000 in
[.
28* projection
.2 2021(GVRD
-3
60,000 __________________ 2021(BC Stats Growth I I PEOPLE 28*> Management .._. GVRD Growth
0
2001 Scenario 4.0) Management
40,000 Scenario 4.0
- - * - - Typlan and Hudema 20,000 I Projection with
Fraser River
0
'0 - .0
Crossing
- '0 - a. a' a a' a' a - v-I
'0 - .0 - a a a a a
.0 -
a a
* BC Stats PEOPLE 28 proedion was factored to the District
vi C'i 1.1 C'C CM
of Maple Ridge by The Sheltair Group
For these reasons, we believe that the Hudema and TyPlan study represents an upper bound for
future population growth in the district.
Based on our review of these three population projections, we concluded that the BC Stats
P.E.O.P.L.E. 28 population figures are the most appropriate for our base case projection. The BC
Stats data are within an acceptable range of the other population projections reviewed, and are
also derived from sound and defensible methodology.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 32
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Base Case Projection
A base case projection was developed after reviewing the population projections and
determining the drivers and constraints for Maple Ridge. The base case population projection is
based on the BC Stats P.E.O.P.L.E. 28 population projection, but constrained by local housing
capacity as indicated by the current OCP designations. A housing model was then developed to
project housing allocations associated with the growth in population. These allocations were made
in consideration of available residential housing supply.
Assumptions
Several assumptions were made in developing the base case population and housing projection:
• The housing capacities are based on existing OCP designations (i.e. future residential
development is based on only infill and new development; not redevelopment to higher
densities)
• Parkland remains fully intact and unavailable for residential development
• The Agricultural Land Reserve (AIR) remains relatively intact and any lands taken out of the
ALR are developed to very low residential densities
• Commercial and industrial lands remain unavailable for residential development
The urban reserve area is not available for development
The age composition in the District of Maple Ridge over the next three decades has the same
distribution as in the BC Stats PEOPLE 28 projection for the Maple Ridge Local Health Area,
Data Sources
Several key data sources were used in developing the base case projection:
• BC Stats age distribution for the population of the Maple Ridge local Health Area for the
2001 to 2031 projection period
• Standard Statistics Canada data from the 2001 Census of Canada
• Cross-tabulations from the 2001 Census of Canada on the average household size by
structural type for the District of Maple Ridge
• Cross-tabulations from the 2001 Census of Canada on the household maintainer rates by
structural type and by tenure type for the District of Maple Ridge as well as historical data
from 1986
• Housing capacities based on the current OCP land use designations
Methodology
The population projection is based on the BC Stats PEOPLE projection for the Maple Ridge Local
Health Area, which comprises Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and the local Indian reserves. The
District of Maple Ridge was factored out from the rest of the Local Health Area using population
proportions from the GVRD's Growth Management Scenario 4.0.
An integrated supply and demand housing model was developed to calculate housing projections
in 5-year increments, out to the year 2031.
Housing capacity constraints, which act to limit the availability of new housing types, are made
explicit on the supply side of the model. The current capacity estimated by the District of Maple
Ridge is approximately 35,100 units. Since this figure does not include secondary suites, we also
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
made an assumption regarding the number of these suites that would become available over
time. Assuming that 20% of single-detached homes would have secondary suites once capacity is
reached, the total housing capacity in the district would be 39,100 units. This is a simplified
assumption, as only detached houses within the district's urban area would likely be permitted to
have secondary suites.
On the demand side of the model, demand for new housing types is estimated for future time
periods by using projections of population structure and estimates of preferences for new housing
types. In this way, latent demand for new housing is driven by two key factors: housing
preferences and demographics. Age-specific housing type preferences are estimated for
household maintainers of different age categories. These estimates are based on custom data
tabulations from the 2001 Census Canada, which has household maintainer rates by structural
type specifically for Maple Ridge. The maintainer data show the propensity of certain age
groups to be maintainers of households by structural type. The household maintainer rates for
Maple Ridge were projected out to 2031 based on linear trends observed between 1986 and
2001. To correct for unreasonable values, the linear projections were bounded using the 2001
household maintainer rates from the City of Coquitlam. This community currently has a similar
housing mix to that of Maple Ridge once capacity is reached under the base case projection.
Our methodology takes the BC Stats population projection by age cohort and applies the
marginal household maintainer rates to the new population to estimate housing demand. The
household maintainer rates, in conjunction with anticipated changes in the size and composition of
the population, are used to generate the basic housing demand profile.
We then match the housing demand with the available housing supply to conduct our housing
allocations. On the demand side of the model, latent demand for new housing types is estimated
in each time period by applying age-specific housing preferences to projected changes in the size
and age composition of the population. On the supply side of the model, housing capacity
constraints act to limit the latent demand for new housing types. The model automatically
identifies situations where latent demand exceeds remaining housing capacity, and reallocates
any excess demand to different structural types where there is available capacity. The user can
change the housing capacity constraints in order to test different capacity assumptions for the
District. Once latent housing demand is reallocated based on supply constraints, the model then
updates the housing stock by adding new housing to the existing housing stock from the previous
time period.
Limitations
Our population and housing projection is intended to provide a long-term estimate of the future
size and composition of the municipality's population and associated housing demand. This
projection does not account for short-term fluctuations in population and housing demand. In
addition, our housing demand model is primarily driven by demographics and constrained by
housing capacity. The model does not account for other factors, such as the state of the economy,
housing prices, incomes, and other housing preferences, that may influence actual housing demand.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 3
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Base Case Population Projection Results
Population Projected to Reach 93,700 in 2021
Under the base case projection, the population reaches a level of 93,700 in 2021 (Figure 4-2).
The population growth rate is highest for the first 10 years of the projection and then declines as
housing capacity is reached. The projection has a compound population growth rate of 2.2%
between 2001 and 2011. This declines to a growth rate of 1.5% between 2011 and 2016 and
then to 1.06% between 2016 and 2021 as housing capacity is approached. The housing
capacity based on the existing land use designations is reached slightly after 2021, at which time
39,200 dwelling units are occupied. It is assumed for the base case that no new dwelling units
become available once housing capacity is reached. As a result, the population declines after
2021 (to 88,200 in 2031) because the average household size is in decline. In 2031, the
average private household size is estimated at 2.23 persons/household, down from 2.76
persons/household in 2001. Two different scenarios for how the community could increase its
housing capacity are explored in the sensitivity analysis section below.
