Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing study- Activity 1 RPC Meeting November 3, 2017

Transcription

1 Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing study- Activity 1 RPC Meeting November 3, 2017

2 Overview 1. Housing supply and demand analysis 2. Environmental scan 3. Key findings from literature review 2

3 Section 1 -Supply Gap Analysis, Estimate gap between rental supply and demand for low-income groups over next 10 years Data sources: CMHC completions data Metro Vancouver Rental Demand Projections 3

4 Supply gap analysis,

5 Section 2 Environmental scan Reviews recent investments, initiatives, policies for affordable rental housing and public transit Provides a regional context for potential partnerships to create deeper levels of affordability, opportunities to integrate housing and transit policy 5

6 Section 2 Environmental scan Key findings: ~ $1 billion for affordable housing allocated to Metro over the next 10 years Over $2.5 billion for public transit All levels of government are at the table Questions remain about how to integrate the two funding streams 6

7 Section 3: Literature Review What have other jurisdictions have done to promote affordable housing near transit? What are the policy tools, emerging/best practices, policy learning? 7

8 Literature review: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Key concept: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Equitable TOD refers to development and investment decisions that help households of all incomes have the opportunity to share in the benefits of walkable, livable, transit-rich communities Hickey,

9 Collaboration and Cooperation needed Regional approach Need a quarterback agency Relationships, leadership, shared visions, buy-in Does not happen overnight 9

10 Example: Growing Transit Communities Partnership - Puget Sound Regional Council Partnership of over 100 non-profits, financial institutions, philanthropy organizations, businesses, governments across Puget Sound region Region-wide equitable transitoriented development strategy 10

11 Specific policy tools Range of policy tools can be employed to promote mixedincome rental housing near transit Various policy interventions from various partners required to create affordability. 11

12 Example of policy tools/interventions for senior levels of government Adapt housing programs Adapt transit programs Supply-side housing programs Grants to facilitate coordination 12

13 Measure Examples Examples of local and regional policy tools Public land Opportunity sites inventories Transit-Oriented Structured Funds/TOD Affordable Housing Funds -Various jurisdictions (e.g. King County Surplus Program for Affordable Housing) -The Association of Bay Area Governments Opportunity Sites Inventory (San Francisco) -Portland Housing Bureau -Denver TOD acquisition fund -Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund -Puget Sound Regional Equitable Development Fund Tax-Increment Financing Transit-Oriented Inclusionary zoning Joint Development Bond Financing Reductions in Parking requirements Density Bonusing Community Land Trusts -City of Portland Pearl District -The City of Atlanta Beltline Allocation District -Massachusetts Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act of Metro (LA) 35% of all housing units in Metro joint developments projects must be affordable -Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) requires 20% affordable housing on transit owned land. -Proposition 1C (California) -City of Austin bond issue -Various jurisdictions (e.g. Denver, Atlanta, Bay Area) -Various jurisdictions (e.g. Denver, Atlanta, Bay Area) - Atlanta Land Trust Collaborative (ALTC) -Urban Land Conservancy (Denver) 13

14 Important tool: Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Funds 14

15 Thank You! Questions? Comments? 15

16 Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Study Raymond Kan SENIOR REGIONAL PLANNER Regional Planning Committee November 3, 2017

17 1. About the Study 2. Key Findings 3. Next Steps

18 Working Definition of Housing Affordability Housing costs that do not exceed 30% of pre-tax household income The study focuses on households earning less than $50,000. Affordable rent is about $1,300 per month in rent. 3

19 Housing + Transportation Connection 4

20 About the Study Research + knowledge transfer New rental housing supply Strategic Partners: BC Housing BC Non-Profit Housing Association TransLink Vancity 5 Activities 5

21 Activity Deliverable Status Activity 1: Regional rental housing supply gap projections Innovative practices Activity 2: Quantify the relationship between income, tenure, and transit use Activity 3: Mapping inventory of lands under public or nonprofit ownership in transit-oriented locations Activity 4: Financial viability gap analysis of purpose-built rental housing Activity 5: Knowledge transfer BCNPHA report (ATTACHMENT 1) Regional Planning Committee and MVRD Board received findings and communicated to federal, provincial, and regional stakeholders in fall Maps and analysis Coriolis report (ATTACHMENT 2) Communications strategy and key messages for study partners Completed Completed Deferred to 2018 Completed Completed 6

