HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-17 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the July 3, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Density Bonus Program Allocations to Affordable Housing
Staff report dated July 17, 2018 recommending that the draft framework of
density bonus regulations to encourage greater delivery of affordable rental and
special needs housing options through development be included in the new Maple
Ridge Zoning Bylaw.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
July 17, 2018
5:30 p.m.
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN TIME
Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City 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 staff for more
information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
July 17, 2018
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop Agenda
July 17, 2018
Page 2 of 3
4.2 Neighbourhood Residential Infill Policy Change
Staff report dated July 17, 2018 recommending amendments to the Official
Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw to create a new single family infill zone in
conjunction with rezoning application 2016-411-RZ.
4.3 Proposed Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw and Business Licencing Bylaw Amendments
for Auto Wrecking Services
Staff report dated July 17, 2018 recommending that amendments to the City’s
Zoning Bylaw and Business Licencing Bylaw to prohibit auto wrecking services
from operating in the M2 (General Industrial) zone be prepared.
4.4 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Options for New Development
Staff report dated July 17, 2018 recommending that bylaw amendments required
for the integration of electric vehicle charging stations into new developments be
considered following a consultation process to engage the development
community.
4.5 Recruitment and Retention of Family Physicians
Staff report dated July 17, 2018 recommending that a request from the Ridge
Meadows Division of Family Practice for a financial contribution toward physician
recruitment efforts be declined and that physician recruitment and retention
efforts continue to be supported through City marketing channels, development of
a welcome program for new physicians and engagement with community groups to
support ongoing advocacy to senior governments for increased financial and
program support.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 Upcoming Events
July 21, 2018
4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Lapidary Club 60th Anniversary BBQ, Maple Ridge Park, Fern
Crescent, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Lapidary Club
July 24, 2018
2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
SKY Helicopters Tour and Flight Over Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows Airport, SKY Helicopters Hangar, 18799 Airport
Way, Pitt Meadows Way, BC
Organizer: SKY Helicopters
Council Workshop Agenda
July 17, 2018
Page 3 of 3
July 26, 27 and 28, 2018
6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Bard on the Bandstand: The Merry Wives of Windsor,
Memorial Peace Park, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Emerald Pig Theatrical Society
July 27 and 28, 2018
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Cemetery Preservation & Clean Up, 21440 Dewdney Trunk
Road, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Maple Ridge Museum
July 28 and 29, 2018
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Country Fest, Albion Fairgrounds, 23448 Jim Robson Way,
Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Agricultural
Association
July 29, 2018
12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Pride Picnic Party in the Park, Memorial Peace Park, Maple
Ridge BC
Organizer: The Coquitlam Centre Street Team
July 30, 2018
7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Music on the Wharf, Port Haney Wharf, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Ridge Meadows Historical Society
6. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: ________________
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
July 3, 2018
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on July 3, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for
the purpose of transacting regular City business.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read P. Gill, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Councillor K. Duncan F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor G Robson T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Councillor C. Speirs D. Denton, Acting Corporate Officer
1BOther Staff as Required
ABSENT 2BC. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Councillor T. Shymkiw 3BServices
4BD. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
5BL. Siracusa, Director of Economic Development & Civic
6BProperties
7BD. Speers, Recreation Coordinator Health and Wellness
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2018-395
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the July 3, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be approved
as circulated.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 3, 2018
Page 2 of 6
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the June 19, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2018-396
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of June 19, 2018 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Justice Institute Presentation
• Dr. Michel Tarko, President and Chief Executive Officer
Dr. Tarko presented a video looking back on the past 40 years of the Justice
Institute. Following the video, he provided current information on the Justice
Institute, its campuses and on programs and training offered. He highlighted
the Maple Ridge campus and programming provided at that campus.
R/2018-397
It was moved and seconded
That the Chief Administration Officer and the Director of Economic
Development and Civic Properties schedule a meeting with the Minister of
Advanced Education.
CARRIED
4.2 Reconsideration of Decision to Deny a Tree Cutting Permit
• Pastor Duane Goerzen, Maple Ridge Community Church
The Manager of Development and Environmental Services gave a power point
presentation providing the following information:
• Subject map and the location of the tree on the property
• Description of tree
• Reasons for denial – the tree is healthy, over 68.5 cm in diameter, tree
does not fulfill any circumstance to permit cutting such as it being a
hazard, within 2 metres of a building foundation or many similar trees on
site, the tree canopy target on the site is not being met, there are limited
Council Workshop Minutes
July 3, 2018
Page 3 of 6
existing rainwater infiltration opportunities and removal of tree and
landscape stripe would result in 100% impermeable surface
• Options to consider:
o Support position to preserve significant tree;
o Approval tree removal
o Provide desired parking by redesigning parking lot around the
critical root zone of the tree
• Staff recommendation:
o increase in desired parking to be accompanied by redesigning the
parking lot around the critical root zone of the significant tree on
the site
Pastor Goerzen introduced himself and his history in the community of Maple
Ridge. He referred to a decision to deny a tree cutting permit and requested
that Council reconsider the decision. Pastor Goerzen provided information on
the history of the Maple Ridge Community Church and outlined work done on
the current church property since purchased in 1998. He advised on
increases in attendance at the church and the use of the facilities by other
community groups. Pastor Goerzen stated that the need to plan for additional
parking to accommodate the increase in attendance and use of church
facilities is the reason for the request for tree removal. He described the
location of the tree and felt the tree will limit potential parking capacity if it
remains. He indicated that one or two new trees can be planted to replace
the one to be removed and advised that a second tree of this type remains on
the property. He reiterated his request that Council reconsider the decision to
deny a tree cutting permit
R/2018-398
It was moved and seconded
That the increase in desired parking requested by the Maple Ridge
Community Church be accomplished by redesigning the parking lot around
the critical root zone of the significant tree on the site.
CARRIED
Note: Item 4.3 was deferred from the May 22, 2018 Council Meeting and the June
5, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
4.3 Maple Ridge Sport Network
Staff report dated May 22, 2018 recommending that the Sport Network
Terms of Reference be endorsed and that a proposed Sport and Physical
Activity Strategy Implementation Plan be provided.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 3, 2018
Page 4 of 6
The General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services introduced the
topic.
The Recreation Coordinator Health and Wellness gave a verbal update
providing a background on the sport strategy, the sport network, how the two
connect and explained the process to date.
R/2018-399
It was moved and seconded
That the Sport Network Terms of Reference be endorsed and that staff report
back with the Sport Network’s proposed Sport and Physical Activity Strategy
implementation plan.
CARRIED
4.4 Requests for Meetings at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM)
2018 Convention
4.4.1 E-mail dated May 24, 2018 from Steven Higginbottom, Community
Relations Coordinator, Lower Mainland, BC Hydro, outlining the
process for scheduling meetings with BC Hydro’s senior managers at
the 2018 UBCM Convention
4.4.2 Letter dated June 11, 2018 from Premier John Horgan outlining the
process for scheduling meetings with himself or Cabinet Ministers at
the 2018 UBCM Convention
4.4.3 Letter dated June 11, 2018 from Minister Selina Robinson, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing outlining the process for scheduling
meetings with her Ministry at the 2018 UBCM Convention
The Acting Corporate Officer reviewed the correspondence received and
requested Council to advise on participation in meetings at UBCM.
Mayor Read requested that Council members e-mail any requests to meet
with particular Ministries at UBCM to staff.
4.5 2018 Home Show Report
Staff report dated July 3, 2018 providing a synopsis of the May 2018 Home
Show event.
The Director of Economic Development & Civic Properties reviewed the staff
report.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 3, 2018
Page 5 of 6
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Note: Item 5.1 was deferred from the June 5, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
5.1 City of Langley – Provincial Employer Health Tax
Letter dated May 17, 2018 from Kelly Kenney, Corporate Officer, City of
Langley, urging municipalities to write to the provincial government requesting
the elimination or reduction of the newly implemented Employer Health Tax.
R/2018-400
It was moved and seconded
That the letter dated May 17, 2108 from Kelly Kenney, Corporate Officer, City
of Langley on the Provincial Employer Health Tax be received into the record.
CARRIED
5.2 Village of Anmore – Proposed Regional Development Cost Charges for
Transportation (TransLink)
Letter dated June 11, 2018 from Mayor John McEwen, Village of Anmore,
sharing concerns about the proposed implementation of the regional
Development Cost Charges by TransLink.
R/2018-401
It was moved and seconded
That the letter dated June 11, 2018 from Mayor John McEwen, Village of
Anmore on Proposed Regional Development Cost Charges for Transportation
(TransLink) be received into the record.
CARRIED
6. MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor Bell
Councillor Bell requested confirmation that a discussion on the need for
physicians in the community will be on the upcoming Council Workshop
Meeting agenda.
Councillor Masse
Councillor Masse met with numerous physicians in the community who
expressed appreciated for the participation of Council.
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs attended the 2018 Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Conference and a meeting of the Social Policy Advisory Committee.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 3, 2018
Page 6 of 6
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
9. NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING
R/2018-401
It was moved and seconded
That the Council meeting immediately following this meeting be closed to the
public pursuant to Section 90(1) and 90 (2) of the Community Charter as the
subject matter being considered relates to the following:
Section 90(1)(i) The receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client
privilege, including communications necessary for that
purpose.