Figure 4-2: Base Case Projection of Population and Occupied Dwellings, Maple Ridge, 2001-2031
Population Ages Significantly Reflected by an almost Tripling of Seniors
The BC Stats population projection for the Maple Ridge Local Health Area indicates that the
proportion of the population over the age of 65 is expected to increase from about 11 % in 2001
to 21% by 2031. Including those 55 years of age and older, the proportion is expected to
increase from 18% in 2001 to over 34% by 2031.
In absolute terms, the number of people aged 55 to 64 is anticipated to more than double
(115% increase from 5,300 to 11,500). The number of people aged 65 to 74 is anticipated to
almost triple (190% increase from 3,800 to 11,000). The number of people over the age of 75
years of age is also anticipated to almost triple (175% increase from 3,000 to 8,200).
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 35
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 4-3: Base Case Percentage of Population by Selected Age Groupings, Maple Ridge, 2001
and 2031
25%-
• 20% -
3
15%
0
! 10% H 0 o
. 5%-
U
0 a-
Ages 0-14 Ages 15- Ages 25- Ages 35- Ages 45- Ages 55- Ages 65- Ages 75+
24 34 44 54 64 74
Source: Census of Canada and BC Stats P.E.O.P.L.E. 28 Projection 2001 D 203fl
A Decline in Number of Children andS Young Adults
The proportion of the population under the age of 25 is expected to decrease from 35% in 2001
to 23% by 2031. In absolute terms, the number of people under the age of 14 is expected to
decline by over 10% between 2001 and 2031 (from 14,350 to 12,700). The number of people
aged 15 to 24 is anticipated to slightly decline by less than 5% (from 8,600 to 8,400 although it
is projected to increase to 10,900 in 2011).
Proportional Decli ne of Adults Between 25 to 44 Years of Age
The proportion of the population aged 25 to 44 years of age is expected to decline from 2001
levels, but this change is not anticipated to be as pronounced as the other age categories. The
population aged 25 to 34 is projected to decline from 13% in 2001 to 11% in 2031. Similarly,
the population aged 35 to 44 is projected to decline from the 20% in 2001 to 16% in 2031.
Despite the decline as a percentage of the population, there is projected to be an absolute
increase in the number of peop!e in these age categories. In absolute terms, the number of
people between 25 and 34 is expected to increase 9% (from 21,700 to 23,700) between 2001
and 2031.
h-4he-Iocation-oUhesetwD_biii.gesi1iiher tip in the population pyramid reflect the fact that
Figure 4-4 shows population pyramids for Maple Ridge in 2001 and 2031 and how the age and
sex composition of the population is projected to change over this 30 year period. The
population pyramid shows how the bulges in the population structure, reflecting the Baby Boom
and Baby Boom Echo (i.e. children of the baby boomers) move through the population pyramid.
In 2031, all of the Baby Boomers will be 65 years of age and older, which reflects the top bulge.
The second bulge is the Baby Boom Echo who would be between 36 and 51 years of age in
--24
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
I
22%
20%
I 114%
16% 14%1 510
13% 13% 13% 12%
0%
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
the median age will increase from 36.3 years to 44.6 years of age over the time period based
on the BC Stats PEOPLE 28 Population Projection for the Maple Ridge Local Health Area.
Figure 4-4: Population Pyramids for Maple Ridge, 2001 adjusted for Census Undercount and
2031 Projection
4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Source: Census of Canada and BC Stats M Male • Female
4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000
Source: The Sheltair Group and based on BC Slats PEOPLE 28 for
Maple Ridge Local Health Area for age and sex breakdown.
2,000 3,000 4,000
CMale UFemalej.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Base Case Housing Projection Results
Housing Capacity Reachedjust after 2021 and Capacity for Detached Homes Reached by
2016
The housing capacity in Maple Ridge is projected to be reached slightly after 2021 based on the
existing land use designations in the OCP. Under the base case projection, the capacity for single
detached homes is projected to be reached sometime between 2011 and 2016 depending on the
actual rate of development of the remaining single detached lots. This estimate is based on the
housing demand projection which is demographically based and does not take into account other
factors, such as housing prices, household incomes, mortgage rates, and the actual rate of housing
starts, which may extend the capacity for single detached houses to beyond 2016. In particular,
the construction of single-detached homes is very sensitive to housing prices. Once total housing
capacity is reached, there will be 20,300 single detached homes, 11,600 other ground-oriented
homes, and 7,100 apartment units developed in the district (Figure 4-5).
The need for single detached homes will shift in the future as many smaller size households will
look towards other ground-oriented units and apartments to meet their housing needs, especially
if housing prices remain high.
Figure 4-5: Base Case Projection of Private Households by Structural Type, Maple Ridge, 2001-
2031
Share of Detached Homes Declines to Just Over 50% of Dwellings
Under the base case projection, the percentage of single-detached homes will fall from 65% in
2001 to 52% in 2021 and remain at that level until 2031 as alternative forms of housing become
developed in greater numbers (Figure 4-6). This trend is similar to the decline experienced by
the City of Coquitlam between 1986 and 2001 when its share of single-detached homes fell from
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
I,
65% to 51%. The base case projection shows that a similar decline is anticipated to occur over a
20 year period in Maple Ridge, compared to a 15 year period experienced in Coquitlam.
The number of apartment units will almost double from 3,700 units in 2001 to 7,100 units in
2031. Other ground-oriented units will more than double in number from 4,600 units in 2001 to
11,600 units in 2031.
Figure 4-6: Base Case Percentage of Dwellings by Structural Type, Maple Ridge 2001-2031
100%
90% Z
80%
Im 70%
40%
30%
2000
a lOb
0%
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
Single Detached 0 Other Ground-Oriented 0 Apartment
The base case projection becomes constrained by the availability of residential land for housing
after 2021. After this point in time, housing demand outstrips the supply of housing. In reality, as
the housing capacity is approached the municipality might respond by pursuing policies to
increase housing capacity. Some of these policy options are explored in greater detail in the
following sensitivity analysis.