22 Key Finding #1: Demand for rental housing, particularly housing affordable to households earning less $50,000 per year, is not being met across the region. Metro Vancouver 7

23 Key Finding #1: Demand for rental housing, particularly housing affordable to households earning less $50,000 per year, is not being met across the region. BC Non-Profit Housing Association 8

24 Key Finding #2: Renter households, especially those earning less than $50,000, are more likely to use transit, and that means improved access and mobility, and a higher return on investment in transportation National Household Survey 9

25 Key Finding #3: New affordable rental housing is undersupplied because the rents generated do not cover the costs of development. The challenges are amplified in transit-oriented locations. Case Study Sites 13 older, low density sites Local policy and zoning set out expectations for redevelopment to higher density Near Frequent Transit Network 10

26 1,200 1,100 Wood Frame $ Per sq.ft. (net) 1, Wood Frame Construction Cost (No Land or Profit) SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER 11

27 $ Per sq.ft. (net) 1,200 1,100 1, Wood Frame Modelling assumptions: 60% studios and 1 bedrooms affordable to households income of $30,000 40% 2+ bedrooms affordable to household income of $50,000 Wood Frame Construction Cost (No Land or Profit) Value Supported by Affordable Rent SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER 12

28 1,200 1,100 Wood Frame $ Per sq.ft. (net) 1, Wood Frame Market Rental Unit Value Wood Frame Construction Cost (No Land or Profit) Value Supported by Affordable Rent SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER 13

29 1,200 1,100 1, Wood Frame Wood Frame Condo Unit Price $ Per sq.ft. (net) Wood Frame Market Rental Unit Value Wood Frame Construction Cost (No Land or Profit) Value Supported by Affordable Rent SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER 14

30 1,200 1,100 1, Concrete Concrete Condo Unit Price Concrete Market Rental Unit Value $ Per sq.ft. (net) Concrete Construction Cost (No Land or Profit) Value Supported by Affordable Rent SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER 15

31 Key Finding #4: There are creative ways to tackle land and construction costs, but it remains very challenging to make new affordable rental housing financially viable. Construction Costs On-site parking requirements Development charges Construction financing costs Wood frame (in neighbourhoods designated for medium density) Land Costs Land at discounted or zero costs Bonus density 16

32 Key Finding #5: Initiatives in other jurisdictions may be worth exploring to generate new affordable rental housing near frequent transit. Existing actions could potentially be scaled up. Partnerships are key. Transit-oriented affordable housing loan funds Transit-oriented inclusionary housing policies Integration of transportation and housing funding Federal tax incentives and grants Land trusts Property tax incentives 17

33 Next Steps: Knowledge Transfer Study partners: communications strategy and key messages Study webpage MVRD Board communication to federal, provincial, and regional actors 18

34 TRANSIT-ORIENTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY

35 Final Report on the North Shore Corridor Study Pilot MARINE-MAIN FREQUENT TRANSIT CORRIDOR Erin Rennie SENIOR REGIONAL PLANNER, METRO VANCOUVER Regional Planning Committee, November 3, 2017

36 Outline Pilot Project Transportation on the North Shore Corridor Study Process Findings & Outcomes What we learned about corridor studies Opportunities for TDM 2

37 Corridor Study Pilot Project Metro Vancouver pilot project for the Urban Centres and FTDA Review Advance integration of corridors into regional planning policies and monitoring Intended to be replicated across the region 3

38 Transportation on the North Shore Leveraging North Shore Area Transportation Plan Advancing the land use and transportation conversation Continuing local government integration efforts 4

39 Introduction Early Fall 2017 Co-Led by Metro Vancouver & TransLink Participants: CNV, DNV, DWV, Squamish First Nation, & MoTI A collaborative corridor study to coordinate the planning and design for land use, growth, and transit along the Marine Drive-Main Street corridor on the North Shore time horizon 5

40 6

41 1. How do we integrate corridors more effectively into regional planning and monitoring? 2. What level of transit service can be achieved given planned growth and, 3. What can be done to support the performance of the corridor s land use and transportation performance indicators? 7

42 Process: Marine-Main Frequent Transit Corridor Study 3 Phases: Study Area Definition & Policy Context Transit Service Design and Corridor Concept Corridor Monitoring Program Phase 1 Funding Announcement gave a 2019 deadline for B-Line 8