Any other matter that may be brought before the Council that meets the
requirements for a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90 (1)
and 90 (2) of the Community Charter or Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
CARRIED
10. ADJOURNMENT – 7:37 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
D. Denton, Acting Corporate Officer
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 17, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Density Bonus Program Allocations to Affordable Housing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Towards further implementing our Official Community Plan and the Housing Action Plan, Council has
been engaged in the review and discussion of options to encourage greater delivery of affordable,
rental and special needs housing options through development. Based on a February 6, 2018
Council Workshop direction, this report brings forward a draft framework of density bonus
regulations. From their review of the draft density bonus framework, the Urban Development
Institute and the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association have provided a letter of support,
calling it a “win-win-win” opportunity for Maple Ridge, the development industry, and residents
looking for affordable housing solutions (see Appendix A). With Council’s approval in principle of the
draft density bonus framework, staff would work to include such regulations in the City’s new Zoning
Bylaw, noting that the new Zoning Bylaw will be the subject of a pending report expected in early Fall
of this year.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a density bonus framework to encourage greater delivery of affordable, rental and special
needs housing through development as recommended in the staff report entitled, “Density Bonus
Program Allocations to Affordable Housing”, dated July 17, 2018, be included in the new Zoning
Bylaw;
BACKGROUND:
On September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation
Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework builds from the key strategies recommended in the
Housing Action Plan. Strategy #11 of the HAP encourages the use of community amenity contribution
funding for affordable housing.
On December 12, 2017 following a discussion related to Community Amenity Contribution and
affordable housing, Council expressed interest in receiving a report outlining options to facilitate the
development of rental housing in the Maple Ridge.
On February 6, 2018, Council moved that, as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program,
staff should bring forward an additional report outlining a Density Bonus approach that would
optionally require, in exchange for bonus density, the provision of secured rental units, secured
affordable rental units, and/or a cash-in-lieu contribution.
On February 6, 2018, Council also debated two resolutions to amend Council Policy #6.31 -
Community Amenity Contribution Program: to allocate all CAC funds collected from the Town Centre
4.1
2
area to affordable housing until such funding reaches a maximum of 20% of the total CAC’s collected
City-wide; OR to increase the City’s existing CAC contribution rates with the added contribution levels
being applied to affordable housing. Following Council’s discussion, a motion to defer was passed
pending a referral to the UDI/GVHBA Development Liaison Committee.
On April 17, 2018, Council received a presentation from the UDI/GVHBA Development Liaison
Committee. A key message offered was the preference for retaining the City’s existing CAC rates as
opposed to increasing CACs. The Committee representatives also took the opportunity to express
support for density bonusing and pre-zoning as additional strategies to deliver affordable housing.
On June 19, 2018, having reviewed the above noted two possible policy options for allocating CAC
contributions towards affordable housing, Council directed that Council Policy #6.31 - Community
Amenity Contribution Program should remain unchanged.
DISCUSSION:
Through a recent series of reports, staff has outlined various policy and regulatory options available
to secure rental units, affordable rental units and/or cash in-lieu contributions. More recently, staff
has identified a two-pronged approach for Council consideration; namely, the use of the City’s
existing CAC program as a means to generate dedicated cash contributions towards affordable,
rental and special needs housing, in combination with the creation of additional voluntary density
bonus opportunities through which applicants can opt to either provide secured rental units, or
secured affordable rental units, or cash in-lieu contributions in exchange for additional density.
With the role of the City’s existing CAC program now seemingly resolved following Council’s June 19
workshop, it is the intent of this report to bring forward a draft density bonus framework for Council’s
review. Specifically this report presents below an overview of the density bonus zoning and the
accompanying amenity contributions along with the feedback received from the City’s Development
Liaison Committee. Following Council’s discussion, and should Council approve in principle the
density bonus framework, staff will incorporate the draft regulations into the new Zoning Bylaw that
is concurrently being prepared for Council’s review by the early Fall of this year.
a) Draft Density Bonus Framework:
In developing the proposed density bonus framework staff worked closely with Rollo +
Associates, the consultant that prepared the original analysis for the City’s Albion Density Bonus
scheme and our existing CAC program. In more detail, Rollo + Associates prepared a financial
analysis comprised of a number of development proformas to determine both the value of land
at the various base densities currently available as well as the possible increase in land values
that may be associated with a proposed bonus density opportunity. The consultant then
identified the difference between the land value under a density bonus framework and the costs
associated with required in-kind amenities (in the forms of affordable rental units) and cash in-
lieu contribution rates to ensure the opportunity of the density bonus zoning is calibrated
appropriately to the cost of providing the associated amenities.
Like all density bonus programs, the proposed framework is optional in nature whereby a fixed
base level of density is available outright to all development, but an optional maximum
permissible density is also achievable should the applicant wish to voluntarily provide the
required amenity contribution. Table 1 below describes by zone the corresponding outright base
and optional bonus density levels along with the required amenity contribution, which includes a
further choice of either the provision of affordable rental units at the time of development or the
contribution of a cash in-lieu value. To be clear, under the proposed density bonus framework
the provision of affordable rental units or a cash in-lieu contribution would only be applicable if
the developer chose to pursue the available bonused density.
3
Table 1: Draft Density Bonus Framework
ZONE BASE DENSITY DENSITY BONUS
RM-1,
RM-4,
RM-5
Existing base levels of density are
0.60, 0.75, 0.80 FSR.
Base level of density is increased by 0.15 FSR to a
maximum of 0.75, 0.90 and 0.95 FSR in exchange for
either:
• 15% of the net floor area being rental units, with
rents at minimum 10% below CMHC average market
rents for the Ridge-Meadows area; OR
• Cash in-lieu, at a rate of $215.28 per square metre
($20.00 sq. ft.).
RM-2,
RM-3
Existing base level of density are 1.8
and 2.2 FSR.
Base level of density is increased by 0.40 FSR to a
maximum of 2.2 FSR and 2.6 in exchange for either:
• 10% of the net floor area being rental units, with
rents at minimum 10% below CMHC average market
rents for the Ridge-Meadows area, OR
• Cash in-lieu, at a rate of $96.88 per square metre
($9.00 sq. ft.).
RM-6 Base density is 1.6 FSR with existing
density bonus options for under-
ground parking, building height above
8 storeys, non-market housing, and
the achievement of LEED certification,
silver or gold levels of building
performance. (More on the
appropriateness of a LEED-related
bonus is discussed below)
Base levels of density could be increased by a 0.5 FSR
option, noting the developer would have the choice
amongst density bonus options, in exchange for either:
• 5% of the net floor area being rental units, with rents
at minimum 10% below CMHC average market rents
for the Ridge-Meadows area; OR
• Cash in-lieu, at a rate of $96.88 per square metre
($9.00 sq. ft.).
C-2 Base density is measured in terms of
height, with 7.5 m or a 1 storey
maximum.
Base height is increased to permit 1 extra storey (2 storey
maximum), to a maximum height of 10 m, in exchange for
either:
• The second storey net floor area being rental units,
with rents at minimum 10% below CMHC average
market rents for the Ridge-Meadows area; OR
• Cash in-lieu, at a rate of $96.88 per square metre
($9.00 sq. ft.).
C-3 Based density is 1.0 FSR with existing
density bonus options for under-
ground parking and building height
above 2 storeys.
Base levels of density could be increased by a 0.5 FSR
option, noting the developer would have the choice
amongst density bonus options, in exchange for either:
• 5% of the net floor area being rental units, with rents
at minimum 10% below CMHC average market rents
for the Ridge-Meadows area; OR
• Cash in-lieu, at a rate of $96.88 per square metre
($9.00 sq. ft.).
4
From the Rollo + Associates financial analysis, a few key assumptions and findings are further
described below:
• It is anticipated that the proposed density bonus zoning would be applied to the
appropriately designated properties in the Town Centre and Major Corridor areas only.
• The bonus density increments outlined above stem from an earlier staff analysis
undertaken through the Zoning Bylaw review effort in which the permitted densities in
the Town Centre and Major Corridor areas was compared against the preferred forms of
development sought through redevelopment applications. From this analysis, and as
evidenced in recent built developments, it was observed that applicants are often
pursuing higher densities than those currently permitted in the current Zoning Bylaw. In
light of such reoccurring requests, and the resulting one-off negotiations that often
ensue, the bonus density increments proposed are seen by staff as a means of
reconciling the density aspirations expressed by the development industry, while
achieving certain amenity priorities identified by Council.
• As well, for the RM-6 zone, the proposed 0.5 FSR density bonus is derived from a re-
purposing of the bonus density already offered for delivery of non-market housing (0.2
FSR) and achieving green building performance (0.3 FSR), as measured through the
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating system.
Through LEED, buildings achieve a certification level based on credits in a range of
categories, including sustainable site, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere,
materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and others. Since the RM-6 zone
was developed, however, many municipalities have moved away from referencing LEED
in zoning bylaws and other policy tools due to the costs associated with the third-party
accreditation process and the increased interest in building energy efficiency. This is
consistent with the provincially-led move towards increased energy-efficiency
requirements in the BC Energy Step Code, and the commitment to make buildings “net-
zero energy ready” by 2032. It is noted that there is only one property zoned RM-6 in the
City and that the site is currently vacant.
• Agreement to provide rental units in exchange for the density bonus will be secured
through a Housing Agreement, ensuring the units remain rental in perpetuity. The
Housing Agreement tool is an existing and commonly used practice in the City.
• If the applicant opted to provide units (vs. cash contribution) the applicant would be
responsible for the management of the rental units, either through a property
management firm or a non-profit society.
b) UDI/GVHBA Development Liaison Committee Comments:
On May 25, 2018, a draft of the proposed density bonus framework was shared with the
Development Liaison Committee (DLC) for comment. Consistent with messages shared at the
April 17 workshop between Council and the DLC, the committee members continued to express
support for Density Bonusing, both as a tool and as outlined in the proposed framework. A joint
follow-up letter of support was also submitted by the Urban Development Institute and the
Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association (see Appendix A), citing that the draft density
bonus regulations would be voluntary and incentive based, and that it would provide a “win-win-
win” opportunity for Maple Ridge, the development industry, and residents looking for affordable
housing solutions. The letter also identified further steps that might assist in a wider
implementation, including the future consideration of such density bonus measures along the
Lougheed Highway around the proposed Translink B-Line bus stop stations.