- O
-
_YJ
0/01 -
I T1_-I:_
124-1.
60%
2 50%
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted in conjunction with the base case population and housing
projection to better understand how the results vary with changes in underlying assumptions. In
general, sensitivity analyses are used to increase the understanding of how model response
variables or results respond to changes in the assumptions and inputs to a model. For the
population and housing projection model, the key assumptions tested in the sensitivity analysis are:
(1) the housing capacity, (2) the population growth rate, (3) average household size, and (4) the
percentage of single-detached homes that have secondary suites.
Changes in Housing Capacities
The District has control over the amount of residential land that is made available for certain
types and densities of housing. Three main options available to the District are to 1) make more
land available for residential development, 2) redevelop existing areas at higher housing
densities, or 3) a combination of the above. In all cases, it is assumed that the Agricultural Land
Reserve remains intact. Based on these generic options, three different assumptions of housing
supply were tested in the sensitivity analysis:
• The housing capacities from the existing land use designations in the current OCP are used
• Development is allowed in the Urban Reserve, which would make available up to an
additional 7,550 units of capacity (based on a study conducted by UMA Engineering
conducted in 1988), and
• The existing urban area is redeveloped, which could increase the housing capacity by
approximately 6,100 units
The primary sources for OCP designated capacity is the District of Maple Ridge. The primary
source for the additional capacity due to the Urban Reserve is from a report by UMA Engineering
entitled Urban Growth Study and Conceptual Plan report (1988). The redevelopment option was
based on the following assumptions made by The Sheltair Group:
The total projected housing demand for apartments is fully satisfied;
Redevelopment occurs on land currently designated for single detached lots in the existing
urban area;
The actual dwelling unit densities for the redeveloped areas are three times higher than under
current OCP land use designations; and,
The redeveloped land has a distribution of 15% small lot single-detached units, 70% other
ground-oriented units, and 15% apartment units.
These are rough estimates made by the consultant to explore how the population and housing
projection varies with different assumptions about housing capacities. These assumptions are not
based on any current planning initiatives of the District of Maple Ridge. The District may wish to
explore these numbers in greater detail, in which case revised housing capacity figures can be
inputted into the population and housing projection model to explore different assumptions
regarding redevelopment and housing capacities.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
50,000
• 45,000
40,000
35,000
g 30,000
U Im
25,000
20,000
- 15,000
10,000
4 5,000
0
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Figure 4-7: Assumed Housing Capacities Under Various Development Options for Sensitivity
Analysis
-
10
42,900
7,100
41,300
35100 8500
7,100 9,200
14,000
18700
_______
7,600
rtr
204O0
2OO _______
2003 OCP Designated Housing 2003 OCP Designated Housing 2003 OCP Designated Housing
Capacity Capacity with Urban Reserve Capacity with Assumed
Redevelopment of Existing Urban
Area
iingIe detached D Other ground-oriented D Apartments
Changes in the Population Growth Rate
Three different assumptions of population growth rate were tested:
1.5% compound annual population growth rate
2.0% compound annual population growth rate
2.5% compound annual population growth rate.
The last two growth rates correspond approximately to the population projections to 2021
conducted by the GVRD (Growth Management Scenario version 4.0), and Hudema Consulting and
TyPlan Consulting. The 1.5% growth rate was selected to provide a lower bound to the base
case growth rate of 1.67%, which was taken from the BC Stats PEOPLE 28 population projection.
Changes in Average Household Size
Three different assumptions of average household size projections were tested:
• Average household size changes over the next three decades. This is a linear change from
2001 to 2031, based on estimates of average household size for each dwelling type in the
year 2031 (Table 4-2). These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources and
professional judgement.8
8 The average household size assumptions for 2031 are based on a variety of sources and professional judgement.
The consultant team reviewed average household sizes from other municipalities that have a higher median age than
Maple Ridge (e.g. White Rock) to obtain a proxy for certain dwelling types such as single-detached houses. For
secondary suites, an average household size was obtained from a Secondary Suites: A Tenant Survey conducted
throughout BC from the Tenants' Rights Action Coalition (the average household size for secondary suites was
estimated at 2.1 persons per dwelling). Average household size for apartments has been increasing in the GVRD
over the last several census periods. It was therefore assumed that the average household size for apartments in
Maple Ridge would increase to a level equal to the current regional average. (The increase in average household
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
• Average household size for each dwelling type is 10% less than those estimated in the
preceding case (i.e. 10% less than the figures shown in Table 4-2).
• Average household size for each dwelling type remains the same over the next three decades
(i.e. no change from 2001).
Table 4-2: Average Household Size in Maple Ridge, 2001 and Assumptions for 2031
2001 Census Assumed in 2031
Single-detached house 3.08 2.45
Semi-detached and
apartment/flat in a duplex
2.67 2.10
Row house 2.61 2.14
Apartment in a building that
has fewer than five storeys
1.68 1.82
Apartment in a building that
has five or more storeys
1.43 1.64
Other 1.65 2.0
Changes in Share of Detached Houses with Secondary Suites
Three different assumptions of the share of detached houses with secondary suites were tested 9:
• 10% of all detached homes in the district have a secondary suite available for occupation
• 20% of all detached homes in the district have a secondary suite available for occupation
• 30% of all detached homes in the distridt have a secondary suite available for occupation
Realistically, only detached homes within the existing urban area would be permitted to have
secondary suites. However our assumptions were based on all detached homes in the district. This
simplifying assumption was made because our analysis was not conducted at a submunicipal level.
Results Of Sensitivity Analysis
Table 4-3 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis when varying the population growth rate
and the housing capacities. The data in the table have the same assumptions for average
household size and for the share of detached houses with secondary suites.