43 Findings By 2030 the corridor could support a high-frequency bus-based service with: Limited stops Lane segregation Signal Priority Stop amenities Branding Frequent service Recommended: Phase up to Bus Rapid Transit Light 9

44 Findings To implement the recommended service level by 2030 the communities would have to take action: Phased approach Increase bus lane segregation Implement transit signal priority measures Consider right-of-way width Implement TDM and other transitsupportive land use strategies (6 Ds). 10

45 Outcomes of the Pilot Study Advanced corridor integration into regional planning and monitoring Monitoring Program and Corridor Definition Furthered the NS ATP and head-start on 2019 B-Line Implementation 11

46 Marine-Main Metro 2040 Monitoring Program Logic Model Inputs Resources Needed Metro 2040 RTP North Shore ATP 10 Year Vision Phase 1 funding Measures (Key Performance Indicators) Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact How resources will be Units of service resulting Changed conditions for Changes in used from activities project partners communities/ Transit frequency Transit trip time Transit span Land use designation change Transit-Supportive Housing Policies Transit Daily ridership Transit Peak ridership Dwelling unit growth* Dwelling Unit Density Population Growth Employment growth Retail Development Office Development Housing Tenure Mix Housing Type Mix Kilometres of bike facility Employment Type Mix Transit Capacity utilized Housing + Transportation cost burden Annual VKT per capita Population Distribution by Age Group Household Makeup Walkability Index Customer Satisfaction systems Mode share Percent of regional dwelling unit growth located in corridor Percent of sub-regional employment growth located in corridor Income Mix 12

47 13

48 What we learned about corridor studies Value in thinking across municipal boundaries Identification of important interdependencies Strengthens lines of communication & connections across disciplines Moves conversation forward and readies communities for implementation. Future corridor studies: incorporate land use and TDM analysis into scope 14

49 Considering how to integrate corridors more effectively into regional planning Visually and conceptually makes sense Recognize that growth won t be ubiquitous across corridor Monitoring Program will help us learn more 15

50 6 Ds of Transit Oriented Communities Integrating transit and land use means considering other influencers of ridership besides density. The 6 D's of Transit Oriented Communities Demand Management Distance Density Destinations These factors also support complete community and Metro 2040 goals. Diversity Design 16

51 Opportunities for Transportation Demand Management Continue to improve walk and bike network 2017 Apartment Parking Study Transit Oriented Affordable Housing Study (TOAH) Move away from Level of Service (LOS) and focus on people moving capacity Require a multimodal focus from developers 17

52 Opportunities for Transportation Demand Management Employer Engagement Market Segmentation Corridor Analysis Individualized Marketing Campaigns Embrace congestion as incentive for changing behaviour 18

53 Thank You

54 Land Cover Classification NEW REGIONAL HIGH-RESOLUTION LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION Josephine Clark REGIONAL PLANNER, PARKS, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT Regional Planning Committee November 3, 2017

55 Land Cover Extents

56 Multi- Spectral Satellite Imagery and LiDAR

57 LiDAR 2m Hybrid 5m Outputs

58 Classes and Accuracy 3-level hierarchy 14 final classes Overall accuracy = 87% (hybrid) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Built-Up Buildings Paved Other Built Bare Barren Soil Vegetation Tree Canopy Coniferous Deciduous Shrub Grass-Herb Natural Modified Non-photosynthetic vegetation Water Shadow Clouds/Ice

59 5m hybrid Orthophoto Comparison 5m hybrid and orthophoto

60 Urban area (1:3,000)

61 Rural area (1:3,000)

62 5m no LiDAR 2m with LiDAR Effect of LiDAR

63 Limitations Snapshot in time Class confusion Small features missed Canopy model

64 Canopy model

65 Applications Planning land use, stormwater management, drinking water resource management Air emission inventorying Ecosystem mapping Indicators and monitoring Ecosystem services assessment

66 Ecosystem connectivity: Pacific wren (DRAFT)

67 Example of 30m riparian zone Example of selected watershed Landscape indicators of aquatic ecosystem health

68 Next Steps Change methodology Measures Canopy cover Impermeability Assessment of further ecosystem services

69 Questions?

70 Small features missed