5
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
a) Management of Rental Units:
With the above proposed framework it is assumed that if applicants wish to pursue the density
bonus opportunity and in exchange contribute the necessary number of affordable rental units,
the management of any such units would fall directly to the developer, either on their own or
through an agreement with a property management firm or a non-profit society. Should Council
direct staff to incorporate the density bonus provisions described above into the pending new
Zoning Bylaw, clear regulatory language will describe this responsibility along with the
requirement for a Housing Agreement to secure such arrangements.
Staff anticipates monitoring the uptake on the proposed density bonus opportunities, if
approved. To assist future applicants that may pursue the density bonus option to develop
rental units, and similar to the case studies from Richmond and Chilliwack examined in earlier
staff reports, it is anticipated that there may be a benefit at that time to prepare and release a
Request for Expressions of Interest to establish a list of possible non-profit societies interested in
managing affordable rental housing units created through the density bonus program. A recent
delegation by the YWCA indicated an interest in participating in such a program.
b) City-Wide Density Bonus Opportunities:
As outlined above, the proposed density bonus framework is intended to be applied in the Town
Centre and Major Corridor areas, given their existing designation generally for multi-family
development. In completing the current density bonus financial analysis, however, along with
parallel undertakings previously requested by Council, staff has also identified additional
opportunities where density bonus might be applied. These additional opportunities are
envisioned outside the Town Centre and Major Corridor areas (but not including the approved
growth areas), and could further address Council’s Resolution 2016-390 as directed on August
29, 2016: For example:
• Council directed staff to explore the permitting of duplexes in all single family zones
without a rezoning, on minimum lot sizes of 557 m2 in the Town Centre and 750 m2 within
the Urban Area Boundary. Rather than allowing duplexes outright, a density bonus in
exchange for an appropriate cash contribution might be an alternative approach to
encouraging wider development of the duplex form. Staff anticipates bringing forward a
report later in 2018 to outline for Council such an alternative approach as well as other
regulatory options related to the City’s RT-1 Duplex zone.
• Similarly, staff is currently undertaking a policy and regulatory review of the City’s
Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suite programs. On May 2, 2018, Council directed
staff to initiate a pilot project to explore new DGS forms and further directed on June 19,
2018 that a second phase be initiated to seek out additional pilot project properties within
the Urban Area Boundary. One direction in particular that is being explored in both phases
is the potential to permit a DGS and a Secondary Suite on the same property.
Acknowledging that further staff reports are anticipated as the pilot projects evolve, density
bonus zoning may present one option to consider if Council ultimately opts to implement
the City-wide co-location of a Secondary Suite and DGS on the same property.
NEXT STEPS:
With Council’s direction, and noting the complexity of the proposed density bonus framework, staff
would work as a next step to incorporate the above noted provisions into the pending new Zoning
Bylaw. In doing so, the density bonus amendments could be delivered in a timely manner and also
form part of a comprehensive overview of the City’s zoning regulations.
6
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Through the past CAC and Albion Density Bonus work, Council established a City-Wide CAC Reserve
Fund and an Albion Area Reserve Fund. Consistent with the Local Government Act, a further reserve
fund and an accompanying authorising bylaw would be required to receive cash contributions that
may stem from the proposed density bonus framework, if approved.
CONCLUSION:
Consistent with City’s Housing Action Plan, and based on Council direction from February 2018, staff
has worked closely with Rollo + Associates to prepare a draft density bonus framework. The intent of
the optional amenity zoning will be to deliver affordable rental housing in exchange for bonus
density, either through the direct provision of rental units or through cash in-lieu contributions to be
utilised by the City towards future affordable housing investments. With Council’s review and
approval in principle of the proposed density bonus framework, staff would incorporate the draft
zoning as outlined in this report into the City’s new Zoning Bylaw, which is expected to be brought
forward to Council by Fall of this year.
“Original signed Brent Elliott”_________________________
Prepared by: Brent Elliott, MCIP, RPP,
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”___________________
Concurrence by: Trevor Thompson, CPA, CGA
Chief Financial Officer
“Original signed by Christine Carter”_____________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”_______________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
General Manager, Public Works and
Development Services
‘Original signed by Paul Gill”___________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A: UDI and GVHBA Letter: Draft Density Bonus Recommendations, July 6, 2018.
July 6, 2018
Frank Quinn
General Manager Public Works & Development Services
City of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Dear Mr. Quinn:
Re: Draft Density Bonus Recommendations
The Urban Development Institute (UDI) and the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’
Association (GVHBA) would like to thank Maple Ridge staff for again utilizing our
Development Liaison Committee (DLC) to review a key issue to both of our memberships –
the City’s proposed Density Bonusing Program. The discussion at our May 25th meeting was
very positive, and we have had further discussions with the industry members on the
Committee.
We are supportive of the City’s draft recommendations. The Density Bonusing Program is
voluntary and incentive based. It provides a win-win-win for Maple Ridge, those in need of
affordable housing and our memberships. Lower income households will be provided
affordable housing in the City Centre, which offers access to transit, services and job
opportunities. Our members will be able to build and rent out these affordable housing
units because the incremental costs will be offset with the proposed density bonuses. The
program is also flexible because there is an opportunity to provide cash-in-lieu instead of
the units.
UDI and GVHBA have two recommendations for your staff. First, some sites may not be able
to accommodate additional density without a height relaxation. We suggest that the City
build into the policy the allowance of height increases, so developers with constrained sites
who want to build and retain the rental units (as opposed to exercising the cash-in-lieu) can
do so.
Second, with the new TransLink B-Line service coming to Maple Ridge in the next year,
there may be further opportunities to increase densities and expand the density bonusing
program to other areas in Maple Ridge at the new stops along the B-line. We would be
pleased to work with staff and the community on such an initiative.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE – PACIFIC REGION
#200 – 602 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 1P2 Canada
T.604.669.9585 F. 604.689.8691
www.udi.bc.ca
GREATER VANCOUVER HOME BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION
#1003, 7495 – 132 Street
Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1J8 Canada
T.778-565-4288
www.gvhba.org
APPENDIX A
Thank you, again, for involving the DLC in developing this new policy. Both UDI and GVHBA
are supportive of the City’s efforts to deliver affordable housing through this new Program.
Yours truly,
Anne McMullin Bob de Wit
President & CEO CEO
Urban Development Institute Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association
S:\Public\POLICY\MUNICIPAL LIAISON\Maple Ridge\Density Bonusing\UDI - GVHBA Ltr July 6 2018 Density
Bonus.Doc
1
City of Maple RidgeCity of Maple RidgeCity of Maple RidgeCity of Maple Ridge
TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: July 17, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:MEETING:MEETING:MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Neighbourhood Residential Infill Policy Change
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
To further expand housing choices in Maple Ridge and implement the recommendations of the
Housing Action Plan, a series of reports have been considered by Council. This includes reports on
duplexes, triplexes, detached garden suites, secondary suites and rental units.
This report focuses on a review of infill development, and specifically Official Community Plan (OCP)
Policy 3-19. Infill is a process of developing vacant or under-utilized land within existing urban
neighbourhoods. The impetus for this review arose from an infill application considered by Council in
2017. Council deferred that application with the following resolution:
That application 2016-411-RZ be further deferred and staff be directed to explore implications of
potentially allowing subdivision of lots with areas and widths less than 80%, as prescribed in OCP
Policy 3-19 in the “Regulatory and Infill Measures Report” requested by Resolution R/2016-390 on
August 29, 2016.
This report provides the analysis undertaken as part of the infill policy review and concludes that a
new residential zone be created. The new infill residential zone would have a 450 m2 minimum lot
area and 12 m minimum lot frontage, along with a proposed lower building height maximum and an
increased front yard setback, to provide additional infill sensitivity and fit. With this approach, the
number of properties meeting the minimum requirements for this new zone is approximately 2%, or
111 of all Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential designated properties. It is recommended
that staff be directed to prepare the necessary OCP and Zoning Bylaw amendments in conjunction
with rezoning application 2016-411-RZ to implement this new infill zone.
RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to prepare That staff be directed to prepare That staff be directed to prepare That staff be directed to prepare amendments to the amendments to the amendments to the amendments to the OfficiaOfficiaOfficiaOfficial Community Planl Community Planl Community Planl Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw to to to to
create a new single familycreate a new single familycreate a new single familycreate a new single family infillinfillinfillinfill zone zone zone zone with a minimum lot area of 450 mwith a minimum lot area of 450 mwith a minimum lot area of 450 mwith a minimum lot area of 450 m2222 and a minimum lot width of and a minimum lot width of and a minimum lot width of and a minimum lot width of
12 m, in conjunction with rezoning application 201612 m, in conjunction with rezoning application 201612 m, in conjunction with rezoning application 201612 m, in conjunction with rezoning application 2016----411411411411----RZ.RZ.RZ.RZ.
4.2
2
BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:
a)a)a)a) Recent Council DirectionsRecent Council DirectionsRecent Council DirectionsRecent Council Directions
In implementing the Housing Action Plan, Council passed a resolution in August 2016 directing staff
to prepare a report and amending bylaws to facilitate further infill in residential areas. Since that
time, staff have been bringing forward a series of reports in response to the August 2016 resolution,
to further housing choice in the community and implement the recommendations of the Housing
Action Plan.
In addition, staff were given additional direction to analyze the implications of allowing the
subdivision of lots with areas and widths less than 80% of the existing neighbourhood, as prescribed
in OCP Policy 3-19 for Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential designated properties. The
impetus for a review of residential infill policies arose through a rezoning application that did not
comply with current OCP policy. The 2017 rezoning application in question is currently deferred, and
has not received any readings from Council. Staff were directed to undertake the work summarized
in this report.
b)b)b)b) ExistiExistiExistiExisting Policy Directionsng Policy Directionsng Policy Directionsng Policy Directions
Official Community Plan
The Urban Residential land use designation in the OCP encompasses all residentially designated
land in the Urban Area Boundary outside of existing areas plans. There are two Urban Residential
categories: Neighbourhood Residential and Major Corridor Residential, as described in OCP Policy
3-18 (see Appendix A).