The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that under either a lower population growth rate of
1.5% or a higher growth rate of 2.5%, and varying the assumptions on housing capacity, the
population would fall within a range of 88,200 to 109,500 in 2031. In 2021, the population
size is projected to also fall between 88,200 and 108,600 based on the same variation of
assumptions.
size for apartments is, in part, due to the fact that many households who would otherwise live in single detached
houses will have to live in other ground oriented units or apartments because of housing supply constraints.)
Realistically, only detached homes within the existing urban area would be permitted to have secondary suites.
: oa However district. This simplifying assumption was made
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 42
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Table 4-3: Projected Population Based on Variations in Growth Rate & Housing Capacity
Asumntions. 2021 and 2031
Assumed Housing Compound 2021 2031 Period Single- Period Total
Capacity Annual detached Housing
Population Housing Capacity
Growth Rate Capacity Reached
R eached*
Using capacities 1.5% 88,200 88,200 201 6-2021 2021-2026
based on land use
Base case 93,700 88,200 2011-2016 2021-2026 designations in
current OCP (1.67%)
2.0% 94,200 88,200 2011-2016 2016-2021
2.5% 94,200 88,200 2011-2016 2016-2021
Including Urban 1.5% 88,200 98,500 After 2031 After 2031
Reserve capacities
Base case 93,700 108,900 2026-2031 After 2031
(1.67%)
2.0% 96,100 109,500 2026-2031 2026-2031
2.5% 108,600 109,500 2021-2026 2021-2026
Including potential 1.5% 89,100 99,100 2011-2016 After 2031
capacities from
Base case 95,600 99,500 2006-2011 2026-2031 redevelopment of
existing urban area (1.67%)
2.0% 98,300 99,500 2006-2011 2021-2026
2.5% 106,100 99,500 1 2006-2011 2016-2021
* The housing demand projection is demographically-based. Other factors may delay the estimated time
when capacity for single-detached homes is reached, such as housing prices, interest rates, actual housing
start rates, etc.
The housing capacity is reached or almost reached by 2031 in all of the above variations on the
base case projection. At a 2.5% population growth rate, housing capacity would be reached by
2021 under the base case and redevelopment option, and by 2026 if the urban reserve were
made available. The capacity is reached for single detached houses earliest in the base case
projection and the assumed redevelopment option. The projected housing demand, which is
demographically based, indicates that the demand for this type of housing will be high and could
be reached as soon as over the next decade using estimates of currently available capacity. A
slower population growth rate would extend the period when the capacity is reached for single
detached houses. In addition, making land available in the urban reserve would also extend the
supply of this type of housing as far as 2031 under the base case population growth rate.
The time it takes for housing capacity to be reached is highly sensitive to assumptions regarding
average household size and the share of single-detached houses that have secondary suites.
With all other factors being equal, lower average household sizes would result in the housing
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
3
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
capacity being reached sooner than in a case with higher household sizes. Similarly, a higher
share of secondary suites would extend the length of time it takes for housing capacity to be
reached because of the increased capacity from secondary suites.
Figure 4-8 shows the range in projected population resulting from changes in all the assumptions.
In the most extreme case, the municipality's population would reach 134,400 in 2031 if (1) the
population growth rate was 2.5%, (2) average household sizes in 2031 are the same as current
levels in Maple Ridge, (3) a high share of secondary suites is available (i.e. 30% of detached
houses), and (4) the Urban Reserve is developed (Under these conditions, the population is
anticipated to reach a lower population since it is unlikely that there would be a high portion of
secondary suites - e.g. 30% - allowed in the Urban Reserve.)
Figure 4-8: Population in Maple Ridge in 2031 Under Three Housing Capacity Assumptions
(showing extreme ranges from Sensitivity Analysis)
140,000
130,000
I
120,000
110,000
II
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 I
Capacities with Current Capacities with Urban
OCP (base) Reserve
Capacities with
Assumed
Redevelopment
Conversely, the lower bound for the projected population in 2031 is 75,500 people. This
population would be achieved if (1) the population growth rate is 1.5%, (2) average household
sizes in 2031 are 10% lower than that assumed for the base case projection, (3) a low share of
secondary suites is available (i.e. 10% of detached houses), and (4) no other housing capacity is
made available other than that presently identified under the OCP land use designations.
Under the base case population growth rate, the share of single-detached houses in 2031 would
vary from 42% for a redevelopment option to 52% based on the existing land use designations
to 58% for the Urban Reserve option. All of these shares represent a significant decrease from
the 2001 level of 65%.
Under all scenarios, there will be a significant increased demand in the coming decades for
apartments and ground-oriented units such as row houses. Demand for apartment units will in fact
exceed the available capacity based on the existing land use designations or the Urban Reserve
option. As a result, the redevelopment option may be more suitable than the other scenarios from
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
41
the perspective of meeting future housing needs. The District will be conducting a Housing and
Residential Lands Policy Review in 2004, which will explore these and other housing issues in much
greater detail.
Summary and Conclusions
A projection is an estimate of what the future could look like based on a set of assumptions. The
projection developed in this report is one possible view of how the future population size, age
distribution, and housing growth could look like in Maple Ridge. The projection indicates the
relative magnitude of change that can be anticipated over the next three decades. Actual
internal choices, particularly regarding the choices that the district makes about the availability of
land for residential development for certain types of housing, as well as external forces and
uncertainties will ultimately affect the population and housing growth in Maple Ridge.
Key findings from the population and housing projection are:
• The population is projected to reach 93,700 in 2021 as housing capacity is reached just after
2021 and then decline to 88,200 in 2031 as the average household size declines;
• The share of the population aged 55 years and older will increase markedly and account for
over 34% Of the population by 2031, up from 18% in 2001;
• Housing capacity is projected to be reached just after 2021 and the capacity for single-
detached homes will be reached between 2011 and 2016 under the base case population
projection; and,
• The share of single-detached homes in 2031 is projected to fall to 52% by 2021 from 2001
levels of 65%.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 45
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
5. Further Research
Recommendations for Further Research
The population and housing projection in this report provides a foundation for the next stages in
the OCP process, and helps to inform planning decisions in the District. Additional research would
help to provide the District with information that complements the findings from this report. Key
recommendations for further research are:
• The population and housing projection is quite sensitive to assumptions concerning housing
capacities. In particular, it is unclear how the current land use designations might be altered
as the current designated housing capacities are approached. Therefore, we recommend that
the district explore in more detail the impacts of different housing capacity options on
population and housing growth.
• Population and housing growth are closely tied to economic and employment growth in the
area. Therefore, we recommend that the District conduct a complementary study to better
understand future employment patterns in the municipality and surrounding area and how
these relate to population and housing growth.
• The housing projection does not provide a detailed projection of specific types of housing
demand for seniors. Therefore, we recommend that additional research be undertaken to
better understand the future housing needs of the seniors market. -- -
• One way to explore the key assumptions about population and housing growth in Maple -- --
Ridge is through developing scenarios. Scenarios can be thought of as "what if" experiments
or "stories" about the future. We recommend that a local scenarios workshop be conducted
as part of the District's OCP process to better understand the external forces and internal
choices that will shape Maple Ridge's population and housing growth, and to develop various
'stories' of how population and housing growth might occur in Maple Ridge. This workshop
would allow the municipality to investigate many of the assumptions made in this report's
sensitivity analysis.
• Significant capacity for housing could be accommodated through secondary suites. We
recommend that additional research be conducted on the potential housing capacity
associated with secondary suites, including estimates of average household sizes.
• We recommend that the population and housing projection contained in this report be revised
if major assumptions change, such as if there are significant boundary changes to the
Agricultural Land Reserve.
• Finally, we recommended that a revised base case population and housing projection be
prepared if a major change in policy regarding residential capacities is made as part of the
OCP review process. This revised base case projection should be included in the district's
updated OCP.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
a:
'
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Bibliography
Baxter, David and Andrew Ramlo. 1999. Housing British Columbia's Seniors in the Next 30
Years. Urban Futures Institute Report 29.
Baxter, David and Jim Smerdon. 1999. Housing Metropolitan Vancouver's Population:
Demographics and Long Run Housing Demand, 1999 to 2040. Urban Futures Institute Report
42.
Baxtr, David and Andrew Ramlo. 2000. The Next Century of Population Growth and Change:
A Projection of Metropolitan Vancouver's Population, 1999 to 2101. Prepared for the
Greater Vancouver Regional District.
BC Stats. August 2003. P.E.O.P.L.E. 28 Projection for Maple Ridge Local Health Area.
Boutilier and Associates. May 1996. Report on Telephone Survey of GVRD Residents on
Attitudes Towards Ground-oriented Medium-Density Housing.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Rental Market Report - Vancouver.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Housing Now - Vancouver.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Seniors' Housing Market Survey - Metro Vancouver.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Housing Outlook Conference 2003 - Ride the Next
Wave Conference Presentation Slides. November 5, 2003, Vancouver.
Clayton Research Ltd. October 1995. Demographic Analysis of Maple Ridge: An OCP Review
Discussion Paper. Number 1 in a Series of 11 Prepared for the Official Community Plan
Review.
Clayton Research Associates. November 1995. Housing: An OCP Review Discussion Paper.
Number 3 in a Series of 11 Prepared for the District of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Review.
District of Maple Ridge. 1996. Official Community Plan.
District of Maple Ridge. 2001. Maple Ridge Community. Profile.
District of Maple Ridge. 2003. Census Profile of District of Maple Ridge (Draft).
Foot, David K. with Daniel Stoffman. 1996. Boom, Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming
Demographic Shift. Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter & Ross.
Fraser Valley Regional District. April 1999. Fraser Valley Regional District Housing Survey.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Global Frameworks Ltd. and Urban Futures Institute. September 2003. Population and Housing
Demand for the [Central Okanagan Regional District], 2001-2031. Published by The Real
Estate Foundation of BC and The Land Centre.
GVRD Policy and Planning Department. June 1999. Dwellings by Structure Type in Greater
Vancouver: 1996 Census Data and Selected Historical Trends.
GVRD Policy and Planning Department. February 2003. Census Bulletin #6 - Immigration.
GVRD Policy and Planning Department. March 2002. Review of Municipal Secondary Suite
Policies in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Hudema Consulting and TyPlan Consulting Ltd. 2003. New Fraser River Crossing Project Socio-
Community and Socio- Economic Comparative Assessment.
InterVISTAS Consulting. November 2002. "Economic Impact of the Winter Olympic and
Paralympic Games: An Update." Final report prepared by for the Minister of State for
Community Charter and Olympic Bid.
Jim Woodward & Associates Inc., Eberle Planning and Research, Deborah Kraus Consulting, Judy
Graves, and May Communications. July 2002. Research Project on Homelessness in Greater
Vancouver. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting. 2003. Overall Rankings - Quality of Life Survey 2003.
Anne K. Morrison Consulting Ltd., Warren Sommer and Cherie Enns. February 2002. Community
Profile - Snapshot 2002: Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie. Prepared for Building
Community Solutions Steering Committee.
Mustel Group. March 2003. District of Maple Ridge Strategic Plan Community Survey.
Prepared for District of Maple Ridge.
Seniors Housing Information Program. 2002. Seniors Housing Development Forecast Tool
(SHDFT): A Guide for Thinking About Developing Seniors Housing. Funded by the Real Estate
Foundation of BC. Researched by Diana Hurford.
John Talbot and Associates and Domain Consulting Ltd. December 1995. Summary of Public
Response - Housing. Prepared for the District of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Review.
Translink. 2003. Fraser River Crossing Project Website.
Translink. 2003. March 2003. The New Fraser River Crossing - Facts.
Translink. 2003. New Fraser River Crossing Project. Vol. 3. Socio-community assessment
application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate dated Sept 15, 2003.
UMA Engineering. July 1988. Urban Growth Study and Conceptual Plan report. Prepared for
theDtrieLofiap!e_Ridge.
I-
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates 48
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Appendix A - Glossary
Items denoted by an asterisk (*) are from the 2001 Census Dictionary, Statistics Canada.
Apartments - for the purpose of this report, apartments include the two census categories of
• apartments: apartments five or more stories, or apartments less than five stories
Apartment, detached duplex* - One of two dwellings, located one above the other, but not
attached to any other dwelling or structure (except its own garage or shed). The two units
together have no other dwellings attached to the back, front, or sides, and have open space
on all sides.