As outlined in the OCP, Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential lots are located on local
roads and support incremental infill development in relation to existing conditions. Specifically, OCP
Policy 3-19 outlines the compatibility criteria for Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential infill
consideration (see Appendix A). The compatibility policies illustrate that infill development is
considered in the context of a range of eligibility criteria, one of which is a reduction in lot size and
width to not less than 80% of the predominant zone’s lot area and width. The OCP’s housing policies
were developed through the 2006 OCP review process, and reflect the outcome of public
consultation with residents at that time.
Zoning Bylaw
Maple Ridge’s Zoning Bylaw contains 12 single family zones that cover a broad range of minimum lot
areas and width. The minimum area and dimension requirements for predominant zones in the
Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential zones are outlined in the table below:
Table Table Table Table 1111: Predominant Neighbourhood Residential Zones: Predominant Neighbourhood Residential Zones: Predominant Neighbourhood Residential Zones: Predominant Neighbourhood Residential Zones
ZoneZoneZoneZone Min. Lot Area (sq. m)Min. Lot Area (sq. m)Min. Lot Area (sq. m)Min. Lot Area (sq. m) Min. Lot Width (m)Min. Lot Width (m)Min. Lot Width (m)Min. Lot Width (m) Min. Lot Depth (m)Min. Lot Depth (m)Min. Lot Depth (m)Min. Lot Depth (m)
RSRSRSRS----1 & RS1 & RS1 & RS1 & RS----1a1a1a1a 668 18 27
RSRSRSRS----1b1b1b1b 557 15 27
RRRR----1111 371 12 24
3
Neighbourhood Residential Compatibility Criteria
Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential infill policies are designed to permit properties that
are larger in area and width in relation to surrounding properties on the street to subdivide into
smaller parcels. In most cases, a rezoning application is needed first to permit a smaller minimum
lot area and width. This policy works within the existing single family zone structure and in practice
supports the rezoning from a larger single family zone to one step smaller in terms of lot area and
dimensions as outlined in the zoning matrix. For example, an RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
zoned lot could rezone to RS-1b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential). The lot area and lot
width ratios between the RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone and RS-1b (One Family (Medium
Density) Residential) are equivalent to 80% consistent with OCP Policy 3-19. A rezoning from RS-1
(One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit an even smaller lot area and
configuration is currently not permitted as this would represent a 56% reduction in lot area and 67%
reduction in lot width. A new residential infill zone that maintains a 80% ratio and as a result,
creates lots that are larger in lot area and width than the existing R-1 (Residential District) zone
would fill the existing gap in the suite of single family zones; and could offer a sensitive transition
option for infill development.
c)c)c)c) Historic Development ActivityHistoric Development ActivityHistoric Development ActivityHistoric Development Activity
To understand the uptake to-date on the existing Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential
infill policies, approved and in-progress single family rezoning and subdivision applications in the
study area were reviewed for the 2007-2017 time period. Over the ten year period, a total of 29 new
infill dwelling units were created. These 29 new infill units represent 1% of all new single family and
duplex units created in Maple Ridge over the 2007-2017 period.
PLANNING ANALYSIS:PLANNING ANALYSIS:PLANNING ANALYSIS:PLANNING ANALYSIS:
In the context of the existing OCP policies, zoning regulations, and historic development activity, an
analysis was conducted to determine how many additional properties would be eligible for rezoning
and subdivision in the event that Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential properties are
permitted to be reconfigured with lot areas and widths smaller than 80% of the predominant zone.
Under current policy, and as discussed above, rezoning and subdivision applications from the RS-1
(One Family Urban Residential) zone to the RS-1b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential) zone is
the limit of what is currently permitted. The next step smaller zone in terms of lot area and lot width
than the RS-1b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential) zone is the R-1 (Residential District) zone.
As a result, the analysis identified all Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential properties with
sufficient lot area and lot width for two R-1 (Residential District) lots, as well as additional eligibility
criteria.
Infill Analysis and Results
For discussion purposes, the Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential designated area was
divided into three geographic sub-areas (see Figure 1 below). Sub-area A includes land between 200
and Laity Street, excluding the Hammond Area. Sub-area B is comprises of land between Laity Street
and 224 Street and sub-area C includes the land between 224 Street and 240 Street, excluding the
Town Centre and Albion Flats. The northern study area boundary is the Urban Area Boundary, and
the Fraser River is the southern study area boundary.
4
Figure Figure Figure Figure 1111: Study area sub: Study area sub: Study area sub: Study area sub----areasareasareasareas
In the assessment of the additional subdivision potential, should the infill policies permit lot areas
and widths consistent with the R-1 (Residential District) zone, the following criteria were considered:
• Designated Urban Residential
• Outside existing area plan areas
• Located on a local road
• Zoned for single family use
• Lot area between 750 m2 and 1,114 m2
• Lot width of 24 m or greater
• Lots outside of 100m Fraser Escarpment Area, without watercourse or gas line encumbrance
• BC Assessment improvement value
• School Capacity
Combining all of these influencing factors reveals that there are a total of 314 eligible properties, or
5%, of all Urban Residential – Neighbourhood Residential designated lots in the study area that
appear to be sized and configured to support a subdivision into two R-1 (Residential District) zoned
lots. The highest number of eligible lots was found in sub-area B, where 189 eligible properties are
located. Sub-area C had the fewest number of eligible lots, with 46, due to the younger age of
existing subdivisions and lower occurrence of larger RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) lots. Table
2 summarizes the increase in subdivision potential for Urban Residential - Neighbourhood
Residential lots by sub-area.
5
Table Table Table Table 2222: Eligible Properties by Sub: Eligible Properties by Sub: Eligible Properties by Sub: Eligible Properties by Sub----AreaAreaAreaArea
Total Total Total Total Number of Neigh.Number of Neigh.Number of Neigh.Number of Neigh. ResResResRes.... LotsLotsLotsLots Number of Lots with RNumber of Lots with RNumber of Lots with RNumber of Lots with R----1 Potential1 Potential1 Potential1 Potential PercentagePercentagePercentagePercentage
SubSubSubSub----Area AArea AArea AArea A 1861 79 4%
SubSubSubSub----Area BArea BArea BArea B 1619 189 12%
SubSubSubSub----Area CArea CArea CArea C 2450 46 2%
TotalTotalTotalTotal 5,930 314 5%
There are many other factors that are considered through a subdivision process, and the analysis
undertaken for this report is high level. Watercourse setbacks, major right of ways and the 100 m
setback area to the Fraser River Escarpment were overlaid with properties that have subdivision
potential. These three variables may impact subdivision potential by restricting the use of a portion
of the lot, or having more restrictive requirements under a subdivision application. Considerations
such as road dedication that may be required through re-development (but are unknown at this time)
may further reduce the number of eligible properties, as the total lot area would be reduced by road
dedication. The eligible lots determined through this analysis would also need further studies and
work to confirm subdivision suitability. An additional factor that was not addressed through this infill
analysis was the impact of lot width variances supported through the re-development process.
General practice allows for minor reductions in lot width. This option may result in an increased
number of eligible lots. Properties with infill potential may require a rezoning application, which
requires a Development Information Meeting, Public Hearing, and Council approval.
BC Assessment Value
In addition to the criteria used to determine the 314 eligible lots for R-1 (Residential District)
subdivision, property valuations were also used to understand subdivision timing. A ratio of
improvement to land value was used to account for varying lot sizes. Results were grouped into four
categories: less than 10%, 10-20%, 20-30% and more than 30% improvement to land value. Based
on the range of property values for the identified eligible properties, it was observed that 74% of lots
eligible for R-1 (Residential District) zoned subdivision had an improvement to land value ratio of
20% or less. It is anticipated that future infill re-development will take place gradually over time,
beginning with properties with lower improvement values.
School Capacity
School District 42’s Strategic Facilities Plan was adopted by the Board of Education in October 2015.
Based on their report, there is surplus capacity for both elementary and secondary schools within the
areas identified in staff’s analysis for additional infill opportunities, namely sub-area B. Providing an
additional infill opportunity such as the one proposed in this report could promote the
accommodation of additional homes and accompanying families in currently under-capacity schools
including Glenwood Elementary, Alouette Elementary, and Westview Secondary School.
RECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONS:S:S:S:
The analysis summarized in this report concludes that there are 5%, or 314, Urban Residential -
Neighbourhood Residential properties which could be eligible for smaller lot subdivision from RS-1
(One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) if a change in the City’s infill policies were
made.
6
As a result, staff are recommending that OCP Policy 3-19 be amended to create additional
subdivision opportunities for Urban Residential – Neighbourhood Residential properties. Staff does
note that the OCP also outlines compatibility criteria to guide infill development. Infill development
must take into consideration the characteristics of existing homes on a street in terms of siting,
height and massing in order to visually ‘fit’ into the existing context. This can become challenging, as
neighbourhoods transition from the housing forms, height, size, and styles commonly built in
previous decades into new construction designs. Given these character considerations, staff further
recommend that a new single family zone; one that is based on the R-1 (Residential District) zone
but requires a larger lot area and lot width, also be created as a more sensitive infill option. A smaller
portion of properties; approximately 2%, or 111 lots would be eligible for subdivisions using the new
single family zone.
The new zone would be equivalent to 80% of the RS-1b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential)
zone, with a minimum lot area of 450 square metres and a minimum lot width of 12 metres,
consistent with the existing transition between the RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-1b
(One Family (Medium Density) Residential) zones. A comparison of lot dimensions and area is
summarized in Table 3 below. As well, the new zone would also address some of the concerns raised
by neighbours in proximity to an infill development. As new construction can often maximize the
allowable height permitted under the zoning requirements, the new infill zone would have a lower
height maximum of 9.5 metres compared to the typical 11 meters to ensure better compatibility with
existing (and often smaller) developments. A maximum height of 9.5 metres would still permit a two
storey home to be constructed. Additionally, front yard and side yard setbacks would also be
enlarged to reflect RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone requirements, so that the siting of the
homes is more consistent with existing homes.
Table Table Table Table 3333: New Infill Zone Regulations: New Infill Zone Regulations: New Infill Zone Regulations: New Infill Zone Regulations
ZoneZoneZoneZone Min. Lot Area (sq. m)Min. Lot Area (sq. m)Min. Lot Area (sq. m)Min. Lot Area (sq. m) Min. Lot Width (m)Min. Lot Width (m)Min. Lot Width (m)Min. Lot Width (m) Min. Lot DMin. Lot DMin. Lot DMin. Lot Depth (m)epth (m)epth (m)epth (m)
RS-1 & RS-1a 668 18 27
RS-1b 557 15 27
New ZoneNew ZoneNew ZoneNew Zone 450450450450 12121212 24242424
R-1 371 12 24
Based on the above, staff recommend that the necessary OCP and Zoning amending bylaws be
brought forward for Council’s consideration under rezoning application 2016-411-RZ.
Impact on In-Stream Applications:
Rezoning application 2016-411-RZ, which proposes to rezone the property located at 21188
Wicklund Avenue from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to enable
subdivision into two single family lots, which has been deferred by Council prior to first reading,
would be able to satisfy the minimum zoning requirements for the proposed new infill zone. The
applicant has been informed of the proposed infill zone requirements, and intends to proceed to first
reading in early Fall 2018. It is noted that the property in question is the only one on the street with
additional subdivision potential under current and proposed policies and bylaws.
7
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
Although the number of eligible properties which could subdivide to a smaller lot size under revised
infill policies is 2%, or 111, of all Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential properties, this
would be one infill option out of a range of housing choice options that currently exist or that are in
the process of being explored by staff.
• On June 26, 2018, Council granted first and second reading to three bylaws to facilitate a
Detached Garden Suite (DGS) and Secondary Suite (SS) Pilot Project, which will test both a
larger DGS size than currently permitted; as well as the accommodation of an SS and DGS on
the same property. Once these pilot projects are completed in 2019, such DGS regulations
could be expanded City-wide.
• Further and subsequent to this report, staff will be bringing forward a discussion report which
addresses new and alternative opportunities for duplex development in the City. Through the
infill policy analysis, it became apparent that there are properties with a minimum area of
750 m2 that do not have the 24 m width to be considered for the aforementioned smaller lot
subdivision. While the former group of properties is not eligible for subdivision, they could
qualify for duplex development. Based on Council’s August 2016 direction, the duplex
zoning requirements for minimum lot area and width are in the process of being reduced to
750 m2 and 20 m, respectively, in conjunction with a development application currently
sitting at third reading. It is anticipated that the applicant will be requesting final reading in
the coming months. Should Council approve of that application, there will be additional
properties in the Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential area suitable for duplex
development as another infill opportunity.
• Additionally, work is underway in the preparation of a new triplex, fourplex and courtyard
housing infill zone (RT-2 Ground-Oriented Residential Infill). This zone received first reading
in June 2017 and is scheduled for further Council direction in Summer 2018.
• Lastly, the Planning Department 2018 Business Plan identifies that staff will be commencing
a Transit Corridor Study in light of Translink’s project to begin B-line bus service along
Lougheed Highway in 2019, with stops at Laity Street and 203 Street. The Transit Corridor
Study will examine at the determined B-line stops the current land use patterns and explore
opportunities for expanding housing choices, employment generating uses and services in a
nodal transit-oriented manner. A report outlining the pending Transit Corridor Study and
accompanying community engagement process is anticipated in Fall 2018.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Engineering, Fire and Building Departments have participated in discussions regarding the
proposed policy changes included in this report. The Engineering Department has advised that as
development of this infill option begins, monitoring of the existing servicing capacity should occur to
understand system impacts, and determine the need for servicing studies.
8
CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:
Staff have conducted a high level analysis to identify additional properties which would become
eligible for subdivision should a policy change support the creation of lots with areas and widths less
than 80%. Staff recommend that although the number of properties eligible for smaller lot
subdivision is relatively low (5% or 314 properties), a more modest infill approach is to create a new
single family zone equivalent to 80% of the RS-1b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential zone.
The number of properties meeting the minimum requirements for this new zone is approximately 2%,
or 111 of all Urban Residential - Neighbourhood Residential designated properties. It is
recommended that staff be directed to make the necessary OCP and Zoning Bylaw amendments in
conjunction with rezoning application 2016-411-RZ.
‘Original signed by Amelia Bowden’
_______________________________________________
Prepared byPrepared byPrepared byPrepared by: : : : Amelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPPAmelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPPAmelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPPAmelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPP
Planner 1Planner 1Planner 1Planner 1
‘Original signed by Christine Carter’
_______________________________________________
Approved by:Approved by:Approved by:Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RChristine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RChristine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RChristine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPPPPPPPP
Director of PlanningDirector of PlanningDirector of PlanningDirector of Planning
‘Original signed by Frank Quinn’
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by:Approved by:Approved by:Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. EngFrank Quinn, MBA, P. EngFrank Quinn, MBA, P. EngFrank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development ServicesGM: Public Works & Development ServicesGM: Public Works & Development ServicesGM: Public Works & Development Services
‘Original signed by Paul Gill’
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Concurrence:Concurrence:Concurrence:Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGAPaul Gill, CPA, CGAPaul Gill, CPA, CGAPaul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief AdminisChief AdminisChief AdminisChief Administrative Officetrative Officetrative Officetrative Office
Appendix A – Chapter 3 OCP Policy Excerpt
APPENDIX A
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 17, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NO: 1983880
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Proposed Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw and Business Licencing Bylaw Amendments
for Auto Wrecking Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Maple Ridge has identified the lack of fully serviced, development-ready employment land
as a significant constraint to attracting new businesses and jobs to Maple Ridge. Given the current
shortage of employment land, the Economic Development and Planning departments are supporting
strategies that encourage higher employment densities on existing employment land.
Maple Ridge currently has seven auto wreckers operating in the city and has recently received three
applications to open additional auto wrecking businesses. These new applications have prompted
consideration of this type of business given the limited amount of industrial land available for job
creation.
Staff have identified a number of concerns with the increased interest of accommodating auto
wreckers in the City. Auto wreckers are typically owner-operated businesses with very few employees
and require sizeable amounts of land to operate, creating a low employee-to-land ratio. While auto
wreckers play an important role in the safe and environmentally responsible disposal of end-of-life
vehicles, they can have negative environmental and aesthetic impacts on neighbouring businesses.
Anecdotal information from commercial realtors indicates that many potential buyers avoid former
auto wrecking sites due to potential contamination issues, and that the redevelopment potential of
neighbouring properties may also be impacted by real and perceived contamination issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff prepare amendments to the City’s Zoning Bylaw and Business Licencing Bylaw to prohibit
auto wrecker use in the M2 General Industrial Zone.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background
The Commercial and Industrial Strategy identified the limited amount of fully serviced,
development-ready industrial land in Maple Ridge as a key constraint to creating local high-value
jobs. Given this limitation, staff have been exploring strategies to maximize the employment
density on existing industrial land by encouraging employment densification. The goal is to
encourage advanced manufacturing, high tech and other higher intensity uses in these
designated business parks and employment areas.
4.3
2
Vehicle Dismantling & Recycling Industry Environmental Planning Regulation
For the purposes of this report, the term “auto wreckers” includes vehicle dismantling (where
vehicles are drained of fluids and dismantled), vehicle crushing (for transport to scrap metal
recyclers) and parts cleaning businesses.
Auto wreckers are regulated by the Ministry of Environment through the Vehicle Dismantling and
Recycling Industry Environmental Planning Regulation (VDREIP) which requires anyone planning
to operate a vehicle dismantling business to provide an environmental management plan that
demonstrates how they will comply with existing environmental protection standards under the
Environmental Management Act. This is an industry-driven monitoring and reporting system that
ensures operations are carefully managed; the environmental management plans can be
developed either by individual operators or industry associations such as the Automobile
Recyclers’ Environmental Association of BC (AREA) acting on behalf of their members.
Six of the seven auto wreckers currently operating in Maple Ridge are members of AREA, a
province-wide network of certified automotive recyclers that ensures their members meet all
federal and provincial environmental standards when processing End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs).
Regional Comparisons
This report uses the number of active Environmental Management Authorizations (EMAs) granted
by the Environmental Protection Division to compare the number of auto wreckers in various
Lower Mainland municipalities due to the differences in the various municipal business licence
classification systems.
There are currently 97 active EMAs for auto wrecking businesses in the Lower Mainland. Four
municipalities—Surrey, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford—account for almost two-thirds of all
active EMAs in the Lower Mainland.
Table One: Auto wreckers in the Lower Mainland
Municipality Active EMAs AREA members
Abbotsford 16 13
Burnaby 7 7
Chilliwack 8 5
Langley 11 7
Maple Ridge 7 6
Mission 2 1
New Westminster 1 1
Port Coquitlam 9 8
Richmond 16 14
Surrey 19 14
3
b) Land Use Context
Auto wreckers are a permitted use in the M2 General Industrial Zone through a general
interpretation of wording found in the M2 zone under “general industrial uses”, and are a
permitted principal use in the M5 High Impact Industrial Zone.
All of the current auto wreckers in Maple Ridge are located in the M2 Zone: three in the Albion
Industrial Area, two at the north end of 256th Street, one in the Kanaka Business Park, and one
in the Ruskin Industrial Area on Lougheed Highway. Together, these seven auto wreckers are
located on 8.4 acres of industrial land and employ a total of 19 people, providing an employment
density of 2.26 jobs per acre.