Apartment, five or more storeys* - A dwelling unit in a high-rise apartment building which has five
or more storeys
Apartment less than five storeys* - A dwelling unit attached to other dwellings, commercial units or
other non-residential space in a building that has fewer than five storeys.
Collective Dwelling* - Dwelling used for commercial, institutional or communal purposes, such as a
hotel, a hospital or a work camp.
Household Maintainer* - Refers to the person or persons in the household who pay the rent, or the
mortgage, or the taxes, or the electricity, etc., for the dwelling. If no person in the household is
responsible for such payments, Person 1 is considered to be the only household maintainer.
Maple Ridge Local Health Area - the Maple Ridge Local Health Area is an administrative unit
that comprises the District of Maple Ridge, District of Pitt Meadows, the Katzie and other local
Indian reserves as defined by BC Stats.
Movable dwelling* - A single dwelling used as a place of residence, but capable of being moved
on short notice, such as a mobile home, tent, recreational vehicle, travel trailer or houseboat.
Occupied Private Dwelling* - A separate set of living quarters which has a private entrance
either directly from outside or from a common hall, lobby, vestibule or stairway leading to the
outside, and in which a person or a group of persons live permanently.
Other ground-orient units - for the purpose of this report, includes row houses, semi-detached
houses, other single-attached houses, movable dwellings / mobile homes, apartments in a
detached duplex, and secondary suites
Other single-attached house* - A single dwelling that is attached to another building and that
does not fall into any of the other categories, such as a single dwelling attached to a non-
residential structure (e.g. a store or a church) or occasionally to another residential structure
(e.g. an apartment building).
P.E.O.P.L.E. Population Projection - This is the population projection model used by BC Stats and is
an acronym for Population Extrapolation for Organizational Planning with Less Error. It is a
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates Al
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
small are population projection using a "component I cohort-survival" population model to
area-specific assumptions regarding fertility, mortality, and migration.
Recent lmmigrants* - Refers to persons who immigrated to Canada between 1996 and Census
Day, May 15, 2001.
Row house* - One of three or more dwellings joined side by side (or occasionally side to back),
such as a town house or garden home, but not have any other dwellings either above or
below
Semi-detached house* - One of two dwellings attached side by side (or back to front) to each
other, but not to any other dwelling or structure (except its own garage or shed). A semi-
detached dwelling has no dwellings either above it or below it, and the two units together
have open space on all sides.
Sheltered Homeless - those people without a home who spent the night in an emergency shelter.
Typically, these people are not counted in the census.
Single-detached house* - A single dwelling not attached to any other dwelling or structure
(except its own garage or shed). A single-detached house has open space on all sides, and
has no dwellings either above it or below it.
Street.Homeless - Are those who did not stay in shelters, either staying with.friends or sleeping
outside. Typically, these people are not counted in the census.
Visible Minority* - "Refers to the visible minority group to which the respondents belongs. The
Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples,
who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour'.
1k
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Appendix B: Housing Trends and Preferences Workshop
Agenda, List of Participants, and Discussion Questions
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge Housing Market Trends & Preferences Workshop
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Blaney Room, Ground Floor
District of Maple Ridge Municipal Hall
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge
Agenda
9:00 - 9:10 a.m. Welcome and Introductions (Jane Pickering, District of
Maple Ridge)
9:10 - 9:20 am. Context Overview and Relationship to (Christine Carter, District of
OCP Update Process Maple Ridge)
9:20 - 9:30 a.m. Demographics and Housing Profile (The Sheltair Group)
9:30 - 9:50 a.m. Population and Housing Drivers and (The Sheltair Group)
Constraints -discussion
9:50 - 10:15 am. Preliminary Results of Population and (The Sheltair Group)
Housing Projection (Base Case) - discussion
10:15 - 10:25 a.ni. BREAK
10:25 - 10:40 a.m. Local Results of CMHC Consumer Intent to (The Sheltair Group)
Buy a Home Survey
10:40 - 11:00 am. Home Buyers' Market - discussion (The Sheltair Group)
11:00-11:20 am. Rental Market - discussion (The Sheltair Group)
11:20-11:45 am. Seniors' Housing Market - discussion (The Sheltair Group)
11:45-12:00 p.m. Workshop Wrap Up (The Sheltair Group, Jane -
Pickering and Christine
Carter)
Ar
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
fr• ..
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge Housing Trends & Preferences Workshop
December 9, 2003
Blaney Room
District of Maple Ridge Municipal Hall
9:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Attendees
Consulting Team:
Lyle Walker, The Sheltair Group
Scott Akenhead, The Sheltair Group
Joe Kelly, Kelly & Associates Resource and Environmental Consulting
External:
Maureen Enser, Executive Director, Urban Development Institute
Peter Hayes, Homelife Classic Realty
RoIf Gulimes, Royal Lepage, Brookside Realty
Bob Denboer, Greater Vancouver Regional District
Dale Nelson, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce
Paul Harrison, Purchasing and Transportation Manager, School District 42
District of Maple Ridge:
Brock McDonald, Director,Licenses, Permits and Bylaws
Pieter Den Uyl, Manager Inspection Services
Jim Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Moreno Rossi, Planner
Christine Carter, Manager, Community Planning
Jane Pickering, Director of Planning
Sue Wheeler, Special Project, Parks and Leisure Services
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
LW
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Maple Ridge Housing Trends & Preferences Workshop
-Discussion Questions-
Population and Housing Drivers & Constraints
What additional drivers may affect the population and housing projection?
What additional constraints may limit the size of population or form of housing?
Should the base case projection include the housing capacity from the urban reserve area?
How much capacity do you think will be available from secondary suites in new housing? Is
there a demand for detached secondary suites?
Preliminary Results of Population and Housing Projection
What choices for housing types and locations do people make throughout their lives, in the
context of Maple Ridge?
How do you think the market or District will respond when Maple Ridge approaches its
capacity for single detached homes?
How do you think this unmet demand for single detached houses will shift in terms-of housing
choices and locations?