Table Two: Maple Ridge Auto Wreckers
Business Location Ha Acres Zone AREA
Member
A Class Auto Parts Recycling 256th Street 0.53 1.3 M2 yes
AR&A Auto Wrecking 256th Street 0.53 1.3 M2 yes
Gary's Auto Wrecking & Salvage Albion Industrial Area 0.4 1 M2 yes
Maple Ridge Auto Parts Albion Industrial Area 0.4 1 M2 yes
Pull & Save Quality Used Auto &
Truck Parts
Ruskin Industrial
Area
0.24 0.6 M2 no
RB Auto Parts Albion Industrial Area 0.73 1.8 M2 yes
Volex Auto Recycling Kanaka Business
Park
0.57 1.4 M2 yes
Total 3.4 8.4
Average (median) 0.486 1.2
The Albion Industrial Area is designated as a “business park” in the Official Community Plan (the
same as Maple Meadows Business Park) and most of the properties in this area are zoned M2
General Industrial. The City’s long-term goal is to see many of the properties in the Albion
Industrial Area redevelop to higher employment density uses consistent with the M3 Business
Park Zone. The current employment density for the Albion Industrial Area is 6.25 jobs per acre
compared to 36 jobs per acre in the Maple Meadows Business Park.
During the OCP review, it was recognized that certain uses such as auto wreckers, would likely
relocate to the 256th Street or Ruskin Industrial Areas due to increasing land costs. This was
considered an opportunity for the Albion Industrial Area to re-develop into a business park.
The Kanaka Business Park is also designated General Industrial in the OCP and zoned M2, but
this area is not intended for M3 Business Park land uses in the future. It should be noted that
2017 saw a 36% average increase in the assessed value of industrial land in this area which
may impact the nature of future developments in this area.
c) Environmental Considerations
Concerns about auto wreckers typically include their potential impact on the environment due to
mishandling vehicular fluids and heavy metals, and their aesthetic impact on neighbouring
businesses. Anecdotal information from commercial realtors indicates that many potential
buyers and developers tend to avoid former auto wrecking sites due to potential contamination
issues, and that they can have negative impacts on neighbouring businesses due to the potential
spread of environmental contamination and their aesthetics.
4
It should be noted that auto wreckers do play an important role in the responsible disposal of
end-of-life automobiles by ensuring the safe disposal of hazardous materials (oils, hydraulic
fluids, heavy metals, etc.), removing and selling re-usable automobile parts, and preparing the
ferrous and non-ferrous components for recycling. The industry is regulated provincially by the
Ministry of Environment’s Vehicle Dismantling and Recycling Industry Environmental Planning
Regulation. This legislation requires that anyone who operates a facility that dismantles more
than five “wet vehicles”1 in a calendar year must either have an approved environmental
management plan or be a member of an association that has an approved environmental
management plan.
Over the past few years, the automobile recycling industry has made a concentrated effort to
improve environmental practices within the industry. The Automobile Recyclers of Canada (ARC)
developed the Canadian Auto Recyclers’ Environmental Code (CAREC) which summarizes the
existing legal requirements for the management of hazardous wastes from end-of-life vehicles
and has been adopted by ARC for use by all of its members. BC Automotive Recyclers (B-CAR) is
the provincial organization for auto recyclers and is a member of Automobile Recyclers of
Canada and has adopted CAREC as its environmental standard.
d) Desired Outcome(s):
One of the key goals of the Commercial and Industrial Strategy is to encourage high-value, local
employment through the efficient use of the City’s employment land. The City has a finite amount
of employment land available and auto wreckers appear to offer limited job opportunities for the
amount of land they require. Restricting auto wreckers from locating in the M2 zone may help
keep more of this employment land available for uses with higher employment densities/ratios.
Based on this analysis, staff are recommending removing auto wrecking as a principal use in the
M2 General Industrial Zone. This would require future applications to re-zone to the M5 High
Impact Industrial Zone, permitting Council to decide on auto wrecker applications on a case-by-
case basis. It is also noted that this amendment would effectively direct auto wrecking use to
areas outside of the Urban Area Boundary, as the M5 Zone is not available for use in the
Business Park OCP designation.
Under this approach, existing auto wreckers operating in the M2 Zone would become legally non-
conforming. Current in-stream business licence applicants would not be impacted by proposed
regulation changes and anyone purchasing an existing auto wrecker in the M2 Zone would be
allowed to continue operating as a legal non-conforming use, providing they meet provincial
environmental requirements as is currently the practice. This could include requiring existing
auto wreckers to provide proof of membership in good standing with AREA as a condition of
receiving their annual business licence which would require an amendment to the Business
Licencing Bylaw. Council may also wish to consider requiring new auto wreckers be fully enclosed
within a building and eliminating outdoor storage of wrecked vehicles and parts inventory.
Staff will consult with existing auto wreckers in Maple Ridge, as well as all in-stream applicants,
on any potential impacts of these changes to regulations.
1 A “wet vehicle” is defined as a “motor vehicle that is no longer used for transportation purposes, and has not been reduced to a
steel hulk or to a steel hulk with only the plastic fabric or foam components still attached.”
5
e) Alternatives
1) Status Quo
Council could choose to continue allowing auto wreckers to operate in the M2 General Industrial
Zone as is the current practice.
2) City-Wide Prohibition
Council could choose to prohibit auto wrecker use in all zones in the City. Under such an
approach, existing auto wreckers operating under the M2 Zone would become legally non-
conforming uses. Council could also require existing auto wreckers to provide proof of
membership in good standing with AREA as a condition of receiving their annual business
licence. This would require an amendment to the Business Licencing Bylaw.
If Council chooses City-wide prohibition, in-stream applicants would not be impacted but any new
business licence applications for auto wreckers would be denied.
3) Hybrid Option
Recognizing that auto wrecking is a legitimate industry that helps promote recycling and provides
environmental benefits, Council may prefer to allow auto wrecking as a principal use in the M2
General Industrial Zone for properties not designated Business Park in the OCP. This approach
would allow auto wrecking use on M2 properties outside of the Urban Area Boundary in areas
such as the Kanaka, 256th Street and Ruskin industrial areas.
f) Strategic Alignment
The options presented in this report align with the goals of the Commercial and Industrial
Strategy by encouraging higher-density employment uses on employment land and by limiting the
negative environmental and aesthetic impacts of auto wreckers and their potential impact on
neighbouring businesses.
g) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Citizens will benefit from improved environmental protection by requiring auto wreckers to be
members in good standing with the Automotive Recyclers Environmental Association (AREA), and
through increased local employment opportunities resulting from employment densification in
the existing business parks in Maple Ridge.
h) Interdepartmental Implications:
Planning
The Planning Department supports strategies that encourage higher employment densities on
employment land. If Council directs changes to the Zoning Bylaw, Planning staff would prepare a
report outlining the possible Zone Amending options for Council discussion, prior to preparing
and presenting a Zone Amending Bylaw.
6
Bylaw & Licencing Services
Bylaw and Licencing Services are in support of requiring auto wreckers provide proof of
membership in good standing with AREA as a condition of receiving their annual business
licence. This would require an amendment to the Business Licencing Bylaw.
CONCLUSIONS:
A key goal of the Commercial and Industrial Strategy is to ensure the City makes the most efficient
use of its current employment lands by creating high-value, local employment opportunities. One
strategy to accomplish this is to encourage higher employment density uses, particularly in the Albion
Industrial Area. The aesthetic impact of auto wreckers should also be minimized requiring new auto
wreckers to be fully enclosed within a building and eliminating outdoor storage of wrecked vehicles
and parts inventory.
Maple Ridge currently has seven auto wreckers with in-stream applications for an additional three
auto wreckers. In view of the limited amount of employment land and the potential environmental
impacts of auto wreckers, staff recommend that the Zoning Bylaw be amended to remove auto
wrecking as a principal use in the M2 Zone. This approach would require future applications to re-
zone to the M5 High Impact Industrial Zone, permitting Council to decide on auto wrecker
applications on a case-by-case basis. Staff further recommend amending the Business Licencing and
Regulation Bylaw to require auto wreckers provide proof of membership in good standing with AREA
as a condition of licencing.
Original signed by “Bruce Livingstone”
Prepared by: Bruce Livingstone, BBA, Business Retention and Expansion Officer
Original signed by “Christine Carter”
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning
Original signed by “Lino Siracusa”
Approved by: Lino Siracusa, MBA, Director of Economic Development and Civic Properties
Original signed by “Robin McNair”
Concurrence: Robin MacNair, Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services
Original signed by “Frank Quinn”
Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng, General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
Original signed by “Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 17, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Options for New Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council has previously directed the research and review of electric vehicle charging station
requirements. The intent of the work was to look at options to integrate electric vehicle charging
stations into City development regulations. This report updates Council on the work that has been
completed to-date, outlines a set of proposed regulatory changes, and seeks endorsement on a
proposed consultation program to engage the development community. With feedback on the
regulatory options, staff would report back seeking Council direction on possible bylaw amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the bylaw amendments required for the integration of electric vehicle charging stations into new
developments be brought forward to Council for consideration following the consultation process
outlined in this report titled “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Options for New Development”,
dated July 17, 2018.
BACKGROUND:
a)Work to date
Council previously directed staff to prepare a report on options to regulate electric vehicle charging
stations in new developments. Subsequently staff conducted research on best practices related to
electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including undertaking a scan of electric vehicle charging
infrastructure regulations in other municipalities.
b)Existing Policy and Regulatory Framework
Official Community Plan
Alternative and ‘clean’ transportation options are recognized and supported within the City’s Official
Community Plan (OCP) and the Hammond Area Plan Development Permit Guidelines for Hammond
Village Commercial lands, respectively:
Policy 5 – 40 Maple Ridge will promote energy efficiency to reduce air and greenhouse gas
emissions by:
b)encouraging alternative transportation initiatives, promoting ‘clean’
transportation options, and encouraging the use of public transit;
Policy 3.3.3 Where possible, include a dedicated parking space to car share vehicles and
an electric vehicle charging station.