How will the vacancy rate respond when capacity is approached?
Home Buyers' Market / Local Results of CMHC Consumer Intent to Buy a Home Survey
1. Does the CMHC market survey paint a reasonable picture of home buyers? If not, what
differences do you see in the market?
Rental Market
How widespread do you think the demand will be for secondary suites in Maple Ridge?
How do you think the rental market will respond when capacity for single detached houses is
approached in the district?
What other market trends are there in Maple Ridge for the rental market?
Seniors' Housing Market
What are the housing needs and preferences of seniors' or areas that need attention?
When housing capacity is approached for single detached homes, what form of housing will
seniors' prefer?
What geographic location will seniors' choose - more urban or stay in same community?
What are the other market trends for the seniors' housing in Maple Ridge?
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates B4
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Appendix C: Results from CMHC Consumer Intent to Buy A Home
Survey, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, 2001 and 2002*
* See Section 2 for background and limitations about the survey
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
$UOPUOdSO$$ jo oSV IIopUOIUI °1109300d OWOH
$0 0481
%*
%01
%SI
%00 0.
%0t
%0t,
%*P
'4*9 904S* p*o4co t,P 04 st PC4S0
oIuoq poou inoA joi And o, padxo noA op qonw °H
<o0; 6U!41001 noA ow 400J eoonbs Auow °H
rd Se!3OSSv iie pue dnoi9 JJeqs aql icq pai2deid
0010 000 / A;,ob. £041001s •IO(0 / .p10000
000
%c1
%6t %00
$1.00— %co -
%60 %Ot .
%*C
po ! awoIl o 6u!sn4and jo Gullu!41 A9 ..osoai $uoIJodw! 4SO4J
%0
%0L $
%0C t
%0P mo
%0*
%09 Z
%0Z
401100* 0100*
cOOUOpiSal •uosajd inoA 0$ p4410dWo3
6o1Anq jo 6u!u;q4 000 noA ouJoq jo 0o,
flood.;:
£001009 9000$ '4000$ '4000$ 440S0$ 9000$ 9514$ 90114$ ,00LS 9111$
4.000 - '4000$ - 9000* 9000$ '9000$ 90Lt$ 0490*4* 0491101$ 04901$ 00P00
%*
%0L
%*1 0
%00
%00
%0C
U b. 44 bo ooç' bo 00011 .jbo 0090 j b. 000'o U9.Wglt IJbs 0094 9.
0009 4,110$ 0000 0000 L00't 0000 - I000 - 004 - 084 - IOP'I 00041001
%0
%ç
%01
%ct
oo1dop
osuodse 00 JO 0009 9,1100 00109 0001 / 009 / OWOLI P090010p'4WO$ 00109 pO4OBlOp0I60!S
%01
1 -
%O8 -
,osoqo.nd noA pJno. OJnpnd$S owoq ;o edA$ 4D4M
(ooz HavLJ) 06pij eidvj .ioj UOII340Jd 6U!SflOH pue UO!WlfldOd pue S!SAIIUV 3!qdw6owea
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
70%
hT 60%
50%
& 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
- 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Home Purchase Intenden What is your marital status? Home Purchase Inteeder: How many people currently live in your household?
Home Purchase Intender. Own or Rent Current Home
Own Rent
Place of Residence of Respondent
60%
50%
- 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
North shore Vannouva, Rornnky / Tri-nitinu Surrey Cuntrnl Purser Dent know or
test New Wnt Volley no response
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates U3
10%
One Two Three Four Five or fri
Type of home looking for / Intending to Buy
Sir0le Murried/cerenron-luw Divownd/uepetnted
40%
35%
30%
25%
! 20%
n 15%
10%
5. 5%
0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Stand new / Dnitd Pu-owned Howe Depends Dent know
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Appendix D: Detailed Results of Base Case Population Projection
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates Dl
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge (MARCH 2004)
Projection Name:
Main Assumptions:
Summary Results:
Base Case Population Pro jection
BC Stats PEOPLE 28 for Maple Ridge Local Health Area used to underly projection
Housing Capacity (excluding secondary suites): 35,100
% of detached homes with secondary suites: 20%
Population in 2031:
Occupied Dwellings in 2031:
Total housing capacity reached:
Single-detached capacity reached:
Annual Compound Population Growth Rate:
2001-2021:
2001-2031:
88,200
39200
2026 (between 2021 and 2026)
2016 (between 2011 and 2016)
1.75%
0.96%
Detailed Results: 2001* 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
Total Population 66,300 75,100 82,500 88,900 93,700 91,200 88,200
Annualized compound 2.53% 1.90% 1.51% 1.06% -0.54% -0.66%
population growth rate
(previous 5 year
period)
Population in Private 65,400 74,100 81,400 87,700 92,400 90,000 87,000
Dwellings
Total Private 24,300 28,400 32,400 36,000 39,100 39,200 39,200
Dwellings
Avg Num of People in 2.76 2.67 2.57 2.47 2.38 2.31 2.23
Occupied Private
Dwellings
Dwellings by Type:
Single Detached 15,400 65% 17,700 64% 19.600 62% 20,300 57% 20,300 52% 20,300 52% 20,300 52%
Otherground-oriented 4,600 19% 5,500 20% 6,500 20% 8,500 24% 11,400 29% 11,600 30% 11,600 30%
units
Apartments 3,700 16% 4,600 16% 5,600 18% 6,700 19% 7,100 18% 7,100 18% 7,100 18%
Median Age 37.3 38.1 40.0 41.2 42.2 43.4 44.6
Population by Age
Cohort:
Ages0-4 4,050 6.1% 3,870 5.2% 4,130 5.0% 4,420 5.0% 4,580 4.9% 4,310 4.7% 4,460 5.1%
Ages 5-9 5,150 7.8% 4,610 6.1% 4,380 5.3% 4,570 5.1% 4,780 5.1% 4,620 5.1% 4,350 4.9%
Ages 10-14 5,150 7.8% 5,520 7.4% 4,890 5.9% 4,620 5.2% 4,740 5.1% 4,620 5.1% 4,460 5.1%
Ages 15-19 4,810 7.3% 5,290 7.0% 5,540 6.7% 4,880 5.5% 4,560 4.9% 4,360 4.8% 4,260 4.8%
Ages 20-24 3,780 5.7% 5,020 6.7% 5,330 6.5% 5,580 6.3% 4,850 5.2% 4,230 4.6% 4,060 4.6%
Ages 25-29 3,540 5.3% 4,390 5.8% 5,510 6.7% 5,780 6.5% 5,940 6.3% 4,930 5.4% 4,360 4.9%
Ages 30-34 5,200 7.8% 4,790 6.4% 5,540 6.7% 6,560 7.4% 6,720 7.2% 6,470 7.1% 5,490 6.2%
Ages35-39 6,470 9.8% 6,520 8.7% 5,930 7.2% 6,550 7.4% 7,450 8.0% 7,110 7.8% 6,820 7.7%
Ages 40-44 6,510 9.8% 7,280 9.7% 7,180 8.7% 6,490 7.3% 7,000 7.5% 7,350 8.1% 7,020 8.0%
Ages 45-49 5,200 7.8% 6,840 9.1% 7,560 9.2% 7,400 8.3% 6,620 7.1% 6,610 7.2% 6,940 7.9%
Ages 50-54 4,340 6.5% 5,270 7.0% 6,840 8.3% 7,500 8.4% 7,250 7.7% 6,020 6.6% 6,030 6.8%
Ages 55-59 2,970 4.5% 4,420 5.9% 5,280 6.4% 6,790 7.6% 7,340 7.8% 6,570 7.2% 5,490 6.2%
Ages 60-64 2,360 36% 3,080 4.1% 4,450 5.4% 5,250 5.9% 6,630 7.1% 6,630 7.3% 5,960 6.8%
Ages 65-69 1,990 3.0% 2,400 3.2% 3,070 3.7% 4,350 4.9% 5,050 5.4% 5,880 6.4% 5,890 6.7%
Ages 70-74 1,760 2.7% 1,950 2.6% 2,320 2.8% 2,900 3.3% 4,020 4.3% 4,330 4.7% 5,030 5.7%
Ages 75-79 1,410 2.1% 1,620 2.2% 1,800 2.2% 2,100 2.4% 2,590 2.8% 3,300 3.6% 3,560 4.0%
Ages 80-84 930 1.4% 1,220 1.6% 1,390 1.7% 1,530 1.7% 1,750 1.9% 2,000 2.2% 2,530 2.9%
Ages 85-89 460 0.7% 660 0.9% 840 1.0% 960 1.1% 1,040 1.1% 1,110 1.2% 1,270 1.4%
90 PIus 1 200 0.3% 360 0.5% 510 0.6% 660 0.7% 770 0.8% 780 0.9% 830 0.9%
* Note: data for 2001 has been adjusted from census levels to levels consistent with the BC Stats Projection.
Prepared by The Sheltair Group and Kelly & Associates
=0
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor K. Morse DATE: April 13, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: CPI010/03
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Review Status Report
PURPOSE:
The following report provides an update of the status of the Official Community Plan
review to April 2, 2004. This status update is one of regular updates to Council, generally
provided monthly.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled "Official Community Plan Review Status Report" be received
as information.
DISCUSSION:
A status report for the Official Community Plan Review was last provided to Council in
mid February. The following identifies progress on various components of the work and
events scheduled for April. The last update included a Gantt Chart that identifies each
major task, the time frame for completion and a status bar for completed components of
each. The schedule provided with that chart is unchanged.
Status of the Official Community Plan Review:
The Official Community Plan review is organized into nine major issues. The following
section of this report identifies the status of the work on each issue.
Inclusion of Completed Reports - Policy outlines for previously adopted papers are
ongoing.
Heritage - The drafting of heritage policy derived from the completed Heritage
Discussion paper has begun and is on schedule.
Social Planning Policy - The Social P1anningdiscussion paper is to be submitted to
members of the Social Planning Advisory Committee for comment in April. A
discussion with community members is planned for late in May or early June.
~01 ao, L
Population and Residential Needs Assessment - The Sheltair Group has completed a
Demographic Analysis and Population and Housing Projection report. The report will
be presented to Council at a Workshop session on April 19.
Commercial and Industrial - Paul Rollo, Land Economist has completed the
Industrial Lands Review and has submitted a final draft of a Commercial Lands
Review. Presentation of these reports will be made to Council at the Workshop session
of April 26.
Environment - The inventory and comparative review components of the
environmental review are completed. A summary report is underway.
Agriculture —Reports outlining the feedback from the attendees of the first and second
workshops have been completed. Strong support for farming and rural landscapes was
indicated by the farming community and by rural residents. With a minor shift in the
consultation program, it was felt that the consultants should proceed with drafting
policy recommendations, which would then be made available for public comment at a
public open house. If significant concerns were raised about these policies, a public
workshop would be held to review these concerns and explore policy alternatives. The
Agricultural Land Commission has not yet released their review of agricultural lands in
Maple Ridge, which, although conducted independently, will have important findings
for this project.
Residential Policy Review - The background review for this component has been
awarded to a consulting team consisting of Sheltair Group, Global Frameworks, Eric
Vance and Gordon Harris. A project startup session has taken place. The project
involves a very ambitious schedule that would see completion of the project in late
October. Public consultation is scheduled for May and September to ensure that
conflicts with summer/vacation schedules is minimized.
7. Reformat Official Community Plan - This work is progressing well. The re-formatted
version of the existing OCP will be presented to Council in late May or early June.
Regional Context Statement - The Regional Context Statement will be prepared in the
winter of 2004.
COMMUNICATION PLAN
A communication plan is being prepared for the Official Community Plan review. The
purpose of the plan is to inform the community regarding the purpose of the review and to
update them of upcoming opportunities to participateand contribute to the review.
-2-
I
CONCLUSION:
The work undertaken on the Official Community Plan Review during March is in keeping
with projected outcomes from earlier status reports.
Prepared by: Moreno
Director
Approved by: 1,fank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: . L. (Jin,) Rule
ithief Administrative Officer
MRIbjc /
WIE