4.4
2
Zoning and Parking Bylaws
The City does not currently have regulation in the Zoning bylaw requiring private electric vehicle
charging infrastructure in new developments; however, the in-stream application 2017-462-RZ,
which received first reading in June 2018, calls for at least one fast charging station for every 20
dwelling units as well as installing EV wiring – including visitor parking spots – for all parking spaces.
At time of writing, approximately 10 other in-stream applications include or plan to include EV
charging infrastructure of some sort. Currently, the City’s Parking Bylaw is silent on electric vehicle
charging stations.
c) Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in Maple Ridge
Local governments can influence the transition to electric vehicles, as EV charging infrastructure is
and will be part of a community’s infrastructure. Maple Ridge and many other local governments
demonstrate leadership through the procurement of fleet EVs and the installation of public charging
stations.
The City is supporting the adoption of electric vehicles in the community by providing public charging
infrastructure at three locations in the Maple Ride downtown core. An additional unit at the
Operations Centre is used for charging the municipal electric vehicle fleet. In 2016 usage for all
stations increased 47% over the previous year. As demand for public charging stations increases,
the existing stations will be at capacity.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE OVERVIEW:
a) Benefits of Electric Vehicles
There are several reasons why local governments are establishing policies and programs that
support the market transformation from conventional to electric vehicles; namely (1) meeting
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, (2) cleaner air, (3) quieter communities, and (4) supporting
the local economy.
• GHG reductions: Almost every community in B.C., including the City of Maple Ridge, has
signed on to the Climate Action Charter and committed to GHG reduction targets. The City of
Maple Ridge has committed to reducing community greenhouse gas emissions by 33% by
2020 and by 80% by 2050 below 2007 levels, as stated in the Official Community Plan
(OCP). Approximately 60% of GHG emissions in Maple Ridge are due to on-road
transportation (as per the Province’s Community Energy and Emissions Inventory, 2012). EVs
produce 80% fewer lifecycle GHG emissions than their conventional gas-powered
counterparts.
• Cleaner air: Electric vehicles produce far fewer air pollutants than gasoline and diesel
vehicles. These pollutants include volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and carbon monoxide (CO), and have significant public health impacts. Life-cycle emissions
modeling demonstrates that “overall emissions are lower for EVs than for gasoline vehicles:
GHGs are reduced by approximately 82% over the lifetime of an EV, compared to a gasoline
vehicle.
• Quieter communities: Electric vehicles are quieter than gasoline vehicles and their
widespread adoption could improve quality of life for residents.
• Local economic development: Electric vehicles have a lower fuelling and operating cost than
their conventional counterparts, which could keep more money in the local economy when
households have more money to spend in their community.
3
b) Types of Electric Vehicles
There are a number of different kinds of “electrified” vehicles in the market as well as some future
considerations of emerging technology (as illustrated in Figure 1). There are two categories of plug-in
electric vehicles (PEVs): plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that can be powered by electricity
from the grid or by gasoline, and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) that are powered exclusively by
electricity.
• The plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) has an electric powertrain and can be re-charged
from the electric grid (plugged in). PHEVs also have an internal combustion engine or a range
extender (also called an auxiliary power unit, APU) enabling travel of longer distances (the
range extender drives a generator that charges the battery).
• The plug-in battery electric vehicle (BEV) only has an electric powertrain and the battery is
recharged by plugging in. The range depends on the model type, from approximately 100km
to 350km. New vehicles coming to market – the 2nd generation or “affordable long range
BEVs” – have significantly longer ranges (e.g. a 2016 and 2017 Nissan Leaf currently has a
range of ~170km, and the 2018 has a range of ~240km; the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt has a
range of over 350km). The “range limitation” of BEVs is suitable for most daily driving;
however, without widespread access to public charging infrastructure, BEVs may not meet
the needs of drivers travelling longer distances.
• The hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has both an internal combustion engine and electric
powertrain, and use regenerative braking like a PEV. HEV’s are now common within the
passenger vehicle market. They cannot, however be plugged in for re-charge: they must be
fueled at a gas station. These vehicles do not require additional electric vehicle supply
equipment and are therefore excluded from the term “electric vehicle” and are not
considered further by this report.
Figure 1 - Types of Electrified/Alternative Fuel Passenger Vehicle Technologies
Source: C2MP Consulting
4
c) Status of Electric Vehicle Demand
EV ownership in Canada has steadily increased since 2012. Plug-in electric vehicle sales for 2017
alone was 18,560 vehicles – an increase of 68% from 2016 – and the trend is likely to continue into
2018. First quarter sale results from 2018 indicate that EV sales have increased 75% compared to
Q1-2017 (as illustrated in Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Plug-in EV Sales Canada - year over year trend
Source: Fleetcarma.com
Choice in EVs is increasing as multiple manufacturers add new models. BC is a leader in EV sales,
with EVs making up over 2.6% of all new passenger car vehicle sales in the first quarter of 2018 (as
illustrated in Figure 3).
Figure 3 - EV portion of vehicle sales (3 month average), Canada
Source: Fleetcarma.com
5
In addition, in May 2017, the Government of Canada announced that they are moving forward with
provincial and territorial partners, industry and stakeholders, to develop a national strategy to
increase the number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVS) on Canadian roads by 2018.
d) Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Technologies
There are three commonly used types of charging stations.
• Level 1 charging uses a standard house plug (found in many garages already) and provides
the slowest charging, so it is good for overnight charging or all day at work.
• Level 2 charging uses a dedicated 240V circuit like the one used for a clothes dryer. In
addition to being installed at home and at work, Level 2 charging stations are commonly
found in public locations where people typically spend a couple hours, such as a community
centre.
• Level 3 chargers, now typically called DC Fast Chargers (DCFC), are usually located along
major transportation corridors. DCFC provide a much stronger charge at a faster rate,
providing about an 80% charge in half an hour, however, not all electric vehicles can plug in
to a DCFC.
• Tesla Superchargers are fast-charging stations only compatible with Tesla vehicles.
Figure 4 provides further details on the three main types of charging stations, including charge times
and installation costs. Note that charge times are approximations based on a range of vehicles and
as EV technology advances, charge times change. Retrofit and installation costs include generalized
costs for EV supply equipment and installation.
Figure 4 - EVSE Technologies
Source: C2MP Consulting
6
e) Municipal Scan
Several Metro Vancouver municipalities have adopted EV requirements and many other local
governments across B.C. are examining the issue. Local governments are using a variety of policy
and regulatory tools to require or encourage electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new
developments, including Zoning Bylaws, Parking Bylaws, Building Bylaws, OCP objectives,
Sustainable Development Guidelines, and Council policies.
A review of seventeen municipalities within Metro Vancouver and the Sea-to-Sky Corridor highlights
the number of communities adopting or proposing to adopt EV charging infrastructure requirements.
Of the municipalities reviewed, eleven of the municipalities have adopted some form of EV charging
infrastructure requirements for multi-family residential, commercial development and/or single
family development. Table 1 provides a summary of the completed scan.
Table 1: EV Charging Requirements in Neighbouring Municipalities
Municipality Multi-family
Development
Commercial
Development Single Family
Development
City of Vancouver
100% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized0F
1 (Level
2).
10% of parking spaces
energized (Level 2) for
developments with 10
or more parking
spaces.
1 space for each
garage must be
energized (Level 2).
City of Richmond
100% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2).
N/A
100% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2).
City of Burnaby
100% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2).
Under Review.
100% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2).
Secondary suites are
excluded.
City of North
Vancouver
20% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2);
Adequate space in the
electrical room for the
remaining 80% at
Level 2.
N/A
N/A
1 Energized means all infrastructure required for the charging of an EV is provided, including panel capacity,
circuit breaker, conduit, wiring, and outlet but excluding the charging station.
7
City of Delta
20% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2)
or ‘roughed-in’1F
2 (Level
2) for later wiring.
20% of parking spaces
must be energized or
‘roughed-in’(Level 2)
for developments with
6 or more parking
spaces.
N/A
District of North
Vancouver
20% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (mix of
Level 2 & 1); 80% must
have be roughed-in
(Level 1) for later
wiring.
10% of parking spaces
to be energized (Level
2) and supported with
a negotiated number of
Level 1.
N/A
City of Port Coquitlam
1 parking space per
unit must be ‘roughed-
in’ (Level 2) for later
wiring.
1 parking space per
unit in mixed use
buildings must be
‘roughed-in’ (Level 2)
for later wiring.
1 parking space per
dwelling unit ‘roughed-
in’ (Level 2) for later
wiring.
City of Surrey Under Review
Under Review – New
Gas Stations required
to provide alternative
fuel infrastructure
options.
Under Review
City of White Rock
1 energized parking
spot for every 10 spots
in addition to 1
‘roughed-in’ (Level 2)
spot for every 10
parking spots for future
use.
1 energized parking
spot for every 10 spots
in addition to 1 Partial
spot for every 10
parking spots for future
use (Level 2) for mixed-
use buildings with
residential units.
N/A
District of West
Vancouver
Negotiated
‘appropriate’ number
of energized or
complete EVSE2F
3
outlets. Ideally one for
each unit.
Negotiated
‘appropriate’ number
of energized or
complete EVSE outlets
for new developments
over 1,500 m2.
N/A
District of Squamish
30% of resident
parking spaces must
be energized (Level 2).
N/A
N/A
2 ‘Roughed-in’ means some of the infrastructure required for EV charging is provided, including panel capacity
and conduit, making it easier to retrofit the building to provide for EV charging in the future. Circuit breakers,
wiring, outlet and charging station would be needed at future date.
3 Complete EVSE means all of the infrastructure required for the charging of an EV is provided, including the
charging stations.
8
In addition to the municipalities listed above, the Cities of New Westminster and Coquitlam have
recently directed staff to review and report back on options for electric vehicle requirements for new
development within their communities.
DISCUSSION:
a) EV Charging Infrastructure Spectrum
In 2016, the Provincial Building Act was revised to clarify that local governments can regulate the
use of EV charging infrastructure in new developments. Currently, there are a range of EV charging
infrastructure installation options for new development, which ranges from partial configuration –
when some of the infrastructure required for the charging of an EV is provided (making it easier to
retrofit a building for EV charging to the future) – to complete EVSE where all infrastructure required
for the charging of an EV is provided (as illustrated in Figure 5 below).
Figure 5 – EV Charging Infrastructure Spectrum
Source: City of Maple Ridge
The municipal scan indicates that many municipalities are opting for the energized middle ground
where all infrastructure required for the charging of an EV is provided, excluding the charging
stations, through the Zoning Bylaw. This means that the outlet boxes or electrical receptacles are
“energized” (i.e. electrically wired), dedicated for the charging of an EV and the electrical system is
adequately sized to accommodate the charging of EVs.
b) Proposed EV Requirements for New Development
Following Council’s direction to report back on options to integrate EV charging stations into City
regulations, this report provides Council with a preliminary set of regulatory requirements based on
the best practice research and municipal scan conducted. Staff also note that the options presented
below build from the proposals received thus far from private redevelopment applications. To further
assess the interest and level of support of the local development community for the options
available, and with Council’s approval, the intent is to advance these proposed requirements through
our Development Liaison Committee and other stakeholders for discussion and feedback.
Multi-Family Residential
Development
Commercial and Institutional
Development Single Family Development
Require all off-street residential
parking spaces in multi-family
developments to be energized
(Level 2).
• All visitor parking be wired
for a minimum of Level 1.
Require 10% of parking spaces to
be energized (Level 2) along with
the charging stations.
• Applicable to developments
with 10 or more off-street
parking spaces.
Require 1 space for each
principal dwelling unit to be
energized (Level 2).
• Secondary suites and
detached garden suites are
proposed to be exempt.
9
PROPOSED CONSULTATION PROGRAM:
The proposed EV requirements for new development outlined above draws to a close the initial
phase of this work. The next phase is intended to discuss the findings with the development
community to gain feedback and to identify additional issues, and to fine-tune the proposed bylaw
amendments.
The consultation process brought forward for Council endorsement includes discussion with the
following:
• Development Committee, including the Urban Development Institute, Greater Vancouver
Home Builders Association and Condominium Homeowners Association;
• BC Hydro and associated programs, including representatives from Plug-In BC and Emotive;
• Fraser Basin Council (Charging Support Program for Multi-Family Dwellings);
• Electric vehicle supply equipment manufacturers (e.g. Flo, Charge Point, and Greenlots);
• Metro Vancouver and neighbouring municipalities such as the City of Pitt Meadows and
District of Mission;
• The Province of B.C.; and
• Others, including Fraser Health and School District 42.
In addition to the consultation described above, Staff would pursue learning opportunities with EVSE
experts, most likely in the form of a half-day workshop for specific departmental staff. At this time, it
is envisioned that staff from Planning, Sustainability, Buildings, and Operations would participate.
Following the consultation process with the development community and internal educational
opportunities, Council will receive a summary of the consultation feedback as the process enters its
final stages. With the feedback, staff will seek at that time whether to bring forward bylaw
amendments.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
Planning staff will be working closely with other departments to develop electric vehicle requirement
options. Staff will continue to work closely with the Sustainability, Parks, Facilities, Building, Bylaws,
and Operations departments to work through the regulatory process.
CONCLUSION:
Local governments have a role in supporting and influencing the market transformation from
conventional to electric vehicles. Potential policy tools include bylaws that require the installation of
private charging infrastructure in new development, including single-family homes, townhouses,
multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs), commercial buildings, and mixed-use developments. Staff
conducted research on emerging EV best practices as well as a scan of adopted EVSE policies in
WE ARE HERE
EV Policy &
Background
Research
Discuss with
Development
Community
Counsultation
Feedback Report &
Council Resolution to
prepare bylaws
Prepare Draft EV
Regulation
Requirements
Amend Zoning Bylaw
10
neighbouring municipalities. This report provides an update to Council on the work that has been
completed to-date regarding electric vehicle charging infrastructure, outlines possible regulatory
options for consideration and discussion, and seeks endorsement on a consultation program.
“Original signed by Amanda Grochowich”______________
Prepared by: Amanda Grochowich, MCIP, RPP
Planner 1
“Original signed by Christine Carter”__________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”_____________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Paul Gill”___________________________
Concurrence: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
REPORT: Recruitment and Retention of Family Physicians Page 1 of 3
Date: July 17, 2018
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 17, 2018
and Members of Council DOC NO: 1982512
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Recruitment and Retention of Family Physicians
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Representatives from the Ridge Meadows Division of Family Practice (RMDFP) presented at Council
Workshop on May 1, 2018, requesting that the City champion the cause of recruitment of family
physicians and contribute to the cost of hiring a physician recruitment firm. Following the
presentation, Council resolved that staff provide a report on how the City of Maple Ridge can
advocate for the physician recruitment and retention issue raised by the Division of Family Practice.
This report responds to that direction, recommending that the City decline making a financial
contribution, and instead continue to support recruitment and retention efforts through City
marketing channels, the development of a welcome program for new physicians, and engagement
with community groups to support ongoing advocacy to senior governments to increase their support
for physician recruitment and retention.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the request from Ridge Meadows Division of Family Practice for a financial contribution toward
physician recruitment efforts be declined; and further
That physician recruitment and retention efforts continue to be supported through City marketing
channels, the development of a welcome program for new physicians, and engagement with
community groups to support ongoing advocacy to senior governments for increased financial and
program support.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Physician recruitment and retention is a long standing and complex issue – particularly in
rural areas – that is felt across British Columbia and Canada. There are a number of
determining factors that contribute to the overall quality of health care and access to family
physicians. These include the Canada Health Act; the Provincial Government through its
health delivery policies, agencies and regulations; university programs offering education for
new physicians; health authorities offering residency opportunities; and the BC College of
Physicians and Surgeons that administers licensing requirements. A particular challenge with
physician recruitment is that speciality and hospitalist programs are perceived to offer a
more attractive work/life balance, with an increasing number of newly graduated physicians
4.5
REPORT: Recruitment and Retention of Family Physicians Page 2 of 3
Date: July 17, 2018
choosing these programs over family practice. This is in part due to the long hours that
family physicians are required to work due to the current shortage. Furthermore, the
Province’s termination of “GP for Me” program funding has meant that all 33 of the BC
Divisions of Family Practice are seeking alternative funding support for the recruitment of
family physicians to their respective communities (Appendix 1).
Divisions of Family Practice are community-based groups of family physicians working
together to achieve common health care goals. The RMDFP is comprised of 117 members,
with 62 practicing family physicians. It has identified a shortage of 19 family physicians in
the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows area, which translates to approximately 23,000 residents
without a family physician.
Although municipal governments have no jurisdiction over physician recruitment and
retention or the regulation of health services, they recognize that public health is dependent
on access to preventative, primary, acute and community based health care services. T he
City of Maple Ridge enjoys a good relationship with RMDFP, and has provided assistance
within its purview for the recruitment and retention of family physicians. This assistance, and
opportunities for expanded support, includes:
assisting local, provincial and national recruiters in marketing the Maple Ridge brand
and experience;
providing marketing support for recruitment campaigns. Future support in this area
could include developing a video with RMDFP offering testimonials of physicians
recruited and residing in Maple Ridge;
advocating for senior governments to review recruitment strategies and increase
support. This has included forwarding resolutions to the LMLGA, and subsequent
consideration by the UBCM;
Council and staff attendance at the LMLGA to gain insight on initiatives in other
communities that could be brought to Maple Ridge to support RMDFP’s efforts;
community engagement to:
o connect other organizations with RMDFP to add their support to advocacy
efforts (e.g. some members of the EDC and the Ridge Meadows Chamber of
Commerce expressed interest in learning more about physician recruitment
and retention issues. The City connected RMDFP with the Chamber’s Board
of Directors, which has expressed an interest in supporting advocacy);
o work alongside community organizations to develop broad-based support
from businesses, social service agencies, seniors groups, and other like-
minded community groups to establish strategically focussed programs,
incentives and practices (e.g. customized city tours, finding employment
opportunities for spouses, assistance with housing searches, assistance in
locating office space, etc.);
participation in a meeting with the Province of BC, Fraser Health Authority, RMDFP
and others to discuss a “Blue Sky” plan for family physician recruitment and
retention, and to seek a greater commitment from the Ministry of Health for
leadership in this regard (Appendix 2).
REPORT: Recruitment and Retention of Family Physicians Page 3 of 3
Date: July 17, 2018
Although the above noted meeting regarding the Blue Sky plan did not result in the Ministry
of Health accepting a leadership role in physician recruitment and retention, the Ministry has
launched some changes to health care delivery by implementing a “Primary Care Delivery
Model”. However, it is too early to determine what impact this might have on the number of
family doctors in BC. To stimulate action in this regard, RMDFP is considering a public
information campaign and petition to educate the community on the issues relating to the
lack of family doctors, and to put additional pressure on the Province of BC to fund
recruitment. This campaign is a strategy that the City of Maple Ridge could support through
marketing assistance and community engagement.
CONCLUSIONS:
RMDFP has requested that the City of Maple Ridge champion recruitment of family physicians
through a financial commitment. However, as the City has no jurisdiction over physician recruitment
and retention or the regulation of health services, it is recommended that the City decline the
request for funding while continuing to support recruitment and retention efforts through City
marketing channels, the development of a welcome program for new physicians, and engagement
with community groups to support ongoing advocacy to senior governments for increased financial
and program support.
“Original signed by Lino Siracusa”
Prepared by: Lino Siracusa
Director of Economic Development & Civic Property
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, MBA
General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendices:
(1) Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Family Physician Recruitment 2018
(2) Family Physician Recruitment in BC – Blue Sky